The committee met at 9:33 a.m.

[R. Singh in the chair.]

Briefing

R. Singh (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I’m Rachna Singh and the Chair of this committee.

I would like a motion to go in camera.

G. Begg: So moved.

Motion approved.

[R. Singh in the chair.]

R. Singh (Chair): We are in recess till 11.

The committee recessed from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.

[R. Singh in the chair.]

R. Singh (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Rachna Singh. I’m the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers and the Chair of the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process.

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 First Nation, 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 to hear from the 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? What changes to Police Act Part 11, “Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings,” if any, should be made?

The special committee has 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 proceedings will be posted on the committee’s website. These meetings are also broadcast live via our website.

I’ll now ask our members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with Garry Begg.

G. Begg: I’m Garry Begg, the MLA for Surrey-Guildford.

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

E. Ross: Ellis Ross, MLA for Skeena.

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 presenter. That is Tom Stamatakis from the B.C. Police Association.

Presentations on
Police Complaint Process

B.C. POLICE ASSOCIATION

T. Stamatakis: Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to the members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today as you continue your study into the police complaints process within the province.

As most of you are aware, I’m appearing this morning as president of the British Columbia Police Association, representing front-line police personnel across the province, though I should also note that I also serve as the president of the Canadian Police Association. In that capacity, I’m quite familiar with the police oversight regimes that govern law enforcement right across the country.

I’ll also add that up until recently, I was also the president of the Vancouver Police Union for just over 20 years. In that role, I have been involved as a stakeholder in consultations around the Police Act since it was first created in the late 1990s. I’ve subsequently been involved in making submissions on behalf of municipal police officers in this province over that period of time.

With that context, I’d like to start by saying that I appreciate the importance of the work that’s been done by the committee. As we all know, police officers are granted extraordinary authority through their positions, and public confidence in that authority naturally and appropriately comes with expectations of oversight and accountability.

While I know some of your other witnesses may disagree, it’s my experience that nobody understands and respects the need for oversight more than police officers themselves. In fact, I’d suggest that the reason three in four Canadians express confidence in their police services is due to the rigorous and multiple avenues of accountability that our law enforcement personnel are subject to on a daily basis.

That being said, for an oversight system to be effective, it must strive to maintain the confidence of both the public, who must trust that investigations are completed without bias or interference, and the officers who are subject to this system, who must believe the investigations will be completed in a timely and fair manner. Unfortunately, following the 2010 comprehensive review and redraft of the Police Act, our association at the time believed the legislation was poorly drafted and overly complicated. That being said, I would understand if some might believe that our observations are not entirely impartial.

[11:05 a.m.]

In 2013, even the B.C. Court of Appeal remarked: “Part 11 of the act is dense, complicated and often confusing. Its provisions are hedged round with exceptions, qualifications and limitations that are often located in other sections not in close proximity. One must frequently follow cross-references to other sections, and few provisions can be said to stand alone. It is not a model of clarity.”

In spite of these shortcomings, or perhaps because of them, police executives, associations and the oversight agencies themselves have evolved a series of practices and guidelines that allows police oversight in this province to function effectively. While I might sometimes take issue with the cost and timeliness of the process when officers are under investigation, the fact is that our system, as it stands, works quite well in practice.

That is why my main counsel to this committee would be to avoid recommendations that involve minor amendments. Because of the complex nature of the legislation, as noted by the Court of Appeal, changes in one part of the act may have unintended consequences when read with other parts of the act. If changes to the current legislation are desirable, then the government should initiate a collaborative process of meaningful stakeholder consultation so that parts 7 and 11 of the Police Act can be reviewed in their entirety and amended only after careful thought and analysis is undertaken by stakeholders who are familiar with and work within the legislation regularly.

As part of that caution, I’d specifically like to call your attention to the recent experiences in the province of Ontario where their previous government sought to make quick changes to the Police Services Act, many of which had unintended consequences and required significant amendment before implementation. As I’m sure many of you are aware, the process in Ontario became exceedingly controversial and even partisan in nature. Ideally, this is a situation we should attempt to avoid replicating if at all possible and strive instead to proceed by building a consensus around the system that works well for both the police and the public.

I understand that as members of law enforcement, we will always have our critics. While we may not always agree, I firmly believe that by working collaboratively and constructively and keeping the lines of communications open, even during difficult circumstances, we can achieve results that matter — not just for one side or the other but for all British Columbians.

I should also note that there is no groundswell of public activism for changes to the oversight or complaints regime. The public, in general, seems happy with the status quo. In fact, I understand that even this committee has found, on occasion, a lack of participation in their attempts at public consultation. If people aren’t speaking up, it seems logical to assume that the current complaint system is achieving its oversight objectives.

I’ll wrap up my prepared remarks on that note in an effort to leave as much time as possible for questions that you may have. There is no other profession in this province that is subject to and held accountable by so many political, legal, internal and civilian agencies. As I have said repeatedly, our officers are held to a higher standard, and there is no question that officers who fail to live up to our high expectations should be investigated and, where necessary, disciplined, even seriously if warranted.

We all have a vested interest in maintaining and even strengthening the high levels of public confidence people currently show in their police services, though I hope members of this committee will fully consider the necessary context of balance in oversight when you make recommendations to the government.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. We really appre­ciate you coming in today and making this presentation.

Now I open the floor for some questions.

E. Ross: Thanks, Tom. That was straight to the point.

It seems to me that the gist of your argument is saying: “Look, the Police Act is not perfect. It’s confusing, it’s complex, but we’re learning to live within it.” Am I correct?

T. Stamatakis: Yeah, that’s correct.

Since 2010, when the last comprehensive review of the legislation occurred and there were many changes, some significant changes…. We’ve now had the opportunity to work within that regime for almost nine years. Where we’ve had disagreements, we’ve relied, on occasion, on the courts to help us resolve those disagreements. Those outcomes have led, then, to the development of guidelines or practice direc­tives that allow us to function in a way where we accomplish the goals of the legislation, which is to have a robust, independent oversight of the police in this province where the public have complaints around something that we’ve done.

It’s working. I’ll just re-emphasize what I said in my remarks. My concern is if the committee makes recommendations for minor tweaks, which we have seen before, even since 2010, there can be unintended consequences which then upset the place that we’ve gotten to where we have this good working relationship with all of the stakeholders to get to the right outcomes.

[11:10 a.m.]

That doesn’t mean we agree all the time, because we certainly don’t. There are times when we end up in disputes that we go to the courts to help us resolve, but that’s the way our system works. It’s been, I have to say, effective.

E. Ross: There’s no problem in addressing the system as it stands now — tweaks. But if we get into the act and make recommendations, we could actually bring us back to square one.

T. Stamatakis: That could be the unintended conse­quence. We’d get into another period of significant conflict or disagreement over how to interpret different provisions in the legislation, particularly if there are amendments — how to interpret, how the amendments affect other provisions in the legislation — much in the way that the Appeal Court described when they made their comment about the legislation as it existed in 2013.

E. Ross: Thank you. That was very clear, by the way — very clear.

G. Begg: Thank you, Tom. Very balanced in your ap­proach to this.

I have some specific questions as a result of some of the earlier submissions that were made to this group. They revolve around the perception of bias because of the investigative process. To some degree, the impact that it has on smaller police departments to have trained professional standards people, for lack of a better word, and the consequent need, therefore, for a cadre of independent investigators who are not associated with any police department but have investigative backgrounds — in other words, the need to address the appearance of bias. Do you care to comment on that?

T. Stamatakis: Sure. In terms of the notion of bias or somehow that the investigations are biased in favour of a police officer or the police organization and against the complainant…. I mean, the fact is that this is an independent office of the Legislature. The Police Complaint Commissioner is appointed by your committee. He operates his organization — I say “he” because it is a male, at the moment, who is in that position — independently of all of the independent municipal police organizations in this province and independent of the government.

There’s not one decision that can be made investigatively in response to a complaint under part 11 of the act — that the police investigator, or the police organization for whom the investigator works, can make — without the agreement or endorsement of the independent Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

This notion, somehow, that the police can conduct these investigations on their own and drive them to some kind of an outcome is a false notion. We can’t even confirm an investigation concluded unless the Police Complaint Commissioner confirms it concluded. We can’t confirm discipline as a result of a concluded investigation unless the Police Complaint Commissioner agrees with the discipline that’s been imposed.

There are mechanisms in the legislation that allow the Police Complaint Commissioner to drive the investigation to other processes if he or she is not satisfied with the outcome, including shutting down the investigation that’s being conducted by the police agency that might be involved and ordering an external investigation by another police organization or the RCMP in this province. In fact, in some cases, they have brought in police organizations from other provinces to conduct investigations in this province and have even brought in non-police personnel to investigate allegations of misconduct where the Police Complaint Commissioner has thought it was appropriate to do so. So I don’t accept that.

In terms of having an integrated investigative unit or something like that, I mean, that’s something for you to consider. I wouldn’t be opposed to it. My concern — and I mentioned it in my remarks with respect to the oversight in this province — both on the complaints side and on the independent investigations office side of the house, is cost. These investigations, because of how they’re being conducted, cost a lot of money.

[11:15 a.m.]

The irony of even the suggestion that there’s bias is…. We have no control over how the investigation unfolds, yet the police organization, for whom a police officer becomes a responder officer and the subject of the investigation, is responsible for all the costs associated to that investigation.

The challenge with making recommendations around changing how the complaints are being investigated is…. I think you have to balance that against the cost of doing something different. I think that British Columbians and taxpayers in British Columbia, of which I am, want to see the appropriate oversight but balanced against making sure that those resources are being utilized effectively.

Most British Columbians, I would suggest, would prefer to see scarce police resources focused on police officers working on the street and interacting with citizens — boots on the ground, if I can use that term — as opposed to tying a lot of those scarce resources up in administrative processes, particularly when it comes to what are relatively minor complaints about conduct. The vast majority of complaints, frankly, don’t involve serious misconduct in this province. That has a lot to do with, I think, our recruiting processes, which are very robust, provincial standards that have been put in place with respect to training, and policy issues around policing and expectations in terms of how police organizations deliver service in this province.

On balance, I think it’s a system that’s working well. It could be, I think, a little more efficient, but I’d be reluctant to endorse a recommendation for any wholesale change in terms of how the investigations are being conducted.

G. Begg: Can you comment specifically on the impact that it may have on smaller police departments to have this group of dedicated people to look after complaints?

T. Stamatakis: Well, one of the challenges with…. First of all, who are you going to assign to this dedicated investigative unit? We’ve seen — unfortunately, in my view — what’s happened with the independent investigations office since its creation in 2012 and the challenges in trying to find the right people to conduct these investigations, which are important investigations and can sometimes be complex investigations. I wouldn’t want to replicate that experience in the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. That’s one issue. Who are you going to find?

The second issue is that the reality is that our smaller municipal forces aren’t really dealing with a significant number of complaints. You’re talking about some additional training, because you have to understand the legislation and what your role is as an investigator and how that fits in within the oversight context.

If you were to create an independent investigations office that drove how these investigations unfolded in addition to the mechanisms that already exist, there could be a significant cost implication, because now you’re going to have…. As I said earlier, the police organization where the complaint originates is responsible for the cost of the investigation. Unless you’re going to create an independent investigations body with its own separate funding mechanism, then you’re not really solving the problem for the smaller agencies that can, sometimes, be challenged in terms of managing the investigations.

Again, I just don’t see that there’s enough of a challenge to justify creating yet a whole another investigative agency and allocating the funding that would be required to go with that. Who’s going to administer it? Are you going to have a separate…? Who’s going to be in charge of it? Do you need to have independent administrative services that go along with that? What about IT and all of those kinds of things?

G. Begg: Thank you.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I like what you bring forward.

[11:20 a.m.]

We have been listening to the stakeholders for the last two days. Some have…. One thing that I saw emerging is that the process is cumbersome. There are barriers to access the complaint process, especially for the marginalized and the vulnerable populations. Also, we are hearing the mistrust that a segment of the society has for the police.

How do you feel? I know you have been in this field for a long time. How do you feel? How do we help change that perception and make this process more friendly?

T. Stamatakis: First of all, I do think that the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner has a role and an obligation to engage in outreach activities so that people who are part of marginalized groups in our communities or more vulnerable people are aware of the complaints process and have access to it. I think there’s been a lot done, and I would suggest that the complaints process is actually quite accessible.

It’s available. You can complain…. You don’t have to complain through a police organization. You can complain directly to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. You can do that electronically. You can do that in writing. You can do it verbally. There are many mechanisms. But I do think there is a place for the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner to engage in more outreach so that people can become more aware of the complaints process.

One of the challenges, though, in the province of British Columbia, is that we are predominantly policed by the RCMP, who are not subject to this complaints process. With the exception of Nelson, of the 12 agencies that are subject to this oversight regime, most are in the Lower Mainland or the lower Island.

The reality is that most British Columbians are not going to have interactions with municipal police officers if they live outside of the major urban centres and therefore wouldn’t be aware of the complaints process and wouldn’t use it anyway. If you had a negative interaction with an RCMP officer, you would have to pursue a complaint in a different way.

Then the other comment I would make in response to your question is that I actually disagree with the notion that there’s a significant problem with respect to confidence in the police or confidence in the complaints process. The fact is that in survey after survey, poll after poll, British Columbians have a tremendous amount of confidence in their police forces. The data doesn’t support that there is a systemic issue or a significant issue with respect to the complaints process or confidence in the police.

In fact, we have very few complaints. When you consider that the police, just on the municipal police side…. For example, my home agency is in Vancouver. We respond to about 300,000 calls for service. Those are actual phone calls to 911, requesting a police response — 300,000 calls for service. We probably write about 100,000 tickets.

If you start to look at the interactions our school liaison officers have with people in the communities they work in…. If you start to look at all our…. We have homeless liaison people. We have liaison people in our organization that deal with marginalized groups in our community.

I would conservatively say that just in Vancouver alone, we probably have about one million or more interactions with the public on an annual basis. I think last year we might have had 500 complaints. Of those 500 complaints, I think about 40 percent of them were deemed admissible. That means for the other 60 percent, the independent Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner deemed that there was no merit to the complaint.

Of the 40 percent that were admissible, we probably end up with about 5 percent of those that result in a finding where the complaint is substantiated. Of that 4 or 5 percent, only a handful result in any sort of serious discipline or a finding that the misconduct was so significant that it requires even a period of suspension or dismissal.

All that to say is…. People can say a lot of things. But if you look at the evidence, the data — what British Columbians are telling us when we poll them, when we survey our communities — I would argue that this is not as big of an issue as some people want to make it out to be. Having said that, like I said before, I do think that the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner should be reaching out to communities to make them aware of the process.

[11:25 a.m.]

I know that in our police organizations, we spend a significant amount of time, in this province in particular, and in Canada generally, engaging with groups within our communities — marginalized people, vulnerable people — because it’s important. You’re not going to be effective as a police service if you don’t do that. This notion that we don’t do that, I just don’t accept it.

The other reality is that nobody calls the police when they’re having a good time. We don’t get the phone call to say: “Hey, we’re having a barbecue in the backyard. We thought we’d invite the local police to come and join us because we appreciate the work they do.” We get the call when things go sideways, when the beer runs out, when somebody has overindulged.

We’re responding to calls that are occurring in a negative context. We’re often responding to calls and disrupting what people are doing, what they want to be doing, whether it’s lawful or unlawful. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how well you investigate or how objectively the investigation occurs. People are just not going to be happy with the outcome. That’s just the reality of the nature of our business.

They’re not going to be happy that their complaint was found to be unsubstantiated or, even if the complaint is found to be substantiated, if the finding is that the officer acted lawfully and in a manner that was consistent with policies and procedures. So there’s no negative outcome. You’re going to end up with dissatisfied people.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. I don’t think we have any other questions, but I really appreciate you coming in. Whatever you have said, we will definitely deliberate on that before we make our final report.

T. Stamatakis: Thank you for the opportunity.

[11:30 a.m.]

R. Singh (Chair): We have our next presenter. That is the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police. We are joined today by Deputy Chief Howard Chow, Acting Chief Dave Jansen and Insp. Mike Purdy.

Welcome. We are really looking forward to your presentation. The presentation is for about 15 minutes. You can do that. We are not very rigid on the time. We will have 15 minutes for the question-and-answer.

B.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

D. Jansen: Excellent. Thanks, everyone. We appreciate your time to listen to us.

As you know, Deputy Chief Howard Chow is from the Vancouver police department, I’m with the New Westminster police department, and Insp. Mike Purdy is with the Vancouver police department. Howard and I sit on the executive of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, and Inspector Purdy is our resident expert. He’s spent considerable time working under the Police Act within the professional standards unit in Vancouver, both as a DA and overseeing investigations. So he’s kind of our resident expert today.

Just a little bit about our association, for those of you that don’t know. Yesterday you heard from the B.C. Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police, which Howard and I and Insp. Purdy are also part of. But the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police represent all police officers in British Columbia, both RCMP and municipal. As I said, Howard and I sit on that executive.

Today we’re here representing them. We do not have a written presentation, other than our oral remarks. We’re supporting the BCAMCP. They did a lot more work. Obviously, it impacts the municipal chiefs of police a lot more than it does our organization. But we think that there are some things that, maybe with some changes to the Police Act, might assist both the RCMP and the municipal members within the Association of Chiefs of Police. So that’s what I’ll be speaking about today. I’ll have a few words, and then Howard will continue on.

Again, thank you very much, distinguished members of this committee, on behalf of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police. We’re very pleased to be given this opportunity to meet and present to you today. The three of us are here representing the BCACP, and we’ll be sharing with you some of the challenges faced by police leaders in B.C. as they relate to the Police Act and the police complaint process.

The BCACP represents the senior leaders in policing across British Columbia and includes the RCMP, independent police agencies, the Stl’atl’imx tribal police and the Metro Vancouver Transit Police. There are almost 150 active members in the association. Members meet regularly to enhance public safety in this province by encouraging and developing cooperation amongst all members; promoting a high standard of ethics, integrity, honour and conduct; fostering consistency in police practices; implementing efficient and effective practices to prevent and combat crime; and effectively communicating problems and concerns to the appropriate levels of authority.

The BCACP feels that improvements are well overdue with the current police complaint process. Over the years, there have been criticisms identified by stakeholders, including police leaders, police boards, police unions and the OPCC themselves. Despite inadequacies of the complaint process, it is important to recognize that there are positive aspects to the current structure that we think work well, such as ensuring public confidence in policing and providing easily accessible options for members of the public to report potential police misconduct.

We support the recommendations presented by the B.C. Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police, and we fully support their insights provided to this committee. The BCACP and the BCAMCP share common goals and objectives surrounding public safety. These two associations represent the police leaders across the province.

However, there are significant distinctions between the BCACP and the BCAMCP when it comes to managing police complaints in British Columbia. Public complaints against police officers are handled under two completely different frameworks. As well, for some of our members, police complaints are managed federally, while others are managed provincially.

Provincial law enforcement entities that do not have the same civilian oversight include the RCMP, sheriffs, conservation officers and B.C. legislative police. These law enforcement agencies have similar police powers, authorities and interact regularly with the public on a daily basis.

We see that a definite strength of the current public complaint process is the involvement of competent and experienced police investigators, who complement the investigative package. All professional standards section investigators come from a myriad of backgrounds, most with significant experience in complex and sensitive investigations. They have honed and developed their investigative skills, working in such areas as major crime, homicide, robbery, sex crimes and general investigative units. Other investigators bring specialized subject matter expertise through extensive knowledge working in operational teams, including emergency response, surveillance and canine units.

[11:35 a.m.]

The BCACP are strongly supportive of civilian oversight and believe that it helps enhance trust, police legitimacy and public confidence. Given the legal authorities, powers and responsibilities granted to police officers, we feel that there should be a high level of scrutiny. However, it is important to point out that policing in this province has the most oversight compared to any other profession. Police officers are subject to oversight by the OPCC, the independent investigations office, police boards, civil and criminal courts, B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, advocacy and special interest groups, and the media.

While we accept the higher level of scrutiny, we must never lose sight that the process should be fair, take place in a reasonable amount of time and be applied consistently.

H. Chow: I’m going to go with the next part.

We did want to focus our attention on a specific area which we think the committee may be able to have the most effect or impact on, and it will achieve some immediate successes. That’s what our belief is. Despite that, we think that there are lots of areas that could use improvement, and we’re happy to be part of those discussions in the days, weeks and months to come.

The area I’m going to talk about is improved training. The BCACP feels that training is an important area that needs to be addressed in order to achieve some immediate improvements for the current police complaint process.

Currently there is no formalized and consistent training program for Police Act investigators. While many agencies have made various attempts to train their own investigators, there has never been a standardized provincial training program. Police investigators are left to learn the process through internal mentorship or internally developed training courses.

All that is offered by the OPCC is a one-day familiarization course on the Police Act. However, this is training primarily focusing on the OPCC and its own processes. Investigators are then left to rely heavily on experienced discipline authorities, DAs; current and former professional standards investigators from municipal agencies; or obtain expensive legal opinions.

The lack of specific Police Act investigation training becomes particularly concerning when the RCMP, as the provincial police, are tasked with investigating Police Act investigations, including those at the chief constable level. You heard Tom Stamatakis talk about this earlier. Despite being very well qualified, with their extensive knowledge and experience, the RCMP are placed in an extremely challenging situation where they are relied upon to investigate a complaint under a process that is considerably different from their own. In many cases, they’re unfamiliar with the complex legislative requirements of the B.C. Police Act.

There are unique powers and authorities under the B.C. Police Act. This includes such things as powers to search without warrant and the ability to compel statements. Further, there is common law precedent on the use of these authorities. As a result, standardized training on the Police Act is crucial for all investigators.

Police investigators work very closely with OPCC investigative analysts, and our view is that there should be consistent police familiarity and investigator training provided for these analysts as well. A formalized program would be a benefit to OPCC staff and provide important and valuable context for investigations. The Police Act makes clear that the OPCC has no investigative authority and that their primary task is to oversee the investigation.

This training would provide an opportunity for police and the OPCC to share their experience in patrol operations, use-of-force training and specialty work groups, such as canine, emergency response team and court and detention services, the jail. We believe standardized training for police investigators and OPCC staff would provide additional opportunities to ensure investigations are managed in a congruent and efficient manner.

Another area is that the designated discipline authority, or the DA, in a Police Act investigation has a multitude of responsibilities during their investigation, not only at its end, or the conclusion, but also during the corrective measures aspect of the process itself. Incidentally, the term “discipline authority” comes up 257 times within the Police Act. Its prevalence in the legislation emphasizes the importance of the role of the DA and the need for a consistent and educated approach.

Despite the key role of the DA, there is no formal standardized provincial DA training currently offered. Again, the responsibility is left to the individual police organizations and DAs to self-learn this role. We feel DAs should be certified to a provincial standard, much like a major crime team commander accreditation program. This would not only enhance credibility of the overall process, but it would improve trust and confidence in major decisions that are rendered.

[11:40 a.m.]

Finally, along with the lack of DA training, the current police complaint process fails to provide a consistent approach on decision-making. As a fundamental principle of justice, previous decisions and precedents should be a crucial and relied upon reference when rendering DA decisions.

There is no known library that captures DA decisions. Our rule of law is premised on the ability to refer to previous decisions and build off this learned rationale or principle. In essence, there is a sense that the goalposts on police misconduct and judgments are constantly changing, which does not support consistency and makes it very difficult to arrive at appropriate decisions.

There are a number of recommendations that we’re going to provide. The first is to establish a greater balance in the funds spent on recruit training versus police oversight. You heard some of the discrepancies yesterday from the BCAMCP in terms of the dollar value spent on recruit training versus on police oversight.

The second is to develop a complaint process that focuses resources on cases where there is clearly an allegation of serious misconduct and a more efficient process for complaints of a lesser nature.

Create a standardized training program for investigators, as well as an accreditation process for the role of the DA to enhance consistency and promote excellence in Police Act investigations.

Recommendation 4 is standardized police familiarity investigator training for OPCC investigative analysts to promote best practices and ensure consistency in approach and investigations.

Recommendation 5 is to share knowledge and ensure a uniform approach to investigations by developing an annual conference that would bring together stakeholders like police investigators, discipline authorities, the OPCC and retired judges to discuss relevant trends and decisions.

Recommendation 6 is the creation of a formal repository of decisions that captures previous court rulings, DA decisions and OPCC bulletins that will help guide future decisions.

In conclusion, in the interest of time, we limited our discussion around a number of high-level areas of the police complaint process to where we felt would have the most value. We’re aware that others have raised concerns surrounding such things as member wellness, budgetary concerns, consistency and timelines, and we too agree that these are weaknesses or impacts of the existing process that also warrant your attention. We are hoping this opportunity to affect change will enhance public confidence in the police and promote fairness, transparency and efficiency, and be cost-effective.

I’d like to thank each of you for your time and interest in modernizing and improving the Police Act and police complaint process. BCAMCP feels this is an excellent starting point and encourages future discussions with our membership to address the current concerns identified by ourselves and other presenters. As an organization representing senior police leaders in this province, we are optimistic that, together, we can improve the existing process. Our officers deserve it, and the public deserves it.

Thank you. The three of us are available to answer any questions you may have.

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

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): I have a couple. Good presentations.

Just with respect to your recommendation 1, ”Establish a greater balance in the funds spent on recruit training versus police oversight,” are you suggesting that we concentrate on the police training side of things to reduce the amount of money that’s spent on oversight? Where are you coming with that one?

H. Chow: The point isn’t that we need to pull money away from oversight. I think, really, the point here is also to ensure that our members have the best opportunity when they come out of the gate. When they come out of recruit training, they understand all the nuances surrounding the Police Act, and they also understand the jeopardy and liability that they come into in this profession.

When you’ve got a process where almost, I believe, $30 million is spent towards oversight, and really, the province is spending about $2 million to $3 million towards recruit police training, I think there’s quite the discrepancy that needs to be reconciled in some fashion.

Now, obviously, there are going to be lots of aspects that we can discuss and talk in further detail, but I think, really, that discrepancy is a very glaring area that we need to focus some attention on.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Just on the same topic, I’ve got one other on No. 2 there. How much does your department spend? What portion of your budget goes to recruit training at the JI or through the entire training process? You talk about the province supporting the police oversight with the complaint commissioner, but I think there’s still some responsibility with the municipals involved there.

[11:45 a.m.]

Would your municipalities be willing to increase the amount of money that they’re spending on training to try and find that balance?

H. Chow: I understand what you’re saying. I can speak for Vancouver and Vancouver alone. We’ve been publicly on the record on this. There are some gaps in terms of the recruit training. In fact, prior to going into the Justice Institute of B.C., every recruit is also paying funds out of his or her own pocket. I think it’s to the tune of about $12,000 each.

Also, as a home agency, because we feel that there’s inadequate training right now provided to our recruits, for Vancouver, we provide two weeks in advance, I believe it is, and three weeks after they get out of the academy even before we deploy them. So there are already considerable resources in terms of budgetary, as well as resources spent on giving more training. So I think that’s already happened.

You know, one thing that we talk about is that even when we go to civil forfeiture, where the Vancouver police department has contributed, just for ourselves…. Not to make it about Vancouver, but when we seize a house towards civil forfeiture — and oftentimes, with housing prices over the last number of years, $3 million or $4 million may mean one house — even if we were to contribute the value of one house to the Justice Institute, it would have a significant difference in the level of training that we can deliver to new recruits as they go in there.

D. Jansen: Sorry, if I may just follow up a little bit. For the smaller agencies, it’s very similar. I don’t have the dollar amount before me, but we have looked at that. As most of you are aware, there are reviews going on in regards to JIBC, so we’ve been looking at that. We all are supplementing the training now because of the areas that we feel are being missed at the JI — things such as additional firearms training, code 5 takedowns. They’re real-life, operational needs that…. We’ve all recognized, not only in Vancouver but in the smaller agencies, that we need to fill that gap.

In my agency in New Westminster, we provide one week before they go in the JI. I think it’s up to three weeks, either in their block 2 or shortly after graduating, that we feel we need to supplement that training.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Just one more, if I could, on No. 2: “Develop a complaint process that focuses resources on cases where there’s clearly an allegation of serious misconduct and a more efficient process for complaints of a lesser nature.” You’re talking about ADR, alternate dispute resolution, on those lower ones. What percentage of files that you folks see, probably, on your bailiwick there, would be suitable for ADR out of your total file load for complaints for the year?

M. Purdy: I’m guessing on exact percentages, but in my time there, I would think it’s somewhere around 40 percent. We’re actually designated by the OPCC as something that we should pursue, because it has to be listed in their order. The success rate is not terribly high. When we do get a successful mediation, it’s celebrated. But there are so many moving factors to it.

I think part of the recommendation is a little more than just ADR. There’s no mechanism, really, in the Police Act, for…. It’s either ADR or it is a full, comprehensive, basically minimum six-month investigation. And there’s no differentiation between the most serious of offenses to, you know, a difference of opinion, if you will.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Good. Thank you very much.

D. Jansen: It would be nice if we could…. Sorry. If a member wanted to come in and deal with it right away, quickly, and resolve these, aside from the ADR, there’s no process there.

G. Begg: A follow-up to Mike’s comments in relation to training at the recruit level: are you talking about a synergy that might develop if members, as recruits, are made aware of pitfalls of sloppy investigations, etc.? In other words, if they’re trained at an early stage that they’re the oversight that could result in a Police Act process, is there the possibility that they would conduct themselves in a more efficient way, which would ultimately result in less minor complaints under the Police Act — for example, keeping a complainant advised of the progress of an investigation?

Relatively simple stuff, which may not now be, sadly, in police training. If it were, the subsequent or consequent result would be a lessening of Police Act complaints. Is that what you’re talking about?

H. Chow: Yeah. You know what? I should really kind of give some context to that.

[11:50 a.m.]

Much of what Tom had talked about earlier is that we know we’re hiring the right people who are making the right decisions out there. It’s only that sliver of substantiated police complaints that we’re ever seeing at the end of it. When we’re talking about those, even a smaller number are criminal in nature. So it’s people that are making mistakes.

I think it would be, from my perspective and respectfully, tough to argue that more training on the front end is only going to help the situation. It’s only going to professionalize our recruits and not necessarily make them aware…. If the idea is that, “Hey, we’re going to teach your guys to game the system,” that’s not the point. I know that’s not what you’re suggesting.

I’m just suggesting that I think any training that we can deliver at the front end is only going to help our members in terms of certain jeopardies that you can get into in policing now that weren’t there 20 years ago when you were a police officer yourself. It’s a different game out there, and we know that.

It’s so important that our members are professional, have accountability, have oversight. That’s where the training could improve as well — at the front end.

G. Begg: The repository of decisions does not exist?

D. Jansen: No.

G. Begg: Assumedly, the deciding officer has the ability to do his own research and come up with…. Or is that true?

D. Jansen: I’m sure that Mike can jump in here too. I can tell you, as someone who is new into the DA role, I’m literally going through old OPCC annual reports and trying to find similar facts to provide.

We all are used to our justice system here, where precedents and all that are important, and they should be. It makes it very difficult as a new DA to come up with those precedents. Having some area you could go to, and we know some other provinces have access to that, would be a real benefit.

M. Purdy: I agree. Most DAs are left within their own organization or literally the informal relationships they have with other DAs to start looking for these things. It seems ridiculous when these are becoming, in essence, administrative case law. They’re also being used by the OPCC after the DA decision when they’re questioning whether they will send it to a section 117 review. Sometimes it comes back quoting somebody else’s DA decision. The only way you would have seen that was if you’d actually known that DA personally and had the ability to reach out to them. There’s no central repository.

The OPCC has them, because they receive all of the DA decisions. We even went so far…. When I was a full-time DA, we were having issues getting consistent notification on corrective measures. For instance, the Delta police department, just for example, could have given one of their members a three-day suspension, and I could be writing a DA decision for almost the exact same thing. And honestly, I would have no idea what that was until the OPCC’s annual report came out, which is now six months dated at that point, and even that is an overview document. Sometimes you’re not actually going to figure out it’s exactly the same thing, so we need a central repository for all of that.

Anytime something goes to a section 117 review or it has to go to a discipline proceeding after that — it’s because the DA has got it wrong in the first place, and it was something that could have been avoided — we have now caused nothing but grief for that respondent member, who probably would have been able to get that situation done and off of their stress level months before.

G. Begg: Two more things — or actually, one. The training for the investigators and the training for discipline authorities. I know you can’t be specific, but we’re looking at a week training or three days. Can you quantify in real terms what that would mean?

M. Purdy: For a full-time investigator, I would say you’re probably looking at something around two weeks.

G. Begg: Two weeks?

M. Purdy: Yeah. They’re complicated investigations. A lot of the complaints aren’t complicated, but the Police Act is a minefield.

G. Begg: And for the discipline authority?

M. Purdy: He’d probably do a week.

D. Jansen: Yeah, probably a week. Right now we’re just ad-libbing it and getting in experts to give us an afternoon or something like that, but I could see a week would certainly help.

E. Ross: I agree with your second recommendation, especially when we’re talking about efficiency and taxpayers’ money.

I’ve tried to categorize this into three different areas: serious misconduct, a police officer, for lack of a better word, being discourteous…. Then there’s the frivolous complaints that actually shouldn’t go through the whole process. But it seems to be that we actually deal with these all the same way, and that’s what leads to an inefficient, costly process.

[11:55 a.m.]

Now, in two cases, we’re talking about serious misconduct and the discourteous police officers being accountable through the relevant authorities, but there doesn’t seem to be any accountability for the frivolous complaints. In fact, if anything, that remains anonymous and doesn’t get reported on. I’m just wondering, out of the three — and I know these aren’t official categories — how many of these are frivolous complaints? Is there any record kept of that — that it actually gets dismissed as not an officer being discourteous, or serious misconduct?

M. Purdy: The Police Complaint Commissioner’s office has the ability to categorize a complaint and, in essence, not make it admissible if they feel it’s frivolous and vexatious. In my experience, their leaning that way is very low because they have very little evidence at the time. It is simply a complaint. They may or may not review a police report that was provided on the same incident. But from there, they make their decision. So in my four years as the OIC of PSS in Vancouver, there was a small handful where I was notified that they had not made it admissible because it was frivolous and vexatious.

That means it comes over to the official system and the full investigation. What we do need under the Police Act is the ability…. Once an investigation is going on and there is ample evidence to show that this just did not occur, we need a method to stop that investigation. Because like you say, it will go on, and it’s extremely expensive. As it stands right now, the only methodology that we have to try to stop that investigation is applying for a discontinuation through the complaint commissioner, which is probably the most frustrating process for any professional standards investigator in this province, because we have an extremely low percentage where the police commissioner actually orders the investigation to be stopped.

Some of the answers that we have heard from the complaint commissioner’s office were that they didn’t want to deny the complainant the ability to see a DA decision at the end of a process. For a PSS investigator, it’s a bit of a head-scratcher as to why we’re wasting all that money when we actually have the evidence at the time to show that this didn’t occur, or at least didn’t occur the way the complainant has said that has made it a potential misconduct.

D. Jansen: From what I’ve seen, some of the discontinuation reports have been along as a FIR and they’re voluminous, even at that level, to try to explain to the OPCC why it should be discontinued. So there is kind of this lack of efficiency or timeliness to get some of these dealt with that could be dealt with quite quickly at the forefront without having to go through this full…. My background is in major crime, and some of these FIRs are bigger than some of my homicide files that I’ve seen back in the day. They’re voluminous.

E. Ross: I’m just a layperson here. My experience is that most complainants, whether or not they are in one of these three categories, just want closure. Not many of them understand the Police Act or the process or the systems in place. All they want to know is: did my complaint get dealt with at a higher level, apart from the people involved.

We’ve heard a number of witnesses come in saying that they don’t understand the process for any number of reasons, whether it be social or economic or landed immigrant. But is there satisfaction, when a case is resolved, from all parties? They say, “Yes, at least it was addressed,” and: “Yeah, we may not be happy with the answer, but at least we have closure now.” Is that the case, in terms of many of these cases, when there’s a final decision?

M. Purdy: From a complainant’s point of view?

E. Ross: From the complainants, from the police associations. Is there satisfaction that there was…?

M. Purdy: I’ve been a respondent myself in complaint investigations. It’s an incredibly arduous process. You’re never quite sure when the end is. You know, I know the process better than a lot. There are so many steps that it seems like it never ends. I suppose that there is closure for the respondent at the very end. But even now, when something comes back from a discipline authority as unsubstantiated, they’re now waiting for the Police Complaint Commissioner for a considerable amount of time to decide whether they’re going to confirm that or send it to the next step. I appreciate that’s an important step in the process, but the closure isn’t there until much, much later. It’s very long and drawn out.

[12:00 p.m.]

As for a complainant, I can’t really speak for them. I’ve spoken to some complainants over the years, but quite a num­ber of the complainants…. There are underlying issues — drug addiction, mental health. I think Deputy Chow and Mr. Stamatakis said it earlier — that there are times when you will never please them. The process may not even assist in that. It may actually hurt it. But whether they actually get full closure, I don’t know — for a complainant.

H. Chow: Can I just jump in on this one, as well, if I could? We’re fully behind oversight. I think the point you’re making, Mr. Ross, makes sense to me. We have to give people in marginalized communities and the vulnerable an opportunity to have their voice heard — absolutely.

I just think there’s this disconnect right now where the balance…. Because there is consequence to these long-drawn-out…not only to the public and the confidence in the oversight system but to our members that, from our perspective, we shouldn’t lose sight of. If we go around and we speak with members, probably the top-three stressor that’s added to member wellness is the arduous process of oversight — in particular, of the Police Act investigations.

It’s not uncommon to walk into any briefing room or any parade where people are saying: “Yeah, I’m undergoing a process right now.” “And I am.” In our profession, often there will be times when we make missteps. There are times in a human process where we screw up at three o’clock in the morning: “Jeez, I wish I’d never done that.”

Then when you jump into this process now because there’s been a complaint made…. “Look. I just want to fall on the sword. I made a mistake. I’m sorry. I messed up. You’re right. I should….” But there’s no way out of it. Then six months down the road, a year down the road, I’m still in the thick of things, and it just hangs above you. I think that that’s something that really needs to be addressed.

When Mike talks about the mental health component, his­torically there have been times when all of a sudden, advocacy groups or interest groups are saying, “Hey, we don’t like the way these members are approaching, engaging, inter­acting with our members,” and it’s a call for complaints on them. All of a sudden, we get dozens of complaints on a number of members — isolated one or two members — and that, I tell you, weighs extremely heavily.

Some of these, unfortunately, are from those with mental illness that there’s no way of corroborating or finding out or getting any further with it. Not suggesting they don’t need to be looked at. They do need to be looked at. It’s just that balance, and finding out what that sweet spot is.

G. Begg: Just for clarity and for the record, if I’m a complainant in a Police Act matter that is in process, how can I discontinue that process?

M. Purdy: You can withdraw your complaint. You can withdraw it either to the police officer, or you can withdraw it directly to the Police Complaint Commissioner. The Police Complaint Commissioner has the authority, if you withdraw, to continue the investigation.

G. Begg: If I’m a respondent in a B.C. Police Act complaint, am I able to, as Howard says, fall on my sword, admit my error and discontinue the process and have the adjudication discontinued?

M. Purdy: No.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. We really appreciate your presentation and the recommendations that you have made. We heard quite similar things yesterday also, especially regarding training. I know my colleagues have asked quite a few questions about that.

We have heard from a number of stakeholders. They said some of the complaints happen because there’s miscommunication, and there’s not…. The way the officer handled the situation….

Do you think in the training that you are looking for, giving them more cultural training, more sensitivity training, especially in the light of what we have seen and what came out of Kelowna, the way that thing has become viral, how that officer is talking to this complainant…?

This is where the mistrust comes about the police also. How do you think that’s training? What kind of training, exactly, is needed?

M. Purdy: Well, I think in our presentation, the training that we’re referring to is…. The JI aspect is one, but I don’t necessarily think that is the purpose of it. Any training offered to a police officer, be it recruit training, in-service training throughout their career, you would hope that that is going to assist in how they handle themselves.

[12:05 p.m.]

Hopefully, there will be a correlation to a lowering of the number of complaints. Our discussion here has a lot to do with the training for actual Police Act investigators, which I think isn’t quite where you’re going.

H. Chow: I can jump in, if I can, on this one. I’d argue or defend the fact that our training, our cultural awareness that we provide to our members on different diverse groups as well as Indigenous groups, is probably second to none in terms of public servants. We have so many areas, speaking for Vancouver alone, where all our 700 officers are given Indigenous training, cultural awareness through the academy. When they get out, they’re given refresher training probably every six months on different aspects of specific issues that’s going to improve their engagement and interaction with different diverse groups.

The province has a number of standardized courses that people have to take on bias-free training or procedural justice — things like that that are so important. We’ve got something else that we do on street checks that primarily deals with specific demographics.

So that training exists out there on our members, aside from everything else. I know that every agency has that in place in policing in B.C. I know that narrative is out there oftentimes with advocacy groups. But I’ll tell you, just the number and the amount of training that we invest in our members as it relates to specifics like that is truly, I think, impressive.

R. Singh (Chair): That’s really great. That’s really good to know. And you specifying that — that is very important for us as a committee to know and the public to know as well.

Also, you talk about a standardized investigator training. Just for my clarification, right now, there’s no training to deal with the complaints? Or is it just that every department will have its own?

D. Jansen: Correct.

M. Purdy: The Vancouver police department has de­signed its own internal training program over the last…. I think it’s only probably a year old now. It took us a considerable amount of time to do it. But it’s probably not robust enough to be throughout the province.

What the Police Complaint Commissioner offers is a familiarization in the Police Act process. It’s not investiga­tive. It is literally a one-day refresh, if you will.

Many, many years ago — I’m dating myself here, probably going back to the very early 2000s — the Justice Institute attempted to do a two-week training program. I took the first one. It was quite good. From there, I don’t know what happened to it. But it ceased to exist after that.

So there hasn’t been any formalized provincial training. Deputy Chow discussed it. The issue…. The people coming into professional standards are not necessarily wanting to be there as investigators, as I’m sure you can imagine. But they’re highly professional. They’re there for a couple of years, and then they move on with their career. Unfortunately, that’s pretty much just when they’re starting to get used to the system, because it is so cumbersome.

That training beforehand is crucial to get them on their feet and get them running. Like we were saying, it’s glaringly obvious when the provincial police force as the RCMP is tasked…. When they’re tasked with an investigation under the Police Act, it’s usually fairly high-profile. It’s usually involving a chief or at that level.

What ends up coming out of it is that the RCMP investigator is a top-notch investigator. They are top-notch investigators. When they don’t understand all the minefields and all the issues that exist with the Police Act and the actual processes of it, they then turn around…. If they don’t ask for help, the investigation will become muddled.

When they do ask for help, we’ve now kind of defeated the purpose of being independent, because we’ve had to grab, probably, somebody like an inspector in a professional standards section and have them work right side by side with them, basically just to guide them through that minefield. It’s very unfair to them. They’re spending all of their time concerned about that as opposed to actually investigating.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. I really appreciate your presentation and all the recommendations. We will go through this very carefully before we make our report. Thank you for taking out the time today.

Now the committee is in recess till 1 p.m.

The committee recessed from 12:09 p.m. to 1:02 p.m.

[R. Singh in the chair.]

R. Singh (Chair): Welcome back. We are ready to start. We have our next presenter now from Vancouver Aboriginal Community Policing Centre Society. We have with us today Norm Leech.

Welcome, Norm. Welcome to our committee. We are really looking forward to your presentation.

I am Rachna Singh. I am the Chair of this committee.

I’ll ask the members to introduce themselves.

G. Begg: I’m Garry Begg. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Guildford.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): Mike Morris. I’m the Deputy Chair, and I’m the MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie.

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

R. Singh (Chair): You have about 15 minutes to present, Norm. Then we will have about 15 minutes for questions and answers. We are not very rigid on the timelines, but this is the general expectation. Thank you so much.

VANCOUVER ABORIGINAL
COMMUNITY POLICING CENTRE SOCIETY

N. Leech: Thank you for the opportunity.

As my name tag says, I’m the executive director for the Vancouver Aboriginal Community Policing Centre. We exist to serve the justice needs for Indigenous people living in Vancouver. There are a number — somewhere in the range of 50,000 to 70,000 people living in Vancouver.

Most of them aren’t from there or here. They’re from all over the place. In fact, probably the largest language group are the Cree-speaking people. So there’s a great deal of diversity and a wide range of experiences and issues that they face. We try to deal with the issues that are the highest priority for those people.

Of course, we all know that…. Well, I guess that probably the main mandate that we were provided by the Vancouver police department is to try to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. That’s a big job. The other large mandate is to try to improve the relationship between the Vancouver police department and the Indigenous community.

To that end, we do a lot of activities in the community as well as participating in the training program. Maybe participating is not the right word. They give us three hours to present to each graduating class out of the police academy at the Justice Institute. In that time, we try to educate the police about the history of the relationship between all police, law enforcement and Indigenous peoples in this country.

[1:05 p.m.]

We put it in terms of, well, the history of colonization. Indigenous people have been here…. Well, if Canada’s been here 150 years, officially, Indigenous people have been here about 100 times longer than that, at least. So Canada’s history is 1 percent of our history, but it has been a very tumultuous 1 percent.

At the beginning of colonization, there were certain laws that made it possible, whether it’s the Magna Carta or the Royal Proclamation or, I guess, the initial constitution and charter of Canada. Those laws were written. None of them were written by us. They were all intended to complete and advance colonization, and the biggest impediment to colonization was Indigenous people.

We were here first. The laws were written later. The laws conflicted with us, which, again, inevitably put us in conflict with the law. That leads to the enforcement of those laws when we resist the imposition of reserve systems, loss of land, relocation, the residential schools, the Indian Act, the banning of potlatches, the banning of the hiring of lawyers.

All those things were legal because the laws were written first, before they were enforced. So it seems apparent, from our perspective, that if a colonizing country wants to commit a major injustice, then the proper path to do that is to write the law first. Make it legal. That was what was done, again.

This is the history of colonization, which didn’t begin or end with Canada. It’s the history of humans, and they’ve gotten better at it over time, whether it was Africa or Asia or North America or South America. Colonization is a process that is well planned and well implemented now. So, due to the relationship that’s always existed, when communities or families resisted someone who was coming to take their children away to school, then they were criminals because the law was the law, and law enforcement was sent in to enforce those laws.

The relationship between Indigenous people and law enforcement is one of, certainly, mistrust, certainly suspicion, certainly fear — unfortunately, very often now, hatred and complete avoidance of any contact whatsoever. A large part of the people that we meet and serve and who come to us for help are dealing with issues of criminal law and their conflicts with the so-called justice system. I don’t like calling it the justice system because it was never designed to provide justice for Indigenous people.

When we try to help people deal with their conflicts with the law, very often it is accompanied with mistreatment by law enforcement, whether it’s indifference…. We’re hearing, again, a lot of those stories this week due to the release of the report from the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, hearing about the families who tried to make those reports to law enforcement but were ignored or put off or simply deferred.

I believe there needs to be a separate process for Indigenous complaints because I have not been successful in convincing anybody to proceed with a complaint against the police. It is seen to be an absolute and complete waste of time and probably will bring more harm to the person making the complaint than the greatest hope they could achieve out of a successful complaint. The benefits hardly seem worth the time, the effort and, in fact, the likely — they believe — harm that will occur to them for proceeding with such a thing.

[1:10 p.m.]

It’s a completely unbalanced power equation, especially dealing with people who are living in the city. Moving away from home, from the traditional way of life, to the city generally means not having access to the same resources as one has at home. Again, the Indian Act has a large part to play in that, because funding is really only available to those people who live on reserve. So the people who are living off reserve in the cities have to get services from a patchwork of agencies and provincial and municipal and federal programs that are not coordinated or designed to collaborate well enough to provide a solid slate of services for urban Indigenous people.

Probably the hardest people to convince are women. Women, in general, know…. The statistics are pretty open, especially for sexual assault. Fewer than one in ten will report, and fewer than one in ten of those reports will result in charges. And probably fewer than one in ten of those charges will result in conviction with meaningful jail time. Again, I have difficulty, with any clear conscience, recommending to women who come to our centre reporting sexual assault that it’s worth completing the process, entering the process.

We have access to partner agencies who will take third-party reports, because most Indigenous people would rather not speak to a police officer directly. It’s changing a little bit. There are, I guess, almost 20 Vancouver police officers with Indigenous ancestry. Many of them do not disclose and refuse to act as a role model or a spokesperson for those issues, but those who do have helped create better relationships and better perceptions where they are able.

VPD has been pretty proactive and has been pretty responsive. Again, it’s probably due to the recent history in British Columbia and Vancouver, especially since the Wally Oppal Inquiry looking into — I don’t know what the word is — the situation that followed the disclosures during the Robert Pickton investigation and trial, which led to the report titled Forsaken.

Again, we faced the fallout of that history, and that history is probably not reflective of the numbers of complaints that come forward to the Police Complaint Commissioner. I don’t know the numbers. I don’t know how many of them are Indigenous initiated. I would suspect far fewer than the number of cases. In this regard, we’re probably far underrepresented rather than overrepresented. We tend to be overrepresented in the negative social indicators, but this is one where I would suspect that very few people are willing and able to initiate and complete the process.

I believe there would need to be a separate one that recognizes the unique history between Indigenous people in this country and law enforcement. Up until now, there has really been no reason to expect justice, to expect fairness, to expect anything but more of the same. And more of the same from the Indigenous historical perspective is pretty much all bad.

[1:15 p.m.]

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. We really appreciate you bringing this perspective. We have heard about these issues from other stakeholders as well, but the way you bring it up is very important for us as a committee to hear.

I will open the floor now for questions.

E. Ross: Hi. Thanks for that. Just going over your site here…. When we’re talking about incidents being reported, there’s an inference that people do not want to go through the process to report a complaint. I’m just going to assume here that instead of that, they’ll actually go to your organization for support or to report the complaint, as an alternative means. Can I ask how many people you would say utilize your services in terms of a complaint?

N. Leech: As I said, I haven’t been able to convince anybody to proceed with an actual complaint. We get the complaints. They come to us, and they hope that we can do something, but really all we can do is guarantee that we will stay with them through the regular process and keep them informed and assist them and support them as much as we can through that process.

There is no separate process once they come to us. There is only the help in filling out the forms and maybe getting to a meeting.

E. Ross: You say it’s not a formal pursuance of the complaint itself, but how many people come in? Is there a record kept of how many people want to make a complaint without actually following through the full due process?

N. Leech: In some of those cases, yes. We have numbers for those people who have a complaint and then decide not to proceed. We probably get a dozen or 20 a year.

E. Ross: A dozen or 20. Is there a record kept? Is there a report made out in terms of…?

N. Leech: Sometimes not. Sometimes it’ll just be a phone call. Someone’s inquiring, and they’ll talk about: “This happened. What can I do?” Then we’ll inform them that, depending on which police service it is, whether it’s RCMP or a municipal force, there are two separate processes. Then we tell them about the process and what it involves and how long it takes. Then at that point, they’ll say, “Never mind,” very often, most often.

E. Ross: Yeah, okay. I’m talking more about your organization in terms of keeping records and numbers on an annual basis or a semi-annual. Is there a record kept of how many incidents are reported? Whether or not they follow the process — see it through the full procedure — is not what I’m after. I just want to know how many cases are reported to you guys on an annual basis.

N. Leech: I’m guessing somewhere between 12 and 20 a year. That’s off the top of my head. If we and all our staff could go back through our records…. We are required to keep track of walk-ins and, actually, phone calls, as well, of people who are seeking assistance. But we haven’t brought anyone into or through the process yet.

E. Ross: Is there an annual report that’s submitted by your organization to any other authority?

N. Leech: To the Vancouver police department. We submit an annual report to the police department.

E. Ross: Is that accessible to the public, or is that just…?

N. Leech: Not that I’m aware of, no.

E. Ross: Okay. Thanks.

G. Begg: Thanks for your presentation. You’re very articulate and, I think, very in touch with the community, which is the nature of the work that you do, I assume.

I’m interested in your thoughts as to how we bridge the gap that exists between the expectation of the Indigenous community and the actual…. You say it’s an unbalanced power structure, which I accept, but I think it’s important that you help us to isolate methods and practises that could bridge that gap. I realize it’s not going to be an overnight process.

How can we encourage community members to trust that the police will take at face value a complaint that an Indigenous person might make? Now, you did suggest that there might be a separate process.

[1:20 p.m.]

N. Leech: It could be alongside that has Indigenous people involved. Again, people will phone us and come to our office because they don’t want to go directly to the police. Even if a crime has occurred — whether they’ve been scammed — they come to us, because they’re afraid to go to the police.

To me, it’s part of the training. Police do what they’re trained to do. The training is one thing. As I said, we get to present to each graduating class a presentation on the culture, the history of colonization and the historical relationship, but we get three hours out of, basically, a year-long process to shift their perspective. Of course, then there’s the time on the street with their veteran officers who teach them what it’s really like out there on the street.

I don’t know what specific training…. We’ve always requested a little more time to really make them understand, but I understand that they’ve got a lot to learn in the academy. To me, it’s understanding that and some acknowledgment at an official level of the responsibility that law enforcement bears in the creation of that relationship and the effects of the things that have happened during the course of that history.

I have a hard time recruiting anybody to even consider a career in law enforcement as part of our mandate, as well. I have a hard time recruiting volunteers who want to be involved in anything to do with the Vancouver police department or any police service, even though we know that we have good relations with some active Indigenous officers, who are great. They’re probably the best public relations that any police service can have, if they’re allowed to tell the truth about what works, what doesn’t and what they’ve experienced themselves.

We have a number of…. There’s a video that we recommend and I think the Police Academy uses: The Spirit Has No Colour. It’s probably more than a dozen years old now, but it talks about that relationship and the effects that it has caused.

Yeah. It’s more in the curriculum — and maybe ongoing as well, for active, serving officers to understand. We try to make the point that certainly, nobody here in this room is responsible for those things that happened, but we all are responsible for what we do from here on in. We can either do things that make it worse, or we can do things that make it better. We hope that people choose to help make it better from here on in. That’s the approach we take.

G. Begg: On a go-forward basis, all across the country, there’s an outflow of Indigenous persons to major centres — all across Canada. It’s reasonable, then, to expect that this will be an increasing issue, with municipal police departments dealing with, for lack of a better word, disenfranchised Indigenous people who have relocated from elsewhere to a major centre.

In the interests of helping us move forward, from a recommendation point of view, how do you meet that challenge? How do you bridge that gap, other than this cultural sensi­tivity?

N. Leech: Well, we’ve seen pretty good success in the restorative and transformative justice programs. If there could be diversions at any point along the way…. Diversions can be even pre-investigation, pre-report, pre-charge, post-charge, sentencing and post-incarceration. Anywhere along the way, there can be diversion. We found those to be more effective than anything else.

[1:25 p.m.]

When we can include our community, our elders, our spiritual practices, our ceremonies and our lands, as much as possible, that breaks the connection between…. Well, it actually heals the disconnection that occurs when people relocate to the city. A disconnection occurs between the land, the culture, the community and the family, and that leads to things like substance use, homelessness, poverty and mental health issues. We find our major task is to reconnect people as much as possible to those traditional ways. Then they can find pride, identity, sense of self and connection.

M. Morris (Deputy Chair): My questions were right alongside of Garry’s there. You’ve answered them for me. Thank you.

R. Singh (Chair): Thank you so much. As I’ve said before, this is very, very important for us. As Garry said, we have to find other ways for moving forward, like how to…. You have answered it really well.

I think that we are in the process. It is a slow process, but we know what Indigenous populations have gone through. We have not experienced it, but we have an understanding of that. As a committee, also, we were very, very cognizant of the fact. When we were listening to the stakeholders, some themes that you have brought up did come up there too.

We really appreciate your presentation. When we do our final report, we will deliberate on it very, very seriously. Thank you so much. We really appreciate you coming in.

N. Leech: Thank you. It’s my pleasure.

R. Singh (Chair): Now this committee is adjourned. Thank you so much, Members. Thank you for all your input and your time that you have given. We had some very serious conversations, and I know it is very heavy work that we are going to do, but I’m really looking forward to our deliberations very soon.

Thank you, Susan. Thank you, Steven. Thank you, Simon. I really appreciate you. You have been here three days, but now, thankfully, you get to go home. That’s great.

The committee adjourned at 1:27 p.m.