Public Safety Committee on Nov. 21st, 2013

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome here today, witnesses.

I'm going to start with some questions directed to Mr. Cowper. First of all, congratulations on your report and the fact that the report you produced has turned into something that is actually being initiated in many aspects. Congratulations on that aspect as well.

In your opening statement, you talked at very high level about unnecessary delays within the system. I'm just wondering if you could expand on that. I guess what I'm trying to find out is what the delays are that you're talking about. What are the prime cost drivers within the justice system specifically? I'd like more of a detailed answer, if you could, please.

[Geoffrey Cowper]

I'd be happy to do that.

First of all, there's not just one problem when you talk about delays. That's important to recognize. There are different types of delays within the system, and I think one of the reasons why I call for a system-wide approach is that you need to realize that delay in one part of the system is going to produce delays in other parts of the system and that improvements in one part of the system can be frustrated by responses in other parts of the system.

Let me try to break it down and say that in relation to delays you of course have to concern yourself with investigative time, that is, how long it takes from the time of the event to the time of the report to crown counsel. You have to deal with the initial delay within the court system of moving from a charge to a judge's actually looking at the charge, and anything happening with it. So to take that as a concrete example, in British Columbia it's generally six to eight weeks before the matter is brought before a judge, between the time that the person promises to appear and the actual first appearance. In other jurisdictions that can be a day or two.

The next concern for delay is how long it takes for something to actually happen. So there's a delay to trial, but there's also a problem of multiple appearances in and before the judge without anything actually happening. That's a problem that has been looked at for the better part of a decade, and I think some improvement has been made, but that's the pre-trial delay. Then when you get to trial, with respect to the few cases—as you know 98.5% of cases don't proceed to trial—we have to be concerned about the length of trial across the board, because even simple cases now take three or four times as long as they used to not that long ago. So a case involving an allegation of over .08%, which might have taken an hour or two hours 30 years ago, can take four or five days today, for example. In my view, although it's a relatively small part of the system, it's one that the public is very rightly concerned about. So the length of trial is also a matter of concern.

Finally I would say the biggest example that is a high profile is the length of time it takes to adjudicate really complex criminal cases, which involve conspiracies or murders. In British Columbia we've had several examples of cases that have taken five or six years to proceed through pre-trial motions and the trial itself. That was probably a longer answer than you wanted.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

No it was perfect, I wrote down your five points you made. I'm going to home in on one of them. The third thing you mentioned was the time it takes for something to happen, and you specifically said multiple appearances. When we look at the aspects of the costs of policing and perhaps having a police officer appear multiple times, we actually had a witness in the first hour suggest that, instead of having a police officer sitting around a courtroom, perhaps you could just transcribe it and have it in an affidavit.

I'm just wondering whether you can think of anything we could do to reduce the times or the cost associated with police officers having to actually appear in court in person. Do you have any suggestions on that or on whether an affidavit would suffice?

[Geoffrey Cowper]

I think it depends on the particulars, but let me say this to just affirm your witness' observation. If you wander around the provincial courthouses, at least in British Columbia, and you were from Mars—you weren't a Canadian—and you were wondering who lives in courthouses, the answer would be uniformed police officers, wandering around the hallway looking lost, or at least looking impatient, or sometimes just looking patient.

So it's a real problem. I actually think there are various technology fixes that need to happen and this is a classic example where having six or eight police officers in the hallway might help a prosecutor, because it enables a prosecutor to say to the accused and his or her counsel, “Look, I'm ready to go; I have all of my witnesses here”, and that might result in a guilty plea that might not otherwise have happened.

In my view, you can replace that system—which is frankly the practical need for those witnesses for the most part—with a call feature that shows that a police officer doesn't have to come except at a scheduled time, and the rest of the system should be able to accommodate that. I think there are a number of ways that could make that efficient and that don't require police officers to wait around. That's my view.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

In your opening remarks, you mentioned that we could have the same just results using a modern system. Is this the kind of modern system you were talking about?

[Geoffrey Cowper]

Yes.

I think we need to capture the technology available and adapt it to the criminal justice system, so we have system-wide performance measures, kinks-management that works for cases and meets public expectations of timeliness and outcomes. We have a good system, but I think it hasn't adapted to the modern and transparent world we're living in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Garrison now, please, for six minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'll start with a quick question, following up with Mr. Cowper. I do, as everyone does, appreciate the overall system-wide approach and wish you luck in getting all of these good recommendations into actual practice.

The one that stood out, to me, was the improved scheduling of witnesses as having a direct impact on police, as we've discussed. Going through your other recommendations, I didn't see anything that would apply to the concern we really have about policing costs—other than the witnesses one.

Other than the general improvements in timing, were there other specific recommendations that I've missed here that would have a big impact on policing costs?

[Geoffrey Cowper]

I think system-wide improvements can make additional capacity available, but let me say a few things. First of all, reducing wait times will result in a system-wide improvement and have improvements for police officers.

One of the recommendations I made that I think is very critical is to reallocate our priority for the resolution of matters early in the piece. I think the early stage of a criminal matter can result in the kind of resolution that now happens a year or 18 months later. As any system observation will tell you, that results in cascades of savings, including police time and otherwise. I think we need to prioritize that because 98.5% of cases result in pleas or stays, and I firmly believe that there's no reason why that can't happen much earlier. It would be to the benefit of the community in terms of public safety, for police officers not having to hang around and see their cases go on forever, and for the accused, frankly, who will get justice in his case sooner rather than later.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Cowper.

Now to Mr. McPhail and Mr. Evans.

I'm glad to hear about the meetings you've had and the attempt to collaborate and coordinate with the other oversight agencies. We've had a couple of suggestions here that I want to ask you about, though. One is that we make greater use of civilians in policing.

In terms of accountability, does your jurisdiction as the public complaints commissioner apply to civilians who are employed by the RCMP? Can the public make complaints against civilians? If we give civilians a larger role in contacting the public, I'm concerned about the accountability aspect.

[Ian McPhail]

That's a good point, Mr. Garrison.

There's a very practical and simple answer to it. The RCMP has the ability to swear in civilians under Bill C-42 as special constables for a period of up to one year. Having been sworn in, they're subject to the oversight of the new CRCC in the same manner as a regular RCMP member would be.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Would you then recommend that all civilian employees of the RCMP who have contact with the public be sworn in for that period, so they are subject to the same accountability as a sworn member?

[Ian McPhail]

It depends on the nature of the responsibility of that particular individual. Some may already have other accountability mechanisms in place. For those who don't, it's a very simple and easy solution.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

What's the situation with volunteers, people who might volunteer for the RCMP and are not paid employees?

[Ian McPhail]

Should there be a desire for oversight of their activities, I'm not certain that's necessary. Of course, if they're performing policing or quasi-policing duties, the same answer would be available.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

The second suggestion we've heard is that we should have some kind of two-tier policing, where we may have officers who are fully trained and specialized, and then we might have a second level of officers with less training.

In terms of accountability, I guess those officers would be subject to the same accountability measures but with less training. I wonder if that raises any concerns for you.

[Richard Evans, Senior Director, Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission]

You would assess them against whatever standards are part of their employment. Just to go back a step, the appointment under the RCMP Act is what brings them under our jurisdiction. That's not to be confused with their appointment as a peace officer. Those are two separate elements. Under Bill C-42, as Mr. McPhail said, the commissioner has the authority to appoint somebody as a supernumerary special constable. The second section would be to appoint that person a peace officer. Both of those would be appointments under the RCMP Act, which would bring them under our jurisdiction.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay. So when you're evaluating any complaint against the person, you're using the standards that have been set for them?

[Richard Evans]

Exactly.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

There would then be two standards of accountability?

[Richard Evans]

They would have to respond to different accountability because their jobs are different. For example, a member of the RCMP is always assessed against the standards that are applicable for whatever activity they're engaged in. You certainly wouldn't be holding somebody accountable for a standard that doesn't apply to them. So we will assess their behaviour and conduct against whatever applicable policies and procedures apply to them.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Weston now, please.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentations here today.

I'm a new member at the committee here, and I'm also very new to this study, so please forgive some of the naïveté of my questions here today.

Mr. Cowper, I was taken by one of the comments you made in your presentation. I believe you talked about benchmarks towards the end of your comments. I was just wondering if there are benchmarks in place that would be used as a measurement.

[Geoffrey Cowper]

I don't think there are benchmarks, in the sense that I feel there need to be. I think you need to have benchmarks for the resolution of cases. There is reporting, for example, in various provinces on the number of cases that are resolved within 60 days, 90 days, or 180 days. So there is some reporting. I actually feel strongly that the benchmarks need to be directed towards a resolution within a specific time period, and that you need to have a sort of cascading system so that if a case doesn't get resolved within a certain period, then another benchmark comes into being. So there are some measures out there, but they tend to be very flexible and they tend to be difficult for members of the public to understand in terms of what the actual expectation is.