(This
column was published in the North
Shore News on
April 29, 1998)
Delving into AG's disarming decision
By Leo Knight
THE
more the disarming of the police auxiliaries/reserves is looked
at, the more convinced I am that there's something nefarious and
distasteful going on behind the scenes.
Exactly
what that something is, I cannot yet fathom. But make no mistake
about it, there's more to this than the attorney general will
admit.
Two
weeks ago, Ujjal Dosanjh announced he was disarming the RCMP
auxiliaries pending a review by some mysterious committee, due
to report to him in September.
Within
days, Vancouver Police Department Chief Bruce Chambers announced
a similar, though more limited move, which resulted in the
department's reserve force withdrawing all services.
In
an interview with Attorney General Dosanjh last week, I asked
about points I made in last week's column. Specifically, I
questioned Dosanjh about his statements saying the original
intention of the auxiliary program was never to put them in
harm's way.
I
explained to a non-comprehending attorney general that it is a
condition of the employment of each volunteer auxiliary to spend
a minimum of 160 hours per year in a "duty" situation.
Most
of the hours spent are in uniform riding beside a regular police
officer, providing back-up support in every aspect of the
officer's shift.
Stop
a car, the auxiliary is on the passenger side monitoring the
occupants. Go to a domestic dispute, the volunteer is in the
pressure cooker with the regular member, trying to calm the
situation. Shots fired call. The auxiliary doesn't remain in the
car, ducked down while the situation is dealt with. Bar fight.
Guess who is inside, sometimes rolling around in the blood and
the beer?
According
to Dosanjh, the volunteer auxiliary is expected to do this
without the protection of a sidearm.
During
the interview, I listened incredulously as Dosanjh responded
that he has been on a number of ride-alongs with the police and
never felt in harm's way.
I
wonder when he was last riding with a police officer and was
required to physically get involved with an arrest?
So
I asked him why jump the gun? Why not wait for this committee to
report back with their recommendations?
He said he was reacting to public safety concerns brought to him by the committee and the police.
What concerns, asked the innocent scribe? A number of them, says he.
I
tried again and began to get dizzy from going around that
circle. Once more into the breach.
Why
make a decision before the committee has had a chance to report?
Because of the safety concerns brought to him, said the AG.
What
concerns would they be, says I?
Many
concerns brought to him by the police and the committee, says
he.
Hang
on. I've already see this movie.
OK.
I know enough to come in out of the rain. Well, who is on this
committee?
"I
don't know," was the answer.
Huh?
So
I requested a faxed list of the committee members. Surely the
public deserves to find out who is bringing "concerns"
to the AG that affect the police service we, as citizens,
receive.
The
attorney general then stated he would have his staff fax the
list of members to me without delay. Then he had to go to a
meeting, or pick up his dry cleaning or wash his hair or
something equally of great state importance.
A
half hour later, my fax machine began churning out a multiple
page document from the AG's ministry.
At
last, the list of committee members. We will finally be able to
determine if there's an element of credibility on the committee.
Wrong.
I
received two letters written to the AG, one by VPD Chief
Chambers and one by Assistant Commissioner, Murray Johnston, the
Commanding Officer of the RCMP in B.C.
Ironically,
both letters were dated April 2, 1998. Both letters said
virtually the same thing -- that each was aware of, and in
support of, the attorney general's decision to disarm the
auxiliaries.
Now,
what are the chances, do you suppose, of the two most senior
police officers in the province, both writing to the attorney
general on the same subject, on the same day, saying virtually
the same thing and then those letters being released to the
media to explain the decision taken by the AG?
About
the same as Glen Clark or Joy MacPhail telling the truth about
the budget, I'd wager.
But
still no list of the committee members who are advising the
attorney general and who, he says, he doesn't know.
OK,
so I'm gullible. I called Kate Thompson, the director of
communications for the AG. Where's the list I was promised by
Mr. Dosanjh? Sorry, says she, "I'll look right into
it."
Two
days later, I called again. Uh, the list, remember?
Oops,
says Ms. Thompson. It seems to be lost. But she'll keep looking.
Cant
find it?
Now,
I don't know what's going on in this matter. Anyone who has a
modicum of knowledge knows the auxiliary/reserve program in B.C.
has its foibles.
But
at the same time, its members provide countless thousands of
volunteer hours of service to B.C. citizens.
If
the program is to be reviewed to make it better for all
concerned, fair enough. But why the knee-jerk reaction?
Try
as I might, I couldn't get a straight answer from the AG
explaining why he has done what he has in this manner. What is
being hidden here?
Clearly,
if this is all above board then why not answer my questions? If
this was done because of public safety concerns, then what are
those concerns?
If
the decision was recommended by this mysterious committee, then
why not identify the committee and let us look at who is making
the recommendations and perhaps we can then discern why the
recommendations were made?
Surely we are entitled to know what's really going on.