A political scientist believes that it is a good idea to clearly define the difference between government oversight of police activities and the independence of police forces — even if it is not as simple as some witnesses at the Rouleau commission suggested.
These concepts of government oversight of policing and police independence came up time and time again during the six weeks of public hearings by the Emergency Commission.
The commission, chaired by Justice Paul Rouleau, must determine whether the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act last winter to end the demonstrations.
Throughout the hearings, police and politicians described the separation between police operations and executive power. They alternately said that politicians and police commissions should never direct police operations in the field.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Brenda Lucki suggested in her testimony that the government should more clearly define in law the line that politicians should never cross.
This line has often been compared to the separation between Church and State.
Political science professor Kate Puddister of the University of Guelph told the Rouleau commission Thursday morning that too sharp a distinction would not be very helpful. This overly precise definition, she says, would lack nuance and allow politicians to “shirk their responsibilities” in policing oversight.
As part of the “political phase” of his investigation, Judge Rouleau is hearing dozens of expert witnesses this week during round tables on topics such as disinformation, the definition of a “state of emergency” and the limits to constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
Thursday morning’s roundtable was dedicated to police-government relations.
To see in video