The committee met at 8:04 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): Good morning, committee members.

Good morning, guests.

My name is Nicholas Simons. I’m the Chair of the Police Act Reform Committee. I’d like to welcome all members of the committee and guests to our second meeting.

I’d like to first acknowledge that I’m speaking to you all from the traditional territory of the Tla’amin Nation, a treaty nation up in the Powell River or qathet regional district. I just wanted to start with that acknowledgment.

Today’s agenda is fairly straightforward. We have an opportunity to get a briefing on the Police Act. It’s a big piece of legislation with a lot of parts. Some of us may be more or less familiar with it than others.

[8:05 a.m.]

It gives me great pleasure to first start by welcoming the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, someone who I have known long before I was in politics, when I was in the child welfare field. That’s Mark Sieben.

Good morning, Mark. Nice to have you here. I think we start with you. Am I correct?

Briefings on Police Act

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

M. Sieben: Sure. My remarks will be really brief. Thank you.

More than anything else, I wanted to express our appreciation to have an opportunity to be asked to present before the committee on a topic that’s really important to us. Again, I just want to underscore the importance and the enthusiasm that we have for this work.

With that, I look forward to the rest of the time being devoted to Brenda and her team and the presentation on the Police Act and any questions that the committee might have for us.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Mark.

With that, let’s get right to the briefing on the Police Act and welcome Brenda Butterworth-Carr to our committee.

Thank you for being here.

B. Butterworth-Carr: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, committee. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to provide information in support of this special committee mandate to examine, inquire into and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on reforms related to the modernization and sustainability of policing under the Police Act; the role of police with respect to complex social issues, including mental health and wellness, addictions and harm reduction; the scope of systemic racism within B.C.’s policing agencies; and whether our measures necessary to ensure a modernized Police Act are consistent with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in accordance with the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I have some prepared remarks, which I will go through at your pleasure.

Mr. Chair, as you know, my professional title is assistant deputy minister of policing and security for British Columbia. I am also the statutory director of the police services under the Police Act.

In appearing before you, I will provide committee members an overview of the Police Act, the key themes it addresses and the history of the significant changes made to the act over the years.

For the committee’s awareness, for any type of questions that you require specific information on, I do have a couple staff supporting me today, and I may need to mute my microphone briefly and confer with them, if necessary.

I believe we have a slide presentation, and you would have received the material in advance. I’m just wondering if we can have the slide presentation available, please.

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): Yeah, Brenda, I’ll share it. If you just want to signal to me when you want me to switch slides, that would be great.

B. Butterworth-Carr: Can you go to the next slide, please?

The foundation for policing in British Columbia is a legislative framework that outlines a shared responsibility for policing by the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. Under the Constitution Act, the federal government has authority to create laws for the peace, order and government of Canada per section 91, in criminal laws and criminal procedures per subsection 91(27). In addition, the federal government is responsible for providing a federal police service to enforce federal statutes and protect national security.

Provinces, meanwhile, have a constitutional responsibility for the administration of justice, which includes policing, per subsection 92(14). Accordingly, the B.C. Police Act, which was originally introduced in 1974, sets out goals of the provincial government in the governing of policing by mandating that the ministry must ensure that an adequate and effective level of policing and law enforcement is maintained throughout British Columbia, per section 2.

The Police Act sets out the circumstances under which the provincial government must provide policing and law enforcement services. Those municipalities must be re­spon­sible for their services. Under the terms of the Police Act, municipalities with populations under 5,000 and unincorporated areas of British Columbia are policed by the provincial police service — which, in British Columbia’s case, is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

While some federal responsibilities are defined under the Constitution Act, many areas of overlap occur, including organized crime, drug enforcement and First Nations policing.

The provincial police service agreement between the federal and provincial governments designates the RCMP as B.C.’s provincial police service. The municipal police service agreement between the province and Canada enables the RCMP to act as a municipal police force.

[8:10 a.m.]

Municipalities who wish to have the RCMP as their municipal police department then sign a municipal police unit agreement with the province.

Next slide, please.

Key functions. The minister, as the Solicitor General and top law enforcement official for the province, must designate a person employed in the ministry as the director of police services. The director, who acts on behalf of and subject to the direction of the minister, is responsible for superintending policing and law enforcement functions within British Columbia, as per section 39.

Per part 8 of the act and various sections throughout the statute, the director, supported by the policing and security branch, discharges his or her duties by superintending policing in the province; establishing provincial policing standards for police services delivery; monitoring the finances and operations of the provincial and municipal RCMP; administering the First Nations policing agreements and programs; providing training and support to municipal, First Nations and other forces; inspecting and reporting on the quality of police services; managing non-police law enforcement appointments and activities, such as special constables and auxiliary members; maintaining statistical records required to carry out inspections, evaluations and research studies, and report on provincial crime and police data; consulting with and providing information to the minister, chief civilian director of the independent investigations office, chief constables, chief offi­cers, boards and committees on matters related to policing; making recommendations to the minister on various matters, including appointments to boards and minimum standards for the selection and training of officers and the independent investigations office investigators; reporting to the minister on activities of police forces and departments in their provision of police and law enforcement services; and performing other functions and duties assigned to the director under the Police Act.

Next slide, please.

In relation to governance, the provisions of the Police Act related to governance include section 14, which allows the minister, on behalf of government, to enter into an agreement with Canada authorizing the RCMP to carry out powers and duties of the provincial police force.

Under section 3 of the Police Act, the police must pro­vide policing and law enforcement services to rural areas of British Columbia, municipalities with a population of up to 5,000 persons and to municipalities of more than 5,000 persons that have chosen to enter into a contract with the minister to have the provincial police force — as indicated, the RCMP — act as their municipal police department. Currently there are 56 municipalities in British Columbia that utilize the RCMP as their municipal police department.

With the minister’s approval, municipalities may also choose to establish their own independent police departments. Part 5 establishes the duties and functions of a municipal police board and sets out the budget process.

Under section 23 of the Police Act, municipalities may establish a municipal police department governed by a board consisting of the mayor, who is also the chair; one person appointed by the municipal council; and an additional seven people appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Section 23 further permits the councils of two or more municipalities, with the minister’s approval, to enter into an agreement to establish a joint municipal police board.

Section 28 of the act requires municipal police boards to make rules respecting the guidelines and policies for the administration of the police department, the prevention of neglect and abuse by its municipal constables and the efficient discharge of duties and functions by the police department and its constables.

Part 11 of the Police Act relates to misconduct investigations, and I will speak further about that part. However, as it relates to governance, it is important to note that, under division 3 of part 11, the chair of a municipal police board, who is also the mayor, is required to act as the discipline authority for the chief constable of the municipal police department.

Further, division 5 of part 11 places responsibility on the municipal police board to manage such policy-related complaints under section 171 — to either initiate an investigation or study concerning the complaint, request the chief constable to investigate the complaint, dismiss the complaint with reasons or take other action the board considers necessary.

[8:15 a.m.]

There are currently 12 municipalities that are policed by municipal police departments. Surrey’s plan to transition from an RCMP-policed municipality to an independent municipal department will bring that number to 13.

Next slide, please.

A significant portion of the Police Act is devoted to independent oversight. For example, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, or OPCC, is established in part 9 of the Police Act, and the processes and procedures for the complaint process are outlined in part 11. Part 11 only applies to municipal police officers and not to RCMP members. Rather, misconduct complaints against RCMP members are made to the federally regulated, civilian-reviewed complaints commission.

The Police Act gives the Police Complaint Commissioner certain powers to oversee investigations into police misconduct and sets out the rights of complainants and responds to officers. The OPCC was created in 1998 following the 1994 Wally Oppal commission of inquiry into policing in British Columbia, while part 11 was created in response to the Josiah Wood 2007 report of the review of the police complaint process in British Columbia.

One of the roles of the Police Complaint Commissioner is to recommend to the minister or director that a review, study or audit will be undertaken to assist in developing training or other programs to prevent the recurrence of problems identified by the complaint process in part 11, as per subsection 177(4)(d).

There are regulations that bring the transit police, the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia and special municipal constables under the purview of the OPCC in the event of a misconduct complaint. Special provincial constables also have a set regulation outlining the misconduct complaint process.

The Independent Investigations Office, or IIO, is established in part 7.1 of the Police Act. The IIO has jurisdiction over both the RCMP and municipal police departments to investigate incidents of police-involved serious harm or death, whether the officer was on or off duty. The IIO was created following the Braidwood Commission of Inquiry on the death of Robert Dziekanski in 2009 and 2010; and the Davies Commission Inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, also in 2009 and 2010.

As committee members are aware, on November 25, 2019, the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process released its report with 38 recommendations to amend part 11 of the Police Act or otherwise improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of the complaint process. Policing and security branch staff are currently analyzing the recommendations and identifying next steps and have met with the OPCC to initiate discussions on how the recommendations will be addressed.

The section of the Police Act related to structure and service delivery begins with section 2, which again establishes the minister’s overarching responsibility to ensure that an adequate and effective level of policing and law enforcement is maintained throughout British Columbia. Section 3 of the act describes the responsibilities of the province and municipalities for providing police and law enforcement services.

The Police Act provides options for how policing and law enforcement services can be structured and delivered in the province. As mentioned, the RCMP is the provincial police force, but municipalities with populations of over 5,000 persons have the option to establish their own municipal police departments, subject to the minister’s approval, or enter into agreements to use the RCMP as a municipal police department.

Designated policing units, or DPUs, and designated law enforcement units can be created to provide specialized services. The transit police and the Stl’atl’imx tribal police service are designated policing units under section 4.1 of the act.

The Organized Crime Agency is both a designated policing unit under section 4.1 and a designated law enforcement unit under section 18.1 of the act, because it employs both regular police officers as part of its DPU and peace officers who provide technical support as part of its designated law enforcement unit.

[8:20 a.m.]

The Police Act establishes the authority to make regulations that provide, enhance or reorganize police in relation to specialized services, also known as integrated teams, which may include areas of municipal policing responsibility. Integrated teams provide specialized police services to more than one police jurisdiction and are comprised of police officers from multiple police agencies or levels of policing such as federal, provincial or municipal. Exam­ples of integrated teams included the integrated homicide investigative team and the Lower Mainland District Emergency Response Team.

The Police Act permits the government to require that local governments within a specialized service area use and pay for the services of a specialized service provider or integrated team. However, there is already voluntary participation on several integrated teams, and these regulations have not been required to date.

Slide, please.

Funding-related provisions of the Police Act include section 15, under which municipalities with a population of 5,000 or more are responsible for providing police and law enforcement within their municipal boundaries and must bear the expenses necessary to do so. Meanwhile, the province is responsible for providing policing and law enforcement services to rural and unincorporated areas and municipalities under 5,000 population.

To recover some of the costs associated with providing policing to these rural and unincorporated areas, the province levies a police tax. Part 9.1 outlines the application of the police tax on contributing areas, which are defined as municipalities that are not providing policing and law enforcement under subsection 3(2) of the act; treaty lands of a First Nation; an electoral area, excluding Nisg̱a’a lands; or the area of the province outside of a regional district.

It is the Finance Minister who determines the total amount to be raised by police taxes from the contributing areas for a taxation year. Under subsection 66.3(2), the amount cannot exceed 50 percent of the amount the Solicitor General estimates as the total cost to the province of providing policing and law enforcement in a given taxation year. Subsection 66.21(2) describes how the Solicitor General is to arrive at the estimation.

Part 9.1 of the Police Act also outlines the requirement for collection and payment of the police taxes, such as annual due dates and the charging of interest on unpaid taxes. As previously noted, section 14 of the act authorizes the minister, on behalf of government, to enter into an agreement with Canada authorizing the RCMP to carry out the powers and duties of the provincial police force. The current provincial police service agreement, or PPSA, was entered into on April 1, 2012, and is in effect for 20 years.

In 2018, the total cost of all provincial, municipal and First Nations police services in British Columbia was approximately $1.96 billion, or about $393 per capita. Of this total, local governments paid $1.31 billion, the provincial government paid $408 million, and the federal government paid $246 million. Financial contributions by the three levels of government differ, depending on the population of the municipality and whether the police service is provided by a municipal police department or the RCMP.

Next slide, please.

Section 40 of the act provides the director with the authority to create standards. The scope of this authority is determined by government, by listing in section 40 the topics for which the director may establish standards. Currently these standards include the training of persons to become officers in the police recruit training program at the Justice Institute of British Columbia; training and retraining of officers and IIO investigators; the use of force; investigations involving missing persons or complex or serious crimes; the collection, disclosure and analysis of information relating to administration, management or programs of policing and law enforcement; and the promotion of unbiased policing.

Subsection 40(1)(a.2)(i) authorizes the director to evaluate compliance with standards, while section 40(1)(b) permits the director to maintain a system of statistical records required to carry out inspections, evaluations and research studies.

[8:25 a.m.]

The policing and security branch has undertaken a variety of work in response to recommendations related to standards and training. Standards governing conducted energy weapons in crisis intervention de-escalation training were implemented in 2012 in response to the first report of the Braidwood Commission of Inquiry in 2009.

The November 2012 report Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry included recommendations that the provincial government create standards concerning missing person investigations, major case management, interagency cooperation and the promotion of unbiased policing.

New provincial police standards have been established in each of these areas, with the exception of unbiased policing, where work currently continues. Recently, in January 2020, some standards related to the promotion of unbiased policing, specifically police stops, took effect. A broader suite of standards to promote unbiased policing is in the final stages of development.

Next slide, please.

Over the last two decades, substantive amendments to the Police Act have resulted from commissions of inquiry, throne speech commitments or independent reviews. There have also been a number of amendments with miscellaneous statutes or as consequential amendments to other bills.

Bill 16, Police Amendment Act, 1997. In response to the 1994 Oppal Commission of Inquiry into Policing, the B.C. Police Commission was disbanded. Duties were transferred to the director of police services, and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner was created. The amendments took effect in 1998.

Bill 12, Police Amendment Act, 2003, which amended the act as part of a throne speech commitment to enhance the police information management environment, resulted in a new section to support the implementation of PRIME, section 68.1.

Bill 7, Police (Misconduct Complaints, Investigations, Dis­cipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009, amended the act to improve the OPCC’s oversight role in response to Josiah Wood’s 2007 Report on the Review of the Police Complaint Process in British Columbia. The new part 11 was brought into force in 2010.

Bill 12, Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amend­ment Act, 2011, created the independent investigations office in response to the 2010 Thomas Braidwood inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski and the 2009-2010 Davies Commission of Inquiry into the Death of Frank Paul. The Braidwood recommendations also served as a catalyst for 2010 and 2012 amendments to the Police Act that gave the director of police services the approval of the minister and the authority to set legally binding provincial standards for policing in the province.

Next slide, please.

Bill 14, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, added the new part 8.1 that would allow the director to order an external audit of an inactive major case management investigation. However, this part was not brought into force at the time, pending development of related OPCC provincial policing standards.

The majority of those standards are now complete and took effect in January 2019, and there is an opportunity to realize the intent of part 8.1 in alignment with stakeholder interest. Bill 14 also increased the maximum size of police boards from seven to nine and changed section 68.1 to clarify the custody and control of crime records.

Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, added new sections of specialized police services.

Bill 7, Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, amended part 9.1 of the Police Act to reflect changes to the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement.

Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, 2018, added section 2.1 on provincial policing priorities to allow the minister to establish priorities, goals and objectives for policing and law enforcement in British Columbia.

[8:30 a.m.]

Bill 31, Police Amendment Act, 2019, amended section 38.11 to raise referral standards used by the IIO when referring cases to Crown counsel and amended subsection 38.06(3) to give the IIO a temporary two-year window to hire investigators with recent policing experience.

Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act, 2020 is currently in the process of progressing through the House and will amend the day, after the calendar year-end, that a municipality must pay the police tax to the Minister of Finance. The day will be changed from the fifth business day to the tenth business day to be consistent with the payment of school taxes and current administrative practice and various minor housekeeping amendments over the years.

Next slide, please.

There are, however, provisions throughout the Police Act that are, essentially, identical to the 1970 version. For example, the responsibility for municipalities with populations over 5,000 have remained constant, and the population threshold has never been adjusted to reflect population increase or shifts in rural versus urban demographics. Other provisions have remained the same, including the mayor’s status as the chair of the municipal police board and the roles of special provincial constables, bylaw officers and special municipal constables.

Next slide, please.

As I mentioned previously, the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process released its report on November 25, 2019, with 38 recommendations for improvement to the police complaint process. Twenty-nine of those recommendations involved the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and 15 are specifically related to amending the Police Act. The ministry has been analyzing the recommendations and meeting with the OPCC to identify next steps.

The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, released in June 2019, contains recommendations and calls for justice to build trusting relationships between police and Indigenous peoples. Reviewing and reforming the Police Act is directly in line with the calls for justice from the final report.

Over the years, we have received recommendations from our policing stakeholders for improvements to the act which cover all of the key areas, such as governance, independent oversight, standards and training, funding, and structure and service delivery. We know that there are opportunities to close the gaps in oversight, improve the effectiveness of police boards and promote integration for efficient service delivery. These recommendations have been retained [audio interrupted] should direction be given to pursue comprehensive amendments to the act.

In 2015 and 2016, an internal review of the Police Act was undertaken, and submissions were received from various internal and external stakeholders. Due to the emerging priorities within my branch such as the opioid crises, the threat of gang and gun violence and the cannabis legislation, the review of the Police Act was completed, but consideration of legislative amendments was put on hold. In short, the branch is tracking numerous items for legislative change.

Next slide, please.

Policing and public safety in British Columbia currently face verging pressures and challenges. The Police Act has become an outdated, lengthy and cumbersome act. Since it was introduced in 1974, it has undergone numerous changes in response to emerging needs and issues. However, it has not undergone a full-scale review of this scope and magnitude, and existing policing structures prevent large-scale change.

In addition to legislative challenges, policing costs are increasing for all levels of government, and public confidence has been eroded, as demonstrated by the ongoing protests across North America. The act and policing in its current state is unsustainable. Significant modernization to policing in the broader spectrum of community safety roles is required to ensure a safe, secure and just [audio interrupted] of B.C.

The key drivers that support pursuing modernization at this time include economic challenges and recovery efforts from COVID-19, growing provincial policing budget pressures, inequities in the funding, structural delivery of police services, rapidly evolving technology, deteriorating RCMP assets in the whole infrastructure, the city of Surrey transitioning into an independent police department and the growing demands and expectations on police to respond to social issues such as mental health incidents and reconciliation with Indigenous people.

[8:35 a.m.]

With the creation of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, there’s a real opportunity to restructure the policing, public safety and community safety legal framework to address these challenges.

B.C. is not alone in pursuing a review of at least the legislation. As committee members may be aware, Manitoba launched a review of its Police Services Act in May 2019 to support continued accountability and transparency in policing. The results of that review are expected sometime this year. Likewise, Alberta began reviewing and updating its Police Act in 2018 and promised this past June to speed up its efforts to modernize the legislation in light of the ongoing protests.

B.C. has the opportunity to be at the forefront of meaningful policing and public safety reform. In my submission to you today, I would ask that the special committee consider new service delivery and governance models that would promote proactive community policing. The legislative framework for a new model could include dividing the current act into multiple statutes such as a police, public safety or community policing act, a police oversight act, a police officer act or the utilization and broadening of the recently enacted Community Safety Act and ensuring effective linkages are made with the Mental Health Act to improve the accessibility of the legislation for all British Columbians.

Next slide, please.

In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an overview of the Police Act and would welcome the opportunity to return to speak to the committee about ideas and options for reforming police in the province. My staff and I look forward to reading your report and reviewing the recommendations that will arise from your work. The process will be very helpful to us in informing future improvements to the Police Act.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Director. I really appreciate the overview of the Police Act that you’ve just provided.

We have an opportunity for members to ask questions. I want to start with Deputy Jas.

If you have any comments or questions, we’ll start with you.

J. Johal (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I very much appreciate your comments today. They’re very helpful for us — certainly, for me.

I have sort of a broad question. As you were going through your presentation, you had talked about rural policing, municipal policing as well. Do you believe that in British Columbia, with overlapping policing responsibilities with an RCMP and a municipal police force, that one police force would be helpful in dealing with some of the terms of reference that we’re talking about in regards to improving policing, making it better for police officers to do their jobs and, of course, being effective for the people of British Columbia?

Do you think something like that would be helpful, or a broader conversation in and around that?

B. Butterworth-Carr: I do believe that there is a base for a broader conversation. When I’m referencing, in my final comments, about an opportunity to potentially present further to the committee, that would be some of the discussion that we would engage in, in terms of the work that we’re undertaking.

By way of example, we’re focused on increased integration, regionalization of teams throughout the Lower Mainland. There’s clearly a recognition of the importance of efficiencies, not only just the cost efficiency but, frankly, leveraging the specialized services among all of the police agencies, by way of example, in those two particular areas.

In the work that we’ve undertaken within the branch and the discussions that I’ve had cross-ministry with my colleagues, it is clear that structure and service delivery, in the manner in which it’s currently being provided…. There is definite room and space to contemplate different changes and different delivery mechanisms.

J. Johal (Deputy Chair): Thank you for that answer.

At the tail end of your comments there, you had talked about linkages. I think you were talking about the Mental Health Act and mental health workers. Could you elaborate a little bit more on what you see in regards to that particular part of policing and where you think we could improve in regards to those linkages?

[8:40 a.m.]

B. Butterworth-Carr: There’s substantial empirical evidence that we can certainly provide. When police officers, line offi­cers, are responding to Mental Health Act complaints throughout the province, there are various initiatives that are currently in place. In the larger municipalities, they will have, certainly, the support necessary, whether it’s through car 67, car 50, and so forth. They’ll have psychiatric nurses that are responding to the complaints with the front-line personnel, but it’s not consistent across the entire province.

It’s more often than not front-line personnel…. From the moment they are called to that type of a complaint, they then are essentially seized with the complaint until the time they apprehend somebody under the Mental Health Act. Then they take them to the corresponding institution or medical centre for a diagnosis as to whether or not the individual requires further assessment. It’s a significant area of liability in addition to ensuring that personnel are constantly trained.

I do believe there is a space where there can be an increase, whether it be with people outside of policing and/or additional support within the act itself, the continuum of services. I referenced the special constables and so forth, so there is space there again.

J. Johal (Deputy Chair): One more final question here. You talked a little about the police oversight. I’m not sure how to phrase this. First of all, I guess, do you believe the police oversight that we have today and now does an adequate enough job for the people of British Columbia and for the policing services as well, and are there specific changes you think should be made?

I know you touched on some of this, but if you could just elaborate a little bit more on what specific changes you think could be made in regard to improving police oversight as well.

B. Butterworth-Carr: I do believe there’s space available for increased oversight and governance. Very specifically, I did reference that the OPCC has oversight of the municipalities. The police boards have oversight of the municipal police departments. Within the RCMP, they certainly have the RCMP Act.

Where I do see a gap is with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. We believe that as much as there is the independent agency that ensures the public complaints made about the conduct of the RCMP members are examined fairly and impartially, the commission receives complaints from the public and conducts the reviews when complainants are not satisfied with the RCMP’s handling of their complaints. The commission is not part of the RCMP.

However, the CRCC is not meeting the needs of B.C. There have been long-standing concerns about the timeliness of the CRCC investigations. Some high-profile investigations have been stalled for over a year or more. The CRCC system of oversight is also not as robust as the independent oversight of the OPCC for municipal police officers because the CRCC is dependent on the RCMP detachments to conduct their own investigations, and the CRCC does not have the authority to step into the investigative process.

Ultimately, British Columbians would be best served by a governing body that holds the RCMP accountable to the people of B.C. and not to Ottawa.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the director and to the Deputy Solicitor General for this presentation. I have a few questions that are, I think, in a similar vein to Jas and to that last comment with respect to oversight, and oversight of the RCMP. I have questions around the connectivity, local accountability and transparency of detachments that are policing municipalities or communities in our province.

[8:45 a.m.]

Can you maybe just outline how there is a kind of local connectivity between the RCMP detachment and the community and how those connections are maintained and the local values for policing and local outcomes — desires for policing, community security — are delivered?

B. Butterworth-Carr: Thank you for that.

Within our communities across the province within RCMP jurisdictions, there is an expectation that the detachments engage with their local First Nations leaders, including their mayors and councils. That is done through consultation in the development of an annual performance plan.

The annual performance plans outline the priorities and objectives that the detachment is expected to deliver on in consultation with community and, again, to governing entities. Once that annual performance plan is completed, then the municipality and First Nations communities have the option of signing off on it, and there are quarterly check-ins. In addition to that, the detachment commanders and/or their two IDs are expected to meet regularly and to provide updates to mayors and councils and, again, First Nations communities.

Often within the annual performance plans there is an expectation that there will be some sort of a cultural component to it. That’s within the annual performance plans.

There is, in fact, a community tripartite agreement, where you have First Nations officers that are designated to a community. There’s a further letter of expectation that’s developed directly with the First Nation community, again laying out the expectations of the detachment and the personnel in how they respond.

With the cultural component on a local level, it is very much left to the detachment and First Nations communities to evolve that. There are certainly some foundational expectations that there’s an introduction to the cultural process or component within the community and, also, an introduction to respected Elders, and so forth.

We can happily supply additional information to the committee in writing.

A. Olsen: Thank you for providing that. I’m going to leave my questions about that there. I will continue looking into this as we go through this process.

The director highlighted the $1.96 billion that we pay for policing. I didn’t get a chance to catch those numbers and how they’re broken down. Do you have them available and, maybe, can provide those three numbers? I guess there’s a municipal, a provincial and a federal breakdown.

B. Butterworth-Carr: I absolutely can. The $1.96 billion is for all policing. That’s the contribution that happens with our municipal governments and the provincial and federal. The breakdown is, for the year 2018, $1.96 billion, or roughly that equates to $393 per capita. Of this total, local governments paid $1.31 billion, the provincial government paid $408 million, and the federal government paid $246 million.

If you require a further breakdown of that, we are able to provide that in writing.

A. Olsen: That’s good. Thank you very much for that.

I’ll leave my comments at that. I really appreciate the overview of the act. I do have some comments to make once we’re done this portion with the ministry.

N. Simons (Chair): Okay. Thanks, Adam.

I’ll see if there are any other committee members who have any questions with respect to the….

Yes, Bowinn. Go ahead, please.

B. Ma: Sorry. I should have waited for you to finish your sentence. With respect to…?

N. Simons (Chair): I think we’re good.

B. Ma: Okay. I’ll ask my questions, then.

Thank you so much. Your presentation was very important. It helps lay out a base for how we’re going to be hopefully approaching this in the coming months. I apologize if I’ve missed any of these details in your presentation. I’ll have to review some of the transcripts later on. That’s just the way that I learn.

[8:50 a.m.]

I’m wondering. Because the conversation is so much around systemic racism, not just in this committee but in the minds of the public as well, do you believe that there is systemic racism in our police force here in B.C.?

B. Butterworth-Carr: I think that has been acknowledged by a variety of different police leaders. How you contextualize it is…. I do not believe there are significant individuals that are racist within policing environments. But what I do believe is that there are certain policies and procedures, frankly, that could withstand a robust review to ensure they are very respectful of the various cultures as well as our LGBTQ communities, such as the gender-based analysis plus. They need to be applied to each and every one of the various policies and procedures that police engage in, in all of our communities.

B. Ma: Are you or your teams in a position to make recommendations as to what those policies and procedures are that could stand to be reviewed in a more robust way? Are you in a position to offer suggestions to the committee?

B. Butterworth-Carr: Absolutely, but I would say it would be more beneficial if I would have the opportunity to either submit it in writing and/or certainly present at a follow-up session.

B. Ma: I know I would be very interested in that. Thank you. I’ll allow the Chair to figure out the best way to do that.

B. Butterworth-Carr: If I may, what I would also say is that policies and procedures really need to be established with that lens in mind moving forward as well. Though I can say there are a variety of different departments, including the RCMP, that have been reviewing their policies and procedures that are in place under the GBA+ lens, in addition to…. By way of example, it’s very similar to [audio interrupted] that MLA Olsen was asking. It’s relative. If you’re working with a First Nation community, are you aware of the practices and protocols of that community, and do the actual policies in place reflect that?

Sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt, but I’m certainly happy to provide additional information.

B. Ma: Absolutely. Thank you so much.

Along those lines, we have seen an uptick in race-related assaults, both physical and verbal assaults, throughout the province as a result of COVID-19. We also know that when these assaults happen, our advice to people is: report it to police; report it to your local detachment. However, it is also evident that there are people of certain demographics, of certain ethnic backgrounds, who would not feel safe actually contacting police and that there are a variety of experiences people have which, sadly, relate to their ethnic background.

Because we acknowledge there is systemic racism within police — as there are in many, many other institutions, of course…. If we are directing people to contact police in that situation, I wonder. I guess this is a little bit more of a comment, and then maybe I can ask you to comment on it.

Some people will ask: why am I going to the police, where there is systemic racism, to discuss a matter that is related to race? Do you believe that that’s an appropriate place to bring those concerns, or are there supplemental reporting mechanisms that we need?

I guess, maybe, you could comment on that concern. Is there something that we need to be doing to expand on the opportunities for people to report these kinds of incidents?

B. Butterworth-Carr: Certainly within the policing environment, there’s a tremendous amount of effort as it pertains to training — training in trauma-informed practices, fair and impartial policing. Quite a bit of focus in that regard.

[8:55 a.m.]

We are aware that the uptick has happened. We have been researching and compiling the various calls for service that have come in, of course recognizing that it has been under-reported. Do you think that public trust is key in policing and creating that relationship? Do you believe that the draft standards we are in fact developing with respect to the unbiased policing…? That certainly will consider the views of persons with relevant expertise outside of policing. I also think that in terms of the various policies and procedures that I was mentioning, there is a space there, again, to ensure that they are very reflective of whomever is coming forward to make a complaint.

We also recognize that people, perhaps, aren’t comfortable coming forward. However, we also provide a space within the police environment that complaints can be made on behalf of, and/or somebody — a family friend or so forth — can come in with the complainant.

So there’s space, to your question, of allowing or facilitating matters to coerce them that they can, in fact, be investigated.

B. Ma: Thank you so much. My last question is around, again, supporting victims. I often hear from victims of domestic violence and abuse, for instance, in cases where they have had to call police, that when police teams show up with a woman police officer as part of the team or a police officer of colour, it makes a big difference in terms of how safe they feel in speaking with the police about the incident. I’m certain this is likely the case in a lot of other situations involving victims of crime.

I’m wondering whether or not you’re in a position to be able to share with the committee demographic information about the police force in various parts of the province. You don’t have to answer today, but I’m wondering if you would be able submit something to the committee — for instance, ethnic background, if it is disclosed; sex; age; and whether or not this varies across the province. I’m certain that it does, because our population varies across the province. But something to illustrate what our police force looks like in different areas of the province. That would be my takeaway ask for you.

B. Butterworth-Carr: We can certainly provide that in writing. There’s definitely been an increase of demographic related to minorities — visible minorities, Indigenous personnel, and so forth. They do vary across each of the departments, so whether you’re in the RCMP, the provincial police service and/or the Vancouver police department. We’ve recently accumulated the vast majority of that information, so we can provide it in writing.

E. Ross: Along those lines, I have not acknowledged systemic racism. I was on the committee, actually, to review the Police Act as well, and that was one of my questions — about whether or not…. To think about systemic racism is to think that the whole system is race-biased, somehow.

Considering all the oversight, all the different committees and all the different groups, the Police Complaint Commissioner’s office and everyone that’s involved in the system to date, to somehow say that the whole system is race-biased…. I don’t get it, and I don’t believe it. That’s basically why I’m here — to see if the whole system is, indeed, race-biased. I’ve heard it mentioned a few times already.

This is what I’ve always believed. With every single institution, no matter what you’re looking at in terms of our society, there are a few bad apples that paint the picture for everybody else. I’m talking about every single organization I’ve worked with for the last 15 years.

To say there are a few incidents, a dozen incidents and then say the whole system somehow has to be fixed because of some kind of bias — I don’t think that’s why I’m here. I’m here to figure out whether or not the system is actually suffering from systemic racism.

In saying that, I was a chief councillor for a few years in my band council. As well, I was a councillor for eight years, and I did sign that tripartite agreement.

[9:00 a.m.]

It wasn’t at the request of the government. It wasn’t at the request of the RCMP. It was actually at the request of my band council. In fact, our biggest complaint with that agreement was that there wasn’t enough policing on reserve.

In that vein, I’m thinking that one of the gaps we have that might be leading to this perception of racism in relation to First Nations is we actually have two different issues here. We have on-community policing, which the communities want and the band councils want, and there’s a collaborative effort there in terms of enforcement. But there’s also the off-reserve component that nobody seems to be in charge of.

Now, there are a few political bodies out there that voice up their opinions and make complaints, but they actually don’t represent off-reserve First Nations. It’s not just a policing issue; it’s an off-reserve, on-reserve issue. Without that authority — without that representative, that defined authority, that defined representative of off-reserve First Nations people…. I think that’s a huge gap there.

Is there any appetite to actually try to get a bunch of First Nations leaders in a room — the ones that have defined authority, the ones that have defined representation — to kind of address that off-reserve component, which seems to be at the kind of no man’s land right now?

B. Butterworth-Carr: It is recognized that the current community tripartite agreement and the framework it operates under is antiquated. I do know that there have been conversations, including by personnel within my branch that have been asked to participate in an evolution of that particular First Nations policing policy. It’s certainly something that the federal Public Safety Minister is interested in. I know that Minister Farnworth has been a part of those conversations.

Having said that, again, there is example of the dichotomy of services that are getting provided and the inequity that is a part of that service provision. Specifically within the province of British Columbia, albeit under the community tripartite agreement, the intent is to have enhanced policing provided within First Nation communities. That is not the case.

What happened in many of the communities is that they took existing provincial police service positions and converted them to the First Nation policing positions. They’ve increased the positions so that they could be enhanced — frankly, just converted existing, as I was mentioning. But the work doesn’t go away. It makes it very challenging for the enhanced relationship to be created in those communities when the demands for service still are provided or applied to all of the front-line personnel that are in those geographical locations.

I think it’s a conversation that does need to be had in terms of what the future would look like. Again, with respect to the committee, the components that we referenced as part of the terms of reference does talk about the structure and service delivery.

M. Sieben: Chair, if I might add a quick addendum to Brenda’s response.

N. Simons (Chair): Go ahead, Mark.

M. Sieben: The two bodies, in terms of Indigenous First Nations leadership, that the committee may wish to hear from in regard to the issue that MLA Ross raises, as well as others, are the First Nations Justice Council and the Métis Justice Council, both of which are in the process of developing strategies pertaining to how to address justice and policing and public safety pressures and issues in their communities, including both on First Nations land as well as in our urban environments.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Mark.

Ellis, do you want to follow that up?

E. Ross: Yeah. Maybe I wasn’t clear in that. In terms of our communities, up in our region, we’re actually okay with the policing agreements and the service provided. The only issue is that the timing wasn’t right, and we wanted more of it. But I think the grey area is off reserve. I mean, off-reserve natives are still part of the band list, but most band councils really don’t take an interest in what’s happening to those off-reserve members.

[9:05 a.m.]

I mean, this is an issue that I’ve see all across the board, not just with policing. It’s got to do with funding, services, programs. The band council just gets limited to what’s on their own reserve, unless they have the resources to actually work outside of that.

The real issue for me is off reserve, where most of these incidents seem to be happening. Is there really any interest in looking at defined authority, not a political authority, to look at the incidents coming off reserve, especially in our urban areas?

Right now what I’ve been trying to do in Terrace is to get First Nations leaders to come in and provide assistance with the enforcement there, but there’s no interest: “I’m going to stick to my community. I’ve got my policing agreement. That’s up to me, even though that’s my band member on the streets of Terrace or Prince George or Vancouver.”

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of one racist incident on my reserve, and we’ve had a tripartite policing agreement for the last ten years. I think this is a big part of the issue that we’re trying to resolve here in relation to First Nations incidents.

I’m not talking about all the other racism across the board.

N. Simons (Chair): I’m not sure if, Brenda, you want to respond, or Mike.

B. Butterworth-Carr: It’s been long recognized that there are gaps with the urban First Nation or Indigenous populations. Part of the terms and conditions within the First Nations policing program…. It doesn’t have any space, within that current context. The certain intent, moving forward, is that it would be a lot broader and encapsulate service within the urban areas.

In the interim, what is done is that there are liaison officers, whether it’s through the friendship centres…. I do think that there is space, as Mark mentioned, for the First Nations Justice Council or the Métis Justice Council to continue working with them in addressing those shortcomings.

I will say that in the conversation we’ve been having with the new Surrey police service…. Within the urban population in Surrey, it’s the fastest-growing First Nations population. They’re very mindful of the relationships they are trying to create within the community and establishing those protocols or service level agreements. Again, that’s something that could be contemplated elsewhere.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you for that response.

Maybe, Ellis, you’ll agree that we should perhaps discuss the possibility of having the council representative come and speak to us.

I see no other members.

My question is about the number of police per capita in British Columbia and the cost per capita in British Columbia, and how does that compare with other jurisdictions. Do you happen to have those figures, or could you get them, possibly?

B. Butterworth-Carr: We will absolutely follow up in writing to provide them to you. They vary from location to location. What I had provided you was basically an average number. You will see, once we produce that information, that there are variances between municipal departments and the RCMP jurisdictions, whether it’s in our isolated communities, limited-duration communities and then the broader or bigger metropolitan areas.

N. Simons (Chair): Just for our committee’s purposes, I’m wondering if we’ve agreed on any definition of what systemic racism is. I don’t think we need to necessarily bog ourselves down with that discussion, but it might be helpful for us to not have any sort of defensiveness around that. We’re talking about an issue that has been brought to the public and has come from the public. How we respond to that is partly by having this committee establish it and look into it further.

Reflecting Ellis’s comments, I think perhaps it might be useful for us to know how you define what systemic racism might look like.

M. Sieben: I might try to comment there, Chair, if I could, please.

[9:10 a.m.]

I’m not certain that the ministry itself has a definition that we’re able to apply broadly within this context. We’d look to other sources — the human rights commission, for example. There may be advice that we could get through our colleagues at the ministry of trade, arts and culture, which also is responsible for multiculturalism.

Generally, Chair, as you alluded to the experience that we both share in the back pertaining to child welfare, another sort of system…. Quite a general assumption is that a system is dominant in its presence, and it tends to add work in presumption of the norm. I don’t know if we have a more sophisticated working definition that is applied on a day-to-day basis, somewhat as you suggested. But we are open to the conversation. It’s not one that we’re necessarily defensive of.

N. Simons (Chair): Okay. Well, that’s good. It might have been a bit putting Brenda on the spot.

We have a question…. Adam has a comment, and then Mike has a comment.

A. Olsen: I have to step away from this now, so I’ll have to ask to be excused. I just wanted to leave a couple of things here that I’d like to see.

In Director Butterworth-Carr’s presentation, it was noted that there are a number of recommendations coming from the police complaint commission. There are also, I think, a few other inquiries — the missing and murdered indigenous women’s inquiry. I suspect I don’t know what all of the recommendations are that have been made over the most recent years or, even expanded, that haven’t been addressed.

I’m wondering if maybe our committee staff can compile those recommendations for us so that we can take a look at them as we go through this process. I note that I likely have no idea how many are out there floating around, how many have been done, how many still remain and whether those that have been around for awhile are still relevant.

I am hoping that we can compile those and bring them to another future committee meeting.

N. Simons (Chair): You’ll be glad to know that I’ve discussed this with our excellent committee Clerk team, and Karan is going to assemble that information for us.

Thank you, Adam. We’ll see you next time.

Let me recognize Mike from up north.

M. Morris: Yeah, Mike from up north. Mike from Canmore.

N. Simons (Chair): I used to live in Yellowknife, so it used to be called the south.

M. Morris: Yeah, and we’re only in the central interior of the province.

I just want to go back to your comment, Chair, on the definition of systemic racism. It’s a new term for me. When I look at policing and my experience in policing, quite expansive over the years…. Did I come across the odd situation of racism that I dealt with as a supervisor and a police manager? By all means I did.

But when you look at…. I go back to the presentation that the commissioner of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission made before the House of Commons here a week or two ago. Out of about 18,000 complaints over the last five years, they’ve received 76 that pertain to racism, so it doesn’t sound to be pervasive.

The other part is that there is no other profession in Canada that has more oversight than policing. You start with the Police Complaint Commissioner, the civilian review commission. Internally, we have audits and reviews that take place on a regular basis on just about everything that happens.

When you look at the fact that…. If a call comes in to 911, which is the majority of the calls that the police respond to, from that moment the call comes in until the prosecution, if there is one at the end of the day, every­thing is recorded, and everything is reviewed. Every level of court, from the provincial court to the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, reviews every second of every interaction that the police have with an accused person or the witnesses or anybody else, and they’ve never identified systemic racism as an issue in policing.

I’m a little bit baffled here, but I would like to find out how this term “systemic racism” applies to policing in British Columbia. Draw a curtain across the 49th parallel. I don’t want to look at the United States, because it’s a completely different environment altogether. But I want to have a look at that.

[9:15 a.m.]

Can we do things better? I’ve got all kinds of ideas. I’ve had ideas for years, as a senior police manager, as the Solicitor General, as somebody who has been intimately familiar with how we do policing in this province. There are better ways to do it, by all means. I think we should be focusing on that instead of trying to find: do we have systemic racism in policing? I don’t even know what that means.

Racism is not pervasive in the force. They are very professional, from my experience. The courts have found it very professional. All the oversight committees that look at it…. The IIO, the Police Complaint Commissioner in British Columbia and everybody else have looked at it, and it has never surfaced as a pervasive problem in the force.

Police in British Columbia respond to laws and use the authority that we as legislatures have brought to bear, whether it’s in British Columbia or across Canada. Perhaps, maybe, there might be something embedded in that legislation and the authorities that are provided to policing that perhaps leave people with the impression or the perception that there might be some racism embedded in that.

I think we need to proceed with a broad look at every­thing rather than focusing in on systemic racism as being the root cause of all the problems that we have in British Columbia.

R. Singh: I did not want to get into this discussion. Today I just wanted to listen to the officials and to their great presentation. But I am at a loss when we are discussing the definition of systemic racism, especially from Mike. We were on a committee together when we were discussing the police complaint process.

We heard from so many organizations and so many people who said their trust is broken. I don’t know how to define it. When a community says their trust is broken in the system, what does that mean? I don’t say that the whole system or people go intentionally to be racist, but there is something. There are underlying things in there. There are underlying issues. I’m sure they would emerge.

It is too premature for me to say certain things, and I really want to listen to the people who are going to present to us. I’m very interested. But you have listened to those people as well.

It is not a comment on the police, but it is a comment on the system. Somewhere that system has failed those people. That’s all I would say.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Members. I think I wanted to open up a discussion that we could have, that we probably won’t have a lot of time for. I note that none of my colleagues have any follow up….

Bowinn, go ahead.

B. Ma: I really appreciate the two members’ previous comments on systemic racism. I think that in terms of a definition of systemic racism — what does systemic racism mean? — or the definition that I’m using…. I use it as explicitly different from individualized racism.

For instance, when it comes to complaints about racism, out of those 76 complaints that Mike had mentioned…. To me, systemic racism is unlikely to produce complaints, because it’s not obvious. For me, systemic racism exists when certain groups experience disproportionately negative outcomes through their interactions with the system when grouped by race. This also means that even the presence of good people is not enough to overcome the disproportionately negative outcomes produced by the system.

I don’t think that…. When we are talking about systemic racism, I know that it is common for people to become defensive by the suggestion that everybody in this system is racist or individually racist or performing individually racist acts or using slurs or those sorts of unacceptable behaviours.

[9:20 a.m.]

Systemic racism isn’t that. It’s not about asking whether or not individual racism is pervasive throughout the force but whether or not the system is actively generating disproportionately negative outcomes for certain groups of people, why that is and whether or not there is anything we can do to correct that.

Moving away from that particular topic, I also have one more question for the ministry staff here. I’m wondering whether or not we can have a list of equipment submitted to the committee of more militarized equipment.

The reason why I ask is because I was speaking with the mayor a couple of weeks ago, and they had mentioned frustration over being billed for the purchase of two tanks. I did not know that we had tanks in this province through our police force, so I’m wondering what else I don’t know about.

Is it possible to get a list of more militarized equipment that our police forces here in British Columbia use submitted to the committee for our review?

N. Simons (Chair): I’m noting the time. We’re going to wrap up after we have….

Michelle has one question. Then I’ll wrap it up. Thank you.

B. Butterworth-Carr: Sure. Before I answer the question, I just want to acknowledge that I didn’t realize the question on the definition was directed to me. I apologize for not responding immediately to that. I think, in terms of the most recent response, that is simply what I was trying to reflect in my response. It’s not individual officers. It’s the design of the services, the priorities and, frankly, the over-policing in certain groups, right? So I thought to get back to that conversation.

In responding to the last question, what I would indicate is that there is certainly a healthy conversation around militarization of services or not. What we can do, frankly, is provide the list of equipment that police officers are provided which meet a standard. It’s not the randomness of individuals acquiring equipment; frankly, it’s a standard that’s in process. Each and every asset that is, in fact, acquired through a police agency has to meet that thre­shold of the standard. But it’s certainly complex.

They’re actually tactical armoured vehicles, and they’re typically assigned to the emergency response teams. Just a little clarification with that.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much.

M. Stilwell: Thank you for the presentation today and the conversation that’s happening or beginning around what we are intended to do with this committee.

I want to bring everyone back to the fact that we’ve been appointed to examine four different things, different reforms, and make recommendations. We keep coming back to the systemic racism topic and the definition of it.

If we look to what our first bullet is, when it comes to what we’re supposed to examine, it’s the oversight, the transparency, the governance, the training and education. I think if our recommendations focus more on that training and education, the service delivery and those standards, we will, in fact, be able to correct or redirect the issues that we’re seeing with the implied systemic racism that people believe is there.

Rachna talked about the public trust being broken. I think if we can fix and reform the act around funding training and education and all those other things, it will trickle down to a better-led police force that serves the people in a better way.

I’d also add what Adam spoke about, when it comes to the complaint committee recommendations that came in from 2019. I’d just like to know, Brenda, what you see with those recommendations — how they will guide us in this committee. Are they useful? Are they agreeable? How will they come together to help support us in the work we’re trying to do?

[9:25 a.m.]

B. Butterworth-Carr: I think it would be very helpful to review all of the outstanding recommendations to see what has been provided to other communities and then identify that space. Is it something that needs to be reviewed or, frankly, just have the recommendations completed?

I don’t want to lose sight of…. Part of what I had mentioned within the final paragraph or two of my report is that there’s a real space to look at not only the Police Act but, frankly, framing out as more of a community policing response and/or community safe act, utilizing that space so that it’s not just the [audio interrupted] of a police act. Essentially, again, it’s an opportunity to look at this versus [audio interrupted] law enforcement to prevention and the role that community plays and the continuum of services that are inside public safety — or outside, for that matter.

The best description of that is you do not need that front-line personnel with a gun and a badge to respond to all these types of calls for service.

I do think the recommendations are important to review so that you can see what has been undertaken in the act itself.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation and for your presence here to answer questions.

I worked in the child welfare system for quite a long time, and what I found was that, to me, some of the tools we had and some of the discretion we were offered to implement sometimes had characteristics that would lead to certain outcomes. The system was, in a way…. The tools that we had were not necessarily the ones that would fit best with the community that we were serving. In that respect, perhaps that would be called a systemic issue and a systemic racism. In fact, we were dealing with minority populations quite a bit.

Anyway, I really appreciate all the comments. I know the discussions we’re going to have over the next number of months are important and not always the easiest discussions. I really appreciate each member and all those who presented so far. Thank you very much for your contribution to this important discussion.

I especially want to thank Karan and Katey today for making sure we stay on track.

From the ministry, Brenda and Mark, thank you for being here.

And to all committee members, thank you very much.

I would look for a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:27 a.m.