METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT (CONTINUED)

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 68, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to improve methods of processing Complaints by members of the Public against Police Officers on the Metropolitan Police Force.

On section 5:

The Deputy Chairman: I call the committee to order. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to the New Democratic Party amendment which would make an independent investigation of these complaints a necessity right from the beginning. The New Democrats during the committee hearings tried to make the case over and over again, along with those who appeared before the committee, that it was absolutely essential to do that.

I am both pleased and surprised to see the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) here this evening, because during the committee hearings he did not come when there was going to be any opposition to the position he had taken on the bill. Knowing the opposition here this evening would be speaking about the lack of a completely independent review from the beginning, I thought the Solicitor General might not show up. However, he did, and we are pleased he is here to hear our representations.

I am waiting also for all the Conservative Toronto members to get up and speak on this bill, because it is of critical importance. I know that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) and the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), just to name two who are here, as well as the Tory whip, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), will certainly want to address themselves to this particular amendment. I assume those members will take part in the debate.

I must say that during the debate on the bill, the Conservative back-benchers who are on the standing committee on resources development listened carefully to the representations when they were made, and they listened carefully to the Liberals and the New Democrats who were pleading the case there had to be an independent review. If they had been left to their own devices, I think they would have come around and supported some progressive amendments to this bill.

But it was obvious from the beginning that what I would call a high-level fix was in. The high-level fix was in from the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General, and that put the Conservative back-benchers in a very difficult position. One could see it rankled them all during the debate. The Conservative back-benchers voted against amendment after amendment -- reasonable amendment after reasonable amendment, I might say. Then it came to the very last amendment, which called for a review of the whole process before it was sunsetted in three years.

Just at the end, one could see that all the resentment that had built up in the Conservative back-benchers against this high-level fix just exploded. They supported the opposition amendment in the last section of the bill which required a review before a standing committee of the Legislature before it was all sunsetted.

It was very refreshing, I must say, to see the Conservative back-benchers who said, "Oh, I expect high-level fixes in this business, but there comes a point where I think I also have a right to speak out as a Conservative back-bencher." And that is exactly what happened on that committee.

Now, of course, the plot thickens. The Solicitor General has moved an amendment to wipe out the amendment that the Conservative back-benchers had agreed to during the committee. We can deal with that when we get to that section of the bill, because I know the Chairman would not want me to discuss it at this point. I can see his eyes getting a little glazed right now.

This NDP amendment is the key to making the bill work. The New Democrats moved this amendment to make sure the bill would work when it became a fact of life out there in the community; that is why we feel so strongly about it.

When I look at it, I ask myself: "Who is opposed to this amendment? Who was opposed to having an independent review of complaints against the police from the very first moment?" I start at the top and I work down. Do you know what you get? One finds that the Solicitor General at the top is opposed to it. The chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, Paul Godfrey, is opposed to it. The chairman of the police commission, Philip Givens, is opposed to it. And after that there is no more support.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: Well, there is no one else out there who really is in support of the bill. The government can dredge up a few people like Dennis Flynn and so forth, but basically the people in charge of the community out there do not want this bill the way it is; they want it amended. When I look at those people, I see the Solicitor General and the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, and I ask: "What do they represent in this community? Surely they represent the old way, the old style, the old White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Toronto. That is what they represent."

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: That is what the minister represents, the old WASP Toronto, and he seems not to understand how dramatically and fundamentally that has changed. He is doing Toronto a disservice and, quite frankly, he is doing his administration a disservice by not accepting the amendments that are being put before this committee of the whole.

I look at it and I think that the government is making a serious error in judgement; and that error in judgement will take its toll in the years to come. Those of us who tried to make the amendment will not get any satisfaction out of the fact that the government made an error in judgement, but we will be watching.

I believe it is more serious than they understand; it may even be more serious than we understand, because while it may be pilot legislation it is really more than that. We are dealing with a new Toronto; it is not sufficient to say that this bill is a pilot project that is going to be sunsetted in three years. You and I both know, Mr. Chairman, that once this police complaints procedure is in place, Toronto will never be satisfied without a citizens' complaints procedure. It will not be accepted in this community, nor should it be accepted. My belief is that it will also be demanded by other major metropolitan centres in the province as well. And when I think of what the Solicitor General is doing, I think he is making a serious error.

8:10 p.m.

When I was sitting on that committee, I watched community group after community group come before the committee, and every legitimate group out there was opposed to the bill in its present form. I stand to be corrected, but I believe every group said it would rather have no bill at all than this one.

I think that says something. It is saying to the Solicitor General, "Don't give us the pretence of independent investigation without having independent investigation." That is an offence to the people who want an independent investigation. Either he understands it and is making a serious error in judgement or he does not understand it and is just bulldozing his way ahead.

If there were a minority government in this Legislature, this bill would not go through. As a matter of fact, if there were a minority government, I suspect a large number of Conservative back-benchers would also support the amendments.

Those opposing the bill in its present form and who want the amendments include individuals like Aldermen David White, Richard Gilbert, Joe Pantaloni, Gordon Cressy, David Reville, Dorothy Thomas, Patrick Sheppard and Dan Heap, MP, and groups like the Ward Six Community Organization, the Lambda Business Council, Religious Leaders Concerned about Racism and Human Rights, the Law Union, the Working Group on Police and Minority Relations, the Right to Privacy Committee, the Quaker Committee on Jails and Justice, the Albert Johnston Committee against Police Brutality, the Rape Crisis Centre, the Metropolitan Toronto chapter of the National Black Coalition, the Black Resources and Information Centre, the Union of Injured Workers, Gays and Lesbians Against the Right Everywhere, the Riverdale Action Committee Against Racism -- and it goes on.

Virtually every significant minority group in the community has decided it does not want this bill in the form that has been presented to us. So I ask myself who this bill is for. Is it to protect the constituents of the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry)? Is it a bill to protect the invisible minorities out there -- which is a new expression I learned on the committee -- or is it a bill designed to protect those people who feel they need protection?

It seems to me that is what this bill should be designed for. If those people who have the most to gain from this bill, from the independent complaints procedure, are not happy with it, why is the Solicitor General proceeding with it? I think he is proceeding with it to give the appearance that he is doing something progressive, which I suppose is necessary in the circles in which he moves. But he is not doing that. He is trying to give the appearance of doing something progressive, but every progressive organization in this community is opposed to what he is doing. So what he is doing is downright deceitful.

I look at the organizations opposed to it and those who are for it, namely, the Solicitor General and the people close to him, and I know which side I want to be on. I know I do not want to be associated with the Solicitor General and the bill in its present form. That is why we have this New Democratic Party amendment before the committee now.

I tried to put in my own words what was wrong with this bill so that it would be easily condensed into a paragraph or so. Then I reread the brief by the Coalition Against Bill 68. If someone wants the names of all the groups in the coalition, I can give them, but I do not think that is necessary. This is what the coalition said was wrong with this piece of legislation, and I believe they summed it up very nicely. They said:

"First and foremost, the police are still investigating themselves from day one. Bill 68 establishes a public complaints commissioner who has the power to start his own investigation of a complaint against a police officer but only after the police have had a 30-day head start in their investigation. The public complaints commissioner has a limited power to intervene within the 30-day hands-off period, but Bill 68 makes sure that this power is so restricted as to be virtually useless...

"Leaving the initial investigation in the hands of the police defeats the whole purpose of having an independent police complaints mechanism. It is too easy for police officers to conduct their investigation and write their reports in such a way as to influence the public complaints commissioner against the complainant. The procedure will therefore not appear to be fair to the complainant or to the public."

The previous speaker pointed out the importance of not only having justice be done but also making sure that people out there have a sense that things are being done properly. This is the point I do not understand about the police commissioner, Mr. Givens. Even if the police are 100 per cent on the up and up about an investigation, even if no one tries to cover up a thing, even if they are diligent and thorough in their investigation, if it is at all a contentious investigation or revolves around a contentious issue, there will be a cloud forever around the investigation because it is not independent from day one. That is what is important for the Solicitor General to understand. That is why I think the chairman of the police commission, Mr. Givens, is wrong as well.

I understand the police commissioner wants to protect the interests of his police force in Metropolitan Toronto. I understand that, but I think he is wrong because, so help me, every time there is an investigation that is at all contentious there is going to be a cloud over that investigation, and charges are going to be made against the investigation. Always, if it is at all contentious, it will be said, "Oh yes, the police investigated themselves from day one."

That is going to erode the legitimacy of this legislation. The Solicitor General should understand that. I believe it is wrong for the police themselves, and it is not going to serve their interests well either. Not simply the minority groups out there who are so concerned about it, but also the police themselves will not be well served by the bill in its present form.

I think Chief Justice Donald Morand put it extremely well when he said on page 171 of his report: "The practical difficulties in the investigation of allegations against police are immense. There are seldom independent witnesses. The complainant's credibility is, because of his involvement with the police, often suspect, particularly compared with that of the police officers, and the police tend to support each other to defeat allegations against a fellow officer. Misused force can only be uncovered by a prompt, thorough, impartial investigation of complaints."

Again, on page 188 of his report he says: "I therefore recommend that a citizens' complaint procedure, having as its central aspect an independent investigation review of police conduct, an independent tribunal for the hearing of complaints, be implemented by appropriate provincial legislation forthwith."

He does not just recommend it. He says, "having as its central aspect an independent investigation." The Solicitor General has not seen fit to do that. I believe that is wrong.

There was also a brief from the religious leaders concerned about racism and human rights. This is what they said: "It is clear to us, from years of experience in and from such communities, that there can be no real confidence in police review process unless the agency responsible is separate and distinct from the police department and investigates all complaints from the very beginning, using its own independent staff."

That is terribly important if this is to work. Quite frankly, we want this legislation to work. I know the Solicitor General stood up in this chamber a week or so ago and accused the opposition members who dared to part company with him on this of playing party politics, posturing and making political speeches. Perhaps the Solicitor General should understand that the opposition does care about this legislation. Those groups out there in the community who bothered to come before the committee and express their views care about it too. They care about it a great deal.

8:20 p.m.

The minister insulted a lot more than members of this chamber with that rather shoddy performance of a week ago. It is terribly important that this legislation work and that there be a decent citizens' complaint procedure set up in Metropolitan Toronto. It is very important.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association made an interesting point. Although the Solicitor General likes to quote the McDonald commission and others, when the McDonald commission did its investigation, it never suggested that it should rely on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police themselves to do the investigation. When the shooting of Albert Johnson occurred, it was the Metropolitan Toronto Police chief himself who asked that the Ontario Provincial Police do the investigation rather than the Metropolitan Toronto Police themselves. Surely that means something to the Solicitor General. On contentious issues, it is terribly important that this be done. It should not require any kind of intervention to have that fall into place. It should be automatic that it is independent from day one. That is what this legislation does not do.

The Solicitor General likes to say that the Metropolitan Toronto police support him, but I can recall what the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association said a couple of years ago. There was a strange alliance between the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and the Metropolitan Toronto chapter of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The spokesman on behalf of the police association was Syd Brown and on behalf of the civil liberties association was Alan Borovoy. They presented a brief to the Honourable John MacBeth in response to the Morand report.

They indicated in their report -- I will quote them precisely: "The Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and the Metro chapter of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have joined forces here to urge the implementation of this recommendation." By "this recommendation," they are referring to the independent investigation and review of police conduct.

Mr. Nixon: That is Chief Brown.

Mr. Laughren: That is Chief Brown and the civil liberties association. So that the Solicitor General will not accuse me of misleading anyone, since that time the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association has changed its position. Now it supports the Solicitor General's view of the way the bill should be. They have changed their minds.

Mr. Elston: Not entirely.

Mr. Laughren: Not entirely, no; that is quite right.

What still remains a fact is that every single significant minority group in the community supports the NDP amendment to make an investigation independent from the very beginning.

I do not know how the Solicitor General fits that all together with the purpose of the bill in the first place. I hope that when he responds he will tell us why it is he has chosen to ignore the requests of those groups out in the community.

For the life of me, I do not understand why he would not say to himself and to those around him: "This is a very important piece of legislation. We simply must listen to those people who have the most to lose or gain by whether or not this legislation works in Metropolitan Toronto."

I urge the Solicitor General to do two things: one, to remove the high-level fix from his caucus, and two, to reconsider his own position on this amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I defer to the member for Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Copps: First of all, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to clear up a misconception on the part of some of us. I am surprised that those who actually sat in on the hearings are not aware of the fact that it was the Liberal Party which, still in its capacity as official opposition with approximately one third more members than the NDP has, despite the government's funding to the contrary, was the party that moved the amendment.

In case the NDP is not aware, it is the Liberal Party that probably has the best handle on the question of visible and other minority groups in Ontario, as much as the NDP has been trying for the past years to erode our support in that area.

As the NDP's own surveys in the riding of Hamilton Centre were wont to show, and I believe if one goes back to a quote in the Toronto Sun one will read, "the support from the NDP in the multicultural community in Hamilton was totally eroded."

The Deputy Chairman: Is the member going to speak to the amendment?

Ms. Copps: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak to the amendment.

I am surprised that the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has questions as to why the Solicitor General is not supporting the amendment and not proposing the amendment. I have no hesitation in saying that the Solicitor General of this province is not particularly interested in the idea of community relations with the police of this province. If he were particularly interested, he certainly would not be introducing a bill which, first of all, he does not even have the decency to introduce in the House before he introduced it in the community on a project basis last summer. I think he shows total disdain and disregard for the House --

The Deputy Chairman: On the amendment.

Ms. Copps: -- when he decides to go ahead with his project, with or without Legislature approval. But I do not think that surprising. I do not think that the --

The Deputy Chairman: On the amendment.

Ms. Copps: I am speaking to the amendment. I think the amendment is critical to ensuring the independence of civilian review, and not only in this community; I would ask that at some point in the future the government consider extending this protection to all citizens of Ontario, and not only to those in the city of Toronto.

If the Solicitor General were truly interested in a situation that is becoming increasingly graver with respect to the relationship between our community and the police force, he would certainly have gone the full route in introducing independent civilian review.

It is obvious to this party, and I believe it is obvious to the NDP, that prior to the election the Attorney General and Solicitor General -- he wears both hats equally poorly -- was prepared to make some compromises. It became even more obvious that after March 19 -- and I noticed that when the member for Nickel Belt was speaking, the Solicitor General kept asking about the realities of March 19. I think the realities of March 19 are going to show some three years down the road, and the people of this province are finally going to see what the Conservative Party stands for and how it is not interested in clearing up problems that exist between minority groups and our police force; it is interested in fermenting and fomenting them.

Unless this amendment is accepted, we are going to see a situation in this province in the very near future which will very clearly resemble the situation that has developed in Brixton and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This government has a responsibility at this critical juncture to face head on the problems of perception between the community and the police.

It would be very easy, and I am sure the Solicitor General will do everything in his power when the next election is called, to distort the facts in an effort to turn the community against minorities and to put the argument so that it is a question of police versus minorities.

I think it was obvious in the last provincial election that the Solicitor General-cum-Attorney General did not hesitate in having a hand in the largest police raid that occurred since the War Measures Act; and, believe me, the timing of that was questionable. That was questionable not only to people who represent visible minorities and other minorities but also to other people across the province.

If the Attorney General and Solicitor General was prepared to stoop to that kind of politicization of the police force prior to February 2 of this year, what guarantee do we have in this legislation that he will not stoop to do the same in the future?

8:30 p.m.

Probably one of the best speeches I heard in the House was when our former leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), stood up and talked about his very sincere interpretation of the article in Toronto Life about Albert Johnson. At that time he pointed out that, as a representative from a rural community, he had not been party in the past to the kind of perception that came out in the Albert Johnson article.

The article did that for many rural members. This is why I say the legislation, as amended, should be passed across the whole province. The question of minority groups and their perception of the police force and vice versa does not stop with Toronto.

I am a representative from Hamilton, and I would certainly welcome this legislation, as amended, in our community. Unless, however, the amendment as presented by the Liberal Party, much to the chagrin of the New Democratic Party, is passed, I think the legislation per se will be fruitless and pointless.

If the Solicitor General were truly serious about addressing the problem of independent civilian review, he could look to our neighbours to the south. We heard this afternoon that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was into Reaganomics. I understand the Premier (Mr. Davis) was one of the vocal observers at the last Republican convention in Detroit. He has only to look to his neighbours to the south to see many precedents for the kind of independent civilian review we are seeking.

If he were truly serious about allowing citizens in this province some recourse when they feel they have been unfairly dealt with in a police-community situation, he would definitely support this amendment. However, it is clear that, as is the case with his colleagues with respect to the human rights legislation and many other bills and propositions before the government, this Solicitor General is not interested in what is good for the people in the community of Toronto and in the community of Ontario.

This Solicitor General is interested in what will get him votes, and it is obvious he has used his judicial authority in the past to his advantage and, with the proposal without the amendment, will continue to do so.

It is for those reasons that I feel our party, along with, I hope, the support of the NDP, will be supporting the amendment which will ensure not only minorities in this community but also all other members of this community that we are in a free society which allows the right of appeal that should be the right of any citizen in this community.

I do not think we should be pitting people against police. I, for one, am a friend of the police. I am not an enemy of the police, and where this Solicitor General might attempt to put that name on any member of the opposition, I would warn him that the realities of March 19, in his particular situation, may turn into the nightmares of 1984. I think the nightmares of 1984 will not solely be the nightmares of George Orwell. They will be the nightmares of this government when it is forced to come to the people of this province who support the notion of independent civilian review. You heard it, Mr. Chairman. The Solicitor General heard it in the hearings. In fact, there is no single identifiable group in this province that came before the committee to support his bill as proposed.

Every group representing every spectrum of society that came before the committee favoured the amendment and, if this Solicitor General is truly concerned with resolving what is going to be an ongoing and a growing problem, not only in this community but also across Ontario, he will have no choice but to support this amendment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I want you to know I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment to section 5.

I must congratulate the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) for recognizing the problems her caucus had in losing some of the community support and quickly rallying her members to support this particular amendment, because as I recall it we moved it in committee, not the Liberals. Only one of their members was there to support it in committee. Obviously, they were not too happy about it but at least the member for Hamilton Centre realized: "Hey, we are going to be completely out of the picture if we don't move. Therefore, we better jump once we get into -- "

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: If the member for Hamilton East will go back to the second reading of the bill, in fact, the opposition from the Liberal Party outnumbered the opposition from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Mackenzie: One other small thing in indicating support to the bill, and then I have a couple of serious arguments I want to make, is that I could not quite understand how we got involved in some kind of comparison -- it may have been the decibel level -- about the War Measures Act, because as I recall it the only people who have enacted that in recent years are Liberals.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member is going to address the amendment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Let me say that the amendment is an important one. I really wish the Solicitor General would take a look at it and I say that in a serious vein. I have some reservations as a member of this House about what I see. I do not know exactly what you would call it except that the Solicitor General seems to resent criticism and is not very quick to act when you do bring some serious problems to him. I can recall some in my own community on which I am still waiting for action, and so are some of his own officials.

In terms of the need for the independence of an investigation of complaints, I want to refer to the need for the same thing in dealing with complaints that involve the police. I know there is another section that may deal with this, but I do want to point out the similarity. My colleague from Nickel Belt read a couple of excerpts from the report of the Royal Commission into Metropolitan Toronto Police Practices by the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Morand. I want to read one paragraph into the record also, and that is on page 184 of his report, dealing with charges against the police and the need to protect the police themselves. He says in the fourth paragraph on that particular page:

"A system must be developed for the prompt, impartial, vigorous and independent investigation of such complaints incorporating appropriate safeguards for the rights of police officers."

He makes the point in the arguments before and after that there has to be independence in terms of investigation of the police as well. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if that is required for the police -- and I think it is because I think the police themselves, on occasion, have a very difficult time -- then let me tell you that same right and that same safeguard should be there in terms of complaints against the police. I do not know how you make the one argument -- except possibly the Solicitor General, who does not accept that argument, but if he wants to protect I think there should be that protection for the police -- without thinking the same protection should be there for the public at large.

I would like to point out that we have been fairly consistent when we have had criticisms of the police and we, on occasion, have complaints of the police. We have also been prepared to go to their defence in terms of unfair problems that they run into within their own association, their own dealings in the community.

One of my colleagues -- I hope that his replacement some day comes even a small way towards matching his concern -- placed a resolution on the Order Paper in this House. I am referring to the former member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, David Warner, whose resolution dealt with the rights of police officers. He simply said in section 3 of that resolution, "It is the right of every police officer that his reputation and career be unaffected by frivolous, vexatious or unjustified complaints and that he not be placed in double jeopardy." It would allow a tribunal arrangement, an independent arrangement to deal with complaints that might arise against the police.

Once again, if that position can be taken, and we would take it, to safeguard the rights of police officers, it also can be taken in terms of the public at large. That points out the need for an independent group to investigate the complaints and not have the police doing it in the first instance.

8:40 p.m.

There are a couple of other points I could raise, one from the civil liberties group -- a different page than my colleague used -- pointing out once again the need for independence in the investigation of complaints against the police. I repeat that the same thing should apply in terms of complaints in public. I want, if I can, and I guess this is what causes me personally some problems, simply to say that my experience in terms of labour disputes and picket-line problems, of which we occasionally have a few in this province, has been that we have variations in the performance of the police forces in our community.

We seem to have, generally speaking, a good performance in my own city in Hamilton. We have officers here in Toronto -- and among others I am referring to the industrial liaison service -- who do a good job when they are there and when they are trying to deal with labour disputes. But we have others -- and some of my experiences on at least two or three different occasions are not very happy ones in the Peel region -- who act pretty much the bully-boy role in some situations. I am not going by hearsay or what has come to me from other individuals. I am going by what has happened to me in being hauled into a police cruiser and asked about situations and told what I can or cannot get away with or what I should or should not do, and the kind of response I got to specific complaints I laid.

If I did lay a complaint at a higher level, I would have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in justice being done, if I had to start a complaint by going through the police in a case like that. That bothers me, it bothers me seriously, and it seems to me if there is going to be justice it has to come from an independent group doing the initial investigation and not from the police doing the initial investigation. I think the amendment makes ultimate sense, the amendment that we fought for in our caucus and that the Liberals, give them credit, were smart enough to pick up, albeit belatedly.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support for the amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) and by the last few NDP speakers. It was carefully considered and has been stated by members on all sides, and it is really the meat of the bill.

I have to express a certain degree of disappointment in my opinion of the Solicitor General, because he is probably the only person who could have introduced a bill, even on a pro tem experimental basis, that would have established civilian review. I do believe he has the confidence and respect of the police forces everywhere, and, to be fair, the confidence and respect of most of the public across the province. He seems to have almost a paranoid fear of anyone suggesting, even for a moment, that he is not 110 per cent oriented towards law and order. I can understand his feeling in that regard, but he is probably the only person who, in that position of authority, could have taken a tentative pro tem experimental step with civilian review.

I suppose this House has changed a bit in the last decade. The Solicitor General has been here for quite a while, and we tend to think that we keep in step with the evolution and all of it is good. But there was a time when this House would have been really torn to pieces if there had been a significant allegation that a substantial part of the Metropolitan Toronto police force was using gross torture tactics to extract confessions.

Actually, it would have been a substantial front page red headline 10 years ago, but last week it was not. It was below the fold, even though five or six lawyers in this town -- I do not know very many of them, but a couple of the names are familiar even to me, an outsider -- made these allegations before the police commission with the assistance of a substantial group of citizens organized in a group called Citizens' Independent Review of Police Activities.

There was a time in this House when a news report of substantial allegations against some officers of the Metropolitan police force using gross torture procedures of the type that we read about in banana dictatorships would have simply torn this House apart. We would not have gone a day without the Solicitor General making a statement about it, calling in the Ontario Police Commission in those days; or more probably, in order to get to the facts first and to protect the large body of police second, he would have appointed a royal commissioner without delay.

The Solicitor General knows that is the procedure that was taken in the past, but the procedure being taken now -- which he evidently supports because he has not said boo about it, not a word -- is that two senior police officers of the Metropolitan Toronto force, inspectors, have been assigned by the chief and the police commission to investigate.

From my point of view I would have great confidence in the inspectors, but it gets to the point of the argument that has been made by my colleague, that it is difficult to condone the review and investigation of such a serious matter by the police themselves.

The argument can be made that if there is evidence those allegations are even partly true the inspectors will tear the holdup squad apart and there will be hides nailed to the wall of the squad room, but it would also be expected that as far as possible the reputation of the police in general would be and will be protected, because the judgement of those inspectors would lie in substantially protecting the reputation of the force first. We cannot blame them for that.

In many respects I have no doubt the reason the Solicitor General has said nothing about it and taken no action at all is that he feels the responsibility is to find the truth, to punish the malefactors if there are any and, third, to protect the reputation of the force.

I was impressed by a comment made by one of the last speakers that times have changed. Everybody in the community does and wants to continue to respect the police force, but I submit there will always be the feeling that in this instance while justice may be done it is not seen to be done, because of the requirements that are carried as a heavy load by those people who have this special duty in the police force to investigate fellow members of the force, that one of their responsibilities is to protect the reputation of the force.

Mr. Shymko: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Nixon: There is nothing wrong with it as long as we realize there are at least two or three priorities ahead of that, and the main one lies on the shoulders of the Solicitor General and the members of this House. I do not know whether it was this Solicitor General or someone else who said so, but the Solicitor General has a responsibility, really independent of his cabinet colleagues, to see that justice is done and is seen to be done in the province. His reputation is great enough that he could even risk a few slight frowns from some police if, on an experimental pro tem basis, he attempted to establish civilian review.

I am deeply concerned about the allegations about the holdup squad. If my former colleague Vernon Singer were here we would have had a tremendous uproar. I find it a little bit sad that this matter was not raised in a statement by the Solicitor General and that it so far has not come to our attention. It is almost as if, like the Globe and Mail reads it, it is a story that should come below the fold.

One of the cornerstones that we have absolutely taken for granted like the sun rising in the morning is that, while there may be individuals from time to time succumbing to a variety of temptations, our police force is something we can count on entirely and continue to count on, but I would suggest that attitude is deeply eroded by the most recent allegations about some members of the holdup squad of the Metropolitan force. These did not come from some people in the community without reputation or without responsibilities; they came from five or six officers of the court, some of them quite senior. It was disposed of in a rather sterile way and put away for the police to investigate.

8:50 p.m.

This concerns me and I cannot help but think it does not concern the Solicitor General enough. But he is concerned, perhaps more than he should be, with the reputation of the police and with his own reputation as a 110 per cent law and order police supporter rather than the spokesman of the elected members of the Legislature -- not just the government -- and, through us, of all the people to see the rights of the citizens are safeguarded and, as has been said, are seen to be safeguarded.

It was a coup to persuade Mr. Linden to accept the position of citizen complaints commissioner. As others have indicated, his reputation is excellent and completely acceptable. The fact he has started on the job even before receiving it officially amazes me, particularly when the Solicitor General has indicated by his amendment that he is going to withdraw even the very small crack of enlightenment that crept into the bill in one of the later amendments the committee discussed.

I suppose there is a feeling -- almost the famous garden path we have heard about all our lives -- that once Mr. Linden has made the commitment to accept this extremely important position, he has been led along by the Solicitor General through various thickets in the garden path until he has come to the point where his reputation can stand yet another blow.

He will not have an opportunity to have any significant responsibility for the review of these cases until the police have reviewed them themselves. I feel concerned we are missing this opportunity at least to experiment with civilian review with an outstanding person who certainly has the confidence of everybody in this Legislature who knows his reputation and the same is so in the community.

I believe his reputation is good enough that even the police could stand the idea he would have the primary responsibility and not find himself, as he now finds himself, as something lower in the echelon of responsibility in this connection which almost makes his job irrelevant.

I support the amendment strongly. I have heard the Solicitor General's responses and no doubt we will hear them tonight. I usually find them completely infuriating since they are based upon his premise that anyone who does not agree with his position has to be anti-cop.

He shakes his head, but that is certainly the statement he gives. You can understand why that is so infuriating, Mr. Chairman. If the honourable member had even a grain of progressive spirit, the job he now has and has had for so long, far too long, would be the easiest stepping stone to the premiership of the province that ever could be. He has all the charm, all that teddy bear crap he throws around all the time, yet there is not a progressive cell in his noggin.

He really is appalling in that regard and I feel honestly frustrated he misses such an excellent chance to be a person, a mensch as we call it in South Dumfries. It is just unfortunate he cannot see the challenge and the opportunity that lies within his grasp.

He has a Toryism in his makeup that his predecessors, John MacBeth for example, would renounce out of hand. Even his leader would renounce it out of hand. It is only because of their old schoolboy association, the snapping of the towels at each other in the locker room after the big game, that he is prepared to go along with his terrible position in this important matter.

I feel strongly about it. I certainly do not intend to be facetious, and I must guard against that, because I do not want anything but a very strong point of view to be directed to the minister. I do not really care about his political career. But this is a landmark decision for him, and it marks not the way to a better community but the rejection of the kind of progressive approach in this matter that could have been his and probably his alone.

I do not know any other cabinet minister who could have handled it and still maintained the support and respect of the police. I feel very sad indeed that it is evident that he and his colleagues will not support the amendment, which is certainly the meat of the bill. If the amendment is not accepted I feel the bill falls far short of what we in this House could and should achieve.

Mr. Chairman: We are discussing an amendment to section 5 of Bill 68. Are there any further speakers?

Mr. Gillies: Ladies first.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry. My eyes were not wandering. I have been caught in this position before.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Well, I have missed a rotation. If the honourable members will oblige me, I understand the rotation is this way, so it would be the member for St. George.

Ms. Fish: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak in support of the clause as proposed by the Solicitor General.

I do so having had close to 10 years of history and involvement in the city of Toronto with the difficulties of complaints against the Metropolitan Toronto police -- 10 years, which, I suggest, is longer than the involvement of most other members around this chamber.

I do not rise to defend the section by arguing, as it has been suggested that others have, that those who oppose this fundamental clause in the bill do so because they are, in the words of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, "anti-cop." Nor is it my view that those who support this section are by definition seeking to whitewash or to demean or to see that justice will not be seen to be done as well as be done.

I think it is important to remember, as some have reminded this chamber over the last little while, the several reports that have been brought forward recommending changes to the complaints procedure for the Metropolitan Toronto police. Much mention has been made of the Maloney report, which was issued on May 12, 1975. I think it is important to remember that Mr. Maloney recommended two essential components to the complaints department, one of those being the investigative branch. It is useful to note that in his recommendation the investigative branch was to be manned exclusively by trained police personnel; the judicial branch, which he suggested should review the complaints, was a civilian review and, indeed, was a civilian commissioner of complaints.

It is interesting to note that approximately a year later Mr. Justice Donald Morand commented on Mr. Maloney's recommendations in his report. A part of his recommendations on the independent investigation and review of police conduct was read into the record a few moments ago by the member for Nickel Belt. But the honourable member failed to read into the record the section that follows on a bit further from that, which reads, in the words of Mr. Justice Morand, "In my view the scheme recommended by Mr. Maloney" -- and in my words I would insert "the two branches, one judicial, which is civilian, and one investigative, being trained police personnel" -- "meets the criteria which I have discussed and should commend itself to the government as a workable model."

9 p.m.

The bill before us today in fact responds very favourably to both of those remarks of Mr. Maloney and Mr. Justice Morand. I further note that the penultimate study that has been undertaken of the Metropolitan Toronto police and its relations with minorities -- in this case, the most recent in its relationship to all minorities throughout the city -- was the October 29, 1979, report by His Eminence, Gerald Cardinal Emmett Carter. It was the most recent study undertaken of the force in its relationship to all minority communities.

It is instructive to be reminded of some of the comments of Cardinal Carter in his report. He says, in the first place: "To destroy the discipline of the chief and the authority of the department itself would be counterproductive. The co-operation of the police force and all of its elements is essential, not only to the good order of the city but to the administering of discipline within the force. In short, I view the necessary structures as being based on these considerations. The first is that the normal procedure is to complain against a police officer to his immediate superiors. This, under most circumstances, should be all that is required." That ends my quoting from Cardinal Carter's report.

The opportunities to examine this issue of appropriate legislation for civilian review of complaints against the police were given to this Legislature very shortly following the completion of Cardinal Carter's report. Bill 47, as it was then, was introduced into this House in May 1980. It is instructive to note that at the time of the discussion on that bill, in a minority government, the fullest opportunity could have been provided to opposition parties to bring forward and secure approval for any amendment they would have wished. It is equally instructive to note that the opposition parties combined to defeat the bill on second reading and refused to have it sent to committee.

It is interesting that I was involved as a member of city council, along with Alderman Patrick Sheppard -- a most articulate, most intelligent, and I might say a most capable representative of the New Democratic Party on Toronto city council -- in strongly urging all members on all sides of this House some 16 months ago to deal seriously with the issue, to take cognizance of the numbers of years which those of us in Metropolitan Toronto and particularly those of us in the city of Toronto have been grappling with the issue of police-community relations and complaints against the police, and to take the opportunity of moving ahead with legislation.

The kind of concern that members of city council have about the importance of moving as rapidly as possible to secure approval for this legislation was most recently noted in a piece of correspondence under date of April 29, 1981, from Mayor Arthur Eggleton to his executive committee. In that letter, Mayor Eggleton went out of his way to indicate that in his view, while there were a variety of recommendations to amend Bill 68, the single most important aspect of the process was to urge the provincial government to move as quickly as possible to ensure that a civilian complaints procedure was established.

In his words, in a recommendation to the executive committee adopted unanimously by the city of Toronto council, the very first recommendation was, "that city council emphasize the need for provincial legislation at the earliest opportunity to improve methods of processing complaints by citizens against officers on the Metropolitan Toronto police force."

It is clear to me there is dissension over the issue of whether at this time we proceed with the structure being proposed in this bill or whether we move to a more fundamental amendment such as has been proposed and is the subject under debate now.

I would remind members that this bill is a pilot project. It is for a three-year period. It calls for careful monitoring. Most important it has been sought by council after successive council, by mayor after successive mayor, for nearly 10 years in the city of Toronto and in Metropolitan Toronto.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, I do not wish to impute motives on either side of the House for those who support the clause or those who support the amendment. I think it is instructive that this legislation is before us now after all this time, that it provides for a very substantial improvement in the process, and that it is in that measure landmark legislation.

It may not be as perfect in every respect as we would all wish it to be if we had an opportunity to see it in action. But the whole point of the bill is that we want an opportunity to see it in action. We would like the period of three years to examine it. That request has been made repeatedly by city council and all its members from all parties over the years. There is opportunity in this bill to bring forward very progressive legislation and to give it an opportunity to work -- not in a climate of venom and acid hurled across the Legislature but in a spirit of co-operation. This is an opportunity to advance the work, the co-operation, the communication and the representativeness of the Toronto police force and the communities it must serve.

It is clear to me those who wish to divide the communities from the police, rather than secure an opportunity for increasing the representativeness of the police for the community and thereby service to the community, will not be paying the least heed to 10 years worth of effort on the part of all members of city council representing all parties.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge members to adopt the clause as it stands.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I think if people do not understand that Toronto has changed in the last 25 years then we cannot understand how wrong is the Solicitor General and the Tories who are supporting section 5 of this bill.

As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said, the NDP amendment adopted by the Liberals is fundamental to this bill. It asks for what members of all the minority groups ask for. Those groups who are going to complain or who are complaining about police abuse, the groups that should be protected by the bill, do not accept it. They want a civil investigation. Not one single group in our community accepts the views of the bill that are the views of the mighty minority that historically holds power in this province, but which in Metropolitan Toronto today represents a minority.

I think the government, only because it has the 70 members, wants to impose on the majority of the people of Toronto a bill they reject outright. This position is not only undemocratic, it is dictatorial.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk referred last week to an incident where five lawyers and the members of the independent review on police activities presented letters from people who alleged to be victims of police brutality. Not one of them gave their names because obviously they thought if they complained to police officers they would endanger their position.

9:10 p.m.

I think an investigative body can have a function in helping to solve the social tensions that exist in our society. They are not the inventions of the opposition parties. If we have had Mr. Maloney, Judge Morand and Cardinal Carter, as well as commission after commission since 1975, investigating the relationship between police and minority groups that means we have a problem there. We have a social problem that will explode at some time if we do not provide the mechanism that will help to solve it.

The government will have to solve the problem and have the confidence and the co-operation of the various groups in our society. It must understand the setup of society and not attempt to impose, as usual, the views of those who have power, who are a minority, and who pretend to represent the views of the whole population.

I think the government and the Solicitor General are making a serious mistake in refusing to accept the submissions made by several groups who intervened at the committee, and in refusing to accept the views of the opposition in this amendment. It is a reasonable amendment. Refusing to accept it can, in two or three years, become very dangerous for us and for them.

It would be regrettable if three years from now we are here again judging how wrong the decision made by the government was. I want to ask the Solicitor General to think again. What we are expressing are not the views of people who do not respect the law, or who are against cops. That is not their view. I think in a modern democratic society the police should reflect the setup of society and its values. As I said at the beginning, Metropolitan Toronto has changed. The majority of people in Metropolitan Toronto belong to what, in the jargon, is called the multicultural society. The values of all those groups should be reflected also in the structure in our society.

With this bill the Solicitor General is trying to impose a Conservative view that will probably pass now, because they have 70 members. But three years from now -- and in that sense this can really be defined as a pilot project -- it will crumble and we will be back at square one examining a very serious bill to start a civilian investigation the way we, in the minority groups of this society, want it.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I hope those Tories who have been elected on the wave of the so-called minority groups' rights and now are reneging on the promises of their very elections, stand up and represent the views of the people in their constituencies. They should concern themselves with the people whom they represent and not be too much concerned with their careers.

The time will come when they will be appointed ministers. They do not all have to sell out at once. They have to remember they have been elected to this Legislature to represent their constituents. Their careers are only part of the process. I hope they have the moral courage to stand up and represent the views of the people they are representing and support this amendment. I can tell them if they go back to their communities they will know what the feelings are and they will suffer the consequences.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of what is still undoubtedly my party's amendment to section 5 of this bill. As the member for the metropolitan riding of Yorkview, in Toronto, where this legislation is going to receive its trial by fire and severest test, I would be in complete dereliction of my duty to my constituents were I to remain silent on this most central aspect of the bill.

The references to the concerns about this bill on the part of the visible minorities, the ethnic minorities, the poor, and those not fully integrated into the Canadian way of life may be vague and largely theoretical concerns to many members of this Legislature, particularly those from the affluent ridings of Metro. However I can assure this House that viewed from the intersection of Jane and Finch these concerns have a practical, almost daily manifestation in very concrete terms.

Many of the groups appearing before the justice committee were active in the so-called Jane corridor in the realm of social justice and social services. They included the Jane-Finch Concerned Citizens Association, the Jane-Finch Legal Services group, the Downsview Information Centre and the Don West Action Committee -- DWAC. These were only a few of the groups with whom I have met about this bill, and not one group has ever suggested to me that an internal investigation system by the police, such as is proposed by the present section 5, can even remotely hope to succeed.

During many meetings I have held -- not in the genteel ambiance of the committee room but in church basements, places like the Driftwood Community Centre where the Solicitor General's staff attended at least on one occasion to personally receive the flak and the fallout -- I have become convinced of three things. First, the public which this bill hopes to serve is not buying the concept of having to complain to essentially the same person accused of wrongdoing. Second, the said public will not consider itself in receipt of impartial and unbiased assistance. Finally, the same public will not use the system but will turn to less desirable alternatives such as self-help, vigilantism and the "Let's get the fuzz" attitude so prevalent elsewhere.

As a practising lawyer I have participated in, recommended and sometimes even cajoled clients and now constituents who are afraid of the process into laying at least a dozen complaints in which I have been personally involved. I have talked to colleagues who have had occasion to counsel clients on these matters. Their experience, as mine, has been that not one complaint was disposed of in other than an informal manner and that in all cases the reviewing officer made a finding that the allegations were unfounded.

If our criminal courts had the same success rate at convicting those accused of criminal offences, 100 per cent of our accused would be free men with no criminal record. Yet the present section 5 will assuredly encourage the preservation of this state of affairs.

Two other groups which appeared before the justice committee -- the Jane-Finch Legal Services and the Parkdale Community Legal Services clinic -- have made reference to similar findings with their experience. Mr. Libman, who appeared for Riverdale Socio-legal Services stated, "We have on numerous occasions been consulted by people with complaints concerning police behaviour. Without accepting the veracity of these complaints we can certainly state that they are often forcefully put to us by people who have nothing to gain by making the complaint as there is nothing we can do to help them.

"Often they are shocked and upset by their experience and want no further contact with the police. Their faith in the force has been shaken and they certainly cannot accept the concept of their complaint being investigated by friends and colleagues of the perpetrators who have a vested interest in suppressing the complaint. Therefore, to gain the confidence of the very people most likely needing to have recourse to a complaint procedure, we urge the committee to consider our recommendations."

9:20 p.m.

These are recommendations made by people who have practical daily experience with counselling, by users of the potential complaint route. These same groups which are operating in the area of rendering legal and practical advice will not feel comfortable in recommending the route of complaints to their clients and to the users of their services if this section is kept in force.

I had hoped I would have had the support of other Metro members on both sides of the House for our amendment. However, I have now seen those hopes shattered by the member for St. George and likely will see that by others who are going to follow in those same footsteps.

I urge the two parties on this side of the House who have a practical and vested interest in representing the needs of the so-called visible minorities and other ethnic constituents, since we are the only ones with real spokesmen on their behalf, to put this amendment through as rapidly and as expeditiously as possible.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would not even be before this House if the similar amendment by the NDP in the standing committee on administration of justice had passed, but it was the Conservative members who voted against that amendment and that is why a second try had to be made in the House.

We are taking advantage of the second opportunity and will make a further attempt to convert the Conservative members to the merits of this kind of amendment because without this amendment this legislation is just so much window dressing. It is just an attempt by the Tory government to suggest they are concerned about the need for some sort of machinery for complaints against the police by citizens, but the machinery is the kind that does not work.

If the Conservative members who sat on the justice committee listened to all the deputations and individuals who appeared before that committee, I cannot understand how they still believe the kind of legislation the Conservative government is bringing in is going to be of any use or will be acceptable in any way to the people of the city of Toronto or of Metropolitan Toronto.

In particular, many of the minority and immigrant groups feel insecure with the kind of legislation the Solicitor General is bringing in and they have made this very plain. There are other people as well who also feel this kind of legislation is not an answer to the problems.

I have received complaints from a considerable number of constituents. I am not saying police abuse is widespread in Metropolitan Toronto. I think the majority of our police officers try to treat citizens fairly and to respect their rights and freedoms. I think we are fortunate that we have many dedicated and sensitive police officers. But in any organization there may be some who at times perhaps do not always meet the expected standards. When this occurs the aggrieved citizen must have recourse to a complaint procedure which is independent of the police.

The Attorney General tried to do an end run around the legislation by appointing Mr. Linden who was supposed to hear complaints until the legislation got in. The Solicitor General's attempt to do an end run around the bill during the summer by appointing Mr. Linden has, I understand, been somewhat stymied by the fact Mr. Linden decided the summer was needed to set up procedures and forms. So there is no independent civilian review of police complaints in effect right now in Metropolitan Toronto, and there will not be one, in my opinion, unless this amendment passes.

Some of my constituents who have come to me with complaints against the police were members of visible minorities and some were not, but they alleged various kinds of police abuse ranging from verbal harassment to racial prejudice and even occasionally to physical manhandling. One reported that his home had been raided and literally torn apart in his absence on what appeared to be a very minor suspicion of misconduct. Another said a piece of property had been seized as potential evidence and that he had great difficulty getting it back after acquittal.

None of these people had any confidence that lodging a complaint with the police would be of any use; that is why they came to me. But I have no investigative powers; I cannot go into all the details of their allegations; I cannot give the police officer they are accusing a chance to reply. All I can do is send a letter to the chief of police detailing the allegations from my constituent and asking for an investigation. Generally I have received a courteous reply from the chief of police when I did this, and he usually promised to look into the matter. I seldom heard anything further.

So we definitely do need a more formal procedure for citizens to make their complaints against the police and to have an investigation by an independent fact-finding body. The only type of procedure that will inspire any confidence that the complaint will be dealt with fairly is machinery that is totally independent of the police.

I am not sure how many times we will have to tell the members opposite that this is, I think, the consensus in Metropolitan Toronto and that they are bucking the tide and showing their Tory colours when they oppose this kind of legislation to protect the freedom, dignity and rights of our citizens in this city. After all, this legislation is supposed to be pilot legislation, trying out for three years in Metropolitan Toronto what we hope will become province-wide legislation. But if it starts off as legislation that is not accepted by the majority of the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto it will not be a very sensible pilot.

Therefore, I will support the amendment because I think it is absolutely essential in order to transform a poor bill into a bill that has some hope of meeting the needs.

Mr. Chairman: We are on debate of section 5 of Bill 68 and Mr. Elston's amendment.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments about --

Mr. Piché: You have lost weight since the last time I saw you.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. He has not even started.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, you should send the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) back to the lineup for the cafeteria. I think that is where he wants to go, and that is where he should be.

I think all members, including the so-called silent Tory back-benchers, should take this opportunity to participate in such important legislation, especially those who represent Metropolitan Toronto. I heard the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) interrupt my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk who was commenting on what was wrong with the present state of the bill. Looking at the performance of that member, I am beginning to realize he is not much better around here than his predecessor. I read about his reputation on Parliament Hill and during the election for being enlightened, open-minded and having some independence. I find him nothing but a political hack with very narrow views.

9:30 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Riverdale has a point of order.

Mr. Renwick: My point of order is that I am upset that the member for Ottawa East should draw a comparison between the former member from High Park-Swansea and the present member. To suggest for one moment that the former member for High Park-Swansea did not, in certain fields, contribute more than a great number of us have contributed collectively to the public welfare -- namely the investigation leading to the trials of those involved in the Abscam matter; namely the sittings at the present time of the Royal Commission on Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario. I could name a number of other matters that member contributed to and I would ask the --

Mr. Chairman: Thank you, the member for Riverdale. As the chairman, I have probably allowed -- order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, don't thank me until I have completed my remarks.

Mr. Chairman: I think you have completed your remarks to the extent I am having difficulty with your point of order.

Mr. Renwick: I trust the member for Ottawa East will reconsider his remarks and withdraw them in reference to the present member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I totally concur and agree with the member for Riverdale that I should not be compared with the former member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Chairman: Interestingly enough, colleagues, I am having difficulty under the standing orders in defining your point of order. I am going to ask the member for Ottawa East to speak to the amendment, please.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, it really is an interesting proposition --

Mr. Chairman: Speak to the amendment.

Mr. Roy: -- when I compare the former member and the present member, we do not really know who is insulting whom. In any event, I have made my comments and if they were offensive to my colleague, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), then I apologize.

Mr. Chairman: Good. Speak to the amendment.

Mr. Roy: I want to say it is unfortunate that Ontario, in embarking upon such important and precedent-setting legislation, did not take advantage and attempt to have the best possible legislation. In every endeavour we are involved with, whether it is investigation of professions or especially involving the administration of justice, an attempt has always been made to ensure the investigations that take place always appear to be objective and independent.

I have listened to other members making comments about this legislation, especially the members opposite. They have stated that this is good legislation, that it is the best possible legislation at this time. The legislation is experimental, they say, for a period of three years. It has been my experience that, when putting forward legislation of this type, as hard as we may strive to attempt to get the best possible legislation and foresee all impediments that are possible in establishing the legislation, even at that we encounter problems.

But here is a case where from the start we know there is going to be a major problem. Some of my colleagues from Toronto have mentioned this. From the start there is a problem in the ethnic community, which at times is suspicious of authority. That is normal. Sometimes they feel they do not have adequate representation within this authority. These people feel that if an investigation is going to take place, at least the investigation of this body of which they have some apprehension should be or should appear to be independent.

Unfortunately, it is not going to happen. It is unfortunate, as my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has mentioned. There are those of us who over the years have stated to the Solicitor General that it is important that, from the outset in this investigation, the commissioner have some jurisdiction to intercede from day one. It is unfortunate they have not taken that position and have not stuck to that position throughout.

For instance, there was a situation on the last occasion the bill was voted on and defeated last year when the opposition was branded by the Solicitor General and by the Premier as being anti-police. I thought it was very unfortunate for those of us who respected the authority but in principle felt, as in any other process involving the rule of law and the administration of justice, that independence should be established.

We have established it throughout the administration of justice. That is why we have judges. That is why the crown attorney is separate from the police. That is why at one point in this Legislature we felt the Solicitor General should be separate from the Attorney General. We always figured the appearance of some form of independence was important. Unfortunately, it will not take place here. Whatever deal or arrangement the Solicitor General may have had with the police that he would only go so far with this legislation is unfortunate.

My colleagues on the committee have commented a number of times that minority groups who time after time came forward before this committee all were, as far as I know, unanimously in favour of this proposition that has been put forward by my colleague the member for Huron-Bruce.

Having listened to the comments of various members here this evening, I was somewhat surprised to listen to the comments from the member for St. George. She is a member who I felt had been elected on the basis of, or at least had the reputation in the past of exhibiting, some type of independence. I felt she was a member who was able at times, when principles stood in the way, to stand for a principle against the tide or the steamroller that is the Conservative Party, the Big Blue Machine or whatever.

I was somewhat disappointed this evening that she should so wholeheartedly support or embrace the position taken by the Solicitor General and by the Conservative Party on this legislation. What was most surprising, and my colleagues may correct me if I am wrong, was that every attempt was made this evening by the member for St. George to create the impression that Mayor Eggleton of the city of Toronto was now embracing the position of the Solicitor General, that that is the position he accepted and the position he had before the committee.

I stand to be corrected if I distort in any way the statement given this evening by the member for St. George. My colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), who was a member of the committee, said to me it was his understanding, being present at the committee, that was not the position of the mayor of Toronto.

I think it is important, when a member is quoting or stating the position of another elected official, especially in a situation or on an issue as important as this one is to the city of Toronto, that the facts in no way be distorted; that the House not be misled in any way as to the position of an elected official in this city. My colleague has brought me a report. I have the Hansard of the standing committee on administration of justice, dated September 23, 1981.

The Deputy Chairman: You are primarily speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Roy: Were you present, Mr. Chairman, during that committee?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, I was. I am concerned that you speak to the amendment as much as anything.

Mr. Roy: The amendment, Mr. Chairman, if you will read it, and I can read it with you, in principle suggests that the complaint be made to the public complaints investigation bureau. This is the whole thrust, the whole issue of this particular bill. This is what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the position taken by the mayor before the justice committee about who should investigate the original complaint, who should have the jurisdiction to look into the complaint from day one.

9:40 p.m.

I will go back to when this issue was being discussed in the committee. The issue being discussed at the time was this -- and I am reading from page two: "The fifth recommendation -- and this is really the main point of contention and concern on the part of the mayor's committee and of city council -- is that an independent investigation of all civilian complaints against the police be provided right from day one."

On page three the mayor had this to say: "The preference of the mayor's committee and that of city council was that the investigations be conducted independently under the direction of the public complaints commissioner from day one." That was the mayor's recommendation.

Does that appear to coincide with what I just heard this evening from the member for St. George, who clearly attempted to embarrass the Liberal opposition by saying, "Your Liberal friend over at city hail clearly does not agree with the amendment proposed by the member for Huron-Bruce"?

An hon. member: But he does.

Mr. Roy: And he does -- obviously. I can see why the member would not want to stick around; it is somewhat embarrassing. The public record indicates that this evening the member for St. George, whether willingly or not, clearly misled the House by saying that the mayor took a position that coincided with that of the government rather than with that of the Liberal opposition.

What is most surprising about the statement made this evening by the member for St. George is the fact that after the mayor said this, the Solicitor General questioned the mayor about this situation in the presence of the member for St. George.

An hon. member: That was the only time she was there.

Mr. Roy: She was there, as my colleague said. Apparently she was not there that much, but she was there on that occasion.

I will read from the public record, if I may. The Solicitor General states, "I think you are well aware of the views of the chief of police in this regard. Mr. Jack Ackroyd, who will be appearing before this committee, has expressed the view, I believe publicly, 1 believe to you -- certainly to me -- that if the police do not have the opportunity of policing themselves in the first instance, of doing the initial investigation, he feels this will significantly undermine discipline within the police force. You are aware of his views in that regard?"

Mayor Eggleton said, "Yes. I have heard those views."

The Solicitor General said, "You disagree with them, obviously."

Mayor Eggleton said, "Yes, I do. In the case of the police investigating the police, one of the difficulties I find is that perhaps the police can be very much harder on their own members. I think they would accept, if it were put in place, an independent investigation. I think that would certainly be fair to them as well as to the people who are complaining about different actions of officers."

Mr. Chairman, is it or is it not clear what the position of the mayor is? Do you think that if you had been present at this hearing you would have concluded that the mayor supported the Solicitor General's position after this question and answer by the Solicitor General and the mayor? Mr. Chairman, can you explain to me how the member for St. George can come to a conclusion opposite to that? Can you help me on that?

An hon. member: We can count on his vote.

Mr. Roy: Just to make sure the public record is clear --

The Deputy Chairman: Still on the amendment?

Mr. Roy: Right on the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I will turn to page 24 of the report of the proceedings, just to make the case as clear as I can. As I stated, the position was taken independently by the mayor. The Solicitor General questioned him on it in the presence of the member for St. George, and she got involved in the questioning herself.

She questioned the mayor and said: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of questions. I thought I heard Alderman Hope using some very strong language with phrases like 'concerns about interlocking directorate' between the proposed civilian complaints commissioner's operation and the police. I inferred from those remarks that a position was being advanced that suggested the investigation into complaints should be completely independent with no relation whatsoever to the police. Mr. Mayor, I would ask you whether that is your understanding of the position of council."

She questioned the mayor herself, Mr. Chairman. The mayor answered: "The council has said there needs to be independent investigation from day one. It has not said the Metro police department should not also be involved with the investigation, because they need to do that for their own internal discipline matters at least. But the carriage of the investigation, it is being suggested, should be independent under the direction of the public complaints commissioner."

Is there anything clearer than this statement by the mayor? I ask that the member for St. George come back in this House and correct the record and apologize to the mayor and to the members of the House, because clearly, according to the public record, the members of this Legislature, willingly or not, have been misled by the statement of the member for St. George.

In closing, I must say that through a relatively short career in the law, I have worked with the police and, at times, I should not say against them, but as a defence counsel. I worked for some two years with the crown attorney's office. Then I worked some two or three years further as special prosecutor involved with the police in a variety of cases, income tax, drugs under the Food and Drug Act, et cetera.

Having seen both sides of the fence, I can draw on my experience as to the workings of the police. It seems to me, given my relatively brief experience, that the police, like any other institution, are subject to civilian control. But they are the servants of the community and, as I have said on many occasions dealing with the Police Act, the Police Act must reflect as well the rule of law, because how can we expect the police to respect the rule of law towards individuals if within their own Police Act sometimes the rule of law is not enforced?

I have suggested, as you can recall, Mr. Chairman, instances where complaints were made against the police and a policeman very often found himself in a situation where he was being prosecuted by an inspector and the judge was the chief of police. I felt that, in some of those circumstances, the objectivity or the appearance of justice was not present. I came to the police defence on some of these issues.

But if we are expecting the community to have faith in the process and in the administration of justice and the rule of law, how can we expect it to do so if, when a complaint is made against the police, a commissioner with at least the appearance of independence and impartiality is not present at the first instance?

The first instance is extremely important where this type of investigation is involved. It is extremely important. To say that the commissioner can interfere or get involved at some later time is just not good enough. I think it is unfortunate, when we are setting down and collectively proceeding with legislation as important as this, that we are led into a situation where we cannot say to the public of the Metropolitan Toronto area of York that justice not only is being done but also is appearing to be done. We cannot say that in this particular case.

I hope the bill will work. But the fact remains that the bill would have been so much better, and would have received widespread acceptance on the part of the whole community, had a simple amendment, such as is proposed, or had a compromise situation been accepted -- which was offered on a number of occasions to the Solicitor General -- to give sort of joint jurisdiction to allow the public complaints commissioner to get involved if necessary in the first instance.

9:50 p.m.

I find it sad that in enacting this type of legislation we are not getting the best that we could have had, and it is unfortunate that more members on that side are not exhibiting the independence that is necessary of members who have received the faith and support of their communities in voting for a bill that not only creates justice but also appears to create independence and impartiality.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I need not speak long to underline the importance of the amendment that is before us. Fortunately, it is an amendment that has a quality about it that does not depend on sponsorship. It stands meriting that attention which so many speakers on this side of the House have drawn to the attention of the Solicitor General, obviously without effect. I, of course, tonight do not stand here to represent anyone. I do not pretend to represent anyone on this issue, but I do want to say in these dying minutes of this long-drawn-out debate, which started many years ago when the Honourable John MacBeth was the Solicitor General in the province -- and that goes back some considerable period of time -- that it has been a failing on our part that we have been unable to persuade the Solicitor General of the merit of our position.

I want to say to him with a considerable degree of sadness that the bill he is determined to pass in the assembly, which precludes the kind of independent review and the various variations of that have been spoken to on many occasions, will not solve in the riding that I represent any of the instances that are of concern to me or any of the occasions of police brutality which over the years either I have observed or I have been aware of and in an anecdotal way could relate to the House; nor will it allay any of the concerns and bring to the attention of either the complaints commissioner or the police the kind of excess of authority, and in many cases excess of use of force, by members of the Toronto police force.

I do not pretend for one moment that in a police force of the size of that in Metropolitan Toronto that there will not be excess use of force. When you recognize that it is the citizens of Toronto who have delegated to that police force the use of authority and the use of force, then it is not unreasonable to expect that there would be some accountability directly to an independent civilian review board.

An example of the kind of instance that I draw to the attention of the Solicitor General -- I do not know whether he has read it -- is that of Dr. Philip Berger, who appeared on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the South Riverdale Community Health Centre. He put before the committee that heard the proceedings of this bill, the kind of instances where people who were making allegations with respect to the police did not take the trouble, because of the failure to provide a civilian review, to report those matters. I am quite certain they did not take the trouble because they knew that there was no avenue for those complaints to have been adequately dealt with in an independent way and before an independent body. The result, and Dr. Berger underlined it, is that those people will not, under this bill, come forward to register their complaints.

I do not say, and I do not know, where all those people came from, but I am quite certain some of them came from the kind of riding I represent in this assembly. They also say it will never satisfy the concern any citizen may have with respect to high-speed police chases. There is no place to file a complaint and have a review of the adequacy of the rules and regulations governing high-speed police chases.

My riding, by accident of time and so on, has been subjected quite recently to two cases where there have been such allegations, and an earlier case which the Solicitor General knows about. If he does not know about it, his deputy certainly knows about it.

It will do nothing to solve what happens in my riding. It will do nothing to solve the situation where the police cruiser spots the young person across the street, pulls up to the curb and beckons that person to come across to the car. The person comes across to the car, the door is opened and the police officer says: "Get in young man. I want to ask you some questions." He gets into the car and answers the questions. He does not know and he does not understand that his rights have been affected by the excess of authority of that police officer.

When he has learned whatever his rights may be in those circumstances, he has no place to go and make a complaint that will ever be dealt with, because the Solicitor General knows as well as I do that, while it is the duty of every citizen to co-operate with the police, there is no need for a citizen to answer questions if he does not choose to do so without adequate representation. There is certainly no right of the police to require him to get inside the police cruiser to be subjected to some interrogation.

The bill will not deal with that kind of situation. It will not even come close to dealing with it. Nor will it come close to dealing with the situation where I got a telephone call on a Good Friday not so very long ago, when I was asked, not would I come, but what could I do about the fact that her son had been asked on Easter Sunday morning to appear at the police station along with a number of friends. She just wanted to ask me, as the mother of one of the children who was called up to the police station a couple of days later, what she should do about it.

I said I thought I would drop by on Easter Sunday morning. I was not doing anything before church. Of course, this was south of the Danforth and does not happen north of the Danforth or north of Bloor Street. I went down to the police station on Easter Sunday morning and there were half a dozen young people, children ranging in ages from probably six to 13, about to be questioned by the police.

I happened to be there and I said I would like to have an opportunity to explain to them what their position was. I emphasized they should co-operate with the police but, if they chose not to answer any of their questions, perhaps then they could leave the police station. They made the proper choice. We left the police station that morning and they were not questioned.

This bill will do nothing about that. The parents of those children will not register a complaint. They have no place to go and say, "Is this the proper way these matters should be dealt with?" The reason they will not be able to go, of course, is that they will go to the public complaints commissioner. The complaint will be filed with the police. Thirty days later some answer will be given that it was in the course of the execution by the police officers of their right to make an investigation.

Those kinds of petty infractions of authority, and in many cases the excess use of force in connection with that authority, are the kinds of concerns I have in the area I represent. I say to the minister in all sadness that the procedure which he has adopted and which by a process of -- I cannot call it evolution -- of exhaustion has drained any public interest or concern is the wrong way to proceed.

I know nothing about what will happen ultimately in the future, but I do want to say to the Solicitor General that he is making a serious mistake in not adopting the substance of the amendment which is before the assembly now and which, of course, has been the main issue in dispute both under this bill and under the preceding bill.

10 p.m.

It is that kind of attitude which I do not believe the Solicitor General will ever comprehend. But I am saying that this bill will not change in one single aspect the relationship between the people in the riding of Riverdale and the police. Whatever that relationship may be, good or bad at different times and on different occasions, very seldom will any citizen in Riverdale decide that this bill is worth his time and trouble to go and register a complaint.

That is the sadness of it, that is the tragedy of it and that is, I expect, the serious flaw in the minister's bill. And I wanted to have this opportunity, finally, in the dying days of the debate, to register that concern with him.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleague has reached the minister, because the minister knows that during his years as Solicitor General I have constantly supported the regional police force in Sudbury and have worked with the minister in, I think, an effective way to bring some harmony to that area. So I do not speak in a cavalier fashion or out of animosity towards the police at all, and I think the Solicitor General is well aware of that.

Before I make my comments, though, let me say that as I sat in my office tonight and heard the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and subsequently the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) speak, I was taken back to the days of Alf Stong, when the Liberals supported this bill in its entirety. And for sheer hypocrisy they have outdone themselves again. Had it not been for the former member from St. George, who forced that caucus to change their position, they would have supported the bill.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when they stand up there one after another in a pompous fashion and deride my party, I have to look at them and say, "A pox on your house; you supported the bill in its entirety in the beginning." It is a sham when they try to create the impression that they are really concerned now.

Let me get back to the minister. Let me say to the minister that I think most of us, if we do not fear the police, feel a bit intimidated when they wheel up behind us. I want to relate an incident that happened to me last winter on leaving the Legislature and returning to my apartment. I had a left headlight out, and it was a terrible night and a driving snowstorm. So I put my high beam on so that no one would run into me because my low beam was out. And a policeman followed me right into the basement.

I simply tried to explain to him that I did that to protect not only oncoming cars but also myself. The language that was used was totally abusive; he could not care and did not want to hear about my problem. I nearly wrote the police commissioner, but I thought: "What is the sense? It would appear as though I am dredging up some silly thing." But I found it offensive that I, as a member of the Legislature -- and I do not think that I am any different from anyone else -- have a problem, try to explain it in a rational fashion, and some guy 24 or 25 just starts to cut me down. For what?

I want to draw the minister's attention to it, because I think what happens, and the problem with the bill as it stands, is that if you are on the police force you are so close to the force that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

This past summer the police association in Sudbury contacted my office. There was a young lady who was in records, which I am told is a sensitive area of police work, and she was dismissed. She was a probationary employee and therefore her group could not appeal her dismissal, but I am told by the police officers who contacted me she was an outstanding person doing an outstanding job.

She had a little indiscretion, however. She had a boyfriend who was picked up for a drug offence. She was asked by the boyfriend to appear as a character witness on his behalf. The RCMP saw her there, reported it to the police chief and the chief dismissed her. By the way, the young man was cleared. The court threw it out, no probation, nothing. She was fired, guilty by association.

I went to the police commission and I said to Harold Beaudry, "There is something wrong that a young woman with a good work record, who appears as a character witness, is the one dismissed." He phoned the chief and the chief and I met. He reviewed the case and he finally said, "She is still fired." I went back to my office and I phoned my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and I said: "Jim, there is something wrong. There really is. This young woman appears as a character witness, she has a sensitive job, but surely you do not dismiss her, particularly when the young man was cleared of the offence."

My friend counselled me to pursue it and I wrote a lengthy letter to the police commission pointing all this out. There was a hearing ultimately and, to the credit of the police commission, they overturned the decision of the police chief, but you could not -- and I say it with the greatest of respect to my friend -- convince the police chief that the woman was entitled to retain her job. Perhaps it was an indiscretion on her part to appear as a character witness, I am not sure. I suppose most of us under those circumstances might have. But we could not budge the police chief and part of the reason is he is too close to the forest to see the trees.

I think that is what is wrong and that is our concern. In my own case, I had a young policeman railing away at me after we leave the Legislature late at night. You try to explain to him, but he does not want to hear it. What is going to happen to people who are immigrants in our society who know that if you go to the police chief -- if the same sort of response is given here as was given to a member of that police force by the police chief -- they do not have a hope in hell? They really have not.

The best way to approach it is through someone who is not only obviously and totally separated from the police force, but appears to be independent of any association with that police force. How the Solicitor General can take the position he does bothers me, because if he wants it to work, if he wants people to feel free to go to the police, you are not going to go to someone you have some fear or trepidation of. As I say, we all do, I would like to know anyone here who does not get a terrible concern when some police officer wheels up behind him.

I remember the former Minister of Natural Resources, Jimmy Auld, telling the story where he was driving off to speak at a meeting one evening and he was stopped by the police. He said to the police officer: "Now, officer, I am really in a hurry. I have to make this speech in a little while." The police officer said, "I am writing as quickly as I can, Mr. Minister." Most people do not have that sort of rapport. Most people have some sort of trepidation. I am not sure it is good, but certainly it is there among all of us.

I have known the Solicitor General all these years. He is a man who is considered the toughest guy on the block -- he even had the toughest dog on the block, I am told -- so I suspect he is not going to change his mind, because he has dug in his heels and that would be kotowing to some request by the opposition and that would appear to be capitulating. The minister is not of the ilk to do that sort of thing.

10:10 p.m.

But I would urge him to reconsider and I say that on the basis -- and the minister knows me well -- that I have worked for the police. I have not made wild allegations about them, and I do not intend to. It is a tough job. I suppose it is one of the toughest jobs in our society, and if there is anything we should be attempting to do it is to get the police to have a better rapport with the public so there is a better working relationship between the police and the ordinary citizen.

That is not there, partly because of the fear we have and partly because of the things people read. We should be doing everything in our power to improve that sort of relationship. One of the ways we could do it -- and many of us over here see this as the gut of the bill -- is to make sure there is a totally independent review by people who are not on the police force but are totally citizen oriented.

I would ask the minister to reconsider his position, not to be so intransigent for a change, and to demonstrate a capacity to hear what the opposition is asking. I do not think we are asking for the world. We are certainly asking the minister to make a fundamental change that we think would make the bill a lot more acceptable, not only to the members on this side of the House but also to a lot of the community groups affected by this bill.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to remind the members it is my understanding we have a stacked vote beginning at 15 minutes after the hour. Are there any further members who wish to speak on this amendment? The member for Oakwood.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief. However, I feel I should put on the record certain feelings I have about this legislation. I want the Solicitor General to understand, and I am sure he does, that minorities in Metropolitan Toronto are a majority of Metropolitan Toronto as it exists at present.

Metropolitan Toronto is made up of approximately 55 per cent of people who are minorities here. Therefore, to suggest that the minorities who have made their positions known to the minister through the committee have no say whatsoever in terms of this bill, as far as I am concerned, is for the Solicitor General and the government not to be taking into consideration the reality that exists out there.

During election campaigns, the Solicitor General and the Premier of this government really court the minorities in this province, especially in Metropolitan Toronto. As a matter of fact, I have heard from the Jamaican community, which makes up between 10 and 15 per cent of the electorate in my riding, a lot about the Solicitor General being a friend of that particular community. What I say to people is, "Why shouldn't he be a friend of that community, after all?"

May I suggest to the minister that with this action and this bill, he and the government are showing in no uncertain terms what value the input from that community has to this government. This government considers those community groups, visible minorities or ethnic groups, to be peripheral to the structure and the power of Ontario. They are peripheral to the whole thing. Sure, you can talk to them and you can go to their dinner dances, but when it comes down to real terms where their needs are put into legislation in this province, you bow out and leave them standing there. Within the next three years you will try to do your political patchwork.

This is nothing but legislation to develop trust in the community in Metropolitan Toronto, a trust which should exist between the police forces and the residents.

On motion by Mr. Grande, the debate was adjourned.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

The committee divided on Mr. MacDonald's amendment to section 2 of Bill 141, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 37; nays 62.

Section 2 agreed to.

Bill 141 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

The House adjourned at 10:29 p.m.