POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION
PARKDALE INTERCULTURAL ASSOCIATION
COALITION FOR LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS IN ONTARIO
MAYNARD SAM GEORGE DELIA OPEKOKEW
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 6
CONTENTS
Monday 12 May 1997
Police Services Amendment Act, 1997, Bill 105, Mr Runciman /
Loi de 1997 modifiant la loi sur les services policiers, projet de loi 105, M. Runciman
Waterloo Regional Police Association
Mr Ted Thornley
Parkdale Intercultural Association
Ms Donna Costanzo
Mr Dahn Batchelor
Toronto Board of Management
Mr John Morand
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario
Mr Glenn Betteridge
Mr Tom Warner
Mr Todd Dufour
Mr Maynard Sam George; Ms Delia Opekokew
United Steelworkers of America, District 6
Mr Miguel San Vinciente
Mr Michael Seaward
Mr Aubrey Kendell
Ms Marlene Gow
Mr Clarence Forde
Mr Owen Leach
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Douglas E.J. Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr Douglas E.J. Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer
J-2205
The committee met at 1531 in room 228.
POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
Consideration of Bill 105, An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety / Projet de loi 105, Loi visant à renouveler le partenariat entre la province, les municipalités et la police et visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité.
WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is a continuation of the hearings on Bill 105, the Police Services Amendment Act, 1997. Our first presentation is by the Waterloo Regional Police Association, Mr Ted Thornley, president. Welcome, and I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Ted Thornley: Good afternoon. My name is Ted Thornley. I am the president of the Waterloo Regional Police Association and a director of the Police Association of Ontario. I have been a police officer with the Waterloo Regional Police Service for the past 24 years and have served as the local association president since 1988.
I am accompanied this afternoon by Mr Dave Griffin, the administrator of the Police Association of Ontario, former administrator of the Peel Regional Police Association and former police officer with the Peel Regional Police Service; also Mr Frank Dawe and Mr Bob Reay, both of whom are veteran police officers with the Waterloo Regional Police Service and who each occupy executive officer positions on the board of directors of the Waterloo Regional Police Association.
The Waterloo Regional Police Association represents the interests of nearly 500 sworn police and approximately 170 civilian support personnel who jointly deliver a police service to the 425,000-plus citizens of the regional municipality of Waterloo.
Police associations in this province have now realized the importance of proactive involvement wherever new legislation or proposed amendments, be it federal or provincial, are impacting on their membership. There has never been greater reinforcement of our concern than the process or the resulting amendments to the Police Services Act in 1990 and now the further review and proposed changes to the act contemplated in Bill 105.
Regrettably, the day has long passed when our members could remain mute but also secure in the belief that a competent and prudent government in a democratic society would support and aggressively protect the personal rights and interests of a police officer serving a community. Given a somewhat unpredictable and often hostile environment, an announcement of Police Services Act amendments now serves as a rallying cry for police associations to rise in defence of their members.
The influence of special interest groups and the apparent lack of reliable information cannot be underestimated. Accordingly, police associations have risen to meet with politicians in forums such as this to provide information and express the views of their membership. This afternoon, Mr Chairman, we are following up on our obligation to you and the members of this committee to ensure you understand the concerns of the front-line police personnel we represent.
Your committee heard from a number of our association colleagues on the many issues arising from Bill 105 during the week of March 17. Time constraints have required that presenters isolate issues and speak to them specifically, notwithstanding other concerns that each may have. In general terms, we are expressing our support for the positions which have been presented by other rank-and-file police associations which collectively represent the province's front-line police officers.
This afternoon our association intends to focus its comments on the discipline process, but more specifically the adjudication of non-serious complaints as proposed in Bill 105.
Radical changes to the discipline process, for obvious reasons, have been identified by front-line officers as cause for grave concern. Injudicious change to this aspect of the Police Services Act can potentially expose a front-line police officer to a heightened fear of reprisal and the inability to perform duties free of inappropriate restriction or interference. I am unaware of any other factor capable of causing more havoc to the individual rights of a police officer or the fair and impartial delivery of police service to the citizens of this province.
I am truly bewildered and rather sceptical of the rationale for the government removing itself from the oversight of non-serious misconduct in favour of the more costly and time-consuming grievance arbitration process as proposed in Bill 105. This represents a substantial departure from the status traditionally afforded a police officer as an office holder and places an officer in the scope of the normal employee-employer relationship.
I was present on March 17 during the committee briefing and have since reviewed the Hansard publication where the assistant deputy minister, Mr Fred Peters, conveyed the apparent logic behind this particular change in the act. Mr Peters informed the committee that the changes were intended to address the distinction between behaviour that should be properly considered as part of the employee-employer relationship as opposed to behaviour that may be associated with the discharge of the duties of the office. This concept characterizes non-serious misconduct in the terms of an employee-employer relationship and serious misconduct as related to the duties of the office.
My personal experience discloses that serious and non-serious misconduct are rarely, if ever, delineated between employer-employee issues and those related to the duties of the office. In fact, misconduct described as employee-employer-related is most often so closely related and interwoven with the duties of the office that there can be no distinction. In any event, given that the proposed amendments would also grant the chief of police arbitrary powers to make such a determination, the distinction will be at the discretion, or rather the whim, of the chief.
I will reserve further comment on the labour relations model, as it has been dubbed, until later, but I will touch briefly on a number of other factors, although not intended to be a complete list, which further exacerbate our concern with the non-serious-complaint process.
Unsatisfactory work performance: In addition to the code of offences, Section 75 proposes a basket clause called "unsatisfactory work performance." This will allow a chief of police to discipline an officer for some undefined misconduct that is not found in the current code of offences. This is of particular concern now that cash-strapped municipalities control police services boards and also receive revenues from Provincial Offences Act tickets. Enforcement quotas are very likely to replace the common-law discretionary power of a police officer. The discriminatory application of this provision may also target officers who are out of favour with the chief or local officials.
Arbitrary penalty of 40 hours' pay, the inclusion of a very substantial penalty of 40 hours' pay which may be arbitrarily assessed as an informal discipline penalty for non-serious misconduct: The act currently provides that an admonishment may be given for non-serious misconduct where the officer agrees. Where an agreement also exists between the police services board and the association, a more substantial penalty may be applied, but in all cases the informal discipline penalty requires acceptance by the subject officer. Without such agreement, a hearing must be held before a penalty can be assessed or an entry made in the officer's employment record. Agreements between associations and police services boards have never included informal penalties as severe as 40 hours' pay. In fact, I am unaware of any agreement that exceeds a maximum penalty of two days' or 16 hours' forfeiture of leave. I am mystified by the apparent need of government to intervene as aggressively as it has in an established and agreed-to informal penalty provision.
No provision for admonishment or reprimand: the removal of the admonishment or reprimand in lieu of a penalty.
Entries in the employment record: the ability of the chief of police to make an entry in the officer's employment record notwithstanding that the matter remains in dispute.
Officer statements: There is no longer protection for without-prejudice statements made by an officer or a complainant in an attempt to resolve a matter informally.
1540
I stated we would return to comment on the so-called labour relations model following my review of other issues related to the adjudication of non-serious complaints. Only when viewed with these other adverse provisions can one have a true appreciation for the prejudicial impact of a grievance arbitration appeal mechanism.
The government has expressed a desire to rid itself of the oversight of non-serious discipline matters. We have expressed our concern that the government's rationale, as expressed by the assistant deputy minister, simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Is it then the saving of a few dollars that motivates this change? Indeed it is, and at the expense of our members. Our members have the right to be protected from the arbitrary tyrannical conduct of a spiteful employer, given the nature of the police employment relationship.
Where arbitrary discipline has been imposed on a police officer, he or she must have the benefit of a timely and non-cost-prohibitive appeal mechanism. The grievance arbitration process does not offer this. The cost of an arbitration could be a prohibitive factor in an appeal against an unjust penalty, but our experience also identifies time as an important consideration. We are not strangers to the rights arbitration system as a method of enforcing our collective agreement language.
In a recent case, a grievance was filed on behalf of one of our members for a discriminatory transfer. An arbitration date is now set some two years after the date of the transfer, which resulted in considerable upheaval for the member. A favourable award could not now bring justice to this case, as the member has no doubt reestablished herself in her new assignment.
In a second case that I am familiar with, a Canada Customs employee was suspended without pay for a period of time, having ignored a small amount of duty owing by a Canadian traveller at a Canada-US border crossing. An appeal of the subsequent penalty through the grievance arbitration process resulted in the penalty being reduced by more than half some three years after the penalty was imposed. While waiting for this matter to be resolved, the employee was forced to file for personal bankruptcy. Like many of us, this employee lived hand to mouth, and the imposition of an unjust penalty played a significant role in his financial ruin.
Surely this committee can understand why the grievance arbitration system or the labour relations model is an unsatisfactory appeal mechanism for a penalty imposed for non-serious misconduct in a police environment. We urge this committee to give serious consideration to an alternative process. Our recommendation would mirror the current non-serious and informal discipline process with appropriate modifications.
In closing, if I may be permitted to quote the comments of a prominent legal counsel, Mr Harry Black QC, who is well versed in the field of police act discipline:
"The proposed bill to amend the Police Services Act would, if passed, in my view, bring about an almost total eradication of the legal rights of police officers in the discipline process. My own opinion is that it is a very harmful piece of proposed legislation.
"It has absolutely nothing to commend itself from the point of view of the vast majority of men and women officers in this province.
"The proposed bill will destroy legal rights -- legal rights that have existed for decades because it has always been self-evident that those legal rights should exist. It will import arbitrary power into the process. It will ultimately destroy the morale of police officers. As a consequence, it will harm the citizens of this province who look more and more frequently to the police for their protection and peace of mind in their neighbourhoods."
I wish to thank the committee for your attention and kind consideration of my comments. I am pleased now, as time permits, to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chair: There's only about a minute remaining, Ted, if there's anything you want to add. There really isn't time for questions.
Mr Thornley: No, that's fine, Mr Chairman. I'm pleased to let it stand as it is.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Thornley, for your excellent presentation.
PARKDALE INTERCULTURAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presentation is Parkdale Intercultural Association, Ms Donna Costanzo. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Donna Costanzo: Thank you. I'm here to address the reconsideration of Bill 105 pertaining to the civilian oversight of police. I appear here as a member of the Parkdale Intercultural Association, known in short as PIA. I live in the west end of Toronto, and I am specifically here as the settlement and community education officer of the Parkdale Intercultural Association.
In our minds, at the heart of the issue of truly effective civilian oversight is the degree to which the position of the community in relation to the police services, which it pays for via municipal taxes, is equitable. It is our community's troubled perception that the amendments currently before the Legislature will have the effect of further consolidating power, as it applies to questions of police accountability, almost exclusively in the hands of the police hierarchy itself.
We at PIA are not comfortable with this formula for many reasons. Should the bill pass with the current proposed amendments, it would take away the last hope of the community in no longer having meaningful recourse to possible provincial intervention in an especially disheartening period of depressed confidence in police service, as is true today in our neighbourhood.
As active players in the Parkdale community, we know very well and appreciate that most police officers are not in the habit of abusing their sanctioned use of force, deadly force, and other power over the civilian members of our community. However, when such occurrences seem to have taken place, the role of the SIU is to probe responsibly the incidents of such abuse and unnecessary violence. The integrity of the role of the SIU is of paramount importance if one is to maintain public confidence in the police service.
It is our communities' view that the civilian oversight and grass-roots community intervention process in the ongoing delivery of police services is most certainly being whittled away. We are effectively stepping backward in the democratic pursuit of equality under the laws of this province. Adequate and accessible venues for complaint and satisfactory resolution will disappear through the amendments before you known as Bill 105.
Currently, of the six institutions which address systemic complaints, only the SIU and the race relations and policing unit at the police college are slated to remain under Bill 105. As you know, the others are the race relations and policing unit out of the Solicitor General's Office, the Anti-Racism Secretariat of the Ministry of Citizenship, the Ontario provincial civilian oversight board, and the police complaints commission. As we see it, we are sliding down a slippery slope of dissolving or at best uncertain accountability into an anonymous apparatus regulated by the police themselves. Policing will inevitably become further suspect by those communities who cannot afford to underwrite their own security.
I have been asked: "How is it that David Gunn of the TTC can be forthcoming and accountable in relatively no-holds-barred fashion about the limitations of the TTC service in terms of safety after the crash in 1995? He must believe the public deserves to know the truth of the matter." Like the police service, the public transportation service is similarly essential and not an option. Riders, as civilians, have the right to expect full accountability from public servants, those who in fact hold in trust the power of life and death over them.
Equally, the police service, as does the TTC, has the technology and should have the training to deliver good, reliable service. Even at the height of the subway tragedy, ridership did not drop. We greatly appreciated Mr Gunn's upfront attitude, his having taken the responsibility for the incident and then his taking subsequent steps to further improve the standards of the system. It's important for you who hold the public trust to realize that in such situations the community members do not choose. The choice is made for us by persons such as yourselves who have been duly appointed and are seen as without prejudice.
1550
The Metropolitan Toronto Police Service, for example, has the state-of-the-art training and technology to make its service excellent. However, it is the view of the community, in light of the all too numerous tragic deaths of civilians, over the past year and a half most especially, that the police simply don't know how and when to use all the training and technology available to them. Shooting to kill is not the only option, we contend.
We feel this is a question of leadership: yours and that of the police. The apparent lack of enforcement of existing standards as set for the police service has now, in the public view, led to a very threatening lack of accountability. The chief and the superintendents may instruct their officers to carry out their duties as prescribed, but the officers seemingly may choose whether or not to perform them as directed. A more visible or transparent process of internal evaluation should be carried out by the police hierarchy to bring about a more uniform performance.
However, this should not be the only means by which to attempt to pre-empt failure. Complaints of injuries and at times violent behaviour at the hands of the police service are properly the purview of the SIU as a civilian-oversight-of-police body. In an ideal world, truthful admissions of mistakes and the parallel recognition of human foibles is what we would hope to experience, as well as attentively weeding out those who cannot do their job of serving and protecting responsibly.
Perhaps we need to remind all parties concerned as to the applicability of the principle of a suspect being innocent until proven guilty, this principle being at the basis of SIU investigations, as it is with any investigation. This would hopefully aid the investigation in the gathering of all pertinent information and evidence related to the incident, incriminating or not.
Our community is very grateful to the men and women who put their lives on the line in dangerous situations. We are certain there are many. They are to be commended and respected. However, it appears that only after a violent incident has occurred is there any effort made to seek to address the shortcomings in, or lack of adherence to, the applicable protocol.
Models of community-based policing historically in place in Parkdale reveal just how well relationships can be built between vulnerable communities and the police. To react only after the fact is surely insufficient, and truly ineffective. Foot patrols and other efforts reflective of a genuine interest in the community have all but evaporated.
Now considered "soft" service, the Metro police community services 1988 ARA report by consultant Catherine Ashbury outlines how in the comparison of the Jane-Finch and the Parkdale models, the Parkdale model was most successful. This included many strategies evolving out of the community station at the Queen-Brock intersection. Now, after abandonment of five or more years due to funding decisions, the community station is staffed strictly by civilians. The relationship of the police to the community cannot be exclusively nurtured or carried by one party, the community.
The community of Parkdale, in all its rich diversity, questions: Where has the community-based policing budget increase over the past two years been spent? The police need to be viably present in their roles and in their person. Policing, in our view, in some degree is a collective or a shared human activity. Only by the development and fostering of relationships between people can alliances be formed, recognition be made, information be shared back and forth and, most importantly, fear be reduced and trust established.
Fear in the community and fear in the person of the police officer is a question of this lack of trust. It can best be addressed by a sort of informal conflict resolution on the street. It is a question of knowing. With trust-building relationships evolving on the street, supported by the structures of accountability, and acknowledged by the community as fair and impartial, there will be hope.
We fully realize efforts are being made, and we do our best to participate in various ways in them. In a meeting in recent weeks, I was delighted to be introduced to Sue and Victor, new foot patrol officers introduced by Sergeant Clarke of 11 division. I also understand that the country's most effective community-based policing is presently being done in Edmonton, where the officers wear not only their badge number, but also their name pinned to the breast of their uniform, sending such an effective message so simply.
In our community education and development work, we are acutely aware of the fact that information is the key to both equality and the fullest mobilization of community. When we work with either immigrant individual newcomers to our community or with youth, we are very careful in explaining what their constitutional rights include. Aggressive behaviour or obstinacy on the part of an accused individual when in the custody of the police, based on their knowledge and understanding of their rights, could potentially at times make some situations more difficult or awkward than they need to be. The challenge is to get both parties to meet halfway.
As far as information sharing is concerned, we at PIA see that there are different kinds of information: intelligence, misinformation and disinformation.
First, intelligence: Why is it that the police never give out information during a crisis? Why do we not get an honest answer? During a rash of hate-motivated incidents and racist crimes in Parkdale last year, the community was expected to cooperate with the police in gathering information. However, we were never updated in terms of the progress of the investigation. This year we were informed via the service-wide annual hate crimes report that a Polish neo-Nazi group had established itself in our neighbourhood. Where is the community-based effort for prevention here in this instance? We are not thought of as equal partners in the maintenance of our community as a safe and secure place. Unfortunately, though, in the case of crimes such as these, it is those with whom we work who are especially at risk, should they or we be newcomer, non-Christian, non-white, or of some other identifiable group.
Second, misinformation: There is often no clear information. The Toronto chief, for instance, repeatedly failed to seize the opportunities presented to calm the affected communities in relation to deaths involving police officers. Hurriedly offering unsubstantiated statements has further jeopardized the relationship between the police and the community. In situation such as these, when a columnist with a local newspaper is used as the mouthpiece for the police services when statements directly from the chief would most certainly ease and clarify a given situation, one need wonder about the extent to which service solidarity takes primacy over all other felt loyalties or accountabilities. It is precisely this kind of experience that has proven to us the absolute need for full, independent civilian review of the police service function.
Lastly, the concept of disinformation: The deliberate manufacturing and dissemination of wrong information into the public domain via the media is difficult to tolerate. Examples abound: accusing the whole black community of harbouring criminals or evidence and, by implication, condemning that community; implying the suspect is in a relationship "out of wedlock," when they are in effect a common-law spouse; using the label "immigrant" of a naturalized citizen; identifying the first priority of the policing agenda as that of eliminating street beggars; the unending abuse of Parkdale in the media as a haven for criminal activity beyond compare to all of Metro save the Regent Park or Jane-Finch neighbourhoods.
These examples of a police service with little true accountability to its community, resulting in perceptions of suspect investigations or the experience of a systemic discrimination against whole communities by the police, could conceivably even leave the police and the government open to legal action for neglect of duty. Professional negligence is a serious matter and those accountable need to be held accountable. As our political leaders, we depend on you in all your power to uphold, defend and advocate for a just and fair and equitably policed society.
It is only through independent civilian review of all officers' duty to comply, tighter protocols dealing with the use of deadly force and other basic principles that the integrity of the police function can be maintained and preserved. With these principles affirmed, coupled with a comprehensive community-based policing approach, only then can the safety and security of our communities be ensured.
I will leave you with a definition put forth by the Metro Toronto community advisory on anti-hate and anti-racist activity in a handbook that we wrote this year. It was printed at the end of 1996. On page 13 you will find the definition of the ideology of perpetrators of hate crime;
"Hate crimes and hate-motivated activity is committed by youth and adults. Not all perpetrators are connected to any organized hate groups. Hate activity is not always a result of group strategy, but the result of societal oppression of women, people of colour, gays and lesbians etc. Some are members of organized hate groups which indoctrinate youth and adults to their ideologies. As stated by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, white supremacist ideology sends the following vile message to Canadians."
The Vice-Chair (Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins): Thank you very much. That is the extent of your time.
Ms Costanzo: Thank you for your time.
1600
DAHN BATCHELOR
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter we have is Dahn Batchelor. You have 15 minutes to use as you see fit. If you don't use all that time up, we will use it up asking questions. Thank you very much.
Mr Dahn Batchelor: I am appearing here as a private citizen, but just to give you some idea of my background, I studied criminology at the University of Toronto from 1970 to 1974. I studied forensic science at the Forensic Science Centre from 1974 to 1975. I have been an adviser to the United Nations on criminal justice since 1975 and presently hold that position. I have addressed the United Nations 15 times on criminal justice. I am the father of the United Nations standard minimum rules of juvenile justice which all young offenders acts derive from.
I assisted the country of Botswana re the selecting of their training manuals for their police forces. I was a fraud investigator for Centurion Investigations from 1975 to 1976, a syndicated newspaper columnist from 1976 to 1983 and wrote a weekly and daily column on the law. I was an associate editor of Canadian Police News from 1983 to 1986, a group counsellor to the ministry of corrections from 1976 to 1983 part-time, and I've been practising criminal law in the criminal courts from 1964 to the present.
I have had an opportunity to study Bill 105 and wish to address some of the concerns I have about this bill. I will draw your attention to part V, which deals with complaints.
Section 56 states: "Any member of the public may make a complaint under this part about...the conduct of a police officer." Now there is an exception to the words "any member of the public." That exception is found in subsection 57(1), which states: "A complaint may be made by a member of the public only if the complainant was directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint."
Imagine this scenario if you will: A careless and indifferent police officer doesn't call the victim back after investigating a hit-and-run case and the victim not only has great difficulty in understanding English but also comes from a country where police indifference is the norm, so he does nothing. He knows it's wrong for the police to treat him in such an indifferent manner but he is too terrified to complain.
He calls upon a friend who might be a person who speaks good English, or a paralegal or a lawyer, and tells this person what occurred. For argument's sake, let's say that his friend is a paralegal whom he met previously when he thought he had immigration problems. His paralegal friend knows that this particular officer was wrong in what he did and feels that this officer's conduct should be brought to the attention of the police force.
The paralegal, along with many other citizens, is knowledgable in the law and in police practices and, as such, is able to prepare a proper complaint to the police, a complaint that they will fully understand. It will include a statement of facts signed by the complainant and a summary of the paralegal's views on the police officer's failings and what was expected of him. In the course of the inquiries the paralegal learns that although the police officer did conduct an investigation of the hit-and-run incident, he neglected to call the victim back to tell him of his investigation and give him his conclusions.
The officer complained about, having been reminded by a superior officer of his duty to the victim, calls the victim back and tells him that he investigated the hit-and-run accident, but because the driver of the other car lived in Barrie and sounded like he was in his late 60s, he decided not to ask the driver of the car to drive to Aurora, 50 kilometres south. Instead, he asked him to tell the officer on the phone if there were any scratches, dents or marks on his car to show that he had been in an accident. The subject driver, as expected, says that there aren't and the officer then concludes that the subject driver is probably not involved in an accident. The case is closed.
Now anyone with any common sense knows that is a sloppy way to investigate a hit-and-run accident. Since the accident occurred 90 kilometres south of Barrie, it really shouldn't be a problem for the subject driver to drive to Aurora to have his car examined since Aurora is only 50 kilometres away. If that was a problem, the officer could drive to Barrie or have a police officer in Barrie conduct the examination of the subject car in Barrie.
Such an officer as I have described would be very stupid, lazy, incompetent and negligent. The complainant would sense that, but being from a country where the police officers are brutal, the complainant doesn't dare question the police officer's intelligence, knowledge or ability and accepts the incident as an unfortunate occurrence in his life.
Now you and I wouldn't stand for this one bit, but there are thousands of citizens and landed immigrants who not only risk being victimized by this kind of sloppy police work but will accept it because they don't know what to do about it and they're too afraid to complain. But the paralegal knows what is wrong and he knows how to complain and, most important, he isn't afraid to complain.
Ladies and gentlemen, this actually occurred just recently, only the victim of the hit-and-run was me and not some poor landed immigrant who hardly understands English and would be too afraid to complain about the police officer.
After giving the negligent officer a mile-long rope to hang himself, I wrote the commissioner of the OPP and demanded an investigation into why this officer who told me he would call me the next day hadn't called me for 30 days. The next thing I knew, this officer's superior officer called me and apologized and said that the subject officer was chastised for having neglected to call me as he promised. After he arranged for the subject officer to call me and after listening to the subject officer rambling on about the other driver's age, I realized that I had been cheated out of a professional investigation. The original officer sent to investigate my hit-and-run occurrence was a rank amateur being paid as if he was a professional.
I won't give you a dissertation of what I sent to this man's superior officer, but suffice it to say that he was deeply concerned and said that if the new investigator sees one scratch, one mark or one dent on the other driver's car that corresponds with the collision between his car and mine, the other driver is being charged with fail-to-remain.
That's fine. That would come about as the result of professionalism on the part of the new investigating officer. But now let's turn again to the victim in the scenario I previously gave you. Would he have the knowledge, the fortitude and the courage to stand up for his rights and complain about the rank amateur who bungled his way through an accident investigation, a cop who was so indifferent to his work as a police officer that he didn't even bother to call the victim back?
That is why section 57 is flawed. Someone has to represent the victim's interest in this case, but if we're to follow the dictates of section 57 the way it is written, only the fearful immigrant, who hardly speaks or even understands English and who fears police in any case, must make the complaint.
Considering what we have been hearing about the dishonest police forces in Mexico, if you were living there month after month with little understanding of Spanish and mindful of how many of the police officers there are on the take, wouldn't you prefer to have a Mexican friend who was knowledgeable about Mexican law and its police practices represent you with reference to your complaints? Of course you would.
Subsection 57(2) goes on to say in part, "A complaint made by a member of the public must be in writing, signed by the complainant."
If in the previous scenario, a landed immigrant went to his paralegal or any other agent or lawyer or even a knowledgeable friend and asked him to prepare the complaint on his behalf, the paralegal would divide the complaint into two parts. The first would be a statement of facts signed by the complainant and the second part would be the paralegal's thoughts on the matter. It would be foolish to expect the landed immigrant to sign his name to the second part of the complaint because although he may understand to some degree what his paralegal is saying in the paralegal's portion of the complaint, his signature would be meaningless as the thoughts are those of his paralegal and not necessarily his own.
As I see it, subsection (2) is also flawed for the reasons given.
Now I refer you to subsection 58(4), in which it says in part, "The chief of police shall not deal with any complaint made by a member of the public if he or she decides that the complainant was not directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint."
Are we talking about the victim's friend, paralegal or lawyer whom the chief won't deal with? The sentence is too vague. It appears to me, however, that no matter who is representing the victim's interests, be it his friend, his paralegal or his lawyer or for that matter even his member of the Legislature, the chief is not obliged to talk to such a designate chosen by the victim.
I find that subsection offensive and, quite frankly, quite dangerous. It denies victim representation, something that all of us are entitled to.
1610
Nowhere in Canada is any person denied the right to be represented, be that person a prison inmate doing time for murder or a child caught stealing candy. All persons, including victims of crimes or police brutality, are entitled to be represented at all hearings and inquiries or during investigations, no matter how mundane.
The idea of an investigating police officer browbeating a frightened complainant into withdrawing his complaint against another police officer without having the right to have a relative, a friend, a paralegal, a lawyer or even his MPP present is outrageous.
It gives powers to chiefs of police that they would otherwise not have. And all of this is done in the name of justice. If that's justice, then justice it is going under an assumed name. What it is really being done is in the name of police protection. The protection I speak of is not that afforded to the citizens for their best interests but rather that which is afforded to the police for their own interests.
One would have thought that we would have learned from our past mistakes. In times past, we winked when we learned that robbers were tortured to make them confess. Later, when we became more civilized, we only winked when their handcuffs were too tight. Are we now to wink when we learn that the victims of police wrongdoings will have their complaints dismissed because they were browbeaten by police officers because while they were unrepresented, they were too afraid to stand up for their rights and, as a result, they signed away their rights?
Ladies and gentlemen, if you permit these offensive subsections to stand the way they are, you will in essence be winking away the rights of those too terrified to speak up against injustice. They will succumb to wrongdoings committed against them by some of the rogue police officers within our police forces. That will be a lot to ask of many of our citizens and landed immigrants and, in the end, only the very knowledgable and/or the very brave will risk standing alone and dare speak out and complain.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks, Mr Batchelor. We have a very small minute per side starting with the opposition.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Thank you, sir, for coming today. If I were to assume that the reason that these portions of the bill were written the way they are was to somehow minimize what have been in the past considered to be frivolous complaints, how would you address the problem then if not in this way?
Mr Batchelor: That was brought to me the other day by a sergeant in the police department who I'd known and whose advice was asked on this. He says there have been cases where busybodies, people who have a thing against the police are willing to go beyond, make the thing bigger than it really is.
I can't tell you how to control that because obviously there will always be people like that, the same as there will be bad police. But I'm thinking of the mature people, a lawyer, a paralegal or someone who's trained and knows something about police procedures. Somebody calls them up and says: "Look, I think I've been mistreated by the police. I need advice."
I think if that person comes to him, the way I propose it, that person should be able to act for the complainant and get the complainant to sign a statement of fact and then give it to the police, then have the police deal with the complainant, with that person, friend, or whoever present, so that this person feels secure and knows that everything's okay. It's up to the chief of police to determine in his own mind whether the whole thing's frivolous or not. He's the one who has to make that decision.
What I'm concerned about is not the frivolous ones but the legitimate ones where the police, the way this law is set up, will say, "I'm sorry, but we're only going to talk to Mr Mikenstein," who incidentally doesn't speak English and will have great difficulty understanding what's going on, "and let him make the decision." The man who's the complainant may not really know what's happening to him.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you very much for bringing forward in a very clear way the problem with this whole issue around the police chief being able to make this determination around third-party involvement. I know that is a basic issue of justice when people are unable, for many different reasons, to make a complaint without some assistance.
I share your concern, and I share it particularly because the way this is set up there is no appeal above. You used to be able to go to the police complaints commission at that point, but now there's no appeal above that. The appeal can only be based on whether or not the chief was right in saying that it wasn't the first party, so it's particularly dangerous, isn't it?
Mr Batchelor: I should add that I have over the years, especially since the first public complaints bill was drafted up -- I had a hand in drafting it up, so I was familiar with how it was working -- represented about 25 persons who came to me and said, "I'd like you to look after my interests." I'm happy to say that all 25 cases were resolved.
I'm speaking for myself. If you get some jerk who's going to make a big thing out of it, I can't stop that. But I am thinking there are an awful lot of people out there who really are concerned. If one of you has your constituent complaining about something like this, that would be a problem. I might add that this actually happened in this room. A man came to me the day before and told me he'd been threatened with a gun by a police officer, that they were going to shoot him, and he believed it and he confessed. I brought it to the Solicitor General's attention. He came to me after and said, "I'm going to have it investigated," and he did and the charges against the man were withdrawn.
So these things happen, and the idea that an MPP has his own constituent telling him that he's concerned and then the chief of police says: "I'm not answerable to you. I'm answerable to him. Get out of my office" -- you know what I mean? I don't want to see that happen.
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Thank you for your presentation, sir. I'm interested in your references in your presentation to paralegals. Do you work as a paralegal?
Mr Batchelor: Yes. I started in 1964. I'm the chairman of the education committee of the paralegal society.
Mr Flaherty: Let me take this opportunity then, since that's your background and experience, to ask you on a topical subject how you see the interrelationship or division of duties, if any, between paralegals and lawyers in the civil complaints system.
Mr Batchelor: I don't see any problem. The Law Society of Upper Canada has stated they recognize the need for paralegals. The only concern they have is that they be trained and that they have some sort of regulation, and we've been asked by the government to draft up the regulation. That's the only problem we have with the law society. The law society feels that we have our role to play; they've got their role.
I have, on average, about 200 clients at any one time. If any of them come to me about a problem about a police officer -- and they have -- then I'll look after it. If they're being represented by a lawyer, they'll go to their lawyer. I don't see why he can't look after it. I don't see a problem there. Now, not all lawyers --
The Vice-Chair: Sorry. Our time has expired. Thanks very much for your presentation.
TORONTO BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
The Vice-Chair: We next call to the witness stand the Toronto Board of Management, John Morand. You have 15 minutes as you see fit to use.
Mr John Morand: I thank you on behalf of the city of Toronto for the opportunity to present one viewpoint to you for your consideration.
In 1976, the royal commission on the Toronto police force was finished and presented. I assume that some of you have had the opportunity to read that report and its recommendations. In that report it said, "To ensure prompt investigation in hearing of complaints of improper use of force and other abuses by the police, it is essential that there be a properly functioning citizen complaint procedure...having as its central aspect an independent investigation and review of police conduct and an independent tribunal for the hearing of complaints."
This was the central recommendation of Mr Justice Morand's report in 1976. It was the foundation on which the present police complaints procedure was subsequently built. On behalf of the city of Toronto, I'd like to add my own voice to those of many others who have appeared before you expressing the same concerns at the changes to the police complaints procedure contemplated in Bill 105.
Initially your schedule did not allow us to come and present this brief. I'd like to thank you for adjusting your schedule and giving us the opportunity.
My personal interest in this matter stems not only from my role as commissioner of the city of Toronto, but from my past experiences with police governance issues in other municipalities as well as on occasion being defence counsel. It also reflects my personal concern as the son of Mr Justice Morand to see that the vital legacy of his report is not lost to the people of Ontario.
In the above quote, I've highlighted three elements called for by Mr Justice Morand. It is my belief that Bill 105 threatens the proper functioning of citizen complaint procedures. It certainly removes from the vast majority of complaints any possibility of independent investigation, and for most complaints it substitutes the judgement of the chief of police for that of an independent tribunal. I will elaborate on these three points, in reverse order, in the course of this brief.
1620
You've already heard from a city representative who spoke to you on behalf of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations. My perspective on this is quite different, but we find ourselves sharing many of the same views.
Bill 105 eliminates an independent tribunal for the hearing of complaints. Under the present system there are boards of inquiry. These can be convened by a chief who reviews a complaint investigation report -- this does not happen very often; perhaps one in a thousand -- or by the police complaints commissioner, or on appeal by a police officer.
Each board of inquiry is at arm's length from the police it is investigating and provides both officers and complainants with an independent tribunal. Under Bill 105, there will be no formal hearings at all except in those cases where the chief of police both (a) determines that a police officer's conduct may constitute misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance, and (b) chooses not to resolve the matter informally without a hearing. When such hearings are held, they are held not by an independent tribunal but by the chief of police.
The only other hearings provided for under Bill 105 are carried out by police service boards, which are unlikely to be as truly independent, and these occur only in the case of a complaint which has been investigated by another police force because it involves possible illegality or misconduct by the chief or deputy chief. In such cases, and only in such cases, the police services board is given the further option of asking that the hearing be carried out by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services under subsection 64(9), the one and only opportunity in Bill 105 for a truly independent tribunal to hear a complaint.
It is quite clear that under Bill 105 there will be no independent tribunal for hearing the vast majority of complaints against police officers, however serious those complaints may be. This is a significant failing for citizens whose dealings with the police go awry, and also for police officers themselves.
Bill 105 will not lead to an independent investigation and review of police conduct. Justice Morand's answer to the age-old adage of "Who will police the police?" was to recommend that there be independent investigations and reviews of police conduct. In the present system we have that. The police complaints commissioner, PCC, an arm's-length body, monitors all investigations and has the power to initiate its own investigations. The PCC receives copies of all complaints and interim reports on their investigation every 30 days. By the way, it also goes to the complainant and the subject officer.
The system does not work perfectly, but it is built on the right principles. To again quote from Mr Justice Morand's report, "A system must be developed for the prompt, impartial, vigorous and independent investigation of such complaints, incorporating appropriate safeguards for the rights of police officers." That's at page 184. Discussing legislation then before the British House of Commons, it quotes, "The most important provision is the introduction of an independent element into the procedure."
Commenting on Arthur Maloney's report of May 1975, the report states, "The control of the investigative branch by the civilian appointed commissioner of citizen complaints with the powers suggested by Mr Maloney would ensure the impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation."
He goes on: "The principal objection offered by the police to this system is that it takes disciplinary matters out of the hands of the chief of police. The second objection is that the procedures laid down were cumbersome and potentially costly. Neither of these objections commend themselves to me. In the system envisaged by Mr Maloney, the chief retains the right of assigning the penalty in every case. It is only the determination of the validity of the complaint which is removed to another tribunal. In my view it is fundamentally important that the public be confident that a full and impartial investigation has been carried out and that the adjudication has been made by an independent person or tribunal. Justice does not appear to be done when the entire procedure is in the hands of the very body against which the complaint is made.... These considerations must be paramount in any decision concerning citizen complaint procedure."
I have quoted Justice Morand at some length because a rereading of this report puts Bill 105 in a very clear perspective. In many respects, Bill 105 is 1974 revisited. If it is enacted in its present form, I believe we can expect the relationship between citizens and police to deteriorate, and none of us want that. It was to try and halt just such a deterioration that the present system was put in place. For many residents of the city and Metropolitan Toronto, Bill 105 is immediate bad news, and in the long run I believe it is bad news for all of us in this great province.
Under Bill 105, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which effectively takes over most functions of the police complaints commissioner, will not itself carry out investigations. Admittedly, its powers and duties as set out in section 15 will include: conducting inquiries, under its own motion, in respect of a complaint and its disposition by a chief of police; conducting reviews into a chief's decision that a complaint (a) is about the force and its services, or about the conduct of an officer, or (b) should not be dealt with because it is frivolous or vexatious, or (c) will not be dealt with because the complainant was not directly affected, or (d) is unsubstantiated or relates to conduct that is not of a serious nature.
Bill 105 is very specific that in carrying out such reviews, the commission must rely on material provided by the complainant or the chief and shall not hold a hearing into the matter. I've provided to you a couple of sections from Justice Morand's report when complaints were reviewed. In that report, there are a number of those. I would call them to your attention because it really shows that it is important to get additional outside evidence, that a more public formal hearing, or even indeed informal ability to provide information, would help.
Unlike the existing PCC, the "new and improved" OCCPS will not receive copies of all complainants, nor will it get monthly status reports on all investigations. Lack of this information will compromise its ability to review police conduct.
In my opinion, Bill 105 threatens a properly functioning citizen complaint procedure. In Ontario today, we have procedures for citizen complaints which are admired around the world. They are far from perfect; in fact, almost everyone would like to see them improved. But at their very best, they come close to striking the all-important balance cited by Arthur Maloney in his 1975 report.
Maloney wanted a system in which "the public feel satisfied that the complaints of citizens were openly, fairly and effectively dealt with" and in which "the police officer should be satisfied that he too was being dealt with fairly." That's very important. Without this all-important balance, there will never be a properly functioning citizen complaint procedure.
In a properly functioning citizen complaint procedure, the following things should happen:
(1) Third-party complaints are permitted, whether from an onlooker who sees something going wrong and wants to do something about it -- I'm sure many of us in this room saw a TV clip not too long ago where a police procedure when awry -- or from an advocate who can speak out for somebody too intimidated to speak for themselves. This is not true of Bill 105.
(2) Complaints can be lodged in a wide range of places, not just at OCCP and at police stations of the force being complained about. This is not true of Bill 105.
(3) Oral complaints are accepted as well as written ones, so the illiterate as well as the less literate are not disadvantaged. This is not true of Bill 105.
(4) Independent investigators and tribunals are readily available to citizens who do not believe the police will investigate themselves adequately. This is not true of Bill 105.
(5) There is close civilian monitoring of complaints and their investigation by police. This is not true of Bill 105.
(6) Police officers and members of the public can both be confident that the system will treat them fairly. This is key: "will treat them fairly." This is not true of Bill 105.
Presentations to your committee have made it clear that neither citizens nor police officers are satisfied by Bill 105 in its present form.
There's also the thorny issue of the increasingly dysfunctional special investigations unit. Until its investigators have the power to require police to provide information, the SIU will never function effectively. It may be that there is no solution to the SIU problem that can satisfy both the public and the police associations. If so, the government must simply bite the bullet. Bill 105's failure to address the SIU problem leaves citizens without a properly functioning complaint procedure in all the most dramatic and well-publicized cases. It is not helping anyone to let this situation persist.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I remind your committee that a society which does not learn from its mistakes will repeat them. The present system for dealing with police complaints grew out of the mistakes of the early 1970s. Our learning then provided us with a solid foundation. We need to modify the superstructure to meet our changing needs, but let's build on the foundation and leave it intact.
1630
The Vice-Chair: We've got less than two minutes total. If you would prefer to use a little bit more rather than splitting up time, because I don't think in the two minutes that we've got -- do you feel you can make use of 30 seconds? Okay, Peter, then I'll give you 30 seconds.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thank you kindly. Your submission is almost a précis of all of the concerns that have been raised from day one about Bill 105 from the respective constituencies out there, some of whom with what they might perceive to be conflicting agendas, but at the end of the day, not. The right of third parties to report in proper conduct seems to me so natural and desirable that I can't for the life of me know why the government has dug its heels in on that. It rots your socks. I can't for the life of me understand. Can you?
Mr Morand: I guess the answer to that is, under this the Rodney King videotape wouldn't be available.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Thank you, sir, for your comments, parochial as they might be, and that's understandable from a municipal employee. But you did mention that you were a member of the bar.
Mr Morand: Yes.
Mr Guzzo: What year were you called?
Mr Morand: In 1972.
Mr Guzzo: That was a fantastic year, was it not?
Mr Morand: As I recall, you were in my class.
Mr Guzzo: There was a bumper crop that year.
Mr Crozier: As with other comments, we could learn something from that, no doubt. I want to thank you for appearing today, sir. I appreciate your comments and we'll certainly take them into consideration when we have our clause-by-clause review.
Mr Morand: Thank you very much.
COALITION FOR LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS IN ONTARIO
The Vice-Chair: The next presenters will be the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, Glenn Betteridge and Tom Warner. You have 15 minutes to use as you see fit.
Mr Glenn Betteridge: First off, CLGRO would just like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today and present our submissions. We've provided written submissions, and given the 15-minute presentation time I will not be able to cover all the points therein, but at your leisure, I hope you would all find the time to read them and consider the points we make.
The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario is the oldest and largest organization for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights in Canada. It was founded in 1975 and since that time has been involved in grass-roots organizing and public education of all sorts. Currently CLGRO consists of 20 member organizations throughout Ontario as well as 400 individual members.
The members of the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities in Ontario have had and continue to have reason to complain about their treatment at the hands of the police. The focus of this submission will be on part V of Bill 105, the part that deals with the complaints procedure. Part V, as you're all well aware, proposes to fundamentally restructure civilian oversight of police in Ontario and the current civilian complaints procedure.
Two documents have been produced over the years which are especially relevant to the issues of community policing in the lesbian-gay community. The first one I'd like to draw your attention to is a study called Out of the Closet, and this is set out at page 3 of the submission. It was a study commissioned by then Toronto Mayor Art Eggleton in the wake of the bathhouse raids in the early 1980s.
The second report I'd like to draw your attention to is the recently completed study, On Guard: A Critique of Project Guardian. As you're all aware, Project Guardian was the investigation of youth and child sex exploitation in the London and southern Ontario areas. Project Guardian, in CLGRO's view, represents the most blatant example of why lesbian, gay and bisexual communities in Ontario have a deeply felt mistrust and lack of confidence in the police.
The most commonly asserted goal of external, independent review of public complaints against the police is to invoke the public's confidence in the police and thereby ensure good police-community relations. This is borne out by the experience of the lesbian and gay community in Ontario. As a rule, positive developments in police and community relations have occurred precisely because members of the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities have called on police to account for their actions. The value of holding police accountable through effective civilian oversight should not be underestimated by the members of the committee.
CLGRO's basic position is set out at page 5 of our submissions. Although CLGRO is not a member of the Community Coalition Concerned about Civilian Oversight of Police, we fully support the work of the community coalition. In particular, CLGRO endorses the recommendations and findings set out in the coalition's January 1997 document, In Search of Police Accountability. The recommendations have been attached as appendix A to our submissions for your reference.
While the lesbian and gay concerns about the civilian oversight of police in Ontario may not be identical to those of other ethno-racial communities in every respect, there's a significant overlap in how members of all these communities experience policing. It is this commonality we experience which makes all our communities acutely aware of the need for responsible, responsive and accountable police forces to serve the needs of members of all the communities which make up Ontario, in all their diversity, and it's this commonality which far outweighs any differences the communities might feel.
CLGRO believes it's crucial that communities which have the most to lose if Bill 105 is enacted in its present form must speak with a common voice concerning the issue of civilian oversight, and that is why we support the submissions of the community coalition.
The basic guiding principles of civilian oversight are set out at page 6, and quickly, they are: (1) accessibility, (2) accountability, (3) fairness, (4) thoroughness and (5) impartiality.
Given these goals and these basic principles, CLGRO has two basic concerns with Bill 105 above all others which I'd like to draw the committee's attention to. We're particularly concerned with the concentration of power in the person of the chief of police under Bill 105. From pages 7 to 8 of the submission, we set out at length all the powers that Bill 105 proposes to give to chiefs of police. They are extensive, to say the least.
More troubling is the fact that this power given to chiefs of police under Bill 105 is virtually unfettered. The shortcomings of Project Guardian provide a sober illustration of giving the chief of police these unfettered powers. The most troubling aspect of Project Guardian, in light of the amendments proposed in Bill 105, was Chief Fantino's conduct throughout; Chief Fantino being the chief of the London police force. Chief Fantino made his very leadership of the London force an issue because of his management of Project Guardian. His failure to respond appropriately to community and individual concerns about police accountability is at the core of our fears. Chief Fantino's conduct makes it almost impossible, in our submission, for a complaint filed by a member of the lesbian, gay or bisexual communities in the London area to be treated fairly and justly under amendments proposed in Bill 105.
While we do acknowledge that Bill 105 provides for appeals of the decisions of the chiefs of police and complaints to be lodged directly against the chief of police, these avenues of redress do not provide a timely, satisfactory remedy for complainants whose rights and liberties have been infringed upon. Every citizen must have a right to file his or her complaint with a neutral, independent body at first instance, rather than having to appeal the decision of a biased or prejudiced chief of police.
Our second major concern with the amendments proposed in Bill 105 is that they will render civilian oversight less accessible and therefore less accountable. Studies show that the vast majority of people who have suffered abuse at the hands of the police do not file complaints, because of a lack of confidence in the police.
Currently there is no requirement that a complaint be filed by a person directly affected. This would change under Bill 105, as the previous presenter, and I'm sure many others, has brought home to the commission. In this regard I would like to quickly read two quotes from a recently completed study of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered health needs in Ontario:
"Cops in Kirkland Lake are homophobic and don't care."
"I was kicked out of a restaurant for being gay because the owner knew from someone else that I was gay. I called the Timmins police and they didn't help at all and were rude. When I was physically assaulted, I didn't bother to contact the police."
1640
It is in this context that we are particularly concerned with the lack of accessibility imposed by the direct nature of a complainant's right. The complainant must be directly affected. We do not believe this is just and we do not believe it will lead to police accountability.
I'd like to conclude by saying that CLGRO's position is that this bill should be withdrawn and fundamentally restructured to reflect the five basic principles of police accountability as I set out earlier.
I'd like to thank the committee for its time. We'll entertain any questions in the remaining time.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have approximately two minutes per side, starting with the Conservatives.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): We appear to have no questions, Mr Chairman.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): You mention here on page 5 the lack of process or participation by some various groups and so forth. You have had no opportunity to have any input at all in the drafting of the bill? You have not met with anyone?
Mr Tom Warner: No. I can answer that. One of the reasons for that is that we are a volunteer organization, and the time frame given initially for making submissions to the task force or the committee that was originally looking at this was so short that there simply was no opportunity for us to make a presentation. We think that was a flaw in the consultation process. It didn't allow grass-roots, community-based organizations sufficient time to make presentations and have meaningful input into the final recommendations that came out of that committee.
Mr Kormos: You were here when the previous presentation talked about this as a return to 1974, as a major regressive move to what some people here in this building think of as the good old days -- far from it.
You've read the bill. Have you drawn any conclusions about what's driving this, why they would eliminate civilian oversight, why they would deny third-party reporting of police misconduct? Have you drawn any conclusions about what drove this bill?
Mr Warner: There's probably a perception that the current legislation already goes too far. It would be our submission that it doesn't go even far enough and needs to be strengthened. The current system was put in place because of very real problems that individuals in various communities experienced.
I think unless an individual is a member of one of those affected communities it's very difficult to have an appreciation as to just how important these kinds of processes are. If I could characterize it, I would say perhaps it's a lack of an understanding or an awareness of just exactly how needed this legislation is. Rather than being intrusive, it is in fact protecting the rights and liberties and ensuring some form of justice in the face of allegations of wrongdoing.
Mr Kormos: We're obviously going to have a hard time responding to the bill in clause-by-clause in terms of amendments, because it'll either require several days, worth of amendments to bring the bill close to where it ought to be or it'll be a matter of simply opposing it on the basis of its being so flawed that there's no portion of it that we can approve of.
For the life of me, I can't understand, when almost every presentation has been in sync with yours -- from the police associations themselves who have expressed concern about the lack of independent review of the process -- why the government's still forging ahead. It's difficult.
Mr Warner: We submit that the bill is so flawed that it should be withdrawn. That's one of the recommendations we have. Just one example: We do not understand why the legislation would put in place a system where the chief of police is both the investigator of a complaint and the adjudicator of the complaint. That simply flies in the face of everything that the courts have said, including the Supreme Court of Canada, is appropriate for a complaints system of this kind. That point alone would warrant, in our view, the withdrawal of the bill and the introduction of one that meets the current standards.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
TODD DUFOUR
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter we have is Todd Dufour. You have 15 minutes to use as you see fit. If you don't use all that time, we will ask questions.
Mr Todd Dufour: I have a history with the police. I'm going to go back from 1995 to 1983.
On September 17 or 18 of 1995, three police officers came to my house. I live at 366 Thorold Road, Unit 221, Northtown Co-op. At the beginning, my children were getting beat up and the reason why is because my kids play with Somalian children. You can rent and live there, but you're not allowed to play with other coloured people. The adults there are not civil, they can't talk or anything like that. All they do is fight, argue and then jump, get their kids to beat up on other kids.
I left that place. I was tired of having my kids getting beat up. The bikes get stolen and everything. I go there and talk and the next thing I know, the police visit my door. Three officers come to my door, come in and I talk to them. One officer starts punching me in the face, punching me in the stomach, pushed me against the door, then he got me on the wall. There's a big two-by-one-foot hole in the wall. I said, "What the hell's going on here?" and he starts mouthing off and he goes, "I'm going to take your kids away from you." Next thing I know, I said, "What are you talking about?" and he starts punching me again.
I notice the window's open, so at the same time I said: "Hey, why don't you close the shades? Everybody else can see you." They didn't say anything else. Then he nailed me in the dining room, punched me some more and then picked me up, pushed me against the kitchen wall. I noticed one officer couldn't even begin -- he was so clued out about what was happening, he was in shock to see his partner do this.
My son came through the front door and the officer picked me up, pushed me against the door. My son ended up getting a bloody nose and I was thrown against the door again. I get out there, my son's bleeding and everything, and the officer says, "Your father punched me in the face," and everything like this. I didn't assault that police officer. I didn't do anything. I just stood there and took the punches.
Then my son's crying, he wants to know what the police are doing there. The police officer said: "Fuck off, kid. Don't bother me." Then the next thing I know, I'm in the cruiser. I go to the police -- what do they call that? -- holding cell, I'm there for two and a half, three hours. Then -- I don't know what you call him, either he's a man of the cloth or else he's like a minister -- he ended up taking me home and I haven't talked to any other officers since then until I heard about Bill 105 on the TV.
In January when I served this off, the police came to my door: "What are you complaining about now? You've got no rights, you've got nothing." Then in March, either the last week of February or the first week of March, Port Colborne police department, Constable Trevison -- the three officers who did the assault -- well, one did the assault and two watched. The one who did the assault, there's no name. I don't know all three of those police officers. This Officer Trevison gets me on the telephone and says, "Do you remember me?" I say, "Yes, sir, I do." He goes, "Do you remember what I did to you?" I said, "Yes, sir, I do." Then he says, "Good, I'm glad," and starts to laugh.
1650
Then I wrote a letter, I guess, to the big chief of the police department of all Ontario. I don't know if that's the right person I'm talking to, but I haven't got anything back from him yet. But the first time I wrote him a letter, he said it's something that shouldn't have happened but he will not deal with it.
Now I want to go back to 1983. In 1983, I had a speeding ticket and careless driving. This officer is Officer Kaiser. He was off duty, in his car driving home, and he nails me for speeding and careless driving. So I get out of the car -- I didn't even know; I was in the A&P parking lot -- he picks me up and pushes me against the car and then he searches my car. Then he calls me "a fucking asshole" and "a nigger lover." "Nigger lover," do you understand that word? Who's racist here? Officer Kaiser.
Another thing, I've got a letter from my son. This was when he came home from Boy Scouts. It happened after he came home from Boy Scouts. It says: "I was riding my bike home from Boy Scouts. I saw police cars when I stopped my bike. I saw a police officer throw my dad into a wall, then the police officer punched my dad two or three times in the ribs. Then he slammed the door in my face and when I asked him why, he gave me a bloody nose and he said: `None of your business, jerk. Go home.'"
Now I don't know, in Welland right now they have this thing about respect for the police department. They've put on a big charade. Oh, yeah, respect the police department. How can you respect the police department when you get one officer, Constable Kaiser or Officer Kaiser, either one, telling you you're a fucking nigger lover?
I went to court over that. I didn't go to court over him saying "nigger lover." I went to court over a speeding ticket and -- what do you call that? -- careless driving. I pleaded guilty to it, but in the meantime the judge told me: "Mr Dufour, this is your lucky day. Case dismissed." The reason the case was dismissed was because Officer Kaiser did not have his paperwork completed and filled out. He made a few errors.
This I don't believe in the police department. It's very hard to believe. I'm not saying all the police department is like this, but there are one or two in every town. There's one in every little office, department and everything, but if you go talk to this gentleman here -- well, I wouldn't call him a gentleman, but he is a police officer. I respect his uniform, but I don't respect the person. That's all I've got to say.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Dufour. There's very little time for questions. Mr Kormos, we'll start off with you then.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate your coming forward. I know that you were met with some silence. The incident in 1983 is obviously a very old one at this point. As a matter of fact, that police officer's no longer a police officer, no longer with the Niagara Regional Police force. But you're talking about things that happened as recently as 1995.
Mr Dufour: Yes 1995, 1994 and 1983.
Mr Kormos: Over at Northtown Co-op when you were living there.
Mr Dufour: Yes.
Mr Kormos: The parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General is Mr Wood, right there. He's paid an additional $10,000, $11,000 on top of his MPP salary to be the parliamentary assistant. It strikes me that having heard what you have to say, he should take the time to either give you his card now so that he can be in touch with you to help you address these matters or arrange a time to meet with you. Would you be prepared to do that with him? He's the second in command to the Solicitor General.
Mr Dufour: Yes, sir, I would be glad to. This is the most unbelievable story, but it's the exact truth.
Mr Kormos: I don't think anybody here should have any reason to doubt that you've come here prepared to tell the truth.
Mr Dufour: I've got two kids to take care of. I can't go fighting the police department, you know. I haven't got time to go around -- I'm getting beat up by the police. My kids are getting beat up because --
Mr Kormos: Okay. This gentleman right here is political staff for the Solicitor General. Mr Wood has to hear the next submission, but this gentleman may take the time -- I hope he would; he should -- to get your name, address and phone number so he can be in touch with you and help you pursue these matters.
Mr Dufour: Okay.
Mr Kormos: Thanks for coming here.
The Chair: Do the government members have any questions?
Mr Bob Wood: You described an incident in 1995.
Mr Dufour: Yes.
Mr Bob Wood: Did any civil suits occur as a result of that incident?
Mr Dufour: No, sir, because I was scared.
Mr Bob Wood: Okay. Did any criminal proceedings flow out of that incident?
Mr Dufour: I was arrested.
Mr Bob Wood: What were you charged with?
Mr Dufour: Disturbing the peace.
Mr Bob Wood: Has that been to court yet?
Mr Dufour: No. I believe they dropped the case. I'm not too sure. All I know is, I went to jail -- well, I was in a holding cell -- for three and a half hours.
Mr Bob Wood: Were there any criminal charges that arose from that incident other than the one you just described?
Mr Dufour: No, sir. That's it.
Mr Bob Wood: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation here today.
MAYNARD SAM GEORGE DELIA OPEKOKEW
The Chair: Our next presentation, Mr Maynard Sam George. Welcome, Mr George.
Mr Maynard Sam George: Good afternoon. My name is Maynard Sam George. First of all, I must apologize. I handed out the wrong statement. I'll read the one I have here.
It's an honour to speak to you today.
On September 6, 1995, I and my family suffered a tragic and unnecessary loss. On that day, my brother Anthony O'Brien "Dudley" George was shot and killed. He was maintaining an unarmed protest for the return of sacred burial grounds. These grounds were a part of his home at Stony Point First Nation.
Dudley was a native rights and civil rights protester. Dudley was also a brother, an uncle, a nephew, a cousin and a friend to many.
Dudley lost his life while he was standing up for something he and his family strongly believed in, the return of Stony Point lands to his people. Our family were among the original families forced to leave their home on Stony Point Indian lands under the War Measures Act. Like all those families, our family had kept a strong belief that we would return to our homeland. This is the very belief and desire that Dudley held in his heart, the very desire and belief that was extinguished by a bullet.
We began a lawsuit which may take many years. I and my family are prepared for that. We may get a government-appointed public inquiry, maybe an inquest, maybe a long-drawn-out court case, maybe all of these. One thing is for sure: the facts will come out. The wrongdoers will be held accountable, and we hope that other tragedies like this may be prevented in the future.
1700
It is clear to us that the Ontario government is following a strategy for hiding the truth. At first the government said they could not call a public inquiry because the special investigations unit was investigating what happened in September 1995. After the SIU report came out last summer and one single officer was charged, the government said the public inquiry was impossible because of the charges. In this way, one ordinary OPP officer has been left to take all the blame.
We are obviously happy that the man who might have pulled the trigger is going to trial, but we are not naïve. We think it's quite likely that he will be acquitted. Almost every single officer who has been charged with killing someone while on duty in the history of Ontario has been acquitted.
But the problem was not with the officer who was charged. The problem was a racist system which allowed this to happen in the first place. By placing the blame on one officer, the involvement of high-level OPP commanders and high-level government officials will be kept under a cloak of darkness. This is the government's strategy, but it will not work.
Our demand for a public inquiry has been supported by Ontario Chief Gordon Peters, by federal minister Ron Irwin, by the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen and other newspapers, by the Anglican Church, the United Church, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Labour Congress. Ovide Mercredi and the Assembly of First Nations have supported us from early on in our struggle.
The government's strategy has already started to crack. Despite all attempts to wipe my brother's death under a rug, the truth is slowly coming out. Word has gotten out that a member of the provincial Parliament from Mike Harris's own party was in the OPP command post the night of Dudley's death. More information is coming out which proves that my brother and the other protesters were not armed. In fact, we have recently obtained leaked information where police officers themselves admitted to shooting and having seen no weapons in the hands of the protesters.
Stories about what happened have appeared in newspapers, on radio and TV across Canada, the United States and Europe. Just recently the US state department released a report on human rights around the world. Dudley's death was mentioned as an example of human rights abuses in Canada. As the truth slowly comes out, more and more people are becoming aware and very angry. This should never have happened to anyone living in Canada. Public pressure to hold an inquiry is building, and I believe it will grow to the point where the government will have to cave in.
We cannot stop now. No matter how frustrated and angry we may feel at times, we have to fight for our rights. Our children should not face what we, our parents and grandparents, have had to face. Never again should a government illegally destroy an Indian sacred burial ground, as this government did in 1937. Never again should we be called trespassers and thugs when we try to regain what the government has illegally desecrated. Never again should an aboriginal person be machine-gunned down for simply protecting what is rightfully ours.
I am unsure about a lot, but I know one thing: The truth about my brother's death will come out. I will keep fighting until this happens. Thank you.
Ms Delia Opekokew: My name is Delia Opekokew. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr Sam George and five brothers and sisters of Mr Dudley George. As you are aware, OPP acting Sergeant Kenneth Deane was found guilty of criminal negligence in the death of Dudley George.
We are here to speak to the proposed amendments to the Police Services Act, in particular part V. Because of our experience we are particularly concerned about the proposed legislation that gives power to the chief of police to decide which complaints to investigate and to carry out that investigation. This takes power away from a series of civilian agencies.
We submit that self-regulation is a serious problem because there is a natural instinct for self-preservation, and, as in our case, that could blind people from the truth. As an example, when Judge Fraser reached his significant decision, Commissioner Thomas O'Grady stood outside the courtroom still defending Sergeant Deane to the press. Deane was convicted on the basis of his own testimony and other witnesses, including his own colleagues. Dudley never used guns. He did not even know how to use a gun. He was running towards the park when Deane shot him on his leg. Dudley grabbed his leg and turned to look where the shots were coming from and was then fatally shot by Deane on the left collarbone.
Judge Fraser's decision was based on an exhaustive trial in which he reached his decision based on a rigorous testing of the facts, witness credibility and evidence in the adversarial setting of the courtroom. Notwithstanding this finding, we still have had a difficult time in convincing the public that the decision was correct.
Although we are stating here that we feel the amendments could affect some of the civil review process, and we support that, the authority for the chief of police should not be as strong, because we are against self-regulation in a serious matter like this. However, in our case our matter is so serious that we may have to go outside the existing bodies that are there to investigate the death of someone like in this case. So we are calling for a public inquiry because Deane's criminal negligence was only a small part of this story. There are many people who are directly responsible.
In the past the OPP had a good history of using their community policing strategy in conflicts with first nations so that negotiators were sent in instead of snipers. They had a good and decent record of settling matters with first nations without bloodshed. Why did this change? That question remains.
Essentially our position is that we had an experience with one of the civilian agencies, the special investigations unit, and because of its investigation some information came out that addresses the question of police accountability. The special investigations unit must be given more power in the case of officer cooperation. We had a problem with that when the police association asked for an injunction against the release of certain photographs which could have been used for police identification.
As you have heard, the family has gone through a lot of anxiety. In fact, they did not know why and how their brother died until very recently. They have had to launch a civil suit to obtain certain information. As an example, they didn't receive the autopsy report until March of this year. Thank you.
Mr Crozier: Good afternoon, and thank you for coming to the committee. As you've pointed out very well, much has been written and spoken about the death of Dudley George. To that part of your comments that call for a public inquiry, we agree. Our member Gerry Phillips on many occasions has raised in the Legislature that very point in support of your request.
We think it would only require the Premier to say that there would be a public inquiry when all the legal ramifications are settled and we will continue, I am sure, to support that position and do the best we can to support your request.
1710
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming and speaking to us. Your very serious experience with how this whole process works and how difficult it is to get information is extremely important to keep in mind when we're looking at an accountability process like this.
I am not sure that even some of the changes that have been suggested in terms of amendments to this particular act would have got at the larger picture you're concerned about, whether there was political interference and so on. As you know, we're equally concerned about that whole issue and are, as the Liberals are, supporting as strongly as we can that there be a public inquiry. We believe there needs to be one. We're certainly not satisfied with the answers we're getting.
In terms of the SIU and the court process, one of the things that's very important to remember here is that charges were laid and the judge did find the accused guilty and found a finding of fact that was very interesting in this particular case. That will be very important for future cases, I am sure.
Although it's been a long-drawn-out process, I think it will act as a precedent that may help other people who I hope are never in that position, but may indeed be, given the circumstances that you faced.
Mr Bob Wood: I have no questions. I just want to thank you for coming forward about something that I know has been a very difficult experience for you. I think your suggestions with respect to the act are quite clear and we appreciate your coming forward and giving us those suggestions.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): If I may just add to the comments of the parliamentary assistant about Mr George, we would like to express our appreciation especially in terms of your family still being in bereavement.
Mr Kormos: The only question is, who in the Premier's office gave the order, "Get those effing Indians off"? That's the only question: Who gave that instruction?
The Chair: You're out of order, Mr Kormos.
Thank you very much for your presentation here today.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 6
The Chair: Our next presentation is the United Steelworkers of America, District 6, Mr Miguel San Vinciente. Welcome, sir.
Mr Miguel San Vinciente: The presentation is going to be presented by the five of us. Mr Michael Seaward is the president of the Toronto District Area Council of the United Steelworkers and he will read the first part of our presentation.
Mr Michael Seaward: Good afternoon. District 6 of the United Steelworkers of America welcomes this opportunity to express before the members of the administration of justice committee our opposition to Bill 105. We have approximately 75,000 members living across Ontario. Few organizations are so widely and deeply rooted in this province as ours. We bring to this discussion of policing our union's commitment to the highest standards of public service, civility and human rights.
We believe Bill 105 to be so fatally flawed, particularly its erosion of civilian oversight of policing, that we urge this misconceived legislation be withdrawn and reconsidered. Our submission today concentrates on two considerations: first, the deficiencies of the proposed legislation; second, the measures we regard as essential in any attempt to renew relations between governments, police, citizens and communities in Ontario.
In our free and democratic society, police are assigned extraordinary powers. They alone have the right to stop, interrogate, apprehend and arrest individuals. Under defined circumstances police may also apply physical force, even deadly force, against citizens. Police accountability for the exercise of these extraordinary powers is a crucial element of a free and democratic society. It is essential to both the protection of citizen rights and the maintenance of public confidence in police services.
We believe Bill 105 is so imbalanced as to seriously compromise the public interest in policing. In the process, it turns its back on the principle of civilian oversight of policing, first introduced by a Conservative government in Ontario more than 1O years ago. Let us remind committee members that it was then Attorney General Roy McMurtry who first established civilian oversight procedures based on recommendations from five different commissions of inquiry into policing conducted in the 1970s. A handful of inquiries into policing during the 1980s and 1990s all advocated the need for stronger civilian adjudication of complaints against the police.
Instead, Bill 105 virtually eliminates any vestige of independent, arm's-length, credible oversight of policing. Conceived in privileged, restricted consultation with the special interests of police and the municipal sector, Bill 105 returns us to a discredited system of police themselves handling complaints against police. It must be said that in preparing Bill 105, poor process has produced poor results.
In developing this legislation, this government eagerly solicited ideas and direction from some stakeholders, while ignoring others who represent the vast majority of the province's population. We are troubled by the unfairness of select access to a series of summits and consultations started last June which were designed to shape Bill 105. Police and municipal interests were invited, while community voices and experts were systematically excluded. This was no way to achieve balance in the public interest.
Bill 105 is unacceptable to us, both for what it does and for what it leaves undone. It contains excessive errors of both commission and omission, which are injurious to the best interests of all stakeholders in policing.
Mr San Vinciente: The primary failing of Bill 105 is its dismantling of civilian oversight of policing in Ontario. Two existing agencies exercising civilian review are to be abolished outright and the remaining Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services is to have a dramatically reduced mandate and budget. Instead, police chiefs are to be given sweeping powers to investigate and adjudicate complaints against their own officers and force. For the sake of brevity, here are 5 provisions of the bill we regard as particularly troubling.
(1) The mandatory and elusive first stage in handling complaints against police is assigned to the police chief of the force in question. This removes the current provision for initial civilian review.
(2) The police chief is given unilateral authority to dismiss complaints as frivolous or insufficiently serious. The chief may also resolve complaints informally, with no hearing, without the complainant's agreement, nor is there any obligation for the chief to provide the complainant or the civilian commission an explanation for any of these decisions.
(3) Current time limit and reporting requirements are abolished by Bill 105. Indeed, in a positively Orwellian provision, it's actually specified in section 60(5) that if the chief fails to respond to the complainant within 60 days, then the chief is deemed to have notified the complainant that no action will be taken on their grievance. Again, there is no requirement of the chief to provide any reason for this decision, nor to report it to the civilian commission. Such measures are simply not worthy of Ontario.
(4) While the civilian commission ostensibly exists to monitor complaints against police, there is no requirement that police chiefs even send the commission copies of complaints lodged or notification of their decision regarding the complaint. This is a recipe for civilian exclusion, not civilian monitoring.
(5) Most important, Bill 105 provides virtually no latitude for meaningful civilian review of complaints against police. Unlike present provisions, Bill 105 removes the civilian commission's ability to be the first line of complaint investigation and adjudication. Instead, the commission would now only hear cases after the police chief had ruled, if the complainant appealed. Significantly, any commission hearings are on the record only, with no independent investigative powers.
1720
Mr Aubrey Kendell: In sum, Bill 105 is unacceptable because it establishes the police as investigator, prosecutor and judge of citizens' complaints against police. In order to be credible, oversight of policing must be independent, transparent and operate at arm's length from the police itself. Bill 105 satisfies none of these requirements, nor can we find any justification for abandoning police accountability to civilian oversight.
It is specious, for instance, to suggest that police are presently overscrutinized or detrimentally treated by civilian review agencies. In 1995, for instance, a total of 3,462 complaints against police were filed in Ontario. Barely 4% resulted in admonishment, disciplinary hearing or board of inquiry. There is no evidence that civilian review bodies favour citizens over police.
Conversely, there are precedents for the belief that police review favours police over citizens. To cite but one instance reported in the Globe and Mail, it involves elderly grandparents stopped by an officer for an alleged seatbelt violation. By the end of the encounter the grandfather was in hospital with bruises, a swollen testicle and neck brace. He then lodged a complaint against the officer, which was first heard by the police chief, who decided no action was warranted. The soon-to-be-abolished public complaints commissioner then held an inquiry, investigated and found sufficient evidence to rule the officer guilty of unnecessary violence and unlawful arrest, and demoted him for a year.
Under Bill 105, the civilian commission would have neither the mandate nor the resources to conduct such an inquiry. We are not suggesting that police wrongdoing is rampant or widespread. Rather, we assert that when it is alleged to have occurred, it must be investigated independently of the police itself. If we have learned anything from the sorry deterioration of public confidence in the Canadian armed forces, it is that military and paramilitary organizations need clear civilian oversight, not only for the public's interest but for the police organization's own reputation and wellbeing.
In exchange for the extraordinary powers given to police, a free society must assure that complaints against police are handled in a manner that is balanced and seen to be fair. Such is not the case with the procedures specified in Bill 105.
Ms Marlene Gow: Accordingly, we believe Bill 105 must be withdrawn and rewritten.
To conclude our submission, we wish to identify the process, principles and policies we regard as essential to any acceptable legislation on police community relations.
First, we believe an open, inclusive consultation of all stakeholders must precede the drafting of legislation on this important subject. We note with particular dismay the exclusion of the Community Coalition Concerned about Civilian Oversight of Police from deliberations leading to Bill 105. A call must go out to all interested individuals and groups to provide input, and our union hereby serves notice of our desire to participate. Without public input, there can be no public confidence.
Second, we believe accountability and impartiality are the primary principles which must be embedded in any police oversight provisions. Accountability requires fair, accessible, transparent and thorough investigation and adjudication of complaints. The imperative of impartiality requires that complaints be reviewed by independent, neutral parties. Instead, Bill 105 will produce not only the appearance of bias but inevitably instances of organizational self-interest intruding in complaint adjudication.
New legislation must therefore clearly establish an arm's-length, civilian oversight system operating under defined time lines and reporting requirements. Neither complainant nor defendant should have favoured organizational affiliation to those who investigate and adjudicate complaints against police.
Lastly, we wish to state in the strongest possible terms our view that police accountability to the special investigations unit must be strengthened. Bill 105 is disturbingly silent on this matter.
Mr Clarence Forde: Committee members will know of course that the SIU was created in 1990. Under the Police Services Act the SIU is mandated to investigate circumstances of serious injuries and deaths that may have resulted from criminal offences committed by police officers. As a matter of statutory responsibility, therefore, the SIU investigates all fatalities and serious injuries caused by police action.
Routinely, the SIU's work is hampered by the lack of cooperation from police officers involved in the case. This is an extremely serious obstruction of police responsibility and justice, which must be corrected.
Subsection 113(9) of the Police Services Act, 1990, states: "Members of police forces shall cooperate fully with the members of the unit," the SIU, "in the conduct of investigations." Yet police officers routinely violate this obligation with impunity by asserting an untested, and we believe insupportable, Charter of Rights and Freedoms defence. At present, the SIU, police chiefs and the provincial government all simply accede to the refusal of subject officers to cooperate with SIU investigations even though the assertion of charter immunity has never been tested in the courts, let alone upheld.
Would society tolerate any other citizens violating legal responsibilities based on unsubstantiated assertions of rights? We believe not, and that all police officers must be compelled to fulfil their statutory obligation to cooperate with the SIU in a timely manner. Should any officer at that point object, let them or their association pursue a charter challenge in the courts. We are confident that the charter's requirement as set out in section 1, to balance individual rights against reasonable limits justifiable in a free and democratic society, will yield a ruling that police officers, who alone are given the right to use deadly force, do have a responsibility to answer questions regarding their use of extreme measures against citizens.
The current practice of acceding to police non-compliance seriously undermines public confidence in policing. It raises concerns that police themselves are beyond the law. It must be noted in this context that police forces in Ontario have some of the highest rates of resort to deadly force against citizens to be found anywhere in North America.
An article in the March-April issue of This Magazine is instructive. Drawing on American criminology research, the article looks at different cities, comparing the number of civilians shot by police in a city to the number of homicides in that city. This allows researchers to develop one indicator of police shootings as a ratio of a city's overall violence.
You might expect, for instance, that a city with many homicides in the general population would also be a city with a higher incidence of police shootings. Not so. Statistics in the article confirm the author's conclusion that, "Toronto police have higher rates of shootings than police in many of America's most notoriously crime-ridden cities."
Clearly there are circumstances when police use of deadly force is justifiable. That's why such measures are permitted. But police owe the public, the victim's family and their own force an explanation of what those circumstances were. That's why cooperation with the SIU is required by law.
Public confidence in policing has been undermined by its relatively high resort to deadly force, the preponderance of racial minorities among victims and the unwillingness of officers involved to explain their actions. Bill 105 purports to renew the partnership between the police and communities. Without addressing the concerns addressed in this submission, it will fail. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, lady and gentlemen. Our time has elapsed. I thank you for your presentation. I just had one question. What does district 6 comprise geographically?
Mr Seaward: All of Ontario and the eastern provinces.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation.
1730
OWEN LEACH
The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Owen Leach. Mr Leach will be our final presentation today, the last one having cancelled out. Welcome, Mr Leach.
Mr Owen Leach: I'm not here to present many facts to you. I'm here to give you my view of this Bill 105, which I think is a very reactionary bill of a reactionary government here in Ontario. It is an oppressive bill in so far as it seeks to concentrate power in the hands of the police more than it has ever been at a time when we are facing an economic crisis with many people on the street who are being harassed by the police and who have been shot dead by the police.
It is obscene to be proposing that you make a complainant report to the same police station at which the offence had been committed against them. That is absurd. There's no semblance of sensitivity or understanding in putting forward that proposal. Furthermore, you go so far as to place the power in the hands of the police chief to decide which complaints should go forward and to classify them in the degree of seriousness that he deems fit.
We have had a police chief here, Mr Boothby, who has been shown to be thoroughly irresponsible in the shooting of Hugh Dawson just a few months ago. He has played a role that has been very detrimental to justice in this community, particularly in the black community. He took it upon himself to pronounce on the actual facts of the case and express an opinion prior to any charges being laid against the police or any proper investigation being done. I think that is the act of a very irresponsible person and here in this bill you are seeking to put more power in the hands of a person of the type of Mr Boothby. I resent that.
I do not understand where this bill is aiming at also because it seems to me that the Conservative government is afraid of democracy. It is afraid to let the people decide whether the police have exceeded their powers, whether they are engaging in wrongdoing or not. It seeks to dismantle the civilian complaints commission and, in so doing, removes a mechanism of accountability that we in this community have fought to establish for many years.
Why is the Conservative Party afraid to allow the institutions of this society to be judged by the people? This is exactly what this Bill 105 is trying to do, to remove the oversight by the community over the police. I take it that the police are here to serve the people and that the people should have the final word in any wrongdoing or in any oversight over the police.
It is my view that the rule of law in this city has broken down. I don't know if you Conservatives are aware of that. It has broken down. We are getting police executions in the street. I'll cite you the cases of Hugh Dawson, Edmond Hu, Faraz Suleman. Are you aware of these cases? There are many others. I can read off a whole lot of names here over the past year or two that have occurred. Are you aware of these shootings that are deadly force venues in a very irresponsible manner, resulting in death of citizens of this country, people who were here legitimately pursuing a normal life in this society?
This country abolished the death penalty but it seems to me that the death penalty is being administered in the street now by the police. This society is no democracy, as you talk about it. It is bourgeois democracy in Harris's and the Conservatives' terms. It is leading to suffering and poverty in this society and it seems the only way you Conservatives can deal with it is to use more force, bring more pressure on the people of the city.
I see that you have even set up a fund for the special interest group which you seem to support 100%, since the Solicitor General when he took office told the police that they had a friend at Queen's Park. It seems that everything you are doing is a payback to the police force. You are not considering the public. It's your special interest group in the police that you are paying off.
I might cite to you the case -- how many of you know anything about Station 51, I wonder. That is a station that is out of control. You have a policeman from that station going to the USA to what are regarded as Ku Klux Klan rallies and no discipline being taken against that policeman because he did it when he wasn't on duty. He comes back to the station, and you have had that station go on a wildcat strike. Check it out: Station 51.
You have also had a station recently involved in abusing and kidnapping, in my opinion, a citizen of this country, a white man, who was taken for a ride down to Cherry Beach and around. The Star reports that the evidence that was supposed to be brought forward was removed. The lockers were ordered sealed at the station where the purported evidence was and obviously somebody in the station -- because no ordinary citizen could get into the station -- miraculously all the evidence disappeared. The lockers were broken and the evidence removed.
We know of policemen in this city who plant drugs on youth. We have got the case involving Coon from the station over by Trethewey and Jane. Have you all looked into that? Maybe Christie Blatchford could tell you something about that because even she seemed to be embarrassed by that case. And here it is that you are putting more power in the hands of the police. I would like you to tell me why.
I think that you are completely out of touch with the society that you are trying to run. The polls show that you are falling, and I think you are much lower than the polls say. I believe that really you are a different species in this society. You are not just representing a different class. You Conservatives are a different species of being because you show no compassion or understanding for the people.
The reason I speak to you like this today is because I have come to the conclusion, and many people have come to the conclusion, that you're a death to the world and you intend to do whatever you like, regardless. For me, I am here to state my opinion about this matter and I suggest to you that you have lost touch with the society you are supposed to be governing and you should resign. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Kormos, you have about a minute.
Mr Kormos: Well, Chair, and to you, sir, I say, "Well said." While there may be those who would say: "Oh, here's Owen Leach. Who's he?" I suggest that the response to that is that you've reflected the views and attitude of not just yourself but significant numbers in our community. I don't know if you want to comment on that.
Mr Leach: Yes, I will say this. I've been driving a taxi in this city for about 18 years and never in my days have I heard so many passengers tell me that they would like to shoot Mike Harris. I have never heard before that ordinary Canadians have said it, because they said, "That man, you know, is Hitler." I drive Wheel-Trans, I drive senior citizens who have said to me, "I would like to get somebody to put him away." He cut the --
The Chair: No. Excuse me.
Mr Leach: This is the kind of relationship that exists --
The Chair: We don't -- I'm sorry --
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): This is completely inappropriate.
Mr Leach: -- between this government and the people. Everybody --
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): Do you agree with that?
The Chair: No, Mr Leach. I'm sorry. There is a limit to my patience.
Mr Leach: Yeah, I'm only reporting what I've heard.
The Chair: We can't be advocating violence. I don't think that's right.
Mr Leach: I tell you what I've heard.
The Chair: No.
Mr Leach: I drive at least --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Leach. You are in a committee.
Mr Leach: Sorry, sir.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: Thanks for coming down to make a presentation to our committee, Mr Leach. You and other groups before you, individuals also, including the police representative, they don't like Bill 105 either. Why do you think the government is introducing a piece of legislation that doesn't make the police happy, doesn't make people like you or other groups happy? Why do you think they are pursuing Bill 105 when they have heard from even our own force and individuals such as you that this doesn't serve anyone? Do you believe they are going to withdraw it and rewrite it? Why do you think they are bringing forward this piece of legislation?
Mr Leach: I can't speak for the police. I wouldn't dare to speak for them. But I would say that maybe it satisfies certain sections of the police force and it satisfies the political angle of the Conservative Party. More repression -- this centralizes power at the top of the police force. This is the way the government is run and this is the way every institution is to be run -- centralize the power.
The police might complain against it for various reasons of their own, but I am complaining about it from the point of view of the people of this city and their recommendations would be totally different from mine. I am for more democratic control over the institutions of this society, and over the police in particular, because it is an institution that wields coercive power in this society and it has shown itself to be murderous and irresponsible by killing so many people. Lots of black people have been killed. I can leave this with you with all the names.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sergio.
Mr Leach: I think I want to see institutions that --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Leach. Our time --
Mr Leach: -- are controlled by the citizens, the people of this city.
The Chair: You are entitled to your opinion for what it's worth. I thank you very much for your presentation here today and I am adjourning this hearing to Tuesday, May 13, at 3:30.
The committee adjourned at 1745.