Peace Officer Bylaw to 3rd reading with no discussion by Council
Posted by Cheryl McLachlan on September 12, 2009
Several speakers spoke in Public Participation about the Officer and Peace Officer Bylaw 1243:
Doug Rowe, a past member of Langford’s Planning & Zoning Committee, voiced concern that bylaw officers might be endangering themselves entering situations without the same level of training and equipment a police officer would have and wondered why these duties would not be left to the police.
Vern Trew, a past candidate for Langford Council, expressed his opinion that the bylaw violated the Canadian Bill of Rights regarding personal freedom and property rights. As well, at the end of his speaking, Vern Trew noted, he was “legally serving papers on Langford Council,” and proceeded to deposit a large envelope with acting City Administrator Jim Bowden, after acting Mayor Lanny Seaton kept repeatedly refusing the package indicating it should be given to staff during office hours.
Herman Surkis, also a past candidate for Langford Council, questioned whether, like some other local governments, the City of Langford could save money switching from policing by the RCMP to their own police force and bring the current Bylaw/Peace Officers under the oversight and limitations police officers already have. In response acting Mayor Lanny Seaton questioned how only five bylaw officers could police the whole city. Mr. Surkis also pleaded the case for Langford Council to go only to 2nd reading and consider adding clauses to the bylaw that would limit the scope of what a bylaw officer could do while investigating bylaw issues within the City of Langford.
Cheryl McLachlan, a frequent speaker before Langford Council, questioned why the bylaw had not been brought before the Protective Services Committee, a committee of councillors and citizens, for discussion, or before a Committee of the Whole to allow the full council the opportunity to discuss the bylaw. Acting Mayor Seaton indicated that Council discussed the bylaw back in Sept. 2008 when they commissioned the staff report. Ms. McLachlan countered, was the bylaw not changed by almost a year of legal review? Councillor Seaton indicated, yes, there were changes made based on legal advice. So Ms. McLachlan asked again, when would Council be discussing the bylaw as it now appears? Acting Mayor Lanny Seaton failed to respond, and Councillor Denise Blackwell answered saying, the Councillors felt they understood the bylaw and did not need to discuss it. Bylaw 1243 went through 1st, 2nd and 3rd reading without discussion between the councillors during the public meeting.
Jason said
Congratulations to the Langford Bylaw and Community Safety Department for winning the UBCM innovation award. A big thanks to these peace officers for making our community a safer place to live! Well done.
Langfordite said
If nothing really changed, with Langford’s Bylaws covering Bylaw Officers & Community Safety Officers, as some people been suggesting – what was so NEW and INNOVATIVE that Langford won an award? Don’t that suggest that the things that Langford Bylaw officers are doing in Langford is new and different than what is happening in other places? If so, how is what Langford Bylaw is doing different? You seem to be in the know about the goings-on at the UBCM convention, so what were the specific reasons cited for the award?
Herman Surkis said
Bizarre event at Langford Council.
Just prior to the start of council, staff was asked to explain why Langford By-law Officers won an award, since that was not clear in the announcement. After it was explained, a councillor shot out “and these are the same by-law that Mr. Surkis wishes to remove”.
The comment was so out of context and bizarre, that I was speechless. It does happen, and now you know how. (Please don’t tell them.) At that point the mayor arrived to start the meeting and it would have been inappropriate to retort.
What I did say at the by-law meeting several weeks ago,was that the powers of by-law officers should be restricted to at the minimum those of the police. As it stands now by-law has more power then the police with none of the restrictions. And the potential for abuse by the officers or by council is to say the least ‘extreme’.
The province has been advocating, and some municipalities agree that policing contracts with the RCMP should be terminated, and local police should be invested. Which would be a financial saving, especially if you already have a group that can already act as defacto police.
I sarcastically suggested that since Langford bylaw already are equipped like the police and are full ‘peace officers’, then it made sense for Langford to swear them in as police officers, save money by cutting the contract, and at the same time would bring them under the purview of the ‘police act’.
It appears that the concept of ‘sarcasm’ is lost on some members of the council.
Fred Bloggs said
Anyone who beleives bylaw officers have the same powers as police officers are grossly misinformed, however, because of the nature of thier work bylaw officers do have a few different powers.Good job on winning the award for innovative enforcement practices boys.Keep up the good work.
Herman Surkis said
Absolutely right… they have MORE powers. It’s called warrant-less entry. They do not carry firearms and that can be fixed…easily.
Several posters pointed out all the statutes comparing police officers with by-law officers. Please look over them again.
Similar to the US, but not the same, where the Pinkertons used to have powers not available to police. And Bounty Hunters can do things that only an Alabama small town sheriff would dare.
Steve Weaver said
Herman,
A bylaw officer enforces Municipal Law. The Police enforce Federal/Criminal, Provincial and Municipal law. Please explain why you think Bylaw Officers have more power? If you deny a Bylaw Officer entry to your dwelling, they go to court and get a warrant, just like the police. The police can enter onto your land or go in your dwelling without a warrant if they can articulate cause…..just like a bylaw officer. You need to do your homework before making such error in your assumptions!
Steven Hurdle said
I must admit I’ve found this debate fascinating. I was out of town for the meeting in question, and it’s an issue I haven’t followed except for the discourse on this website. One of the things that makes it so interesting is that there’s little agreement on even the underlying facts of the debate, let alone what those facts may mean. Complicating the issue is that, unless any of the contributors are secretly lawyers or bylaw enforcement experts who are pretending to be lay people, it’s a discussion of legal issues by lay people. I, for one, don’t know who is right about their facts in this discussion, and I find it difficult to form an opinion when I’m not confident of the facts.
Several people in the discussion have bantied around different statutes without citing sections of the acts to back up their points. Perhaps that’s a direction the discussion could go in the future that would increase clarity. I would certainly be interested in reading the sections of the acts being referred to.
Fred Bloggs said
Section 16 of the Community Charter as it relates to Bylaw Enforcment:
Authority to enter on or into property
16 (1) This section applies in relation to an authority under this or another Act for a municipality to enter on property.
(2) The authority may be exercised by officers or employees of the municipality or by other persons authorized by the council.
(3) Subject to this section, the authority includes authority to enter on property, and to enter into property, without the consent of the owner or occupier.
(4) Except in the case of an emergency, a person
(a) may only exercise the authority at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, and
(b) must take reasonable steps to advise the owner or occupier before entering the property.
(5) The authority may only be used to enter into a place that is occupied as a private dwelling if any of the following applies:
(a) the occupier consents;
(b) the municipality has given the occupier at least 24 hours’ written notice of the entry and the reasons for it;
(c) the entry is made under the authority of a warrant under this or another Act;
(d) the person exercising the authority has reasonable grounds for believing that failure to enter may result in a significant risk to the health or safety of the occupier or other persons;
(e) the entry is for a purpose referred to in subsection (6) (a) in relation to regulations, prohibitions or requirements applicable to the place that is being entered.
(6) Without limiting the matters to which this section applies, a municipality may enter on property for any of the following purposes:
(a) to inspect and determine whether all regulations, prohibitions and requirements are being met in relation to any matter for which the council, a municipal officer or employee or a person authorized by the council has exercised authority under this or another Act to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements;
(b) to take action authorized under section 17 (1) [municipal action at defaulter's expense];
(c) in relation to section 18 [authority to discontinue providing a service], to disconnect or remove the system or works of the service;
(d) to assess or inspect in relation to the exercise of authority under section 8 (3) (c) [spheres of authority — trees].
Herman Surkis said
Somewhat different from what I have seen and was pointed out. Also I posted a major chunk of the rules and regs as seen under the ‘community charter’, and the moderator has chosen to not let it on…admit it was rather long, but it was the full meal deal.
Beginning to think that both sides of this discussion may have to give ground.
But a quick ans. to a reasonable previous question. Do not mistake the direction under which power exist, with its generally applied use. Police under the police act deal with criminal law, but a peace officer could also.
Out in left field example.
The 240lbs 6’7″ black belt Karate bouncer is mandated to only evict you from the premises, but has the “power” to break you in two, should he so desire or be so mandated.
This is why I and others keep bringing up “potential for abuse”. Bylaws are easily created or changed, criminal law not so much.
However I will need to read and consult further, as it is possible that certain charter changes may curtail some of the powers I talked about or may actually exacerbate the situation.
Either way I will comment, whether I stand corrected, or vindicated.
Steven Hurdle said
I went back through the last 30 days, Herman, and couldn’t find any unapproved comments of yours (I’d been thinking you’d been on a roll at abiding by the comment posting guidelines lately). Please repost anything you think hasn’t been approved.