The committee met at 1:04 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): I will call this meeting of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act to order. Thank you, Members, for participating.

[1:05 p.m.]

The purpose of this meeting, of course, is to receive a briefing from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and we are joined by witnesses Mark Sieben, deputy Solicitor General; Wayne Rideout, assistant deputy minister, policing and securities branch; Alana Best, executive director, policing and securities branch; and Rebecca Salpeter, assistant senior manager, policing and securities branch.

If they’d like to further introduce themselves, I would welcome them to do that.

Briefings on Police Act

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

M. Sieben: It’s our pleasure to be here. The team has been in front of the committee a time or two early in its initial formation. So we say welcome to the committee members who we’ve visited before, and welcome to the new committee members.

I’m going to turn things over to Wayne. Wayne and Alana are largely going to read the presentation. We look forward to any questions that committee members may have.

D. Routley (Chair): Just before you do that, I made a bad oversight in not thanking the Malahat People for the privilege of attending this meeting from their territory, and I’m sure others are in a variety of territories around the province. I welcome them to reflect on the significance of that.

Thank you, and my apologies.

W. Rideout: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee. My name is Wayne Rideout, and I’m the acting assistant deputy minister for policing and security branch.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge, with respect, the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ peoples, on whose traditional territory I present today, and the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ people whose historic relationships with the land continue to this day.

It is our pleasure to have been invited to the special committee to provide information on the current state and on opportunities for reforming and improving policing in British Columbia. Prior to commencing, and with the committee’s awareness, today I’m joined, as you know, by Deputy Minister Mark Sieben, Solicitor General; Alana Best, the executive director of policing and public safety modernization; and Rebecca Salpeter, our acting policy director.

We have prepared a PowerPoint presentation which has been distributed to you in advance. Given the length of time that we have for today’s presentation and discussion, Alana and I will take turns presenting to you. We hope this will create a natural pause for which to engage in a dialogue or for you to ask questions. We appreciate that we will be giving you a lot of information today. We want to ensure that there is room to engage in meaningful discussion.

That being said, when asked a question, we may need to mute our microphones and confer with staff prior to responding.

I’m going to turn it over to Alana now.

A. Best: Thank you, Wayne. As mentioned, I’m Alana Best, executive director of policing and public safety modernization. Before I begin this presentation, I would like to note that we are committed to the draft principles that guide the province of British Columbia’s relationship with Indigenous People. Any and all work that the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General undertakes as a result of the special committee’s recommendation will be done in accordance to those ten principles and consistent with B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Finally, any legislation, policy and program development will be undertaken in consultation with our key partners.

In recognition of our shared vision and to ensure that policing and public safety in B.C. meet the needs of all British Columbians, I am confident that our discussion today will assist in furthering the achievement of that goal.

Our presentation today has two key components. The first part of our presentation will provide an overview of the landscape of policing and public safety, providing in­formation we feel is essential for the committee to under­stand as you begin your important work.

The second part of our discussion is on the current environment, challenges and opportunities for policing and public safety modernization.

[1:10 p.m.]

We’re going to begin with some context and background. We feel that it is important to first ground ourselves in the reasons why we are here today and provide a snapshot of the immense challenges the policing and public safety world is facing. Across Canada governing authorities are engaged in or have recently concluded reviews and inquiries into policing and public safety within their jurisdictions.

A couple examples. In March of 2019, Ontario passed the Comprehensive Ontario Police Service Act. Alberta has also been working on a review of its decades-old Police Act. And in November 2020, Manitoba released an independent review of their Police Services Act. Court decisions, such as the Jordan ruling, have impacted the functions of policing and public safety.

The continuous evolvement in the justice system poses both benefits and challenges to policing and public safety operations. Within B.C., some of the drivers for change pertain to inequity in service delivery for urban, Indigenous, rural and remote communities, and how policing is managed and funded.

Evolving expectations of the role of police have also posed a great challenge. At an increasing rate, police have been relied on to respond to people with concurrent underlying issues associated with mental health, substance use addictions and homelessness. On the other hand, sophisticated organized crime activities, including money laundering and human trafficking, have necessitated the need for development of high-level, intelligence-led approaches to policing.

Waning public trust and dissatisfaction with police interventions, as demonstrated by the ongoing protests and activism in B.C., across Canada and throughout the globe are also key drivers for change. Recognizing systemic racism in all our institutions and its impacts on Indigenous, Black and people of colour challenges us to examine the policing and public safety continuum.

Also, we must ensure that reform addresses the “Calls for Justice” under the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and the strategies under the B.C. First Nations justice strategy.

These overlapping and broad-based pressures have created the need for significant reform of the Police Act, which maintains a framework that is outdated, lengthy and does not meet the challenges we are facing today.

The continuum of public safety and its associated costs go far beyond policing. However, to give you a sense of scale, I wanted to highlight that the cost of policing in B.C. in 2019 was over $2 billion, supported by 10,400 authorized police officer positions. The breakdown of those positions is available on the table before you. In 2019, of the 77 municipalities in B.C. responsible for providing police services, 12 were policed by municipal police departments and 65 by the RCMP.

Wayne is planning to take the next slides, but I thought maybe I would pause here and just see if there are any questions at the moment. Okay. Hearing nothing, I’ll let Wayne take it from here.

W. Rideout: Thank you, Alana. Next we will discuss the legal framework for policing in B.C.

It is important to understand that policing in Canada is a shared responsibility between federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and First Nations. Canada’s Constitution Act sets out that the federal government has exclusive authority to enact legislation regarding criminal law and procedure. Through the RCMP Act, the RCMP federal police service enforces federal statutes, national security, terrorism, drugs and organized crime, financial crime, border services and international policing.

It is important to note here that the RCMP serving in B.C. fall under both acts, the RCMP Act and the provincial Police Act. A set of agreements govern police services in B.C. We will speak to these in a future slide. On the right-hand side of the slide, you can see there are specialized provincial designated policing units and designated law enforcement units. These units are the south coast transit authority police service, Organized Crime Agency of B.C. and the Stl’atl’imx tribal police service, which is B.C.’s only First Nations self-administered police service.

[1:15 p.m.]

B.C.’s Police Act, which was originally introduced in 1974, sets out the role of the provincial government in the governance of policing. The act is a comprehensive statute, and I will be highlighting two areas.

The role of the minister. The Police Act outlines the powers and responsibilities of the minister. They are broad and varied to ensure that an adequate and effective level of policing and law enforcement is maintained throughout British Columbia. The minister may establish priorities, goals and objectives for policing and law enforcement in B.C. However, day-to-day operations and deployment of police services fall to the RCMP, the municipal police department or the relevant designated policing or law enforcement unit.

Individual investigations and enforcement decisions occur at an arm’s length from government, and the government cannot interfere with or direct police on such matters. Even though a municipality may be responsible for its police services, the minister may recommend regulations to enhance or reorganize the policing of a municipality, and if a municipality is not fulfilling its obligations to provide adequate policing, the minister may take steps to ensure it occurs.

The role of the director of police services. The director of police services is responsible for superintending policing and law enforcement functions in British Columbia and aids the minister in providing central oversight of all policing in the province. The director’s oversight functions require the development and administration of policing policy and programs, such as establishing standards and making recommendations to the minister about appointments to a police board. As you can see in the middle of the slide, the act sets out a number of other functions, such as the agreements to use the RCMP and parts related to the oversight bodies.

Next I will provide an overview of policing costs, agreements and services. But before we move on, I will pause here in case you have any questions you might like to ask.

Alana and Rebecca, do you have anything you might want to add?

A. Best: Adam has a question.

A. Olsen: Just a question with respect to special constables. Where do they…? You didn’t specifically mention them. Do they fall under this act as well — B.C. conservation service?

W. Rideout: The special constable appointments fall under the act. That’s correct.

A. Olsen: Okay. Thank you.

G. Begg: I think it’s an appropriate place to ask this question. Tell me if it’s not. I want some comment as to whether or not the defined roles of the minister and the director of police services are adequate as they stand. Or should we consider some greater or lesser level of authority or some change in that portion of the act?

W. Rideout: Thank you, MLA Begg, for your question. As the presentation continues, we will speak to that at certain intervals. But I think that it’s clear that the act needs to be enhanced relative to some of those powers, particularly around the director of police services.

The powers that exist there have been designed, and policing, policing requirements and policing needs have evolved over time. They couldn’t have possibly been contemplated back when the act was enacted. It has been amended on a number of occasions, but I think it’s clear that moving forward and looking at a longer vision as to where we want to be with policing in British Columbia, there needs to be some enhancements in those areas.

G. Begg: Thank you.

W. Rideout: Any other questions?

Next slide, please.

[1:20 p.m.]

Cost of policing in B.C., 2019. The financial contributions by all 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. In the box on the left, you can see the total cost of the RCMP provincial police service in 2019 was $563 million. Of this, the provincial contribution of 70 percent was approximately $390 million.

The next box outlines the RCMP cost for policing the municipalities with populations over 5,000 and just under 15,000, who received a 30 percent contribution from the federal government. In the middle box, you can see that the municipalities with populations over 15,000 that choose to have the RCMP provide their policing received a federal contribution of 10 percent.

As outlined in the fourth box, municipalities that are policed by a municipal police department, such as Victoria-Esquimalt, Vancouver and New Westminster, pay 100 percent of their policing costs. In the rightmost box, you will see that the First Nations policing program is cost-shared between the province, which pays 48 percent, and the federal government, which pays 52 percent.

It might be worthy of just pausing for a moment there to see if you have any questions about that particular slide.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering. Just in taking a look at this slide, can you give the total provincial contribution to policing? I see that there’s 70 percent of the RCMP provincial service and then 48 percent of the First Nations policing program. Is that the total contribution that the province makes to policing? I would suggest that that is just shy of $400 million. Is that right?

A. Best: Yeah, that’s right. In 2019, the total was $563 million. That’s for the RCMP provincial police service. Then out of this, the provincial contribution, which was 70 percent, was $394.5 million, and the federal contribution, which was 30 percent, was $168 million. Does that answer your question?

A. Olsen: Yeah. Other than the 48 percent, roughly $10 million, for Indigenous communities policing contributions, let’s just say, of that $400 million for policing, the rest is shared between the Indigenous Nations — the remainder — the federal government and municipal governments. Is that correct?

W. Rideout: That’s correct.

Madam Clerk, you might wish to put up the next slide. It illustrates some of those figures.

A. Best: I believe there are a couple more questions.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I’d be remiss, and probably scolded by my former colleagues that sit around municipal tables across the province, if I didn’t ask this question. It may be a little off-topic, but it is certainly on the cost of policing and probably fits into the big picture.

Have there been discussions within the ministry — this came up, I think, at our last meeting, very briefly, as well — about looking at the cost-sharing that municipalities do within the province to provide policing. Communities over 15,000 fund 90 percent of policing; the 70 percent; and then communities under 5,000, nothing. Have there been any discussions around that model of funding? If there have been, where would those be?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question. It’s something that we are looking at, and something that we’re proposing that perhaps should be undertaken by the committee as we move forward: examining the cost-sharing formulas that are currently being used in the province. We’ll be discussing a little bit later, with your permission, some gaps that we think exist and some confusion, as you have indicated, that exists out there as to who pays for what and why, with an objective of making that clearer as we move forward.

[1:25 p.m.]

G. Begg: I think I’m perhaps repeating a bit of what Dan said, but there’s obviously a built-in inequity financially. Or perhaps a more neutral way would be an incentive, incentivizing municipalities to contract with the RCMP by virtue of the fact that they get sort of a discount for doing that. And as part of that discussion — I don’t want to preclude something that you may be saying later — I’m happy with just the idea that you have some concerns about the funding formula. I assume that to mean the inequity that exists, or at least the rationale behind why it is where it is.

W. Rideout: Yes, MLA Begg, to be clear, the federal contribution that is applied to RCMP contracts is part of the provincial agreement, as you’re aware. That is part of a 20-year agreement that expires in 2032. That appears to be an agreement that will continue as long as the RCMP is our service provider in the province.

However, I think, in addition to that issue around inequity or perceived inequity perhaps with municipal police agencies, there are some other confusing aspects to the way we fund policing in the province that I think need to be examined and clarified.

D. Routley (Chair): Rachna, you had a quick one?

R. Singh: Yes, not so much on the budget. It might come later on too, but on one slide…. I should have asked the question before how many — the number of police that we have in different areas. Do we have any way to find out? Is there any analysis that has been done to find out how much police services we require? Maybe it might come later on. I might be premature to ask it.

W. Rideout: There have been a number of studies conducted in individual departments about resourcing needs and resource allocation requirements both through the independent municipal agencies…. The RCMP does work on that on an ongoing basis. There is information out there, but I think it would be our proposal that there needs to be some sort of coordination and consistency to that approach provincewide that transcends both municipal departments and the RCMP so that from a provincial perspective, when we look at how we apply policing and the expectations we have of the police in the province, that would include resourcing needs and resource allocation throughout the province.

D. Routley (Chair): There appears to be no other questions.

W. Rideout: As mentioned in 2019, the total cost of policing was over $2 billion. As you can see from the chart, municipalities pay two-thirds of these costs, while the province contributes 20 percent and the federal government 13 percent.

Although not on the slide, it’s worth mentioning that in 2019, the total provincial RCMP cost increased by just over $2 million. Yet our provincial contribution decreased by 0.6 percent from 2018, while it was the municipal contributions that increased by 3.7 percent and the federal government contributions that also increased by 7.6 percent.

While not strictly to be considered a government contribution, I wanted to highlight to you the police tax. Municipalities with populations less than 5,000 unincorporated and rural areas that are policed by the provincial police service pay the provincial police tax. It recovers a small portion of the costs of providing general duty and general investigative police services. The Police Act restricts the police tax to no more than 50 percent of the estimated costs. However, in 2019, the police tax did raise 31 percent.

[1:30 p.m.]

The delivery of police services throughout B.C. is largely provided by the RCMP through four agreements involving the province.

One, the provincial police service agreement. Going from left to right on the slide, the first agreement is the provincial policing service agreement between Public Safety Canada and the B.C. government. This agreement allows for the use of the RCMP, as the province’s provincial police service, to police all rural and unincorporated areas and municipalities with a population up to 5,000 and certain specialized services to the entire province. Services are provided on a cost-share basis between B.C. and Canada. The current provincial police service agreement, or PPSA, was entered into on April 1, 2012, and is effective for 20 years, with reviews conducted every five years.

The second agreement is the municipal policing service agreement. Once a municipality’s population is more than 5,000, they are responsible for providing policing and law enforcement within their municipal boundaries and must bear the expenses necessary to do so. If the municipality chooses to continue to have their police services delivered by the RCMP, then this agreement allows B.C. to subcontract the provincial RCMP to deliver municipal police services to that community.

The third agreement listed is the municipal police unit agreement, which governs the RCMP services within a municipality over 5,000 population. Some costs are 100 percent the responsibility of the municipality, such as support staff, while other costs are split between the municipality and the federal government. Under the B.C. Police Act, B.C. is not financially responsible for costs of policing within a municipality over 5,000, unless agreed to on a case-by-case basis.

The First Nations policing program is a contribution program that’s administered by Public Safety Canada. The FNPP was created by Canada in 1991 to enhance the effectiveness of police services in First Nations and Inuit communities in terms of cultural relevance and responsiveness to the public safety needs of communities. I’m going to speak in greater detail on the next slide about the types of agreements we have in this program.

In B.C., there are approximately 200 First Nations with 1,600 reserves and four treaty First Nations. The First Nations policing program provides policing services that are in addition to the level of policing services provided under the provincial policing services agreement. To participate in the program, a First Nations community must enter into an agreement with Canada and the province. Under the First Nations policing program, we have the following agreements.

In the first box, to the most left of the slide, is the framework agreement between Public Safety Canada and B.C. that allows the use of the RCMP First Nations community policing service to provide additional policing services to First Nations communities who are signatories of the community tripartite agreement. This agreement is between First Nations chiefs on behalf of the council, the federal government and the provincial government.

I would like to highlight, in the second box, that there are 59 community tripartite agreements which fund 112.5 members, police officers. Over half of these agreements service more than one First Nation community, with a total number of 132 communities served.

The next type is called a quadripartite agreement. There is one of these agreements in B.C., which is between Public Safety Canada, British Columbia, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the city of Delta and the Delta police department. There is one-full time employee under this agreement.

Lastly, there are self-administered agreements. B.C. has one of these agreements between the federal government, B.C., and the St’át’imc band council to provide policing service to ten communities. There are 14 full-time employees under this agreement. The St’át’imc tribal police service is governed by a police board whose members are selected from each of the ten communities it serves. Police officers recruited by the police board are either experienced officers or graduates of the Justice Institute of British Columbia Police Academy. They have all the same roles and responsibilities as any other police service in the province.

In response to the underfunding of the First Nations policing program in 2018, the federal government announced some relief, earmarking $44.8 million for the addition of up to 110 officers nationwide.

[1:35 p.m.]

In B.C., 20 communities submitted an application for additional resources, and we were successful in securing 13 additional positions.

I see a question. Would you like me to pause here?

A. Olsen: Whenever you’re done this section. I have a question on the First Nations piece. So if you’re going to be moving on past that, then this might be a good time to stop. Otherwise, I’ll just leave it to you.

W. Rideout: We’re moving into some other police agencies. I’d be happy to take your question now.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Rideout.

Just with respect to the First Nations policing agreements, the quadripartite agreement. Was this agreement part of the negotiation, I’m assuming, of the modern-day treaty with the Tsawwassen First Nation? Is the…? Well, I’ll just confirm that it was or wasn’t part of that. I’m assuming it was.

W. Rideout: Yes. I’m conferring with some colleagues to be 100 percent accurate, but it’s my belief that it was. It is, as stated, a relationship established between the city and the police department and the province.

I want to confirm around the treaty component of your question. I’ll have an answer for you momentarily.

D. Routley (Chair): Any other questions?

A. Best: Maybe if there’s another question while we’re waiting for an answer back from our subject-matter ex­pert. We’ve got a couple of other questions.

D. Routley (Chair): I don’t see any.

A. Best: Sorry. I’m not sure who had their hand up next.

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): I think Harwinder and Rick both have questions.

A. Best: Harwinder, please go ahead if you have a question.

H. Sandhu: Yes. My question goes back to the funding formulas we discussed in the previous meeting. How old is this funding formula, and do we have plans to revise and reassess this?

In certain ridings, there are different townships. They share…. There is a drastic difference between…. In my riding, say, one municipality funds 90 percent, and right beside it, within one town, Coldstream funds 70. Then there is a community of less than 5,000.

There have been incidents. An incident occurred in an­other town which is in the same jurisdiction. The person passed away in Vernon. There has been so much confusion on who deals with the incident and who funds the whole investigation and whatnot.

I wonder if this concern has come previously to you — you know, the funding. Is there a plan to revise, reassess and listen to different municipalities?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question.

You’re correct. There are jurisdictions throughout the province that have policing that is covered under, if you will, a provincial force that has municipal detachments, and they are working alongside each other. It would be…. The service is provided. We expect and are confident that the police respond to the need at the time, but it is true that we have received concerns around who is paying for what and how that response is being subsidized.

By way of example, some municipal detachments may need to respond to provincial areas, or vice versa, depending on the need or the level of expertise that is required. For example, in a major criminal investigation, like a homicide, sometimes the provincial resources are required to operate within the municipal areas that are technically responsible for providing that service themselves.

[1:40 p.m.]

Our number one expectation is that the public safety is addressed and that the matters are effectively dealt with, but it is one of the submissions we will be making to this committee. This is an area that needs to be examined more thoroughly and needs to be modernized to ensure that we are very clear on what services communities receive, what they can expect and, essentially, who will be paying for what when calls for service are required.

It’s complex, because there are different layers of policing. It’s not always just a uniform officer or a highway patrol officer. Sometimes it’s a highly specialized expert with respect to gang enforcement or homicide investigation, and sometimes federal police officers with expertise in border integrity and drug enforcement need to be involved. So there are multiple layers that we need to factor into how we pay for policing.

A. Best: MLA Olsen, I do have an answer to your question, if you don’t mind me interjecting here, and then we can move on to the last question.

I’ve been told that the quad agreement was entered into before the treaty negotiations, and Tsawwassen First Nation had a stand-alone agreement with Delta for policing services since 2007, which is prior to them becoming a treaty nation.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that. If I may just have a follow-up. This might be a question, perhaps, for Mark. I requested some information specific in my riding with respect to whether or not First Nations could enter into agreements with other external policing services or whether they were required to receive policing services.

I just want to clarify this, because if that was…. The response that I was given was that they were required to be policed by the provincial police service. Now, I think maybe the nuance I’m missing here is that if they want the funding…. So is this quadripartite agreement funded, as the other agreements are funded, with federal money, or is Tsawwassen entirely responsible? Maybe there could be some clarification about that. Is there movement where communities can choose their policing service and still receive funding from the various levels of government where they would be getting it now?

M. Sieben: Sure. I’m happy to jump in quickly. I recall a conversation with the MLA in the minister’s office. The First Nation, Tsawwassen, has made a choice relating to who is providing the policing in their communities, and they pay for that choice, somewhat like a municipality does. The MLA is correct when he suggests that a First Nation, if they’re looking for coverage at a cost share, and depending on their size, get it through the provincial policing agreement.

Tsawwassen is in a very unique position in the province. That’s why it’s only one. They could choose to be policed from the RCMP. That would be a different service and would have a different price point, to be frank.

A. Olsen: I’ll just bookmark it here, and then we can move on. I’d like for our committee to have the conversation about providing that flexibility. There are lots of funding agreements between First Nations and the federal and provincial governments. I think there should be a conversation that we have about perhaps providing some flexibility where those First Nations could be given the option, especially if they don’t have the resources to be funding their own police service. I’ll leave it at that, and we’ll move on.

W. Rideout: MLA Olsen, we would be happy to provide the committee with a more detailed breakdown relative to that agreement so that it would be useful to you as your work continues.

A. Olsen: That would be fantastic. Thank you very much.

[1:45 p.m.]

R. Glumac: Just so I understand, with all of the different police agreements, some of them outlining the percentage that gets paid by the federal government or municipalities or [audio interrupted] government. With all of these agreements, who is responsible for the budget itself — for a municipality, for example?

Being in Port Moody, I know that the city council basically approves a budget for the police force. Is it the same way in municipalities that utilize the RCMP? Do they approve the budget, and whatever that budget is, it’ll be funded 70 percent, 30 percent for the under 15,000, for example? Is that how it works?

W. Rideout: Yes, MLA, you’re correct. It basically functions in a similar manner. The difference with the RCMP contracts is that, of course, they do not have a police board, and it does not generally funnel through the police board process that is, in effect, a governing body for the municipal independent agencies.

Detachment commanders identify their resource needs. They work through the internal RCMP process to identify that and then seek the budget through their relationships with their municipal councils much in a similar way. Then, their resource needs are either advanced or not, depending on the ability of the municipality to support their request. Then the budget is managed through the municipal process in a very similar manner — allocated to the detachment.

The federal contribution flows through the contract relationship between the province and the federal government and then back to the municipality.

R. Glumac: I guess, just to clarify, for municipalities under 5,000, the municipality isn’t involved in that approval process. That’s all sort of outlined uniformly for all municipalities under 5,000. They get a certain number of police officers that serve [audio interrupted]?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question. The ministry and the branch work very closely with the RCMP’s commanding officer. We have a contract management group that assesses the resource needs in those rural jurisdictions throughout the province and within the provincial policing areas. We work on a continual basis to assess the needs and to address resource requirements in those smaller jurisdictions. That includes things like traffic services and some of the specialized units that are deployed throughout the province to provide supporting assets to those in rural areas.

That is effectively managed through our contract management team within the ministry and the RCMP. And then the funding flows through our provincial delegation to the RCMP on an annual basis.

R. Glumac: Okay. Just a final question. Any efforts to lower or raise budgets for police, basically, in all of these agreements, nearly all of these agreements, are the res­ponsibility of the municipalities, generally. They’re not in the provincial jurisdiction, necessarily.

W. Rideout: Yes, that’s correct. Within the municipal environment, whether that is the independent police departments, generally, that runs through those requests, and those resource requirements and needs run through their police boards and then, concurrently, to their municipal councils for increases and/or decreases as may be appropriate. RCMP detachments make those requests through their public safety boards or whatever structure exists within their municipality.

Equally, the RCMP…. In the provincial force, the commanding officer of the RCMP and the senior leadership team will work with the branch and our team here to work on submissions for increases in the provincial police force and the budget. That is, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, a very complex process and a laborious one, but it is being examined at almost all times. It’s a continuous process, given the size of the presence of the RCMP.

[1:50 p.m.]

The RCMP in this province…. It is the largest RCMP province in Canada by far. A considerable amount of this province is policed by the RCMP. That is a very continuous process that exists between this branch and the RCMP.

A. Olsen: If I may just follow up on that, Mr. Chair.

Just wanting to follow up the decision-making about resourcing and staffing for RCMP-policed communities that have a municipality. They have committees, I think, that help, where they work those discussions through. I have communities that are unincorporated areas. I have one over 5,000 and a couple under 5,000, and there seems to be a lack of clarity about how those communities have this discussion about whether or not there’s adequate resourcing, even within the ranks of the contractor themselves.

I’m just wondering. Do you have — and maybe this is something you can come back with — a sense of how those communities can, and where, have the discussions around resourcing and increasing or decreasing the amount of resources that they need to get the job done?

W. Rideout: Yes. Thank you for your question.

The requirements from the rural or more remote or smaller communities come through a number of different streams to the branch and to the ministry. As I said before, it comes through the RCMP itself, which has senior leaders in the four districts throughout the province — the north, the southeast district, the Lower Mainland and the Island — and they are very much linked in to their local commanders, who are tasked with and required to be very interactive with those communities and understand their resourcing needs and pressures.

As I said to you previously, the branch works very closely with the RCMP at a strategic level, at a very high level, to look at the province holistically as to what those resource needs are and are not.

Lastly, I would say that we are very much engaged with the communities themselves. There’s a considerable interaction with mayors, council, citizens, and UBCM is a venue in which we interact with provincial governments and where they also identify needs and concerns to the ministry about provincial resourcing needs.

Again, it’s an ongoing process, and I think there are multiple steering committees. There are multiple consultative groups that exist throughout the province that should be ensuring we are at least identifying where there are gaps and there are needs. Then we work towards addressing them in the most effective and efficient way possible. That’s not always adding resources to communities. Sometimes that is servicing the need in some other way.

G. Begg: Just a question, then, arising…. A two-part question, basically. Is there a formula that can be used? We often hear of cop-to-pop ratio, or police-to-population ratio, which I think is an important consideration. Secondarily, we have, in this province, many communities that experience a rapid growth in their populations during the summer months, but their policing establishment appears to remain the same.

So part of that question is: is there a mechanism that can trigger the provision of more police for Penticton, for example, in the summertime, or Whistler in the wintertime, so that the director of policing services can meet his overall objective, which is to ensure, in my words, the adequacy and level of policing throughout the year?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question, a very good question. The reality is that that happens now.

[1:55 p.m.]

We do have police deployments to what we call surge need or seasonal communities — communities that are affected by industry and construction projects, as we’re seeing throughout the province now. That is a reality, and we work closely with the RCMP to address those needs.

It would be our submission to the committee — and as we go through the rest of the presentation, we talk about it at several junctures — to clarify those types of formulas — the formulas that we believe need to be formalized, perhaps, and supported by legislation within amendments to the Police Act, which will clarify that and entrench it in a model that is very clear and transparent for all to understand.

I think another great example is large metropolitan communities like Vancouver and Victoria who host fireworks or have hockey games. They see the massive influx of the suburb communities, and there are associated policing costs that come with that. Some of the tragic events that we’ve seen…. You know, there were riots a number of years ago and the costs that flow from those types of things.

I think while I am confident that, through the work of the ministry and the police, those matters are handled effectively, I think it’s very…. It needs clarification. It needs a clear and transparent path for all the stakeholders so that we can establish a policing model that addresses those concerns.

I guess to more directly answer your question, while I think we do it through the goodwill and dedication of those involved, it is not entrenched within legislation or policy.

If there are no more questions, Madam Clerk, I think we’re on slide 15.

The Police Act allows municipalities to use other municipal police services to create their own. In all instances, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General remains responsible to ensure that an adequate and effective level of policing and law enforcement is maintained throughout the province.

Twelve municipalities in B.C. are policed by 11 municipal police departments as established under section 23 of the Police Act. In February of 2020, ministerial approval was provided to the city of Surrey to create a municipal police department. Once Surrey police service is in a position to be operationalized, this will be the 13th municipality.

These municipal police departments are governed by a police board whose role it is to provide general direction to the department in accordance with the relevant legislation and in response to community needs. Each police board consists of civilians and is chaired by the municipality’s mayor. One board member is appointed by the municipal council, and up to seven board members are appointed by the provincial government.

Alana will be taking you through the next few slides. Before she begins, I’ll pause again. I think we have taken a number of questions, but certainly, we’d be happy to answer any more that you might have.

G. Lore: Thanks. I was just wondering if you had any reflections on…. There’s a clear geographic concentration of municipalities who have chosen to have municipal police forces, with almost all of those on the Lower Mainland or on the Island. I just wonder if you have any reflections on why that is and whether that’s a reflection of community need.

Also, in that list on slide 15, a significant variation in the number of police, as Garry mentioned, in terms of relative to population. I’m just wondering if you had thoughts on that. I think it might also speak to some of the questions around formula and equity and provision of policing across municipalities.

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question. I apologize, because MLA Begg did ask that piece, and I think I managed to skip past answering that question.

There has been a number of resource formulas over the year, and as MLA Begg mentioned, cop to pop is one that has been relied on over the years.

[2:00 p.m.]

What we have come to learn is it’s not quite as simple as that, particularly given some of the complex challenges facing police today, many of which we hope to discuss with you later in the presentation, and the evolution of what policing has become with the additional pressure and demands being placed on police through the complexity of policing, the changes to the law, the need for their engagement in issues related to mental health and addictions and a variety of other issues.

I think there needs to be some work done with respect to formulas in resource allocation. There has been considerable work done in the province, and there are a variety of models that are available. I think it’s important to develop something within a B.C. context, because British Columbia is unlike any other province in this country. We need to think about some of the unique drivers that exist in British Columbia. That includes, as you say, that the geography of the province is vast. It’s also issues that relate to the manner in which we….

The complexity of crime and the type of crime that exists here and the needs of managing the prosecutions in this province and the court process and all the challenges that they face along the way drive how we resource policing. It’s those kinds of examinations, I think, that still need to be undertaken in a way that will give us some kind of a baseline analysis of what policing are….

More work to be done, and I think our proposal, our recommendation, our request to the committee would be that that is work that needs to be undertaken in support of what will, hopefully, be a revised and modernized policing model in British Columbia.

I think with respect to your initial point around two or three large urban hubs with respect to the Okanagan, I don’t know that I could accurately say why they evolved into municipal police departments. The communities have grown considerably. I think places like Vancouver and Victoria are natural….

It would be very natural for them to begin with their own municipal police departments historically. As some of the communities have expanded in the Lower Mainland and grown, they face the complex decisions that we’re talking about today. How do we effectively provide adequate and effective policing to our communities, and how do we do it in a cost-effective way? It’s a very complex affair, and the ability of those communities and this province to utilize the different agreement that exists with the RCMP provides a pretty effective and attractive option for implementing policing service as those communities expanded.

The question moving forward, I suppose, and a question that we would propose as something that needs to be examined by the committee: is that still the best model, and is that still the best policing model for British Columbia? When you look at larger urban regions that have multiple municipal agencies within them or multiple municipal agencies and multiple RCMP detachments, one across the street from the other, does that still make sense given the B.C. context and the challenges we’re facing today. I think that some work and some effort, we propose, needs to be undertaken to prepare British Columbia for the future.

I hope I’ve answered your question.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I’m not sure if I missed this formula that Wayne was mentioning, but what is the formula? Is there a minimum policing? You say cop-to-pop, a police-to-population ratio. What’s the minimum that’s kind of a rule of thumb used?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question, MLA.

I think it varies. I think municipal departments have their own. Different RCMP detachments have attempted to achieve a minimum standard, but it’s not set by the province.

[2:05 p.m.]

R. Singh: Following up on the question I had before, the act does not talk about the number of police. Do you think that is a problem, or that we need to do something about it?

W. Rideout: I didn’t fully hear your question. I apologize.

R. Singh: Well, the act does not talk about adequate policing. It does not say anything. That’s what my understanding is. Do you think that is a problem, that that is something that needs to be changed in the act?

W. Rideout: The term “adequate and effective policing” is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety, and, if I understand you, does it need to be defined and determined. I think you make a good point. That is, it gets back to understanding minimum service levels required, minimum resourcing levels, and what is adequate and effective policing.

I think when we begin to look at what a community needs when it emerges from 5,000, to the 5,000 to 15,000, and it now needs to be responsible for its own police agency, that can be a challenging analysis. I think you raise a very legitimate point, and I think when we look at modernizing the Police Act, that is certainly an area of work that would be worthy of consideration.

A. Best: I’m just going to add a couple of comments. We had a couple of subject-matter experts online that are giving us some excellent responses, and we can follow up in writing as well. They’d just mentioned that the “pop for cop” does not reflect workload, as Wayne had mentioned. While it’s descriptive, it’s not an expected resourcing metric, and it’s something that would like some consistency around it.

Another example was provided — that some police agencies use response time to priority-one calls. For ex­ample, they’ll use seven minutes. Then that will determine the minimum patrol officers needed. I just thought I would provide that information if that’s helpful.

Any further questions?

We just have a couple of slides that are related to public safety and partners. The figure on the left of this slide illustrates the continuum of public safety, with some examples at each stage.

The public safety continuum has evolved to meet the changing needs of communities. Effective community safety can only be achieved through a collaboration between agencies and ministries, using a combination of empirical data and qualitative information to create standard operating procedures, inform best practices and aid in decision-making processes. Collaboration between social services, health services and public safety professionals is important in today’s climate.

Operating in distant silos is no longer sufficient to meet community needs. Being proactive re­quires knowing the chain of response and continuum of care to anticipate what services are needed, and where. The work our ministry is undertaking in modernizing the public safety continuum will involve most ministries across government. On the right-hand side of the slide, we have highlighted those ministries that have mandate-letter items that relate to policing and public safety modernization.

Modernizing policing and public safety services re­quires engagement, collaboration and consultation with our key partners. We encourage this special committee to hear directly from them throughout this process, and we, too, look forward to hearing from them.

I would like to pause again. This concludes the technical portion of our presentation. The next piece gets into some of the challenges and opportunities. I know that initially we had talked about perhaps taking a break here, but I’ll open it up to questions and see how we’re doing.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just would like some clarification. I don’t want to ask questions now if it’s not the appropriate time, but I am going to have questions just on strategic recruitment of the forces, training and those kinds of things. Is that something that we’ll talk about today? Is that later, when we look at the pillars, or is that another time altogether?

[2:10 p.m.]

A. Best: Yes, we do speak about that in some of the pillars, though we’re happy to discuss now. But if you want to wait for us to get through that portion, then maybe we’ll have answered some of your questions on that section, whatever you prefer.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ll wait then. I just wasn’t sure. I was trying to see if it was coming up, so thank you.

D. Routley (Chair): I think Rachna has a question.

R. Singh: Not me, Chair. I think Grace had her hand up.

D. Routley (Chair): Oh, okay.

Grace.

G. Lore: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just maybe looking for a little more context on the ties to the mandate letters and how broadly or narrowly you’re thinking about those linkages. For example, I know — I can’t remember if Finance was on that list — in my mandate as parliamentary secretary, there are questions around training for policing. I suspect some ties to Parliamentary Secretary Singh’s mandate letter as well.

But also, within the ones that are there, how broadly are you thinking about those ties — for example, decriminalization as part of the PSSG mandate? What do you count as a…? Or how do you pull those pieces together on what is relevant to the work ahead?

W. Rideout: Thank you very much, MLA. Great question. The priorities are highly relevant for the branch and in our direct work with the provincial police force. In this case, it’s the RCMP. We work to realize those provincial policing priorities through existing units and structures within the force, and when those require modification or enhancements, we work with the police to establish new initiatives, new teams and new units.

By way of example, in recent years, there has been a tremendous amount of work done around organized crime and gangs to ensure that we are more effective. Those are, of course, front and centre in the mandate letter and in the mandate letters of the last number of years. So we are very much concerned about provincial policing priorities and government priorities as a whole, and those are implemented at the strategic level with our provincial policing agencies.

It’s a little different when it comes to independent police agencies. The Police Act asks police boards, which provide that strategic oversight and governance of their police departments, to consider provincial policing priorities, but it does not require them to implement strategies and structures to realize those.

I think, as you’ll hear as the presentation progresses, that it would be one of our recommendations for your consideration in that…. While we would recognize the right and need for every municipality to implement its own policing priorities, we also would believe that having some uniformity around policing priorities right across policing the province is an important element of having alignment and having shared responsibility for things that are clearly cross-jurisdictional and affect all of us. I think that’s an area of work that needs to be done.

Now, I have to be…. You know, to be fair and to be full, many, if not all, of the independent police departments do participate in a wide variety of integrated units that have been established, in a large degree, to address some of the policing priorities that have flown from government priorities. So it’s not that they are not participating, but within their own geographical boundaries, they’re not obliged to under the current provisions of the Police Act.

D. Routley (Chair): I’m not seeing any more questions.

Oh, Adam has a question.

A. Olsen: It just kind of came up for me, just in terms of the working relationship between the provincial government and the federal government. I’m just noting one of the pillars here, in terms of systemic racism. One of the, I think, more challenging times that the federal government and the RCMP, in particular, faced this past summer was around when the commissioner was asked questions about systemic racism and had some challenges with answering that question.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s always been, I think, on my radar, around the fact that the chain of command for…. I live and work in a community that has both RCMP police and a municipal police force, and I can see where the chain of command ends in the community with the police board and with the chief of police. Yet in other parts of the community, the chain of command is much muddier. It goes much further outside of the community, all the way to Ottawa.

I’m wondering if maybe there could be some general comments around that chain of command and how the province manages that — where we’ve contracted a police service, yet the accountability doesn’t end at a board meeting room in British Columbia. It’s a federal police force, and the accountability goes all the way to Ottawa.

W. Rideout: Thank you, MLA. We are going to speak a little bit about that later, but I’m certainly happy to talk about it now. You’re correct. It’s a complicated relationship. The RCMP is a very large national organization that addresses federal, provincial and municipal policing across this country in different ways.

There are a number of management committees that work at the national level, and we participate in those contract management committees. The branch and the ministry participate in those and administer the contract relationship with Public Safety Canada and the RCMP at a national level. Those discussions and those recommendations are ongoing all the time.

You’re correct that the RCMP in this province, like many of the provinces that have a large RCMP contract presence, has three levels of RCMP presence in this province. We have a sizeable federal RCMP, we have a sizeable provincial RCMP presence, and we have multiple municipal detachments. They are all managed and controlled under one single command structure within the province, and I would say that command group does a very outstanding job of managing that very complex environment of trying to service the needs of three levels of government simultaneously.

It is true that the commanding officer who leads the RCMP in British Columbia is accountable to the commissioner of the RCMP, who is accountable to the government of Canada. We are constantly….

Well, part of the job of the population and security branch is to create some oversight and work both collaboratively and in an oversight capacity with the provincial RCMP to ensure that they are meeting their contractual obligations and their needs. I believe they work very hard to do that, but I also believe that that is a challenge when they are addressing federal priorities and they are addressing provincial priorities and they are addressing municipal priorities and needs simultaneously. That creates some complexity for them, and it is something that has to be carefully managed.

We are working and have some ideas that we will be presenting to you about how that perhaps can be more effectively managed in the future.

A. Best: I just wonder if I might add, as well, that there is the director’s authority. We were talking about…. There’s one relationship with the federal government that needs to be managed, but there are certain things under the director’s authority, such as standards and training, that all officers that are policing within the province need to abide by. So I just mention that as one mechanism that we do have control or purview over.

W. Rideout: The contractual arrangement that we have with the RCMP ensures that the commanding officer of the province reports to the commissioner. But it is also very clear about the commanding officer’s responsibility to the province and the contracting partner on the strategies and the priorities and, for lack of a better term….

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s not a direct quote from the contract, but really, the desire of the province on the style of policing and the policing priorities that the province requires. Again, those are ongoing discussions.

We believe that as we move forward with the challenges and the complexities of the future, those mechanisms can be improved and enhanced both in improvements to the Police Act and in other ways, such as steering committees and oversight committees that can assist with meeting the needs of British Columbians and helping the provincial force evolve to meet those needs.

M. Sieben: I would note, too, that while — the MLA is absolutely right, and as Wayne has indicated — the commanding officer for B.C. reports to the commissioner, who in turn reports to the Minister of Public Safety in Canada, there is an accountability and a responsibility, as Wayne had indicated, to the province and the Solicitor General. At times, that works to the province’s favour. A really good example is the response to wildfire, where the RCMP have been an extremely valuable and nimble resource as part of the response to that type of circumstance.

W. Rideout: Would you like us to continue?

D. Routley (Chair): Yeah, there appears to be no more questions.

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): Did members want to take a short break? I think, as Alana mentioned, this might be a good halfway point for a five…. It’s up to the members. I just thought I’d mention that.

D. Routley (Chair): Okay. Members, we’ll have a short recess — ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:22 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): I’ll call the meeting back to order for the second half of the presentation.

A. Best: Perfect. Thank you very much. This is the heart of our presentation, where we discuss the current environment of policing and public safety and where we see opportunities for modernization.

Our vision is to create an equitable, efficient and ac­countable policing and public safety model that meets the needs of all British Columbians. This vision can be accomplished by leveraging the opportunities before us and embarking on transformative changes to policing and public safety. I hope that the opportunities presented will provide the foundation for the incredibly important work that the special committee has been tasked with addressing, including the scope of systemic racism and its impact on public safety.

This section is organized into four pillars. Wayne will walk us through the first two, effectiveness and efficiency, as well as roles and responsibilities, and then I will present the last two: public trust, systemic racism and reconciliation with Indigenous people. We based these themes, or pillars, on the special committee’s mandate. Many of these subjects that we are going to discuss are cross-cutting, and they’ve been categorized into these themes based on best fit.

I’m also going to mention that some of the pillars are fairly lengthy for us to get through. So we’re wondering if you wouldn’t mind being patient with us, and we’ll get through an entire pillar, then stop and ask if there are any questions. We’re just conscious of time and wanting to get through these four pillars with you all today, if possible, and we might answer some of your questions as we go. If that’s okay, I’ll pass it on to Wayne for the first pillar.

W. Rideout: Thank you, Alana. I’ll begin by talking about the first pillar, which is effectiveness and efficiency. This theme recognizes the legal framework which has created distinct federal, provincial and municipal levels of policing and how that layered structure in turn impacts the services that are provided by police.

[2:35 p.m.]

At this time, existing governance structures outlined in the Police Act can be improved to assist police boards and the RCMP with business practices, accountabilities and transparency.

In 2012, we signed a 20-year provincial policing service agreement with the federal government, which was negotiated based on the key principles, requirements and expectations of that time. The agreement with the RCMP sets the parameters of the province’s relationship with the RCMP as our provincial police force. The RCMP provides a provincial police service to our province and is responsible to advance provincial policing priorities and meet the contractual requirements of the 2012 agreement.

The Commanding Officer of RCMP reports to the commissioner of the RCMP, and the RCMP itself operates pursuant to federal legislation and policy. I think this is an important point worth noting. While every effort is made by our RCMP provincial police force to meet and exceed provincial police priorities and contractual obligations, the challenge of simultaneously meeting evolving federal, provincial and municipal policing priorities and expectations is complex and is affected by many factors outside the control of our provincial RCMP leaders.

Municipal police officers may be involved in investigations that municipalities believe are issues that fall under the responsibility of the provincial or federal governments. Additionally, municipalities that attract a high number of tourists or that host special regional events may have greater challenges and increasing public policing and public safety needs, which are paid for by local residents.

Because crime does not abide by geographic and community boundaries, structuring policing services based on the same boundaries has caused inefficiencies, including duplication of effort and overlaps and gaps in the services being delivered, as well as greater costs. For members of the public and policing partners, it is often unclear what level of government is responsible for delivering a particular service.

I also would like to highlight that decisions, operational and otherwise, should be made based on empirical evidence and take into consideration the projected socioeconomic return on investment when allocating resources and assessing program effectiveness. Police boards and the RCMP need strong business intelligence and specialized support to interpret and predict their policing needs and manage budgets.

Finally, the current model of funding is also perceived as unfair and inequitable, especially by many local governments. Of concern to some are the cost-sharing arrangements between the different levels of government and the current structure and service delivery model, which both contribute to substantial differences in the amounts local property taxpayers contribute. RCMP unionization, which is a new development in RCMP policing, will undoubtedly result in increased costs. As I have highlighted above, the current structure and service delivery model have resulted in inefficiency and a lack of consistency and equity in service delivery across the province.

Integration and regionalization. We have an opportunity to move to a more regionalized and efficient model through a continuum of services, enhanced integration and enhanced centralization. An ongoing challenge is the increasing pressure placed on police budgets, given the growing complexity of policing and criminal activity.

The provincial government has supported the integration and consolidation of police services with centralized services that are highly technical, capital-intensive and specialized, while at the same time decentralizing functions that provide service delivery to the public. The province has supported exploring further opportunities for the expansion of this, including the integration of specialized services in the Lower Mainland, the capital regional district and elsewhere in the province.

As mentioned previously, this special committee could require a municipal police force to align their priorities with those set by the minister, as is the case with the provincial police. Another possible solution would be to mandate the regionalization of police agencies. A regional police service can provide economies of scale and consistency in service delivery without sacrificing community policing and can be very effective when there is broad community support.

The regionalization of police agencies, as well as specialized services, continues to be a topic of discussion in the Lower Mainland and the capital region, with successful outcomes associated with responding to certain critical challenges, specifically to major crime. The evolving na­ture of criminal activity, in alignment with the recommendations in the report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, requires that our police services be unified, especially in the greater Vancouver area.

Other provinces, including Alberta and Ontario, have permissive statutory provisions for the establishment of regional police services and governance frameworks, while the B.C. Police Act is silent.

[2:40 p.m.]

The branch has been identifying inequities in the current structure such as differences in per-capita spending. Further regionalization may provide a model for delivering services more efficiently and equitably by capitalizing on economies of scale. Regionalization continues to be a challenging issue and could be an opportunity to mitigate some funding and service equity issues.

There are a number of integrated policing units and structures operating throughout the province that would benefit from enhanced governance. Integrated teams provide specialized police services to more than one jurisdiction and may be considered integrated if they are comprised of police officers from more than one police agency or from at least two levels of policing — for example, from federal, provincial or municipal levels of policing. They are also considered integrated if multiple police jurisdictions contribute to funding or staffing.

In municipalities across B.C., police budgets are facing increased pressure amid the growing complexity of policing in areas such as investigations. To reduce the inefficiencies created by a duplication of effort and the overlap or gaps in specialized service delivery, the province supports the integration and consolidation of police services, particularly where they are highly technical, capital intensive and specialized. Examples of integrated services include forensic identification, homicide units and anti-gang units. Possible future integrated teams could concentrate on hate-based crimes and cybercrimes.

It is important that there is a clear understanding of what services are needed in today’s landscape, those that are no longer necessary and those which may require new funding models to ensure they remain adequate and effective. Despite their benefits, the establishment and governance of integrated policing teams has been a long-standing issue with local governments and police agencies in the province, in the Lower Mainland and in the capital regional district. The province is currently supporting the implementation of a CRD mayors–led governance model for in-scope integrated policing units.

The province of B.C. has no single major population core but rather has major population centres across its landscape. There has been a great deal of work done to seek efficiencies in delivering specialized police services in the Lower Mainland with the establishment of the RCMP-led LMD integrated teams, including the Lower Mainland Integrated Homicide Investigation Team, the Integrated Forensic Identification Services and several other services, all overseen by the integrated team advisory committee, an informal governance body comprised of chief administration officers from participating municipalities.

I believe there is an opportunity to formalize the governance structure through section 4.1 of the Police Act and create similar efficiencies with other areas of the province and provide stronger cost forecasting and accountability through similar governance models in these areas. Further, the special committee could consider what could be implemented or improved to allow for effective, efficient and consistent governance regarding the establishment of integrated teams in the province.

There are multiple efforts underway to combat organized crime in the province that would benefit from a comprehensive national and provincial strategy. Currently the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, CFSEU, is the lead agency that is responsible for collective efforts. CFSEU and the B.C. RCMP are required to align with federal Treasury Board and national headquarters. As such, these units are RCMP led.

For example, the Organized Crime Agency of B.C. is a provincially designated policing unit, but it is utilized as a subordinate contingent within the RCMP-led Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. OCABC staff are dispersed amongst the CFSEU-BC in a wide variety of roles. The Organized Crime Agency of B.C. itself does not currently have its own chief officer or board of governance and is absent a true organizational identity and mandate.

One solution is to create shared leadership and elevate a British Columbia presence both provincially and nationally through the repatriation of OCABC. This will balance the current state, and the province and the RCMP will work in coordination. Investments in infrastructure will be B.C. owned and benefit from a continuity of specialist skills and experience.

[2:45 p.m.]

OCABC could be positioned to work collaboratively with all RCMP business lines and provincial regulatory agencies to conduct a broad range of coordinated enforcement efforts. They could work with industry and public and private sector institutions to implement cost-effective preventative strategies. The goal is a B.C.-led, comprehensive and evidence-based approach that utilizes all the tools in the toolbox to reduce the province’s vulnerability to organized crime.

I want to be very clear. The RCMP provides this pro­vince with excellent investigative and policing capacity. The men and women of the RCMP provide brave and dedicated service to our communities. My office has a strong working relationship with the RCMP. We work closely in identifying gaps and opportunities to strengthen financial and business acumen, strategic planning and to improve their ability to demonstrate the socioeconomic return on investment with the goal of identifying the true cost drivers they are facing. This work includes ensuring that business cases and requests are evidence-based and supported by data.

There are some challenges with the federal management systems in place, but we work with the business intelligence unit to address these challenges and look for innovative and defensive options that can be used to support the work under discussion. We need improved financial and business practices that align with B.C. government and public expectations.

It is important to emphasize that the need for administration and deployment of police resources is to be determined through objective, evidence-based standard criteria that consider not only the proposed deployment service delivery or asset management proposal under discussion but that ensure that a holistic lens has been applied that identifies interdependencies, economies of scale and sustainability.

Provincial public safety priorities. Municipal police boards in B.C. play a key role in establishing and providing civilian governance and oversight of municipal policing departments. Police boards are created independently from municipal councils and the provincial government to shield policing from partisan politics while recognizing that both levels of government have legitimate interests in municipal policing.

This dynamic can, at times, be challenging for mayors who also sit as chairs of the police board, voting only in the event of a tie. In these dual and sometimes conflicting roles, the mayor acts as an important conduit of information between a council and a board on shared public safety concerns. This can present its challenges — for example, when the chair must subordinate municipal council priorities to those of the independent police board or where council and the board are misaligned on the police budget.

Taking advantage of governance training opportunities that clarify the roles and responsibilities of police board members, including chairs as well as police leadership, will strengthen board effectiveness. Alternatives for mayors as chairs could also be considered, including a streamlined legislative process for the selection of chairs and vice-chairs that promotes good governance of municipal police departments.

It is also important that all municipal police departments take a coordinated approach to addressing matters of provincial importance. The minister can establish priorities for policing in B.C. However, municipal police boards only have to take them into account, as the minister’s priorities are not binding.

In order to ensure that the minister’s priorities are ap­propriately considered and implemented at the municipal level, the special committee could recommend the Police Act require municipal police boards to align their priorities with those set by the minister, as is the case with the provincial police. Further, in addition to regular briefings, communications and reporting on pressing and emerging issues, such as gangs and guns and the opioid crisis, it should be required that municipal police departments report out on provincial priorities by all levels of police across the province.

A cross-governmental approach is required to respond to issues such as mental health and substance abuse. There is a need for formalized health care, diversion and harm reduction approaches as well as the participation of health care professionals when responding to those who suffer from mental health and substance use challenges. Opportunities that could be leveraged include increased communication and access to information through B.C. health authorities and law enforcement and giving increased priorities to persons apprehended under the Mental Health Act in hospital settings.

What I would like to stress to the committee is that some issues, such as the issue of mental health, have be­come a policing challenge to a heightened degree not previously seen. Past decisions on how to respond effectively to those with mental illness have resulted in the police now being on the front lines.

[2:50 p.m.]

A funding-related area that should be considered for reform is the police tax. As mentioned previously, unincorporated and rural areas and municipalities under 5,000 population are policed by the provincial police service. Taxpayers in these areas pay the provincial police tax, which recovers a small portion of the cost of providing general duty and general investigative police services.

The police tax amounts assessed on property owners is determined by property classification and the net taxable value of the land improvements, not the actual policing costs in the specific area. Consequently, the amount paid in one contributing area may differ substantially from another contributing area due to the differential amount paid by the taxpayer in municipal versus provincial policing areas. Many communities have raised concerns re­garding police funding inequities.

Consideration should be given to updating and replacing the police tax framework to ensure an equitable approach to funding. I would just like to add that I think that, as we have discussed earlier, it’s not just looking at the police tax. It’s looking at how we fund policing in general and how we ensure that it is transparent and that all communities can understand what they are and are not responsible for and what that associated funding may be.

As mentioned previously, increased communications and collaborative issues can connect front-line workers to identify and help vulnerable people through integrated and coordinated case management. These collaborations not only provide effective and appropriate services to vulnerable people but also have an added benefit of taking burden away from core policing.

These collaborations consist of partnerships among police, ambulance services, public health and mental health or addictions professionals. One example would be the situation table model, which helps front-line staff from the public safety, health and social services sectors to identify vulnerable people and collaboratively and rapidly connect them to services before they experience a negative or traumatic event. Another example would be wraparound services, which is an intensive individual case management process for youth with serious or complex needs.

There are multiple models already being implemented across Canada and B.C. that could be further expanded through sustained funding. These initiatives include the situation table model, the intervention circle model, wraparound services, navigator models and case management teams like the sexual assault response teams.

Cultural awareness provides public safety professionals with the ability to understand the needs of citizens and take actions and consider the cultural context of their interactions with citizens. While programs such as the First Nations policing program provide responders with the ability to address marginalizing factors to providing dedicated culturally appropriate enhanced policing, we need to shift our focus to expanding preventative services that preclude interactions with police altogether.

The complexities of modern policing require law enforcement agencies to expand how officers are trained and how they do their jobs. It is not sufficient for training to focus solely on the law or on enforcement skills such as arrest and control and use of firearms. A significant amount of investigations, such as those related to cyber crimes, money laundering and the dark web, should not require the [audio interrupted] training that’s typical in self-defence training.

There should be an emphasis on recruiting, training and retaining skilled investigators with technical expertise that would allow them to be effective in the face of ever-evolving criminal landscapes. This may involve hiring civilians into these roles, re-evaluating the basic training and recruitment requirements or partnering with independent organizations.

It is important to update police training and ensure that practical training improves the effective response to the policing scenario and increases aptitude for appropriate critical incident management. Immersive training will develop the ability to apply culturally appropriate practices for policing Indigenous communities and harm reduction strategies for individuals with mental health and substance use issues and to ensure officers can identify and reduce implicit bias in their activities.

Although the director of police services sets overall standards in some areas of public safety training such as policing, there is no provincial continuum or coordinated strategy for police safety training in B.C. There is also limited engagement with the local community to ensure that policing and public safety officers have the skills to respond to their specific community needs.

Training related to systemic racism could be threaded through a provincially mandated and linked training continuum guided by a legislative board with a clear mandate on ensuring training is reflective of the needs of policing and public safety in British Columbia.

[2:55 p.m.]

I encourage the committee to consider requiring further efforts of the dedicated police and public safety academies and other educational institutions to help influence the expected culture that we desire.

A. Best: Do you want to pause here and see if there are any questions?

W. Rideout: Yeah. Before I move on, that’s a lot of information. Take a pause and take any questions you might have.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. I’ve got a question between the act and policy. A lot of what we were just talking about, to me, seems to be policy, as opposed to the act. How do we, as a committee here…? Do we have the ability to inform — I guess changes to regulations will come out of whatever the changes to the act are — those policies?

I’ve seen great work done with New West police and some other groups, where they’ve actually got victim support workers working in teams with detectives, and they’ve got some amazing programs for domestic violence and supporting people that way. But those are separate, independent programs, as opposed to the act.

I don’t know if that was a question. There’s a question in there somewhere.

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question. It’s a very good question and a very good point. There are powers within the act to create standards on some aspects of training. I think those need to be expanded.

You’re absolutely correct. There is a lot of innovation and excellent training that goes on through the various agencies that exist in the province, but I think our objective, our goal and our recommendation would be to entrench consistency and further standards across all the policing agencies in the province and have that supported by legislation.

We talked earlier about enhancing the capacity of my position, the director of police services, within the act. So entrenching those powers more fully within the act and ensuring that we set sort of a consistency of approach across all of the police agencies and look at best practices that perhaps one agency may have that we can expand for use across the policing universe that exists in the province.

T. Halford: Thank you very much for the presentation so far. Specifically on the mental health aspect, you know, mental health has no borders, right? It crosses multiple communities. How do we make sure that we’re promoting those synergies, in terms of how one municipal police force might deal with it and how the next one might, as well, and making sure that we’re learning from those best practices from municipality to municipality?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question. I think we’ve got a lot of work to do in this area. The police in the province, the police across the country, the police internationally have been raising concerns for many years about how much of their work has moved into areas that cross over into health matters. I think they have learned a great deal. They have implemented a lot of innovative programs to be more effective. But the issues persist. The challenges persist, and we are not being effective enough.

I think that what we would be looking at and recommending to the committee is looking to, sort of, cross-ministerial strategies that align and look towards that all-of-government approach to the problem at the municipal and provincial levels and leveraging the resources that are there, not only to expand our expertise but to coordinate a response and to ensure that the police are not tasked with managing situations that, really, they’re not equipped to handle and perhaps will not be as effective as they could be if they were supported by health care professionals and experts.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think that’s the goal, and that is a significant body of work that we believe needs to be undertaken. That is not to say that there haven’t been valiant efforts to be as effective in what are, as you say, very challenging circumstances, but there needs to be considerably more work done in this area.

A. Best: Just to expand on that a little bit, our next section will be talking about roles and responsibilities. I believe we will circle and talk a little bit more about the mental health aspects. I think this gets back to MLA Lore’s comments, just in terms of working cross collaboratively with many different ministries. She mentioned the Ministry of Finance and the gender equity office, but it’s also with Mental Health and Health and many of the other ministries. We need to work collaboratively to this end.

We talked about the public safety and policing continuum. It doesn’t start and end with policing or enforcement. It goes far beyond. That’s why we’re here. It’s to look at creating a model that makes more sense to meet our community needs, as Wayne pointed out. But I think we will discuss a little bit more as we continue on.

R. Singh: I’m sure more is coming, but is there any way to evaluate the services that we have in policing? Does the province do that, or the municipalities, to evaluate how these services that we have in place right now are working? What are the gaps, the barriers, that we are facing?

A. Best: That’s a very good point, MLA Singh. It is something that we address in the presentation a little bit later on, but I think you’ve nailed it. Evaluation metrics and data-driven policing and policy is something that we would also like to see enhanced.

W. Rideout: If I could just add to that. We’re doing some really interesting work with the Organized Crime Agency, and we have done work internally. We have a very innovative group of individuals within the branch that are working towards evaluating the effectiveness and the socioeconomic return on investment of the investments and the initiatives that we’ve deployed relative to organized crime and gangs.

It’s a growing and increasing program that we are looking to expand more broadly. I think it’s critical to being on top of allocation of funds for our programs and initiatives and ensuring that we’re not deploying precious funding, and it’s not working effectively. I think what we talk a lot about in the presentation…. You’ve heard us speak so far about data and performance and evidence driven. I think that is central to all of the initiatives that we are promoting and the work that we think needs to be advanced. It must be evidence driven, and it must be evaluated to ensure effectiveness.

A. Olsen: Thank you. I recognize that we’ve got three more sections here — just to note that as we’re going forward here. I’m sure we’re going to hear from witnesses about this, with respect to culturally appropriate training.

One of the challenges that we have and that I think we need to take a look at from the policy and perhaps even at the legislative level is the deployment of resources. We’ve experienced and I’ve experienced how the RCMP deploy their officers and move them from detachment to detachment. It’s very difficult, and I think that this is probably an old practice within the police service. But just as someone, an officer, is getting to know an Indigenous community, they’re uprooted and sent to a new community.

I just think that part of this is consistency in delivering the service, and it’s something that we need to be taking a look at as we review the act.

[3:05 p.m.]

D. Routley (Chair): Two or three more questions.

Trevor, would you go ahead?

T. Halford: Just really quickly, in terms of how we’re doing — you know, the mental health education for officers — do we have any funding that’s specifically allocated to the training on mental health for officers?

A. Best: We might have to get back to you on that one. Maybe we’ll take a last question, and we’ll just see if we can dig that up quickly. Otherwise, we might have to confer and send you something in writing.

T. Halford: That’s absolutely fine.

M. Sieben: As far as I know, it’s specific to a police officer’s responsibilities under the Mental Health Act, ra­ther than to mental health concerns generally.

G. Lore: I have a couple of what might be rather meaty questions. They may better fit in other sections. I don’t know the best way to do this. I can list them quickly, and you can let me know whether some are appropriate in this section or elsewhere.

One thing I noticed in the conversation about recruitment and training — two things under that heading, really. Just to clarify, are there not consistent requirements across the province in terms of training? Or there are, but they’re limited and don’t cover all the types of training? I know that some in this area, at least, do trauma-informed practices training. But are there some things that are consistent across the province?

W. Rideout: Excellent question. There are some things that are consistent. I think that when you talk about things as important as trauma-informed practices, those are being deployed across the province, but it’s not done pursuant to a legislated requirement. Rather, it’s done because there’s a recognition of the need to do that. That is monitored, and we work closely with the police on those issues.

When you talk about training, we have two separate training facilities that exist in the province of British Columbia. RCMP recruits are trained in Regina, Saskatchewan, at their training centre. Then they’re deployed to the province, and they receive ongoing and supplemented training at the Pacific region training centre and follow robust training standards managed by the RCMP. Of course, our independent police agencies train at the Justice Institute of British Columbia. They have different training practices and a different curriculum.

Particularly in those areas that the committee will be examining, there are opportunities to ensure, mandate and require consistency of training in certain areas, or in all areas, if that would be something that the committee thought appropriate. I would say, though, when we talk about RCMP training, that they are providing a basic training service for deployment of officers across the country. It is very challenging for the province to influence the curriculum that takes place there, and the time available to train cadets and police trainees is very, very tight.

G. Lore: Just another question on the recruitment element. I realize that a piece from there that seems to me a little bit missing in the recruitment and training is also, maybe, retention. It’s particularly in relation to the RCMP, but not exclusively — issues around gender and harassment, and folks leaving policing for various reasons. I wonder whether retention or the components of the job and the work that might impact retention are part of your consideration in what you’ve offered us here.

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question. There are multiple factors related to retention. I think the approach of the branch, and the recommendations that we are supporting, is the idea of creating sustainability within the province, creating infrastructure that is for the province of British Columbia and in retaining expertise, skills and experience within the province of British Columbia, for British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

I recognize that a concern in many communities is the movement of officers from community to community or from program to program. That is inherent with the RCMP. It’s the nature of the manner in which they operate and deploy.

Some of the strategies that we think we can implement — and I described one a few minutes ago around the Organized Crime Agency — are to repatriate elements of the former OCABC and, if you will, untether them from the RCMP so that we can put our provincial investments and our specialized resources into a B.C.-based organization and so that we can ensure that perhaps people we hire that have money-laundering expertise or expertise in interviewing sexual assault victims are retained and not subject to transfer. I think there are creative ways to continue to utilize the RCMP but also to ensure that we’ve got sustainable expertise and skills within British Columbia.

Policing is a difficult profession, and I know that police officers and police leaders are challenged and experiencing the multiple pressures that result in turnover. Post-traumatic stress is not the least of those, from the difficult job they do, and I think that that is a challenge that we need to be sensitive to. But I think that there are innovative ways that the province can ensure that, in the future, we minimize and mitigate the loss of continuity that comes from evolving and changing positions both at the operational level and at the leadership level within policing in the province.

D. Routley (Chair): All right. I have a question from Garry, but I think we are running a little bit late. We may have to look at scheduling another opportunity. We will collect questions from members to forward to our presenters.

With that in mind, Garry, go ahead. And then we’ll go on to the next section.

G. Begg: I think I can be quick. Perhaps you can help me crystalize what you mean when you say repatriation of OCABC.

W. Rideout: Certainly, MLA. A number of years ago, when integration was a new initiative, we formed the CFSEU-BC in the province of British Columbia. The RCMP commissioner of the day championed this integrated environment to tackle organized crime. It has been highly successful over the years, and the men and women that make up that organization do phenomenal work.

Prior to that integration, the Organized Crime Agency of B.C. was a provincial stand-alone designated policing unit that did similar work but did it outside of the RCMP environment. The integration of it, of course, realized a 30 percent contribution from the federal government, and it was integrated with all the policing partners in the province. It is a fully integrated operation run out of the RCMP headquarters, so all municipal police agencies participate in that.

Some of the challenges, when you’re talking about creating infrastructure and sustainable investments for British Columbia and expertise…. It is an RCMP-led unit, and because of the contractual agreement, it falls under the rules of that RCMP contract that follow federal Treasury Board guidelines, federal legislation and follow the direction of an RCMP national headquarters, which limits our ability to advance some initiatives and to fill positions in the manner that we had described earlier around using innovative strategies to perhaps hire individuals with certain skill sets. One example is we put a firearms testing lab into OCABC recently that has increased the capacity in this province to test these illegal firearms substantially.

But it’s challenging because of the rules that apply. It’s not impossible, and we have been successful. It’s not because of the desire of the RCMP leadership in this province, but those are the rules that are applied.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think that what the province can gain by repatriating OCABC is balance — in that, the RCMP, our national organization that is tasked with investigating organized crime at the national and international levels, tends to lead, on our behalf, organized crime investigations in this country.

It would be my view that it would be important for the province to elevate its presence, both at the provincial level and the national level, not to take over that responsibility but to have a bigger voice at the table and to ensure that the priorities of the minister and the government of B.C., around organized crime and the citizens of British Columbia, have a voice and have a presence. That would be the objective of repatriating it, if you will — untether it from the federal rule that it’s obliged to operate under in the current scheme, but have it work in close partnership with the RCMP.

G. Begg: : And that would require, I assume, a legislative change. That’s all that is required.

W. Rideout: Well, in that particular case, MLA, we don’t even believe a legislative change is required. It requires some changes of agreements and some funding sources. We’re also recommending some reform around the board of governance in that particular area.

Some of these things could be done without legislative change, and some will require legislation. That particular one we do not believe requires legislative change.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, Members, and thank you, guests.

We’ll continue with the next segment.

W. Rideout: Policing and public safety is a shared responsibility between federal, provincial and municipal governments. Issues falling into the theme of roles and res­ponsibilities are related to identifying the service provided by police, determining who the appropriate service provider is and who should pay for the service. Currently there is a lack of clarity in legislation regarding who is responsible for providing particular services, which leads to uncertainty, inconsistency and confusion.

The role of police with respect to complex social issues, including mental health and wellness, substance use issues, homelessness and harm reduction, has expanded greatly in recent years and needs to be re-examined. A recurring theme at the annual UBCM convention is that municipalities feel they are subsidizing provincial re­sources and that front-line and core policing resources are scarce. Municipalities are often left struggling to understand who has the responsibility for governance through these discussions.

In addition, the ever-increasing costs of recruitment and training and infrastructure, while responding to more and more sophisticated crimes, stretches police resources beyond their capacity. Beyond just resources, the mental health and opioid crisis has highlighted gaps in skills sets needed to offer services to vulnerable people.

The province provides provincial police support re­sources to resolve high-risk incidents and target organized crime and gangs and capital to support operations, including aircraft and marine vessels. These services are accessible to all police agencies across the province. Some of these items are included in established cost-sharing arrangements, and our branch works closely with the RCMP to develop systems and processes in place that support the allocation of costs with local governments as appropriate. This work is ongoing but will ensure that costs are allocated appropriately and will mitigate against future confusion and misunderstanding.

Clearly defining which services should be provided by which level of government and which jurisdiction is res­ponsible provides the opportunity to develop a robust framework for the continuum of policing and law enforcement across the province. Supporting this approach would enable my office to develop criteria to guide decisions about who should have responsibility for providing particular policing services.

Political support to address the lack of clarity regarding who is responsible for what services will empower the work required to address the inequity in a patchwork of law enforcement practices and mitigate disagreements or disputes between levels of government.

Due to the expansion of responsibilities, the role of police has expanded outside of their core duties and expertise, such as their roles in responding to mental health issues. This is largely due to challenges in broadly implementing collaborative and coordinated cross-government approaches.

[3:20 p.m.]

Subsequently, expansion of responsibilities has im­pacted the ability to deliver front-line policing. While police have attempted to adapt to these new rules through initiatives such as the Car programs, which partner police and health authorities, there have been some substantial challenges. The public, through their calls to defund the police, are now actively questioning if police are the appropriate service providers. This status quo is not sustainable.

To address the concerns of the public, to reduce budget pressures and to allow police to focus on delivering front-line policing, there is a need to review the roles of police, law enforcement, security and public safety personnel across all sectors. To do this, we need to ensure the appropriate legislative, regulatory and policy frameworks are in place to address the increased need for preventative and proactive responses outside the traditional skills of police.

The use of supplemental law enforcement has proven successful in relation to the legalization of cannabis, and this special committee could consider new public safety models that would promote proactive community policing, including the utilization and broadening of the not-yet-enforced Community Safety Act. There are other opportunities as well, such as creating new legislation similar to Alberta’s Peace Officer Act or a community policing act. We need proactive and preventative measures to move beyond relying on police to react in response to all crisis situations.

A cross-governmental approach is required to respond to issues associated with mental health and substance abuse. There is a need for formalized health care diversion and harm-reduction approaches as well as the participation of health care professionals when responding to those who suffer from mental health and substance use challenges.

The committee could recommend the reform of the mental health [audio interrupted] in order to provide ad­ditional types of workers with the powers to apprehend and take an individual at risk of harming themselves or others to the hospital, rather than the police holding sole power to do so.

Currently there are several initiatives to support response to mental health and substance use challenges. However, systemic approaches to reduce harm to citizens have not been implemented, let alone formally mandated. Our approach to public safety should be proactive and not create more harm to citizens in B.C. — for example, employing culturally sensitive advisers who ensure that policing and public safety policies, procedures and programs take into account potential negative historical associations that certain approaches can trigger.

In addition, it is important to consider that the social conditions around the offender, the discrimination that Indigenous, Black, racialized and LGBTQ2S+ people ex­perience from a young age, can be further compounded by hardships, limited job opportunities, discrimination and a lack of access to housing. Faced with no prospect of homes or jobs, they can engage in survival crimes, such as the sex trade or trafficking in narcotics, to find shelter or earn enough to buy necessities like food and clothes. There is a potential opportunity to decrease negative police interactions associated with survival crimes by advocating for the decriminalization of such crimes, including illicit drug possession for personal use and sex work, etc.

Traditionally, criminal justice systems have focused on punishing offenders and removing them from society. Today criminal justice systems around the world are adopting approaches that minimize the effects of crime on people and communities and prevent offenders from committing more crimes.

I would encourage the committee to support an approach that seeks to repair the harm caused by crime and violence by engaging the community in the justice process. In addition, a provincewide review should be undertaken of all police policies concerning instances where the police are requested to check in on someone whose mental health and well-being is of concern. This is in direct response to calls from the public to address recent wellness checks that had tragic outcomes.

The goal should be to formally mandate and expand on initiatives that achieve better outcomes for individuals in a proactive manner, instead of being reactive, and to reduce demand on police. Specifically, identify opportunities for broader coordination, prevent calls from being made to police agencies, and seek qualified resources who are not police officers.

The Police Act allows the director of police services to create binding provincial standards and to evaluate compliance with those standards. The scope of those standards was set by government by listing topics that the director could address, such as use-of-force training and the promotion of unbiased policing, for example. This framework was implemented following the Braidwood inquiry into the police use of conducted energy weapons, and it has become an important tool for the director of police services in superintending policing in B.C.

[3:25 p.m.]

The director has established several standards to date, and these are available online. While this work continues, the previous director of police services established standards on police officers to provide direction to British Columbia police agencies in key areas and promote consistency in police practice throughout the province. More recently work to establish standards on the police response to sexual assaults was initiated.

The current standards have been developed as needed in collaboration with our stakeholders and partners. We recognize the need to further these efforts and see the value in creating a more robust, themed set of standards that clearly outline a need for today’s public safety and policing. This proactive approach would help reduce the need for amendments and address emerging gaps and issues. It is possible that through expansion and clarification of the continuum of policing and public safety in B.C., application of the director’s standards to other agents such as security guards, conservation officers, sheriffs and others could be considered.

Before I move on, I would invite your questions. I’ll also ask Alana and Rebecca if they have anything they might like to add.

A. Best: Thanks. I think I’m okay for now, but if there are questions, we’re happy to answer.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ve just one comment. I really like what you’re saying here. I’m really happy to hear about the trauma-informed approach and the training. I think that’s phenomenal. And then as we go through this, it’s a continuum that we work on in policing, so there need to be changes to the court system. How are those two things integrated in terms of what we do here and what changes we can enact, and then how does that work cooperatively with changes that can be made in the court system?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question. The powers under the Police Act and the work that we were doing would really have no direct effect within the court system, and of course, as you likely know, that falls under a different ministry. However, I think it’s really important, as I said earlier — around understanding the B.C. context and understanding the requirements of the courts, the law, the application of the law, the prosecutors’ needs in this province and the level of evidence that is required and the expectations, and to integrate the policing model and to implement the policing model in a way that appreciates those institutions and the independence of those institutions. It’s a very delicate balance.

The courts are independent, as are the prosecutors. I think the challenge for my branch and perhaps for the work you’re doing is to try to align the policing model in the best possible way with the expectations of both of those institutions.

A. Best: I’ll add a really quick sentence. From our understanding of your mandate, despite the title of the special committee, it did seem to go further than just the Police Act and discuss the Mental Health Act and others, and I think this is where we’re challenged. We can talk to you just solely about policing, but it doesn’t give you the full breadth of issues and understanding of what’s going on. I would just, because of this….

Other ministries in other provinces have done things like have a super ministry that’s in charge of public safety that reaches across the various areas. They’ve got secretariats that are centrally housed. So there are ways of doing this. I guess what we’re saying is that if we just concentrated on policing, we wouldn’t be doing it justice or giving you the fulsome understanding that you need.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I think that was just kind of…. Alana, you kind of touched on where I was going, as well as Karin, what she was talking about. We were talking about how there’s a lack of clarity regarding the roles and responsibility of policing. That opens up a big can of worms, in my mind. You know, of course, when we’re looking at…. I think you used a couple of examples. Of course, homelessness is now kind of something that is huge across our province. Mental health issues are huge across the province. I assume those are the examples of the lack of clarity. I’m just wondering: what are the other issues? I’ve got a couple of questions.

[3:30 p.m.]

What are other examples around the lack of clarity re­garding the roles and responsibility for policing and the public safety service that you could share with us?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question, MLA.

One example that comes to mind is the utilization of provincial major crime units across the province in support of homicides or very complex organized crime cases throughout the province. The provincial force establishes and maintains a fairly sizeable and highly competent major crime and homicide capacity in the province. But when, for example, something happens within the municipal boundaries of, perhaps, the city of Penticton or Kelowna….

Some of these detachments have internal capacity, and some don’t. Some are not capable of maintaining that expertise. It’s understandable. The complexities of the process — the requirements, the technical expertise and the legal expertise — are very daunting. When you look at the contractual agreements and the way policing is structured in the province, they’re technically responsible to pay those services. However, they tend to be fairly sizeable.

A criminal investigation on an organized crime homicide that happens in a community can run millions of dollars by the time it goes from a call-out to the crime to the time that it goes through the court system. Thousands and thousands of hours of police time. That not only costs the province a considerable amount of money, but it also takes those provincial resources away from their ability to work on other matters.

There has been and continues to be, I think, a need to ensure that communities are aware of what those responsibilities are and to ensure that the funds are charged to communities that experience those things. It is within the defined responsibility. However, we have very much, over the years, struggled with that.

The provincial force has historically, basically, not recovered those costs. We’ve always respected and recognized the need to solve the crime and respond in the best possible way, but that has an impact on the provincial budget and on the ability to service the provincial police force and communities in rural areas in other ways.

I think that’s a good example of how we need to define and make very clear who is responsible for what service.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Great. Thanks for that.

I just look, in the last couple of hours, at how many gaps and the complexity, the picture that has been painted here. It’s just unbelievable. So I certainly want to thank you. Like I say, I’ve made so many notes here. It’s a little overwhelming.

One thing. Maybe for the Clerk. You had talked about how other jurisdictions kind of have a secretariat that oversees…. I mean, we see this across government. It doesn’t matter who is in government. Everyone works in their silos. They’re all independent, and there’s this communication piece that is lacking.

If we could maybe track down some of these other models and just share out to the committee some of these places that have these secretariats, I think that would be beneficial. I would look at something like that for us to look at as a committee.

Like I say, I’ve got so many things here and the complexity of it. I’ll save my questions for a little bit later. I know we’re short on time here. So go ahead.

D. Routley (Chair): Yes. We can also collect questions to forward to the guests later as well.

Are there any more questions at this point?

Go ahead, MLA Singh.

R. Singh: Thank you, Chair. I know we don’t have much time left.

In your day-to-day working, what is the ministry hearing from…? What is the major topic or recommendation that you’re hearing from your stakeholders?

A. Best: I think a lot of what we were talking about today has come from the ministries but also from our ex­perience of talking with some of our partners and stakeholders.

[3:35 p.m.]

We have been careful not to get ahead of the special committee’s work and do encourage the special committee to invite many of those stakeholders and key partners in to have a discussion with you, and we will further that. I think you’ll see some synergies when they do come in, and there will be different perspectives.

R. Singh: Thank you.

G. Lore: Please feel free to put this, say, on a list of questions that we put in writing, if that’s helpful, for follow-up.

I’ve just heard you mention a few things that I think overlap with, perhaps, the goal of decriminalization, something that police chiefs have mentioned and is also in a number of mandates and, I think, speaks to some of the questions around harm reduction, trauma-informed care, efficient use of resources, etc.

I just wanted to clarify whether you think there’s something in the Police Act or something around this work that could facilitate decriminalization, something that, in many ways…. There’s federal power there, but whether there’s some element that allows your office or the minister or something to direct something on the basis of an emergency — if that’s the reason for kind of pulling that thread through a little bit.

W. Rideout: Thank you. It’s an excellent question.

I’m not aware of a direct provision in the act. I think the interaction between the minister’s priority, flowing through our branch, to the various police forces in the province is a general acceptance of the principle of reframing from utilizing the current provisions of the Criminal Code, recognizing a public belief that it’s completely ineffective and dealing with some of the issues we have.

As you’ve noted, the changes to the Criminal Code are a federal jurisdiction. The minister will advance those recommendations with his federal counterpart, and our ministry and branch will work collectively with our counterparts across the country. But it is something that could be considered in reforming the Police Act to give the minister more powers for influencing those decisions.

Changes to the Criminal Code, as discussed during the presentation, are in the jurisdiction of the federal government, but perhaps there is…. You know, the legal experts can provide advice on ways to perhaps advance or enhance British Columbia’s influence on that through amendments to the Police Act.

R. Salpeter: Yeah. I would just add there that decriminalization is really a federal responsibility. It’s something that we can definitely bring up to the federal level, but I know that our leg. team has pursued some legal opinion on that, even, confirming it.

D. Routley (Chair): I think that’s our last question on that section. We can continue.

A. Best: Great. Thank you. I’m going to take on the next few pillars.

Thanks very much, Wayne.

Okay. Public trust. Within the pillar of public trust, we will discuss the oversight mechanisms of policing. These are the bodies put in place to review or investigate police complaints and allegations of misconduct. There are three different oversight bodies responsible for policing conducted in B.C.

The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, or the OPCC, is a civilian independent office of the Legislature which oversees and monitors complaints and investigations involving municipal police in B.C. and is responsible for the administration of discipline and proceedings under the Police Act.

The independent investigations office, or the IIO, has jurisdiction over both RCMP and municipal police de­partments to investigate incidences of police-involved serious harm or death, whether the officer was on or off duty.

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, or CRCC, is an independent federal agency. The CRCC has jurisdiction over the conduct of on-duty RCMP members and is governed by the RCMP Act.

[3:40 p.m.]

Current environment. The recent global discourse re­garding police violence against Indigenous, Black, people of colour and marginalized communities has amplified mistrust and a lack of accountability between policing officials and the communities they serve.

While oversight agencies have made significant im­provements, there remain concerns. The national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls called for increased civilian oversight of police when it published its final report. During the inquiry, there were numerous concerns expressed by the public, Indigenous families, groups and leaders regarding the timeliness, lack of accountability, transparency and independence of in­vestigations.

Since the protests began last spring, the media has especially criticized the RCMP complaints process when the RCMP investigate their own officers and that those complaints conducted by the CRCC are in a system that results in lengthy response times as well as a lack of transparency in reporting. There are also concerns over RCMP members policing within B.C. being accountable to a national instead of B.C.-based oversight body. The process is complex and affected by numerous factors. We do encourage the committee to learn more from the CRCC directly.

Overall, it has been expressed that the police complaints process is unclear and potentially unfair to the public. Complainants have limited mechanisms at their disposal to file complaints. In addition, there is a shortage in mandate supports when a complaint is initiated by a member of the public.

It is important to note that there is currently work underway within the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General as it relates to the oversight section of the Police Act. 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. Ministry staff are currently analyzing those recommendations and working with the OPCC to initiate discussions on how those recommendations will be addressed. In addition, I also understand that the Ministry of Attorney General is working with the IIO on possible changes.

We would like to encourage the committee to turn its mind, as discussed, to the current system and the perceived lack of accountability in B.C., given that some police and public safety officers serving in B.C. do not fall under the mandate of B.C.’s oversight agencies. I would like to use this as an opportunity to recommend that the committee consider enhancing the governance of police oversight by amending the Police Act to establish a separate oversight act. This would be consistent with the approach of other provinces and significantly improve the structure of our legislative framework.

The long timelines of investigations are prohibitive to effective oversight and decrease public trust in policing. There is a need not only to address the issues of systemic bias in the police complaints process and provide a mechanism to ensure anti-racist investigations but also to increase access for youth, marginalized people, sex worker communities, rural communities and the public as a whole.

Oversight bodies in B.C. should have the ability to conduct systemic reviews, trend analysis and policy reviews. This could be accomplished by increasing the authorities of the director of police services, Police Complaint Commissioner and the oversight bodies so they can initiate reviews and investigations. A culturally responsive framework is required which will help highlight the unique needs of Indigenous, Black and people of colour and their communities and break down barriers for marginalized and racialized communities in filing complaints.

There are issues with accessing anonymized police data that could be addressed by the special committee. Specifically, the province does not own the data, so access is restricted, in turn limiting the ability to timely monitor trends and respond nimbly to policy changes that may be required. Access to this data between the levels of government and along the public safety continuum will support the identification of systemic racism and provide the information necessary to develop performance metrics which will provide robust and meaningful measures that identify gaps and opportunities in current service levels.

Improved reporting and information related to police complaints is required. Systemic racism has been acknowledged as existing within police agencies, as well as the fact that many Indigenous, Black and other people of colour living in British Columbia have not been treated fairly by police and those who serve under the public safety continuum, such as constables, security guards and others.

[3:45 p.m.]

Complaint reports should provide race-based data regarding complaints and identify how many complaints are found to be unsubstantiated and substantiated. In addition, it is important to identify the total number of complaints, both substantiated and unsubstantiated, for anonymized officers — for example, if an officer receives numerous race-based complaints.

This data is needed to address issues of public trust and ensure accountability. Complainants require adequate support, a clear understanding of the process and guarantees that their rights are protected, to ensure citizens feel comfortable bringing forward complaints. Complainants should be provided with a comprehensive understanding of the process, including phases and timelines. They should also know their rights and be supported, perhaps by a witness who represents the complainant’s interests while being interviewed.

In order to ensure policing and public safety is responsive to the needs of the communities they serve, compliance and consistency with the use of civilian advisory committees must be mandated across the province, regardless of who is policing the community. In addition to civilian advisory boards, there is an opportunity to support community policing by establishing programs such as community-based boards, protocol on community selection and communications regarding new-officer hires, multi-day training programs taken together by police and community members and guidelines for new RCMP officers and detachment commanders.

This will not only increase the likelihood of community support and the legitimacy of serving officers; it will also increase the likelihood of information sharing. The day-to-day duties of policing and public safety officers are not well understood by the public, and increased communication and engagement will promote public trust.

I’m going to stop there — our next section is on systemic racism — and just see if there are any questions before we continue on.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thanks. Again, a lot of information there.

I agree, and I like the idea of enhancing the oversight act in British Columbia and bringing some of that control into our province. I just have a question. Of course, it’s one of the major pieces of the work of this committee, around some of the perceived complaints and whatnot around systemic racism.

Section 42 of the Police Act…. I never thought in a million years, a few years ago, that I’d be reading the Police Act, but I’ve been reading it quite a bit lately. Section 42 allows either the minister or the director to move in, on their own initiative or otherwise, to study and investigate and report matters that would completely include some of these issues that we’re talking about. Has that ever been done or requested by either the minister or taken on by the director?

W. Rideout: I couldn’t specifically speak to — when you say “ever,” MLA — what’s been done historically.The section has been utilized but not for the purposes around this specific issue. But the provisions under the act, with respect to standards, are being utilized for these issues, with respect to implementing what we refer to as police stop standards, which are meant to address the issues identified across North America around carding and stopping individuals without justifiable cause.

Equally, we are engaged in bias-free policing standards to implement provincewide consistency in that regard. You’re correct that there are powers that exist under that section. They’ve not been used for this purpose, but it was felt that implementing standards through some of the committee work and ensuring consistency was a more effective tool with regards to this specific issue.

[3:50 p.m.]

However, again, reform of the Police Act would give us an opportunity to look at other tools, legislative tools, through sections that are similar to section 42 and the standard-making sections to provide certain enhanced powers to deal with these issues and issues that may emerge in the future.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thanks, and just maybe a follow-up. Plus, I do have another question, Chair, after this.

Here we are. A special committee has been struck to look at this. I’m sitting here thinking that it maybe is a bit of a shame that this wasn’t looked at through some of the channels that were already in place before.

Second question. You brought up the police stopping standards, or carding, as it used to be — those pieces. I recently met with one of the police associations. I know within the RCMP — I can’t specifically speak for the larger municipal forces…. Body cams. I think the larger police forces, like Vancouver, have them on all of their members. The RCMP does not, but there is now, and I think the Prime Minister has actually just recently mentioned that he wants to get every member in Canada with a body cam.

Does the province play a role in that? I see this as an important move forward for policing in this country. Does the province play a role within the RCMP funding and/or trying to expedite that process?

W. Rideout: Well, it does play a role, MLA, in that the establishment of body cams is certainly an issue that’s been discussed both in the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police and through the ministry for some time. The ministry has the power to look at establishing standards.

When you talk about funding, I think all the major police agencies, including the RCMP, are looking at the viability and use of body cams. There are growing calls for their use. There are implications to their use and considerations that need to be taken into consideration — privacy, what to do with the data that’s unrelated to an incident.

However, there seems to be considerable value in considering their use. They come with sizable funding re­quirements, and that is another issue that needs to be addressed. Whether it’s the RCMP or a municipal agency, if it’s something that the special purpose committee sees as work that needs to be undertaken and advanced, then it comes in addition to the policy and any required supporting legislation. It comes with the analysis of what that will cost to be rolled out provincewide.

The RCMP don’t just absorb those costs. Those are made the responsibility of the contracting partner, whether it be the province or the municipal agency. It’s no different than when we saw the implementation of carbines a number of years ago. Those costs are all passed on to the contracting partners. It all has to be factored in together. But there’s no question that it’s a tool worth consideration to address many of the issues we’re discussing.

R. Salpeter: May I just add to that? In regard to the body-worn cameras, we do have provincial policing standards in place that were put in place some years ago to ensure that the technology is implemented in a consistent manner.

Then I wanted to just circle back to section 42, I believe, if that’s okay. The director has used that section that’s currently in place. One is underway looking into the Vancouver police board handling of a service policy complaint. Then previously one was used to inform the director’s response to matters related to, for example, a budget disagreement.

Just to clarify and add on to Wayne’s comment there.

D. Routley (Chair): Okay, if there are no other questions, we’ve got a few minutes left to finish up.

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): I think Rick has a question, Doug.

D. Routley (Chair): Okay. Go ahead, Rick.

[3:55 p.m.]

R. Glumac: I don’t have the slide in front of me right now, but you were talking about inability to get access to certain kinds of data. I also sit on the privacy committee, looking at the privacy act.

Is it our own provincial legislation around privacy that is inhibiting the use of this data? If so, have you had the opportunity to engage as a stakeholder for this committee?

W. Rideout: I think there are multiple factors. For example, with PRIME-BC, which has the primary data, the police records management system in the province, the specific data is actually owned by the contributing agency. There have been multiple conversations around privacy related to the use of data. Then when we get into the RCMP, the RCMP uses PRIME in British Columbia but also leverages what they refer to as PROS, which they operate elsewhere across the country. It is governed by other legislation, including federal privacy legislation, because the RCMP operates under federal legislation.

It’s a complex challenge that we deal with on an ongoing basis. I think more work needs to be done there to see — particularly, specific to this issue — how that could be accomplished and protect the privacy rights of individuals, pursuant to the requirements.

A. Best: I think we would suggest that the committee also hear from E-Comm, which governs PRIME. They might be able to give you a more fulsome answer, just in regards to some of the challenges with the database and being able to extract. There are multiple different databases, but that is one that I suggest the committee listen to.

R. Glumac: I just want to reiterate that this committee that’s looking at the privacy act is working right now. If you have any suggestions on specific changes to the privacy act, I would recommend that you contact the Chair of that committee to have the opportunity to provide that. It’s happening right now.

W. Rideout: Thank you. We’ll do that.

A. Olsen: There are three members actually sitting in this committee right now that are on that committee.

R. Glumac: There you go.

D. Routley (Chair): Okay, thank you very much.

I think we’re going to have to ask our presenters to consider an opportunity to discuss the last pillar at another meeting, if they can be brought here, on that. I’m sure that members have more questions, as well, about the previous discussions that we’ve held here. So I’d ask them to kindly consider another opportunity for the committee to meet with them.

With that, I think I’d thank you very much, all of you, for the information that you’ve brought forward. It’s dizzying how broad in scope it all is. To get down to the detail of it is really a big task. Thank you for your guidance, and we’ll look forward to another opportunity as well.

Other Business

D. Routley (Chair): The only other item on our agenda is any other business, if members have anything to be brought forward. Seeing that there appears to be none, I would entertain a….

R. Singh: I understand that we did not have enough time to discuss the important issue of systemic racism today, but would the Clerk…? I know that quite a few meetings have already been set, but it is important that we hear from the ministry on this important topic, and I’m sure they will do it.

D. Routley (Chair): Yes. That was the purpose of what I had said. In fact, members can refresh the previous presentation that was made to the previous committee. It’s interesting as well.

With that, I’d entertain a motion to adjourn our meeting.

Moved by Dan and seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 3:59 p.m.