POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
PERLEY-ROBERTSON, PANET, HILL AND MCDOUGALL
OTTAWA-CARLETON REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION
FRANCIS NICHOLLS COMMUNITY SUPPORT GROUP
OTTAWA-CARLETON REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE
CONTENTS
Wednesday 19 March 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
Town of Renfrew
Mr Howie Haramis
Perley-Robertson, Panet, Hill and McDougall
Ms Linda Bordeleau
Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Association
Mr John Petersen
Ms Susan McNab; Mr Russell Norris
Mr Peter Vice
Mr George Stairs
Francis Nicholls Community Support Group
Mr Raymond Peterkin
Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service
Mr Brian Ford
Mr Alex Mackie
Mr Chris Bowes
City of Cornwall
Mr Ron Martelle
Ms Carol Fletcher-Dagenais
Township of Winchester
Mr Wyman Barton
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr JimBrown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)
Mr GaryCarr (Oakville South / -Sud PC)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service
J-1737
The committee met at 0959 in the Citadel Ottawa Hotel, Ottawa.
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.
TOWN OF RENFREW
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. This is a continuation of the standing committee on the administration of justice consideration of Bill 105. We are pleased to have His Worship Harold Haramis, mayor of the town of Renfrew, as our first presenter.
Mr Howie Haramis: Thank you. First of all, I'd like to make a correction. I've been called many things. It is pretty nice to be called Harold but my name is Howard. Just call me Howie. So we can straighten that out at the start.
I had met with my members of council and the police services board and was asked to bring our feelings to you and to let you know where Renfrew stands. Some of you may not know where Renfrew is. The only time some people find out where Renfrew is is when we're going down to the government and asking them for money. I just want to assure you that Renfrew is very proud to be part of the province of Ontario.
The process we have is that in Renfrew we have 12 constables, a chief, a deputy chief and two civilian personnel. We are proud of our police services board, we're proud of our police service that we have and we work very closely with the community. The community in Renfrew is much different than many communities in the heavy urban areas, in Toronto, Hamilton and various areas. Renfrew is a rural-urban community in a rural setting.
Our crime rate is much different than in Toronto and Ottawa, and thank God for that. We have a nice, peaceful town, but we have a very active town and we have a very active area, which we are very proud of. We work as a family. We work together as one and I am very pleased.
I have a few comments. I don't have anything written down. We support Bill 105, because I was mayor back in the 1960s when John Robarts was Premier and the municipality had the control of the running of police services at that time through its municipal council.
I am very pleased to see that this government, and I hope all government members, take a look and seriously consider approving this Bill 105 because it's putting the onus back to the people of a municipality who know their own municipality and know how they want their municipality governed.
Especially in the town of Renfrew in our area, we are the ones who will be making the decisions for the betterment of our community and the police servicing for our community. We know what our community needs. We know that budgeting is a very important issue. The town of Renfrew has been hit with $1 million in downloading from the provincial government and the provincial government has been downloaded from the federal government.
We understand and we are not complaining of that. We have accepted that $1-million downloading. That downloading affects the police departments. In 1991 the town of Renfrew had a police budget of $1.4 million with 16 policemen. We are now down to 14 policemen, and thanks to the social contract service at that time put in by the NDP government, we were able to have early retirement for some of the police officers and bring younger ones in.
When I mention appointments to the police services boards, it's very nice to hear that the municipalities will finally have some say as to who is going to be on the board, and because we are the ones who are raising the money from the taxpayers, we are the ones who are going to be accountable. In the system we have now, the service board has the say when it comes to budgeting. I can assure you right now our budget is now at $1.1 million. Our service is much better than it was when we had $1.5 million. We have only increased our taxes 4.5% in six years, from 1991. We are running the municipality like a business, the way the province is starting to run the province as a business.
We need your support in supporting Bill 105 because it is putting the politicians, it's putting the police services board into the front lines to listen to the taxpayers who are paying for the service they get. We know the level of service we want for our community and we are completely different than other municipalities, and other municipalities should feel the same way. They have control of the service they're going to get and they're going to pay for.
I'm very pleased to hear that the OPP police services are going to be shared by municipalities who have not paid for policing in the rural areas. We get along very nicely with the rural areas, but Renfrew, through the tax system, was paying for our own police services and we were also paying, through our provincial grant, our money to the service in the rural area. I'm pleased to hear that the services in rural areas -- the town of Renfrew is now negotiating servicing the rural areas through our police services board and through the town of Renfrew. We will have joint committees set up and we're working closer together. It's about time people stopped working apart. It's about time we all started working together, because if we don't work together, we're dead. This is a very good step where it's pulling everyone together, to work together to help and share the services. I'm not going to get into amalgamation because I believe that's coming down the pike later.
To Bill 105, I support it completely, the town council supports it completely and the police services board supports it completely. We agree with it.
Now I understand there are things that are left out, things that should be put in there. I know that, but it's a step in the right direction. I know it took you about a year and a half to get this going. You can't have something perfect all at once, but it's a step in the right direction. You can add and delete and you can go on, but for God's sake, get Bill 105 going. Then when you find you have mistakes, and you're going to make mistakes, but when you find you have an error or you have a problem, change it. When you can add something to it, change it. There isn't anything perfect today that comes out first of all.
To you, Mr Chairman and to the committee, I've pretty well said what I want to say. I'll answer any questions I possibly can. Thank you very much.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Thank you very much, Howie, for your comments. We've just come off two days of hearings in Toronto, and some of the criticisms of the bill that have come to the committee in Toronto is that the police are too involved, particularly in the complaint process. They've suggested that instead of the police being involved, particularly the chiefs of police, the investigations, all of the hearings, everything be done by a civilian group, although they've been very vague as to whether that should be local or whether that should be provincial. If that were to be done in the Renfrew area, would Renfrew have the financial resources or would they have the other capabilities to get involved in the investigations of the policies of policing of the police services board, for example, or with respect to the conduct of police?
Mr Haramis: That's a very good point. Yes, we are interested in that. We have council very deeply involved with the police services board, giving advice, but we are setting up a completely separate advisory board and I want to say to you that advisory board is going to be a buffer for the police, the services board and council, and yes, we are setting that up.
One thing I will mention to you is that we have people on over 100 different committees in the town of Renfrew. We don't pay them a cent. People volunteer, but I guess that's what you get in a small community. Yes, I agree. We are setting up a separate advisory board to sort of buffer some of the things with the chief of police, the police board and the council on some of the complaints that are coming in.
1010
Mr Tilson: That's being worked through by the police services board?
Mr Haramis: That's being worked through by the police services board.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate you taking the time to come in. One of the parts of this process is to, as you say, work through it, make some of the details and get them worked out because of course when the legislation passes, although there's a lot in regulation -- and we appreciate, especially after some of the days in Toronto, your kind words. Is there any advice you could give in any specific area that we should be doing as we go through the clause-by-clause process to improve the bill even further? You mentioned there are some things to do and so on. Is there anything specific that you wanted to add about what you'd like to see?
Mr Haramis: I look at the general picture of the whole. Generally, I like it, okay? Yes, you could maybe do some changes or make some changes, but you're going to have to find that out yourself. You're going to have to implement your situation and do the best you possibly can. That's what I said earlier.
I don't have really any hard time with any part of the legislation. But you're going to make some mistakes, and you have to understand that and you're going to have to make some amendments. It's like any other legislation you put through, whether it's municipal or federal or provincial. You're going to make some mistakes and you'll have to find that out as you go. David had said about the advisory -- I think that's a good idea and it can work but it's going to have to be nurtured.
Mr Carr: Great. Thank you very much and good luck.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Howie, nice to meet you. I'm glad you could come out today. You brought up a point that I'm pleased about too, the ability of municipalities to work together. We need more of that. I know in my area there's too much parochialism and it's about time we did start to work together, that's for sure.
I'd like to get a clarification, though, on what you're trying to do there, maybe from ministry staff. Subsection 7(2) seems to say to me that actually one board could not provide all the police services that a municipality is required to provide under section 4. I'm just wondering if that actually means that one municipality could not provide the full services for another municipality. That's my understanding of it. I think police forces can amalgamate under this, but I'm not sure you can just provide police services for the rural area.
Mr Haramis: No, no. What we'll do is we'll come to an agreement with the rural area and have them on a joint police service board, and that's what I'm saying, working together. Now, how that fits in, we'll work through the ministry on that. What I'm saying is that we work together in the rural areas or other police services. We don't intend to go in there and say, "We're going to take over your municipality." The services in the rural municipality or that other municipality definitely will not be the same services that we're supplying in the municipality of the town of Renfrew. It is completely separate. Their services will be gauged on the type of service they want and what we want to go at and how much we're going to charge, but they will be part of that process.
Mr Ramsay: Has the town of Renfrew made the calculation so far as to what the cost of the provincial downloading to your town is going to cost you for next year?
Mr Haramis: The provincial downloading?
Mr Ramsay: Yes.
Mr Haramis: Provincial downloading last year was just about $500,000. Provincial downloading this year was about some $300,000. We took a hit over the last two years of nearly $1 million. We don't complain about that. It's going to happen; it could happen again. But we are making sure -- we have not laid off. We have been more efficient, and through attrition people come up. Then we get work that way, but --
Mr Ramsay: How about for next year? What do you feel your revenue loss from the province will be for 1998?
Mr Haramis: About $400,000.
Mr Ramsay: So altogether maybe $1.4 million over the last three years?
Mr Haramis: Yes, we're thinking about $400,000 next year. But don't forget, and I want to point out, Mr Chairman, and to David, the town of Renfrew was hit very hard in the 1990s. We lost eight industries, with 1,700 people unemployed. In 1971, the town of Renfrew had 9,000 people. I was mayor then. I took a heart attack and got out of politics and now I'm back in. I'm a recycled mayor. Anyway, we now have 8,000 people in the town of Renfrew. All the plants are filled, thanks to the previous government and thanks to this government for working hard with the town of Renfrew getting those people employed. But the only reason we can hold our own now is because we got our assessment up, we got people back to work and we're working together as a family, and because we're working together as a family, we can do this.
Mr Ramsay: Great. Thank you very much.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Thank you very much, Howie, for your presentation. That's an easy name for us to use in this caucus. I want to draw your attention to the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, which made a presentation yesterday in Toronto. In there they say:
"The proposals to give the municipality the balance of power on police service boards is a disappointment to our members. We recognize the `politics' involved and while we are grateful that boards remain, we are concerned that this decision will lead to greater political interference in the day-to-day operation of police services."
That's the chiefs of police, their association. How would you respond to the concerns they've raised?
Mr Haramis: Our chief of police does not have a problem. I don't know what they've put in as of yesterday. I said in the 1960s the municipality did not have a problem of political interference by the councils. We will not have political interference by the councils, but we will have closer communication, because some people who get appointed by the province, who don't know squiggly-dot about what they're going on for, they seem to get a badge or they seem to get authority and they seem to clean wingding. This other way, the municipality can control it a lot better. Our chief of police and our police department are much happier with this control. Maybe you have a problem with the larger centres, I don't know, but I know for Renfrew, and I'm speaking only because of Renfrew, I feel we have a real good niche there.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thank you, Howie. The issue of the adequacy of police forces has recurred over the last couple of days and I'm sure will recur today, tomorrow and over the next few weeks. I heard your comments about Renfrew's interest in controlling the design of its police services. Do you believe there should be any overriding authority, by let's say the OCCPS, to tell you that your services are perhaps inadequate and that the council and the police services board of Renfrew fell short of the mark?
Mr Haramis: If we have a problem, if we are running a terrible force, I don't have a problem with that. But when we're running well, we have the budget, we have the money and we don't have any problems, I have a problem with someone coming in and saying, "Because we had a problem in Oshawa and because we had a problem in Belleville, you're going to have a problem in Renfrew." I don't like anyone coming into our community and saying we should do something because somebody else is doing something.
Mr Kormos: Do you think that the police association for the town of Renfrew, the association representing the police officers, should be able to dispute the police services board's opinion as to adequacy of service and --
Mr Haramis: I think everybody has the right for that if we're doing a bad job, if it's something really that needs to be done. I'm saying there are good boards and there are bad boards. We all can't have a perfect board and we all will make mistakes. But there's what you call communication and negotiations, and once communication and negotiations break down, then you have a problem, and we don't have that problem.
Mr Kormos: You've got two fewer police officers now, if I heard you correctly, than you did just a short while ago.
Mr Haramis: That's right, but in 1970 we had 10 policemen with 9,100 people living in the town of Renfrew. Now we have 12 policemen, and a chief and a deputy chief -- that's 14 -- for 8,000 people and the same area.
Mr Kormos: Have you talked about your point of view and the council's point of view and the police service's point of view with the police association of Renfrew?
Mr Haramis: Yes, we do talk, the police association and the police services board, and I haven't had any complaints.
Mr Kormos: Okay, no quarrel. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your coming here.
The Chair: Thank you very much, your worship, for attending here today.
Mr Haramis: It's a pleasure. I want to thank you very much and wish you well in your deliberations and your hearing of Bill 105. Thank you very much for the opportunity. It's a pleasure. Keep up the good work.
Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair, I am especially grateful for the mayor's comments about the provincial appointments. He and I are in entire agreement, at least in some respects, in that regard.
Mr Haramis: The municipality will have the majority, though.
Mr Kormos: That's right.
Mr Haramis: I don't have a problem with that at all.
1020
PERLEY-ROBERTSON, PANET, HILL AND MCDOUGALL
The Chair: Our next presentation is Ms Linda Bordeleau. Welcome, Ms Bordeleau. You have 20 minutes for your presentation, including questions. I'd ask you to proceed with your presentation.
Ms Linda Bordeleau: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I'm speaking to you as a lawyer with the Ottawa law firm of Perley-Robertson, Panet, Hill and McDougall. The majority of my practice involves police governance issues from a management perspective. I am also involved in the police discipline regime as a prosecutor.
I would like to address the committee on various areas of the bill in light of my experience in working with various police services in eastern Ontario. I'd like to briefly address six specific areas of concern: One is municipal agreements to share policing; the second is part-time police officers; the third is the issue of discipline for unsatisfactory work performance; the fourth is the informal discipline regime; the fifth is discipline for off-duty conduct; and the last issue is the increased type of penalties that are now available or would be available under this bill on a finding of misconduct. My comments will address both positive and what I consider to be negative aspects of the bill.
Turning to the first issue, which is municipal agreements to share policing, it's my submission that Bill 105 threatens the continued economic viability of numerous small municipal police services throughout Ontario. With the proclamation of Bill 105, all municipalities except those exempted will be subject to the obligation in section 4 of the act to provide adequate and effective police services regardless of size. Section 5 of the act provides the methods by which a municipality can fulfil its responsibility in this regard. The failure of a municipality to address this obligation will result necessarily in the Ontario Provincial Police having jurisdiction in the area through section 5.1.
I won't review the options that are available to municipalities under section 5. I would like to go on to state, though, that it's been said that municipalities under Bill 105 are given greater flexibility in how they can meet their obligations to province police services. While it is true that the form of police services is not mandated by the province, the options, in my submission, are really limited. They're limited by the deletion of one specific method, and that is the ability of a police services board to enter into an agreement under section 7 to share police services in their entirety.
The old act provided that such agreements could satisfy the responsibility for providing police services. Now you have section 7(2) of Bill 105 that specifically prohibits one municipality from providing full police services to another. The combined effect of section 5 and section 7(2) threatens the survival of small police services. The section operates to restrict the ability of such services to expand into new jurisdictions for effectiveness and efficiency. It limits their ability to compete with the option of contracting with the Ontario Provincial Police. It's not so simple as simply entering into a contract with a municipal police services board. You have to go to the options in section 5 and essentially set up a joint board and establish a new police service, if that's one of the options you wish to choose, assuming there is no municipal police service in the jurisdiction that is now having to satisfy its obligations under section 4.
A further limitation on the authority of municipal police services is seen in the creation of joint boards as provided for in section 33. In the old act, agreements to create a joint board required the authority of those boards. This is no longer the case. The establishment of joint boards only requires the authorization of councils and approval of the Solicitor General. The council can then determine the composition of a joint board.
It is my submission on this issue that if you see fit to amend section 7 with regard to broadening the ability of a municipal police services board to contract out its services, then a corollary to that is to amend section 5 to allow that ability under section 7 to satisfy the obligations. Merely broadening section 7 would not resolve the problem in freedom to contract those services.
The second issue I would like to address is that of part-time police officers. This is an issue that I've been dealing with over the last two years with some small rural police services.
It's my submission that Bill 105 really should address the issue of part-time police officers. The current act does not preclude a municipal police service from hiring police officers for a contractual term. The only statutory limitation right now is within section 44 of the act, whereby a probationary officer must complete the initial period of training at the Ontario Police College within six months of the date of appointment. So if you hire a part-time police officer, that person must be trained at the Ontario Police College when you hit the six-month period of time. There are no other policing standards prescribed either by the Ministry of the Solicitor General or otherwise which address any further prerequisites to the hiring of part-time police officers.
Bill 105 makes no changes to this area. It is left as an issue to be negotiated between police associations and police services boards. Where that might be seen as a positive aspect, it's my submission to the committee that there are various fundamental issues that should be addressed by way of legislation and not left to a contractual negotiation between the employer and essentially the employee.
The following are some of the issues that I raise to you that are sort of left out there to be determined.
One is, under what circumstances can part-time police officers be employed in municipal police services? Is it tied to any loss of operational strength by reason of illness, disciplinary suspensions, secondments or special investigations?
What are the criteria for hiring? Right now, all you have are the basic criteria set out in the act, where you have to be over 18 years of age, a citizen of the province of Ontario and have a secondary education.
Must the individuals be trained at the Ontario Police College prior to coming on board? Can they be retired police officers? What training should be provided to these part-time officers by the police service before they get on the road to deal with the public? Right now, it's left to the police service to determine what, in their capabilities, they should be providing to those individuals who they're bringing on on a part-time basis.
It's my submission that this area cries out for prescribed standards. It is submitted that it's not sufficient to set out such standards by way simply of ministry directives in terms of policing standards unless there is truly a legislative framework to direct or focus those directives or standards.
A third issue flows into the discipline regime that's now being amended through Bill 105, and that's the concept of unsatisfactory work performance. Bill 105 introduces true labour law principles into the statutory discipline regime. I think that's a positive thing. Historically, police officers have been subject to discipline only if the conduct falls within one of the listed misconduct offences in the code of offences that is prescribed by way of regulation.
The use of unsatisfactory work performance as a basis for discipline should provide greater latitude to deal with employment/labour-related issues involving police officers where the conduct does not constitute misconduct as defined by the code but still requires a forum in which to deal with this. Right now, you really don't have a great deal of flexibility even by way of your collective agreement to deal with these types of issues, so I think it's positive to bring in these criteria. As well, the stigma of a prosecution is removed because you're not classifying unsatisfactory work performance as a misconduct offence. It's separate and apart from that categorization under the bill.
It is my submission that the concept of unsatisfactory work performance should remain undefined in the legislation and really left to the individual police agencies to define by way of internal police policies. Unsatisfactory work performance is not a new concept in terms of labour law and it's definable by way of your local practices and your local issues, as well as arbitral jurisprudence that has developed over decades. I submit that it doesn't create a major stumbling block to have this undefined in terms of the legislation. I think a precise definition of what constitutes unsatisfactory work performance is quite difficult to achieve because it essentially encompasses a broad range of factors in the workplace.
The true benefit of the introduction of unsatisfactory work performance as a basis for discipline is the ability to invoke the labour law principle of progressive discipline. This principle contemplates the review of a pattern of performance in light of a culminating incident. This allows for a greater significance to be placed on the culminating incident in light of the past employment record of the employee. I see one problem with Bill 105, and that is that the use of progressive discipline is limited as a result of the structure of the informal resolution process.
What I am talking about in this, and it flows into my fourth issue, is that if you don't have the ability to have a recording of an informal resolution to a discipline matter, then there's essentially no past employment record to look for. So although it's a great benefit to have unsatisfactory work performance built into the legislation, the whole theory behind that concept is in my submission diminished if you can't look at a pattern of misconduct.
1030
It's my submission that in the informal resolution part of the bill you allow for a recording of the disposition, where there's an admission of responsibility by the officer, and have that subject to expungement within the same two-year time frame as expungement would occur for an informal disposition. Right now, what you have in terms of your informal route of discipline is the discrepancy between how you deal with a result by way of an informal resolution and an informal disposition. My submission on this is that to really give teeth to the concept of unsatisfactory work performance and progressive discipline, if that's what you're looking to do, then a necessary fact underlying that is to allow a record to build for a reasonable period of time, and it's my submission that two years is reasonable to allow a documentation to remain on the record.
I think I've addressed my fourth point through those comments. I just have a few additional points on the issue of informal discipline.
The way the bill is drafted in terms of an informal resolution, it's unclear whether the chief of police must pursue or attempt an informal resolution prior to invoking informal discipline. There are references to attempts made at informal resolution, and in my submission it's unclear whether that route has to be taken prior to invoking the informal discipline.
The penalties that may be imposed by way of informal discipline include those described in clause 67(1)(e) and any other penalty described in subsection 67(4). It is unclear whether the penalties under subsection 67(4) stand alone. It is submitted that the legislation could read in this regard "and/or," so that you have an ability to deal with the time deduction as well as any specific conditions to be imposed in light of that.
The penalties available are up to five days or 40 hours of pay; a deduction or forfeiture of that amount of time. The application of time from a time bank or accumulated time is not an option, and it's submitted on a technical basis that clause 67(1)(f) should be amended to include an option to permit the officer to apply time off to fulfil any discipline penalty in this regard.
A fifth issue on the discipline end is that of off-duty conduct. The present bill, of course, doesn't specifically deal with off-duty conduct. It's been the jurisprudence of the civilian commission that a police officer is subject to a disciplinary review for off-duty conduct, and of course there has to be a connection of that conduct to one of the prescribed listed offences in the code of offences. What it truly comes down to is the reputation of the police service in light of that off-duty conduct and perhaps any neglect of duty that would arise, because once a police officer, always a police officer, essentially, in terms of your actions.
Subsection 73(2) of Bill 105 provides that, "A police officer shall not be found guilty of misconduct if there is no connection between the conduct and either the occupational requirements for a police officer or the reputation of the police force." My submission is that this is an acceptable concept, and that truly is the concept today in terms of prosecutions of off-duty conduct issues. But it's my submission that it's inappropriate to have the actual bill address this issue separate and apart from the regulation dealing with the discipline. It's my submission that it's best factored into whatever changes are going to be made to the code of offences, because without having these criteria built into the regulation, it leaves discrepancies possible in terms of describing the code of offences in terms of off-duty conduct.
The sixth point is the right to grieve informal dispositions. This is another example where true labour law principles are introduced into the bill. Bill 105 has introduced the right to grieve an informal penalty disposition. The arbitration process is not governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act but will adhere to arbitral jurisprudence and principles. It is my submission that this is not a negative feature of the bill. The police officer will be accorded the same rights as any employee using a grievance arbitration process. This is not a process without protections or safeguards. So in my submission, the right to grieve without any further preconditions set out in the bill is not a bad thing.
My last point is in terms of penalty options set out in subsection 67(4). This subsection provides for the ability of a chief of police to impose a requirement that an officer attend counselling, treatment or training or participate in specified programs or activities. These programs could involve anger management, gender or race sensitivity issues, drug and alcohol abuse counselling as well as others. It's my submission that this is a positive aspect of the bill, as presently the imposition of such a penalty is really a matter of negotiation in terms of a negotiated resolution of a discipline matter. It's not available or it shouldn't be available to a hearing officer under the current act to impose such a penalty. But certainly it's always available to the representative of the chief and the officer to agree to the inclusion of this type of penalty. So it's positive to have this built into the legislation.
There are problems, in my submission, though, to the inclusion of these penalties. It remains unclear what, if any, effect there is of a failure to comply with this type of sentence. There appears to be no remedy for non-compliance.
It is my submission that a strengthening of this provision would be warranted to the following extent: perhaps to require the production of reports prepared through the process in terms of any counselling options, subject to the consent of the officer, as there are confidentiality issues associated with such reports; to require the officer to re-attend before the chief or hearing officer if there is a failure to comply with the sentence; or to provide a further penalty if the original sentence is not carried out, or a contemplation of a failure to comply with that. I don't know if that will resolve the issue or the problem with forcing compliance with this type of penalty, but perhaps it will provide an incentive to go through what really is a positive aspect in terms of counselling as an available option.
Those are my submissions. I thank the committee for allowing me to present what are my issues in terms of my experience in dealing with police services in this area.
The Chair: We have one minute per caucus and we start off with Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to take you back to page 3 and ask you, and maybe at the same time I might be able to get a clarification from the ministry in the next few days, why there is this restriction on the ability of such police services to expand into new jurisdictions that you say would give some effectiveness and some efficiency.
Ms Bordeleau: I don't understand why that restriction is there. I don't understand why there's a fundamental change from the old act where you have your prescribed methods to satisfying your responsibility to provide adequate and effective policing in section 4. Why is that limited in such a way as is prescribed in section 7(2)? I think it's deceiving. Because there's not a reflection of that restriction specifically in the bill, it's hard for a lot of area police services to understand the effect of this limitation. The thrust of it is, you can't contract out your services similar to what the OPP can. It's not as simple as that, as entering into a contractual relationship. I think the methods set out in section 5 create more of an onerous process to go through the matter. So I don't know why there is such a change in direction from the old act in Bill 105 in this regard.
Mr Kormos: First, with respect to that concern about section 5, it appears that the revenues generated by the OPP when they're doing contract policing are going to flow to the consolidated revenue fund. One wonders if the government is doing à la post office, basically creating a monopoly for itself in terms of providing --
1040
The Chair: Mr Kormos, could you move to the microphone? We can't hear you up here.
Mr Kormos: But Ms Bordeleau was doing fine.
Ms Bordeleau: I'm hearing you, yes.
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
The Chair: I'd like to hear you too.
Mr Kormos: One wonders whether they're creating a monopoly for the provision of OPP services to those communities that would otherwise contract with adjoining municipalities.
Ms Bordeleau: To be perfectly frank, I see that as an effect of these changes certainly. In light of the changes to Bill 105 and the changes to the Municipal Act, you're now seeing a lot of amalgamations going on where these townships are in the process of amalgamating and as well are having to fulfil their responsibilities as of January 1, 1998, if this bill goes through. Certainly the coupling of these two pieces of legislation makes it difficult for municipal police services to survive and really, from a practical perspective, makes it easier for the OPP to come into the area. Whether that's a bad or good thing, I'm speaking from the position that municipal police services should be allowed to survive and compete fairly.
The Chair: If we can move on, Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for obviously a great deal of work done very thoroughly. I appreciate it. I want to get to page 5, regarding the informal versus the formal. If something will be used against a police officer during the informal -- and I know you're saying you could take it out of the file in two years -- it seems to me that may lead to a lot of them saying, "We're not going to go to an informal hearing." Why wouldn't that be the case? If you knew it was going to go in the file in the informal, why would you go to the informal? I think a lot of people would rather it be dealt with in the informal, if it can, on the non-serious, but why would anybody go through the informal if it's potentially going to be used against them later on?
Ms Bordeleau: I guess that is a factor that would preclude an officer from consenting to such a process, but I'm not sure whether consent is really required to invoke that informal resolution. I think how you have to look at this is as you would in any other workplace, separate and apart from policing issues. Can there be an agreement not to record a penalty in your employment record? I guess that goes down to the specific provisions of a collective agreement if you're not looking at the Police Services Act.
My submission remains the same in terms of limiting the use of progressive discipline. Right now, when I see the informal resolution process, there's really no incentive right now for an officer to consent to such a process. Your point is well taken.
Mr Carr: Thank you. Good luck.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It's obvious that a fair amount of work has gone into this presentation, and we appreciate it in assisting us in our deliberations.
OTTAWA-CARLETON REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Association, Mr John Petersen. Welcome, Mr Petersen. We have 20 minutes allotted for your presentation. I note from your brief and from the number of pages that you may be somewhat rushed. I'll give you a signal at the five-minute mark.
Mr John Petersen: Thank you very much. Mr Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. My name is John Petersen. I am president of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Association. I spent over 22 years as a police officer with the former Ottawa Police Service and now the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service.
This morning I'll be joined by John Miller, who is the chair of the board of directors of the Police Association of Ontario and an executive officer with the Ontario Provincial Police Association and is a police officer with the Ontario Provincial Police. John is on my extreme left, and right next to me on my left is Rick Houston, who is the executive manager of the Police Association of Ontario, formerly a police officer with the Windsor Police Service. Also joining me will be Brenda Lawson, who is a member of my board of directors and a member of the board of directors of the Police Association of Ontario.
The recent amalgamation of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service now makes this police service the third largest municipal police service in the province of Ontario. The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Association, with over 1,200 police and civilian members, is a member of a larger organization, the Police Association of Ontario, which represents approximately 23,500 police officers and civilian members across the province.
You have heard from a number of my colleagues from around the province over the past two days and undoubtedly you'll hear more from us in the future with respect to Bill 105. Given the time constraints for our presentation, it is not possible to adequately deal with the impact of all the proposed amendments. Therefore, today I will concentrate on the informal resolution of public complaints and the restructuring of police services through amalgamation.
Informal resolution: In 1996, members of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service handled 244,993 calls for service. That does not include self-initiated contacts, such as traffic stops. Based on nearly a quarter of a million calls for service, only 249 public complaints were received by our professional standards section in 1996. Of these 249 public complaints, only one proceeded to a disciplinary hearing. It's important to make note of the fact of one complaint for every thousand calls for service, and of all the complaints received in 1996, only one went to a disciplinary hearing. I've attached the local statistics at the back for your perusal.
Bill 105 imposes restrictions on the informal resolution process which will prevent complainants and police officers from resolving complaints in an open, efficient and cost-effective manner. A more cost-effective and results-oriented process must be introduced, with the necessary safeguards for police officers and complainants.
Last summer, stakeholders at the police summit, in conjunction with the Ministry of the Solicitor General, joined in discussions on how the province could improve policing. Many of these recommendations have been adopted; some were not. The informal resolution process seems to have been left out or overlooked.
As part of the complaints mechanism, the Police Services Act outlines a process whereby complaints can be resolved through informal resolution. Currently, the provisions of section 83 in the act provide for the use of informal resolution at any time, including the investigative and the hearing stage. I've provided the relevant sections for you. I ask you to make note of the fact that consent is the key word in what's currently in the legislation, and also make note of the fact that it can be resolved even at the board of inquiry stage.
To contrast this with what's being proposed, I want to point out that the only opportunity for informal resolution as proposed in your amendments is in the not-serious category, as deemed by the chief of police.
The current provisions of the Police Services Act facilitate informal resolution of serious allegations, with the consent of the complainant, the police officer and in some cases the complaints commissioner, depending on the stage the complaint has reached. By way of example locally, informal resolution has resolved the public complaint at the board of inquiry stage, saving considerable money in the process and satisfying the parties. I refer to the Gardner board of inquiry, which was successfully brought to a conclusion in 1995 while the board of inquiry was in progress. It generated a lot of media attention in this area and throughout the province.
The Gardner board of inquiry stems from a 1991 drug raid which involved the Ottawa police, at the time, the Nepean police and the OPP, and which resulted in the shooting of Vincent Gardner, who later died. Following an unsuccessful criminal prosecution of a police officer for manslaughter, the Gardner family made a public complaint that over a period of four years took many twists and turns but finally was heard by a board of inquiry. After two weeks of hearings before the board of inquiry, which was scheduled for several more weeks, the proceedings were stopped. As a result of an informal resolution between the parties, which had the consent of the police complaints commissioner, the opportunity to informally resolve a public complaint, which would have undoubtedly been deemed serious under the proposed amendments to the Police Services Act, brought the matter to a conclusion, saving the parties considerable anguish and the taxpayers considerable money. In our estimation, the continuation of that hearing would have cost the taxpayers in excess of $1 million.
There is a demonstrated need to provide the opportunity for informal resolution at all stages of the public complaints process. Again by way of example, a police officer with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service had been charged under the Police Services Act and was notified that the punishment sought, in case of conviction, was a reduction in rank or dismissal, thereby putting this in the serious category in accordance with the amendments to the new act. Early in 1996, prior to the Police Services Act hearing being concluded in this matter, the informal resolution process was successful in bringing about a resolution acceptable to both the complainant and the police officer, subsequently leading to the charges being withdrawn. With the proposed amendments, this opportunity would not have been open to the parties in this case.
1050
Through the entire public complaints process the merits of a complaint may rise and fall as facts unfold and shed light on the substance of a complaint. Quite often complaints thought serious at one stage in the process, with new evidence and information may be deemed less serious. This quite often happens at the hearing stage, where the merits of a case are put to the test. We ask that you not close the door at any stage of the public complaints process to informal resolution.
Most public complaints are as a result of a lack of understanding of a police officer's legislated duties and responsibilities. The informal process provides the complainant and the police officer the opportunity to discuss their differences, perhaps offer their apologies and attempt to understand each other's point of view in the future. Surely the informal process is the most desirable and least expensive option to deal with situations that flow from a moment of frustration or a lack of understanding. We ask that you not force the parties into an adversarial hearing process without providing them with the opportunity to find their own solution. Giving the parties an opportunity to find a meaningful solution to a public complaint, if successful, will leave the parties with the highest level of satisfaction.
We are also of the view that the stakeholders, parties, should be provided with all the notices dealing with the status of the complaint as well as a copy of the final report. Under the proposed amendments, a police officer would not be provided with this information. This information in the hands of the police officer and the complainant will lead to a better understanding of the situation and therefore be more conducive to a successful resolution.
The proposed amendments preclude the opportunity to informally resolve a public complaint prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Completing the investigation would have been a complete waste of time in a situation where it could have been resolved prior to that. The opportunity to informally resolve at the earliest stages, in our view, is most desirable.
Currently, without-prejudice statements made by the complainant or the police officer in an attempt to resolve a matter informally cannot be used later in evidence. The current protection is set out in section 96(6), which we've indicated. It's key to note that currently it indicates at the very end, "except with the consent of the person who made the statement." In other words, you require the consent of the police officer or the complainant in order for it to be used at a subsequent hearing.
The proposed amended section 68(8) must be changed to provide critical protection for both the police officer and the complainant to facilitate the successful completion of the informal resolution process. The following proposed amendment serves as a disincentive for the police officer to enter into the informal resolution process, which could result in the statements being used at a subsequent hearing if the informal resolution fails.
Again, in proposed section 68(8), I point out to you the last sentence where the exception to the rule is "at a hearing held under this part," which means the statement given in an attempt to informally resolve a dispute could be used at a Police Services Act hearing. If this amendment is not changed, any statement made by a police officer in an attempt to informally resolve could be used in a subsequent hearing under the Police Services Act.
The informal resolution process as set out in Bill 105 is flawed for a number of reasons:
Can only occur at the conclusion of the investigation.
Restricted to non-serious allegations.
The chief can attempt a resolution without the consent of the officer.
The penalty available to the chief of police is severe: five days' or 40 hours' pay. It's important to note it's pay, it's not time off.
There is no provision for a reprimand or admonishment.
An entry can be made in the employment record even if the matter is in dispute.
The officer must resort to the costly and time-consuming grievance and arbitration process to appeal any discipline.
There is no protection for without-prejudice statements made by the officer or the complainant in an attempt to resolve the matter informally.
The informal resolution guidelines as set out in the current legislation, with necessary modifications, can be used to achieve a process which is a cost-effective and efficient method of resolving complaints. The following should be adhered to:
May be attempted at any stage of the process.
Not confined only to minor allegations.
Must require the consent of the police officer and the complainant.
Must provide full protection for statements made in an attempt to resolve the complaint informally.
Restore the discipline process available under section 59 of the act, as opposed to the more costly arbitration process.
Allow for a police officer to be reprimanded instead of or in addition to a penalty.
Allow for a maximum penalty of two days' time off.
The act should prevent an informal resolution from being used against an officer or an entry made on an employment record where misconduct has not been established.
Informal resolution should be an option at every step of the public complaints process. Public complaints should have the opportunity to be resolved informally to the mutual satisfaction of the police officer and the complainant.
In the field of labour relations, which is something we deal with quite extensively -- and as a matter of fact, it's mandatory in the act that we go to conciliation -- in rights disputes or interest disputes, the parties are compelled to go to mediation or conciliation to resolve an impasse before resorting to third-party binding arbitration. The rationale for this is the firm belief that the best possible resolution is one the parties mutually agree on, and that's an accepted standard.
The same principle holds for public complaints. The best resolution is the one the police officer and the complainant mutually agree upon. The alternative to informal resolution would ultimately drive the process into the hands of lawyers, arbitrators and adjudicators, at considerable expense to the parties and the taxpayers.
Police officers across the province of Ontario must be able to do their jobs without fear of reprisal and without losing the protections contained within the Police Services Act. Bill 105 in its current state does not provide the opportunity for informal resolution at all stages in the public complaints process nor does it provide the protection for without-prejudice statements made in an attempt to informally resolve a complaint.
Public complaints should have the opportunity to be resolved at the lowest possible level, without getting into costly hearings that tend to cause public complaints to take on a life of their own. We've too often seen that public complaints, once tossed into a hearing process and into the public domain, take on a life that goes on for years, as in the Gardner board of inquiry. We are not asking that the informal resolution be mandatory. We are simply requesting that you leave the door open and provide the opportunity for the informal resolution process to work at all stages in the public complaints process.
Amalgamations: We in Ottawa-Carleton have recent and ongoing experience with the amalgamation of policing services. Bill 143 is an act which, among other things, amalgamated police services in Ottawa-Carleton. Bill 143 was enacted following many studies on the feasibility of amalgamating police services in Ottawa-Carleton, the last of which was the Kirby report. The first stage of regionalization or the amalgamation of policing services in Ottawa-Carleton entailed merging the Nepean, Gloucester and Ottawa police services. Currently the rest of the region is policed by the OPP. During the next two and a half years the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service will be taking over those areas policed by the OPP.
Ottawa-Carleton is the latest of several amalgamations of policing services in this province over the last 30 years. There are many lessons to be learned from the amalgamations that have taken place to date. In all cases there was legislation creating the amalgamation, identifying the time frames, process and safeguards to facilitate a fair and orderly amalgamation. This was the case with respect to Ottawa-Carleton in that Bill 143, the governing legislation, provides most of those safeguards.
I understand that the proposed amendments to the Police Services Act contemplate restructuring of policing in this province to increase efficiencies and effectiveness as well as to provide the opportunity to reinvest savings from restructuring in front-line policing.
However, the proposed amendments do not provide the necessary safeguards to facilitate fair and orderly amalgamations. Our experience with amalgamation tells us that absent legislated safeguards and guidelines, merging existing police services will only create a larger organization that is less effective and efficient. For members of a police service to buy into the amalgamation process, there is a need to offer some basic assurances that will make them feel comfortable and secure in the new organization. Those safeguards and assurances need to be identified and entrenched in legislation so that the stakeholders know all the rules up front. Amalgamation of existing police services should not be a hit-and-miss process that is full of surprises.
I know I'm running short of time here, so I'm going to skip over some of this and get to the highlights.
1100
In Ottawa-Carleton, Bill 143 provided for the appointment of a committee that stood in place of the police services board. The committee was called a planning committee. Unfortunately, that planning committee was not in place until three months prior to -- I think the intent of the legislation was to have that planning committee in place long before, but unfortunately that didn't happen. As a result, that three-month period between the effective establishment of that committee and the actual amalgamation, which was January 1, 1995, did not provide enough time for the committee to, first of all, hire the chief deputies and negotiate common collective agreements.
The Ottawa-Carleton Police Service for the longest time, and still to this point in time, has several collective agreements that are carryovers from their former police service. To illustrate the point, a year into amalgamation we had three civilian agreements, we had three police agreements and we had three senior officers collective agreements. A year ago the police agreement was negotiated. Two years and three months into the amalgamation process, we are still without a common civilian collective agreement.
The point I want to make on this is the fact that we have people working within the same organization doing exactly the same work, working beside each other, with different levels of salary and remuneration under different terms and conditions of employment. It's critical that we establish a committee that stands in place of the employer, the police services board, 18 months prior to the actual amalgamation taking place. The problems that are caused by the lack of a common collective agreement are not only problems for the association but they're major concerns for the chief as well. It poses a serious problem to his ability to manage the organization.
I think it's critical that there are guarantees entrenched in the legislation to guarantee rank, seniority, to ensure there's no loss of benefits or salary. The same should apply for the OPP in the event that they are the ones being merged.
I won't read the recommendations. There are 10 recommendations set out for you. I'll leave them to you, but I will conclude by saying that to ensure an orderly merging of existing police services it's critical that the members who provide the policing service be given the necessary safeguards and protections. The people who protect you need the confidence of knowing that their basic rights are going to be protected during the amalgamation process.
The Chair: Thank you. Your time has elapsed. I congratulate you on your amalgamation. I went through the same thing in the region of Waterloo on the police services board in 1971 and I know how difficult it is for everyone involved. You obviously have done it successfully, with a few loose ends. I thank you for your presentation here today.
SUSAN MCNAB RUSSELL NORRIS
The Chair: The next presentation is Susan McNab and Russell Norris. Welcome.
Mr Russell Norris: Good morning. Thank you for hearing our submission. It has been 31 months since our son Shayne was killed by OPP Detective Constable Loranger. Since that time we have been exposed to an ordeal that no member of the public should have to endure.
It started with an SIU investigation that took some 30 days before the laying of criminal charges, which in turn involved us in dozens of meetings with SIU investigators, ultimately leading us through the criminal justice system.
It was as a result of an SIU meeting that I became aware of the PCC. This was some two months after Shayne's death. Had I not attended this public forum, I may never have known that I had the right to file public complaints.
After careful consideration, I filed several complaints against the parties involved. As a result of those complaints, we have now been through three of the five processes currently available. One of those was a public hearing that we had to endure for some nine months, 41 days of testimony, which saw Detective Constable Loranger being fired from the force. It is currently in the appeal process.
One of our complaints has been successfully resolved through the mediation process. Another of our complaints is currently at the board of inquiry stage, although it is hoped that we can resolve this matter as well through mediation. It is important for you to know that we have initiated both of these processes and that we were assisted by the PCC in resolving these matters.
As a result of what we have endured and the knowledge we have attained, we feel not only qualified but morally obligated to speak on the proposed Bill 105.
Ms Susan McNab: Again, thank you for hearing us today.
The current government introduced, on January 14, 1997, proposed changes to the Police Services Act which, if enacted, will not meet the needs of the general public with relation to public accountability. In fact, the changes will be a step backward in the area of complaint intake and the duplication between agencies. The Harris government promised a more streamlined, fair and responsible process, yet specific concerns have not been addressed. Therefore, we would like to address our comments to you for your action.
The proposed changes do not address the problem and concern that police officers who have been found guilty of misconduct and subsequently dismissed are still subject to all the salary and benefits of their position while they exhaust the appeal process. Section 36 of the Police Services Act must be changed to read that the salary and benefits of a police officer who has been dismissed from the police service will be terminated immediately upon the imposition of the penalty. Should the officer later win on appeal a reversal of the decision to terminate employment, the police officer must then receive all salary and benefits retroactive to the date of the original termination. If the current proposed legislation is passed, this issue will not be addressed. Where is the fairness, responsibility and accountability to the public?
The legislation does not address the fact that the special investigations unit does not have the power to compel an officer or officers to provide statements to them during their investigation. This has led to problems in the past, not to mention lengthy delays. This issue must be dealt with immediately. Police officers are citizens and have the right to remain silent and obtain legal counsel. However, no other type of employment affords a person the powers that policing does on a day-to-day basis. Their employment is extremely unique. A police officer has the extraordinary authority to deprive a person of their civil liberties and to cause injury or death in exceptional circumstances.
It is therefore essential that the Police Services Act be amended to state that police officers involved in situations where injury or death has taken place provide statements relative to the investigation into that specific incident immediately to the special investigations unit. Refusal to provide information to the SIU will result in the police officer being removed without salary and benefits from his/her position with the police service until such time as they provide a statement. If the current proposed legislation is passed, this problem will not be addressed. Where is the fairness and responsibility to the public?
1110
At the present time, SIU investigations are not bound by legislative time frames and the results of their investigations are not always readily and easily available to members of the families most affected by the incident under investigation. Members of the public, including community groups, have been asking for legislated time frames, for example, a written progress report every 30 days. These groups have been asking for more accountability to family members and access by family members to all investigative material gathered during their investigation. If the current proposed legislation is passed, neither of these two issues will be addressed. Where is the fairness to the public and the accountability?
At the present time, there are some legislated time frames for police services to provide reports to complainants involved in the public complaint process. Some police services do not adhere to these time frames and there is no legislated punitive action when this occurs. If the current proposed legislation is passed, police services will still not be subjected to penalties when the few time frames imposed in the legislation are not met.
The proposed legislation does not address the continuance of duplication between the special investigations unit, the new proposed Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and the professional standards sections of the Police Services Act. At the present time, all three of these agencies can be involved in a single incident. Even though their mandates differ, it does not change the fact that three agencies may investigate the same incident. The SIU will ask for statements from witnesses, subject officers etc, and so will the other agencies. If the current proposed legislation is passed, this duplication will not be addressed. Where is the streamlining?
The proposed changes do not address regional issues or how the new Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services will operate. This new organization should be responsible for the taking of all public complaints against police and then forward these complaints, unless involving serious injury or death, to the applicable police service for investigation. The investigation of these complaints must be monitored and tracked by the new organization. The only exception would be complaints involving two or more police services, and these will be investigated by the new civilian oversight organization. The head of the new organization shall have the authority to direct the course of the investigations or take over an investigation if he or she feels that there are problems with the investigation being conducted by a police service.
The chief of police will adjudicate on the disposition of the cases investigated by his or her police service and the new oversight agency will have the power to review the decision reached by the chief of police at the request of a complainant or police officer. It is important that this new organization have the authority to impose or remove penalties following the review, and that this organization also have the powers to take punitive action when a police service is not in compliance with legislated time frames.
It is important that this new organization have some regional presence to ensure investigations are timely and to better serve members of the general public. Areas of the province with high rates of public complaints, SIU investigations and/or review requests must have a regional presence.
It is also important that this new organization have an intake officer available to assist members of the general public with their complaints. The general public are not always aware of how to form a complaint or the many processes involved.
It is recognized that the most impartial investigation into a public complaint is one that is conducted by an independent agency. However, it is also recognized that this type of system would be expensive and not practical in this time of fiscal restraint. It is therefore imperative that the present government meet its commitment to serve the people of Ontario by legislating a police oversight system that is cost-effective by utilizing police investigators and at the same time does respond to the needs of the general public by ensuring impartial oversight and investigation.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Ron Johnson): Thank you for your presentation. We have some time for questions, about two or three minutes per caucus, starting with Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Norris and Ms McNab. You're raising subsection 113(9), which has been omitted from any of the consideration here in what are major amendments to the Police Services Act. I should tell you Alan Borovoy from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association spoke in Toronto about the need to debate and define the obligation of a police officer to cooperate. Paul Copeland, on behalf of the law union, raised similar arguments. Several other presenters have as well.
I want to make this clear. You seem to understand that you're not calling upon a police officer to be relieved of his right to remain silent; you're simply saying that if as a police officer he or she doesn't want to participate in an SIU investigation, then they forfeit their role as a police officer.
Ms McNab: That's right.
Mr Kormos: So you're not suggesting they shouldn't have the same right to remain silent that you have or I have, or anybody in this room or anybody in this province.
Ms McNab: That's right. They have the rights, but they also have obligations under being a policeman.
Mr Kormos: I think that clarification is important to make so that people understand how many folks are pleading out for an enforcement of the requirement to cooperate.
When you talked about the OCCPS and its supervisory role of investigations, I think that's an important point. Are you resigned to the fact that police should be investigating these complaints against police, or should not only the oversight be civilian but the investigations also be independent of the police force that's being investigated?
Mr Norris: I don't think at the current time there are sufficient independent investigators qualified to do the investigations, so should the police investigate themselves? Certainly they're capable of doing the job. However, for the sake of, shall we say, perceived public trust, there must be oversight.
Ms McNab: The watchdog syndrome. To put it very bluntly, from the way it appears to be set up at the moment, or what they're proposing to set up, the complainant would walk into our regional police station and make the complaint. I foresee many problems with that. All of a sudden we're going to end up with people complaining, "They're not doing the job," because their best buddy, or it's their son-in-law or their best friend's son who is a policeman and he's the one who's being investigated -- there's going to be a lot of public people screaming again that there is something wrong going on.
I believe one of the watchdog effects is the fact that we have someone policing the police. I think you're putting your own regional police in jeopardy of those kinds of complaints again. So I believe the first complaint should go through to the higher authority, to be passed down and to be monitored. That way, you're going to have that watchdog effect and you're not going to have as many people coming back with more complaints. What you're going to do is get back into the old system again, where everyone mistrusted the police.
The Vice-Chair: To the parliamentary assistant, Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I know how difficult it must be, and we really appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to come in and use the tragedy to try and improve the situation for other people afterwards. Particularly those of us who have children know how tough that would be.
On the second page, when you talk about "The proposed legislation does not address the continuation of the duplication" between the SIU and the new civilian commission, I was wondering if you could expand on that a little bit and then offer your suggestions a little bit more. I know the time is limited, but could you expand on that a little bit?
1120
Ms McNab: Russell and I have discussed this. We could see one administrative process, but I believe there has to be some type of separation for the SIU, only because of the fact that they're investigating much more serious criminal offences. They are into the serious injury and death situations.
I do see that there could be one administrative process and one administrator, one person making all the decisions and everybody reporting to that person from different sections. Sort of your hierarchy with your --
Mr Carr: Right. What about the separation? As you know, the theory is the Attorney General, separate from the Solicitor General, has the SIU. Do you agree with that; if you put them together that there is some separation of the two ministries? Is that a good thing, to keep the SIU separate, do you think?
Ms McNab: I think because the Attorney General's office mainly deals with the judicial end of things, yes, that is probably why the separation was there. Whether that separation should remain is something I think should be looked into by a committee and see whether that is still really necessary, or could it be worked out to make it one? It would definitely reduce the overlap and everyone working in different offices and departments.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you both very much for coming before us today. I'm sorry circumstances conspired to bring you here, but we appreciate your courage in doing that and maybe assisting us in improving the present legislation.
I'd like to talk about this issue because it's a very sticky issue, about a police officer's right not to cooperate with the SIU, because as you point out, police officers do have some very special authority that we in society give them to protect us. I think we all agree with that. However, because of that and because of the power they have, I think this is an issue this committee should certainly consider. There may be some tradeoffs in allowing some informal resolution for other issues so that some of those matters can be expedited where all the parties agree.
I was wondering: To give me as a legislator a better understanding of how these delays can potentially hurt an investigation, if you don't find it too painful to tell us, in your case what happened and how did this right of an officer not to cooperate with the SIU affect that particular investigation?
Mr Norris: Well, it certainly prolonged the investigation. Like I said, it took them 30 days before they could even lay charges against Mr Loranger. I'm not sure I fully agree that a constable at the present time under the current Charter of Rights should be obligated to testify or make a statement to the SIU; however I think there can be some sort of in-between ground where an officer's obligations as a member of the public and serving the public should be addressed before he undertakes to become a public officer.
It's been extremely painful for us to have to endure going through, not knowing, and to this date we still have never heard a word out of that officer's mouth. He is the only person that can ever tell us exactly what happened. Had he been compelled to make a statement to the SIU, maybe we would have some of the answers today that we don't have.
Ms McNab: And maybe we would have had some of the answers that could have been resolved a long time ago. We were not vindictive people. I guess what we wanted to believe was that it was just an accident. One blood test of course showed that he was very impaired, twice over the legal limit; then obviously there was a change to the story. We wanted to believe in the beginning that he had just made a big mistake, and we will never know that. We will never know that, other than we know now that there was criminal activity involved in it.
Mr Norris: Sorry. Just to elaborate on one of the points that I touched on earlier, this is a very, very sore spot with us. I was not even aware that there was a PCC until after two months from Shayne's death. I was not aware that I had the right to file public complaints. There was nobody there to tell me. I had not heard a single word from the OPP, no letters of condolence, no letters of sympathy, not a word. I heard nothing from anybody until I discovered there was a PCC and I filed complaints. Only then did the ball start to roll, and believe me, the ball's rolling awfully slowly, and it still rolls awfully slowly.
We have done whatever we could do to speed up the process, to assist in the processes available to us.
Ms McNab: Which takes us back to the SIU, not being able to get a statement. It would have sped up their processes a lot more quickly if they could have had a statement from the officer, and this has been a proven thing. Basically, speaking to and getting to know a lot of the SIU people, this has definitely been something that really could help them in their investigations. Hopefully, we are all working for the same government, and therefore that is why I feel very strongly that police should have to give a statement. It is only for their benefit because we are talking that the SIU is impartial.
The SIU told us right from the beginning, "We are going to work very hard to get the facts of this, but we are also going to work very hard to clear the police officer," which was a very honest statement because that is really what they are there for. There should be no reason the police or anyone involved in any activity that is being questioned should be worried about it or should be worried about talking to the SIU. This could have been a misconception from way back, that the SIU were out to get the police, but that is not the case. The SIU are out to clear the police before they will clear the victim.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, our time has expired. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank both of you very much for your presentation.
PETER VICE
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board: Anne Boudreau and Peter Vice, please. Good morning, sir.
Mr Peter Vice: Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Obviously, as you can see, it's Peter Vice and not Anne Boudreau. I hope you can see that, in any event.
My remarks will be very brief. You have our chief and deputy chief attending before you this afternoon. I have had a brief discussion with them and they were going to cover some of the matters I wanted to go through, so we will not be repetitive.
First of all, I am the chair of the regional police services board and I should add that any comments I make are my own. We haven't taken a formal position at the police services board, although I think, in an informal poll I've taken, that the majority of the board would agree with most of the things I'm going to say this morning.
Also, I should advise the committee that we've been very preoccupied in our area with amalgamating our three urban forces and, of course, extending out into the rural areas. I can tell you that is going very well, so we're moving on in that regard.
With regard generally, I can tell you that I am in support of Bill 105, save and except for a few matters that I will raise prior to leaving here today. Two of the main reasons I'm in support: One is the new financial sections of the act which call for all municipalities to pay for police services. I think that is reasonable and every resident of Ontario, of course, should pay for police services.
To give you an example of what happened in our area prior to Bill 143 -- Bill 143 was the bill I referred to earlier that amalgamated the police services in the Ottawa area -- we had the municipality of Cumberland not paying for police services and the municipality of Gloucester paying for police services. There's a line that runs up the middle of the road, so you had kids going to school whose parents were paying for police services and kids going to the same school who weren't. I think it's only reasonable that all members of society and all municipalities pay for police services.
1130
The other matter that leaves me in good support of this legislation is with regard to the police oversight and the amendments with regard to same. I just heard the end of Ms McNab's presentation. I guess nothing is perfect, and until we see how things are going to shake out, we're not sure. I not only speak to you in this regard as a member and chair of a police services board, but prior to becoming a member I did a lot of legal work on behalf of police services boards, associations and officers who were charged under the act. I can tell you it was an administrative nightmare where one would go. You sometimes spent a lot of money on legal fees just determining what route you were to take.
We had the four bodies overseeing. We had the public complaints commission, the special investigations unit, the board of inquiry and then the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, or OCCPS as we know it. As I mentioned, it was always very difficult to determine where you should be going with regard to that maze of authorities. I can only imagine the cost of that to the provincial government, because one thing I can tell you, although I can only imagine what it costs the provincial government, I know what it cost local police services to be dealing with those four bodies in legal fees and other administrative fees. It was very expensive for us.
I believe in that regard that the removal of the third-party complaints from the present legislation is very good. That never made any sense to me at all, that we could have third-party complaints and you then have to go out and search for the person on whose behalf the complainant was complaining. That just never made any sense to me.
The other matter I think we have to consider is not only the financial costs but the human costs to the victims and to our officers. I've seen some cases in our area where our officers were brought before one particular inquiry. They would wait a good amount of time before that matter was adjudicated and they would find themselves later involved with another inquiry. Certainly, the new system seems to streamline it. On minor problems I don't have any great concerns with the police chief having the first right to look at it, subject to appeal to the commission from anybody who feels the chief doesn't handle it properly.
With regard to the SIU, I think the SIU is a necessary body. I think they have to be there to investigate serious matters and I also believe they have to be a separate body, as has been set up in the legislation. That's good and proper, that they are separate from the Attorney General's department. I can tell you at least recently that the SIU in this area has been responding and has been getting its reports out in a timely fashion.
The matters I have a few concerns about are with regard to governance and then with regard to auxiliary policing. With regard to governance, I believe it's fair to let municipal councils set police budgets. As I read the legislation, budgets are to be set by municipal council based on police services board estimates. As I read the bill also, if the board is not satisfied with what a municipal council has done with regard to its budget, it can appeal to the commission.
That blends with my view on appointees. I believe the province should maintain the right to appoint four persons on the board and I think it's even more important when we're giving the police budgets over to municipalities, because the way the legislation reads, a police board has an appeal to the commission. Also, the commission has a right on its own motion to come in, or on the complaint of one member of a board, and look over any dispute with regard to budgets. But I'm firmly of the view that we would be better off if the province continued to appoint four people to the police services boards.
I have some concerns. I know some of you are probably ex-municipal councillors and I've got a lot of friends who are municipal councillors, but I think policing is so important that it should be left out of the political spectrum, so to speak. I don't think a mayor or a regional chair, whoever, should be able to deal with a police chief or a deputy chief in the same way they deal with their own employees, like a director of planning or whatever, because as you're well aware, the act is clear that the chief runs the police force and the board only administers it. That's my position with regard to governance and the reason why.
The other matter I think the act falls a little short on is that of auxiliary policing and special constables. I think boards, associations and everyone else should be receiving more direction either from the act or from regulations that will be attached to it as to the use of auxiliary police and special constables. To give you an example, in this area when we merged our three police forces, two of the police forces were served by auxiliary constables and one wasn't in the original amalgamation. That has caused some problems because with the force that wasn't, the members had some concerns as to the training of the officers in the other forces in that their association had never been subject to auxiliary officers.
I frankly think auxiliary officers and special constables should be permitted but there should be more guidance from the province with regard to their use. I don't think auxiliary constables should have near the rights that a sworn officer has, but there are a lot of people out in the community who want to get out and do some work and be helpful. Chief Ford and Deputy Mackie, who will be here this afternoon, will speak more extensively on that.
They are basically my comments in complete support, subject to those two exceptions.
Mr Tilson: The complaint that has been made by a number of people and presentations to date is that police officers shouldn't be hearing complaints, that you're too biased and that the public will not have confidence in police officers investigating complaints or processing those complaints. Can you comment on that, because that isn't what Bill 105 says.
Mr Vice: I guess that's a matter of perception. I certainly have no problems with regard to the type of minor complaints we get. I can tell you, being part of a large police services board, that the chief -- and we have the OPP reporting too. Each month they report to us and sometimes there are up to 50 complaints. As a member of the board, I diligently read those complaints and some of those complaints, quite frankly, are not worthy of going anywhere. I'm sometimes disturbed about the money we even spend internally. So for minor matters I have no problems at all with the chief of police investigating, just like another employer would.
Then of course we have the SIU in major matters. But I don't have any concerns with that, and notwithstanding that the bill reads that we're maybe going to get more formal procedures in that regard, maybe they should be relaxed a bit and have more informal procedures. One thing I have also noted in the complaints is that we get a number, not a good number but 15% or 20% are often handled on an informal basis and the complainant goes away happy and the police officer goes away happy. Like everybody else, police officers can have bad days. I have bad days in my office as I'm sure you do in yours. They have bad days and they might be a little agitated. Because they're police officers they're not supposed to and that's not right.
1140
Mr Ramsay: Mr Vice, you've stated that you don't have any problem with the chief handling complaints, but what we've heard in the last couple of days is actually that police officers have a problem with that and so do many of the community groups that have come before us so far.
I think the problem -- it's interesting when both sides aren't comfortable with this -- is the lack of transparency in the process, that the chief arbitrarily can make a decision and be punitive against a police officer, taking up to 40 hours or five days of pay, which is a pretty stiff penalty. When people live today, as we all do, paycheque by paycheque, that's pretty onerous, without any right of trial.
I really think that has to be changed, on behalf of both sides in this case. As you said, it's a matter of perception, and you perceive it as being fair but many people in the public don't perceive it as being fair, and police officers don't perceive it as being fair. We really have both sides here not happy with this particular change.
Mr Vice: Well, I beg to differ, Mr Ramsay, unfortunately. You've heard my position on it and I'm not saying that perception isn't there, but there is the appeal, of course, in any event. I know that just gets you into another procedure and maybe more expense, but I can tell you that the way the present public complaints was set up under the old act was a nightmare.
If you decide to do something, you'd better make it a very summary procedure, because of the number of complaints you get, a lot of them, to use the word of law, are frivolous or vexatious. If you're thinking of doing that, I strongly suggest you have at least some administrative mechanism to screen.
Mr Ramsay: I agree it would have to be informal and speedy, but I think by somebody other than the chief, because what I worry about is the morale of the police force and the police officers. Probably being on a police services board, you would have the same concern, because what we're hearing from police officers is that as far as they're concerned that's just not tolerable. I'm very concerned about the morale of the police forces once this bill, as it is, is passed.
Mr Christopherson: Thank you for your presentation. Very interesting. I want to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly in terms of the governance issue. I think there is a real reason to be concerned about the shift of control over to municipalities from the province. My opinion is that it was done as a sop to AMO, trying to curry as much support as they could, given all the damage the provincial government is doing to municipalities in terms of downloading and the cuts and changes and dumping that have been taking place.
I don't know if you were in the room earlier, but your concern and my concern is also shared by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, which says, "We are concerned that this decision will lead to greater political interference in the day-to-day operation of police services."
When you spoke of the possibility of mayors or regional chairs calling the local police chief in the same way they would any other department head, I understand, having been in municipal politics, what that means. Those chiefs are going to have to deal with that pressure and they're going to feel it. Do you have anything further in expanding on that for the purpose of Hansard, because you understand it and I understand it, but for people to understand what this means in terms of the difference between a chief responding to a mayor under the new structure versus a chief responding to a mayor under the old?
Mr Vice: Let me say that I have no comment with regard to why this was done. Second, I really have a strong feeling in that regard because in my real life I practise municipal planning law and I do see sometimes the pressure elected officials can put on their own people. This isn't my first stint. I was on the Ottawa Police Commission back in 1983 through 1986, as a member only. I always find that it takes a longer time to train the municipal politicians who come on, because they do tend to treat the officers as employees and as anybody else.
I certainly agree with you on that, Mr Christopherson. I can't really say any more than that I fully agree that's a concern I have. I was trying to put it in my original presentation with regard to the budget matters, but being as frank as I can, that is a real concern I have.
Mr Christopherson: I know. It's a legitimate one.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Vice, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your presentation.
That will end the morning session of the committee and we will now recess until 1:20 in this room.
The committee recessed from 1147 to 1324.
GEORGE STAIRS
The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. Our first presenter this afternoon is Mr George Stairs. Mr Stairs, I'd ask you to proceed. You have 20 minutes.
Mr George Stairs: Thank you very much. I won't be very long today. Ladies and gentlemen, in my brief submission today I wish to indicate my support for Bill 105. Change is long overdue, particularly where it relates to the pay-for-say principle; that is, local accountability, either through police service boards or community policing advisory committees. Of course, ratepayers cover the cost of their own policing needs.
My experience stems from a story of a few years ago when I lived in Thessalon, Ontario, a town just outside of Sault Ste Marie. Thessalon is a town of 1,700 people with an OPP detachment on Highway 17 as you enter the village. Algoma social services is also located on the edge of town, and Thessalon, which runs a Futures program, tends to host groups of non-townies from time to time.
One such young man when I lived there was selling drugs, being disorderly at times and occasionally committing acts of vandalism. He was under 18 and, being a young offender, was hard to stop. The OPP who patrol from Thessalon detachment, an area extending from Iron Bridge to Echo Bay and halfway up Highway 502 to Chapleau plus all of St Joseph Island, would often be half an hour to 45 minutes from town when called. With Thessalon's population, we were not paying for local policing services, but we were not setting local priorities either. Town council debated the possibility of re-establishing a town constable; one had existed before 1950.
The point is that had this legislation existed, the town would have had the option of renegotiating its police services with the OPP, emphasizing the core functions of crime prevention and law enforcement within the village to meet local needs, even if this had involved higher costs to the ratepayer. In the event, a solution was arrived at when the young lad turned 18 and left town within about a month.
Local governments should make decisions about local services. They will pay for that if they know there is local accountability. This bill is another step towards better government in Ontario.
Thank you very much.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to clarify, though -- what's the population of Thessalon again?
Mr Stairs: It's 1,700 people, approximately.
Mr Ramsay: I can see your point. I was going to say that obviously under the old act, the town would have had the option to have its own police force, but with 1,700 people that would seem very impractical. I agree with you; I think it's very important that local citizens have a say on their policing, for sure.
One thing this is going to do with municipalities paying for their policing, even though they might find it tough having to take this all at once with all the other downloading, is that they're going to be able to have some say in that. I think it's important that policing reflect community needs and values. Obviously that's what was missing at your end back then.
Mr Stairs: Exactly. It's extremely important. I know too that fines etc will come to town councils. There has been some suggestion in the past that we might turn into towns like in the southern United States where we put up speed traps and that sort of thing, but I think that flies in the face of the basic social makeup of Ontarians, perhaps even Canadians. I think our greatest concern in Thessalon wasn't how we could dupe some poor tourist out of $100; our biggest concern in Thessalon was how we could stop windows from being smashed and our young kids at the public school there and some of our high school kids from buying drugs and that sort of thing.
It's much different in a town like Thessalon than a city like Ottawa. Everybody knew the OPP officers. You couldn't bring in undercover officers if you wished, or whatever. So when somebody like this dealt drugs, it was a known fact, but it's hard to catch the person in the act at the time. You can't simply take the kid off the street and put him in jail.
There is a problem. We were looking at paying more as ratepayers to rehire a constable or to hire a constable. It would have been far more efficient for us to pay for another OPP officer who was committed to just patrolling the village.
1330
Mr Christopherson: Thank you very much for your presentation. One of the things we're hearing during the course of these deliberations is that police officers, as workers and employees, are being stripped of rights that they had in the past and that there was no consultation on those issues; they were quite surprised. If you attend today's hearings and any of the others, you'll hear strong representation from police associations on behalf of those members urging that this government reconsider the stripping away of these rights that police officers currently have.
One of the submissions, to assist you, comes from the Police Association of Ontario and it goes on to say: "Bill 105 will strip police officers...of most of the protections that we need. That may surprise you. The editorial writers of some newspapers" seem to think that this bill "has been a gift to the police...we're here to tell you that this is not so."
Another quote: "More importantly...we're alarmed that elements of Bill 105 which are devastating to the rights of police officers were never even raised in those consultations," meaning the meetings that the minister had. "We have no idea where they came from."
Lastly, they say in their submission on behalf of all police officers in Ontario, "Bill 105 must be significantly amended where it strips police officers of their rights and safeguards."
I don't know how much opportunity you've had to read the entire bill and understand its implications, but do you think the concerns of our police officers are important enough that the government should heed this message and seriously review at least those amendments that affect police officers' rights?
Mr Stairs: No, and I'll tell you why. I have to admit this particular area was not the emphasis of my submission, so I may step in it here, but as a citizen who is not a policeman, I view rights as something that are equal among us all, but I'm willing to give up a certain amount of those personal rights or, if you will, grant somebody extra rights in order to protect myself from the person over here who doesn't respect any of my rights. All right? We call that policing. But at any time during that process it's not the policeman with the extra rights who continues to make the decision. It's the public through their legislators who continue to make the decision.
In other words, to refer to Clausewitz, war is too important to be left to the generals. Any kind of legal legislation should reflect our needs and needs that we see from a political point of view, not the needs of a particular group; that, combined with the fact that everybody dislikes change and will obviously argue to maintain the status. When I say everybody, that's unfair, but a good many people.
Mr Christopherson: I would just point out the concerns, and I'm sure if you talk to any of your local police officers, they could explain to you carefully. This has nothing to do per se with their relationship with the public in terms of some of the rights that have been taken away. It has to do with their relationship with the chief and the police service as an employee-employer. So it's in that regard that they've had rights taken away that were never talked about before. Just boom, there they are in the bill and suddenly they're standing back saying, "What happened to my rights?"
Mr Stairs: I would still stand. You're the legislators. You're our leaders. It's good to hear from them, it's good to take that into consideration, but the overall effect of this bill is positive and I think we should proceed with it.
Mr Christopherson: Gee, I think I hear a diehard here, but I appreciate your comment. Thank you.
Mr Tilson: Mr Stairs, thank you for coming and giving us your thoughts on a couple of issues. The issue of political interference by politicians versus police services being more accountable is obviously the debate of the main issue that you're talking about, and I understand that. No one wants us to become a police state, but at the same time everybody has to be accountable.
I represent a community which is just northwest of Toronto. It's an hour and a half, two hours' drive from Toronto, and in that area we've got four different police forces. We have a regional police force, we've got an Ontario Provincial Police force and we've got two town police forces, and there are interesting issues that develop from time to time.
I guess I'm reinforcing what your position has been and which I'd like you to comment on at the end, such issues with the two town police forces as, "Well, we need more foot patrols." Of course the police chief and the chair of the police services board, when they come into council, there's not a heck of a lot the council can do. I mean, tough beans.
I don't mean that the police are not responsive, but it's just that feeling of the public who go to the politicians and say, "We need more foot patrols," or in other areas, an area where I happen to live, which is semi-rural, we don't have 24-hour policing. There's no policing, and the bad guys know about that, which is kind of troublesome. "Well, that's OPP territory." Again, there's that lack of accountability.
I can tell you that the people in my area, I believe, would support what you're saying, that we need more accountability or more responsiveness as to the needs, and if you've got to hire more police officers for foot patrol or 24-hour service, then this is what's going to come because your taxes are going to go up.
Mr Stairs: That's right.
Mr Tilson: I think that's the issue, as opposed to having absolutely no control whatsoever as to what your police services are going to be, or very little control.
Mr Stairs: Exactly. Let me just expand slightly on the Thessalon situation because it sort of dovetails into what you're saying. The Thessalon detachment of the OPP is a very good detachment. Because they weren't able to solve this problem, I'm not reflecting upon their policing abilities, but their policing priorities were different.
Highway 17 is a dangerous highway. There are a lot of car accidents. They have a lot of policing to reduce people from speeding, to check trucks etc. The second thing is that Highway 17 is the main artery from eastern Canada to western Canada. If a crime occurs in Toronto and the guy gets in a car and decides he's going to scoot out west to hide out, he's got to go down Highway 17 unless he goes through the United States, and it's very difficult to do that. There are often roadblocks set up on Highway 17 to stop fleeing criminals that they believe are moving across the country.
You can see that the priorities are slightly different from a kid in a downtown village street breaking windows, being noisy and being disorderly. It doesn't mean that the policing was bad in Thessalon. It just means that there was no local input and so we've lost a local focus.
Mr Tilson: So your message is what? The policing that's needed in one area might be quite different in another area, and therefore the input --
Mr Stairs: Exactly. Policing runs down a million different roads at the same time and it's not surprising under budget constraints etc that some of those are ignored in favour of others. That doesn't mean it's bad policing. It just means it's policing that's not focused on the needs of what might be more local concerns.
Mr Tilson: I appreciate your comments, Mr Stairs.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Stairs, for your presentation.
FRANCIS NICHOLLS COMMUNITY SUPPORT GROUP
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Francis Nicholls Community Support Group, Raymond Peterkin. Welcome. Your timing is impeccable. We have 20 minutes set aside for you and your presentation on behalf of the support group. I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Raymond Peterkin: Mr Chairman and honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, my name is Raymond Peterkin. I understand you are the standing committee on administration of justice. I come to you in good faith to tell you of our condition in the hope that you will listen and use your influence in a just manner so those of us who are affected by policing will be able to sleep better at night. I was asked whether I would like to make a presentation, and after consultation with various members of the community, I agreed to be here today.
You'll have to excuse me. I had to rush to get here and I'm still trying to catch my breath.
I am a community worker and co-chair of the Francis Nicholls Community Support Group. This group was created after the shooting of Mr Francis Nicholls, a community member, on January 1, 1997. He was shot in his bedroom by a member of the Ottawa-Carleton regional police force, and as a result of the sequence of events that followed, we thought it necessary to put this group together in order to try and assist Mr Nicholls. Mr Nicholls was a man who was in need of help, but instead he got bullets.
1340
To date, the police have refused to admit any wrongdoing. Instead, they have defended their actions and proceeded to lay charges against Mr Nicholls when he obtained a lawyer in order to seek justice. Our community gets the impression that the police are sending a message that the police are the law, and that is a very scary thought for us as a community.
This attitude by the police is having a devastating effect on our community, and I hope to enlighten you on our concerns over Bill 105.
Concerning the bill, in my discussions with many community members I found out the following: There is a general fear of the police among our community members. The police chief has been inaccessible to our community. We have no one to turn to when we feel police have acted improperly. We are getting a very clear message that we are not appreciated in this country.
This message was made very clear after the shooting of Mr Nicholls on the Lowell Green show, and now through Bill 105 we realize that more power is being given to the police and this sends the message that no matter what we say, no matter what we do, we still find more and more the police are being empowered without the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure that yes, we must have policing, but how about the rights of the civilians?
The difficulties we see with the bill are as follows: Most people were unaware of the bill, much less its implications. No one knew of Mr Roderick McLeod, except for Chris Harris. I could not find a single group in our community that participated in the consultation process that was headed by Mr McLeod. We do not have a sense of the true impact of the legislation. We have no idea how this is going to affect us as a community. We do not understand how the process is going to work and we do not get the feeling that we are included in the decision-making process.
A review of the material that we received revealed the following: There were extensive consultations with police and municipal stakeholders. The same level of consultation was not extended to the community in general, and in particular to our community. We do not know what efforts were made by this government to reach our community and to solicit input from the ordinary man who is likely to be most affected by this new legislation.
We would like to know, is it fair to solicit a certain level of input from police and municipal stakeholders and not use all necessary means to ensure adequate and equal input from the community, especially groups that are most at risk, like our community? We would like to know whether it is fair not to give the same amount of attention to the community as was given to municipal and police stakeholders.
One of the findings of the consultation process read as follows: "Police and municipal stakeholders agreed that the system of civilian oversight of police activity must be credible, fair, objective, transparent and open with levels of accountability that are understandable and which have the confidence of both the police and the general public."
There are some very strong words in this statement, words such as "credible," "fair," "accountable," "understandable," and it also spoke about confidence as it relates to the general public.
Our question is, how can we make this happen? Another question is, how can we gain the confidence of the public if the public is unaware of the process and has no, or very little, input?
In summary, I would like to say that the government of Ontario is well aware of the suffering of black people at the hands of the police -- there's a long history of names and shootings and different problems we have had as a people -- and the lack of justice we have received to date. Yet you come to us with a proposed bill, Bill 105, that will give further powers to the police and reduce the ability for us to find an effective dispute resolution process to resolve disputes between the police and our community. As citizens and taxpayers, we cannot pretend to be happy with any proposal that will give more power to the police without fully understanding its implications.
We understand that we are living in a time of restraint and measures must be taken to control costs. However, costs cannot be measured only in monetary terms. We need to understand both the intended and the unintended consequences of this bill, otherwise the savings that we seek to gain would really be meaningless.
We also understand the need to streamline the process, to make it simpler and more accessible to the public. We do not, however, understand how you plan to make a system that is fairer by giving more power to police chiefs, knowing that the chief is influenced by his senior officers and is under great pressure from police associations. How can we accomplish that by giving him the powers to make these decisions?
We have simply one recommendation, so it will be very easy for everyone to see: We recommend that our community be treated fairly by giving us the proper time and resources to study the effects of this legislation, to meet with community members and to make a proper submission to this committee.
1350
The whole manner in which this thing has happened is the problem. Out of approximately 15 people I called, very few people knew of this process, very few people knew of the bill and most people did not understand what is going on. It would appear to me that the government has not done its job of informing the public of what it is doing, and therefore you have come to us at the 11th hour and all this will do is give the impression that we were consulted. But I can tell you, I am only a messenger. I came here to tell you that our people have not had the opportunity to participate in the process and we would like time so that we can participate at the same level you extended to the other stakeholders.
In conclusion, we, the members of the black community of Ontario residing in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, with a history of police shootings and police brutality, cannot endorse Bill 105 in its entirety. Our community cannot trust the police to handle our complaints fairly. We are concerned with the added authority that would be given to the police chiefs and the inability of the new Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to intervene on behalf of civilians.
If the only role of such a committee would be to review decisions made by the police chiefs, and it would have no authority to take action, then the OCCPS would be completely useless to us. The police are a brotherhood with their own culture. We have already given too much power to the police and it is important that we do not compound our mistakes. We have recommended that the government give us equal treatment by allowing adequate time and resources in order to provide the same level of input as the police and municipal stakeholders.
Our wish is for a truth commission with the proper authority, resources and community participation that can bring about the truth when dealing with police complaints. With the truth and only with the truth can justice be served. We trust that this commission will use its influence to ensure that we are given a fair opportunity to participate as a community and not to take for granted the word of one member of the community.
The Chair: Thank you. There are only two caucuses present, and therefore we've got three minutes each
Mr Christopherson: Thank you very much, Mr Peterkin, for your presentation. Let me say to you that there are an awful lot of us in Ontario, from all walks of life, who believe and have faith in the professionalism of our police officers and the institutions. But recognizing that no institution and no people are perfect, it's important that there be the oversight mechanisms. There are a lot of us -- not the government -- who believe that part of the ability to give police our support is ensuring that there are proper checks and balances that people can buy into.
I think, regardless of one's feelings about the police, if you listen to the presentations that we've been hearing, there's enough need to make sure that the process not only is fair and transparent and unbiased, but appears so. You just cannot -- and I say this to the government members -- have consistently in every community you go in group after group after group, particularly those who are visible minorities, expressing this concern and somehow think at the end of the day we've still got a process that's fair and workable. We don't. Large chunks of our population are not buying in, and that in and of itself should give you pause to reflect again on what you're doing.
On the consultation process, I can tell you, you're not alone. Even inside the police community, those who were at the meetings with the minister, the police officers and their representatives, found things in this bill that take away their rights as workers that they didn't know about. They came as a total surprise. Firefighters have had the same thing with Bill 84.
Certainly Mr Morley Kells, today a member of the Tory caucus, is suggesting that there are surprises for him after he has been so-called consulted, and certainly the labour groups that I work with feel that way too. So you're not alone in feeling left outside the loop. It's happening all across the province in terms of the people this government deals with and how it leaves them at the end of the day.
You should know too that with regard to the money that's being saved, we have no indication from the government that it's planning to reinvest that $3 million back into policing, oversight, administration, training of officers. Nowhere are we hearing that $3 million is going back into policing. We just know that it's coming out of the system.
The last thing I'd say to you is in terms of the speed. We in the NDP would support anything that would slow down this legislation and give more opportunity -- well, we would say that across the board on a lot of legislation this government's bringing down. I happen to believe a lot of that's deliberate. They want to overwhelm everybody so they throw their arms in the air and say: "I give up. I don't know what's going on any more."
I just would comment to you that many of the concerns that you've raised I share, maybe for different reasons, but at the end of the day the goals are similar and the changes that we seek are similar.
The Chair: We have Mr Johnson and Mr Tilson.
Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): Thank you. I'll be brief so Mr Tilson can have an opportunity. I want to thank you for your presentation. Our friend Mr Christopherson just finished berating the government for its consultation process, but I think it's important to understand that this is draft legislation, that we are looking at all of the presentations coming before this committee and looking at amendments to help improve this bill. That's why we're here.
Despite what Mr Christopherson says, you're here today, you're presenting your views to this committee and we are listening to what you have to say. I think it's important that you recognize you are part of the process. You have not been left out of the loop. By virtue of your being here today, it shows that this government is committed to listening to all those who are involved.
But getting to your presentation, you indicated in the beginning that you weren't pleased with the current oversight system. I would agree. A lot of people aren't and neither is the government, and that's why we're coming forward with what we think will ultimately be an improved system of oversight.
Your biggest frustration was that you seemed to not get response. When there was a complaint made, there was no response. How do you feel about time lines being put in place that would demand a response to the complainant within a 30-day period? The legislation does make provision for that. How do you feel about that?
Mr Peterkin: Time lines are fine and I think it would be an improvement. However, you made the assumption that because I was here I was part of the process. I would like to indicate to you that my being here does not mean that I am a part of the process in the way I would like to be. So we should not make those assumptions that by talking to someone you have adequately allowed for them to participate. That is the misconception I see there.
Mr Ron Johnson: Yes, I think that's a fair comment. If you're looking for greater participation, I know that our parliamentary assistant, Gary Carr, is certainly willing to listen to groups, even after the committee or before, and receive additional information from yourself. We want to encourage you to get involved more, as well as everyone else who's interested. I'm going to let Mr Tilson ask a quick question before we run out of time.
The Chair: He has left you less than one minute, Mr Tilson.
Mr Tilson: Mr Peterkin, thank you for coming. I think you've emphasized that law enforcement is most important in our society, whatever your colour, whatever your religion, whatever your gender, whatever your age and so on. I think that whether you're talking about this bill, with the issue of law enforcement we must have confidence, we must have trust in our police service and in all of the agencies that are connected with that police service. We appreciate your coming and emphasizing that point.
I'm just going to read you a section that talks a little bit about that -- if we have time for a comment -- from Brian Adkin with the Ontario Provincial Police Association yesterday in Toronto. He said:
"It seems most unusual that we entrust the police to investigate the most serious crimes in the Dominion, to utilize the most invasive procedures when heinous crimes demand it -- and they are authorized when police pursue a criminal who could even be one of their own off duty -- but we buckle at the knees when we think of police investigating complaints or offences involving police officers, most of which are unfounded or not sustained. We believe that the public will support the proposed system of dealing with complaints. In most cases apologies will solve problems and save investigations. Many victims and officers are both pleased with this action."
You may or may not agree with that statement, sir, but I will agree with you that we all of us need to work harder to gain the confidence, that the police need to have the confidence of all us, whatever our colour is, whatever our age is, whatever our gender is, and I thank you very much for coming.
The Chair: I thank you very much, sir, for attending.
Mr Peterkin: Do I get to respond?
The Chair: Our time is up, unfortunately, and we must move on. I'm sorry about that, but we thank you for attending today.
1400
OTTAWA-CARLETON REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE
The Chair: Our next presentation will be the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, Chief Brian Ford and Deputy Chief Alex Mackie. Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr Brian Ford: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'm Brian Ford. We appreciate your facilitating us to speak to you today. This is Deputy Chief Alex Mackie, who is my deputy chief of operations. I'm going to switch glasses. I won't be able to see you but I'll be able to see what I'm talking about. Maybe it's good that I don't see; then I can't read the body language. I've always said this is a blessing in disguise sometimes.
Thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Brian Ford, as you know. I'm the chief of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service. On reviewing the Solicitor General's amendments, I was impressed by the ministry's strong commitment to improving the quality of policing in Ontario.
I am aware that yesterday the executives from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police made a presentation to this committee. In addition to sharing the position of my colleagues concerning policing adequacy, costing processes, municipal agreements to share police services, the SIU, the need to revise the code of conduct and their discussions about the Ontario Police College, I want to focus on some issues that are particularly important to policing and the community in Ottawa-Carleton.
Today I will speak briefly about auxiliary policing, part-time policing, the use of volunteers, training facilities and core policing functions.
With respect to auxiliary policing, auxiliary police units have been successfully operating for 41 years in Canada and for over 150 years in Great Britain. The earliest auxiliary units in this country were part of an inactive reserve in which members were used in major emergencies such as an environmental catastrophe or in the event of the War Measures Act. Today, auxiliary police officers are volunteer members from our communities. They are well trained and provide assistance to their community while supplementing the efforts of the police service in a wide variety of tasks.
As chief of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, I feel strongly about the benefits which auxiliary police units can offer and have seen evidence of this first hand. I support a broader interpretation of Section 52 of the current Police Services Act and respectfully submit that auxiliary units be given an enhanced mandate and that chiefs of police be granted the authority to make better use of this valuable resource. In this era of community partnerships, police agencies are faced with the difficult hurdle of improving performance and addressing a myriad of community safety concerns, and I cannot think of a better way of meeting community needs than through effective use of auxiliary policing. I am aware that there are some concerns with the use of auxiliaries, but believe that by allowing them to assist police services in specific non-core functions and duties, and when equipped in a uniform that readily identifies them as auxiliary members, the potential of this resource will become apparent.
From my experience as chief of a large regional service, there are many advantages that auxiliary policing brings:
A successful auxiliary policing unit may have a significant positive impact because it adds a new dimension to the police organization's professional skills.
Auxiliaries are by design able to supplement personnel strength during emergencies when human resources are normally the most strained.
Auxiliary members provide a pool of potential applicants who can be screened in a policing environment prior to sworn enlistment. Likewise, auxiliary members would also have the opportunity to more accurately evaluate what a sworn career in policing truly entails. We have just gone through a hiring process, and seven members of the 25 that we hired recently came from our auxiliary policing program and another half dozen were hired by other forces throughout Ontario as well.
A qualified auxiliary can enhance the safety of the police service and the community it serves. For example, in our case here in Ottawa-Carleton, I believe the auxiliary unit could be used in a situation where you have a high incidence of break-and-enters or vandalism or whatever the case may be. You could use an auxiliary unit as a static kind of surveillance unit. They would not get involved in the actual core function or the arrest of the individual but they would be able to relay to operational personnel who would be close at hand and out of the way information vis-à-vis some activities that were taking place.
They also provide excellent help during parades. In our case here, with the number of parades and demonstrations where we have to block off traffic and close down streets, they provide a resource for us. In reality, it keeps our costs of policing down, our overtime costs down, and we can use auxiliaries for some of these functions, which really you don't need a fully trained police officer for.
A qualified auxiliary can enhance the safety of the police service and the community it serves. For example, the auxiliary is an excellent example of how the philosophy of community-based policing can be successfully realized. By sheer volume, they will increase contact with the citizens we serve and can enhance the police agency's public image. As highlighted in Peel region's Strategic Policing Response, auxiliary policing provides "an invaluable link to the force's goal of community-based policing."
In January 1992, Blue Line Magazine wrote an article on auxiliary policing and they said this about it: "Policing is one of the most important functions in our society and by participating in that function, members develop a strong sense of personal worth, knowing that they too have been able to serve and protect." They were specifically talking about auxiliary officers when they made that quote.
The training of auxiliary officers has proven to be comprehensive and extensive. These individuals are ready to assume the specific duties as directed by the chief of police. The extraordinary demands that emergency situations place on a police agency's resources can be more effectively and efficiently managed if auxiliary members attend to the tedious tasks associated with these extraordinary situations. For example, Toronto has utilized auxiliary members at several disasters, ie, air crashes, the Mississauga train derailment, the Barrie tornado, as well as the opening of the SkyDome, the economic summit and royal visits. In general, auxiliaries are well suited for these and other emergencies, parades, festivals, and also in the search for missing persons and for use at sporting events.
I trust you will agree that auxiliary policing makes not only good business sense but just plain common sense and support my call for changes to the legislation that will allow chiefs to make more extensive use of this resource, as well as my recommendation that they be dressed in an easily distinguishable uniform.
With respect to part-time officers, I would like to address a related issue. It is my recommendation that the legislation be amended to provide police chiefs with the ability to make optimal use of part-time members. Like auxiliary members, part-time staffing just makes good financial and operational sense. Operational issues in my organization could be more easily resolved with the use of part-time officers. Part-time staffing would also allow the police organizations an option for holding on to valuable personnel we have invested a great deal of time and money in. We have invested significant resources in training these officers over many years and they have extensive and invaluable experience which can continue to benefit the organization and our community. Officers, particularly female officers, who might simply resign their post when raising a family might be more inclined to stay on as part-time officers.
With respect to volunteers, I want briefly to touch upon the use of volunteers in policing. As I have already called for legislation permitting better use of auxiliaries and part-time members, I want to make it clear that even with their use, there is also a great need for volunteers in our organizations. Volunteers are key partners in communication and these individuals have to come to us in the spirit of good citizenship, as people who want to be local problem-solvers. It would be our loss if we do not take advantage of their commitment and the myriad of talents, diverse skills, experience and perspective they bring to a police service.
The next issue I want to touch on is the training facilities at the Ontario Police College. I know, as I said earlier, you were addressed on this subject by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. I would also like to comment on the need for adequate, professional and appropriate training facilities in the province of Ontario.
Every police officer receives core training at the Ontario Police College but I firmly believe that police training, like education, is a lifelong process. As chief of a newly created police service, a large regional service, for that fact, I anticipate increasing pressure to provide continuous training and development of my membership. We are already on the cutting edge in dealing with educators and training professionals, and I urge the government to consider providing a mechanism that would allow police services to develop training programs within their local facilities. By that, I mean we have entered into a partnership with the local community college here, Algonquin College, as Durham Regional Police Service has entered into with Durham College. We use the facilities at Algonquin College to do all our training functions here. I believe we could enhance this and I think it would make economic sense if the training standards for recruit training at the Ontario Police College were used from a training perspective in local community colleges. We could do our recruit training at the local facility here, ie, in our case, Algonquin College. There is a cost to training and I believe it makes financial sense to use the local colleges where people could pay for that education as part of the process of their development.
1410
Finally, I'd like to comment on the issues of the proposed core police functions and adequacy of service. I would urge the ministry to involve all stakeholders, from the chiefs of police to members of police services and boards and community members, to assist in defining these functions.
These different stakeholders, I believe, could positively contribute to deciding what will be a suitable method for measuring service quality and police performance. These measurements must go well beyond the traditional quantitative indicators and include qualitative measures as well. Through consultation and partnerships, I am convinced that police services, the ministry and the affected communities can develop standards which are understandable, acceptable and a benefit to the community.
Like the OACP, I also believe that a functional review of policing services should occur before any further restructuring of policing occurs in Ontario.
At this point, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address your committee here today and I'd welcome the opportunity to answer questions that you may have. The difficult ones I always give to the deputy chief.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief. We have three minutes per caucus.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Chief. I had the opportunity to meet you on other occasions. Actually, we were at a conference early last month and we had a chance to chat and also talk a little bit about your son, who I understand is a pretty good hockey player as well. I appreciate the opportunity, but unfortunately in this instance we're going to have to get down to business. There isn't much time.
It relates to the issue of auxiliary that you discussed. If they are going to be playing a role, there are many, including a lot of people in the association, who say we need to have a clearly defined role, and they want to get specific even in terms of uniforms so they're readily identifiable. You know the problem in the States where some of the security guards have better uniforms than some of the police do. With things as specific as uniforms, should we have something that's clearly distinguishable so that the public has no doubt who is auxiliary and who is a police officer?
Mr Ford: Absolutely. I think it's important that distinction be made when considering the uniform. It should be a uniform that is distinctive, that is recognizable from a policing perspective but also distinctive from a sworn police officer's uniform. I don't have a problem with that. We have been looking here -- we're hoping that something will come out of this process -- at developing a uniform that is a somewhat different colour than what the regular officers wear, such as I'm wearing right now, that has a steel-blue colour and an offsetting other colour. But yes, I agree with that.
Mr Carr: Also, regarding the use of force and so on, I take it that it's very clear that the auxiliary carry no use-of-force weapons whatsoever.
Mr Ford: I wouldn't say no use-of-force weapons. I would say the possibility, because our own auxiliaries do receive training in the use of pepper spray and the baton. I don't see the need for them to carry firearms, but we do train them in the use of firearms because if they're out on a ride-along with an officer, in an emergency situation, I think it's beneficial that they have that training. I don't see the need to carry one, but the other use-of-force tools such as the baton and the mace can come in handy.
The Chair: Mr Brown, we have about a minute.
Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): One of the questions I had was how old your son is who plays hockey. Gary's probably looking for clients.
In the Netherlands there is a program the police have with people on social assistance. What happens is they give them a short training program, they give them a cell phone and a uniform and they're requested to patrol particular areas of the city. There are certain areas that particularly need patrolling. What do you think of that idea? Could that be done here?
Mr Ford: No. My son played for the Sault Greyhounds, by the way. We did talk about that. But no, I don't think it would be a good program. When you have people involved in a process such as volunteers for policing, as a community volunteer I think it's more important that that member of the community who is involved wants to be there.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chief Ford, for your presentation. I wanted to talk a little bit about training facilities in the Ontario Police College. I think you bring up a good point, that where it would be economically feasible and may be cost-effective, why not allow a police force as large as yours to contract its own training using local facilities? I know you have to pay room and board when you send your recruits down to Aylmer and I think that makes sense.
From another point of view, I've been hearing lately about a drop in standards at the Ontario Police College and that recruits who are going there, first of all, a good percentage of them, are not as up to standard upon entry as they're supposed to be. But instead of being sent back like they used to be in the old days, they're given remedial upgrading in some of those areas and some of them still fail after three or four weeks. It seems to me there's a lowering of standards there. I'm sure you've had recruits there lately. I just wonder if you've heard of any of that or have any of that concern.
Mr Ford: I haven't heard about the lowering standards at the college itself in terms of the quality of product that they're delivering from that perspective, but I do know that the college is finding it difficult to meet the needs of the training requirements that we have. That's why the OACP and myself -- and I support that decision of the OACP for the retraining program that they have after five years. They're behind in that process. As a matter of fact, we do some of that training ourselves now. We've received their standards to do that in conjunction with Algonquin College.
Where I was coming from on this was, if we could use the training standards as set down by the ministry and take those standards, have them at the local police college where we could then train people locally, we could save money both for the province and ourselves from a policing perspective. It costs us at least $2,000 per recruit to send them to Aylmer, and that's paying their travelling costs and other incidental costs. On top of that, the recruit's now required to pay $3,000, but I understand that may go up over time. I think it could be done far more economically at the community college level in the local community where they're also integrated with other students as well.
Mr Ramsay: Do you think this might help with the complaint I'm getting? The complaint I'm getting is from veteran police officers who feel that the new recruits coming into municipal policing today just don't have the dedication that maybe recruits did in the past and don't seem to be taking the standards as seriously as they should be.
Mr Ford: Federal police officers said that?
Mr Ramsay: No, veteran police officers.
Mr Ford: No, I would disagree with that. Quite frankly, the quality of police officers that we have in Ontario is second to none. I'm very satisfied with the quality of recruits that we've been able to recruit through the hiring process and the constable selection process that's in place in Ontario. I think we set standards within our organizations. We have coach officers who ride along with the new recruits. I'm clearly very satisfied with the quality of recruit we're receiving.
Mr Christopherson: Chief, Deputy, good to see you both again. Brian, I was particularly interested in your comments about auxiliary and volunteer and part-time. I'm wondering, was there much discussion of this sort of thing during the so-called summit? Was that on the table? Because I know there's been pressure -- you're bringing it to the fore here today -- but it's been a growing pressure. Also the use of special constables; there's the concern from the management point of view, from your point of view. There's also concern on the part of the police associations as to what it means; different concerns. But I wonder if there was some discussion and some consensus reached at all?
1420
Mr Ford: This is a difficult question I'm passing to Deputy Chief Mackie. Now, I'm only kidding. Actually, Deputy Chief Mackie was at the summit, he was representing our organization at the summit, so I'll let him answer that question.
Mr Alex Mackie: Yes, auxiliary policing was discussed at the summit with the stakeholders at that time. Although there wasn't a consensus around the table, there was a general agreement that it was an issue that should be looked at, but there was no consensus with respect to uniforms and some of the roles and functions auxiliaries would do. Part-time policing and specials did not have such a high profile as auxiliaries.
Mr Christopherson: My sense is that given the growing fiscal pressure on police services, there's going to be more and more need to look at it. By the same token, the police associations, both the PAO and the OPPA, have a right to be concerned about the watering down of their profession and preserving the right of fully trained officers to be doing work that only fully trained officers ought to be doing. I hope that the government at some point will get around to addressing that because I think all parties need to be a part of it.
The other question I wanted to ask, Brian, was yesterday we heard from a gentleman who represented himself as the owner of an agency that wanted to provide private policing, which of course would be a part of what you're talking about here, and I wondered how you feel about any of the work that's currently being done by public police officers being farmed out or contracted out and beginning to enter into the realm of private policing in any way, shape or form.
Mr Ford: There's no doubt that there will be a move to the use of private policing in some situations. They can be used to some extent in situations where you have a private enclosure where they perform a security guard function. But to move public policing issues to private policing would be a dangerous move, in my opinion. I know that the chiefs' associations, both nationally and provincially, would object to that as well. We carry an awesome responsibility as police officers and there are a number of checks and balances that quite rightly should be there in both federal and provincial legislation. I believe it would be much more difficult with private policing to make sure of adherence to standards in the same way you can with public policing. I'm not in favour of it.
Mr Christopherson: Thanks. And I like your new flashers.
The Chair: Chief, Deputy, thank you for assisting the committee today.
CHRIS BOWES
The Chair: Our next presentation is by Mr Chris Bowes. Welcome, Mr Bowes. We have 20 minutes set aside for you, so I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Chris Bowes: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the committee for having the opportunity to speak on this issue. I'll just introduce myself. I'm a lifetime resident of Ottawa and I started getting interested in this topic when I started looking at some of the issues around mega-week. I'll start by saying that I'm here to speak in support of the bill. My background is economics and law.
There are three issues that I'd like to speak to, and those are fairness, accountability and local control. The present situation in Ontario is that we haven't really had a comprehensive review of police services in two decades. Obviously this province has changed in the last two decades. There have been attempts by previous governments and there has been sort of tinkering here and there. This piece of legislation goes a long way to addressing a lot of local concerns on financing and issues such as that, streamlining certain processes, which I'll get to.
We have in some respects a hodgepodge of systems in Ontario. You have different boards, civilian oversight. I'll take an opportunity to commend the intentions of the previous government. From my studies in law, and I did a lot of regulatory stuff when I was at Carleton, and civil law, we need methods for people to address their concerns when they have problems with the police. Somebody has to police the police. I think most people in this province would agree with that, including most police officers.
On the issue of financing, for instance, for someone who is an urban dweller living in Ottawa-Carleton, you have 85% of the people in this province paying for their police services and 15% not. That's the situation as it stands now. As it stands with the complaints procedure system, you have different routes you can take. I was following some of the committee's initial presentations in Toronto, I think it was two days ago -- I'm not sure if I saw the repeat or the actual live one -- where you had some of them discussing, depending who you go to, where it will go up through this chain. Something that I took in school, which I'll get to -- I'll address some of that with the procedures.
Complicated procedures are not conducive to having the general public come out, and if they have a problem, to have it solved. I studied this in enough legal classes at Carleton. It's a hindrance hiring lawyers. People are disadvantaged in having different levels of knowledge about how these systems operate and a complicated system is not good for the public in general.
That's out of the background. Getting to the issue of fairness, I mentioned about the different municipalities paying and others not. It's not fair that some municipalities should pay for their services while others do not.
The complaints process, because of the nature of it -- and you have different routes that, if I follow what I've seen on the previous legislation, people can easily get lost in it, especially if they are not, as I say, connected to the system in the sense that they have the kind of experience; something that we took in Carleton and there's studies to that effect. You'll get this in the first-year law program where it talks about different sociology studies of people being connected to the system, ie, lawyers, judges and even police officers. Educated people, if they have a problem, will find their way through the system no matter how complicated it is.
1430
Amalgamating the review processes -- or "streamlining" actually would probably be the better word to use for it -- making it uncomplicated for people to come before the system and get their complaints heard would help the general public far better. I think this piece of legislation goes towards addressing that.
I've been following some of the issues. There have been things raised about police chiefs having more say on how that process proceeds. When you look at the issue of local control and accountability, where now municipalities are going to be having a say as to the majority on the police services boards, some of these concerns could be addressed I believe by a police services commission and local politicians, who know their areas far better than, say, somebody in Toronto. They may have a better idea of the histories and things like that. These can only but help local input, can only help the system. You know of situations with police in this area. Everyone's aware of a certain case, which I won't get into, but I think that had local input been heard, you would probably have had a faster resolution for that.
Also, for police officers the system right now is very slow. It leaves people in limbo. That's not good. The length of time it takes to go through the complaints system doesn't help people who are looking for justice either. By streamlining the system and speeding up justice, speeding up the process, it does go a long way to address people who are aggrieved, and any justice system, any process of review has to address that. Timely handling of a complaint is a way to do that.
When you look at some of the things that are happening throughout the legal system in this province and the western world in general, where we're moving towards the idea of more mediation -- and I have to say that the previous government did make attempts at moving down that model -- the first line should be mediation. With the kind of oversight you'll see with the changes in the police services boards, local authorities, having a say in who is on that board, can oversee how the police chief is going. Ultimately, the police services board is the police chief's boss; he'll have to answer to that board. I'm a democrat. Things that increase local control and local input are essential to good government.
Streamlining also has an added benefit in an economic sense, in that it saves money. I know there has been some criticism that saving money will come at the expense of people's ability to get to the system and get justice. We need to look at this as a public good in itself -- saving money when you do not have the resources to put forward into front-line services. I don't see how someone could criticize trying to redirect money into front-line police services. For instance, our neighbour's house was broken into. This was a few years ago. It took the police two hours to come around and deal with that. People were still in the house.
There are real issues that have to be addressed in this sense in police services where we're in tight fiscal times. We have to look at what's important. Having different committees overseeing the same police service just doesn't make sense; it's a redundancy in the system. I believe the Legislature has the opportunity to construct a system that takes into account fiscal prudence, practicalities of resource management, while at the same time dealing with people's real concerns that they do have avenues of redress if they've been grieved in the system. As I say, in a sense of fairness, in many cases, from what I've been following in some of the presentations that have been put forward to this committee from different segments, mediation will go a long way to solving people's problems with a police officer.
This brings me to local control and local benefits. By having more local representatives on police services boards, this act will allow for some moderate community standards to be applied to police services. I know in the past, being a bit of a news junkie, following some of the things that happened in the Metro Toronto area, there were criticisms of how police services were conducted, especially with the ethnic communities. With municipal government now taking more of a role in policing their own police services, so to speak, this bill will provide more opportunity to have a say in how police services are conducted in your community.
For instance, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton police services are going to have to deal with, as they take over from the OPP, large rural tracts in this area versus, say, the city of Metro Toronto, which as we all know is predominantly urban. With control of police budgets being turned over more so to municipal authorities, this bill allows them the power to allocate resources for what they feel is most important for their constituents, and their constituents will be able to have some influence. That is a good thing, that is a local benefit and that will help in policing. Metro Toronto may not need the same type of road services this region would need or, say, a region in rural Ontario.
Also, the bill allows for municipalities' police services boards to contract out some services. For instance, outlying, small cities like Brockville or Cornwall really wouldn't have the same resources to man their own, say, IT police unit, this kind of auditing unit for forensic auditing, as Ottawa-Carleton. They could contract those services from the region. You could have a system development where police services become rationalized, become specialists in certain areas. Bigger centres would be able to offset some of their costs by providing services to smaller centres, and that would free up the money they would save at, say, a smaller city such as Brockville or even Kingston, or a small town like Smiths Falls, the savings by buying services from larger centres. They could take those savings and put them into front line, hiring more police officers to deal with crimes or levels of crime that are more prevalent in their area, such as break and enter. In a large rural area, by having that kind of savings, they could put it into putting out more patrol cars in a larger area. That's a public good.
1440
At the same time, it would allow larger centres the ability to lower some of their costs for maintaining things they need to have just because of the nature of how things are conducted in a large urban centre. It's a good way, and it can do a lot for overall policing across the province.
I know there have been some criticisms of this bill for northern communities and rural communities. My understanding, from looking at the Who Does What report that they released, is that they have made contingencies for that. Of course, that's also the job of this legislative committee, to make amendments and make sure things work well for the people of Ontario.
Also, I know there have been some criticisms of the bill and the general thrust of many of the things surrounding this act and many other pieces of legislation that have come down. I'm relatively young; I'm 33 years old. Most of my friends are in the process of buying homes. They have young families. I'm looking at buying a home. One of the major considerations is whether you can afford to live in a certain area. In the bigger package that has come down, which has been labelled mega-week and other names, by addressing the inefficiencies in the tax systems and the way we finance services such as police services, welfare, municipal services, such as education being removed from the tax rolls, will allow people like me, who are in many ways tax sensitive, to afford a home.
Everything in economics is always about trade off of resources. If things can be streamlined, made more efficient and deliver better services, then we should proceed with it. I'd like to be able to own a house, and that's where I'm going to stop.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bowes, I'm afraid your time has expired. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Bowes: I'm sorry. I was hoping to leave five minutes for questions. Anyway, I apologize that I didn't leave time for questions, but I'm sure this committee is going to hear from a lot more people across the province and there will be some further interesting debate in the Legislature.
The Vice-Chair: There will. Thank you, sir.
CITY OF CORNWALL
The Vice-Chair: Our next presentation will be Ron Martelle, the mayor of Cornwall. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr Ron Martelle: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: As a former TCTI student, I know the city well. It's a wonderful place. It's good to see you here.
Mr Martelle: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be here, Mr Chairman and committee members. Mr Christopherson, how are you, sir?
Mr Christopherson: Very well. Yourself?
Mr Martelle: Very well, thanks. I would like to say it's nice to see everybody so attentive. When I appeared at the federal standing committee on justice for the Young Offenders Act a short while back, it was nothing but a charade, between people telling jokes and not paying attention. It's nice to see that we have the full attention of this group here, so thank you very much.
I would like to say, to start with, that three years ago I gave a recommendation to the Canadian police board association, which was mentioned in one of their reports, that perhaps we should be choosing a police services board in any municipality like we choose a jury. That means that you may have a pool of between 12 and 15 people submitted, and in consultation with the Solicitor General's office, the local municipality and the local police board association, you would pick, in our case, in the city of Cornwall, the five members who would be the most responsible and do the job in the most capable fashion.
That way you would eliminate the animosity six months or a year down the road of somebody taking some kind of directive that they didn't want this person on the board. You all agreed; you all concurred. That would certainly eliminate, in my estimation, the arguments involved, which are not beneficial to any police force or any municipality, let alone the Solicitor General's office.
That being said, I would like to say that I strongly support Bill 105. I think it goes a long way to correcting any misunderstandings or anything that was there in the past that led to animosity.
I'm glad to see Mr Christopherson here because, again, one of the things that was addressed -- and before I address Mr Christopherson -- municipalities, as is well known, have provided the funding for the local police forces. That being said, I certainly am not a proponent of municipalities having control per se, because that could also lead to a certain amount of danger down the road. But I certainly concur with and fully endorse the way Bill 105 is set up, especially whenever the funding is coming from the local municipality. We all know the situation that we're all in, no matter what level of government, and particularly whenever we get down to the bottom level, and that's the municipalities, where we're struggling for every dollar.
It's nice to see that defence lawyers have now been omitted and taken off police services boards. We had a situation in Cornwall -- and I refer to Mr Christopherson not out of any bitterness or anything else, because Mr Christopherson and I got along very well when he was the Solicitor General -- but our chairman of our Cornwall Police Services Board then was a defence lawyer. Talk about a conflict of interest whenever his employees, the police officers, were in court and he was defending the same people that they arrested. That went on and nothing was done.
We've gone through two inspections in Cornwall. The latest inspection report was done in 1993. I see in the audience we have the Solicitor General's adviser for the Cornwall Police Services Board here. One of those recommendations, I believe recommendation 41, was that the mayor be removed from the police services board. I more or less told them in no uncertain terms, as Mr Christopherson well knows, "Try and remove me from the board, and I'll see you in court." I have an obligation to the taxpayers of the city of Cornwall and my municipality. The day I'm instructed to wear two hats, that the Police Services Act states the mayor shall be a member of the police services board and I'm instructed to walk into a police services board meeting as a member and I cannot speak as the mayor of that municipality, something is drastically wrong. That's why I'm very pleased to see some of the recommendations in Bill 105.
I'm also very amazed that we spend so much time addressing the actions of our police officers. The criminal element of this country, or in this case this province, must be having a field-day when we're spending more time addressing what police officers do right and do wrong as compared to what the criminal element does. We all saw the big billboard up in Toronto: "Go ahead, call the police. There's more of us than there is of them." When are we ever going to learn that there are good guys, who happen to be police officers, and there are bad guys, who happen to be the criminal element, the low form of life on this planet?
We keep placing rules before police officers. We keep creating bureaucracies to deal with them. Because we have one or two who breach a code, we punish them all. We waste more time, more energy and more money dealing with police officers and their actions than we do with the criminal element, because God knows our courts sure as hell don't deal with the criminals in the proper fashion. I would strongly suggest that we put our energy behind our police officers.
Getting back to the police services board makeup itself, I fully support this because I'm disappointed in what we had as a police services board in the city of Cornwall. God knows I'm not perfect, but I'm not the whole problem whenever it comes to police services boards. We have one now that if we're not careful, with the way the city of Cornwall is -- everybody knows about our smuggling problems. Everybody knows that we have serious drug problems. In fact, we just had a major takedown last night where the Ottawa-Carleton force was involved in helping out the RCMP and the OPP and the Cornwall city police.
1450
We also have roughly an 18% unemployment rate. We're number one in social benefits in the province of Ontario. It really bothered me when our local police association wrote a public letter to the editor about a month ago. They're extremely concerned about what's happening with the Cornwall city police department itself and adminstration. Our police services board, knowing all the problems Cornwall has, knowing that we need the morale of our police officers at its highest to combat this crime and protect our citizens, because they're the bottom line, has not even addressed that situation yet. Therein lies the danger: that a police board then becomes a chief's board. The tail wags the dog. It's very disappointing for me.
I'm sure you people are going to be hearing much more about the Cornwall Police Services Board, because while I was gone to BC two weeks ago for meetings of the national board of directors of FCM, my resignation was once more addressed. It reminded me of the old west: Whenever the sheriff is out of town, that's when all the ruckus takes place. I'm out of town and my resignation is asked for. Well, again, in plain English, they can take their resignation and put it you-know-where. I will not be resigning.
That being said, I'm sorry if I'm a little bit straightforward, but whenever you're as passionate about law and order and the safety of your citizens in a community that's been greatly affected by not only the local criminal element but organized crime, including biker gangs -- and my family has suffered -- I take great exception to any police services board becoming political. This bill, I believe, addresses that, so thank you very much. I'm prepared to answer any questions.
The Vice-Chair: In fact we do have time for questions. Three minutes per caucus.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mayor Martelle, for your presentation today. I just want to say that it is very refreshing to have a presentation that's given straight from the hip. I'm sure that's why you remain popular in Cornwall and continue to be the mayor, because of your straightforwardness, and it's refreshing to see. I think more politicians at all levels should be as straightforward as you are. I appreciate your advice on this, and I'll certainly take all your points into consideration when we look at making amendments maybe to make the bill even better.
Mr Martelle: Thank you very much, Mr Ramsay.
Mr Christopherson: Mayor, good to see you again.
Mr Martelle: Same here, sir.
Mr Christopherson: It's always -- what's the right word? -- interesting to revisit Cornwall policing. Certainly, it runs the gamut from the ridiculous, quite frankly, to some of the most serious things that I dealt with during my tenure in office.
You mentioned a number of areas. I wish I had a little more time. What I would like to focus on first is that you mentioned that more energy should be put behind police officers, and that's coupled, of course, with your support of Bill 105. I'm sure that you're aware that the Police Association of Ontario, the PAO, has very serious concerns about some of the rights of individual police officers, something you're familiar with both personally and through a close family member. They go on to say that Bill 105 will strip police officers of most of the protections they need. They also say that Bill 105 must be significantly amended where it strips police officers of their rights and safeguards. I wondered how you felt about that comment by the PAO.
Mr Martelle: I speak for my local municipality, and I have not heard that from my local municipality, and that's what I'm most concerned with right now. I don't know what the provincial body has had to say on that, but I speak for our local situation.
Mr Christopherson: I suspect that if they feel similar, you'll hear about that quick enough.
The other thing I wanted to address is the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. They state, referring to the shifting of the power on boards from the province to municipalities, "We are concerned that this decision will lead to greater political interference in the day-to-day operation of police services."
We've heard that this means both overall budget priorities and whether policing will have a lesser priority, given the other pressures that are on municipalities, and who controls the budgets and those same people having the majority control on boards. It ranges from that to the day-to-day, where there's a possibility of a local police chief receiving the same kind of pressure from a mayor that, say, a department head would. I wondered what your thoughts are on that.
Mr Martelle: Depending on which police chief said it -- like politicians, we have good police chiefs and we have some who are not so great, who should be politicians in their role.
Mr Christopherson: I think some try.
Mr Martelle: It reminds me of Bill C-68, the gun control bill. I won't get into that, but it's a gun registration bill. The Canadian chiefs of police backed that because Allan Rock had more or less told them he was going to trade that off for section 745. They got shafted on that deal. If we're looking at what maybe some police chiefs said, I really don't put much stock in it, to be honest with you.
Mr Christopherson: Do I have any time left?
The Vice-Chair: You have about 30 seconds.
Mr Christopherson: I'll try to leave you a moment to at least comment. My concern is some of that straightforward -- the good guys and the bad guys. The reality is, whether we're talking politicians, whether we're talking priests, whether we're talking police or any institution in our nation, there are within those good and bad. Part of the civilian oversight issue is to make sure that in a free democracy we have the protection we need from those bad ones. Hopefully they're very few, and I believe they are, but we do need to have that protection. Having said that, do you still think it's that clear that it's all the good guys here and all the bad guys there? Is it really that simple?
Mr Martelle: If you look at the real world and not at it through rose-coloured glasses, every time something comes down about a police officer, there's a big hue and cry for shooting somebody. We had a situation in Ottawa not too long ago here, where the police officer shot the gentleman who took a meat cleaver to his partner. There was a big hue and cry about that. That's a case of black and white. In probably 99.9% of the issues, Mr Christopherson, it is very clear. We seem to waste more time, energy and criticism investigating police officers than we do the real bad guys.
I must say, before I leave, that Mr Christopherson -- and I must say this because I haven't seen him for a while -- while he was Solicitor General and my family and I were in hiding, was a real gentleman and in fact called every week to check on the welfare of my family. I appreciate the time, and it's very nice.
The Vice-Chair: We have the Conservative caucus left for questions. I've got Mr Carr and Mr Tilson.
Mr Carr: I'll be very brief. Thank you very much. In my travels, I had an opportunity to be down in your area and speak to some of the probation and parole people. You were there bringing greetings, and we had a chance to chat. It is a little bit off topic, but I just wanted to see how the situation is going in your area. You mentioned some of the economic problems, which we've been following with great interest. It is a little bit off topic, but maybe you could just give some of the members an update of what your circumstances are like down in Cornwall.
Mr Martelle: There was an article that we all took great exception to in Cornwall last Friday out of the Ottawa Citizen, where they painted the bleak side of Cornwall and went so far as to call Cornwall's workforce illiterate, which certainly hurts. We have just formed Team Cornwall, which is over 100 members of the business community, volunteers who come forth with a great deal of initiative and enthusiasm to sell the city.
We are struggling unemployment-wise. We are struggling in terms of social benefits; people draw on that. We all know the situation at the border in Cornwall with Akwesasne so close by and the amount of organized crime that rests in that area. Believe me, I'm not speaking strictly Mohawks here -- a small percentage; I'm speaking about the other elements of organized crime. We have major problems, and I've addressed those with the government. As you well know, we have not moved 20 miles to the east; we're still in Ontario. We're not in Quebec, in another province. Hopefully I will rectify that with our certainly conscientious, wisdom-minded federal government in the near future.
By the way, you play very well, Mr Carr -- very impressive.
Mr Carr: Politically or hockey?
Mr Martelle: Hockey, sir.
Mr Carr: I must not have been too good at hockey, otherwise I wouldn't be sitting here.
1500
Mr Tilson: Mr Mayor, we all acknowledge that you are qualified to come and talk on the topic of law and order, and we appreciate your taking the time to come and do that. I have one brief question, and it may be a technical question. You commented on the eligibility for people sitting on police services boards and you specifically referred to the issue of defence counsel as not being eligible.
The two previous sections talk about the term of office of the police services board and the reappointment issue. I don't know whether you're familiar with those two sections. The sections, in my view, give a fair bit of leeway to a municipal council as to the term of office. I suppose it could be almost anything for the term of office. It could be for a year or it could be at the pleasure of council. There could be a wide variety of interpretations, and the same goes for reappointment. With respect to the term of office, do you have any comments on whether those sections are appropriate, whether municipalities should be given that leeway?
Mr Martelle: I think they are, but time will certainly tell. Mr Christopherson brought up a point where there's always a danger, as we all know, in anything where -- I certainly have been hesitant seeing a municipal council trying to stick their nose into the affairs of the operation of the police department itself, and I don't think that's proper. In this case here, where we have a person who's appointed by the municipal council as the fifth body on the board, you would have to be extremely cautious. Hindsight is excellent, isn't it, if you appoint the wrong person? I guess only time will tell, Mr Tilson.
The Vice-Chair: On behalf of the committee, Mr Martelle, thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Martelle: Thank you very much for having me here again.
CAROL FLETCHER-DAGENAIS
The Vice-Chair: The next presentation will be Carol Fletcher-Dagenais. Good afternoon. You have 20 minutes for your presentation.
Ms Carol Fletcher-Dagenais: Thank you. I won't be that long. Mayor Martelle is obviously a hard act to follow. I'm going to try and be as brief as I can, given the late hour of the day.
First of all, it's an honour to appear before you today with respect to Bill 105, a bill that focuses on a different way of delivering police services in Ontario.
My remarks will be reflective of my role as both a taxpayer in a rural community and as a criminologist completing my master's degree in this field at the school of criminology at the University of Ottawa. My undergraduate thesis centred on police discretion in Canada, and my graduate thesis involved an analysis of oversight mechanisms vis-à-vis Canada's federal security agencies.
Not relying on academics alone, among other roles I have also had the benefit of experience in the field of crime prevention, completing two terms with Halton Regional Police force, as well as a term with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Ottawa.
Of note as well is my participation in the formulation of criminality provisions within the Immigration Act of 1992 and my policy advice to the Senate of Canada on recent changes to the Immigration Act that serve to tighten loopholes that had allowed criminals to enter or delay their removal from Canada.
I would like to begin by stating that I was 12 years old when the last substantial overhaul of policing in Ontario was conducted. Without giving away my age, suffice it to say that I think this bill is long overdue.
I understand it to be the view of this government that public safety remains paramount in any proposed changes to policing in this province, and please note that I share this commitment. It is my view that the people of Ontario want to feel safe within their communities, and I would not support any legislative aim that did not adhere to the principle of public safety in all our towns and cities.
I believe the standardization through regulation of the core elements of the policing function ensures commitment to public safety in a way that is both transparent and accountable. In providing a clear delineation of the policing mandate, the legislation will allow those who are sworn to serve and protect a clear and firm basis to perform their important roles. In addition, the people of our province will know that an integral level of service will be maintained and/or enhanced and that it will be more in tune with local requirements.
The fact that these elements -- crime prevention, law enforcement, assistance to victims of crime, maintenance of public safety and emergency response -- will be openly defined will contribute significantly to uniformity and fairness across all our communities in Ontario.
Local communities will also now have direct and real control over the police services boards or advisory committees that play a pivotal role in defining policing priorities. Local representatives are very familiar with the security requirements of their towns and regions. What is a policing priority, for example, in the city of Ottawa will not be the priority in my area, which is the township of Clarence Creek, nor should the priorities be the same. In allowing greater municipal control over the delivery of police service, the province is recognizing that local residents are able to confront the challenges inherent in their community while maintaining the main precepts of the police function.
I understand, and this was echoed by Mayor Martelle who spoke before me, that the municipalities have been calling for greater control over policing in this province for some time now, and I am pleased to note that municipal representatives are supportive of more local control in this area.
Bill 105 also rights a wrong, in my view, that has continued for far too long, and that is the inequity in financing police services among municipalities. Coming from a small rural community that contracts with the OPP, I expect to continue to pay my fair share to protect my family, home and community; I expect no less from other taxpaying Ontarians. To note that the status quo dictates that other municipalities have not made this contribution towards policing services is unacceptable and deserves to be rectified in this legislation.
Having studied policing and oversight mechanisms, I believe that the importance of policing the police should not be diminished. What has not worked, however, is having a disparate approach to oversight, wherein a number of different government bodies comprise an oversight role.
As all of you are aware, local chiefs of police, police services boards, the Divisional Court, the Solicitor General of Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario and their respective ministries, two quasi-judicial tribunals, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, the office of the police complaints commission and the board of inquiry hold purview in terms of police oversight in Ontario.
The present system is a recipe for error in its overlap of mandates and operations and serves to delay justice to those seeking a swift resolution to their complaint. I have seen at first hand different departments charged with protecting our citizens competing with other departments, as dictated by confusing mandates, and the resultant duplication of efforts, lack of communication and lengthy delays that can sometimes lead to very real tragedies.
By regulating a 30-day response time to complaints, the government is addressing a serious failing in the current system of oversight. Ontarians will have no faith in a system of oversight of police services if their justice is continually delayed. By providing a time standard, the legislation signals a tangible commitment to provide fair and expeditious resolutions to matters that, if delayed, do not serve the interests of those bringing a complaint, nor the policing service in question.
The simplification of the procedure for launching a complaint will also ensure accessibility by individuals or groups in the local community. This system must be easily attainable in order to encourage those who may not have come forward in the past to allow them to be made aware of the complaint procedure.
In addition, I understand that an avenue of appeal has been included within the provisions in order to provide an opportunity to those who believe their complaint was not dealt with to a satisfactory conclusion. This appeal mechanism has not been highlighted by the critics of this legislation. In my view, it addresses the concerns expressed by those who do not invite change, however long overdue.
These are my views, and I welcome any of your questions or comments.
Mr Christopherson: Thank you for your presentation. I don't have a lot to comment on. Obviously, if you've heard some of the comments earlier, I'm not as confident as you about some of the changes. But given the fact that you put emphasis on, and I think correctly so, the need to streamline and make more efficient the complaints process, I don't believe at the end of the day the government has come up with a process that is beneficial in the long run. I think it does some real damage in the community. However, that aside, I certainly agree that it needed to be streamlined and made more efficient.
1510
You make comment about the need to leave paramount public safety. I wonder if you are aware that the $3 million being saved through the efficiencies are not being poured back into front-line police services, into police training, into the ministry. That $3 million, from what we can tell, is just being absorbed and is gone and will probably constitute part of the 30% tax cut. The fact of the matter is that the money saved is not going back into policing. How do you feel about that?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I'm not sure I totally agree with your comment. If it does go into some sort of consolidated revenue fund, the government has made it quite clear that its priority will remain in terms of ensuring public safety. I'm not sure whether collapsing all these different organizations that have been charged with oversight mechanisms and realizing the natural economies of scale that allow for this is necessarily a negative thing. No, I think savings can be recognized in this area, and as a taxpayer I applaud this bill. No, if I thought it would compromise or not serve to enhance what the government is doing in this area, I wouldn't be here before you today.
Mr Christopherson: We'll agree to disagree on the outcome. Words are easy, particularly in our business. We give words, as politicians, all day long. What really matters is action. Don't you think it would send a far stronger message if the government said, "Every penny we're saving in streamlining and making more efficient any part of policing will be reinvested back into policing, particularly front-line policing"? Wouldn't that be a stronger message in terms of confirming that policing is of paramount importance?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: First of all, I'm not a politician; I'm here today as a member of the community. I believe this has been called for for some time now. When you talk about action, we're seeing it. This was noted, I understand, when you were in government by the Auditor General at the time, that there was a real problem in this area. Frankly, I'm glad that the government is moving in this direction finally at this time.
Mr Christopherson: So you're satisfied that the money is not going back into policing.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: No. I disagreed with you, if you remember, in my response to your first question.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. Being a former Oakville resident, it's always pleasant to get up here. I didn't know till we got here and saw that your mother is in the audience too that she's been up here for about a year now.
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: That's right, and she would love to have been able to come up and speak herself.
Mr Carr: I appreciate that. It's always a pleasure. Even though some people move out of Oakville, it's amazing how we can go anywhere and see them. Thank you for coming in.
My question relates to the oversight and the situation with OCCPS and its powers and responsibilities. As it is laid out now, is there anything else you think we can do to improve the bill in terms of the structure of the commission? Is there anything else you would suggest we do?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Not necessarily in terms of the legislative provisions, but there should be an effort made by the government to let the communities know about the easy access now to lodge a complaint. That will go a long way, because if people see that there is fairness and accessibility, I think you will have achieved a lot in that respect. To communicate the fact that this is available now and to work within the community groups to do this as well will be very beneficial for you. That's more in terms of an operational consideration after the bill is implemented.
Mr Carr: One little follow-up. As you know, there was some discussion on that point about the situation with third parties being able to assist. We did really try to make it easier in terms of not having forms, that you can write a letter and so on. You're right. There was some concern about how third parties can be involved. While they can't make the complaint, they certainly can still be involved in terms of helping people. They can go directly to OCCPS with a group, helping an individual put the letter together and fax it into OCCPS. I think there was some concern with some of the community groups that they wouldn't be able to assist.
Outside of trying to get out what the role could be, is there anything else that can be done to alleviate those fears? They made some valid points that some people in the community want to ensure that if somebody has a problem -- we tried to make it as simple as possible for anybody, whether they be community groups or physicians, to help to get it in. Is there anything else you think we can do other than communications to alleviate some of the fears out there?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: Being in this area of security and trying to be in tune with the concerns of the community groups, it's beneficial that you're putting some of the control in with the municipalities, because they on a day-to-day level are dealing with the people within their community who are represented on these community groups. I think a natural extension of the legislation will lead to more awareness of what you're trying to achieve here just in terms of the local level.
I think that's going to go a long way to dealing with these concerns. You've had them speak before you. Frankly I've heard some of the concerns. When I worked on the immigration bill, for example -- and I heard Mr Borovoy's comments recently. He also commented on the immigration act, which we were changing, and he said by putting in the criminality provisions we did, we were doing deportation by clairvoyance. Well, I can tell all of you gentlemen here today that we've used that act successfully to remove terrorists and organized criminals and the like from our streets. If I was to listen every day to some of the criticisms that have come up before your committee and other committees I've participated in, we would have no action whatsoever.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you for your presentation. I believe you were talking about a time standard for the investigations of complaints. I agree with that. Do you have any sense of what those standards should be?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: If I'm wrong I stand corrected, but I think a 30-day time frame in order to report back to an individual will give ample time. If there is a case that it's a very extensive investigation or if more time is needed, I don't know if the committee is considering allowing for a written request for an extension or whether that's even being considered, but that might address some of the concerns of the groups that have come before you if they are arguing that is not enough time to adequately deal with a particular complaint. That might be given some consideration.
Mr Ramsay: We certainly had some groups come forward and say, for instance, on the more serious investigations that the SIU has to follow up on, that they would like to see some sort of time standards and limitations so these investigations don't appear to be going on indefinitely. Also, many have brought up the idea, especially families of victims, that there be in a timely manner some disclosure of the progress of the investigation so the families can have some certainty that at least progress is being made. What would you think of that?
Ms Fletcher-Dagenais: I said in my comments that transparency is very important. When you're getting cases that are before the SIU, they're nominally very tragic and very serious situations. If you're ensuring a process that is fair to those who lodge the complaint, maybe there should be some consideration to providing an interim report or progress. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that that might be a good idea.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today.
1520
TOWNSHIP OF WINCHESTER
The Chair: The next and last presentation for the day is Wyman Barton, the deputy reeve of the township of Winchester. Welcome, sir.
Mr Wyman Barton: I have here two newspaper articles from local weekly papers, the Chesterville Record and the Winchester Press. They're both about policing and I thought members may be interested in them.
I thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts about the restructuring of police services and how it might affect a smaller rural community. Perhaps contrary to most belief, we in rural areas can be more accepting of change than is generally thought of. I think of some of the hospital decisions that have been made. Change is okay, as long as it's a positive result in the end.
I'm deputy reeve in a small township. It's located about half an hour outside of the city of Ottawa. Our overall community surrounds the friendly city of Cornwall, which His Worship Martelle has just described. We're right in that area.
We're definitely one of the 576 municipalities that receive police services funded by the province at this time. Our county government -- that's the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- presently has 20 municipalities. We've recently submitted a plan to reduce from 20 to six municipalities, basically two per county. Our total population in that regional-type government is about 55,000. Our proposed plan is to retain county level and to assign police services to this level of government.
This will be a totally new area for us to manage: new challenges, even new vocabulary. I saw things like "uniformed employees," "prisoner meals," as I was reading through some of the literature -- totally new to us as a department of responsibility.
We want to keep our options open. Presently, the OPP serves all of our communities, with the exception of the town of Alexandria. We have OPP centres in Long Sault, Morrisburg, Maxville and Winchester.
One concern we have about reorganizing into a larger centre is a loss of volunteer organizations. A number of our communities have already organized Community Watch programs to help with the crime in rural Ontario, and they work cooperatively with the OPP. It has produced results. The article from the Chesterville Record is recognizing one of those gentlemen in that community as an auxiliary police officer. I feel it is very important that individuals offering this time and personal expense be properly recognized. Possibly we should be pursuing mechanisms for these programs, and individuals can be regularly recognized.
We are also very much aware that to maintain our present level of policing, we have to have an organization from a viable and large enough population base. That's why we want our options left open. Could we look at neighbouring municipalities as well, so we can afford a police chief and the other officers that go along with a total police force?
We do recognize we have a lower tax base in a smaller population. More than likely, we'll be requesting assistance from the reserve fund promised by the provincial government due to this added responsibility. Communities such as the city of Cornwall, which you just heard from, are already providing police services; they have to be in a stronger position than those introducing police as a new service.
However, we support the concept of having local input. Rural taxpayers have complained for years about having to live with and adjust to decisions more suitable to urban situations. We've had an OPP officer speak to us at county council, and he stated that they certainly have empathy with the people reorganizing in local government, because they have already been through the situation of cutbacks and reorganization.
As stated earlier, input is important, and these changes will eventually affect the police officer and their duties and responsibilities. I would be prepared to predict that rural policing will require more flexibility, and the importance of being familiar with his or her community is of utmost importance.
Crime in the smaller areas appears to be on the increase, especially theft on the rural properties and isolated roads and that. The criminals are having a heyday in those situations. I pass the article around from the Winchester Press; that came out in this morning's paper.
I understand that the OPP is planning to provide estimates of actual costs per municipality by early April. I have not seen written information, but I understand there would be some cost recovery from fines paid for traffic violations etc.
Another question I have is, who decides on the actual job description for police employees? Does it really require a fully qualified officer to issue minor traffic violations?
It is also my understanding that a process will be clearly defined to deal with accountability of the police force staff itself, and also a process for an individual to appeal directly to the Attorney General's office in the event of alleged unjust treatment.
In conclusion, we are no different from anyone else regarding changes, but are definitely willing to take on a new responsibility, that of providing police services for our community. I would just like to stress to this committee the importance of your keeping in mind the financial dilemma of having a low population base and a low tax base but similar expenses. I thank you once again for having an opportunity to express my points. I wish you well in your final deliberations.
Mr Tilson: Thank you, sir. I've indicated that in my community, which has a population of about 80,000 people, we've got four police organizations. One's part of a regional force and one's an OPP detachment, and then there are two small municipal police forces, all of which operate differently in many respects. The particular municipality I live in is similar to the one you live in: It's a township and we don't pay for policing. We're one of those municipalities around the province that don't pay.
I'm interested, obviously, from a personal perspective and also in talking to other municipalities around the province about how you intend to deal with the fact that all of a sudden, as of January 1, 1998, all municipalities will be obliged to pay in some capacity? Outlined in the act are the different alternatives of retaining an OPP force or becoming part of a larger system, but the fact is that it's going to be an expense to your taxpayer.
I don't know what sort of debate you've had in your municipality, if any, but I'd be interested in how you intend to integrate that issue from a financial perspective into your community.
Mr Barton: As I stated in my comments, we're going from 37 representatives in our county council down to a possible 12, with six newly founded municipalities. Those 12 elected people are going to have the challenge of accepting a contract from OPP or a combined contract; maybe the city of Cornwall, maybe other people would be involved. They are going to have to take that new-found expense, combined with other new-found expenses, and hope it's less than the education dollar. That's where we're at.
Mr Tilson: There will be other issues, of course, like provincial offences. I don't know whether it would be part of your municipality; it would be part of that area. There will be other areas in which municipalities will be getting involved.
Mr Barton: Most definitely.
Mr Tilson: You raised an issue of volunteer organizations, I suppose the need for that. In my community I know there are more volunteer organizations, from watching what's going on on the highway to Block Parents to -- you can go on and on. I wonder if you could elaborate a little more as to what's going on, particularly in the rural communities.
Mr Barton: Yes. I just recently joined Community Watch. It is quite a commitment. You make a decision to join the group. You meet with another person. In a small community, you would take your own vehicle. You have a phone made available to you that you can contact the local OPP immediately if needed. You basically are up and down the streets for a five- or six-hour session. It has improved the rate of petty crimes; there have been noticeably fewer petty crimes in the village I've helped out with.
Mr Tilson: Those organizations are working in conjunction with the local police authorities?
Mr Barton: Most definitely, yes. We phone in and make our contact, tell them our names and where we can be reached and we have a mobile phone at all times.
Mr Tilson: Thank you very much, sir, for coming and providing your observations on the bill and policing in general, particularly in the rural areas. We appreciate it.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Barton, for coming and also for providing the news clippings. It gives us a feel, as I presume you realized, of what's going on in your area. That's very helpful for us. We don't necessarily get all sorts of local press, so it's very helpful for me to get oriented to what's going on in your neighbourhood.
In your response to Mr Tilson's questions, am I to understand that the county hasn't yet made a decision on how they're going to procure their policing?
Mr Barton: No, we have not made that decision. We've had the OPP officer in to speak to us and just to invite us to a partnership, but there's certainly been no commitment, no decision made at this time.
Mr Ramsay: Part of the problem right now is that if you just decide to let the OPP police the area, at this time you don't know what the per household charge is going to be.
Mr Barton: No. I only know that we were getting information about so many dollars per household, but I understand that's been denied and they will quote us an actual cost per municipality. It'll be on the needs of the community, not on a per household basis. I guess you could always divide it, but that's the way I understand the contract will be arranged.
Mr Ramsay: So your understanding is that each municipality would be billed a lump sum?
Mr Barton: I would imagine mileage would be a factor, the degree of crime historically may be a factor. But it is not, to my understanding, based strictly on households.
Mr Ramsay: So right now you don't have a sense of what that might cost.
Mr Barton: No, I don't.
Mr Ramsay: But you are looking at it on a county level, potentially either through contract or through the levy the OPP would charge; doing it on a county level.
Mr Barton: When we decided on amalgamation, we made decisions on certain responsibilities for county. We decided police services would go to county, and others such as waste management.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you and good luck with that.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Barton. As has been pointed out, this is a very different perspective than what we've heard the last couple of days in Toronto. I appreciate your -- I trust it's still optimism that the elimination of education as a cost to the municipality overwhelms the new costs. God bless. Thank you once again, Mr Barton.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Those are all the questions we have. Thank you for attending today.
Mr Ramsay: Where are we tomorrow, Chair?
The Chair: Tomorrow, we are continuing the hearings at the London Westin Hotel, starting at 10:40 in the morning. For those who wish to go by bus, it will be leaving at 7:30 am from the front door of the Parliament.
If there are no other matters, I would like to see the subcommittee before we leave today for a short meeting.
We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1534.