RCC appreciates the opportunity to provide the Standing Committee with comments on Bill 159, the Private Security and Investigative Services Act (the Act). RCC's Resources Protection Network - a group of retailers whose mandate is to support the retail industry by educating, communicating and advocating proactive asset protection strategies - initiated a working group in the Fall of 2004 to develop a course of action in response to the government's proposed legislation. At that time, RCC and its members indicated support for the proposal of having standards in the security guard industry. Our position has not changed since then and we look forward to working with the government to develop those standards to ensure that they support the needs of the community as well as retailers.

As a recognition of the indispensable role and the significant contribution that the retail sector makes in the security and private investigation field, RCC was invited by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to participate on the Private Security and Investigative Services Advisory Committee. The purpose of this committee is to provide expertise and advice to the government in order to develop new regulations under the Act.

RCC was pleased to accept the invitation and greatly appreciates the opportunity to work together with other key stakeholders to help develop new regulations under the Act. Indeed, this is very important work and we are deeply committed to providing the government with our responsible and credible expertise and advice on a broad range of areas.

With respect to the legislation itself, RCC and its members respectfully submit the following specific comments and recommendations for consideration:

Interpretation and Application
We feel that there should be a clear definition of who is impacted by the changes to the Act. We recommend that the proposed changes only affect those personnel actually designated with responsibility for responding to criminal activity within the retail environment, that is, loss prevention officers who are solely authorized and responsible for making arrests.

The proposed definition of security guard provided notes that a security guard is a person who performs work, for remuneration, that consists primarily of protecting persons or property. As a result of retailers' holistic approach to loss prevention, this definition could capture a great number of employees not intended by the Act.

RCC recommends that another category, such as retail loss prevention personnel, be added to the definitions in the Act. The responsibilities of retail loss prevention personnel do not easily fit into either the definition of security guard or private investigator; in many cases there will be overlap. Thus, the provision in the Act that a person may not act as a security guard and a private investigator at the same time is of great concern to the retail sector. A new category for retail loss prevention personnel would provide clarity and ensure that only persons intended to be captured under the Act are regulated.

Licensing
The Act allows for the Registrar to decline to issue or renew a license in a variety of circumstances, including if it is in the public interest to refuse to issue or renew the license. It is recommended that examples of what may be considered to be in the public interest be given in order to provide greater transparency.

The Act also allows for the Registrar to issue or renew a license subject to such conditions as he or she considers appropriate and may, at any time, attach such additional conditions as he or she considers appropriate to an existing license. It is recommended that clarification be provided as to what type of conditions may be added and under what type of conditions the Registrar would choose to use this authority.

Training
In introducing the Act, the Honourable Monte Kwinter stated that the proposed legislation would call for training standards that would have to be met prior to an applicant obtaining a license. RCC and its members support training and testing requirements for security personnel but want to ensure that retailers have the ability to choose the delivery of the training that is most appropriate for them.

Retailers have already done their due diligence in relation to training for in-house retail loss prevention officers and want to ensure that the regulations do not duplicate the considerable financial resources invested in the development of internal training programs already in place.

We recommend that the government set minimum training standards and then allow private training programs to develop around those standards to allow for the recognition of existing training programs. The retail industry should be enabled to develop applicable standards and self-certify.

Complaints and Investigations
RCC and its members respectfully request clarification on a number of sections contained within the complaints and investigations part of the Act.

First, the retail industry, which is customer-focused and driven, requests clarification on the type of public complaints that may be investigated by the Registrar in order to ensure the distinction between a customer service complaint and a complaint resulting from a genuine breach of Code of Conduct by retail security personnel.

As the reputation of retailers is paramount to their business viability and success, clarification is also requested as to whether public complaints will be recorded as against the licensee or against the company which employs the licensee.

Further, RCC and its members have concerns with allowing an investigation to be initiated even if no complaint has been made as this allows for the potential of abuse.

There are three types of persons identified in this Act which would benefit from elaboration: facilitators, investigators, and inspectors. Details including who these persons are (including any necessary experience and credentials), how they are selected, and what rules they are bound by, are, at a minimum, important questions that RCC and its members would like to have clarified.

Finally, Bill 159 allows for an investigator to exercise any of its powers without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain a warrant. Retailers are uneasy with this provision and feel that a warrant should be necessary. Further, if there is an indication from the complainant that the act or omission is a criminal offence, it is recommended that the complainant be directed to contact the local police, rather than leaving it to the discretion of investigators.

Uniforms
RCC and its members are pleased that security personnel operating in a retail environment have been granted an exemption from the uniform requirement in the Act. A uniform requirement for the retail sector would not only be counterintuitive to the goal of risk management and loss prevention that is the primary responsibility of security personnel operating in a retail setting, it would create an unwelcoming and potentially hostile environment for customers. We congratulate the government for recognizing the distinctiveness of loss prevention in the retail sector through this exemption.

Code of Conduct
As noted previously, retailers make significant investments in promoting and marketing their company and would not risk an incident that would adversely affect public perception. Having all interaction between the retailer and a culprit managed in a professional manner is ingrained into the training and philosophy of the retail approach to loss prevention. The 2004 Canadian Retail Security Report identified that 100 per cent of the retailers questioned had established a Code of Ethics or Standard of Conduct. RCC and its members support the extension of a Code of Conduct to all security personnel operating within the province.