The committee met at 10:30 a.m.

[R. Singh in the chair.]

R. Singh (Chair): I would like to begin by recognizing that our meeting today is taking place on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples, in particular the Kwantlen, Katzie, Semiahmoo, Tsawwassen, Kwikwetlem and Qayqayt people.

We are an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly with a mandate to review the police complaint process, pursuant to section 51.2 of the Police Act. In support of that review, the committee is meeting today and tomorrow to hear from expert witnesses regarding the following questions: is the police complaint process efficient, effective and accessible? Are there aspects of the police complaint process that could be improved? And what changes to the Police Act, part 11, “Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings,” if any, should be made?

The special committee has also invited British Columbians to make written, audio or video submissions before our June 28 deadline. All the information we receive will be carefully considered by the committee members as we prepare our report to the Legislative Assembly, which must be released by November 26, 2019.

Today’s meeting will consist of 15-minute presentations, followed by 15 minutes for questions from the committee members.

All meetings are recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services, and a complete transcript of the proceeding will be posted on the committee’s website. These meetings are also broadcast as live audio via our website.

I’ll now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves. I’ll start with Ellis.

E. Ross: I’m Ellis Ross, MLA for Skeena.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Mike Morris, MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie.

G. Begg: Good morning. I’m Garry Begg. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Guildford. Welcome to my ’hood.

R. Singh (Chair): Also assisting the committee today is Susan Sourial from the Parliamentary Committees Office. Steve Weisgerber and Simon DeLaat from Hansard Services are also here to record the proceedings.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the expert witnesses who have taken the time to be with us today and would like to introduce our first presenters, and that is the B.C. Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police. We have Colin Watson and Dave Jones.

Welcome.

D. Jones: Thank you.

R. Singh (Chair): As I mentioned, you have 15 minutes. We’ll start the timer just before you start, and I’ll give you a one-minute warning.

Presentations on
Police Complaint Process

B.C. ASSOCIATION OF
MUNICIPAL CHIEFS OF POLICE

C. Watson: Good morning to the special committee members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak with you today. The work that you all are doing is really, really important work for all of us and all the municipal police agencies and police officers in the province. So the fact that you’re taking so much time to look at this issue so carefully is really, really appreciated.

Before I get started, I want to introduce my companion here today, Chief Constable Dave Jones. Dave is the chief of Metro Vancouver Transit Police and, for many years, the chief of the New Westminster police service. Dave comes with me today because he’s got years and years of experience working within the Police Act process, much more experience than I do. I know he’ll bring a wealth of experience and comments to the conversation today. So thank you for that.

We are here today to represent the B.C. Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police. The BCAMCP is comprised of senior police leaders of each municipal police agency in B.C., including the Stl’atl’imx tribal police and the Metro Vancouver Transit Police. As representatives of the BCAMCP, we are sharing with you today the views of each of the municipal police agencies in B.C. who, collectively and in partnership with our communities, deliver police services to many parts of this province.

The purpose of the BCAMCP is to encourage and develop cooperation among its members in the pursuit of excellence in policing and attainment of the association’s goals. Some of the major goals of the BCAMCP are to promote the high standards of ethics, integrity, honour and conduct of its members and municipal constables in B.C.; foster uniformity of police standards and practices wherever appropriate and practical; encourage development and implementation of best practices regarding a host of policing responsibilities; and communicate policy positions and concerns to the appropriate levels of government.

The BCAMCP is in the process of preparing a detailed written submission to the special committee with ideas and recommendations focusing on improving the civilian oversight system here in B.C. The main focus of that submission will be on recommended changes to part 11 of the Police Act. It will be primarily based on our experience of working within it for the past many years.

Today, however, on behalf of the member agencies of BCAMCP, we intend to highlight a few high-level areas to which we hope the special committee will pay particular attention when considering improvements to our system in B.C. We will not be commenting on a separate police oversight system that applies to the RCMP here in British Columbia.

[10:35 a.m.]

First, we wish to point out that the BCAMCP is highly supportive of a robust civilian oversight system and public complaint system in the province and is grateful for the opportunity to provide input on the improvements in the system to ensure that it is fair, transparent, efficient, cost-effective and serves to maintain a public confidence in the police. We also want to point out that it is our collective belief that municipal police officers in this province do a remarkable job of keeping our community safe and do so in a legal, responsible, ethical, respectful and accountable way. All the while they are performing their duties under often tremendously difficult, emotionally charged circumstances and usually with limited, incomplete and/or inaccurate information.

Rarely are officers faced with situations that are so basic or straightforward that a templated or practised response is warranted. Usually, circumstances are as unique as the individuals that officers are interacting with, and the officers’ responses and courses of action ought to follow those unique circumstances. Already complex situations get even more so when you consider the impact of social welfare influences such as mental health and addictions.

Thousands of documented and undocumented interactions between police officers and members of the community occur every day in B.C. Of these, a remarkably small number of complaints result. This strongly suggests to us that the officers are overwhelmingly performing their duties in a manner that we as police leaders expect and that the community demands. This said, with such uncertainty in their work, mistakes or errors in judgment do occur, and to some extent, they should be expected.

Less often, officers’ actions represent police misconduct. Those can and do occur. And even less frequently, conduct of officers can be considered potentially criminal. In those relatively rare cases, a robust oversight system helps to ensure public confidence in the investigative and adjudicative processes that follow.

Policing is a profession with multiple layers of oversight already in place, and B.C. is no exception. It’s not uncommon for incidents involving police officers to take many years to come to final conclusion and involve investigations by the independent investigations office; the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner; in some cases, WorkSafeBC. The investigations can precede other processes such as coroner inquests and civil trials and a host of other things.

It is our position that if viewed only through the Police Act lens, B.C. already has one of the most comprehensive civilian oversight systems anywhere. The Police Complaint Commissioner, through the Police Act and affirmed through various court rulings, has been granted broad authority to order and oversee investigations of municipal police officers in this province. Police officers and police management feel that the system creates a very high degree of accountability. In fact, the final investigation reports many of us review on a regular basis have been amongst the most lengthy and comprehensive investigations police officers complete. In many cases, investigative reports under the Police Act are more detailed than some criminal investigations, even for relatively minor misconduct incidents.

Using research as a guide, we propose that an effective police oversight system and police complaints process should be rooted in procedural justice principles, which I’m sure you’re all aware of — those being fairness, voice, transparency and impartiality. Additionally, we’ve conducted some research into what the research is telling us with respect to what features should be present in a police complaint system. We’ve identified at least eight major features that we think lend themselves to an effective oversight system. While improvements are certainly desirable in a number of areas, most of these features, we believe, are already present in whole or in part in our current system.

We hope that the special committee will ensure that they take an evidence-based approach to establishing recommendations for system improvement in this province and use the B.C. experience and the B.C. civilian oversight system specifically as the primary informing factors in your decision-making process. In other words, we believe that we’re currently in a position of strength, and we submit to you that we should focus on building from here and should not resort to broad generalizations or assumptions not supported in fact to drive change.

We wish to point out a few statistics for you to consider during your discussions. I promise not to bore you too long with those. According to a study conducted by a Simon Fraser graduate student that I found that was written in 2016, over $21 million was spent on civilian oversight in B.C. in 2014-2015. Now, that included the RCMP as well. In that same year, $6.3 million was spent on the operation of the OPCC and the independent investigations office, and at least $4.9 million was spent by municipal police agencies conducting police complaints investigations. I should point out that according to the study, not all agencies were able to provide detailed costing, so the costs, in fact, are likely higher than that.

[10:40 a.m.]

The point is that there is already significant investment taking place with regard to police oversight and police complaint processes in B.C. To put this in perspective, the grant provided to the Justice Institute of B.C. Police Academy every year to provide recruit police training and advanced training to officers in B.C. is less than $2 million. While a great deal of training is offered and funded by individual police agencies themselves, we suggest that improvements in how we approach training in these areas would be beneficial. I’ll comment a little bit more on training in a few moments.

At the same time, registered complaints appear to be on the decline under the police complaint system. Comparing fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2016-2017, according to the OPCC’s published statistics — and recognizing that numbers can change or vary over time — there was a 22.6 percent decrease in the number of registered complaints during that time period. Of these registered complaints that came in, 48 percent of the complaints were reviewed by the OPCC and didn’t contain an allegation of identifiable misconduct. I have a few other statistics there, which I’ll let you peruse on your own time when you wish.

One of the things I do want to point out is that when police officers…. When complaints are substantiated in B.C., the test for whether or not that complaint is substantiated is on the balance of probabilities. Sometimes it’s referred to as the 50 percent plus one, and it’s the lowest legal standard out there that allows for someone to be deemed to be accountable for action or inaction. So that bar is quite low and in stark contrast to other legal tests, under the circumstances.

We highlight some of these statistics in an effort to point out that the province and individual communities are already investing heavily in police oversight systems. We ask you to consider, during your discussions, whether additional processes are likely to result in corresponding and proportional improvements.

Moving on, we wish to highlight a small number of areas of focus for the special committee to consider. These are: the need to streamline and simplify the police complaints process; continued involvement of, and deference to, police leaders in discipline and corrective measures decisions; and improved training with regard to the complaints process and how to function within it. There is more, and I mentioned to you before that the written submission that we will get to you later will have far more detail on some of the other aspects. We will also comment very, very briefly on the proposal for a fully civilianized police complaint investigative process that has been discussed publicly fairly recently.

First, streamlining the police complaints process. Part 11 in the current Police Act is very process-heavy. While it has been our direct experience, over many years, that this is the case, we are not the only ones to identify this as an issue. In fact, the B.C. Court of Appeal, in the Florkow case, described part 11 of the Police Act as “dense, complicated and often confusing.” The complexities of part 11 create a number of practical challenges in administering the system in terms of police agencies conducting investigations and differences in interpretation and application of the act between police agencies, police unions and the OPCC. We are of the view that consistency in process must be improved.

Additionally, it’s our submission that the amendments should seek to streamline and simplify processes and add a means through which there can be a timely resolution to minor matters, particularly in cases where police officers are prepared to admit misconduct early on. Streamlining the legislative process is important; so too is the administration of the process. It should focus on resolving matters quickly, fairly, transparently and in a manner that does not add unnecessary process or investigative steps in the absence of reasonable need to do so.

We believe that by making the processes efficient, reasonable and fair, the perception of the system by both officers and the community will improve. It will also reduce the stress of officers who are facing conduct investigations and, as importantly, ensure that members of the public who submit complaints know that they are taken seriously and dealt with in a timely manner.

I’d like to make a brief comment on the impact of Police Act investigations on police members, which is something that’s not always talked about. Submitting a complaint about a police officer in this province is quite straightforward. In fact, in the last Police Act amendments, changes were also made to allow third-party complaints. This means that officers will surely become subjects of investigations throughout their career, even when they’ve done nothing wrong. While officers accept that this will occur in their career, any time an officer becomes the subject of an investigation, it can have a profound impact on them.

I can tell you that in one incident in my agency, a member committed suicide not long after being informed of an investigation. While this is an extreme case, we must be mindful that officers are people who join a difficult profession to do honourable work, and the vast majority take this seriously and are impacted when they are complained about. We need to be responsible and transparent in our oversight system but do it in a way that is compassionate to all involved.

[10:45 a.m.]

Next, police leaders and maintenance of police discipline performance. Police leaders in this province take the maintenance of police discipline and professionalism very seriously. Part of our leadership responsibility is to hold our officers personally accountable when incidents of misconduct occur.

Any recommended changes to part 11 should ensure that the chief constables or their designates remain the primary decision-makers with respect to determining if misconduct has occurred and if disciplinary and corrective measures are the most appropriate under the circumstances. We would prefer to see legislative change that provides an elevated level of deference given to disciplinary authorities, provided that their decisions are well reasoned and supported in facts.

While this duty is very time-consuming for those of us that do this work and is becoming increasingly complex, we believe that there are options that could be made available to the chief constables where particularly complex cases arise. Efficiency improvements to the overall process can further reduce that. These suggestions will be contained in our written submission, to follow.

Moving on, as a practical suggestion, one of the things we can do to assist disciplinary authorities to make sure that decisions are reasonable and are comparable to similar conduct in different parts of British Columbia is to work with the OPCC to create a confidential, up-to-date and searchable database on past decisions regarding discipline and corrective measures in order to assist in ensuring that there’s a level of consistency around those decisions over time.

The next has to do with improved training. There’s an opportunity, we believe, for improvement with regard to consistent training for investigators that are working within part 11 of the Police Act process and the disciplinary authorities that adjudicate it. One of the challenges faced by both disciplinary authorities and professional standards investigators working within part 11 is to meet the expectations of the OPCC. Preparing clearly articulated decisions is impacted by training. We’d recommend that the OPCC work with us to create and expand that training as we move forward.

I’m going to move just a little bit more quickly, because I know I’m short on time here, and that has to do with commenting on a civilian system.

Finally, BCAMCP is aware of public dialogue regarding the potential for expanding the role of the OPCC to include responsibility for conducting investigations under part 11. While the BCAMCP does not dismiss this potential option, we encourage the special committee to consider closely what this fundamental change of system is intended to correct and if a fully civilian investigative system is likely to improve outcomes.

That must be my cue to stop.

R. Singh (Chair): No, you can take another minute.

C. Watson: Okay. One last paragraph. It’s our view that research into a fully civilian oversight system is mixed, and that other than the potential for improvement with regard to the perception of fairness in the system, there’s little evidence to support that this approach would actually result in improved outcomes. So that’s something that we would like the special committee to pay close attention to.

Once again, thank you to all of you for your time. I know I speak really quickly, and I was trying to fit a lot of information in, in a short period of time. Chief Jones and I would be happy to answer any questions. I’m sure you’ll get much better pearls of wisdom from Chief Jones than you will from me, but thank you for your time.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.

I’ll ask my committee members if they have any questions.

G. Begg: Sure, I’ll start.

Good morning. Thank you both.

I’m anticipating, Dave, that you’re going to speak at some point.

D. Jones: I’m here to answer questions.

G. Begg: Without putting you on the spot, all I need is a fairly generic example of an extremely complex case that a decision has to be made on — just a generic one.

D. Jones: A generic — a really complex case?

G. Begg: Yes.

D. Jones: One to watch, where our investigators are, just occurred. It was one that involves criminal activity that leads into police discipline where source information, wiretap evidence is available, when in fact the use of wiretap and sources is not permitted within the administrative process. So a complete understanding of the law as to what you’re allowed to carry over from one investigation to the other was recently tested all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, here in B.C.

G. Begg: So the pre- or post-criminal…?

D. Jones: The criminal investigation gathered evidence through the use of sources and an agent….

G. Begg: No, I’m sorry. The decision-making process — was it after the criminal…?

D. Jones: It was after the criminal.

G. Begg: And as a result of the criminal?

D. Jones: Yes.

G. Begg: And there was no precedent?

[10:50 a.m.]

D. Jones: There was no precedent. This led to a divergence of views as to what was available even for the complaint commissioner to see and what he felt they were entitled to have access to. It eventually ended with a ruling of the B.C. Court of Appeal stipulating that the investigators of the Police Act were even more limited. So a very complex matter.

G. Begg: Completely unrelated, you speak of training. I wonder about the extent of training at the B.C. Police Academy for members about the potential pitfalls and jeopardies of a Police Act investigation. Is that covered thoroughly or just touched upon lightly?

D. Jones: We believe that you’ll see that it’s touched upon more lightly. It’s an introduction to the act. Then we also touch on the aspect of training. Aside from agencies just assigning people the professional standards and doing this kind of ad hoc in house, is developing training and standards for an investigator, much like we would expect an investigator of child sex abuse to get some specialized training.

G. Begg: So the average constable on the street’s awareness, not of the investigative process, but of the potential for Police Act investigations because of misconduct on his or her part — is that addressed in the recruit training portion?

D. Jones: They’re introduced to it. They’re introduced that the act applies, and it applies to them. But that’s about it.

G. Begg: Yeah. Would it be helpful if they were more aware? Is awareness a factor in faulty decision-making at times?

C. Watson: Well, I would say that in our agency, in addition to whatever they’re exposed to in their recruit training, we also do some training — I guess familiarization is probably a better word — both from the perspective of union representation and from the perspective of our professional standards investigators and professional standards administrators, on the construct of the act, how it works, what the pitfalls are, and then encourage ongoing conversation between the professional standards folks and the union so that members make sure that they are really well-versed on the processes that are involved.

G. Begg: You’re confident, I assume, that they have sufficient knowledge that they don’t unnecessarily or unwittingly put themselves in a position where they could be the subject of a complaint, where if they had the knowledge, they wouldn’t be in that position.

D. Jones: That’s correct. I think everyone entering this profession knows that there’s scrutiny both on and off the job, and behaviours are meant to be exemplary at all times.

G. Begg: Thank you.

E. Ross: Good morning, and thanks for the presentation. In the short time, I’ve learned about these different levels of oversight that the RCMP and the police officers have to abide by. We all want a better, efficient process, but I just don’t see how we do it with all the different entities that are actually involved with this.

You mentioned one. I’m going to assume that one area that you talk about that needs attention is the adequate and consistent training for investigators and disciplinary authorities. Now, I’m assuming you mentioned that to actually make the process more efficient. So apart from that, are there any other ways that we can look at to make this process more efficient so it’s actually easier on all parties involved?

D. Jones: Yeah, I think in part, it mentions that…. A lot of what we get is complaints of what we’ll call a minor nature. So they’re not serious. There doesn’t appear to be an expedited process. If it’s admitted as a complaint and made admissible, it seems that a complete and thorough — call it fulsome — investigation has to occur, as opposed to the quick and early ability to get to “the member admits it.” So if a member admits a minor default…. I’ll use discourtesy. At a traffic stop, they admit they were discourteous, that they used inappropriate language. That would still be subject to a thorough…. “Let’s serve forms. We’ve got to interview. We’ve got to do video search.”

We’ve got the member admitting the default, yet it goes on. Even for the complainant, we lose the opportunity to resolve it quickly. I’m talking where we, as an agency, still want to impose a level of discipline.

There are methods, such as informal resolution or mediation, which will take time. But we’re talking about the ones where they admit that they have committed discipline, and the only way to resolve that is to go through an entire process of an investigation, submission of reports, meeting timelines, submission of forms, the opportunity to respond, versus a person walking in saying: “I admit it. I had a bad day. I said that. I acknowledge that I’m going to get a reprimand. I’m going to get some level of discipline, including getting sign-off of the complainant.” There is no expedited process for doing that at present.

E. Ross: So that speaks to the severity of the claim, right?

D. Jones: Yeah.

E. Ross: Okay. Thank you. My second question is…. I see there’s a mention of interaction with tribal police. I know the chain of command for on reserve is with the chief and council or whatever leadership structure that that band has in terms of complaints.

[10:55 a.m.]

But I’ve always wondered about off-reserve complaints for off-reserve natives. Is there a specific body that the police actually engage with to address issues relating to off-reserve natives?

D. Jones: You’re talking about First Nations police offi­cers?

E. Ross: No, no. I’m talking about the issues regarding complaints coming from First Nations who are living off reserve. Is there a body that you engage with to actually address these concerns or complaints?

D. Jones: No, they would be addressed just, probably, in the local jurisdiction. But no one body that we would refer it to.

E. Ross: Okay, thank you.

R. Singh (Chair): Do you have a question, Mike?

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Well, maybe a question. Just basic comments. I think the recommendations that you have in here are pretty good. We’ve heard the issue about simplifying the process for these complaints that can be resolved right now, but we have to go through this onerous process.

I’m curious. I’ve been the discipline authority in the past, and I’ve had access to good precedent through our legal folks and whatnot. I’m surprised that that’s not available at all for the municipal departments that are doing that.

C. Watson: It is available. If we reach out to the OPCC and ask them for summaries of what sort of corrective or discipline measures have been associated with different types of misconduct in the past, that information is available to us. But we also reach out amongst the group of DAs to find out: “Have you dealt with this type of thing, where it is?”

Every case is a little bit different. Having served as a DA, you’ll appreciate that every circumstance, every officer…. There is a host of things that need to be considered. To be able to look through some of those things and see where there are commonalities…. Really, what we want at the end of the day, where discipline is appropriate under a set of circumstances, is to make sure that that discipline is common — that a similar sort of conduct meets a similar sort of discipline in the end. It would just be a way to expedite and streamline that part of the process.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Just one other comment with respect to the civilianization of the process, I guess. There are complexities associated to that. There’s no question about it. I know, as a previous district officer with a multitude of detachments within my area of responsibility, that they were all trying to get rid of it. “Somebody else do it for me, because it’s impacting on the resources that I have right now.”

Would that be a mitigating factor in determining whether it should be civilianized or not? Do you see civilianization as a no-go zone at all for whatever reason?

D. Jones: I think the report of the submission says that we don’t see it as a no go. We think that a lot more research, or a review of it, has to be done, starting with the basic premise that the chief constable should be responsible for both the hiring and discipline of personnel in his or her workforce. They kind of set the culture of it. When we look externally, you can always get the worry that you can become an advocate for your members as opposed to setting the example for it.

There also are some complexities with the act and how investigations are. The act bestows some very unique powers and authorities, such as the ability to search a police building without warrant to get documents and records or getting access to records.

I’ll refer to Mr. Begg’s first question about a complex case. The dispute there was over whether the OPCC could have access to the actual wiretap evidence or the identity of source agents. They were of the view they could. If not, who was going to be the advocate to raise the level up so that a decision was made in the legal sense, in the interim?

So the act has some very powerful steps in it, such as the ability to search, the ability to order statements to be given and collect evidence. It’s not there, but it’s not as simple as that these are easy processes where we’re just talking about simple complaints. Some are more complex, and they feed off of criminal investigations. Those are the serious ones that we all take into effect.

Are there other options, such as: are there integrated professional standards units with embedded analysts into them? So you still may have police doing it, but embedded civilian analysts are overseeing it at that time and place. So there are options, I think, to discuss, but I don’t think anything is a no go.

C. Watson: If I can add on just one comment. This is just more philosophical on my part.

[11:00 a.m.]

I think one of the defining features of our profession, which I believe policing to be — if not technically, at least we should be continuing to move that way — is that component of us providing oversight into ourselves where it’s reasonable for that to happen. I think that, as Chief Jones had mentioned, it’s really a major responsibility for us as police leaders to make sure that we are maintaining that expectation. That’s not coming from the outside. That’s being driven by us in all aspects of how we organize the organizations; how we provide direction to our officers; and, ultimately, how we discipline officers when it’s appropriate.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Good points. Thank you for that. It is a difficult…. You know, the optics from outside…. People view the police as being pretty easy on one another. My experience is exactly the opposite.

D. Jones: I would echo that.

C. Watson: I would agree.

R. Singh (Chair): I have one question. You have put a lot of emphasis on the training. What kind of training do officers get, especially the sensitivity training and the cultural training? We just saw the video come out — although it was not with the municipal force; I think it was with the RCMP — of how a victim of sexual assault was being interviewed by a police officer. It gives time for all of us to reflect on what is happening, although it happened in the RCMP but also with the municipal force.

What kind of training are officers provided, especially in B.C. where we have a very diverse province with different communities, especially with our Indigenous populations and ethnic populations? So what kind of training do the officers get?

D. Jones: When it comes to professional standards, there’s no specific training, like on interviewing. Most of the members are taught the interviewing course as part of their basic introduction to policing, or in major crimes they’ll get expanded courses. Then, of course, all members are looking at training in cultural sensitivity, diversity training and learning as we go on each of the…. I call them, sometimes, simple and complex issues of how we should behave and how we need to act and treat accordingly.

There is no specific course on just how a professional standards investigator interviews someone, other than we would like them to behave and act in the same manner as all of our members when it comes to interviewing, first of all, everybody, and then having that awareness on issues like cultural sensitivity, the First Nations and that. We want to make sure that we’re recognizing that some of the people who are making complaints to us have challenges in their life and are living in difficult and marginalized situations.

We are very much aware that they are not to be discounted because of the situation they’re in, right? These are a vulnerable group, and they’re viewed as being vulnerable by society, and we, as the police, need to be the protectors of that group and not be anyone who traumatizes, victimizes or punishes in any way possible there.

The act allows…. The civil standard doesn’t even require cooperation. We need to work with the person in terms of it. So no specific to just how we interview, other than the growth of all policing as a profession in terms of the sensitivity and diversity and better understanding of who we’re dealing with.

R. Singh (Chair): Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate you talking about the marginalized and the vulnerable populations because that’s very important. We have to build the trust with those communities. You have answered it very well, that there’s nothing specified.

But when some incidents like this come to light, like what we just saw a few weeks ago, does it give time for you to reflect and have conversations — when you meet, maybe, yearly or some time to reflect on those incidents — and talk to your officers about it so that something like that does not happen within your police force?

D. Jones: Absolutely. It’s a time to reflect and use it. I think that, at times, police agencies try to — and I know you’ve got some experience, some of the members here — hide behind: “We can’t comment.” I think we do need to comment. I think we need to come out. We need to recognize…. Even if it’s a small portion we’ve seen, quit asking what the bigger picture is and recognize that that’s not acceptable — it’s hard to imagine how that’s acceptable, that type of it — and learn from that in terms of how it interacts.

That’s why, to some degree, it’s important…. And this is a bit of a personal…. We’re recognizing the chiefs, so others share it as well. Maintaining that the police chiefs have that responsibility so we can react quickly to ensure that that culture and message gets delivered instantaneously into the organization, right? If it’s a third party or outside group that is waiting till the report is concluded to come in….

[11:05 a.m.]

You know, I had discussions the next day with people, not a month later or a week later in terms of…. It was the next day, and a very robust “tell me this doesn’t happen” type of approach, or: “Can someone explain to me…?” I need to ask the question at times too: “Are you being trained that way?”

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much.

I think Garry had a question.

G. Begg: Sorry, Colin. Go ahead.

C. Watson: One very, very brief point, just filling out what Chief Jones said. Our training staff do, I think, a very, very good job to remain open to those circumstances that happen both in our individual agencies and also in policing in general. Whether it’s our fair and impartial policing training or our ongoing in-service training, they build in those principles and actually use some of those scenarios of those experiences in the past in training scenarios so that we can expose officers to that and they can make improvements in how they approach that. But that’s something that’s not often discussed — how we go about doing that.

G. Begg: Just to comment more than anything else and, obviously, I’d be interested in your feedback on it. I think that at the end of the day, what we want is…. Perhaps I’m reverting to police terminology. We want to be nimble, right? We want to be able to respond. But it’s important, as well, that we don’t get bogged down in this bureaucratic process that appears to have evolved, which always happens when we try and build a system like this.

You touched upon it as well. In order for discipline to be effective, it has to be corrective and it has to be timely. When you talk of cases that go on for nine years or three years or any length of time over and above a reasonable period of time — which, to me, would be weeks, not months — I think there’s a danger that we’re measuring process rather than performance, right? Do we have a very intense bureaucratic process? Full marks for that. Is it effective? Is it nimble? Is it timely? Does it result or help to result in corrective action that is appropriate?

I can’t help but feel that we’re sort of not where we should be. We may be where we should be from a straight bureaucratic point of view, but from an efficiency point of view or from a performance point of view, we may be missing the boat. I say that after having listened carefully to what you said. In the RCMP, we had a huge problem. We changed it several times over the course of my career, and all of it was slanted toward making the process more cumbersome.

If you think of it in terms of nimbleness and ability to respond, I don’t think we’re doing that well. You don’t have to comment, but I’d be interested in your comments.

D. Jones: I would echo that. I think you hit it when you said that we’ve focused on a very thorough process. We’re ensuring that the process is followed, but we’re missing the outcome. That is what has mixed it up.

C. Watson: I think one of the comments I made earlier is that, you know…. It’s my belief that we’re starting from a position of strength. When we have those very, very serious misconduct issues, we have to concern ourselves with procedural fairness principles and that members are responding accordingly and all that sort of stuff. I think those steps are there for those cases.

That’s not to say that there can’t be efficiencies introduced there. But what we’re talking about are the things you’re talking about — the day-to-day things that are relatively minor that we’d like to be able to address and move on and really have our officers spending time on the things that we want them spending their time on, because we’re not an inexpensive resource, as everyone knows.

D. Jones: When we talk training…. I want to perhaps add this in here. Why I believe it’s important that the organizations and chiefs have that involvement…. It’s not just about disciplining your members. It’s also being able to reassure them, during investigations that are tough. It may not be clear that they’ve done something wrong. Those are the tough ones.

When you have a member facing a serious allegation…. There has to be a thorough investigation, and there’s a lot of stress because it was a result of a violent takedown or an arrest, or something has happened, and these are the most stressful times. There has to be confidence that the organization is there, when I say “support,” to do the right thing, and the member has confidence that even if they’ve made a mistake or something wrong has happened, they will be treated fairly. They look internally for that level of support even when they’re wrong.

[11:10 a.m.]

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. We really appreciate you coming and your presentation and answering our questions.

D. Jones: One last pitch, if I can. I know it’s a bit off. It is taken seriously. You’ve got your graduate, right? He has applied for it. Colin has put in and will get his master’s of law out of Osgoode Hall.

R. Singh (Chair): Oh, wonderful.

D. Jones: He inspired myself to join the program. So everyone’s investing in training at every level. But he has graduated with his master of law in administration. So congratulations to him.

R. Singh (Chair): Congratulations. Yes, wonderful.

Now joining us is Jonny Morris from the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division.

Jonny, welcome, and thank you for taking out the time. I just wanted to let you know that you have 15 minutes to do the presentation, and then we have 15 minutes for the questions and answers. I’ll give you a one-minute warning, and I’ll let you know when the time starts.

CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION,
B.C. DIVISION

J. Morris: Well, good morning, committee members. It’s an honour to be here this morning. Thank you very much for invitation.

I’m recently appointed into the CEO. I just left public service in the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, so I’m settling my feet here. I’m about 17 weeks in on the job and took the opportunity that I could to come here to speak on the important work that you’re doing and the linkage to mental health and well-being.

Before I move on with my remarks, I want to thank the committee for its service, of course, on this important issue around the police complaints process and also acknowledge the traditional territories of the Semiahmoo, the Katzie, the Kwikwetlem, Kwantlen, Qayqaytand Tsawwassen First Nations this morning. I think it’s of particular importance, given the report issued earlier this week on murdered and missing Indigenous women. It’s so important for us to think that through.

I have two objectives for the briefing this morning or the submission we’re making to this committee. The first piece I would say right out of the gate is I don’t have expertise in the Police Act. I don’t have expertise in the police complaints process. I listened intently to the presentation by the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police a while ago.

But we are familiar within our organization around the interface between police and folks living with mental illness and addiction. The Clerk to your committee and I had some conversation before coming in today signalling that the committee might be interested in thinking some of that through alongside me.

The first objective is to illustrate the rates of contact between police and people with mental disorders. For you, Chair, your comment to the last presentation around vulnerability I think is particularly salient, given the material that I’ll share. The end of the briefing is really one slide with three recommendations that we’d urge the committee to consider, given its review of ways in which the Police Complaint Commissioner can be more responsive to this population.

On slide 3. I know some of your faces from the Legislature and from my recent time in public service. But now in my new role, I’m just letting you know who we are. We’re one of the oldest charitable organizations in Canada. In B.C., we have a divisional office of which I am CEO and 14 branches in local communities across the province — with many of those branches in the communities that you serve as MLAs.

We provide a range of services and supports for people living with mental health and substance use problems. But in particular today…. The organization has had a long history of systems-level policy advocacy focused on policing the broader justice system and mental health. There’s one example. During the Braidwood Inquiry, CMHA had a key role at that committee level after the Dziekanski inquiry.

To meet the first objective of the material, I would want the committee just to turn its attention to this slide here, on slide 4, of understanding the issue that is really at the heart of police interactions with folks with a mental disorder or substance use disorder. A recent study was put out in 2016. The data I’m about to share with you really is global. It’s not specific to British Columbia or Canada. I’ll get into that in a few moments.

But I think it’s particularly important to recognize that one in four people, 25 percent of people, with a mental disorder have a history of police arrest. They’ve had contact with the police in some way.

[11:15 a.m.]

One in ten people have police involved in their pathway to mental health care. This, of course, has implications for your colleagues in cabinet — Minister Darcy being one particular person — around what’s been called earlier this week the way that the police is actually a de facto part of the mental health system in this province and probably beyond.

One in 100 people in police dispatches and encounters involve a person with a mental disorder. I think that really points to how police…. I think I’ve heard from police colleagues over the years. Most police sign up to catch the bad guys. Most police sign up in the police force because they want to make a difference around public safety and preventing and intervening with crime.

When I’ve sat with police leaders over the years at VPD and elsewhere, I’ve heard that that’s turned. I think that training need was made very clear in the previous submission. Now often police are encountering not just the bad guys that they’re needing to intervene with but folks in profound and acute mental health and physical distress on the streets of cities and villages and towns and across this great province.

I think that calls into question, given your review of the Police Complaints Commissioner piece and the legislation underpinning that, ways to enable legislation to catch up with that reality, that there is actually a way that the Police Complaints Commissioner can play an important role given those statistics.

Moving on to the next line here, still on this issue of understanding the issue. I think, for this committee, it’s important to be aware of some the findings from this recent research that shows that police contact with people with a mental disorder shows up in particular ways against some of these factors. The factors, I think, are salient for consideration here — most often male gender. That’s often where these interactions happen. Given the breadth of this data, folks of colour — people of colour particularly — and people who are black…. In this context, Indigenous people are of paramount concern, of course, too.

Police are often intervening into these situations when someone is experiencing bipolar disorder or manic symptoms. For the committee, that’s often folks who are behaving erratically or experiencing distress, and often it’s a friend or a family member or a member of the public that calls the police to intervene. I’ll get into this in a second.

Police are often driven to respond to people with mental disorders because of involuntary hospitalization. We have legislation where police are — as many of you know, perhaps, having served in the police before — a conveyance route to hospital.

People are detained. They are sometimes detained secure­ly — i.e., handcuffed, transported in a police car. Often — I think you’ve probably heard at your other committee presentations over the years — that’s a driver, because police sit in the emergency department with folks. The police there have actually become a significant response point.

Substance use problems are of particular importance, given the context of the opioid overdose emergency that this province and beyond is grappling with. Unemployment, low socioeconomic standards and homelessness are often drivers of where police find themselves interacting with folks with a mental disorder or substance use disorder.

Before I get into the recommendations, I have two more pieces on the context. You might be aware as a committee that just this week, June 4, the B.C. Coroners Service released its death review panel…. I’m not sure if that was designed to coincide with the work of this committee this week. The death review panel examined a period of time between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017 — the deaths of people who died during or within 24 hours of police contact. They have a legislative mandate to review those deaths.

It’s important to note that those deaths include suicide, accidental death and illicit drug overdose or death as the result of a use of force. In that time period, 2013 to 2017, there were 127 decedents, or people who died, all within that 24-hour period of contact with police officers.

In this report, released earlier this week, which I would submit as important evidence for this committee’s ongoing considerations, the coroners service conclude that the police are a de facto part of the mental health system in this province. They’re urging government to consider the role of policing within the context of the soon-to-be-released mental health strategy, which I understand is slated for release in the coming months by Minister Darcy and her team, and a need for more assessment and training opportunities — a theme that you’ve heard this morning.

In so many ways folks encounter police, if they’re living with a mental disorder. Because you’ve been arrested…. You may have been detained involuntarily, or you may have been arrested because actually you’re engaged in a crime. It’s important to note that people with mental illness are much more likely to be the victim of a crime rather than perpetrate a crime. That’s a really important thing to remember.

[11:20 a.m.]

People encounter the police on their way to the mental health system. I think that’s something broader than this committee’s mandate of work. It’s to think through: “Well, is it appropriate that the first door that people experience in mental health care is a police officer?” It’s an important consideration — and lots of calls that actually don’t result in arrests, in lots of ways.

Finally, on this piece around the B.C. coroner’s report, the coroner and the chair, Michael Egilson, found that mental health issues, chronic alcohol use and substance use were present in the lives of so many of those 127 people that died — mental health issues, chronic alcohol use and substance use.

More than half of those decedents, at the time of their death, were exhibiting mental health symptoms. At the point of contact, that’s where they were at with police. Many of those deaths were of persons living in rural, small and remote communities often served by RCMP or tribal police forces. Indigenous persons account for 6 percent of the population in British Columbia, but 20 percent of the deaths that were studied by the B.C. Coroners Service and released this week were among Indigenous people. So a gross, disproportionate representation of people who died were Indigenous.

Then finally, just before we get to the recommendations, 74,000 incidents in B.C. annually involve mental health. That’s 74,000 calls, through looking at PRIME, the database that I’m sure many of you are familiar with. And 18,000 of those call-outs respond to the Mental Health Act. We’re seeing increases of involuntary detention under the Mental Health Act.

In so many of those times, these are situations where police officers are trained to de-escalate crisis situations, triage and transport. Before I get into the recommendations, it’s worth noting for this committee that this province, after the Braidwood enquiry and the Dziekanski case, implemented mandatory police training. The opportunity here is to evaluate the efficacy and whether that training is actually yielding the results that it needs to do. Reductions in police shootings or other kinds of inappropriate use of force — that’s a question that I think is still being answered, and I understand that work is underway to do that. But it’s just to go to show that the system actually has been able to respond in some significant ways around this issue.

Probably most pertinent for this committee, I have three recommendations and then would really welcome…. I’ll cover this in my remaining four minutes here.

Given the limitation of my expertise in the area of police complaints processes and given this opportunity of review and renewal, one of the pieces, through my study and understanding, is an opportunity for the Police Complaint Commissioner to conduct systemic investigations. I don’t understand if it’s currently within the remit and power or purview of the Police Complaint Commissioner to actually undertake a systemic investigation. From what I’ve seen, the Police Complaint Commissioner often responds to individualized police complaints.

Sometimes a body can bring a policy complaint to the Police Complaint Commissioner, but — much like the systemic investigations that are completed by bodies like the Coroners Service, the Representative for Children and Youth or other statutory officers like the Auditor General — arguably, I think the Police Complaint Commissioner is well positioned to see trends and themes in the complaints, which might actually lend some ground for that person to conduct an independent systemic analysis, given their remit and role.

The Coroners Service has got a remit that’s very focused on decedents and death, and there’s a whole load of folks who encounter the police who don’t die, thankfully, where there might actually be an opportunity to uncover if there’s a need for more training, if there’s a need for changes in the mental health system.

I think the Police Complaint Commissioner has a unique vantage point, and I think that would actually likely require a change to the statute, the legislation, to grant this power under legislation. That would be an urging from our association. There’s an opportunity, given the prevalence of contact, to take a deeper look here — not just to study for study’s sake but leverage the power that’s in the office of the Police Complaint Commissioner to move some change forward.

Two, the recommendation from CMHA would be to examine the need for advocacy and support when navigating the complaints process. If you are a person who has been detained by police because you were in a state of mental health emergency, and you had an experience where there was a question around use of force or your experience with that police officer, I think the committee can likely empathize directly that going on to navigate a complaints process, understanding that complaints process can be difficult for marginalized folks who are experiencing distress.

I don’t think, from my scan of things, that this service exists. I think allied agencies like Pivot and B.C. Civil Liberties and others might perform some of this function. But within the office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, is there a space for the kind of support, education and navigation of the process that could be made available to folks, in particular, that we’re concerned about — people with mental illness and substance use?

[11:25 a.m.]

Finally, given the trend…. You might be — you probably are — better positioned, as is the commissioner, to understand how many complaints they receive from folks with a mental disorder. Across the system, there’s opportunity for officers like this to actually train themselves from within to understand the experiences of people with mental disorders and substance use in the context of these processes of complaint and review, etc.

Police are getting lots of training. I think there’s a question around: is the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner feeling that they’ve got confidence in the level of training and skill there to actually respond to complainants living with a mental illness? The Ombudsperson is a good example of an office that’s engaged in training of its staff, to think through how to respond to complainants who live with a mental disorder or substance use disorder. This, I would say, would be a low-hanging fruit around improving the quality and responsiveness of the office in response to this population.

I think I’m right on time, Chair, at 14½ minutes. I’m a bit early.

R. Singh (Chair): You are, absolutely. Thank you for that presentation.

I will open the floor for questions now.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Just more a comment than anything else. I appreciate your presentation. My experience verifies the figures that you had as well. I think, probably, more people have become diagnosed with some form of mental stress or disorder in recent times, but that has always been the case. We’ve just found better way to diagnose and help people.

The comments that you’ve made, I think, are more indicative of how Public Safety has to change coming down in the future here. There needs to be a more integrated approach. The default system in British Columbia and right across North America is to the police and to the criminal justice system when it should be a more integrated service with wraparound help from Mental Health and Addictions and social services and Education and everybody trying to help out at that level before people get engaged with a criminal system. I’ll certainly be advocating for that over the years. You make some good points here. I’ll certainly be taking it into consideration in our deliberations here, so thank you.

G. Begg: Echoing what Mike has said, a very eloquent submission. You’re very sensitive, I think, to the situation as it exists today in policing. I think the recent statistics…. Vancouver city police attributes 40 percent of all of their calls to service to complaints that have a mental health basis for them. It may exhibit in some other way for the police involvement, but underlying it, 40 percent of all of their calls for service are mental health–based. It’s a significant issue.

You will know, I think, that police have adapted fairly well to the increasing phenomenon, in the sense that many police detachments and departments have psychiatric nurses that are teamed up in cars to attend with regular police members to incidents that involve persons in mental distress. I think that’s proven itself to be very effective as a policing tool.

I’m intrigued by your idea that the Police Complaint Commissioner could have this oversight responsibility when he or she comes across trends or issues that might be prevalent across the province. I think that’s a very important consideration, because the complaint commissioner is in a very unique position to be able to identify those trends or issues — not only in the mental health field, of course, but all across. So thank you for that.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. You bring out some very sensitive, real issues that the police, no doubt, are dealing with these days. I’m really glad to hear that the police are getting enough training. B.C., when we look at the statistics, the mental health issues are on the rise, and we need the proper training. It’s really good to know that the police are getting their officers equipped to deal with this issue. That’s very important because they are the first responders dealing with these people. Understanding their vulnerability — how marginalized these people are — is extremely important.

[11:30 a.m.]

As Garry said, I’m really looking at the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner — that they have that training and that they have those resources to look at these complaints with that perspective. I think that is extremely important. This is something that we will make sure is conveyed to them too. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I know you have been in this role for a little while. Your presentation was really well done.

J. Morris: Well, thank you so much, Chair. Thank you for your time, committee.

R. Singh (Chair): Our next presenter is Josh Paterson, from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Thank you so much for taking out the time. Also, I know we had to adjust your time to present to us. We really appreciate your coming in early and taking the time. As you know, you have 15 minutes to present. I’ll give you a one-minute warning, but we are not very rigid on time. So don’t worry too much about it. Then we have about 15 minutes to ask you questions.

B.C. CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION

J. Paterson: Thanks very much to the members of the committee for inviting the BCCLA to come today and speak before you on the territories of the Semiahmoo, the Katzie, Kwikwetlem, Kwantlen, Qayqayt and Tsawwassen First Nations.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association. For those of you who may not be super familiar with us, we are the oldest and most active civil liberties and human rights organization in Canada, based here in B.C. A significant amount of our work is on policing and police accountability, which includes having done numerous reports over time, including a 2011 report on policing in rural and Interior northern communities, which wound up, in part, resulting in the federal CRCC’s review of policing in northern British Columbia and making a fair number of recommendations for positive change across northern B.C.

We’ve worked on the inquiries on Frank Paul, Dziekanski and others. More recently, we’ve been really honoured to be part of what’s called ACOPPS, which is, as some of you may know, the Advisory Committee on Provincial Policing Standards. This is under the Ministry of Solicitor General, where we have an opportunity to sit with chiefs, with police board representatives, with police unions and with public servants to talk about the nitty-gritty of police guidelines and standards before they even come out.

We actually spend a fair bit of time…. As much as, sometimes, you may see us in the newspaper talking about things, far more of our time is spent with sleeves rolled up, working with police agencies, working with the government to try and improve things. In that vein, training has come up. I can’t talk about it very much today, but we’re also involved on the steering committee of the JIBC’s Police Academy curriculum review, which Mr. Wally Oppal is conducting. I expect that that review is going to have much more to say pretty soon about the state of police training in B.C.

Before getting into it, one of the things that I want to highlight that’s very interesting and that we’re working on — it’s not really germane, specifically, to the provincial Police Act — is that we’re currently deeply involved in a project, partnered with the RCMP, the CRCC, the federal Public Safety Minister and the Office of the Wet’suwet’en and the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan Unlocking Aboriginal Justice program to try and develop a pilot of a distinctly Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan law–based alternative resolution mechanism for police complaints.

When we’ve travelled through many First Nations communities in the north, what we consistently hear is that folks don’t want to use, in that case, the CRCC. They’re not sure what it is; they’re not sure whether to have confidence in it. It’s far away in Ottawa, etc. The Wet’suwet’en Nation was very interested in working on trying to build an alternative process where their members could file complaints and have those resolved right there in their territory, in a restorative process where police and the nation worked together. That may be a model worth considering or enabling at the provincial level, too, in future.

[11:35 a.m.]

In 2017 and many other times over the years, we put together, with a number of other groups — Pivot, CLAS and West Coast LEAF — a justice reform agenda for B.C. Two of the key recommendations in that were that the Police Complaint Commissioner ought to be able to initiate its own systemic investigations and hearings and also that the Police Complaint Commissioner ought to be given the responsibility and primary carriage of investigations of police complaints, that the municipal agencies be relieved of having to perform that task. I’ll go through each of those in turn.

First of all, we think that it’s really, really important — and I know you’ve heard this submission from others — that the Police Complaint Commissioner be able to initiate its own systemic reviews and investigations if it considers that to be in the public interest, even where there is no complaint or where a complaint has been withdrawn.

In many cases, individuals may just not make complaints to the Police Complaint Commissioner, or there may be a whole bunch of things kind of happening in a thematic way, but none of them really rises to the level where any one person might make a complaint. Yet there is a problem that the Police Complaint Commissioner may wish to look into. We think it’s really important that they have the power and the resources to initiate those reviews.

We know that Commissioner Pecknold made the same submission. Well, at least he pointed out that they don’t have that authority and that other agencies in other provinces do have that authority. We support that they should be able to do that.

We note that B.C. is no stranger to that. As I was just mentioning before, the CRCC at the federal level has the power to do that. They don’t do it that often because it’s resource-intensive. We’d argue that they probably should do it more, but they do it from time to time. There was both the policing in northern B.C. report, which led to a lot of important recommendations, and also their report looking at internal issues of harassment and discrimination within the RCMP.

It turns out that that report has been instrumental in the recent federal budget just going through parliament now. There’s actually a change to the governance of the RCMP that is taking place which flows directly from the recommendations in that report. So we think that that’s a really powerful tool and an important one that they ought to have.

Now, the other main submission that I’ll make today is that in our view, and this is our long-time view that we’ve expressed many times over the years, we think that the best model is to have a police complaint commissioner that has core investigative capacity and is able to — and, in fact, does — do most if not all of the misconduct investigations. There are a number of reasons for that. We did a study back in 2012 where we reviewed what had happened in lots of jurisdictions, and we found that the failure of a centralized police complaints agency to be able to do that is something that was a problem not only in Canada. It had also been identified in England and Wales, and measures had been taken there to remedy it.

We take really seriously the concerns that were just voiced by Chief Jones about officers being concerned if they’re going to get treated fairly and looking to their chief for…. They have a relationship of trust with their chief and look to that for an assurance that in a potential misconduct investigation, they’re going to be treated fairly. That’s an important submission.

It’s one that we take very seriously, because we care a great deal about the fairness for officers, too, and the perception of fairness that they experience. We don’t see that as impossible to achieve in a system where there are external investigations. We just think that that’s a note of caution that ought to be taken fully into account if one’s thinking about that alternative model.

Commissioner Pecknold, when he was before you in April, said on the record that there continues to be both real and perceived bias, and note the use of the word “real.” It isn’t just the perception. There are and have been instances where investigations aren’t done properly.

[11:40 a.m.]

They’re not done properly because of the fact that it’s colleagues or other police officers who are doing them — not in every case but in cases. That leads to a perceived bias which can be avoided if the Police Complaint Commissioner were to take that on.

As I know you’re aware, the Tulloch report in Ontario made just such a recommendation to the Ontario government and Legislature in 2018, I believe, or 2017. The provincial government there actually enacted legislation to put that into place. It’s in abeyance right now, and we’re not quite sure what the current government is going to do.

The evidence in the Tulloch report that he heard was very clear, supporting his conclusion that the preferred approach is for all public conduct complaints to be received, reviewed and investigated by the OIPRD, and that independent and impartial investigations of complaints would help to foster public trust not only in the complaint system but in policing more generally.

We’ve heard this morning from the chiefs association that they would like to see an elevated level of deference being given to the decision of disciplinary authorities when discipline decisions are taken at the chief constable level. With great respect, I’m curious as to why an enhanced deference is necessary, given that as it is, in the current system, there are very few disciplinary decisions that proceed to review by the Police Complaints Commissioner, whether through a review on the record or a public hearing. In fact, in the last OPCC annual report, of 522 public complaints, only 12 reviews were ordered where a chief constable had already taken a disciplinary decision, and a number of those confirmed the discipline.

I don’t see that we’re running rife with overturning disciplinary decisions at the current time. We think that police managers and police leadership obviously have a critical role to play in ensuring the maintenance of professional standard, but in our view, the drawbacks of police self-investigation in terms of public confidence outweigh the advantages to police management of having police leadership within the same department conduct those investigations.

There are a number of arguments that get levied against the argument that I’m making. One of them is: “Well, you know, only police are truly competent to investigate police because police know policing.” Police do know policing. It’s true. But we think that that claim is open to serious doubt because it is of course possible to train other investigators to understand the nature of what it is they’re investigating.

In many cases, the police complaints investigations are going to be simpler than the kinds of more complex criminal investigations that police may be involved in where you actually don’t necessarily know who the perpetrator is. In virtually all cases of police complaints, you know who the alleged person is. You’re not trying to figure out who’d done it. You’re trying to figure out, based on what they did: does it meet a certain standard or not? It’s a very different kind of investigation, and we think that with training, it’s possible to overcome that issue.

We heard this morning that it’s important for professional police to be able to investigate themselves, that self-policing is an essential component of their model. Well, even in other self-regulated professions, it’s still always an outside body that does the investigation — not another law firm, in the case of lawyers, and not another hospital, in the case of doctors. It’s the college. It’s some other body whose job is external discipline and external investigation, notwithstanding that some of the members of those teams will be doctors or lawyers. Some of them aren’t. By law, in fact, there are laypeople involved in those disciplinary processes.

So to the extent that someone says, “Well, we’re like other professions….” Actually, no. Self-regulated professions do operate differently, with a form of external discipline.

[11:45 a.m.]

Moreover, police, frankly, are different. Nobody else is given the authority to use the state’s power against any of us — to kill us, to detain us, to do all these kinds of things. That huge difference in what they’re doing, we think, can support that there ought to be a difference in the way we regulate them.

We also don’t…. No one has said this today, but I’ve certainly heard it levied that, well, taking investigations away from police shows a lack of trust in the police. I don’t think that needs to be so.

Lately in Ottawa on solitary confinement, where we brought a constitutional challenge that succeeded in striking down the federal regime on solitary confinement, we were also saying, as years of reports have said, that there needs to be external, independent oversight of placements in solitary. One of the things that hon. MPs were telling us was: “Well, what will that tell the public about our confidence in the correctional service?” Eventually, the government relented, and they amended the bill to include external oversight.

We think that it just sends a signal that we want to be able to invest trust in these agencies. Therefore, we’re going to subject them to scrutiny. They’re going to make a clean breast of it, and we’re all going to see, and there’s going to be a lot of transparency. So I don’t think it needs to send that message at all.

The other thing that I’ll just say to close — and in Q and A, I’ve got some other ideas as well — is that we’ve heard the claim that having these investigations done externally could outsource ethical compliance and could make police managers less interested in managing the conduct of their members. Not the chiefs that I’ve met. I just don’t think that is true. I think that if that were to happen, you would have another kind of disciplinary problem in relation to the chief constable and their leadership team.

When an investigation from Chief Palmer’s shop goes out to New West to be done, I don’t think that tells us that Chief Palmer is less interested in the good conduct of his members. Similarly, if it’s the OPCC that’s doing it, I don’t think it any more sends that signal to police leadership that they can be hands-off on performance management and compliance with their members.

Those are a few of my opening submissions. I’m pleased to take other questions.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. You were right on time.

I’ll open the floor for questions.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Just a couple of comments. Interesting presentation.

I look at the millions of contacts that police officers have on an annual basis in British Columbia — right across Canada — and the very small number of public complaints that result from that. I’m just wondering whether you’ve got any data to support the argument that there’s bias in how many complaints are actually investigated out there. Because what you’re talking about….

I’ve got mixed feelings on having a civilian group, and not because the police forces, no matter who they are, have anything to hide. I think it’s more the effectiveness and use of public dollars. So we build this other entity to conduct these investigations, and it’s going to cost millions of dollars to do that — to set this up and have them do that particular function — for a very few number of complaints that might end up being biased at the end of the day. This is what I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around, and I wouldn’t mind your thoughts on that for our deliberations.

J. Paterson: Well, to be fair, Member, I don’t think…. To clarify, we’re not talking about making sure that they’re there just for the ones that would be biased at the end of the day.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): I understand.

J. Paterson: Yeah, okay.

Right now as it is, the public purse pays for professional standards departments in each of the municipal departments, duplicating each other, having to find investigators and having to find police officers who want to serve in that capacity, which we know can be a challenge. We know, from our discussions with chiefs, that there can be high turnover rates in those departments — loss of time in training, loss of time and continuity.

[11:50 a.m.]

Each of them have got to have these shops. Instead, you could have a model where, yes, for the relatively few number of complaints compared to police contacts, a centralized agency could do it; where you, hopefully, wouldn’t have the same kinds of costly turnover issues; where you would have a greater standardization of approach from one municipality to the next, so that a British Columbian sitting in New Westminster wouldn’t expect a markedly different outcome on the same facts as someone sitting in Saanich.

I think there’s probably a lot of…. In the conversations I’ve had with public servants — I don’t have the data — there’s at least a strong suggestion that there are, if not cost savings, at least not cost increases. There would be setup costs and whatever, but as an operating matter, it would, hopefully, level out over time. Police agencies could contribute to that in some kind of cost-sharing way, in per unit of disciplinary complaints. They may have reduced costs and could then apply resources elsewhere.

In terms of data as to how many wind up being biased or bad investigatory outcomes compared to good, I don’t have the data on that. As I’ve discussed already, there is a comparatively low number that go to a review, if that’s one indication of the extent to which the PCC thinks a good enough job has been done.

However, there have been multiple commissions of inquiry in different provinces that have looked at this model and suggested that this is the way to go, based on testimony and hearings quite like these and based on the public perception of the system, as much as data, as to how the complaints are being undertaken.

We hear anecdotally that the quality of investigations from one municipality to the next can be quite varied. It varies with the officers. It varies with the leadership of that particular professional standards unit from time to time. I know that that has been a problem that departments have faced over time.

From our perspective, there’s enough indication of this being a worthwhile idea to strongly consider it. Even if the Legislature weren’t to go that far…. In addition to the CRCC’s power to initiate its own reviews, it also has the power to retain investigations. So when something is particularly high public interest, they can hold on to something. We saw that in the Gregory Matters investigation in Prince George, for example, where the CRCC or the CPC, as it was at the time, didn’t want to give it to Williams Lake RCMP or Burnaby RCMP. They said: “We’re going to do this one.”

At a minimum, we think it is important for the PCC to have that discretion, which will require some additional investigative capacity.

I hope that is responsive, in a general way, to your question.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): I appreciate that. Thank you, Josh.

R. Singh (Chair): I just wanted to…. You have touched on the Police Complaint Commissioner’s office doing their own independent investigations. So I would like to know from you: how do you see that happening? What kind of investigations? Is it like a general trend that is happening — like on which the complaints are coming? How would that investigation initiate?

J. Paterson: I understand your question to be: how would the PCC do this? As it is now, when a complaint is made to either a local police department or to the PCC, they have to screen it for admissibility. They would do that. It’s just that the subsequent steps of getting into it, of gathering the evidence as to what happened, of interviewing the folks concerned — officers and complainants and witnesses — it would be the PCC’s staff investigators doing that.

[11:55 a.m.]

Right now they have investigative analysts who superintend over investigations. They’re checking in, making suggestions, even as the investigations are in course. They don’t just wait until the thing is done. But it would be them just doing it under the supervision of the commissioner and their leadership team, as opposed to the different departments doing it and then with the review and the checking-in and the back-and-forth with the PCC on it. Probably that requires them to have some folks on the ground in Vancouver instead of just sitting over in Victoria.

I think what we saw in the legislation in Ontario could be an interesting model. This has already been at least legislated in another jurisdiction. B.C. would not have to reinvent any wheels to put this into motion. B.C. actually has an opportunity to take a leadership role, given that Ontario is on ice right now with this, and try to move this forward in an interesting way.

R. Singh (Chair): Okay. Thank you so much.

E. Ross: Thanks for that. How do you frame this? Is this a need, or is this a request? Is there a problem, either process-wise or perception-wise, that this has to be addressed here in B.C.?

J. Paterson: I would say so. I mean, we talk to a fair number of folks who have complaints about the police. They come to us. Many of them…. I haven’t got a statistical report. But what we hear consistently — around the province, by the way; it’s in relation to CRCC too — is that a lot of folks do not have confidence in the system, knowing that it’s going to be other police investigating the complaints.

I think there is a significant perception issue. We can sit in committee rooms and we can do studies to show: “Well, actually, on the whole, a lot of these investigations are fine. They meet the bar that we would expect, and by and large, most of the folks in professional standards are doing their level best to keep any police bias out of their investigations.” That doesn’t necessarily penetrate to folks in communities.

From our perspective, we think that it is a necessary and a positive step to make sure that we facilitate folks coming forward who have, in their view, legitimate complaints. Of course, their complaints may not be legitimate. They may get screened out, or it may get found that there was no misconduct. Perfect. That’s how it should operate.

But we have a great deal of concern at what we hear in communities that we work in, a great deal of concern about the lack of confidence in the existing system. I think it’s important to appreciate that for someone who feels that they’ve been particularly aggrieved by the police…. In some cases, more than just aggrieved. I mean, they may have been injured by the police. Family members of theirs may have been, and so forth.

The idea of then going to those police and asking, or even filing with the Police Complaint Commissioner but then knowing it’s going to be the police that do the investigation, is very difficult for a lot of folks. Then when they have to give their witness statements about what’s going on, they’re talking to police officers, whether it’s the same force or the neighbouring force, depending on how serious it is and if they’ve farmed it out.

We don’t see any compelling reason to maintain that impediment. To the extent that that is an impediment for a lot of vulnerable folks, why maintain it when there is another option available that could be at least cost parity or cost savings, could result in greater standardization across forces and could really increase the perception of fairness and independence in our police complaint system?

R. Singh (Chair): Any other questions?

Thank you so much, Mr. Paterson.

J. Paterson: Thank you very much. Thanks for having us.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you for taking the time and giving us your perspective. We really appreciate you coming here.

Now we will go for recess until 1:35. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 12 noon to 1:31 p.m.

[R. Singh in the chair.]

R. Singh (Chair): We are going to continue with our next speaker, from MOSAIC. We have Sherman Chan.

Please come and join us. Thank you so much, Sherman. The process is like this. We give you 15 minutes to present to us, and then we have 15 minutes for questions and answers. Although we are not really rigid on the time, when you are nearing your time, I’ll give you a one-minute warning. Is that okay?

S. Chan: Sure, okay. I haven’t really practised yet, so just let me know.

R. Singh (Chair): Don’t worry. We are not that rigid. I just want to say that. I just wanted to tell you how you are going, timewise. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

MOSAIC

S. Chan: Thank you again for inviting MOSAIC to do a submission or presentation about our view on the whole police review process.

I have to start by thanking not myself but the clients and the staff. We had an opportunity to hold two focus groups: one with our refugee youth; the other is with our staff who deal mainly with domestic violence, who deal mainly with the LBGTQ community and also who work with men who are abusive and the ways that they have to learn about how they behave or how they build a healthy relationship.

So we had two focus group meetings, and also we have talked to some of the staff. They submitted their ideas on the whole process, so the submission is really based on what we have heard and what we have seen. There will be some thoughts for the committee to consider at the end of the presentation.

We will be also focusing on the first and second question. The third question… There are not really many people with lived experience of front-line work that we would be familiar with, so our discussion will be on the first two questions — whether it is efficient, effective and accessible, and also if there are any improvements that could be made to the process. We will be focusing on that.

I can give you a little bit of background for myself and MOSAIC. I’m the director of family and settlement services at MOSAIC, and my background is in social work. I’m a registered social worker, and I’ve been in Canada for 31 years.

For MOSAIC, MOSAIC has served newcomers in B.C. for the past 43 years. We have over 350 staff, 700 volunteers and 300 contractors who delivered services in person from 31 locations, as well as on line, to 25,000 clients last year.

MOSAIC provides services to newcomers of all ages and genders, including settlement assistance, English language and cultural competency training, employment programs, interpretation and translation, community outreach and specialized gender victim support counselling services.

[1:35 p.m.]

MOSAIC is also a sponsorship agreement holder and supports Canada’s refugee resettlement efforts. In partnership with Employment and Social Development Canada, ESDC, MOSAIC is currently leading the establishment of the first provincial temporary foreign workers support network in B.C. If the pilot is successful, the whole work with the migrant workers or temporary foreign workers would be implemented across Canada. We are really active in the work of supporting immigrants, refugees, migrants, and also we engage with different levels of government.

MOSAIC is listed as one of the support groups with the commissioner’s office. So if people go to the website, they can find MOSAIC as an organization that can support those who want to file a complaint.

With that background, I am going to talk to you about some of the comments that we heard with our staff and with our refugee youth, our clients. First of all, the question: is the police complaint process effective? Is it accessible?

Many of the responses that we heard were that many clients have limited English language skills to understand and assess the complaint process, so they don’t really quite understand or have access to the complaint process. Many clients do not know where or how to even begin the complaint process. Many clients begin the complaint process, if they are able do to that, by first contacting the police station and asking to speak with the supervisor of the police officer of the complaint.

However, most think that the police will protect other police officers and that the complaint will not be heard nor resolved. If that does not solve the client’s complaint, if the clients insist, our staff may suggest to them to submit a report to the Police Complaint Commissioner of B.C. Then, of course, we also heard that most clients had never heard of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner of B.C. as well.

Staff thought that the complaints mostly come from misunderstanding and/or miscommunication. Many clients said that they do not want to even bother with the complaint process because they didn’t think it would lead to anything. It does not seem to be from their experience in Canada, but from their perceptions of police from their home country, as well as rumours that they have heard in their community. They may not have their first in-person experience with the process itself. But then when they bring in their perspective…. They experienced a board before they come to Canada and have also heard some rumours in the community. Even though they feel they were mistreated or abused, they don’t really want to go through the process. So that is what we have heard.

Then the second question is: are there aspects of the police complaint process that could be improved? So there are a number of suggestions that we thought are important. The first one is that the initial stage of investigation should be carefully conducted, as it is in this stage where the case is conducted and determines what happens later.

It’s really relating subsequently to our recommendation that paid interpreters, available all the time, should be provided. Those interpreters should be trained. It’s not just bringing a family member or a friend to help the process, but really a paid interpreter throughout the investigation interaction, and then translate the complaint process brochure into major languages that the newcomers speak. I think that is also important. We know that when we searched the website, we couldn’t find any information other than in English. So it is difficult for staff or for the community to find out how and what’s the process. That is something that we recommend.

[1:40 p.m.]

Also, to update the list of support groups that could provide language-specific and culturally appropriate assistance for newcomers to go through the police complaint process. Right now the list is from year 2015. There are some more organizations that are available to serve immigrants and refugees or newcomers. I think that could be a time to look at expanding.

Of course, we are not very sure what the criteria are when the commissioner or the office meets all those support groups. I think that when the process begins, you should be able to sit down with the agencies and talk about more of a formal process in doing that. So it would make the staff, the agency and the public really clear on what support we have and where they can really get it.

Now MOSAIC…. As an organization, we have domestic support workers, we have victim support workers, and we have women’s workers. They know the issues that they can serve. Some other agencies may not have those available, except that they serve different immigrants and refugees with different language groups. But if the commissioner decides to make a bigger outreach, there should be some discussion then and some formal process in place.

This one is also related to outreach — proactive educational outreach to settlement service organizations in ethnocultural communities. At this point, from our perspective, it seems to be passive: “If you want to learn more and if you want to get more information, contact the outreach education coordinator.” We understand that there may be some challenges, in terms of human resources or finances, but if we really want to do a good job, having a strategic plan and proactively having a schedule of reaching out to the ethnocultural community is really helpful.

Another point is about more frequent updates on the status of complaints and the investigations. It’s from our workers saying that sometimes the clients went through the process but without really knowing where it was at. They were kind of feeling lost, or they were feeling: “Am I still in?” Those are the suggestions that we heard from the focus group and from our staff.

Now, one point I’d also like to mention is that I noticed in job postings, the hiring right now of an analyst or an investigator. I looked at all the qualifications. If we are really wanting to make sure that they are accessible, reaching out to the community, maybe you can also consider having — as one preferred skill or as one asset that you’re looking for — someone who has a second language or who has cultural competency training. If you’re indicating that, we’ll have more confidence, particularly in the initial stage of an investigation. People know that someone who deals with them understands who they are.

That is leading to our last submission. The comments that we heard may improve newcomers’ perspective on policing, because many of the newcomer communities, or the clients that we serve, have a different perspective about police. It is from their own lived experience. Their contact with the police will eventually determine whether they really want to make any complaint or even want to make any issue. If those other factors about policing are improved, then the likelihood of them to access or even launch a police complaint process would be higher.

Let me summarize three points. First of all, police officers should be trained in cultural competence. We talked to someone who does the police training at JI, and it seems to us that there is no training in that area. Also, we would suggest that police officers take ongoing courses on mental health and trauma-informed practices, so they could understand our client — that’s our term, but for the police, it may be the victim or the perpetrator — how they think and how they respond. I think it’s getting the whole interaction more smooth and more respectful. That is what we thought. The trauma training would be helpful when dealing with victims of war or LGBTQ newcomers with traumatic experiences.

[1:45 p.m.]

One of our workers even mentioned the different perceptions between men and women, particularly when the police go into a home to do a domestic violence investigation or an intervention. Many of the clients that are men felt that the police, before they even came, are really prejudiced about men and think men are already guilty. It really limits their trust and doesn’t really encourage them to do anything. Sometimes, even men can be victims, but they don’t really want to say anything about it when the police are doing an investigation. That is really impacting their perspective on the whole policing system.

The second point that we also look at is that they adopt a diversity approach to policing, such as community policing. If the police can become more visible in the community to engage in events and learn about the people in the community, that would be very good, so that our clients, particularly newcomers, feel that they are part of the community. They are not strangers. They are not there to punish them, but they are really together.

The last point is that partnering with organizations that are already working with newcomers and specific groups will assist in bridging the gap and breaking the barriers in policing and the police complaint process. In B.C., we have an umbrella organization for all settlement organizations. We can really work together with them to do some webinars, to do some events so that many of the front-line workers understand the process. They could become the person who conveys the message to the community. That’s all I have.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. Now I’ll open the floor for questions from the committee.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): I appreciate your presentation, sir. How many communities does MOSAIC operate in, in British Columbia?

S. Chan: I would say directly from Vancouver all the way to Chilliwack, we have 31 locations.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Just primarily in the Lower Mainland then?

S. Chan: Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Do you have a part of a program where the police actually come in and make presentations to new Canadians to introduce them to the policing culture, I guess, in British Columbia? It’s a lot different in Canada than it is in a lot of other countries out there. You allude to it in here, with some of your comments, that there’s a distrust for the police and the policing service premised upon their experience in whatever country they may come from. The attitude is different here. Is there any kind of a program there?

S. Chan: We have some workshops for newcomers, and the workshops are mainly looking at the Canadian legal system, including the police, including the courts and the laws, etc. Police are part of it.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Then the other part — I appreciate that you’ve gone to the extent of holding a couple of different workshops to get some information to present to this committee: to your knowledge, do you have many clients who have registered complaints against the police in British Columbia? Is it a prominent issue for them, or is it just one or two?

S. Chan: Actually, I was asking similar questions to our staff. It is difficult to get this information because some clients may just want to test out, to throw ideas but not necessarily firing a real campaign. I know that we have staff who are helping them when the actual complaint is filed. Those staff are mainly working with the domestic violence sector or with women and some refugee youth as well. I cannot tell you the number.

G. Begg: To follow up on Mike’s line of questioning, do you see yourself as an advocacy group that promotes awareness of the ability of newcomers to complain if they’re not happy with the police service?

[1:50 p.m.]

S. Chan: Well, we believe in social justice and advocacy. For MOSAIC, we are a service organization as well. We are also responding to clients’ needs. For MOSAIC, we have workers that will go with the clients to court if they are victims of crime to help them to go through the process. We have settlement workers. If they don’t understand something or the information, we will help them to get the information or to do what we call “engage in dialogue.”

Advocacy is a really strong word we do believe in, and we do have our legal advocacy program in family law, in poverty and in immigration matters. Those would be more advocacy. With this one, we are more supporting the clients. Sometimes, if we believe there is some injustice, we will inform the client: “These are the venues that you can pursue.” But the final decision is the client’s. We are not going: “Okay. I’m going to take it away from you. I’m going to do it.” That is not how we work.

G. Begg: And your principle concern, when a complaint is lodged by a member of any of the communities, is the availability or lack of interpretation?

S. Chan: That is what I see. It could be potentially a legal matter. It could potentially seriously impact the life of the people. If we don’t have a really strong and accurate interpretation, it’s a loss.

If I get the son to help, it won’t work. The mother may not want to reveal anything to the son, because the son will hear that. We do believe in professional interpretation.

G. Begg: Thank you.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. You talked about…. I understand. I have worked with MOSAIC in my previous roles. Definitely, you get the population that is new to the country and sometimes has mistrust of the police.

You mentioned in your presentation, also…. One thing is that they are not trusting the police, but then also, they don’t even know about the process. My colleagues have talked about the advocacy, about the outreach.

If somebody comes to you because they don’t know where to go, and they come to you and tell you about some concerns they might have with the police or their interaction with the police, do you have any resources, like some kind of liaison between your agency and any police agency?

S. Chan: We’re looking at different programs. In general, we are a settlement organization, so we have settlement workers that can find out the information. They can do some phoning or engaging, asking questions to the police officer or to the department.

For some programs…. For example, we have a program in Vancouver we call youth wraparound program. We work with the Vancouver police’s Diversity. We work with the schools to help those marginalized youth that are pre-gang and show signs of dropping out. We work with the family, the youth, the police and the school boards to support the youth, shift them back into the school system or become more constructive citizens. We have those connections with the police.

Some of the refugee youth — it’s interesting because of the proximity. I’m talking about Burnaby. Burnaby is RCMP. The police community office is next to our office, so we always have an opportunity to go to their office for meetings, and we invite them to our meetings. It’s the relationship. The youth get used to that, and then they know: “Wow, they are really approachable. They are not what I thought.” I think those are the opportunities that we can encourage.

R. Singh (Chair): That’s really good to know.

Another thing that you mentioned was about the interpretation services. I completely understand the importance of it, especially with the diverse population that we are dealing with. Has there been any instance or any incident that has come to your notice where somebody has approached you, and they have said that they did not get the service in their language with the police?

S. Chan: Not me, but our staff.

R. Singh (Chair): Oh, they have, okay. So when the police are interacting, it is just in English. There was not proper interpretation. Okay, that’s good.

Thank you so much. I don’t think we have any other questions, but I really, really appreciate you coming in. Thank you for your presentation.

S. Chan: Thank you very much.

R. Singh (Chair): Now we are ready for our next presenter. We have the First Nations Leadership Council. My understanding is that it’s Boyd Peters who will be presenting.

Welcome, and thank you so much for taking the time to come and see us.

[1:55 p.m.]

The process is that you have about 15 minutes to make the presentation, although we are not rigid on it. If you want to go a few minutes over, that would be just fine. Then also, once you finish the presentation, we have about 15 minutes for the question and answer.

FIRST NATIONS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

B. Peters: éy swayel. [Halq’eméylem was spoken.] My name is Boyd Peters, and I’m a member of the Sts’ailes First Nation, which is about an hour and a half drive east of here. I’m also a band councillor for Sts’ailes. I have been for over 20 years now, and I’m the director for our rights and title department. I’m an elected member to the B.C. First Nations Justice Council. My portfolio is corrections and policing.

I’m here today representing the First Nations Leadership Council, which is made up of three organizations. That’s the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. The First Nations Leadership Council’s shared mandate is directed by First Nations through a resolution process that we have. This includes providing a strong and cohesive voice on behalf of First Nations people in B.C., including urban Indigenous people who are policed by municipal police forces.

Today I’m going to take you through our main concerns and recommendations for the police complaints process. Our recommendations are summarized at the end of the written submissions that you have with you.

The primary recommendation is for fundamental changes to the Police Act to give the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner full jurisdiction over investigations into police complaints. As I will discuss, fully independent oversight over allegations of misconduct and potential systemic issues is necessary in order to begin to repair the confidence of our people in policing. Along with jurisdiction, we recommend that the Police Act set out a timeline and a plan for the full civilianization of the OPCC staff to ensure that it truly is a civilian body.

We make recommendations for better accessibility of the complaints process for vulnerable community members, including anonymity provisions and better public outreach. We advocate for the definition of “serious harm” to include sexual assault, psychological harm and less serious physical injuries than the current standard.

We recommend better data collection and more transparent reporting about the number of allegations of misconduct affecting people who are Indigenous. We would also like to see the legislation provide for an Indigenous committee that can provide additional oversight. Finally, we draw the committee’s attention to the gap in oversight in municipal jails and municipalities contracted with the RCMP, as this gap affects First Nations people living in smaller cities.

First Nations people are the original stewards and owners of the land now known as British Columbia. We have never ceded or surrendered our lands, nor have we agreed to abandon our inherent jurisdiction, laws and governance systems. Colonization disrupted these governance systems and subjected us to a new set of laws and enforcement of those laws.

[2:00 p.m.]

Today’s discussion must happen in the context of our history to understand the mistrust that many Indigenous people feel towards police, whether RCMP, provincial or municipal. According to the United Nations definition of the term, Canada committed cultural genocide against our peoples. Police and law enforcement played an important role in that genocide as the front-line agents of Canada’s policies. Historically, law enforcement officers helped the Crown to move settlers onto Indigenous lands and incarcerated or executed some of our leaders.

They policed the borders of newly created reserves. They removed children from their families and placed them in residential schools. They enforced the potlatch ban that criminalized the central, legal and cultural institution of many of our communities.

In general, they inspired terror in the hearts and minds of our people. From our community, where I live, we had a saying that we called [Halq’eméylem was spoken], which in our language means: “Run; the policemen are coming.” So we had lookouts that looked for the police that were coming onto the reserve and taking away our sacred items.

Since then, many reports have found that the criminal justice system, from police to courts to corrections, has profoundly failed Indigenous people. Our people are grossly overrepresented in jails. The lack of police accountability and complacency contributes to this country’s greatest contemporary tragedy: missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Many of those women and girls were lost in B.C.

The national inquiry on missing and murdered women and girls final report was released just this week and found that law enforcement reform is still needed for greater safety. The final report addressed it — this genocide, the continuing genocide. The report states that the daily encounters with the individuals, institutions, systems and structures that compromise security must be addressed with a new view towards relationships.

Not only have Indigenous people experienced being forgotten and neglected by police when we are victims of violence. We have also been victimized by the police. Overenforcement and police brutality towards Indigenous people remain major concerns. Too many of these interactions do not reach into the media and do not go through a formal complaint process.

Some examples that have reached the national media include starlight tours, in which Indigenous people, including youth, are taken outside of the city limits by police and abandoned, sometimes in freezing weather. The recent video of an RCMP officer interrogating a young Indigenous woman after she was sexually assaulted, although denounced by law enforcement, shows that police in Canada still can and do violate the dignity and rights of Indigenous people. The need for independent oversight is as strong as ever.

First Nations in B.C., the provincial government and police forces have made steps to repair our relationship. However, systemic bias — deeply entrenched — and the power imbalance between police and our people is undeniable. This special committee hearing is an opportunity to take another step towards repair and accountability.

The relationship I have just described informs the relationship between municipal police forces and urban Indigenous people. This submission will focus on the Downtown Eastside as an example of an urban Indigenous community, recognizing that similar issues take place in other B.C. municipalities, particularly in the Lower Mainland and Victoria area.

The Downtown Eastside is situated within the territories of the Squamish and the Musqueam and the Tsleil-Waututh. It has been called Canada’s largest urban reserve and has a strong and diverse Indigenous community. Indigenous peoples find their way to the Downtown Eastside for many reasons. In many cases, displacement, sex discrimination under the Indian Act and the results of intergenerational trauma such as addiction have caused people to lose contact with their families.

[2:05 p.m.]

There are many Indigenous-led organizations that work to create safety and inclusion for Indigenous people in the neighbourhood. Yet our people are some of the most marginalized and criminalized in the city. Indigenous people make up 40 percent of Vancouver’s homeless population. Our partner organizations report that Indigenous community members are disproportionately targeted for questioning, street sweeps and bylaw infractions such as jaywalking.

Last year the VPD’s own data on carding showed that 16 percent of those stopped for questioning were Indigenous, despite only making up 2 percent of Vancouver’s population. Many anecdotal reports never make it to any formal review process, including use of excessive force and officers escalating conflict with homeless individuals to move them along. These anecdotal reports increase overall fear and mistrust and reduce likelihood that our people will seek safety from the police.

Finally, the opioid overdose crisis has disproportionately affected our people and has increased contact between emergency services including police and Indigenous people. We need greater police accountability to ensure that people are calling 911 without fear during an overdose.

I’ll now discuss some specific concerns we have around the police complaints process. After careful review of that 2017-18 annual report of the Police Complaint Commissioner, the First Nations Leadership Council wanted to highlight several things.

Less than half of registered complaints were admissible. Only a fraction of admissible complaints were fully investigated by the police departments. The vast majority of investigated complaints were unsubstantiated, meaning not enough evidence for a finding of misconduct. Very few matters were examined by a discipline authority outside of a police department. Few matters proceed to a discipline proceeding, even less to a hearing.

Officers who are found to have committed misconduct are often disciplined with a verbal or written reprimand. If the investigation process was fully conducted by an independent, external civilian body, our communities may have more confidence that these conclusions are procedurally fair and just. Because investigations are conducted by the police themselves, that confidence is eroded.

Making a formal police complaint is not seen as an effective method for holding police accountable. Even organizations like Pivot Legal Society have stated that they have seen the result of no misconduct so many times that they seldom file complaints. If an organization with that capacity does not bother, why would an individual who is trying to survive?

Due to personal experiences of those in our communities who have gone through the complaint process, there is a perception that, as one community member put it: “It seems like a lot to pursue with very little return.”

Next I’d like to highlight some concerns we have around the potential for systemic misconduct, systemic bias or systemic discrimination to go unaddressed in the current process.

First of all, the commissioner’s report does not state how many allegations of misconduct affected Indigenous people. The First Nations Leadership Council would like to see mandatory documentation and reporting of allegations of misconduct involving our people and how many of these are investigated and substantiated.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the operation of institutional and systemic discrimination in Canadian society. Discriminatory behaviour by individual people can be a manifestation of systemic discrimination. Examples in a policing context include: negative stereotyping that contributes to neglect or overenforcement and racial profiling and harassment.

[2:10 p.m.]

In 2002, the Oppal report on missing women and girls made a finding that a systemic bias contributed to critical police failing in missing women investigations by Vancouver police. Effectively identifying and addressing systemic matters need to be top priorities for this committee and for the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Currently the police complaint process does not allow the commissioner to undertake external investigations into systemic allegations against the police department as a whole. Rather, these kinds of complaints fall under policy and service complaints and are not dealt with as rigorously. Our concern is that discriminatory practices hidden within these policy and service complaints go underinvestigated.

The commissioner needs independent control over allegations of this nature. Most inadmissible complaints were found to be inadmissible because there was no misconduct identified in the complaint. It is unclear how many of these were policy and service matters or how many of them are alleged bias or discrimination.

We need more information as to why so many complaints were found not to contain misconduct as described by the Police Act. Even if no identifiable misconduct occurred, it is still possible that harm has been done and must be ad­dressed.

Admissibility screening needs to be more accountable to improve Indigenous public perception of the process. Even when identifiable misconduct has occurred, there are accessibility issues, safety concerns and other barriers preventing Indigenous people from going through the formal complaints process.

Currently the legislation requires that the name of the person making the complaint is released to the officer involved in the complaint, if the complaint is found admissible. Vulnerable or marginalized community members know that they may be policed by that officer in the future, so this discourages people from filing complaints.

Last year two organizations facilitated a collective complaint drafting process about two VPD officers. They re­ceived 22 complaints from community members about one or both officers, including allegations of disparaging conduct, intimidation, harassment and assault. Community members, including Indigenous people, stated they wanted to share their stories but felt afraid for their personal safety. One of the recommendations outlined in this submission is to amend legislation so that offenders are not given the name of the complainant should the complainant choose to remain anonymous.

In addition to safety, there are basic accessibility issues with the complaint process. Filling out, emailing or mailing a form is not accessible to those who may be homeless, dealing with addiction or involved in survival street work. Indigenous community members should not be required to go to a police department to file a complaint in person. There need to be safer and more accessible in-person options facilitated by the OPCC.

The OPCC is mandated to provide outreach services. It needs a concentrated public education program for agencies that serve vulnerable populations, such as Indigenous people living in urban areas. To our knowledge, this targeted outreach is not happening.

In addition, there need to be more informal environments to collect anecdotal data from community members to get a better picture of what is happening on the street from the perspectives of Indigenous people who experience being policed every day. The current formal system leaves out too much, and it is inadequate to fully appreciate the extent of police behaviour. We recommend that these outreach and informal engagement programs be mandated by the Police Act.

[2:15 p.m.]

Indigenous representation in police oversight forms another one of our recommendations. We would like to see the OPCC hire and train Indigenous staff, including into decision-making roles. We recommend that the OPCC be resourced and mandated by legislation to form and train an Indigenous committee that can be a part of admissibility screening, investigation oversight and reviews of discipline authority decisions, especially when affected persons are Indigenous.

The police set out…. Serious harm is injury that may result in death, disfigurement or a substantial loss or impairment of mobility, in whole or in part. We call on the Legislature to expand the definition of “serious harm” to include sexual assault, psychological harm, and less serious physical injuries than the current standard, including all harm done by police dog bites. This change has been called for by human rights advocates and police constables for nearly a decade. Physical and psychological harm done by police officers and dogs should always be fully investigated by an external, independent and civilian body.

The B.C. Ombudsman has raised that jail guards in RCMP-run municipal jails are not subject to oversight, either by the OPCC or by the RCMP’s complaints process, because of their status as municipal employees or contractors. While this issue does not fall directly within the scope of this review, it is an important and concerning issue that directly affects First Nations people living in municipalities throughout B.C. We urge that this gap be addressed and echo the Ombudsman’s call for a fully independent statutory process to address these complaints.

The Leadership Council calls for the province to dedicate the financial and human resources needed for the full civilianization of the OPCC and the independent investigations office, which investigates incidences of serious harm or death while in police custody.

The goal for these bodies, since their creation, has become to become fully civilianized by providing training over time so that former officers can be phased out. This goal was recommended in the 2010 Braidwood Commission of Inquiry leading to the creation of the IIO. The timeline suggested in that report was five years. So here we are nine years later.

This brings me to the FNLC’s most important recommendation and the one that I’ll end with. Throughout this submission, we have raised concerns related to real and perceived lack of independence in the process of investigating police complaints under the Police Act. External, independent, civilian oversight is fundamental to maintain public trust in policing. It is vital to that trust that police are not investigating police, yet that is exactly how allegations are handled under the current model.

Currently the OPCC is a screening and review body, not an investigative one. Members of the police department are the investigators and the discipline authority for misconduct allegations. Similarly, when the OPCC receives policy and service complaints, it refers the issue back to the police departments. This fails to inspire public confidence, and particularly the confidence of Indigenous peoples, in the complaints process or in policing in general.

In our respectful submission, the Police Act needs fundamental changes giving broader discretionary power and corresponding resources to the OPCC to conduct its own investigations. The commissioner should have the discretion to retain jurisdiction over investigations of misconduct rather than forwarding them to the police departments. They should have the discretion to retain jurisdiction over policy and service complaints and, if deemed necessary, conduct systemic reviews rather than monitor policy issues from arm’s length and have freestanding power to hold public hearings, call witnesses and commission evidence — in short, the power to become their own mini–commission of inquiry if a systemic issue is identified.

[2:20 p.m.]

Ending the practice of police investigating police has been called for by numerous commissions, most recently the 2017 Tulloch report. We echo that report’s recommendation that an external civilian body should be the sole body to investigate the public conduct complaints. This means the OPCC needs to be restructured and resourced accordingly.

Year after year, governments, committees and reports emphasize the importance of public confidence in policing, but which public’s confidence matters enough to make real changes? The confidence of Indigenous peoples in municipal police is tainted by an insufficiently external, independent and civilian process to review allegations of misconduct and systemic discrimination. In an era of truth and reconciliation, how fundamentally are Canadians willing to transform their institutions to repair our relationships?

To conclude, the First Nations Leadership Council submits that systemic changes are necessary to begin to restore the confidence of First Nations and urban Indigenous people in B.C. in the police complaints process and policing in general. We believe that anything less than a commitment to fundamental change falls short of the province’s commitment to the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous people, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action and a promise of a new relationship for all Indigenous people in B.C.

With respect to the members of the special committee, thank you for considering our submission.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you for all that you have brought to our notice. Some of the issues we are already aware of, but you have given us such details. We really, really appreciate that and you taking the time and giving us a thorough analysis — like, what the community is feeling. It means a lot to us.

Now I open the floor for some questions.

E. Ross: Hi. Ellis Ross, MLA for Skeena.

I’m well aware of some of the categories you talked about. But when you’re talking about the Indigenous community, we’re also talking about them falling into different categories. We fall into socioeconomic disadvantage. We fall into the mental health category — even infractions, which you talked about earlier.

You raise an interesting proposal — to say that there should be an Indigenous committee comprised to kind of help screen out and help evaluate some of these complaints. Who would make up that committee? Who would make up the selection? Are you thinking about a specific organization, or are you just thinking about a call out to qualified people across B.C.?

B. Peters: I think that’s a very good question. The work that we do for the B.C. First Nations justice council…. We’re just in the process of developing an Indigenous justice strategy for the whole province. The justice council members that we have each have portfolios. Mine is corrections and policing. I’ve already agreed to become a part of one of the committees that involves street checks — very interested in knowing exactly how the police go about doing these random street checks.

With the entire area about forming a committee, that First Nations justice strategy that we’re just developing will help to identify what the interest is of certain groups and certain communities. Certain organizations, particularly within urban areas — what is their interest in participating in such a committee? That justice strategy should be able to draw out the interest.

[2:25 p.m.]

Being that my portfolio is policing, I would definitely be interested in doing something like that. There are a lot of people that have been affected by police interactions and investigations that probably didn’t go anywhere, where it was very serious to them or their families and their community. There would be a huge interest amongst our people to be involved in such a committee.

E. Ross: So the suggestion itself is mainly one that’s food for thought. It’s not really defined yet in terms of whether it’d be a political assignment or a qualified assignment in terms of the makeup of the committee. It’s just the idea that an Indigenous committee should be there, parallel to the Police Complaint Commissioner, to help evaluate some of these complaints. Is that it?

B. Peters: If it could be a parallel…. It wants to be fully independent so that this committee would have the authority. I know that there are a lot of issues about, maybe, cost, but we need to retain the authority to be able to make these recommendations or how things can be improved. So it still has yet to be determined, but that’s a suggestion. It could either be political or just be a community — most likely both.

E. Ross: Okay, thanks.

G. Begg: I have a series of questions. Thank you for a great presentation, by the way.

I wonder what success looks like for you — what your definition of success would be.

I’m particularly concerned about the way the unfounded allegations were dealt with. When you deal with complaints that have been filed or registered, some of which were deemed inadmissible due to no misconduct, are you concerned that the finding is incorrect? What is it that you’re saying?

B. Peters: With these inadmissible findings that didn’t go anywhere, we would have that very, very profound concern. What were the exact reasons for that? So we’d want to be involved as an oversight or be a part of that decision, because we see the effects of these unfounded allegations and how it affects our community members. Whether it’s an urban setting or in a rural setting like where our community is, how does that affect them?

When you know that you’re supposed to be able to trust the police process, and when you see that these allegations aren’t going anywhere, that creates that mistrust. We’ve always had that mistrust because of — like what I said in the report — [A First Nations language was spoken]. You’re running from the police. We should working with them, having that faith and that trust.

For some communities, we have a community tripartite agreement, where we sign on with a First Nations police, and it’s federal, provincial and — it’s tripartite — with the community. So they’re supposed to provide all of the services for that community. A lot of times that doesn’t work out exactly the way it was supposed to either, because they get called off, and they’re doing all these other things. If you have that relationship where you can be open to approaching the RCMP…. To ensure that we have that trust, we need to be able to work together so that all of these complaints…. You feel that you’re reaching a resolution. It doesn’t even matter which way it goes, as long as you know that it was done in a fair and just manner.

G. Begg: I think that helps clarify it. You do accept that there will be complaints that are unfounded, right? It’s just that they should be better articulated to you when that happens, right?

B. Peters: Yes. Totally substantiated, right?

G. Begg: Yeah.

The other issue that I think is worthy of comment is the idea that there should be separate statistics kept about a racial group — in this case, Indigenous people. Are you concerned at all about the racial profiling aspect of that and what that could mean?

[2:30 p.m.]

There are laws that prohibit that type of activity — specifically identifying people by their racial origin. Have you thought about that at all?

B. Peters: Well, my other portfolio for the justice council is corrections. We go through that whole thing about: why did our people land up in the correctional system? You go through the whole Gladue report, and these are the reasons why: maybe you were taken off to residential school, maybe you were taken in the Sixties Scoop, or maybe you had a bad experience because of the nature of who you are as an Indigenous person. I think that when you have those kind of things happen to you throughout your lifetime, the abuses….

You need to look at the numbers. You need to. We do that through health organizations because there are a lot of health issues that our people face. But there are a lot of things that happen with us within the justice system, also. We want to know those numbers. The reason we want to know those numbers is because we want to do something to help the situation out. We want to know exactly why this is happening to them. What are the allegations? What can you do about it?

It’s all about healing. I went to a conference in Winnipeg in January, and one of the elders there…. She’s a beautiful old lady. She was 86. She goes: “We never punished our people. Our goal is to heal them.” So this is a foreign system that we’re talking about — about punishment, about finding guilt, a victim and an offender. It’s all about the healing. So that’s what the most important part of that is.

G. Begg: I’m certainly not arguing against anything that you say, but I want to raise that as a flag in your mind — that that can be used for bad purposes as well. Right? That kind of stereotyping of individuals based upon their race.

When you talk about anonymity, anonymous complaints…. One of the principles of fundamental justice is the right to face an accuser. There are implications, if the complainant or the victim cannot be identified, for the ability of the accused person to mount a defense. That, too, is a principle of fundamental fairness and justice. So talk to me about that aspect of it.

B. Peters: Are you talking about the anonymity of a person complaining about a police officer?

G. Begg: Yes.

B. Peters: Because if you’ve had that experience of making a complaint against a certain officer, and you feel intimidated, or you feel that there’s going to be some sort of payback….

G. Begg: No, I understand the rationale. I’m not arguing against you. I just want you to be aware, again, that lawyers are going to be interested in what the defence is: how can I mount a defence if I don’t know who my accuser is? Why is the right of the complainant or the victim in this matter superior to the right of the accused person? All of those implications.

I’m not saying that you’re wrong in any way. I’m playing the devil’s advocate here because I think these are questions that will have to be asked and answered. I fully accept that there may be no right answer, and there may be a lot of different answers, but I’m trying to be helpful to you in the process because we, depending upon what we decide, will have to defend and articulate with good reason why we have made certain recommendations as well.

I’m not your adversary here. I’m trying to help you through the process. Hopefully you’ve thought of those questions and those answers. In many cases, you don’t have to know the answers, but you do have to know the questions.

B. Peters: Yeah. It’ll be a consideration, right?

G. Begg: Which is what we’re doing, yeah.

[2:35 p.m.]

It’s a recurring theme, I think you will be gratified to know. We hear almost consistently that there is a need to ensure the independence of the organization — in other words, the independence from the police; or the inference that you have police investigating police, so therefore, there is inherent bias in the process. To make it truly independent, perhaps we should be considering an independent oversight agency with investigative powers that is in no way connected to the police.

B. Peters: Yes.

R. Singh (Chair): Mike, you had a question.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Garry asked it. It was the anonymity issue as well. But it’s flagged, so that’s fine.

R. Singh (Chair): I would really like to thank you, once again, for your presentation. I know what it means to you — coming here and giving us all of these details.

We know the systemic discrimination that has been happening. We completely…. As a committee, I can assure you that we are very aware of the issues happening. They have been echoed in different presentations also. We are looking at these things very, very closely. The recommendations that you have made…. We will deliberate on those. I really, really appreciate you coming in. Thank you so much.

B. Peters: Great. Thank you.

R. Singh (Chair): We are now going to have Natalie Dunbar from the Ending Violence Association.

Natalie, we have about 15 minutes for the presentation. We are not very rigid on those. Then about 15 minutes for the question and answer. Really looking forward to your presentation.

ENDING VIOLENCE ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

N. Dunbar: Thank you. I’m sure it’s been a long day. I hear, at the end of the last comments, that you’ve heard the same issues over and over again. I’m sure there are going to be some that I’m going to echo. I’m going to speak a little bit about the Ending Violence Association and give you a few thoughts that we have with respect to the process.

I will just say, previous to the wonderful speaker that came before me from the First Nations Leadership Council, that I echo his suggestion that there should be an expansion of the terms relating to the type of harm that is considered and what is considered serious harm, particularly with respect to the inclusion of sexual assault, in a very clear manner in the legislation, as well as mental or psychological distress, as I believe has been raised previously.

I also echo the call for a civilian and, as well, possibly, an Indigenous management or conduct of the complaints process and the investigations. Generally speaking, our premise is that more engagement in the police complaints process at the beginning of the process will help to foster increased trust between the community and police generally.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to come here today and speak. I speak on behalf of the Ending Violence Association and the anti-violence organizations that we have under our umbrella.

To paraphrase the 2017 civilian oversight report that looked at the complaints process, modern policing is founded on public trust. The trust is tested in many circumstances, but when it comes to the police, cause of any injury, harm or behaviour in a manner that falls below the standard expectations of their professional standards.

[2:40 p.m.]

I want to acknowledge the importance of this type of consultation process. It’s key to continuing improvements to the police relationships in the community. That’s something that Ending Violence Association does a lot of work with — partnership with the police. I’ll sort of explain that.

Ending Violence Association is a provincial organization that has over 300 anti-violence programs underneath its umbrella. There are initiatives across B.C. that we’re engaged with that respond to sexual and domestic violence, child abuse and other related issues. The goal is to educate on the needs of the survivors of violence.

That’s what I will use as my term in the next little while: survivors. I mean the victims of gender-based violence, in relation to my presentation. It’s to develop standards and to provide trauma-informed training to the criminal justice system, people within the health and social service systems. It’s really important to us that we collaborate and work in partnership with the different organizations in those fields and ultimately, working to protect and to prevent violence.

Some of the initiatives we have. I’m not going to go through a lot of them. There’s a violence-against-women’s initiative. There’s an interagency case management team that we’ve worked to create in a variety of communities, LGBT2SQ, safe choices initiatives and, if you’re a B.C. Lions fan, Be More than a Bystander. There are a variety of projects that we’re involved in. One of the other projects is the Indigenous communities safety project. It’s particularly relevant to this, because it is a project that coordinates knowledge-sharing about gender-based violence issues between leadership in the police, in the RCMP and in Indigenous communities. That information-sharing is sort of a key pillar of a lot of our programs.

The other program that’s particularly relevant to these issues that we’re talking about today is the community coordination for women’s safety program. EVA has been the lead agency in the province, ensuring that communities have a coordinated response to gender-based violence, including the provision of training to front-line responders. We do that training with police, for police. In every conceivable way, we’re in partnership with the police on that. We understand the difficulty of their work and the importance of their work, of course. We’re often working in that partnership to evaluate police practices, engage survivors, find ways to allow survivors to engage with police.

Within the community coordination for women’s safety, there’s a program called third-party reporting. That process allows adult survivors of sexual assault to report to the police anonymously through a community-based victim services program or another designated community program and to then access community supports, as well as have the process of reporting the offence. Information is stored by the police and can be accessed later if the person — the survivor — in the future wishes to return to that. Now, I don’t have specific recommendations about how to anonymize the police-civilian complaint process, but I can say that there have been ways to adopt that within the reporting of criminal offences — particularly sexual offences and gender-based offences.

I think, even if it’s just at the beginning of the process and perhaps for matters that don’t need to go too far forward to be escalated, there is an opportunity to find ways to initially anonymize the complainant in these types of situations.

[2:45 p.m.]

The protocol that we’ve created, we always say — it would be the same in this type of circumstance — is not a replacement for 911. It’s not to say that this is a better way to report than the other. It’s always described as a last option. Again, to have that option available has been very useful for many survivors that we have dealt with over the many years that these programs have been in place.

The protocol of third-party reporting has been created in consultation with and adopted by the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the E division police sex crimes unit and the B.C. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. We are continually improving the best practices and guidelines around that, but there are some strong and effective ideas there. The two pillars of this third-party reporting — and our general mandate — are support and anonymous reporting. I mentioned anonymous reporting, and I know that our previous speaker spoke about that and the reasons for the importance of that.

The other pillar is support. I think that’s something that is missing from the process. There are provisions in the legislation that allow for support, assistance and even an advocate for the complainant. But practically, it’s not part of the process, and the process is really what’s one of the most important things in this situation, as we heard from the previous speaker as well. He was so well-spoken that I can’t help but refer to him. He talked about how, regardless of the outcome, it’s knowing what steps were taken, knowing how the decision was come to and knowing the process. That’s always a huge part of an administrative tribunal or the considerations of fundamental justice: ensuring a fair and effective practice within that process.

Part of that, EVA would suggest, is the partnership between community-based programs and bridging with the police. That’s what the third-party reporting does, and that’s what happens in that scenario. You have the survivor or victim over here, and you have the police over here. They’re not willing to go all the way, but they can meet halfway at the community-based victim services. Perhaps those victim services can provide information that is essential for the police to know, without revealing the identity of the survivor, if they’re not prepared to go ahead with full reporting.

Similar to the complaints process, they have an opportunity to say what they need to say. It is recorded. If it’s part of a formalized process, then there can be some assurance that the evidence has at least been taken in, in an appropriate manner, and used in the appropriate way in determining its value as evidence in any hearing or screening process.

One of the things that we established within the third-party reporting scenario — I just use this because it seems relevant in a lot of ways — is developing a safety issues protocol with the RCMP. That provides very distinct steps to take if someone is dissatisfied with the process or dissatisfied with the actions of a particular individual perhaps not following the standards or the practice that they are supposed to follow.

Again, I think everything goes to those ideals of administrative justice — that there’s fairness, that there’s transparency, that everything is clearly delineated, perhaps beyond what is currently delineated in the legislation. If a new, more civilian committee or commissioner were to be in place, perhaps it would be appropriate to ensure that, at each step of the process, there were supports available and part of the process, part of the system, beyond mediation supports.

[2:50 p.m.]

Supports from the very beginning with respect to the complaint form. That comes under, I believe, part 10 of the act — where it comes out of. The form itself that is used by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner is not completely accessible at this time. Some of the language is, perhaps, not the most plain or intuitive language.

I sat down with this, and I thought about a scenario where I might be reporting to the police, in terms of our demographic, the anti-violence community. There’s some initial information that’s filled out with respect to contact details. There’s a demographic section, which is the second section. If you read carefully, you can see that it’s voluntary. I can, because I have a fairly decent vocabulary…. I read the full first paragraph. But when I first saw that, I had a moment where I thought: “Is this information that I have to provide?”

I have to say, knowing people that have dealt with this type of process in the past, as somebody who was previously a practising lawyer and had criminal clients who were wanting to take this kind of process and move forward with it…. Many of those clients wouldn’t have considered that this information was optional and would have been slightly affronted by it.

I know that it’s for a good purpose, and I know that it does say, halfway through the first paragraph, that it’s voluntary. It’s, again, a matter of accessibility. Does a person have support when they’re filling out this paperwork? Is it just printed off on line and given? Is there somebody that they can call or attend to, to assist them with this, with any questions they might have?

Oftentimes we’re dealing with a fairly vulnerable population when we’re dealing with people who are making these complaints. Filling out this form is also something that could affect whether their claim is considered something that can be substantiated or that is founded. The final part of this form asks for a description of the complaint. There are no tick boxes or anything. Whether or not that’s useful is for somebody more appropriate than me to say, but it does give you some options.

“What do you think the officers should have done or said?” I don’t know that a person who is filling out this form would feel competent, necessarily, to answer that question, particularly in the form that it’s provided now. I understand that the intent is good here, again, of course, but it’s the people who are reviewing these forms that might struggle and stumble along with these points.

“Describe any injury or damage as a result.” “Identify the evidence of an incident.” “Do you have photos, video or medical records?” “Is somebody a witness?” These are the main questions that are asked as part of a description of the event.

It’s very unlikely there’s a witness. It’s very unlikely there are photos or a video. But it is likely that somebody has something to say and that filling out this form alone and having it acknowledged could be sufficient to satisfy them. It could be as simple as an acknowledgment of what’s written on the paper.

In the dispute resolution process, as referenced by the earlier speaker, it is the process that is important for a lot of people. I think, with respect to the form and, simply, the initial steps, there are some really significant things that could be done to bolster the review of incoming complaints.

[2:55 p.m.]

I will just say that I think this is all with a mind to ensuring that people know they can trust the police. It’s the health of a community when they can rely on the people who are in charge of safeguarding them, when they can turn to them. That’s something that needs to be improved with respect to Aboriginal people, with respect to people who have faced gender-based violence, domestic violence and sexual assault, and with respect to youth.

I will just read one other quote from a previous overview. The Coroners Service Death Review Panel on intimate partner deaths looked at the period from 2010 to 2015. It stressed the importance of these cross-sectoral types of relationships, enhancing the data and the quality of the information and the collaboration between organizations.

It wrote: “Service providers must work collaboratively and effectively share information so that safety plans, referrals, interventions and supports are comprehensive, effective and respond to the needs of the victim and the family.” Again, I think that parallels the type of thing we’re looking at here — that need for support and to have a community-based advocate or some other type of support that is built into the system and that allows people to take advantage of those first stages, perhaps then eliminating the need for later stages in some cases.

Just to be clear, the support for the people complaining is important. The wording of the documents — some accessibility, some plain language — is certainly, I would submit, necessary.

Finally, with respect to police investigating themselves with respect to these matters, it is also our position that that is not appropriate in all the circumstances because this is a matter of public trust and not simply a professional standards issue. It is a larger issue, and it’s something that needs to happen to repair the community and the perception of the police.

I’ve reached out to people who work in the community on our behalf and for our different agencies. There are many times that people feel, once they have made a complaint, that they, then, are not in a position to contact the police again if they have a problem, if they’ve been assaulted again. They are concerned, legitimately or not, about any backlash from that.

There has also been some indication by victim-based organizations that being involved in the complaints process or assisting a person or complaining themselves has not always led to the most productive response. A bit of a breakdown in the relationship.

Because we concentrate on working with the police in partnership and understand the willingness to consider different points of view and different mindsets, we suggest that training for police in dealing with complaints may be an appropriate part of the process. Regardless of what sanction they face, it might be appropriate to consider what a final response is — how to close things out, how to ensure that the relationship remains intact or is repaired after any kind of complaint from a community or an individual or both.

Generally speaking, as I’ve mentioned, I think the importance of…. Encouraging people to participate in the complaints process will foster better relationships. We’ve seen that in the work we do, and that’s why I highlighted the types of partnerships that we have. We see better relationships. We see communities working in partnership with police to address issues and to find ways to accommodate both the person complaining or the survivor, as well as ensure that investigations can carry on and that type of thing.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I think this is an incredibly valuable process, and I appreciate the opportunity to give you some thoughts.

[3:00 p.m.]

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. We really appreciate you coming in and giving this presentation and bringing it from the perspective of and putting a gender lens to it. That is very, very important.

Now I open the floor for some questions.

E. Ross: Thank you, Natalie. I googled your site, and I’m just curious about one area that you talked about in terms of support needed to navigate the system. Your organization probably cuts across a lot of different demographics, including those that are economically and socially disadvantaged right up to higher levels of well-educated, professional demographics. Do you find that the support is needed less in the higher-educated demographic — or the professional demographic, for that matter? Or is it equal across the board?

N. Dunbar: I would say they both will require support, depending on the exact circumstances. I mean, there may very well be simple complaints where a person declines to have an extensive support system involved or feels they don’t need it. You can’t foist support on people.

On the other hand, from the people that you mentioned…. As I mentioned, the plain language and things like that might affect somebody who has less education or is struggling socioeconomically. Maybe they don’t have a phone number, and printing this out is hard. All those basic considerations about starting the process are going to be slightly different than for somebody who comes from a higher socioeconomic background.

From the perspective of anti-violence and women who are reporting crimes and dealing with police officers having been victims of sexual or gender-based assault, they are all likely, or should be considered to be likely, to require some support through the process. Without sounding trite, because it’s a word that’s used so much now, revictimization…. If a person is a victim once, then they report to the police. Say they have some difficulty with that process and then they report, then they feel they need to complain about that police officer. They’ve now been a victim as a result of this event a second time.

If they then are in a position where this doesn’t go ahead because it’s unfounded or they failed to participate in the process sufficiently, which happens and is considered in the legislation…. If they have not been able to take part in the process as fully as they would have had they had a little support, then they all, to some extent or another, could have used some support.

Does that….?

E. Ross: Kind of. So the capacity or education or economic means has really nothing to do with the level of support needed?

N. Dunbar: Well, again, I would say there’s a varying level of support. But I don’t think that somebody should be excluded from the possibility that they would need support.

E. Ross: No, no, that’s not…. I’m just talking about the examples used. I’m just curious about whether or not this problem is more unique to those that are economically disadvantaged. Or is this a problem across the board for all?

N. Dunbar: I would say that there have definitely been reports in terms of the feedback that I’ve received and that I’ve heard in certain circumstances. It’s not limited to those with socioeconomic issues or other issues that make them feel uncomfortable reporting to the police, particularly when you’re addressing sexual assault or domestic violence, which has so many facets that stop people from wanting to report.

There’s a level of an injury that can lead someone to feel revictimized or to feel that they can’t go ahead with the process or that they are somehow being, in a manner of speaking, precluded from participating in the process because they just can’t handle it the way it’s set up.

E. Ross: Yes. Thank you.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

[3:05 p.m.]

Where should this support lie? A person comes into a police office to file a complaint and fills out the form. If that support is within the police department itself, it probably would be coloured under the same way as a police officer investigating a police officer. There’s nothing preventing the individual who’s filing the complaint from contacting the Police Complaints Commissioner’s office and asking for clarification or help or something like that.

Are you suggesting an overt office someplace or somebody that is able to attend the police office with this individual, and who would that person be? Where do you see this support coming from? What does it look like?

N. Dunbar: Well, much like the support system we have set up for people who are reporting in sexual assault circumstances, there are a couple avenues. The main one is community-based victim services, which seems likely to be appropriate in these circumstances as well. Of course, there’s also police-based victim services, and they have some resources and some ability to address issues. Their mandate is slightly different, but people do access police-based victim services as well, and they can be excellent resources, particularly as a support going through a government system, the police system.

I would like to suggest that attending to the police station to report that you have a police complaint about somebody might, in itself, not be entirely appropriate. As it is right now, even if there was some sort of inclusion, as far as material provided — a document given and a number of an organization, whether it be some informed police-based victim services or community-based victim services that have been familiarized with this particular process and can then support throughout the process….

They already do support work, and they already, sort of, have. So they’re equipped to handle a lot of the issues that will be coming up. Just some information with respect to the process would probably help them be a valuable part of the system.

It could also be an internal part of the system in that, much like a downtown community court, there’s a collaborative group of individuals, including a lawyer, a social worker, a court worker and a variety of people that are right there on site. And, with respect, maybe that site shouldn’t be the police station. But wherever it is, if there is more than one resource available for them or a support resource available for them when they indicate they’re going to lodge a complaint….

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Just one other thing. You touched on, at the beginning — and the previous gentleman spoke about it as well, and Garry brought it up — the anonymity associated to complainants. You talk about third-party reporting and whatnot. I’m not sure how that’s going to look at the end of the day when we consider — you’re legally trained; you’re a lawyer — the due process that the implicated member would be entitled to as well.

A lot of times when there’s a complaint against a police officer, it could end up in some form of discipline at the end of the day — dock in pay or loss of a job, depending on the circumstances. So due process is equally important for the implicated member as it is for anybody else. How do you rationalize the two concepts of anonymity when it comes to reporting and the due process due to the implicated member?

N. Dunbar: Well, I’ll just say that, with respect to due process, it’s often mentioned in terms of criminal law and dealing with a matter on a “beyond a reasonable doubt” kind of scale. That’s not the case in this particular. We’re dealing with an administrative matter within an administrative tribunal that comes under the attendant legislation to that.

[3:10 p.m.]

That being said, I don’t question the importance of it to a police officer who’s faced with some kind of sanction — a mark on their record, a variety of possible outcomes — and that they have to have a process. The process, and the fairness of the process, is still required within administrative law. But there is a different burden of proof, and there is a different weighing of principles.

For example, if one were to go to an administrative tribunal, the arbitrator might be weighing the difference between: is it appropriate in this case to consider the fairness of the process, on one hand, versus, say, another person’s dire circumstances that would require an immediate remedy? Then they are weighing two things, and that’s what an administrative arbitrator has to do. They have to weigh and consider what, in this particular case, given all the circumstances, is appropriate. That would be up to a commissioner. That would be up to an adjudicator who was dealing with a matter or an arbitrator at the mediation level. But I think it would be a case-by-case basis. Is it appropriate in this case?

They do it in criminal law. Is it appropriate for us to review the previous sexual records or victim’s records in a particular situation? It might be up to the judge to look at those and decide whether they should be a part of the hearing. So I think it’s a case-by-case situation, but both things are relevant.

I think my suggestion would be that if it were at the point that it was at a hearing, you wouldn’t be able to maintain anonymity, but perhaps earlier on in the process, when a person first makes a report and the severity of the complaint hasn’t been determined yet. Perhaps at that point, they can be anonymous, with, like we do in the third-party reporting, having an ability to have a community person return to them and say: “Okay, if this is going to go further, if you want it to go further, it won’t be anonymous anymore. There’s a need for us to provide your information.”

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Okay. I guess most of the public complaints against police officers that I’ve been aware of are for behaviour, for incomplete investigations. Maybe they made a comment they shouldn’t have made. Those kinds of things. They’re minor in the context of a criminal atmosphere.

The police officer needs to know who the complainant is so he can relate to whatever that incident was. There should be no fear from the other individual in revealing their name. If it does get as far as a hearing and that anonymity is still…. Well, I can’t see how the anonymity would work.

I’m still a skeptic, I guess, at this particular point, as to how anonymity would work when it comes to a police complaint. You’ve got an individual who doesn’t agree with the service that they were provided, and they make a complaint about it. If it’s a criminal complaint, it’s a totally different thing. But by virtue of the fact that it’s a complaint against service, behaviour, attitude or something like that, they need to know who that is so that they can relate because they deal with, you know, 100 people a day sometimes.

N. Dunbar: Fair enough. Just from a devil’s advocate perspective, if a police officer has a standard of practice and he has a certain method in which he interacts with people that he’s dealing with and that will likely be part of his response — “Whenever I deal with a person in A situation, I do B” — then he doesn’t need to know the name, at that point, to respond to a basic complaint about his behaviour, arguably.

[3:15 p.m.]

G. Begg: Entirely different topic. Are you familiar with the system that the RCMP used that was centred here in Surrey, which was basically a 1-800 number where you would log a complaint against the police, an RCMP member anywhere in Canada?

N. Dunbar: Somewhat.

G. Begg: Is that the kind of system that you would advocate? It sort of prompted you through…. You were speaking to a live person who would help you fill out the complaint. Is that the kind of thing that you’re thinking of?

N. Dunbar: I know there are pitfalls and costs involved with every possible type of system. I’m not familiar with all the criticism or analysis of that particular method, but the issue with that is that the support element that we suggest is still not there, perhaps, as effectively as it would be with an in-person report of some kind or an in-person follow-up.

G. Begg: I think the concern is that if the complaint is rejected outright because it is insufficient in detail, that’s a serious problem — right? If, with prompting, there could be more evidence to consider, I think that’s very important. It’s just the mechanism by which that gets to be accomplished that is important, because there’s a great difference between encouraging a complaint and coaching a complaint through a process that may unintentionally or intentionally bias the complaint to fit the profile.

I’m very sensitive to the importance of the wording but, in particular, in filling out the complaint. The nature of the English language is that it can be directional. There’s obviously an issue with that as well. I’d be interested in some thoughts about how that…. And not from you, and not today, but certainly, that’s one of the issues that we’ll be struggling with if we identify the intake form, the initial complaint, as it were — if it is problematic in relation to the continuance of the investigation based merely upon itself. So thank you for bringing that up.

N. Dunbar: Thanks.

I will just say, with respect to that, that I know there are tribunals, like the civil resolution tribunal, where there’s an opportunity to make a complaint on line, and even, I believe, in certain Service B.C. locations. That allows for prompts or direction as you answer the questions, but perhaps not as leading, because it’s not all laid out for you.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much, Natalie. We really appreciate it, especially when you talked about the barriers that people are facing. Garry has mentioned it, but especially with the form that you have brought in — how difficult it is for somebody who’s feeling, who’s already a victim, and then has to fill in this cumbersome form, having their own barriers.

It came up in the presentation before, too, so that is very concerning. I’m really glad that that was brought up to us today. Also, different aspects that you are bringing up — some of those we have already heard, but definitely, we will look into all of this seriously when we do our deliberations.

We really appreciate you coming in today, and thank you for your input.

N. Dunbar: Thank you very much.

R. Singh (Chair): That was our last presenter for today.

The meeting is adjourned for today.

The committee adjourned at 3:19 p.m.