POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
CONTENTS
Monday 26 May 1997
Police Services Amendment Act, 1997, Bill 105, Mr Runciman /
Loi de 1997 modifiant la Loi sur les services policiers, projet de loi 105, M. Runciman
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
J-2243
The committee met at 1534 in room 228.
POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
Consideration of Bill 105, An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety / Projet de loi 105, Loi visant à renouveler le partenariat entre la province, les municipalités et la police et visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is the beginning of clause-by-clause deliberation of the justice committee's review of Bill 105, An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Chair, I know a number of amendments have been filed by each of the three caucuses. I wonder, however, if we might defer consideration until we take the junket to New York City to see how the New York City police services commissions deal with -- I know we could use teleconferencing, that's what the government recommends, but they seem to prefer actual junkets instead of telephone communications or Xerox. So perhaps the whole committee could adjourn to New York for a day or two, following the precedent set by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Mr Flaherty, Mr Wood and big Jim Brown from Scarborough. I seek unanimous consent in that regard.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): Denied.
The Chair: I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about, Mr Kormos.
Mr Bob Wood: I denied unanimous consent.
Mr Kormos: Because you haven't been reading the papers, Chair, and you weren't in on the junket.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos. I have heard a negative and there is not unanimous consent. We will therefore proceed.
We have today 106 amendments to the bill before us and we would start with item 1. Everyone should have received the amendments in their packages. If they have not, speak to me.
Mr Bob Wood: Do we not start with sections 1 and 2?
The Chair: Yes. If we could start again, there are no amendments to section 1. Before I put the question, is there any discussion in regard to section 1 of the amendments to the Police Services Act? If not, all those in favour of section 1? Against? Section 1 is carried.
There are no proposed amendments to section 2 of the act. Is there any discussion in regard to section 2? If not, shall section 2 carry? All those in favour? Against? Section 2 is carried.
We are now proceeding to section 3 and we have a government amendment to section 3.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 4 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(6) Despite subsection (5) and sections 72, 73 and 74 of the County of Oxford Act, the councils of the county of Oxford and of all the area municipalities within the county of Oxford may agree to have subsection (1) applied to the county of Oxford and not to the area municipalities but, having made such agreement, the councils cannot thereafter revoke it."
Mr Kormos: No quarrel with the sense of this. What is the purpose of the denial of revocation right?
Mr Bob Wood: We don't think there's going to be any purpose in them going from a larger unit to a smaller unit, and therefore they can't.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the amendment proposed for section 3? If not, all those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Carried.
We are now proceeding to item 2, which is a government amendment to paragraph 1 of section 5.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that paragraph 1 of section 5 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"1. The council may establish a police force, the members of which shall be appointed by the board under clause 31(1)(a)."
I'm happy to give explanations. The purpose of this is to change the word "board" to "council." It ensures consistency with other clauses in the section which place responsibility for determining how police services are delivered with the council. It recognizes the principle that municipal council makes structural decisions, not the police services board.
The Chair: Any questions or discussion in regard to the amendment? If not, all those in favour? Against? The amendment is carried.
We will now proceed to Mr Kormos's motion, item 3.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 5 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following paragraph:
"3.1 The council may enter into an agreement under section 6.1 with the council of an adjacent municipality to have its police services provided by the board of the other municipality."
The Chair: Is there any discussion with regard to Mr Kormos's motion?
Mr Kormos: If I may, this is obviously in response to submissions that were made. It was observed at the time that in effect the OPP would have a monopoly over policing of communities that did not establish their own police services board. There was concern expressed about the absence of any rate structure or any process for determining fees for that OPP policing. This is consistent with similar provisions in Bill 84 which encourage the sharing of resources and is also consistent with, as I recall, Bill 108, which provided in the government's own version of the bill similar provision. It's one which I would think the government would support because it's consistent with their general expressed view, I suspect merely a stated view, that municipalities should have flexibility.
1540
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I notice that the next motion will allow municipalities to do somewhat the same if they are of a contiguous nature, so they have to share the same borders. I would want to ask the parliamentary assistant, then, why does it look like it's okay to share services if the borders are contiguous versus, say, municipalities that do not share the same borders? Why the differentiation?
Mr Bob Wood: We do not support this amendment because we think what's essentially a new system should start with contiguous municipalities. We'd like to see how that works. If it works well, obviously changes can be considered in the future. But we think to permit checkerboarding, at this stage at least, would be imprudent.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion to the proposed amendment? We have an amendment before us proposed by Mr Kormos. All those in favour? All those against? The amendment fails.
We are proceeding to a government amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 5 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following paragraph:
"3.1 The council may enter into an agreement under section 6.1 with the council of another municipality to have its police services provided by the board of the other municipality, on the conditions set out in the agreement, if the municipality that is to receive the police services is contiguous to the municipality that is to provide the police services or is contiguous to any other municipality that receives police services from the same municipality."
The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to that section, which I think follows from the prior amendment? If not, all those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Item 5 is an amendment proposed by Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I move that paragraph 5 of section 5 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"5 With the commission's approval, the council may provide police services by a combination of the methods described in this section or by a method not described in this section."
If I may comment briefly once again, it's consistent with the argument made on behalf of our earlier amendment and one which seems in tune with this government's expressed or stated views that municipalities should have flexibility.
Mr Bob Wood: The question is, how much flexibility, how soon? We think it's imprudent to go to this level of flexibility at this time. We find the last part of the proposed section to be rather broad indeed.
Mr Kormos: It certainly is, and intended to be.
Mr Ramsay: We have agreement here.
Mr Kormos: By God, that's called flexibility, Mr Wood. I'd like to know how the New York City police commission would handle a similar issue.
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): You missed it; too late. You shouldn't have taken the week off.
Mr Bob Wood: Go down and ask them.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment fails.
Mr Kormos, item 6.
Mr Kormos: This doesn't involve a junket to New York City when mere telephone conferencing would have sufficed, I'm sure.
I move that section 5 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Employee rights
"(2) If a municipality provides police services in a manner which results in the termination of any person's employment, the municipality that will be providing the police services or the Ontario Provincial Police, if it will be providing the police services, must offer comparable employment to that person."
Briefly, once again this is in response to comments the committee heard, which was concern about the displacement of police officers by virtue of some of the restructuring that's going to flow from this or obviously by the displacement of civilian staff.
I think there's non-police staff and it's important that those persons be protected in the process of this restructuring. Certainly this does it in a way that's not at all unfair to the new employer.
Mr Bob Wood: We do not favour this amendment. The practice in the past has been, when the OPP has taken over a municipal force, that all the officers have been employed, and we would anticipate that, by and large, that's going to continue. On the other hand, we think a reasonable degree of flexibility is required.
Mr Kormos: The flexibility issue rears its ugly head again, and the whole flexibility concept is increasingly flexible as we progress through this.
If Mr Wood's position is that he relies upon the past practice of the OPP, it seems to me highly desirable that it be put into the statute. That way we can be ensured that it's going to happen and those people who are suffering this restructuring can be confident that they won't find themselves in the unemployment line.
The Chair: If there is no further discussion, shall Mr Kormos's amendment carry? The amendment fails.
We have now reached the end of the amendments to section 4. Any discussion in regard to section 4, as amended? No. Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Against? Section 4 is carried.
We are now proceeding to section 5. There are no amendments to section 5. If there is no discussion, shall section 5 carry? It is carried.
Shall section 6 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 6 carries.
We are now dealing with a new section, 6.1. This is item 7.
Mr Kormos: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"`The act is amended by adding the following section:
"`Municipal agreements for providing police services
"`6.1 The councils of two adjacent municipalities may enter into an agreement for the provision of police services for one municipality by the board of the other municipality on the conditions set out in the agreement.'"
Once again this is in response to submissions made to the committee, issues raised on the part of municipalities that would want to club resources or share resources. Notwithstanding the very complex and restrictive amendment proposed by the government, it seems to me that section 6.1, as contained in this motion, provides for fairness and flexibility for municipalities to engage in some modest aspect of self-determination.
Mr Bob Wood: The government does not favour this amendment. This flows logically from the earlier amendment. We do not think checkerboarding at this time is a prudent step to take.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion with regard to the proposed amendment? If not, all those in favour? All those against? The amendment fails.
Next, item 8.
1550
Mr Bob Wood: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"6.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:
"`Municipal agreements for providing police services
"`6.1(1) The councils of two municipalities may enter into an agreement for the provision of police services for one municipality by the board of the other municipality, on the conditions set out in the agreement, if the municipality that is to receive the police services is contiguous to the municipality that is to provide the police services or is contiguous to any other municipality that receives police services from the same municipality.
"`Advisors to board
"`(2) The council of a municipality that receives police services pursuant to an agreement made under subsection (1) may select a person to advise the other municipality's board with respect to objectives and priorities for police services in the municipality that receives the police services.
"`Term of office
"`(3) The term of office for a person selected to advise another municipality's board shall be as set by the council when the person is selected, but shall not exceed the term of office of the council that selected him or her.
"`Same and reappointment
"`(4) A person selected to advise another municipality's board may continue to sit after the expiry of the term of office of the council that selected him or her until the selection of his or her successor and is eligible for reappointment.
"`Protection from liability
"`(5) No action or other proceeding for damages shall be instituted against a person selected to advise another municipality's board for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of a duty or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of a duty.'"
Perhaps I can give a brief explanation of this. This is a consequential amendment to 3.1 under section 5. It permits one council to contract with the council in an adjacent municipality for the delivery of police services. It allows permissive authority for the council of the municipality receiving the service to have an adviser to the police services board of the municipality providing the service. The adviser would provide information on the needs and priorities of the municipality to the police services board. It sets out the term of office and so on. That, basically, is the purpose of this amendment.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion with regard to the proposed amendment? If not, all those in favour of the amendment? Against? The amendment is carried.
We are now proceeding to an amendment to section 7, being item 10.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 7 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Municipal agreements with OPP
"(3) The board of a municipality may agree with the commissioner or with the local detachment commander of the Ontario Provincial Police that the Ontario Provincial Police will provide some police services to the municipality on the conditions set out in the agreement, and subsections 10(7) and (8) apply to the agreement."
The Chair: Any questions with regard to the proposed amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Is there any discussion with regard to section 7, as amended? If not, all those in favour of section 7, as amended? Against? Section 7 is carried.
There are no proposed amendments to sections 8 to 13, inclusive. Is there any discussion with regard to those sections? If not, shall sections 8 to 13, inclusive, carry? Sections 8 to 3 are carried.
We are now dealing with Mr Kormos's amendment to section 14, being item 11.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 21(7) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 14 of the bill, be amended by striking out "the Solicitor General" and substituting "the Attorney General."
Once again, this is in response to concerns raised about the need for some arm's-length. The amendment indicates that it's more appropriate that it be the Attorney General conducting that supervision rather than the Solicitor General.
Mr Bob Wood: We are not in favour of this amendment. We think it's a matter of police discipline and it should be done by the Solicitor General.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion, shall --
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested. Shall Mr Kormos's amendment carry?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The motion to amend section 14 fails.
I will now put the question, shall section 14 carry? All those in favour? Against? Section 14 is carried.
We are now proceeding to an amendment of Mr Kormos's to section 15, being item 12.
Mr Kormos: I move that clause 22(1)(e) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 15(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(e) conducting inquiries, investigations and hearings, on its own motion, at any stage before, during or at the conclusion of a review, investigation or hearing in respect of a complaint or complaints made about the policies of or services provided by a police force or about the conduct of a police officer."
This is distinguished from the existing section by virtue of deleting the reference to the chief of police and board.
Mr Bob Wood: We do not favour this amendment. In essence, what we have is a complainant-driven system, and we think this is unnecessary.
The Chair: We have a proposed amendment to section 15(2). If there is no further discussion --
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The motion fails. We are proceeding to item 13.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 22(1)(e) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 15(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "frivolous, vexatious or unsubstantiated" in the sixth and seventh lines and substituting "frivolous or vexatious, made in bad faith or unsubstantiated, that the complaint will not be dealt with because it was made more than six months after the facts on which it is based occurred."
This amendment gives power to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to review the decision on the request of the complainant by the chief etc not to deal with a complaint more than six months old or a complaint made in bad faith. That strengthens the civilian review component of the system. The above subsections allow the chief, detachment commander etc not to deal with a complaint more than six months old and not to deal with one that's made in bad faith.
1600
Mr Kormos: Is there a concurrent amendment to section 71? I'm looking for the limitation period in section 71. If you'll bear with me for a second, I'm looking for the six-month limitation period referred to in the amendment in section 71. I'm finding "frivolous, vexatious" etc. Could you just help me with that? Where am I going to find the --
The Chair: Item 96, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: No. That's the amendment. I'm looking for the section that creates the six-month limitation period.
Mr Bob Wood: You're asking what's in the existing legislation?
Mr Kormos: Yes.
Mr Bob Wood: Subsection 77(7) of the Police Services Act.
Mr Kormos: Okay. That's the status quo in the current act, as I understand it, the six-month limitation period. Thank you.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, we have a proposed government amendment to subsection 15(2). Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried.
We're proceeding to item 14.
Mr Kormos: I move that clause 22(1)(e.1) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 15(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "that the complainant was not directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint" in the seventh, eighth, ninth and 10th lines.
This again was a matter of some great concern because it relates to the ability of third parties to make complaints. I found it very difficult to understand the position of the government in not being responsive to this plea for third-party complaints. It has nothing to do with whether somebody can act as an agent or act on behalf of an aggrieved person. It has to do with wanting, I would think, the public in general to be concerned about misconduct they might witness and encouraging them to initiate the process if they witness what they believe to be inappropriate conduct. It seems to me that would serve everybody's interest.
It would also deal with the sad reality that there are any number of people in our community, probably increasingly so, who are so marginalized, for any number of reasons, that they would not find it particularly easy or would not find themselves readily capable of initiating this type of complaint. This is an issue we feel very strongly about, and I suspect that others who sat through the committee process do as well.
Mr Ramsay: I agree with my colleague. I think this is a very important point to be made. I'm sorry that this is not going to be accepted by the government, as they have removed from the present act the ability of third parties to make a complaint. I think this should be reinstated, for all the reasons the previous speaker stated. Everyone in society has to be assured that our police are operating to the utmost of their ability to uphold the law and that any citizen has the right to bring forward a complaint against the police from time to time.
This is not to pick on the police, but we have to emphasize that we confer to our police officers extraordinary powers that the average citizen does not have, and in order for the justice system to work, there's got to be complete confidence by everyone in society that every citizen can be a watchdog. That's important. I also think it's important that if we have citizens who, for whatever reason, don't have the ability or the confidence to bring forward complaints, they should be able to be represented or others should be able to initiate a complaint if they perceive that some wrongdoing has occurred. It's important that the committee consider this amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: We are against this amendment. We see the best system as being a complainant-driven system, which is exactly the same way our civil justice system works.
Mr Kormos: Neither of the opposition parties are suggesting that it shouldn't be a complainant-driven system. All we're saying is that a complainant should be somebody who witnesses improper conduct but who may not be the direct victim of that improper conduct. It's in the public interest that members of the public in fact recognize a responsibility to report and initiate the process when they witness inappropriate conduct.
I heard what Mr Wood said, but I find the reference to the civil justice system entirely inappropriate. Nobody's seeking damages or compensation when they initiate a complaint in this process. I'm not denying the existence of bad-faith complaints, but that's why there are provisions in the existing act and in the amendments to deal with frivolous, vexatious etc complaints. My God, if I witness improper conduct, I certainly want -- and I think I speak for the vast majority of Ontarians -- to be able to see something done about it, and I think members of the public are prepared to take it upon themselves. I find the reference to the civil process entirely weird, because nobody's seeking damages or compensation here; they're seeking something that -- the civil justice system might be better oriented towards their seeking some justice and some correction of behaviour.
Mr Ramsay: I think it's rather inappropriate, in this case, for the parliamentary assistant to compare the civil and the criminal system of justice. It is very different for me to bring a complaint that I think neighbour A's fence is encroaching on neighbour B's property than it is for me to feel that police officers arrived at a neighbour's home and acted inappropriately, and those neighbours, for whatever reason, felt they could not bring forward a complaint about that behaviour. It's a very different matter and a matter potentially far more serious. I think this right of third-party complaints needs to be reinstated in this act.
The Chair: Mr Wood?
Mr Bob Wood: I have nothing to add.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Kormos's proposed amendment? A recorded vote is requested. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment fails. We are proceeding to item 15.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 15 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.1) Clause 22(1)(f) of the act is amended by inserting "and complainants" after "forces" in the second line.
The proposed amendment clarifies the power given to OCCPS in section 69 of the bill to hear appeals from complainants as well as police officers.
The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to this amendment? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Against? The amendment is carried.
Item 16.
1610
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 15(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"`(3) Subsections 22(2) and (3) of the act are repealed and the following substituted:
"`Powers of commission in investigations and inquiries
"`(2) When the commission conducts an investigation or inquiry, it has all the powers of a commission under part II of the Public Inquiries Act, which part applies to the investigation or inquiry as if it were an inquiry under that act.
"`Statutory Powers Procedure Act applicable to hearings
"`(3) The Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to the commission, except to a hearing conducted by the commission under subsection 23(1), 25(4), (4.1) or (5), 39(4), 47(5), 64(9), 69(2), (2.1) or (3) or 116(1).'"
This is a technical amendment which I'll explain if desired.
The Chair: Are there any questions in regard to this amendment? If not, shall it carry? The amendment is carried.
If there's no discussion in regard to section 15, as amended, I'll put the question. Shall section 15, as amended, carry? Section 15, as amended, is carried.
We are proceeding to item 17, a proposed amendment to section 16.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(0.1) Subsection 25(1) of the act is amended by inserting `at an association's request' after `request' in the third line."
This, again, obviously broadens the scope to permit an association to make the request as well as a board, and I believe it's one that would receive broad support.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm sorry to disappoint Mr Kormos. We think this sort of review is properly initiated by the Solicitor General, the municipality or the commission themselves. We feel that gives adequate review in the matter.
Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair, I hear the parliamentary assistant. I don't know where this lack of confidence in the associations across the province, or the provincial one, comes from.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment fails. We are proceeding to item 18.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 16(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Clause 25(1)(a) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"`(a) the conduct or the performance of duties of a police officer, a municipal chief of police, an auxiliary member of a police force, a special constable, a municipal law enforcement officer or a member of a board.'"
The amendment removes the term "municipal" in the case of police officers and auxiliary members of a police force to clarify that the OCCPS's powers of investigation, inquiry and reporting on conduct include the OPP officers, special constables and auxiliary members.
The Chair: Any questions or discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, shall it carry? The amendment is carried.
We move on to item 19.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3) subsection 25(3) of the act is amended by inserting `or association' after `council' in the fourth line."
Once again, as with my comments in our previous amendment, this permits some participation in the process by associations across the province and it would seem to me to be also commonsensical.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, we're against this motion. This follows of course logically from the earlier motion, which was defeated, and for the same reasons we're against this motion.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? A recorded vote.
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment fails.
We are proceeding to item 20, and you should have a 20-R in your binder, a replacement motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3) Subsection 25(4) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"`Actions taken, police officer, municipal chief of police
"`(4) If the commission concludes, after a hearing, that the conduct of a police officer or municipal chief of police is proved on clear and convincing evidence to be misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance, it may direct that any action described in section 67, as specified by the commission, be taken with respect to the police officer or municipal chief of police or it may direct that the police officer or municipal chief of police be retired if he or she is entitled to retire.
"`Actions taken, auxiliary member, special constable, municipal law enforcement officer
"`(4.1) If the commission concludes, after a hearing, that an auxiliary member of a police force, a special constable or a municipal law enforcement officer is not performing or is incapable of performing the duties of his or her position in a satisfactory manner, it may direct that,
"`(a) the person be demoted as the commission specifies, permanently or for a specified period;
"`(b) the person be dismissed;
"`(c) the person be retired, if the person is entitled to retire; or
"`(d) the person's appointment be suspended or revoked.'"
The Chair: Are there any questions in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
We are now dealing with section 16, as amended. Is there any discussion in regard to that section? If not, I'll put the question. Shall section 16, as amended, carry? Section 16 is carried.
There are no amendments to section 17. If there's no discussion in regard to section 17, I'll put the question. Shall section 17 carry? All those in favour? Section 17 is carried.
We are now proceeding to item 21.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 18 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(0.1) Section 27 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"`Membership to reflect the community
"`(3.1) The municipal council and Lieutenant Governor in Council shall ensure, in making appointments to a board, that the membership of the board reflects the diversity of the community it serves.'"
Again, I appreciate that the language here is purposely vague. Mr Wood may raise, "How can you enforce such a thing?" but not all statutory dicta have remedies or consequences. This is a directive rather than a prohibitive section of the bill and I think it's incredibly important. It's important, I believe, in areas of the province where minority communities are prevalent. It addresses the need, for instance, to reflect in many areas of the province where there are significant communities of aboriginal peoples, that they be represented on their boards. I appreciate we're not talking about aboriginal policing here, but we're talking about the mainstream community and the fact that these people should be recognized linguistically, certainly gender.
We've witnessed over the course of the last just shy of two years some real tinkering with police services boards by this government, what has appeared to have been a very strong bias against women serving on those police services boards, even to the extent where people like Marion Dewar were fired. Mind you -- Mr Wood talks about civil action -- the government got its butt sued and kicked a few times for the highly illegal way in which these people were tossed off boards.
It's important that this government and subsequent governments, the one that's going to be elected in 1998-99, have some direction, and this does that. It also reflects and acknowledges that municipalities now have an appointment power which requires them to appoint the majority of members of a board. I think it's important both from the governmental point of view and in terms of their appointments through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and from the municipal point of view.
There is some concern expressed when you have a majority of municipal appointments, about, let's say, an increased capacity for a police services board to perhaps suffer some erosion of its integrity. This, I believe, by setting some guideline -- because I'm not aware of any other guideline; perhaps minimum age and so on -- but there's no direction for municipalities in terms of who and what should be on a police services board. I think this is an important amendment.
1620
Mr Bob Wood: The government does not favour this amendment because we think it's unnecessary. We are satisfied that this government or any government will attempt to appoint people who will work to provide the kind of police services that each community wants.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll put the amendment. A recorded vote is requested. Shall Mr Kormos's amendment carry?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost. Item 22, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: We're referring to boards for smaller communities. I move that clause 27(4)(c) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 18(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(c) three persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Once again very briefly, the current amendment provides only for one. This provides for a significant enough police services board, in terms of numbers, that decision-making can be properly carried on. Clearly you've got three-person boards in smaller municipalities, less than 25,000. That probably is the biggest chunk of municipalities in the province. While, again, not pointing the finger at any group of three people, it seems to me that we do have problems with absences from time to time. We might have problems in resignations or removals from the board. You're creating a scenario, by virtue of three-person boards, where a board could become incapable of making decisions if one or another incident occurs.
It is for that reason that we are proposing that there be three persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor to create a five-person board rather than a mere three-person board. You're going to run into real problems with this. As I say, in the event that a person is sick, in the event that someone doesn't attend a meeting, it is going to really interfere with decision-making in a serious way. Those three persons, creating a five-person board, go a long way to making police services in those small communities operate effectively.
Mr Bob Wood: We're against this amendment. We feel that the numbers are adequate. There would simply be extra expense, for no benefit, to increase the numbers. We also have confidence the municipalities will appoint the kind of people who are appropriate to the boards.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Kormos's amendment? If not, a recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Ramsay, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment fails. Item 23, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I move that clause 27(5)(d) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 18(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(d) four persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Once again, the same argument: We're talking about communities in excess of 25,000 people and requiring four persons rather than two.
Mr Bob Wood: We're against this for the reasons given on the last motion.
The Chair: I'm just wondering if it's not out of order. Doesn't it change the balance? If your prior one lost, does this one follow?
Mr Kormos: It addresses boards of municipalities in excess of 25,000. You'll note that there is one more, to address the number of members of a board in a regional municipality. If it were simply a case of making some sort of amendment that contradicted or refuted the government's position that there should be a majority of municipal appointments -- because this clearly makes a majority of provincial appointments, maintains the status quo in that regard -- you'd be right. But under these circumstances, I don't think so.
The Chair: We'll vote on it. Is there any further discussion?
Mr Kormos: Recorded, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Ramsay, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: It is lost. Item 24.
Mr Kormos: I move that clause 27(8)(d) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 18(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(d) four persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Once again, as indicated earlier, this provides for a majority of provincial appointments and is applicable to the part of the bill that would structure or create the size for police services boards of regional municipalities.
Mr Bob Wood: We're against this for the reasons given on the preceding two motions.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion, shall the amendment carry? A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Ramsay, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: Item 25, Mr Wood.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 27(9) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 18(1) of the bill, be amended,
(a) by striking out "district, regional or metropolitan" in the first and second lines; and
(b) by striking out "district, regional or metropolitan" in the third and fourth lines of clause (c).
Explanation is not desired.
The Chair: No? Shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried. Item 26, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I move that clause 27(9)(d) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 18(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(d) five persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Again, the rationale is consistent with the previous amendments to that same effect.
Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed for the reasons given on the previous three NDP motions.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Ramsay, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment fails. Item 27, Mr Wood.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 27(13) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 18(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Persons who are ineligible to be members of a board
"(13) A judge, a justice of the peace, a police officer and a person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel may not be a member of a board."
This deletes the prescribed classes of person from the list of excluded persons who cannot be a member of the police services board.
Mr Kormos: No quarrel with the amendment. In fact, we're supportive of the deletion of that prescribed class of persons that caused some concern by participants. I should have perhaps asked this during the course of the hearings, and I appreciate a person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel, but what about those bottom-feeders who don't normally practise criminal law but from time to time take on crown attorney work to prosecute people, the rent-a-crowns? Surely if a person who practises criminal defence work is excluded, the real estate lawyer who picks up a few extra bucks filling in for a crown attorney system that's understaffed and underbudgeted shouldn't be eligible either. Does Mr Wood agree with that proposition?
Mr Bob Wood: As a former defence counsel, I'd have a conflict of interest in answering that. To give you a more serious answer, we're going to see how it works with the exclusion of defense counsel, and in due course, if it appears there's a problem in the area that you've identified, obviously we'll have to look at it.
Mr Ramsay: Just add in "bottom-feeders."
The Chair: Thank you for your contribution, Mr Ramsay. Is there any further discussion in regard to the amendment of Mr Wood? If not, all those in favour? Against? The amendment is carried.
We will now deal with section 18, as amended. Is there any discussion? If not, shall section 18 as amended carry? It is carried.
We are now moving to section 19. There are no proposed amendments to section 19. Is there any discussion in regard to section 19? If not, shall section 19 carry? All those in favour? Carried.
We are now proceeding to item 28.
1630
Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 31(1)(i) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 20(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(i) establish guidelines for dealing with complaints made under part V."
That acts as a technical amendment.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, shall the proposed amendment carry? All those in favour? The amendment is carried.
We are now dealing with section 20, as amended. If there's no discussion, shall it carry? Section 20 is carried.
We're now dealing with an amendment to section 21, item 29.
Mr Kormos: I move that clause 33(4)(c) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 21 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(c) three persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Once again, this is consistent with previous motions made which counter the government's move to have the majority of persons on police services boards be municipal appointees.
Mr Bob Wood: We are against this for the reasons outlined earlier.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
Mr Kormos: Recorded.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Ramsay, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 30.
Mr Kormos: I move that clause 33(5)(c) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 21 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(c) four persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Again, this is consistent with the previous amendments that have been moved, acknowledging that were the government not including police services boards in with the downloading and the increased costs and the utilization of police as revenue collectors as compared to law enforcers, there might be less concern about the majority of appointees being municipal. But in the context of the downloading and police being called upon to generate revenues rather than enforce the law and the pressure that's going to place on municipal councils and their appointees, we've moved these amendments to maintain the current structure of a majority of Lieutenant Governor appointments.
The Chair: Mr Wood?
Mr Kormos: The government's opposed.
Mr Bob Wood: By golly, we are, for the reasons outlined earlier.
The Chair: Any further discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded.
The Chair: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Ramsay, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The motion is lost.
Item 31.
Mr Kormos: I move that clause 33(7)(c) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 21 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(c) five persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in council."
Consistent with the previous amendments. The government's opposed.
Mr Bob Wood: For the reasons outlined earlier.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Ramsay, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The motion is lost.
That brings us to section 21. Shall section 21 carry? All those in favour? Section 21 is carried.
There are no amendments for sections 22, 23 or 24. Are there any discussions in regard to any of those three sections? If not, shall sections 22, 23 and 24 carry? All those in favour? They are carried.
We are proceeding to item 32.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 25 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"25. Subsection 39(4) of the act is struck out and the following substituted:
"`Commission to hold hearing
"`(4) The commission shall hold a hearing to determine the budget of a board at the council's request, if the council does not approve the board's estimates or disagrees with the board on the number of members of the police force that is adequate or the equipment and facilities that are adequate.
"`Commission may hold hearing
"`(5) The commission may hold a hearing to determine the budget of a board on its own initiative or at the request of the chief of police or an association.
"`Commission's decision binding
"`(6) After holding a hearing under subsection (4) or (5), the commission's determination of the board's budget is final and binding on the municipal council or councils.'"
This clearly is in response to the concern expressed by any number of police officers and their associations which expressed fear about depolicing and defunding the police, particularly in view of the tremendous downloading that's taking place by this government on to municipalities across Ontario and the increased utilization of police. They've expressed this fear directly to the committee of being used as revenue generators. Indeed, down in regional Niagara, the Niagara Region Police Association has been trying to stand its ground on the contemplation of commercial advertising on police cars as a means of the police services board raising revenues. The Toronto Sun, in a typical, bold Sun Donato cartoon, dramatized the issue with I believe a Tim Horton doughnut ad on a police cruiser.
Police officers, and rightly so in the case of Niagara, Mike Pratt, the police association president, have pointed out that it's imperative that policing not only be but be seen to be entirely independent of external pressures, including commercial pressures. I think it's imperative that an association be entitled to raise its concerns about adequacy or inadequacy of a police budget and to have that matter referred to the commission. These are the people by and large out there doing the dangerous work, doing the dirty work. They're in the best possible position to determine adequacy of a budget, especially when the budgets are primarily labour costs: the cost of putting women and men in uniforms and out on duty.
Mr Ramsay: I think this is an important amendment and it really strikes at the question of how important to the province is municipal policing. We've gone through a series of amendments that didn't make it and that I didn't support, but in this bill the government's trying to give more responsibility to municipalities to carry out their policing. I think that's fine, but this is a matter of balance. While we give municipalities more responsibility, it must always be in the provincial interest that fair and adequate policing be delivered to citizens in municipalities, and it's important to have an important watchdog facility there and available to act as a check. So while on the one hand we give more responsibility to municipalities, I think it's very important that they know the province is very interested in municipal policing and has a mechanism that will hold their deliberations to a provincial test. I think the commission acts as that and it would be fair for individuals and associations to bring forward such a complaint.
Mr Bob Wood: We don't favour this amendment, basically because we think the scheme of the act, as we've proposed it, will effectively give the oversight needed. It's important to bear in mind where the municipal councils get their mandate from, and that's from their voters. I think that, coupled with the provincial oversight, will give us the kind of policing we need.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment of Mr Kormos? If not, a recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 33.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 39(3) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 25 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Budget
"(3) Upon reviewing the estimates, the council shall establish an overall budget for the board for the purposes described in clauses (1)(a) and (b) and, in doing so, the council is not bound to adopt the estimates submitted by the board.
"Same
"(3.1) In establishing an overall budget for the board, the council does not have the authority to approve or disapprove specific items in the estimates."
Basically that clarifies that the municipal council approves the total budget envelope and not the individual line items, and it recognizes that the police services board is responsible for allocating funds and administering the total budget.
Mr Kormos: Just very briefly, please. Can the PA help in terms of distinguishing the language "the council is not bound to adopt the estimates"? Is there anything in the amendment that changes what was intended by the original act, that is to say, is the amendment only enhanced clarification or is it an alteration?
Mr Bob Wood: I would regard it as a clarification.
Mr Kormos: Not intended to alter the original intent of the amendment?
Mr Bob Wood: Not as I see it.
Mr Kormos: But simply spell it out in black and white, or red and blue?
Mr Bob Wood: That's my view.
Mr Ramsay: I agree with the intent of what you've added here, that the council doesn't zero in on a one-line item and say, "Get rid of this." What happens here is that the council, if they do not want to approve the board's budget, send it back to the board and say, "That's not good enough," because obviously they can't make the change, as you've just said in (3.1). So the board makes the cut and then brings it back, is that the --
Mr Bob Wood: The council's ultimate responsibility is to come up with a dollar number. That's all they can do. That's the bottom line of the scheme.
Mr Ramsay: The board just has to fit in their budget --
Mr Bob Wood: The council cannot say to them, "Here's how you've got to divide up that dollar number."
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: Chair, can I request a five-minute recess as of right now in view of your calling the vote?
The Chair: Sure. We will be back at 10 to 5.
The committee recessed from 1643 to 1653.
The Chair: I call the meeting back to order. We had not voted on item 33. Is there any further discussion in regard to the government amendment? All those in favour? Against? It's carried.
We are now dealing with section 25, as amended. Is there any discussion in regard to that section? Shall section 25, as amended, carry? It is carried.
We are now dealing with sections 26 to 33, inclusive. There are no amendments proposed by any of the parties in regard to those sections. Is there any discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Shall sections 26 to 33, inclusive, carry? They are carried.
Item 34: Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 56(1) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Making a complaint
"56(1) Any member of the public may make a complaint under this part about the policies of or services provided by a police force, including systemic practices of a police force, or about the conduct of a police officer."
Obviously the amendment brings into the arena of complaint the systemic practices of a police force. This again could deal with any number of issues. Some of them are apparent and can be readily anticipated. It's imperative that these sorts of things be the subject matter of review as well. Obviously here we're not talking about a complaint against a single police officer or a chief of police or even a police services board, but the need for there to be some means of investigating and making determinations about systemic practices which may result in either inadequate or less-than-desirable police services or an injustice to some or all of a given community.
Mr Bob Wood: We're against this motion basically for the reasons set out earlier. With respect to general practices, we don't see those as being most effectively dealt with on the basis of an individual complaint.
Mr Ramsay: I guess it's not here because it's not really a motion, but I brought forward that this whole part V under "Complaints" should be voted out completely and leave the act the way it presently sits. I am very concerned about the changes this government is making to the complaints process and the public perception of those changes. I think what the government is doing is a big mistake. It is going to erode the confidence citizens have in the police and in the civilian oversight process in this province.
I know the government wants to save money, and I know the process we have in place is costly, there's no doubt about it and I wouldn't argue that point. But it's like the way our Legislature runs: It's maybe not the most efficient place in the world but it kind of works.
When you're dealing with arms of government that are authorized to from time to time exert force, it's very important that the public has a secure feeling that we have, first of all, the very best police officers in the world -- which I believe we have -- and that when something goes wrong and a mistake is made, we have the very best system in the world whereby a citizen can find redress. That's very important.
This whole change here takes away the perception and the reality that there's an independence of the process. I think we're going to have trouble down the road with this. I just want to put that on the record.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Kormos's proposed amendment?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: If not, we'll have a recorded vote.
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 35: Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 56(2) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out.
This section allows the chief to make a complaint about the conduct of a police officer. I think the great fear of the police associations here is that, rather than what civilian oversight of police officers in the old part of the bill was meant to do, and that was to give a process to the public in order to bring complaints forward, this here, it seems to me, shouldn't even be part of this bill. This is basically an internal police discipline matter and shouldn't be dealt with in this section of the bill at all.
The fear that police associations have with this is that these new powers conferred on a police chief now will be used to basically drive a different type of policing in municipal police forces across this province. By that I mean it will drive it away from community-based policing, where the officer has discretion in a community in dealing with matters. Now, with all the downloading pressures that are coming, we can have chiefs of police, who are going to be under extreme pressure from their municipal councils to produce revenues, basically policing the police to make sure that revenues are being brought in.
To have this section in here is really going to mean that a chief of police can start to exert pressure on a police force other than to uphold the law. Right now that's the great fear of police associations, but I think it's going to meet with tremendous disdain from the general public once they start to see this policy enacted. That's why I moved this today.
Mr Kormos: It's interesting that subsection 56(2) is there when subsection 57(1) denies every other person, other than a chief of police who isn't directly affected, the right to make a compliant. Were one or the other not there, I don't suppose I could make this proposition or this argument, but it certainly strengthens the argument that Mr Ramsay made, to say that anybody else who isn't directly affected cannot make a complaint, that the chief of police, then, is singled out, isolated, and so it appears he or she has powers in addition to their management powers in the ability to subject a police officer to multiple processes.
1700
I wonder if the parliamentary assistant might explain why the chief of police, even though he or she may not be directly affected, is excluded from the scope of subsection 57(1). I'd be interested in his comments in that regard, exactly what's going on here, because surely, notwithstanding subsection 56(2), the chief retains his management prerogative to deal with conduct as he or she thinks fit in that management role. Why the inclusion of the chief of police when all other members of the public are excluded if they're not directly affected? Why give the chief of police powers in addition to his or her management powers?
Mr Bob Wood: We are against this amendment. The concern about abuse by the chiefs of police is unfounded, because ultimately the process is supervised by the provincial commission. They're going to set the policies which basically the police chiefs are going to have to follow. I think abuse is effectively impossible.
The question of why the police chief is involved in discipline is of course answered by the fact that the police chief is responsible for what the officers do. He has to be involved in discipline. This is an effective part of the disciplinary powers they have.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question. Since the chiefs of police already have the management authority of their police departments, what sort of complaints under this section do you anticipate the chief would bring against an officer? What sort of conduct were you speaking of here?
Mr Bob Wood: I don't anticipate what police chiefs might do. That's really something the future will tell us, and I don't want to speculate. What I do want to say, however, is that as part of the overall disciplinary powers the chiefs have, this is important, and that's why it's there.
The Chair: Can I ask a question of the PA? Why do you need it?
Mr Bob Wood: For the greater certainty thereof. It may well be that they have sufficient powers anyway, but I think it's important. That's an argument, and I'm not going to stand and deny that there isn't some force to that argument. On the other hand, I think making it crystal clear that those powers are there is an addition to effective discipline among our police forces.
Mr Kormos: We're not really making any progress in terms of rationalizing subsection 56(2). The complaints procedure isn't about discipline. Earlier we had the procedure compared to civil process, where people are seeking compensation or remedies. Now we've got it referred to a disciplinary process. The goal here is to provide some means of identifying what constitutes misconduct and taking measures to ensure that it doesn't happen again. We're talking about the responsibility of police vis-à-vis their role, the general public, the integrity of policing etc.
I hear what the PA is saying, but I also hear the questions that are put to him. He's suggesting that the complaints procedure is part of the disciplinary process that the chief of police uses in supervising his or her police officers. Quite frankly, I think that's an abuse of the police complaints process, and that's exactly what police officers were concerned about, and we'll get to that later, with one of the new defined bits of misconduct. They're concerned about that being abused -- they were very specific -- in the realm of not reaching quotas, because of the revenue-generating aspects that are now incorporated into policing.
This is a very interesting opportunity for government members to defeat a subsection by supporting this amendment without in any way scuttling the bill or any of its goals; an opportunity for them to use their own thought processes here to understand that there's something going on here, and unless there's a better explanation offered than what has been offered, the concerns of police officers, cops, ought to be given effect to. This would be a wonderful opportunity for government members on the committee to show they're thinking for themselves and that they're not just here, at a minimum wage of $78,004 a year, following marching orders blindly and prepared to vote merely how they're told to vote. This would be a great opportunity, without in any way impacting the overall thrust of the bill, for them to show their constituents, their families and their friends that they take their job seriously.
Mr Ramsay: Like my colleague, I really don't understand the need for this here, because the way police forces are structured, they are basically paramilitary operations with a chain of command. They have operating procedures and manuals. It's an extremely well-disciplined workplace, and it has to be because of the nature of the work.
I wanted to ask the parliamentary assistant, are you telling us that police chiefs in Ontario do not have the ability to manage effectively their police forces under the present powers they have?
Mr Bob Wood: I might say I'm quite amazed at the suggestion of some members that we shouldn't err on the side of greater caution and effective discipline. I'm quite surprised that where there's a possibility of police misconduct they are not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the side of the public and make sure these are properly dealt with.
However, having said that, I can only repeat what I already said earlier. To come around to your question, I'm not going to argue the merits of whether or not there's sufficient management power without this. There's quite a large number of areas. On the other hand, I personally want to come down on the side of being absolutely sure there is full power available to investigate all complaints and make sure they're rectified and the proper discipline can be applied where it's necessary. I want to err on the side of caution and on the side of the public. I'm quite surprised to hear suggestions from some that they don't want to do that.
Mr Ramsay: We're both going to rise to the bait.
Mr Kormos: Let's err on the side of caution, then. What doesn't make sense here is that subsection 57(1) is there in juxtaposition to subsection 56(2). This is why I said you've got a contradiction there. If you're prepared, as is going to be suggested very shortly, for subsection 57(1) to be altered so that anybody can make a complaint, then any of us would have to live with the fact that a chief of police can make a complaint as well.
Your argument doesn't jibe with your exclusion of everybody else who isn't directly affected but for the chief of police. Your argument against public complaints is that if the aggrieved party doesn't feel fit to make a complaint, then there shouldn't be one. You're sucking and blowing here, Mr Wood, because you're saying that in the case where a victim of misconduct doesn't make a complaint, the chief of police can. You're trying to have it both ways.
Once again, I know you got the briefing notes, but what a great opportunity for government members to show some gumption.
1710
Mr Ramsay: To make the same point, Mr Wood, what you're doing in the bill is restricting the public's ability to make a complaint but enlarging the powers of the police chief. What Mr Kormos and I are talking about is certainly enlarging the ability of the public to make complaints, and we do not believe it's necessary to give the chief these extra powers under this section of the act.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, we have Mr Ramsay's motion of amendment. A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 36 you can ignore. Put it behind 43. That was misnumbered. We are proceeding to item 37, Mr Ramsay's motion, which is supported by the government.
Mr Ramsay: I move that section 56 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Notice of withdrawal
"(3.1) If a complaint is withdrawn, the chief of police or board shall notify the police officer who is the subject of the complaint, if any, of the fact within 30 days after the withdrawal."
That's there because I think it's very necessary that the police officer, all the way through this, be kept informed of the status of any complaint that's made against her or him. I think this would be a good idea.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to pass this amendment? All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.
Item 38: Mr Wood indicates the government is in favour of that amendment.
Mr Ramsay: I move that section 56 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Notice
"(4.1) If the chief of police or board continues to deal with a complaint after the complainant has asked that it be withdrawn, the chief of police or board shall notify the police officer who is the subject of the complaint, if any, within 30 days of deciding to continue."
This is for the same reason, to keep the officer informed of the progress of the complaint.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 39.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 56 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(4.1) The chief of police or board, as the case may be, shall notify the complainant and the police officer or, in the case of a complaint about the policies of or services provided by a police force, the chief of police, if the chief of police or board has decided to continue to deal with a complaint after it has been withdrawn."
Obviously it's a complainant who's going to ask that a complaint be withdrawn. This wouldn't be relevant to the earlier amendment that talked about notification of a withdrawal. The complainant would know that it's being withdrawn and it's of course logical then that the police officer who is the subject matter of the complaint be notified. This expands on the previous motion so that both parties are notified if there's a decision to carry on with the complaint.
Here you've got a scenario where the complainant, for whatever reason -- any number of scenarios ranging from, I guess, good ones to bad ones -- has decided to withdraw. It seems to me that the complainant also has an interest in knowing of the decision to continue, because that complainant is basically having their apparent wishes being contradicted. You can have a complainant saying, "I withdrew it," and then six months down the road being visited by an investigator investigating the complaint of the complainant, who's scratching his or her head saying, "What the heck is going on?" and/or the prospect that a complainant maybe inappropriately wants to withdraw. We heard the prospect of pressure being put on a complainant etc, and notification that they intend to continue with the case gives that complainant an opportunity to raise any concerns that he or she might have had that prompted them to withdraw the complaint.
Mr Bob Wood: We're against this motion as we think the problem is adequately addressed by the preceding Liberal amendments.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 40.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 56(5) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Notice to police officer
"(5) Where a complaint is about the conduct of a police officer or names a police officer, the chief of police shall forthwith give the police officer notice of the substance of the complaint unless, in the chief of police's opinion, to do so might prejudice the investigation and, if the complaint is withdrawn, the chief of police shall notify the police officer forthwith of the withdrawal."
I'm going to withdraw that because I think it's redundant, an amendment having been made by Mr Ramsay to the same net effect.
The Chair: Item 40 is withdrawn.
Mr Kormos: Good thing I caught that, Chair.
The Chair: Yes, that was excellent. Thank you very much for your assistance.
Mr Kormos: We would have created a fine kettle of fish here.
The Chair: Item 41.
Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 57(1) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out.
Mr Bob Wood: We are opposed to this for reasons set out earlier. This of course would have the effect of striking out the requirement of being directly affected.
Mr Ramsay: We've briefly discussed this this afternoon, but I think it's important to raise this again. This is a restriction on the complaint process and primarily a restriction from the previous act that allowed a third party to make a complaint directly to the police. This would now be forbidden, and I think in many circumstances, some of which we have discussed already this afternoon, it would be important to still allow third parties to make a complaint about police service.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate Mr Wood's referring back to earlier arguments. I just haven't heard the good arguments against allowing members of the public to make a complaint. The interesting thing is that they say "directly affected by the policy, service or conduct." I have no doubt that down the road somebody is going to want to argue that "directly affected" means being the victim of, let's say, misconduct or a poorly provided service.
But let's be very blunt. Let's say I see somebody on the street getting the daylights kicked out of them by a police officer, although I would hope that it would never happen, let's say a person who was homeless, let's say a person who was a psychiatric survivor, let's say a person who had an alcohol or drug addiction problem, and for all those reasons might be inclined to take the beating and just move on to the next day, and for that reason not be inclined at all to report the misconduct. I'm using a very extreme example and it's entirely hypothetical, but if that sort of thing were to happen, I think it would be criminal for you or me or any other member of the public to be denied the opportunity to make a complaint about that police officer's behaviour.
1720
Again there's some hyperbole contained in that. I suppose one of the responses would be, "That doesn't preclude somebody from reporting the incident for the purpose of laying a criminal charge," because if there were an assault, you've got a criminal charge. Let's not be quite so hyperbolic then and let's talk about other misconduct that one would want to see addressed. But if you're talking about the same sort of person who's a victim, it seems to me it's in the public interest, the police interest, everybody's interest to permit complaints by members of the public. There are already thresholds contained in the bill.
You talk about an ability to screen out frivolous, vexatious types of complaints -- no quarrel with that. I just haven't received any good explanation, nor has anybody else, from this PA or anybody who might have been his predecessor as to why the act would be amended in this manner.
Come clean with this. Has there been a problem with members of the public making complaints? Have you had to stem the tide here? Is that why the amendment is here? What has been the problem such that the status quo here is being interfered with? Has there been a problem with members of the public? Is the problem because of the huge number of complaints? Is the problem because of vexatious or frivolous complaints? If it's vexatious and frivolous complaints, why hasn't the bar against vexatious and frivolous complaints been adequate to deal with it?
I suspect that the status quo would reveal that the significant minority of complaints are being made by the public because by and large if somebody, anybody -- and here we're talking about police officers -- is going to engage in misconduct, they are disinclined to do it with an audience, but from time to time it could conceivably happen. What's the problem here? Why is the act being amended by 57(1)? I would ask that this question be put to the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Bob Wood: The answer to that is that there have been some complaints that are meritorious and some complaints that aren't. We're moving to what we think is a streamlined and more effective complaint system, and to the extent a complaint is received from a member of the general public, the chief has the authority to act on it if he thinks it's warranted.
Mr Kormos: I hear what you're saying. I don't know whether you had some whispering in the ear, that a little bird rested on your shoulder and gave you that line, but the fact is nobody can act on it, because it isn't a complaint; a complaint may be made by a member of the public only if that person was directly affected. So there is no complaint. If you're suggesting somehow there's a relationship between 56(2) and 57(1) in that the chief can act on it, no, there is no complaint. If I'm a member of the public who isn't directly affected, I can't make a complaint. I may be able to report a fact situation, but I cannot make a complaint. If the chief is then being given discretionary powers to screen these complaints, that's a highly dangerous proposition.
You talked about there being complaints in the past with merit and those that had no merit. Of course there have been those with merit and those that have had no merit, but why are you singling out complaints by the public without being able to tell us exactly what it is the public's been doing that's so wrong in terms of complaints about misconduct that would cause you to exclude them from the group of persons who can make complaints?
Mr Bob Wood: I don't want to repeat very much what I've already said.
Mr Kormos: You haven't said that much.
Mr Bob Wood: That's right. That's exactly right. That's how I stay out of trouble. If a member of the public not directly affected sees conduct by the police that he or she thinks is inappropriate, she can complain to the chief of police, who can proceed with a complaint if he or she thinks it's warranted.
What we're doing is developing a process here that we think is streamlined. It's civilian-supervised and effective.
Mr Ramsay: Looking at the scenario where a third party comes into a police station and says to presumably a desk sergeant, "I've witnessed some incident and I want to make a complaint," and the desk sergeant says, "Were you involved?" knowing the new law, and the complainant will say, "No," I think the answer is going to be, "You can't make a complaint."
I don't think the chief of police is going to find out about this, because once this is passed, the law is going to state that a third party cannot make a complaint, so it's not going to get to the chief. At the front door of the station, they're going to be told, "You do not have the authority to make a complaint," and that will be it. So that will not come up from the public to the chief. Since you've allowed the chief to make a complaint, the chief's not going to do that, because the chief is not going to hear of that incident.
Mr Bob Wood: That assumes, of course, that such individuals have not heard of duty counsel, which I think they would have, that they have not heard of legal clinics, have not heard of lawyers. It's not very difficult to write a letter to the chief of police.
Mr Ramsay: By saying that, you make it seem like it should be permissible for a third party to make a complaint, just that you can't go to the police station and get the proper form, but if you have a lawyer or write a letter directly, the possibility is you might get heard if the chief believes you've got a substantive complaint. We're really splitting hairs here. Why not just give the ability to third parties to make a complaint?
Mr Bob Wood: Why not have confidence in the chiefs of police and the police services boards?
Mr Ramsay: How are they going to know, as my colleague has said and I've stated, where some incident happens out somewhere and somebody's a witness to it and they are concerned, as a citizen?
Mr Bob Wood: Despite comments you've heard before, we can have great confidence in the criminal defence bar in this province.
Mr Kormos: I don't know what the hell the PA is talking about when he's talking about criminal defence bar getting involved. The criminal defence bar does its incompetent best to defend people charged with criminal offences. They're not involved in the process of initiating complaints about police misconduct by third parties.
The PA is somehow trying to justify a section here which he doesn't seem to have any good justification for. He's got no numbers. We're not talking Andy of Mayberry here; Mr Ramsay was trying to get that across. Access to Chief Boothby is relatively privileged, and a large police force and any regional police force is going to be of that ilk. That's almost to be expected. People at the desk, their job is to take complaints of a criminal nature, and if you're talking about a complaint of misconduct that isn't criminal, a police officer isn't obliged to take that sort of complaint.
The PA has been doing the very best he can to stickhandle 57(1). The issue's been there from day one of the hearings. Concerns have been raised about 57(1) from day one of the hearings. When we were talking 56(2), he didn't suggest that the motive for 56(2) was so that the public could make complaints through the chief. He was talking 56(2) and raising concerns about that. He didn't justify 56(2) by saying, "The reason it's there is because of 57(1) so that the public who aren't directly affected can use the chief as a conduit through which they make their complaints." It seems that little spin on it has arisen out of the blue. That little bird that sat on his shoulder did more than whisper in his ear and it's created something of a mess.
Mr Ramsay: Better check his shoulder.
Mr Kormos: That's right. I'm going to tell you I hope there will be a request for a recorded vote. I've got to join Mr Ramsay in this, as to be expected, in strong opposition to 57(1), in view of the total lack of any rationale for its inclusion here and the fact that there seems to be an effort to restrict citizenry from doing what should be encouraged of them and making a better relationship between the police and the community. This has the net contrary effect.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
1730
The Chair: The amendment is lost. Item 42 is out of order; it's identical to the previous one. Moving to item 43, you can throw that one out. It should read 43A. No? I'm sorry, 43 lives, and it's Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Gosh, Chair, you were going pretty fast and loose with my amendments here. I move that section 57 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Anonymous complaints
"(2.1) A complainant who wishes to remain anonymous may file a complaint under subsection (2) without signing it or otherwise identifying himself or herself."
I anticipate some of the arguments that would be made against this because there's going to be an argument made that whoever's being complained of has a right to know who their accuser is. However, this is entirely consistent with Mr Wood's explanation of 56(2) in contrast to 57(1). What a wonderful way of tipping off the chief of police so that he or she can become the complainant as they're entitled to under 56(2), notwithstanding 57(1).
If you really believe, I put to the parliamentary assistant, what you told us about how 57(1) and the restriction it creates on public complaints is remedied by 56(2), I think you would then be eager to have the chief of police tipped off by any way, shape or means possible. We heard, quite frankly, of the fear that accompanies -- look, at the end of the day, notwithstanding the structure of a commission, you're calling the cops on the cops if you're aggrieved about something the police did to you. That's unsettling, I suggest to you, to the vast majority of people.
It seems to me that the process should be interested in learning about any misconduct that it can possibly learn about and to overcome the fear or reluctance of some parties of identifying misconduct. I would suggest that the right to anonymity and/or -- you'll note that there's a right not to sign the complaint. I think that's important as well. You know that one of the first -- or maybe you don't; you should know. I'm telling you now that one of the first responses historically that has been used to people who have made complaints about the police is that they're read the provisions under the Criminal Code dealing with public mischief and the sentence that's imposed for falsely accusing someone else of committing a criminal offence.
That scares the daylights out of any number of people who understand that, once again, they're reporting an offence to the police. The first thing an interviewing officer does is explain to them what constitutes public mischief -- to wit: falsely accusing somebody of a crime -- and then tells them that that's good for a whack of time in jail if you're convicted.
The opportunity not to sign it, even though a person makes it and otherwise identifies himself, it seems to me is crucial as well, because it could go some way towards persuading people to simply get the facts down and get that complaint in. It seems there's a strong public interest in encouraging and facilitating the making of complaints. There's strong protection in terms of screening out frivolous, vexatious complaints, and that would more than offset the impact of this amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed to this basically because we think that for the complaints to come forward the complainant should indeed be identified so that the person complained about understands what the complaint is. We would note that indeed if anonymous complaints are desired to be made to police chiefs or to the police services board, that's certainly open to anonymous persons to do so.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Kormos's proposed amendment? If not, all those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment is lost.
We are now proceeding to 43A-R, which is a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 57 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Form may be used
"(2.1) If a complainant wants to make his or her complaint on a standard form, he or she may use a form approved for the purpose by the commission; the approved form shall be available in every police station and detachment and in the commission's offices."
That was a suggestion made by some of the presenters which we thought had merit.
The Chair: Is there any discussion or questions?
Mr Kormos: I point out that it doesn't have to be legislated for there to be a form available to complainants to utilize, because subsection 57(2) of course entails any form that the government might want to propose. What's interesting here, though, is the availability of the form in every police station and detachment and in the commission's offices.
I'm wondering, to the PA, with the staff that's there, in the act that's being amended, is there a general penalty provision such that this is enforceable? That is to say, what's the remedy for me if I go into a police station and discover that they don't have forms? How do I enforce that without there being a general penalty section?
Mr Bob Wood: You can enforce it by complaining to the provincial commission.
Mr Kormos: The forms aren't there for me to do it on.
Mr Bob Wood: Or indeed, to the Solicitor General.
Mr Kormos: Is there a general penalty provision in the act?
Mr Bob Wood: There is not.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr Ramsay: I take it there is a space for a signature on this form.
The Chair: The amendment is carried, 43A-R. Our next one is item 44.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): You wanted to put 36 there.
The Chair: No, that was 43A. Thirty-six you can throw out; 43A was same as item 36. So we're now dealing with item 44.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 57 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Monthly reports on investigation
"(4.1) The chief of police or board, as the case may be, shall send monthly reports to the complainant and, if the complaint is about the conduct of a police officer, to the police officer that is the subject of the complaint, until the conclusion of the investigation into the complaint.
"Opportunity to reply before decision made
"(4.2) The complainant and police officer shall be given a copy of the final report into the complaint before it is given to the chief of police or board and shall be given opportunities to reply at any stage during and at the conclusion of the investigation and before a decision on the complaint is made."
Obviously, a complaints process -- and to consider it otherwise I think would be very foolhardy -- is considered a serious matter by the person being complained about, in most cases the police officer, and by the person making the complaint. Sometimes these investigations carry on for a significant period of time.
It's important, I believe, in the interest of fairness to all the parties involved, that there be this monthly reporting to both the subject of the complaint and the complainant to advise them as to progress that's being made. One could expect some suggestion as to anticipated period of time before the matter is resolved. This will go, in my view, a long way to resolving the tension that accompanies being complained about or making a complaint.
Second, with respect to (4.2), I think this is an incredibly effective fail-safe measure. It gives both parties an opportunity to respond to what in effect are conclusions about fact before those conclusions are acted upon. That could avoid a great deal of the modest appeal availability to people here. It could save a whole lot of time and energy on the part of the commission and is not unique. This is a technique that's used in any number of litigious processes and one that's become increasingly common and one that I think will be valuable to the process here both for police officers and for civilian complainants.
1740
Mr Ramsay: Not only all of the above that my colleague states, but also it would be a mechanism to catch factual error right at the beginning of an investigation, that either party could see that maybe the facts didn't get translated correctly to the investigation and right away this could be caught and corrected; and, for sure, keeping the complainant and the named officer informed as to the progress of the investigation I think is very important.
Mr Bob Wood: We are against this amendment basically because we think it imposes significant cost without any real benefit.
Mr Kormos: Wow. Mr Wood doesn't think that the stress that's on a police officer against whom a complaint is made and remains unresolved has to be addressed. Mr Wood doesn't think that the problem of complaints being lost in the process -- he should be aware that because of the fact that you're talking about police policing police and that police are increasingly overburdened, there are going to be any number of instances anywhere in Ontario about complaints falling between the cracks and disappearing.
In terms of monthly posted notice to the subject of the complaint and to the complainant, you're talking about postage and preparation of what in most cases will be a boilerplate sort of thing, indicating, as I say, anticipated time before resolution, time before the investigation could get under way, those sorts of things. It would also go a long way towards encouraging alternative resolutions. There was a whole lot of discussion about that and I think everybody was impressed by the comments of police officers and civilians who talked about the need for informal resolution.
If you've got a system like this where you're reporting on a monthly basis -- let's look at it this way: An aggrieved party who, upon reflection, as the weeks pass after an incident, after a confrontation, realizes that their feathers were far more ruffled at the time than they are now -- they've effectively had a chance to sleep on it. You'll find in many instances aggrieved parties, if they're kept advised and updated and maintain some participation in the process by virtue of these monthly reports, may be reverting to informal resolution if they recognize, for instance, that this is going to be inevitable. Some of these things aren't going to be wrapped up quickly. There's going to have to be some prioritization of complaints. Obviously there's going to have to be some regard to whether the kind of complaint, even if true, is of such a modest nature that it has to be displaced by the complaints about far more serious conduct that could constitute a danger to the general public.
I find it very disturbing that the PA has such low regard for police officers who are subject matters of complaints, understanding that these can be extremely stressful, and as I say, for the persons making those complaints. The second part of it, which he didn't comment on, the opportunity to address the determination of facts, seems to me once again -- and Mr Ramsay referred to this as well -- an invaluable tool in the whole process.
The Chair: Mr Wood?
Mr Bob Wood: I have nothing to add, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion before I put the amendment? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The motion is lost.
Item 45.
Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 57(6) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(b.1) a chief of police."
This is just another way of going at the people allowed to make a complaint. This is a list of exclusions and I wish to add the chief of police to that list.
Mr Bob Wood: We do not favour this motion as we think it's unnecessary. We think it's basically covered by clause 57(6)(c).
Mr Kormos: The whole section is interesting because it says a member of the public does not include those listed people, and then 56(1) says, "Any member of the public may make a complaint." So those people aren't among the group of people who are entitled to make a complaint? We then have 56(2) which says, "The chief of police may...make a complaint," which specifically identifies the chief of police.
I think this is a wonderful little section and I think it will cause countless problems down the road. Although I'm going to support Mr Ramsay's amendment, I'm going to find myself not supporting part V. But I just want to put on the record that I think it's delightful that this type of draftsmanship will burn money for more than a few administrative law lawyers down the road, and they will undoubtedly be grateful to you, Mr Wood.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? We have a motion of amendment by Mr Ramsay, being item 45. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Item 46.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 57(6) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (d) and by adding the following clause:
"(d.1) a person selected by the council of a municipality to advise another municipality's board under subsection 6.1(2), if the board is responsible for the police force that is, or a member of which is, the subject of the complaint; or."
The effect of this is to exclude the adviser to the police services board from the definition of "member of the public" with respect to complaints made under part V. It's a consequential amendment to subsection 6.1(2) which gives permissive authority to a municipality contracting with another municipality for police services to have an adviser.
The Chair: Is there any discussion or questions? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 47.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that part V of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following section:
"Informal complaint resolution
"57.1(1) If, at any time before or during an investigation into a complaint about the conduct of a police officer, the conduct appears to be obviously conduct that is not of a serious nature, the chief of police may resolve the matter informally, if the police officer and the complainant consent to the proposed resolution.
"Same
"(2) If, at any time before or during an investigation into a complaint about the conduct of a chief of police or deputy chief of police, the conduct appears to be obviously conduct that is not of a serious nature, the board may resolve the matter informally, if the chief of police or deputy chief of police and the complainant consent to the proposed resolution.
"Inadmissibility of statements
"(3) No statement made during an attempt at informal resolution of a complaint under this section is admissible in a civil proceeding, including a proceeding under subsection 63(16) or 64(16) or a hearing held under this part, except with the consent of the person who made the statement.
"Non-application of this part
"(4) No other provisions of this part apply in respect of an informal resolution under subsection (1) or (2)."
This is a new subsection which clarifies that non-serious matters can be resolved at any time during the proceedings. All parties must agree to the informal resolution, and it provides that no statements made during the attempt at informal resolution are admissible in a civil proceeding without consent of the party making it.
1750
Mr Kormos: I suppose the language "appears to be obviously conduct that is not of a serious nature" -- what are we talking about? Is there any source in the act that gives us some guidelines as to what constitutes "serious?"
Mr Bob Wood: There's certainly no definition. I'm aware of no case law on the point.
Mr Kormos: It's interesting. It's not even a subjective thing where the chief of police is determining that it's not serious.
Mr Bob Wood: No, it is subjective. The complainant and the person complained about determine it, so if they don't consent, they don't do it.
Mr Kormos: Quite right, but you've got --
Mr Bob Wood: Who are, after all, the people who should determine this.
Mr Kormos: But you don't have a subjective test here. In other words, the chief of police appears to be called upon to initiate -- somebody's being called upon here to determine that it's obviously not serious.
Mr Ramsay: It has to be done by agreement.
Mr Bob Wood: And the parties are doing it.
Mr Kormos: We don't see that indicated here.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes, it is. They have to consent.
Mr Kormos: But how is this process of informal resolution initiated? If you said, "if a chief of police determines" -- bear with me -- "that that conduct is obviously not serious, he may then with the consent of the parties resolve the matter informally," but there's no beginning point here. There's no starting point. There's nobody doing the testing, because if you say it's up to the parties, then the parties can consent to an informal resolution because you're not calling upon anybody to determine whether or not it's serious such that it's entitled to be informally resolved. Just strange, peculiar stuff here. It's a little bit circular, I think.
Mr Ramsay: I might say to my colleague that maybe we could make this too complicated. I understand where he's coming from on this. You might want to define this closely and say "a complaint of a non-violent nature." By leaving it open this way, this sort of process would work in a very informal nature. The chief on identifying this -- in his own view, granted, that maybe this is non-serious and could be solved informally -- will probably then make those inquiries, first to the complainant, and say, "Listen, what do you think if we got the officer involved to apologize?"
I think you've heard this many times; the police would come to us and say that. I think you test these things out. If it's not going to be to the satisfaction of the complainant, it's not going to happen anyway, so maybe we'd be careful not to put too much restriction here, because the parties are all going to have to agree anyway. You could start to outline it -- okay, of a non-violent nature and put some other criteria in there -- but maybe it's better not to restrict it too much and allow the chief to act as sort of an informal arbiter there and maybe solve some of these cases if all the person wants is an apology. Of course the officer would be happy with that too. Therefore it doesn't appear on anybody's record. Maybe this is the way to handle this.
Mr Kormos: I'm supportive of the proposition. I have concerns, though, about how the process gets initiated because of what subsection (1) says. Of course you heard during the course of the committee hearings on the issue of consent about how well guided or whether there's implicit pressure on -- I'm in support of it. I just think it's unfortunate that there wasn't a more well-defined starting point for this process. It seems to me that to have said "where the chief of police determines that the matter is not of a serious nature, the parties may on consent have their differences resolved by way of arbitration" -- I just raise it because it's always interesting stuff for people to go back and look at Hansard when they're grappling with these sorts of things.
Mr Bob Wood: I would urge members of the committee not to attempt to formalize what's intended to be an informal process. I think the controls are there as outlined earlier.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion, I'll put the amendment. Shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 48.
Mr Ramsay: I move that section 58 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(2.1) The chief of police shall also notify the police officer who is named in the complaint, if any, of his or her determination respecting the nature of the complaint within 10 days of making the determination."
This is consistent with the other amendments I have brought forward. I think it's very important that the police officer be kept abreast of the progress of the investigation right to, in this case, its conclusion.
Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed because we think it's unnecessary.
Mr Ramsay: I'd just like to say one other thing. With the nature of these types of complaints and the stress that can be placed on police officers, it would seem to me to be almost the considerate thing to do, to make sure that there was a time frame that determined how soon the police officer would be informed that the case was resolved.
The Chair: Can we just get rid of this one, Mr Ramsay's amendment?
Mr Ramsay: Not a very nice way of saying it.
The Chair: That's what's going to happen to it, though, Mr Ramsay, I think.
Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is lost.
We adjourn till 3:30 tomorrow afternoon, May 27.
The committee adjourned at 1758.