Public Safety Committee on Nov. 26th, 2013

[Kellie Kilpatrick]

For example, we're dealing with one set of evidence, regardless of whether you're investigating the affected person or the police officer, looking at conduct. Where IIO staff have gone to Cranbrook and seized CCTV video and other surveillance, physical evidence at a scene, or have taken photographs or seized other exhibits like firearms, that one set of evidence is shared so that there isn't a duplication around analysis.

In terms of interviews, we share interviews. Many witnesses are very difficult to find after the fact. If an OPCC is looking to find witnesses two months after the fact, they are at a disadvantage, whereas we have packages all put together with the witness statements.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that answer.

Looking at the mandate of the IIO, it has to do with instances of death or serious harm. But I heard you mention earlier that although you normally don't take complaints from the general public, you have received complaints and you have taken on those investigations.

I guess I'm trying to find out how you define “serious harm”. With regard to someone coming to you and making a complaint and your then deciding to take on that investigation, I'm just trying to figure out how that would be possible, how it wouldn't have come through a different channel first.

[Kellie Kilpatrick]

There's an affected person who is involved in a police incident. He is injured. It's a minor injury that's not required to be reported to the IIO. A month later he develops pneumonia as a result of the injuries that occurred a month earlier, which link back to the police incident. The police office wouldn't even have known it was required to notify the IIO. The affected person comes forward and says, “Look, this is what happened.” We go back to the police service and ask, “Did you notify us? You didn't. It should have been reported.” So we will take that on.

And sometimes the police agencies just fail to notify us. It doesn't happen very often, but it has happened.

Serious harm is very challenging, because sometimes it takes time to determine how serious the impact of the injuries is going to be. And serious harm to one person may not necessarily be serious harm to another person in terms of their mobility. It's very complicated.

The SIU is challenged with this. Manitoba is challenged with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

[Kellie Kilpatrick]

We're trying to come up with a standard definition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much.

The time has expired.

Ms. Kilpatrick, as chair, on behalf of all the committee members, thank you very kindly for taking time to appear before us here today. Certainly there's a lot more information for us to consider in our deliberations on the economics of policing—certainly on the scope that you covered in your responsibilities. Once again, thank you.

We will now bring this first hour to a close. We will suspend very briefly prior to going in camera.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]