METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third reading on motion:
Bill 18, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Livestock and Poultry Protection Act.
Bill 19, An Act respecting the Marketing of Sheep and Wool.
Bill 74, An Act to amend the Livestock Branding Act.
Bill 141, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.
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:
Mr. Chairman: We had an amendment by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), and we were in discussion with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon).
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I feel there are one or two other things in this amendment that I would like to put before you, the minister and his advisers. It will be brief. I understand a number of our colleagues are attending to the business of the province in the presence of former Metro chairman Gardiner.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I didn't invite them.
Mr. Nixon: That is the way it is, Roy. It sometimes happens that way; the word leaks out. But our colleagues on both sides are attending to other business for a few moments.
When I was thinking of my remarks the other day on this amendment there is one thing I did not get around to saying. It was one of the points to the whole thing, and that is, I cannot understand why the Solicitor General has not asked his colleagues to advise His Honour to appoint a commission to look into the allegations having to do with the problems that the Metropolitan Toronto police are at present experiencing.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would be happy to address that.
Mr. Nixon: Wait a moment; I want to say some more about it. I come from a rural area. We have an Ontario Provincial Police car which comes into our township on occasion. While there is a certain amount of vandalism where every now and then there is a window in the school broken, we really do not have the problems of law enforcement. A few politicians sometimes drive faster than 80 kilometres per hour, and that sort of thing.
The OPP are very highly respected, just as the Metropolitan Toronto police are respected here. The idea of an allegation of the sort of gross torture and brutality that we read in the public press a few days ago is unthinkable. Most people do not even bother reading those stories when they are referring to Nicaragua. I do not want to slander Nicaragua; but I mean a banana republic or a Central American dictatorship.
Of course, some of our daily newspapers, including the Globe and Mail, give graphic details of the allegations which conjure up the weirdest visions when they talk about the staple guns and things like that. It is incredible. It is almost beyond belief that anybody could trump up a charge like that. In fact, the allegations are made by officers of the court, lawyers in Metropolitan Toronto. Am I using the wrong phrase? I see my good friend and adviser shake his head.
There was a time when the Solicitor General, no matter what the local authorities would do, would simply have a warrant signed by the Lieutenant Governor and have a commission investigate it, because those things cannot be left to investigation by the police. There should be no doubt about that. If there is evidence that they are malicious or, on an obvious basis, completely unfounded that is something else. But in this instance reputable citizens of the community are making these allegations.
The fact that the Solicitor General has said nothing about it and left it completely to the local responsibility surprises and, in fact, amazes me. He has indicated by his interjection that he would like to say something about it. I would be very glad to hear what he has to say.
I am afraid if the minister or the chairman is assuming that in committee we all have our say and that he sums up, that is not correct. If he cares to take part in the discussion now he would be most welcome, because the idea of a committee review of a bill is that there is some give and take.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting for any other members who wish to participate I am quite prepared to indulge in the give and take that has been suggested. With respect to the recent allegations that are of great concern to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and, of course, to all of us any time serious allegations are made against the police, it is interesting to make the observation that until the member raised it last Tuesday evening no one has sought to ask any questions in the Legislature.
I have to say I do have a great confidence in the principle of the local authorities being given the opportunity to resolve some of these issues.
8:10 p.m.
I think it is a mistake every time a serious allegation is made against a particular police department -- as concerned as we all are, given the enormous importance we attribute to maintaining the credibility of law enforcement in this province -- for the Solicitor General or for the Attorney General to be making a pronouncement or taking it out of the hands of the local authority and setting up some sort of judicial inquiry or royal commission. I say this with great respect for the sincerity of what the member has said, and I have paid careful attention to all his remarks, because I believe they were motivated by sincerity.
For us to say, regardless of what evidence there may be, we are going to remove this issue from the local authority and set up a judicial inquiry or a royal commission is to undermine the confidence of the local authority to deal with difficult issues, and to undermine the confidence of the public in that local authority, which has been given a significant responsibility by the Legislature.
Taking the Citizens' Independent Review of Police Activities situation, for example, I have not received a single complaint from anybody associated with that group in relation to this, quite apart from any questions being asked in the Legislature. I believe the local chief of police in Metropolitan Toronto is one of the most progressive chiefs of police in North America. I will have more to say about that in a few moments in relation to the legislation. He established an investigation manned by very senior officers which, if I can believe what I read in the press, appeared to surprise some of the lawyers involved in bringing forward these complaints. They were quoted in the local press to the effect that they did not expect such a prompt reaction.
I realize since last Tuesday night, and today from what I read in the press, the attitude of CIRPA has changed a little in so far as co-operating with the police is concerned. It is of absolute fundamental importance to give the local authorities who are given this responsibility by the Legislature an opportunity to resolve these issues.
During my six years here I have occasionally heard cries for royal commissions and judicial inquiries, and there are some who feel -- I am sure they are motivated by the most legitimate feelings -- that by establishing some sort of royal commission we automatically clear the air. As one who has been involved in a number of royal commissions into allegations of police wrongdoing, I regard that as a possible alternative in certain circumstances, but it is one that should be utilized as a last resort.
Let me give an example. In so doing I do not mean to cast any aspersions on one of my predecessors as Solicitor General. He is a very dear friend of mine, a very distinguished public servant in this Legislature for many years, the Honourable John Yaremko. He ordered a royal commission into the review of the allegations arising out of the incidents that occurred outside the Ontario Science Centre in relation to Mr. Kosygin's visit. This was around 1972, when there was a very unhappy disturbance.
I was a counsel for that royal commission. It was of particular concern to all of us because one of the minority communities that happened to be involved was the Ukrainian community, which certainly is a community that has made a special contribution to this province and to this country, people who are supportive of the police force.
The unhappiness that existed at that time between the Ukrainian community in Metro and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force was of concern to everyone, because this was a community that had demonstrated so much and given so much to this province and, indeed, to most other provinces.
A royal commission was ordered and I sat as counsel for the police department for seven or eight weeks, looking into an incident that took 20 or 25 minutes. There was a confrontation for seven weeks, allegations and confrontation between responsible members of the police force and responsible members of the Ukrainian community.
I have to tell the members that at the end of that royal commission a number of my friends who were involved in the Ukrainian community said, "We have been through this, but in retrospect it would have been much better if the chief of police, senior officers of the police department and the leaders of the Ukrainian community had sat down and attempted to resolve this issue at the community level."
As a result, we had a royal commission which really did create a lot of confrontation. I think we all learned something through it. The view of almost everybody who participated was that we would have probably accomplished a lot more if we had attempted to resolve this issue in an atmosphere that was not so replete with adversarial relationships.
What I am trying to say is, having been involved in issues relating to the police on all sides -- I want to assure the honourable member I have never been arrested myself -- having appeared for accused persons, having been part of this process for a quarter of a century, I have developed a great faith in the principle and the importance of attempting to deal with police-civilian issues at the community level, wherever possible encouraging dialogue, interaction, discussion and resolution at the community level.
As the founder of modern day policing, Sir Robert Peel, said 150 years ago, and we have all heard the quote many times, "The public are the police; the police are the public."
I think any time we attempt to devise mechanisms and processes that unnecessarily interfere with the sensitive and vital interaction between the police and the public and the public and the police in any particular community, we have to be very cautious about what we are doing.
There is a danger that, motivated by the best possible intentions, we are going to drive a wedge between the public and the police who serve them, that any gulfs that exist could be widened and any tensions could be exacerbated. This is very relevant to this legislation.
To suggest that the Solicitor General perhaps was not interested in the very serious allegations which have been made for the most part against the Metro Toronto holdup squad, and that I have not made a statement or have not ordered some sort of judicial inquiry, is not to give fair recognition to local responsibility to resolve these issues to the extent that they can be resolved. This informal resolution -- and it may not be possible in these particular circumstances -- is very much a part of the process and one that has served the community well.
8:20 p.m.
I can assure members that as long as I am Solicitor General, every time there is an allegation against a particular police force I am not going to be jumping to my feet in the Legislature lecturing the local authorities, the local police department, because this parliament, in its wisdom, has delegated responsibility to these local authorities to resolve these issues where possible in their own communities. I think to do otherwise, as I have already stated, would be somewhat irresponsible.
If any other members want to speak at this time -- I know there was a member who was part way through his remarks -- I would be quite happy, when he arrives, to sit down and let him finish. While we are here I would like to address, if I might, the bill in general.
Mr. Nixon: Would you care to deal with this point as we sometimes do in committee and probably thrash it out? Would it be possible to do that?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no objection. Who would like to do that?
Mr. Nixon: I would like to do that, with your permission.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, prior to your late arrival last time, we tried to get into a general discussion of the bill and under standing orders we are to limit ourselves to section by section.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We are, but I think every speaker so far has stated that the proposed amendments to section 5 really do touch the meat of the bill, the basic principle of the bill.
Mr. Nixon: If we could stick to this point it would be appreciated; however, you have the floor.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could just respond to the minister's opening comments in response to Mr. Nixon, because being committee of the whole House it is not just a matter of the minister giving a speech and each one of us giving a speech. He has raised some interesting points and it might be useful to deal with the specific issue Mr. Nixon has raised, which I think is directly related to section 5 of the bill. Perhaps then the minister would have comments in response to some of the other speeches and comments that were made on this section, or more particularly on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the committee generally tending to have a free flow of information, I think in the interest of the committee it would be in order to discuss the particular item before us. Then the Solicitor General could make other comments about section 5(1).
Mr. Philip: It is interesting that the kind of objectives the minister is asking for, the kinds of concerns that he has about not wanting to be called in to deal with the local authority every time there is a crisis, are met in the very amendment which he is blocking, or which he is voting against and has indicated that he will not support.
Surely what has to be done if you do not want to have to call for inquiries or royal commissions for public hearings, what you must have is a process that has the support of the community and that has an integrity or is seen to have integrity within the community. That is what this very amendment that is before us is attempting to do. It is fairly clear from all of the presentations that were before us that the community out there -- particularly the visible minority community -- does not trust the system in which the investigation, from its very initial stage -- at least up to day 30 -- is conducted by the police themselves.
If we do not want to have calls such as Mr. Nixon has suggested, then the way to go about it is to set up a process that has respect in those communities so there will not be these calls for inquiries.
It is fine. No one will quarrel with the objectives stated by the minister. Where we on this side of the House, be we Liberals or New Democrats, disagree with the minister is that we would like to see a process in place that removes the necessity for constant calls for royal commissions, for the minister to investigate, for the big hand of government to go in. If you set up a system that is trusted by the people -- and that is what this amendment does -- then there will not be those calls.
I dare say that the Citizens' Independent Review of Police Activities would not have as much business as it has today if the minister had simply accepted either the amendment I moved in committee or the amendment the Liberals have now moved, which is a mirror of my original motion, to section 5(1) and (2). I wonder if the minister would comment on that point.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am just a little concerned, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to bore any of my colleagues in the Legislature by being repetitive, because I think we are dealing with a fundamental issue which has to do with whether or not the police should be permitted to do the initial investigation.
I understand the controversy. I obviously understand the concern of the members opposite. But I just wonder. To avoid continually coming back to the same point I am quite prepared to hear further from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk regarding his concerns. I just do not want to be encouraging a sort of repetitive argument, hearing what we have all heard on every amendment. That is all. I say this with the greatest respect for all the members who are here.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, obviously you have no further comments about the particular amendment involved.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have indicated that I appreciate one of the members was in the middle of his remarks when we adjourned, and I am quite prepared to agree to his being allowed to continue if and when he arrives. I think it might be more useful for me to address the issue, the fundamental principle that I think we all have agreed is behind the amendment proposed to section 5, the amendment by the official opposition, the amendment that is being proposed by the New Democratic Party.
I do not want to get into a debate as to who should be given credit for bringing forth the amendment. We have heard a very interesting debate among the members opposite as to who really should enjoy the pride of authorship. I would simply like to address the fundamental issue, because I really think that only one fundamental issue divides us. I would like, for example, to address my remarks to what -- I did not mean to offend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
Mr. Nixon: I am leaving on a very important errand and I shall return.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think if we are going to get on with the matter, and I appreciate --
Mr. Chairman: Why suggest that we get on with the matter? We are trying to get a consensus in the House.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I simply would like to sit down, and any other members who would like to participate in the debate on the proposed amendment to section 5 --
Mr. Chairman: I was under the impression, Mr. Minister, that you were going to make some general comments about the amendment.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: How many times are we going to speak to the same amendment?
Mr. Chairman: That is up to the privilege of the House.
Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: In committee of the whole any member can speak as often as he wants.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I realize that. I was about to try to explain that to --
Mr. Foulds: I have great sympathy with the attitude of the Solicitor General that sometimes it gets repetitive and unnecessary. But I do not think I have spoken in this debate up to this point, and I would just like to make two points on this amendment and on the points previously made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
One is that surely -- and I think we in this House on all sides agree with the Solicitor General -- requests for commissions of inquiry or royal commissions or what have you often are overdone, and I think the establishment of such commissions sometimes creates a confrontational model that it would be better to avoid. One must accept the fact that this attitude is fairly prevalent and is held in good faith by people on both sides of this House, and I think the Solicitor General does not.
However, if we are to avoid this confrontational model and if we are to avoid calling for royal commissions, we have to understand why people both inside and outside the Legislature feel it necessary from time to time to demand such inquiries. The reason they make such a demand is that they not only feel that justice is somehow not being done; they feel that justice is not being seen to be done -- to trot out an aphorism which is prevalent in our talk about the law and its administration.
I think one of the best ways the Solicitor General can avoid the feeling that justice is not being done when there is a complaint against the police, about police wrongdoing or what have you, is to accept the amendment put forward by both opposition parties, because I think it would establish a sense in the community that it is people in the community and people who are representative of the community, respected people, who are engaged in the community-based investigation of the complaint.
I think this is a terribly important principle which must be accepted in this day and age. It is, after all, over 150 years since Sir Robert Peel founded police forces. It is this principle of community involvement which must be accepted by the Solicitor General, must be accepted by the police forces and must be accepted for their own thriving, for their own continuance and for the development, I hope, of their increased reputation among their peers in the community.
If we do not have that sense, if the community does not have that sense and if there is no genuine citizens' complaint bureau we will continue to get these legitimate demands for royal commissions or commissions of inquiry; we will, in fact, not lessen the problem the Solicitor General has spoken about so sincerely, if not eloquently.
I really urge him to accept the principle in the amendment, and I would certainly like to hear why he feels such an adamantine sense of inflexibility towards this amendment.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I was certainly listening to the minister's response to the call for a royal commission investigation into the allegation with a great deal of care. I was interested in his reference to the royal commission called by his predecessor, John Yaremko, into the business of the Four Seasons Hotel --
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Ontario Science Centre.
Mr. Nixon: The Ontario Science Centre -- up that way. I thought with his faint praise -- actually his elaborate praise of his predecessor -- he indicated in his reference to it that perhaps that was an instance where there should not have been a royal commission.
He is familiar with the circumstances that led to the Morand report, which I think were allegations of brutality at the jail. Even though it was raised in the House, it was because one of the local newspapers considered that a substantial issue that we did have a royal commission.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And I think it was a good idea.
Mr. Nixon: Of course. I think it was too. But when he talks about his wish that the allegations currently before the consciousness of some of the people of this town ought to be settled in a rather in-house way, I simply cannot disagree with him more.
We are not talking about the police undertaking high-speed chases or taking a few bucks from a restaurant owner who is doing something out of line or anything like that. We are talking about the basis of police in this instance, and that is the allegation that they are torturing to get confessions. What could strike deeper at the root of the responsibility of all of us than that?
I wish I could say, after reading that, "We have a handful of kooks." That may be the case, but they are five lawyers, and the Solicitor General would be the last to dismiss them. As a matter of fact, he might even send my remarks out to them if they are deleterious enough.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The honourable member has never before in his very distinguished history demonstrated so much confidence in remarks contributed by lawyers.
Mr. Nixon: The minister can make light of this, and I am quite prepared to agree that he has some reason to do so, but let us look at it not from my point of view but from his; that is, that anybody who criticizes the lawyers does not understand how well educated they are and why they should be paid so much to come to the point that he is referring to and the one that I often raise: his comments to me that, because of my provincial antecedents, I do not understand how people live who possibly charge $800 or $900 a day, or $1,500. Does he remember that?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I never said that.
Mr. Nixon: I will go over the list of the minister's transgressions on another occasion, maybe even on a private occasion, who knows?
My point is this: He can laugh at me for saying that the lawyers are probably a little more solid in the community than a handful of kooks, whomever they may be, who might come forward and say, "The police did this to me and the police did that to me." But these are affidavits supported by lawyers, one of whom even I have heard of; I keep his name handy in case I get into real trouble.
The Solicitor General, in response to an allegation that strikes at the roots of our system -- torture to get confessions -- says, "This really ought to be dealt with locally." I know how effective the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission is, and I too have a great respect for the chief, who may be the best in North America; but, unless we can dismiss this as simply the attention-getting attempts of a handful of nothings, if there is any indication that the allegations should have any weight or should be taken seriously at all, the Solicitor General is making a terminal mistake by not moving into it.
He talks about his close relationship with the police.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not embarrassed about it.
Mr. Nixon: Of course he is not; it is the same kind of close relationship that everybody is proud of in his own community, and it is one of the things the Solicitor General should be aware of. If his close friends on the police force would consider such an outside investigation to be a rupture in interpersonal confidence, they would be making a serious mistake.
8:40 p.m.
I personally believe the Solicitor General is making a serious mistake. His football buddy concept of these relationships has stood him well in the past and undoubtedly will stand him well in the future. But in an instance like this, I am telling him, it is a mistake. We are not talking about any kind of allegation except torture to force a confession. If he wants to dismiss it, okay, but he is not dismissing it; he is saying it is being properly investigated, and I say it cannot be properly investigated except by a royal commission.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any further speakers in regard to the proposed amendment?
Mr. Philip: The minister.
Mr. Chairman: He has not indicated he wants to make any further comments.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, a number of us have made very extensive comments, and we would like the minister to reply to us. We hope he will do so at this time since there are no other speakers.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I will respond briefly to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. If we are going to order judicial inquiries every time somebody makes serious allegations --
Mr. Nixon: This is in a class by itself.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It really is not. So far, these distinguished lawyers to whom he has referred have not supplied us with any names, dates or specifics.
Mr. Philip: That was because it was behind closed doors.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Be that as it may, it does touch on the fundamental principle that is relevant to the proposed amendment to section 5, because this amendment is related to a number of other amendments that touch on the issue as to whether the police should be permitted in the first instance to do the initial investigation. I have no difficulty in supporting that as being of fundamental importance in maintaining effective, fair and decent law enforcement in the community.
I would like to expand briefly on what I mentioned a few minutes ago because of what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said about my association with the police. My association with the police has many dimensions. I can tell him I had battle after battle with police forces in this province as a defence counsel for about 20 years before I entered the Legislature. I do not say this modestly, but I have been on both sides of many different, very difficult and controversial issues.
Mr. Nixon: But not on the same issue.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Hopefully, not on the same issue. I have represented accused persons charged with serious offences. I have represented citizens in the community who have made very serious allegations about the police. I have acted as defence counsel and as a part-time crown attorney. I really do have some acquaintance with the issues that have been discussed here.
What I am motivated by in relation to this legislation is to present legislation that I hope will create a system that has a reasonable possibility of success. That is fundamental to everything we have done with this legislation.
Mr. Philip: Where is the success?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I did not interrupt the honourable member.
Mr. Philip: You weren't even here to listen to me.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: That was an exercise in good judgment.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Whether it was good judgement or not -- of course, it was good judgement. I am not quarrelling with the sincerity of the members opposite about the fundamental principle that the police should be given an opportunity to police themselves and conduct the initial investigation. I am not going to dwell at length on the many very credible reports, whatever members want to read into them, that have come to the same conclusion. It is hardly a unique conclusion.
I am not going to dwell at great length on the approaches that have been tried in many other jurisdictions, where they have said, "You have to take this away from the police to maintain credibility in the community," and the disastrous consequences that have flowed therefrom.
What I am interested in, whether the members accept this or not, is what I believe to be a system that has the best possibility of success. It may well be an issue about which very reasonable people can and do disagree. But I can tell members the bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is to follow the dictates of my own conscience in this respect as to what I believe has the best possibility of success.
It has been said on a number of occasions throughout the committee hearings and throughout this interesting debate that I am insensitive to the views of the various minority groups in this community; that I, for some reason, do not have an appreciation of the changing community. I would like to have responded to the member who was speaking when we adjourned. I wish he were here.
I happen to be personally proud of the fact that, to my knowledge, at least three members in this Legislature were born in Italy. The fact that they are across the aisle and not here is certainly something I regret. But this to me represents what this province is all about and what has been contributed by that particular minority community -- although, because it is large and has contributed so much to this province, it perhaps cannot be described as a minority community in the usual sense.
I do have an understanding of what has happened in Metropolitan Toronto over the years. I happen to be one of these people, for better or for worse, who was born and grew up in this community. I have seen the community change. When I was at university, I was privileged to have the opportunity of working for Frontier College, working on the railway gangs with young men who came over from Italy with not a penny in their pockets, with no knowledge of the language, with just a determination to make something of themselves in a new land. If ever a person had an opportunity to appreciate what those people have contributed to this community, I certainly had. I admired them then and I admire them now.
We are all aware of what has been contributed to the greatness of this province by people from so many minority communities. As I have said on many platforms, and as other members have said, some of us are Canadians by accident because we were born here; there are others, to whom perhaps we should pay special tribute, who made the conscious choice.
I must admit I am a little exercised when it is suggested that I do not have some understanding of what this community is all about, because I do. If members think I am stupid enough to introduce legislation that does not have the support of the various minority communities in Metropolitan Toronto, then of course they can attribute whatever motives, or stupidity, to me.
Do members think I am so politically insensitive that I want to introduce and have legislation passed that does not have the support of the 400,000 people the mayor of the city of Toronto, Mr. Eggleton, said were the so-called visible minority in Metropolitan Toronto? Do members think -- maybe they do -- that I am stupid enough or insensitive enough to support legislation and urge the passage of legislation that does not have broad support in that community?
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Nixon: We are talking about legislation that is right or wrong.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And that is what I am talking about. But I am also talking about legislation that I would not be supporting if I did not have confidence that it has broad support. We can debate for weeks as to who is right and who is wrong with respect to that.
I want to say something else to the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk --
Mr. Nixon: It is Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Can't we simplify that?
Mr. Nixon: Call it Brant. I have said that many times.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Brant. Thank you very much. I listen when the member speaks, and I pay very close attention, because I believe he has contributed a great deal to public life in this province. Obviously I do not agree with him on occasion.
When he suggests this Tory legislation is of such a conservative nature and that we did not dare to introduce anything other than a tame imitation of what we have now, the member had better talk to his local chief of police in his area and ask him what he thinks of this legislation. He will tell the member it is very radical legislation, and it is radical legislation.
I prefer to use the word "progressive." This is why we are here. We support progressive initiatives. Without any question, it is the most progressive, far-reaching legislation ever introduced in any parliament in this country. That is a record. I invite members to show me any legislation in any other parliament that is anywhere near to the issue of the principle of independent civilian review.
We had independent civilian reviews as far as boards or commissions of police are concerned who were performing their function in that regard. What members have not recognized, with respect, is that this legislation is regarded by the police community throughout Canada as the most radical legislation ever introduced in any particular legislature with respect to independent civilian review. I invite the members to do a little more homework in this respect.
The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto police leaders have received a lot of criticism from their brethren across the province and across the country because they are prepared to agree to what is a very significant departure from the traditional method of dealing with civilian complaints against the police.
For the first time in any province, an independent office of a commissioner is established for dealing with civilian complaints against police. It provides for monitoring of the complaint from day one. It provides for an independent investigation that can commence no less than 30 days after and, in certain circumstances, before. It provides for a completely independent hearing with respect to any allegations that are made when the civilian is not satisfied with the handling of the complaint.
While I can respect the fact that there always will be differences between even reasonable individuals on some of these issues, it distresses me that none of these members apparently is prepared to recognize just how different this approach is and how progressive it is and the extent to which it injects an independent review. It is certainly far beyond anything that has existed anywhere in Canada to date.
I think I would have a little more respect for some of the arguments if they had said, "What you are trying to do is a very worthwhile initiative, but you have not gone far enough." But when I hear some of the members opposite say, "This is worse than no legislation at all; it is worse than the present system," then I have to believe their opposition is not motivated from a genuine concern for the very serious and sensitive issue that is out there. I do not suggest this relates to all their remarks. But to fail to recognize the progressive elements of this legislation, I think, is to do a fundamental disservice to a number of people who have been involved in creating a very significant independent civilian review.
When we first discussed this legislation -- perhaps when we first introduced it -- we said, "There will be no investigation until after the police have completed their investigation." We listened to what members opposite had to say. We decided we would contract that period to 30 days; there can be no period greater than 30 days before there can be this independent investigation. There is the independent monitoring from day one: the independent hearing as a result.
If those members were really wanting to work together to produce something that is going to serve the whole community, I would like to think that some of them might be prepared to give some recognition to what we do propose, quite apart from their concerns about what we do not propose.
There obviously is some misunderstanding across the aisle about what this legislation does do so far as independent review is concerned.
The member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri), the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) all said it was terrible that somebody who had a complaint against the police would have to go to the local police complaints department to complain about a member of that very force.
With the greatest respect to those members, it seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what the legislation does. The legislation provides the citizen who has a complaint against the police the right to go directly to the commissioner's office and lodge the complaint there. I only cite that as an example of what I believe is still some misunderstanding about what we are proposing.
Everybody who has commented on this legislation, even adversely, has stated that we have a very good police force in Metropolitan Toronto, but there are problems. We recognize that. When Walter Pitman appeared, he said that when he made his report one of the conclusions he came to was that we had an excellent police force that enjoyed the support of the great majority of the community. But he added there were problems that had to be addressed with respect to some of the minority groups.
9 p.m.
To go the route that some of the members are proposing, I say with the greatest respect, is to throw the baby out with the bath water and to ignore the fact that the police have been very successful in this community in resolving the vast majority of civilian complaints to the satisfaction of the person who complains. The figure that has remained unchallenged is that 90 per cent of the complaints against the police are resolved informally and to the satisfaction of the citizen without going further.
What attention are the members paying to the chief of police who I referred to earlier, given the fact this legislation is the result of a request from the council of Metropolitan Toronto, from the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police?
The chief of police, who no one will argue is anything but a very progressive and distinguished police leader in this country, came to the standing committee on administration of justice and said, "Look, for me to maintain the level of discipline I want to maintain in this force, it is of fundamental importance to me to have the responsibility for the initial investigation in order that I may really keep in touch to the extent any one person can with what is going on in my police department."
What respect are the members really paying to his views in that regard when everybody agrees that basically it is a fine police force, despite some of the problems, and when the chief himself says, "I have to be responsible for that initial investigation to maintain the level of discipline that is going to serve the public interest"? What attention do they pay to that? I am afraid it is not very much.
The answer that Mayor Eggleton gave was, "When it comes to some of these complaints, the police are too tough on themselves." His argument for taking it out of the hands of the police, as it was repeated the other night, is that the police are too tough on themselves and so, therefore, we had better give it to somebody who will be a little less tough. With all due respect to him, that was a very foolish argument.
What I am concerned about is maintaining a force that does recognize the importance of policing itself, which really is of such fundamental importance to the maintenance of a good police force.
We can say to lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, accountants, all the way down the line, that those people have to discipline themselves, because we in this Legislature have decided the public interest will be best served by those professional groups disciplining themselves. They do have a very high degree of concern about maintaining the credibility of their own professions. We can say to them, "You people police yourselves."
But when it comes to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, notwithstanding the fact that everybody who has spoken has said, "Well, they are really a pretty good force," it becomes: "We are going to tell you, when it comes to you people, you are not to be trusted with the initial investigation which is so essential to policing yourselves."
With the greatest respect, that is a fundamental vote of no confidence that really is not deserved. One of the concerns I touched on earlier was maintaining a process that is going to encourage the police to resolve these issues at the community level. I talked about the 90 per cent success rate in this informal resolution. The members do not hate the police -- I never suggested that -- but they may not totally understand some of the issues involved here.
What they want to do is to inject into that process something, whether they call it a bureaucracy or a mechanism, that in my respectful view is only going to create a greater gulf between the police and the community they serve. That has been the experience in every other jurisdiction where this has been tried, where they said, "Look, we are going to take the initial investigation out of the hands of the police and give it to some sort of independent civilian investigators." In every instance where that has been tried it has only created additional confrontation and increased polarization between the community and the police who attempt to serve that community.
What the critics of this legislation are really doing, whether they intend to do so or not, is introducing a mechanism that is just going to institutionalize confrontation between the public and the police. Many of us who have responsibilities with policing in this province are concerned that police institutions, like many other major institutions in our community, because of the depersonalization that has occurred in the community generally, particularly in the large urban centres, become depersonalized.
This is why we think it is so important to encourage police to resolve these issues in the first instance. If they cannot resolve them for the most part within a mere 30 days, with monitoring from day one, then there can be an independent investigation and an independent hearing. Really, that is a very significant departure from the traditional practice of dealing with these matters.
So I say to my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk when he asks, "Why don't you really push something on this police force because maybe they will accept it from you?" that I appreciate and feel flattered by his approach in that particular respect. But the fact is that the Metropolitan Toronto police have agreed to a degree of independent review that no other police department in this country has agreed to. I simply think they should be given some credit for that.
This particular amendment to section 5 really does strike at the heart of what I think to be the fundamental principle that must be maintained if we are going to maintain a reasonable level of policing and police accountability, that is, the responsibility in the first instance to police themselves with accountability to the independent review.
With respect, if one looks at this legislation fairly, one will have to recognize that it really is a fairly significant departure and that it does have a chance of success. I have said: "Look, we have gone most of the way with most of your concerns. We have reduced this period that was open ended to 30 days." This was some advice that was given to us from across the aisle. We listened to it and we thought it made sense.
We are talking about a pilot project. We are talking about something that has never been tried before in this province or, to our knowledge, in any serious way in this country. A year or two or three down the road, the members can say: "Look, we told you during the debate that this would never win the confidence of the public. You should have listened to us." All right, then I will have to stand up and say: "Okay, that is what you said. You are on the record and I respect that."
9:10 p.m.
I have the fundamental and ultimate responsibility to maintain the credibility and integrity of police forces in this province and if I did not think this had the best chance of success, if I did not think this had the best opportunity of winning the confidence of the public, then I would not be urging it upon you.
Again, I say it is not a question of who likes the police more or less, since I think we all have the same goal, but the basic responsibility is mine with respect to what I think is going to serve the public most effectively. Given the fact that this legislation does represent a dramatic departure from what has happened in the past, and it does represent an independent element of civilian review that has never been present before, and even though it does not go as far as some of the members think it should go, all I am saying tonight is, give it a chance. We are going to be here together for the next three or four years, or maybe more, and we are going to talk about this legislation.
All I say is, let us give it a chance.
Mr. Nixon: I appreciate what the minister has said. As a matter of fact, I did not realize he felt so strongly that the people on this side have not even given him a nod of acceptance and said at least we are heading in the right direction and so on. I think the thing he does not appreciate is that from our point of view it is almost as difficult to understand why the minister does not understand our point of view, which is that unless a citizen can complain to a citizen rather than a policeman about matters pertaining to police discipline and police brutality, then it is really --
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: But I can.
Mr. Nixon: All right, take the circumstances following the shooting of Albert Johnson by two police officers on Mr. Johnson's own front doorstep. Suppose the legislation had been in place, would there have been a trial of those police officers? Would the minister's procedure have obviated that? I do not suppose it would have.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Can I just interject and say that when one is dealing with a serious criminal investigation I have to say that if this legislation were in place, regardless of whether all these amendments were accepted or not, the result would probably have been the same -- an investigation by another police force. We cannot have civilians doing criminal investigations, with all due respect, in our system.
Mr. Philip: Nobody suggested that and that amendment doesn't.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and I understand each other on this issue.
Mr. Nixon: Just suppose the present allegations that sparked this evening's discussion turned out to be true or had some element of truth, if we have the best police chief in North America, how could it have gotten this far -- this is a presumption -- so that he ought to be responsible for the original investigation? If there is any truth in this, he must have known about it and would probably be doing something internally to correct it. If, if, if -- we do not know about that.
We have to presume that there is some truth to this. If we have to assume that, we must assume the police chief has problems we do not know about -- I mean this type of problem -- maybe even that the minister does not know about, maybe even that the commissioner does not know about. But if there is any grain of truth to the present allegations, it is really terrible. Of course, it goes without saying, we would all agree, for the holdup squad, but it is just about as bad for the best police chief in North America.
That is why I felt some concern about an allegation of that dimension being investigated by people responsible to the commission and the chief. It just does not make sense. There is a certain lack of understanding on both sides. I accept the minister's comments. He said, "You people should at least say we are taking a progressive step and it is not far enough."
Our point of view, at least from some of us, is that he is not taking a step. We even have a feeling that he is missing a world-class opportunity. Toronto is not like Philadelphia -- that argument has been made; it is not like New York; it is not like Detroit. This is basically a law-abiding community, even though we have terrible crimes and expensive policing responsibilities.
But the experiment that has failed in those other places where it did not have a chance could succeed here and set a model for the world, rather than follow the ghastly experiences of New York, Philadelphia, Detroit and Chicago.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with some of the issues the minister has raised. Once again the minister raises the red herring that members in the two parties on this side of the House are proposing that a bunch of amateurs should go out and investigate accusations against the police. No one has suggested that a bunch of people should be taken off the street with no training in police techniques and police investigation to do that kind of thing. The amendment before us clearly does not do that; nor, clearly, did my amendment do that.
If the minister has been paying attention, as I am sure he has, he understands that. To raise this once again as an issue is simply to confuse the issue in the public mind and in the minds of some of the members who were not part of the deliberations on and struggle with this bill. I do not know why the minister would want to create that kind of confusion, because I am sure he knows perfectly well what this amendment does. It does not do what he is trying to imply right now: that somehow we would have a bunch of amateurs out conducting a police investigation. That is nonsense. The minister knows that, and it is misleading.
I would also like to deal with some of the issues he has brought up, because either he has not listened to the groups that came before the committee or he has failed to understand them -- and judging from my knowledge of the minister's intelligence, that would not be the case -- or he simply wants to fudge the issue in the eyes of the public. In the first place, if the minister is listening -- I am willing to wait if he is not.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, but the statements that you attributed to me were not made by me. Maybe they were made by somebody else; I do not know. I did not make them.
Mr. Philip: You just said, "Do you want a bunch of amateurs investigating the Johnson case?"
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Who said that?
Mr. Philip: You did, in your response to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: What are you smoking tonight? I did not say that.
Mr. Philip: You said that. Check the record.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will check the record.
Mr. Philip: You clearly said that. When the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk raised the issue you said, "Do you want a bunch of amateurs going around conducting the investigation?" Of course that is what you said. The record will show what you said.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Would you like to make a little wager?
Mr. Philip: Sure. I would be happy to.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. You will have your chance --
Mr. Philip: It is illegal, but I am willing to do it off the record if that satisfies the minister's sense of justice.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I make a friendly wager the record does not say that.
The Deputy Chairman: We are speaking to the amendment, an amendment to section 5(1).
Mr. Philip: The minister has brought up a number of arguments I would like to deal with. In the first place, he said tonight that somehow there is support out there for his bill. I have challenged him at every session of the justice committee, as have the Liberals, to produce one group among the visible minority groups that is actually in support of this section without the amendment that is before him, and he has not been able to produce any.
But he is not satisfied with that, and he suggested in the justice committee that perhaps these groups really did not understand what was in the bill. That was also the implication in the statement he made about members on this side of the House: that we somehow really did not understand how the bill would operate. I will quote him from Hansard. I asked the minister, "Is the Solicitor General trying to say that the views of these groups do not represent the views of the populations they pretend to serve?" He said: 'Yes. To a very large extent that certainly has been my personal experience."
First he says it has been his experience that they do not understand what is in the bill -- and that is on the record -- then he says that the leaders of these groups really do not represent their groups. If there are these overwhelming numbers of people in the minority groups -- and he said many hundreds of people out there support it -- where are they? We asked his deputy minister to give us lists of these people and we are still asking. Where are the lists? Where are the people who support this bill? We could not find any.
9:20 p.m.
Then he says that in every instance where there has been an independent investigation it has failed. Let us deal with the specifics. Which instances? Is he talking about Philadelphia? The chief of police who opposed it there and later became mayor is in jail now. He had a vested interest in not having it work. Is the minister suggesting we have that kind of polarized police force in Metropolitan Toronto? If he is, then he is certainly underestimating and insulting the police force of Metropolitan Toronto, because we do not have that kind of polarized situation here.
Is he suggesting Chicago? Let us examine the report of Chicago. He loves to talk about how all the reports are somehow on his side. In fact the reports, as I mentioned in my earlier comments, do not come out on any side. In the case of Chicago they say that perhaps the reason the system has not worked there is that it did not go far enough in the direction we in the opposition have been advocating.
Then he talks about the Pitman report. I find it interesting that he quotes the introduction to the Pitman report, which was the introduction to the motion passed by Metro council. It says, "A citizen complaint procedure having as its central aspect an independent investigation," and the emphasis is on the word investigation.
So these generalizations -- that there are masses of people in the visible minority community who support his bill without our amendment -- do not materialize. He cannot produce them. He talks about the reports that support them, but when we deal with the specifics we find there is not that support in any of them. Indeed, in some of the reports we can make the argument that their support is on the other side.
Somehow he says we do not appreciate a 90 per cent success rate in the present system of handling complaints. What does that mean? His deputy minister -- who fortunately was there more often than he was and we could ask him some questions -- admitted that may not be a success rate in terms of solving the problem. He said it might simply be that people went away frustrated because they were getting no solutions or that the complaint was closed for any one of a number of reasons.
In fact, there is no research that suggests anything more than that 90 per cent were closed. That is not a success rate. That does not tell us anything. They may have gone away mad, they may have gone away unsatisfied. It simply means they said, "Hell, I'm not going any farther."
Then he talks about how this is a pilot project and we are being irresponsible if we vote against this bill and if we say it is no better than nothing. But many of the community groups that came before us said that very thing. They said: "Don't impose this on us. Our people will not use this procedure. We have no confidence in this, and we would rather have nothing than give the illusion that something is being done and then disillusion our people again."
That is basically what a lot of the groups said. He says: "It is only a pilot project; try it for three years. Maybe I am wrong. If I am wrong, you will be able to say so after three years." We tried to test the sincerity of the Conservatives on that. I introduced a motion that would have an automatic review before this act lapsed at the end of three years. It would have a review by Metropolitan Toronto and by the justice committee. The public, which does not support this bill at the present time, could come forward and give opinions on it at that time.
In the committee, a few enlightened souls like the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) saw the light and voted for it. After the parliamentary assistant to the minister fell off his chair and almost stomped out of the room. The minister now has an amendment which we are going to have later that, in fact, cancels out our amendment for public hearings and evaluation of this great piece of legislation in which he is asking us to believe.
If it is so good, why is he afraid to have public hearings and evaluation at the end of three years? Why is he afraid of having the people out there come in and tell us exactly what they think of this bill in three years' time? Why is it he thwarts the wishes of the justice committee that passed this amendment, is going to introduce another amendment which cancels what we have passed and uses his majority over there to thwart that particular amendment? Why is he going to do that if he has so much confidence in that?
Maybe the minister can at least answer one question: Where are the hundreds? Give us the list which we have asked for so many times. This is the last opportunity for him to put it on the record.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I want to be brief. I have spoken before on the matter and I know my feelings and concerns are well known to the members.
I want to point out again that, even though the Solicitor General may be very sincere in holding to the opinion that this is very radical legislation in terms of what it is doing in relation to the investigation of complaints against the police, the question we have to reflect on and have to consider at length is whether it deals with the issues we have raised, whether it will salve the feelings of the various elements of the community who often use the process.
Our position has always been, in effect, that an independent investigative procedure commenced from the beginning under the auspices of the public complaints commissioner is the solution to the problem of instilling a cooperative spirit between the public and the police and will instil confidence by the public in the police force at this stage.
We recognize the Solicitor General is enlightened and is able to read his reports on what has happened in terms of the demographic construction of the Metropolitan Toronto area. We understand he has connections with various elements in the society that make up this great city.
However, we have to take into consideration the lengthy, well-prepared and extremely intelligently delivered presentations of the people representing groups who told us they were appearing for the first time in answer to requests to make input into this legislation.
We have to respect the information which they have given the committee and which we have sought out on various occasions ourselves. We are convinced that even if this is radical legislation, the confidence and co-operation which the Solicitor General is looking for in terms of the complaint process will be best reflected in the independent investigative procedure which this amendment speaks to.
I was pleased to hear the Solicitor General quote Sir Robert Peel to the effect that the public are the police and the police are the public. If he really looks at that quotation, as repeated by the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry), he will note that our particular amendment goes right to the very root of that. It involves the public in the very process which Sir Robert was trying to get at.
The co-operation which we are hoping will develop, no matter what the end result of our legislative deliberations are, might best be arrived at, and more quickly arrived at, through the process we are suggesting in the amendment.
I also want to suggest to the Solicitor General that although he may very well be here, and I expect him to be here at the end of the three-year pilot project, perhaps one of his hats will have been hung on another rack and who knows but what he will be directing the questions to some other member. I do not think it is sufficient that we are able to say to any member, anywhere: "I told you so. Let us fix up the mess some other way." I do not think that is appropriate.
I want to ensure that the members here all know there is a sincerity in relation to the feeling of the public interest here and that is why this amendment has to be brought in, deliberated on by all members here and has to be considered at length by the Solicitor General. With those short remarks, I wish to thank the members for the opportunity of speaking to this matter.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the member for Huron-Bruce. I would be the last one in the House to attribute to the Solicitor General any political motive concerning this item of legislation, nor would I be of the view the minister, with the experience he has had as a lawyer and as a politician, would be, as he said earlier, politically stupid on this legislation.
We are making a mistake in not seizing an opportunity before us to go a step farther, as other members have suggested, and involve the citizens of this province in a more meaningful way in this review process. I find it inconceivable in a province of 8.5 million people that we could not find a sufficient number of members of the public to involve themselves in this review process; not to conduct a massive police-oriented investigation but to serve in an impartial way.
I had a situation where a constituent of mine visited me with a complaint, not against the Metro police force but against another police force. When he found the current procedures require he make a complaint to the police -- I advised him of that procedure -- he was reticent to proceed with what I perceive, quite frankly and unfortunately, is a legitimate complaint, although that will be determined in time.
He said, "There is no point in complaining to these people. These are the people who beat me up." That individual had a preconceived notion of what was involved. I hope the integrity of that process will bear out that his concerns and premonitions were not justified and if there is an element of guilt involved, it will be corrected.
Surely to God, in a province of 8.5 million people, there are enough high-quality citizens we could draw upon, the same kind of people the government puts on some of these boards, agencies and commissions. I am not referring necessarily to the defeated Conservative candidates, but the kind of people put on prestigious commissions like the Ontario Law Reform Commission, people who possibly will be retiring from the bench, a myriad of citizens who may not even be lawyers. These are people who could be drawn upon if the minister were to entertain this suggestion in a favourable light.
My fear is that we are not serving the public adequately when we do not respond effectively with legislation that is in the best interest of the public. I am concerned that a year or two from now we will be back here again to correct legislation which we have an opportunity to make perfect this week or next week.
Mr. Philip: Is the Solicitor General prepared now to table the list of all those groups in the visible minority community who agree with this section of the bill without the amendment? It is my last opportunity to ask him for that list. He has claimed there are hundreds out there who support his bill. Would he be kind enough to table them?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There are not hundreds, Mr. Chairman, there are tens of thousands.
Mr. Philip: Would he like to list them? Name one group.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Any time the member would like to have a vote of confidence with any minority community, be my guest.
Mr. Philip: Votes of confidence were made by the groups that came before us, and not one group supported what the minister has claimed. He put on the record there were hundreds out there who were in support --
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Hundreds of thousands.
Mr. Philip: No, I am sorry. The record says "hundreds."
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We had better correct the record then.
Mr. Philip: The minister had better correct the record; it is his statement. He said there were hundreds out there. He repeated again tonight that there was support out there in the visible minority community. I am simply asking him to name one of the groups; or better still, if there are hundreds, then at least he might even come up with two. That would help to satisfy us. Otherwise, correct the record by saying you do not have the support you claim.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I correct the record. It is hundreds of thousands, not hundreds.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Elston's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 5(1) that I originally moved in committee.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"5(1) The public complaints board shall establish and maintain for the purposes of this act an investigative branch to be known as the public complaints board complaints investigation bureau.
"(2) The public complaints board shall ensure that the bureau is supplied with sufficient staff to efficiently receive, record and investigate the complaints."
Could we just review what you have moved. Section 5(1) appears to be very similar if not identical to the one that is now already stacked. So is the debate going to be on section 5(2), which you have before us in this shape?
Mr. Philip: The debate is on the whole matter, Mr. Chairman, if you rule it in order.
The Deputy Chairman: I think I have a little difficulty in accepting the motion as you have made it. We have already dealt with a motion that included the first part of your motion here.
Mr. Philip: I simply wanted to move it. You have stated that it is out of order because it is similar to the first amendment. I simply wanted to show that was the original amendment. We have just voted it down. It was our amendment and we appreciate that the Liberals have been kind enough to at least copy our amendment, even though it was defeated by the Conservative government.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that section 5(2) be amended by deleting the subsection and substituting the following therefor:
(2) "The police complaints board shall ensure that the bureau is supplied with sufficient staff to effectively receive, record and investigate complaints."
Mr. Elston: I do not think there is any point in carrying on with any further comment. This reflects just a housekeeping amendment to section 5(2), if section 5(1) is amended in accordance with my earlier suggestion.
The Deputy Chairman: Any other members wish to participate in the debate of this amendment?
All those in favour of Mr. Elston's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 10:
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the government and the members of the Liberal Party already have these, as you do, but I will send one to you anyway. You will get one eventually, Mr. Chairman -- or do you have it?
9:40 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: I think I have it. It begins with "I move."
Mr. Philip: Okay.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that section 10(1)(c) of Bill 68 be amended by inserting after "thereunder" in the second line: "provided that any officer required in such disciplinary proceedings to furnish reports and answer questions be given prior notice of the substance of the accusations against him and a reasonable opportunity for prior consultation with an agent or counsel."
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, one of the recommendations of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association was to include this. They felt it guaranteed the civil liberties of the police officer -- namely, that a person should not be accused without being given prior notice of the substance of those accusations and an opportunity for prior consultation in order to defend himself.
We recognize that under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act notice would have to be given in any event. However, we feel that including this in the bill gives it the kind of balance which is necessary, that it gives some feeling of security to those police officers who may be reading the bill and who may be concerned about its contents. We feel it in no way detracts from section 10 of the bill, but merely adds to it. Therefore, I hope that members on the government side of the House will be prepared to accept this amendment.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We do not have a copy of it.
Mr. Philip: All of the amendments were supplied to you. I am sorry, but I can send another one over to the minister if he would like. They were also supplied in committee to your parliamentary assistant, who was there.
Do you have one now? We brought down about 20 copies, and they were distributed the other day.
Mr. Chairman: There seems to be some confusion over the Solicitor General's place. Is it section 9(1) or section 10?
Mr. Philip: No, it is section 10(1)(c). We have passed section 9.
Mr. Chairman: I understand that, but the Solicitor General was making inquiries. Section 10(1)(c); all right.
Mr. Philip: We have never indicated that we had an amendment to section 9.
Mr. Chairman: Still speaking to your proposed amendment to section 10(1)(c)?
Mr. Philip: I have simply moved that amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Oh, I am sorry. I thought we were in discussion already.
Mr. Philip: I moved that amendment. I have spoken to it. The Solicitor General claimed he did not have a copy. I have seen to it that he had a copy. I hope he has copies of all our amendments, because we sent them over last week. If he does not have them I have extra copies and we will send them over to him as we go along. Certainly the Liberals have copies as well.
Mr. Chairman: Fine. Thank you, then. Is there any discussion on the proposed amendment?
Mr. Philip: The chair has a copy, I trust.
Mr. Chairman: Yes. Are there any members who would like to speak to the proposed amendment of section 10(1)(c) of Bill 68? Does the Solicitor General have any comment? Do you want a moment?
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: All I can say is that I think this is adding unnecessary confusion to the legislation. In section 7 it states: "Upon receipt of a complaint the person in charge of the bureau shall inform forthwith the police officer concerned of the substance of the complaint, unless in the opinion of such person to do so might adversely affect any investigation of the complaint."
There are a number of other protections built into the legislation in so far as the police officer is concerned. With all due respect for the member for Etobicoke I do not think this is a useful amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any further members who would like to participate on the proposed amendment? I see no further members indicating that.
Those in favour of Mr. Philip's proposed amendment to section 10(1)(c) will please say "aye."
All against please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 10(1)(d) carry? Carried.
Shall sections 10(2) to 10(4), inclusive, carry? Carried.
Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 14:
Mr. Chairman: I understand that on section 14(1) the member for Etobicoke --
Mr. Philip: On section 14(3), Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any proposed amendments prior to subsection 3? What clause of section 14(3) is involved in your amendment, Mr. Philip?
Mr. Philip: Section 14(3)(b) and (c).
Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding the Solicitor General has an amendment to clause (c), so I wonder whether we should deal with your amendment to (b) first, since it is prior, obviously, to (c); or is it together?
Mr. Philip: Why not deal with my amendment as a whole, namely (b) and (c)? We will see what happens to it and we will see what happens to the Solicitor General's amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Would it be in order if possibly we deal with the Solicitor General's amendment to (c) and then deal with your amendments? And on agreement of the House we will deal with all proposals of the package.
Mr. Philip: I have no objection. They have the numbers, so it will not make a dram's worth of difference, anyway.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. McMurtry moves that section 14(3)(c) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been undue delay or other exceptional circumstances in the conduct of an investigation under section 9."
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which is on the advice, basically, of Mr. Linden, the public complaints commissioner. In his view, it achieves what he perceives to be the goal of section 14(3)(c) with respect to delay or other exceptional circumstances in the conduct of an investigation in relation to an involvement from an investigation standpoint earlier than the 30 days. I think it clarifies that section to some extent and therefore I urge the members to support it.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: One moment, I unfortunately made a promise to the member from Etobicoke that as soon as the Solicitor General made his proposal for 14(3)(c) I would ask for the member for Etobicoke's proposed amendment so that there would be a package discussion on 14(3)(b) and 14(3)(c).
Mr. Elston, do you have any problems with that?
Mr. Philip: I would rather deal with the Solicitor General's amendment. Our amendment will go further, I think, and accomplish more of what the Liberals and NDP feel is important; but we will deal with his amendment and then deal with mine, which will delete his amendment if it carries.
Mr. Chairman: So you would like his amendment discussed first then?
Mr. Elston: In effect, I think probably the discussion of the Solicitor General's amendment -- if that is what we are proceeding to do -- can also be dealt with in the light of the amendment which we moved in committee concerning section 14(3)(c). That amendment in committee read basically, "where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the inquiry and investigation are essential in the public interest." This gives the public complaints commissioner the advantage of moving in at a time when he saw it in the public interest for him to move in and initiate the investigative procedures from day one if he felt it necessary.
The amendment proposed by the Solicitor General really ties the public complaints commissioner to having to decide that there has been undue delay or there has been a difficulty in respect to the conduct of the investigative procedure at some point after the investigative procedure has been initiated by the police.
We feel that to go far enough to accomplish the sort of independence that is available, important issues should be dealt with immediately by the public complaints commissioner. We think this amendment restricts him unduly in his attempt to carry out that independent initiative which we feel he must have to gain the confidence and co-operation of the public in general.
Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on the proposed amendment by the Solicitor General?
Mr. Philip: I simply echo what has been said by the member for Huron-Bruce. I think the amendment I will be proposing broadens it. A great deal has been said --
Mr. Chairman: Let us deal with his amendment and then we will deal --
Mr. Philip: Okay. A great deal has been said by the Solicitor General on the appointment of the commissioner and the qualities of Mr. Linden. Members of all three parties agree with that and what we are saying is that Mr. Linden should be given more power. This amendment does not give him as much power and as much discretion as we would like. That basically is the only comment I would have on it.
Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to discuss this proposed amendment? I see no other member -- there is another member.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few comments on this amendment, and I make those comments on the amendment which I think has been reintroduced following an amendment proposed by the government members in committee. I think it would really have emasculated the intent of allowing the public complaints commissioner to enter investigations before the 30-day period has expired.
While we certainly did not support section 14(3)(c) in its original intent, I might say that my reading -- and I am not a lawyer -- of the amended section 14(3)(c) would indicate to me we have still not come back even to where the bill was in its original form.
I say that because my reading says, "where there has been undue delay or other exceptional circumstances in the conduct of an investigation This indicates to me that if this amendment carries the public complaints commissioner will not be able to enter these investigations on day one, should he consider there are exceptional circumstances.
The way I read the amendment as now proposed, the investigation must initially be undertaken by the police. Only where the conduct of that investigation is such that he feels exceptional circumstances enter into it can the commissioner enter the picture. I read the exceptional circumstances clause as now proposed by the government to be even weaker than that proposed in the original legislation. I say that with due respect to the fact that Mr. Linden has proposed it.
As my colleague the member for Huron-Bruce suggested in his comments, either proposal, as in the original legislation or certainly in this proposed amendment by the Solicitor General, does not go far enough in our opinion. We do not believe we ought to tie the hands of the public complaints commissioner.
We believe that where he believes the public interest is served by his entering an investigation and conducting it from day one he ought to be given that right. I do not see that in this amendment. I would urge all members of the House to look upon it in that light, reject the amendment and accept the amendment we will be proposing later on.
Mr. Chairman: Do any other members wish to discuss this amendment proposed by the Solicitor General? I see no further discussion.
Those in favour of the amendment to section 14(3)(c) please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that sections 14(3)(b) and 14(3)(c) of the bill, as amended, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) Upon the request of the chief of police or upon the request of the complainant; or
"(c) where he believes that it is in the public interest for him to do so."
Mr. Philip: I am moving, furthermore, that section 14(4) of the bill be struck out, but I am willing to move up to clause (c) and then move the deletion of section 14(4) as a separate amendment if the chair so wishes.
Mr. Chairman: We have a slight problem. That is, we are dealing with the proposed amendment to clauses (b) and (c) of section 14(3) and that is how I would like to take it; we are not dealing with section 14(4) yet because we are not there yet.
Mr. Philip: That's fine.
Mr. Chairman: It is agreed that you have moved an amendment to section 14(3)(b) and section 14(3)(c). Is there any discussion to the proposed amendment?
10 p.m.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to give to the commissioner the power we feel he deserves and it gives him the discretion to move when he feels it is in the public interest to do so. I think this shows greater confidence in the procedure and in the complaints commissioner. We feel it is in the public interest to go further than the amendment which the minister proposed and which has just been stacked. I think everyone understands what is proposed.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment to the amended section 14(3)(c) carry?
Mr. Elston: On a point of order: Are we also dealing with 14(3)(b) at the same time as we are dealing with 14(3)(c)?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. Elston: But you only mentioned that we were dealing with the amendment to the amended 14(3)(c)?
Mr. Chairman: You are right.
Mr. Elston: I think it must be clear that we are also dealing with 14(3)(b) as well.
Mr. Chairman: You are absolutely correct. We will try that one more time. We are dealing with the proposed amendment by the member for Etobicoke to the amendment of clause 14(3)(c) and amending clause 14(3)(b).
All those in favour of the proposed amendment to the amendment and the amendment will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Before we move to 14(4), Mr. Elston, I have with me a proposed amendment to section 14(3)(c). Are you dispensing with that proposed amendment?
Mr. Elston: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That was the same amendment we moved in committee and we are not going to have that dealt with here.
Mr. Chairman: On section 14(4).
Mr. Philip: I move that it be struck out.
Mr. Chairman: The chair has recognized the member for Huron-Bruce.
Mr. Elston moves that section 14(4) be amended by deleting the section.
It is my understanding that technically you are just voting against the section.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, we believe the section is redundant regarding authority vested under other pieces of Ontario legislation. In line and in keeping with the provisions put forward before in committee, any sections to which we wanted to add wording to clarify the situation, when they were called redundant by the Solicitor General or his aides they were disallowed.
We think this section also ought to be deleted if that is the case. We also feel that in terms of the way it is structured now it would appear to the person who is reading the piece of legislation that there is a built-in bias in favour of the operations carried on by the police department. We think that perception of inequality and bias ought to be removed from the piece of legislation so that all understand there is no built-in right of appeal to any decision made by the public complaints commissioner to carry on the early investigative procedures.
Mr. Philip: We support the amendment.
Mr. Wrye: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that those of us who went through committee were moved to try to have a piece of legislation that was fair-minded to all. I think that is exactly what the deletion of this subsection would do; that is, to indicate to all members of the community, as my colleague has suggested, that there is a balanced approach in this legislation.
I again remind the Solicitor General that in our opinion the section need not be there and is redundant to other legislation that is in place. I think it would show to the community a balanced approach in terms of setting up this pilot project. I think it is important that it be stressed throughout the setting up of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Elston's amendment to section 14(4) will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Mr. Philip: The next amendment I have is to section 18(4), Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: We have some other sections to cover before we get to that section.
Shall section 14(5) carry? Carried.
Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 18, subsections 1 to 3, inclusive, carry? Carried.
Mr. Philip moves that section 18(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "a joint" in the fourth line and by striking out "in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association" in the fifth and sixth lines and inserting in lieu thereof:
"One member shall be a person appointed on the recommendation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association."
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment, and it was with some concern that we drafted this, is that we feel that if you look at any kind of a tribunal you must have a balance on that tribunal, particularly when it comes to any form of appeal. You do not have that balance in this section. In fact, what you have is one group that is representing a vested interest group.
You have what we consider to be an imbalance, namely, you have the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association along with the various other groups, including the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police, and you do not have a balance on the other side by having someone representing the public. It became an issue as to whether or not you balanced it by adding or subtracting. What we have chosen to do is to add. I think it is a basic principle that is accepted in any kind of judicial and quasi-judicial body. That is what we have attempted to do in this amendment.
The problem of choosing how you achieve that balance was a difficult one. It is fairly clear that you could not choose a particular visible minority group, if you like, because there are a great number of them and it would be very difficult to choose among them. It also would be cumbersome to have all of the community groups somehow get together and elect a representative, or some such procedure.
The one group that we felt was universally supported by a majority of groups in the community, be they of the visible minority or of other groups, and indeed the one group that is greatly respected by the police, is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Therefore, we propose a representative be appointed on the recommendation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The emphasis here, as you will notice, is the word "recommendation." I hope the Conservatives will accept this amendment as an attempt to obtain balance and appear to be fair to everyone.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate that in committee when this amendment was moved, we were unable to support it because we felt it dealt a blow to the simplicity of the operation of the system. We still feel that is the case when one adds another party in the deliberations in relation to the decisions to be made.
We also feel it unnecessarily builds in a further adversarial sort of procedure in setting up the board that is to make the decision. As a result, we will not be able to support the amendment of the member for Etobicoke.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Anything further on section 18? Shall subsections 5 to 8, inclusive, carry? Carried.
On section 19:
Mr. Chairman: I understand there will be no amendments before subsection 12. Shall subsections 1 to 11, inclusive, carry? Carried.
Mr. Elston moves that section 19(12) be amended by deleting the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" in line two and substituting therefor the words "on a balance of probabilities."
Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, basically what we wish to do is remove the criminal onus required to show that there has been a wrongdoing on the part of a police officer. We think implementing that particular onus of proof is going too far in dealing with a situation that is not criminal in nature. Certainly the penalties involved, which are to be levied by the people in charge, are not of such a nature that the criminal onus should be required. The "balance of probabilities," the civil onus, is something in keeping with the stature of this investigative procedure. We feel it is not appropriate to implement the criminal onus at this juncture.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, we can support the amendment. The government has taken great pains to maintain that this is not a criminal action and that, in those instances where there is suspicion of or reasonable evidence to suspect a criminal act has been committed, this act does not come into force and charges would be laid immediately and the officer would be tried under the court system. It is unreasonable to expect the same quality of proof when on other bodies that quality of proof is never expected.
This amendment accomplishes two things: It clearly distinguishes this body from that of the judicial, court and criminal areas; second, it is a more practical, workable kind of proof, and one that is used in other bodies that are not courts of law.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the thrust of the arguments. This is a matter that was reviewed very carefully by Mr. Maloney. Mr. Maloney recommends the onus of proof as presented in the bill and we think that on balance we accept Mr. Maloney's recommendation and cannot accept the proposed amendment.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Elston's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Mr. Elston: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, to be quick on the whole matter, I might move an amendment to both subsections 13 and 14 of section 19.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that section 19(13) be amended to substitute the words "has committed an act of misconduct" for the words "guilty of misconduct" included in section 19(13), and that the same words "has committed an act of misconduct" be substituted for the words "guilty of misconduct" included in section 19(14), where they likewise appear.
All those in favour of Mr. Elston's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Is it the thought that you are going to complete the bill?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: Who says? I thought we were going to vote now.
Mr. Chairman: Are you calling for the vote?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, the agreement was to vote at 10:15, but with the agreement of the members of the House we could go on to completion because we are very close to the end of the bill. I will go along with anything the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk suggests.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the minister has an amendment that would certainly elicit some substantial comment. I suggest to you that it will not be reasonably possible to finish it. We have a number of amendments to be voted on. We have stacked the amendments through the whole debate until this point. If we are not going to go on until 11 or 11:30, let us get that cleaned up.
Mr. Chairman: The point is taken. There will be a 10-minute bell.
The committee divided on Mr. Elston's amendment to section 5(1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 63.
10:30 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. Elston's amendment to section 5(2), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 5 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Philip's amendment to section 10(1)(c), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 10 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Philip's amendment to section 14(3)(b), which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on Mr. Philip's amendment to the amended section 14(3)(c), which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on Mr. Elston's amendment to section 14(4), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Philip's amendment to section 18(4), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 14; nays 83.
Section 18 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Elston's amendment to section 19(12), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 19 agreed to.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress on one bill.
The House adjourned at 10:36 p.m.