Shand inquiry
Before I get into the Shand inquiry, here is a story I was telling Mr. Delaney a few minutes ago. It's about security guards, and it's kind of a funny story. I wanted to put it on the record. This was a few years ago, and it happened in my riding. I'm not going to name the mall, and I'm not going to name the guy, but this mall actually hired a security guard. This gentlemen was a retired -- I guess you could call him a farmer. The guy fell asleep at night in the mall, and some thieves came in and robbed the mall. They actually used a forklift; they drove through the mall with a forklift. They stole the vault, then left the mall. The guy woke up in the morning when they came back and said, "We've been robbed." He said, "I didn't hear anybody." It actually was a true story.
I guess there are times when we do need to amend some of these acts, because they had the tracks of the forklift right through the mall and somehow this security guard completely did not see what happened in the mall that evening. I wanted to put that on the record, because I think sometimes we need a little bit of fun in this House, and to add a little bit of humour to some of the stories that actually take place.
Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Did he keep his job?
Mr. Dunlop: I can't say that for sure, but likely he did.
The Shand inquiry was such an important part of this, and I'll get into this in just a moment on the private member's bill I introduced myself as a result of the Shand inquiry because I wanted to push this legislation along as well. But I did want to read into the record -- I do have an hour to use on behalf of this bill, and I think the Shand inquiry recommendations and the rationale behind those recommendations should be included in the debate.
Patrick Shand, of course, was a young man who was involved in an incident and died as a result ofinjuries. There was an inquiry and there were a number of recommendations from that inquiry. No one wants to see someone's life lost, but perhaps if this hadn't happened, the pressure wouldn't be on the government today -- it wouldn't be on any government -- to proceed in this way.
I want to read these in. These are coroner's jury recommendations. This was actually put out about a year ago now, and it's important that we note that, because there are some other things I want to relate on that.
Recommendation number 1 is an amendment to the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. It reads: "The Private Investigators and Security Guards Act ... should be amended to remove the licensing exemption that presently exists for `proprietary' or in-house security practitioners and members of the Corps of Commissionaires. This amendment will provide for mandatory licensing for all privately employed individuals who, for hire or reward, guard or patrol for the purpose of protecting persons or property in Ontario (security practitioners). This amendment is not intended to affect the regulation of armoured car companies or armoured car personnel."
The rationale behind that is simple: "The current act," as we've said before today, "was passed in 1966. The world and the security industry have changed dramatically since that time. To illustrate, there are now some 50,000 persons employed in the security industry, half of whom are unregulated. Every person employed as a security professional should be licensed by the province. In 1966 most security practitioners were watchmen" -- maybe similar to the gentleman I mentioned earlier who fell asleep and the forklift drove through the mall -- "today they provide a wide variety of services with significant interaction with the public, especially in shopping malls" -- there we go again -- "hospitals, entertainment venues and other locales."
Recommendation number 2 is the need for urgent change. This is from the Shand inquiry: "We recommend that the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act ... be amended as soon as possible."
What's important about this -- I'll get into my own private member's bill a little bit later on -- and why I feel it's so important is, if we're really going to take the Shand inquiry seriously, we have to look at the fact that he has asked, as a second recommendation, that we do it as quickly as possible. That's why I have a bit of a problem with 2007 and regulations and advisory panels and all that sort of thing. If we've waited since 1966, I think there is an opportunity to make this move along very quickly. That's why I think recommendation 2, the need for urgent change, is just that: a need for urgent change.
The rationale behind that: "While it is important that all the stakeholders are consulted, the ministry has had many years to consult. When this act was passed in 1966, John Robarts was the Premier of the province and since that time there have been seven more Premiers." In fact, I heard somebody humming some Rolling Stones and Beatles songs the other day in the lobby. I think it was Michael Prue -- no, it was Marchese. The bottom line is that a generation has passed and nothing has been done with this bill in 40 years. Since that time, there have been seven more Premiers. "Any remaining consultation process should be expedited so that further delays in amendments to the act are avoided. It seems that the issues should already be well known and the ministry should be able to proceed quickly.
"If there are issues that cannot be resolved in the short term, a phased implementation may be appropriate." Again, we're talking about urgency, and I go back to the regulations and the delays.
"It is important that the government act quickly, responsibly and diligently."
"Recommendation 3:
"Mandatory training
"The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services ... should create a mandatory training program that all security practitioners must complete as a requirement for their licensing."
The rationale behind that: "Training is the key to providing the necessary skills and knowledge required by security practitioners especially in use of force instances and other areas of interaction with the public. The training is to protect both the security practitioners and the public. If the training is not mandatory for all, some security practitioners may not receive any training or receive substandard training and not have the necessary skills and training to reduce risks to the public."
1630
The fourth recommendation is "Training program curriculum." Again, I'm going back to the Shand inquiry because I think it is important that these are read into the record.
"The ministry should create a curriculum for the mandatory training program, through consultation with stakeholders to create industry standards based on best practices.
"For those security practitioners whose duties may include making arrests or the lawful application of force, the minimum level of training should include first aid, CPR and use of force training which identifies the hazards of restraint, asphyxia and excited delirium.
"For a security practitioner to receive a licence allowing them to carry or use handcuffs or expandable batons, they must have received and completed relevant training."
I go to the rationale behind that inquiry decision: "There should be multiple levels of training for security practitioners in the province, depending upon job requirements, the expectation of the use of force and the use of handcuffs and expandable batons. The system should be transparent in the interest and the safety of the public. The public should expect a high standard of professionalism by all security practitioners in the province. The curriculum should provide the basis for the professional standards.
"Recommendation 5, licence classification system" -- the reason I'm reading this out is I want to point out later on that in Bill 88, these were all included in the bill; they were all part of the bill. That's why I want to read these in, because I'm going to refer back to that after. "The act should be amended to provide for the creation of a licensing classification system in which each level or tier reflects the duties that the security practitioner is competent to perform based on the training he or she has received.
"The licensing classification system should also reflect the degree to which the security practitioner would be expected to interact with the public.
"The licensing classification system should ensure that no security practitioner may carry or use handcuffs or expandable batons without completing relevant training."
The rationale behind that: "One level of license or training will not meet the demands of all types of security requirements. For example, the requirements for a night watchman are different from the requirements for shopping mall security in that the use of force may be called upon when dealing directly with the public."
That's of course unless you're one of those guys who falls asleep as a night watchman in the mall and the guys drive away with the vault. I keep thinking about that as I'm talking to you today.
"Recommendation 6
"Training programs and persons with disabilities
"Any certified training program, by way of its physical requirement, should not prevent individuals with disabilities or any persons incapable of completing physical training from pursuing gainful employment as a licensed security practitioner, if his or her duties do not include making arrests or the lawful application of force."
The rationale behind that: "Equal opportunity for all individuals is an important factor in our society." The inquiry has made sure that was accomplished.
"Recommendation 7
"Recertification
"Those security practitioners whose duties include making arrests or the lawful application of force should be recertified annually with respect to use-of-force training.
"All security practitioners should be recertified for CPR annually."
The rationale behind that: "The training regarding the use of force is changing constantly and this ensures that security practitioners are up to date with modern training practices across the industry.
"Recertification of CPR is currently a best practice in most industries where CPR training is required."
"Recommendation 8
"Licence identification and renewal
"Licences should identify the classification of the security practitioner and what equipment he or she isauthorized to use such as handcuffs and expandable batons.
"Licenses should be renewed annually."
The rationale behind that: "Employers, the ministry and the public will know the competency level of the employee."
"Recommendation number 9, identification" -- again this is a very simple one, but it's something that has to be addressed:
"Where a security practitioner is in uniform, licensing information should be visibly displayed on a badge including a photograph, licence number, company name and classification.
"When a security practitioner is not in uniform the identification must be readily available."
The rationale behind that: "This will provide recognition to the public, avoid confusion" -- that's an issue we have to deal with a lot during the debate on this and in committee -- "with the police and identify the person as a security practitioner."
I think that we have to really zero in on that particular one when we're dealing with our public hearings and listening to the confusion that is actually out there.
"Recommendation 10
"Method of training delivery
"The mode of delivery of the mandatory training regime for security practitioners shall be approved by the ministry, after consultation with stakeholders. A manual or guide to training and requirements should be published and updated regularly by the ministry.
"Rationale
"There are many possible methods of training, including community colleges, in-house training and computer-assisted training. Training should be flexible and tailored to meet the needs of the industry throughout the province, without reducing quality.
"Recommendation 11
"Certified trainers
"Mandatory training should be delivered by qualified trainers certified by the ministry. There should be an established competency level defined by the ministry.
"Rationale
"The quality and standards of training are vitally important. Trainers and those persons instructing the trainers must meet the highest standards relating to subject manner and adult educational techniques.
"The coroner's office should be consulted in the development of use of force training programs.
"Recommendation 12
"Record keeping and evaluation
"The ministry should develop a mode of evaluation and a system of record keeping for the delivery of mandatory training.
"Rationale
"To ensure that the training regime is effective, complete and accurate records of training should be kept and those records and other means used to evaluate the training programs on a regular basis.
"This record could also be used to track the training of an individual security practitioner over the life of their employment as a security practitioner.
"Recommendation 13
"Enforcement system
"The ministry should implement an effective system of enforcement with powers of inspection and audit. Sufficient resources should be made available to ensure compliance with the licensing and training requirements of the act.
"Rationale
"The amended act will only be as effective as the system of enforcement. This will be particularly true in the early stages of implementation.
"Recommendation 14" -- we did not include this in our private member's bill. We were asked to remove this by some of the stakeholders in Bill 88, but I want to read it into the record. This is what the Shand inquiry actually put in:
"The ministry should create an advisory board or committee comprised of stakeholders to facilitate communication and the exchange of information between the stakeholders, and for the purposes of establishing the curriculum of the mandatory training program.
"Rationale
"The advisory board or committee should be constituted as soon as possible to begin their work in conjunction with the ministry prior to the passing of the amended legislation.
"The purpose of the formation of an advisory board or committee is to provide a breadth of experience and advice to the ministry, but the ministry is ultimately responsible and should ensure that it is not used as a mechanism to delay or obstruct the process of implementation.
"Recommendation 15
"Oversight body" -- again, this was included in Bill 88.
"The ministry should create an independent oversight body to deal with complaints by members of the public in relation to the provision of security services. Access to this body should be readily available and widely publicized."
The rationale behind that:
"Security practitioners must be held accountable for their actions and the public trust ensured. Publicity should include a 1-800 number and other means of access.
"Recommendation 16
"Portability of licences
"The act should be amended to provide for the portability of individual licences.
"Rationale
"Presently, licences are obtained through the employer. Portability will allow the movement of personnel within the industry of Ontario and eliminate current delays in obtaining licences for new employees who have been previously licensed.
"Recommendation 17
"Funding model
"The funding model for the mandatory training program in British Columbia may be considered as a funding model for Ontario." This would be very interesting.
The rationale behind that:
"Training programs should be funded from an annual licensing fee charged to companies and individuals and there should be no additional cost to the taxpayers."
This recommendation alone is a reason why we should have a number of our stakeholders in here, including not only the police but also industry, because they'll be paying the bills.
1640
"Recommendation 18
"Reporting use of force
"Licensed security practitioners should be required to report any use of force to their employer. The employer's responsibility should be to report use of force statistics annually to the ministry. The ministry should report the statistics publicly on an annual basis." That can probably be done on a Web site or something.
"Rationale
"Record keeping and reporting will identify changing patterns of activity as well as the need for changes intraining, licensing and possibly the act itself.
"This may also identify abuses of the system.
"The statistics should be reported by the ministry to ensure that the public is informed.
"Recommendation 19
"Excited delirium memorandum
"The coroner's office should update memo number 636, dated June 19, 1995, exhibit 4 at the inquest, for distribution to the security industry.
"Rationale
"This is a document that contains vital and possibly life-saving information. It is of the utmost importance that the security industry and all persons dealing with use of force and restraint are aware of the contents.
"Recommendation 20
"Training of persons authorized by an employer to make arrests
"If an employer designates employees to make arrests for property-related offences, those employees should have the same licence and training as is required of other security practitioners who are authorized to make arrests.
"Rationale
"Proper training may reduce the risk of injury to the employee or to the person being arrested.
"Recommendation 21
"Policy communication to employees
"Explicit direction both verbal and written must be communicated to each employee. A sign-off sheet must be filed in his or her personnel file as to their understanding of the expectations of the retailer with respect to the manner in which the apprehension of shop thieves is to be conducted. This communication and sign-off must be communicated on a regular basis, preferably annually.
"Rationale
"This ensures compliance and that the employee is aware of and understands the policy and their responsibilities.
"Recommendation 22," the final recommendation of the Shand inquiry:
"Compliance
"We recommend that failure to comply with the act and its regulations may incur significant fines and other penalties, including loss or suspension of licences, to the practitioner and/or company.
"Rationale
"We feel strongly that the provisions of the act especially with respect to training must be adhered to by all parties."
These are the recommendations that the Shand inquiry brought forward. I think it's really the basis for the reason that the government moved at all on this particular piece of legislation. That was brought in, I believe, on April 23 of last year. I introduced my private member's bill, Bill 88, in June 2004, and the government brought first reading in on December 9 of last year. We are finally around to actually debating that bill today.
Why I'm concerned -- and I want to zero in on Bill 88 for a second -- is that we used legislative counsel to help us draft that piece of legislation. We spent a lot of time on Bill 88. I'm not trying to brag or anything else like that, but the bottom line is, it wasn't something we just had somebody draft in 15 or 20 minutes and introduce in the House as a private member's bill. We put a lot of effort behind it and talked to a lot of stakeholders. I think we had a lot of support for it. So I was a little bit disappointed -- not that I would expect it -- that it wasn't brought forward as a private member's bill. That's one of the things I've said in this House a number of times: that too many private members' bills are brought in, we have petitions on them, we think they'll eventually become law -- boy, I can tell you, there are a few of them around here that should be law. I'm not trying to build up a couple of Liberals right now, but there's a bill I hear compliments about all the time that should be passed: Bill 3. Bill 55, Michael Gravelle's bill, the insulin pump bill that I'll be talking about to people this weekend at the diabetes forum up in Orillia -- people will be asking, "What is the status of that bill?" I had two letters the other day on Bill 3.
There are times we play partisan politics here, but if there's anything the government can do or anything that we as the 103 elected members can do on democratic renewal, it is to look at this private members' hour much more seriously. I tell you, there's some good legislation here that makes sense and doesn't cost that much. And you know what? I think it would bring a little more harmony into this place. I, for one, would support a lot of the legislation that I see brought forward here.
The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford brought forward his comments a little while ago when he was doing the Qs and As on Minister Kwinter's and the parliamentary assistant's speeches. He mentioned the lack of a preamble or explanatory note. I just want to give you an example of the difference between this bill -- I think he had a good point, and I wanted to add this. I want to read the explanatory notes of both Bill 159 andBill 88 into the record just to show you the difference in what the bills do.
First of all, I will do the minister's bill, Bill 159. The explanatory note on that reads:
"The bill replaces the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. It regulates private investigators, security guards and those who are in the business of selling the services of private investigators and security guards.
"Licensing requirements are imposed and procedures are put in place for revoking and suspending licences, subject to appeal provisions.
"Offences and regulatory requirements are provided for, as is a process for dealing with complaints from the public.
"The minister may make regulations" -- and that's what's very important about this bill, because he's not obligated to make regulations; he may make them -- "setting out a code of conduct for private investigators and security guards."
That's the explanatory note from the bill we're debating today, Bill 159, the bill that's getting all the support from the government.
I'm now going to read the explanatory note from Bill 88. I think it's important to note why I was disappointed that the bill wasn't brought forward. I think it covered a lot of these areas off. It was called the Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Act, 2004. There's an explanatory note right in the bill.
"The bill amends the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.
"It removes the present exemption from the act for members of the Corps of Commissionaires and forprivate investigators and security guards whose work is confined to acting for only one employer.
"An individual is not eligible for a licence under the act unless the individual has passed the examinationsor attained the standards prescribed by the regulations made under the act. A corporation is not eligible for a licence under the act unless a director or officer of the corporation has passed those examinations or attained those standards. The examination and standards must be appropriate for the class of licence for which a person applies and must cover the following areas: the force that a licensee can lawfully use when acting as a private investigator or security guard and the safe use of firearms and the lawful means of making arrests, if the licensee is required to use firearms or make arrests, as the case may be, when acting as a private investigator or security guard.
"A licence issued under the act must state the class, if applicable, for which it is issued. The regulations can prescribe terms of a licence, in addition to the terms that the registrar can impose at present. The terms may be different for different classes of licences and may include restrictions on the equipment that the licensee is authorized to use or prohibited from using in performing the functions for which person requires the class of licence.
1650
"A licence issued or renewed on or after the bill comes into force has a term of no more than one year." Again, this is all part of the legislation, Bill 88. "The registrar can suspend or cancel the licence under section 14 of the act if the licensee is no longer eligible for the licence. A licence no longer expires when the licensee's employment in respect of which it was issued terminates.
"The bill adds several restrictions for licencees. The uniform that a security guard is required to wear while on duty must not reasonably resemble the uniform of a police officer." I'll just stop there for a second. That is a very, very important part of this overall idea of renewing or bringing more responsibility or more accountability to the private security guards act. "The minister responsible for the administration of the act can restrict the markings and colours of a motor vehicle that a security guard uses while on duty, which must not in any event reasonably resemble a marked police vehicle." We know that's not the case now. "No licensee while on duty is allowed to wear or use badges or other insignia that reasonably resemble those of a police officer. The regulations can specify restrictions on equipment that a licensee is allowed to use while on duty.
"If the regulations require a licensee to keep books and records, they must include a record of all incidents in which the licensee used force while acting as a private investigator or security guard. The licensee is required to furnish a copy of the record annually to the minister responsible for the administration of the act." In this case, it would be Mr. Kwinter's department. "The minister is required to make the record available for inspection by the public. The regulations can also set out a code of conduct that licensees are required to comply with when acting as a private investigator or security guard.
"The bill establishes the Private Investigators and Security Guards Complaints Commission composed of members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who are not and have not been private investigators or security guards. At the direction of the minister responsible for the administration of the act, the commission is required to advise the minister on the enforcement of the act and the regulations. The commission must also submit an annual report to the minister on its activities.
"A person can make a written complaint to the commission if the person reasonably believes that an applicant for a licence or a licensee has contravened or is about to contravene the act, the regulations or, in the case of a licensee, a term of the licence of the licensee. Upon receiving a complaint, the commission can require the person about whom the complaint is made or any licensee to provide information about the complaint. The commission can also appoint inspectors to enter a premises or vehicle in order to investigate the complaint. The commission is required to disclose information that it receives to the registrar if the information relates to the eligibility of an applicant for a licence or a licensee to hold a licence and to the minister responsible for the administration of the act if the information reasonably indicates that a person may be guilty of an offence under the act.
"The penalty for a corporation that is convicted of an offence under the act is increased to a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000."
I bring that forward because I'm just comparing the two explanatory notes of the bills. Bill 159, the bill we're debating today, leaves it very vague. Everything is really left up to regulation at the discretion of the minister, and we're hearing today that it will be 2007. Bill 88, on the other hand, addressed 21 of the 22 recommendations right in the bill. Not that it was a perfect bill by any means, but the fact of the matter is that it would have been a lot easier bill to go to committee with --
Mr. Kormos: It may be a better bill.
Mr. Dunlop: -- and possibly, as I'm hearing in the background, a better bill.
That's not going to happen; we know that. But I want the public to know that there are private members' bills out there in a lot of areas that are as good as or better than some of the government bills. It would be embarrassing for the minister to have to accept the bill by me, his critic. I know he wouldn't do that. But maybe in this era of democratic renewal, we should take some of these things much more seriously.
I want to talk a little bit about the regulations, because the government does in fact include some of the things in its bill. I'll just go over them fairly quickly. I won't go into everything here.
Under the Shand inquest, the recommendations -- and this is what the government's claiming. I'm not 100% sure this is correct. In their press release dated December 9, 2004 -- and I wasn't invited to that press conference either -- they talked about the 22 recommendations that are apparently included in Bill 159. I won't read those all over again, but apparently the government claims it has addressed recommendation number 1 of the Shand inquiry.
Recommendation number 2 is the need for urgent amendments to the act. They claim that's addressed. Now that's what's wrong, because it's not urgent. I see my assistant, Miss Julie Kwiecinski, is over there urging me to carry on with that one. If this is an urgent recommendation by the Shand inquiry, I would have thought this bill would have been introduced last spring, after the Shand inquiry's 22 recommendations. I felt it should have been debated over the summer months in committee and passed last fall -- so that we would actually have law -- and not be debated a year later. We're actually doing first reading today. I guess next Monday or Tuesday would be one year since the Shand inquiry made its recommendations. So it's disappointing that almost one full year later we finally get around to debating this bill in the House.
Recommendation 3, mandatory training, they claim they address that; the same as 4 and 5, which are the training program curriculum and the licence classification system.
The government claims recommendation 6 of the Shand inquiry will be addressed during consultations with stakeholders starting in 2005. Again, I'm just disappointed in this part of the bill. This is why I'm worried about whether I should even support the bill, unless there's more urgency that would reflect on the Shand inquiry's recommendations.
We're starting the consultations in 2005. As I go through this list, there are a number of them that are addressed the same way.
Number 7, recertification, will be addressed during the consultations.
Number 8, licence identification and renewal, will be addressed during the consultations withstakeholders starting in 2005.
Number 9, the identification part of the Shand inquiry, will be addressed during the consultations.
Number 10, method of training delivery, again, will be addressed during the consultations.
Number 11, certified trainers, is under review. That's what the government is saying, that it's currently under review.
Number 12, record-keeping and evaluation, is currently under review.
Number 13, the enforcement system, they claim that's been addressed.
The same as number 14, the advisory board -- and I think the minister did give me some credit at one point for some of that.
Number 15, the oversight body, apparently has been addressed.
Number 16, portability of licences, has been addressed, as has number 17, the funding model. I don't know how the funding model is addressed. They claim this is addressed in the bill, but we have not had consultations with industry. They're going to be asked to pay for this. This is why I think it's going to be so important that we end up with a fairly wide variety, a wide range of committee hearings. The funding model will be a key area here.
Number 18, reporting use of force, will be addressed during consultations with stakeholders starting in 2005.
Number 19, the distribution of the excited delirium memorandum, apparently has been addressed, as has number 20, training of persons authorized by an employer to make arrests.
Number 21, policy communication to employees, is not applicable, they claim, so they claim they don't need to put that in there.
Number 22, compliance, they feel has been addressed.
1700
> back to top |
