The committee met at 9:03 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Special Committee on Re­forming the Police Act.

I would like to thank the Malahat First Nation for the honour and privilege of working from their territory today and for the honour of representing Coast Salish peoples throughout my riding.

We will begin today’s meeting with a presentation from the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. I will welcome chairperson Michelaine Lahaie to begin her presentation.

Briefings on Police Act

CIVILIAN REVIEW
AND COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

M. Lahaie: Thank you for the opportunity this morning. Good morning. I’m speaking to you from Ottawa today.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that this land is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg people.

[9:05 a.m.]

Thank you for the invitation to present to the committee today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the role of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP in providing civilian oversight of the RCMP in the province of British Columbia.

As chairperson of the CRCC, I firmly believe that independent civilian review is an essential aspect of maintaining public trust in the police. The confidence of the public is essential. Without it, police services lack legitimacy and effectiveness.

The CRCC was established by parliament in 1988. It is an independent federal agency, separate and distinct from the RCMP. Our mandate is to receive complaints from the public about the conduct of members, conduct reviews when members of the public are not satisfied with the RCMP’s handling of their complaints, initiate complaints and investigations into member conduct when it is in the public interest to do so, report findings and make recommendations, and promote public awareness of the complaint process.

It is important to note that, as an independent body, the CRCC neither advocates for the individual nor for the RCMP member. Our role is to ensure that RCMP members conduct themselves within the law and policies.

In 2014, the CRCC’s mandate expanded beyond complaints to include systemic reviews for the purpose of ensuring that the activities of the RCMP — that is to say the broader issues, not just the conduct of individual members — are carried out in accordance with legislation, regulations, ministerial direction and policy. Such investigations have included workplace harassment in the RCMP, strip searches, and the RCMP’s use of crime reduction units.

The role of provinces in the RCMP oversight framework was also enhanced at that time. Provincial ministers now receive copies of the CRCC’s final reports related to re­views requested by citizens of their province. We also provide copies of the broad-based, systemic investigation reports to contract provinces and territories. These reports are also publicly available on our website. Perhaps of great interest to this committee, a provincial minister responsible for policing in a contract province can now request that the CRCC undertake a review of RCMP activities in their province.

There is also a statutory requirement for the CRCC to prepare an annual report to provinces, setting out the number and nature of RCMP public complaints in the pro­vince and how those complaints were disposed of. These reports are also publicly available on our website.

The 2014 amendments to the RCMP Act further provided the CRCC with the authority to summon witnesses, to compel testimony and to compel document production, similar to the powers of a commission of inquiry. The CRCC was given the ability to undertake joint investigations, reviews or hearings with other provincial police complaint bodies. Unfortunately, most provincial police complaints bodies do not have reciprocal statutory authority to conduct joint reviews.

In terms of structure, the CRCC consists of a chairper­son, a vice-chairperson and not more than four other mem­bers appointed by the Governor-in-Council. In order to avoid any real or perceived bias, the law prohibits a person from being appointed as a CRCC member, including the chairperson, if they are a current or former RCMP officer.

Presently, the CRCC has approximately 75 employees, consisting of lawyers, investigators, policy and research analysts, intake officers and corporate support.

In order to make a complaint, individuals can access the complaint form online through our website, mail or fax their completed complaint form to the CRCC or make a complaint in person at any RCMP detachment, where a member will provide assistance in filling out the online form. The CRCC will also accept a complaint from a representative authorized by the individual involved in the matter.

The CRCC receives 90 percent of complaints directly from the public. The remainder are filed with the RCMP, typically at a detachment.

As chairperson, I also have the authority to initiate a complaint when I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to investigate. In addition, I have the authority to investigate any complaint when I am of the opinion that it will be in the public interest to do so. These investigations are carried out by CRCC staff.

The public complaint system requires accessibility, trust and transparency to be effective. To that end, the public complaint form is available in 16 different languages on the CRCC’s website. We recently worked with the territorial government of Nunavut to ensure that the complaint form and additional materials on the complaints process were available in Inuktitut.

[9:10 a.m.]

In addition, with the assistance of the Translation Bureau, CRCC staff has the ability to communicate with individuals by phone in the language of their choice to ensure that our intake team fully understands the concerns of the individual looking to file a public complaint.

We have recently begun posting summaries of our findings and recommendations resulting from our complaint reviews, and I have introduced a plain-language policy at the CRCC. It is important to me that my decisions are clear, understandable and accessible for all Canadians.

Although the CRCC is an independent review body, the RCMP is a partner in the public complaints process. The CRCC’s work relies on access to RCMP documents and members. To facilitate that work, the CRCC entered into a memorandum of understanding with the RCMP for the first time in late 2019. It is publicly available on the CRCC’s website. The MOU guides operations in relation to complaints, reviews and investigations. It establishes timelines in an effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations.

Although most elements of the MOU are working well over the past year, I have expressed my concerns with the time it takes the RCMP to respond to CRCC reports. At present, the RCMP Act requires the RCMP commissioner to respond to CRCC interim reports as soon as feasible, while the MOU stipulates a response be provided within six months from the issuance of a CRCC report. The RCMP commissioner has committed to improving response time, and in the past six months, we have re­ceived nearly 40 responses from her.

I appreciate the RCMP’s recent efforts to reduce the backlog of the RCMP commissioner’s responses. However, I maintain that statutory timelines are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the accountability regime based on the timelines in the MOU.

In that regard, I have recommended to the Minister of Public Safety that the RCMP Act be amended to include statutory timelines for the RCMP commissioner to res­pond to CRCC reports. Improving timeliness is both in the public interest and in the interest of RCMP members.

In an effort to further enhance accountability, existing legislation requires that the RCMP commissioner respond to reports and indicate whether the recommendations are accepted. The RCMP commissioner recently provided me with a list of CRCC recommendations and the status of implementation. However, there is no statutory requirement for the RCMP to confirm the degree to which the CRCC’s recommendations have been implemented. This is a major gap.

As such, I have recommended that the RCMP Act be amended by requiring the RCMP to report annually either to the minister or myself on the implementation of CRCC recommendations. Having a statutory reporting requirement would increase the transparency of the complaint system and reassure the public that the RCMP is held to a high standard of accountability.

As noted by my colleague Clayton Pecknold, the Police Complaint Commissioner in B.C., transparency is an im­portant facet of oversight. In that regard, the CRCC posts summaries of public complaint decisions on our website, in addition to reporting statistics and trends regarding allegations and complaints in the CRCC’s annual report to parliament. I believe it is important that the Canadian public be aware of our work and the recommendations we make as well as the RCMP’s response.

As the only national police complaints and review body in Canada, the CRCC is uniquely positioned to provide leadership in fostering excellence in policing through oversight.

For over a decade, the CRCC has hosted an annual heads of agency meeting, which brings together the senior leadership of police oversight bodies from across Canada to discuss issues that shape the future of policing and police accountability. Both the B.C. Public Complaints Commission and the B.C. independent investigations office attend our annual fall meetings. In recent years, we’ve heard from experts on issues such as challenges facing Indigenous People in the Canadian justice system, trauma-informed investigative techniques, mental health and policing, and systemic racism in Canada in relation to policing and police oversight.

With the CRCC’s mandate extending to all provinces and territories, we have the benefit of seeing differences and best practices in RCMP policing, both rural and urban, across Canada and apply that to our work. Canadians can also be assured that one standard is being applied to all RCMP complaints. The CRCC makes broad-ranging re­commendations regarding policies, procedures and training. The ultimate goal is to improve policing and enhance RCMP accountability to the communities they serve, whether that be in British Columbia or across Canada.

[9:15 a.m.]

To provide but one of many examples, in the CRCC’s investigation into a fatal motor vehicle accident in Langley, B.C., the CRCC found that RCMP national policies relating to traffic checkpoints were inadequate. The CRCC recommended that the RCMP amend national policy to provide specific guidance on the setup of police checkpoints to minimize the risk of vehicle pursuits. The RCMP commissioner accepted this recommendation, thus benefiting not only people in Langley but Canadians in RCMP police communities across the country.

I believe that greater police accountability is achieved through effective oversight, not only for public complaints but also through broad-based investigations of systemic issues. The CRCC’s ability to initiate systemic reviews en­sures that issues emerging in one division are examined across the RCMP and that broad-based change can be effected, as needed. CRCC investigators, supported by re­search and policy analysts, undertake such reviews.

The CRCC is currently reviewing the RCMP’s bias-free policing model. This systemic investigation is examining their bias-free policing policies and training and assessing the broader application and accountability framework that is in place to ensure that members adhere to these policies. Other investigations include strip searches by the RCMP and the use of crime reduction units. The results of these investigations are available on the CRCC’s website and were provided to ministers responsible for policing in contract provinces as well as the territories.

Some key findings in the strip search report, in relation to British Columbia, included significant improvements in E division policy. The CRCC recommended that divisional personal search policies be amended to enhance transparency and accountability by including a means to record, track and assess compliance. Given the lack of adequate training related to strip searches across the RCMP, the CRCC recommended that the RCMP introduce divi­sional-level mandatory training.

The CRCC also noted good practices in both the Prince George detachment and the Surrey detachment cellblocks. Prince George developed a manual to help members better understand and comply with policies in jurisprudence, and the cellblock in Surrey includes a large poster entitled “Strip search policy advisory” as a reference tool for members. The CRCC recommended that the RCMP adopt these good practices across the country, and the RCMP accepted those recommendations.

Over the past four years, the CRCC has issued 14 re­ports concerning individual cases, from across the country, where the RCMP’s actions concerning a wellness check or person in crisis were unreasonable. Wellness checks have increasingly become an issue of concern in B.C. as well as the rest of the country, and this past summer I released a statement.

Congruent with Justice Braidwood’s observations, the CRCC’s findings have consistently highlighted concerns about police adopting a command-and-control approach, an authoritative style of dealing with a non-compliant person. In turn, the CRCC has made recommendations to the RCMP aimed at finding the right balance in responding to such calls through effective policies, procedures and, most importantly, training.

On average, the CRCC receives between 2,500 and 3,000 complaints annually, RCMP-wide. For more information on public complaints specific to RCMP members in British Columbia, please consult the package we’ve provided or access the provincial-territorial reports posted to our website.

In contract provinces such as British Columbia, the CRCC works closely with its provincial counterparts, both the complaints body and the serious incident investigative body. The CRCC employs a no-wrong-door policy with provincial complaints commissions, a practice introduced over a decade ago. This approach was a key element in the handling of police complaints during the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.

In British Columbia, if we received a complaint about an Abbotsford police officer, for example, we would forward the complaint to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner for action. The OPCC would do the same if they received a complaint regarding an RCMP member.

In relation to serious incidents, the CRCC regularly lia­ises with independent investigative bodies to determine whether any policy or procedural issues exist beyond the criminal investigation. In the course of a serious incident investigation, the investigative body may note issues with police conduct that don’t meet the threshold of criminality. By flagging this to the CRCC, it ensures that all aspects of conduct, including any potential systemic issues, are examined thoroughly.

For example, in the case of the police-involved shooting death of Gregory Matters in Prince George, the CRCC launched a chair-initiated complaint and public interest investigation following the completion of the investigation by the B.C. independent investigations office. Once the IIO determined that no criminal offence was committed by RCMP members, the CRCC examined the reasonableness of member conduct and the adequacy of training, policies and procedures. The CRCC’s review resulted in 57 findings and nine recommendations.

[9:20 a.m.]

The CRCC is actively involved in issues affecting policing and public trust in British Columbia. We are a member of the Advisory Committee on Provincial Policing Standards, led by the policing and security branch of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

We actively work with the RCMP and the B.C. Mur­dered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls Coalition, led by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, for resolving public complaints arising out of the national inquiry. I met with the B.C. Ombudsman and shared concerns regarding municipal guards in RCMP detachments, which represents a significant gap in the oversight framework. Most recently, I participated in the IIO’s community police oversight joint forum.

In the CRCC’s northern British Columbia investigation, we asked members of Indigenous communities why they did not make use of the complaint system. We learned that many Indigenous people are either unaware of the public complaint process or do not trust it. The process can be ex­cessively bureaucratic and difficult to navigate.

Ultimately, my goal is for people to believe that they can file a complaint with the CRCC and be treated fairly and without fear of reprisal, particularly Indigenous People, racialized people and marginalized people. To achieve that, we need to consult with communities to identify and break down the systemic barriers that exist within our current system and implement their suggested changes.

In December, I submitted a number of recommendations to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to its study on systemic racism in policing in Canada. Among the recommendations, I have called on the government of Canada to appoint an Indigenous person as a member of the CRCC. I also recommended that public education and outreach to Indigenous and racialized communities become statutory requirements for the CRCC.

After all, the only way the public complaint process works is if people trust the system. The only way to build that trust is through consultation, education and ongoing assessment of our outreach efforts. I have also committed to collecting and reporting on disaggregated race-based data. Over the past few years, the CRCC has noted an increase in the number of complaints. I am hopeful that this is an indication of further awareness and trust in the complaints system.

Without race-based data, however, it is difficult to determine whether certain groups, such as an Indigenous person, are increasingly taking advantage of the complaint process. The collection of this data is critical to our efforts to address barriers to everyone accessing the system.

Internally, the CRCC has established an advisory committee on inclusion, diversity and equity. The purpose of the committee is to provide advice and guidance to the chairperson and senior management on issues or emerging trends that affect the CRCC’s ability to meet its statutory mandate, as well as the public expectation.

The CRCC has over 30 years of experience overseeing the RCMP and is uniquely qualified to provide insight and recommendations on strengthening police accountability. In that regard, I would offer that reforming policing and police oversight must be viewed through a lens of improving outcomes for all by eliminating barriers that result in disproportionately negative results for certain groups, particularly Indigenous and racialized people, as well as people in mental crisis.

Thank you again for inviting me today. I’m happy to res­pond to any of your questions.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much, Michelaine.

Do members have questions?

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much. That was really interesting. I know you explained this, but you…. What constitutes a serious offence? You make a determination if someone comes to you. If something is a serious event, it doesn’t. You send that somewhere else then.

M. Lahaie: This is something that can be very confusing inside the legislation. So it’s a very relevant question that you’re asking. Serious incidents are investigated by the independent investigations office in British Columbia. Those are incidents where an individual who has either been seriously injured or killed in a police-involved incident…. Those are the types of things that are investigated by the IIO.

Where we become involved is if the IIO, in the process of their investigation, notes that there are certain policy or procedural issues that might be worth us looking at, then they tend to give us a heads-up. Then I can decide to launch my own investigation just to look at the policies and procedural issues, as well as member conduct, but that does not include looking at criminality. That is the purview, exclusively, of the IIO.

K. Kirkpatrick: Okay. So then there’s something similar to an IIO in every province and jurisdiction here that you would…?

[9:25 a.m.]

M. Lahaie: In fact, there isn’t. There are multiple pro­vinces across the country that have IIOs, but in provinces where there aren’t, there are MOUs with different police forces or other legislation that exists to look at those issues.

K. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Thank you very much. That’s helpful.

M. Lahaie: You’re welcome.

R. Glumac: So you’re governed by the RCMP Act. That’s what provides guidance for your organization, it seems. Do you have any recommendations for changes to the Police Act, and how would those changes affect you? I’d be curious to hear your perspective on that.

M. Lahaie: We’ve had a look at the Police Act in British Columbia. Two of the big powers that the CRCC has, which are very strong authorities…. The ability to conduct systemic reviews. If your police complaints commission could look at systemic issues, then that allows us to fix policing before the problems begin. There are longer-term, more strategic issues that get looked at.

The second thing that I would highlight is the ability to conduct joint investigations with other police complaint bodies. There are several joint policing bodies that are working, for example, in Vancouver where there could per­haps be members of the RCMP and members of the Vancouver police that are involved in an incident. So if myself and the OPCC could conduct an investigation jointly, then you’ll get a better overall look at what’s actually happening with the situation.

The other thing that I would highlight…. You did mention that we are governed by the RCMP Act. One of the recommendations that I’ve brought forward to the government of Canada is that we should have our own stand-alone legislation as an oversight body. I would recommend that you consider doing the same thing in British Columbia. It’s confusing for members of the public when we call ourselves independent, yet our legislation resides in the legislation of the police force.

So that’s one of the recommendations that I would re­commend you consider, and it’s one of the things that I’ve brought forward to the government of Canada as well.

R. Singh: Thank you for the presentation. You have tou­ched on it in the presentation itself. But I would really like to know, with the global events in the last year and the focus on systemic racism…. The RCMP commissioner also admitted that there is systemic racism within the RCMP. In the complaints that you are getting, do you see that? Are those complaints showing that systemic racism was the cause of the complaints?

M. Lahaie: We don’t actually have a specific allegation that deals with systemic racism. Frequently what happens is an individual will mention an issue with a specific of­ficer’s conduct. They might talk about poor attitude, and discrimination could come up as being a factor.

When we get allegations of poor officer conduct that in­volve discrimination, then we actually review that on its face and we have a look at it to determine if there’s a prima facie case of discrimination in that case.

The most recent one that we did, where we will be re­leasing our findings publicly very soon, is in the case of the RCMP’s investigation into the shooting of Colten Boushie. We did look at aspects of discrimination in that report, and that report will be publicly available in the coming months.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Michelaine, for this presentation. You highlighted several times throughout your presentation that police accountability requires a level of oversight. I think the third piece of that is something maybe you alluded to that perhaps you can shed a little bit more light on, and that is the RCMP must agree that this is an important piece of accountability — this oversight.

When I hear that you’ve made recommendations and submitted reports and there’s been a significant delay, it seems to me that there’s maybe a lack of agreement or that the RCMP is not taking the CRCC and the work that’s being done necessarily as seriously as it should.

Can you maybe speak to that part of the relationship? Has the RCMP started to respond more quickly because it agrees that this is an important thing? I recognize this is putting you in a tough spot to answer a question that you might not necessarily know, but what is your sense of that, anyway, from the CRCC’s perspective?

[9:30 a.m.]

M. Lahaie: As I indicated in my comments, over the course of the past six months the commissioner has issued 40 responses to CRCC reports. All indications are that the RCMP is putting more resources towards responding to our reports. The number of responses to interim reports over the course of the past six months has increased significantly.

I believe that the RCMP is, in fact, listening to what we have to say. I believe that they are taking the actions that need to be taken to clear the backlog that they currently have.

A. Olsen: Okay. If I may just follow up. A response, I think, is an important first step. Making a change in the organization, and adopting the recommendations, I think, is a necessary piece of that as well.

It’s nice to have them respond to your reports. What is your sense of the changes that have occurred due to the reports that the CRCC has written? Have the recommendations been implemented, or is it just a “thank you, and have a nice day” kind of response?

M. Lahaie: Most recently, they have provided us with a list of our recommendations and the status of implementation of those recommendations. They are required, in their response, by the statute to indicate whether or not they accept our recommendations. If they don’t, they have to state why.

The commissioner has indicated, even in most recent re­ports, the actions that they’re moving forward on. For example, if you look at the investigation that we put out with respect to Kent County, which was the anti-fracking protests in New Brunswick back in 2014, the RCMP commissioner reported to us that she accepted a great deal of our recommendations with respect to cultural sensitivity. She reiterated that again in the National Energy Board hearing report, which we published back in December. In that, she’s indicated the changes that have gone forth, and we’re already seeing that.

They're taking our recommendations seriously, and they're moving quickly to start implementing things, which is a positive sign.

A. Olsen: One final question, if I may, Chair, just as a follow-up to this. Then I’ll cede the floor.

Do you have any statistics as to the number of the CR­CC’s recommendations that the RCMP have implemented or are in the process of implementing? On the flip side of that, on how many have they said: “Thank you for the recommendation, but we’re not implementing those”? Do you have any statistics on that?

M. Lahaie: I do not have those statistics, but we could certainly have a look at it and provide that information to you after the meeting.

A. Olsen: Excellent. Thank you.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Good morning. Thank you for your presentation.

Following up on MLA Singh’s question about racism-based complaints, I know you said one has been looked at. I’m just wondering if you have direct data related over a course of time, numbers-wise, on any of these complaints that have been race-based complaints.

M. Lahaie: The short answer is no. I don’t have that type of information. Of course, we do not have an allegation at this point in time with respect to racism as one of the allegations that comes forward. As a federal body, in the past, we have not been collecting race-based data. It’s a challenge to produce those types of statistics.

We are moving forward with starting to collect race-based data, which will give us more information. The other piece that we’re particularly interested in is: who is actually accessing the complaint system?

On the race-based data piece, we are moving forward. In fact, we are looking very closely at the actions and what you’re doing in British Columbia. We’ve identified what you’re doing in B.C. as best practices.

At this point in time, I don’t have that information. But as we move forward with our collection of race-based data, we should start having that type of information in the future.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): That is certainly a theme we’ve been hearing from almost every presenter that has come through here so far, that data seems to be lacking in many areas. I think you might have mentioned this. You’ve already made some recommendations and alluded just now to it.

Do you have any other recommendations you might make regarding gathering of data? You used the words “best practices.” What are some other best practices that maybe we should be looking at for police forces across the country, including the RCMP?

That might be a loaded question, too. The floor is yours.

M. Lahaie: That’s a big question. There’s no doubt about that. I think it is critical that we start collecting race-based and intersectional data, right?

[9:35 a.m.]

Many of you will recall the video that was taken in Hamilton, Ontario, just a few short weeks ago of a transgender woman who had a very, very negative interaction with a police officer. It’s important to have this type of intersectional data so that we’re aware of the individuals that are having issues with police officers and to determine if those individuals have more negative interactions.

Based upon a lot of the reporting that’s out there, we know that Indigenous People are overrepresented in the justice system. We know that they’re overrepresented in terms of their interactions with police. It’s important to start collecting the data, so that our decisions — for example, in my organization…. It’s so that when I decide to look at a systemic review, when I want to look at a specific aspect of policing, I can base that upon data, and the data has to include race-based data as well.

H. Sandhu: Thank you so much for your presentation. As my colleagues have spoken — we’ve had several presentations — data is lacking, and we’ve asked…. Can you identify if there were any challenges in collecting data? If there were, can you highlight those? It’s not….

We talk about Indigenous data as well, and overrepresentation, but I often feel, as I’m sitting on this committee, that there is, pretty much, nonexistent data when it comes to other people of colour, LGBTQ+. I wonder if you can speak to that.

M. Lahaie: At present, we’re not collecting any data with respect to any of those issues. We’re not looking at LGBTQ. We’re not looking at persons of colour. We’re not looking at Indigenous. We don’t have any of that information at present. That’s simply because when our system was set up, that was the type of information that we weren’t collecting. We’re looking at collecting it now, and I’m committed to doing that.

Our plan is to consult broadly, because with these things — as you can appreciate, as anyone can appreciate — we want to make sure that when we’re collecting this type of information, we’re doing it in a respectful fashion. My priority is to do it right, rather than to do it quickly.

H. Sandhu: Right, thank you. Just a quick follow-up. Did you identify any challenges, even when you were just starting? Are there any barriers or challenges you might face, or are there any suggestions, even for us as a committee, when we’re reviewing this — if there are any highlights that you would like to make?

M. Lahaie: I think the most important thing is just consultation. I think that is really the most important thing. That’s what we’re setting ourselves up to do: to consult broadly. To understand the people that are affected by the collection of this data, we have to hear what they have to say. That’s what I would recommend: consultation with key communities.

H. Sandhu: Thank you so much.

D. Routley (Chair): When it comes to data collection, we’ve heard from various agencies that this is a problem, and you’ve referred to the No Wrong Door policy. I’d like to ask a question about that. Also, there’s a congruency with that, in that data should be transferable. The systems that don’t necessarily collect data in the same way, along with what we’re talking about, might not be as useful as they might be if it were collected in a catalogued, predictable way.

I’m wondering if you have any recommendation as to what agency, what body, and how that might be accomplished.

M. Lahaie: I agree with you. The best way to…. It’s difficult, when you’re looking at it, when two organizations look at a situation in a very different light. The one thing that the CRCC brings to the table is the fact that we look at the RCMP in the same light across the country. Of course, data has become, really, the wave of the future and the wave of now. We’re in the process of trying to set things up. But it’s important that….

Maybe the way ahead is that the police complaints body as a whole start looking across the country, looking at the collection of race-based data, and how we’re going to do it so that we can transfer that information back and forth. I know that with us, when we start the collection of that type of information, one of the key organizations that we need to talk to is the RCMP. We need to understand how they’re collecting that information so that our systems are in line with the way they’re collecting that type of information. That’s what I would recommend.

It is key, I think. I know that there are some studies that are going on right now with respect to the use of force, and there’s talk about doing a use-of-force national database. I think that that could also be a very positive piece, especially if it includes race-based data in it.

[9:40 a.m.]

D. Routley (Chair): Do you know if there has been an approach made to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the committee reviewing that act, to make necessary changes in order to accommodate this?

Also, does your agency have a relationship with the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioners across the country, provincially? Do you maintain a back-and-forth?

M. Lahaie: No, we don’t. I’m not aware of any recommendations that have been brought forth.

We do forward things specifically dealing with RCMP members. If there’s a complaint that really deals with the Freedom of Information Act for the RCMP, then we do refer the complainant to the privacy commissioner or the information commissioner, depending upon the situation.

Provincially, because we’re a federal body and the RCMP is a federal body, we don’t deal with the provincial privacy acts.

D. Routley (Chair): Okay. On the No Wrong Door pol­icy, I am really glad to hear that that’s the approach the agency takes. But it seems it’s a choice of how you operate, and you rely on a reciprocation from the other agencies you mentioned.

Do you think we would benefit by making a recommen­dation to structure that and legislate it, regulate it? Do you have any opinion on that?

M. Lahaie: I think there’s always value in putting things into statute, but of course the issue is that once you’ve put them in there, then they become more difficult to change, obviously. But I can tell you that this No Wrong Door policy has existed across the country for over ten years.

What we are doing right now in British Columbia…. We are doing the same thing in Nova Scotia. If there’s a complaint that comes in with respect to a member of the Halifax regional police, then we pass that off to the police complaints commission body in Nova Scotia. That is because the heads of all of the police complaints commissions came together and talked about this. We felt that that was the best way to serve the Canadian population — to not just say: “You’ve got the wrong complaint body.” We forward it on, and we let people know.

D. Routley (Chair): It sounds like making it more for­mal might be fixing a problem that doesn’t exist at this point.

M. Lahaie: Perhaps, yes.

D. Routley (Chair): What you can and can’t do.

Also, on timelines and reporting frequency, those re­commendations, obviously you make the recommendations because of experience. Has there been…? Can you describe the difficulties that might have occurred in re­porting on the adoption of recommendations?

Then, do you have…? If you’re going to introduce statutory timelines, there are always introductions of exceptions to that. Again, back to freedom of information, there are ways that the government can put it off by asking for…. Have you made any specific recommendations on how timelines could be implemented, what kind of exceptions there might be?

M. Lahaie: There are timelines that are articulated in the memorandum of understanding that the CRCC and the RCMP signed back in 2019. The commissioner and I signed that in December of 2019.

We’ve recommended that those specific timelines…. That addresses everything from response to reports to the time period that the RCMP has to get us the materials that we require to conduct a review or conduct an investigation. All that information is captured in the MOU. We’ve recommended that everything that’s in the MOU be captured within the statute, and that includes responding to reports. I think that’s the preferred way ahead for us.

In terms of exceptions, there always will be exceptions at times. We’re required to have published service standards. But sometimes we don’t meet those service standards. That could be because we’re trying to get ahold of a complainant to get some more information. So it just really involves having some policy in place that gives a little bit more latitude where necessary.

Just really off the top of my head, for example, if the commissioner is unable to meet the six-month timeline for responding to a report, then I think correspondence from her office to mine indicating that they’re running late, and indicating why, could meet the requirement.

D. Routley (Chair): Thanks. It’s encouraging to hear about the accessibility steps that have been taken — 16 languages and accessibility not only to the form in that matter but also, essentially, to a guidance through the process, which is, I think, really, really helpful.

[9:45 a.m.]

You’ve mentioned that people can designate a represen­tative. But I’m wondering what authorization would be required from the individual to make that person their representative. Also, if a person with disabilities needs representation, how do you deal with that?

M. Lahaie: We have a form that’s available that individuals can just sign off on, indicating that they’ve designated somebody as their representative, or they can actually indicate it on the complaint form.

In some cases, what happens…. We’ll have an individual, perhaps, from B.C. who will file a complaint, and BCCLA will be involved. The individual will sign off on a form or on the public complaint form indicating that the information can be shared with BCCLA. In cases of individuals who make a complaint, but they really don’t want to have to deal with the whole process, they just have to indicate on the form who their representative is. The form indicates that the RCMP or ourselves, depending on who’s conducting the investigation, will contact the representative for the individual.

D. Routley (Chair): MLA Glumac has another question.

R. Glumac: Just quickly, would you be interested in pre­senting to the privacy or freedom of information review committees? They’re both active now. If there are issues around data, certainly your input would be, I think, valuable.

M. Lahaie: I think the commission is always prepared to help out wherever necessary. We really are in the nascent stage, in terms of collecting data, but I’m certainly open to coming to speak to them.

D. Routley (Chair): Members, do we have more questions? I don’t see more questions. Okay. In that case, would you like to add anything else, Michelaine?

M. Lahaie: No. I’d just like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I really just want to highlight the fact that the CRCC is very active in British Columbia. I understand that with us being a federal body, and located in Ottawa, you may not see that. But one of the things that I really wanted to highlight through my presentation is how much we’re bringing to British Columbians. You can find all that information on our website.

As well, as the committee moves forward with its work, if you have questions at all, anything that you’re seeking clarification on, please don’t hesitate to reach out. We’re here to listen, and we’re here to help.

D. Routley (Chair): Well, that last part answers the question that I was going to ask you next. I appreciate that. We do feel that this is really important work that can benefit British Columbians and also the people tasked with enforcing the law. Better understanding is always our goal, and we may have more questions. We appreciate your offer of assistance and deeply appreciate your concise and clear presentation. I know I learned a lot, and it was very, very beneficial. Thank you very much.

M. Lahaie: Thank you. Bye.

D. Routley (Chair): Members, I think we’re a bit ahead of schedule, which is not habit of this committee. So I’m not sure what to do. I think that we had a recess scheduled at 10:30. Karan, do we have any leeway on the time? Can we begin at 10:30?

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): Yes, the recess was scheduled until 10:30, so the next set of presenters are scheduled to be here at 10:30. Perhaps members can come back around 10:25.

D. Routley (Chair): All good, Members?

All right. We are in recess until 10:25. Thank you all.

The committee recessed from 9:49 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): I am pleased and honoured to be able to speak to you from the traditional territories of the Malahat First Nation.

For anyone tuning into the meeting now, my name is Doug Routley. I’m the MLA for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and the Chair of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

This committee has been tasked with undertaking a broad inquiry in respect to policing and public safety in B.C. We are taking a phased approach to this work and have a number of presentations with subject-matter ex­perts, community advocacy organizations, Indigenous communities and others scheduled over the next several weeks.

We also invite British Columbians to provide written sub­missions, beginning Monday, March 1. We will review those submissions with a view to inviting individuals and organizations to present to the committee at a later date. Dates are available on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/rpa. The deadline for these written submissions is 5 p.m. on Friday, April 30. Further opportunities to participate will be available at a later phase of the consultation.

For these meetings that we’re just undertaking now, the presenters have been organized into small panels. We’ll be kicking things off today with a presentation from the provincial health officer, the Representative for Children and Youth and the Ombudsperson. Each of these presenters has 15 minutes. We kindly ask that the presenters be respectful of this time limit.

Following presentations from the panel, there will be a time for questions from committee members. At that time, I ask members to raise a hand to indicate they have a question. I will be keeping a speaking list. I also ask that everyone please put themselves on mute and wait until you are recognized before speaking. All audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website, and a complete transcript will also be posted.

I’ll now ask members of the committee to introduce themselves. Let’s start with MLA Begg.

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

K. Kirkpatrick: I am the MLA for West Vancouver–​Capilano.

T. Halford: Trevor Halford, MLA for Surrey–White Rock.

A. Olsen: Adam Olsen, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands.

H. Sandhu: Good morning. I am the MLA for Vernon-Monashee. I am Harwinder Sandhu.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Good morning, everyone. Dan Davies, MLA for Peace River North.

R. Singh: Hello. Rachna Singh, MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers.

R. Glumac: Rick Glumac, MLA for Port Moody–​Coquitlam.

D. Routley (Chair): It seems an odd way to introduce. Usually in committee meetings, we would do that in person. This is a lot more natural than me saying your name and then you repeating your name, like swearing an oath. But I appreciate that from everyone.

Assisting in the committee today are Karan Riarh and Ka­tey Stickle from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Billy Young from Hansard Services.

I’ll now turn it over to Dr. Charlesworth for her presentation and any introductions she’d like to make.

Presentations on Police Act

OFFICE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE
FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

J. Charlesworth: Thank you very much, Chair. I’m de­lighted to be able to join you today. Thank you for the invitation.

I’d like to start by acknowledging that I’m joining the call today with you as an uninvited guest on the traditional and unceded territories of the W̱SÁNEĆ people, and I’m grateful to the keepers of these lands.

[10:35 a.m.]

I’m also joined by the deputy representative, Alan Markwart, who has extensive experience in this area, which we’re going to be spending time with you discussing today. As B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth, I’d like to use my time with you to talk about what we see in our office with respect to children, youth and young adults and policing and to provide some reflections.

I’ll preface my comments by saying that policing, per se, is not part of my legislated mandate. However, child, youth and young adult well-being is, and there’s a strong intersection between the two. The contribution I wish to make, and that I hope you’ll find useful, is to create an enhanced understanding of children, youth, young adults and families in relation to policing.

What I’ll be speaking to are the complex social issues which police have become the default mechanism to address. I’ll speak here to the practice of policing rather than to the specific components of the act, while acknowledging that the act must enable police to operate in this current context.

Currently police are having to do work that was never envisioned as policing because other systems are falling short. Not only are systems falling short, but police are not trained or prepared to do the work they are now being called upon to do in a good way.

I have shared a few slides with you, so feel free to look through.

I do want to say…. I note that three former members of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth are here, as well as several current members. I’m grateful for the service that you have provided and the support that I have enjoyed as representative over the last couple of years. Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, I want to offer a little brief context on my office and, therefore, how we’re entering into this conversation.

As you know, we’re an independent office. I report to the all-party committee, the select standing committee. We’re an oversight office overseeing and monitoring government services and programs that are delivered to children, youth and some young adults in B.C.

We have three legislatively mandated areas. Advocacy is at the heart of what we do. These are our front-line staff who take calls from young people, service providers, family members, social workers and community members every single day. They help young people and their families navigate through the labyrinth of government services. They work with youth to advocate for themselves, and they’ll advocate directly on behalf of children and youth.

We can help some young adults up to their 24th birthday, including those who are eligible for Community Living services, agreements with young adults and the tuition waiver program. Over the duration of our office, since 2007, we’ve opened and continue to support many…. We’ve opened 22,000 advocacy cases, which gives us a unique insight into some of the patterns and the issues.

The second program area — one that I’ll speak to more, in terms of the evidence that’s come forward there — is our reviews and investigations unit. That unit is responsible for reviewing and investigating critical injuries and deaths of children and youth in government care or those who have received reviewable services, which includes those services provided or funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, as well as mental health and addictions services delivered or funded by the Ministry of Health and the health authorities.

Over the past year, we’ve received more than 300 reportable circumstances, on average, every month. Sometimes it’s up to 380 a month. Those are critical injury and death reports. We review all reports but focus our attention on those that are clearly within our mandate. We anticipate that by the end of this fiscal year, we’ll have reviewed 1,800 in-mandate critical injuries and deaths. These are life-altering critical injuries and deaths.

These reports contain a considerable amount of information, including information about police involvement with children and families. It’s not unusual for police to be the first to become aware of child protection issues, family violence issues, etc. Police are called, for example, in family violence, in drug use or overdose events and in incidents in which there’s a concern about child safety. Children and youth who are living with vulnerabilities are experiencing interactions with police at very young ages and when they may be at their most vulnerable.

Our investigations, as you probably know, result in public reports on our findings and then with recommendations to prevent similar incidents. That’s the second area.

Our third area is monitoring. Researchers in this area monitor, review and conduct research and analysis on government programs and services and monitor the implementation of our recommendations.

All of our work is supported by the First Nations, Métis and Inuit relations team. That’s because there’s a significant over-involvement of the child welfare system in the lives of Indigenous children and youth. We know it’s critical that we bring an Indigenous lens to all the work we do.

[10:40 a.m.]

In addition, we strongly believe in the principle of “no­thing about us without us,” and therefore, youth and community engagement is a priority. We try and include youth perspectives wherever possible and seek information and guidance from community leaders.

As the representative, I advocate for the rights of all chil­dren and youth, but we have a special focus on those who are receiving those reviewable and designated services from MCFD or other public programs. So it’s that lens that I’m bringing into our conversation today.

Although our legislation doesn’t grant us authority over police, it’s important to bear in mind that the children we see often are interacting with multiple systems, often simultaneously, so police are inevitably involved in many children’s lives. From our advocacy calls and incoming reportable circumstance reports, we see police often being called in to interact in cases that would perhaps be better served by different non–law enforcement responses or in collaborative responses. We recognize the complexity of police work in these times.

We are seeing mental health and addictions challenges; a toxic drug supply; homelessness, including significant youth homelessness; the impacts of COVID on families, which includes an increase in domestic violence and pov­erty; and the disproportionate impact of all of these things on First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous communities. Police are being called upon to do the work that is really beyond the scope of what was intended when the Police Act was developed. It’s also clear that they cannot be expected to do this work alone.

In the slides I’ve shared, there are several data points. We have, in many of our reports, called upon government to improve the specific social supports with respect to children and youth. There have been some important incremental improvements, but more work needs to be done and more investment is needed. I would submit that this is apparent in some of the challenges facing police today.

We’ve provided some data on the detainments under the Mental Health Act, where police are called in. These are police being called in when children and youth are having mental health crises. They’re often used to detain young people under the emergency provisions of the Mental Health Act, a troubling situation on which we recently released a report, and you’ll see data on the slides.

Police are called for substance use issues, especially over­doses and events where some sort of intervention is needed because of substance-induced behaviours, and they’re used when mental health and substance use challenges collide, which they often do. Service providers call police when they don’t know where else to turn with a child or youth whose behaviour is beyond what they are trained to or feel they can handle.

Clearly, the above examples merit a different response, yet too often police play a predominant role in all of these situations because other support services simply are not there — especially in the evening, overnight and on the weekends. As part of my own history, I used to provide emergency, overnight and weekend services, and I can tell you that there were many times where I was very grateful for police to be present with me as we were dealing with things. But too often, the police were left on their own to address many of these significant issues.

The other thing that you’ll see in your slides is police reports to MCFD. I think it’s important to know that the police are the most likely professionals to report any concerns pertaining to child protection matters. They really are the eyes and the ears out in the community, looking for child protection issues.

There are other socially complex circumstances that po­lice are called upon to handle, such as family violence and child safety concerns, and they’re called to deal with gang activity that may involve youth, as well as the sexual exploitation of youth and young people who are engaged in high-risk behaviours.

From our data, we are seeing increased activity in gang-related issues; sexual exploitation of youth, particularly of young girls; and of course, the confluence of all of these things — the toxic drug supply, the mental health crises, the exploitation, the lack of suitable housing. That creates a population that’s at incredible risk.

While some of these situations do merit police involvement, they cannot and should not be acting alone, and too often they are. I’m going to share some examples with you today, and I’ll also alert you to some of the comments from young people who are included in your slides. I’ll warn you that these three examples I’m going to share with you are difficult to hear, but they give you some insights into how police are being called in to work with young people.

[10:45 a.m.]

Star is a 14-year-old girl, and I will speak about her first. She’s First Nations, lives in a staffed residential resource. She’s been in care since she was four. She’s dealing with a number of challenges. She’s a young person who engages in substance use, who has mental health challenges and who has also been sexually exploited, at 14. She also en­gages in self-harm, a situation that staff at a residential resource find extremely challenging to deal with.

Recently, staff at Star’s resource called police when she was threatening suicide. She’d locked herself in the bathroom and had burned her arm with a lighter. Star requested female officers, but two male officers came. She told them she wanted to kill herself. They used force to get into the bathroom, where she was handcuffed, put into the back of a police car and taken to hospital.

In hospital, she was treated for her injuries and released. However, her residential resource wouldn’t take her back, so police ended up putting her in police lockup for the night.

She was released the next day and called her social wor­ker, crying and traumatized by the experience. She said she had bruises, including thumb- and finger-shaped bruises on her arms, from police trying to restrain her.

I’d like to strongly suggest that there could have been a different response to this, including a staffed residential services system that’s better staffed and better equipped so that police don’t have to be called as the default response.

A second example concerns the case of Kyle. He’s 15, and while within the Prince George Youth Custody Cen­tre, he tried to hang himself with his pants. Police removed his clothes, put him in a restraint jacket and took him to the hospital. They told hospital staff that they felt that Kyle’s suicide attempt was [inaudible recording] attention-seeking behaviours, even though he had a history of suicide attempts.

He escaped from hospital and was apprehended by po­lice. At that point, he was taken back to the hospital, stripped naked and restrained by being strapped to a hospital bed. Not surprisingly, Kyle found the entire experience degrading and traumatizing.

Because we must rigorously protect confidentiality, those examples of Star and Kyle are composites to protect the privacy of the youth involved, but these are examples that we see every month. Every one of those incidents are issues that we have seen not once but many times.

A third example I’d like to share with you comes from the report my office released in January entitled Detained: Rights of Children and Youth Under the Mental Health Act, because I know that you’re curious about the intersection between the Police Act and the Mental Health Act. Police are part of many of the young people’s stories in this report. Here’s an example.

Michael was nine years old when he was moved to a staffed residential resource, and he remained there for three years. He had many complex challenges, including in­termittent explosive disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and probable bipolar affective disorder. During Michael’s time in this resource, staff used medications as a form of crisis control and repeatedly called the police when they could not de-escalate Michael’s behaviour.

He was involuntarily hospitalized under the Mental Health Act many times following suicide attempts and vio­lent incidents in the community and in his resource. This is the age between nine and 12. Let’s not forget that.

Fortunately, Michael was able to move back in with his mother last year and remains with her today. However, again, here we can see the inappropriate use of policing as a means of behavioural management.

You may also recall a terribly disturbing example of in­appropriate policing that received a lot of publicity. I am referring to the case in Kelowna of a Kelowna teen who reported a sexual assault to police in 2012 while she was in care.

She was inappropriately grilled by a male officer for over two hours in an interview that was made public in 2019. The officer accused the teen of lying and pointed out inconsistency in her story. Had the officer been trauma-aware, he would have known that when a young person is dealing with trauma, their brain is working differently. If they change their story, that’s trauma speaking.

You’ll see in the PowerPoint slides that I’ve shared with you some quotes from youth involved with police. These illustrate what it feels like for youth to have these negative interactions. Now, I recognize that the use of police for be­havioural management is a complex issue, and it’s important not to be reductive with any analysis. But a couple of points arise out of these examples.

One, police do sometimes behave in ways that are inappropriate. In these cases, they must be held to account — full stop. This has not always been the case in the past, and such behaviour undermines public confidence.

Two, use of police in these types of situations is a comment on a severe lack of support services for children and youth. This reinforces my point that we cannot look at policing in isolation. We must look at it as part of a larger system of supports for children and youth. When those supports are not there, police are left to pick up the pieces.

[10:50 a.m.]

The good news is there are bright spots. These are im­portant, because they show us what is working and what we need to build on. There are many examples, and there’s work in other jurisdictions, but I’ll give you a few within B.C.

One is the MYST program, which stands for Mobile Youth Services Team. This is a collaborative policing effort across the capital region that began in 2001. The team is designed to focus on sexually exploited youth and provide services to youth and their families, educational services to the community, and also targets those who would exploit these young people. I can say that many would speak very highly of the MYST team’s involvement in very difficult situations, and they become part of the care and response team.

Another bright spot is Vancouver’s successful Car 86 program, which has been around since 1977. It’s an interdisciplinary team consisting of a police officer and social worker from MCFD, who support children and youth where family violence or child welfare matters are invol­ved, where the combination of the expertise between the two is likely to achieve a more effective resolution than can be provided by either the police or the social worker working alone. There’s also Car 87, a team providing mental health supports in Vancouver.

The CBC reported this weekend that calls for Car 87 are not being fulfilled, which is actually more of an indication of the volume of need, as opposed to a weakness in the program. It’s just simply not staffed enough to be able to address the significant need.

There are also assertive community treatment teams, or ACT teams, which combine police officers with health care workers to assist people with mental health, especially psychoses and addictions issues.

I’d suggest that the committee can take hints from these bright spots as to what reform of policing might look like in practice. The integration of police officers with health care professionals, social workers, mental health and ad­dictions experts and youth outreach workers has had success and points to the direction policing should and could go in the future.

I will conclude with three recommendations. First, I’d recommend that as this committee does its important work, it ensures that young people are included in the consultation process. In my office, we consider this essential to any public policy discussion. Children and youth and young adults have opinions and insights that will serve your work well, and I urge you to include them in your consultations.

Second, given the fact that interaction with children and youth is inevitable, I recommend that this committee give serious consideration to the necessity of trauma-informed practice training for all police officers and specialized training for officers who have the greatest contact with children, youth and young adults to better understand child development, including brain development and how trauma and adverse childhood experiences affect behaviours so that more attuned and appropriate interventions can be made.

I had a recent conversation with Del Manak, Victoria’s chief of police, about trauma-informed practice training, and he made the excellent point that it changes policing when you understand the impacts of trauma on the brain and memory and behaviour.

Third, finally, I cannot overemphasize the importance of data collection. We know police are being used for behaviour management. How often? Who? Precisely who is impacted? We know that they are being called when young people are experiencing acute mental health crises or serious overdose events, and they are apprehending these young people and taking them for medical care, yet little is known about who, where and what happens. We don’t have accurate data to answer these fundamental questions.

I wanted to echo a recommendation my colleague the Human Rights Commissioner, Kasari Govender, made in her presentation to you that all police forces in B.C. be re­quired to collect, disclose and analyze race-based and other disaggregated demographic data across the spectrum of policing in B.C. We’ve also called for this type of data for other contexts, most recently in our January Detained report.

That said, relationships between police and Indigenous peoples have a long history of being laden with suspicion due to the power imbalance and history of brutality Indigenous peoples have endured in their experiences with police. Therefore, any disaggregated racial data collection must be done in collaboration with First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous communities.

Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations.

I will stand by while my colleagues present, and then I’m happy to answer any of your questions.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Charlesworth.

Now I’ll turn to the provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, but first thank her for all the work that she’s done. And I’ll tell her that the painted rock that’s on her desk probably came from a constituent and that I have a bag of coffee for her here.

OFFICE OF THE
PROVINCIAL HEALTH OFFICER

B. Henry: Oh, wonderful. Thank you. I have a number of painted rocks that I keep close to me.

Thank you very much. It’s an honour to be able to speak to you today. I will apologize in advance for not being as organized as my colleagues because I’ve had a few other things on my mind, but I do appreciate the opportunity.

[10:55 a.m.]

This is an important piece of work, and I think you have the opportunity to shape the approach to policing that we have in this province going forward, and it is a fundamental piece of legislation that will help set that direction.

I will start by saying that I also am very grateful to be speaking to you from the traditional and unceded territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people here in Victoria, the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. I am also very grateful to be able to speak to you from these beautiful lands.

My role as the provincial health officer is speaking to the public about their health. It is in that context that I am talking to you today about the Police Act. One might say: “What does public health and the health of people have to do with policing?” But as Jennifer has so eloquently ex­plained, there is, unfortunately — and sadly, in some ways — an intersection now that very much relies on policing to support people, particularly people who are homeless, underhoused, street involved and people with substance use and mental health and addictions issues.

That has been a shift and a change we’ve seen in society, not just here in B.C. but globally, over many years. I reflect about my role, in particular, in highlighting the overdose crises that we have been living through for the last four years here in British Columbia and the challenges that we have seen in trying to address that through a public safety and policing approach, aligned with mental health and health.

I will refer you to my report that I put out in 2018 called Stopping the Harm: Decriminalization of People Who Use Drugs in B.C. as one example of where we see legislation creating barriers to moving forward with a more comprehensive approach to supporting people in their mental health and health.

We have also seen that these crises differentially affect Indigenous People, differentially affect women and racialized populations. It is getting into that cycle of the criminal justice system that leads to challenges that we have, both from policing but also from a health perspective, where people are unable to get out of that cycle of being referred back to the criminal justice system for breaking of probation, for being told that they should just stop using drugs, and they can’t go to the areas of the city where they have their supports, for example. That is what we are seeing as leading to differential ill health in a number of people in the community.

Thinking about policing issues, as I have a lot over the last number of years, and how some of the challenges that we have seen, particularly here in B.C., with the way that policing services are organized…. I think back to the original concept of policing that came out of the U.K., in London, when the original, formal police services were established. It really, in my mind, has two main functions to it. One is around public safety, or the supporting of societal norms, that is done through an organized police force. The other, of course, is law enforcement, which is really the enforcing of those norms.

One of the challenges that I find we have here in British Columbia with the way our police services are established is that we have municipal police forces that are — in my experience, anyway — more closely aligned with the community and the community norms and ideas and issues. We also have a large proportion of the province where policing is provided by the RCMP. I don’t know how you can manage this, but we see a real difference in the culture and the understanding of the norms within British Columbia and the approaches within B.C. when we’re talking with people who work with the RCMP versus a municipal police force.

[11:00 a.m.]

I think that is one of the challenges that you’re going to have to address in terms of how the Police Act allows for the public safety role more than anything, as opposed to the law enforcement role, and allows for the norms and expectations of people in British Columbia to be reflected in the policing services that are provided by all police forces across the province.

Just a couple of simple things that I can talk about. Early on in our overdose crisis, we were able to get naloxone available to police services and to other first responders to provide life-saving support to people who were overdosing in our communities. The RCMP, which are very driven by policies from Ottawa, refused to allow officers to carry naloxone.

Then at one point, it was a decree from Ottawa that RCMP officers would carry naloxone but only use it on each other should they be exposed to those people who were doing drugs and need to be rescued using naloxone. Their concept was that it was against the RCMP policy for them to provide life-saving medication to somebody who was overdosing and dying in front of them.

This is what I see as a societal or cultural divide between the types of police services that we have here in British Columbia. The Police Act needs to be able to help us ensure that people who are providing public safety and law enforcement services across our province are adhering to the societal norms and expectations that we have in British Columbia. I think that’s a really important thing that we need to figure out. How that is done under the Police Act, I think, is part of the solution to that.

The other one is probably a little less acute. It was during this pandemic, when RCMP officers who had beards were not allowed to be assigned to the public-facing services. They were assigned to desk duties because there was concern that they wouldn’t get an appropriate seal with an N95 respirator. On a whole bunch of different health levels, that’s a challenge, because there’s no need for police to be wearing respirators out in the public anyway. Again, it just showed a level of cultural difference that we have in the province between where people are getting their policy and their advice.

I’m not going to talk a whole lot more, because I think Jennifer Charlesworth outlined quite nicely where we have this intersection and the challenges between health, mental health and substance use and our social services — not only for children but also for adults and, particularly, Indigenous People, who are differently affected by all of the concerns that we are seeing.

My appeal to you is very similar, in that we need to enable a consistent culture where we can provide public safety and law enforcement services that are aligned with the societal norms and expectations that we have here in British Columbia and enable those partnerships to address these complex social issues that we find ourselves em­broiled in right now.

I don’t think the Police Act ever envisioned that we would be in these types of situations and that our public safety colleagues on the front lines would be confronted with such challenging health and social issues, which they need to address and which we need, in the health sector, to be able to support them in.

Again, along with some of the important rays of hope that Jennifer mentioned, I’d also say that our public health colleagues and social services colleagues also have some good examples where we have been able to work with housing and with police services to support, for example, some of the encampments and have been able to have a holistic approach that supports people’s mental health and health issues as well as the public safety and community safety issues that are necessarily involved with those.

[11:05 a.m.]

I would also suggest — and I expect, and I hope — you will be consulting with our Indigenous partners as well, who are differentially impacted by policing services in particular. I would also put out a call for trauma-informed training that helps us address not only some of the trauma but racist issues that we are dealing with. We’re consumed with that, as you know, right now in our health care system, but it also is in all aspects of how we respond to some of these issues in our community right now.

I would also say: how can we modernize the Police Act to facilitate the coordination and the consistent culture that allows us to take on and tackle some of these major health issues in our communities? Particularly, our overdose crisis is one that I’m most concerned about and the ability to do things like not only have an effective decriminalization program — decriminalizing of people who use drugs — but the holistic supports that we need to help people rebuild and connect and move away from that cycle in the criminal justice system.

I will leave it there, and I will be sending in my report for your information.

D. Routley (Chair): With that, thank you very much, Dr. Henry.

We’d like to now move on to Ombudsperson Jay Chalke. I see Mr. Chalke.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSPERSON

J. Chalke: Good morning, Chair Routley, Deputy Chair Davies and members of the committee.

I’m joining you today from our office in Victoria, which is located on the traditional, unceded territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I acknowledge with respect their stewardship of these lands.

You should have before you a slide deck, and I will be referring to those slides throughout. I’ll try and keep you oriented to what slide I’m speaking to. They are numbered very faintly on the bottom right-hand corner if you want to follow along.

Turning to slide 2, I’m here this morning really to focus on civilian oversight in the context of this committee’s review of the Police Act. Independent oversight is the first item mentioned in clause 1 of this committee’s terms of reference, so it’s squarely before you.

What does this mean? The Police Act provides individuals appointed to various roles under that act with special powers not shared by ordinary citizens. All persons exercising these powers under the Police Act should be subject to independent oversight, a concept that I’ll touch on in more detail shortly.

It’s natural to assume that such oversight already exists; however, that’s not the case. While it does exist for members of municipal police forces and members of the RCMP, there are gaps. There are a number of existing gaps in the existing framework and gaps that my office has heard about and identified when people contact our office be­cause they have nowhere to go. So while it’s my understanding that the concept of independent oversight of police powers and conduct is a well-understood and well-accepted principle, it’s not yet fully implemented under the Police Act.

My whole submission to you really can be boiled down to my recommendation that this committee endorse that implementation of this accepted principle of independent oversight be completed for all persons who are exercising special powers under the Police Act.

I want to make clear that my focus today is on the oversight of conduct complaints, not oversight of Police Act governance. Oversight of governance is very important, but it’s a complex and multifaceted topic and not what I intend to focus on today, given our quite limited time. Oversight of conduct complaints is an issue that has engaged my predecessors since our office was created, and my office has continually advocated for effective, independent oversight of policing.

A little bit of history might be useful. In his 1994 report looking at policing in British Columbia, the Hon. Justice Wally Oppal, as he then was, highlighted the compelling need for “strong, independent civilian oversight of the police,” basing this conclusion on the principle that in our democratic society, “it is fundamental that police independence be balanced with accountability.” That report led to the establishment of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

[11:10 a.m.]

You will be familiar with both the Davies and Braidwood reports, and I’ll touch on those as it relates to these gaps in a few minutes.

In Ontario, the 2017 report of the Hon. Justice Michael Tulloch revisited some of these questions of oversight. Jus­tice Tulloch recommended a single oversight act be implemented and that steps be taken so as to “promote consistency in the oversight bodies’ practices and enhance public confidence in police oversight.”

Justice Tulloch’s comments about the need for consistency in oversight are apt when looking at the patchwork of mechanisms that exist in British Columbia today, though I expect we’d all want a made-in-B.C. solution.

So what do I mean by “oversight,” and why is it important? An independent process for receiving and investigating conduct complaints ensures the protection of individual rights on a level playing ground where the decision-maker has no direct interest in the matter being complained about and is free from reasonable perception of bias.

When complaints are validated through investigation, it ensures that public agencies are held to account and that if measures are not taken to address issues and improve service delivery, the independent oversight agency can formally report to legislators as well as to the public to drive necessary change.

Independent oversight ensures that a fair process ex­ternal to the administration of the program exists for all parties. Agencies are held to account when complaints are substantiated, but they may also be vindicated when an investigation concludes that a complaint is not substantiated, a conclusion that has little credibility in the public eye in circumstances where an agency has the final say in responding to complaints about its own services and programs.

In the context of the Police Act conduct complaints, the perception of bias, conflict and self-interest can undermine public trust and credibility and, most significantly, can act as a significant deterrent to individuals who fear reprisal or traumatic impacts from filing a complaint with the agency that they’re concerned about in the first place.

This chart on slide 3 summarizes the gaps in oversight of conduct complaints. Anything that’s red in the chart is a role or entity for which there’s no external oversight, and orange are cases where external oversight is limited. Those red and orange squares are what I’m going to be talking about today.

Where does my office fit into this discussion of oversight? As the Ombudsperson for British Columbia, my office oversees the fair administration of approximately 1,000 public bodies in the province by receiving and investigating complaints from individuals and by commencing own-motion investigations.

As set out in the schedule in the Ombudsperson Act, my jurisdiction is over authorities and the people working within them — for example, provincial government ministries and local governments. My office’s otherwise expansive investigative jurisdiction is limited by section 72 of the Police Act, which provides that the Ombudsperson Act does not apply to the Police Act or any regulations under it.

Section 72 of the Police Act excludes a number of key entities from Ombudsperson oversight, including jail gua­rds in RCMP-run municipal lockups, special provincial constables and the independent investigations office. This provision was brought into force in 1988, and at the time, then Ombudsman Stephen Owen raised concerns about what it would mean for independent oversight of policing activities in the province.

More than 30 years later, the continued operation of section 72 of the Police Act means that there are limited or no oversight mechanisms for key aspects of police-related work. I’m not here to say that individuals carrying out those roles have misconducted themselves. We haven’t investigated those cases because we can’t. But that’s precisely the point: someone should be responsible to do so.

I want to stress that I’m not here today seeking expanded jurisdiction for my office. In other words, it need not be us that are called upon to fill the current gaps that I’m going to highlight today. After all, we have a Police Complaint Commissioner who could be tasked with some of these matters. But why I am here today is to urge you to accept, as a principle, that all individuals exercising authority under the Police Act should be subject to independent oversight.

Through our intake process, my staff regularly receive inquiries or complaints regarding matters that fall outside of the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction under the Ombudsperson Act. Roughly a quarter of all inquiries and complaints that are received by my office are about non-jurisdictional agencies. One of the more common areas of non-jurisdictional complaints and inquiries is policing.

When we receive a complaint about non-jurisdictional matters such as policing services, my staff refer people to other agencies who are better positioned to assist them with their concerns. However, we cannot make that referral if there’s no agency with authority to investigate. As a point of comparison, if my office receives a complaint about the conduct of a police officer, the referral is straight­forward, depending on whether the officer is a member of the RCMP or a municipal police force.

[11:15 a.m.]

This brings me to my discussion of the key gaps that I’ve seen in B.C., and I’m going to cover three areas: civilian employees and contractors, including jail guards; special provincial constables; and the independent investigations office.

First, there is currently no independent agency with the legal authority to investigate complaints about jail guards at municipal lockups in RCMP-policed municipalities. I want to point out that this gap concerns the most significant intervention the state can make in an individual’s life — the deprivation of their liberty. The circumstances and issues here implicate fundamental human rights and international law and are, in that respect, not significantly different from the issues at play in the setting of correctional facilities or mental health facilities where individuals are involuntarily detained.

These areas have been the focus of two of my office’s recent systemic reports: Under Inspection, focusing on in­spection of correctional facilities; and Committed to Change, focusing on the involuntary detention of individ­uals under the Mental Health Act.

Complaints about city cells operated by the 11 municipal police departments in B.C. fall under the jurisdiction of the Police Complaint Commissioner, the municipal police departments. The commissioner’s authority in this area was clarified in 2016, when the option to appoint municipal jail guards as special municipal constables was introduced in the Police Act.

The commissioner’s authority does not extend, however, to RCMP-policed municipalities, nor are civilian guards in RCMP-policed municipalities appointed as special municipal constables. The authority of the federal Civilian Re­view and Complaints Commission for the RCMP does not extend to municipal jail guards in RCMP-policed municipalities, as they are civilian employees of the municipality. The only agency whose authority they fall under is their employer, the municipality or the contracting company that operates the lockup. There’s no further legal recourse for a person with a complaint about municipal lockups within the courts.

To help this committee understand the very real im­pacts of this issue on our citizens, I want to highlight two examples of specific complaints which have been raised with my office. Because we can’t investigate them, the allegations made in these complaints are unverified, and I don’t wish any of these statements to be interpreted in any way as a conclusion or an accusation of wrongdoing. The issue of concern is that there is no agency with any formal authority to independently investigate these complaints and either substantiate them and recommend an appropriate remedy or vindicate the persons implicated in the complaints.

The first example I want to raise is a complaint that was escalated to my attention in 2018. The complaint came from a 16-year-old girl who had been held in a municipal lockup over a weekend. Her complaint to us alleged she was menstruating and asked guards for feminine hygiene products as well as a shower. She told us both of those requests were refused, and she reported to us that she spent the weekend in soiled clothing and felt humiliated by the experience. We could not investigate the matter, nor could we refer her to any other agency with the authority to do so.

The second example concerns a complaint about a mun­icipality in which detention services were not provided by municipal employees directly but through a contract with a third-party security service provider. The complainant identified herself as female, a new Canadian and a victim of domestic violence, attributes which I mention in my comments here to further highlight the fact that diverse individuals are held in municipal lockups, and the lack of independent oversight impacts highly vulnerable individuals.

In this instance, the woman alleged, among other thi­ngs, an attempted strip search by a male guard, a physical assault and threats of consequences should she make a complaint about her treatment. She told us she had filed a complaint with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, who told her they could not accept the aspect of her complaint about the jail guard, presumably because of the limits on that office’s jurisdiction under federal law. She told us that the CRCC directed her to raise her concerns with the contracted provider directly.

Those are serious allegations pertaining to fundamental human rights of vulnerable people. They merit investigation by an agency with the full authority to determine their validity on a thorough and objective examination of the evidence. It’s vitally important that the province ensure independent oversight of all individuals working in local detention facilities.

As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, I’ve had a number of communications with government about this issue, and to their credit, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and his ministry have fully acknowledged that this gap has both interim- and longer-term oversight issues and raises serious concerns that should be addressed. They have made efforts to explore solutions.

[11:20 a.m.]

I want to note that the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process, after hearing from me on this issue, recommended in its November 2019 report that the province conduct a formal review. The ministry is working on the issue, but no legislation to resolve this issue has yet been introduced. It’s my hope that this gap is addressed by any legislative reform that follows from this committee’s work.

The second matter I wish to highlight is in relation to the role of special provincial constables. This relates not so much to a gap in the legislative framework as to a lack of clarity that creates confusion about who has oversight and when my office might be able to investigate a complaint. Under the Police Act, the Minister of Public Safety may appoint a person as a special provincial constable.

People appointed as special provincial constables in­clude conservation officers, liquor and cannabis inspectors, SPCA-authorized agents, and they’re responsible for enforcing a wide range of provincial regulations and legislation. Over the past year, they have been called into service to enforce pandemic-related emergency orders, such as those related to price gouging or gatherings and events.

A complaint about the conduct of a special provincial constable is not dealt with through the Police Complaint Commissioner nor another independent agency. Instead, it’s handled by the employee’s supervisor in accordance with the special provincial constable complaint regulation under the Police Act. In certain limited circumstances, the director of police services may have a role in reviewing a complaint. In a recent decision, the B.C. Court of Appeal confirmed that this regulation is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with complaints about the conduct of a public servant who is acting as a special provincial constable, rather than applying regular complaint investigation processes when a complaint is received about a provincial public servant.

Ordinarily, my office has jurisdiction to investigate complaints from the public about public servants. How­ever, in light of section 72 of the Police Act, this recent court decision is creating considerable uncertainty about, among other things, my office’s ability to investigate complaints about public servants who are appointed as special provincial constables. Precisely where that jurisdictional line can be drawn in one circumstance or another is not clear.

I also want to point out that there is no independent oversight of the complaints process set out in the regulation, and therefore no public accountability for how complaints are handled. Again, it’s my hope that any legislative reform proposed by this committee will address this issue that, as I say, has been highlighted by the recent court decision.

My final point is about conduct complaints about members of the independent investigations office. The purpose of the IIO is to remove the apparent and real apprehension of bias in cases of police-occasioned death or serious harm. Thus, the IIO itself may be considered to have an over­sight function. However, in carrying out this role, complaints about IIO members’ conduct can arise, just as they do for other police in British Columbia. It’s important to note that the IIO is itself defined as a police force under the act, albeit a specialized one.

The Davies inquiry report into the death of Frank Paul, and the Braidwood inquiry report into the death of Robert Dziekanski, which both recommended and led to the creation of the IIO, recommended that there be independent oversight of the IIO. Both recommended that the independent oversight be carried out by my office. Again, I’m not here to suggest it should be us, but rather, it needs to be somebody independent.

In debate concerning the 2011 amendments to the Po­lice Act, which established the IIO, there was discussion over this very question and an indication from the then Solicitor General that government had discussed this issue with Justice Braidwood and had determined that the Police Complaint Commissioner would be the appropriate oversight body for the IIO and that Braidwood was content with that. The important thing was that there be oversight by someone.

As a result of those amendments, there is on the books already a regulation-making power in the Police Act that would allow cabinet to make conduct complaints about the IIO, subject to the oversight of the Police Complaint Commissioner. Such a regulation would address those concerns. The key is that the gap ought to be closed if the committee accepts the principle that all persons exercising special authority under the act should be subject to independent oversight.

In closing, I wish this committee well as you go about your work. I hope the committee will give serious consideration to my submissions today and recommend action to close these important oversight gaps. I’d be pleased to answer any questions you have, as I’m sure the provincial health officer and the Representative for Children and Youth would as well.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Chalke. Thank you all, actually. It’s a lot to process.

I do have a bit of a speakers list here.

First is MLA Kirkpatrick.

[11:25 a.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Dr. Charlesworth, I have just a question so I understand this. Does your office help a young person actually make a complaint to the Police Complaint…? We know that Indigenous peoples have a lack of trust in the system, so there’s a concern there that they’re blocked a little bit by process and culture in actually making a complaint.

Is that the same with young people? I’m guessing the example that you gave of Star and where and how she would be supported in actually making a complaint, or did those complaints just not happen, so we don’t see them?

J. Charlesworth: Good question. Thank you for that.

Our advocates, in working with a young person, would let them know what their options are with respect to making a complaint. Should they wish some guidance or some assistance, then we could…. We may walk alongside them as they do that, but we would not initiate a complaint in and of itself. Our intention is to make sure the young person has a range of options.

I can tell you that by and large, when young people are offered those opportunities, they would say: “Don’t want to deal with that.” The same with complaints to other public bodies as well, because the trust has been violated. There has been a betrayal of trust, so why would they trust a complaint process?

I hope that answers your question, Karin.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): A couple of questions here. I’m sure I’ll have more. There was a lot of information.

Thank you to all the presenters.

A question to Mr. Chalke around the jail guards. A huge gap, when you start thinking about, again, the impact and direct relationship they have with individuals that are having their rights and whatnot suspended. You clearly painted the picture there.

I have a question for you. This goes around…. I feel like a broken record, but it seems to be around data collec­tion again. My question, though, is: do you keep these statistics? Do you have the number of complaints at your office…? You’re not allowed to investigate. But do you still keep those numbers, and can you share those with us either here or compile those and share them with the committee later?

How many jail complaints have you had in the last year or the last two years?

J. Chalke: What I can tell you is that policing generally is an area where we receive lots of non-jurisdictional complaints. Of course, starting from the notion that people are complaining to us about something that actually is outside of our jurisdiction…. We’re probably not the best place to gather that kind of data because it’s only people who mistakenly come to us, where we would receive complaints.

With respect to policing, last fiscal year we received 88 complaints about the RCMP, or RCMP jurisdiction, and 38 about municipal forces. The jail guard would be a subset of those. Because they’re non-jurisdictional, we don’t collect more information.

A total of 126 complaints and inquiries about policing. If you added the policing up and said…. If you called policing, for just a sec, one public authority, that would make it our 11th-highest public authority that we receive complaints about, which is very significant, obviously. Policing, generally, quite a lot.

We wouldn’t necessarily collect that information, the specifics about jail guards. It definitely arises, and it’s a concern, as you identify.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much.

My next question is to Dr. Henry around the naloxone and the RCMP not being able to carry and administer. Presumably, this has been brought forward by the public health office. What has the RCMP’s response been to that request? I’m just curious. Has it been: “No, we’re not going to do it”? Have they given a reason?

[11:30 a.m.]

Again, this is the complexity of policing, where you’ve got a federal police force following rules that don’t necessarily align, possibly, with what we want here within the province.

I wonder if you can comment on that, Dr. Henry.

B. Henry: This was an issue that arose initially around 2017, when we started to allow — well, encourage — peo­ple to be using naloxone widely in our communities, and policing embraced that early on, particularly the Vancouver police department.

Yes, that was the initial response from the RCMP. It has since changed, and they are now carrying naloxone to be used for people that they find, and that’s where it isn’t used, most often.

As a matter of fact, it was the Surrey RCMP who were the first RCMP officers in the country to actually use nal­oxone — they essentially followed our protocols — be­cause there was a person who overdosed outside one of the Surrey police stations, and they revived that person and saved his life with naloxone. That led to a change in policy from the RCMP nationally.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Great. Well, thanks for the clarification on that.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the three presentations. I have just a couple of questions.

I’ll start by first off thanking Dr. Henry for her continued work. A question just with respect to the report, Stopping the Harm — in particular, the recommendations that were made to the provincial government around amendments to the Police Act and decriminalization. I’m wondering if you could maybe shed a little bit of light on it. This is an opportunity, I think, to further add emphasis to those recommendations, but it would be great to get some clarity from you directly on what that might be.

B. Henry: Sure. At the time, we presented a couple of options — which, I understood, were available to government under the current Police Act — as ways that they could influence, within B.C., the ability to decriminalize people who use drugs. As we know, the Criminal Code is a federal code. Though there have been adjustments, at the time that this report came out, it still did not have…. The prosecutorial guidelines came out federally for how people dealt with people who had possession of illicit substances.

We suggested that the powers under the Police Act that allow the minister to set broad provincial priorities could be used with respect to people who use drugs and set the priorities so that…. Essentially, it’s negative marketing so that the priority of government was not to pursue charges against people who had possession of small amounts of drugs. The other option would be to amend the Police Act to include a provision that would prevent members of a police force in B.C. from expending resources on enforcement of simple possession offences under section 4(1) of the CDSA, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Both of those are complex. As you can see, they’re sort of twisting around the way the Police Act is written and the way the government priorities are, essentially, given to police services across the province with respect to things that are in federal jurisdiction. Neither of these were taken up by government as options that they felt they wanted to pursue. However, we have had ongoing discussions, as you know, and government has now appealed to the federal government for a section 56 exemption around this aspect. We’re very supportive of that in looking at how we can do that.

It just gives you a sense of how complex the police services act is in being able to implement the will of government in police services and public safety issues here in B.C. right now.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Dr. Henry.

Maybe just one more question, if I may, Chair, to Mr. Chalke.

I’m interested in the powers of, well, the special provincial constable complaint procedure and the impact that this has on the B.C. conservation service. I just want some clarity on this, if I may.

[11:35 a.m.]

We hear a lot about…. The B.C. conservation service is one example of it. You raised it in your report. The only way for an action that could be taken by a special constable, with the B.C. conservation service, as an example, is to be…. The oversight is provided by their direct supervisor only. The only external person who may see that is the director of police services.

Is that correct? There’s no other oversight of that body other than that?

J. Chalke: That’s correct. But the role of the director of police services is really where the supervisor declines to investigate someone’s complaint about a special provincial constable. Then one can go to the director of police services. If the supervisor conducts an investigation, then there’s no provision in the regulation for going for a further appeal to the director of police services, as it were. So it stops with the supervisor.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that. Are there any guidelines or frameworks of that for that supervisor? What constitutes an investigation? Is it a coffee in the afternoon, or is it a prescribed process?

J. Chalke: I think that’s probably a question best directed to the public service — to, say, the conservation service — if it’s specifically those that you’re concerned about. Because those matters are outside our jurisdiction, possibly, as a result of this recent court decision, I think it’s best if they speak to that. In terms of how the regulation works, which is…. The operation of the regulation is outside our jurisdiction, given section 72. That’s probably a question best directed for them and also to the director of police services with respect to his role on any appeal of a director that declines to conduct an investigation.

I should probably just add that there is a conservation service code of conduct, so presumably, that’s something of utility to the supervisor. But as I said, that’s probably a question best directed to them.

T. Halford: Just a couple of quick questions. I’ll start, maybe, with policing and youth, specifically youth that are experiencing mental health issues or addiction issues.

Are you able to — I guess I’ll direct this to you, Dr. Charlesworth, if that’s okay, or anybody else who’s able to answer the question — just talk about the level of integration between MCFD and policing when these cases arise and what that time frame is. If an officer is going to their house or a location where there is a youth that’s obviously suffering from a mental health issue, at what point is it standard for MCFD to be brought into that situation?

J. Charlesworth: It depends. I’m sure you hear that a lot with respect to the complexity of this work.

There are a number of considerations. If the young person is already in care, for example, in ministry care or a voluntary care agreement or a special needs agreement, then there would be the expectation that the ministry would be apprised of what’s going on. That’s how we actually receive some of those reportable circumstances that I allude to.

Having said that, it depends very much on the jurisdiction and the relationships that the officers have with the ministry staff in the area and what time of day, even, it is. If it’s in the evenings or the weekends, the ministry might not be actively engaged in it.

You’ll definitely see that there are differences across the province in terms of the level of integration or connection that you’re talking about there, between the ministry and the police. I can speak from my own experience, having worked in an area in which there were municipal and RCMP. I had very different responses, depending on which jurisdiction I was working in at the time. So there’s that.

[11:40 a.m.]

The other thing is that with…. For example, if a family contacts the police…. We do see that, as well, where the family is at their wit’s end. They don’t know what to do, so they call the police, thinking: “I don’t know where else to turn.” Then the ministry might not be involved in that, until or unless the police say: “Okay, there’s a protection issue here.” Therefore, they would follow up with the centralized screening.

So it’s not…. There’s no simple answer to that really important question.

T. Halford: Is there like a policy framework in place that police are trained on, whether it’s RCMP or municipal, when they attend a scene, whether it’s in-house or at a residential facility? I’m just wondering if…. Or is it just solely at the discretion of the officer attending?

J. Charlesworth: Hmm, thank you. I’m going to look to Alan. He may have a comment here.

I am not aware of any specific protocols that have been developed provincially between police and the Ministry of Children and Family Development at a provincial level. I am aware that there have been local protocols developed, but that would be at the discretion of the parties involved.

Alan, do you have any other insight on that?

A. Markwart: You got it, Jennifer. As far as I know, there is no provincial protocol with police. There is a diverse number of forces and authorities. All of that, if it’s worked out at all, would be at the local level.

T. Halford: Thank you for that.

The other issue, too, is in terms of…. One of the local RCMP that I was talking to in White Rock attends to quite a number of youth that are struggling with mental health, and, obviously, adults as well. Part of the issue he’s saying — it’s coming from a resourcing issue as well — is just the amount of time that officers must stay at a hospital with somebody who’s being detained.

I don’t know, personally, if that’s very helpful or if it’s a resourcing issue. Again, at what point are the…? Obviously, if somebody’s getting psychiatric treatment at a hospital, that’s good. But we also want to make sure, too, of the level of involvement with the RCMP and how that’s being integrated with other government agencies. I just wonder if anybody can speak to that as well.

J. Charlesworth: That may be something that Dr. Henry can also speak to, but I will say that the person, the officer that you spoke to, absolutely resonates with the experience that we see too. It becomes a very difficult situation for an officer, particularly if they are in smaller communities where perhaps there aren’t that many on at any point in time. The officer could be spending hours and hours in the emergency room waiting for admission.

You can appreciate — one of the quotes actually speaks to that — that that can actually raise the stigma and shame attached to it for the young person that they’re sitting with in emergency. It also takes away from the opportunity to do other things. It is a significant issue. We addressed it in the Detained report.

I’m sure Dr. Henry has some other comments on that.

B. Henry: I say that that reflects a challenge across our system, not only from policing and the mental health and substance use supports, or lack thereof, we have in community but also into the health care system, where mental health is not well integrated, and particularly for children and youth, where mental health services for children and youth actually fall under MCFD, not Health. We also get a disconnect there sometimes.

Where I see glimmers of hope is what we talked about with some of the rapid response teams that are able to play that bridge, particularly when people need to go to the emergency department and can facilitate that. More of that enabling of community supports, like the ACT teams and others, to fulfil that gap that we have in all parts of our system, really.

T. Halford: Just one other last question here is — maybe it’s kind of a preventative measure — in terms of wait times for psychiatric services. I think that we all acknowledge that there is a big list.

Dr. Charlesworth, we’ve talked about this during your report findings. I think we can include this across the spectrum, whether it’s youth or adults that are waiting to get psychiatric services.

[11:45 a.m.]

If the police are brought in, and they are either detained or they are brought to the hospital for psychiatric assessment, do they get those psychiatric services in real time? What is the difference between somebody that’s on a wait-list to get psychiatric help as opposed to somebody that is then brought in to emergency for, obviously, mental health issues? What’s, I guess, the timing and care — that they’d be able to see a health professional at a psychiatric level?

B. Henry: Again, that’s one of the issues that varies tremendously depending on where you are in the province. There’s a lack of psychiatric services, particularly for children and youth, everywhere in our province. It really de­pends on where they are, how long the wait-list would be, and even going into an emergency department does not necessarily mean that you’ll get the psychiatric services that you need. You’ll get emergency first-aid psychiatric care, but that’s not the same thing as ongoing psychiatric or psychosocial supports that people might necessarily need.

T. Halford: Thank you.

G. Begg: Thank you, presenters. I have a question that I hope is quick, for Jennifer. I hope it’s quick, because I hope I heard you wrong. What I heard you say was that, on average, there are about 300 youth per month whom you come into contact with or your agency comes into contact with as a result of critical injury or death. Did I hear you right?

J. Charlesworth: You heard me right. Yes.

G. Begg: Critical injury, then, or life-threatening injuries. Is there a definition of that? There must be.

J. Charlesworth: Yes. We have a definition. I’m happy to provide that to you.

Basically, what we’re talking about there is an event…. Critical injury is constituted as an event that has some life-altering impact. That would include suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, self-harming, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, physical violence, emotional harm. Actually, this a crossover with Dr. Henry. The largest population of that is where children have lost their loved ones to the overdose epidemic.

Those are the kinds of events we’re talking about. Yes, the increase has been 34 percent over this last fiscal year. Now, that’s largely because there’s better reporting, but we do see between 300 and 380 a month.

G. Begg: On a percentage basis, I assume that the death portion of that is very low.

J. Charlesworth: Yes, it is. We would see between 12…. Rarely would it go up to 20 per month, but we’re often seeing 12 to 15 deaths in the course of a month. Many of those, to be fair, were anticipated deaths due to cancer, leukemia or a severe neurocognitive developmental or physical disability.

G. Begg: Thank you.

R. Singh: Thank you to all of the presenters. It’s so good to hear from you, especially the empathetic viewpoint that you bring to this very complex issue.

My question is for Dr. Charlesworth. It’s so good to see you again. You talked about what is working, Dr. Charlesworth, like Car 86, Car 87. Also, we saw that CBC report about the gaps. It’s not that the program is not working, but the need is much higher.

My question is: are these programs just for the urban areas? What about the rural areas? We see the need and that need not being fulfilled with the programs that we already have there. What about the rural areas where we don’t have the programs?

J. Charlesworth: Thank you for that, and it’s lovely to see you again.

That is a huge issue. I can’t point to any particular programs similar to the Car 86 or Car 87 that exist in any of the rural areas. However, the assertive community outreach teams do exist in many different areas. I think that’s an important piece, but I wouldn’t say necessarily rural.

[11:50 a.m.]

I do want to acknowledge that in some areas the police have done a remarkable effort to try and increase their capacity to work with the young people that are most vulnerable. In fact, we had a situation with a young person, who we’ve known for many years and have advocated for, where the police have taken special care and attention to understand why he behaves in the way that he does and the best ways to intervene.

It’s really at the discretion of the local police and the au­thorities. There isn’t anything that I can point to. Not to say that it isn’t there. It’s not a bright spot that I’ve found yet that speaks to a more concerted effort. But I can tell you that certain detachments and certain forces are doing good work with respect to youth policing and trying to enhance the capacity of their officers. That does make a difference.

R. Singh: Thank you so much.

H. Sandhu: Thank you to the presenters. Such great pre­sentations. I have a comment and a question.

A comment for Dr. Bonnie Henry. I would like to say thank you so much for your support to allow RNs and RPNs to prescribe medications in order to deal with the opioid crisis. I can attest to you that this is going to be…. It’s a huge step, and it’s going to have such a great and positive impact for us to deal with this crisis. So thank you for that.

A question for Dr. Charlesworth. You mentioned the importance of involving youth with mental health issues in the consultation process. I agree, and committee members agree, that it’s very important. Would you recommend certain organizations, from your experience, who we should consult as well?

Yes, we are individually reaching out in our communities. I’m thinking, as you work with a wide variety of organizations…. Are there any recommendations? The reason for this question is that we have reached out to several different organizations who we want to involve in the consultation when we’re doing this work. Some have responded. Some can’t. I wonder…. So we did have a plan to reach out to them.

If you would recommend, that would be really wonderful. Then we can have the fulsome input. Thank you for that.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you. I’d be very happy to pro­vide information on organizations to reach out to.

I also wanted to say that the young people who partici­pated in our Detained report — so many of them had interactions with the police as well as the Mental Health Act. They have said that they are willing to come and speak to…. Initially, it was the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, but I have no doubt that they would be very interested in sharing their perspectives with you as well. That’s at that very critical intersection of policing, mental health and substance use. That might be very illuminating.

I’d be happy to facilitate that, and I’ll make sure that Karan has suggestions, if that would be helpful.

H. Sandhu: Thank you so much.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you for asking.

R. Glumac: Thank you, presenters.

Dr. Charlesworth, you mentioned…. One of your re­commendations was that police officers would have trauma-informed practice training.

I’m just curious. We talk about the success of Car 86 and 87 and the rapid response teams. Is there an opportunity for maybe even more training of police officers or credentials for a certain percentage of police officers, or something like that, around mental health? Police will be called when things get difficult. It may be challenging to implement a program like Car 86 or 87 throughout the province. I wonder if….

A question for yourself and maybe also for Dr. Henry. Do you see any other opportunities for increased training for police officers?

J. Charlesworth: Yes. I can see that this is a team effort between Dr. Henry and myself.

Certainly, one of the things…. In speaking with Chief Manak from Victoria, he said that it was a real game-changer when they required all officers to have trauma informed–practice training. I can speak from my own experience. It helps you make sense of the behaviours that you’re seeing sometimes if you understand that it’s trauma speaking or trauma enacting itself.

[11:55 a.m.]

I think, definitely, that’s something that would benefit all police officers, just given the demographics and the people that they’re serving within their communities, wherever you are in this province. It’s particularly important if you’re working with First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous populations.

I think that there is some value…. I appreciate you saying there might be some more that could be done. There’s something quite powerful for officers that are working primarily with youth, that have a youth detail in their portfolio, in understanding child development and the ways in which child development.

Those of you who are parents or aunties or uncles know the adolescent brain is a thing. To understand the way in which the youth and young adult brain is developing and the way in which, especially if they’ve experienced some trauma…. You’re not seeing behaviours that you would expect, and if you don’t have an understanding about brain development, trauma, adverse child experiences, the fight-flight-fear kind of response, the sort of reactivity that happens, then police officers can misunderstand or misinterpret behaviour in such a way that it could escalate situations.

I think there are two levels. Certainly, trauma-informed across the board — I don’t see anybody that wouldn’t benefit from that — and then more specialized training that would be more around developmental response.

I’ll pass over to my colleague.

B. Henry: I’ll just echo that from an adult perspective as well as a youth perspective. My connections and discussions, ongoing as they are, in many different fora with police…. It’s something that…. I mean, no police officer wants to traumatize somebody else. It can be very challen­ging working on the front lines and seeing some of the negative behaviours on a repeated basis. So having a better understanding of what goes on behind those behaviours and what leads to those behaviours….

I have talked quite a lot with Indigenous leaders around substance use issues and the overdose crisis. Chief Doug Kelly says: “We don’t have a drug problem. We have a pain problem.” Pain, in all its many forms — whether that’s psychic pain, emotional pain, mental pain or physical pain — leads people to react in ways that can be very challenging. I think that across the board, trauma-informed understanding makes people better at those interactions that are necessary as part of people’s roles as police officers.

My understanding is that across the country and in many parts around the world, this is more and more a part of police work — understanding human behaviour and psychology to help get better outcomes and to not be adversarial. That public safety approach, rather than the strict law enforcement approach, is one that is more satisfying for people on both sides of the equation.

So I very strongly support that, as well as understanding the role of, as you said, adverse childhood events and historical traumas that lead to populations being mistrustful and the whole issues that we have around culturally sensitive approaches as well.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

We have one more questioner, and that’s MLA Davies.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thanks again. Some of my questions have already been asked and answered. I guess I want to also add to what has already been said.

Dr. Charlesworth, I know you touched on it, and Dr. Henry as well. We all recognize here that we need more resources — psychiatric nurses. We need the doctors. We need that support. I guess mine is more of a statement — I made this a couple of meetings ago as well — to paint the picture in a smaller rural remote community.

Here in Fort St. John, a young person might be taken to the hospital, and after waiting for hours in the emergency room, they’re told to go to Dawson Creek. Now, that triggers a whole chain of events where they’re trying to figure out: is it an ambulatory or is this the police driving them to Dawson? It’s a mixture. They are put in custody.

[12:00 p.m.]

It’s one horrible step after another for a young person as well as an adult, for any individual who has to go through this. We’ve heard this already from other presenters. The issue is compounded in smaller, more remote communities where there are less resources.

I completely agree with providing the police with as much resources and training as they can. You go to smaller communities — Fort Nelson, Dease Lake — and the police are really fulfilling the role of about 20 people and professionals. That’s the only choice. That’s the only thing that they have.

We really do need to be, pardon the pun, arming our police with the tools that they need to be these front-line responders — to be the front-line nurse, to be the front-line doctor. They’re filling that role right now in the smaller communities.

I guess that’s just the statement that I wanted to make. It’s not really a question or anything but just to add on to what both of you have already said. It is a really big issue, and it’s not getting any better.

B. Henry: If I can just comment. One of my brothers-in-law was an RCMP officer in Sayward, which is one of those small, more remote communities.

You’re absolutely right. They are a social worker. They are an arbitrator of family feuds, a very integrated part of a community, a community that knows everybody and knows all of your business. It’s a very challenging place for people.

For us to be able to support our police services with the tools that help them deal in those situations…. That can be a very different situation than RCMP in Surrey who are working on the Surrey strip, but the fundamental psychological interactions and human behaviours are very similar in many ways.

We need to do better at equipping our police, hopefully not to be doctors and nurses but to at least be that first aid in a way that helps bring people along rather than traumatize them.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, all, very much. These meetings look long when we start and feel short when we end because there’s so much to absorb. We definitely appreciate your contribution. We hope if the committee needs further information, we might be able to call on you.

I think it’s amazing to see the public service capacity represented on this screen. We have a public expectation of our institutions — that they’ll be strong. It’s people like yourselves that make them so. We are deeply appreciative of everything you do for the people that we represent. All of us, I’m sure, will share that and deep thanks.

I would just say…. I think the most noble way change happens is when people who have suffered a loss work to not have that happen to others. I represented a woman who fought to get soccer nets regulated when her granddaughter was killed by a folding soccer net. It’s people like yourselves that those people turn to. We’re forever grateful for your ongoing excellence and for answering the needs of British Columbians. Thank you very much for this opportunity to have your wisdom.

Members, I think that draws our meeting to a close.

I’d like to thank our Hansard staff and staff from the Clerk of Committees office.

I personally thank all of you for your contributions, your excellent questions and your cooperation.

With that, I’ll entertain a motion of adjournment from Mr. Begg and seconded by MLA Sandhu.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:04 p.m.