The committee met at 2:05 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Doug Routley. I’m the MLA for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and Chair of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I’d like to acknowledge that I’m joining today’s meeting from the traditional territories of the Malahat First Nation.

I would like to welcome all those who are listening to and participating in this meeting. Our committee is undertaking a broad consultation with respect to policing and related systemic issues in B.C. We are taking a phased approach to this work and are meeting with a number of organizations and individuals to discuss the ideas and experiences they put forward in written submissions earlier this year.

We’re also hoping to learn more about British Columbians’ perspectives on policing, including hearing from those working on the front line of several fields, including policing, public safety, health care and social services. Interested individuals can fill out a survey to share their views with the committee. Further details are on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/rpa. The deadline to complete the survey is 5 p.m. on Friday, September 3.

In terms of the format for today’s meeting, we have a mix of panels and individual presentations. For our first panel, each presenter will have five minutes to speak, followed by 20 minutes or so for questions from committee members to the entire panel. There is a timer available to assist. Presenters can see that when they’re in the gallery view.

All of the audio from our meeting 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. I’ll first call on my friend MLA Begg.

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

I’m proud today to be coming to you from the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Kwantlen, the Semiahmoo and the Katzie First Nations.

H. Sandhu: Hello, everyone. I am Harwinder Sandhu, MLA for Vernon-Monashee.

Today I am virtually joining you from the unceded and traditional territory of the Okanagan Indian Nation.

Thank you for joining us.

R. Glumac: Hi. I’m Rick Glumac, the MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam.

I’m on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

A. Olsen: Hi. I’m Adam Olsen. I’m the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands.

I am working today from my home here in the W̱JOȽEȽP village.

G. Lore: Good afternoon, everybody. Grace Lore, MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill. I’m really glad to be here.

I’m calling in from my office on the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people of the Esquimalt and Song­hees First Nations.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome. My name is Dan Davies. I’m the MLA for Peace River North.

I’m working on the traditional territory of the Dane-zaa.

D. Routley (Chair): I’ll also mention to our guests that one of our MLAs has connection issues so will be intermittently in and out of the meeting, perhaps. That is MLA Trevor Halford.

Assisting our committee today — really, the backbone of the work we do — are Karan Riarh and Mai Nguyen from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services. I thank them very much for their support.

Thank you, all, for attending the meeting. We appreciate your input.

I’ll now introduce Kevin Woodall from the B.C. Police Association for their presentation.

Go ahead, Kevin.

Presentations on Police Act

B.C. POLICE ASSOCIATION

K. Woodall: As introduced, I’m counsel for the Vancouver Police Union and the B.C. Police Association.

The B.C. Police Association is an association of the unions of municipal police officers of the province. Our written submission deals extensively with proposed reforms to the Police Act consistent with the first of the four topics in your terms of reference. I will not address you on those today, as they’re quite technical, but I’d be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[2:10 p.m.]

I do wish to address you on items 2 and 3 in your terms of reference, which are the scope of systemic racing in policing in British Columbia and the role of the police with respect to mental health.

First, systemic racism in policing. If anything hopeful has come out of the past year, it is that we’re finally having conversations about systemic racism, conversations that are long overdue. Our members welcome this inquiry into systemic racism in policing. Police officers are not just police officers; they’re citizens and members of the community as well. If our members are failing their fellow citizens, they need to be told, and they want to be told. Therefore, we come to this conversation primarily to listen, not to speak.

At this stage, it is most important to hear from those who believe that, because of their race or ethnicity, they have not been treated by the police fairly or with the dignity that is their right. At some later stage, if measures are proposed to address systemic racism in policing, it may become time for our members to offer their views. However, I can assure you that our members wish to be active and enthusiastic partners in any program or initiatives that may be undertaken to ensure that systemic racism is identified and eliminated from policing within British Columbia. If there are things that our members must do, tell us, and let us get to work on it without delay.

Second, police and mental health. Unlike the conversation about systemic racism, conversations about the role of police with respect to mental health have been going on for decades, but with little clear or positive result. Police officers are not, of course, experts on mental health, yet it falls upon our members to respond to mental health crises, particularly when a person has become violent during a mental health crisis.

Some progress has been made in designing and implementing courses to train police officers in crisis intervention and de-escalation techniques. These can be very useful in trying to ensure that a person in a mental health crisis does not get to the point where they have become violent and do not actively pose a risk to the life of another person. But these resources do not address the most pressing scenario, where a mentally ill person is already threatening death or grievous bodily harm to another — running at somebody with a knife in a grocery store, for example, or swinging a bat at passers-by on the street, or holding family members hostage at knifepoint.

For 20 years, I have been attending coroners’ inquests after the deceased had become seriously violent while in a mental health crisis and the police were required to use deadly force to protect the lives of other members of society or even families of the mentally ill person. Invariably, the question was asked: “Should the police have acted differently? Shouldn’t they have used some other force tactic to bring the mentally ill person under safe control in a manner that is safe for all?”

Coroners’ juries have made repeated recommendations that these questions be looked into, but I have not seen any government actually take up this challenge. If there are de-escalation techniques that might have some prospect of dealing with people who are already in violent psychotic crisis, of course our members would like to be trained in those techniques.

Police officers are trained to use deadly force when a person poses a risk of death or grievous bodily harm to another. If there are different tactics that may be effective when dealing with a person who poses a deadly threat and is mentally ill, and if that tactic is equally protective of other members of the public, of course our members would like to be trained in them.

I come to this part of the conversation with a plea. To the extent that the Legislature has the power to do so, please commission an authoritative study to determine whether there are special use-of-force tactics that are available for use to control violently mentally ill people, different from the tactics that police are trained to use in cases of apprehended death or grievous bodily harm more generally. If such tactics do not exist, it does a disservice to the police, and to the confidence of the general public in policing, to imply that such tactics do exist but the police are failing to use them.

Thank you for your time. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

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

Our next guest will be Steffan Zamzow from the Lic­ence Inspectors and Bylaw Officers Association of B.C.

[2:15 p.m.]

LICENCE INSPECTORS AND BYLAW OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

S. Zamzow: Good afternoon. Thank you for the privilege and honour of speaking with you on behalf of the Licence Inspectors and Bylaw Officers Association of B.C. in my capacity as a vice-president.

I’m joining everyone today from the unceded and ancestral territories of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish people.

Across B.C. and Canada, local governments are at­tempting to reduce operating costs while maintaining high levels of service. Increased budgets associated with public safety, specifically police services, have led to local governments searching for innovative ways to ensure safe communities while maintaining fiscal responsibility. To address rising policing costs, public safety concerns and service delivery, as well as to provide local governments more control over public safety matters, other provinces — including Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba — have enacted legislation and programs that utilize a tiered law enforcement model.

Local governments are able to employ law enforcement officers, commonly referred to as community peace offi­cers or community safety officers, that enforce both bylaws and select provincial acts, such as the Motor Vehicle Act. These programs enhance the work of police services by performing varied roles that assist in maintaining the peace and diverting calls for service. This approach recognizes that many enforcement roles, such as regulatory compliance, do not require highly trained police officers. The use of law enforcement officers for these roles enables police to remain focused on more complex and serious criminal enforcement and investigative activities.

To this, last year Brenda Butterworth-Carr spoke with the committee. She highlighted the possibility of the use of supplementary law enforcement models that promote proactive community policing, including the opportunity to create new legislation similar to Alberta’s Peace Officer Act.

Bylaw enforcement, more commonly referred to as by­law services, is an integral part of enhancing livability and the quality of life of British Columbians. Bylaw officers provide a valuable service to the communities they serve, including educating, mediating, enforcing and connecting persons with resources and housing. Bylaw services are a complementary law enforcement entity that can address public safety issues, including efficiency, effectiveness and rising policing costs.

In recent years, just like police, bylaw have experienced calls for service related to various public safety matters, including homelessness, addiction and mental health concerns — calls that were previously the sole responsibility of police. Unfortunately, the profession is the largest body of unregulated enforcement officials in B.C., with no standardized selection process or training, no standardized pol­icies governing their duties. Furthermore, bylaw officers work under a patchwork of legislation, including section 36 of the Police Act, that is outdated and largely inadequate for the roles and responsibilities they are often tasked with.

We are respectfully requesting that the special committee look at tiered law enforcement models similar to other provinces, which would create a law enforcement program of standards, qualifications and accountabilities for officers employed with local governments. By implementing a tiered model that aligns with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, models and initiatives that have been requested through UBCM resolutions would provide local governments with a cost alternative to police officers to deal with lower-risk issues.

We are also requesting the review of section 36 of the Police Act as it relates to bylaw officers. The legislation is not reflective of many local governments’ reporting structures and provides no standards, qualifications, accountability or authority. In addition, the act is silent on bylaw officers’ peace officer status, even though B.C. case law has repeatedly recognized bylaw officers as peace officers in the performance of their duties.

Included in reviewing section 36 is a request to review the now repealed section 37, which permitted local governments the ability to appoint enforcement officers with the authority to enforce select provincial enactments within the jurisdiction of their appointment.

In conclusion, the special committee has been given the opportunity to enhance community safety and livability by providing recommendations that can transform the Police Act and possibly the implementation of new legislation that could address service delivery, standards, training and education related to the modernization and sustainability of public safety. In doing so together, we can create world-class legislation to the benefit and betterment of all British Columbians.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Our next presenter is Brian Sauvé. He is the president of the National Police Federation.

Go ahead, Brian.

NATIONAL POLICE FEDERATION

B. Sauvé: Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. As mentioned, I am Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation. I’m also a sergeant in the RCMP.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people today.

The RCMP’s E division has been policing B.C. since the 1950s. There are currently over 7,000 RCMP members policing 99 percent of the geographic area of B.C. and answering more than one million calls for service each year. In total, there are 144 RCMP detachments serving 150 municipalities and 121 First Nations communities.

The NPF supports efforts by the B.C. government to consider ways to better deliver police services. In April, we made a submission to the committee outlining some recommendations for consideration regarding the B.C. Police Act.

First is a need to increase funding to keep pace with the growing demand for services. Police everywhere have experienced a significant increase in demand. This dem­and has far outstripped increases in the number of police officers and resources. RCMP members also have a comparatively high workload versus municipal police services.

In 2019, RCMP municipal detachments, on average, had a caseload of 72 files per officer, while RCMP provincial detachments had a caseload of 68. Municipal police departments who have more officers per population averaged a caseload of 42.

Our members are continuously doing more with less, and funding has remained flat in previous years despite increasing populations, rising costs of equipment and infrastructure as well as more complex threats, including gang activity, the opioid crisis, money laundering and cybercrime as some examples.

Without the necessary resources to hire more officers and provide appropriate equipment, our members can and are becoming overworked, leading to community safety and service challenges and member burnout, which will further impact available resources.

Second is serving people with mental illness. For too long, our members have been called on to fill the gaps in the absence of properly funded mental health and social services. This has resulted in police too often being the initial crisis contact point in mental health crises. The demands placed on police officers across the province have steadily increased while resources have remained stagnant and other community services remain underfunded.

Many communities do not even have facilities nearby where police and individuals in custody can access a health care worker. A 2017 survey of 59 B.C. RCMP de­tachments found that only 14 have a designated hospital within their community. The travel times range from one to five hours each way, and the average wait time in hospital emergency wards is almost five hours. In rural and small communities, this takes members away from their core policing duties for the entirety of their shifts and does not effectively serve the individual in crisis nor the community.

The NPF supports all increases in funding towards so­cial services. This would allow for officers to concentrate on their core policing mandate while still being available for community-based work. We recommend continuing collaboration between police and health care agencies, expanding dedicated police mental health intervention units and reviewing emerging technologies that could be implemented to improve the response to people in crisis and related risk of harm.

Lastly, regarding the Police Act, we welcome changes to the legislation that enhance policing and public confidence in policing. Modernizing legislation is an integral step in ensuring the safety of British Columbians and our members while enhancing the criminal justice system.

We’ve made recommendations around some important issues, such as oversight and independent investigation, B.C.’s independent investigations office, policing committees and the recognition of police associations. Our submission outlines 16 recommendations for this committee’s consideration, and the NPF believes it’s imperative that the B.C. government address these issues.

Thank you. I’m happy to answer any questions.

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

Our final presenter in this panel is Mayor Lisa Helps, representing the Victoria and Esquimalt police board.

Go ahead, Lisa.

VICTORIA AND ESQUIMALT POLICE BOARD

L. Helps: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m here, as Doug said, on behalf of the Victoria and Esquimalt police board, which is co-chaired by myself as well as Mayor Desjardins. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today to expand on our written submission.

[2:25 p.m.]

Like MLA Lore, I am on Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ territory today, the homelands of the Songhees and the Esquimalt Nations.

I’m going to just emphasize three points in our written submission and then welcome questions afterwards.

The first one is regionalization. You probably are well aware that Victoria and Esquimalt are the only two local governments in the province to share a police department. When the cities of Victoria and Esquimalt were brought together by the province in 2002 through an order-in-council, it was the understanding from the province that this would be the first step towards regional integration of policing in the capital region, and this has not happened.

From what I understand, regionalization is certainly part of the mandate and scope of your work. So this lack of regionalization in our region, and potentially in other regions across the province, has impacts on public safety, effective use of policing resources, value for taxpayer dollars and cumbersome governance arrangements for integrated units, not to mention additional work for the prov­ince in working with all of these various arrangements and all of these different police boards for a very small region.

In 2002, the province took a strong leadership role in bringing Victoria and Esquimalt together into one police department because of what was, at the time, a dysfunctional situation. While the current circumstances are not as they were in 2002, with exceptional police services pro­vided by both RCMP detachments as well as our local police departments, it is unreasonable, inefficient and expensive to continue with the fragmented approach to policing in the region. If someone came into the region today with a blank slate and said: “Hmm, how should we police these 13 different municipalities…?” No one would set up 12 different policing arrangements.

That’s something we hope — again, not just for our region but for regions across the province — that you will look at as part of this modernization approach. Our recommendation is that the province take a leadership role in the structure and regionalization of policing in our region as part of the approach to modernizing police in British Columbia more generally.

Secondly, mayors as chairs. I’m going to really re-emphasize the key points in our written submission here. Police boards and their relationships with local governments would function much more effectively if mayors were not also required to be police board chairs. Having mayors as chairs of police boards often puts mayors in very difficult positions in that we’re meant to be in service of the police board and the department but also in service of our local governments, which is very difficult when the current Police Act stipulates that mayors, as chairs, can’t vote at police board meetings. So we’re there to represent our local governments, but we can’t even vote on matters that would affect our local governments. It’s a very challenging situation.

We recommend, first, that mayors be appointed by the Police Act to municipal boards as voting members but not as chairs — we do think it’s important that mayors sit at the table; second, that the province select board chairs through the same process by which chairs of other public sector boards are appointed, like B.C. Transit or other boards like that; and then, finally, if the province decides not to change the legislation categorically to remove mayors as chairs, that the authority be given to mayors to delegate the role of chair to an existing police board member.

Finally, racism- and bias-free policing. This is an issue that’s been brought into sharp focus — it was great to hear a couple of the other panelists mention it as well — with events in both Canada and the United States. Everybody needs to deal with systemic racism, but for the police — who have lethal use of force at their hands — it’s more important, we think, than others to really dive into this.

Our written submission has some key recommendations. They mostly relate to how training related to systemic racism should be provincially mandated with resources provided; second, improved required reporting on Police Act complaints when it comes to systemic racism — complaints should have race-based data as well as a record of substantiation and unsubstantiation based on race; and then additional provincial resources should be provided to departments to set up equity, diversity and inclusion offices with support from the province for KPIs, what should be measured, and how we can improve policing to make sure that all members in our community feel like the police are also there to serve them.

I won’t mention mental health and addictions. You will hear from my co-chair of the B.C. Urban Mayors Caucus tomorrow, and he’ll be talking a lot about that. That is part of our written submission, but we’ll leave it to the BCUMC to make those points.

I’ll leave it there. I’m happy to answer your questions.

[2:30 p.m.]

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much. Thank you to all the presenters.

At this point, the floor will be open to questions from the members. Just put your hands up.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I’ll jump in with one question here, a real quick question to Mayor Helps regarding the boards.

I’ve heard this from a number of mayors as well. Do you think this is pretty much consensus across municipalities that sit on police boards, would you say?

L. Helps: It is not consensus. The mayor of Abbotsford loves being the chair of his police board. In the B.C. Urban Mayors Caucus, we’ve discussed this.

I would say there’s not consensus, but I think the majority of mayors that I’ve spoken with who chair police boards really wish that at the very least — Mayor Braun and I have had this conversation — if the province isn’t going to change the Police Act to take away mayors as chairs categorically, just have that delegation authority. That wouldn’t be a far stretch.

I’ll leave it there. There’s not consensus. But I think there’s…. Even if you want to make everybody happy, which is sometimes challenging, that workaround would be just to have the ability…. I’ve actually had our city solicitor look at it. Is there any way that I can delegate this authority to another board member? He said no, but I think that would be a good workaround if you’re trying to make sure that all mayors are happy.

G. Begg: My question, too, is for the mayor. It is in regard to integration, amalgamation, of police services.

Could you help me flesh out a bit what that means? Does that mean a single regional police department, or does that mean sharing of resources, or all of the above?

L. Helps: That’s a great question.

In 2002, and this does feel like ancient history that no one’s really aware of, the province essentially forced — I’ll use that word; I didn’t use it earlier — Esquimalt and Victoria together into one police department. If you go back and read the documents, it was very clearly the province’s first step towards regionalization. So one police department for the entire region.

For a series of reasons, which I’m not aware of, that never happened. So what we have created is really a hodgepodge of integrated units, a cumbersome governance model. We’re now just putting another layer of governance in for the mayors to have some say. It’s been mostly operational.

I think our preference — and again, I’m just speaking on behalf of the Victoria and Esquimalt police board — is that the province follow through with the commitment it made in 2002, which is to create one police department for this region.

G. Begg: Okay. Just a follow-up in relation to that. I wonder, Mayor Helps, if you could comment on the potential implications for other areas of the province in relation to the practicality of it. I think most of us see the wisdom of it.

For example, there are other regions — perhaps in the far north, certainly some in the Interior — which have a series of detachments, mostly RCMP detachments. Do you see that as being a potential area for modelling this kind of regional service as well?

L. Helps: Potentially. I don’t want to speak to other communities about which I know very little. But my hope is that this Police Act review doesn’t just tinker around the edges. You’ve got to take or recommend bold approaches to modernized policing.

I could go through a whole list of reasons, and I highlighted some of them, why fragmented policing doesn’t work. Again, I don’t know, in the north, which areas would be put together. But I think that the CRD could be a pilot project, if you will, especially since it was very clearly laid out in the order-in-council in 2002 and in provincial documents dating back to 2002 that this was the approach. “We’ll put Esquimalt and Victoria together, and then we’ll bring everyone else along.”

It could be a good pilot project.

A. Olsen: I just want to start by acknowledging how disciplined everybody was in getting Mayor Helps one second off five minutes. That’s very, very impressive timing.

I think the ministry, just to the previous point that was just made by Mayor Helps…. I think I heard in the presentation from the ministry that they talked about regionalization or at least mentioned it as being…. It hasn’t hap­pened yet, but it still was kind of on the radar and in the speaking notes, at least, of the ministry staff. They haven’t done it yet, but they were still talking about it, I think, even as recently as the presentations to us.

[2:35 p.m.]

I have a couple of questions here to, actually, Mr. Wood­all, Mr. Zamzow and Mr. Sauvé. I’ll start with Mr. Woodall, if I might.

I’m just wondering. The association has taken the position to listen, in the context of systemic racism. Does the Police Association have any public position or any position on systemic racism within police organizations in our province? I’ll just focus on British Columbia.

K. Woodall: Are you asking whether we have a position on whether it exists?

A. Olsen: Yeah, whether it exists. And maybe quantify it a little bit — like, to what extent, if it does.

K. Woodall: Let me answer that two ways. First of all, it is our position that systemic racism exists in society generally, and our members come from society. They are members of the communities. They have friends who are members of disadvantaged communities. They may be members of those communities themselves. So they recognize that there’s no reason to believe that the systemic racism and, indeed, systemic discrimination on other prohibited grounds are immune within the police departments.

As to whether members of the police departments are more racist than members of society generally, my view is that there’s no evidence they are. It’s not as if racism or other forms of prohibited discrimination are more entrenched within police departments than within society generally.

I began by saying we’re here to listen. The reality is that being a victim of discrimination is something that the victim of the discrimination may feel when the person who is exercising the discrimination may not even realize it. They may have biases that they’re not aware of. They may have practices that they are not aware cause offence.

Really, the question for us at this point is to listen to what other people are saying. It doesn’t really help us much for the police to say: “We do our best to avoid discrimination. We do our best to be aware of all relevant issues, and we hope we’re not causing unnecessary offence. We hope we’re not using our special powers in an unnecessarily discriminatory manner.” What we’re really genuinely interested in is hearing from the other people. How is it experienced by the people who the police deal with?

A. Olsen: Thank you for that. I think that there’s a pretty heavy distinction to be drawn between the organization — or the association that represents the individual, the collective group of individual police officers — and the province and the institutions that they’re employed by and the foundation of those institutions. I just think that there’s a distinction there.

In the recommendations, the Police Association pro­vided a significant amount of content around oversight. I think, just for the benefit of people that might be listening today and just for the public record as we’re going forward here, can you maybe provide a characterization of where the Police Association would like oversight to go in general? There’s a substantive number of changes that the Police Association has proposed in its presentation to us. It would be good for you to just maybe provide a characterization of that.

K. Woodall: The starting point that we take is this. There are a number of regulated professions within British Columbia, all of which have both the opportunity to do good but the risk of doing harm to members of the public, and the police are one. Lawyers are included in that group — doctors, teachers, and so on. Our approach is that the oversight of policing should be civilian oversight. We make the point that civilian oversight of policing is not a constitutional principle, but it should be regarded as a quasi-constitutional principle. So that’s the starting point.

[2:40 p.m.]

Beyond that, our perspective is that, in terms of transparency, in terms of procedure, in terms of participation of all the participants, the models that are used in the other regulated professions — doctors, lawyers, teachers, and so on — should be adopted for the police. They are robust models, they allow for the participation of the public, they are transparent, and they are seen by members of those professions as being fair and transparent.

By contrast, for all of the reasons I’ve set out in my submissions, the police discipline process is very weird. Excuse me for saying this, but it seems like something that was devised by a committee, as opposed to something that was begun more carefully and from a principled basis.

All of the submissions that we have made begin with the foundation that there should be robust civilian oversight of policing and that the process should be revised, root and branch, to make it more consistent with the disciplinary processes that are employed with other regulatory professions.

A. Olsen: Is there any distinction to be drawn with the fact that, out of the professions that you have raised, the police are the only ones that are authorized to use lethal force?

K. Woodall: I don’t think so. It is critical, of course, that the police need to be regulated robustly. The use of force is one of the areas that they need to be robustly regulated on.

To me, the issue is this. The reason lawyers, doctors, teachers, and so on, are carefully regulated is because all of those professions, as I said earlier, have the opportunity to do good but the possibility of doing harm to members of the public.

The harm that police have the opportunity to do — or the risk of doing, I suppose is a better way of putting it — is different than doctors. It’s different than teachers. It’s different than lawyers. But all of them have the possibility of doing harm. In all the cases, members of the public rely on them, and therefore, I don’t think that the harm that police do — one branch of which may be improper use of force — takes them into a different category.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that. I appreciate that response.

If I may continue, just one more question around the removal of the coroner’s powers to do an inquest in police-involved fatalities. What is the justification for that?

K. Woodall: In the past…. Sorry, what is the justification now, or what is the justification for removing…?

A. Olsen: Why would that be a recommendation — to say to the B.C. coroner: “You can’t do an inquest into how this person passed away”?

K. Woodall: Right. Historically, coroner’s inquests were created to ensure, number one, that the police don’t cover up death or serious harm at their own hands. So it’s basically a simple fact-finding position. Secondly, coroner’s inquests generally — in mining, for example, industrial accidents — were there to provide an ad hoc forum for people to consider recommendations that may reduce the risk of harm or death in the future.

In British Columbia, no case where there is serious harm can possibly go uninvestigated, because that’s the IIO’s job. Cases involving serious misconduct by the police that don’t involve harm, of course, would never get to the coroner anyway. They are only interested in death.

The first part of the equation — why have a coroner’s inquest to determine cause of death? — is answered by the fact that the IIO investigates. They investigate professionally. They have autopsies. So that really forms no function.

The second issue that coroner’s inquests have dealt with traditionally, in the past, has been to provide recommendations for policies and practices in any area of endeavour that may create the risk of death. In those cases, first of all, we have a number of professional agencies who do that. Police services does that full time.

There is an opportunity for public inquiries when specific issues come up. The Dziekanski inquiry on tasers. The Frank Paul inquiry on dealing with homeless people and mental health. The Missing Women Inquiry. The issues that involve policies and practices of the police are very complicated. They usually involve very technical questions, questions of wide-ranging social import.

[2:45 p.m.]

A coroner’s inquest has five people basically taken off the street, put in a room, and asked, at the end of five days, to make recommendations. It’s not surprising to me that the recommendations are seldom acted upon, because the people who are making the recommendations don’t have an opportunity to consider these complex issues in the full way that they require, with the assistance of professional help.

Coroner’s inquests don’t do either of those two functions any more. With all due respect to the coroner’s court, the inquests I have dealt with seem very much pro forma. They sit for ten or 12 hours, much longer than anybody could sit and actually understand what’s going on. So they no longer have a function that is not already served by a more professional, or several more professional, bodies.

A. Olsen: Excellent. Thank you for your responses, Mr. Woodall.

Mr. Chair, I’m happy to cede the floor to my colleague Grace Lore if she would like to ask some questions. I’ve got one or two other questions, but I obviously don’t want to just take up all the time. Just checking in with you here.

D. Routley (Chair): Thanks, Adam.

Let’s let Grace ask her question. We’re getting pretty close to the recess point, but we can carry on.

Go ahead, Grace.

G. Lore: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Adam.

My question, I think, is actually quite quick. I just wanted to check in with Mr. Woodall. In one of the headings of the written submission, where mental health and addiction are discussed, so is domestic violence — in the title. But there’s not, as far as I saw, content on domestic violence in the submission. So just wondering if there was more to say there or if it was just sort of being connected in the other pieces.

I’ll just, maybe, make the link. We’ve heard quite a bit about the need for, perhaps, policies around sexual assault response. We have domestic violence policies, and to Mayor Helps’s point, our domestic violence units are one of the units that are coordinated across things. So I just wanted to see whether there was specific content there that I wanted to flag or speak to.

K. Woodall: I would like to pretend that the heading was very carefully chosen. In fact, there had been some discussion on the issue of domestic violence, but in the interests of focusing on the terms of reference that we saw — your terms of reference — that part was reduced.

I can tell you that domestic violence is a very pressing concern for police officers, just as it is for everyone in society. There has been greater training provided to police officers regarding domestic violence. All I can say is that just as we are very interested in listening to the people who have been victims of discrimination of all kinds, we’re very interested in listening to the people who have been victims of domestic violence, listening to their experiences — whether they think they have been dealt with in a fair and effective manner by the police.

If they say they haven’t, we are very interested in hearing their views — the women’s or men’s views who have been the victims of domestic violence — and listening to what they have to say.

A. Olsen: Just to Mr. Sauvé, a question talking about the increased funding. We’ve also heard that there are a number of detachments that are currently understaffed, as there’s a number of funded positions that are empty for a variety of reasons, and that there are challenges within the RCMP in actually recruiting and maintaining the levels that we have.

I was wondering if, perhaps, you had any comment to the relationship between the size of the detachment as they’re currently funded, the staffing and the recruitment situation within the RCMP. I guess what I’m trying to get a sense of is, if all of those detachments were fully staffed, to what extent would we be talking about this with the level of detail that you’ve presented to us in the presentation?

I’m trying to get a sense of where we’re at today, and the funding.

[2:50 p.m.]

B. Sauvé: If we’re talking about the provincial business line — obviously, we’re talking to the provincial government here — versus the municipal business line or something like the city of Coquitlam, for example, which contracts separately, out of the research that we’ve done, we can’t find anything that establishes why Tsay Keh Dene, for example, is four members. Where did we come up with that number? Who determined it — through the province, through consultation, through the RCMP? Is that ideal? Is it not ideal? Is it over-resourced? Is it under-resourced?

I think there needs to be some discussion or some looking at how we deploy our resources, and at the same time, have we deployed them effectively?

One of the items that’s come out of our recent session of negotiations — our contract is in the midst of being ratified — is a joint commitment from the RCMP and the NPF to study exactly that across the country. Should we look at hubbing detachments to increase geographic area and centralize resources? Similar to what Mayor Helps was saying is that you already have a number of resources deployed, are they deployed in the most effective and efficient manner to maximize the use of what’s already out there? How do we look at that? Or are we just continuing to do what we’ve always done, hoping that maybe if we hire more cops, we’ll get a different result?

Obviously, COVID has had an impact on the RCMP, just like everybody else. We graduated 16 troops last year, when they had planned to graduate 40. So there will be a shortfall for the next year. We’re working with the federal government and the RCMP to increase their capacity to be able to recruit and train more and have greater output to make up for that shortfall. But no matter where you go, it will be a challenge to meet the resource needs on the ground for every police service across Canada, just because of the extended pandemic and training capacity that has been shut down.

The RCMP itself broadcasts publicly a 2.1 to 2.3 percent hard vacancy rate across Canada. So if we extrapolate that to British Columbia, for example, you would be looking at about 150 to 180 positions that are funded but vacant. Add in family-related leave, sick leave, training, annual leave for members to take holidays with their families and such, and I would suspect that your vacancy rate on any given day is probably around 7 percent.

What we have to look at is…. Like I said earlier, are we deploying the resources effectively? Did we start with the right number in any given community, whether it’s Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Prince George or even Alert Bay? If we can figure out what the right number is, or the right model — maybe some hubbing needs to be happening; maybe we need to look at amalgamating resources into greater areas to deploy them more effectively — then I think we can more solidly say we have those communities’ safety first of mind, as well as those members of the RCMP safety first of mind.

I don’t know if that answers your question. It’s a pretty big question.

A. Olsen: Well, unless there’s kind of a regular review about that — I say regular; it could even be once a decade — to look at whether or not the resources are in the right place at the right time, which I don’t think we do, it’s pretty tough.

I know I represent communities like Salt Spring Island, for an example, that has a difference in need between summer and winter. Even that seasonal fluctuation makes it very difficult.

You know what? I’ll just leave it at that. I did have a question for Mayor Helps about the suggestion that Mr. Zamzow made around bylaw enforcement officers and the phasing and whether or not…. I recognize this is kind of catching you off guard about somebody else’s presentation, but it just seemed to me to be a unique opportunity to perhaps deal with some aspects of this that are being left up to the police, recognizing that the city of Victoria has both a community police service and bylaw enforcement — and the connectivity between the two.

I don’t know if it’s a question or not, but I just wanted to recognize that I see the benefit, and I also see the benefit in creating standards. It’s much needed.

I’ll just leave it at that.

[2:55 p.m.]

D. Routley (Chair): Thanks, everybody. We really ap­preciate your presentations, your submissions. We obviously have a big and broad task in front of us. The views of everyone who has presented to our committee are highly valued, as are yours. We deeply appreciate your participation. Hope you’ll go away from our meeting feeling like you’ve made a positive impact in the work of recommending reforms to the Police Act.

Members, normally there would be a recess at this point. We do have a longer recess after the next presentation, so I’m wondering if maybe we should skip the recess now and just head straight in. I think we’re right on time if we start now. What do you think? Everybody okay? All right. Let’s go.

Welcome, everybody, to the special meeting of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. A reminder to our next panel that each presenter will have five minutes to speak, followed by ten minutes for questions and discussion with the entire panel. There is a timer available to assist, which presenters can see when they’re in the gallery view.

Now I’d like to welcome Dr. Bryce Casavant for his presentation.

Go ahead, Dr. Casavant.

BRYCE CASAVANT

B. Casavant: Thank you very much.

My name is Dr. Bryce J. Casavant. I’m a former special provincial constable and member of the B.C. conservation officer service. I am Métis, with family roots in the Red River region and other areas.

Prior to my service with the province of B.C., I was a member of the Canadian Forces military police. I have served in a policing-related capacity in six different countries, spanning the past 17 years.

Academically, I hold a doctorate in social sciences from Royal Roads University, where I specialized in B.C.’s environmental policing systems. I have presented in all levels of B.C. court on constabulary matters and matters pertaining to constabulary discipline. I am currently employed as adjunct faculty with Pacific Coast University, where I teach industrial relations and research methods.

My personal life circumstances are well known to many members of this committee. In the interest of time, I will not repeat what is common public knowledge.

I have made two previous submissions to this committee: one written, entitled “The Organizing Principles of Constabulary Discipline,” and the second a video interview on my views pertaining to the Police Act.

Notably, my previous submissions did not provide re­commendations to this committee. Rather, they brought forward a broad and general framework regarding B.C.’s constabulary services. I then focused specifically on the B.C. conservation officer service and special provincial constables.

At the invitation of the committee, the purpose of this final submission is to make a single and pointed recommendation regarding the B.C. conservation officers service. That is: I recommend to this committee that a retired justice be appointed to conduct a systemic program review of the B.C. conservation officer service.

The rationale for this recommendation is fairly straightforward. Over the past eight years, various information and records of concern regarding the B.C. conservation officer service of their street-level practices and internal operational dynamics have been made public through multiple court proceedings and various responsive records acquired through freedom-of-information processes.

Allegations of officer assaults on citizens, complaints re­garding self-investigations, lack of oversight, the killing of non-human species, the discharge of service weapons in urban areas and other training and recruitment concerns have been widely covered within B.C. media and other public communication forums.

[3:00 p.m.]

An independent program review of the B.C. conservation officer service by a retired justice is in line with similar possibilities provided for under the Police Act, section 117, for municipal agencies, especially considering the complaint- and disciplinary-centric sphere of many of the current B.C. conservation officer service worries.

The Police Act does not currently provide a statutory mechanism for the B.C. conservation officer service to be subjected to such a program review by a retired justice. However, there is nothing preventing this committee from making such a recommendation. This committee may make a better recommendation within its final report, or, alternatively, the committee may find it appropriate to make a recommendation for regulatory change that would allow such a review to be conducted in the future.

The appointment of a retired justice to conduct a review of the province’s environmental policing services would provide public assurance that the B.C. conservation officer service is being taken seriously as a policing agency by this House and subject to non-partisan review, similar to its sister agencies.

In the alternative, should this committee be of the mind to adopt the recommendations of the previous witness giving testimony on behalf of the BCGEU, I would caution that those recommendations run counter to recent deci­sions of the B.C. Court of Appeal and similar historical decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. The BCGEU witness’s recommendations previously provided violate over 30 years of British Columbia’s constabulary common law and offend over a century of constabulary organizing principles, more broadly.

In a non-partisan manner that takes into account all of the interests and diversity of British Columbian society, this committee is well positioned to report on what it has heard from all witnesses and recommend that the B.C. COS be subjected to a further detailed program review by a retired justice.

In the interests of time, there are a few points within my oral notes, written transcripts of which have been provided to this committee, which I skipped over.

For the record, I would like to thank Jeff Cook, a member of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation and a dear family friend, Elder and survivor of residential schools, for the solidarity ribbon I wear today.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Next up is Carla Edge.

Go ahead, Carla.

CARLA EDGE

C. Edge: Good afternoon. My name is Carla Edge. I thank you for the invitation and opportunity to speak with you.

I would like to first advise you that in May of this year, I left the employ of the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the BC SPCA, to pursue another career path. I would also like to reaffirm that I do not represent the BC SPCA in any manner.

As a review of my submission, the BC SPCA is a non-profit, charitable organization that has the mandate to en­force the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and specific sections of the Criminal Code of Canada as they relate to animal cruelty. The BC SPCA is the only enforcement agency in the province of British Columbia that is not financially supported by the provincial government, and it is the only animal welfare organization allowed to enforce the noted legislation. As a result, all funding for cruelty investigations is completely reliant on public donations.

After meeting minimal criteria, animal protection of­ficers obtain special provincial constable status. Those authorities come from section 10 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The SPCs are sworn in under the Police Act. Accountability for officer conduct is the same as for any other agency, but not the agency itself.

Due to the nature of the BC SPCA, being a non-profit, charitable organization, it is also not party to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it relates to its investigations. Senior management within the BC SPCA has repeatedly stated that they are not required to provide responses under FOIPPA as it relates to cruelty investigations, as they are not a government body.

As mentioned, the BC SPCA is reliant on public donations in order to maintain a cruelty investigations department. At times, staff are told there are limited or no re­sources available to adequately investigate animal cruelty. The lack of resources can be financial or in staffing levels that result in how investigations can be completed or even if an animal cruelty complaint is attended.

[3:05 p.m.]

Distance is sometimes a factor, and the BC SPCA cannot assist all animals in the province. But they should, at minimum, be responding to all animal cruelty complaints in some fashion.

Public confidence in any enforcement agency in this province is critical. It’s very important that there is some form of external oversight of any enforcement agency to ensure that there is true impartiality and transparency of the agency’s conduct and officer conduct. Currently, the BC SPCA does not appear to be designated as a law en­forcement unit under the Police Act, which would mean their special provincial constables are potentially not bound by many of the listed standards as they relate to conduct. Additionally, there is no ability for an external review to be conducted.

The BC SPCA does have its own internal standards and expectations of its SPCs, but without oversight, it may not facilitate public confidence. The BC SPCA has the best intention to do as much as it can within the confines of their financial responsibility to their donors, and being responsible to their donors should be its number one priority. Due to the nature of the BC SPCA as a non-profit organization, the lack of oversight and accountability as it relates to their enforcement role does not foster public confidence in their special provincial constables or in the agency itself.

A clear definition and standard in a revised police act would greatly assist those officers enforcing any animal cruelty legislation. Alternatively, though, this is perhaps the time that the enforcement of animal cruelty legislation should fall to a public agency and not a non-profit society. There is a direct link between animal cruelty and domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse and serial killers. It may be in the best interest of the people of the province that animal cruelty investigations fall to an accountable public agency with resources and a modernized process.

Thank you. I’m happy to answer any questions.

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

At this point, I will open the floor to questions from members.

Adam, go ahead.

A. Olsen: I don’t know if I actually have a direct question, although I think that it’s important to acknowledge that…. I think we’ve now heard from the three distinct parties with respect to the powers of special constables and the oversight, and I think that it was important.

Thank you, Dr. Casavant, for your presentation providing, I think now, the complete picture for us as a committee that’s making recommendations on how to improve the confidence that people have in policing services and constables that are under the act. We understand that there is, seemingly, a gap in oversight.

Then, as well, I think maybe the only question I might have…. It came up through your presentation, but it might actually be to the union. I’ll just ask, and we’ll see.

Is there a distinction between the union doing a review process for the employment…? I always kind of get the impression that unions were there to defend the employment relationship of their members and the employer. And what I thought was the request by the BCGEU to have oversight over the powers of a constable…. Is there a distinction between the two that we should know about or that we should be cognizant of?

B. Casavant: Yes. Thank you. The long and the short of that answer is….

In this final submission, the committee will note I refer specifically to the B.C. conservation officer service and not special provincial constables more broadly, although I talk about that in the paper submission in the report that I provided to the committee previously. The reason for that is that not all special provincial constables or agencies employing special provincial constables have been historically police departments in this province.

The conservation officer service is unique in the fact that it was historically, for a large portion of this province’s history, part of the B.C. provincial police force and today performs true policing functions. They are an armed service that dress in municipal LAPD blue police uniforms with full, unrestricted policing appointments under section 9 of the Police Act. They operate in practice as a police agency and, historically, were part of the provincial police force.

So designating the conservation officer service as a law enforcement agency under the Police Act as a police de­partment and treating them as a police department would be appropriate. Not so for other special provincial constable organizations and agencies.

[3:10 p.m.]

Not all SPCs perform true unrestricted policing functions. Some special provincial constables, in a variety of ministries, perform other unarmed or more administrative tasks, even though those tasks may also be investigative in nature. They are not what we would identify as a police officer. It is more of an administrative role, and the powers and authorities provided to them under section 9 are restricted.

From the union’s perspective, there are two issues. There is what I’ve been advancing within my own research and the last six years of litigation through our courts — up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada, for that matter — which is: the B.C. conservation officer service is a police force. Cut it out. Stop trying to treat them as something else. They’re not an administrative agency. They are a fully operational police force, provincial policing agency, left over from the B.C. Provincial Police Force. Treat them as such.

The union would rather they were not treated that way. The union would prefer they were treated as more of an administrative agency performing wildlife management functions and subject to strict collective bargaining re­gimes which are solely in the union’s control. As a result of that position, if the union had its way, they would fall outside of the Police Act as more of an administrative agency, and they would not be subjected to true police codes of conduct, civilian oversight and all of the modern advances we’ve made in policing legislation — and criminal science, for that matter.

I’ll leave it at that.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that, and thank you, in your video presentation, for providing a little bit of a history about how these services evolved. I think you went all the way back to the Magna Carta. You won’t be confused for someone who’s not thorough. I appreciate that.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you. Thanks to our presenters.

I see no further questions.

This work in front of us is broad and complex, and we take it very seriously. We appreciate all the views that come before our committee — your own. Your contribution is greatly appreciated by all the members of the committee. We’d like to thank you for a positive contribution to our province.

Okay, Members. The committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:12 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Welcome back to this meeting of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act.

We’re now joined by John de Haas, our final presenter of the day.

Welcome, Mr. de Haas. Go ahead.

JOHN DE HAAS

J. de Haas: Thank you very much for inviting me, and thank you for the work you’re doing. I know this can’t be an easy task — to get a sophisticated understanding of pol­icing and make sophisticated recommendations.

I was going to recap who I am, but then I thought that that’s all in the submission. What I’d like to do in the first five minutes is just summarize my submission’s core ideas relating to the police and relating to the province.

Beginning with the police, I provided content on systemic racism and leadership, which are both issues that fit the expression “not even knowing what you don’t know.” Regarding racism, police cannot imagine themselves as racist. Education is required to make police aware of what systemic racism is. The Kirk Johnson matter, which I submitted to you, I think suggests a path forward.

Regarding leadership, police do not know a culture of well-developed leadership. Substantive change has invariably come from government, courts or public outcry. Policing needs to adapt, and I’ve submitted an example to you on the need for a new paradigm where police interact with the severely marginalized. I believe government needs to initiate a leadership culture that can deliver change.

[3:50 p.m.]

Turning now to the province, I provided content on pol­ice structure, governance and conduct review, which presently are all inappropriate models.

Regarding structure, policing in this province is fractured into multiple independent historically evolved agencies, a model that no longer meets policing needs. It’s time to update police services into one cohesive provincial agency.

Regarding governance, governance by a group of short-term appointed citizens with no particular background in policing or of overseeing organizations is not an effective model. Also, it is time to let go of the illusion that policing is apart from government, as the province has always, in one form or another, exercised its mandate over policing. I submit to you that policing would benefit from direct provincial governance, while still maintaining the independence of investigations.

Now, regarding conduct review, in British Columbia we continue to have exceptionally professional police services. Nevertheless, the OPCC was created in the belief that an external oversight model would safeguard public confidence and silence critics. However, we now realize that the OPCC, as an exterior group, has limited comprehension of policing and its realities, has no vested interest in policing efficacy, has no concern for police organizational integrity and also does not represent the public interest.

At the same time, the OPCC and its staff naturally have self-interests. In the reality of low police misconduct, over the last several years the OPCC has appeared to pursue a public profile where they are seen as relevant and essential and which validates their existence and cost. It has done so by encroaching profoundly into labour matters, imposing itself into media reports involving on- or off-duty officers, regularly releasing narratives of possible abuses by officers and drawing out minor, easily resolved matters into major, protracted, accusatory, polarizing, litigious, punitive and expensive affairs.

The OPCC’s narrative is of themselves being the guardian against not-to-be-trusted police officers, police agencies and police culture, with the repeated implicit message that there is chronic misconduct by the police and that police leaders are unwilling or incapable of addressing it. Paradoxically, the OPCC’s actions and messaging surely erodes public confidence in the police.

Understandably, all of this is demoralizing to front-line officers and destructive to the roles of supervisors and managers. Policing is obliged to be defensive rather than being self-motivated towards excellence.

As well, the OPCC’s agenda has unjustly hurt a lot of reputations and families. The OPCC, in my opinion, is a failed model. What is needed now is a professional college with ownership over standards and accountabilities, the same as for doctors, nurses, lawyers, dentists, teachers and so many other professions. A college can also address the leadership development challenge I mentioned earlier.

In closing, moving forward, British Columbia needs substantive changes to policing so that police officers know what systemic racism is, policing possesses skilled and effective leadership, and there is one unified police service, effective and direct governance, and true professionalism.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you. At this point, I’ll open the floor.

Members, questions?

Okay. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. de Haas. We understand the work in front of us is broad and complex. We value the opinions and views….

Oh, perhaps we…. Garry, did you have a question?

G. Begg: I do.

Thank you, John, for your presentation. It’s a thought-provoking synopsis of where you see policing here in British Columbia.

I wonder. You call for some fairly dramatic change and some distinct leadership challenges, neither of which the police are very good at. I think, conceptually, I agree with you. I spent most of my life as a career RCMP officer, and I know the challenges of change.

[3:55 p.m.]

Academically, I suppose, do you see the change coming from the police side of things or from the governance side of things?

J. de Haas: Thank you, Garry. I want to acknowledge your service. I did read all your bios. You certainly come with a lot of experience. I think you know of what I speak.

I think that the history of policing, from my experience, is that either the courts or the government or a public inquiry or public outcry is what changes it. Policing in and of itself is resistant to change.

There’s a great book called “Bending Granite” by Guyot, who studied it in the States. That’s the title: “Bending Granite.”

I don’t see change coming from within policing. I be­lieve this committee, for one, can make recommendations, and the government needs to take action that will change policing.

When you talk about governance, police boards…. This is not a committee…. You are not a committee of police board members. The governing bodies are taking no active role in changing policing, but government is, by these legislative committees. This is the second provincial one I have spoken to. I’ve spoken to one under John Nuraney, three times.

It is the things like Oppal’s Commission of Inquiry — these sorts of legislative committees — that are the place that I believe change can be initiated.

I don’t know if that answers your question. But I don’t see policing do it. I don’t see the current governance model doing it, because police boards really don’t do anything.

G. Begg: It does answer my question.

I have another, as well, if that’s all right, Chair?

D. Routley (Chair): Absolutely.

G. Begg: It relates to the idea that there is…. I used to give talks on this, so I think I know of what you speak.

Inside the police organization, we always used to talk about the arm’s-length relationship that we must have with our political masters. I believe that as a principle to be true, but I always had to face the fact that they were the people who controlled all the money. So effectively, although it would not be seen to be the state interfering in police, if we were not properly funded, then we couldn’t do investigations that could have an implication for the government of the day.

Certainly in the RCMP, there are some very good ex­amples of some very bad examples of corruption at a very high level in the federal government that we were restricted from doing just because the funding suddenly disappeared for a particular group.

I don’t know that there’s an answer to this, but I’m interested in your observations. How do we square that circle so that the police are independent to make decisions based on police-related decisions rather than fear of falling out of favour with the current government and losing a rank or losing a detachment or losing the ability to investigate something?

J. de Haas: I don’t know if I made that clear in my submission. In my opening comments….

There needs to be a clear distinction between investigations and administration, if you will. I would present to you that government has always influenced administration. The very existence of this committee is proof of that. The government will, in one form or another, find its influence on funding, on policy. Right now you’re looking at systemic racism. It’s not the police boards looking at it; it’s government looking at it.

I can certainly tell you…. It would take a long time. But discipline cases where the government has intervened and influenced outcomes and decided to do inquiries, and so forth and so on.

[4:00 p.m.]

Government owns policing. I think we need to acknowledge that. I think what we have to do is be crystal-clear that on ongoing investigations, there will be no interference. I believe that we’re in a pretty good state that way. I don’t believe there’s much evidence to show…. I mean, I could think of some cases, for sure, but ideologically, I think the government knows it ought never to be caught interfering with the independence of police to investigate whoever they’re investigating and however far they’re going.

I think you, Garry, have pointed out a reality. The government still has the hammer, and it always will. I don’t think we will ever be able to shut that down.

G. Begg: Thank you.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Go ahead, Adam.

A. Olsen: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate it.

You advocate for a single police service across the prov­ince. Do you have an opinion, informed or not informed, on whether that is an RCMP service or the return to a provincial police service? What’s your opinion on that?

J. de Haas: I would say not an RCMP contract. I know there is tremendous frustration in municipal contracts and perhaps even at the provincial level. A fine force, no question about that, but it’s the Ottawa connection. I know firsthand [audio interrupted].

A. Olsen: [Audio interrupted] past our boundary is very consistent with the other advice you have given us.

I would just make, maybe, an editorial comment around doing nothing. Choosing to do nothing is also a decision. Arguably, the fact that we are reviewing an act that is an act of parliament — it’s our act, and it needs the Legislature to change it — would suggest that even though…. We currently do have an arm’s-length situation where the administrative decisions do land with the provincial government already, whether it’s a fragmented scenario or a singular service. So it’s a decision to not do anything about it, currently — or a decision to do something about it.

Certainly, my hope coming out of this is that the recommendations that we come up with after this exhaustive process are followed through. That’s just my comment. I appreciate your experience and your advice to our committee today. Thank you.

J. de Haas: If I could just comment on your comment. Yeah. Doing nothing, I think, is a poor business choice, because there are real needs. I think that Ken Dobell, when he was city manager in Vancouver, wanted more control. I know the mayor in Surrey wants more control. I know that the mayor in Vancouver has been frustrated by the lack of control, because they believe that they fund these forces.

[4:05 p.m.]

I think going to a provincial model would change the funding formulas so that they’re not, in a sense, owned by the municipalities. In my submission, I suggest that perhaps the education system model is one. We have a very centralized education system. So a full rethink of the business model.

The only other thing I would say is…. I really think this idea that there’s an arm’s distance of policing from government is illusory. I don’t think that’s real. There are ways around that. I could tell you stories we don’t have time for. But if the political need is so severe, the government has always acted. It hasn’t looked to the police board to take action. The provincial government has stepped in.

An easy example is the Justice Institute. Training is at a provincial level for the municipal forces. The Police Aca­demy is run by the province, at the JI. Policing standards, ammunition, uniforms are all provincial. So it’s quite illusory. As long as we stay away from ongoing investigations. That’s an absolute for our democracy. But on administration, on structure, on funding, on significant policy issues such as systemic racism, I think: “Let’s have one voice. That’s this provincial government.”

A. Olsen: If I may, Mr. Chair, I’d just like to raise one other item.

One of the emails that comes in…. This is, I think, bordering on a political issue, but it has come up in a number of cases now, just with respect to when the RCMP are administering these court injunctions. We’ve got one in Wet’suwet’en; we’ve got one out in Prairie Creek right now. I’ve received a lot of questions to my constituency office about: “Who is funding this? Where is the money coming from? Who is making decisions? Who is making the operational decisions?”

All of that apparatus is there. It exists. Decisions are be­ing made, but it’s very unclear for the public to understand. You’ve got these pictures that are coming back and that are telling one story and then this lack of clarity on the funding — or at least clarity for the public and, again, accessibility — really, potentially, causing a lot of harm when it comes to the confidence that people have. They’re not able to clearly see: “This is a dot, that’s a dot, and there’s a direct line between the two of them.”

I’ll leave it at that.

R. Glumac: Just very quickly, in other jurisdictions like Ontario, where they have a provincial police force, do you see the concerns that you’re raising being addressed there adequately?

J. de Haas: Ontario is a great example. They, of course, have a series of regional forces, and then they have the provincial contract. From my experience — I’ve worked at an intelligence unit, which was a derivative of a national intelligence unit — when I bumped into what they do in Ontario, I was really impressed at how cohesive their intelligence management was, by their structure.

I think B.C. is so small when you compare it to Ontario. When you look at Toronto Metro, you’ve got 7,000-odd police members. That’s roughly what we have in this entire province. So why are we divided into all of these different municipal contracts and then the RCMP having the two tiers — the municipal contracts and the provincial contract? It gets really confusing. I think Ontario has got a way to go to, perhaps, improve what they do as well.

I think you need to be careful about saying: “Well, it’s just putting too much in one organization.” Look at the New York police department: 40,000 members. They do from community policing to big stuff. You make it work. But part of what happened years ago, when they really drove the crime rate down, was that they actually absorbed some, like the transit police, into the NYPD, to create that consistency of communication and command throughout the organization. I think we would benefit…. We’ve simply adopted what made sense — I don’t know, 100 years ago — when these forces began.

[4:10 p.m.]

I think it’s time we looked at the problems of policing in the same way that the Ambulance Service did, probably 30 years ago now, saying: “Well, why don’t we have a provincial ambulance service and the provincial distribution of resources and the consistency of standards?” I’d suggest that the wildfires tell us something about our fire response too. We have all these different full-time, part-time things. From the front lines, I can tell you it’s nice if you’re in a cohesive organization that communicates well, that shifts resources as needed, and so forth.

The RCMP actually, for all the contracts they have in this province, have a leg up in doing that to some degree, although I can tell you there’s some confusion there. I don’t want to get too much into details, because we don’t have the time, but they have a regional operational commander, for instance, in the Lower Mainland. But then Surrey also, as I understand it, puts in an operational commander. So now you have two operational commanders. How do they fit together?

Vancouver has one operational commander with the authority of the chief constable in real time on the ground. There are no command issues. Yet there’s no regional commander for 2½ million people and matters that arise that are cross-jurisdictional. There’s no command centre in the Lower Mainland, which doesn’t really make a lot of sense, considering the complexity of the calls, the different shifting demands.

We are, in my view, really behind on the operational resources right now that are deployed on the Lower Mainland. I think there’s such room for improvement. My recommendation, really, from all my experience, is that I think we need to do significant change. We need to come with a new model of structure, a new model of leadership — I talked extensively about that in the submission — and a new model of accountability, because I think the current one is actually doing the opposite of its intention. I think that’s been a wonderful learning experience, when something fails.

My view, and the only reason I’m here — I’m retired, so I don’t need to be here, but I am passionate about policing — is I think it’s time to learn from everything that we’ve done and where we are and really make some bold recommendations to try something very…. Well, it’s not really that different, when we look internationally, but something that’s perhaps very different for us in this province.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. de Haas. We appreciate your contribution. Big task in front of us. We appreciate all the views that have come to us. Thank you for your positive contribution to the process.

J. de Haas: Thank you. Good luck on your work. I have been in policing a long time, and I know this is a lot to wrap your heads around collectively — and then, really, to feel good with the recommendations you make. Anything I can do, I’m available. Thank you so much.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Okay, Members. That’s our last guest. I would ask for a motion to move the meeting in camera.

From Dan, seconded by Garry.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 4:13 p.m. to 4:29 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Okay, Members. Thank you very much. A long day, and a long one tomorrow. See you in the morning.

Can I ask for a motion to adjourn, please?

Garry, seconded by Dan.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:30 p.m.