Review the Independent Investigations Office — Issue No. 7

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

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	85
R. Creasser
M. Lawrence
M. Macham
Committee Meeting Schedule	98

M. Morris (Chair): Good morning, everybody. Thanks for joining us here this morning. A little bit of technical difficulties getting going this morning, but I think we’re all here and present and accounted for.

My name is Mike Morris, and I’m the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and the Chair of this committee, the Special Committee to Review the Independent Investigations Office.

Today we’re continuing our review of the administration and general operations of the IIO and the progress of its chief civilian director towards a goal of staffing the office with employees and investigators who have never served as officers or members of a police or law enforcement agency.

In May and June we received technical briefings from the Ministry of Justice and the IIO’s chief civilian director and his staff. On September 11 we heard from a wide range of stakeholders. We launched a public consultation process in June on the work of the IIO. We have already received many useful submissions. The deadline for submissions is October 31, and I invite anyone else who wishes to make a submission to do so by that date.

It’s a pleasure 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 meeting transcript will be available on our website later today.

I want to remind everyone that the committee does not have the mandate to review individual cases, past or present, nor can we comment on cases before the courts.

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

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Spencer Chandra Herbert, MLA for Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour.

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

K. Corrigan: I think that leaves me on the phone — Kathy Corrigan, MLA for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

M. Morris (Chair): Thank you, Kathy. We have Ron Wall with our committee research, and we have Susan Sourial as the Clerk for the committee here. With that, we’ll get started.

I understand Robert Creasser is on the phone with the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada. Sir, are you there?

R. Creasser: First of all, I’d like to know whether the committee has seen the September 11, 2014, submission that the Mounted Police Professional Association has submitted.

Our position as an association is that police expertise is required. We are concerned with the fact that although the goal of civilian-led investigations is a noble one, until we have sufficient training in place…. Our position is also that 18 months is not sufficient for the type of investigation that the IIO is going to be doing, which is serious investigations involving injury and death. I don’t know how much more serious you can get than that.

Eighteen months is not sufficient, and expertise that has been gleaned through one’s police service should trump concerns over bias. I think those concerns over bias can be dealt with through the hiring of ex–police officers.

We’ve basically looked at previous civilian oversight agencies. I personally have a connection with ASIRT in Alberta. My brother, who just recently retired from the Calgary city police with 30 years of policing experience, for the last two or three years of his service was actually seconded to ASIRT, which, of course, is their civilian oversight agency of police in Alberta. His current job is the district commander for the south part of the province. He leads all investigations into incidents that ASIRT looks at in the southern portion of the province.

In speaking with him on a fairly regular basis, I can assure you that those investigations that he deals with —
[ Page 86 ]
which are basically all, I understand, retired police officers from either the Mounted Police or other municipal agencies — are viewed as being competent, bias-free and thorough investigations.

Now, I agree. The committee may point out that they haven’t had, maybe, the high-profile incidents of police being involved in, say, the Dziekanski incident at YVR and several other high-profile things, but high-profile incidents are not limited to the province of B.C. They have occurred in Alberta. They’ve been investigated by former police officers, and in many instances charges have been put forward.

I also refer to probably the longest-standing independent, civilian-led oversight agency, and that would be the SIU in Ontario. Again, looking at the Davies report, the hiring of police officers, ex–police officers, didn’t seem to adversely affect the investigations there.

I am a former 28-year member of the Mounted Police. I retired in 2010. I was told early in my policing service that in order to be a competent investigator, you need at least five years of street-level policing before you could even be considered for the type of investigations that the IIO will be tasked with. I needed five years of street-level policing, investigating everything from barking dogs to break and enters, before they would even look at me for a plainclothes section that would deal with the type of investigations that the IIO is now tasked with.

I really think we need to be aware of the fact that by not using the expertise that has been gleaned through years of service and hoping that we can train civilians in 18 months…. I think the first and foremost component of the IIO has to be competent investigations, and I think that through your hiring processes you can ensure that if you do look at ex–police officers, you really target your interview process to ensure that the people that you’re looking at don’t bring those biases into the job.

Now, I know I’m nowhere near my 20-minute presentation, but I’d be more than willing to take on any questions you have at this point.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Creasser, for the presentation, and thank you to the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada for the submission.

I’m curious. Given that in B.C. the IIO can hire ex–police officers if they’ve been out of service for five years or, indeed, from another jurisdiction, is that enough expertise, do you think, if that’s mixed with civilianization? Do you think that mix would work rather than full civilianization?

Do you think we should be moving to something more like…? You could have somebody who was a police officer who retired a year ago from B.C. and then come in. What kind of difference do you think that would make, or do you have any thoughts on that matter?

R. Creasser: Actually, I do, and I’m glad you brought that point up, sir. One of the things that I feel is that that five-year limitation, where one has to be retired for five years before the IIO will even look at them, is too long. I would submit that within a two-year period would be accurate because it’s the old saying: expertise not used gets lost. If you don’t use it, you lose it.

Over a five-year period of time the nuances of investigative, of watching for behaviour during interviews, if you’re not…. Five years is a long time, and I think a lot of those skills may depart over time. I would recommend that in terms of hiring ex–police officers, that limit be brought down, and my suggestion would be in the two-year time frame.

Now, one of the things, having brought that up, I think we need is for the IIO to have stability in terms of employees. From what I’ve been told — and I’m not sure over what period of time this is — there has been a fairly high turnover of employees that have been hired, both ex–police officers and civilians. My understanding is that three ex–police officers that were hired have now moved on, and four civilians that were hired have now left the employment of the IIO.

That, I think, is of concern. I think you want to have stability in the employment of people working for the IIO. You want to ensure going forward that if people do choose to leave, they’ve mentored people that have come in and taken over from their positions. The IIO being a relatively new agency, I think it’s of concern when you see the level of turnover that I’m hearing about.

M. Morris (Chair): Kathy, you’re not in the room here, but do you have any questions?

K. Corrigan: Yes, sure I do. I just wasn’t sure whether other people were on the list.

Thank you for your submission. I really appreciate it. I’m also on a telephone, but I do have your written submission in front of me.

One of the aims of the independent investigations office is to eventually be completely civilianized. Do you not think that if we have a transition period, at some point civilians will have enough experience and there will be enough civilians with experience in that office that that amount of experience will be there — that in fact we could transfer over to a completely civilian office? That would be my first question.

R. Creasser: I do believe that’s possible, ma’am, but I don’t think…. In what I’m reading right now, I think you’re moving way too quickly. Again, the turnover of the employees to date is of concern.

I think it’s a noble goal, and I do think it’s achievable,
[ Page 87 ]
but I don’t think you want to rush into it. I think you want to have the expertise there for, I don’t know, five or ten years so that the people — the civilians, not the police…. If you want to phase out police altogether, I think that can be done, but I don’t think you want to rush to do it. I think you want to establish, as I’ve indicated earlier….

I was told I had to work five years on the streets of Langley before they would even consider me to wear plain clothes and to deal with the types of serious investigations that the IIO is tasked with. I’m suggesting that, yes, at some point you can be a completely civilian agency. Don’t rush to get there.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns that is expressed by those that think there should be a fully civilianized independent investigations office is the concern about what is perceived as a culture of…. I guess they call it “the blue line” or whatever. It’s the culture of a solidarity that exists within the police. It’s very difficult to break that, and it’s very pervasive in police forces. A concern that if you don’t fully civilianize, you’re going to continue to have public concern about the fact that it seems to the public that police officers have a tendency to protect each other when they’re in trouble and that there’s, in fact, a duty and a culture that says: “We need to do that.”

I’m playing devil’s advocate. I’m not saying that that’s always the case, but I’m wondering how you respond to that pretty pervasive public concern about that culture.

R. Creasser: To be fair, I don’t disagree with you that that perception is out there, but I think that’s fueled through many of the high-profile incidents that have happened and by the media. I can assure you that in my 28 years there were many opportunities for me and the people that I worked with to “circle the wagons.” I think there are people….

Now, whether it’s pervasive, I can only speak on my experience. I felt it was not. A lot of the people that saw things that went on that maybe would not have been well accepted by the public, we talked about. I think you have to focus on the fact that there are many police…. Whether you call it pervasive or not, there are many of us that joined because we had strong moral and ethical compasses. I think there are people that, I agree with you, would call it the blue line, or whatever. But there are just as many, if not more, that are willing to speak up. In my service the speaking.… I did, and I know several of my colleagues did as well.

The perception is out there. Whether it’s accurate or not, I can’t say for sure. From my experience it’s not.

K. Corrigan: Sorry. I don’t see the hands there, so I don’t mean to be unfair. I’ll do one more.

I guess just following on that…. So you don’t think that there is a sense, in police departments, that if somebody like you, who said you were willing to speak up, kind of set yourself apart a little bit in that if you speak up against a fellow officer…. If you see something, some wrongdoing, or you think that police officers are getting together to, for example, coordinate their stories after an incident, those kinds of things happening…. If you were to speak up about that, there would not be a certain level of ostracism or that you would be set in a police department as: “Okay, that’s one of the people that we can’t trust.” You don’t think that that kind of thing is happening in police departments across Canada at this point.

R. Creasser: Oh, I didn’t say that. I think it does, but I still think there are enough people out there that will speak up. I’m not disagreeing with what you’ve just portrayed. I’m saying that it…. I’m not so sure that that doesn’t exist in other workplaces as well.

Just one main question. You suggest that we should be thinking about moving the waiting period from five years to two years. One might ask: “Well, why have a waiting period at all?” I mean, if the goal is, as it ought to be, to have the most competent people, the most competent investigators, on the job, what difference would it make whether there’s any waiting period or not? It seems to me if you’re willing to say that it ought to be two, you ought to be willing to say it should be zero. Or am I missing something?

R. Creasser: Well, no. I just thought that was a compromise. I picked two out of a hat.

I just think that this committee is weighing concerns about hiring ex-police and trying to come up with some kind of an idea, if you’re going to hire ex-police, when that should be.

All I’m suggesting — and I think it’s an accurate suggestion — is that the longer you wait after an officer has retired, the greater the chance that the skills he’s obtained are going to start to diminish because he’s no longer using them. I think five years is excessive. I leave it open to the committee. You’re trying to balance the hiring of somebody that was a policeman yesterday who’s now a civilian today and bring them into the organization. His skills are going to be right there.

Clearly, you’re trying to balance a perception of bias by the public with the hiring of ex–police officers. Two years was a figure I picked. I leave it up to the committee. All I’m suggesting is that five years is too long.

D. Plecas: Perhaps if I could ask a second question, Chair, and that is: what about the notion of all of the investigators being ex-police? I’m not saying that’s the
[ Page 88 ]
way it should be but again, following the logic of saying, “What we care about is having the most competent people,” and not saying that we shouldn’t be entertaining the idea of having even all civilians if all civilians were proven to be the most competent people for the job.

In extending the logic, why couldn’t one say that it is conceivable that through a process of selection, it just turned out that they were all ex-police?

R. Creasser: I do believe that’s a possibility. In fact, I think you’re seeing it in the neighbouring province of Alberta. My understanding is that all of the ASIRT employees are ex-police — either RCMP or municipal police — again doing very similar work to what the IIO is tasked with. In fact, my brother was recruited by Mr. Rosenthal when he was setting up his organization. He chose to stay where he did.

I do believe, again, that this committee is going to have to make a decision and balance this perception of bias of police officers with having 100 percent ex–police officers — competency versus potential bias.

I don’t disagree with you, Dr. Plecas, that having all ex–police officers would probably provide you with the most competent investigative team, at least to start.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): I did. In the submission it seems to suggest there that you’re wanting to see a balance — the organization is wanting to see a balance — that respects the recommendations coming out of Braidwood, the Frank Paul inquiry and more, which came to the conclusion that we should have civilian inspectors, or at least civilianization, to ensure the public had support for the police services and for the investigations because they could see that there was a certain amount of independence, while also suggesting that we need to find that balance.

Even if you had full civilianization, if people don’t know what they’re doing, you’re not breeding confidence in the process if they don’t have the experience to do the investigations appropriately. I think that made a lot of sense to me — that we, as a committee, of course, and the IIO have to be working hard to find a way that we can ensure the investigations are done competently, regardless of whether they are civilian-led or ex-police-led. Of course, the goal of the IIO right now is to proceed to full civilianization eventually, without a strict timeline.

I’m curious. In your experience, would it work if audits, per se, of investigations over time were done to basically check: are these folks appropriately skilled? I’m not sure if police investigations and, of course, judicial proceedings might make this difficult. But in your experience as a police officer, is that something that’s done to…?

Somebody may be a skilled investigator after three years, whereas somebody might not be a skilled investigator even after five years of being out on the force. They may never achieve those skills. People are different. Is there a way that that can be assessed other than just putting an arbitrary “pick a time out of a hat”? Five years may never be good enough, or they may be ready at three. Do you get my meaning?

R. Creasser: Well, I’m not sure who you would want to audit that type of situation. I always go in to deal with what they call major case management. People are either dead or severely injured, and they require…. When there was a homicide in the jurisdictions that I worked, they had major case managers come in who were plainclothes police officers, detectives, and they were very familiar with how to set up the file to go forward. There was a section for tips. There was a section for forensic evidence.

If I’m hearing you correctly, you would want somebody that had major case file management as somebody to come in and audit to make sure that things are being done correctly, interviews are being charter compliant and people have had their rights given to them, etc.

You’d want, probably, in your hiring process, especially of ex–police officers, to look for those types of experiences — somebody that had worked serious crimes for half their service, or those types of things. But I agree with you that everybody is different and everybody has the ability to peak later or sooner.

But you would want somebody, as the auditor coming in, to look at — especially civilians — to say: “This guy has been on the job for three years now. He’s still making these types of mistakes. Maybe he’s not well suited to this.” Or somebody after 18 months: “This guy is right up to snuff. He seems to get it. He understands” or “She’s doing a great job.” But it depends on who the auditor is that you bring in to look at those types of things.

S. Fraser: Thanks, Mr. Creasser, for your submission and being here for so long. Just following along the same vein here. The riddle here, in my opinion, is balancing the issues of competency and expertise in investigations with that of bias or the perception of bias. You referred to it several times, in Alberta — is it the ASIRT team there?

S. Fraser: They are largely, or completely, police staffed. Did I get that correct?

S. Fraser: Okay. In your understanding, have they had an issue with…? I won’t say bias, but let’s say the perception of bias, because that’s as important an issue for us.
[ Page 89 ]
Is that an issue in Alberta? Are you aware of any sort of backlash that the investigations may be biased?

R. Creasser: I am not. Mind you, to be fair, I don’t live in that province. I have family that lives there, and obviously my brother lives there. But in speaking with him, I do not get the sense that the public distrusts, or there’s a perception of distrust, once ASIRT is called in to investigate a file.

M. Morris (Chair): Kathy, anything that’s come up while the discussion has gone on?

K. Corrigan: Well, I’m not sure if the witness plans to present any more, but if not, then I do have a couple of questions about some of the other issues that are raised in the presentation.

The issue of the consolidation — two issues: the expansion of the IIO mandate to cover sexual assault and the comments on that, and then the consolidation of the complaints in the IIO criminal investigation.

I guess my first issue is: does Mr. Creasser plan to talk about those, or should I ask my question now?

R. Creasser: No, I’m sorry. I kind of cut myself short there, but no, please go ahead and ask your question.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I just wonder if you could expand a little bit on the concern about the consolidation of complaints in the IIO criminal investigations. It’s a couple of sentences, and I think I understand it. But perhaps you could just talk about that a little bit and then, as well, your position on the expansion of the IIO mandate to include sexual assaults.

R. Creasser: Okay. Well, on the issue of consolidation of complaints in the IIO investigations, I still think the mandate should be as now is indicated. Our association’s position, as laid out here, is that blending oversight roles would risk prejudicing the rights of the members that are under investigation.

What we’re looking at, if you’re proceeding with an investigation…. I’ll just refer to the latest one that seems to have made the news — the officer in Delta that’s now being charged with a very serious offence. We have a B.C. complaints commission that deals with conduct, and I think right now with the IIO in its very beginning stages, it is well advised to stay focused on its current mandate and not spread out to an oversight agency in relation to other matters.

K. Corrigan: Could you just explain? What types of rights of the subject members would you see as being prejudiced? Is it because under the complaints process, there’s a greater requirement for disclosure than there is under the IIO process? What is the concern there more specifically?

R. Creasser: Well, say we have a complaint that’s dealing with the same issue the IIO is investigating. In the complaint procedure — I think you’ve accurately touched on that — where the officer may be compelled to at least provide a statement under the complaint procedure, the issue would be the concern that somehow that statement becomes available in, say, a Criminal Code investigation. I would not want to see that happen.

K. Corrigan: Can I then ask about another submission that we’ve received, which is interesting, and that we’re going to be dealing with in a few minutes? Perhaps I’ll get your reaction on that if you feel comfortable doing it.

One of the suggestions that is made — because of the Supreme Court of Canada decision that has happened since the MOU and the provisions that apply to the IIO here have come into play — is that officers should be required to provide notes and an accounting, basically, of what happened prior to speaking to counsel. This suggestion is that because of the Supreme Court of Canada decision that says that is required, because there’s a greater need in these kinds of cases for there to be transparency, that should happen.

So when you’re talking about the prejudicing of rights and so on, do you have a reaction to that very specific recommendation?

R. Creasser: I’m not familiar with the Supreme Court case that you’re referring to. I was not aware of that particular ruling indicating that police officers must provide any notes prior to speaking to counsel. I wasn’t aware of that.

K. Corrigan: Oh. Well, it’s an interesting one. I invite you to stay and listen to our next presenter, because I think we’ll probably be dealing with exactly that particular point.

R. Creasser: Okay. If I may ask, when did that decision come down? Like I say, I follow the Supreme Court rulings on a fairly regular basis, but I certainly wasn’t made aware of that one.

K. Corrigan: Yeah. It’s going to be dealt with in the submission of Michelle Lawrence from the faculty of law. It deals with the decision in the case of Wood v. Schaeffer, which was a 2013 Supreme Court of Canada case.

We’ve only got two minutes left. Doug Bing, you said you’ve got a question.
[ Page 90 ]

D. Bing: Thank you, Mr. Creasser, for your presentation. I was noting that you made quite a presentation about the Ontario Special Investigations Unit. Mr. Davies noted that it was a model of civilian oversight and was a sound model. It employs, of course, both civilian and police-trained investigators. I was wondering if you feel this is a model that British Columbia should be following, rather than the model of moving to completely civilian oversight.

R. Creasser: If I had a choice, sir, I would. I would choose the Special Investigations Unit model. I think it is the longest-running oversight agency in Canada. I think there’s been a pretty good track record. I have contacts in Ontario that talk about the SIU — and not negatively, so that’s a good thing. Like I say, there is value in having ex–police officers involved in investigating current police officers. The issue for committees like yourselves is to find a balance that will allow public confidence in what’s occurring within the IIO.

D. Bing: Do you know if Ontario has a quota as to the number of civilian investigators they have? Or is it just based on competency? How do they do it?

R. Creasser: No, sir. I’m not aware of how they determine the balance between ex–police officers and civilian employees.

Mr. Creasser, I appreciate your presentation here this morning — very insightful. We’ve still got a couple of days left that we’re accepting submissions from the public, so if there’s anything that arises from the discussion we’ve had today and you feel that you’d like to add your comments, by all means do so.

M. Morris (Chair): We’ll now go on to our next presenter, Dr. Lawrence, please.

K. Corrigan: Mike, it’s Kathy here. I just wanted to apologize in advance. I’m going to have to leave at 11 o’clock, so I’ll just be ringing off at that time. I’m very sorry that I’m going to have to miss the rest of the morning after that, but I have something that I have to attend to here.

Dr. Lawrence, you’ve got 20 minutes, and we’ll follow that up with ten minutes of questions for you.

M. Lawrence: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, may I ask who’s attending by telephone?

M. Morris (Chair): Kathy is the only individual that we have on the phone right now, right?

M. Lawrence: Thank you. Before I begin, I’ll just set out my background. I am a member of the faculty of law at the University of Victoria, where I am responsible for teaching and research in the areas of criminal law and the law of evidence. I previously practised law as a partner at the litigation department of McCarthy Tétrault in Vancouver. I was called to the bar of British Columbia in 1999. I have specific experience acting as legal counsel in cases involving allegations of excess and lethal force on the part of police officers.

I hold graduate degrees in law and in criminology, including a master of laws degree from the University of Cambridge and a doctorate in criminology from Simon Fraser University. I completed my doctoral studies as a Trudeau scholar. I base my submissions on professional experience and scholarly study, but as I noted in my written submissions — and I do so again in the interests of full disclosure — I do have a family connection to one particular case that has been the subject of IIO investigation.

Today I offer two recommendations to the committee. Firstly, I recommend the investiture to the chief civilian officer of the power to compel timely preparation and production of police notes by subject officers. Secondly, I recommend that police officers be equipped with body-worn cameras for use in their dealings with persons in crisis. I consider these recommendations to be modest in nature and in scope, but I offer them still because they are simple and, I believe, achievable.

But more importantly, they speak to a very real and very troubling gap that exists between the law as it appears on the books of British Columbia and justice as it is experienced and practised on the ground.

On the books is part 7.1 of our province’s Police Act. It establishes a civilian monitoring agency in the form of the independent investigations office. It sets out tight and tidy lines of jurisdiction. It articulates reporting requirements. It demands a certain level of independence. And it calls on the chief civilian director to refer to Crown counsel all cases in which an offence may have occurred.

There is undoubtedly a pleasing aesthetic of justice in this law. Much of the conversation that I have heard and that I have reviewed in the context of this commit-
[ Page 91 ]
tee’s deliberations concerns improvements yet to this aesthetic, including enhanced civilianization of the IIO investigatory force.

These are important matters. However, I worry that a preoccupation with the aesthetic of justice is distracting — distracting from core and difficult questions about the practical ability of investigators to fully and properly assess allegations of police misconduct, owing not to defects in our law but to shortcomings and limitations in matters of evidence.

I borrow this reference to Nietzsche included in a recent article on civilian oversight offered by my colleague in the legal academy, Prof. Kent Roach. He reminds us that the most common form of stupidity is to forget one’s purposes.

The purpose of civilian monitoring of police is to enforce the rule of law, to ensure that police officers, of all people, are held to account for any wrongdoing on their part, to ensure that they do not operate above or outside of the law, to ensure that they are worthy of the tremendous trust that we place in them, a trust which is essential to the peaceful operation of Canadian society.

What does our law give to IIO investigators to carry out this purpose? The Police Act says that officers must cooperate with the chief civilian director and with IIO investigators as they conduct their investigations, yet curiously, this cooperation does not extend to the production of police notes.

Of concern to me is article 17.4 of the memorandum of understanding dated February 12, 2013, and signed by the IIO and B.C. police. It operates so as to allow subject officers to refuse requests for police notes, other than those that record statements made to them. But more likely, it allows them to delay the preparation and production of these notes until after they have consulted legal counsel.

There are two problems with this provision. First, there is the obvious and the familiar problem of appearance. In the case of Wood and Schaeffer, a recent decision of our Supreme Court of Canada concerning the Special Investigations Unit. Justice Moldaver had this to say, and I quote the relevant part:

“The difficulty with allowing officers to fully consult with counsel at the note-making stage is that it creates an ‘appearances problem’ similar to the one the SIU was created to overcome. A reasonable member of the public would naturally question whether counsel’s assistance at the note-making stage is sought by officers to help them fulfill their duties as police officers or if it is instead sought in their self-interest, to protect themselves and their colleagues from the potential liability of an adverse SIU investigation.”

“Public trust in the police is, and always must be, of paramount concern. This concern requires that officers prepare their notes without the assistance of counsel. Consultations with counsel during the note-making stage are antithetical to the very purpose of the legislative scheme and…must be rejected.”

It is for these reasons, articulated in greater length and so eloquently by Justice Moldaver in his judgment, that I urge this committee to initiate reforms that elevate the obligations of B.C. police officers to the standards expected of their Ontario counterparts. These are standards that I would hope our police leadership would likewise endorse, given the very clear position of the court on the issue.

But I note that a requirement of this nature in relation to police notes is important not only for its esthetic. Indeed, to stop the analysis there would not address the issues of substantive justice that I began my submissions with. This takes me to the second problem with the exemption in article 17.4.

As I say in my written submissions, it is a crude, cruel reality that police incidents of the nature that come under investigation by the IIO, particularly police-related fatalities, often occur in circumstances where there is little, if any, direct evidence available to investigators apart from that provided by the officer or officers involved.

I have come to the view that at least in the current climate, there will rarely be sufficient evidence in these cases to meet the Crown’s charge approval standard. In this arena, the ground for reasonable doubt is fertile. Perhaps the best one might expect is that IIO investigators will be able to simply report what police witnesses said happened and the extent to which their accounts accord with or depart from other pieces of circumstantial evidence. It is not impossible for a basket of evidence of this nature to ground a conviction for a criminal charge, but it is ambitious.

So the question that I have asked myself is this. What more and better can be done to further the purpose of our civilian oversight laws, to bridge the gap between the aspirations of the law on the books and the clinical realities of evidence on the ground?

Police notes prepared and produced in a timely manner by all officers, including subject officers, will take us some distance down this road. Body-worn cameras and the audio and video recording of police dealings will take us considerably further.

This takes me to my second recommendation. I say to you this. The time has come to require that police officers operating in British Columbia be equipped with body-mounted cameras for the recording of their dealings with persons in crisis. I join in the chorus of voices resounding from every corner of this continent that support police use of audio and video recording devices.

One of the most significant voices to weigh in to this debate in recent months is that of the eminent former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci. In my written piece I make reference to the report that he prepared for the Toronto police services. This is a report that was commissioned by the chief of police shortly after the highly publicized shooting death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim in a Toronto streetcar. The incident was captured on amateur video, and the officer responsible for the shooting is now facing a charge of murder.

Opponents to body-worn cameras speak often of two objections. The first concerns privacy. Iacobucci address-
[ Page 92 ]
es this directly in his report and outlines suggested content for privacy protocols that ought to be put in place. I commend these to you.

Otherwise, opponents point to costs. Now, this is a matter which perhaps is best left in your hands. I would simply venture to guess that the cost of equipping our officers with cameras pales in comparison to the injuries and the harms that we all suffer when evidence of police encounters is not available to us for forensic review.

Chief among those injuries and harms is the erosion of trust by the public, an erosion of trust that the public experiences when we are left to guess about what exactly happened in any given case.

Nine coroners’ inquests in British Columbia have recommended the use of recording devices by police. I expect that the inquiry into the recent death of Peter de Groot will culminate in a similar recommendation. One can only imagine the potential that video evidence would have or could have on a case of that nature.

Of course, it bears note, also, that the use of cameras by police might even avert the use of force in the first place. Field studies referred to in the Iacobucci report suggest that body-worn cameras not only improve the collection of evidence, but they also contribute to de-escalation more generally.

Is that not or should that not be the paramount purpose of civilian oversight? Not just to hold officers to account for wrongdoing but to deter and prevent wrongdoing in the first place, by both police and citizens, and perhaps even save lives in the process?

In closing, let me say that I find it understandable when public confidence in the police and in IIO investigators comes under strain, as IIO referrals and subsequent charge approval recommendations are based not on the presence of evidence but on its absence. We read big and bold statements in the press about officers being cleared of criminal charges when, in fact, in the fine print in those official reports we see not an exoneration, not a declaration of innocence but a finding that the evidence was simply insufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof. This is a problem.

We can seek to improve the aesthetic of justice. Aesthetics are important, and improvements can only be welcome. But if we are to expect IIO investigators to deliver substantive justice in relation to the application of the rule of law, then we must ensure that they have access to the evidence that they need, evidence which allows them to adequately assess, test, refute and, where appropriate, confirm allegations of misconduct.

We can contribute to the same through a simple requirement of the timely preparation and production of police notes and a requirement that police make use of audio and video recording devices when dealing with persons in crisis. These are modest contributions, but I say they are worthy of your consideration nonetheless.

S. Fraser: Thank you very much for your submission, Dr. Lawrence. I’m intrigued. The idea of wearing body cameras, audiovisual equipment, specifically in dealing with people in crisis, in those confrontations, is not unheard of in B.C. Recently police in Vancouver enforcing evictions were wearing those.

Do you have any idea how that decision would be made? Obviously, it can be done, and it is being done in some circumstances. Is that something…? Do you have any insight into how that plays out, how a decision would be made and what steps would be made to make that a universal situation?

M. Lawrence: I can only venture to guess on some aspects of that issue. My understanding is that the use of cameras by B.C. police at this point is within the discretion of the leadership of the police force. For example, in the case of the use of cameras during the eviction of the Vancouver park — I believe that decision was made by the chief of the Vancouver police.

But this government has the ability to require the police operating within its jurisdiction, whether they are members of municipal forces or members of the RCMP, to be equipped with body-worn cameras. This government has that ability. My understanding is that consideration of the issue is now with our Ministry of Justice.

D. Plecas: I don’t have a question. I just want to thank you for a very insightful and well-articulated presentation.

Thank you very much. I agree. I think this is an excellent presentation. It raises to me — just as an observation, first of all — a larger question.

We, as a committee, I don’t think would have been aware of or made aware of this, to me, very important Supreme Court of Canada decision that you’ve referenced in your presentation. I think, for the committee as a whole, it raises the question of whether or not we have a certain obligation to seek a more comprehensive review of the law in order to make sure that we’re aware of all the most up-to-date law in the area, so that we can be properly aware of what it is that we should be deciding on or recommendations that we should be making. That’s an overall comment.

Now, specifically, Ms. Lawrence, with regard to your discussion of the production of notes and the case of Wood v. Schaeffer, I have a couple of questions on that.
[ Page 93 ]
Do you believe that, because of this Supreme Court of Canada decision, in fact this essentially creates a directive that we need to change in order to be compliant with the law that’s been set out, the precedent that’s been set out, in Wood v. Schaeffer?

Do we need to change the rules in British Columbia, to change the agreement in order that it complies? Or is the framework that is in Ontario — I think it’s Ontario that it references — different enough that this would not apply in this case? That’s, I guess, my first question. Then I have a follow-up on that as well.

M. Lawrence: In answer to that question, I would say this. The framework in Ontario is different in that the duty of police officers to prepare notes emanates from regulation. In British Columbia the duty of police officers to cooperate emanates from legislation, but that duty is modified by the terms of the memorandum of understanding.

One option would be to send the chief civilian director back to the negotiating table to ensure that the terms of the memorandum of understanding better reflect what we know today, in light of Wood v. Schaeffer, to be the scope of the responsibility of police. If the chief civilian director is not able to negotiate terms to the satisfaction of this committee, then legislation and regulation would be their next course of action.

K. Corrigan: But you’re not saying that, in a sense, this creates a duty in order to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada?

M. Lawrence: To answer your question quickly, I don’t think you can read the judgment of Mr. Justice Moldaver as giving rise to a common-law duty.

I wanted to extrapolate a little bit in terms of…. Producing the notes is one thing. But there are a couple of other circumstances that I’m interested in your comments on, in terms of the legalities but also in terms of whether you have any recommendations. Another area is not just the production of notes but also the statements of police officers, which I guess are a slightly different thing.

I mean, they’re both forms of statements. But I’ve asked questions before about sequestering of officers and so on. What are the obligations of officers? Should they have the right to counsel? At what point should they have the right to counsel? I’m interested in your comments on that — what the state of the law is or what your recommendations are in that regard.

M. Lawrence: It’s my view that police officers enjoy Charter rights, the same Charter rights that citizens enjoy. But the scope and the content of those rights may vary somewhat. The rights of counsel articulated in section 10 of the Charter apply on arrest and detention. I’m not convinced that an IIO investigation is equivalent to detention or arrest as those terms are understood at law. So it’s my view that the rights to counsel in section 10 are not triggered until an investigation proceeds to the point of detention or arrest.

That takes me, then, to the right to silence in section 7 of the Charter. All citizens enjoy that right to silence. For ordinary citizens, that means that we are not subject to a duty to cooperate with police to answer questions put to us by police. But I say it’s in this regard that the rights of officers are different than those of ordinary citizens.

We don’t afford officers or, I would say, we ought not to afford officers those same rights to silence by virtue of the office in which they are engaged. Our legislation contemplates that by requiring police officers to cooperate.We don’t afford officers or, I would say, we ought not to afford officers those same rights to silence by virtue of the office in which they are engaged. Our legislation contemplates that by requiring police officers to cooperate.

The question then becomes: to what extent is their duty…? What does that look like in any given case? I say the duty to cooperate, the erosion of the right to silence, is permissible, acceptable and justifiable when it comes to police notes. It may also include responding to statements about those notes. Where the line is then drawn, though, beyond that, I could only venture to guess. My understanding is that there’s no clear case law on that point. I have not seen a case go up which takes on that issue directly.

The third question, though, is if a statement is provided to an IIO investigator by an officer and we subsequently find that to be in violation of the officer’s Charter rights, then there are remedies available to that officer in a subsequent criminal trial. That evidence may be excluded from the Crown’s case in chief against the officer, and/or there may be limitations on the use that could be made of the evidence, of the statement during the cross-examination of the officer, if he or she elected to take the stand and gave testimony that was contrary to the information included in the statement.

K. Corrigan: I guess the Wood v. Schaeffer case, although it doesn’t speak specifically to some of the other questions that I was asking about, does state the general principle that there is a difference between the position of police officers using lethal force, their position as police officers who are given the right to use force, and other members of the public. The question then becomes: how far does that obligation…? And how different is that type of situation compared with the general public, then?

M. Lawrence: That’s right, and I note that Mr. Justice Moldaver expressly stated in the judgment that he was not speaking to the Charter questions. Those questions remain unanswered at law.

Mike, I know there must be other people. I am going to have to leave in a few minutes. Is it possible for me to ask one more question before I…?

M. Morris (Chair): One more short one. Yeah, we’ve got a couple here, too, but go ahead.

K. Corrigan: I just was interested in the idea of using body cameras, which I think is a really practical suggestion. Actually, I commend you for that.

I’m just wondering if, apart from the cost, you see any other drawbacks. Because you’re in the legal community, what do you see as the particular problems with that? I know you talked about privacy concerns and so on. But apart from the cost, I’m not sure, other than concerns, legitimate concerns of the police officers, that there are other legal concerns associated with that. I’m just wondering if you wanted to expand on that a bit.

M. Lawrence: I think the principal objection, the principal concern that’s been articulated around the use of cameras concerns privacy. I think those are real concerns and ones that deserve our attention. Fortunately for me, Frank Iacobucci has done a very good job of addressing those concerns and articulating suggested protocols to meet those, and so I will defer to his expertise and the content of his report on that.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Dr. Lawrence. Just maybe for Ron Wall, our researcher, I’m wondering if you can source the Frank Iacobucci report. I’m sure a number of members would be interested. Certainly, the Frank Paul inquiry, which was referenced in the earlier presentation from the Mounted Police Professional Association, I found useful as well.

Just a question. You mentioned, Dr. Lawrence, cameras be used for people in crisis, in situations of crisis. In my interactions with police officers, often the question — is a person in crisis? — is a big question. You go to a loud house party that you think is a house party, but it turns out to be something very different. How do you get around that? What we may not think is a person in crisis may actually be a person in crisis. That’s the first question.

Then I have one more question around evidence and investigator skills that I’ll come to in a moment.

M. Lawrence: Thank you for that question. I do think it is a question for which reasonable people can have different points of view. When should a camera be activated? When should recording be made? When do police need the discretion or the ability to turn off a camera because the recording is actually impairing their ability to deal with the individual they’re with?

Again, those are question for which I would need to defer to experts. My doctoral work does concern accused persons and offenders with mental disorder. This is a population that I’m interested in and one that I know the police are interfacing with regularly.

There have been concerns expressed about the quality and adequacy of the training that our police are receiving. It may be that, likewise, police will have to be trained by experts as to when a camera is enhancing or impairing the quality of their interactions.

I would just think, though, that there are some cases where it’s very clear that a camera should be on and activated. For example, the arrest of Peter de Groot, a multi-day manhunt followed by an interaction with the individual concerned. It would have been very easy to have cameras on those ERT members as they went in to their dealings.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Just the follow-up question then. As you have studied evidence and discussed the aesthetics of justice…. Of course, we’re also very much interested in justice — not just that it be seen to be done but it be done.

There’s been a lot of conversation in this committee around the question: should we have full civilianization of the IIO, or should we have maybe some, maybe some not? Some have suggested it’s possible that you could have officers go from being an officer to being an investigator, or have asked the question.

For me, anyways, it’s not just the perception of bias potential for an officer. Most, I don’t think, would be. But there has also, of course, been evidence that there is bias, so I do understand why the recommendation was made to move to full civilianization.

Given that you don’t just want to be seen to be unbiased — you also want to have good investigators, people who have the skills to do the job, as well — I wondered if you might share your thoughts on the full civilianization or partial civilianization or the kind of training people get to be able to be effective investigators, provide effective evidence and assess that evidence.

M. Lawrence: I can’t purport to speak with any authority on that question. In my years as a practising lawyer dealing with police officers, I encountered some excellent police officers who had the trust and the respect of their colleagues, and no doubt the public would share their confidence in their ability to carry out an independent investigation. That doesn’t answer the issue of the perception of bias, of course.

Again, these are issues for which reasonable people and informed people will have different points of view, so I’ll leave it to this committee to reach their decision on it.

D. Bing: Thank you for your presentation. I also had a question about your recommendation that police offi-
[ Page 95 ]
cers be equipped with body-worn cameras for use in their dealings with persons in crisis. It seems to me that it’s not always clear when an officer will be dealing with a person in crisis. It’s similar to the question that Mr. Herbert had.

Are you recommending that all officers have cameras all the time, or is it just when they think that they’re going to be in a situation where they’ll be dealing with a person in crisis?

M. Lawrence: I think the ideal would, indeed, be to have all officers equipped with cameras all of the time. There may be circumstances in which the use of a camera could impair dealing with an individual in crisis, and I do believe officers need to have the discretion to turn a camera off in those circumstances.

The protocols around that need to be worked out with people who have expertise in dealing with folks in crisis situations. Unfortunately, that is not me.

There are also practical realities around the costs, issues of cost. To the extent that we do have limitations, and priorities need to be identified, I would hope that members of emergency response teams would be at the top of the list of officers who should be equipped with cameras.

D. Bing: During the clearing of the Oppenheimer Park tenters, that was the first instance I was aware of, of police officers wearing these body-worn cameras. Are you aware of other police forces that do this?

M. Lawrence: Yes, and this is detailed in the Iacobucci report. He outlines the various pilot projects and the work of different police services across the country in their movement towards greater use of cameras.

I would, again, commend that report to you. There are services making considerable strides forward in this regard in models that this committee can look to, to follow.

S. Hamilton: Thank you, Dr. Lawrence, for your presentation. It was very well articulated.

You raised a question, at least in my mind…. First of all, I see body-worn cameras as a natural progression, particularly with today’s technology. They are smaller. They’re lighter. The battery life is much….

All those issues, I think, are probably going to lead to full subscription — eventually, I would think — in our police forces, but to me it seems like it would be an all-in proposition.

I’d like you to share with me some examples that you believe might precipitate giving an officer the ability to turn off a camera under given circumstances — where you say “person in distress.” I’m trying to rationalize what that circumstance would look like.

M. Lawrence: It bears remembering that many of the individuals who officers are dealing with are struggling with mental disorder, perhaps substance use. They may be impaired in their judgment.

It’s difficult for us, perhaps, to sit here in our rational and sober states and to imagine how anyone might think that a recording of their dealings would be a bad thing. But if you are struggling with delusions, with impairment, with paranoia, and you give voice to that as something that is adversely affecting your ability to trust an officer, to cooperate with an officer towards the resolution of conflict, then I would think it would not be unreasonable for an officer to make that agreement with the person in crisis to turn off the camera in the context of that dealing.

I would hope that would not be a decision that they make lightly, but we are in a human endeavour. Absolutes, tight lines and mandatory directives sometimes don’t assist us. There needs to be some scope for discretion.

Discretion may be exercised improperly in some cases, and I think we all have to be prepared for that, but that is how our system works and how we as human beings function.

S. Hamilton: Thank you, and thank you for bringing that up. I see that as a conversation and maybe a debate for another day, because, of course, we know circumstances can escalate very, very quickly. Sometimes there’s simply not time to exercise that sort of discretion.

I would be concerned, also, to the benefit of the police officer. Quite often a camera could help the police officer’s circumstance, as well, and help exonerate a police officer in cases that otherwise might be considered nefarious on his part and lead to a situation and conclusion that wasn’t very pretty.

I’m looking forward to continuing the discussion. Thank you for bringing it up.

Dr. Lawrence, thank you very much. It was a very good presentation, and I echo the comments of the committee members with respect to that.

M. Morris (Chair): This committee will take a short recess, and we’ll prepare for our next presenter.

We’ll give you 20 minutes to make your presentation, and our committee members will then have ten minutes to ask questions. If you finish before the 20 minutes, then we’ll have more time for questions. The floor is now yours, sir.

As a brief introduction, my name is Murray Macham. I am retired and living in the Langley, B.C. area. My career was in law enforcement, serving 20-plus years with the federal force of the RCMP and another 18 years with the province of British Columbia supervising a team of criminal investigators who investigated welfare fraud. I have also owned my own consulting company, which provides regulatory advice on raising venture capital to publicly traded companies, plus owning and being the executive management of a public company.

In April of 2014, I wrote the Premier and this committee after two investigators were terminated from the IIO. I had heard and seen enough of what a one-man wrecking crew could do to a very worthy organization. There is no doubt that within this province there was not a section head, a detachment commander, a chief of police or a commanding officer that wasn’t in agreement of an independent investigations office to deal with police shootings and critical incidents. In that two years of being in existence, 14 people have either been terminated or left because of the vile leadership at the IIO.

These members that were hired on were the brightest and the best that were taken away from investigative, non-police bodies within the province and elsewhere in Canada. These men and women were, without a doubt, the most capable of bringing a new organization into the fold and making a very substantive mark within the province.

There has simply just been no leadership at the IIO. Leadership, from Mr. Rosenthal, that included hiring an ex–director of investigations for over two years, paying that person’s rent on an apartment — for a trendy False Creek apartment in Vancouver. The man brought his friend from the U.S.A. under the guise of training to staff, knowing full well that the two systems are so very different — money that could’ve been spent on resources of a credible nature from within Canada.

You have heard hearings, and you have questioned people along the way so far, and you’ve heard some testimony. I’m going to suggest that some of it has been altered or made to represent facts that just aren’t there. I give you one example from Mr. Jamie Deitch.

M. Morris (Chair): I don’t want to hear anything personal on this, Mr. Macham.

Further to this, resources have been spent by our government to correct what has been going on. Not only one but four employee surveys within a short period of time have been conducted, with the end result showing nothing more than the lack of competency on the part of the leadership within that organization.

A further resource was spent to provide executive coaching to Mr. Rosenthal. I would like to have thought that the hiring process would have brought a true leader into this organization to start it and set it up and get it going.

To date, investigations have been conducted within that organization. I’m led to believe that a labour relations consultant was hired by the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Tony Belcher. If that is the case, I know he does not come cheap.

Further to this, a criminal lawyer from the province, Mr. Mark Jette, was appointed as a civilian monitor to investigate a mishandling of a Prince George shooting investigation. Mr. Jette also does not come cheap.

That one investigation, the very first investigation from this organization, was conducted by a very competent man. When his report went forward, it was vetted. In my opinion, at the very least, that was an obstruction of justice. As a result, the hearing into that investigation turned into a discredible hearing and has resulted in Mr. Jette coming forward now to reinvestigate it. How unfortunate for this province, how unfortunate for this committee, and how unfortunate for the family of that victim. The end result will not show any difference, but the vision created was not needed.

Further to this, committee members, Mr. Norm Macphee has been utilized to handle legal matters arising out of the dismissal and forced resignations of employees, another great cost to the government, not to mention the FOI requests that have, undoubtedly, been delivered upon the government for further information, and ministry executive that have been taken away from other duties to deal with the Rosenthal issues.

Committee members, the IIO has been poisoned by the lack of leadership and vision that this new and much-needed organization should have been given. A simple Google search of Mr. Rosenthal would have prevented this.

Hon. Members, I encourage you to step outside of the box and immediately instruct a partial finding to the Public Service Agency and to the Premier and have Mr. Rosenthal terminated forthwith. His presence has been nothing short of a nightmare for government, the agency and its employees and has caused a tremendous expense to this province and its government.
[ Page 97 ]

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you. If there are questions, I’ll remain here and answer them.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Mr. Macham. Spencer Chandra Herbert here. You had started to say that testimony had been altered. I know the Chair intervened at that point, and I’m respectful of that. But I’m wondering if you could expand on that because that’s a pretty serious charge, that testimony may have been altered. Understanding the law as you do, as a retired RCMP member, that’s a very serious charge to make.

As a committee member, I feel compelled to ask the question because if that is indeed your assertion, that’s something that we need to be aware of.

M. Morris (Chair): Yeah, if you can answer the question to the best of your ability without disclosing any personal information. This is a public record. We’re on the air.

M. Macham: By all means. In reading the transcript, that transcript indicates, and I’ll use a quote here: “There is also a complaints process for the IIO with respect to both conduct investigations as well as the potential — if there was ever an allegation of any criminal wrongdoing by anyone at the IIO.” And it goes on.

I’d like to know if there has been a fully developed process, which was referred to. I don’t believe there is a fully developed process, and as such, I believe that the committee was perhaps led in a direction that isn’t quite the fact.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Mr. Macham. So what you’re asserting is that in one of the presentations we received — I’ll say from the Ministry of Justice as opposed to an individual — the remark was made that there is a process — that should somebody who works for the IIO be thought of to have committed a criminal act or something like that, there is a process that could lead to an investigation of that person. But you’re asserting — at least not to your knowledge, anyway — that there isn’t a process right now.

We will have the opportunity to follow up with the Justice Ministry later on, based on all the evidence and all the testimony brought forward to us. That’s certainly something that we can follow up there.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Macham. You made a reference to the first investigation that the IIO engaged in and that the work that was done by a very competent investigator was — I think you used this word — vetted. Then you described that as an obstruction of justice. Could you elaborate on that issue, please?

M. Macham: I believe if the committee was to take and review the investigator’s initial report and then review the report that was submitted, you would find that there have been changes made. You will further find that the investigator, when testifying in front of the inquiry into the matter, had to refer the inquiry to his original report and not the report that they were reading from.

D. Plecas: Thank you, Mr. Macham, for your presentation. Just so that we’re clear — at least, for me, so I’m clear — what you’re saying is that (1) there has been at least one incident of obstruction of justice within the IIO and that (2) that matter hasn’t been dealt with yet.

Then on another matter, you called our attention to the significant number of people who’ve left the IIO. I guess I’m asking you: has that matter been addressed, to your knowledge?

M. Macham: I believe it has been addressed, because several of those individuals have been forced to file civil suits against the government. Some have settled. One was recently settled, and I believe that there’s one, possibly two or three, more that have yet to be settled.

D. Plecas: I was referring to the matter…. I guess I was wanting to know your thoughts on: why is that the case — that this unusual number of people have left the office? You alluded to the leadership of the organization. Would there be, in your opinion, any other reason why people might have left?

M. Macham: I think the leadership is first and foremost and paramount. I refer, again, to reports of a man walking the hallways and referring that he’s looking for a rat — an RCMP rat. A man that has openly told his employees on many occasions that if they don’t like it: “There’s the door.”

D. Plecas: Can you confirm again…? I mentioned, when I first spoke, that you’re alleging that there has been an obstruction of justice incident within the office and that, secondly, it hasn’t been dealt with. Did I hear that correctly?

M. Macham: I’m suggesting to you that, in my own opinion, when a person in authority and leadership takes an investigator and instructs that investigator to reword his report so that it leaves out information that could be vital, even if it could be self-serving, is wrong. Maybe not technically, but certainly, in my own opinion, it is an obstruction, at the very least — and very minor.
[ Page 98 ]

D. Bing: One of the goals of the independent investigations office is to eventually have complete civilian oversight. As a retired member of the RCMP with many years of service, I was wondering what your view of this goal is.

M. Macham: It’s right on the money. That’s exactly where it should go. In the meantime, in those start-up years, those police officers that were brought on, whether they be RCMP or from another police jurisdiction — there’s the leadership that can train. Knowing some of the individuals that went in there, underneath these men and women….

They’re the brightest, if not the very brightest, within investigative bodies that exist in the province of British Columbia, such as my own area of expertise in the welfare department, from the B.C. Coroners Service and other ministries and areas as such. These men and women could have learned and gone on, but instead, in the short two years, the majority of them have rewritten their resumés and are looking for an escape route to leave.

D. Bing: The second question I had. There was a suggestion that having officers with five years of retirement is too long — that their expertise, not used, gets lost and that it should be reduced to, say, perhaps two years of retirement before they’re hired on. Do you have any views on that?

M. Macham: The five years is a nice number. I’m going to suggest to you that a qualified investigator, even after ten years, 15 years, 20 years — that man or woman does not lose the expertise and the skills that he or she gleaned while serving in a police force. As time goes on….

Those men and women, and those men and women that were hired on within the IIO, were skilled and very talented investigators. They were then, within their own organization, made skilled administrators that had very complex critical and analytical thinking. They are men and women that I was very proud to see go into that organization.

M. Morris (Chair): Seeing no further questions, Mr. Macham, I thank you for your presentations, both written and oral, today. I can hear the passion that you have for this and very much appreciate it. Thank you for appearing here this morning.

M. Morris (Chair): Committee members, we have to talk about scheduling some additional meetings. I know it’s pretty tough in our day down here trying to schedule some more meetings in, but we need to discuss a few things.

I’d be interested in hearing from you whether there are any other stakeholders that we should be hearing from. Of course, we’re going to hear from the IIO chief himself, and from the ministry staff shortly as well. Judging from what we heard today, there’s probably some more information that Mr. Wall can dig up for us and that we need to consider in our deliberations.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): A few things. I thought that Kathy Corrigan’s suggestion of having a bit of a legal review done, from when we created the IIO to now, on any potential legal decisions that may have come down which may impact the IIO would be useful research, just for us to know and ensure that we are in full compliance. If not…. As was presented to us earlier, there may be judgments which could affect but not necessarily force us to change things. I think that would be a useful thing.

Another one was a request that I’d made earlier, and I know there was some back and forth on it. But the possibility…. If it has to be in camera, I can accept that. I would, of course, prefer for it to be public. We’ve had a number of references to job satisfaction, whether or not people working within the IIO are enjoying it or are leaving it in droves — you know, one anecdote versus another.

I would just ask whether or not it’s possible to either see the satisfaction surveys themselves or at least get a comparison of how they look compared to other government departments in general. Is it worse? Is it better? That would be useful.

Then the last presenter spoke around a number of civil suits. I’m not aware of those. I haven’t gone through the court records to find them. But again, it would be useful to know. If they’re in the process of being judged, fair enough. We won’t know the outcome of them, but I would just be interested in the outcome of ones that have already been filed and either resolved or had a decision made. Just the general theme of them would be useful for me to know and, I think, for the committee to know.

So if the Chair is in agreement, I wonder if we could ask our researcher to work with the various departments to see if we can get that information so we can better make decisions and recommendations.

D. Plecas: I just want to echo Spencer’s concern there in thinking that we need to know more about what’s going on in the office — so some information about the number of people who’ve started and left. Then, I think,
[ Page 99 ]
depending on how that goes, we may well even get to the possibility of an in-camera session if there are other people who have some concerns about experiences there and want to tell us about those, especially in light of what we just heard.

It sounds pretty damning in terms of what ought to be going on in an organization. Again, I’m just echoing his suggestion that if we can get some more research on that, then we’ll see where that takes us.

M. Morris (Chair): Good point. Thanks, Darryl. I know there have been some people who have been reluctant to appear before this committee because we are public. It may be beneficial to hear what they do have to say if we can find some way to do that.

S. Chandra Herbert (Deputy Chair): Just one more. I know the Iacobucci report that was referenced earlier is available on line. But if we could just get it sent around, that would be helpful as well.

M. Morris (Chair): Very good. We will be going through the rigorous process of scheduling some future meetings here down the road. I hope your calendars are relatively flexible, because time is closing in on us towards the end when we have to make our report to the Legislature.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): No. I think the best thing would be, as usual, for me to consult with the Chair and Deputy Chair around a meeting schedule and what you want at those meetings.

M. Morris (Chair): Okay, great. This meeting stands adjourned now until our next date. Thank you.

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

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE