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.
“For me, it’s pretty clear. For everything that is operational, we inform about what is happening, but we do not give instructions on how to do things, ”said Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner Brenda Lucky.
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 argued, would lack nuance and allow politicians to “shirk their policing responsibilities, perhaps as a method of political strategy.”
Police and government
The commission is investigating the events leading up to the government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act last winter in response to the week-long “freedom convoy” demonstration in Ottawa and similar protests at border crossings across Canada.
The commission is also mandated to make recommendations on how to modernize the law and to suggest areas where further study might be warranted.
After hours of testimony from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that concluded the first phase of the inquiry last Friday, the commission turned to a second phase of expert testimony on a range of issues related to the protests.
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.
The experts who testified reaffirmed the importance of police services being independent of political interference. Otherwise, they risk being seen as “a tool of the government of the day,” as Ryan Teschner, executive director of the Toronto Police Services Board, said in his testimony.
But everyone agrees that the police need more control over certain elements of their operations.
“For too long we have had a rather vague and sometimes exaggerated conception of the independence of the police vis-à-vis the government,” Mr. Teschner said.
Michael Kempa, a criminologist at the University of Ottawa, suggested that legislators “simply drop the term ‘operations'” and define police independence “in terms of the exercise of their powers of investigation, arrest and indictment”.
Experts have also suggested that all police services in Canada should have some sort of civilian oversight body, such as a police commission or board.
Most urban police departments in Canada have one, with the exception of the provincial police and the RCMP. The Commissioner of the RCMP reports directly to the Minister of Public Safety.
The creation of a council would mean that all policy directives to the police would be public and documented, and would ensure that “ministerial directives are appropriate and given where necessary”, said Kate Puddister.
Consult First Nations
Commissioner Paul Rouleau indicated that some of the committee’s recommendations could be included in its final report, but he did not specify which ones.
In a second afternoon session, experts discussed how different levels of government, including First Nations governments, work together in an emergency.
Judith Sayers, president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, recommended that the Emergencies Act be amended to require consultation with First Nations in addition to provincial and municipal governments.
“Neither the Emergencies Act nor the Emergency Management Act mentions First Nations as governments. Everyone else is advised,” said Sayers.
“Yet when emergencies arise, First Nations lives are at stake, their lands, their resources and their ability to exercise their Section 35 rights.”
The modalities for consultation with First Nations may vary depending on the emergency, she added.
Cal Corley, CEO of the Community Safety Knowledge Alliance (CSKA), believes that more consultation between levels of government could avoid having to invoke an emergency in the first place.
He said that while there are “intentional proactive measures” between federal, provincial, territorial, First Nations and municipal governments to deal with large-scale protests and emergencies, “this should, in most cases and circumstances, establish conditions that negate the need for governments to even consider invoking federal emergency law. »
Mr. Rouleau and his team must deliver their conclusions by February 6, with the report to be made public by February 20.