Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 115 — Wednesday, November 9, 2016 (HTML)

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Jennifer Rice, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA; John Yap, MLA

2. Pursuant to its terms of reference, the Committee continued its review of the three-year rolling service plans, annual reports and budget estimates of the statutory offices.

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

5. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to deliberate on its draft report to the House. (Dan Ashton, MLA)

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner	2827
S. Lowe

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll call to order the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Good morning, everyone.

I will welcome the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. Mr. Lowe, welcome. We’re just getting started here, so I appreciate your patience.

We’re here to review the statutory offices and discuss the three-year rolling service plans, annual reports and budgetary estimates of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Again, welcome, Mr. Lowe. I’ll let you introduce your guests, and then we’ll get underway.

S. Lowe: Good morning, hon. Chair, Deputy Chair and hon. Members, both in attendance and on the telephone line. Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to place, for your consideration, our budget request for the next three years.

I wish to make some brief introductory remarks, as I anticipate that my submissions will fall easily within the time allotted. I wish to acknowledge, for the purposes of the record of proceedings, that to my right is Deputy Commissioner Rollie Woods; to his right is our director of operations, Andrea Spindler; and to my left is David Van Swieten, the executive director of corporate services.

I wish also to acknowledge at this time Ms. Spindler, who has been primarily responsible for the preparation of our submissions to you today. I am indebted to her for her very capable assistance.

Now, I note a number of familiar faces who have sat on this committee previously, as well as on other committees that I’ve had the privilege to appear before. I hope you will have gained some familiarity with respect to our work from my previous appearances, as well as the materials that we’ve provided to you most recently.

With that in mind, my intention today is to provide you with a condensed, high-level briefing touching on some of the highlights of our work over the past year and then focus on what I characterize as a modest capital funding realignment within the context of an anticipated surplus this year returning to treasury.

Over the years, this office has enjoyed the strong support of the committee in terms of funding our important oversight function. The Legislature as a whole has also been unanimous in its support of civilian oversight of law enforcement in British Columbia through the passage of innovative legislation, which included significant changes to the Police Act and, more recently, the creation of the independent investigations office.

Two weeks ago, I was in Ottawa at an annual federal-provincial oversight meeting of the heads of oversight, and I had the opportunity to spend a session with Mr. Justice Tulloch. He is a justice of the Court of Appeal of Ontario who is currently tasked with conducting a review of the independent oversight of police in Ontario.

This is a review of three existing civilian oversight agencies which have oversight over 28,000 officers in Ontario.

I want to advise you that I was able to spend some time informing him of the sea change in civilian oversight in British Columbia over the past decade and how British Columbia is now viewed as a leader in Canada in civilian oversight of law enforcement. I also mention how, in Ontario, it appears that over the years, their progress has plateaued. I can advise you that his team of experts were informed and interested in the B.C. experience.

He intends to release an interim report in the new year and a final report to his government in March. He says he expects to make recommendations which will not only have an impact on Ontario but across Canada. It’s my intention to forward these reports to the members of this committee as they become available, as they will likely have an impact on the oversight landscape in Canada.

I pause at this juncture to speak a bit about policing. Policing is a noble profession. It has been my experience that the overwhelming majority of police officers conduct themselves professionally, with integrity, and they uphold the public trust day in and day out.

You cannot work in this area of oversight of law enforcement without having or developing a deep respect and admiration for the profession of policing. It is also important to note there is no other profession that is held to the same degree of accountability through oversight as policing. This degree of accountability is a reflection of the significant powers police possess in terms of their interactions with members of the public.

It’s important also to note that the policing community is similar to other large public institutions in which they have a small proportion of challenging employees. While the vast majority of officers never become the subject of a complaint or investigation, this proportion of challenging employees are more likely to become a subject of a Police Act investigation or complaint.

Finally, there is an even smaller proportion of challenging employees that engage in conduct which, police chiefs are the first to advise…. They should not be involved in this very noble profession.

I’d like to digress for a moment and speak about the policing environment that we are observing in the United States. In my view, the policing environment in the United States is in a state of crisis in terms of the relationship between police and the public they serve. This is a crisis in public confidence in policing.
[ Page 2828 ]

Policing in the United States can learn a valuable lesson from the policing landscape in Canada, in which we have both public and police support for independent civilian oversight of law enforcement. There is a strong consensus among stakeholders that independent oversight of law enforcement has allowed Canadians to avoid the same deficit in public confidence taking place in the United States.

In concluding my introductory remarks, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to inform the committee about the people who work at the OPCC. I am privileged to work alongside a staff of committed public servants who strive for excellence in their work in order to promote public and police confidence in the civilian oversight of law enforcement. British Columbians are well served by our staff at the OPCC.

Turning now to my submissions, what I would advise you is that you could sit and listen or I will call out the pages, but I intend to move very quickly through the submissions as I know that you’ve had an opportunity to review those, and I want to stay within the time limit as mandated by the committee.

In terms of the overview, page 2, it has been almost seven years since the new legislation has been introduced involving significant changes to the Police Act. I can advise you that we have made a number of recommendations to the Legislature in terms of fine-tuning the process. I’m advised that these changes are in the works, in the legislative calendar and in the queue. We stand ready to implement any changes that the government sees fit in terms of another look at the Police Act.

In our recommendations, we also have recommended an enhanced role for our office in alternative dispute resolution as an appropriate method for resolving police complaints.

Within our own office, we have completed a revisioning process, which included the development of a strategic plan that allows us to more effectively meet the current legislation and to prepare for any legislative changes. As well, we have made improvements in terms of our own efficiency and effectiveness in our work practices. We are now embarking on a new plan of public outreach and are rebranding in hopes of better acquainting British Columbians with our office.

We have also successfully updated our case management system. This will allow us to better generate statistical data and allow us to actually engage in some research. That took place over the course of the past year.

I’d like, at this time, just to remind the committee of what our responsibilities are, our duties in the OPCC. We perform what is best described as a gatekeeping function. I’m at page 3. They include determining the admissibility of registered complaints, auditing and reviewing all questions and concerns that do not result in a registered complaint that police departments receive, reviewing all reportable injuries to determine if an investigation is warranted.

A reportable injury is an injury that occurs involving a citizen in the care and control of a police member, which results in his or her transport to a hospital for medical assistance. We review those to determine whether or not to initiate investigations.

We also oversee all complaint investigations and provide oversight in terms of investigative steps. We also have the capability to order an investigation as and when required in the public interest. And last, as part of our gatekeeping functions, we review all decisions to determine whether or not an adjudicative review is required in amongst the three avenues of adjudicative review.

Also this past year, as you may be aware, August 1, 2016, special municipal constables came under the jurisdiction of our office. We estimated that that would include an increase of membership of 400. We’ve reached that amount. I think it might be a little bit higher, but I am here to advise the committee that it appears that this is an area which policing is moving towards as a cost-saving measure, and we anticipate that more special constables will be sworn in in this capacity.

We continue to face workload challenges, but I’m happy to announce that, with your support, over the past year, we were able to hire, altogether, four new investigative analysts to relieve these pressures. These new hires all come from a civilian background. They will require considerable training and mentorship in order to be able, some day, to perform oversight of complex Police Act investigations.

We’ve also updated and improved our in-house training program. We also are renewing an emphasis on alternative dispute resolution internally within our office, and we hope that that will translate into a higher rate of complaints being resolved through informal resolution.

In terms of our budget requests summary, I’ll just briefly state that we’re not going to be asking for any additional increases in our operating budgets. We’re asking, for your consideration, an additional $15,000 towards our capital funding for this fiscal year and beyond. In practical terms, this request, I anticipate, will be completely offset by an anticipated operating budget surplus this year. But I’ll get into that in more detail nearing the end of my submissions.

I’m at page 6 now. One aspect that is an important consideration — that the public sees as important — is the civilianization of independent civilian oversight and building a strong civilian presence within our organization. I’m here to advise the committee that we are currently at a rate…. So 63 percent of our staff in decision-making capacities come from a civilian background. At this juncture in the development and in the skills of our staff, I think we’ve struck an appropriate balance between the skill set and expertise necessary to carry on excellence in our oversight work.
[ Page 2829 ]

Moving now to alternative dispute resolution — page 7. I can advise you that this alternate dispute resolution has been identified as a legacy project. It’s our view that resolving suitable complaints through communication, understanding and reconciliation will result in a more meaningful resolution for the participants. ADR allows for the repair and improvement of public confidence in police, one relationship at a time.

Our office, as part of our gatekeeping function, reviews all of these resolutions to ensure that they are meaningful, as opposed to, per se, a paper chase. When I first began my appointment seven years ago, the average resolution rate by ADR was around 7 to 8 percent. We have increased, at times, to the mid-20 percents. Now we’re hovering just below 20 percent, but it’s my hope, with new initiatives within our office, that we could raise the percentage of complaints resolved through alternative dispute resolution to over 30 percent.

I hasten to add that we have made suggestions to government for changes to legislation that gives our office a more direct role in controlling alternative dispute resolution and also requiring mandatory attendance at a pre-resolution conference to determine if a matter can be resolved from alternative dispute resolution.

The experience in Quebec is…. They had this mandatory process in place, and on average, they’re at the 80 percent mark of matters being able to be dealt with through alternative dispute resolution. What remains to be seen is the quality of the resolutions.

Moving now to our workload. I touched on this earlier. Over the course of the past year, we’ve had about a 14 percent increase in files opened. We foresee that this will continue to increase over the years, but currently, our staffing can well accommodate this increase.

Just to give you a bit of history. Since April 1, 2011, is when we were able to collect better statistics. Bear in mind the legislation came in, in 2010, and we had a transition year, so we began keeping our statistics from April 1, 2011, to September 30, 2016. We opened approximately 6,300 files. Initially, this was an increase of over 100 percent in the files that we normally dealt with, but we’ve seen a fluctuation in the past.

Page 11 basically sets out a chart that shows a steady increase in open files, but it also serves to assist in identifying those types of cases that we open and perform a gatekeeping function on.

Moving to page 12 — admissibility. This is an important gatekeeping function that bears some discussion before the committee and some information to the committee. We’ve taken a strong commitment to the front end of the complaint process, as envisioned by the act. This gatekeeping function is crucial because it ensures the proper management of public and police resources.

Since April 1, 2011, until September 30, 2016, on average, approximately 43 percent of received complaints remained admissible. How does this rank in amongst the oversight landscape in Canada? It’s on the lower end of the spectrum. We have one of the lowest rates of admissibility, but that is a product of really a labour-intensive front-end process.

If we carry on from that juncture, of the 43 percent that remained admissible, another 40 percent are gated out of the process through ADR, discontinuations and withdrawals. Effectively, over this long time period from 2011 to 2016, approximately 24 percent of files are actually investigated. That has provided some assistance in identifying those that the public would really want us to look into.

Moving now to judicial reviews, on page 18. As I alluded to earlier, we have three avenues of adjudicative review: appointment of retired judge, a review on the record and public hearings. Those, over the years, have been resorted to modestly. But I will advise you that this year we have received a number of judicial reviews initiated either by the executive or police unions.

Seven of the eight of them, actually, were initiated by police or police unions. It’s anticipated that these judicial reviews, if they come to fruition, will have a significant impact on our dedicated funding next year.

Page 19. I’d like to remind the committee about our dedicated funding. The committee has been strong in its support of our funding in this regard. As you know, it has been difficult every year to predict with any certainty the budgetary expenditures for legal expenses associated with adjudications with the three avenues.

Through the support of the committee, we increased our annual funding for adjudicative and legal expenses from $300,000 to $400,000. Now, this funding is dedicated, which means that any unspent funds revert back to the provincial treasury each year. On page 19, I’ve set out the past five years of dedicated funding, as well as expenditures. I anticipate that this year we will be returning once again a surplus from the dedicated funding at the end of this fiscal year, in any event.

Moving now to our request for funding. Our office is very appreciative of the significant support we have received from the Legislative Assembly and this important committee over the years.

The legislative vision and support of the House has made British Columbia a leader in the landscape of oversight of law enforcement in Canada. In turn, this office has maintained a fiscally prudent approach to spending, returning surpluses to the provincial treasury over the past four years. We are, as I said earlier, projecting another modest surplus in terms of our operating budget. However, there has been a resultant lag in capital funding as a result of our hiring over the years.

To provide you with some background, since the inception of this office, in 1998, the capital funding budget has remained at $25,000. Now, with the passage of revisions to the Police Act in 2010 and, more recently, regu-
[ Page 2830 ]
lations bringing special constables within the jurisdiction of our act, the committee has supported a growth in staff to meet the demands of the legislation.

However, we are experiencing a capital funding deficit for office expenditures which exceeds the capital funding threshold of $1,000. The capital funding amount can no longer meet the needs of our office when considering the growth of our staff. I think growth of our staff has been approximately 75 percent since 1998.

What we’re finding is that the inflation costs of capital assets have gone over the $1,000 mark for desks, for IT and so forth. So what we’re asking the committee to consider is a capital funding increase of $15,000 this year and thereafter, which would bring the total capital budget to $40,000. In practical terms, it does amount to a reallocation of resources, since it’s anticipated that our office will return a modest surplus — I’m estimating it — on the operating side of around $50,000. It’s our hope to maintain, within our prudent fiscal management, the surpluses in the coming years to offset this increase in capital budget.

To make it a little, perhaps, more obvious in practical terms…. What could be purchased in capital assets in 1998 with the $1,000 threshold is far more difficult now, in 2016, to purchase within that same threshold. The price of all these products has gone up. For example, if you wanted to do an IT refresh, which…. I think the standard in government for computers is about every three years. Ours is much higher, four to five years. It’s something that we have to break over a number of years, because we’re not able to actually roll it all out at once.

This gives us more flexibility. I’m not saying necessarily that we would be spending the entire amount, but it allows us…. For example, we’ve most recently, to accommodate these four new hires, turned our boardroom into three offices. We just don’t have the money to buy the capital assets to properly outfit these offices. With our other capital allocations pursuant to our corporate shared-services agreement, we’re just short on being able to outfit these offices.

That’s our ask this year, for you to consider increasing our capital allotment to $40,000, which is a $15,000 increase. Other than that, there are no other increases that we’re seeking.

I will, as perhaps a placeholder, advise the committee that there’s an ongoing review of classifications for excluded managers. We’re not sure where that’s going to land. I understand that there may be a new approach, increasing the model to six categories. I foresee that there would be a potential for financial pressures, not in this budget but perhaps next budget, next year, if this transition to these new classifications involves an increase in the classifications of our current employees.

I turn now to page 28 and deal with the chart that I have there. I include this chart, because it basically demonstrates where our money goes and really, at the end of the day, the amount of discretionary spending that we enjoy in our office. That discretionary spending really comes under the rubric of operating expenses. About 5 percent of our budget is operating expenses, and those are the ones that are truly discretionary. The remainder are, for the most part, fixed costs.

Finally, if we turn to page 29, I do want to spend some time to talk about our shared-services model. I commend this model. I’m a proponent of this model. I can advise you, as you’ll see, that $241,000 of our total budget request is for shared services. But I can tell you, from a cost-benefit analysis, it’s one of the most cost-effective models that I’ve encountered in my time in the public service. For that amount, we are provided with excellent IT, HR and finance and administrative support. I do commend it, especially in our…. With myself and the other three officers, it’s a really cost-effective method of dealing with the corporate services that we need.

I think I’ve come close to my time. Those are my submissions to the committee. I’m more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

G. Heyman: Thank you for the presentation. I just wanted to ask a few questions about the section on judicial review and the increase in the judicial reviews, most of which appear to have been initiated by police or police unions but also one by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I’m wondering if you have any thoughts as to why there’s been an increase, if there was a common theme in the requests for reviews and what the significant decisions, if any, were. If there are any of the reviews that you think worth highlighting for the committee in terms of content, I’m curious about that as well.

S. Lowe: The increase in judicial reviews, I think, has been as a result of a growing frustration with respect to some gaps in the legislation and some unclarity in the legislation.

To go back historically, the legislative changes that took place in 2010 were as a result of a report commissioned by the government, by the late Josiah Wood, which I would say were visionary in what the recommendations were — visionary in the sense of what he had in his mind. It was an excellent job by government to actually try to translate those recommendations into changes in the legislation. I think, for the most part, they did an excellent job in doing so.

Having seen that, we have seen small gaps procedurally and substantively within the legislation that, I think,
[ Page 2831 ]
we need assistance from government to make clear what their intention is. I do remind the committee that that legislation was passed unanimously by the House.

What we’ve done is we’ve tabled probably over 50 recommendations to government for slight changes and some significant substantive changes to the Police Act. Then we’ve rolled it back to our top 15 so that they know where we’re really focusing on. But I think we have to be quite patient and wait till when the Police Act makes its way onto the legislative calendar and we’re able to see a draft that government actually comes up with.

These judicial reviews are primarily the interpretation of the act and interpretation of the process. There is, I think, a disagreement between our office and the unions and those in policing with respect to some of the interpretation that we are employing or what the act says. There are some issues with respect to whether the act is constitutional — with respect to some aspects of it. They’re raising issues with respect to constitutionality.

I can tell you, Mr. Heyman, that on some of these other matters, we’ve tried to work, and we are working on practical workarounds. There is even, I think, one of the judicial reviews that we’re going to resolve through other means, without having to go to court. So it’s something that my office constantly reviews and looks at.

I wish they came on quicker. We’re happy to go with these and to have some determination. It provides us valuable guidance at the end of the day. It also provides the government with valuable guidance in the comments of the court in where there appears to be a lack of clarity or a, perhaps, inconsistency in process.

G. Heyman: In part. Did any of the completed reviews result in a significant change in practice or what you perceive to be the authority of the commissioner’s office?

S. Lowe: Yes. One that comes to mind that’s troubling is…. One of the judicial reviews commented on the unclarity of the process and that it resulted in a bifurcation of proceedings — so now instead of one, there are two — with the possibility for inconsistent outcomes and twice the costs.

The interpretation of the act by the learned justice was exactly that. I think he telegraphed very clearly to government that they should address this and that my goal, instead of trying to find a process that makes sense, is to approach government and ask for a change in legislation that makes the process clearer. That’s one of my main…. That was provided to government some time ago, when this first occurred.

Other than that, we haven’t had that many. Many of them have come as preliminary matters. There are a lot of interesting issues that haven’t been resolved. One of them is the determination of when this office, or when I or a commissioner, can designate a public hearing. Under the previous system, up until 2010, it was at any time. The courts have interpreted that, no, we should have to go through this process of a discipline proceeding, and only then, after that, I can exercise that power.

I understand that, but it comes with its difficulties. From a costing standpoint from the policing end, they go through this long discipline process which can take months and be extremely costly in terms of legal expenses, only to find themselves in another process, as a public hearing, which doubles their costs.

There are some instances where it would make better sense to say: “Okay, this is an issue that ought to be resolved quickly and can be done through a public hearing.” That provides the public with a look into the process, too, and transparency, which builds public confidence. I’ve asked government to reinstate or make very clear in their language that that ability to call a public hearing at any time should be made clear. It’s up to government to decide.

G. Heyman: If I may be allowed one more. Are you able to summarize the nature of the issue that caused the Information and Privacy Commissioner to request a judicial review and what the outcome was?

S. Lowe: Yes. There was a freedom-of-information request. There was a provision that had never been looked at, section 182 — and, as well, section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act. The interpretation was an exclusion for my office from jurisdiction of that act. Now, to give you a bit of background, part of the intention of the Legislature, I’d say, was to allow our office to be the eyes of the public and to provide some confidentiality with respect to the process.

I’m an advocate of transparency, but having said that, pursuant to provisions of the act, there is an oath of confidentiality taken by everyone in my office — and myself, as well as an investigator — not to divulge the existence of an investigation or any information from an investigation. So we may get a Freedom of Information Act request….

One of the issues is: where are we jurisdictionally on that point? Am I exempted from the jurisdiction of the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner? It really needed an interpretation from the courts. We took a position that we were exempted. We went for a judicial review, and the court sided in our favour on that matter.

I get along quite well with the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office, and we will do our very best to resolve these difficulties. But in this particular matter, it was a piece of legislation that had never been looked at from a jurisdictional standpoint. So that helps us in future.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. Just a question around the alternative dispute reso-
[ Page 2832 ]
lution process. You mentioned the recommendation to government to look at a mandatory informal process. It sounds interesting. Certainly, I think, often for people being aware of the fact that there’s another process sometimes is the first step for them to feel comfortable to move ahead, so it’s an interesting piece to look at.

But I wonder if there’s some work that could be done. You mentioned the one-day seminars to police agencies and to the RCMP. Have you looked at — and perhaps it’s not your office; maybe it’s someone else — an opportunity to be able to, on a broader base, let the public know about those kinds of things before any agreement, perhaps, is reached with government around mandatory opportunities? Is there an education process that could be done that might just raise awareness of the issue?

S. Lowe: That’s an excellent question. It harkens back…. If you look at the act, there’s very little jurisdiction for our office in the area of alternative dispute resolution. It’s usually a process that’s contemplated and initiated by the police agency. What we’ve done is taken a leadership role outside of the act, per se, and indicated in our dealings with professional standards officers and police agencies what we view to be admissible complaints that are good candidates for ADR.

Now, you touch on a very good point. We looked, over the last year, at our statistics and tried to determine why we can’t get above this plateau that we were receiving. We determined, actually, that the problem was in our office. It was in our office in the sense that it was more complainants that weren’t opting for this process, as opposed to police officers.

What we’ve done is come up now with a…. We’re in the midst of creating a program in which all of our analysts — it’s timely, because with the new analysts, we can bring them right into the informal resolution — will be in a better position to inform, encourage and provide support to complainants in the system in relation to informal resolution.

Our problem, also, was that just even our messaging wasn’t right. That’s something we’re looking at internally.

Just to build on what you said earlier, the mandatory aspect of informal resolution that we’ve proposed to government is a mandatory preconference only. It’s not being forced into the process. It’s just a preconference to figure that out.

C. James (Deputy Chair): It does — thank you. I think you’ve raised an important point. If both parties aren’t interested in moving into dispute resolution, it’s very tough to have a dispute resolved. I think it’s interesting to just look at the education piece and, as you say, the communications piece — to encourage people to look at those opportunities.

S. Gibson: I’m from Abbotsford, one of the, I guess, 12 or 13 communities that have their own policing, which I know is your emphasis. A couple of questions to understand the culture of this. I appreciate the amount of information in this report. It’s very helpful.

When you’re having these recommended punishments, if you will, are they hierarchical in the extent that if somebody else does the same thing, they are subject to that as well? Say I’m a police officer and I do something minor. I get a verbal reprimand. I see that term. If I do something later, then I get a written reprimand. Is there a hierarchy there? Does the police department document those and know that in future discipline, so somebody can actually end up facing something much more severe if these compound? That’s my question.

S. Lowe: That’s a great question. They are documented under what’s called a service record of discipline. But depending on the nature of any discipline that’s experienced through the process, they remain on the service record for a period of time, and then they can be expunged.

You’re right. There is a hierarchy. It starts with a verbal reprimand. It can work its way all the way up to dismissal. Each of them has a set expungement period. For example, for a verbal reprimand and, I think, a written reprimand, after two years, if you don’t receive any other complaints, then it’s expunged from your service record of discipline. But it contemplates progressive discipline.

Having said that, the act is very instructive. Under one section, it lays out all the factors you should consider in meting out an appropriate correction. One overarching principle of the act is to seek to correct and educate first, unless it’s unworkable and discipline is necessary to maintain public confidence in the process.

Each department does keep their records. We have a record also, but it’s not the official one. The official record is each department. Each department looks to how they’ve treated matters in the past. They may look to our summaries every year to get a feel, in the past, of how these have been treated. Discipline authorities may talk to others in other departments to run the scenario by and see if they’re in the range.

One thing that’s nice in the process…. When we come to the issue of discipline, any officer can, at the end of the day, after receiving discipline, request a review on the record or a hearing on the matter to determine if it was appropriate or not. We exercise that discretion frugally, but we do exercise it. So there are the opportunities to place the matter before a retired judge who can review it and say if it’s in or not. Again, that’s another source of adjudicated guidance for the future.

S. Gibson: Another question I have, if I may. I’ve got people I know, officers I know, in Abbotsford. One of the
[ Page 2833 ]
interesting things…. I think you have a prescriptive but also a proscriptive dimension to your work.

An officer is doing something minor, disciplining somebody to attempt to get them into the vehicle, and they’re being argumentative and resisting that — just simply being placed. Somebody gets that on their cell phone, and it dramatizes the extent of the discipline being required to place the suspect in the vehicle.

Are you involved with the police academy in terms of advising future recruits, officers, to be cautious about those kind of things? Clearly, today, as you said earlier, officers operate under quite different standards. They’re very nervous now. Anything that takes place can be captured and circulated and disseminated widely.

I’m wondering what your role is in terms of the training of officers so they avoid hitting you guys under negative consequences.

S. Lowe: Well, we do have a representative from our office that goes and speaks to the academy and have done so in the past.

I think what we also do is try to speak with the professional standards section, with each of our agencies, and try to identify if something is starting to act up. If we were finding more discourtesy complaints and things like that, we would deal with it.

But from our perspective, you’re right. The nature of our society is changing substantially. I think there are approximately 35 million Canadians and over 40 million camera phones. We have CCTV. Everything is now being depicted. I think, in this province, police are significantly considering body-worn cameras. Not only is it a device to record an incident and the behaviour of a member of the public; it also modifies the behaviour of the officer.

I know that there have been some test runs and experiences in England where they have a body-worn camera that actually depicts the picture that it’s showing. It shows the member of the public. They see their face on that. There’s a study out of Rialto where it says it actually calms both individuals down.

The problem has been is there are a lot of bugs to work out with the body-worn cameras. But it’s certainly in the minds of the B.C. association of chiefs and the issues of policy and that surrounding it, because they are coming in. They’re like dashcams.

I think police are mindful, generally, that they could be videotaped. But in many instances, I’ve seen some pretty good video tapes of positive police actions and positive police experiences that have gone on to YouTube and how things were done properly and cordially. I think there’s a saying that if you’re a traffic officer, if you can get the person you’ve given a ticket to say, “Thank you for the ticket,” then you’ve done a pretty good job in terms of your work in that situation.

S. Gibson: I guess that’s a good segue, if I may. One of the things that I am proud of in Canada, and our province in particular, is that the public values police officers. They respect them. They consider the police officer their friend.

But I’ve travelled in other parts of this world, and it’s not the case. In many jurisdictions, the police officer is not well regarded at all. I’m so thankful for what you’re doing and for the great work of our police departments.

What’s the difference between deceit and improper disclosure of information? I didn’t get that.

S. Lowe: Deceit, under the act, involves — just in practical terms — falsification of a statement or official police report. It’s separate. It’s a very serious offence.

Improper disclosure may be providing information — talking loosely — about a particular incident, and that being….

S. Lowe: Deceit is more problematic. It’s a falsification of a police report or a falsification of an oral statement.

D. Ashton: Thank you very much to you and your staff for coming this morning. Greatly appreciate it.

Just quickly, if you can refresh my memory. Page 19, the junket and legal expenses, the variances in them, 2012 on…. Were those funded internally, or did you come back to the Finance Committee for additional funds?

S. Lowe: Yes. And that’s done to…. Fortuitously, at that time, we had…. It was very difficult on staffing, because knowing the amounts of expenditures that were outstanding, we delayed and created lags in hiring in order to pay for those.

You’ll see one year, 2014-2015, that the expenditures were $107,000 over the dedicated funding. That came internally, out of our operating expenses.

D. Ashton: I do remember the step-ups, but I just wasn’t sure if you’d done it internally. I couldn’t remember if you had asked for additional funding.

Second of all, on page 20, your 20 percent of dedicated funding seems to be going to one individual. Do we ask, under legal expenditures — about the third line down, Elsner…?
[ Page 2834 ]

S. Lowe: Do we have a significant amount involving that matter? Yes. Judicial reviews.

S. Lowe: That’s debatable. I sought from the Legislature, and I did receive, a vote to receive money recently. But there’s a debate now on whether standing officers can seek costs. I’m getting that…. I always was of the view that you could. They can certainly get costs from me on matters.

S. Lowe: Yeah, that’s what I’m…. So I have that vote, but I’m waiting on a legal opinion. It just hasn’t come to the occasion.

I would like to seek costs for frivolous matters that I can recoup. I had one matter involving a JR with an unrepresented individual that ended up costing over $30,000. It was dismissed eventually, but again, I would have liked to have sent something to that person to let them know that there is a cost associated with tying us up so much — whether it be modest or whatever. It’s an area that I say is grey at this time.

D. Ashton: Personally, I would encourage you to. I think showing fiscal responsibility…. It’s other people’s money. We all can spend it very quickly sometimes — too quickly sometimes.

S. Lowe: I can tell you that you and I are of the same mind. I have to be convinced by my legal advice that we can. I’ve gone ahead and received that vote to collect that money. I can tell you that we’re of the same mind on that point.

I think most of mine have been answered, but one quick question. It actually touches a little bit on what Carole was mentioning earlier, with respect to the alternative dispute resolution process and the amount of time you’re doing on outreach and education.

I’m going to suggest that maybe outreach and education has been a success, at least the way you’re rolling it out, because there has been a marked increase in the number of files that were opened from the previous year. Do you directly attribute that to more outreach, more education, more community involvement, people understanding the process?

S. Lowe: That’s both to police and to the public. In this particular case, a lot of that increase came from the area of reportable injuries, and we’re getting more compliance now. The information has to be passed along to police in that when these incidents occur, we require this type of reporting. So the police executive are getting the message down.

But I think that to the members of the public generally, there’s a lag. We’re going to work on that this year. The average member of the public, I believe, doesn’t really know exactly what we do. I think the committee can expect, in the next 12 months, to see a modest public outreach program to educate the public about our office.

Seeing none, thank you very much, Mr. Lowe. I appreciate you taking the time, and thank you to your company as well.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I need a motion — continued deliberations on the budget paper — to go in camera. Moved by Dan.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Now we’re finished our deliberations. Could I have a motion to adjourn? Dan.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Jennifer Rice (North Coast NDP)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerks:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
	Susan Sourial

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES