POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 27 May 1997
Police Services Amendment Act, 1997, Bill 105, Mr Runciman /
Loi de 1997 modifiant la Loi sur les services policiers, projet de loi 105, M. Runciman
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
J-2261
The committee met at 1532 in room 228.
POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
Consideration of Bill 105, An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety / Projet de loi 105, Loi visant à renouveler le partenariat entre la province, les municipalités et la police et visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Doug Rollins): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call this meeting to order. I think on your desk you have a copy of a presentation made by the Kingston Police Services Board. We've been directed that it has been accepted.
We'll turn now to number 49. Mr Wood, please.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move that subsection 58(3) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Frivolous, vexatious, bad faith complaints
"(3) The chief of police may decide not to deal with any complaint about the police force or about a police officer, other than the chief of police or deputy chief of police, that he or she considers to be frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith."
"Complaint more than six months old
"(3.1) The chief of police may decide not to deal with any complaint made by a member of the public if the complaint is made more than six months after the facts on which it is based occurred."
This of course is an amendment which allows the chief of police not to deal with bad-faith complaints. There is already provision in 58(3) for frivolous or vexatious complaints.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): We discussed the six-month limitation period yesterday and I trust that (3.1) is to comply with the current act in terms of the limitation period.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm sorry, it's to comply?
Mr Kormos: With the current act and the limitation period contained in the current act.
Mr Bob Wood: You mean is it the same as the current limitation period?
Mr Kormos: Yes.
Mr Bob Wood: The current act deals with this under subsection 77(7). That's the equivalent section.
Mr Kormos: Yes, that's the six-month limitation period on making a complaint.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
Mr Kormos: That having been said, "made in bad faith" clearly is the addition or the amendment to subsection (3) contained here. The "frivolous or vexatious" is already in the bill. The "bad faith" provision is added by virtue of your amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Give us some background there. I would like to know why "bad faith" is added to "frivolous or vexatious."
Mr Bob Wood: Basically we think if a complaint is made in bad faith it shouldn't be dealt with.
Mr Kormos: I understand, but the bill originally read "frivolous or vexatious." Now you have "or made in bad faith." I'm not disputing the concept of bad faith. I'm wondering why that was added by virtue of the amendment when "frivolous or vexatious" implies bad faith in its own right.
Mr Bob Wood: No, it does not. It's quite different. They're two quite different concepts.
Mr Kormos: Perhaps you could help me with that. I'm just from a small town.
Mr Bob Wood: You're a lawyer. You should know.
Mr Kormos: No, I'm just from a small town, Mr Wood, and you're the parliamentary assistant. I'd like to know why "bad faith" is added here in addition to "frivolous or vexatious."
Mr Bob Wood: I think you know what a bad-faith complaint is, and we think those should be dismissable.
Mr Kormos: Please, Mr Wood. You've amended the bill by adding "in bad faith." I suppose the next question to you is, is the concept of bad faith inherent in any part of the original act, of this substantive act?
Mr Bob Wood: Subsection 85(1) of the Police Services Act says that the chief of police is not required to deal with complaints made in bad faith.
Mr Kormos: But we're dealing here with --
Mr Bob Wood: The Police Services Act.
Mr Kormos: Quite right. We're dealing here with amendments to section 58. Once again, I'm asking you if the -- well, I'll put it this way, is that frivolous, vexatious, bad-faith trilogy consistent throughout the act?
Mr Bob Wood: Throughout what act?
Mr Kormos: The Police Services Act.
Mr Bob Wood: Well, the concept is in the act.
Mr Kormos: Of bad faith?
Mr Bob Wood: Yes, it is. Subsection 85(1).
Mr Kormos: Bars complaints made in bad faith?
Mr Bob Wood: It says that the chief of police is not required to deal with complaints made in bad faith.
Mr Kormos: Very interesting. Thank you kindly.
Mr Bob Wood: You're welcome. It's a pleasure to help.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I was just going to add that I'm not a lawyer, so it would have been helpful if that had been explained.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): But you are from a small town.
Mr Crozier: I certainly am, one of the finest small towns in Ontario.
Mr Bob Wood: I think Mr Kormos is well aware of what bad faith means. In deference to Mr Crozier, if it's not a sincere complaint, if it's for some purpose other than to actually make a complaint, that's basically bad faith, if I had to try and define it in a sentence or two.
Mr Kormos: There you go, Chair. That was free legal advice and it was worth just about as much as we paid for it.
The Vice-Chair: Probably. The wishes of motion 49? Shall it carry? Carried.
Moving to number 50, an NDP motion.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 58(4) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out.
My enthusiasm about this amendment is enhanced by virtue of the amendment just made. Clearly there is a process that would deal with frivolous or vexatious complaints, and quite frankly it's an incredible power to give to a chief of police, to make the determination of frivolous, vexatious and indeed bad faith. By God, it took several exchanges for Mr Wood to get into a definition of bad faith. This is designed to protect complainants I suppose from frivolous, vexatious and bad-faith determinations by chiefs of police when it comes down to determining whether in fact they're going to deal with them or not.
Mr Bob Wood: We oppose this motion. It would remove the requirement for the complainant to be directly affected, which of course, as we've said earlier, we don't support.
1540
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? Motion defeated.
Moving to 51, a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 58 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended,
(a) by inserting "(3.1)" after "(3)" in the second line of subsection (5); and
(b) by inserting "(3.1)" after "(3)" in the first line of subsection (7).
This is a consequential amendment to the previous motion dealing with subsections 58(3) and 58(3.1). It requires the chief of police to notify the subject police officer and the complainant in writing of his or her decision not to deal with bad-faith complaints or a complaint more than six months old, and of the complainant's right to ask the OCCPS to review the chief's decision. This provision currently exists in the bill in the case of frivolous or vexatious complaints or in cases where the complainant is not directly affected.
The Vice-Chair: Any comments? Shall the motion carry? Carried.
Moving to 52, an NDP motion.
Mr Kormos: In view of the vote on our previous amendment regarding subsection (4), I request that this amendment be withdrawn.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Moving to 53, a Liberal motion.
Mr Ramsay: I move that section 58 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(9) The chief of police shall notify the police officer named in the complaint, if any, within 10 days of the complainant giving notice under subsection (8) that he or she will not ask the commission to conduct a review."
Again, this is to be fair to the police officer involved in any of these complaints, that they be regularly kept informed of any change of status in the complaint or investigation.
Mr Kormos: We support this amendment. There have been a number of amendments, some of them generously given the nod by the parliamentary assistant. The whole complaints process should be as open and transparent a process as possible. Once again, this amendment in our view leads towards that end or towards that goal. We'll be supporting it.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll be opposing this. We think it's unnecessary for the reasons given earlier.
The Vice-Chair: Is it the wish of the committee that this carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Boushy, Beaubien, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Vice-Chair: That's lost.
Number 54, a motion by the NDP.
Mr Kormos: I suspect that perhaps we should deal with 58, as amended. I'm sorry, we're still on section 34. My apologies.
I move that part V of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following section:
"Copies of complaints to commission
"59.1(1) A copy of every complaint and withdrawal of a complaint received in a police station or detachment or made by a chief of police shall be forwarded to the commission forthwith by the chief of police.
"Monthly reports to commission
"(2) Every chief of police shall send a monthly report to the commission on the complaints process in the previous month and shall provide the commission with full disclosure regarding all public complaints."
If I may, very briefly, this is in tune with a whole number of submissions that were received by the committee and with a number of amendments that were moved yesterday, some of them successful in terms of receiving the support of the government, others not.
The thrust of Bill 105 is to relieve the commission of a great deal of its oversight responsibility. This restores some capacity to the commission to monitor the complaints processes, I suppose at the very barest level, for the purpose of determining even statistically the number of complaints, the nature of complaints and how quickly they're being processed. Obviously if the commission were to take a more complex oversight role, it would be to review the actual progress, or the style of investigation and the progress of that investigation.
This is a very important amendment if there's going to be any meaningful role for the commission. I will urge government members to show some courage, to show the courage of their convictions, they wanting to impress their constituents with their concern about there being a need for oversight. This is an opportunity for those government members to show that they're more than mere trained seals jumping at the behest of the little parliamentary assistant here, who makes his $11,000 a year, give or take, for giving his marching orders. Here's the opportunity to get that ball off your nose and impress your constituents.
Mr Ramsay: Do you think that's winning them over?
Mr Kormos: Well, I'm doing by best, Mr Ramsay. You know it's my subtle style, one of implication rather than direct confrontation. Here they are. Here's their opportunity to show themselves to be worthy of the $78,000-plus a year that each one of them earns for representing their constituents.
Mr Ramsay: I want to voice my support for this amendment, and I'll tell you why: I think this is one of those classic cases where justice, to be done, really has to be seen to be done. If complainants and police officers are to have confidence in the system, then I think it would be wise to have the commission be informed of these complaints. Then everybody would know that there is a monitoring going on, that there is a watchdog there; not that any action has to be taken, but that they now have been lodged with the commission. I think that would be just a good check and balance to the system. Everybody would know that the disposition of the complaint is being watched. I think that would be important. We would get fairer and maybe quicker disposition of the complaints by everybody involved knowing that the commission has a copy of that.
Mr Crozier: Having served on a police commission, as others of you may have -- I was on the municipal side, a municipal appointee to the commission -- I support that as well because there seem to be too few times when the commission can give substantive recommendations to the police services to better understand how the police services operate. I think this would be one of those cases where any member of the commission who wanted to serve the commission to its fullest would want to know what kind of complaints come into the police department, and be able to monitor them.
Mr Bob Wood: The government is opposed to this motion. We think it would create unnecessary and costly paperwork. The civilian commission exercises control of the process by being the court of appeal, so to speak, and that's the way the accountability is achieved.
Mr Crozier: I disagree with that. I don't know, Mr Wood, whether you've ever served on a police commission or not, but I think it's not just an appeal process. I think it's one where you want to monitor the effectiveness of your police services. If you weren't aware of the complaints that were coming in and didn't have any idea of how the police services were serving the public, then I think this could be a very valuable tool. I've been there. I've been on a police commission and I think, from the experience I've had, this would be a valuable tool.
Mr Kormos: I'm concerned about the reference to an unnecessary amount of paperwork. This government wants to portray itself as high-tech, up to date, in the groove. It talks about teleconferencing, even though, mind you, it sent Mr Flaherty, Mr Wood and Mr Brown to New York City on a little junket last week to hang around with New York City cops, spend a little time in Times Square, to what end, Lord only knows, rather than using teleconferencing, which they tout ad nauseam. Surely e-mail could be effective to achieve the end of the purpose contained in this amendment; no paperwork at all, hard drive to hard drive. But then again I suppose, after we witness junkets like the one to New York City, we see some backing off on the philosophical position that the government has assumed about saving money. Mr Wood is in a spin, clearly.
1550
The Vice-Chair: Any other comments? Is it the wish of the committee that this motion carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Vice-Chair: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Boushy, Beaubien, Flaherty, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Vice-Chair: The motion fails.
Moving to number 55, an NDP motion.
Mr Kormos: In view of the committee's disposition of an earlier amendment which would have deleted subsection 58(4), I'm asking that this be withdrawn, please.
The Vice-Chair: It's withdrawn.
Moving to 56, a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 60 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended,
(a) by inserting "(3.1)" after "58(3)" in the first line of subsection (1); and
(b) by inserting "(3.1)" after "58(3)" in the sixth line of subsection (2).
This is a consequential amendment to the motion dealing with subsections 58(3) and (3.1). The change to subsection 60(1) requires the chief to review every conduct or policy service complaint and take any action or no action, except when deemed to be made in bad faith or when the complaint is more than six months old. This provision already exists in section 61 for frivolous or vexatious complaints and for cases where the complainant is not directly affected.
The change to subsection 60(2) requires a chief to report to the board on the disposition of complaints upon request, including the disposition of complaints deemed made in bad faith or when the complaint is more than six months old. This provision already exists in subsection 60(2) for frivolous or vexatious complaints and for cases where the complainant is not directly affected.
The Vice-Chair: Comments? Is it the wish of the committee that the motion carry? Carried.
Number 57.
Mr Bob Wood: We're in favour of this motion, by the way.
Mr Kormos: God bless you, Mr Wood.
I move that section 60 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"If no action taken
"(3.1) If the chief of police decides to take no action with respect to the complaint, he or she shall provide the complainant with reasons for the decision."
This is consistent with our overall regard for there being a candid and transparent process. It complements subsection (3), which some might have believed provided for this type of notification, but (3.1) provides clarification to indicate that indeed even if no action is taken, if that determination is made by a chief, the complainant shall be advised.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wood, do you want to speak against it?
Mr Bob Wood: No.
The Vice-Chair: All in favour? Motion carried.
Number 58, a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 61(2) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Frivolous, vexatious, bad faith complaints
"(2) The detachment commander may decide not to deal with any complaint described in subsection (1) that he or she considers to be frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith.
"Complaint more than six months old
"(2.1) The detachment commander may decide not to deal with any complaint described in subsection (1) if the complaint is made more than six months after the facts on which it is based occurred."
This of course is consequential to the earlier ones dealing with municipal police forces.
The Vice-Chair: Any comments? Is it the wish of the committee that the motion carry? Carried.
Number 59.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 61(3) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out.
This is again to be consistent with our position that complaints made by persons who are not directly affected should be valid ones, and that is that third-party complaints should be acceptable. We've presented previous amendments which support that position. We maintain that it's imperative that third-party complaints, as the status quo is now, be legitimate complaints for the purpose of initiating processes of investigation and determination. It's important for the integrity of policing and for the community to accept its role to act as monitors of what takes place in their neighbourhoods in their city.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I concur with this and really plead with the parliamentary assistant to again consider such an amendment. The way this legislation is written, it is fine for anybody who is literate, confident, well established in society, but for any of those on the margins of society, this bill fails them. It's very important for those who are not equipped to make a complaint that a third party can do that on their behalf. That's very important.
We get all wrapped up in our world here and feel everybody would have the confidence to march on down to the local constabulary and make a complaint. But I think, as we know, many people are totally intimidated walking into a police station and maybe some aren't even competent in English and are newly arrived to this country and for whatever reason just would not be able to make a complaint. It's very important that a third party be allowed to make such a complaint.
Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed to this motion for the reasons set out yesterday.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Beaubien, Boushy, Flaherty, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Vice-Chair: I declare it failed.
Motion 60, an NDP motion.
Mr Kormos: In view of the committee's decision on the previous motion, this one should be withdrawn, please.
The Vice-Chair: Withdrawn.
Number 61.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 61 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended,
(a) by inserting "(2.1)" after "(2)" in the third line of subsection (4); and
(b) by inserting "(2.1)" after "(2)" in the sixth line of subsection (5).
This is a consequential amendment to the previous motion dealing with subsections 61(2) and (2.1). It parallels the provisions in the bill already with respect to frivolous or vexatious complaints.
The Vice-Chair: Any comments? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion carries.
Number 62, an NDP motion.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 61 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"If no action taken
"(6.1) If the detachment commander decides to take no action with respect to the complaint, he or she shall provide the complainant with reasons for the decision."
This is consistent with the previous motion we made providing disclosure in the event that rather than a determination there is a decision to take no action, in this case by a detachment commander rather than by a chief of police.
Mr Bob Wood: The government favours this motion.
The Vice-Chair: Shall this motion carry? Motion 62 is carried.
Number 63, an NDP motion.
Mr Kormos: Withdrawn, please, Chair, in that it's no longer relevant because of the government's rejection of the earlier New Democratic Party amendment.
The Vice-Chair: Moving to number 64, a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 62(1) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by inserting "(3.1)" after "58(3)" in the first line.
It's consequential to the motion dealing with subsections 58(3) and (3.1).
The Vice-Chair: Any comments on that motion? Shall the motion carry? Number 64 carries.
Number 65, an NDP motion.
1600
Mr Kormos: I move that section 62 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"If no action taken
"(3) If the commissioner decides to take no action with respect to the complaint, he or she shall provide the complainant with reasons for the decision."
Again, this is consistent with earlier amendments to the same effect regarding chiefs of police and detachment commanders.
Mr Bob Wood: The government supports this.
The Vice-Chair: Does this motion carry? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Item 66.
Mr Kormos: To be withdrawn please, Chair, as it's no longer relevant.
The Vice-Chair: Number 67, a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 63(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Complaints about police officer's conduct
"63(1) Subject to subsections 58(3), (3.1) and (4), the chief of police shall cause every complaint made about the conduct of a police officer, other than the chief of police or deputy chief of police, to be investigated and the investigation to be reported on in a written report.
"Investigation assigned to another police force
"(2) A municipal chief of police may, with the approval of the board and on written notice to the commission, ask the chief of police of another police force to cause the complaint to be investigated and to report, in writing, back to him or her at the expense of the police force in respect of which the complaint is made.
"Same, re OPP officer
"(3) In the case of a complaint about the conduct of a police officer who is a member of the Ontario Provincial Police, the commissioner may, on written notice to the commission, ask the chief of police of another police force to cause the complaint to be investigated and to report, in writing, back to him or her at the expense of the Ontario Provincial Police.
"Same, more than one force involved
"(4) If the complaint is about an incident that involved the conduct of two or more police officers who are members of different police forces, the chiefs of police whose police officers are the subjects of the complaint shall agree on which police force (which may be one of the police forces whose police officer is a subject of the complaint or another police force) is to investigate the complaint and report, in writing, back to the other chief or chiefs of police and how the cost of the investigation is to be shared.
"Same
"(5) If the chiefs of police cannot agree under subsection (4), the commission shall decide how the cost of the investigation is to be shared and,
"(a) shall decide which of the chiefs of police whose police officer is a subject of the complaint shall cause the complaint to be investigated and report in writing back to the other chief or chiefs of police; or
"(b) shall ask another chief of police to cause the complaint to be investigated and to report back in writing to the chiefs of police."
Mr Kormos: We concur.
Mr Ramsay: I would just like, before we vote on it, to know what the explanation is. It's such a long text.
Mr Bob Wood: I'll try to summarize. Consequential amendment to the motion dealing with subsection 58(3) and (3.1): The amendments to subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) require a written report to be prepared following an investigation, and it deletes subsection 63(6), which requires that the chief of police consult with a crown attorney at any point during the investigation if the police officer's conduct may constitute an offence under a law of Canada or of a province or territory.
The Vice-Chair: Is it the wish of the committee that the motion carry?
Mr Kormos: The amendment effectively inserts subsection (3.1) into subsection (1) and it adds, "to be reported on in a written report," to subsection (1). But the rest of the text is identical, other than for the addition of, "in writing."
Mr Bob Wood: No. It deletes the requirement that the chief consult with a crown attorney.
Mr Kormos: We'd better check this, then.
Mr Bob Wood: We're deleting subsection 63(6).
Mr Kormos: Look, (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) merely add subsection (3.1) and the words "in writing."
Mr Bob Wood: We're attempting to draw your attention to the fact that it also deletes subsection 63(6).
Mr Kormos: Quite right.
Mr Bob Wood: That's the change, if you're looking for substantive change.
Mr Kormos: But you see, a nice amendment would have been to say, "Delete subsection (6)."
Mr Bob Wood: If you'll pardon the expression, we've done an omnibus amendment.
Mr Kormos: It's ominous.
Mr Bob Wood: Omnibus.
Mr Kormos: So was the omnibus bill.
Mr Bob Wood: It was omnibus.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments? Is it the wish of the committee that the motion carry? It's carried.
We move to 69, a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 63(7) and (8) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Unsubstantiated complaint
"(7) If, at the conclusion of the investigation and on review of the written report submitted to him or her, the chief of police is of the opinion that the complaint is unsubstantiated, the chief of police shall take no action in response to the complaint and shall notify the complainant and the police officer who is the subject of the complaint, in writing, together with a copy of the written report, of the decision and of the complainant's right to ask the commission to review the decision within 30 days of receiving the notice.
"Hearing to be held
"(8) Subject to subsection (12), if, at the conclusion of the investigation and on review of the written report submitted to him or her, the chief of police is of the opinion that the police officer's conduct may constitute misconduct, as defined in section 73, or unsatisfactory work performance, he or she shall hold a hearing into the matter."
These are consequential amendments to sections 63(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). It also changes subsections 60(7) and (8), which make reference to this written report and require the chief of police to provide a copy of the written report on the investigation to the police officer and complainant.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant what "unsatisfactory work performance" is?
Mr Bob Wood: That can be any work performance within all applicable statutes or indeed practices that would come within that category.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments? Is it the wish of the committee that the motion carry? Number 69 carried.
Number 70, an NDP motion.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 63(12) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Informal resolution if conduct not serious
"(12) The chief of police may resolve the matter informally, without holding a hearing, at any point during or after the investigation, or during a hearing into the complaint, if,
"(a) he or she is of the opinion that there was misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance but that it was not of a serious nature;
"(b) the police officer is given an opportunity to reply, orally or in writing; and
"(c) the complainant and police officer consent to resolving the matter informally."
I take notice of the government amendment which is part of the collection of filed amendments, being number 71, and note that it is, in the largest part, consistent with this one in that it requires consent -- no quarrel with that -- and it requires here in contrast -- you'll recall the conversation yesterday about whether the serious issue was subjective or objective. Here the chief of police is given the responsibility of determining that the misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance was not of a serious nature, and that was part of the debate yesterday.
But the crucial difference between this and the government motion is that the police officer is given an opportunity to reply orally or in writing. The government motion, which is motion 71, doesn't give the police officer that opportunity. In other words, the chief of police makes a determination without giving the police officer whose conduct is being complained of a chance to refute -- and again, by and large, it would be findings of fact. I think that's an important role.
Notwithstanding that an informal resolution will carry with it little opprobrium for the complainant of a police officer, the fact is it's still there, it's still going to be a matter of record, and you can't deny it, you can't wish it away. It's going to linger somewhere in a police officer's personnel folder or in the minds of his or her supervisors or management in a police detachment.
It's imperative that a police officer be given a chance, as the subject matter of a complaint, to dispute or refute findings of fact made by a chief of police, even in the instance of an informal resolution. As I say, that's the one crucial area where this amendment is not in accord with the government amendment. I think it's a very important one. Mr Wood is a lawyer. He'd understand things like natural justice. It goes very much to the issue of natural justice that the police officer whose conduct is complained of be given a chance to refute the initial finding of fact by a chief of police which leads to even an informal resolution. I think it's important for there to be that element of justice even in informal resolutions. You can't expect a complained-of-police officer to throw in the towel and roll over just because it's an informal resolution. There's still going to be a mark against that police officer, no two ways about it.
1610
Mr Ramsay: This motion also refers to "unsatisfactory work performance" and it still is a concern for me in that if it's not defined, there's no reference to the standards and statutes that the parliamentary assistant refers to. I'm just wondering if this is really legal. You're saying that there are some set provisions somewhere in standards and statutes in the operation of police departments that lay out what is unsatisfactory work performance, so there is a definite reference that this is leading to?
Mr Bob Wood: I can't really add to what I said before. That's how such a standard is determined, statutorily and by practice.
Mr Ramsay: So these are clear-cut?
Mr Bob Wood: I wouldn't want to say that. They are certainly open to argument by lawyers.
Mr Ramsay: That's exactly why I am asking these questions, because what I think is going to happen here is that we're going to be employing a lot of lawyers in trying to define, when these complaints come up, especially if they are initiated by a chief, what is unsatisfactory work performance. That's why I am concerned we don't have some clear-cut definition so that we could save everybody a lot of trouble and expense.
Mr Bob Wood: That definition will ultimately flow from what the civilian commission does by establishing these definitions.
Mr Ramsay: So what you're saying is that through trial and error we will set some precedents?
Mr Bob Wood: No, I'm saying it'll be set by the supervisory body, which is the civilian commission.
Mr Ramsay: Oh, I see. So these standards are yet to be set but they will be by this commission.
Mr Bob Wood: The Supreme Court is not final because it's right; it's right because it's final. That's really what the civilian commission does. Ultimately, I want to speak to Mr Kormos --
Mr Kormos: Mr Wood has opened up a Pandora's box here now because he speaks about -- maybe I'm wrong, have misheard him -- unsatisfactory work performance being determined by management, by way of definition. Am I correct in that regard?
Mr Bob Wood: No. Ultimately this will be determined by the civilian commission, who have the final right of appeal in these matters.
Mr Kormos: By gosh, I was just driving up from Welland this morning listening to some criticism of some of the national political leaders -- people like Charest and Preston Manning, who were being criticized quite frankly -- and reference was made to the throwaway comment made by I believe former Premier Bourassa, who said, "Legislate distinct society as part of the Constitution and then let the court decide what it means." There was great criticism of that proposition because that's not what legislation is all about. You don't just throw out words and then throw it to the whimsy of a court at any given point in time in the court's history.
I'm very concerned now. As you know, it's important, especially now, that Hansards reflect what the government's intention is, because those are increasingly referred to. I suppose the question to be put, although we're not at that point yet, but Mr Ramsay having raised it and you having, as I say, opened this Pandora's box in a most interesting way, is, what is the government's intention by usage of the language "unsatisfactory work performance"?
We can't be dancing in the fog here. Surely this government has some sort of agenda. Legislative amendments as substantive as this one is -- this isn't a little tinkering with language, you're adding a whole new bit of code of conduct here into the hopper. What the heck does the government have in mind when it speaks of unsatisfactory work performance?
Mr Bob Wood: Exactly what I said earlier.
Mr Kormos: Perhaps you could help me -- I was reading some of the amendments -- by reminding me what it was exactly that you said earlier.
Mr Bob Wood: I said that it was what was found within the statutory definition or the practice.
Mr Kormos: Now my problem is that there is no statutory definition?
Mr Bob Wood: There are quite a number of statutory definitions.
Mr Kormos: Of unsatisfactory work performance?
Mr Bob Wood: There are indeed. There are quite a number of them within the various statute laws.
Mr Kormos: As they relate to police officers?
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Perhaps you could refer us to some of them, because some of us don't have the background and expertise that you do and we'd be interested in taking a look at some of this stuff.
Mr Bob Wood: If you review this act and the other acts that pertain to police services, you'll find them.
Mr Kormos: The other acts that pertain to police services?
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
Mr Kormos: To wit?
Mr Bob Wood: Take a look at the RSOs and you'll find them.
Mr Kormos: No, no, the other acts. Come on, Mr Wood, if you're talking about other acts, we should know what they are.
Mr Bob Wood: Take a look at the RSOs.
Mr Kormos: Fine, Mr Wood. Call the vote, Chair.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour of this motion?
Mr Kormos: A 20-minute recess as per standing orders.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. We'll resume in approximately 20 minutes then.
The committee recessed from 1616 to 1640.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): There is a quorum present. We'll now have a continuation. We're still discussing item 70.
Mr Bob Wood: No, the vote's been called.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, the vote had been called.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The motion fails. We are now proceeding with item 71.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 63(12) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Informal resolution if conduct not serious
"(12) If, at the conclusion of the investigation and on review of the written report submitted to him or her, the chief of police is of the opinion that there was misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance but that it was not of a serious nature, the chief of police may resolve the matter informally without holding a hearing, if the police officer and the complainant consent to the proposed resolution."
This amendment clarifies that the informal resolution requires the consent of the subject police officer and the complainant.
Mr Ramsay: What are the statutes that outline what the misconduct of a police officer is?
Mr Bob Wood: That flows primarily from the Police Services Act. There may be some other that would assist in the definition of misconduct. It flows primarily from the Police Services Act and of course this bill.
Mr Ramsay: Is there a similar definition somewhere of unsatisfactory work performance?
Mr Bob Wood: No, I think the definition flows from the statute law and from practice, and of course regulations made under the statute.
Mr Ramsay: What do you mean by "from statute law"? You're saying somewhere in law --
Mr Bob Wood: No. Statute law, you understand, is what the Legislature has passed or the federal Parliament has passed. That's statute law.
Mr Ramsay: All right. What are the references then? You're saying there is a definition in statute law.
Mr Bob Wood: No. What I'm saying is, in order to define misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance you have to look to the statute law, regulations made under the statute law and practices. Those are the three areas where you'd look to obtain the definition.
Mr Ramsay: Wouldn't a police department have collected that together? How does a police officer know what is unsatisfactory work performance? Has somebody collected this, brought this together in some sort of manual or standard of procedure, or something? Because what we're talking about here is, how does a police officer know what unsatisfactory work performance is?
Mr Bob Wood: The answer is ultimately that it flows from what the civilian commission ultimately says it is.
Mr Ramsay: What will initiate that?
Mr Bob Wood: This process and any other processes permitted by law.
Mr Ramsay: In other words, as I said before, unsatisfactory work performance will be developed through precedent in that a chief will for some reason make a complaint against an officer because she is not, in his view, performing satisfactorily. I presume that if there's a dispute about this, if it's not clear-cut, there's going to be a test, there's going to be a challenge. Wouldn't it be cheaper and simpler, more effective and efficient, to define this somewhere in our law so that all parties would understand what this is and we wouldn't be getting into a whole new area of jurisprudence?
Mr Bob Wood: I think it's effectively impossible to do because any profession is dynamic and conditions change. You really have to have some version of the system we are proposing, where you have a body that makes decisions on these matters.
Mr Ramsay: I take it that this is a new reference to this, that the original Police Services Act does not speak of unsatisfactory work performance?
Mr Bob Wood: That is correct.
Mr Ramsay: But I take it that it does speak to misconduct.
Mr Bob Wood: That's correct as well.
Mr Ramsay: Where does this come from? What is driving this? What is generating this in this act, that where it wasn't necessary before it's now necessary? I feel quite satisfied that we have highly disciplined, well-operated police forces right across the province. What has initiated this?
Mr Bob Wood: You can have unsatisfactory work performance that may not be actual misconduct which would attract discipline.
Mr Ramsay: Such as?
Mr Bob Wood: Discipline should apply to unsatisfactory work performance. We're trying to achieve the highest level of police services possible, and this is one mechanism, among a number, that we're trying to achieve that through.
Mr Ramsay: But haven't you introduced a penalty for behaviour that you haven't given definition to?
Mr Bob Wood: In my opinion, the definition can't be statutory. I think it has to be what I described earlier.
Mr Ramsay: In regulation.
Mr Bob Wood: No. I'm saying you have a combination of statute law, regulation and the actual practices. Any profession is dynamic; conditions change.
Mr Ramsay: A combination of all that?
Mr Bob Wood: That's right, that's where the definition comes from.
Mr Ramsay: It would seem to me that is not a very secure and stable workplace to be in, if you don't know the rules of the game.
Mr Bob Wood: It wouldn't be if you didn't have a body that can set -- I told you about the Supreme Court before, and that's the case. Some of these things you can look at and you can't say objectively what the right answer is. If you have a body that says, "This is the answer," that's how it's done. That's how jurisprudence has been done for some hundreds of years, ever since they've had appeal courts. Then you get consistency.
Mr Ramsay: This is going to cost time and money.
Mr Bob Wood: Depending on how many disputes arise, it could, but it will be time and money well spent if we get a higher standard of policing, which I think we will.
Mr Ramsay: Have you done any studies to anticipate the number of challenges you might receive with this?
Mr Bob Wood: It's effectively impossible to anticipate. We think there's a good relationship between the police officers and the chiefs, so we think there will be relatively few. We think there's a fairly decent community of view among all in the police community as to what needs to be done. There are going to be a few points on which there isn't, which we have a mechanism to resolve. I would be speculating, which I don't like to do, but I'm optimistic that there's going to be a fairly wide consensus as to what constitutes proper conduct.
Mr Ramsay: I would agree with you that up to the present time it is probably the case that there has been a pretty sound relationship between officers, the full command in a force, and the chief. But today, as you know, there are new pressures being placed upon municipalities and therefore the municipal police forces. I think the concern is that a chief now will be under new challenges and new pressures from his or her boss, which is the municipal council, through them and the local police commission, to, for instance, raise revenues.
The concern the police officers have is that through that pressure officers are going to be accused of unsatisfactory work performance for something as benign as maybe not writing out as many parking tickets as they should in a month. That's the concern the police associations have brought to this committee. I think it's going to create a great cost and potentially could start to fill up the court system.
Mr Bob Wood: I think it's a system that will work well. The municipalities have said for some time that they're ready for more responsibility, and we have given them that, but we haven't given them, remember, a blank cheque. We still appoint a significant number of the police services board members and the whole system is supervised by the provincial civilian commission. To the extent that we find there are problems, there are means of resolving these problems in the bill. I think the municipalities by and large will do a very good job of this. However, to the extent that they don't, there are controls.
Mr Kormos: First of all, why did you delete the requirement that the police officer have an opportunity to reply to the determination by the chief of police?
Mr Bob Wood: We think when you get into an informal procedure, it should be as informal as possible. We see the control being the consent of the two parties, as opposed to control over the actual procedure. The short answer is, to do that would be to excessively formalize what should be an informal procedure.
1650
Mr Kormos: But there's a requirement that there be a determination by the chief that there was misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance. Your bill as it originally stood created a series of events: that the chief make that determination and that he determine that it was not of a serious nature, such that it falls into the realm of things that can be dealt with informally.
I've got to tell you, I think all of us agree with the matter of consent, but before you even reach the stage of inquiring of the complainant and the police officer whether they consent to an informal disposition, there's a determination of misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance. In the original bill, the police officer who is the subject matter of the determination has an opportunity to respond to that such that he or she can point out errors or can refute the whole nine yards. You've omitted that opportunity for the subject of a complaint to refute the findings made by the chief of police. It seems to me, as I spoke earlier, with respect to informal disposition, at the end of the day there's still a record, be it a record by way of memory or a record by way of notation or the history of somebody's relationship with their management in a police department.
An informal resolution still carries with it some very subtle consequences for an offending police officer, because before you can have an informal resolution you've got to have an offence, you've got to have misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance. I'm hard-pressed to understand why in the first instance you included, after giving the police officer an opportunity to reply -- and you talk informal. It says "orally." How much more informal could you want? You give the cop a chance to say, "No, you're wrong in conclusion A, conclusion B or conclusion C." The chief of police may or may not agree with that police officer, but you give the cop a chance to say, "No, these facts are not correct and this is where they're wrong," such that a chief of police then may feel capable of reviewing them and saying, "You're right, there's not even a need for an informal resolution here because I'm going to find, based on your response to my findings, that there was no misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance."
You want to talk about eliminating red tape? That's how you eliminate red tape. That way you clear the board, and the cop doesn't spend the rest of his or her career with that blemish on their record. Why, in God's name, would you have deleted "after giving the police officer an opportunity to reply orally or in writing"? Surely your understanding of justice should require that somebody have an opportunity to respond to the charges made against him, and effectively that's what the bill did in its original interpretation, subsection (12). Do you really hold to your initial argument that this was an effort to eliminate red tape when the opportunity was there to respond orally as well as in writing?
Mr Bob Wood: I think the more you formalize an informal procedure, the less you have an informal procedure. The control on this, and I think it's an effective control, is the requirement of consent. That's how I think you control the concerns you've raised.
Mr Kormos: In some respects it was a little premature, but obviously not, because it isn't until we're with section 34 -- you see, the problem is we're going to have a problem with all of section 34 now, because section 75, which is amended by section 34, is, as you know, the craw sticking in people's throats. You suggest that it's the commission that will determine. My reading of section 75 is that it's the discretion of the commission, quite rightly, or of the chief of police or of the board. Any one of those entities has the discretion to determine what constitutes unsatisfactory work performance.
You're a lawyer, Mr Wood. You know that discretion is a pretty broad empowerment.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't want to interrupt you, but you might be interested in this. We propose to remove section 75 from the bill. Have you had an opportunity to read our amendments?
Mr Kormos: No, I haven't read them. I'm reading them one at a time as they come, just like you're reading mine.
Mr Bob Wood: Without anticipating your position, we are not proposing to proceed with section 75 as in the draft bill.
Mr Kormos: Well, you'd better refer us to that amendment because we want to talk about this in context. We're concerned about the reference to "unsatisfactory work performance" and what it means in these earlier amendments. Give us your amendment number that amends section 75.
Mr Bob Wood: You will have that in 30 seconds.
Mr Kormos: Oh, it could be a lot longer than that.
The Chair: It's 101.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm sorry, 100 is the same as 101, which actually is your motion, which I'm pleased to say we find merit in and we're going to support.
Mr Kormos: Where then is the source of your comment that it's for the commission to determine unsatisfactory work performance? Where in the bill after the deletion of 75 is it for the commission to determine unsatisfactory work performance?
Mr Bob Wood: The civilian commission is the body of appeal for all of us.
Mr Kormos: Section 75 is effectively the genesis of "unsatisfactory work performance." There you have some sort of sourcing for the definitive "unsatisfactory work performance," and you're suggesting now that "unsatisfactory work performance" will remain in the act even with the deletion of 75?
Mr Bob Wood: That's precisely right. That's correct. It's in, as indicated in the --
Mr Kormos: But this is the proverbial orphan.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think anything in the statute is an orphan. It's all significant.
Mr Kormos: A bastard child perhaps is more appropriate.
Mr Bob Wood: I would defer to the member from Welland.
Mr Kormos: Then where does "unsatisfactory work performance" come from? You're introducing it now. You're deleting 75 but you're persisting in referring to it in all your corresponding sections. Obviously the interest here is in seeing the reference to it deleted from all the corresponding sections. As I say, we've got this little bastard child roaming around the bill and you're saying that ultimately -- it's even vaguer than the discretionary thing on the part of a chief of police.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think it's vaguer; I think it's more defined. What the civilian commission is going to do is give definition to it.
Mr Kormos: Where does the civilian commission get the power to define it?
Mr Bob Wood: They're the court of appeal, in effect.
Mr Kormos: But, you see, section 75 was necessary to give the chief of police, the police services board and the commission -- granted it gives all three of them the power to determine what constitutes unsatisfactory work performance. This is where the commission derives its authority to determine unsatisfactory work performance, and it's discretionary. Take a look at "misconduct," section 73. There you've got a series of misconducts that are defined: "(f) deals with personal property, other than money or a firearm, in a manner that is not consistent with section 132."
Mr Bob Wood: You are on what section?
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry, the act, section 73, which is at page 37 of the bill. You've got "misconduct" there, and you know some of the language that's used. It doesn't say "misconduct includes but is not restricted to"; it says this is the misconduct, bang, (a) through (i), if it's one of those things. These are all statutory definitions or they're references to statute which has definitions, "commits an offence" etc.
1700
The concern everybody has here, Mr Wood, is "unsatisfactory work performance." It's clearly not misconduct, because you're excluding it, "misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance." So you're talking about some sort of behaviour that doesn't constitute misconduct but none the less subjects a police officer to some serious consequences. What we're saying is, what do you anticipate that would be? If it isn't misconduct then it's something else. What in heaven's name could that possibly be? I think we'd like to know, cops would like to know, the public would like to know. How does the public point the finger and say, "That person violated something by virtue of unsatisfactory work performance," if even the public doesn't know what constitutes unsatisfactory work performance? That's the problem we've got.
Mr Bob Wood: It would be a problem if there weren't a body that can give definition to it. But there is, and that's the civilian commission.
Mr Kormos: But they're not empowered to create a definition.
Mr Bob Wood: Sure they are.
Mr Kormos: No, sir. They're empowered to hear appeals.
Mr Bob Wood: Well, that's how they create the definition.
Mr Kormos: No. It's up to legislators to create definitions. It's up to legislators to outline prohibited acts. Please, Mr Wood, it's not up to legislators to delegate. What you're doing is delegating the power to a commission to say: "It's helter-skelter. It's up to you. The ball's in your court. Anything you want to call `unsatisfactory work performance' you can."
I'm increasingly concerned about what's going on here. I suppose I should put to you the proposition that was made by police officers several times during the course of submissions, their fear that "unsatisfactory work performance" will include, for instance, not meeting ticket quotas. As the delegate of the sponsor of the bill, on behalf of Mr Runciman, did you intend not meeting ticket quotas to be covered by "unsatisfactory work performance"?
Mr Bob Wood: I was not aware that the work of the police involved meeting quotas.
Mr Kormos: That's the problem of not being with the committee from its beginning, because police officers talked about quotas from day one of the committee. I know Mr Ramsay recalls that. They very specifically talked about ticket quotas and their concern, for example, that "unsatisfactory work performance" could mean not meeting a ticket quota. We have a problem here. You're the parliamentary assistant and I don't know whether you're denying the existence of quota systems for cops or whether you're genuinely saying you're not aware of them, although they might exist, in your mind. I'm concerned about it, police officers are, and we've reached a real impasse here if we can't even talk in practical, hard terms about whether "unsatisfactory work performance" is going to be used against a police officer who fails, for whatever reason, to meet a ticket quota -- a speeding ticket quota, a seatbelt ticket quota, a parking ticket quota. It's a heck of a use of police officers' time with the restricted budgets they have to work with.
Does the government anticipate or does it intend for this "unsatisfactory work performance" to be used to discipline police officers or respond to police officers who don't meet ticket quotas?
Mr Bob Wood: I wasn't aware that ticket quotas were required.
Mr Kormos: The question now is, in enacting this new misconduct -- but it's not really misconduct or else you would have called it misconduct -- this new, vague thing, is the government intending that be a response to a police officer failing to meet a quota?
Mr Bob Wood: It's our intention that the civilian commission is going to determine what is indeed unsatisfactory work performance. It's not the intention of the government to attempt to define that in the statute, in the same way as, for 205 years, this Legislature has delegated to the courts to develop the common law and equity.
Mr Kormos: No, no, please. The Legislature has never delegated common law to the courts. The courts were seized with that before legislatures even existed, before legislatures even legislated. That's why there is a common law.
Mr Bob Wood: Quite the contrary. One of the first acts of this Legislature was to adopt the law of England as it existed in 1792. It's here because of what this Legislature said, not because the courts took it over.
Mr Kormos: Which doesn't create --
The Chair: Gentlemen, I think you're getting off the point. Let's get back to the statute.
Mr Kormos: I might have to start questioning this person about where his -- well, I won't question that, not in this forum.
Mr Ramsay: The University of Miami?
Mr Bob Wood: Feel free to read the statutes of 1792.
Mr Kormos: Honduras, perhaps.
Mr Bob Wood: Read the 1792 Ontario statutes.
Mr Kormos: Let's get back to "unsatisfactory work performance." If you're creating this weird little thing, this little chimera here, and you're saying it's up to the commission to define it, let's try this little angle, Solicitor. What problems -- and Mr Ramsay asked you this; I'll try to ask it again, probably in a far less effective way -- is the government trying to address by creating this undefined "unsatisfactory work performance"? What's the problem out there that's being confronted?
Mr Bob Wood: What we are attempting to do is create the highest quality policing possible in Ontario. This is one of the mechanisms that we think is appropriate to achieve that.
Mr Kormos: Do we not have the highest quality of police possible now?
Mr Bob Wood: I think any quality of any kind of work is possible to improve.
Mr Kormos: So you want to improve the quality of policing. What is it? Once again, what's the problem? What's not up to snuff with our cops that the government is trying to improve? I'm not going to try to start putting ideas in your mind. That would be like putting the quicksilver back into the thermometer, or whatever that stuff is.
Mr Bob Wood: Mercury.
Mr Kormos: The mercury back into the thermometer. What have we got to do here? Have we got to get faster cops, stronger cops? I don't know. What are we trying to achieve to make things better than they already are?
Mr Bob Wood: I think any profession that's dynamic -- and our police profession has to be dynamic. They have got to take a look at practices throughout the world, they've got to take a look at their own ideas and they've got to create the best possible policing we can achieve in Ontario. One means of doing it is the statute before you.
Mr Kormos: I've seen New York City cops and I'll stack ours up against those guys any day of the week. Where are the problems? Where are the problem areas? Where are the holes? Help us.
The Chair: Excuse me, there's no limit on argument, but you've asked the same question four times and you've received the same answer. Is this cross-examination? Is this proper? I'd like your opinion.
Mr Kormos: I think it's entirely proper but it's futile.
The Chair: But if it's the same answer, Mr Kormos, I don't know what answer you -- why don't you tell us what you want to hear?
Mr Kormos: As I say, it's like trying to put the mercury back into the thermometer. I don't want to put ideas into his head. It's a difficult endeavour.
The Chair: Whether the answer is satisfactory or not is not my jurisdiction to review, but you are asking the same question. There are no time limits and I am just pointing that out to you.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Chair.
The Chair: Possibly you'd like to hear from Mr Ramsay and then you can come back.
Mr Kormos: I'd love to hear from Mr Ramsay, and I'll be back.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to go through the complaint process, going through the appropriate sections of the bill. With you now deleting this section that states that the chief and the board, as the case may be, can no longer determine whether an issue is unsatisfactory work performance, I don't understand where the authority is in the bill to proceed with this.
Starting from the beginning, 56(2), "The chief of police may also make a complaint under this part about the conduct of a police officer." Then under section 58, "The chief of police shall determine whether a complaint is about the policies of or services...or the conduct of a police officer," so the chief determines that.
1710
Then there's the section we just dealt with in amendment, which is subsection 63(12), in dealing with the informal resolution: "If, at the conclusion of the investigation and on review of the report submitted to him or her, if any, the chief of police is of the opinion that there was misconduct or" again "unsatisfactory work performance but that it was not of a serious nature, he or she may resolve the matter informally...." Then you go on towards the end of the bill and delete the power of the chief, the board or the commission, as the case may be, the discretion to determine whether any conduct constitutes unsatisfactory work performance.
I don't know where this now comes from. If you delete that section 75 -- really you're doing what we would like, except you still think it's there -- you are deleting any complaint that will be based upon unsatisfactory work performance. Is that your intention?
Mr Bob Wood: I think what you've just said is not correct. The authority flows from subsections 63(8) and (12).
Mr Ramsay: "Hearing to be held"?
Mr Bob Wood: That's where the authority comes with respect to unsatisfactory work performance. It's a matter of statutory interpretation but it's clearly in the bill. There's no doubt about it. The bill does not lack provision.
Mr Ramsay: So what does 75 refer to? What was the original intent of section 75?
Mr Bob Wood: Given the amendments, it's basically become redundant. We're introducing unsatisfactory work performance through subsections 63(8) and (12) rather than through a separate section. We're not removing the concept of unsatisfactory work performance.
The Chair: Except as far as the board goes. The board is removed.
Mr Bob Wood: It flows from those two sections; that's right.
Mr Ramsay: Section 63, as the Chair has rightly pointed out, refers to the chief.
Mr Bob Wood: But we have not removed that concept from the act. That's still very much in the act.
Mr Ramsay: Since you're going to remove section 75, which allows the chief, the board or the commission, as the case may be, the discretion to determine whether any conduct constitutes unsatisfactory work performance, what authority does the board have to hear a case involving unsatisfactory work performance?
Mr Bob Wood: You mean the civilian commission?
Mr Ramsay: Yes.
Mr Bob Wood: Because of the right of appeal to it.
Mr Ramsay: But how would they determine? The chief says, "This is a case of unsatisfactory work performance." Here you're saying the chief of police, the board or the commission, when you take section 75 out, would no longer have the discretion to determine whether this was such conduct.
Mr Bob Wood: It's determined in the first instance by the police chief, but his policy is necessarily determined by the appeal body, which is the civilian commission, so the definition ultimately is going to flow from the civilian commission and all the chiefs have to follow the policy set out by the civilian commission. You have to look at the act as a whole to see the scheme, and that's the scheme, in essence.
Mr Ramsay: The scheme is to set up a system that will over the years, in essence, develop the definition of unsatisfactory work performance.
Mr Bob Wood: Correct.
Mr Ramsay: We're not talking about our law here, which is broad, which is infinite, which is flexible; we're talking about a set of behaviours that we require of our police officials in the province. You've spelled them out as far as misconduct is concerned in section 73, but you failed to set out the behaviours that are unacceptable in regard to unsatisfactory work performance. We're going to take years of litigation and expense and appeals to somehow define over the next few years what constitutes unsatisfactory work performance. I just don't know why you don't just list it down.
Mr Bob Wood: Because in my opinion it's effectively incapable of statutory definition. I think you have to do it the way I described earlier. Any profession is dynamic. Things change. Even if you could define it today, in three years it might be outmoded. It's very difficult to define in the first place.
Mr Ramsay: Let me ask you: Could unsatisfactory work performance be different in the Kenora police force than it might be in the Toronto police force?
Mr Bob Wood: If conditions were different, it might well, yes. Perhaps what might be acceptable in Kenora might be unacceptable in Toronto. It's quite possible.
Mr Crozier: I like that idea about looking at the act as a whole and the scheme. The only thing is it leads me to think about who the schemers were, or schemee, who put in "unsatisfactory work performance." It just didn't drop out of the sky. Somebody must have for some reason put it there.
That having been said, Mr Ramsay asked one of the questions I wanted to ask, and that is, can unsatisfactory work performance be different under two different chiefs? If that's so, because of conditions or whatever, can misconduct be different in Kenora than in the city of Toronto?
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to address the first question. I think what you'll find is that where conditions are different, something that might be misconduct in one area might not be in another. It's not because different chiefs implement different policies. It's because of differences in conditions that you'll see a difference of result from the same conduct.
Mr Crozier: So if misconduct can be different in two different places, more than one place, because conditions are different, why --
Mr Bob Wood: No, unsatisfactory work performance.
Mr Crozier: No, you said "misconduct." I think the record will show you said "misconduct."
The Chair: I think he was mistaken.
Mr Bob Wood: If I did say that, I was attempting to say unsatisfactory work performance. If I said that, I apologize. I was attempting to address the issue of unsatisfactory work performance.
Mr Crozier: So can misconduct be different?
Mr Bob Wood: I think it's much more clearly defined.
Mr Crozier: So what you're saying is, unsatisfactory work performance can't be clearly defined.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think so.
Mr Crozier: To me --
Mr Bob Wood: I think it can be, but I don't think it can be clearly defined by statute. I think it can be clearly defined by the civilian commission.
Mr Crozier: So if I simply don't agree with my boss, who is the chief, then the next step is to take it to the board. It can be appealed to the board, can it, the chief's decision?
Mr Bob Wood: The civilian commission? Yes.
Mr Crozier: So if I just simply disagree with my boss, I'm going to appeal it to the commission. Is that correct?
Mr Bob Wood: Well --
Mr Crozier: Don't you think, Mr Wood, there could be some basic principles in unsatisfactory work performance, both inclusive and exclusive? In other words: "This doesn't apply"; "This isn't done satisfactorily"? Don't you think there could be some broad, basic principles like there is with misconduct?
Mr Bob Wood: I would say that you'll find more practices than principles. I think there are all kinds of basic practices and detailed practices, and indeed certain principles as well, but I think you'll find the more useful, shall we say, application of this problem comes from looking at practices rather than principles.
Mr Crozier: That really compounds it then, because we have this misconduct, which is very clearly defined here and applies to all police forces. Then we say, "But we've got the unsatisfactory work performance, which may or may not be of a serious nature, that applies to all the police services." That really creates an awful lot of questions out there, but we'll just have to work our way through it.
Mr Bob Wood: I think there may be fewer questions than you may anticipate. I think you'll find there's a reasonable consensus within the police community as to what good practices are. There may be a lot less controversy than some may anticipate.
Mr Crozier: Why then, if there are very few -- and I suspect you're right -- did it have to be put in there? Who put it there? Who raised the idea, and somebody else said, "Yeah, that's good"? Was it the minister? Was it somebody on staff? To me, there had to be a reason. It just didn't drop out of the sky.
1720
Mr Bob Wood: The reason is --
Mr Crozier: I was just going to say I sincerely would like to understand that so I could, in all conscience, vote on this motion the way it should be and in an informed way.
Mr Bob Wood: Let me put it to you this way: If you made a complaint about a police officer's conduct and they said, "Well, it's not satisfactory work performance but it isn't misconduct so we can't do anything," would you as a citizen be satisfied with that result?
Mr Crozier: Well, I don't know, unless I had some way to define it. That's all I'm asking you to do. It's your bill.
Mr Bob Wood: And we do. That's quite right.
Mr Crozier: So define it. If I knew ahead of time that that wasn't going to be considered, that it wasn't unsatisfactory work performance, okay, I guess I'd have to live with that.
Mr Bob Wood: What I'm inviting you and all members of the committee to consider is, if you as a citizen complained and the answer was, "It is not misconduct; therefore we can't do anything about it, but we agree that this officer engaged in unsatisfactory work performance in relation to the incident that you're complaining of," would you be satisfied? You can consider that. I'm not asking you to answer it now.
Mr Crozier: Yes. Sure.
Mr Bob Wood: Our point is that this is another way of achieving a higher quality of policing. That's why it's there, to answer your question in short. We think -- having asked you the question, I'll give you our answer. Our answer is that we don't think a citizen would be satisfied if they got that answer. Under this law, they're not going to get that answer. If the answer is, it's not misconduct but it is unsatisfactory work performance, something can then be done about it.
Mr Crozier: So has it worked up until now? Again I refer back to when I was involved municipally and was on the police services board. Granted, I related it to the commission, how anybody on the commission should be able to get the same kind of information, but my point being that when I was on the board, I don't recall just casually in the street or formally through the police services board having a complainant say, "Well, I agree it's not misconduct, but gee, I wish you had unsatisfactory work performance in there so then something could be done."
I assume something was done. If it wasn't misconduct, I assume by some process in the quasi-military fashion of the police service that something was done. But I just think this opens up -- it was referred to as a Pandora's box -- a can of worms.
One of those worms, whether anybody at this table likes to admit it or not -- we can all skirt around it and say, "I've never heard of that before; I didn't know" -- is quotas. Quotas have been talked about for, God, ever since I can remember; I guess maybe ever since I got my driver's licence. I suggest that if they were talked about that much, they must have existed. And if this then is one of those things, one of those worms that can be raised, we're in for a grand old time.
Mr Bob Wood: Let me touch on one point. When you look at the amount of work they do, the complaints about police are very, very small indeed. However, we do have to address the fact that in any human body there are going to be a certain number of people whose performance is not satisfactory for one reason or another, and that's really what we're looking at here.
The police have done, in my opinion, an excellent job. The fact of the matter is, their work will be enhanced by an effective complaints process, which is what we think we have here. We think unsatisfactory work performance is a significant part of that. If a member of the public encounters such a thing, they should have a remedy. We think it's a poor answer to say to them, "Well, it's not misconduct but it is unsatisfactory work performance and we can't do anything about it under this system." We think that's a poor answer to give to the public.
Mr Crozier: Okay. Well, somehow it has worked up until now. I just think that putting it in writing even -- I'd even go as far as to say that -- putting those three words in writing, even though they may have been implied for years, is going to cause no end to the trouble. I don't think the public is even going to know that it goes on. It's just going to cost them a bucketful of money.
Mr Bob Wood: I think you're going to be pleasantly surprised by how this works.
Mr Crozier: I certainly hope I am. I'm with you: I hope I am. But if I were a gambling man -- and you, Mr Wood, and others here know I'm not -- I would bet on it.
Mr Kormos: Having listened carefully to the parliamentary assistant, I'm as concerned now as I was earlier. He speaks of the prospect of a citizen complaint about some kind of behaviour that isn't misconduct and, since it doesn't fall within 73, the misconduct definitions, can't be addressed. I suppose that I'm compelled to ask for an instance in our history of policing in the province where there is behaviour that was considered worthy of addressing but couldn't be addressed because it didn't constitute misconduct. That's number one.
Number two is the fact that police officers deserve, have a right in my view, as any worker does, to know what the guidelines are, to know what the rules are. Mr Wood is talking about a scenario wherein if all of a sudden when he crossed the boundary line on 42nd Street into Times Square there, you know, with all the neon and the shows and so on --
Mr Ramsay: Stop there.
Mr Kormos: As if Mr Wood is walking down 42nd Street from 8th Avenue, and all of a sudden, as soon as he crossed Broadway, he entered a brave new world where the law wasn't spelled out and where it simply said, "Any behaviour unworthy of residents of this zone shall be punished." Nor would any fairminded person think that that would at all be reasonable, because it could constitute -- and he already indicated it could constitute -- different things in different locations. I mean, what gives? Mr Wood indicates that unsatisfactory work performance could be different in Kenora than it is in Niagara. Well, that's nuts.
Mr Bob Wood: If conditions were different.
Mr Kormos: That's nuts. I say that this reference to unsatisfactory work performance is a very anti-police element of this bill.
Now, Mr Wood, all of us here know that these amendments and these bills don't just sort of appear in the morning like mushrooms around the base of the maple tree out in the front yard. They are the result of policy discussions, and the policy discussions are based on input from various sources, and when you come up with a phrase like "unsatisfactory work performance," some little minion somewhere came up with that phrase as compared to another phrase. I mean, they could have just said, "Naughty police officers will be dealt with by the chief of police." They didn't say that. They said "unsatisfactory work performance."
Mr Crozier asked you about this, Mr Ramsay asked you about this, and I'm putting it to you again. We deserve to know where this came from. Where are the roots of this? You spoke, you sort of dug into your bag there, and you came up with a one-eared rabbit, and that was the citizen complaint but it's not misconduct. Well, you made it up. You made it up, Mr Wood, because you haven't got a single example of a citizen complaint that was in any way serious or had any legitimacy or any validity but that couldn't be dealt with because it didn't constitute misconduct. You made it up. Don't do that, please. That's not proper.
I quite frankly am concerned enough about the fabrications of justifications that I can tell you these amendments won't be dealt with today. I think that's just as well, because then we can come back next week and maybe get some clear and honest answers about where "unsatisfactory work performance" came from, who requested it and what were the policy considerations in support of it. All of us know -- don't BS us -- that these things aren't done whimsically. Every once in a while something whimsical slips through, but this wasn't whimsical and it has been addressed since day one. You've had months and months to consider the criticisms of it and the concern about it.
1730
I think most of us, if not all of us, got a letter. You'll recall Roy Rawluk, who is with the Metro Toronto Police, a police constable. He made a submission to the committee and he had, and still does I am sure, some interesting -- he prefaced his letter by quoting Kennedy. Now, Kennedy wasn't the greatest source of quotes; a lot of his stuff was written for him. That's what happens when you're rich, you get people to write that stuff for you. But that's okay because he might as well have said it.
Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. Mr Rawluk, like a whole lot of people, has concern -- and here you talk about a police officer, a responsible one. You'll recall his submission, an extremely thoughtful one and one that was very analytical.
Surely the cry for "unsatisfactory work performance" doesn't come from police. Mr Rawluk wouldn't suggest that, none of the police officers we met during the course of these committee hearings have suggested that and none of us has received a single telephone call, a bit of correspondence, anything from any cop in the province suggesting that they need to have unsatisfactory work performance included in their work relationship as a disciplinary offence to help make them better cops. That's remarkable. Who would have thought that would have come from police officers? "Oh, that's right, Mr Runciman and Mr Wood. Please include `unsatisfactory work performance' in your new bill so that we can become better police because we want to catch more crooks and we want to protect more citizens." Horsefeathers.
It didn't come from police officers. To be fair, we didn't hear from a whole lot of police services boards; we heard from some members of them. No suggestion that any of them had concern; no suggestion on the part of chiefs of police that they were somehow handicapped or their hands were tied when it came to dealing with police officers.
There was no commentator, directly with the hearing process or outside of it, who suggested that the code of misconduct, section 73, was in itself inadequate for the purpose of addressing disciplinary problems within any given police force, and you haven't come up with a single illustration of a need for something so vague and undefined as "unsatisfactory work performance."
This has nothing to do with the citizen complaint process and you either know it or you ought to know it. This has everything to do with the relationship between management and police officers. It has diddly-squat to do with citizen complaints. Unsatisfactory work performance has nothing to do with public conduct of a police officer that might draw concern or create a grievance in a member of the public. It has everything to do with importing some heavy-handed, new, ill-defined and omnibus, as they are, powers to management. No person working in any workplace, least of all police, deserves that type of -- as I say, it's a dance in the fog because there are no definitions, there are no rules. It's Byzantine, at the very best.
Obviously, we're not going to finish the bill today. It's a shame. But I think a little hiatus would give you a chance, with the skilled help you've got, to go back to the ministry, take a look at how this bill was put together and find out for us -- and look, there could well be a perfectly reasonable explanation. We'd just love to hear it. There could be something so persuasive that Mr Ramsay and Mr Crozier and even I apologize to you for having been so difficult, for having been so obstreperous about your importation of this new workplace offence.
By gosh, I'd look forward to the chance to apologize to you for being difficult. I'd want to put it right on record. I'd want it on Hansard. I'd want it in black and white, written, so that people could be shown: "Look, Kormos apologizes for being obstreperous, for being difficult to get along with."
Mr Ramsay: It wouldn't be the first time.
The Chair: It would be the first time.
Mr Kormos: It would the first time I apologized.
The Chair: To anybody.
Mr Kormos: Yes, but I'd look forward to that chance. All you've got to do is prove us wrong. All you've got to do is send us home with our tails between our legs, saying: "Oh boy, we really mucked that one up because Mr Wood was right on top of things. We didn't know it and we were critical of him. By God, there we were in committee and we were ridiculing some of his answers because they were silly. We accused him of not knowing what he was talking about, of making things up, of fabricating things." Boy, would we be shamefaced if you proved us wrong. By gosh, I'd go home for a good week, a week and a half. I wouldn't be able to show my face around here.
All it takes is an explanation as to where this came from, who wanted it, who asked for it. Jeez, we had chiefs of police. I know how these committee hearings are organized. They get woodshedded before they come here by ministry staff. They could have been tipped off. They could have been asked to make a pitch for "unsatisfactory work performance." They could have been told: "Lay it on the line and use your authority as highly regarded chiefs of police to embarrass the opposition members into coming on side with it." But you didn't.
You could have come up with a complainant, one of these citizen complainants you talk about who had such a grievance, who was so distressed by something that some police officer did somewhere in Ontario and who couldn't get any redress because it wasn't misconduct because it didn't fall within the realm of misconduct.
I am surprised that you didn't know about the concept of quotas because they were spoken to by some of the very earliest presenters; I believe, among others, some of the participants and representations from the Police Association of Ontario or various police associations of Ontario seized on this right away. These guys weren't slackers by any stretch of the imagination. They had a sense of what was going on.
Well, refute it. That's all we want to hear. We want to hear a reasonable argument in response to the concerns expressed by those people. Gosh, here it is, it's twenty minutes to 6. Nuts, we won't get finished today. But I think it's just as well, because I'm ready to come back next Monday and the Monday after that and the Monday after that. I haven't got anything booked for July or August yet, so we can do that as well.
I think a little bit of time to talk to some of the staff over there in the ministry -- you've got some smart people there. They can write you a briefing note on it and then you won't be fumbling around talking about all the other statutes: "Read the RSOs." Oh yeah, that was a good one. You won't be using lines like that. You can give us some concrete examples. I'd be very interested in that and, by gosh, that would leave me with a sufficient comfort level that we could probably carry on. But until then I'm far too uncomfortable.
1740
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. For the purpose of the record I must say something, because you seemed to indicate that there's something special in this bill that you disagree with that calls you to go over the one day agreed to by the House leaders. In fact, there have been three bills before the House on which you have attended and on each occasion you have done the same thing, so there's nothing special in your behaviour today, Mr Kormos. You have again breached your House leader's agreement, which is in writing, that we would spend one day on this bill, which I take it would be two half-days, and you are going over that.
Mr Kormos: Well, send me to bed without dessert. I'm really disheartened.
The Chair: I just want you to know that there's nothing special in your behaviour.
Mr Kormos: No, Chair. I'm not the one playing silly bugger with this committee. Bob Wood, the parliamentary assistant, is when he won't address issues that he's being confronted with, and this is far too important --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Mr Ramsay, you have the floor.
Mr Ramsay: I want to come back to this because this is very important. I think the parliamentary assistant started to lead us down the garden path when he asked my colleague whether we wanted the public to be told by the chief that we cannot proceed with this complaint --
Mr Crozier: I'm easily led.
Mr Ramsay: To a degree -- that we cannot proceed with this complaint because it doesn't fall under the definition of misconduct. That's why, according to the parliamentary assistant, we have this undefined phrase here, "unsatisfactory work performance."
Quite frankly, my concerns with how police officers deal with the public really would have to deal with misconduct. That's what I want to protect the public from. Cops are human, like everybody else, and make mistakes, but we hold them to account for misconduct. As far as the public's concerned, that's what I also would want to hold them to account for.
This definition of "unsatisfactory work performance" has got nothing to do with public complaints, it's got to do with internal discipline of police officers by chiefs. It's got nothing to do with the public complaint process. That may not be so bad, except for the fact that in this bill you make the chief the judge and jury and executioner of the officers. That's what's wrong with having such a loosey-goosey undefined phrase as "unsatisfactory work performance," when a police officer can be hauled up on the carpet by his or her chief, accused by the chief, have it determined by the chief that it is a matter of unsatisfactory work performance and be docked a week's pay. That is wrong, and if you want to go kill the morale of police officers, like you have of firefighters through Bill 84, this is the way to do it.
I wouldn't have to apologize to the public at all if we took out "unsatisfactory work performance." I want to protect the public from any misconduct, as defined in this bill, by police officers. I'm satisfied with that. This is another matter and it's got to be removed from this bill, because this is going to slow down policing in Ontario. It's going to make it ineffective. Officers are going to be afraid of what really defines unsatisfactory work performance. We're not going to get good policing. They're going to be totally demoralized by this. Then, as these charges start to come forward, they are of course -- and I support them in this -- going to start to fight this, and that's going to cost all of us time and money until a body of jurisprudence is developed by the commission over time that will finally tell us what is unsatisfactory work performance.
This is bad legislation. You don't put in criteria that are undefined in a piece of legislation. This is a mess and you're dealing with not just law but an extremely important function in society, and that is the duty to protect the public through policing. That's what we're fiddling with here and this is wrong. I ask the parliamentary assistant, as my colleague has asked, to take a break and consider this matter and come back next week and see if we can work this out and find something that is satisfactory to police officers in Ontario and to law enforcement in Ontario.
Mr Bob Wood: Perhaps I can respond briefly to some of the concerns that have been raised. It's important to bear in mind that the police chiefs are going to outline quite specifically what they think is satisfactory work performance. This is not going to be an unknown quantity. The civilian commission's going to become involved if and when there's a disagreement as to what that might be. I think you're going to find that there's quite a wide consensus as to what satisfactory work performance is, and I rather suspect there won't be the volume of appeals to the civilian commission that some may think there are going to be.
Mr Ramsay: Can we deal with that point?
Mr Bob Wood: Certainly.
Mr Ramsay: Where in the act does it say that the police chief will be spelling out what in his or her view in that particular police department -- it could be different in Kenora and Toronto -- where is it stated that the police chief will develop that criterion for those officers under his or her command as to what is unsatisfactory work performance?
Mr Bob Wood: That's not set out in the act; it's merely a good management practice.
Mr Ramsay: You see, there's the problem again. I might be halfway satisfied if even that was in the bill. All I want to get is that police officers know what it is. If we don't define it in the bill, even if we said in the bill, as you've just stated, that police chiefs would do this, then let's make it mandatory that police chiefs have to state what this is in their police departments, so at least the men and women who are out there working on our behalf understand in their department what constitutes unsatisfactory work performance. That may be a way to help work this out.
Mr Bob Wood: I think it's quite unnecessary. I think the chiefs understand what good management practices are and follow them.
Mr Ramsay: How do the officers know?
Mr Bob Wood: Because the chiefs tell them.
Mr Ramsay: Why don't we then compel them through this legislation to make sure that is stated, so at least the police officers know the regime of rules they're working under? That's all I'm asking for.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think they need to. It's an obvious good management practice.
Mr Ramsay: This is the fog we talked about. If you don't define it, how are police officers going to know what's required of them? That's all I'm asking.
Mr Bob Wood: My point to you is it's good management practice to give clear expectations to employees of what the job involves. That's what I think the police chiefs do and what they will do.
Mr Ramsay: But we're just hoping this is the case, and as you said, work performance might be judged differently in different locales. I might have argument with you on that, but even just accepting that and that you want to have flexibility and therefore you do not want to have this stated in legislation, nor in regulation, at least why don't we compel the chiefs to state in some sort of procedural manual at each police department what constitutes unsatisfactory work performance? At least then there would be the guidance there that our police officers could work under.
The Chair: On that note, Mr Ramsay, I think we've explored this. Since there are only a few minutes left, I think it would be appropriate, unless there's objection, to adjourn the continuation of clause-by-clause hearings to Monday at 3:30 pm.
The committee adjourned at 1748.