The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Good morning, everyone. 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.

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

I would also like to welcome all those who are listening to and participating in the meeting.

Our committee is undertaking a broad review 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 over the fall to follow up on input we’ve already received and to learn more about new models and approaches that have been drawn to our attention.

For today’s meeting, we’ll be having discussions with the Stl’atl’imx tribal police and the Service de police de l’agglomération de Longueuil.

As a reminder to our presenters, all audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website. A complete transcript will also be posted.

I’ll now ask the committee members to introduce themselves. I’ll begin with my friend MLA Kirkpatrick.

K. Kirkpatrick: My name is Karin Kirkpatrick. I’m the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano.

I am here today on the traditional, beautiful and very windy territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations.

Thank you so much, Deborah, for joining us.

T. Halford: I’m Trevor Halford, MLA for Surrey–White Rock.

I am on the traditional territories of Semiahmoo.

G. Lore: Good morning. Grace Lore. I’m the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

I’m calling in from the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ peoples of the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Hi. Good morning. Thanks for joining us. Dan Davies, the MLA for Peace River North.

I’m calling in from the chilly, minus 12, and snowy territory of the Dene people.

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

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

It is, as usual, gorgeous, sunny, 16 degrees in Surrey today — beautiful, sunny Surrey.

The last part, I lied.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I was going to say. My goodness.

D. Routley (Chair): It’s in Hansard now.

Assisting our committee today are Karan Riarh from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Billy Young from Hansard Services. We thank them for their support.

[11:05 a.m.]

Now I’d like to introduce our first presenter today. Deborah Doss-Cody is the chief officer of the Stl’atl’imx tribal police service.

I’m very grateful that you could join us today, Deborah. Please go ahead whenever you’re ready.

Presentations on Police Act

STL’ATL’IMX TRIBAL POLICE SERVICE

D. Doss-Cody: [St̓át̓imcets was spoken.]

Good morning, everyone. My name is “Dee” Doss-Cody. I’m from the St’át’imc Nation, from the community of Xaxli’p. My borrowed name is “Dee” Deborah Doss-Cody. My St̓át̓imcets name is Malah.

Members of the special committee, on behalf of the Stl’atl’imx tribal police service, I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss matters related to the mandate to modernize the Police Act. This modernization is long overdue. I appear here before you as a delegate to represent the Stl’atl’imx tribal police service and as ten St’át’imc Nation communities that the Stl’atl’imx tribal police service provides policing service to.

As you’re all aware, there’s a significant lack of direction in B.C. municipal police agencies and their boards regarding the matters that focus on systemic racism issues. Systemic racism in policing is a topic that is well known to the STPS and the people of the St’át’imc Nation. I’m of the view that to best share information, it would be best if I were to discuss a decision that was made by the ten St’át’imc communities within our nation in the early 1990s to address what was a gap in the trust that they had with the RCMP.

Before the creation of the STPS, the RCMP was the police service for the St’át’imc. For the rest of the pre­sentation, my comments will be limited to discussing our experience and relationship the STPS has with our nation, our knowledge and views regarding the tripartite agreement and to share with you our thoughts on potential opportunities for reform or improvements for the policing model that may work for other Indigenous communities within British Columbia, whether they are served by the RCMP or, at some point, migrate to their own police service.

In 1999, the STPS was designated as our police service in the St’át’imc Nation. Before this designation, the St’át’imc Nation was historically served by the RCMP. It was clear to the nation that the relationship between the St’át’imc communities and the RCMP was strained. It was the St’át’imc Nation’s view that they were underserved, and racism was evident. There was little, if any, collaboration between the RCMP and the St’át’imc community leadership, and the St’át’imc always felt that this provincial police service had different policing priorities than what they felt was required for their communities.

Additionally, the RCMP experience in the St’át’imc Nation was incredibly strained due to their involvement in the residential school tragedies. As you’re all aware, all Indigenous communities continue to live with the consequences of this to this day, and our communities are no different. After that, the St’át’imc Nation’s relationship with the RCMP never really improved over the years. It was this strained relationship with the RCMP that became a catalyst to the St’át’imc Nation creating the STPS.

The impact stemming from the creation of our police service was noticed immediately. This fresh start meant that when it came to policing matters within the St’át’imc communities and the nation at large, we — and I say “we” because I am St’át’imc — the people of the St’át’imc Nation were in charge. Each participating community was able to directly participate in the governance of the STPS through our selection of the person who would represent our community on the STPS police board.

Their governance is a community governance, which the St’át’imc Nation never had with the RCMP. From the beginning, the STPS policing model and the participating ten communities have a say as to who will be their chief officer. They were able to influence the initial hiring of other police officers, many of whom come from within the nation and/or nearby communities, neighbouring nations.

[11:10 a.m.]

From the beginning, the STPS was a reflection not only of the cultural mosaic but also represented the heart and soul of the fabric of our St’át’imc communities.

My first recommendation to this special committee would be that all Indigenous communities within British Columbia have direct and binding input into their police service structure and governance. Whether or not that police service is the RCMP or their own designated independent police service, the future to addressing systemic racism in policing can be significantly addressed if the community controls how their police service is run.

This is what exists within the STPS and the St’át’imc Nation today, and despite many challenges that we have faced as we try to keep it working over the last 20-plus years — 30-plus years now — it is worth our continued involvement.

Currently the many STPS employees call the St’át’imc Nation home. Relationships between the STPS employees drive the community trust in the STPS because of their connection to our nation. Additionally, other members may come from different Indigenous communities and bring with them a profound understanding of the Indigenous experience. Our communities appreciate this.

There is a sincere appreciation that the STPS does not represent an oppressive police service but is dedicated to working with our communities. They are a best practice. The STPS is a best practice. One only has to look at the recent TV documentary series called Tribal Police Files, which aired nationally on APTN. It demonstrates the relationship between the STPS and the St’át’imc Nation.

The STPS board is still accountable to the province of B.C. and must comply with the Police Act and all provincial policing standards. However, this is done respecting the unique arrangement that the province has with the ten participating St’át’imc communities and our police board.

The St’át’imc Nation communities served by the STPS are very confident that the relationship between the communities and the STPS will grow and foster an even greater collaborative and inclusive relationship. This will be achieved by the communities’ continued input into selecting their police board representative and the trusted relationship between the board and our STPS members, the communities and the police service.

The overwhelming support for the STPS was recently displayed on May 11, 2019. The current and former STPS employees and police board members were honoured by the St’át’imc Nation at an event held during our St’át’imc Declaration Day celebration.

Our police board’s strategic planning process also includes as its mission to provide a police service that is uniquely St’át’imc. The STPS honour our people’s traditions and have integrated themselves into the very fabric of those things that are important to the STPS. When you see our police officers smudging their uniform and their equipment before every shift or after an incident that is very traumatic and impactful upon them, it speaks volumes as to what the police service means to them and the communities that they serve.

Our officers take their oath of office in the presence of our community people, in front of the nation. This confirms that they are permitted to do their jobs with the unqualified support of the people of our nation.

Finally, there will always be issues for potential conflict between our people in our community and police. While many may display their displeasure with police when they have to deal with them in an unfortunate intervention, never have we ever heard a comment that they were treated in a racist way. This is not something that we could have said when the RCMP were policing the St’át’imc.

I’d like to take a few minutes to comment on our community tripartite agreement. Funding for the STPS is supported through a tripartite agreement arranged through the federal government program funding, at 52 percent, and 48 percent from the provincial government.

[11:15 a.m.]

Our participating communities also contribute in kind through such things as use of the land to house the police offices and hosting police board meetings, as well as being responsible for civil torts for misdeeds of the STPS, should they arise.

The current ten-year tripartite agreement with the St’át’imc Nation is in place for another nine years. We are grateful to see that this agreement includes several changes that allow for more flexibility regarding how the board can manage its finances year over year. It also includes incremental increases to account for the cost of living and consumer price increases in purchasing goods and services.

There are some shortcomings with this agreement that we feel are worth noting. Canada’s contribution to the tripartite agreement is provided to the STPS through a term referred to as “program funding.” This term is genuinely concerning to us.

It is my submission…. To suggest that the STPS operates as a program is a very sore point with the STPS members, the staff and the people of the St’át’imc. All other independent municipal police services in British Columbia are considered an essential service and are funded as an essential service. Their funding is never referred to as a program.

We all know that program funding for government programs is provided for or taken away based on government priorities. The fact that our police service is considered a program while other municipal police services are essential is yet another example of what we would suggest is government-sponsored systemic racism.

It is my recommendation that the province demand that Canada change our police funding model from one that is considered to be another government program to one that is an essential service. While the STPS is currently funded through a ten-year financial tripartite agreement, there is no guarantee that this will continue if Canada considers that it is program funding. It is entirely possible that a situation could arise where more pressing priorities mean that federal dollars allocated to their First Nations policing program are reallocated to other areas.

I also recommend that the province of B.C. amend the Police Act to include a statement that the government considers all First Nations policing, whether it is a supplementary service through the RCMP or a primary policing service delivered much like the STPS, an essential service.

While the current ten-year funding agreement does provide some form of stability for the STPS, it assumes that there will be little change in terms of how policing services are provided over the course of this agreement. The fact that the province of B.C. is entertaining changes to the Police Act and how policing is done within British Columbia….

There can be a reasonable assumption that policing costs to accommodate these changes will rise. While all other police agencies can adjust their budgets and seek additional funding from their respective councils, the Stl’atl’imx tribal police service cannot pursue such an adjustment. There have been several occasions where our police board has had to seek additional one-time funding to cover costs for essential line items such as equipment and salary shortfalls.

Even the RCMP can make adjustments to accommodate unexpected increased costs associated with such changes, given that the First Nations policing program is an enhanced service to the provincial policing agreement. Gaps in providing this service are bridged by backfilling positions from their provincial policing program. The STPS does not have this luxury.

I recommend that the government of British Columbia consider an amendment to the Police Act to allow for police agencies covered by a tripartite agreement to regularly revisit the funding arrangement to account for substantial changes or additions to police service delivery that place unexpected or new pressures that negatively impact police budgets.

As B.C.’s only designated independent Indigenous police service, the participating communities of the St’át’imc Nation are the only communities in the province that are negatively impacted by these constraints. While this does not necessarily create a crisis at this time, we should not have to wait for one to transpire before we attempt to address it, the current work of this committee notwithstanding. We believe that you are, at this time, dealing with a crisis.

[11:20 a.m.]

As I stated at the beginning of my presentation, the environment that created the mistrust between the St’át’imc community, the nation and the RCMP was influenced by what we deemed to be systemically racist behaviour, but it was also fostered by an underlying tone that the police had little understanding or appreciation for the need to approach community issues in a manner that accommodates acceptance of our culture, practices and community values.

The success of the STPS is that our police service is based on the fundamental principle that no matter how they will approach a policing problem, it will be done in a manner that is uniquely St’át’imc. That is the very core of the STPS existence.

While not all B.C. communities benefit from a police service similar to the STPS, steps should be taken to ensure that the police agencies within B.C. have sufficient understanding and appreciation of the values, customs and entrenched norms associated with Indigenous people. It is my submission that this can only be addressed through learning and training.

It is my view that the director for policing should introduce the following changes to the police training standards for police officers in British Columbia.

Recommendation that a formal review should be conducted of all training programs provided to recruit-class police officers at the JIBC. The review’s focus should be to identify and remove examples of training lessons or hands-on exercises that lend themselves to systemic discriminatory police practices. This training should be replaced with training that is more appropriate to where we are as a society today.

I recommend that police training standards be adjusted to include a minimum of 40 hours of formal training to JIBC Police Academy recruit classes to include instruction provided by qualified Indigenous police officers or subject-matter experts. This training should focus on systemic racism, cultural values and crisis communication with Indigenous people.

I also recommend that municipal police services be required to undergo in-service training focused on cultural sensitivity and bias-free police training. This training should be required throughout every officer’s career, just as one would expect that they requalify every year for using their firearm or other tools that they carry and use on a daily basis.

I also recommend that any police officer espousing to promote to an executive leadership position within their police service should be required to undergo a formal training program on Indigenous studies similar to the Indigenous Canada course provided by the University of Alberta.

I believe the STPS model for policing Indigenous communities can serve as a best practice when assessing how the police can best interact with communities when dealing with police matters in Indigenous communities. It would be an honour to encourage the STPS to create an opportunity for other police services and their police officers to engage with the STPS for an opportunity to learn about our policing model.

Recently the STPS hosted an Abbotsford police department member. Abbotsford PD created an Indigenous liaison position, so the APD member was provided an opportunity to spend two shift rotations with members of the STPS so that she could benefit from the STPS experience and policing in Indigenous communities.

While the STPS may have its shortcomings and challenges, it is the view of our communities and the leadership that the STPS has the police-community relationship with Indigenous people down to a science, and we are willing to share it.

[11:25 a.m.]

While respecting the guidelines that allow for a 15-minute presentation, I recognize that our conversation is only starting and needs to continue. The work of all police officers in British Columbia is not an easy one, but as you have all seen from public protests and petitions to government for change, the people want a different policing model. The truth is that British Columbian communities are looking for a police service similar to what we, the STPS, the St’át’imc Nation, already have. We are the model that can be held as the example of what police-community relations can look like provincewide.

[St̓át̓imcets was spoken] all my relations. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much, Malah. We all appreciate your presentation.

Questions from the committee members? I’m looking for hands up. There, I see Deputy Chair Davies.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Deborah. That’s a great presentation. I really appreciate the work that you do, the work that the members do. It sounds like a fantastic model, and I commend you for some of the work you’ve done. It’s really neat to hear about the Abbotsford police coming out and experiencing that. I see this as a model that I think the province can look at. Some of your recommendations, like you say, I think fit very well.

On that line, though, with Abbotsford. I’m just wondering what your relationship is with the police agencies, whether they be…. I would think it’s RCMP in the surrounding area. I might be wrong. What is your relationship with them, and are there shared services back and forth with those agencies at all?

D. Doss-Cody: Currently we’re working on an MOU with the RCMP. It is currently in their hands. What we’re working on is the specialized services.

Our working relationship has improved. I couldn’t say that one year ago or two years ago even. It was very strained. But we are a work-in-progress. We do collaborate, and we are moving forward. As a result, we are now going to be having more meetings and communicating on a regular basis — monthly now.

I’m just awaiting the draft MOU, and we’re looking to sign off on that shortly. I’m hoping that we’ll have that in place before the new year.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Great. Chair, if I may, just another quick question.

You had talked briefly about the tripartite agreements and having that flexibility to review them on a regular or semi-regular basis. I guess it’s my ignorance. When you have your tripartite agreement, let’s say with the RCMP or whoever and other groups, what does that look like? Like, once that agreement’s done, is that locked in place for ten years? What does that look like? Just to give me a better idea.

D. Doss-Cody: Our tripartite agreement is with the provincial government, the federal government and our communities and us. Basically, it’s our funding agreement. As I had mentioned, 58 percent federal government, 48 percent provincial government.

The agreement…. A lot of times there is no discussion. There’s no negotiation. It’s: “This is the funding model.” There’s never any rhyme or reason as to what that funding model is. Whether it’s based on statistics, whether it’s based on population, there’s never any rhyme or reason. We’re never really given a straightforward answer, and there’s never a negotiation. It sounds like a negotiation, but it’s consultation. Then the decision is made that this is what you will receive, based on whatever funding model is decided and that we’re not privy to.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Oh, very interesting. Thank you.

[11:30 a.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: This is very interesting, and I appreciate your time.

What I’d like to ask is many things, but I’ll focus it on…. In your interactions with your population — and we’re coming to know back 30 years ago what was happening — are there less interactions that end in custody, as opposed to the RCMP, whether they’re there or…? I’m thinking that with the Stl’atl’imx police service, your interactions with your population would be less…. I don’t know. They wouldn’t escalate as much as they would with the RCMP. So I’m wondering about that.

The second is…. Ultimately, you still do have to have an interaction with a more traditional justice system. So if something does escalate where a community member needs to then interact with the justice system or come to be with the RCMP, how does that piece of it work? I don’t know if I’m clear in what I’m asking. There is still that place where policing ends and court and the judicial system start. How does that work with the work you’re doing?

D. Doss-Cody: Your first question was: what is our…? When we’re dealing with people, whether it’s more on a criminal basis where we’re effecting arrests or….

K. Kirkpatrick: I didn’t say that very well. As you know, with the RCMP or with any police, you can have an inci­dent that occurs, and really, depending on how you deal with it, it can escalate into something worse than it might otherwise. My assumption is that in not having the RCMP and having you there, it’s less likely to escalate. Then when something escalates, it can end in an in custody, as opposed to if it had been dealt with in a different way where it wouldn’t end in custody.

That was the question, really. Is there a difference, do you think, in how serious things get with you there, as opposed to how it would be with the RCMP?

D. Doss-Cody: Okay. Yes. I’ll give you an example of an incident. We had an incident where a man was potentially suicidal, and it involved the risk of a firearm. The RCMP was going…. We assist each other. So we were going. We were going to go in…. The recommendation by them was to go in, take a look and see whether or not we need to call ERT. Because we have knowledge of this person and their history and I have a relationship with this person….

Sometimes our mere presence de-escalates a situation. We have people who would rather talk to us. Even if they’re going to get arrested and they know they are…. They’re still going to have to go and seek medical help. They know that we still have to…. We still have an obli­gation to ensure their safety. So there are times when they would rather have us and where we go. We still effect an arrest. We take them.

Our mere presence does de-escalate a situation at times. Not always. I’m not going to say that that’s 100 percent the case, because it’s not.

I will say this. The crime severity index that was just released…. The Stl’atl’imx tribal police has one of the highest in the province of British Columbia. We are not dealing with disturbances and loud parties. We are dealing with violent situations. We are dealing with domestic violence, historical sex assaults, sex assaults, forcible confinements, assault causing…. We are dealing with these kinds of offences.

We’ve had a recruit who was just doing their block II. His second day on the job, out on the road, he was dealing with a sex assault investigation. There is no other police agency in this province where a recruit doing field training is going to investigate a sex assault. Nowhere.

Our officers are getting thrown right into the mix with these incidents. That is the difference in policing our communities and the incidents that we deal with. I wish we were just dealing with noise complaints and loud parties and suspicious occurrences, but we’re not. That’s not our reality.

[11:35 a.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. That was very eye-opening. For the other piece of it, I can write in some questions.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Go ahead, Grace.

G. Lore: Thank you so much. I have learned a ton here this morning, and I have a few questions. You actually answered a couple in your last answer there.

I wanted to ask, first of all, if you had reflections you think it would be useful for us to know in terms of the change or growth over the last 30 years, or a shorter time period, if that’s better, in terms of the kind of work you’re doing or how you’re doing it, what that learning and change looks like.

Do you want me to pause there, or should I give all my questions first?

D. Doss-Cody: We’ve seen significant changes over the past 30 years within the St’át’imc Nation. With the provincial policing standards and everything, we need to ensure that we’re staying up to date and that we’re current. We’ve had times where our equipment has been lacking, and we’ve had to reach out for that funding. So we’ve had to have that. It was because of a situation that could have potentially been not so good for the STPS.

We do our best to ensure that we are current and up to date with the training. I would love to see the STPS become a training ground for any other municipal agency that would like to provide that cultural sensitivity or Indigenous sensitivity training. I would love to see that. We could do that.

G. Lore: Chair, do you mind if…?

D. Routley (Chair): Go ahead.

G. Lore: Thank you so much. I’ll stick to one of my other questions right now.

You mentioned the new officer dealing with a sexual assault investigation. I’m wondering if you can speak to what the impact is of the STPS on folks coming forward with sexual assault complaints or domestic violence, whether the presence of your police force increases access to victims and survivors as much as it impacts how you’re interacting with folks, which you might need to, as perpe­trators, I guess.

D. Doss-Cody: I know that in the past — we’re talking historically — victims of historical sexual abuse were not willing to come forward because they didn’t feel that their voices were being heard.

I’m not saying that we are the be-all, end-all to all of that. I do know that we have made an impact in that regard and that because our members have that cultural component and that sensitivity to the communities and the awareness of the families and those connections and some of the history of those families, which is integral….

I can tell you that there are certain names…. You’re probably aware of some of this. Certain names in a community are very prominent, and you’ll know which community somebody is from based on their surname.

With regards to the people coming forward, they do.

We’ve also been asked if the STPS would participate in…. With regards to September 30 and the finding of the 215 that happened in Kamloops…. The STPS has been asked by the nation if the STPS would be part of the investigations with regard to obtaining statements from victims who would be more willing to talk to us versus someone outside of the nation. That is something that had come up.

[11:40 a.m.]

G. Begg: Thank you, Deborah, for your presentation.

I wonder if you could comment, if you will, about the quality of the policing service provided by your police service and your ability to access, for example, specialized services. The example you gave — for example, of the investigation of a sexual assault by a recruit. Is that recruit able to seek out, either internally or externally, the specialized resources that are needed to properly investigate such an offence?

D. Doss-Cody: Every recruit works with a trained recruit field training officer. That officer has experience within the communities. They do provide guidance and assistance to the recruit. It’s not like that recruit is left alone to conduct that investigation. They do have another officer there who is overseeing them.

We do have the opportunity to reach out to the RCMP and their special investigations unit, GIS, if an investigation is deemed where we do not feel comfortable in conducting that investigation due to the lack of training if it’s identified as a lack of training.

We do have that. It is going to be a part of the MOU, and it was identified that that needed to be laid out because there was a lot of confusion around: if we are going ask for this specialized service, what does that look like? How does that play out?

There were a lot of back-and-forth emails and phone calls to get that sorted out, because we currently have an investigation in our community — not sexual assault–related but another investigation where we’ve had to call upon specialized services from an outside agency, being the RCMP.

G. Begg: One of the things that we’re struggling with, or are charged with struggling with, is to ensure that the quality and level of policing in the province isn’t different in the smaller communities like yours. Would it be fair to say that you can access a higher level or a higher quality of policing when required? You’re not left out there by yourself?

D. Doss-Cody: It’s a work in progress. Right now there’s so much red tape that bogs us down, and we have to, like: “Okay, who do we call? How does this work?” Because we don’t have that MOU signed and in place. It creates a lot of questions, to a point where we’re being told: “Well, we can’t assist you with this.” Or they don’t know who is going to pay for this.

That is, a lot of times, the one question that comes up: who is going to pay? Who is going to get the bill for that? We don’t have specialized services, so we do have to rely on an outside agency. That requires a memorandum of understanding, so that needs to be sorted. It needs to be in place so that these questions….

We don’t have member to member saying: “Well, no. We’re not doing this, or we’re not doing that, or yes, we’re doing this” and where there’s no direct guidance or memorandum stating that this is how it works. We need to get that red tape sorted out and dealt with.

G. Begg: It’s very important that we hear that from people like you, in positions like you. Thank you very much. You’ve been very helpful.

D. Routley (Chair): I have one question. You said earlier that part of the tripartite agreement provided a say in who was the chief. What does that look like, having a say in that? How much input is there, and how does it happen?

D. Doss-Cody: A say in who is going be chief of police?

D. Routley (Chair): Correct. Yes.

D. Doss-Cody: Okay. The board has a say, because they’re the ones who are hiring the chief officer.

[11:45 a.m.]

Much like any other municipal agency, they conduct their research. They review, and/or it’s done internally. All of the qualifications, guidelines, have to be met. The board then decides who would be the best fit for the Stl’atl’imx tribal police service and who would be the best fit for the nation.

D. Routley (Chair): So it is a final say? They get to make the decision without any interference of any kind.

D. Doss-Cody: Yes. There is no interference from any of the Chiefs of the communities. It is totally separate. The governance of the board is separate. There’s no interference, politically or otherwise. It would not happen, because they don’t want to risk anything happening to the STPS, the policing service.

D. Routley (Chair): Thanks. I guess I’m relieved to hear that.

Anybody else with questions?

A. Olsen: Sorry for showing up partway through your presentation, Deborah. I really appreciate the information that you’ve provided, and it’s, certainly, I think, perhaps an opportunity for other Indigenous nations to consider — and the role that we have here in ensuring that that consideration is available to them.

I just want to thank you for the leadership that, on behalf of your communities, you’ve presented today, and I raise my hands to you.

Thank you. HÍSW̱ḴE.

D. Routley (Chair): I really appreciate all the information you’ve given us, the unique insight, your offer to help and be a resource to the province, potentially — as you already are, but the notion of the training model.

Then, also, thanks for letting us understand the dilemma of funding in a long-term agreement like that. Some of the steps that we might make in recommendations…. You’ve really brought to our attention that we need to be aware of how that’s going to impact you. We really appreciate your contribution to the important work we’re doing.

Members, the next guest is in the waiting room, but if we could just take a quick five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 11:48 a.m. to 11:54 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): I’ll call the meeting to order and welcome our guests. I’d like to welcome Chief Fady Dagher and also Gabriela Coman from Service de police de l’agglomération de Longueuil.

[11:55 a.m.]

Welcome to this meeting of the special committee to review the Police Act. We really appreciate gaining your perspective. And our apologies. Our meetings do tend to go over time. We’ve had so much presented to us and more coming from you.

I won’t take up any more of your time. Please go ahead.

SERVICE DE POLICE
DE L’AGGLOMÉRATION DE LONGUEUIL

F. Dagher: Thank you, everybody.

Gabriela, do you want to introduce yourself very fast? Then I will do the same.

G. Coman: Hi, everybody. My name is Gabriela. I’m a PhD in sociology and trained in anthropology. I’m consi­dering the prevention of radicalization in the service of the Longueuil department.

F. Dagher: Thank you, Gabriela.

Fady Dagher. I’m the chief of police for Longueuil. It’s a neighbourhood from Montreal. We have around half a million population and 1,000 employees. I’ve been the chief for the last five years, but I’m a veteran of 30 years with the police. I was the deputy chief of the Montreal police. Now I’m the chief in Longueuil.

Thank you for having us, and 15 minutes will be very fast, so I’m going to try to be very brief but precise.

Why did we do a change of culture in the police department of Longueuil? The reality of police work completely changed. It’s been like this for the last, maybe, 15 or 20 years. Seventy-five to 80 percent of our police calls and 911 calls are all social. No more criminal calls. The behaviour, the training and the profile of our police officers had to be adjusted and changed. We needed to change very fast.

I sent you a presentation. In that presentation, I showed you that around 70 to 80 percent of the calls are social calls.

We went through a consultation. It’s important to peo­ple to be part of the change of culture, to give me the opportunity, as a chief….

The police officers asked me: “Why should we change? Is it your idea, or is it the population’s?” We went through a consultation with the population. It’s the population who asked us to change. From that, we were able to bring all the changes. Yes, we did have, and we still have, a lot of resistance inside the police department. Still, when it’s the citizens asking for the change, it’s much better for the chief.

We used that consultation…. We did it with a completely independent group, who did the consultation. That’s very important also.

I suggest that never, never should the police department do their own consultation. Choose a university, completely independent. Do an audit and inspections on your department instead of doing it from the inside. It leaves some trust for the citizens to be able to trust the police department.

Also, why we should change…. More and more, our population is getting older. More and more, our population is getting diversified. We have different cultures coming to Longueuil. We have the third…. Between Montreal, Laval and Longueuil, we are in third place in the province of Quebec. We’ve seen the most immigrants in our area. They come from all over the world. So the police have to adjust to this new clientele that we have to serve.

One of the keys of the presentation that I sent to you is on page 7, this one, the line of the change of culture, the systemic change. This line is extremely important.

Most of the time…. After 30 years with the police, what I’ve learned is that the training of police officers is one thing, especially training them in the school, in the classroom. That’s a way they can learn, but they keep only 10 percent or 15 percent of what we teach them. Instead, we have to work on a different level. We work on the individual person to train them in the action. I’m going to come back to this a bit later. Also, we have to change the system to be able to have the right people at the right place with the right training with the right profile.

The first thing that we do, when I showed you this page, is we change the profile of the candidate. No more candi­dates…. Yes, we’re still going to have a candidate who comes from future recruits, who comes from the army or security. They’re still going to get some points, but most of the candidates who get the most points right now to become a police officer in Longueuil are the future cops who are coming from social backgrounds, working in the mental health institutions, working in the community groups.

[12:00 p.m.]

Those people are going to get the most points to become police officers. 1We have to be honest with them. For the next 30 years, 75 to 80 percent of your job is going to be more social than criminal. It’s not Fady who is choosing this. This is what the 911 calls given us have indicated.

Also, the training of the staff, integration of the recruits and the famous trainer in the police car. All this had to be reviewed, and we did it since 2018. This is a very important piece of my conference today. We didn’t do it during a crisis. We didn’t do it when George Floyd happened in 2020. We were already changing the culture since 2018.

When the George Floyd event happened in the States, right away, we all felt the consequences in our police departments in Canada. But us, we were already moving on. So if you are thinking about some change in your police department in the west of Canada, in British Columbia, please try to do it in a moment of peace. You’re going to meet less and less resistance.

The famous agent recruit in the police car — this is a very important piece. Not many people talk about it. This agent in the car…. When the new recruit comes with the right profile — he has good intentions, he has a passion, and he’s more social than intervention — he sits in the car, and the senior partner sits next to him and says: “Okay, kid. Now I’m going to show you how it works. Whatever you learned in the police academy — forget it. I’m going to show you the real police.” This is when this young cop breaks. It changes that cop to become more military instead of being more social and open to the community.

Also, later I’m going to talk to you about the immersion program. This is a unique program in Canada, even in the States. Gabriela actually looked into it. Even in Australia, there is a riposte similar to this one, which was 20 years ago, and it stopped. It lasted only two days. I can explain to you a bit later. Our program, in action, lasts five weeks, without a weapon and without a uniform. Those cops go in the community and stay in the community for five weeks, which also changes the processes and the procedures.

With Gabriela, we went to the university, and we asked again for an independent teacher, specialized, who would analyze our procedures, processes. They are telling us if we have any bias — unconscious bias or any conscious bias, any discrimination — in our procedures, to be able to revise them completely.

Do you want to jump in, Gabriela?

G. Coman: It’s okay.

F. Dagher: Finding the future managers — the people who are going to take my place eventually, or the deputy chief, eventually…. We give them special training now. There is a psychological test on the soft skills instead of technical skills. We really want to try to find the right leaders, who are going to be the leaders who are much more open-minded, very close to people. The human attitude is much more important for us, so we try to detect who are the right people who are going to go up in the ranks. So we go to the psychological test.

Also, to make sure that those people didn’t fake during those tests, we send them to boot camp for three nights and four days. In that boot camp, what they have to go through is very hard. We test them on innovative ap­proaches. We test them on opening minds. We test them on racial profiling, on racism.

We test on many, many skills with a therapist, psychologist. They are in the field, watching them, evaluating them for the next three nights and four days. I will tell you, the last time we did it — six candidates. Only one passed, and he passed very, very on the line. He wasn’t extraordinary. So we really try to see who want to deal with to become the next chief in our department.

Periscope, which is the last piece of the presentation, the last one here…. Periscope is very important, because of all the competencies that we look into, 80 percent of the competencies, abilities and the capacity of the person is soft skills. Again, open mind. Open to community. Open to diversity. Open to people who are coming from a very poor social background.

[12:05 p.m.]

We really try to find…. This Periscope evaluation, all the cops have to go through it — everybody, twice a year. So after five years, ten years, we know exactly what kind of profile we have in our police departments.

If you think about it, we have a coherence between the first competences, for which we chose the people with the most social side. We rated them during the next 30 years on those same skills, same competencies, same abilities, so there’s occurrence from the beginning to the end.

After that, while I send you my papers…. The police de concertation approach. This is a very unique approach also. The middle piece of this presentation is their philosophy, which broadens the police role to one that is no longer restricted to matters of security but to a broader range of social needs expressed by the community and citizens.

We are revising the whole mandate of the police department. The Minister of Public Security in Quebec gave us the green code to go for it and test it for the next three to five years with a pilot project. She said: “Okay. Try it. Let’s open the law of the police and include the concertation.” Gabriela is one of my teammates that created a new police approach. It’s a really different way of policing the department.

The way we’re different. We are not working anymore on the 911 calls. Our approach is a proactive approach. If 75 or 80 percent of our police officers are responding to social 911 calls, how can we be there before the 911 call?

How can we be with the community, with the partners, avoiding those 911 calls? When you look at the media, when you look at what’s happening, we are losing, more and more, the trust with the community. Why? It’s because so many videos are going around. The only things that you can see right now are very, very sad events, where the cops had to pull out a taser or a gun or their wood stick or other stick, and be physical. But it’s too late, being physical, because the call was a mental health call, or autism — young kids who have autism.

How can we be there before those crises? This is the approach of the police de concertation. We left you, also, the eight principles of this approach. One of them is a very important item. We talk about trust, we talk about intercultural, we talk about good judgment, but we especially talk about care.

Those new cops that we’re putting in the field are not answering the 911 calls. They’re staying with the community. They’re going to be there for five, ten, 30 years, if they want to, in the same neighbourhood. Never moving, but becoming the family cop of the community. The community are going to have the cellular number, the portable number. They’re going to have the schedule of that cop. He’s going to be having dinner, breakfast, supper with the family inside the houses, bringing with him the services — the therapists or the nurses or the people who come inside the house to help the family. Why? It’s because we want to be there way before the event in the community, before the 911 call.

I’m going to go fast, because I see the time is flying.

The police RÉSO — this is the police officer that I mentioned to you just before. They are going to be in the community. The approach they’re going to be developing with the community, with the partners, is to be with the family and immediately be detecting right now.

Let’s say Fady and Gabriela have an address, and we’ve been calling the police department for the last month or for the last years, 20 times a year. Well, the Longueil police department is going to be calling Gabriela and Fady and saying: “Listen. Can we have a talk? Can we sit with you guys and see what’s going on? How come you keep calling 911? What’s going on? Is there any violence? Is there any mental health issue? Is there any problem with the neighbourhood? How can we avoid having you guys calling 911 all the time?”

Trust me. We did the test recently during COVID, and it was remarkable. In the neighbourhood, a special neighbourhood, we have 85 to 87 calls a month. With the special community, after putting two cops in the community, staying with them and going to arrive every day, we are down 42 calls — from 85 to 42 calls after one month.

[12:10 p.m.]

We’re avoiding all those 911 calls by bringing partners with us and finding a longer solution with the community.

To finish, very fast….

Gabriela, I’m so sorry. I’m flying. Is that okay, Gabriela?

G. Coman: It’s good.

F. Dagher: Everything I’m saying, by the way, is not me. It’s Gabriela. She’s the brain. It’s not me. She has a PhD, after all. I’m not much.

G. Coman: We’re the team.

F. Dagher: At the end, immersion program.

Gabriela, you know what? Go for the immersion program. This is your baby.

G. Coman: Thank you very much.

First of all, I would like to make a remark about the word “consultation,” concertation in French. It would be that if you want some kind of understanding about consultation, working together, building up compromise — all these terms that speak about how to work together. Together means the police service, the police officers, the civilian employees, but also all the members of the community — NGOs, school boards, citizens, social services and health services. That is very, very important.

When Fady says that police officers go to somebody and want to understand what happened with the 911 call, it’s, in fact, about working together with the other people that eventually are around this person, around some situations.

I will close my remarks and go to the professional development program — immersion.

First of all, I would like to say that it’s a very normative program. How did Fady say it? The program is built up on an experiential and reflexive foundation. These are the principal pillars of the program.

Second of all, the aim of the program is to develop the police officer’s knowledge of the different environments and populations at risk of marginalization with which they interact on a daily basis and often in emergency situations, identifying the grey areas and having a greater capacity to adapt to all of the ranges of situations.

Third, the populations at risk of marginalization are, for example, the people that are in situations of extreme psychological and social vulnerability or multiple distresses — for example, people who are homeless or living in extreme poverty. There are also, for example, the people that suffer from mental illness, autism spectrum or other mental health disorders.

There are also the people that display visible religious symbols. They’re not marginalized in themselves, but they could be marginalized because of the signs. Also, there are people that belong to visible culture groups or racialized minorities. They’re also not vulnerable in themselves, but they could be put in the kinds of situations that marginalize them.

The program allows all of the people, all our partners — citizens, organizations, NGOs, institutions, colleges, schools, and so on — to see the police in a new light. When we share each other’s specific realities, everybody can have a greater understanding and mutual respect also.

Practically, we had, and we also have, 30 police officers. They spend time in those communities, five weeks and 21 days completely in these kinds of environments — schools, families that have some children with autism or with other mental health disorders or families that have culturally diverse backgrounds.

[12:15 p.m.]

The aim is to spend the time and to participate in activities and to do some stuff with these people, with these communities, with these organizations. The aim is to develop greater introspection, to be able to have auto­réflexion with regards to themselves with their practice and practices in general — to have a bigger introspection or be reflective about the vulnerable populations they interact with and so on.

F. Dagher: Just to complete, because I see the time is passing, I’m going to give you a concrete example of what Gabriela’s talking about. We send police officers — two cops — no uniform, no weapon on them. They spend the day, evening, in the houses, in the shopping centre, with families.

At one point, one mother went with her boy, maybe ten, eleven years old, who had autism. They were walking inside Costco. At one point — it was during Christmas time — the young kid got disorganized. And we told those two cops: “You don’t move. You don’t touch. You don’t say anything. Just watch.”

The mother tried to control her kid. And the judgment of the population around her…. Oh my god. Some people started to insult her. Some people started to say comments about her being a bad mother: “What kind of kid…? How did you raise your kid?” And the cops were there, watching them.

At the end, when Gabriela did the emotional debriefing at the end of the day, they had so much anger in them. The cops said: “That doesn’t make sense. Those people are going through this.” But on the 911 call, in uniform, when they go on one call after the other, they don’t have time to see those things. They don’t witness what those communities are going through.

Same thing we had in the…. It’s like a Costco. It’s the Provigo. It was a Muslim woman with a hijab. She was inside. The cops were walking next to her. At one point, people started spitting on her or talking badly to her or looking down on her. The cops, again, were witnesses and said: “Oh my god. I didn’t expect this. You guys go through this very often?” She said: “This is our reality.”

This is a way that Gabriela and the team found to be able to retain it in the brain of the police officer, to keep it longer inside the brain, saying: “This is what’s happening in your community. So when you respond to a 911 call, please respect — open mind — and discern what’s going on.”

One of the indicators…. One of those 30 police officers went in the immersion program that we created with Gabriela. One of the indicators after the program was that the 911 department that works for us told me: “Mr. Dagher, it doesn’t make sense. Now the cops are taking too long on the calls.” So you know what? Good. I told them: “Keep it like that. I want them to take time.” Yes, we could have more calls, but we’ll find a solution about it, as long as they take the time to build the trust with the community.

This program that we mentioned, the immersion program…. All the police officers in the Longueuil police are going to have to go through it every five years. Today the issue is, maybe, mental health. But I don’t know, in five years, ten years, what’s going to be the new issue, what’s going to be emerging as a new social challenge? We don’t know, so every five years, we’ve got to be changing.

I know the time….

I don’t know, Gabriela, if you…. Is it okay if we give them the space to ask questions?

G. Coman: Yeah. It’s good.

F. Dagher: So it’s open for you guys.

I don’t even know who we’re talking to. I didn’t even look at your names. I don’t even know you guys, but thank you for having us.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

I’ll open the floor to questions from members.

R. Glumac: Thank you for the presentation.

I’m Rick Glumac. I’m the MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam, just outside of Vancouver.

I have to say that it’s quite impressive, what you guys are doing. I’m learning a lot from this.

I have a couple of questions around the program and the changes. You mentioned…. I think you called it Periscope, where twice a year, the officers have to go through an evaluation. I’m just curious. How does that evaluation…? What effect does it have? How does that work? Is that to determine promotions? How does that work?

[12:20 p.m.]

F. Dagher: Police evaluations have two or three objectives. First of all, there are 11 competencies, 11 abilities that we are evaluating. Two or three of them are technical, so to see if they know how to deal with crime scenes or if they know how to deal with arrestation. But eight of 11 or nine of 11 are all about the approach with the community — the politeness, the open mind. This is when the supervisor on the field sees his cop working with the community and takes notes.

Every six months during the year, they meet. They say: “Listen. I observed you on the field. I saw the way you work.” And 80 percent of the evaluation is going to be on quality of approach, not quantitative but quality. So they take notes, and at the end, after six months, they sit together, and they look at the evaluation. Six months later, they see where they are at. Is there any evolution? Is there any positive aspect? Is there a negative aspect?

Before, just to give you an idea, you know what we used to evaluate? Number of arrestation, number of tickets, number of observation papers. You know what? We still need to do some, but I don’t need to evaluate you on that. Eighty percent are social calls, so why am I going to evaluate you on the tickets, on arrestation? I need to evaluate you on something else.

R. Glumac: Thank you for that answer. Another quick question, and I’ll let my colleagues ask. I have a number of them.

We’ve learned about some communities and police forces that integrate. Even here in B.C., we have programs where we integrate nurses with a background in mental health and other professionals that ride along with police officers. Are you doing that as well?

F. Dagher: Yes, we do. We are doing it. We have teams exactly the same to what you mentioned. We have a social worker, we have nurses sitting in the police car with the police officer, and they intervene together. This is good, but this is a team — one team, two teams, three teams.

What we presented today is a change of culture to the whole organization. And what’s very important to policing is on the paper that you have with you guys. For now, we are starting with 25. Let’s say I have 1,000 police officers. We are starting with 25, 30. Our objective is to become 50 percent and 50 percent: 50 percent of cops in the community without answering 911 calls, and the other 50 percent are going to be answering 911 calls. Those 50 percent answering 911 calls….

Of course, we have already social workers in the police car. We have nurses. This has changed. We have this approach with us. But what we learn is as long as we stay two or three or four or five or ten little teams, it doesn’t make a difference in changing the culture. It just brings you some hope, and everybody talks about those teams.

What about the 95 percent of the rest of the agency? Nobody talks about those people, because nobody has the courage to touch them. It’s very easy to change the structure. It’s very difficult to change the culture. So this is why it is ambitious, but it is necessary.

A. Olsen: In the interest of time, I just wanted to, again, thank our presenters for presenting to us, I think, a different view as to how things could be done. I’m excited to learn more. The 15 or 20 minutes, or whatever it is that we gave you, is certainly not enough time to really get in and dig in deeply on this.

I just want to acknowledge that the immersion programs that you talked about particularly caught my attention. We’re trying to create policing services in the province that are very understanding of the communities that they’re working in. Sometimes I think that it would be very helpful to see them from an un-uniformed, unarmed perspective, so I really appreciate that. It’s certainly an aspect of the presentation that you’ve provided that I’d like to explore further.

[12:25 p.m.]

I’ll leave it at that. I know that my colleagues have got other questions, and we’re short on time.

F. Dagher: I just forgot to say one word with Gabriela. The police officers, by the way — the 30 cops, the 31 that we chose, and now we have another 30 — are in the immersion program right now. They are volunteers. Yes, they are paid, but they decided to jump into the adventure. They didn’t know every day what they were going to go through during the five weeks. They only knew: no gun, no uniform.

What I’m trying to say is that you will be surprised. I’m extremely proud of our police officers in the field. Most of the people of high rank told me: “Fady, it will never work. Nobody would be a volunteer in this program.” You know what? In the first shot, we had 250 possible candidates. We got 107 volunteers. We had to choose only 30.

Your police officers in the field — trust me: they are big, human people. They really want to change. They really want to try to get some skills. We have to give them tools. They are not the problem. The resistance is somewhere else. I’m sorry. I just wanted to say that.

G. Lore: I’m Grace Lore. I’m the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, on Vancouver Island.

This has been really incredible, and I’ve learned a lot. There are a lot of tangible pieces here, interesting ideas. I’m just grateful for the chance to hear from you on those ideas and how they’re working. You answered, I think, part of my second question, but I’ll pose it anyway.

First, I just wanted a clarification that in this immersion program, the idea is that folks would do it every five years. So it isn’t a one-off thing? Okay. Second — again, I think you just touched on this, but in case there’s anything else you want to add — the reception among your officers, especially those who’ve been around a long time…. As you said, a change of culture is hard. We hear quite a bit about the culture of these workplaces in particular. Just in case there’s anything else you want to add on that point, I’d be glad to hear it.

F. Dagher: It’s a good question.

On the second one that you mentioned, I was surprised. I had some protégés. I thought that only the young police officers would apply and would be volunteers. I was very surprised. Veterans of 20 or 25 years — right away they raised their hands. They wanted to go to the five weeks’ training. I was like: “What?” It just shows you that, honestly, older cops, younger cops — they all wanted to try it.

Right now we even have, of the 30 candidates, 50-50 women and men. It wasn’t only the women. Men, too, wanted to go to the training.

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

My name is Dan Davies. I’m the MLA for Peace River North. I represent a rural area in northeastern British Columbia.

We’ve had discussion, lots here, in British Columbia about 911 and the calls that come in. When a 911 call comes in to whatever your call system is — I don’t know how it works there, precisely — is there a mechanism that directs mental health calls separately, at the 911 call, for your officers to attend? Or is it just that the officers attend as they would with any 911 call?

F. Dagher: When the 911 call comes in, our centre sends the call to a police car, mentioning that it is a mental health call. So the cops in the field, any cops, would go on that call. But as the gentleman was talking before, about those teams…. The mixed team — the police officer, the social worker and the nurse — will follow the first team. The first team will secure the call, and the hybrid team — of the cops and the social worker or the nurse — will come in and take over.

[12:30 p.m.]

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Just a quick follow-up. Another thing that has been mentioned during our pre­sentations that we’ve had is kind of a tiered policing. It sounds like you might, or at least within part of it…. Instead of sending a uniformed police officer with the vest and the gun to every call, do you have different levels of policing that attend certain calls, like a mental health call, once it’s defined, or something like that that you have to send? It’s because we don’t always need to send a uniformed police officer. So do you have that set up within your community?

F. Dagher: If it is a 911 call, I would say that 80 percent of the time, I would be sending a police officer with uniform, fully equipped with all their weapons on them. I don’t have a special team that goes at the same time and does the call at the same time when the 911 call comes in.

You have to remember…. I don’t know how you guys in B.C. work, but when I send the hybrid team — the cop and the social worker — the protocol that we have with the health department, with the nurses department, is to send the police car to secure the place, and right away behind them is going to be that hybrid team that takes over. We still, with the union and all that, always have to consider the safety of our police officers and the safety of the citizens. Then right away the hybrid team will be behind them to take over.

That’s why your question is great. If I focus only on those special teams to be efficient, that’s one thing. But if 80 percent of my police department are more crime-combative cops, more intervention cops, those are the ones I have to focus on and then change their mentality, to become more soft, to have better skills, to get in contact with the community.

My focus — after 30 years, I learned — is to focus on the 85 or 90 percent of my department and to keep working with those 15 or 10 percent who are my ambassadors and who are doing the great jobs. I need to change the mentality of those 85 or 90 percent of the cops.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Merci beaucoup.

G. Coman: I would like to just add an idea about this conversation about the armed, fully equipped police officers.

What we try to do, in the immersion program and in the other programs, is to develop the skills of communi­cation, emotional intelligence and all of the soft skills that come with the equipment. At the moment, police officers will develop these soft skills in a manner so that the technical equipment would be there if the situation becomes bad but that the focus will be on the communication and understanding of the situation of the person.

F. Dagher: If you guys have time, I have another ten minutes, or eight minutes anyway, as you wish.

D. Routley (Chair): I’m really glad to hear that. I was going to ask you if we had time for me to ask a question, as the Chair. I will, then.

We’re facing a dual health crisis here, with COVID and with the overdose and opioid crisis. I’m wondering how you’re coping with that particular crisis in your communities.

F. Dagher: We do maybe have a similar issue, but I think that for you guys, it’s worse than us. With homeless people, we do have a very similar issue, to be honest with you. Did you know…? I’m sure it’s the same thing in B.C. I found out recently that 50 percent of the population who are in need don’t go to the specialized services. They don’t go. They stay where they are, and they go through life without consulting.

One of the approaches with the immersion — and the RÉSO program with Gabriela — is to bring the services to the vulnerable people. Since we’ve been doing this, personalizing the approach, one by one, much more surgically and being focused on each individual…. I don’t have the volume that you guys have. I read about the issue that you have in the west. It’s worse than us — much, much worse than us. Still, by bringing the services into the field, staying with them….

[12:35 p.m.]

One of the key…. I don’t know if you guys realize. Those police officers that we’re putting in the field are going to become the 50 percent — 50 percent of the whole organization — staying in the field with the community for five, ten, 20 years — 30 years if they have to. They’re not moving from that neighbourhood. They’re staying with the community in that neighbourhood.

We are hoping the same nurse will stay with the cop, intervene with the homeless person, stay with him, find an apartment, find food, find work — working with him, but staying with him in the field instead of expecting him to go to the services.

Example: we’re not giving any more tickets to any homeless person. We don’t give tickets to homeless people. I told my police officers: “Not one ticket to a homeless person. I don’t want to see this in my organization once.” On that, we build trust with them, but we have to bring the services into the field and stay with them.

If I change the cop…. Let’s say we build trust between you and me, and two weeks later or two months later, I send another cop, and you are gone somewhere else. We have to repeat it all the time. It’s a trust issue, also, in the field.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

If anybody else has…. I think Rick had more questions.

R. Glumac: I see Gabriela’s hand up as well.

D. Routley (Chair): Go ahead, Gabriela.

G. Coman: I’ll just add the idea that, in fact, two years ago, we had — and we have — very, very strong relationships with all the municipalities and with all the partners in community environments. We have a strong structure of consultation and collaboration with them. It was very useful during the COVID period.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

R. Glumac: I’m just looking at the eight principles that you outline on slide 10. I wonder if you could, maybe after the meeting, send a bit more information about what each of those means. Like “multidirectional partiality” — I don’t know what that means.

F. Dagher: It’s a humble approach, equal with the partners. But we will send you, with Gabriela and Fabrice — maybe Gabriela in English — all the details. Sure.

R. Glumac: That would be great. Thank you.

D. Routley (Chair): Other questions?

F. Dagher: Can I ask you? How did you hear from us?

D. Routley (Chair): Our research staff are amazing. They put in front of us massive lists of people and circumstances, and we were able to choose to ask people, invite people to present. We’re very grateful that you have.

We take this assignment very seriously and consider it a huge opportunity to have a positive impact in our province. We’ve been hearing of a lot of very interesting models from throughout our province, but obviously outside as well.

We can’t thank you enough. You’ve taken time from your own busy and committed lives, in your own world and jurisdiction, to help us way over here on the other side of the country. We’re very grateful for that.

F. Dagher: It’s a pleasure for us. Why I’m asking that question is because if you have to deal with, eventually, all the police departments, different agencies…. Just to let you know, the immersion program won the number one prize in Canada from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

The police chiefs in Canada are very open to change — to change the culture, to evolve. So you should not meet a lot of resistance from the chiefs. From the field, you’re going to have a great adventure with the police departments.

D. Routley (Chair): Yes. Thank you very much. We have found that, absolutely. One of our members is a former RCMP officer — MLA Begg. We all have different backgrounds to contribute to this. I feel very fortunate that we’ve been able to do this.

[12:40 p.m.]

The police chiefs that we’ve spoken to locally have been very open, helping. The length of time it takes to change culture, as you said…. To change structure — yeah, that’s immediate. But culture…. You know, we can’t forget that we’re actually seeing a lot of great improvements all around us. It’s hard to measure much of the best of it.

F. Dagher: It is.

D. Routley (Chair): We really appreciate your contribution today.

F. Dagher: You’re welcome.

G. Coman: Thank you for inviting us.

D. Routley (Chair): Members may have more questions. We look forward to receiving the information that Rick asked about.

If you have any contribution you’d like to make later, the “oh man, I wish I’d said that” moment, we’re always open to hearing more.

F. Dagher: Most probably in March or April of 2022, we’re going to have another immersion program. Twice a year we have an immersion program.

If you guys want to…. Right now we’ve got the provincial police department, the Montreal police department. Different police come to our immersion program. If you want to send somebody to observe, to come and go through that five weeks in the community, see how it is, you’re more than welcome. Gabriela will make room for one or two persons to come and go through the experience.

D. Routley (Chair): I can’t thank you enough for making such a kind offer of help. The previous presenter offered a training opportunity in a First Nations community here in B.C. This is really what makes the work worthwhile, the willingness of people to contribute. I really, really appreciate that. Thank you. We’ll pass that on.

With that, Members, I think there’s a meeting of the Finance Committee coming.

G. Coman: Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

F. Dagher: Bye-bye.

D. Routley (Chair): I think we’ll probably cut the meeting short at this point. I was planning for quarter to. We’re just a couple of minutes early, if everybody is all right with that.

Okay. In that case, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

I have it from Dan and seconded by Garry.

Motion approved.

D. Routley (Chair): The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody. That was a great morning.

The committee adjourned at 12:42 p.m.