Review the Independent Investigations Office — Issue No. 5

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

2. It was agreed that Justice for Girls give up half of their allocated speaking time to permit Tracey Matters to make a presentation.

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

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
Presentations	43
T. Matters
A. Czapska
T. Almasi
J. Paterson
S. Lowe
A. Smith
W. Rideout
L. Bush

M. Morris (Chair): Good morning, everybody. My name is Mike Morris. I'm the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and the Chair of this committee — the Special Committee to Review the Independent Investigations Office.

The committee was appointed by the Legislative Assembly last February, pursuant to section 38.13 of the Police Act. Its mandate is to review the administration and general operations of the IIO as well as the progress of its chief civilian director towards the goal of staffing the office with employees and investigators who have never served as officers or members of a police or a law enforcement agency, and to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly by February 25, 2015.

The IIO's mandate is set out in the Police Act. It's an independent, civilian-led office within the Ministry of Justice. The IIO conducts criminal investigations into incidents which involve a B.C. police officer and result in death or serious harm in order to determine whether or not any officer may have committed an offence. The office became operational two years ago in September 2012.

This committee met in March and April to establish a plan for our work. We received technical briefings from the Ministry of Justice in May and from the IIO's chief civilian director, Richard Rosenthal, and his staff in June.

We also launched a public consultation in June to seek public input for our work on the IIO. A provincewide news release and newspaper ads were distributed, calling for written submissions. In addition, the committee invited various stakeholders to participate in the meeting scheduled for today.

This committee is aware that there is interest from British Columbians to participate in the work of the committee. Public hearings will be scheduled in Victoria once the House resumes sitting in October.

I'm very pleased to welcome today's witnesses. Each will have 20 minutes to speak, followed by an additional ten minutes for questions. The proceedings are being recorded by Hansard Services, and a transcript of the entire meeting will be made available on our website.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the committee does not have a mandate to review individual cases past or present, nor can the committee comment on any cases that are before the courts.

I would now ask that the other committee members introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair to my left.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): I'm pleased to be here. Thank you for coming up. My name is Spencer Chandra Herbert. I'm the MLA for Vancouver–West End and the Deputy Chair of the committee.

S. Hamilton: Good morning. My name is Scott Hamilton. I'm the MLA for Delta North.

M. Morris (Chair): To my left is the Clerk, Susan Sourial, and Ron Wall, our research assistant.

M. Morris (Chair): We do apologize. A couple of our colleagues called earlier. They've been tied up in a traffic snarl somewhere on the way, and they will be joining us momentarily here. But we do have a quorum, so we'll continue on.

One thing to the committee members here: we have had a change in the agenda. I just want to run it by the committee here. Justice for Girls has requested to offer time to Tracey Matters this morning in her presentation, and I'm asking for agreement with the committee.

We'll carry on. Our first presenter is Justice for Girls, so if Asia could come forward.

A. Czapska: Hi, I'm Asia Czapska, director of Justice for Girls. I would actually like to ask if Tracey Matters could speak before I do, and then I'll continue right after, if that's all right.

T. Matters: Good morning, Hon. Chair, members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this opportunity to share my personal experiences and the personal experiences of my mom, Lorraine Matters, who is sitting behind me, in relation to the independent investigation of my brother's death, Greg Matters.

He passed away two years ago yesterday, on the 10th of September, the day that the independent investigations office became operational, and he was the first case investigated by that organization.

Just to give you some background. I was born in Prince George, and I now live in Melbourne, Australia. I feel it's
[ Page 44 ]
important for you to hear from those who've been intimately involved in cases like this so that we can learn and progress forward. Given the circumstances of my brother's death, I believe that several lessons can be learned from how it was managed.

I regret that I haven't had much time to prepare for this morning's presentation. Although I did ask to present to the committee some time ago, I only found out last night, and with the grace of Justice for Girls, that I would be able to speak today. I apologize that my presentation might not be as polished or as complete as some. It was prepared in haste but with heart, so I hope you understand. I will also lodge a written submission before the due date, which will have more finesse and more detail in it as well.

Once again, I'd like to thank Justice for Girls for advocating on my behalf and on behalf of my mom and for sharing their allocated time slot with me. I'd like to thank you for your attention and your consideration, committee.

Before I talk about lessons learned and potential future recommendations for consideration, I'd like to provide you with some background. My brother Greg Matters was a veteran who served in Bosnia. In 2009 he was released from the services due to physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD made him moody and unable to sleep, and he also developed a fear of uniforms, especially army and police uniforms.

However, with great courage and determination, Greg independently sought help from a renowned doctor, Dr. Greg Passey, from the operational stress injury clinic in Vancouver, and he was making tremendous progress. He was working hard to recover from his injuries, and he was coming out of his shell. He had plans to organize a local farmers market, a civic tree-planting program, and he wanted to become a 4-H leader, just like his mom, as well.

Although he was making significant progress, he often seemed paranoid and distracted. In the months leading up to his death, he reported that he was being followed by police. He told us that he was being harassed and that he felt unsafe. He decided to go to the local media, but the local paper didn't think that it was appropriate to do a story about police harassment. Instead, they agreed to do a story about his struggles and triumphs with post-traumatic stress disorder. Unfortunately, his story never got written. He was shot dead before he could be interviewed.

In the early morning of the ninth of September, 2014, my mom and Greg were startled and woken by an unknown vehicle doing doughnuts in the front yard. Greg decided to leave the house and pursue the vehicle, and a minor car accident ensued. It was at this point that my brother realized that it was my other brother in the vehicle and that he'd been drinking. Greg decided to call the police for help, telling them that his brother was driving dangerously and that a peace order had been breached.

What happened after this was beyond belief. Instead of helping Greg and coming to his assistance, the RCMP turned on Greg and my mother and began a 30-hour surveillance on the house. I will never forget the phone call that I received in Australia from my mom, who was being detained at the Prince George police station. She'd been held for approximately 12 hours. At this stage the police managed to burst down a gate, trespass, deceive my brother into thinking that he was able to be transported safely to the police station, and he was shot dead.

When I arrived in Prince George about 30 hours later, the house was swarming with activity. IIO investigators had already arrived, and they had held initial interviews with family members. An IIO van was stationed at the end of the driveway to the cabin of where my brother was killed. It was like a scene out of a crime investigation movie. It was just incredible.

When I entered the family home, I was shocked to find my mother covered in bruises from head to toe. At this stage I had no idea of what had happened, but information was unfolding quickly, and the local rumour mill was in full swing.

When a loved one dies — or is killed by police — friends, family and society lose trust. They become fearful, and they feel like they have nowhere to go to and no one to turn to. They require immediate grief counselling and a safe place where they can feel secure. A degree of paranoia — warranted or unwarranted — sets in, and you feel as though the police have eyes on you. You become disorientated. You don't know who your friends are, and you don't know who your enemies are.

Shock and grief do strange things to a person. Names and faces come and go. You get phone calls from people that you don't know. People want to share similar stories with you. They want to share their grief with you. You don't know who the wackos are, and you don't know who the bereft are. You're surrounded by media. You don't know what to say, and you don't know what to do.

You've never heard of the IIO, and you don't know who they are working for or what their agenda is. You don't know who they know or what they know. Paranoia sets in, and you understand just a little bit more of what your brother was going through prior to his death.

Most of the IIO staff that came to my mother's house were extremely helpful. They were respectful, and they were understanding. Bruce was particularly calming and reassuring.

Even though the investigators seemed nervous and unsure of what they were doing at times, which I put to the establishment of a new organization and their first investigation, for the most part they were sincere and they were caring, and they made us feel like they were going to do the best for us and for the rest of the family. They provided family briefings in our house upon request, and
[ Page 45 ]
they answered questions openly and honestly. Even if they didn't know the answer to something, they told us. This worked very well, and it helped us gain confidence and support in the independent investigations office.

Unfortunately, some of this confidence was lost through the contact we had with the affected-persons officer. When we asked for help, we were referred to police victim services for counselling. We found this very inappropriate, and we believe that independent counselling services need to be provided for people affected by police violence.

We later discovered, also, that the affected-persons officer was also an investigator, and we found this to be an inappropriate combination of roles as well. Family members felt that they should be able to discuss sensitive issues with the affected-persons officer without feeling that they were being investigated.

Within days we determined that the investigation was extremely narrow and that it would only examine the shooting of my brother from the time the gun was shot. It wouldn't include the assault on my mother. We couldn't help but wonder if the same officer who kneed my mom in the chest and held a gun to her head was the same person that shot my brother. The scope of the investigation was far too narrow, and we believed that it needed to be broadened to include the entire picture surrounding my brother's death.

During this time, we were also hearing rumours of Greg being shot in the back, but we put this aside as only a rumour, and we directed all of our attention and our hope towards the IIO's forthcoming report and its recommendations. We hoped for the best. We were advised that the report and the recommendations would be available in about a month's time.

Seven months later, the first report was released. The report said that no criminal charges would be considered and that Greg was shot in the chest.

Before the report was made public, we asked for a face-to-face briefing with the chief civilian director to ask questions. We sincerely appreciated this opportunity, and I participated via teleconference from Australia. We were obviously disappointed that the file had not been forwarded to Crown counsel, and I asked about the rumours of Greg being shot in the back. The chief civilian director advised that no further information could be released at that stage.

We then proceeded to ask for a coroner's inquest so that we could obtain facts surrounding my brother's death. My mother mortgaged her house so that we could hire a lawyer to represent the family during the coroner's inquest, and this was one of the best decisions that we ever made. Throughout the process of the coroner's inquest we were certain that our lawyer was able to reveal and go through the file in a detailed manner far more than we would expect legal counsel for the coroner's office to do.

During the coroner's inquest is where we learned that Greg was actually shot in the back while walking away from police. And of course, this information shocked and astounded us.

Our faith in the IIO plummeted to an all-time low at this point, and we immediately called for an independent review to be held. We also became concerned about other potential critical mistakes in the report, and we began to ask questions about body position, trajectory, movement. And we thought: "How can an accurate assessment on criminal charges be determined without knowing these essential facts?"

Our request for an independent review was ignored, and instead, a supplementary report was issued. We found this approach very disappointing and unsatisfactory.

Several months ago now, I was contacted by Media in Canada. They asked me to provide comments, and they wanted to know what I felt about a civilian monitor being appointed to review my brother's case. I had no idea what they were talking about. Unbeknown to us, the lead investigator of Greg's case made a complaint to the Deputy Attorney General, saying that the chief civilian director had unduly influenced the outcome of my brother's case.

In response, the chief civilian director appointed a civilian monitor to review internal IIO processes in relation to Greg's case. We were pleased. We finally got what we'd been asking for all along. However, this turned to concern when we discovered that the civilian monitor had made questionable decisions in the past. For more information, I'll refer you to the Paul Boyd case.

The civilian monitor is now expected to provide a report to the Deputy Attorney General and the chief civilian director within 30 days of completion of this review. The chief civilian director will determine what, if any, of the content of the report will be made public. For the sake of transparency, I hope that this information is made public.

What lessons can be learned from our experiences, and what recommendations should be made?

First of all, information about the roles and the limitations of the IIO needs to be developed for families and provided in a written format during the first meeting.

Independent grief counselling services need to be made available for families, and they should have someone that they can talk to in confidence.

The scope of investigations needs to be broadened or narrowed on a case-by-case basis as appropriate.

Investigators need to have full access to the range of tools and training that are necessary to complete a full forensic investigation. This could include forensic re-enactment software or equivalent, access to DNA testing and the like.

There needs to be an appeals process if the family doesn't agree with the decision made by the chief civilian director.
[ Page 46 ]

If a civilian monitor is appointed, the decision of who should be appointed should be done in consultation with the family's legal counsel.

One other important point that I didn't touch on earlier, which came out during the coroner's inquest, is RCMP access to legal counsel prior to being interviewed by the independent investigations office. The officer who assaulted my mom and who killed my brother was not required to answer any questions posed to him via the IIO. That's my understanding. This is definitely something that needs to be changed, and this will be addressed in more detail in my written submission.

I realize that the recommendations are very much in layperson's terms, and I hope you appreciate that this comes from experience and not a lot of research. I hope you take my recommendations with that in mind.

In closing, I want to stress that I fully support the good work that the IIO does, and I thank the people who were involved in the establishment and the advocacy for the independent investigations office. Without them, we would be completely in the dark.

I urge the committee to learn from the mistakes of the past and from my brother's case, and I urge you to consider the recommendations made by individuals, families, groups, stakeholders and the government. I hope that the IIO goes from strength to strength, and I hope that the public will someday regain confidence in the justice system.

M. Morris (Chair): Thank you, Ms. Matters. This is a very emotional time, and I appreciate you appearing before the committee today. I know it's very difficult for you and your family. I appreciate your comments, and the committee will certainly take them into consideration. So thank you very much for that.

T. Matters: You're welcome. If anyone has any questions, I'm more than happy to answer questions.

K. Corrigan: If it was put together quickly, it was very eloquent. Thank you for that.

Just for the record, could you repeat the date of your brother's death? I thought I heard September 9, 2014, and I know that's incorrect.

T. Matters: September 9 was when the police started surrounding the farmhouse, but Greg actually died on the tenth of September, 2012.

A further question. Tracey, I'm just wondering. We can't get into…. It's not the mandate of this committee to get in-depth into individual cases, but I appreciate that you have made recommendations. That certainly is something that we can take a look at.

Just as a general question, I'm wondering if you are aware that there was another committee of the Legislature that dealt with the use of Tasers. That was fairly recent. That was as a result, largely, of the death of Robert Dziekanski. Many of the recommendations that were made by Justice Braidwood talked about police standards that have now been, in fact, largely implemented — formally implemented, I guess — actually before your brother died.

I was just wondering if you were aware of those police standards, which I thought, actually, were a good thing that the provincial government brought in. They talk about de-escalation and the importance of going through a very rigorous process. That was with regard to the use of Tasers, but it certainly applies to the use of force in other ways.

I'm just wondering if you were aware of that and whether you have any comments or have ever taken a look at police standards and protocols in terms of situations like your brother dealt with.

T. Matters: I recall during my brother's coroner's inquest reference to the Braidwood Inquiry and the use of Tasers. There was an expert witness who provided information regarding that, but I haven't had the opportunity to look into it in any detail, I'm afraid. I would be more than willing to have a look and provide comment if you like.

M. Morris (Chair): With respect to the time limits that we have and the opportunity to hear the other witnesses, if you can include that in your written submission, that would be great, Ms. Matters. Thank you very much.

We will now go to Asia with Justice for Girls. I apologize for mispronouncing your name earlier on.

Good morning. My name is Asia Czapska, and I am a director of Justice for Girls in Vancouver. Thank you very much, first of all, for allowing us to share our time. We appreciate that very much. And thank you for this opportunity to contribute to your review of the Independent Investigations Office.

Justice for Girls was established in 1999 to promote the equality and human rights of teen girls living in poverty. For over a decade we have worked with individual girls as well as systemically to advocate for the rights of girls within institutions that impact their lives.

A significant focus of our work has been ensuring that international human rights standards are rigorously ap-
[ Page 47 ]
plied to criminal justice responses to violence against girls in Canada. We have appeared before provincial, federal and international public bodies to address poverty, homelessness, violence against teen girls and access to justice.

In terms of my personal qualifications, I have worked at Justice for Girls for nearly 15 years as an advocate and director. During this time I coordinated a number of projects dealing with criminal justice failures in relation to violence against teen girls, including a three-year criminal justice monitoring project, a three-year national girls homelessness project, a three-year project on girls' rights under the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

I have also made submissions to numerous provincial and federal agencies and international human rights–monitoring bodies, including the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN committee on civil and political rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

I was a visiting scholar at the Liu Institute for Global Issues and centre for women's and gender studies at UBC, where I focused my research on criminal justice responses to violence against teen girls. That has been a key focus of my work, as you can see.

I was directly involved in the initiation, coordination and carrying out of the Human Rights Watch investigation of police abuse and failures of protection of indigenous girls and women in northern B.C. I was also directly involved in advocacy surrounding the Ramsay case, including communicating with the Attorney General at the time about the need for a review of a set of cases which included the Ramsay case and connected allegations of police sexual exploitation of teen girls.

I have also been directly involved in a number of other cases across B.C. in which teen girls have been abused by the police, some of which are or have been the subject of media focus and legal proceedings. I am currently working with the Matters family.

As you are likely aware, both the UN CEDAW committee and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recently visited B.C. to investigate allegations of police failures to respond to violence against indigenous girls and women and to investigate police abuses of girls and women. Justice for Girls made submissions to both of these bodies, calling for independent, civilian, gender-specific oversight of policing in the province.

As the special committee is also aware, in February 2013 Human Rights Watch released their report, Those Who Take Us Away: Abusive Policing and Failures in Protection of Indigenous Women and Girls in Northern British Columbia, Canada. This report documented serious human rights abuses committed by police against indigenous girls and women in the north of the province.

Human Rights Watch documented failures of police to protect indigenous women and girls from violence and disturbing accounts of violence by police, including sexual assaults of indigenous girls and women. Justice for Girls worked closely with Human Rights Watch at every stage of this investigation and report.

Before I move to a specific discussion of the IIO mandate, which is the central focus of our submission to you, I would like to bring to your attention several key international legal standards which apply in cases of sexual assaults committed by state officials.

International courts as well as the UN Committee Against Torture have recognized that rape by state officials is a form of torture. Whether or not rape is committed by a state representative, governments can be held accountable internationally for their failure to investigate and hold perpetrators accountable.

The UN Human Rights Committee reinforces that failures to investigate human rights breaches can themselves violate international law.

The Human Rights Committee found there to be a breach of human rights in several cases where allegations of sexual assault by state representative were not promptly investigated.

Internationally agreed-upon principles for investigations of torture and inhuman treatment set out that "even in the absence of an express complaint, an investigation shall be undertaken if there are other indications that torture or ill treatment might have occurred."

Effective remedies such as judicial and administrative mechanisms to promptly investigate violations must be in place. International standards are also clear that investigation of rights violations must be done by independent and impartial bodies and must be thorough and effective.

For investigations of torture and other cruel and degrading treatment in particular, international standards emphasize that investigators must be independent of the alleged perpetrators and the agency the suspected persons serve. The methods used to carry out such investigations must meet the highest professional standards. I cannot stress enough the importance of an effective and independent mechanism to investigate sexual assaults and other forms of violence against women committed by police officers, particularly those that amount to torture under international law.

Article 4 of the UN declaration on the elimination of violence against women requires governments to "exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those actions are perpetrated by the state or by private persons." This due diligence obligation is well established by international jurisprudence, as you likely know.

Further, women and girls are guaranteed a right to equality under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of
[ Page 48 ]
Rights and Freedoms, which articulates the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Pursuant to both domestic and international human rights obligations, B.C. must provide women and girls with a mechanism to address gender-specific forms of police violence. It is well established within a human rights framework that the specific nature and character of police violence against women is impacted by gender inequality and thus must be addressed with gender specificity.

As the committee is aware, the IIO currently does not have a mandate to investigate sexual assault. This exclusion amounts to sex discrimination under domestic and international human rights obligations and has been the focus of Justice for Girls advocacy. For nearly two years we have advocated, joined by our colleagues at Human Rights Watch, for an expansion of the IIO mandate to include sexual assault investigations. As you are aware, and as Mr. Rosenthal pointed out in his testimony before you, parallel police oversight bodies across Canada include sexual assaults and domestic violence in their mandates.

It is critical that independent civilian oversight of police in B.C. complies with domestic and international human rights obligations by ensuring that gender-specific police violence, particularly sexual and physical violence against girls and women, is investigated and addressed in this context.

It is with the greatest regret and disappointment that Justice for Girls must suspend our recommendation to expand the IIO mandate to rightfully include sexual assaults and other forms of violence against women. At this time, and for reasons I will now articulate, Justice for Girls does not have confidence in the IIO's competence or credibility to undertake independent, thorough investigations of police-perpetrated sexual assault.

Justice for Girls respectfully submits — based on our review of IIO reports and coroner's inquest proceedings related to the shooting death of Gregory Matters; meetings with the IIO director; some involvement with the IIO external advisory group, although somewhat brief; meetings with other human rights organizations; work with the Matters family; and reviews of media reports — that our confidence in the competence and credibility of the IIO has been seriously shaken.

More specifically, we are concerned that about half of IIO investigators are ex–police officers and that most investigative teams are led by former police officers or other former police department staff. We believe that this structure undermines the credibility of the IIO and could, in fact, undermine or be seen to undermine the independence of investigations.

It is also a concern that this structure has the potential to enshrine what's sometimes called a "police culture" within the organization, and recent reports indicate a schism may have formed between civilian staff and former police officer staff in the office. Further, it is unclear whether former police officers meet the international standard for independence when they investigate current officers. We encourage the committee to review the government's international obligations in this regard.

While we understand the IIO is attempting to move closer to civilianization, at this time the gap appears wide. It is also greatly concerning that according to reports, a staff survey has identified that "an organizational dysfunction has developed within the IIO."

As an organization that has worked to strengthen police accountability for many years, Justice for Girls has closely monitored the IIO's response in its first case. Questions about the actions of the IIO in the Gregory Matters shooting death warrant our pause. We sincerely hope that the current review of the case by Mr. Jette will come the source of serious concerns about the IIO's investigation.

Justice for Girls, along with other groups, called for a review of the investigation, as you have heard, along with the Matters family, and we are submitting to the special committee our letter — Justice for Girls' and the organizations' letter — in relation to this request. It is our belief that the IIO investigation report into the shooting death of Mr. Matters was deeply misleading to the public.

It is concerning that the IIO misrepresented critical evidence to the public as to where the fatal bullets entered Mr. Matters' body. As the special committee is aware, Mr. Matters was shot by police twice in the back, not in the chest, as first reported by the IIO.

Further, legal counsel for the family has identified many questions and issues of utmost importance which have not been sufficiently answered in relation to, for example, whether Mr. Matters held the hatchet at the time of his death and the fact a full questioning of the subject officer in the shooting was not completed by the IIO.

Recently, as the special committee is also aware, further highly concerning allegations of inadequate conduct in the IIO investigations of the Matters case have surfaced, and the lead investigator in the case filed a complaint with the Deputy Attorney General. We understand that complaints against the director have been filed with both the Ministry of Justice and the office of the complaint commissioner. While these complaints have yet to be adjudicated, they raise serious questions about the leadership and functioning of the IIO at the present time.

In conclusion, I want to remind you that investigations of sexual assault, in particular by police officers, require the highest level of integrity, independence, sensitivity and training. Such investigations must engage human rights standards to address the gender inequality that shapes and mediates sexualized violence and torture perpetrated by state authorities against women and girls.

We regret police admit that the IIO is nowhere near meeting the level of credibility and competence required to carry out sexual assault investigations, which require,
[ Page 49 ]
as I have spoken about, very high levels of integrity, sensitivity, competence, independence.

Until the IIO operates under a civilian majority, meets the standard of independence and investigative expertise set out by the international community and is shown to have conducted a thorough and proper investigation in the Matters case, we cannot in good conscience suggest that women put their faith in this office.

Growing pains, sometimes called, are not enough to explain away egregious errors of judgment regarding the public reporting of crucial evidence in the Matters death or what appears to be a significant crisis in leadership within the IIO. At the same time, we cannot express enough the urgency of investigating cases of police-perpetrated sexual assault, and we remind you of the obligation on government to ensure that torture and other cruel and degrading treatment of women and girls are promptly investigated.

There must be independent, specialized oversight of police violence against women in B.C. which meets international standards. We believe the only way to ensure that these cases are investigated with the required expertise and independence is for government to work in consultation with women's organizations to design appropriate mechanisms.

We request that the provincial government hold a full consultation with women's groups and other experts to create a plan for how police-perpetrated sexual violence and domestic abuse be investigated in accordance with international standards.

I'd like to thank you again for inviting us to present to you today, and I look forward to your questions.

M. Morris (Chair): Thank you, Ms. Czapska. We are very limited in our time, so we probably have time perhaps for one question. If there are any panel members….

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): If I could clarify, just a question for Mike here. The opportunity, of course, exists for this committee to request that witnesses who've shared come back down the road for further consultation, because one question for one presenter may not be enough. I just want to clarify that.

M. Morris (Chair): Yeah, there will be opportunity down the road for further public hearings, so we would invite anybody that wants to make further submissions to come back at that time.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Or if committee members want to invite folks back to ask for fuller time with them.

K. Corrigan: Mike, can I just make a comment? Having sat on special committees before, I think it's really important that we build into the time schedule in the future the ability to ask questions so that people don't…. I mean, I think of Tracey. You know, Tracey is here from Australia. I don't know if I had more questions; I'm probably fine. But I don't think Tracey should have to come back from Australia again if we decide that we want to ask questions.

So I would just respectfully request that…. Well, one possibility is to just say: "Look, we can push some of these presentations a little bit later." But I think it's very important in these very important matters for us to have a chance to discuss and to hear more from the witnesses if they have more that they want to share with us.

T. Almasi: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair and committee members. My name is Staff Sgt. Tom Almasi. I'm an elected labour representative for RCMP members, elected out of the southeast district of B.C. I thank you for this opportunity.

I see that Mr. Rosenthal is not here, but I'm going to thank him as well, because I'm part of his external stakeholders group. I know that that list was passed on to your committee. By extension, his inclusiveness partially brings me here.

Some of what I'm going to say is going to be a little contrarian to what the previous speakers have said. I don't in any way mean to offend anybody. It's just that my position brings me from a different point of view.

I'll start with a little bit of background about the RCMP and my role within it. The RCMP is a non-unionized police force, but we do have a fully democratically elected labour representative program where our full-time duties are strictly labour relations. At this time there are presently 42 of us across the country. We have representation in every province and territory. In British Columbia there are 11 of us — five in the Lower Mainland, two in the southeast, two in the north and two on the Island.

Our program is recognized in law, in section 96 of the RCMP Act, and we are the official and only labour representatives for the RCMP members.

It's also important that I say that what I say today, as well as our presentation, is on behalf of the labour representative programs in our group. It is in no way to be looked at as the views of the RCMP as an organization or its management. I know that Assistant Commissioner Rideout will be here this afternoon, and he'll speak on be-
[ Page 50 ]
half of the organization. However, I imagine there'll be some similarities to our thoughts.

I'll also go on to say that I don't represent the municipal police department members. They're represented by the B.C. Police Association, and I know that they're going to be doing their own submission.

My points will be reduced to about three, really, strictly around the civilianization of the IIO. I can get into some questions about some of our interactions because as labour reps, when these incidents take place, we're usually notified right away. We interact with the affected members, providing them with representation and sometimes moving on to getting them legal representation.

I'll start with our three points. In respect to your committee's mandate, I don't know if the role of the chief civilian director is there or not, but I'm going to comment briefly on that.

Our position is that that position should always be someone hired from outside of British Columbia to be free and clear of political interference. By political interference, I don't mean strictly just from the government or the different parties within government but also interference from the police organizations — that they'll investigate themselves.

We've seen, with Richard Rosenthal…. He has come in with an open mind. He wasn't even aware that we had a labour rep program in the RCMP, but he right away made efforts to include us. That's how I first met him. He put out invitations when drafting the MOU to bring in all the police chiefs, and at that point, he invited the police unions, and he invited us as well. I and my partner, Staff Sgt. Mike Ingles, attended those meetings.

We found they were very beneficial. He had some of his own visions that we had to remind him conflicted with the way some of our laws, laws around gaining evidence and so forth…. So we were able to hammer out some things in those meetings as opposed to dealing with those in the middle of a crisis or a high-profile investigation.

Some of the history behind not just the government…. There's also been much talk about the different regionalized policing, previous joint investigations that have gone wrong, union versus non-union policing. I think all those things…. When you bring someone in from outside of British Columbia, they're not clouded by all those things. They come in with a fully clear mind, and I think Mr. Rosenthal has generally displayed a lot of that.

Secondly, the chief of investigations position. It's our position that that job or position be occupied by someone who has extensive experience with Criminal Code types of investigations within Canada. Now, I know there's been a change in that position recently, but I'll make the comment on it anyhow, because I'm here.

The previous chief of investigations had extensive policing experience both within the RCMP and Calgary police. That can be viewed two ways. I know mine will be different from some other speakers. One of them is that when we have issues on these investigations, we are able to phone that position and he has a clear understanding of what our role is. We've all got experience within the law or the criminal court system. So we're able to exchange ideas — not necessarily agree; in fact, there's a lot of times we didn't agree on anything. But we understood each other's position. I think that kind of expertise is imperative.

That chief of investigations position…. They essentially lead the investigations on some level. In the B.C. RCMP, to have that similar position, you'd have to be an accredited team commander, which has a process to go through to show that with your skills and abilities you can lead not just an investigation but multiple investigations, with the view that eventually they could end up before the courts.

We know that a new person has taken that job: Mr. Larkin. I've yet to meet him. I did speak with him on a matter here a few weeks ago, so we know he does not have extensive experience within Canada. We'll have to see how that plays out. Again, it's our view that that is important.

Thirdly, and our most important part, is the general mix of the IIO investigators. By that mix, I mean between police and civilians. It's our position that the majority of the investigative team should be made up of former police officers with extensive experience in dealing with Criminal Code investigations and serious investigations, not just necessarily having been a police officer for a number of years but doing relevant work to what the IIO does.

And we would like to see the highest ratio. We're not clear on what that ratio is, and probably it's not our place to even decide that, but the highest possible ratio for the best investigative background. Saying that, we are not at all opposed to civilians being part of the investigative team. We think that they bring a unique perspective, and they are beneficial in maintaining confidence in the IIO and, by extension, policing in British Columbia. We heard from the previous speaker how they like the civilians. We believe there is a role for civilians. We are not opposed to that.

Since the IIO was operationalized, we've had investigations in every SRR jurisdiction in British Columbia and generally found that the investigations and our relationships have gone well. The labour reps, to give you an example, generally have a dozen to 30-some-odd years of prior policing experience before being elected to these positions, so we've been around for a while.

We can right away pick up who has policing experience just by the confidence displayed, their understanding of the matter at hand. I think that's very important because while it's important to remember that experience and confidence can be gained over time — we all get better
[ Page 51 ]
at our jobs — we think it's unfair to the affected police officers, the policing organizations and the affected civilian persons to have their situation as a training ground. These people — all of those people — deserve to have experienced people taking on their matter.

Now, I read the transcript from when Mr. Rosenthal appeared before the committee in June, and there are a couple of points that I took out of it. One is where Mr. Rosenthal speaks about a training program that they're doing with the Justice Institute, where, in his opinion, a civilian person can be hired and developed into a fully competent investigator able to lead these investigations at the 18-month mark. We could not agree more with that.

Right now in the RCMP, when we hire a police officer they go to Regina for six months. They get six months with the recruit field training, and at the one-year mark they're doing entry-level, basic police work. Any more complicated investigation that comes in would either be assigned to a more senior police officer or it would be assigned to a specialized unit.

To get onto the specialized unit, generally those police officers have shown that they have more experience or more aptitude. They're then given more specialized training, and even when they go on to the major crime units there are still a bit of informal benchmarks, if we could say, within that, where when the members go to the major crime unit they'll do more routine tasks at the beginning until, over time, they gain the experience to move on to the more complicated tasks.

The roles of the team leader or the primary investigator in charge of these files are generally more senior members, and not just senior in service but, a lot of the time, senior in rank. They may be corporals or sergeants, and to attain those ranks and positions they have to have…. For a corporal, it's seven years service. They have to pass an exam. They have to go through a process to be selected for that job, not just for general promotion. So they've shown that they have the skills and ability to lead in that role. That is far beyond 18 months of IIO-type training.

Now, while investigative experience is important, in our view perhaps the most crucial part of investigations is the point where the evidence is tendered in court. In fact, to get into these major crime units, one of the requirements is that the police officer has demonstrated the ability to provide evidence in court, and that takes time. It's important to note that not every investigation goes to court. Even the investigations that go to court…. The lead investigating police officer may not testify. They may not be needed.

We're not convinced that an 18-month training program in the IIO can expose those people to enough investigations to give them the court time to give them the full experience. In order to get these cases, you need to be able to get the evidence, compile the report and then tender that evidence in court. All three of those have to be met, and that takes time. There are a very low number of cases of the IIO that end up in court, and again, as I said, not many of those investigators will have to testify.

We think it will be a very, very long time to gain experience. The last thing anyone wants is a case to be dismissed because of evidentiary-type problems. Everybody wants to see a case unfold properly and a just outcome, regardless of what that is. We believe that having former police officer experience is the best way to ensure that IIO investigators have the ability to do their full job, which is gather the evidence, compile reports and then present the evidence in court in a credible manner.

There's a second point on the civilianization that I noticed, again, from the transcript of the June committee meeting, and that was…. Mr. Bing, you commented that in the dental profession at one time, it was all dentists, and then now it's one-third civilian and two-thirds dentists. I have to assume that's because they need the expertise that the dentists bring to that, and I don't think that's at all unlike our vision for the IIO, where it's combined. You have the expertise of that criminal investigative background but civilians, as well, to provide that other view.

Since the IIO started, we've generally found it to be operating fully satisfactorily. Now, that's not perfect, but it's not bad. Like any relationship, it takes time to build, and there are bumps in the road. Recently we've had more issues, but whether that is a result of more civilians, less police officers, you can't say one way or the other. It's just something we've observed.

What we do know is that police officers overwhelmingly welcome the IIO. Even from the labour program, we believe it's an excellent initiative of the government, and it's going to do great things to enhance the confidence in policing in British Columbia. We went through a terrible spell where no matter what we did, we just couldn't get believed. With the IIO, the public seems to accept more of what they're saying, although, you know, I heard the previous speakers, and I know there's more to it.

The IIO is important to us. We want to see it succeed, but we believe that the best way of maintaining that confidence is by staying with the majority of police officers. We don't believe it's worth risking the confidence that we've built and the direction we're going by moving to a civilianized system, which is rare in Canada and not a proven entity.

Thank you very much. I'll be pleased to take any questions, and again, I know that you're short on time. I'm available to meet with the committee again, for the sake of expediency, to move along, whether that be here, or I'm able to travel to Victoria.

M. Morris (Chair): I appreciate that, Staff Sergeant. We do have some time for questions here.

S. Fraser: Thanks, Tom, for this. I appreciate your perspective on this. We're all laypeople — most of us are — so we're learning as we go here too.
[ Page 52 ]

The issue around the civilianization of the IIO: it is the mandate, as laid out, that it is supposed to move in that direction. I know you cite the amount of training that an officer needs to get just even for entry level, but the investigation role is not just…. There are a lot of things that a police officer learns in the training that are outside of the role of an investigator, presumably — just a comment. If you want to comment on that, that's fine. I might be wrong.

The rationale for having a civilianized entity here is as much to give the public confidence that the police are not investigating the police or a police culture is not investigating the police. You're suggesting that the civilianization may be a problem. It is a problem if it's not.

How would you find the balance on that? If you found it was satisfactory to have a majority of investigators former police officers and the public lost confidence in the entity because of the perception, rightly or wrongly, that it will be a biased organization, how would you reconcile that?

T. Almasi: Well, I know that if we look at the models across the country right now, they mostly have former police officers, and it's for a reason: for the need for the skills and experience to put the cases together to get them before the courts. In British Columbia here, as far as I know, there's only been one case that's gone through the courts. There are two more coming — unfortunately, they're both in my area — so we'll see how that plays out. But I think it's important to have that now.

Your comment about basic police training touches on much more than just investigations, and that's correct. But in some of the scenario-based training you also get a different perspective when you have different sorts of chaos and so forth going on around you — how difficult it is to remember what goes on. There are all kinds of studies on memory and how difficult it is to recount things immediately after an incident.

When we get into our complex investigations, they go much beyond that. They'll go into a major crime-type unit, and they'll get specialized training just in doing that type of work. It's much more complex. It's challenged, usually, by the courts much more than your more routine tasks.

Just for an example, while the IIO might feel comfortable considering 18 months of training to be fully satisfactory, if a police officer is charged, our legal fund is not going to hire a lawyer that's been 18 months in law school. I think it's important that we have the absolute…. We want to provide the best product. Again, it's about getting the facts, and we don't want to see a case get compromised through mistakes.

S. Fraser: Again the question…. If the public has no confidence in the organization because they perceive it, or some perceive it, as being biased, I don't see how we do both. I mean, that's the rationale for having a civilianized — or largely civilianized, eventually — IIO.

So no matter how good the investigation skills are — or superior, potentially — if there's no public buy-in…. I mean, one of the reasons for the IIO is to give the public confidence that it's not a police body. It's something different.

T. Almasi: Well, I think that can come over time. I mean, the first case we heard this morning, day 1 of the IIO — we're going to have to get to the end of those. But I think over time, when they see that the IIO is making decisions that are backed by Crown counsel, maybe at the end even the judges' decisions…. I think it's going to take time to get to that point.

But just reading the papers since the IIO started, when you look at a decision that comes out, for the most part, the public seems to be believing what they're seeing. There are always going to be opposing views and unique circumstances. But again, all the other jurisdictions have been working this way for years and seem to be working satisfactorily.

K. Corrigan: I'm hoping that over time "civilianized" doesn't mean non-professional. I'm sort of getting the sense that you're suggesting that to move towards civilianization means that they're not going to have the same level of competence.

My understanding of what the aim for the independent investigations office was that the reason that you would have a larger proportion of former police officers over the first few years is that you would then have junior people come in that were trained through the JI or come in perhaps through other ways and then would gain the experience. I recognize, and I think it's a valid concern, that people need to have the technical competence. But the idea is that they would gain the experience over several years.

I have two questions. Is that not a legitimate aspiration? Is that not something that could be done over the next four or five or ten years even, that people who came in as junior and were never in police forces could get the experience? That's the first question.

The second question that I have is…. I notice that you use the word "civilians." It's good to have civilians there to provide "that other view." That makes me a little bit concerned, frankly, because that points to me — maybe I'm jumping to conclusions — that there is a different view between civilian investigators and police investigators. I'm wondering if you could expand. Is that just simply technical competence, or is that a view of police work and police situations?

T. Almasi: I'll start with that one. I guess I didn't say that one very well. Every person views things through a different lens, and they provide different input.

I spent time on major crime units. When you would get someone in — a junior person or a different background — they would look at the issue differently, and it could change the focus and direction of the investigation. Where a couple of people might think this direction; they would think something different — a totally different perspective, a fresh perspective.

I don't say that it's…. It's just different, a different perspective they would bring.

T. Almasi: Well, I guess it would be some of that. For example, investigative techniques or avenues of investigation — certain groups may think of going one direction. Other individuals may provide different avenues to gather that evidence, whether it be through search warrants or inquiries or just viewing the situation differently.

I can think of a couple of investigations that I've worked on over the years where one person has taken a totally contrarian view, and in the end, they were right. It's good to have. The more perspectives you can bring into these….

It's not so much the work out in the field. It's the meetings these groups have in between the work. I think when they send the people out, tasking them with what they have to do….You can, I guess, hand out the tasks based on experience, to a degree. You might hand more routine tasks to some and more complex to the other. But it's the meetings in between where they discuss different things. A different person brings a different perspective.

K. Corrigan: On the other question…. Just to follow up on the first part of the question — it was a few minutes ago — it was whether or not it is possible to move in that direction because of the gained experience that people have over the years with the office.

T. Almasi: I think to a degree. I mean, I can't deny that to a degree you can gain experience. But your experience is ultimately, as a police officer, tested in the courts, not in what you say at the beginning or your report writing. It's when it gets to court, because that's where it matters.

I'm not sure that not having that courtroom experience, if you can gain…. That's an element you can't gain unless you're before the courts.

K. Corrigan: But perhaps maybe lawyers, past lawyers or whatever, could be trained — would have that kind of experience.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): I don't have a question for Mr. Almasi, but I do have a question. I see that Tracey Matters is still in the room. I know we were run through the first two presentations, and we ended up having a bit more time on the end of this. So if folks still have questions for Tom Almasi, I wondered if I could get a question in for Tracey once we're done with Mr. Almasi.

D. Plecas: Thanks, Tom. I understand what you're getting at when you're concerned about, certainly, the person leading an investigation ought to be the most experienced person possible. Obviously, that's most likely to be someone who has been a police officer. But you are agreeing that it is also important to have a mix — like, to have civilians.

D. Plecas: It would also seem, though, given as my friend Ms. Corrigan was saying, that you could have people who are…. Say, for example, they've been prosecutors who have had enormous experience in court with evidence. One could envision that over time some of these people could be incredibly competent at conducting investigations. If that's true, then one could envision a situation where one day they would all be civilians.

I'm certainly not saying that would be a good thing right now, but I'm saying that at some point you could see that. Would you agree with that?

T. Almasi: Perhaps. When we talk about this mix…. In a policing setting on a typical shift, if you might have six police officers, you might have one new one that's being trained. You might be able to develop three more police officers, but then you need more positions because you need a core group of experienced people to carry on the bulk of the work.

That could work — again, depending on their background. Again, I mention that it's a mix of things. It's not just courtroom evidence, it's not just report-writing, and it's not just being able to process a scene and gather evidence. It's a mix of the three.

A former prosecutor may be the best person in court, but he may not have the skills to gather the evidence or…. I shouldn't say "report-writing," because I'm sure they can. I think it takes a mix. It's a unique skill. I certainly will not say that they can't do it.
[ Page 54 ]

M. Morris (Chair): Thanks very much, Staff Sergeant. I appreciate your input on this.

Ms. Matters, if you want to come up. I apologize for the interruption here, but we're facing some time constraints here. We do have ten minutes before the next presenter.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Ms. Matters, for your personal presentation. I guess two of the things that…. You were very clear, so I didn't have a lot of questions, but I just wondered if you might be able to speak a little bit more on your recommendation around having independent victim services, independent victim counselling, as well as on the question you'd raised about the affected-party officer. If you could just explain a little bit more why you think that's important and what that would that would look like.

T. Matters: In my situation I came across many challenges, but almost immediately there was a requirement for psychological-emotional support, grief counselling, not just for the immediate family but for the extended network as well. There was a community in grief.

As I mentioned before, the affected-persons officer said: "I can link you into services. You can go through police victim services." Because there was an immediate distrust, a total distrust, of police once the incident happened, we did not want to see or hear the word "police" for a very, very long time.

One of the other challenges I came across. Because I was being quite proactive to find assistance, I actually went to the B.C. government's victim services website. I was looking for emotional support — you know, support to see doctors, medication. People needed sleeping tablets, antidepressants, those types of things.

Because Greg's case was not deemed a criminal act, we were not eligible for B.C. government victim services either. That was from a financial point of view. So not only were the emotional and psychological services not there and we would have had to seek them independently, but the financial services of victim services were blocked off from us as well. You find yourself in a void when this happens.

My experience was that a lot of government services just closed up and everyone went quiet, so we didn't get a lot of response from a number of government agencies during the first several months.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Tracey. I'll be very quick. Your presentation — very moving, and thank you for that. I know that it's difficult.

You suggested pretty early on that the role of the IIO was too narrow, and you elaborated a bit. But do you have any specific recommendations on how, I'm assuming, narrow — meaning siloed, maybe not getting the whole picture, therefore being inaccurate for that reason…? Do you have any specific recommendations on that? If you gave them, I missed it, and I apologize.

T. Matters: Just to reflect…. Maybe this was part of teething problems. In layperson's terms, the IIO investigators had described their role to us as: "We investigate from the point the shots are fired, from the time that the shots are fired." That raised a number of questions, because my mom had been injured in the lead-up to this, as well, by the same officer.

I had asked: "Look, if your job is to investigate the mindset of the person who fired the shots, shouldn't you look a bit more broadly into what happened before the shots were fired?"

When I speak of the…. I don't know what the mandate of the IIO is and at what point they begin their operations — at what point their start point is — but I would suggest that each case needs to be analyzed on an individual basis, and the scope of that investigation needs to be determined after some type of analysis.

It shouldn't be a black-and-white decision. There are grey spots here, and that should be taken into consideration when investigating a serious injury or a death. It doesn't necessarily happen right at the point of the accident or the gunshot. There may be history behind it as well. There may be other people involved in that incident as well, which I think needs to be taken into consideration by the IIO when they are doing their investigations.

K. Corrigan: In terms of the concern about being referred to police victim services, did you ever become aware that there was a community-based victim services? In fact, I believe that in some jurisdictions, when you're referred to police victim services, there is a good relationship with somewhat independent community-based victim services programs provided by various organizations. Did you become aware of that possibility, or were you pointed to that at any time?

T. Matters: We weren't pointed to it directly. That's not to say that it wouldn't be the case that police victim services would refer us to a community-based association.

The other element to take into account is that Prince George is not a small town, but it is certainly a place where everyone knows what everyone is doing. There was a lack of trust even in the service providers within the town itself. I would know of someone who knew someone who knew someone, and there was a link, and then we'd have to cut off that service. I might know of a coroner whose daughter played football with someone else, and so we'd have to cease that service.
[ Page 55 ]

It was a very piecemeal approach to services. It was very difficult to actually get to a service that we could trust and use. Honestly, the words "police victim services" — police was just the cutting point. Anything that had to do with police didn't even go further. That's not to say that we wouldn't have been referred to a useful service within the community.

M. Morris (Chair): Actually, we've got two minutes before our next presenter is due, if you've got a short one.

One of the things that you talked about goes back to what Mr. Almasi was saying. One of the dilemmas that he talked about, which I respect, is that you think it's important that the officers involved with the IIO have full training, DNA training and so on, and gave some examples there.

Do you understand the concern that he's expressing about the fact that it's difficult to make sure that the level of training is there if you are moving towards a civilianized force? I'm wondering if you've got any perspective on that.

T. Matters: I totally appreciate his comments, but I think it would be extremely dangerous to not aim towards a civilian-based independent investigations office. You will not get the support of the public. There will always be questions around the integrity of the investigations office if the majority of its members are former police officers, but I totally appreciate the training concern.

M. Morris (Chair): Mr. Paterson, you're up next with B.C. Civil Liberties. Were you planning on taking the full 30 minutes, sir, or…?

M. Morris (Chair): Jackie Tegart has a question she would like to ask Ms. Matters, and also Kathy said she's got numerous ones. Maybe perhaps we'll take a couple of minutes from your time, now that we have Tracey here as well.

J. Tegart: Thank you for your presentation today. Your comments reflect the challenge we have, right? You think Prince George is a small community. I live in Ashcroft, which is a very small community. Going through situations that are very, very stressful, everyone is connected. Your comments in regards to anything that said police and the distrust and the concern around that just reflects what this committee will be contemplating as we look at our mandate, and looking at what our report will look like.

Your presentation today was very heartfelt. I really appreciated it because it really does reflect the challenge that we have before us. The comments from Tom in regards to the professionalism and the skills needed…. But also, the office is reflective of the request from the public and the need from the public to have an independent investigative office and what that looks like.

So thank you very much for your comments today. I don't have a question, just that you really reflect the challenge in the public.

K. Corrigan: Yes, one quick one, and perhaps, in sort of a legal way, reserving my right at some point in the future to ask further questions of Tracey.

One of the concerns you expressed, perhaps in the form of a recommendation, is about the fact that RCMP have access to legal counsel prior to being questioned. That is in tandem with some questions that I've had and certainly asked Mr. Rosenthal before — questions about the issue of sequestering evidence and ensuring that police officers are treated the same way as any other witness in not getting a chance to talk to each other and so on, just like you would expect in any investigation.

On the other hand, in any investigation an individual who is about to be charged has the right to consult with counsel. I'm a little…. I'm not sure that I agree with you on that one. I think everybody who is facing potential criminal charges has the right to consult counsel before they say anything or are asked a single question. I'm wondering if you might want to expand on that.

T. Matters: You raise a very good point, and I totally appreciate that as well. When we discovered that the police officer who shot my brother had been given an opportunity to speak to legal counsel and have a statement prepared for him, this was at the coroner's inquest.

It didn't come across as a person who was looking to legal counsel because they might be faced with criminal charges. It was in the coronial-inquest situation, so perhaps there was a bit of confusion, but it came across as the officer being coached and prepared and told exactly
[ Page 56 ]
what to say and how to say it. So a lot of integrity, empathy was lost when the information provided at the coroner's inquest was provided in that way.

That information was probably taken long before the coroner's inquest had started, but there was no appreciation of that at the time.

M. Morris (Chair): Thank you very much, Ms. Matters. Again, I apologize for the disjointed…. It was just timelines that we have to follow. But you will have the opportunity, should you wish, to make a further presentation to this committee.

J. Paterson: Good morning. My name is Josh Paterson. I am a lawyer and the executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. I want to thank all of the hon. members here today for all the work that I know you're doing on this issue and for inviting us here to appear at this committee — which is sitting, of course, in the unceded Coast Salish territories of the Squamish, the Tsleil-Waututh and the Musqueam peoples.

Before I say anything else, I want to recognize Tracey Matters, who has just finished presenting, obviously. Tracey has been an unrelenting champion for police accountability — sadly, forced into that position, as you've heard this morning, by the tragic death of her brother Gregory and the injuries sustained, as well, by her mother, Lorraine, at the hands of police. I want to thank the other witness, Ms. Matters, for all of the energy that she has spent, for the courage that she has shown not only in her family's interest but also in the public interest — all of this from far away in Australia.

I want to recognize Linda Bush, who's also seated here in the audience, whose son Ian Bush died at the hands of police and whose death never received an independent investigation. Ms. Bush has really dedicated herself, as well, and is a force for police accountability in this province. It's been an honour for us at the BCCLA to be involved with them over the years.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is Canada's oldest and largest civil liberties and human rights organization. We're independent. We're non-partisan. We are not-for-profit. It is our job to protect the rights and freedoms of people here in B.C. and across Canada and to educate the public about the importance of those rights and freedoms and the checks and balances in our democratic system.

We have particularly strong experience and have had high-profile involvement over the years in advocating for effective civilian police oversight and accountability, ranging from our involvement in public inquiries to participation in coroners' inquests to court cases to research and advocacy. As well, we help a lot of people every year to actually file individual police complaints, so we do know whereof we speak.

Just an example for a little bit of background, at both the Frank Paul inquiry and the Braidwood Inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski, it was the BCCLA, among the community-based interveners, that was really leading the charge on trying to get recommendations in favour of independent police oversight. We published a major report called Police-Involved Deaths: The Failure of Self-Investigation evaluating models across Canada and other Commonwealth countries.

Along with our work, there was, of course, a crescendo in the public. There were many other community organizations involved, including Pivot Legal Society, which you'll hear from today; police bodies; the association of chiefs of police. Finally, we got the IIO. We believe that the creation of this agency is an accomplishment of which the government and the Legislature should be justly proud.

As an overarching matter, we have been satisfied with the work of the IIO and with its progress, recognizing that it is, of course, a new agency that continues to develop its practices and recognizing that this review of its work actually comes fairly early in its tenure compared to almost any other kind of review of another government agency.

Across the board we have been satisfied with its general work, and not only its work but its relationship with police forces. We note that there have been improvements in notification times. We note that the number of investigations that have been initiated from notifications is up significantly, reflecting a lot of work being done by the IIO and by police services across the province to really refine the kinds of cases that are being referred to them. We know that that is partly responsible for that increase in action from the IIO based on notifications.

As I'm sure you will have heard from Mr. Rosenthal and the IIO, out of 58 open cases in the last fiscal year, there were 13 reported to Crown counsel, and only two had charges approved. Five were not approved, and at the time of the publication of their annual report, there were six others that were still pending.

We don't find it surprising as an organization that there would be a lower number of charges approved than there are cases reported to the Crown. I know all of you will be familiar with the different standards that are used by the IIO — whether someone may have committed an offence — and, of course, the rather high charging standard that we use here in British Columbia, which is the substantial likelihood of obtaining a conviction — higher, of course, we know, than in any other province. That is a whole other question that I know MLAs and others have discussed a fair bit over the years.
[ Page 57 ]

We will be continuing to monitor this ratio because over time a very low ratio of charge approvals could be suggestive of other issues, whether in terms of the investigative quality at the IIO on the one hand or in terms of what's going on within the Crown and whether or not, over time, the low ratio of charges laid to referrals to Crown is consistent with what we see in terms of the general number of referrals to Crown by police and charges laid by the Crown following those. At this stage — two years of data — it's really too early to make any assessment of that. But it's something that we'll be watching and that I expect, over time, the Legislature will want to watch as well.

In general, though, we know that there has been an impact, a positive impact, on eventual charging. Like we said, we think that, on the whole, the IIO have been effective in discharging their responsibilities.

Before moving off the question of ratios, I want to note in passing the IIO's statistic that 12 percent of affected individuals who have been killed or suffered serious harm, where they take jurisdiction in those cases, are indigenous people. Given that aboriginal peoples represent just under 5 percent of the population, as you know, this appears to be yet another unfortunate statistic in the parade of statistics that combine into a difficult and tragic picture of the overrepresentation of indigenous people in various elements of the criminal justice system — from overpolicing to overincarceration to overcharging to oversentencing — relative to the general population.

This is beyond the scope of your review and, really, beyond the scope of what the IIO is doing. But again, their statistic does reveal that there is a problem and sheds some further light on it, and we'll want to watch that over time too.

Now, just because we're generally satisfied isn't to say that there aren't some concerns that we'd like to address with you. While it's not the job of the committee necessarily to try and reach down and solve operational problems directly, there are some possible legislative issues that come into play, some nexi — nexuses? — between some of these issues and some of your work potentially, as well as government resourcing. So we'd like to cover some of those things.

One of the significant issues that we've encountered is brought into relief through a particular incident that I know you will have already heard about this morning, which is the matter involving the Gregory Matters case. I won't belabour the details of it, because I expect that you're all very familiar with that already.

But what you may not be aware of is that in October of last year BCCLA, Pivot Legal Society and Justice for Girls called on the IIO to appoint an independent review of its investigation into the Matters case. We did this because, as you will have heard, the IIO's public report into the circumstances of Mr. Matters' death left out the description of a key detail, which had been revealed in the coroner's inquest — namely, that he'd been shot in the back, not in the chest, by the RCMP.

Now, the reason we asked for this review was to ensure the highest public confidence in the IIO. We were troubled by the discrepancies between the description of the wound in the report and verbal accounts that we had had from Mr. Rosenthal and then again discrepancies with what came out in the coroner's inquest — over a very basic question, of course, of whether someone was shot in the front or the back, which in our mind was a very material aspect.

We know that the IIO has released a subsequent report that explains, in their view, how that came to pass. We knew that the IIO could always do that, but our concern was that there be a truly independent look at it.

We recognize that it was the IIO's first time out. We recognize that any investigative agency is bound to make mistakes, particularly in its early days, but we also recognize the high degree of public confidence that's required in order for policing generally, and police accountability in particular, to be successful. We were very concerned that this review should be conducted and that it should be done publicly in order to ensure a high level of public confidence. If it found that there was nothing the matter — well, then, fantastic. If it found that there were problems — well, then, it was in the interest of the public and, indeed, of this committee to know about them.

We were disappointed when the chief civilian director decided not to appoint a civilian monitor in response to our request and issued a supplemental public report explaining the IIO's view of what had happened and saying they would not actually have anyone independent look into it. Without taking any position on the IIO's explanation for what had happened, we were disappointed that this was an explanation from the IIO, and we thought that there needed to be an independent look.

Well, as you know, there were, subsequently, allegations that came out, which were made public through the province — very troubling allegations, on which I'm not here to comment today. As a result of those allegations and a complaint filed with the Deputy Attorney General, a civilian monitor was indeed appointed.

As described by the CCD, this complaint was sent to the Deputy Attorney General, alleging that the integrity of the IIO investigation had been compromised by actions during and after the investigation by the CCD and other members of the office. Again, we have no firsthand knowledge of these precise allegations.

We know and have confidence in Mr. Jette's abilities to investigate these, and we look forward to his report. However, we do have a concern that this report will….
[ Page 58 ]
In the terms of reference provided by the CCD, this report is to be provided to the CCD and the Deputy Attorney General concurrently. There's no provision for it to be made public. Now, it may very well be made public, but as yet, we haven't received an assurance of it, unless such an assurance has been given to the committee over the hearing so far. If it has, I apologize for not being aware of it.

We have made public our demand that it be made public. We hope that if it is not, MLAs on this committee will actually be asking for that, as well, because we think that whatever happened there, whether it was nothing or whether it was something, it's clearly relevant as information for you to consider.

We have some concerns that arise out of the allegations, because some of them describe organizational, cultural problems and, potentially, problems between civilian and non-civilian originating members of the investigation team. We have been concerned about that potential issue from the very inception of the office.

At a minimum, what these allegations make clear is that there is some exploration and some work to be done internally within the IIO to make sure that it is able to do its job to the highest possible standards and to the highest possible maintenance of public confidence. Clearly, the IIO has recognized this. We understand that in the wake of these allegations, the IIO has been taking it on as a core organizational-wide task to achieve better alignment on the values of the organization, to work on their organizational culture. They saw fit to actually mention this in their annual report.

I observe in passing that if there were a perception inside the IIO that there was no problem to be worked on, they probably would not be spending resources to work on it. So we are encouraged both that the IIO seems to have recognized that they may have a problem on their hands and that they appear to be taking proactive measures internally in order to resolve it — and that they're not hiding that effort from the public. They're actually talking about that. We find that very encouraging. But the kinds of things that may or may not be revealed in the civilian monitor's report should not be held behind the curtain.

What this raises for us is that there is the power in the Police Act to appoint a civilian monitor, which we think is a very useful and worthwhile thing, but there is no provision in the Police Act requiring those reports to be made public.

I can think of no possible policy reason why it would ever be in the public interest not to have such a report made public. Yes, it may be awkward. Yes, it may cause difficulties. But either it's going to reveal that there is a problem, which the public and the Legislature have a right to know, or it's going to reveal that there's no problem, which is fantastic, and the public and the Legislature have a right to know that.

I'd like to move on to another aspect of the IIO's operations, which has to do with community engagement. Here, I have nothing but positive things to say about the IIO's work. BCCLA is a member of their external advisory working group, along with representatives of affected families, other community organizations, First Nations, police and government. There's been real leadership shown by the CCD and by the executive director for public accountability — who was in the audience when I came in, and she's still there — in terms of creating this and dedicating resources to the initiative.

I, I'm sure like many of the hon. members here, have participated in many government stakeholder processes, many committees, many consultations. Some of them might have been more aptly described as nonsultations because they're not meaningful, the decision has already been made, they're poorly resourced, or there's not enough information.

I'm very happy to say that this has been a refreshing experience. It does appear, at least to BCCLA as a stakeholder, that there is a genuine opportunity to have input into policies and guidelines being developed for internal use by the IIO. Naturally, they have to make their own decisions and maintain a zealous independence, but they've clearly taken to heart that as a part of their process in a province that has been riven by so many police-accountability problems over the years, it is very important to actually be open to involving stakeholders and to be open to their criticism and to actually deal with it in a substantial way.

I'm going to move on to the question of mandate. We have taken the position publicly and repeated often that the IIO's mandate should expand to include allegations of sexual assault. As a separate item, we have also said that we think that less serious physical injuries than the current standard should be included in the mandate.

The IIO has done significant work and thinking and refinement to define what is mean by "serious harm" under the Police Act, and happily, I can report that stakeholder groups have been consulted in order to assist the IIO to consider how this definition ought to be applied. But outside of the IIO's work we have always taken issue with the fact that sexual assault by police officers was left out of the IIO's mandate by the Legislature.

To be clear, sexual assault that creates the "serious harm" referred to in the legislation will count. Of course, "serious harm" in the Police Act means an injury that could "result in death…serious disfigurement or…substantial loss or impairment of mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any limb or organ." But this definition leaves out explicit consideration of psychological harm — never minding sexual assault; just psychological harm generally — and, of course, the
[ Page 59 ]
psychological harm and the unique harms that are inherent in sexual assault, which may not cause physical disfigurement or impairment.

As far as we are concerned, the exclusion of sexual assault generally from the mandate of the IIO makes no policy sense. It is, at least arguably, discriminatory against women, who are far more likely to suffer these kinds of assaults than men. We know that the majority of victims of sexual assault are women and gender-variant people, and the vast majority of sexual assault is perpetrated by men.

The definition and the application actually have some interesting internal inconsistency around this. For example, we understand that a disfigurement…. They only have this jurisdiction for serious disfigurement. Well, what's that? A disfigurement will be considered more serious on the face than, for example, on the buttocks or on the lower back or somewhere that will be hidden. Part of the reason for that, we understand, is because of the apparently greater psychological impact of a facial disfigurement as compared to one that can be hidden.

The IIO is quite properly considering psychological impact when making assessments around the seriousness of injuries that fall within its jurisdiction, but the IIO is unable to take jurisdiction in a sexual assault case where there will be a great deal…. You know, in a particular case, you can imagine a great deal more psychological injury, a great deal more debilitating impact — because of the way the legislation is worded.

With respect, this was a mistake of the Legislature and government in the beginning, and it is something that must be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity, not later on sometime down the road. Now, we don't say "immediately."

We say "at the earliest possible opportunity" because we recognize that this needs to be properly done, and at the moment we do not think the IIO has the capacity, the training or the appropriate resources to deal with sexual assault cases across the board. We think that officer-involved sexual assault must be added to the mandate and that the IIO needs to be given the resources to take on these particularly sensitive and difficult cases.

We know that most sexual assault goes unreported to police. It's reasonable to assume, I think, without me having stacks of data here, that sexual assault allegations against police officers are probably even less likely to be reported to police, and they may still be highly unlikely to be reported to an independent office.

Nevertheless, we do think that independent investigation is critical in these kinds of matters. It's all very complex, and it would need to be rolled out very sensitively and carefully in consultation with community agencies that work with victims or with those who've experienced sexual assault. But in the end, changing the mandate could help to increase accountability by police for these kinds of crimes when they occur, and we think it's absolutely essential.

In passing, I'll note that around the time of the announcement of the IIO, the Vancouver police chief constable, Jim Chu, had also recommended that the IIO's mandate include less serious allegations. We also said at the time that we thought that was appropriate. We do think that the IIO's mandate needs to expand to include less serious physical injuries and that adequate resources need to be provided, of course, to achieve this.

To conclude, I'm going to move on to the question of civilianization. The BCCLA was concerned from the outset about the potential problems of having former police officers involved as part of the IIO investigative team. We have met numerous of them over the past number of years. My comments today and our concerns in general are absolutely no reflection at all on the individual merit of those members of the IIO team who come from law enforcement — or on any member of law enforcement, for that matter. We've had very positive dealings with the former law enforcement people that work at the IIO.

Rather, we are concerned that overall the IIO must, in the end, be a civilian agency. We know that the Legislature shares that concern because that's actually part of what you're considering here. We think that that's necessary in order to achieve public confidence and true independence.

To be honest, it's something that we continue to hear about in our travels around the province, as I'm sure you will be hearing. We explain: "Look, we think that there needs to be a time to phase this in and that the IIO is really trying to work on this problem." We're not here to excoriate anyone for the fact that they are in a period of transition, but we do think that it is necessary to be achieved.

We do think that there's going to need to be a substantial investment in the kind of training that is required to produce truly excellent civilian investigators. We completely sympathize with the fact that right now if you go out, it's very difficult to hire a bunch of people. Even if you look at trying to approach other government agencies like WorkSafe or Coroners or whatever else, it's hard to fill out a complement of people that can do this work.

We need to build that complement, and the province needs to make substantial investments, I think, in the right kind of training. Maybe this is something that can be done cross-jurisdictionally with other provinces or the federal government in order to really create a core and a pool of people that can do this work.

That concludes my direct remarks that I wanted to make to you, and I'm happy to entertain any of your questions.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thanks to Mr. Paterson. I just want to follow up on the question of sex-
[ Page 60 ]
ual assault, serious harm. Of course, it talks about serious harm involving organs. Of course, the brain is an organ, as much as we think of mental health as being somehow separate from physical health. I'd argue they're often one and the same because you can't separate your brain from your body.

I'm just curious. I know sexual assault hasn't been read into the act. It hasn’t been used in that way. But I would argue that serious harm to an organ could be, in fact, your brain, in terms of how it functions psychologically and so forth.

Now, I'm no lawyer. Maybe that's too cute by half, but I'm just curious. Has there been any thinking on your side around that, or do you think that it has to be explicit sexual assault in that case?

J. Paterson: You've hit on something important. Forgive me. Mr. Chair. The member for Vancouver–West End has hit on something important there, and I agree with the member. As far as we're concerned, sexual assault is serious harm — full stop.

Not everyone, however, seems to share that view, and it's not being interpreted that way at the moment. Whether there needs to be a regulation directing that that is included and that is what we mean without a legislative amendment, or whether a legislative amendment should be made and somehow be worded sensitively so as not to create a distinction saying, "Well, there's serious harm, and then there's sexual assault" — we don't see that distinction as existing — it's clear that something needs to be done.

The member is quite apt in pointing out that in the existing mandate it could be interpreted to include that and that brain and psychological injury could be interpreted into this. When you get into substantial loss or impairment of the function of a limb or organ, you're starting to…. A substantial loss or impairment of the functioning of the brain on account of…. I would really hate for us to get into that kind of parsing. It's for that reason that while I agree with what you're saying — we do say that's serious harm — in terms of the language in the act, something does need doing.

I would actually reframe what I said. It may not be regulation that's required. We would be happier to just see it be made explicit.

K. Corrigan: Josh, we're a little more relaxed in these committee hearings, so you can talk directly to Spencer, to some degree.

I wanted to just expand a little bit on the area in terms of what type of harm there needs to be in order to qualify for investigation by the IIO. One of the cases that I thought about and that people raised at the time was the tasering of the 11-year-old in Prince George. I'm wondering if B.C. Civil Liberties Association has taken a look at those types of cases in addition to sexual assault and whether or not…. I know you talked about less serious physical harm. It seems to me….

To be honest, I haven't read the provisions of the act for a little while, but there is provision there for other matters of public interest to become included in the act, I think through regulation. I could be wrong on that, but I believe it's through regulation. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on those areas.

J. Paterson: The BCCLA's concerns on the use of conducted energy weapons are well publicized and documented. It is something about which we have grave concerns and ongoing concerns.

We would be quite open to the idea that perhaps what is needed additionally, in terms of a tweak to the mandate, is something to the effect that where a weapon is used, of any kind…. That would include police dogs, a subject on which Pivot Legal Society has far more expertise than BCCLA has. Where a police officer sees fit to deploy a piece of weaponry against someone, it strikes us that that's elevating something already — although, of course, bodies can also be used as weapons.

It may be worth considering something like that. I can't, you know…. One would want to be, obviously, careful in drafting these things — as the Legislature always attempts to be careful in drafting things — and think about the various different sorts of situations that might be captured.

Certainly, it's a matter of concern to us. Right now a tasering doesn't necessarily lead to any of these serious harm types of effects.

In terms of our advocacy that there should be less serious harms accounted for, I'm pretty certain we would say that any instance of a tasering could potentially be a candidate for this. We have fundamental questions to begin with about how much Tasers are being used and the standards applied to that. It would not be our sole answer. It's one that we would want to see the language of before endorsing.

D. Plecas: Josh, your comment about the need to look at more than what is looked at right now, in particular sexual assault, and making a reference to Chief Chu's idea that we might go perhaps beyond that…. Some people might say: "Well, you can go a long ways. In fact, one could envision that you could have the office look at a large part of what is currently looked at by the office of the complaint commissioner." Some might go so far as to say: "Why don't we just have one unit?"

There are all kinds of situations I'm sure you're aware of and have thought through that revolve around the whole business of sexual deviance. It wouldn't be described as sexual assault but is still, nonetheless, incredibly serious. Can you comment on that? How far would you say that we should be going?
[ Page 61 ]

J. Paterson: It's a very interesting question. We don't have a position on, for example, saying we should just combine the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and the IIO and just have one big body for everything. Perhaps that's a prescription the province might look at, at some point. We haven't formulated a position on that particular question.

In terms of where you would draw the line, we think the line, as we've described already, is drawn somewhat arbitrarily even now, especially when you get into the specifics, when you start talking about if it's on the buttocks or if it's on the face. There are lines being drawn. What we do say is we don't think the line is drawn in an appropriate place now.

What you're asking, sir, is: where should it be drawn? I'm not sure I can say precisely. What I am able to say is that where there are incidents that could quite potentially qualify as assaults, as alleged criminal conduct directed by an officer to a subject person, that ought to be looked at for consideration. Our preference across the board would be, with great respect to police officers and police forces, that police forces should not be investigating criminal offences against other police officers.

We would be quite content if the Legislature were just to say that if it's a criminal matter or some other offence under some other enactment, we're going to have an independent office to investigate that in respect of suspects who are police officers. That could be anything of what you're saying.

I want to add one other thing. Pivot is going to cover this in more detail later, but I will just attach myself to their remarks beforehand. In terms of the relationship and overlap with OPCC, we would also be quite content with a situation where, in a case that the IIO already had jurisdiction, they also be able to look at Police Act infractions so that it's being done one time through.

We recognize that there'd be lots of implications of that for OPCC. There'd be lots of implications of that for the work of the IIO, but it may also be quite a sensible thing to do, rather than have to have two separate processes ongoing. That's no comment on the OPCC's work in that regard.

D. Plecas: I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on why the sexual assault would have been excluded in the first instance.

J. Paterson: I'm not sure. I know that people were raising the concern at the time, so it wasn't as if it had occurred to nobody.

I can't really account for it. One could speculate what was up. Perhaps government members would have a better ability to do that than I, from the outside.

We have heard Mr. Rosenthal make remarks in the past to the effect that they need to get really good at doing what they're doing now before they expand their mandate. We've also heard Mr. Rosenthal later say that he recognizes that for many people in the province, this is a very urgent issue.

We would say that this should be there as soon as possible. It should have already been there, regardless of what the reason was for excluding it. We don't think that those reasons are supportable.

M. Morris (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Paterson. I know that other committee members probably would like the opportunity to ask more questions. I just want to say that we will be providing opportunity in the future for further hearings and whatnot, and we would welcome you to come back at those particular times and answer any further questions that the committee might have or make any further presentation that you would like to have.

M. Morris (Chair): Our next presenter is the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, please.

S. Lowe: Thank you, Mr. Morris. Let me begin by thanking the committee for the invitation to appear before you today and provide you with my recommendations for improvement and information as they relate to the two areas identified in your terms of reference.

To my left is Rollie Woods. He is the Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner, and he's here to provide assistance and answer questions if you have any questions of him from an operational standpoint.

I'd like to begin by examining your terms of reference, because I think it's important to note — and you're very familiar with your terms of reference — that the administration and general operations of the independent investigations office are inextricably woven with this second term of reference of the compositional goal of civilianization of the IIO, including employees and investigative officers.

I wish to point out to the committee that unlike the provisions of the Police Act that create a requirement for a special committee to be struck no fewer than every six years to review the police complaint system, this same requirement does not exist for this current audit. This is currently, as the legislation stands, a one-time-only review. So part of what I intend to recommend for your consideration today may be an answer to what I view as a gap in the legislation at this very early stage of the development of the IIO.

In relation to my submissions today, I intend to address four topics. One, a relaxation of the legislative re-
[ Page 62 ]
striction relating to the appointment of investigators who may have been former police officers. In summary, as an introductory discussion, after two years of operation and after the initial hiring phase has been completed, I'm advocating a return to a strictly merit-based approach.

I note that the Deputy Chair, Mr. Chandra Herbert, raised this issue earlier in these proceedings, and I suspect that the Chair and Mr. Plecas, based on their previous backgrounds, have views in respect of this as restrictive legislation and the purposes behind it.

Secondly, I'd like to provide the committee with some of my thoughts regarding the mandate of the IIO as it relates to civilianization and, in this case, its compositional civilianization.

From my review of Commissioner Braidwood's report, his concern in relation to this recommendation was the appearance of, or perhaps even actual, conflicts of interest in a process where former police officers would investigate police-involved incidents resulting in serious harm or death of a citizen. He was concerned about the resulting potential for investigational bias in favour of police in this type of a process.

In the oversight world investigational bias can lead to a larger organizational bias in favour of or against policing. This same concern regarding bias appears to be the rationale behind the current restriction on hiring that I alluded to a moment ago.

Third, I intend to discuss with the committee the concern of investigational and analytical bias in a much broader perspective in terms of the oversight landscape. It is just not confined to a discussion of bias for or against policing. I intend to discuss with you the need to approach the issue of bias beyond the structure of the organization, focusing on developing the organizational culture and philosophy of an oversight agency. That's where you get the best results.

Finally, I intend to present to the committee for its consideration a recommendation of a creation of a resource to provide assistance to the development of the IIO, including those areas which form the subject matter of your current terms of reference. I intend to raise with you the concept of a creation of an oversight advisory board whose mandate is to provide operational and administrative advice to the IIO and help shepherd the organizational goal of compositional civilianization.

This added oversight body could be a creation of policy within the IIO itself, which would have a fairly quick turnaround, or a creature of statute. It would comprise volunteers whose backgrounds could provide some assistance to the concepts and goals of oversight. This board would be comprised entirely of individuals with no background in policing or law enforcement.

I think this board could fill a void at this very important stage of the IIO's development, bearing in mind the current limits of a review of the legislation in terms of a special committee to review the concerns expressed and reinforced in Commissioner Braidwood's report. I believe this advisory body could also help the IIO avoid the setbacks experienced by the SIU in Ontario and the IPCC in England and Wales, as revealed in reviews conducted in recent years of their organizations.

Before I go further, I'd like to speak a bit about the background in terms of the landscape of oversight in British Columbia.

By way of my own background, I've been the Police Complaint Commissioner in this province for the past five years. During that time, I've also been a member of the Canadian Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. This is a national body which includes in its membership all of the oversight agencies on the provincial and federal level in Canada. I've also served in their executive management for the past three years, and this past year I was the organization's president.

In my role as commissioner in this province, I've benefited from a consultative process that I share with various stakeholders in the system — including B.C. Civil Liberties, which has just finished speaking with you. These stakeholders include executive management in police agencies, police unions, police boards, and organizations which provide assistance to the marginalized segments of our society — as I alluded to, B.C. Civil Liberties and Pivot Legal Society.

We've also hosted a number of public outreach initiatives and forums in which our office has benefited from the views of the community.

Returning to my work in CACOLE. I have acquired some insight into the national landscape as it relates to police oversight. I've consulted with my colleagues from other provinces and, federally, through summits and regular meetings.

Through our consultations, I have gained an understanding of the various systems of oversight that exist in Canada. We have shared the issues that we have in common amongst all our oversight agencies.

From a comparative standpoint, British Columbia is viewed as a leader in the civilian oversight landscape based on the level of accountability and the innovative processes that exist in our legislation. Make no mistake of that.

This stature has been as a result of a sea change that has occurred in the province over the past two decades, an evolution that has occurred in both the advancement of civilian oversight and a commensurate advancement in terms of accountability amongst the policing community. The pace of change has gained considerable momentum in the past eight years, this as a result of two commissions of inquiry and an independent review completed by the late Josiah Wood, QC, resulting in significant improvements to the police complaint commission in British Columbia, and more recently, the very creation
[ Page 63 ]
of the independent investigations office in what has been a very short period of time since the recommendation has been made.

This change in the oversight landscape is still ongoing as government prepares for another round of amendments to the Police Act to bring about further improvements to policing and oversight in this province.

When I allude to the term "sea change," I think it's important that we go back to a chronology, to have an understanding of why I say we enjoy a stature as a leading province in terms of civilian oversight. The evolution of oversight in British Columbia began with the commission of inquiry into policing headed by Wally Oppal in his report released in 1994 entitled Closing the Gap: Policing and the Community. Commissioner Oppal then recommended wide-ranging changes to policing in the province, which culminated in significant revisions to the Police Act.

One of the changes brought about by the legislation was the actual creation of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner in 1998 and the progressive decision by government to make this appointment an officer of the Legislature to ensure and maintain the independence of this office.

In 2005 the government undertook a review of the police complaint process that I alluded to earlier by Josiah Wood. He was a well-respected former justice of the Court of Appeal and, until his recent passing, was a sitting judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia. In his report that he released in 2007, he recommended significant changes to the police complaint process and an enhancement of the oversight powers of the OPCC in an effort to improve the accountability of the oversight process.

The two earlier commissions of inquiry have contributed significantly to the evolution of oversight in British Columbia. Justice William Davies' report following the Frank Paul inquiry and Justice Thomas Braidwood's report on the death of Robert Dziekanski have served as a catalyst for the creation of the independent investigations office.

In his postscript at that time of writing his report, Commissioner Braidwood recognized the changing landscape amongst the policing community in terms of their acceptance of a need for a civilian-based investigative body. Perhaps the most important aspect of this change related to civilian oversight in the province, over this transition of transformation, has been the response by the policing community in terms of acceptance of civilian oversight over recent years.

It has been our experience that since sweeping changes to the police complaint process came to effect in March of 2010, we have seen a generally positive response in terms of the level of acceptance and cooperation at the executive level of policing and police unions. Although from time to time our office may encounter what I'll refer to as pockets of resistance to oversight, the frequency of those encounters have diminished over time. Overall, I'm impressed with the level of cooperation we've received from all stakeholders, including the policing community.

In my view, the culture of policing in this province has evolved with the legislative reform that has taken place and the increased accountability associated with the system of oversight. This change in police culture has been influenced in a large part by the level of sophistication exhibited amongst the police unions and associations in this province. In our consultations with associations and unions, our discussions tend to focus on fairness, process and the interpretation of the legislation.

This level of sophistication is consistent with the long history of police unions in the province, including the largest police union — the Vancouver Police Union, which is approaching it's 100th anniversary, in 2018. Generally speaking, where we may disagree on an issue with the union, it is on the basis of principle, not personal. This allows for the maintenance of a professional relationship, free from the negative trappings of acrimony, which I can tell you exist in other jurisdictions.

This nicely dovetails into my first discussion with you, with the relaxation of the restriction as it relates to investigators. I have provided for you section 38. The section that I'm looking at in particular is subsection (3)(c), where it prohibits the chief civilian director from appointing a member of a police force in British Columbia at any time during the five-year period immediately preceding the appointment.

Now, looking at the policy considerations supporting Commissioner Braidwood's recommendation for this legislative restriction on hiring, it's centred around the initial development stage of the IIO. He recognized that there would exist a need to appoint former police officers to conduct investigations on behalf of the organization. The hiring restriction was directed at mitigating concerns related to the appearance of conflict of interest with former officers engaged in investigating the police and the potential for bias in terms of investigative practices.

While on the surface this restriction on hiring of investigators presented an attractive remedy to concerns related to perceived conflict and for potential bias, the premise is based on a belief that there is a regional or geographic component to bias in the policing culture. I say that does not exist. In my experience, I am not aware of any philosophical differences that exist as it relates to bias between provincial boundaries.

There is a philosophical difference that exists between municipal police agencies and the provincial police force at both the department and the detachment level. As confirmed by Josiah Wood, it was easier for external investigators to investigate another police agency and produce exceptional work rather than investigate their own departments. However, this philosophical difference in
[ Page 64 ]
perspective does not exist in terms of the investigation of police by individuals who have not worked in B.C. in the last five years.

What may have a more direct influence in relation to bias, and what I say does have a more direct influence in relation to bias, is the consideration of the oversight regime in which an investigator who applies for work with the IIO has previously worked in, in terms of accountability and cooperation with oversight bodies in that jurisdiction. I'll give you an example. Next door is Alberta. The role undertaken by the IIO is done by ASIRT, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team.

Now, I invite you to go to the website. It's contained in the Solicitor General's website, but there's very little information that is known about its organizational structure and operational structure. The operational model ASIRT utilizes is what they refer to as civilians at the executive management level. The chief director of ASIRT was a prosecutor recently — Clifton Purvis, who is now a provincial court justice. Now seconded to the position so far is another prosecutor.

Their definition of "civilian" is non-operational officers. A former officer or a retired officer is a civilian in terms of their definition of a civilian. That definition I don't disagree with. I'll build on that in a moment, because I want to return in a moment to my comments about changing the organizational philosophy.

Returning back to ASIRT, it heavily relies on sworn police officers seconded to the unit to undertake investigations, as well as retired police officers and civilian investigators. There are no plans to alter the composition of the investigative arm to include civilians with no policing background.

This is the model that was endorsed by the British Columbia association of police chiefs in 2009, as alluded to by Commissioner Braidwood in his report. However, this operational model did not meet with Commissioner Braidwood's vision of a civilian oversight agency for British Columbia.

In terms of accountability, the oversight landscape in Alberta is very different from that which exists in British Columbia. In my respectful view, a former officer who has been involved in policing in British Columbia's would have experienced and been influenced by the sea change in oversight and accountability in this province and would be a better candidate to avoid investigational bias as opposed to a candidate from a less progressive, perhaps more acrimonious, jurisdiction in terms of civilian oversight.

Real concerns regarding the potential or actual conflict of interest can be addressed through management practices involving the use of a conflict protocol that currently are in place. There is in the IIO a need to identify conflicts. The policing community and the policing culture transcends provincial boundaries.

Furthermore, in terms of hiring the best candidates, it is our own experience that the high cost of housing and living in the Lower Mainland has served as a significant impediment to attracting the best candidates to our office from other jurisdictions.

We have, and continue to employ, a merit-based approach to hiring. This necessarily includes opening the door to a talented pool of investigators in this province who may have recently retired from policing. If I have enough time, I'll talk about our civilianization process that's been undertaken in the OPCC over the past five years.

It's important to know that at this juncture in time the foundational hiring has already taken place for the IIO. Relaxing the temporal and geographic restriction at this point in time will ensure a purely merit-based approach, which will impact positively on the development of the IIO.

The IIO would benefit operationally from the homegrown expertise of former officers who have acquired the cultural mindset in relation to the importance of oversight in terms of public confidence in policing in this province.

Furthermore, throughout the development of the IIO, the organization needs to retain the necessary skill set to conduct excellent investigations as well as provide expert in-house training to entry-level investigators with no policing background to achieve the goal of compositional civilianization.

In my opinion, a rigorous, in-house training program is the key building block to achieve the goal of civilianization. Over time staff from civilian backgrounds can gain the necessary experience and expertise to advance by promotion to key positions in middle and executive management.

I endorse any oversight body to strive for the goal of civilianization because it does engender public confidence in the oversight abilities of that organization.

I'd like to turn my topic now to addressing investigation and analytical bias in oversight agencies. The focus for the IIO is investigational bias, but I think you have to also consider analytical bias. I use that term analytical bias because in our form of oversight with the OPCC, we have what are called investigative analysts. What they do is review investigations conducted by police, and we have progressive legislation that allows us to direct police officers to engage in various investigative steps.

No other organization in Canada, including the Crown prosecutors' office, enjoys that power. That's part of the progressive aspect of our legislation.

We work, additionally, as best we can with a consultative approach, and for the most part, it works very well, as evidenced with Ms. Corrigan, who was a part of that special committee on the audit by the Auditor General into police complaints.

One thing they came out with, even though it was more a process-based audit, is that they commented that
[ Page 65 ]
the investigations undertaken in the police complaint system were thorough and professional. That's what we were striving to achieve in light of the concerns expressed by Josiah Wood.

Now, in terms of investigational and analytical bias, in my experience and in my consultations with colleagues from the oversight community, the issue of investigational and analytical bias is a prominent concern. It's important to note that within the oversight landscape, bias is just not confined to simply being for or against policing. That type of bias occurs whether you have a police background or not.

There are several other types of bias that we must monitor for and operationally address. These include bias relating to socioeconomic standing, gender bias, age bias, culture bias, bias for and against mental illness, bias for and against individuals from the criminal culture.

It's just not for and against policing. These are the types of biases that you must operationally address.

In my view, the best way to address all types of bias is through the development of a strong organizational loyalty amongst the staff and the creation of an operational culture which mitigates against the influence of bias. Those are two terms: organizational loyalty and operational culture. Let me expand on that.

Organizational loyalty is critical to the success of any oversight body. I like to use the philosophical approach you find in professional hockey for a moment. That approach is that you play hard for the team or organization that signs you or employs you. Loyalty to the organization is critical to the success of an oversight body, and it applies to all employees, whether or not they come from a policing background.

This organizational loyalty translates into a higher loyalty. That is a loyalty to the public and the public interest. That is the nature of our work: it's in the public interest; we serve the public. What happens is organizational loyalty transcends any commissioner, any CCD, any person that heads that organization. It's a legacy factor that you can create in your work and leave behind to be enjoyed and to be upheld by the staff of that organization.

Now, in terms of establishing an operational culture to address bias in an oversight agency, the most natural approach is to establish or adopt quasi-judicial principles into the operations of that agency. By way of example, the operational culture of the OPCC includes as part of its governing fabric a statement of principles. These governing principles include fairness, independence, principled decision-making and excellence in our work.

What we do is we also adopt a purely evidentiary-based approach in our oversight and analysis. What this does…. If you focus on the evidence of good, thorough professional investigations, then you have a consistency in your decision-making. People, stakeholders in the system, can evaluate the evidence themselves when they see the evidence in the reports. Everyone knows where it's going, and where there is uncertainty and you're not able to resolve the issue, then the matter in the complaint system is not substantiated.

With that in mind, I think it's important that any oversight organization adopt as part of its principles quasi-judicial principles as well as an evidence-based approach to its decision-making.

Then you must, in a leadership role at the executive level, ensure that this operational culture includes the conscious consideration of these principles in the daily work. So in our office, we do round tables, we do oral briefings that are based on the Socratic method — and part of our questioning at the executive level is this testing, this questioning to ensure that it's an evidence-based approach — to address rationales and analysis that might engage in stereotypes, speculation or bias. It's a constant factor that you must audit for by engagement with those in the decision-making capacity.

I can advise you that currently the OPCC is 50 percent staffed by individuals with no policing background. However, when we talk about civilianization, we only refer to those individuals that have decision-making capabilities in the oversight process. The administrative staff is not counted in that. It's those who make day-to-day decisions that influence the stakeholders in the process.

At one point we were 70 percent, and we have in place a training system that we're building upon and building upon. It's pretty obvious that in the complaints world it's hard to attract staffing that want to be in that world for many, many years. If someone was to tell you, "Would you like to work in a complaints department for 25 years…?" I think that it serves in many instances as a wonderful launching pad to other careers in government and in the private sector.

The last topic I would like to raise with you and that I spoke about earlier is the creation of this oversight advisory board. This is really in a thinking-out-loud stage with this committee today, because I've been pondering this and pondering this for probably three or four weeks, and I continually shift in my mind on it. But there are some basic tenets or principles that I'd like to raise with you.

As I alluded to earlier, given the one-time-only nature of this special committee's work, what I am concerned about is what happens when you're done. What happens to these important concepts, these important concerns the public has in this very important organization?

I believe that the creation of an oversight advisory board could fill that gap, alleviate those concerns and engender public confidence in the operations and administration of the IIO. Furthermore, I think this board could serve as an added layer of independence associated with the IIO's operations and compositional mandate.

If you adopt or recommend that, it also constitutes an
[ Page 66 ]
improvement on the model that the IIO was originally based on, which was the SIU. As I alluded to earlier, it's my hope that this board, in its wisdom, would be able to avoid the pitfalls that have been experienced by the SIU in the past years.

As I alluded to earlier, the board could be a creation of internal operational policy or a statute or a combination of both. There could be a statute enabling the creation of this board and to leave the design and so forth and the details to the chief civilian director.

One thing I really want to emphasize is that this board would only provide assistance in an advisory capacity. It would have no powers of governance over the IIO, and all fiscal matters or financial matters will remain in the sole jurisdiction of government and the ministry.

The board would serve as a resource to both the IIO and government to provide further assistance in the area, such as the development of operational policy. Furthermore, this board would possess the necessary expertise to provide advice in areas associated with the operations of an oversight agency.

The board would be comprised of members prepared to participate on a voluntary basis to engage in what would obviously be interesting and challenging work at times. It is, in the most modest sense, a quasi police board but certainly not having the governance capabilities of a police board.

Who would be on this board? In my respectful submission to you, qualified members of the board would come from, as I alluded to earlier, non-policing backgrounds but from fields including but not limited to retired members of the judiciary, retired members of the bar, members of the academic community with an expertise in police oversight, retired members or members of the community in related fields such as policy development, present or past members of non-profit organizations in areas related to oversight such as B.C. Civil Liberties and Pivot Legal Society, as well as past or present members of oversight agencies in other jurisdictions in Canada.

There should be, perhaps, a seat at the table for the SIU in Ontario, because I think they could provide some historical advice as to the operations of that particular oversight agency.

The board should report out to the public and government on at least an annual basis in respect of those matters which currently form the terms of reference for this special committee.

That ends my formal submission today. What I provided you with is a thumbnail sketch of my submissions that you could follow along with and remember, and you'll have the transcript. What I did want to do was give you the detailed notes in hopes that you would read ahead of me as I was moving along.

M. Morris (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Lowe, a good presentation. We've got five minutes for questions.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Commissioner Lowe, for the discussion of the review of the IIO and how there's only this one and nothing else in legislation. I think that's an important oversight in the legislation.

I just wanted to go back. You mentioned some serious problems at the SIU and that you thought an oversight body might be able to help alleviate those issues. Just a thumbnail sketch of what you're referring to at the SIU would be helpful.

S. Lowe: Well, at the SIU their troubles, I guess, began at the outset, with the report a few years back by André Marin for the Ombudsperson, who does oversight at the SIU, and his concern about the intrusion of bias into the organization — investigational bias on the part of police, the intrusion of a police culture into what should be a civilian organization.

He is a staunch advocate of civilianization, and he released a report with numerous recommendations that flow from that. This is with an organization that he, at one time, was the director of. This is someone…. After 20 years of existence, they are still encountering that problem.

Now, how I think an advisory board would be able to assist is certainly with finding the pitfalls and establishing internal policies that are made to address them — internal auditing systems. Someone needs to look at the work.

Fortuitously, with the IIO, investigations are investigations. The Chair will know this quite clearly. You could look at how evidence is gathered, the nature of questioning, the manner in which it's gathered, the investigative steps that are taken. It's perhaps an easier task, per se, than the police complaints system, where it's an oversight role and many, many different types of misconduct.

The role of an advisory board is to look to civilianization. What is your training program that you have in place? How are you advancing it? What types of programs do you have for retention? You know, those things.

I think that having an advisory board to bounce things off, especially on an as-and-when-needed basis, allows at one point in time, yearly, for a report to come out about the operations, about the move to compositional civilianization and about the concerns that I note Mr. Rosenthal alluded to earlier of trying to create that identity, that loyalty to the organization.

D. Plecas: Thank you, Mr. Lowe. Let me first acknowledge the good work that you do and that your office has done. I know that you're recognized across the country for the good work you do.

I'm not sure I would agree with the idea of having
[ Page 67 ]
an oversight advisory board. For me, it's one of these things if…. What's broke? I think there are lots of indicators that your office is running in a very independent way, and the results of complainants would suggest that there's a very high degree of satisfaction with what goes through your office.

It seems to me this is perhaps nice to have, but is it really necessary? I mean, there are other observers who can look at what you do. There are the complainants themselves that can, when they express concerns about outcomes…. I know you monitor outcomes.

I guess at the end of the day, for me, I say: is it really necessary? At one level I say to myself: "Well, okay, let's say we end up with the advisory board. At some point, somebody's going to come along and say that we need an advisory board to oversee the advisory board."

S. Lowe: I get where you're coming from, Mr. Plecas, and I agree. Perhaps some of your concerns are a result of my articulation.

If the board decides at some point in time that it's not necessary, that's the end of the board. But we're at two years into an organization where we've seen organizations of 20 years experience foundational problems with their oversight. The SIU has been around for 20 years, and they had two scathing reports and recommendations.

On the issue of serious harm, let me give you an example. In that province, when they talk about the friction that exists, there is a debate between the SIU and police agencies of what constitutes serious harm, or the term that they use, and whether they need to even notify the SIU. A police agent said: "In my view, if it doesn't meet the definition, you don't need to notify the SIU."

What exists right now in this province is a cooperative police community where they err on the side of caution and notify us about everything. The point I'm making is that this advisory board not only….

I can understand that you're concerned about who's watching the IIO and who's watching the advisory board. Unless you create another audit or a reoccurring audit, a recommendation for a reoccurring audit, in the legislation for this special committee, as I said earlier, how do we bridge that gap in this very early development of the IIO? Legislation can say it could be in place "until such time as" and set a point. It either could be a timeline or an operational goal of civilianization.

You know, it's something I didn't give you a chance to probably expand upon. In the growth of an organization and the goal of civilianization, there always has to be an optimal balance that has to be struck between skill sets and civilianization. Sometimes it has been my experience, where I've pressed hard for civilianization, when we were at 70 percent civilian decision-making roles, that the skill sets and the decision-making bases faltered. That's what creates or causes a loss in confidence in not only the public but, more importantly, the policing community.

We've found that through our own audits. We're working at a measured pace and behind the scenes — probably secretly racing with the IIO — but I am confident and hopeful that in perhaps eight years from now, the OPCC will be compositionally civilian. But there are many steps in the process. Here we are at two years. The committee is here, the recommendations happen, and then there's nothing left.

I agree, Mr. Plecas. If you're of the view that this may not fit the need, there has to be something that fills that void, whether it be another special committee or not.

K. Corrigan: You recommended a relaxation of the temporal and geographical restrictions — in other words, how long it could have been since you were a police officer and where you came from. You said that the answer to making sure that you're effective is to address bias via organizational loyalty and effective operational culture. But the suggestion is — and one of the things we have to grapple with — that very problem with the culture and the loyalty.

Perhaps — and I'm not saying this is the case, but there have been suggestions from various quarters — those problems result from the very fact that there is a strong representation of police, and that's the very reason, one of the reasons, to get away from having police representation. It seems like a bit of a quandary. I'm presupposing that that's part of what is seen as a problem — that the IIO itself is seeing as a problem, but I'd be interested in any thoughts on that.

In addition, more importantly, if only one question can be answered, you talk about analytical bias, and I'm not sure what you mean by that — if you could explain that.

S. Lowe: Analytical bias can arise in a number of ways. I guess the best is to use how it may arise in the IIO scenario, because in our work at the OPCC we do a lot of analysis. Analytical bias can be as simple as this. You walk on scene. You get a briefing. You get an idea. The first impression you're left with is "everything is fine," and you work towards that finding in your investigation. That's analytical bias.

S. Lowe: Or you say that…. I just use this roughly as an example off the top of my head. If you come into a scenario where serious harm or death has occurred that involves a person who is suffering from a mental illness, are you coming in with a view one way or another about mental illness that'll affect the manner in which you investigate that incident?
[ Page 68 ]

That's, again, a type of analytical…. It's your analysis, the questions to ask, the identification of issues for the purposes of the investigative steps. Or is it: "Okay, we see it here. It's difficult. It's sad. We see this every day"?

We know that a huge amount of cases that involve interactions between police and the community that have emotional issues and mental health issues…. They have been the resort-to organization in our society now, policing. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

With that in mind, how do you train and teach for that? You start with first principles. You start with talking about these types of biases. Then, when you review work, you look for these biases. You audit for these biases. You listen to how people speak. You look at the questions that have been asked. You see if those questions lead in a direction.

I'll give you an example. Interviewing is an art, and it's an art that involves experience. Some police investigators have interviewed thousands of people. In it, and during the interview, is first being able to come up with a strategy for what you're trying to achieve in your interview, the areas that are at issue and whether you can uncover evidence in those areas.

At the same time, you have to have the ability to find common ground with people, put them at ease, deal with friction, deal with adversity, deal with resistance, deal with speculation, not lead in your questioning. These are all qualities that have to be considered in looking at whether a person is a good investigator or not.

When we talked earlier…. I'll allude to what you alluded to earlier — this relaxation. Perhaps I could say that the focus now at this stage, after two years, is my concept of finding the best person. If you need to hire the best person to fill an operational need of being able to meet the needs of investigations for the IIO, don't have a geographical restriction.

Also, on the other side of the coin, in my view, you always will have a need for subject-matter experts in the policing community. Whether you're completely civilianized or not, who's going to train people? In the OPCC my entire staff is civilian, but it's my job to take former officers and help them transform to a civilian perspective.

M. Morris (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Lowe. Again, if any of my committee members have further questions that they'd like to ask of you, we may be in touch with you at some point in time down the road. We will be holding further public hearings, and your agency is more than welcome to make further presentations at that time. Thank you very much for being here.

A. Smith: Thank you, Chairperson, members and staff for hearing me and for your important work on this. My name is Adrienne Smith, and I'm a lawyer with the Pivot Legal Society. First, I'd like to acknowledge that we're on unceded Coast Salish territory and to thank the Musqueam, the Skwxwú7mes and the Tsleil-Waututh people for allowing us to be here. I'd like to also acknowledge the families that are with us today, who have made incredible efforts to be of assistance to the committee and its work.

I'd like to begin by saying that I'm here to deliver submissions on behalf of a colleague of mine who's been called out of the country on a personal matter. As a result, I'll make my greatest effort to be of assistance to the committee, but I may not be able to answer your questions in as much depth as my colleague would have been able to.

I'd also like to adopt the submissions of my colleague Mr. Paterson at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, particularly with respect to making the monitor's report in the Matters issue public, a matter of public record. I think there's no policy reason to not make that issue public.

Pivot Legal Society has been engaged with residents of the Downtown Eastside and members of vulnerable communities since 2002, and we've been vocal advocates for an independent office to oversee serious police matters in a transparent way for much of that time.

We start from a position of supporting the independent office and its work, although I'm here to address a few concerns that we have and to give you four substantial recommendations.

There is a cloud overhanging these proceedings, given the inflammatory nature of an article that was published in the Vancouver Province on June 20, 2014. I am mindful that none of the remarks made in this article have been proven in any way, but what truth there is in them is of concern to us, particularly because it reports tension between management and investigators which comes from an internal survey of staff, and that there may be significant dysfunction within the organization and a conflict of cultures between civilian investigators and formal police officers. This does not surprise us, given the experience of other oversight bodies across the country.

Pivot begins from a position that the 100 percent civilianization of the IIO is a noble and achievable goal. I have four recommendations which have to do with the expanded mandate of the office, which speak to efficiency of investigations and greater public accountability.

The first point that I'd like to make, which has been touched on by my colleague at the BCCLA, has to do with this mandate of "serious harm." It's Pivot's position that the office ought to consider allegations of sexual assault as well as domestic violence when the alleged perpetrator is a police officer.

However, given the comments made in the Province article specifically related to the suspension of an officer for workplace harassment, at this time we don't have confidence that the IIO has adequate staff and resources to competently handle these cases to the public's satisfac-
[ Page 69 ]
tion. To that end, an investment in the structural capacity of the office is required and better training. We support the expansion of the mandate to include sexual assault and domestic violence as an important part of the office's work in future.

In terms of efficiency, our second recommendation has to do with charging the office with also making recommendations about violations of the Police Act and discipline in matters over which they have jurisdiction.

Currently there's a duplicative process when the IIO makes criminal recommendations. A respondent officer will also have to undergo Police Act investigations. We feel this not only imposes an unnecessary burden on that officer but is a duplicative investigative effort. This is so because section 38.10 of the Police Act makes this separation, and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner conducts Police Act questions. That duplicative process is a needless burden on both respondent officers and the public, and we feel that those should be streamlined in future.

For my third recommendation, I must respectfully disagree with the submissions of the OPCC about relaxing restrictions on appointment of investigators. I began my remarks by saying that Pivot supports the 100 percent civilianization of the office. This concern about police officers investigating police officers is rooted not just in the remarks of Commissioner Braidwood but in community and family-member calls that investigations of serious allegations and serious incidents involving police officers be investigated independently. That oversight is absolutely necessary.

However, I do agree with my colleagues at the OPCC that it is difficult to find those people, to find people trained as competent investigators outside of police forces. To that end, our third recommendation is for an independent training institute to train civilian investigators. People who investigate police allegations ought not to be police or former police officers, and they need to have been taught a different skill set and given a different cultural identity than the police forces.

This could be run out of an existing post-secondary institution. It seems to be a good fit with the Justice Institute, which could have a model course. That's well within their expertise. It would be of benefit not merely to the office but also to other police oversight bodies across the country.

Some agencies have argued that this creates investigators who may be skilled for the physical application of the job but without the wealth of experience that comes with working in a police force. We believe this is actually an asset to civilian oversight instead of a hindrance, as it's often perceived that that shared experience of time in the police force can lead to bias in the investigation.

Our commitment to 100 percent civilian oversight requires independent training. It's a special skill set, as the committee has heard, and not something that can merely be borrowed from police force training.

My fourth recommendation has to do with operational oversight with regards to civilian monitors to oversee the investigations of the office. We have been happy to see the appointment of civilian monitors in the Greg Matters case. We think it is needed to ensure that the IIO is itself accountable and to learn from mistakes that it's made. We believe a civilian monitor should be somebody who can hold the public confidence about the independence of the office.

We were very deeply concerned to learn that in the Matters case the IIO employed former or current RCMP officers as advisors to conduct the investigation. While it's unclear at this point whether this practice was done because the IIO was new and was up and running and lacked the capacity to provide that support internally, it's absolutely not the best practice and something that should be moved away from.

We believe that monitors and advisors to investigators of this office ought to be civilian and ought to be people that the public can have confidence in and who are independent. To that end, we believe the system of appointing retired judges to conduct reviews and to serve as investigative advisors and monitors employed by the Police Complaint Commissioner is a much better system to move forward.

To review: jurisdiction over sexual assault and domestic violence; the ability to recommend discipline under the Police Act, even in cases when criminal charges are not recommended; an independent training institute and the appointment of independent monitors to advise the office who have no former experience as police officers; and we endorse the retired judges model currently used by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Ms. Smith. On the recommendation of incorporating sexual assault and domestic violence as part of the mandate for the IIO, we have heard that repeatedly also. We also heard there were challenges with that as far as the existing capacity of the IIO goes. I guess part of that is it's only two years old, but the training — that level of training — is not there at this point.

Would you envision the existing members be trained to that — or the ultimate members of the IIO, as we move, hopefully, towards full or more civilianization — and that those members do this job, too, as part of their function, or that there would be a separate role there or separate people with the expertise? There is a challenge right now, we've heard, in the IIO to deal with the expanded mandate.
[ Page 70 ]

A. Smith: I need to answer your question in the context of Pivot's commitment to 100 percent civilianization of the IIO, so that in no case should former police officers be investigating current police officers. But the problem with why the office is not currently ready to investigate sex assault is not merely a question of training. It's also a question of culture.

Ideally, what Pivot would like to see would be a separate and distinct specialist branch of the IIO that is charged with investigating sex assault cases, with specially trained investigators.

This is a skill set that already exists, particularly among health care professionals. Clearly, that expertise needs to build, but we envision a separate and distinct sex assault unit that would be charged with those cases.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): I'm not sure, Adrienne Smith, whether the recommendation around integration with the Police Act discipline process is one you can go into in greater detail, because I understand this is Mr. King's presentation, but it's one that I must admit I'm a little confused about.

I've had police officers tell me that they are upset about duplication and those kinds of things. But then I've asked other people and they say, "No, no. There's no such thing as duplication," although then I hear here that there is a certain amount of duplication. If you have any ability to speak a little bit more on that subject, that would be great.

Also, just through the Chair, I'm interested in this. I don't know if our researcher, Mr. Wall, might be able to provide kind of a background document on explaining the difference in how this process works. Since we're not involved in the act itself, the discipline process itself, the difference between the OPCC and the IIO, that would be useful so that I could actually wrap my head around this recommendation.

A. Smith: Well, certainly, the art of making this distinction is larger than the mandate of this committee but well within the purview of the Legislative Assembly.

Currently, there can be a major incident. A police officer and all the parties would participate in a coroner's inquest. Then they would participate in an IIO investigation and then, potentially, criminal proceedings and then internal police discipline. It can take three, four years to resolve the matter for the officer and for the families and for the public. A streamlining of that process is what we're recommending.

How the nuts and bolts of that happen and how the jurisdiction between the various involved offices and the internal police force functions is a matter of art for the Legislature to solve. My organization would be happy to provide further input on what exactly that would look like in terms of the legislation or whether it's an order-in-council or what happens there. But the ultimate goal is to minimize the negative impact of the long process on the parties.

Clearly, the criminal proceeding, if one is recommended, needs to proceed on its own. But for the officer and for the families there ought to be one investigation and a set of outcomes that come from that that make sense so that the same investigation isn't duplicated by numerous offices and the same testimony isn't brought several times. Clarity about, for example, whether Mr. Matters was shot in the front or the back should happen in one place at one time and be very clear.

I know that also brings into question the duties of the coroner's office. Again, that's not something that can be fixed by turning on a light switch. But in terms of straight efficiency and getting to the bottom of what happened to satisfy the public and to deal responsibly with the outcome of these matters, it's absolutely something we should move forward on.

K. Corrigan: My question is in the same area. I have real doubts about separating the two processes, although more than one person has recommended that there should be a streamlining. I understand that. But one of them is a criminal investigation, which leads to a certain type of process in the courts, and the other one is an internal investigation, which is basically a discipline proceeding and a human resources type of process.

While there is a certain quasi-judicial nature to those processes when it gets to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, I know that there can be two streams happening. But I personally would have a real concern about the mixing of the two together.

I'm just wondering. If you put your lawyer hat on and think about that for a little bit in terms of two very different types of processes being mixed together and how messy that could get and how the individual rights…. You'd have to be very concerned about evidence and about individual rights and all sorts of different things. Any comment on that?

A. Smith: I absolutely appreciate your concern. I think about all the different people who would assist an officer or the family and the additional layer that comes with, as we know, the inevitable civil suits that follow. But in terms of what the provincial government is doing about serious harm questions involving police officers, we ought to do it one time, and we ought to do it right. And as I say, Pivot is very happy to continue to consult on what that might look like and how that process can function.

K. Corrigan: I think what you're raising is that you are then characterizing the work of the independent investigations office differently than a regular criminal investigation. To me, it is a regular criminal investigation. It is moving a regular criminal investigation, hopefully with all the protections for everybody involved, over to another process. To me, you don't mix a criminal investigation together — personally, I have real concerns — with something which is a discipline process.

I raised earlier the issue of concern about sequestering, for example, and the idea of having counsel. I think it's absolutely critical that police have exactly the same rights, because this is a criminal proceeding. It can lead to criminal charges. I think police officers should have exactly the same rights as anybody else who is potentially being charged.

On the other hand, I think the police officers and the process should have exactly the same protections for evidence and so on. In other words, a police officer should not have the ability to go and have a consultation with the other police officers involved if there's a criminal investigation.

It's interesting because it almost sounds like — you're a lawyer — you're characterizing it as something different than a regular criminal investigation. I don't see it that way at all.

A. Smith: The ideal outcome, which we can agree about, is that…. Let me back up and say there is a problem when the IIO investigates a serious incident and doesn't recommend criminal charges but does not have the ability to recommend discipline. That's the piece that we're saying they should take on. When there has been a violation of the Police Act, that investigation can lead to something satisfying for the public because in cases when it falls short of a recommendation that a criminal charge should happen, an additional investigation happens.

I hear you, absolutely, about an officer's right and the concerns about evidence. But there's something profoundly dissatisfying about that process and the very narrow mandate of the office, which says: "Criminal charges — yes or no — and hands off for everything else." If you say, "No criminal charges in this case, but this behaviour was problematic, and this is what we recommend," that's a much more satisfying outcome.

M. Morris (Chair): Okay, no further questions. I appreciate your presentation, Ms. Smith.

Maybe if we take about a five-minute break here for some folks to address their personal needs, then we'll reconvene at 25 minutes after.

M. Morris (Chair): We have the pleasure of Assistant Commissioner Rideout, representing the RCMP.

W. Rideout: Good afternoon, and thank you very much for the opportunity to have some time to speak with you today. I thought, if I could, what I would do is give you a perspective from the RCMP on our interaction and our work with the IIO since its inception but also talk about some of the current processes that exist around conduct investigations and the structures that have been created in support of independent police oversight and the concurrent conduct issues that take place.

As you will recall and as is noted in your presentation, the RCMP went through a period of time several years ago in which it found itself, as did other police departments in the province, attempting to investigate itself in the aftermath of some of these tragic events. It was very clear that public confidence was not there in our own ability to investigate it.

We went through a number of processes to try to improve that, including calling upon external police agencies both within the province and outside to take over those investigations and then subsequently have them reviewed by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner for external civilian oversight — none of which, ultimately, resulted in the kind of public confidence that I think we all agree we needed in the aftermath.

We have supported the existence and the implementation of the IIO wholeheartedly and have worked very closely with the IIO during its planning phase and implementation phase.

As I think you may be aware, we are signatory to an MOU that exists between the police agencies in the province and the IIO which has very much served to streamline that implementation and to provide protocols and practices that we are all aware of in attempting to meet the requirements of the IIO, the legislation, and to make sure that the job gets done right and correctly and that we don't make any mistakes.

I'll just draw your attention to the fact — I'm sure you're more than aware — that the size of the RCMP in the province of British Columbia makes us the biggest user of the IIO, in that we police 99 percent of the geographic area of the province of B.C. You'll note in the presentation that we are now above 1.1 million calls for service each year. That's just the calls for the police. There are considerably more contacts between the police and the public than that. The population is noted there as well.

We have 122 RCMP detachments in the province, but we have about 180 different entities within the province. There is a large federal policing footprint in the province. There are a number of specialized services, agencies, aircraft and covert operation units that I'm responsible for that also exist here. While they are not part of the prov-
[ Page 72 ]
incial police — they are the federal footprint in the province — they are accountable to and are investigated by the IIO as well, pursuant to the MOU.

Noted on the bottom, you'll see that we have very close to 9,000 employees — actually, over 9,500 if you look at some of our volunteers, which are almost 6,500 sworn police officers. So that makes us by far the largest policing organization in the province.

I'll also note that we are involved in a significant number of integrated units in the province, which creates interesting challenges. They are highly successful in their operational service delivery, but when you look at code of conduct or discipline issues, conduct issues and IIO issues, it adds an extra element because you're operating with respect to both the RCMP Act currently — soon to be Bill C-42 — and the Police Act regulations. However, we have, in my view, managed to bridge those issues well and are able to deliver that discipline and conduct process in a very effective manner within those integrated units.

You may be aware that Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, was enacted a short time ago and is going to be deemed in, we believe, October of this year. We have already begun and enabled the systems that will allow for that process, which, in short, provides significantly increased powers for the commissioner of the RCMP and his delegates to conduct discipline processes and to, frankly, exit people from the organization when necessary. That has always been a challenge within the legislation that existed previously — a very complicated process, a very labour-intensive process, and frankly, not always a highly successful process.

The new legislation attempts to have predescribed offences and penalties associated with some of the more minor offences but does propel offenders of more serious offences into a rigorous process very quickly, with a view to advancing investigations and discipline to whatever level may be appropriate in a rapid way compared to old processes.

We also have seen an evolution in what was formerly the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, which will evolve into the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission under Bill C-42, and they will have enhanced responsibilities and powers and will go for more of a review agency to have some similar capacity to the IIO, while they will be, I suppose, forward-leaning in conducting investigations themselves into matters that meet thresholds that they'll be setting.

I mentioned earlier when I began there are concurrent processes available to us for statutory investigations and complex investigations that fall outside of the IIO mandate. We refer to them as 54.1 investigations. That is simply the reference number of a policy piece that's been created.

We still conduct investigations with external agencies when criminal or conduct matters hit a high threshold and they are not within the domain of the current IIO threshold. We work closely with the OPCC, and on a number of occasions we will advance investigations on their behalf as the provincial police force, under their oversight and with contemporaneous oversight by the OPCC. But we still do conduct a great number of statutory investigations within the RCMP on our members when they arise, and they are successful.

We have, over the course of the existence of the IIO, submitted reports to Crown counsel on police officers for their conduct when it crossed the line around criminal offences; 44 times court briefs have been submitted to Crown counsel in those instances. In 29 of those there were no charges, and ten charges were laid by the Crown. Again, as I will remind you, and I know you're likely fully aware, in this province, whether it be the IIO or the RCMP submitting the reports to Crown counsel, Crown has the charge approval authority in this province against a charge approval standard that they regulate.

We have a robust professional standards unit within the division and also have an anti-corruption unit that operates under my domain. That is a proactive group designed to look for and understand corruption issues that may exist and to create structures, systems and measures to help prevent that. As we've seen in other provinces in the country, there has been some existence of corruption issues. I raise that because it becomes somewhat relevant to some of my comments later.

The nature of the IIO mandate sometimes requires a simultaneous parallel investigation by the RCMP. This is an important factor to note. For example, a bank robbery that results in a high-speed chase with police and a situation where shots are fired and an individual is harmed can require a simultaneous IIO investigation, but the suspect is still under investigation for the offences they have committed. That requires the advancement of a major criminal investigation at the same time.

The MOU and the practices to date have been highly successful in running those parallel investigations and not impeding on one another's mandates. I think that's a testament to the attitude of the IIO as they moved into their responsibilities, recognizing that that had some real potential to cause difficulties and which, to date, has not.

I would just say that that can get even more complex. We haven't had the experience, but if you look at some of the tragedies in the United States or things like the Boston bombing event, you can see where you've got multiple events that take place over the course of multiple jurisdictions and that involve several contacts between the police and the offenders that resulted in serious harm or injury.

An incident like that would result in multiple competing priorities around the criminal investigation and the coroner's investigation and things like the IIO investiga-
[ Page 73 ]
tion. These can evolve into highly complex events under certain circumstances.

We have robust processes in place that in the immediate aftermath of an event in which the IIO is called, the duty officer…. We call the regional duty officer, a 24-7 inspector who monitors the activities of our province and is required to notify the IIO immediately. I believe we've been highly successful at meeting our obligations for rapid notification of the IIO. Then, from that place, the IIO makes the determination as to the facts known if they choose to assert jurisdiction over that case or not.

In some cases they will wait and see how the facts unfold over the next several hours and sometimes days, because they are not always perfectly clear in the immediate minutes, hours and days that follow, and more facts are known. In those cases they will closely monitor with our people to ensure that they have the full spectrum of the information in front of them before they assert jurisdiction.

When they do assert jurisdiction — and, frankly, when they do not — we still conduct internal reviews, duty status assessments on the members involved and implement a process that's put in place internally around assessing the member, assessing the member's actions, determining if code-of-conduct violations have taken place and commence code-of-conduct investigations internally as and when required.

We look at both the conduct issue and the policy issue simultaneously in those cases when it's appropriate. We also make sure that if the member should not be back on duty they're taken off duty at that time and that there's ongoing assessment through the process relative to that duty assessment. Some members may remain on duty, given the circumstances; some may be removed to admin status until more facts are known; and some will remain off duty for the duration of the investigation.

In some cases, where we first believe that their action was not sufficient to remove them from duty, we will remain in contact with the IIO. When they reach a threshold where they are satisfied they have sufficient facts and the investigation is not compromised, we engage in a second conversation about what they know, for the purposes of reassessing that duty status.

In effect, if the IIO determines that they will be submitting a report to Crown counsel with respect to the member, that is certainly a signal to us that there is information within their holdings that suggests that they have reached a threshold where they feel criminal charges are at least possible. We have to reassess having that officer in the public domain, given that benchmark, and again, if Crown was to lay charges.

There are, at the very least, three different thresholds in which the status of the member will be assessed for duty status, and there will be parallel professional standards in our code of conduct investigations running in the background when required.

As you're also likely aware, in these tragic cases in which a death is involved there is a parallel coroner's investigation that is fed by both the police investigation and the IIO investigation. We participate in those coroner's inquests, as we must, and our members are provided to testify in those cases. We service those investigations as well.

I think it's important to say that our experience to date on an individual-case basis has been highly successful and positive. That's not a small statement, given the challenge of a fresh start around independent investigations. I think that's a testament to the IIO and, I think, a testament to us, in the way that we've accepted it and the policies and practices that we're able to put in place in order to work with the IIO and to service the legislation and the mandate of the IIO.

I would also say, without a shadow of a doubt, that we have seen a change in public confidence in the police and public perception and media perception. It has been an enormous change for us to be able, in the aftermath of these events, to really allow the IIO to come in, to take over, to conduct the investigation and for us to look to them for results and media comment. I think we've seen this dramatic change in that over the course of the time that they have been in place.

Like all complicated things, not everything is without some challenges, but I emphasize that they are minor. We have seen some challenges with respect to asserting jurisdiction because all facts are not known. Certainly, the RCMP and all police agencies struggled with this very same issue prior to the IIO — having enough information in front of you to know whether it's in your mandate or not, to know whether it requires the robust investigation or not.

Sometimes there is a delay in assertion that can complicate matters and create challenges around holding scenes. This is a very big province. It takes time for them to get there, and on some occasions that could take up to a day or two, given the remote nature of some of these scenes.

More challenging, on one or two occasions, is the assertion of the IIO to take over the case and then the recognition later that it's not within the mandate and then to move away from the investigation. That leaves us having to go back in and still conduct an internal review and our own investigation, but having a gap from the time that they have started until the time we have to take it back over.

I need to emphasize, however, that that's a very minor number of these cases and not an enormous problem. I suspect it will iron itself out as time goes on and as we get better at some of these processes. They're minor points.

We have, as you know, also had the IIO assert jurisdiction on cases in which our members are off duty, whether that be in car accidents or domestic situations and things of that nature. That can be challenging.
[ Page 74 ]

Our only concern in this regard is that when a member is off duty…. The IIO will, of course, conduct an independent investigation. We have no issues with that whatsoever. But the threshold for submission of a report to Crown counsel by the IIO is significantly lower than it is by any other police jurisdiction. On occasion….

We are concerned, from time to time, that the same threshold is being used for police officers who are off duty as is for the average citizen for the submission of a report to Crown counsel rather than an extra standard applied there. Again, I emphasize, a minor point in the grand scheme of things.

Based on the number of…. I should just go back and point out the number of assertions that have taken place since the inception, and I know it's in your presentation. We have notified the IIO 445 times since September of 2012. Now, this seems like a big number, but the MOU, in the agreement we reached with the IIO, asked for notification of incidents which may be within their mandate, so we went extremely broad in the notifications, well beyond what is likely to be within the scope of the legislation and the mandate.

That was done by intent and by design so that we didn't miss anything. Frankly, in the early days it became almost comical at times, some of the things they were being notified for — people with illnesses such as stomach flu and things like that — just to be sure that we didn't miss something that would cause us embarrassment later.

During that period, however, there were 63 assertions by the IIO for RCMP jurisdictions. Fifteen cases are still under assessment; 18 of those cases were a result of the reports to Crown counsel, two of which resulted in approval of charges by Crown and ten cases in which charges were not approved. Six are pending, and so far there are no convictions, but of course that trial process is still well underway, and we wouldn't expect to see anything at this point.

I'd like to again just emphasize that to date, given the mandate, given the type of investigations the IIO is asserting on, it has been, in our view, a great success. We continue to welcome it and improve our processes.

We recognize that there are calls for expansion of that mandate. There are calls for the IIO to perhaps move into more complex areas of investigation. I think this is the area that I'd like to discuss with you now relative to the civilianization of the IIO.

It's long been debated whether police officers are necessary to conduct independent investigations on police officers. I think the IIO has demonstrated, as have other external agencies, that they can be highly successful in cases in which there is a dynamic event that results in an act of violence and an injury or death.

As complex as those events appear to be, they really are incidents in which police officers on scene are reporting on the radio what is taking place. They are calling for supervisors. They are reporting the event. They are waiting for the IIO to attend. Processes exist for providing statements and forensic examinations. It is a relatively stable scene, stable set of facts, for them to investigate. There are definitely some that are more complex than others.

I would express concern that if we move into an environment in which we are investigating or on the hunt for suspects of offences that have not called in on the radio and said something has happened — I point to sexual assaults and multiple events over the course of multiple communities — the skill sets required to do those kinds of investigations and/or investigations involving corruption, police corruption, and any number of criminal acts that may exist…. It's a very challenging and different area of investigation than the one they currently find themselves in.

The skill sets required in many of our major criminal investigations require in-depth major case management; accreditation of team commanders for oversight; crime scene analysis; interview and interrogation skills to take warranted, admissible statements from suspects; disclosure requirements; search and canvass capabilities; source agent handling; privilege issues; and a myriad of other issues that are gained through investigative exposure to multiple events, court processes and multiple trainings.

It's a very complex environment. I wouldn't want us to lose sight of that. Our position would be that that, in our view, will always be a challenge unless you do it a lot. The nature of some of these kinds of cases — and, in this mandate, sexual assaults suspected by police officers — would, in our view, be very challenging to do without highly experienced, trained criminal investigators.

The last but not least point that I would like to bring your attention to is around communications. Again, we have seen the benefit of the IIO taking over communications in the aftermath of these events and the resulting public confidence that comes from that. We support that and continue to believe that that's the right course of action.

We do, however, from time to time believe that when there are incontestable facts about events that have taken place — the suspect has had a gun, or the suspect has fired shots at the police — it would be our recommendation that those facts be communicated quickly publicly, if they are incontestable, so that there is little or no doubt in the public mind as to some of the basic facts of the case.

That has a negative impact on public confidence in policing when perhaps it is unwarranted, given the circumstances. We are not asking to make that assessment. We're asking them to make that assessment.

I think I will leave, if I may, my discussion there and attempt to answer any questions that you might have.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thank you Assistant Commissioner Rideout. I appreciate the presentation.

Something that has come, it seems, through many of the witnesses now before us is that question of sexual assault, is that question of special resources. I completely understand why people would want to make sure that the actual resources and training were provided.

Does the RCMP E division…? Is there any official opinion on who should be doing the investigation of sexual assaults alleged to involve police officers — whether or not that is something that could go to the IIO if there were appropriate resources and training — or no opinion one way or another?

W. Rideout: No, I think it can go to the IIO and perhaps should go to the IIO. I just don't…. I believe that we have to be mindful of the capacity of the IIO to delve into some of these cases.

In the non-IIO environment, the skill sets required to have a suspect interrogated in an event like this — to interview witnesses, perhaps to conduct the kind of judicially authorized processes that are required to fully investigate — are extremely complex. Training alone will only get you so far. You have to do these things on a number of occasions, in my view, to get really good at them, and there are simply not enough of those events to gain those skill sets.

My belief, our position, would be that IIO should do them, but I believe it will be challenging for them to do if it's a completely civilianized environment with investigators who have had no previous police backgrounds.

D. Plecas: Wayne, I'm looking at the figures, from notifications down through how many people are ultimately charged, and also noting that there are zero convictions. I thought I heard you say that the bar was being set too low by Crown.

I'm looking at this and thinking: "Wow, in 40-plus percent of cases you're recommending charges to Crown. At the end of the day, 95 percent of notifications result in the officer being completely exonerated." One would think, looking at those figures, there are a lot of people being run up the flagpole when they shouldn't be.

W. Rideout: The IIO presents a report to Crown counsel when there may be an offence. The police submit a report to Crown counsel when there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, and then the assessment is made from there.

I may have perhaps misled you a little bit in my communications. I don't take particular issue with the IIO submitting reports to Crown counsel for on-duty events when there may be an offence. I think the distinction I was making for off-duty events in which they're happening at, say, a private home of a police officer who was off duty, unrelated to their duty function…. I would just recommend that the same threshold provided by any police agency be applied to those events.

D. Plecas: If I may, Chair, my point is that it would seem to me that officers aren't being judged by the same standard. There's something else going on here, where officers are being put through a process that wouldn't normally be the case for the average citizen — not that there shouldn't be some extra attentiveness to it. But how is it the case that at the end of the day, there's all of this continuing movement — accusation, if you will — and then nothing at the end?

W. Rideout: Well, you're right. Under normal circumstances reports wouldn't necessarily go forward. I wouldn't want to make too large of a point of them going forward from a public confidence perspective. I think, at the end of the day, the Crown will make the decision the Crown makes. Generally, we feel confident, as the statistics suggest, that the charge standard isn't met and it's not there.

I think your other point that you mention is a valid one. These events are traumatic for police, as well as they are for families of individuals involved in these events, and they go on for very long periods of time. We now recognize the need to manage our police officers from the moment and event that these things happen right through the coroner's inquest process, which is often years later, and there are a number of things that can happen along the way that are very difficult on them. So you're not wrong.

Having a court brief go forward and then waiting for that examination by Crown, which can be lengthy, is a very arduous process. I think I would reserve comment on the appropriateness of that, because that is within the MOU for that threshold by them. But I think the statistics are demonstrating that they're not following through with charges on a number of these cases.

D. Bing: Thank you for your presentation. I was just picking up on your point about training only taking it so far. I think that it's a good ideal to have all civilians — civilianization, as you call it, of the IIO — but all the investigators would be newly trained and relatively with less experience than someone that's had experience.

I know in my profession it's a very complicated business. It takes seven years to produce a dentist, and it's not possible for a civilian, just a citizen, to come in and be able to understand all the terminology and the techniques and the different things that they have to understand to make a decision about a judgment of, maybe,
[ Page 76 ]
something gone wrong. So I can appreciate that point that it would help.

Ideally I see — would you agree with this? — that there's always going to be a need for some experienced investigators as part of the IIO, that it's going to be very difficult to get to 100 percent civilianization.

W. Rideout: I do, sir. I do agree with it. I think that civilian-led is, in my view, the key.

I'll just maybe demonstrate it this way. I have worked in major criminal investigations for most of my career, and I would say that ten or 12 years is not unrealistic to get to a level of competency in all areas. You learn by going to court and learning where you've made your mistakes in certain areas and being challenged on those. Then you get better as time goes on.

In the province of British Columbia the people that lead major criminal investigations go through an accreditation process. They need to demonstrate to a committee a series of successful major operations and skill sets where they have demonstrated success in both investigation in and support of prosecution, and prosecution. We don't let them run them unless they've demonstrated that.

That takes them years to achieve that benchmark. It's variable in different cases and will propel people into that environment sooner than others. We wouldn't let them do it, so I'm challenged to understand how we can take civilians, train them and get them to that level of competency without mentoring and partnering them with people who have some of those experiences.

I do not suggest for a moment that we should ever go back to a place where police officers are running those investigations. I'm just concerned about a recognition of some of the complexities. Corruption issues, people doing things that are truly nefarious in nature require skill sets to go after them that are challenging.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to follow up on what has already been asked about the threshold. I'm trying to pull the different pieces apart that you're talking about.

You said that the threshold specifically referring to off-duty officers was lower than any other police jurisdiction, and also referenced being treated like an average citizen. I may be misrepresenting you in this, but are you…? First of all, is it the case that in any type of case, whether an officer is off duty or not, the threshold for forwarding to Crown counsel is lower because of the memorandum of understanding? I thought that was just some….

I don't know where that policy of a reasonable likelihood of conviction comes from, but that has been the standard — right? — in policing in British Columbia. Are you saying that there is, overall, a lower standard for the IIO? I guess that's the first part of the question.

W. Rideout: Yes, there's a lower standard. The IIO submits a report to Crown counsel when there may be a criminal offence committed.

K. Corrigan: Right. Why is that, in your understanding, different, then? With every other police — all the municipal and RCMP — the standard, I thought, is set by Crown counsel itself, is it not? Who sets that standard for reasonable expectation of a conviction?

W. Rideout: It's somewhat founded in the Criminal Code around reasonable beliefs. Then the prosecutors have a further standard beyond that, that they operate under. I won't speak for them, but my understanding is that substantial likelihood of conviction is what they measure it from.

But could I divert just a little, because I think you've raised a point that I neglected to comment on? There is an age-old challenge in the investigation of police that complicates this matter and, I would suggest, complicates the challenge of the IIO. Police officers are duty-bound to respond to events, some of which result in these tragic events.

The first analysis that has to be conducted by a team investigating these events is: has an offence been committed? If you can't determine that an offence has been committed, you can't go to a judge and ask for a search warrant to get records, to do cell phone records, to find out different things, because in order to satisfy a judge that you need that authority, you have to say: "Well, this is the offence that's been committed."

Some of these events are not criminal offences. A police officer has certain rights and authorities under the circumstances. You first must investigate the facts, determine if an offence has been committed or is believed to have been committed and then move from there. It creates a grey area in the middle. It did for us when we investigated them ourselves. I think it still does for the IIO. If they want to get a search warrant to search the residence of a police officer or cell phone records of a police officer or any number of things they may do, they have to satisfy that threshold first.

They do have different challenges, and I would suspect that that's why they have asked for and are submitting some of their submissions on the threshold of "may" rather than "reasonable grounds."

In many of the cases investigated by the RCMP outside of internal investigations, we know a criminal offence has been committed. We've determined that, and we are advancing an investigation based on that. Lots of cases involving police officers' actions…. You're not even at a level where you can say a criminal offence has been committed, because under section 25 of the code, the police officers have certain powers to use force when justified.
[ Page 77 ]

K. Corrigan: But the IIO…. You're not talking about a question of jurisdiction here. At least, that would be my understanding, because the IIO has jurisdiction. The triggering event is the harm. It is not whether or not a criminal act has taken place. Is that not correct?

IIO would take jurisdiction first, and then the determination would happen as to whether or not that harm was created by…. As long as it's, I guess, on the face of it done at the hand of the officer, would that not be enough? The fact that the officer was involved, a person died, whether or not there's a criminal act, IIO would have jurisdiction, would they not?

K. Corrigan: Can you, then, just….? The comment that you made about the threshold is lower than any other police jurisdiction and that somebody, particularly off duty, would be treated like the average citizen. I don't quite understand that.

Would you not expect that a police officer would be treated like an average citizen? Or are you talking about at an even lower threshold because of the charge standard?

W. Rideout: No, I would expect the police officer to be treated like every other citizen and afforded all the same rights. I'm not suggesting that they're not, in general terms. But I do think that when it's an off-duty event, it's our hope that our assertion that police officers…. If a report to Crown counsel is being considered off duty — so not an event in which the police have responded — I accept that the IIO may continue to send a report to Crown counsel for on-duty events with the "may have occurred" threshold.

What I was trying to suggest is that if one of our officers is at home and becomes investigated by the IIO and it's not related to their on-duty event, then I believe they should be treated with the same thresholds as any other citizen just investigated by the IIO.

In my submission I would suggest that the threshold for report to Crown counsel should be reasonable grounds, like any other police force in Canada.

M. Morris (Chair): Just before we go to Scott Fraser, Mrs. Bush, I understand this is starting to encroach on your time. But you've got about a 15-minute presentation or something. Do you mind if we go a little longer?

S. Fraser: I'll be very quick. Assistant Commissioner, thank you for your presentation. On the issue of communications and looking for greater consistency from the IIO, is that the suggestion — that the IIO has been dealing with communications issues inconsistently? And if so, are you suggesting there be some process to tighten that up?

You noted greater consistency needed with respect to timing of release of information to the public, scope, incontestable facts and perception. Has there been an issue or issues with that?

W. Rideout: It's our submission that from time to time — and this is certainly not in every case, by any means — in some cases there are incontestable facts that are known very early on. There are multiple witnesses, there is evidence at the scene, and we know that perhaps a weapon was in the hands of the suspect. That's just a very elementary example.

We would like to see in cases like that…. Without getting into great detail, we believe that it's in the public interest for the public to know that as soon as possible. Our submission is simply that in those cases, we'd like to see the IIO move more quickly to talk about some of those facts in some cases.

There is very good reason in other cases not to talk about it, and we fully understand that. But when it's incontestable, when there are multiple witnesses on the scene and it's not a matter of doubt, then we would like to see that because we think that affects public confidence. We have seen the media, the stories, go in different directions. Then we have public confidence….

When you go to correct that several weeks down the line, frankly, there's not much interest in hearing that at that point. When the facts can be known in some areas, we'd like to see them be known quicker.

M. Morris (Chair): No further questions. Sir, I appreciate you making the presentation. If the committee has any further questions, we'll certainly be in touch with you or the RCMP. Thank you.

L. Bush: Hello. I'd like to start by thanking all the committee members for dedicating yourselves to this task. I'm happy to be here.

Of course, it's been mentioned a few times, so you know that I'm the mother of Ian Bush, who was killed in 2005 by a rookie RCMP officer. We'll leave it at that.

I'm thankful for the wisdom and humility of the committee members who wrote the legislation to create the IIO. They included this review, and it will be invaluable in finding any areas where the IIO needs strengthening.
[ Page 78 ]

Today I'm as dedicated to the growth and success of the IIO as I was on the day in 2005 when we realized that our family was in dire need of an independent investigation. When Ian was killed by a rookie RCMP member, we were at first sure it must have been a bizarre accident. We were assured by senior RCMP personnel that the investigation would be as comprehensive as it would be if it was not a member of the RCMP who had fired the fatal shot. It was implied that major crimes would hold an RCMP officer to the highest standards possible.

As facts slowly become known to us, we became more and more skeptical of the process. We began talking about the need for an agency other than the same police force as the person who caused the death to do the investigation. The more we learned about police culture and the history of investigations into police-involved deaths, the more we realized there would be no justice for Ian and that someone had to make sure that there was independent investigation in the future.

I anticipated that the IIO would make a difference by the very presence of such an organization. I think this is the case, at least for the number of deaths in custody. I hope the stats agree even for less egregious situations.

Over the past nine years I have seen changes made in the RCMP policies and attitudes that I believe indicate a sincere intention to operate differently. I have a great deal invested in the success of the IIO and reform of policing: the life of my son. So it may be that I am seeing what I want to see. However, I have spent enough time talking about this with RCMP, B.C. Civil Liberties Association, IIO and media that I think there is real progress.

The attitude of the public is not always the same. I've come to understand that there's a misconception that the IIO is there to protect the interests of the affected families. Of course, the IIO is there to find the truth of the investigation, whatever it may be. There is a mistrust of the IIO simply because it is perceived to be yet another police or government agency which may not have the best interest of the dead or injured party at heart. There is a lack of confidence that the IIO will be able to see through the misinformation which may be given to the investigators by the subject officer and his or her fellow officers.

When a person is seriously injured or families are left with the death of a loved one, there is little positive to see in the situation, and that is what we hear about. There is controversy over the investigation into the death of Greg Matters. The IIO may or may not have made mistakes in this case. Subsequent investigation will determine that fact.

Having such a major case happen on their first day of operation gave the IIO little time to gain experience and to become a cohesive unit. There was no time to determine if more training of investigators was needed or what form this training should be.

The legislation which created the IIO mandates that the agency become fully civilianized within five years. I constantly hear a great mistrust in the public in hiring former police officers, no matter where they came from or how long it's been since they were associated with a police force. However, there is limited theoretical training, and the only really effective training is experience.

I have met currently serving police officers who I trust. I have met many currently serving and former police officers who see independent investigation as the best option for police-involved incidents. Former police officers are often outspoken in their desire to see policing restored to a higher standard than it has experienced in recent history. More than once I've heard someone say: "I carried a gun for 25 years and never once removed it from the holster." The director must be given the discretion to hire former officers who seem suitable for the position and then remove them if necessary.

I ask that the deadline for complete civilianization of the IIO be extended and that there be adequate funding for training of all investigators, no matter what their background. I am not privy to the amount of money or time which has been allowed for training of IIO investigators, but I am skeptical it has been enough.

I do understand that there is not an unlimited amount of money which can be given to the budget of the IIO. The great mistake may be in trying to save money and inadvertently hindering the effectiveness of the organization. When I look at the tremendous cost of inquests, court cases, judicial awards and out-of-court settlements paid out by police forces and therefore taxpayers, I expect that, overall, it would be more prudent to fund the IIO for all of its needs.

There has been money in the budget for connecting with the public to explain what the mandate and scope of the IIO really is. While IIO management is making a very sincere effort to accomplish this, I think that the general public, even more skeptical than me, will only be convinced through successful conclusions to IIO investigations.

One of the areas of concern for me was, and still is, the dependence on police labs for forensic examination of evidence and the opinions offered to investigators on the significance of the evidence. This may be an area of improvement since 2005, but I would be far more comfortable with a greater forensics knowledge base within the IIO itself.

There may be personnel with experience in other jurisdictions which the IIO could hire, or there may be training which could further the knowledge of the investigators already on staff who find that forensics is their area of interest. I ask that the IIO be funded to the extent necessary to further forensic knowledge within the organization.

We live in a large province with many locations extremely difficult to access. One thing I am very concerned
[ Page 79 ]
about is the preservation on the scene and interaction with the subject officer before the IIO personnel arrive. Again, this arises out of personal experience.

When senior police officers spoke to us after Ian died, they assured us that only the first officer on the scene would have access until major crimes arrived from Prince George. During the inquest it became apparent that all of the local RCMP had access, even those who were off-duty. Even more distressing was the fact that the subject officer's trainer had private time with him before major crimes arrived.

I ask that the IIO be able to establish an MOU with an agency which will have personnel in the area and be available to take charge of the scene and the subject officer. I ask that this agency take detailed video on arrival. I suggest the coroner's office, as a coroner will likely be called to the scene at some point. Perhaps the sheriff's office is another possibility. Perhaps there is another solution. In my opinion, what may transpire during the travel time of the IIO personnel may be one of the largest hurdles the IIO may have to face in an investigation.

The first thing that creates confusion in the minds of people is the narrow scope of the IIO investigation. It's my understanding that it's only to determine if the subject officer did anything criminally wrong leading to the death or serious injury. We out there want to hold the subject officer and all other officers directly involved responsible for moral wrongdoing, sexist or racist attitudes and any criminal act which occurs anywhere during the incident.

We see a great need to address possible incompetence of the subject officer or the officer in charge which leads to the death or serious injury.

The IIO can and does refer any suspect behaviour they see to the CPC. This does nothing to ease the anger and frustration of families or the public in general who once again see police as not being held responsible for what we see as serious misconduct and raises doubts about the final IIO decision on the recommendations to Crown.

I ask that the legislation be amended to give IIO the ability to make recommendations to Crown counsel about any aspect of their investigation from the first call to its conclusion. The seriousness of the behaviour and the effect it has on the events which led to the death or serious injury would determine the agency to which the director would choose to make a recommendation. I am well aware that this will meet with great opposition from police agencies but hope that it would become one of those safety valves which police would come to value.

There is a great deal of mistrust in the public on the fact that the IIO makes its recommendations to the Attorney General — perhaps rightly so. The Attorney General's office has to maintain a healthy, trusting working relationship with the police departments of the province. It is also perceived that there is a reluctance to proceed with charges unless there is a high possibility of conviction. These two facts make people skeptical that a case would go to court even if the IIO reports that an officer may have committed a crime.

It is my opinion that taking a case to court where it is a reasonable, not just iron-clad, expectation of conviction would be in the best interest of the people of the province of B.C. I believe this is still part of the mandate of the court system. The court would bring facts out, thereby giving the public confidence in the system. I ask that serious consideration be given to the creation of a special prosecutor to receive the recommendations made by the IIO.

There has been a great deal of discussion on the scope of the IIO mandate. My first question was: who determines what is serious harm? It turns out that this is quite ambiguous. If there is blood spilled or broken bones, it's likely deemed to be serious harm. What about the difficult-to-measure, long-term effects of assault or sexual assault by a police officer? Everyone I know expected sexual assault to be considered serious harm. No one I have talked to about this can deny that there are very serious, life-altering effects from a sexual assault.

I ask that sexual assault by a police officer be added to the IIO mandate for investigation. Assault by a police officer against a citizen is, in my opinion, serious harm. The police officer is in a position of authority and trust, so the victim of such an assault has suffered more harm than the physical ones which can be easily measured.

There are cases where the amount of harm, such as brain damage or a back injury which will prevent a person from being able to work, may not be apparent until long past the time when an investigation should have taken place.

One of the most serious effects of not giving the IIO jurisdiction over such incidents is that it allows police officers who are resistant to change to continue believing they are untouchable, that their commanding officers will stand by them no matter what. No one ever thinks they are going to have a serious illness. I expect police officers never expect to find themselves the subject of an investigation into the death or serious injury of a citizen.

Without careful behaviour modification of officers who tend to assert themselves physically — like choosing a healthy diet in order to avoid cancer — there will always be the potential of accidentally crossing the line. Having the IIO investigate assaults would go a long way towards deterring such behaviour. I ask that the definition of "serious harm" be broadened to include the effects of assault by a police officer and that assault by a police officer be added to the IIO mandate for investigation.

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak to you. I will be honoured to answer any questions you have about my presentation, or any others, which have come to mind.
[ Page 80 ]

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Ms. Bush. I just wanted to…. You raised the question of the action of the IIO, in the investigation, if they discover something that may not be criminal but may be morally wrong. Your suggestion that the IIO can still make recommendations around that issue — if you could just expand on that.

I know there is another process separate from the IIO. Is the concern that people see the IIO as saying: "Well, no, there are no criminal charges; it's not serious harm"? This is another matter that the public might assume that no other investigation would occur or no other discipline would ensue?

L. Bush: Two things. When you have a recommendation that there are to be no charges, you'll get people…. It's not correct, necessarily, but it's the perception that: "Oh yeah. Well, they're just looking after themselves again."

Secondly, I think that if the investigation only centres on the subject officer who caused the death or the serious harm, you are not able, then, to make recommendations for charges or that someone may have done something criminal at earlier points during the investigation. I think that there should be a lot wider scope in what they can deal with — like criminal negligence or just a wide, wide variety of charges — before you come down to causing a death or a murder or whatever.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): If I can understand it, the idea, then, that you're suggesting is: widen the scope of the investigation to involve more people, potentially, or the wider circumstance.

L. Bush: I think they should be able to deal with the whole incident from the time it was called, the time it began, to its conclusion. For instance, if a commanding officer is not paying enough attention and doesn't guide the officers appropriately and that puts them in a position where they had no choice then but to make a shot or however it happens, they should be able to lay charges on that person as well.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for your thoughtful presentation. I have raised previously, and share your concerns about, the challenges for the IIO to be the first at the scene — or the second at the scene, I guess, more realistically, in places that are not downtown Vancouver or Victoria or other large urban areas. I really appreciate your thoughts on that about the possibility of the coroner's office….

I certainly have, with regard to a number of committees or various forums where I have had a chance to ask questions about this, expressed real concern about the sequestering of evidence and of officers. It is a real challenge, and I think it's one that the IIO is grappling with as well. The ideal is to have the officer, if it looks like an appropriate case, sequestered. Traditionally, I know that in investigations one of the concerns that has been expressed repeatedly is that officers have had a chance to have discussions, and you talked about exactly that happening. I share that.

I'm not sure whether there is a perfect answer to that, but I appreciate your thoughtfulness on some possibilities about how to make the system work better in that regard. So that's just a thank-you. And any comment you might have….

L. Bush: I've heard people talk about the officer having the same rights to counsel as anyone else would, and I'm not denying that. But they most definitely shouldn't have access to their friends for advice and whoever else happens along.

I do believe that police officers deserve to have exactly the same rights as any other citizen when they are facing criminal charges. But then again, there are the same responsibilities in terms of dealing with the case.

In other words, if an officer would come in, when there's some kind of criminal activity, and put one person over here immediately and one person over there and say: "You can't talk to each other." If that is the case for a criminal investigation, if that's the standard, that's the appropriate standard, and it doesn't matter who it is. That's my feeling.

S. Fraser: Thanks, Ms. Bush, for the very thoughtful presentation and great recommendations. I want clarity on one. You raise concerns about having the appropriate level of training and with that, this civilianization of the organization — if it's done wrong, that the expertise may not be there — and the extension beyond five years. But you're still in favour of the move towards the civilianization, the separating — you know, the perception of police investigating the police — or not?

L. Bush: At this point I think I am, but I think they need more time to get their feet under them. But I also, in saying that, wanted to make it clear that I don't think just because a former police officer has got all that experience they're qualified as a civilian until they've had training specific to doing a civilian investigation and how to interact with their fellow civilian officers and investigators and how to be part of a civilian unit.

M. Morris (Chair): No further questions. Thanks very much for coming down.
[ Page 81 ]

D. Bing: Thank you for your presentation. My question relates to what Scott was just asking, actually.

It always seems to me that when you're looking for people to fill a position, you should always get the best person for the job and not have artificial criteria — you know, having some sort of idealistic idea, I guess. And this civilianization thing, as I asked the assistant commissioner earlier, does seem to have some concerns for me.

You state here that the director should be given discretion to hire former officers, and I think that kind of discretion is important if you have the choice between maybe two candidates and one has better qualifications than the other. Would you agree with that?

L. Bush: Speaking as myself, I definitely agree that you should hire the person who's best qualified and then after that give them the training necessary to become part of a civilian unit.

I'm just thinking a little bit about the perception of the IIO and whether they're ever going to have credibility with the public at large. I have a different view of things, having been there, done that, you know. Then, from all of my interaction with currently serving and former police over the last nine years, I can clearly see that there are a lot of good intentions amongst former police but also that they might inadvertently slip into old patterns if they haven't had the training once they arrive at the IIO.

M. Morris (Chair): No further questions. Again, thank you, Ms. Bush. I appreciate you coming down.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is 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)
	* Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
	* Dr. Darryl Plecas (Abbotsford South BC Liberal)
	* Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	* denotes member present
Clerk:	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Ron Wall (Manager, Committee Research Services)

Witnesses:	Tom Almasi (Royal Canadian Mounted Police Staff Relations Representative Program)
	Linda Bush (Families for Police Accountability)
	Asia Czapska (Justice for Girls)
	Stan Lowe (Police Complaint Commissioner)
	Tracey Matters
	Josh Paterson (Executive Director, B.C. Civil Liberties Association)
	Wayne Rideout (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
	Adrienne Smith (Pivot Legal Society)
	Rollie Woods (Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner)

6) Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner	Stan T. Lowe
	Rollie Woods

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE