CONTENTS
Wednesday 18 November 1992
Appointments review
Henry Grayman
Marek Z. Tufman
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Ferguson
*MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND) for Mr Wiseman
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1011 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
HENRY GRAYMAN
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Could we come to order, please. The first item on our agenda this morning is a half-hour review of the intended appointment of Henry Grayman as a member of the city of Belleville Police Services Board. Mr Grayman, welcome to the committee.
Mr Henry Grayman: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Would you like to say anything briefly before we get under way?
Mr Grayman: No, just that I'm nervous.
The Chair: We'll take that into consideration. We're going to begin the questioning this morning. This is a 10-minute rotation between the parties and we'll begin with Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): You can relax, Henry. This is a great place to be to welcome you to. How familiar are you with the activities of the Belleville Police Force?
Mr Grayman: I'm as familiar as what I read in the newspaper basically about some of the activities that go on and some of the changes that have taken place in the police force. I guess generally I'm familiar with the changes that have gone on over the last several years in the police forces generally, and they've affected the Belleville Police Force as well. It's a general answer to your question. I don't know if you want anything more specific than that.
Mr Grandmaître: You're referring to changes and you're absolutely right, I think. Police services boards, police forces, are looking at their responsibilities with a different view, and rightly so. I think it's about time that our police forces in Ontario do take a new approach to their responsibilities.
A training program was announced by the Solicitor General not too long ago, but municipalities are very concerned. They realize they have to train these new police officers, but at the same time this is going to cost money and the money is not coming from the provincial government. It'll have to come from the municipal taxpayers, and people have had it up to here as far as municipal taxes are concerned. But these changes are needed.
How would you approach that problem as a commissioner, as a member of the Belleville Police Force, because you'll be faced with a budget and you'll be evaluating the police force budget in the near future. How will you handle this?
Mr Grayman: First of all, to start out with, as a general statement I believe in training. I think it's really important that not only police but any group of individuals receives training in new legislation and new things that are coming along, even if it's a new recruit who needs training in just the regular run-of-the-mill things. So just generally, I believe in training.
More specifically, in terms of budget, you're right; it's a difficult item to deal with and we do have shrinking budgets. We're in a day and age of that. We're in a day and age, as you say, where taxpayers are fed up with higher taxes and so you can't squeeze anything more out of the taxpayer without a minor revolt or at least certainly some complaints.
What you have to do is look at the budget and make a plan. I would look to the police chief, to the management of the police force, to come with a plan -- what is the training plan here for the force so that we can keep within our budgetary limitations so that the new people are being trained and the older folks -- I mean by that the senior police -- still get some training too and they don't lose out either. They have to balance that. That's good planning and good management, and it's tough at times.
Mr Grandmaître: With these necessary changes, and if you look at the climate right now, what's going on between the police forces across Ontario and the government, it seems like it's them against us. How do you see it? Do you think the government is having the best possible relationship?
Mr Grayman: With the police forces? Certainly, in the newspapers it looks like there's some --
Mr Grandmaître: Never mind the newspapers. You did say you read the newspapers every day. What's the feeling in Belleville? Is it "them against us"?
Mr Grayman: No, I don't think it is in Belleville. I don't get that feeling in Belleville. I think there is in other areas, but I don't think in Belleville particularly there is that "them against us" type of attitude. Certainly, there's controversy about some of the new legislation that's come down and there's a bit of a campaign with the blue ribbon, but there's not that really adversarial type of stance that's taken. I've noticed it in some other localities, but certainly not Belleville. I'm really pleased about that, by the way, too.
Mr Grandmaître: Why?
Mr Grayman: I like that there's that cooperativeness, that sense of cooperation.
Mr Grandmaître: Why is this happening in Toronto?
Mr Grayman: I don't know. I can't comment on Toronto. I used to live in Toronto, but I've lived for the last 15 or so years in Belleville, so I've moved.
Mr Grandmaître: Good move.
Mr Grayman: I think so too.
Mr Grandmaître: Going back to police budgets, as you know, municipal councils have very little to say or do with the police budgets. The police budget can be turned down by city council. They have very little leverage. They can appeal to the Ontario commission. The budget will go through automatically. I've witnessed this throughout the province for the last 25 years. Municipal councillors, or even the mayor who sits on the board, have very little to say.
Do you think the composition of those boards should be changed, that we should have more local politicians, more councillors, representing the population instead of having outsiders?
Mr Grayman: I'll tell you where I'm coming from with this particular comment. For instance, I'm responsible to a board of directors in my own job. The composition of that board is not just people who are professionals or business persons but also we look to community persons and consumers of services.
I guess what I'm looking at is that the police services board is very similar in that you have in a sense your professional people, your people who have been elected by constituency who are your councillors on there, and then you have your community people on that board too. There may even be an ex-consumer or whatever of police services for one reason or another.
I think it's good to have that mix on any board. That's a general trend in a lot of community services across the province, and I would applaud that personally.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think, though, municipalities should have more of a say in policing and police budgets, as well as school boards, for that matter?
Mr Grayman: The way you put it was that it seemed almost inevitable that the police board budget is --
Mr Grandmaître: Believe me, it is.
Mr Grayman: Maybe that's my inexperience. I guess my thought was that council does have a chance to review it and can make certain recommendations about the particular budget, and it may say, "I'd like you to pare this down or look at that," or whatever.
I think by and large the budget will go through, but they can make recommendations, I would think -- I could be wrong because of my inexperience -- about certain parts of the budget. I don't think it's quite as cut and dried perhaps as you're laying out but, as I say, I could be wrong.
1020
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you that council can make recommendations, but when it comes to evaluating a budget, recommendations don't mean too much. You'll realize this. They can recommend all day if they want to, but if the police services board is determined that that budget will go through, it will go through, because municipal councillors or municipal council has very little to say.
Again, just like school boards, municipalities are becoming tax collectors for school boards and the police services boards. I think it's very unfair. I think they should have a better representation at those levels, for the simple reason that, you know, 25% of your municipal tax bill is directly attributed to municipal services and 75% is other services.
Mr Grayman: Such as policing and schools.
Mr Grandmaître: Policing, schools, regional taxes, you name it -- 75% -- and yet these people were elected to come up with a municipal budget. I think it's very unfair that these people be handcuffed the way they are.
The Chair: I'm afraid we have to move on.
Mr Grandmaître: God, oh God, we should have had an hour.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee.
Mr Grayman: Thanks very much.
Mr McLean: I see there's been a great controversy over the policing in Belleville with respect to the force. There's been a report. First of all, though, I want to know, how familiar are you with the police services board of Belleville? Do you know any members who are presently on the board?
Mr Grayman: I know at least two of the members who are on that board. One is the mayor and one is a councillor.
Mr McLean: Have there been some other new appointments that you are aware of?
Mr Grayman: I'm not aware of the public or whatever appointments now.
Mr McLean: Right. What is the feeling of the city of Belleville with regard to the report that was filed? It appears to me from reviewing some of it that the chief and some of the officers don't agree with the report. Do you have any background on it?
Mr Grayman: Only what I've read in the newspaper, that there is a conflict there, and I know they've had police wives picketing the police station. There's been a lot of controversy. I don't know all the details of it, because I only read that sort of stuff in the newspaper, so that's as much as anybody else knows. I do know there's controversy. I do know the board is involved in that controversy. I do know there's an investigation, if you like, or an assessment of the board and the police force happening at this moment. So I'll be a new member. Hopefully, I have a fresh perspective or more of an objective perspective perhaps than people who have been around for a while.
Mr McLean: On April 10, 1991, Mike Farnan, the then Solicitor General, announced that the police forces of Ontario have until May 1, 1992, to submit detailed plans on how they would meet their hiring quotas. Can you express your views with regard to employment equity?
Mr Grayman: Well, I believe in employment equity, in particular for women on the police force, and more recently for ethnic groups as well.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but Belleville has become a chosen place for a lot of new immigrants to come in. They're settled specifically in Belleville. They all don't sort of gravitate towards Toronto or the large centres in Canada. They're encouraged to come to Belleville. So we have a growing ethnic community in Belleville. I'd like to make sure they're represented on the police force in one fashion or another.
But in particular I'd like to see women represented there. They're underrepresented on the police force, and there are a lot of issues that the police get involved in that women, I think, are particularly well suited for. If you want to press me on that issue, I can speak more on it.
Mr McLean: How many females are there in the force now?
Mr Grayman: I don't know exactly, but there aren't very many.
Mr McLean: You said there should be more women. How do you know that there are not half of them there now?
Mr Grayman: I know there are not half of them. I know it's a very small number. I'm reluctant to say the exact amount, because it's only hearsay that I have, but I know it's a small amount.
Mr McLean: Freedom of information and protection of privacy: What is your opinion with regard to that issue?
Mr Grayman: Protection of privacy?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Grayman: I think everyone has a right to that in terms of their private affairs. Are you thinking of the freedom of information act? Is that what you're --
Mr McLean: I'm referring mainly to, "The guidelines have not prevented police forces from continuing to develop their own policies about what information to withhold under the new act." I'm wondering if you feel that those regulations are proper or that they should be able to withhold information. I mean, if some group of people are caught in some washroom, should those names be released, or should they be held private through the freedom of information?
Mr Grayman: Right. I'm not familiar enough with that act to know the specifics of it. Certainly there have been recent changes in court reporting, for example, in the newspaper in terms of publishing of names. Let's say it was a sexual assault, for example; the victim's name is no longer published in the newspaper. That's the sort of thing that I think is good, and I'm glad that happens.
I think it's usually the case that the court orders this type of thing to happen, as opposed to its being a matter of course or even a legislated thing that that wouldn't happen; the court still has to initiate that. So those types of changes I think are worthwhile. I'm not sure if that legislation covers those types of instances. So the police would know what the victim's name is and would be compelled, perhaps, under the new legislation not to give out that name.
Mr McLean: Political activity by police officers: Do you have an opinion on whether the police officer should be allowed to participate in politics or not?
Mr Grayman: That's a good question, actually. I have mixed feelings about it. It's like the civil servants. I mean, that was the issue a number of years ago: Should civil servants be involved in politics? I know there was a large discussion about that. I think eventually it was ruled that they could, but the activity they participate in seems to be rather low key. So although they have the right to do so, they seem to be low key, and I think there's a feeling among a lot of them that maybe it's still not kosher.
Mr McLean: I guess if it's after working hours, they would have the right, the same as anybody else.
Mr Grayman: That's right. So I believe they do have that right to do that, and just because of their particular profession, they shouldn't be restricted to that, but likely it will be low key. I don't say it should be, but it probably will be.
Mr McLean: Do you agree with the government's enforcement of the filling out of the form every time a police officer would draw his weapon?
Mr Grayman: I don't think that legislation came into being out of thin air. It came into being because of a lot of public discussion, a lot of input from various community groups. So as I say, I don't think it was just something that came out of thin air. I think it's a worthwhile and good piece of legislation in terms of how it's going to come down in terms of the actual workings of that legislation. Probably, there still needs to be some negotiation around that. I can see that the minister, Allan Pilkey, is going to have his hands full in negotiating that, but I believe in the legislation. Probably some glitches in it need to be ironed out.
Mr McLean: So what you're saying then is, in simple terms, yes, you agree with it.
Mr Grayman: Yes, I agree with it, but it needs some ironing out.
Mr McLean: Have you ever been involved in politics?
Mr Grayman: I was a campaign manager for the mayor of Belleville. That's the closest I've gotten to politics.
Mr Grandmaître: Did he win?
Mr Grayman: Did she win? Yes.
Mr McLean: That's all at this time.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Based on your years of residence in Belleville and the work you do, can you give some idea of what you see as the crime-policing problems there? Do you feel the police resources should be reallocated into some other areas?
1030
Mr Grayman: I've always believed in community policing in particular. I think police can do a lot of good PR and raise their profile, as well as do a lot of good investigative work, if they're known to the people on the street.
One of the things I learned working in the field of corrections is that I always thought that police, in terms of solving a crime, did a Sherlock Holmes number, little realizing it wasn't like that at all. Basically, they rely on people coming forward and saying, "I saw such and such and I'm willing to put that in writing or stand up in court and say that." The only way you'll have people standing up and letting themselves be counted in that manner is if they are familiar with you, they know who you are and they have a relationship with you. Community policing does that.
One of the things the Belleville police force did fairly recently -- and I think it's a wonderful idea. You might laugh, but they have two police officers in the downtown core on bicycles, and that's how they do their patrolling. It's wonderful because they have a high profile. People see them, they can talk to them, they can chat to them, so I think it's a good move. That's the sort of thing I'd like to see -- them out of their cruisers, on the street doing that sort of patrolling, meeting people and talking to them.
The Chair: Mr Cooper? I'm sorry. I assumed you were passing. Were you?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): No, he finished, and we're moving on.
The Chair: Okay then.
Mr Marchese: Mr Grayman, I have a question that relates very much to what Mr McLean was speaking to earlier, and that's some of the controversy that emerged as a result of the inspection that was done last year. To be specific, so you have a sense of what the issues are, the inspection revealed these problems: internal discipline is handled inconsistently; health and safety issues appear to be low priority to the force; female civilians and police have complained that they are the target of sexual harassment initiated by their supervisors; the reporting of use of force by officers was inadequate; the number of spousal assaults -- charges laid by the force -- has increased since 1988, but in Belleville the police force is below the provincial average of 62%; the force's management of its workload was inadequate; the force should adopt more proactive styles of policing; there's little real communication between the chief and other senior personnel and so on; on occasion relatives or close friends of command officers and police services board members have been awarded contracts tendered by the force. This gives you a sense of the kinds of problems you will have to face.
Mr McLean: They're big.
Mr Marchese: My question is, why would you want to be a board member? Why do you think, after that, that you can provide something useful by way of resolution of some of these questions?
Mr Grayman: Well, it's a good question actually, because I must admit I thought very carefully about, do I want to be a board member when the board, the police force is under such heavy scrutiny? Do I want to be involved in something like that? So I had some reservations in terms of applying for this position.
Then I got to thinking about, well, in one sense, I'm a new member, so I haven't been around. In terms of being implicated or whatever in old policies, it's not me, because I'm the new fellow on the block. That's one thing.
The other thing is that I'm really interested in these issues too, proactive policing, sexual harassment, spousal assault, that the number of charges laid aren't as high. Those things really interest me. Out of the list that you read, those three at least stuck in my mind.
I'd like to see a change in the police force for those things, and I think that would be positive. If, in fact, that's what the commission or the investigation is coming up with, that they're not meeting provincial standards, I'd like to see those standards met, and I'd like to see that happen in Belleville. I don't want Belleville being known as a backwater. It is in other areas, but I don't want it to be known as that in terms of policing. So if I can help in that way, I'd like to do that, because I believe in those issues and I'd like to see the changes.
Mr Marchese: Thank you.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): A couple of things that we've gotten into: Mr Grandmaître was mentioning about the budgets, and Mr Frankford got into community policing just briefly, things like the community taking responsibility for policing, Neighbourhood Watch and Block Parent programs. I don't know if Belleville's participating in them.
Mr Grayman: They do, yes.
Mr Cooper: If the community takes an active role in that, do you think that would save on police budgets because it would cut down on their work?
Mr Grayman: Oh, I think that's the fantasy, that it would. I don't think it's true, though, that in fact it does. I think what happens is, you have better policing and I think your rate of folks who are caught for, let's say, break and enter -- I think that's a good example. The rate at which people are actually caught and convicted of break and enter is really quite low and is surprising. You expect if your house is ransacked that the police will find the individual or individuals who did it. It's really quite low.
However, with community policing, the rate goes up. It doesn't mean that you have less work, but it does mean that maybe there's more satisfaction in your work, that in fact the police are seen to be doing a better job because they're finding folks and convictions are registered against people committing crimes.
Break and enter is one of the common crimes and it's one that's most upsetting to many victims, extremely upsetting because their house is ransacked, their good are taken and it's really quite traumatic for a lot of people. So if there are more people caught and convicted of that, they're more appreciative of the police force; and that's where community policing comes in and that's where the Neighbour Watch, etc, Block Parent type of thing comes in. I'm thankful that those programs are around and I really support them.
Mr Cooper: I know in our community I'm a block captain for my Neighbourhood Watch, and it's been documented that the crime rate goes down when a street gets signed, so I was wondering if it reduces crime across the city if you get it really widespread rather than just in the locations where they would naturally just move to another location.
Mr Grayman: Right.
Mr Cooper: I was just wondering how you felt about that.
The other thing I wanted to know is, do they have an emergency response unit or a tactical squad in Belleville?
Mr Grayman: Like sort of a SWAT team type of thing?
Mr Cooper: Like a SWAT team.
Mr Grayman: I think they do actually, yes.
Mr Cooper: I know there was an article in yesterday's newspaper by Clayton Ruby and he was talking Metropolitan Toronto and its emergency response unit. They said that there's only been one shooting over 2,000 calls and that these people are better trained to deal with the public.
How do you feel about that in Belleville where the regular officers are out there doing their community policing and when a difficulty comes up they get on the radio and call in these people who are better trained? This would obviously cut down on the training aspect that Mr Grandmaître was talking about where every police officer would have to be totally trained.
Mr Grayman: It's true. When the tactical squads originally came out, their training was on a military style. It was really unfortunate, and I believe it was down in the Windsor area -- there's a very famous case that probably you're familiar with of a fellow, whose name escapes me off the top of my head, who was in fact shot mistakenly by a tactical squad. Ever since that particular case took place there's been quite a massive retraining of tactical squads so that they do much more negotiation and less gun pulling and shooting. That's helped substantially, so that in fact the number of deaths and the number of shootings by tactical squads have gone dramatically down since that time as a result of training of that group of people; again, something I really applaud that's happened.
Mr Cooper: So you do agree that while the regular officers on the beat do need some training, if they went to the tactical thing and they were set up in policy that they would call them in emergency situations, that would be the better way to go.
Mr Grayman: Sure. I don't see that happening a lot either. I think if you're doing your community policing and if you've done well, there's not a great need for tactical squads. When you do need them, they're well-trained and you call them in and they do a good job.
Mr Cooper: So that would be part of the solution on this use of force regulation where we wouldn't have to spend a lot of money right away if they went to that policy.
Mr Grayman: I'll take that with me. That's a good answer.
Mr Cooper: As you understand, there isn't much money out there.
Mr Grayman: No, there isn't. It's true, I know.
Mr Cooper: This policy statement would be a better way to go until the money was freed and the training process was set up to train everybody then.
Mr Grayman: Sure.
The Chair: Mrs Carter, we've only got four seconds, but I'm going to be generous and give you a quick question.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Oh, well, thank you.
I see that the inspection teams that went into Belleville found, firstly, that the board was a rubber stamp for the chief and, secondly, that the relationship between the board and the actual police association was very poor. I just wondered if you might have any thoughts on that.
1040
Mr Grayman: Well, I think it's my responsibility as a board member not to be a rubber stamp. Just as I'm responsible to a board of directors, I don't expect them to be a rubber stamp to my recommendations. I know it will take me a little while to understand all the issues and become, I guess, cogent of all of them, but I would not see it that I'm a rubber stamp. I will ask questions and there are certain issues that I will want to see some action being taken on, because certainly that list is one that I'm interested to see some changes happening in terms of the --
Ms Carter: There seems to be an inference that the police chief himself doesn't get on too well with the association.
Mr Grayman: Well, perhaps he needs some training. I don't know.
Ms Carter: Okay, thanks.
The Chair: Mr Grayman, that concludes the review. We appreciate your coming up from Belleville this morning and wish you well.
Mr Grayman: Thanks very much, and I appreciate the opportunity I've had to meet all of you and to answer your questions.
MAREK Z. TUFMAN
The Chair: Our next witness is Marek Tufman. Mr Tufman is an intended appointee as a member of the board of Inquiry under the Police Services Act. Mr Tufman, you've been here. I think you've noticed that the review's a 10-minute rotation between the parties. Do you have anything you'd like to say before we begin the questioning?
Mr Marek Z. Tufman: Good morning.
The Chair: Good morning. Thanks very much, and we'll look to Mr McLean to begin the questioning.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. I know the background with regard to the complaints projects, the Metro force, but I want to zero in on with regard to the board of inquiry. Do you know how many members are on that board?
Mr Tufman: I believe altogether there are about 60.
Mr McLean: About 60?
Mr Tufman: Yes, one third of whom are appointed by the Attorney General and they are lawyers.
Mr McLean: And where's the balance of them from?
Mr Tufman: Well, there's one third appointed by the Attorney General, who act as chairs of the particular hearings, there's one third appointed by the police association, and the other third by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Mr McLean: One third by the police association. Which association would that be, the overall Ontario?
Mr Tufman: That's right.
Mr McLean: And is it representative right across the province on that board?
Mr Tufman: Well, yes. The associations appoint the panel and then the members of the panel are assigned to particular regions, depending on their place of residence.
Mr McLean: I understand that the chair of each tribunal or each panel has got to be a lawyer.
Mr Tufman: I'm one of them.
Mr McLean: Right, and how many of them would there be in Ontario?
Mr Tufman: Well, there would be one third of the 60, which would be 20.
Mr McLean: One third of the 60. How much per diem do they get when they hold these hearings?
Mr Tufman: Well, $293.
Mr McLean: That's pretty close. Okay, the board of inquiry hearings are open to the public in most cases, I understand, but there are some cases --
Mr Tufman: In most cases, although there can be cases in which they would not be that might involve some aspects of security or information that would have to be protected.
Mr McLean: What background do you have with regard to what's gone on with regard to the inquiries to date? Do you have much background?
Mr Tufman: There wouldn't have been very many inquiries to date, in any event. It is a very fresh system. I think we've had one or two hearings around. We do have a backlog of cases. So, quite frankly, in terms of the hearings themselves, I have absolutely no background.
Mr McLean: I guess December 1990 is when the board was changed. It went from the police complaints project act and it was changed and then it went to the -- all appeals or claims lodged go now to the board of inquiry.
Mr Tufman: It obviously took some time to implement the system and get the panel organized. People had to apply, be interviewed and go through the process, like the one I'm going through now.
Mr McLean: What do you project in your own mind that's going to happen? Do you think there are going to be a lot of complaints laid by private people with regard to the conduct of their own police force or by members individually?
Mr Tufman: There is a need for that. I would hope that those issues would come out and that the issues would be directed to the boards of inquiry or to the police complaints commissioner. You might remember that it was one of the recommendations of the Lewis report that this sort of system be opened up to the general public. I don't believe that the system is swamped at this point and I'm sure that we wouldn't want to be swamped, because that might affect the quality of justice that we might want to administer.
At the same time, I think it would be appropriate for the public to be encouraged to come out with their complaints, if there are any, and through that I think eventually the reasons for complaints will diminish and the number of complaints eventually will be lowered. That's my scenario.
Mr McLean: Are there any police officers appointed to that board?
Mr Tufman: No, no police officer can be appointed to the board and no lawyer, other than the chair or vice-chair, can be appointed.
Mr McLean: Do you not feel that if the board of inquiry is sitting down, dealing with the conduct of a police officer, that some background or perhaps one member of that three-member panel maybe should be a police officer who knows the background of why that individual did what he did?
Mr Tufman: There is certainly a demand for people with the background, and that's why I would think that the police associations would put forward people with that sort of background and that sort of -- I wouldn't want to say "sympathy," but at least an awareness of the problem. As lawyers, and in particular, such as myself, involved in litigation, we are not unfamiliar with aspects of policing. I wouldn't say I'm familiar thoroughly with those, but obviously we have some degree of awareness of that.
But I don't think that the degree of appearance of impartiality would be preserved if one of the sitting members were actually an active member of a police force, because even though there would likely be no bias on the part of that member of the board, there would certainly be a perception of one.
Mr McLean: Clare Lewis -- is he the chairman of the police inquiry commission? Who's the chairman of it?
Mr Tufman: It's Nora Sanders.
Mr McLean: Is she a government appointee?
Mr Tufman: I believe so, yes.
Mr McLean: What involvement does Clare Lewis have with regard to anything that goes on within the organization, the police inquiry board?
Mr Tufman: I don't believe that Judge Lewis has anything to do with it.
Mr Grandmaître: No, he simply wrote a report.
Mr Tufman: That's right.
Mr McLean: Are you talking about Stephen Lewis or Clare Lewis?
Mr Tufman: There is Stephen Lewis and Clare Lewis. Clare Lewis was the police complaints commissioner, wasn't he?
Mr McLean: That's the one I was referring to.
Mr Tufman: There is no involvement by Mr Lewis in the workings of the board of inquiry, neither one, neither Mr Stephen Lewis nor Clare Lewis.
Mr McLean: Okay, I wanted that clear.
I know the clock's running, Mr Chair, but I have a few other questions that I wanted to raise. The chair's Nora Mary Sanders. If I'd done all my background work, I'd have known she was appointed in December 1981. Who recommended your appointment, the bar society?
Mr Tufman: No, I believe my name was put forward for the appointment itself by the Attorney General. In terms of how we got interested in that, there were simply newspaper advertisements run. One of those was pointed out to me and caused my interest and I wrote, and some time later it came to an appearance before you.
Mr McLean: Good. I will pass for now, Mr Chair.
Mr Cooper: Just a quick check, here. Most criminal lawyers are usually dealing with an unsavoury segment of society and most police officers are in the same situation. I'm sure you're aware of the Stephen Lewis report and some of the attitudes that came out of that. I guess what I'm asking is, how do you feel about the police officers because of the segment they're dealing with? Do you feel there may be prejudices building up in the police force?
Mr Tufman: Well, I feel that there is a potential for it, but I think that proper training and proper education may help avert it. There is a certain potential for prejudice where people deal day in and day out with a particular element. People tend to see crime everywhere because that's what they are trained to do. Just like in any profession, when you are trained to do certain things, you tend to view that part of your life through a particular prism. But through training and through education and through appropriate building-in of attitudes you can overcome that and you can train yourself not to be prejudiced. I think that's what the system really ought to be about.
I think it would be foolish to pretend that there is no potential for prejudice in the circumstances, or indeed that there are no prejudices among some of the members of any social group, including the police.
1050
Mr Cooper: So you agree with the government's position that better training of the officers, especially on dealing with the communities, in conjunction with the police going out and doing community policing, where they actually know the people on their beat and the people in the neighbourhood, are going to solve a lot of the problems and we'd probably find fewer public complaints, maybe.
Mr Tufman: I don't think we can do any social engineering without actually being in the society. That's only common sense.
Mr Cooper: Okay. Thank you very much.
Ms Carter: With the previous witness we just touched on the question of whether police officers should be able to engage in politics, the understanding being that this is on an individual basis when they're not on duty and they're not in uniform and so on.
It seems to me there's another question and that's the one that we're looking at now, with the police as a body engaging in politics -- not as individuals, but as members of the police force. I just wonder if you have any comments on that.
Mr Tufman: I suppose you're asking for my comments generally, as a lawyer, as a person, or as a future member of the board of inquiry, because those things wouldn't likely come before me.
I think that there is a large group of individuals who have a particular view of life. It's not unwise for those individuals to put their views forward. There are very few places where they can put them forward other than the government which regulates them. Whether the manner in which they put those views forward is acceptable or not is altogether a different issue, but I think that if they have certain views, as an association is a group of individuals, then those views ought to be heard. In this way I don't think that they are any more political than any union is or than any other professional association.
Ms Carter: But I guess the question is, where do you draw the line?
Mr Tufman: Where --
Ms Carter: Where do you draw the line?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This union doesn't like the NDP; that's the difference.
Mr Tufman: Well, I don't know whether I would necessarily agree with that statement. I don't know much about it. But in terms of where you draw the line, I don't know where you draw the line. Obviously, there has to be some middle ground found, and I would hope, because obviously, if there is no political issue found, there is going to be only festering of the problem. I'm so glad that it will be you and not me who will have to find the resolution, because you are going to have a very difficult job on your hands.
If and when those issues -- I can't readily imagine how those issues would come before the board of inquiry that I might join, but if they do, then of course the only thing that I would be doing is, I wouldn't be doing the political musings; I would just apply the law as the Legislature would pass it. That's all that I can do. Every judge or every adjudicator has certain political views of his or her own, and I'm not devoid of them.
Ms Carter: But I think there's a principle here involved because the police are not a regular union; they are, in fact, the people who carry out the law --
Mr Tufman: That's true.
Ms Carter: -- so that a government that cannot rely on the police to do that would, in fact, not be a government.
Mr Bradley: What about the civil servants in the province? They carry out the law, the civil servants. You don't mind them unionizing.
Mr Tufman: Maybe what has transpired here has been, in my view, an unfortunate festering of the problem. The sooner you cut this Gordian knot the better. I quite frankly don't know where the line ought to be. There are certain types of unions and associations that are prohibited from applying the labour pressure because they are such essential services. If the Legislature were to see fit, I'm sure the Legislature could pass appropriate legislation in that direction with respect to the police. I don't believe that such legislation is presently in place. If there are legal means by which the police can utilize pressure, if that is a pressure, or express their views, then if there are such legal means, I see nothing wrong with that, personally.
The question of the line that you ask for, Ms Carter, is a difficult one. I don't think there would be members of the police force who would knowingly or willingly affect the public safety, or not respond to a call for help because they have a political dispute with the government. Obviously, if there had been any, they ought to be severely penalized. At the same time, a showing of expression of a particular political view or a social view, or with respect to certain regulations through the wearing of a blue ribbon, strikes me as a rather mellow expression of discontent.
Ms Carter: I see. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about the process by which you were appointed to this position.
Mr Tufman: Personally, just to make sure, I am not as yet appointed and I will not be unless you say so. That's the first thing.
Mr Bradley: That's a safe bet.
Mr Tufman: I have responded to an advertisement and I was interviewed by Ms Sanders, who is here, the chair, and by a community representative, who is the gentleman representing, I believe, the race relations committee of the city of Windsor, Mr Talbert, was it? They felt that I might be an appropriate member, and they put my name forward. There were references taken with respect to me. My background was checked. The closets were looked into, to see if there were any skeletons there. To the extent that they weren't found, I am here.
The Chair: No one else from the government side? You've got a minute and a half.
Mr Frankford: When hearings are held, they're based on rules of evidence. Presumably, a policeman is up there to --
Mr Tufman: Yes, obviously, the police officer is there to be heard. Some of those hearings may actually originate at the instance of the police officer because the police officer may apply to the board of inquiry if he or she has been disciplined by his or her chief.
Mr Frankford: On the use of force, it would seem to me that it would, let's say generally, be in the officer's interest to have a written report because this would be a piece of evidence that would be given great credence.
Mr Tufman: That is one of the arguments that's put forward, yes.
Mr Frankford: I think, from my medical background, that if I did not document a life-threatening procedure, and something went wrong, then I would have jeopardized myself.
Mr Tufman: I'll be very candid with you. I really don't quite know the details of the position of the police association in its dispute with the government, but I understand that there are some concerns that every pulling out of a gun may have to be documented. I can understand that if I were a police officer and if I were approaching a dark warehouse in the middle of the night to check a break and enter call, I may want to have my hand on whatever weapon I might then have, just to be sure that if the unexpected happens, I might be able to respond.
Look, my knowledge of those issues is a newspaper one. I don't have any insight that you would not have into those issues. Sure, it is always good to have something documented. I believe that the concerns of the police, as they have been voiced, is that the use of this documentation may be to their prejudice rather than to their assistance, but again, to what extent that can be resolved is something between yourselves and the police to resolve. I'm sorry; I mean the government and the police, not you.
1100
Mr Grandmaître: Tell me why, at this time, you want to be a member of this board?
Mr Tufman: It's an important challenge -- put it that way. There have been many voices about a loss of trust and confidence and rapport between the police and some segments of our society. The board of inquiry, with its mandate, is supposed to alter that, to become a forum where those complaints can be voiced, brought and adjudicated. If I can be part of this change, then I certainly would feel that would be a very important contribution in this very little area. That's the principal reason.
It is challenging because it is always challenging for a lawyer to be part of the system of administration of justice, and it is important from a social point of view, and that's the principal reason.
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you that there has been a loss of trust or confidence between policing and this government. I know it didn't happen overnight.
Mr Tufman: Perhaps, Mr Grandmaître, we have not understood each other. I did not say that there has been loss of trust between the police and the government. I thought I had said that there has been a loss of trust between the police and some segments of society.
I think that for the most part, any loss of trust and loss of confidence, between any groups, is not an overnight experience. It grows and it festers and it has to be repaired also over time. That's why, in my understanding, the Board of Inquiry is supposed to be the major tool to assist them, not through any conciliation, but through being a place to which a citizen or a police officer can bring his complaint if he has somehow fallen between the cracks in a system that's supposed to be faultless. If a person is aggrieved, he or she ought to be able to bring this complaint to an impartial tribunal. That's the recommendation that was made and that's the mandate of the Board of Inquiry.
Mr Bradley: When you mentioned the interview, sir, you said that when you interviewed for this, you were interviewed by the secretariat or whomever, and then you were interviewed by a race relations person in Windsor. Did you get interviewed by the police, since they're a party to this as well, or do we just hear from one side of the issue?
Mr Tufman: I wasn't interviewed by the police. I want it to be clearly understood, Mr Bradley, that I don't expect myself to be a voice of a particular viewpoint. I believe that I'm not being appointed as a representative of a pressure group and I'm not supposed to be responsive to a particular political viewpoint. To the contrary, my understanding is that I'm supposed to be as impartial as I can, and that's my deepest desire. I don't know to what extent the police have been involved in the selection process of the many who must have expressed their interest. I was not privy to that selection process. I was not interviewed by the police.
If the question simply was, are you, Tufman, or are you not anti-police? No, I'm not anti-police and I'm not pro-police; I'm not anti or pro any particular group. The issues that are going to come before the board are going to be real conflicts between real people. They are going to give real stories that will have to be resolved, and that's what Tufman hopefully is going to assist in resolving.
Mr Bradley: My concern was about the selection process and the interview process. You were, as I say, interviewed by the person from the government to see if you fit what it wants, which is understandable, that's fine. You said, second, you were interviewed by the race relations person from Windsor. I'm wondering where the third person is. Whether the police think you're fine or not, the government still makes the decision. Maybe the police don't think you're fine and the government's still going to appoint you. That's their business. They're the government. But you see, what I'm getting at is that you were interviewed by the person from the agency or from the government, and you were interviewed by the race relations person, but then you're not interviewed by the police person, and that's what I'm concerned about.
I'd also be concerned about, what kind of questions did they ask you?
Mr Tufman: At the interviews?
Mr Bradley: Yes.
Mr Tufman: They essentially went through my life story, through some of the questions you have posed, through my attitudes. Pretty well it was as thorough an interview as it could be, but I felt that the questions that were asked of me in the interview did not as much deal with my professional credentials, which as a lawyer can be easily documented, but rather with searching into my, in quotes, human qualities. That's how perceived that. If they found them in me, then I'm grateful, and of course flattered.
Mr Bradley: Did they ask you about your attitudes towards the police?
Mr Tufman: I was asked whether or not I had any disputes personally with the police. Did I sue the police? Obviously, it was very clear to me that no person who could be perceived as having had a particular bias would be invited to join.
Mr Bradley: You had the perception that if you showed a healthy suspicion of police, you would not be appointed?
Mr Tufman: I don't think any person who --
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: What everybody wishes.
Mr Tufman: I don't think any suspicion of any particular group is a healthy suspicion, whether it's a suspicion of the police or a suspicion of any other group. I don't think suspicions, in general, of a group are healthy. As a member of the Board of Inquiry, I may form my suspicions as to the veracity of some evidence that a particular witness might give before me, but that's when I will be forming the suspicions.
What I think that the investigation -- when I was being interviewed by people who put me forward -- was concentrating on was really on something different. Am I a person who might possibly be perceived as being biased in any fashion by anybody. Look, if I had made my living by suing the police left, right and centre, then obviously, for obvious reasons, I would not be a candidate who would come to the top of the list. It wouldn't make any sense for me to be there.
If I had come into continuous conflict with police, or if I were a lawyer acting habitually for police officers and representing them in disciplinary hearings, again, some perception of bias might have been observed. I am neither. I have not habitually acted either for or against the police, and maybe that's one of the reasons why my name was selected from among those who must have been reviewed. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who just popped into their vision, that they had to pluck me from there because there was nobody else. There are usually quite a number of people who are interested in this sort of work.
1110
Mr Bradley: One of the concerns that police officers have expressed -- the reason I'm getting to the interview process -- is that they have not been consulted along the way, that only certain people are consulted and the police are not consulted.
When I heard that the board of inquiry people or the government people interviewed you and then the race relations person from Windsor interviewed you but nobody from the police interviewed you, my concern was that the police would feel they were left out of this, even if they still choose you. The problem as I see it -- I express a personal point of view -- is that the police never seem to be consulted on this any more. I mean, you can consult them and if the government wants it can still ignore them, but that was my concern with that. But let me get to my other question.
The Chair: No, I'm afraid you got that off your chest and that's it. The time has expired.
Mr Bradley: That's the problem with this committee. There's so little time you never get enough chance to ask lots of good questions. That's why this committee is set up this way.
The Chair: Mr Tufman, that concludes your interview this morning. We wish you well with your new responsibilities.
Mr Tufman: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: The next matter, committee members, although it's not on your agenda, is a concurrence motion or motions in respect to the witnesses who have appeared before us. We can deal with them, as you know, with one or more motions.
Mr Marchese: I move concurrence, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Marchese moves concurrence with the appointments of Mr Grayman and Mr Tufman. Any discussion on the motion? All in favour? Carried.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: The next matter is the report of the subcommittee on committee business. You all have a copy of that. It should be at the back of the packages you received. There is really only one matter and that's the selection of Mr Maurice Strong for a two-hour review on December 9.
Mr Bradley: That ought to be good.
The Chair: This was the selection of the official opposition, with the agreement of the Conservative Party and the government party representatives on the subcommittee. Any discussion on the subcommittee report? If there are no problems with that, then we'll just move right along without a motion.
The next matter is the discussion of the committee mandate. Before Mr Grandmaître left to go to another meeting, he indicated that he wanted me to put his wish on the record that he would like to see -- I assume that this was going to be happening in any event; we did it last year and I was operating under the assumption anyway that we would do it again this year -- a representative of the secretariat here to discuss the process and review the mandate with -- what's the lady's name?
Mr Bradley: John Sewell doesn't want to come, I see.
The Chair: Marilyn Roycroft along with Nancy Pearson. I'm not sure how we would work the process, but last year we had Marilyn here, as you will recall, and she had just been appointed to that position and certainly wasn't familiar with a lot of the workings of the office.
Now she's had some time and I would see that as something we would be doing on a regular basis, in any event, so I don't think anyone would disagree and we will try to schedule that at some point in the future. Otherwise, I'm not sure how we wish to proceed with this. Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I know that Mr Waters wanted to speak to this and I'm not entirely sure of the detail that he wanted or what he wants to say. Because he's not sure, perhaps we might defer it to the next meeting if there's time to have a half-hour for that.
Mr Bradley: That's fine. Mr Grandmaître isn't here, so that's fine.
Mr Marchese: And Mr Grandmaître.
The Chair: I have no problem with that. Are we in agreement that we'll defer that? All three subcommittee representatives are absent this morning.
Mr Bradley: I'm devastated that John Sewell doesn't want to come before this committee, that's all. I've looked here and it says he doesn't want to come here.
The Chair: We can move on to a couple of new items that are attachments, before we get to the Sewell letter. You all have copies of the proposed budget before you, which we would like to have passage of today, if that's possible.
Mr Bradley: I hope we don't have to assume the cost of the coaching of the people coming before the committee. That doesn't come under our budget, does it?
The Chair: This is essentially based on the budget that we used last year, I believe, not an awful lot of change.
Mr Marchese: Are there any changes, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Not that I'm aware of. From 12 weeks to four weeks in terms of sittings. A possible three weeks this winter. We've been operating without a budget, I gather.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): You're in the red.
The Chair: We're in the red.
Mr Bradley: Just like the government.
Mr Marchese: Any junkets for the Liberal Party?
The Chair: Albania, or some place like that.
We're proposing three weeks this winter. Whether the board and House leaders will agree to that, we don't know, but that's what we're suggesting.
Ms Carter: Do we know the dates?
The Chair: No, we don't have the dates, and that will really be the House leaders who will make that call. We can certainly with the representatives of the subcommittee make a recommendation in terms of what we, as a committee, would like to see as sitting dates. We traditionally do that, which hopefully will meet with the needs of most members of the committee.
Mr Marchese: Do we need a motion to approve this?
The Chair: Yes, we do. Moved by Mr Marchese that we approve the budget as presented.
Any additional questions on this? I may just pose one question. I don't want to put the clerk on the spot here, but the total of $88,628, how does that compare with the previous year? Do you recall?
Clerk of the Committee: About $100,000 less.
The Chair: Did everyone hear that?
Mr Bradley: It's $100,000 less? Less than a cabinet minister makes. That's not bad. This committee costs less than a cabinet minister.
The Chair: Okay. No further discussion? All in favour of the motion to approve the budget as presented? Opposed, if any? Motion carried.
The next matter is in respect to dealing with the OMB matter. I have that tentative agenda. This is for next week, and it's part of our review of the OMB. We had tentatively scheduled Mr Dale Martin and Mr John Sewell. As you know by the correspondence in front of you, Mr Sewell has indicated that it's inconvenient for him to attend and is suggesting that he would be willing to appear at a later date.
I guess since we're looking at this meeting next week, Mr Martin has agreed to attend. What's the committee's wish or view in respect to this matter, since we have set aside this day?
Mr Marchese: If Mr Martin is available, then we just reverse them. Is that the suggestion?
The Chair: We had intended to have both of them in for one hour each.
Mr Bradley: Can you bring Jack Layton in too? Have all three?
Mr Marchese: My suggestion on Mr Sewell is that we could suggest to him that he give a provisional report. Obviously, the recommendations are not available yet because they're still working on them, and I suppose if the membership here was interested in hearing a provisional report, we could say that to him or we can wait. I can wait personally, but I don't know whether others feel that we should or we shouldn't. If Mr Bradley can wait and you as the Chair can wait, then we can --
The Chair: I guess it's depending on the thinking of the committee whether we had wished or intended to issue our report prior to the Sewell commission, although he's indicating that its draft report is going to be available shortly after Christmas. I don't think there's any way that this committee will be finalizing its report on the OMB prior to the Sewell commission draft. At this point all I'm concerned about is next week with Mr Martin -- is it sufficient to proceed with just Mr Martin as a witness? are we comfortable with that? -- and look forward to having Mr Sewell at some point later on. Mr Bradley: Yes. Mr Martin has a different role.
The Chair: The clerk reminds me that perhaps we can set aside some time next week because our research officer has prepared three draft reports that we discussed last week briefly, if you'll recall. Those drafts will be ready and we'll set aside a block of time next week for that, and those drafts will be circulated to you I gather later today so that you'll have a week to consider them.
Mr Marchese: Including the mandate, Mr Chair. We need time for that as well.
The Chair: We can discuss that. I'm concerned that a discussion of the mandate is going to take some time. We're looking at two hours, at least one hour for Mr Martin, and we've got three draft reports to go through, so I suspect that's going to take the time up. If we have some time, perhaps we can have some brief discussion of the mandate.
Okay. Nothing further? Meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1122.