POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
CONTENTS
Monday 2 June 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 FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr GerryPhillips (Scarborough-Agincourt)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
J-2277
The committee met at 1535 in committee room 228.
POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS
Consideration of Bill 105, An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety / Projet de loi 105, Loi visant à renouveler le partenariat entre la province, les municipalités et la police et visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. This is clause-by-clause consideration of An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety. I welcome Mr Phillips here on behalf of the opposition. We have a quorum and we are in the process of discussing item 71, which is a government motion to amend section 34 of the bill, subsection 63(12) of the Police Services Act, and I believe Mr Kormos had the floor when we last left.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Chair, I should make it quite clear that all of us, both in the Liberal caucus and the New Democratic caucus, were incredibly concerned about Mr Wood's refusal to address this new concept of "unsatisfactory work performance," the refusal and then the effort to basically BS the committee, pursuing several directions there in his responses to what were a series of very serious questions.
You know this has been a matter of great concern for police officers who have appeared before this committee from day one. One of the stated fears was that it's going to be used to enforce a quota system, and a quota system that relates to the revenue-raising activities of police officers, specifically and obviously those offences which have the fines or the dispositions reverting back to the municipality.
Mr Wood, notwithstanding that he's the well-paid parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, sat mouth open saying, "Oh gosh, golly." For a guy who's this tight with Preston Manning, I thought he'd had a little more practical experience with the real world -- "Oh, gosh, golly, I didn't know that police have quota systems," when in fact you've got to be from another planet. Police officers very specifically spoke about quotas.
Nobody is denying quotas have been one way of assessing performance. I think we understand that they were a way to either assess performance or single out a given police officer for unjust or unfair discipline. What people tend as well to be in common agreement on is that quotas, although designed to test performance, are an ineffective, inaccurate and unfair mode of testing performance and they simply ignore the realities of policing.
I want to express gratitude specifically to Roy Rawluk, who has articulately and indeed prolifically provided commentary on this particular issue to the committee. His comments on it have been particularly useful, I'm sure from the point of view of all of the opposition members of the committee, in addressing this issue of unsatisfactory work performance and in attempting to persuade Mr Wood that the matter has to be addressed here in committee. The history of it has to be understood and what the government intends by it has to be understood.
Mr Rawluk has provided me with some information which has been helpful, because one of the questions is, where was the genesis of this phrase? Who called for it? We didn't hear from any persons making submissions, any organizations, any of the participants in the hearings, we didn't hear any of them speak to a need for this new disciplinary standard or definition of misconduct.
Mr Rawluk writes that if we look to the Review of Police Services in Ontario: A Framework for Discussion, coming out of the ministry, we'll see the comment:
"Some police officer conduct may be the result of a training deficiency or simple incapacity to perform adequately in certain areas of police endeavour. A punitive system would be clearly inappropriate here. The current Police Services Act provides hearing procedures to deal with mental or physical disability situations as well as non-performance or incapacity to perform duties in a satisfactory manner."
Mr Rawluck concludes that this analysis, this Framework for Discussion, this paper prepared within the ministry, makes it clear that it was never intended that the phrase "unsatisfactory work performance" be a definition of a set of conducts that are going to be subject to discipline. I'm grateful to him for having raised that, and when I read particularly the comment from that paper, "A punitive system would be clearly inappropriate here," I note how significantly that contradicts and contrasts with the current position of the government.
Again, nobody on the opposition side, nobody from within the police force, is suggesting that matters of mental or physical disability situations as well as non-performance or incapacity to perform duties in a satisfactory manner should not be addressed. Similarly we understand that the current code of misconduct, the rules, have been 100% effective in addressing those. Let's not confuse this. Mr Wood, confused as he was, talked about "unsatisfactory work performance" as being a means of expanding the realm of public complaints. Mr Wood was wrong in that regard. He was entirely wrong. He was ill informed. He was ignorant of the bill and of the background to the bill. It was an entirely inappropriate comment for him to make, because clearly unsatisfactory work performance has nothing to do with public complaints. It has everything to do with discipline within the police force. We're not dealing here with public complaints; we're dealing here with expanding the power of management to discipline.
Once again the comment: "Some police officer conduct may be the result of a training deficiency or simple incapacity to perform adequately in certain areas of police endeavour. A punitive system would be clearly inappropriate here" -- the bill, with its inclusion of "unsatisfactory work performance" and utilizing that as a basis for discipline, has not only ignored the recommendation in the discussion paper but has run contrary to it. Mr Wood is either incapable of telling us what is intended to be addressed by this or unwilling to do it. Depending upon the moment, I'm inclined to believe he's incapable, then the next moment I reach the conclusion that he's simply not prepared to tell us, then there are moments later when I find he's incapable again.
I believe this committee deserves the very simple and honest questions answered about the source of this concept, "unsatisfactory work performance." It's not a difficult question. We all understand how policy is developed and then translated into legislation. We know there's little that's left unaddressed in the course of interpreting policy into legislation. We know there is an answer to that question and a readily obtainable one, if Mr Wood is so ill informed that he wasn't aware of it by virtue of being the parliamentary assistant.
As well as the motivation for the new concept, "unsatisfactory work performance," I believe the committee has a right to be told of how the government anticipates this will be utilized. Once again, we all know that those things are considered, that this isn't developed in a vacuum, that when you consider what ill you want to address by "unsatisfactory work performance," you also have an idea about how it's going to be applied and how it's intended to be applied. I think we have a right to know that. In fact, I believe we have a responsibility to ask that question so that Hansard can reflect the government's understanding of how it's intended or anticipated that it's going to be applied.
Once again, Mr Wood is either incapable, notwithstanding that he's the parliamentary assistant and earns some $11,000 a year in addition to his MPP's salary of $78,004 a year, or unwilling to respond to that question. In either case, I think it's an affront to the committee that he has played silly bugger with opposition members in response to those questions.
It's unfair to the police officers who have addressed this over and over again with genuine concern. I interpret the concern as being dual. Is there concern on the part of police officers about being subjected to arbitrary discipline? You bet your boots there is, as there should be on the part of any person in a workplace who is subjected to discipline by an employer. I think we're putting police officers in a position where they can be the subject of whimsical, arbitrary and unfair impositions of discipline. As well, nobody here can reach any other conclusion than that this is designed to deal with enforcing quotas. That's bad policing.
Police officers -- and they have every right to express their self-interest as people working for a living and working in a dangerous and demanding job -- have a right to be free of the fear of unfair discipline or loss of employment.
As well, the concern by police officers about "unsatisfactory work performance" is very much related to their commitment to quality policing. "Unsatisfactory work performance," as it's included in this bill, and as it remains undefined and without comment by the government, poses a real danger to the quality of policing. Policing is, I believe, as much an art as it is a science. We have had a high quality of policing in this province, and continue to, notwithstanding the government's insistence on increasingly underfunding police services.
I am disappointed that the parliamentary assistant, with either his incapacity or his unwillingness, has not responded to these matters. I think it's an affront to police in every police services board across this province and I think it's ironic that it comes from a government that talks a big game about being law and order and pro-police. It's an insult to police officers who, I have no hesitation in saying, I believe in large numbers supported this government or Conservative candidates in the last provincial election based upon what they perceived to be the government's attitude towards police.
Obviously we're going to be voting against each and every part of this bill; that includes the phrase "unsatisfactory work performance." I had hoped that some of the government members might have shared some of the concern about "unsatisfactory work performance." I had hoped that the week or the six days since we last met as a committee might have given some people an opportunity to either talk to police officers or some of the people who made presentations or to reflect on it in their own right, or to talk to their caucus colleagues to motivate them to stand opposed to this concept of unsatisfactory work performance. I suspect that the six days hasn't been sufficient to do that.
However, I am reminded of Bill 84 and I am reminded of what happened to government members who did listen to presentations. You remember, of course, what happened to the parliamentary assistant, Gary Carr, when he was listening to firefighters about Bill 84, and the Vice-Chair, Ron Johnson, who was listening to firefighters and their concerns about Bill 84. Well, both these people got dumped unceremoniously, got fired. In the case of Gary Carr and Ron Johnson, the parliamentary assistant, Gary Carr, on the last day of the hearings was fired notwithstanding that he was the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General and carried the hearings through the whole process.
1550
I hope that police associations exhaust every resource available to them to oppose the application of unsatisfactory work performance as a disciplinary tool. I doubt if the Hansard is going to be of much use to them in view of the parliamentary assistant's inability or unwillingness to respond to questions about it, but I look forward to the chance, if indeed the government remains adamant about unsatisfactory work performance, to address this bill at some time in the near future, once we see how inappropriate that standard is, how unfair it is and how detrimental it is to the morale of police officers and inevitably, as a result of that, to the effectiveness of policing in the province.
I have no doubt that cops, if asked to -- if ordered to, not if asked to -- will meet quotas, but they'll do it knowing that is not the best way to effect policing, and I think that's a sad, sad, sad thing. It puts police at risk and it puts the public at risk when cops are compelled to go out there and raise revenues and tested or required to meet quotas rather than out there doing real policing.
The House leaders made a deal, and the deal was that today would be the last day of clause-by-clause consideration. I spoke with the Liberal House leader today and I spoke with my caucus's whip, who told me of the deal. I explained to both of them that there were a considerable number of amendments left, that I expected to request appropriate comments by way of my questions or my comments on those amendments as the need arose and I wasn't sure whether the committee would finish its work today in any event. What the government told them, to extract this commitment out of the Liberal and NDP House leaders, was that the government would consent to two more opposition days: one day for the NDP and one day for the Liberals. That was the tradeoff. The opposition parties each got an opposition day in exchange for our not pursuing this issue any further at the committee.
This isn't the first government to extract that sort of commitment or to cut that sort of deal, but I find it no more palatable from this government than I did from the last government or from the government before that. I think that's a pathetic way to run a democratic institution.
I've explained, I believe, as thoroughly as I can our concerns about "unsatisfactory work performance." Mr Ramsay and Mr Crozier have intensively, throughout the two days of hearings last week. Obviously Mr Ramsay can't be here today. He's not in a riding that's close to Toronto like I am that enables me to drive back to my riding after 6 o'clock. Similarly, Mr Crozier wouldn't be in a position to simply drive back to Windsor to deal with his community on a federal election day. The government insisted on meeting today. The government's had a heck of a time meeting its quorum commitment in the House. There have been several quorum calls already. The government House leader talked a big game about how the government wants to work, yet I'd be surprised if there were even 50% of its caucus members here today. Certainly only half the cabinet was in the House. It was only half the cabinet during question period. I find that a pretty peculiar thing.
Having spoken with Mr Bradley and Ms Lankin, and being aware that they had made a deal but that it was a deal that I could kibosh if I wanted to, they understood that I wasn't going to feel bound by their deal. But they both requested that I permit the two opposition days. Their view is that those opposition days, one for the Liberal caucus and one for the NDP caucus, will be more effective at revealing this government to be what it is than would protracted committee hearings on this. For that reason I am not going to engage in -- what's the phrase? -- dilatory comments or questioning. I will speak out on each amendment as it's presented, if there's a need to, to put something on the record. I anticipate that with any luck at all, these amendments will all be voted upon today and the bill will be voted upon by committee.
If I thought that we would actually make progress by me continuing to be dilatory, trust me, I'd continue to be dilatory. I'd be the most dilatory little thing you ever saw. But I'm not confident that anything is going to be achieved by it. I think that's unfortunate. Here we are today, we've got some nasty little rule changes tabled in the House which are going to even further restrict the ability of opposition to debate and raise issues and make issue of matters before the House. I suppose we in the opposition had better keep our powder dry and be prepared to engage in some pretty protracted struggles and fights, using whatever creativity, Cafon Court creativity, we can muster.
Here we are on government motion 71, I believe, Chair, and I have no more comments with respect to it. I'll be voting against it and asking for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mr Bob Wood (London South): With some trepidation, having successfully convinced some members of the merits of this and not so successfully with others, I might attempt a further explanation which might or might not be of some assistance.
I might say I understand the concerns expressed by the police and by opposition members. Obviously the issue is, how do you address unsatisfactory work performance? Currently those are dealt with as misconduct offences under the Police Services Act. Basically the chiefs of police and the provincial commission have to deal with work performance issues as neglect of duty or another offence under the code of conduct. Some of these issues, like lateness, should be dealt with quickly and simply. Under this bill the chiefs are going to be able to deal effectively with work performance issues that shouldn't be the subject of a disciplinary prosecution under the act. The bill also gives the chief more flexibility to deal with work performance issues by way of counselling, training and treatment.
There are concerns, rightly expressed. Suppose there is an unsatisfactory definition. What controls are there on that? That I think is an entirely fair question. Bear in mind that under the bill the officer has to consent to any action taken or the matter proceeds to a hearing under the act, and that decision is subject to appeal to the provincial civilian commission. The ultimate control and the ultimate answer to the concerns raised, such as the concern raised about quotas, is that the civilian commission is not going to permit inappropriate definitions of unsatisfactory work performance.
1600
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I had come expecting that Mr Wood was going to have a definition of this, and perhaps I was misinformed. My concern is that you just said, I think, that there are ways to define "unsatisfactory work performance." I can understand our police community's concern about the unknown. This looks like it's the unknown to them; to me as well. It would be helpful for me if you were to say, "Here are situations that have come up in the past that our police community was unable to deal with and that's why we are putting this `unsatisfactory work performance' clause in."
I would much prefer to have those things spelled out rather than have what looks like a possible blank cheque that puts our police officers at risk in terms of unsatisfactory work performance being things that perhaps no one here had contemplated but which would be completely permitted under the law. We've got decades of experience now of where police communities are unable to deal with these. Why don't we simply put those things in? That would eliminate this real unease the police community has.
I guess I misinterpreted what I thought would be explained here today.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd be pleased to address that issue. We think a statutory definition of "unsatisfactory work performance" is very difficult to do because what is satisfactory work performance is a dynamic concept, not a static concept; as with any profession, what is the right way to do something changes over the years.
It's an entirely fair question: Where does an officer find a definition of what they're supposed to do? That should come from police chiefs themselves, who are going to set out what is expected. Interestingly enough I think you'll find, and may already have found, in talking to people in the police community, that there's a reasonable consensus around what that is. It does change from time to time.
Where might one look? One might look in the Police Services Act. One might look in this bill. One might look in the code of conduct. One might look at the actual work practices. It's an entirely fair question. One can't operate in a vacuum. One has to know what is expected, and I think that will come from the police. In those rare cases where there's a disagreement it will work its way through the system where the provincial civilian commission will ultimately give a definition if there's a lack of clarity. But I think the information is there and the safeguards are there.
Obviously no one argues that you have to deal with unsatisfactory work performance. That's self-evident. The question is, how do you do it? We think this is a way that's going to make it better for all concerned.
Mr Phillips: You can imagine your answer raises more questions because what you said was that it is a moving target. I think that is the term you used. So what may be deemed as satisfactory today by the police chiefs could be unsatisfactory tomorrow. By having this in the bill and having it as a moving target, you can imagine perhaps how nervous the police community now becomes, when not only can we not define it today, but you're telling us it probably is going to change fairly substantially over time, and the police chiefs, I gather, can then also redefine what is unsatisfactory.
It makes our police community very nervous. The reason it's important is there's probably no more sensitive community service than police, as we all know, and if their role of what's satisfactory can be changed unilaterally by the police chief, then we have a problem. I hear your answer, but it raises unease rather than lowers the concern.
The Chair: Could we proceed to Mr Klees? Sorry, Mr Wood.
Mr Bob Wood: I have an answer to that, but I'm getting the hook here.
The Chair: No, you're not getting the hook. You will be next, but Mr Klees was on my list before you. That's all.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I want to follow up on Mr Phillips's question. I don't have a problem with your initial explanation. However, for clarity, what I would like to know is, if I'm a police officer, it would be important for me to know where these standards are set down against which my performance would be measured. You referred, I think, to three or four different locations where one might go. If I'm a police officer, is there something I can go to that is in writing that would give me that sense of clarity about what's expected of me? If I'm on the Metro force, is there something that would be issued by the chief of police of that force, if I'm elsewhere? Could you just comment on that?
Mr Bob Wood: I want to clarify a point. I think Mr Phillips misapprehended slightly what I said. I didn't say there couldn't be a definition. I said it would be inappropriate to introduce a definition into a statute because it is a dynamic thing. Police practices change. It's not that I don't think it can be defined; I think it can be defined. How it's defined now is an important question because the officers have to know that. Basically it's defined by the chiefs. In many forces they have standing orders that actually define that. If there's any lack of clarity, of course the chief is there and the police administration is there to explain that to officers. So officers are not in any way working in the dark.
I reiterate the point I made earlier. There's great consensus around what is satisfactory work performance for a police officer. This is not something where there are piles of disputes. However, it is also true that the word of the chief should not be final, and that's why there's the appeal to the civilian commission, which deals with this now under the current process. It's not that the civilian commission, when called upon, doesn't make that definition now, but it is relatively rare that's done because there is considerable consensus.
The Chair: Is there any more discussion in regard to the amendment? Then I shall put the vote. A government motion.
Ayes
Boushy, Flaherty, Klees, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: The amendment is carried. We are proceeding to item 72.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsections 63(16), (17) and (18) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Disposition without a hearing if informal resolution fails
"(16) If an informal resolution of the matter is attempted but not achieved under subsection (12), the following rules apply:
"1. The chief of police shall provide the police officer with reasonable information concerning the matter and shall give him or her an opportunity to reply, orally or in writing.
"2. The chief of police may then admonish the police officer and may cause an entry concerning the matter, the action taken and the police officer's reply to be made in his or her employment record.
"3. If the police officer refuses to accept the admonition, the chief of police shall not cause particulars to be recorded without first holding a hearing.
"Employment record expunged
"(17) An entry made in the police officer's employment record under paragraph 2 of subsection (16) shall be expunged from the record two years after being made if during that time no other entries concerning misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance have been made in the record under this part.
"Agreement
"(18) Nothing in this section affects agreements between boards and police officers or associations that permit penalties other than admonition to be administered, if the police officer in question consents, without a hearing under subsection (8)."
This is consistent with all our other amendments requiring, among other things, the opportunity to reply orally or in writing and, as I say, was consistent with earlier amendments which all reflect to the same principles.
Mr Bob Wood: We think there is some merit in this motion but prefer our version, which is the next motion, and I'll explain the reasons in a couple of minutes.
1610
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Kormos's proposed amendment? If not, is a recorded vote requested?
Mr Kormos: Please, sir.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Klees, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated. We are proceeding with item 73.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 63(16), (17) and (18) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Disposition without a hearing if informal resolution fails
"(16) If an informal resolution of the matter is attempted but not achieved under subsection (12), the following rules apply:
"1. The chief of police shall provide the police officer with reasonable information concerning the matter and shall give him or her an opportunity to reply, orally or in writing.
"2. Subject to paragraph 3, the chief of police may impose on the police officer the penalty described in clause 67(1)(e) and may take any other action described in subsection 67(4) and may cause an entry concerning the matter, the penalty imposed or action taken and the police officer's reply to be made in his or her employment record.
"3. If the police officer refuses to accept the penalty imposed or action taken, the chief of police shall not impose a penalty or take any other action or cause any entry to be made in the police officer's employment record, but shall hold a hearing under subsection (8).
"Employment record expunged
"(17) An entry made in the police officer's employment record under paragraph 2 of subsection (16) shall be expunged from the record two years after being made if during that time no other entries concerning misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance have been made in the record under this part."
"Agreement
"(18) Nothing in this section affects agreements between boards and police officers or associations that permit penalties or actions other than those permitted by this section, if the police officer in question consents without a hearing under subsection (8)."
These of course are changes in procedures for handling non-serious complaints. They require a chief of police to give the subject police officer reasonable information regarding the complaint and the police officer an opportunity to respond. They also require the consent of the police officer before a penalty is imposed or other action is taken by the chief of police. If the police officer consents to the penalty or other action taken, the chief of police may make an entry regarding the penalty or action taken in the police officer's employment record. If the police officer does not consent, no entry will be made in the police officer's employment record and a hearing will be held. Of course it does not affect existing agreements.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? All those in favour? The amendment is carried.
We are proceeding to item 75.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 64(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 board may decide not to deal with any complaint that it considers to be frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith and shall notify the complainant and the police officer who is the subject of the complaint in writing of the decision and of the complainant's right to ask the commission to review the decision within 30 days of receiving the notice.
"Complaint more than six months old
"(3.1) The board may decide not to deal with any complaint that was made more than six months after the facts on which it is based occurred and shall notify the complainant and the police officer who is the subject of the complaint in writing of the decision and of the complainant's right to ask the commission to review the decision within 30 days of receiving the notice."
This amendment allows the police services board not to deal with a complaint about the conduct of the chief or deputy chief made in bad faith and requires the board to notify the subject police officer and the complainant of its decision and of the complainant's right to ask the provincial commission to review this decision.
This provision already exists in subsection 64(3) in the case of "frivolous or vexatious." The new (3.1) allows the police services board not to deal with a complaint made by a member of the public about the chief or deputy chief if the complaint is more than six months old and requires the police services board to notify the subject police officer and the complainant of its decision and the complainant's right to ask the provincial commission to review this decision.
The Chair: If there's no other discussion, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Mr Wood, may I suggest that unless you are asked a question or for an explanation, you withhold the explanations after reading the amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: I will give no explanation unless requested.
I move that subsections 64(5) and (6) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Investigation assigned to another police force
"(5) If, at the conclusion of the review, the board is of the opinion that the chief of police's or deputy chief of police's conduct may constitute an offence under a law of Canada or of a province or territory, or misconduct, as defined in section 73, or unsatisfactory work performance, the board shall ask the commission to assign the chief of police of another police force to cause the complaint to be investigated immediately and the investigation to be reported on in a written report."
The Chair: Is there any question or discussion in regard to this amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 77.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 64(7) and (8) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Matter referred to board
"(7) If, at the conclusion of the investigation carried out by another police force, the chief of police of the other police force is of the opinion that the conduct of the chief of police or deputy chief of police under investigation may constitute misconduct, as defined in section 73, or unsatisfactory work performance, he or she shall refer the matter, together with the written report, to the board.
"Unsubstantiated complaint
"(8) If, at the conclusion of the investigation carried out by another police force, the chief of police of the other police force is of the opinion that the complaint is unsubstantiated, the chief of police shall report that in writing to the board and the board 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."
The Chair: Is there any question or discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 78.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 64 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Board pays for prosecutor
"(10.1) The board shall pay the prosecutor's remuneration, whether the prosecutor has been designated by the board or by the commission."
The Chair: Any questions or discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 79.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 64(11) and (12) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Findings and disposition after hearing
"(11) At the conclusion of a hearing by the board, if misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance is proved on clear and convincing evidence, the board shall take any action described in section 67; at the conclusion of a hearing by the commission, if misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance is proved on clear and convincing evidence, the commission shall direct the board to take any action, as specified by the commission, under section 67 and the board shall take such action.
"Informal resolution if conduct not serious
"(12) If the board is of the opinion, on a review of the written report, that there was misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance but that it was not of a serious nature, the board may resolve the matter informally without holding a hearing if the chief of police or deputy chief of police and the complainant consent to the proposed resolution."
The Chair: Any questions or discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Klees, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: The amendment carries.
Item 80.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 64(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 board 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) it is of the opinion that there was misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance but that it was not of a serious nature;
"(b) the chief of police or deputy chief of police is given an opportunity to reply, orally or in writing; and
"(c) the complainant and the chief of police or deputy chief of police consent to resolving the matter informally."
Once again this is consistent with previous amendments we've made permitting the opportunity to reply, among other things.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mr Bob Wood: As Mr Kormos pointed out, this parallels their earlier position. We of course have addressed informal resolution in a slightly different way and are therefore opposed to this motion.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Klees, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 81.
1620
Mr Kormos: I move that subsections 64(16), (17), (18), (19) and (20) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Disposition without a hearing if informal resolution fails
"(16) If an informal resolution of the matter is attempted but not achieved under subsection (12), the following rules apply:
"1. The board shall provide the chief of police or deputy chief of police with reasonable information concerning the matter and shall give him or her an opportunity to reply, orally or in writing.
"2. The board may then admonish the chief of police or deputy chief of police and may cause an entry concerning the matter, the action taken and the chief of police's or deputy chief of police's reply to be made in his or her employment record.
"3. If the chief of police or deputy chief of police refuses to accept the admonition, the board shall not cause particulars to be recorded without first holding a hearing under subsection (9).
"Employment record expunged
"(17) An entry made in the chief of police's or deputy chief of police's employment record under paragraph 2 of subsection (16) shall be expunged from the record two years after being made if during that time no other entries concerning misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance have been made in the record under this part.
"Agreement
"(18) Nothing in this section affects agreements between boards and chiefs of police or deputy chiefs of police that permit other penalties than admonition to be administered, if the chief of police or deputy chief of police in question consents, without a hearing under subsection (9)."
Once again this is consistent with other amendments providing for informal resolution.
Mr Bob Wood: We think there is some merit in this but prefer our motion, which is in fact number 83. We are therefore opposed to this.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Klees, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 83.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 64(16), (17), (18), (19) and (20) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Disposition without a hearing if informal resolution fails
"(16) If an informal resolution of the matter is attempted but not achieved under subsection (12), the following rules apply:
"1. The board shall provide the chief of police or deputy chief of police with reasonable information concerning the matter and shall give him or her an opportunity to reply, orally or in writing.
"2. Subject to paragraph 3, the board may impose on the chief of police or deputy chief of police the penalty described in clause 67(2)(e) and may take any other action described in subsection 67(4) and may cause an entry concerning the matter, the penalty imposed or action taken and the chief of police's or deputy chief of police's reply to be made in his or her employment record.
"3. If the chief of police or deputy chief of police refuses to accept the penalty imposed or action taken, the board shall not impose a penalty or take any other action or cause any entry to be made in the employment record, but shall hold a hearing, or refer the matter to the commission to hold a hearing, under subsection (9).
"Employment record expunged
"(17) An entry made in the chief of police's or deputy chief of police's employment record under paragraph 2 of subsection (16) shall be expunged from the record two years after being made if during that time no other entries concerning misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance have been made in the record under this part.
"Agreement
"(18) Nothing in this section affects agreements between boards and chiefs of police or deputy chiefs of police that permit penalties or actions other than those permitted by this section, if the chief of police or deputy chief of police in question consents, without a hearing under subsection (9)."
The Chair: Is there any question or discussion? If not, shall this amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
We are proceeding to item 85.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 67(1)(e) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(e) direct that the police officer forfeit not more than three days or 24 hours pay, as the case may be; or."
Mr Kormos: I appreciate that this is a moderation of what was contained in the bill originally, which was five days, 40 hours pay, but I've got to tell you, I'm not familiar with any other workplace or worker who -- I understand the concept of suspension without pay, and that's in clause (d) of the bill which immediately precedes this and is traditional workplace discipline, I understand that, but to require somebody to work without getting paid as a form of discipline strikes me as being bizarre, unproductive, undesirable. One has to question how enthusiastic anybody is who's working a shift knowing that they're not getting paid for it.
I appreciate the government's moderating its position, reducing it to three days or 24 hours pay, but I just find it wacko and peculiar that police officers are subjected to a workplace discipline that I'm not sure any other worker -- I suppose athletes have that done to them, right? They're fined, but they make millions and millions of dollars a year; cops don't.
I hoped that the government would have abandoned this archaic -- and part of it comes from the military background of policing, but I don't think it has any place in a modern workplace, including in police services. I agree with the government's proposition to reduce the maximum, but I think it's an anachronism to maintain this.
Mr Bob Wood: I might say that in 25 years as an employer I have never docked anybody's pay, although I have reprimanded people from time to time. On the other hand this is a practice that's used, and as soon as Mr Kormos convinces the police community not to use the practice any more, it may well be that a statutory amendment will follow. But it is a practice now.
Mr Kormos: I'm not disputing that it's a practice; I'm just saying it's an anachronism and doesn't lend itself towards quality policing.
Mr Bob Wood: It may not be me that you have to convince on that.
The Chair: I have to agree with Mr Kormos: Police services are unique and always have been, and always will be, for that matter.
Is there any further discussion in regard to the amendment. If not, all those in favour? The amendment is carried.
Item 86.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 67(2)(e) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(e) direct that the chief of police or deputy chief of police forfeit not more than three days or 24 hours pay, as the case may be; or".
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favour? It is carried.
Item 87.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 67 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(3.1) If a penalty is imposed under clause (1)(e) or (2)(e), the chief of police, deputy chief of police or police officer, as the case may be, may elect to satisfy the penalty by working without pay or by applying the penalty to his or her vacation, overtime or sick leave credits or entitlements."
The Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 88.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 67(4) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended,
(a) by inserting "or instead of" after "to" in the first line; and
(b) by striking out clause (d) and substituting the following:
"(d) take any combination of actions described in clauses (a), (b) and (c)."
The Chair: If there is no further discussion, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 89.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 67(6), (7) and (8) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Notice of any action taken
"(6) The chief of police or board, as the case may be, shall promptly give written notice of the action taken under subsection (1), (2) or (4) with reasons, to the chief of police, deputy chief of police or other police officer who is the subject of the complaint and, in the case of an action taken by a municipal chief of police, to the board.
"Same
"(7) If the action was taken as a result of a complaint made by a member of the public, the chief of police or board, as the case may be, shall also give written notice of the action taken, with reasons, to the complainant.
"Police officer's employment record
"(8) The chief of police or board, as the case may be, may cause an entry concerning the matter, the action taken and the reply of the chief of police, deputy chief of police or other police officer against whom the action is taken, to be made in his or her employment record, but no reference to the allegations of the complaint or the hearing shall be made in the employment record, and the matter shall not be taken into account for any purpose relating to his or her employment unless,
"(a) the complaint is proved on clear and convincing evidence; or
"(b) the chief of police, deputy chief of police or other police officer resigns before the matter is finally disposed of."
The Chair: Is there any discussion or questions? If not, shall the amendment carry? That amendment is carried.
1630
Item 90.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 68 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Application of this section to hearings under this part
"(1.1) Subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14) and (15) apply to any hearing held under this part."
The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to the motion? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 91.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 68(8) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Inadmissibility of documents
"(8) No document prepared as the result of a complaint is admissible in a civil proceeding, except at a hearing held under this part.
"Inadmissibility of statements
"(8.1) No statement made during an attempt at informal resolution of a complaint is admissible in a civil proceeding, including a proceeding under subsection 63(16) or 64(16) or a hearing held under this part, except with the consent of the person who made the statement."
Mr Kormos: Clearly, the only amendment here is to delete what's in the bill which provides for the admissibility of documents and statements for hearings held under the part. You've deleted the hearings held under this part and barred them entirely with respect to statements. Why would you do that?
Mr Bob Wood: This apparently is consistent with the current act, which protects the officer in informal mediation. It flows from the current law for the purpose just indicated.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 92.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 68(13) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by striking out "under subsection 63(6) or 64(6)" in the second line.
The Chair: Any question or discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 93.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsections 69(1) and (2) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Appeal to commission
"(1) A complainant or police officer may, within 30 days of receiving notice of a decision made by a chief of police or board in respect of a complaint, appeal the decision to the commission by serving on the commission a written notice stating the grounds on which the appeal is based.
"Commission to hold hearing
"(2) The commission shall hold a hearing upon receiving a notice under subsection (1),
"(a) from a complainant; or
"(b) from a police officer with respect to a decision made after a hearing held under subsection 63(8) or 64(9)."
This again restores some of the power of appeal, the largest part of which has been abolished by Bill 105.
Mr Bob Wood: We see some merit in this motion but prefer our own, number 94, for reasons I'll outline in a minute if desired.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Klees, Rollins, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 94.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 69(2) and (3) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Commission to hold hearing on notice from police officer
"(2) The commission shall hold a hearing upon receiving a notice under subsection (1) from a police officer.
"Commission to hold hearing on notice from complainant, limitation
"(2.1) The commission shall hold a hearing upon receiving a notice under subsection (1) from a complainant if the appeal is from the finding that misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance was not proved on clear and convincing evidence.
"Commission may hold hearing
"(3) The commission may hold a hearing, if it considers it appropriate, upon receiving a notice under subsection (1) from a complainant with respect to an appeal other than an appeal described in subsection (2.1)."
The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to the amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 95.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 70(2) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Grounds for appeal
"(2) An appeal may be made on a question that is not a question of fact alone, from a penalty imposed or from any other action taken, or all of them."
Mr Kormos: This is an interesting amendment, because it talks of actions which aren't going to be penalties. I'm curious about why subsection 70(2) is being amended in this way.
Mr Bob Wood: This apparently reflects changes that were made earlier; it's consequential to changes made earlier.
Mr Kormos: Okay, but what is the "any other action taken"? Subsection (2) says, "An appeal may be made on a question that is not a question of fact alone, or from a penalty, or both." That seems to be pretty all-inclusive other than excluding appeals from determinations of fact alone.
Mr Bob Wood: Bear in mind that section 67(4) provides for action other than a penalty: remedial action. Without this amendment, you can't appeal the remedial action unless it's a penalty.
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
Mr Bob Wood: You're welcome.
Mr Kormos: I thank your staff as well, because I'm sure --
Mr Bob Wood: I'm sure they found it faster than I would. You're absolutely right.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I shall put the question. Shall the government amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
We are moving on to item 96.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 71(2) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) If a complainant has been notified under subsection 58(5), 61(4) or 64(3) that his or her complaint will not be dealt with because it is frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith, the complainant may, within 30 days of such notification, ask the commission to review the decision.
"Same
"(2.1) If a complainant has been notified under subsection 58(5), 61(4) or 64(3.1) that his or her complaint will not be dealt with because it was made more than six months after the facts on which it is based occurred, the complainant may, within 30 days of such notification, ask the commission to review the decision."
The Chair: Are there any questions or discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 97.
Mr Kormos: Chair, this amendment relies on there having been an approval of the amendment which would have permitted third-party complaints. In view of the fact that the government members continue to resist third-party complaints in this bill, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.
The Chair: We'll proceed, then, to item 98.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 72 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Commission may conduct own investigation
"(3) The commission may, on its own motion and at any stage in the complaints process, conduct an investigation into a complaint or hold a hearing in respect of a complaint."
This is, in my submission, a very important amendment which reflects the interests of there being civilian oversight and giving that oversight body adequate powers, including a power to intervene when it deems fit.
Mr Bob Wood: Our preference of course is that the commission should direct an investigation by a chief. Clause 25(1)(a) already permits the commission to conduct its own investigation into conduct.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion, shall the --
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Flaherty, Klees, Rollins, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
We are proceeding to item 99.
1640
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 73(1) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(e.1) contravenes section 117 (trade union membership)."
Mr Kormos: I am anticipating that this makes section 73 -- no, I'm not. I couldn't anticipate that. Explain the amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm sorry. Can you give me your last sentence again?
Mr Kormos: I was going to anticipate your answer, but I decided not to do that. Go ahead, tell us what this is about.
The Chair: He would like an explanation.
Mr Bob Wood: It's what's known as a technical amendment, which corrects a drafting error. The clause currently exists in the Police Services Act, subsection 56(1).
Mr Kormos: So this is currently a misnomer.
Mr Bob Wood: No change.
Mr Kormos: Okay. I did anticipate it. Thank you.
Mr Bob Wood: No charge.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion, shall the government amendment carry? It is carried.
Item 100.
Mr Kormos: I move that section 75 of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out.
Chair, the --
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Kormos, could I interrupt for a moment and indicate that we're going to vote in favour of this?
Mr Kormos: Thank you. But very briefly --
Mr Bob Wood: Feel free. I just wanted to let you know.
Mr Kormos: We continue in our opposition to this concept of unsatisfactory work performance as a disciplinary matter. It's our opinion that the legislative source of this is in section 75, and it's our hope that by virtue of striking out section 75 there will be a far weaker ground for police management to stand on when it comes to imposing discipline for unsatisfactory work performance.
The Chair: Mr Kormos's motion is being --
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Mr Kormos's motion is being supported, I understand, by the government. I therefore call the question.
Ayes
Boushy, Flaherty, Klees, Kormos, Rollins, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
Mr Wood, I assume you are withdrawing 101.
Mr Bob Wood: I am indeed.
The Chair: Item 102.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 79(5) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Saving
"(5) Despite subsection (4), a hearing that commenced but is not concluded before January 1, 1998 under part V or VI of the act, as it read immediately before its repeal by section 34 of the Police Services Amendment Act, 1997, may proceed to its conclusion after January 1, 1998 and part V or VI of the act, as the case may be, as it read immediately before its repeal, continues to apply to the hearing and to the powers of the chief of police, board, commission or board of inquiry at the conclusion of the hearing."
The Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, shall this amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Before I put the question on section 34, as amended, I'm asking for a discussion --
Mr Kormos: 104, please.
The Chair: No, that will be a new section, Mr Kormos. We're dealing with section 34, as amended by the amendments to this time. Is there any discussion?
Mr Kormos: Without protracting the argument, you know our strong opposition to the basic dismantling of the appellate powers of the commission and the increased infringement of the independence of the commission and its power to conduct independent inquiries and investigations on its own initiative. Our concern has been expressed, along with that of the Liberal representatives on the committee, Mr Ramsay and Mr Crozier, about this concept of unsatisfactory work performance as a disciplinary threshold, and we will therefore be voting against section 34, as amended. We would have voted against it before it was amended.
The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested. I put the question: Shall section 34, as amended, carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Flaherty, Klees, Rollins, Bob Wood, Young.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: Section 34 is carried.
Now we're dealing with item 104. I will say up front, Mr Kormos, whether this amendment is in order is suspect. However, read it into the record. Then I would like your views as to why it is in order.
Mr Kormos: Don't ask me the hard questions to discourage me right off the bat.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"34.1 Section 113 of the act is amended by adding the following subsections:
"Cooperation of police officers
"(10) If an investigator requests any information or evidence from a police officer in the course of conducting an investigation, the police officer shall forthwith, and in any event not later than 24 hours after the request, give the investigator the information or evidence.
"Failure to cooperate
"(11) A police officer who fails to comply with subsection (10) shall be suspended without pay until he or she gives the investigator the requested information or evidence."
To argue its validity as a motion, if Bill 105 were not the omnibus amendment that it is to the existing Police Services Act, objections to this amendment being in order would be appropriate. In view of the fact that Bill 105 is a rewriting, as such, of all of the existing Police Services Act, I submit that opens the door entirely.
What I'm trying to say is, for instance, if the bill addressed only police officers' misconduct, then it wouldn't be on very firm ground. If it only addressed the appellate powers of the commission, we wouldn't be on very firm ground. But in fact it is an overhaul of the Police Services Act, and by virtue of it being an overhaul it opens the door wide to addressing any section of the current Police Services Act, and in this case it's section 113.
Mr Bob Wood: We are inclined to the view that this motion is indeed out of order as section 113 of the act is not brought into this bill.
The Chair: I understand and have been advised by the clerk that as this amendment does not deal with the act before us, the short title being an amendment to the Police Services Act, but is in fact an attempt to amend the Police Services Act, it therefore is out of order. In addition, of course, the amendment does not affect a section which is presently affected by the act before us, Bill 105. Therefore, Mr Kormos, notwithstanding your very inventive argument, the section is out of order and we will proceed to item 105.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that paragraph 6.1 of subsection 135(1) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 39(2) of the bill, be struck out.
The Chair: Any discussion? If not, all those in favour? Carried. Item 106.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that paragraphs 23.1 and 23.2 of subsection 135(1) of the Police Services Act, as set out in subsection 39(5) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"23.1 defining `frivolous or vexatious' and `made in bad faith' for the purposes of clause 22(1)(e.1) and subsections 58(3), 61(2) and 64(3);"
Mr Kormos: You redefine 23.1, and fair enough, because you throw in "made in bad faith" and then adjust it to reflect amendments to the act. But you dismiss 23.2, which is basically deleted. Am I correct? If so, what was your quarrel with 23.2, which in effect appears to call for some guidelines which would be valuable?
Mr Bob Wood: The reason for the deletion of the regulation-making power under subsection 23.2 is that there's no need for it. If the parties don't consent, they can't proceed anyway.
1650
Mr Kormos: I hear you. But a chief of police or whatever reviewing body can only initiate that if it's conduct which is not of a serious nature. That means that even if there is consent, when the conduct is of a serious nature -- are you suggesting that even conduct of a serious nature can be resolved on consent?
Mr Bob Wood: No. I'm saying where you have to have something resolved by consent, you don't have to have regulation power to make definitions, because if the parties aren't satisfied, they won't consent.
Mr Kormos: But once again, you only want to permit consensual resolution on matters that are not of a serious nature.
Mr Bob Wood: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: And what you've got here is power to make a regulation that would define what are matters that aren't of a serious nature and you're saying we don't need that any more. I'm saying that you're then creating a black hole because it's only when the conduct isn't of a serious nature, which surely has to be some objective test, that parties can consent. You're saying that because parties can consent, we don't have to define what constitutes serious or not serious. I'm suggesting to you it's all the more important to define it because you can only consent to informal resolution when the conduct isn't of a serious nature. That's why you need the regulatory power to establish guidelines and list or prescribe conduct which is not of a serious nature so that it is able to be resolved informally.
Mr Bob Wood: It would seem to me that if indeed there is a dispute of that nature, the whole appeal procedure then applies. If they can't agree, it goes through the process. The process is there to make any definitions needed. Where the parties consent, we don't see the need to have regulatory power to make definitions. If there's a failure of agreement, it then goes through the process.
Mr Kormos: Thank you. Chair, I indicate I'm concerned about that and will be voting against this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. If there's no further discussion, shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Flaherty, Klees, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: Shall section 39, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: Have we passed the sections from 35 to 38?
The Chair: I'm just about to do so. I skipped over sections 35 to 38, inclusive. Is there any discussion in regard to those sections? If not, shall those sections carry? All those in favour? Carried.
The remainder are sections 40 to 45, inclusive. Is there any discussion in regard to those sections? If not, shall those sections carry? Carried.
Shall section 46, short title of the bill, carry? All those in favour? Carried.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall Bill 105, as amended, carry? A recorded vote is requested. All those in favour? Sorry. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, I want to speak to it. All of us appreciate that the government has met in a very modest way -- in the most modest way has it responded to some of the concerns raised. Yet the concerns that were substantial continue to be overlooked and ignored by the government.
We don't think this bill is good for policing. We don't think it's good for the model of civilian oversight that's been developed over the course of primarily the last 10 years, since 1985. We believe there's a strong and important role for civilian oversight. We think the bill reflects the worst of all worlds in that it takes us back in time, where effectively it turns into the police policing the police when it comes to citizen or public complaints. The abandonment of third-party complaints is atrocious.
We very much wanted to be able to generate debate over section 113 of the bill, the minister, Bob Runciman, having assured us on the very first day of these hearings that duty to cooperate was very much a matter that was on the table and indicating that further in comments to the press perhaps a month ago now. Enhanced disciplinary powers by chiefs of police: The "unsatisfactory work performance" issue is one that we do not believe has been adequately addressed.
We are not supporting this bill either in committee or on third reading. Again a whole lot of participants were excluded, first from the consultation process by the minister, and we heard about them and from them, and some very restrictive committee hearings. We'll be voting against Bill 105.
Mr Bob Wood: The minister has indicated that the protocol with respect to the SIU will be looked at over the summer, and he's indeed going to proceed to do that.
Speaking to the bill generally, we believe it to be a step forward. We think it's a good bill. We have confidence in all involved and we think it's going to work considerably better than the current process.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? A recorded vote is requested. Shall Bill 105, as amended,
Ayes
Boushy, Flaherty, Klees, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: The bill, as amended, is carried.
Last, shall Bill 105, as amended, be reported to the House? All those in favour? Carried.
I would like to thank all members of the committee for your cooperative behaviour today in completing this matter, and also the staff for helping us in this rather difficult bill. This committee is adjourned at the pleasure of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1659.