Item number six, a very important item, the independent external review
into systemic concerns relating to missing persons investigations.
Mayor Tory, this is your motion, so maybe I'll turn to you and ask you to kick it off.
Well, thank you Mr. Chair, and what I'll do is just make a few introductory
comments and then we'll put the motion up and just go
through that so people understand it's been distributed with the agenda materials
and I think it's been fairly widely reviewed over the last week or so. I think
as people know, but it's worth remembering
that there have been cases going back some considerable
period of time, well before even the present troubling
series of events that involved the disappearance
of individuals, including members of our LGBTQ communities, and that has created over time a series of very troubling questions and so out of, I guess, a sense of humanity and
a sensitivity and fairness to the family
and friends of those people, I think as importantly, in order to make sure we can do our
job of maintaining trust and confidence
in policing and in the, sort of, overall system that protects the public interest, this is one of those times
in the public domain, and they arise all the time
in the public domain, quite properly so, when an independent
external review is necessary to maintain and in some cases to renew trust and confidence. It's just one of
those opportunities that arises and one of those times
when it is appropriate and necessary to have somebody
dispassionately answer what are often very difficult
complicated questions that somebody other than
the group that the questions are being asked about --
This board in fact exists here for that very purpose, to oversee
what is, what is a very difficult task that our police have,
police in whom are invested a very significant, special authority
and who have a very complicated job to do. So the genesis of today's motion
goes back, I guess, to a series of tragic horrific events which have deeply affected all of us in Toronto, but
including especially members of the LGBTQ and the Church and Wellesley communities, to name
two different sets of communities that have been particularly deeply affected
by this, but I think it's had an impact on many
people, all people across the city. If you go back, the first thing that was done
and quite properly so, by the chief of police, was that he initiated an internal review, and that
is something that quite properly he would
would do, and does often on different kinds of things, and the only thing that we have
requested, with his full support, subsequent
to that at the February meeting of this board,
was to ensure that there was also that public review, subject to
legal and other considerations that may prevent parts of it from being made public right away
is to have that review report when it's available made public,
so that the public can see what came out of that review.
And Chief Saunders began, at much the same time as that,
to explore, with the appropriate government authorities
what could be done by way of a public inquiry into the particular cases that are now being investigated
and will end up, I'm sure, in the judicial process at some point in time, just to explore
something that I'll come back to as a very important
point in all of this, which is that we have, as well as a responsibility to oversee, we have as the body that is
going to initiate, I hope, subject to the approval
of colleagues today, this independent external review,
an absolutely overriding responsibility as well to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigations
and to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings
that will flow from those investigations so as to ensure that that can unfold in a way
that can not be affected by things going on elsewhere.
And so, the next step seems to be and this has had, I should emphasize, throughout,
support of the chief of police, because he recognized the need for
an external independent review early on but also had that same responsbility, which is our collective
responsibility, to make sure that nothing any of us did was going to jeopardize those
investigations or those judicial proceedings.
It doesn't mean that all the difficult questions don't get asked and answered, but it does
speak to the question of when they might get answered, and to some extent how
they get answered, and that is probably where, ultimately, some other
kind of inquiry will come in to play as well.
Subsequent to the February meeting of the board, when we did ask that the
independent report be made public, I think it is fair to say that the list of unanswered and
very troubling questions that have caused a lot of anxiety in the community
has grown longer, and so I think what motivated me to put this motion forward is, again, I
would say with full support of the board, chair and the chief, has been to see what
we can move forward with now, in order to begin the question
of answering some of those difficult questions
or just looking at ways in which we could do things
better, so as to get some of that advice and have some of that learning as quickly as possible. So,
the way that we've tried to go about doing it, in terms at least of the motion that's being
put here today for consideration by the board is to ask the chair of the board
to report to the April 2018 meeting on the composition of a working group. And some people
may say, 'Well, you know, why don't you just get on with it? Why are
you going to talk about a working group?'
Well, it's the message that certainly I've received loud and clear, and I think my colleagues have as well,
and others in public office who have a lot of opportunity to interact with people in the communities
that I made reference to, understand that there is a deep desire
not only to see some of the difficult questions answered
but to be consulted on how we go about doing that.
So we've chosen to spend the next month
taking a look at the composition of a working group that will advise us, the independent oversight
board on the composition and structure of the internal review external review or reviews
because it could be that it's recommended that there be
more than one. And we've said in the motion, which is up there now, or soon will be,
that it should consist, at least the motion says this, of not more
than four members, including a member of the board, as well as three external members.
And again we wanted to make sure that we gave the communities
that are most concerned about this, all of the communities, an opportunity to help us to identify
the three external members, and so the chair has asked, by the motion to consult the community
and in particular to consult groups that may feel that when it comes to
the examination of missing persons investigations and things that I'll get into in the second part
of the motion, feel the most, the greatest level of concern about this, that they should be consulted on both the
nature of the reviews and on the composition of this working group. That includes groups that are set out here,
organizations which work with sex workers, harm reduction and homeless populations, groups representing
Indigenous people and the LGBTQ communities, including the Alliance for South Asian AIDS Prevention, and
we have added to this something that will not have been seen in the first iteration of the motion that was made public a few days ago,
which was that we think it will be very helpful in order to properly and effectively and completely achieve that
consultatitive goal, given that the members of the working group will need
some assistance with this that we can obtain and will obtain a facilitator to help with this task,
to make sure that this consultative phase is carried out effectively and completely.
The second part you see right here, and there is one more change that I just draw your attention to
from the originally circulated motion, is that the working group
once constituted will then report to the Toronto Police Services Board
at the June meeting, and that's moved forward one month from May, simply to be realistic
about saying well, if you're going to meaningfully
consult, if you're going to have the help of a facilitator,
and you're going to put the group together and get it to do some of its work,
in an effective manner and without being sort of rushed, that providing that period of
time is something that is important. And so if you then look at
under that item two, I'll just briefly run through the parts of it, what it's meant
to do, the motion, is to ask this working group to report to the board on, first,
part A there, the identification of the best possible form of an external review or reviews, including one commissioned by the
Board, for example, and/or one that was conducted by an existing third party,
such as the Ontario Independent Police Review Director, OIPRD. And so it gives the committee
the option of looking at those different kinds of combinations, or a single kind of review,
and giving their advice with respect to what they thought would be the most effective in the circumstances and the circumstances really
are presented by part B. And part B would then have the working group also discuss
the possible terms of reference and make recommendations to the board in that regard
and would include the four things that are listed first:
Toronto Police Services practices and actions relating to past missing persons investigations, subject
to any legal restrictions, and I'm going to emphasize some of these words that are in here,
because I think they're important in order to make sure that people understand the duty that all of us have
and the restraints that are placed on the first phase of this
work. Second, Toronto Police Service Board policies, Toronto Police
Service procedures, protocols, training, organizational structures relating to missing persons
investigations, and then again, words that I'll draw your attention to, which will not include information or discussion of
the McArthur investigation and possible trial proceedings. I understand the fact, and I think most
people that I've talked to in the community, and as I've had various formal meetings, I've had a dozen
groups into my office, together with Councillor Wong-Tam, to discuss
the deeply held concerns that exist about this in the community, that
is meant only to say that at this point in time, as we can begin
the work of looking at some of the systemic issues related to missing persons investigations
we have to take great care in what we do and don't do in order to
preserve the integrity of the investigations and the judicial proceedings
so that's why those words are there, as are the words up at the top about
this being subject to any legal restrictions, and to some extent the burden of this will fall
more on the person or organization that is ultimately chosen
as a result of this process to conduct this external third party review
to assess the proper timing of when the questions are asked and answered
more so than on the board or on this committee.
The third thing that I think is very important be looked at here and I've heard this in my own
meetings with the communities and when I've been out in the community in recent weeks and months,
any systemic concerns, especially those which relate to bias against people based on protected grounds outlined
in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and that's as relates to missing persons investigations, policies, procedures and
actions undertaken in respect to to those. And finally a point that often I think we put into these sorts of
things, but I think we underestimate the importance of it, which is the learning that we can take from people who do things well elsewhere,
because we think we do things pretty well in Toronto and I guess we do in many respects, but
there's always somebody who has a better idea that they've implemented
as a result of some experiences of their own and so this group would be asked to advise us on
inclusion in the terms of reference of a consideration of national and international best practices into missing persons
investigations. I should say again I think you will all have read
the chief's letter which accompanies my own, and he may speak to this himself, which indicates
there are some steps he's already taken inside the police organization, as is
his responsibility as chief to consider some changes that are
made to how missing persons investigations are handled. But this investigation
is meant to look at this external and independent review is meant to look at
nonetheless how things are done elsewhere. And then finally just something that would
be the proper domain of such a working group which is to have a look at the anticipated costs
of the review and timelines, and make recommendations to this board in
that regard. So that is the motion, Mr. Chair and I will simply conclude by saying
that I think yes we have an obligation here to work with
the police service to make sure people are safe, we have an obligation to oversee what the police are doing, but most of
all, I think, our most important single responsibility is to make sure that we
do our very best as a board distinct from the police service and in a position of oversight
to maintain trust and confidence in policing, and I think this
beginning, and it is just a beginning, but it's a beginning that I think is as far
as we can go at this stage, but nonetheless it's a very important, very significant first step to look at
some things that have been lingering for some considerable
period of time, and that need addressing by an outside, independent
reviewer, and this will begin that process with, I guess, some
decisions to be made in the June meeting about exactly then
how that review will happen. But we'll be taking the time between now and June
to consult the community, which I think is also very important and to try to do this in a very thoughtful
way, commensurate with the importance of the issue to large segments of the community.
Thank you Mayor Tory, and there are a number of deputations, but before we get to that,
Chief Saunders is there anything you, any comments you wish to make for your submission?
Thank you Mr. Chair.
And first and foremost I'm going to say that I support the motion brought forward by Mayor Tory.
I believe the public interest and the best interests of the Toronto Police Service
will be well served by an independent external review to report publicly on issues related to missing persons.
For Toronto's LGBTQ community this has been a very difficult time, and I know that many are very upset
and many are still grieving.
And they have many questions about what happened and what could have been done differently.
I take these questions seriously and I hope that my actions demonstrate that conviction.
So far I've taken a number of steps in responding including to, as you have addressed,
Mr. Mayor, ordering Professional Standards to review the cases of
Tess Richey and Alloura Wells and second I've had Deputy Chief Barb McLean and LGBTQ
liasion officer Danielle Bottineau
they've been reaching out in the community, as have I, meeting with groups and taking the time to listen
more carefully, and I have also initiated plans to create a dedicated
missing persons unit within the Toronto Police Service, and its mandate will be to review all outstanding
cases and consider whether our existing procedures and training are appropriate and effective.
And finally I'd like to reassure the board that it has the support
and active participation of the command team as well as the Toronto Police Service
as we move forward with this review.
Thank you, Chief Saunders. As I've said there are a number of deputations, the first one, Brian De Matos.
Brian, you know the rule, five minutes, and I'll give you a one-minute warning.
Yup.
I speak on the item of missing and murdered members of the LGBT2QI communities.
Before I get into the heart of the review, I need to point out three extremely problematic issues
regarding the agenda item from members of this board.
I am very angered, full of rage and sadness.
For not only losing friends, but how they were lost and how they continue
to be victimized time and time again even in their deaths. One by our own
chief, who had the need to take a public relations stance --
had a need to take a public relations stance
and victim-blame not only the LGBT community as a whole but
victims of rape and physical assault themselves blaming us for not coming forward
and for the mayor to support this victim-blaming so the police can look innocent
in all of this. You are not innocent in any of this, irrelevant of what you meant
it was, as it always should be, about addressing the impact of your own words and actions, not your intent.
This is what should have happened but did not.
Yet again, another dire reminder of how folks in power and police
avoid accountability to community and my friends.
So I say this: shame on you both
Now, my communities are dead, but
still being victimized in the hands of the police
including friends like Dean Lisowick, who you, as police,
have the disgusting procedure to release his mugshot, as if
he, the victim, was the criminal.
How dare you?
Why did you not ask his friends and family for a respectable picture of him?
Imagine his family having to open the newspaper to find this out
Just imagine that.
I say, in anger and rage and sadness, shame on you
The third point I need to make, in regard to the power and brutality my community and friends
must continue to endure by members of this board, is again from John Tory,
to use our, the LGBT community ideas and policy
and advocacy around police
accountability to make his own words take full credit in the media and even
on this agenda. Yes, you did give us a small paragraph in the end
and submitted a letter than recognized us, thank you for that small print, but
again I say, in sadness and rage, shame on you.
On the purpose of this agenda item, there has been a clear, as it has always been,
in the police force, a dangerous and deadly lack of cultural competence
of my communities, the LGBT2QI communities, in police policy
and everday standard operating procedure, that, in no doubt in my mind,
contribute daily to the historical and present homo- and transphobic
brutality we face from Toronto Police Services. There is extreme
amount of change that needs to happen regarding the case
of Project Houston to the McArthur cases to the policies and procedures that kill
many members of my community. This review, if it has any
chance of delivering a meaningful result, it must expand more than just the case of missing persons, but how
police force treat folks who are queer, trans and two-spirit, who are also
racialized, homeless, in sex work, those with substance use, and impacted by mental health
because all of that does impact my community.
This should not, this should and must include policy and procedure on how police treat trans folks every day. The common
officer and most of the members of this board cannot tell the difference, or even know the definition,
and difference between transgender, transsexual, intersex, Two Spirit, non-binary, genderqueer.
The procedure and policy for police is that when an officer arrests one of my community members
who identifies under a different identity than cisgender, it is up to
the individual police officer to determine what jail they should go to.
On average, they get it wrong, because their training and their manual is wrong.
And to make matters worse, the only option police folks have
on protecting, quote unquote, non-cisgender
members of our community, is to put them in solitary confinement.
Even when they're put in the wrong jail or the right jail but are attacked
for being non-cisgendered, this is written in the police
training manual. Again, we see systematic transphobia that my community
must endure that is cruel and is disgusting. It is punishment
while being punished just for being who are you are. Oh, how my community
knows that experience.
For this review to work, you must go beyond the regular practices
that reviews have with regard to misconduct of the TPS.
Must examine everday brutality that is practiced by the Toronto police
force. You must add not only members of the government but extensive
outreach and participation from members of my community, and I'm not just
talking about the rich, white, cis guys, gays you hire and tokenize to pink-wash
your way out of bloody hands. I'm talking about getting LGBT folks who have lived experiences in
the jail system and police brutality.
I'm also talking about members of my community who are queer and trans
people of colour, who have lived experience of mental health and addiction and sex work.
This review will mean nothing unless we incorporate the principles of
intersectionality and how we deal with the most diverse community in the world.
I repeat this again, no change will happen until the most
vulnerable and marginalized members of my community
have our voices centered here, centered in the review and
voices centered in training of officers the manual and policies of Toronto
police. Until that step has been taken, all you're doing is
pink-washing excuses to justify your brutality to vulnerable populations.
Thank you Brian.
Am I out of time?
Yes, you were, I was holding up a minute ago the one finger. Colleagues, questions?
Shelley? Yes.
Thanks, Brian. So, Brian, I don't know if you came, seeing the content of the motion, but,
so Mayor Tory has added, I think -- A lot of people in the community had the idea
that it was just going to be about looking at missing persons procedures.
But Mayor Tory has now added 'and any systemic concerns,
especially those related to bias against people on protected grounds. So
within that clause, if what we get back in June
is that this inquiry is going to leave a lot of room to explore that, will that help us
deal with the issues that you've presented today? No,
because historically you chose members who are usually compliant with the police,
usually white, cis folks, or folks that are privileged in our community.
What I'm saying is for this to work, you have to outreach to folks
that are not regularly seen not the regular folks that are going to be up here speaking. Not
the regular folks that have the privilege. You need to
outreach to the most marginalized within my community. Folks impoverished,
racialized folks, trans folks, two-spirit folks,
folks that are the most impacted by the brutality of police.
This is just not going to work It's just going to be pink-washing,
it's just going to be tokenizing, its way out of, to a
good PR campaign. You must consult all community members,
not the ones that Kristyn Wong-Tam comes up here with, but folks that are not regularly
asked. Those voices need to be centered, or else this is just going to be another --
We have to add that in, is what you're saying.
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Colleagues, any other questions?
Brian, thank you.
Next is -- Stop Saunders
Next --
Could you put that down please?
Stop Saunders.
Next --
Shakir Rahim and --
Stop Saunders
Mr. Rahim, thank you very much for coming forward.
And you've provided us with a written deputation, so we thank you for that as well.
My pleasure. Can you hear me clearly? Yes.
Stay close to the mic.
Good afternoon. My name is Shakir Rahim, and I am a board member of the
Alliance for South Asian AIDS Prevention,
as well as a gay South Asian man who lives with both a mental and physical chronic health condition.
Also in attendance today is our executive director, Haran Vijayanathan.
ASAAP is here with the support of 30 diverse community organizations and community leaders.
Today, I will tell you about our advocacy, and positions on the review process.
ASAAP was founded 29 years ago by a group of activists because HIV positive South Asians
could not locate culturally competent care.
We are the only LGBTQ non-governmental organization that specifically serves the South Asian communities in Ontario.
Our community and others have been alarmed about the pattern of disappearances
of South Asian, Middle Eastern and LGBTQ persons.
We are alarmed at how long it took for an alleged perpetrator to be arrested.
We are alarmed at reports that proper investigative steps may not have been followed.
And we are alarmed that the complexity of some of our community members' lives
may have led to erroneous conclusions about why they could not be found.
And we know that systemic issues including bias underlie our concerns.
It is bias that is conscious, and unconscious, individual and structural.
The result of our concerns has been a crisis in public trust between our community and the Toronto police.
A lack of public trust compromises effective policing,
participation in the criminal justice system and
most importantly, the safety of the public.
In January, to begin the process of rebuilding that trust, we
called for external accountability of the Toronto police and constructive dialogue with them.
We have worked hard to deliver both of these objectives since January, working with
the mayor and his policy team, and meeting with the leadership
of the Toronto Police Service.
While we support this motion, we would like to make our position clear on three issues.
First, our request is and has always been for the board to commission the independent review
into how the TPS conduct missing person investigations.
As the recently passed Safer Ontario Act makes clear, and Mayor Tory, as
you made clear in your opening statements here today, the board is responsible
for providing adequate, and effective policing in its are of policing responsibility.
The Morden report into the G20 summit, commissioned by this board, emphasized the importance
of the board effectively and actively exercising that oversight function.
We support other reviews and inquiries
but they should supplement, not replace a board-commissioned process.
Our second position is that it is essential
that the community is involved throughout the entire process of establishing any review.
The working group that this motion creates cannot be the end of the community's role, but rather
the beginning.
The formulation of the final terms of reference for any review
must include direct community involvement. And that includes
the meetings with the lawyers, the policy staff and so forth
that often characterize the technical details of how these reviews come into being.
That should also include the new addition to the motion, of the selection of a facilitator. That
faciliator should only be chosen with the full agreement of the
working group that this motion strikes. Third,
we recognize that the review cannot compromise the investigation or criminal proceedings of Bruce McArthur.
Keeping that in mind, however, a systemic review still ought to consider any prior missing person investigations
within any appropriate legal boundaries.
In closing, our hope is that at the end of this process, we are closer to a
reality where every member of our public truly feels that their life is
treated with the same respect and care as any other, because today, in this city, that is not the case. Thank you
for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Rahim. Thank you for coming and thank you for the presentation. Colleagues, questions?
Ms. Chandrasekera?
Thank you, and thank you for your statement. My question to you is what is the scope that ASAAP would like to see as part of this review?
Our position is that the central purpose of the review is to examine
missing person investigations with a focus on the LGBTQ community.
But as the prior deputant I think rightfully made clear, you cannot answer that
question without looking at the broader systemic considerations, so we expect that to be part of the
process. At the same time, what we recognize, and I think what the history
of independent reviews has emphasized, including the current, ongoing
national inquiry into missing Indigenous women, is that a review has to have a certain focus and scope. So,
absolutely, that would be our approach.
But most importantly, the fact that this review is happening does not
mean that there should not be other steps taken. I think Kristyn Wong-Tam's
written deputation spoke about a real history between the police
and the community with respect to tension and bias.
So I think this motion is perhaps a starting point,
about a broader conversation and set of examinations that are necessary.
Any other questions, colleagues?
Thank you very much. Okay, great. Thank you.
Susan Gapka?
Thank you, Susan. You know the rule, I'll give you five minutes and I'll give you one minute warning.
I'm going to start my timer.
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Susan Gapka. S-U-S-A-N Gapka, G-A-P-K-A.
Oh yeah, I've been doing that all day.
I'm here with Toronto's missing, murdered rainbow community members, and I've been listening
to deliberations. And in the last couple weeks Greg Downer
who started --
was looking for his friend.
And ended up in this unprecedented series of events
where we've got, now, an alleged serial killer in custody, we've had a lot of violence in our communities
and so they asked me to help out with, we had a media release this morning
and we're asking for a public inquiry, and sooner rather than later. We're concerned about the political
landscape. We may have -- the attorney general is actually the one -- so I realize
that's out of scope, but that's what kind of got me up at six o'clock this morning to talk about. But
what I was brought into the group, I think, to help with, not only Greg Downer,
and other people, is to bring in my -- I have around diversity,
I'm a former homeless kid, just some of the things around
some of the disadvantaged, some of the people that were
found murdered, missing and murdered and some of that.
I realized -- we really want to impress upon you the sense of urgency, but
understanding, I don't have a vote at this table, so I've actually written
a recommendation while I've been
listening and learning, because I've learned a lot about this thing that I didn't know a lot
about. And I'm here reluctantly today. but I'm this is my own,
I just want to remind people, I'm an individual, I'm a community member, I've been,
I've worked with the police on and off, I'm a member of the CPLC in 51 Division,
that was us who asked about the previous agenda item, and I've been, I've helped form , I was one of the founders of the chief's consultative committee, in 2000. Being
unaware of the long history between the LGBT -- the gay community and our communities, but public policy, I was there, but what I'm seeing here is, I'm feeling
some of our most disadvantaged people may be left out.
Great to see sex workers, and homeless people, and I don't know if I saw trans people, but there's
a lot of people that are falling through the cracks.
There's becoming more and more division between those who have and those who do not, who end up in our parks.
So I'm recommending that the Toronto Police Service, in partnership with the City of Toronto,
City Manager and the soon to be constituted LGBTQ2S, I believe are the
advisory to develop a parallel consultation process to develop mechanisms and communications
which will work towards improving the public trust and community safety of our rainbow communities
and the Toronto Police Service.
I feel that there has been moments in time, there was the Bathhouse Raids, which preceded my coming out experience,
there was the Pussy Palace that happened when I was, we were developing the chief's consultative committee,
there the G20 experience, which was another schism, and now this. So we have
a lot of work to do, and in that regard, working with the community members who will otherwise be left out of his process.
For example, we, well, not all of us, if you had a badge you didn't have to undergo security at the front desk.
But things like having meetings at police headquarters make a number of us feel uncomfortable.
I wanted -- You haven't seen me here in a while, right? I have -- and so, better relations
in the community. And I'm glad to see that the chief has appointed Deputy Chief Barbara McLean
and Danielle Bottineau to work on those relationships. I do have a good working relationship with her.
So I just look and I think we're almost at time, but we need to do better and we need this inquiry sooner
rather than later. There are questions that we want to see answered, and I think we are building consensus that
I think many of us in this room are looking for what happened, what went wrong, how can be do better next time.
Susan, thank you very much. Colleagues? Councillor Carroll?
Yes, thank you Susan, as always. First things first, let's get this out of the way. Do you want to re-read your
recommendation to me again? I was trying to write it down as fast as possible. You sped up at the end.
Just read it out to me again.
It was like a one-minute warning, you know. It was like if I could only do that when I was running a half marathon, I'd be great.
So recommending if that's okay with the chair, I can send it to someone
the Toronto Police Service in partnership with the City of Toronto city manager, and soon-to-be constituted LGBTQ2S
advisory committee, develop a parallel consultation process to develop mechanisms and communications which will improve the public trust
and community safety between our rainbow communities and the Toronto Police Service.
There is so much more I could have written on this but I realize you have a packed agenda.
So this is, I think, to enhance those -- for me, the feeling is not everyone is going to be part of this process, but a lot of us have a lot of questions.
We're a community in grieving, and I think we want to be active and engaged in helping all of us find some answers.
Right. So it would be good if you could email that, because it's a little more -- it's longer than
I would get written down here. I think we should look at it. Thank you
I'm not sure whether or not it fits today or it should be transmitted to
the steering -- group that will set up
this inquiry and bring the terms back in June, but we
can consult with the mayor on that. I just wanted to ask you one other question.
You have been away for a while from police board matters, so you may not realize that in fact we are
discussing this police board meeting, the monthly meeting, moving outside of police headquarters
because it's actually been recommended in other inquiries. We have
had that recommendation from Justice Hollick and others, so
there is a move towards getting out of police headquarters.
Is this I think you think strategically, you're very much a policy wonk like me, but is that
out there in the community, is there a lot of talk in the community about
they need to get out of that building?
I think there's an emerging discussion about security even
at City Hall, and in public buildings like this that make a lot
of us feel uncomfortable. And if we have
broken, I don't know what the word is, I want to find my kind person here, just a more generous person,
but relationships are strained at this time, which makes it even more difficult.
When we formed the consultative committee, the terms of reference that we
would meet in community organizations, that people would be elected at town hall meetings,
that the public, there would be -- so in the original
recommendations in here, which I will leave behind, there should be at least a town hall,
every six months, because we do have a lot to vent, and it will be uncomfortable and
ugly, but we need to get that out sometimes. People will need to get that out
before we can start listening to each other.
That's part of the process of public consultation.
Thank you Susan.
Ken, you had a question?
Yeah -- you mentioned a number of initiatives that have taken place in the past, right?
I'm familiar, I think, with most of them. What would make this suggestion, this initiative,
different, to get a different result? Because obviously they didn't work. And it sounds like it didn't work, right?
So, with regard to your experience with this, what are
some things that you want to see that are going to be not the same old?
I think this is an opportunity, actually -- this is a traumatic
set of circumstances that brings me to go through security downstairs, but
brings us here, but if we turn that into an opportunity
to have more connections, there is an undercurrent of criminalization.
Homosexuality, transsexuality, many of us have been criminalized in the past, so there's that long
residual history around that, and so there's some members of our communities
who would never think the police can change. I'm of the view that
you can change. I don't quite trust you, I gotta say. I don't quite trust you,
I'm a reluctant participant, but we need to -- It's my view that building bridges
works much better to having that common communication.
There are a lot of people for whatever reasons that are not able to come to report, like
community-based reporting, if you've been violated, if you've been abused, if you feel
that a crime has been committed of you, and in some of the news that has come out
on this investigation, or not maybe the investigation but in some of the media
reports, people have said there's a serial killer. People have
said I've been attacked, and they were not believed.
And that's a tremendous schism that we need to work on doing, improving that public trust.
Again, Susan, thank you very much for coming here and for your honesty in putting that forward.
If you could give that motion to Ms. Bennett that would be phenomenal.
Brenda Ross? Brenda, you're next.
Do you need some help? Officer, could you help Ms. Ross, please?
Brenda, thank you for coming. You know the rules -- five minutes, and I'll give you a one-minute warning.
A couple of days ago the Toronto Sun printed something that they called the meaning of a
dumpster fire. This is the meaning that they printed in the
newspaper: an utterly calamitous or mismanaged situation, or occurence.
And that's what we have.
One tragedy after another, and we're still speaking about the same things. Nothing has
changed. And thank you to Greg Watts and Ms. Charlene, who have just told
us something that I wanted to bring up. Cultural change
report is going to be in at the end of the month.
I look forward to seeing it. I can't wait. I believe that cultural change should be pushed right up
to the forefront of the way forward. That is part of the problem.
Certain people or groups of people are deemed by the police not to be worthy of service or protection.
Inquiries and special units will not change an attitude.
Inherent disrespect, lack of concern for certain members of society, has resulted in numerous tragedies.
We had a couple of ladies here last month who told us treat others as you would like to be treated, but that
cannot be just words that we hear when we come to the police board meetings.
All lives matter. But the police force does not reflect that belief.
Actions are everything. Actions. Not words.
Gloria from human resources told us months ago, it will take years
for the TPS to reflect the core values that the way forward would like everyone to do.
But clearly we can't wait for 20 years to go by before we see success. No one
at this table is going to still be here in 20 years.
What would happen, ladies and gentleman,
if you were told by people from Rosedale that six or seven people had gone missing? Would
the police be lackadaisical in responding to the fact that six or seven people were missing in Rosedale?
Would there have been suggestions that it was their imagination?
Suggestions that they're suffering from paranoia?
Not suggesting something sinister was going on.
The police are guilty of wilful blindness and failure to serve and protect.
Our police chief has to now stand up --
Our police chief, our new police chief, Chief Mark Saunders, has to stand up
and take a leadership role, not telling us about some new unit. Because the
new unit is just going to repeat what we already have wrong.
It's not going to change anything. It's just going to be -- we're going to tell each other we have a new unit.
This should be viewed as criminal acts, when the police do not
do their duty, the police officers guilty of not doing their duty should be viewed as criminals.
To the long list of those not served that I've repeated over and over again,
the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, the crippled, handicapped, Aboriginals, elderly,
Blacks, homosexuals, not worthy of police service?
And indeed have been encouraged -- the police themselves are
encouraged to think they're different from society. And they
have the attitude they're not the same as the rest of society. And I've spoken
about that several times and been ignored and laughed at. I'm sick of being laughed at,
I'm sick of being called names and I'm sick of being ignored.
Especially after the recent events of the last few weeks.
I would like the police to stop with this encouragement of the police having cliques, of the police
not demonstrating their empathy for society, because they're not part of society.
Could we please move forward the cultural change right up the top of the
list and put that at the top of the list and everything else after it? Every single thing else.
Thank you for your time.
Brenda, thank you. Colleagues, questions of Ms. Ross?
Brenda, thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Becky McFarlane, who is the senior director, programs and services, at The 519.
Becky, thank you for coming.
I'll give you five minutes and I'll give you a one-minute warning.
So, The 519 has already submitted a written submission. I just wanted to highlight three important things, from our perspective.
The first, and I'm re-iterating a lot of what I think the former speakers have said. The first, that the
establishment of this external working group, which will establish, I think, another
external review, or reviews, or groups, the notion that
it's representative of the experiences and the knowledge of those most vulnerable in our communities,
I think that's a critical point. I'd like to add to that. And again, re-iterating,
racialized communities, trans communities, sex workers, homeless communities, that also --
whomever is engaged in that work and whomever is invited to participate
in those conversations from a leadership point of view, are compensated for their time. I think
it is incredibly important when you're inviting people to participate in processes where they're
attempting to fix problems that aren't really of their own making, that their experience is valued
and that they are compensated for their time. So that was the first point I wanted to make.
I think that remembering that this particular situation we're talking about
doesn't exist in a vaccuum.
And that the way in which we need to approach
the development of terms of reference for this review should not be ahistorical
in the way in which it thinks about these problems broadly.
I had the opportunity to talk to Jane Doe who reached out to The 519
in the hopes of being able to share some of her experiences going through a very long process
on issues that are stunningly similar in relation to issues
of the duty to warn, of issues of bias within the Toronto Police Service, and what came out of that conversation for me, was that
it took 20 years to get to the point where the committee
that was contemplating a lot of the recommendations and implementation plan
for everything that came through that process was disbanded.
And I have to say that there is no way that this community can wait 20 years
through whatever external review processes and inquiries are established
to try to understand what I think has been understood
in a million inquiries, in a million external reviews, in a million mechanisms that have existed historically.
We need to draw on that information and we need to figure out how to cut our timeline a little bit, in terms of how we engage in this kind of process.
Because I don't think anybody really feels like they have 20 years to invest,
to invest in this. And I fear that if that isn't established up front, which leads me to
saying I think that what is missing from this particular motion is
the notion of how to make what comes out of these processes actionable and accountable to some kind of
timelines. Because I think what we don't want is a scenario where we get to the end of a process and then have to
have a conversation about how we action what we learned through that process.
I guess
it's so hard to imagine that the grief, so much of the grief that exists in this community is preventable.
The grief that people experience now, preventable.
The grief that people are going to experience into the future, preventable.
We know that we don't even know everything, right? And we know
that there is going to be more grief. We also know, because I work in an organization
where people come to us all the time, either afraid to report
issues of violence that they experience in the community,
or try to report, and often their experiences are
incredibly negative. So what we know is even as we sit here today, people are going
through those systemic issues we're attempting to solve. People are continuing
to experience those barriers the lack of access to justice
and so, there is --
there's nothing that feels more imperative to me than
figuring out a way to move through this quickly.
One last point I wanted to make, just because it's important to me, is there is a way in which, even
still, through this conversation, people conflate humanity with lifestyle. And I think
that this notion of how we talk about, how people talk about our experiences, how we talk about each other's experiences,
are relegated to this notion of the choices that we make, or the behaviour we
engage in, as opposed to being able to understand that what is going on all around us is about people's humanity, and a lack of
understanding of people's right to be who they are. And so, even how I
hear people talking will get stuck in people's throats, the way that people can't even
talk about queer and trans lives in a way that feels empowering,
that I really think everyone at this table needs to think about the ways in which
they feel uncomfortable about having this conversation and check that
as they move forward trying to lead us through a process where we do not find ourselves sitting here in 20 years
having the same conversation.
Becky, thank you very much.
That's very powerful, and thank you, we appreciate it.
Colleagues, questions of Becky?
Thank you very much.
I draw your attention to Kristyn Wong-Tam, Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam's presentation as well.
So colleagues I now throw it open to questions, debate, discussion.
Councillor Carroll.
I think probably staff can draw something up, and I was sort of in the mayor's ear that
the idea that probably the best way to deal with Susan Gapka's suggestion
of a recommendation is to just take the whole thing and forward it
to this body that's reporting back in June so that they can just incorporate it in
the terms of reference, if you were willing to do that partnership consultaton, how would
you do it? Just incorporate it. So it comes back with the actions that are recommended.
And then we can vote on doing that today and be assured of that.
I just want to say that the last deputant I think really put the nail on the head.
There is going to be a lot of cynicism surrounding this if we don't
acknowledge that we've already had this conversation, so many times.
There is an old quote when we were a bunch of activist
moms, getting ready to be activist about education, back when we all went
and sat with the quite aged Ursula Franklin in her little salon she had in the school.
And we all talked about how awful it was going to be and how terrible all of this was
and she said to us, she let us go for about an hour and then said
'Okay, when you're done awful-izing, what are you going to do?'
And I've never gotten over that word, awfulizing. We have a tendency to
call a consultation, and we can be, because it's consultation night, very
respectful in terms of letting people vent and then what we're
hearing is that nothing happens afterwards.
Or we make recommendations and then we get a report that says tick a box,
we did them.
But clearly we didn't, if nothing is any different, outside on the ground.
I hate to say this, it will probably flare things up, and people will be upset, but this is essentially what happened with PACER.
Nothing feels any different in many, many communities, and yet we got a report
saying of all those PACER recommendations, I think there were 28, 29,
two thirds of them are done. Tick a box. They're all done. If that is
the case, why are we still talking about anti-Black racism in policing?
So, I think it is going to be really, really important
to come out of this with recommendations.
But I think the rush part that they're asking for is, let's rush past the awfulizing and
really start talking about the actions we need to see. And then the
part where we're going to need to take the more meaningful amount of time
and get real, is the action part. And so, we can wait
until June to find the terms of reference, but the terms of reference shouldn't include
just awfulizing for three years, while people continue to feel they're being criminalized
for who they are. And then the action part,
that should be the part that takes three years
because we should see real change.
Thank you, those are my comments.
Colleagues,
Ken, you first and then
Uppala.
The
What we've been hearing a lot of here is the repetition of initiatives, and that's why my concerns about what were the barriers
and what are the barriers that make it so difficult for sustaining
any kind of change? I would like us to explore that with
this review committee. However, directly to the chief, question to you as well: in this review committee, there would be opportunities
for community to understand investigative procedures and what have you.
Particularly also sensitive to the fact that you may have some techniques,
you meaning the police, that shouldn't be disclosed so that
in terms of investigative initiatives that you take, right, so that others would know what to try to avoid,
for those who have bad intentions.
So how is, is there differentiation with the techniques of investigation, and the relationship with communities like the
LGBTTQ community and others that are not happening?
Is it, are there two separate or two --
explain to me how that can work.
I'm not quite sure of the question. I can conclude with
as an organization we want to get this right and we understand what the issues and the
concerns are, so I don't want us to come across as obstructionist.
I want that open opportunity to hear what needs to be heard
so that we can move forward. With respect to procedure, policies, we don't
generally put them on the table. We don't give them the playbook of things we're supposed to do
but we do listen, and if there are things that we need to add on, and if we do have
the right groups in front of us to have that conversation,
to help us improve on what we're doing, that will be an active
role that we will definitely be a participant with. Sorry, maybe I
need to be more specific. In terms of what has been requested of us
here, to have this review body I'm just trying to understand --
you know, I'm hearing loud and clear, the understanding of the LGBT community
in this case, around you know, relations are not very good.
I'm hearing that. That's one major issue. The other, I'm asking about is that when people are not happy
about the way this was investigated, they are, I'm seeing
that they are suggesting there are techniques that you use that you may
want to not the whole public to know. How you're going to
reconcile that. That's -- I'm not --
I hope the chair can correct me, but I'm hoping that the terms of reference will be taking
these aspects into consideration, so that when that does
present itself, we have the right answers and everybody at the front
of the conversation knows exactly what the expectations are, and what our role will be.
Any other follow-up, Ken?
Any other
questions or comments?
Ms. Chandrasekera, you had --
Thank you.
Mine's more a comment. Just thinking through what's been shared
here, and repeatedly, over and over, what we're hearing is that the
community does not feel heard on this issue. The issue of bias has come forward several
times in the deputations, and I was happy to see that in Mayor Tory's motion. Biases, conscious
and unconscious. We're not sometimes even aware that it's happening.
So, one of the things that I think we can't forget in this review is this concept of
intersectionality, because there's so many overlapping issues that are happening here.
Especially when we think about what's been shared to date from these communities about their concerns.
So what I'd like to really see happen is, how we're going to consult the
LGBT community, especially in the forming of the scope of this review, and for us to think about, do we
hold a consultation before that scope is finalized and whether it's, you know,
you have this smaller group which is four members coming together, draft something,
but I think it is in the interest of the public for us to have something more public where people can
give us concrete input into what the scope should be, because
it's very broad. There are systemic pieces, it's interpersonal, structural, organizational, and then let's not forget what
Susan Gapka mentioned, which is that there's a lot of mistrust in the community.
So if there's some way that we can make that as we're determining the scope, if that part could be more open,
that could also be a starting point for rebuilding that trust back into the community as well.
One final comment, the OHRC, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, is there a role
for them to be playing in all of this?
Because I'm sometimes amazed that the OHRC is not, with its different levels of expertise, and so forth, they're not going to take a part of human rights concerns and questions.
We will be looking to get input from community. I'm charged with coming back with the makeup of the working group to go forward,
so I would hope to hear from the Human Rights Commission, but if you recommend we should reach out to them, that's something we can do.
To recommend that the Human Rights Commission be involved, or take a part of this whole review as well?
Any other suggestions? Any other comments, colleagues?
Mayor Tory, anything you wish to, before we vote on these --
I think we've learned quite a bit, and I think comments made about finding ways to make sure we broaden
out the consultation, respond to some of what we heard from the deputants, and I think part of what the working
group will look at is whether organizations like the Human Rights Commission can play a
role. That's precisely what they're looking at, which is, who should do this
and what it should do and so forth. So I think it's been a good discussion, and very helpful.
So with that, then, if there are no more comments or questions, we need a couple of resolutions. One,
a motion to receive 6.1 which is the chief's --
Councillor Carroll, seconded Ms. Moliner. All in favour?
Second, the motion to receive the deputations that we had.
Councillor Carroll, seconded Ms. Moliner, again. All in favour?
Any contrary? And finally, the motion to approve the resolution put forward by the mayor.
Yes, with the addition, as Councillor Carroll said that we will add in the reference to Ms. Gupka's suggestion,
referred to the committee, once it's struck.
So a motion to approve. Mayor Tory's moving it, seconded by Councillor Lee.
All in favour? Any contrary? Carried unanimously.
Thank you.
For more infomation >> Grid-It Organizer Review (Cocoon Innovations) | Organize Tech, Cords, and Other Travel Electronics - Duration: 6:54. 
For more infomation >> Forney Notary Under Review By State Of Texas Regarding Trump-Daniels Agreement - Duration: 2:26. 
For more infomation >> Indie Class Radio Music Review #35 Ft. Rob Turner - Duration: 2:13:05. 
For more infomation >> Audi RS4 2018 | 2018 Audi RS4 Avant Review - Interior Exterior - Duration: 4:10. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét