Controversy erupted this week when allegations surfaced that the liberal government may have tried to interfere in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) investigation into the mass shooting in Nova Scotia in 2020 that killed 17 people.
According to RCMP Supt. Darren Campbell’s remarks, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucky said in a phone call that she had promised the office of Prime Minister and then Secretary of Public Safety Bill Blair that the RCMP would make public information about the weapons used by the attacker. Lucky reportedly was angry when the RCMP did not.
The Liberal government allegedly wanted the information to be made public in order to contribute to their arms control program. Critics and opposition politicians have accused the government of trying to use the tragedy for political gain. Lucky, Blair and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have denied any involvement in the investigation.
But how and when – if at all – should lawmakers be able to guide lawmakers? When was there a police intervention and what were the consequences?
CBC News spoke with some experts in an attempt to explain the tense, legally unclear and often contradictory relationship between police and politicians in Canada.
Why should the police be separated from politics?
The Supreme Court of Canada cites the rule of law as a fundamental principle of Canadian democracy. It is considered important for our constitutional order that no one, not even the most influential politicians in the country, can consider themselves above the law.
But there is another reason for police independence – in our democracy, the government must be accountable to the people, which means that people must not be afraid that the police will prosecute them on the orders of the government.
“I think what we want to do is avoid a police state,” said Kent Roach, a professor of law at the University of Toronto. “And by that I mean that we want to avoid politicians telling the police who to investigate and who not.
In countries where the government can tell the police what to do, experts say a model of government critics and opponents who end up in prison is rapidly emerging.
For these reasons, police autonomy in law enforcement and public protection is a key ingredient in most well-functioning liberal democracies.
“Political leaders should not run a micro-government of police services, which is the opposite of the very idea of democracy,” said Temitop Oriola, a professor of criminology and sociology at the University of Alberta.
What does the law say?
Although these principles seem to be part of a basic citizenship lesson, they are the ones Roach says many people, including police officers and politicians, often do not understand well.
But there may be a reasonable excuse – the law itself is not clear.
“I think part of the problem here is that the lines of legitimate government direction to the police and illegitimate government direction are very blurred.” he said.
Although police independence from the government is important to our democracy, Roach says this is a principle that is not always reflected in our laws.
“For example, the police cannot bring charges of hate propaganda without the prior approval of the chief prosecutor,” he said.
“So there are no absolutes.”
Kent Roach, a law professor at the University of Toronto, said Canadian law is very vague when it comes to inappropriate government enforcement. (Oliver Salatiel)
In Lucky’s case, the RCMP Act states that the Commissioner “has the control and management of the forces and all matters relating to the forces”, but “under the direction of the Minister”.
Roach said the law is confusing because it does not go into detail about what the direction means, including what type of instruction is appropriate for a minister to give to an RCMP commissioner. It also does not say whether the instruction must be in writing or can be given orally.
“It’s completely unclear, isn’t it?” Said Roach.
Roach would like the RCMP Act to be amended to clarify what types of orders the government can legally give to the RCMP leadership.
He said there was a clear division between guidelines that set rules for the police in general that are acceptable in a democracy and instructions for the police to act in a specific way in a specific case or to take action against a specific person that are not.
He says a legal government directive to the police can be a guide to what information the police are allowed to disclose publicly, or order the police to stop using a particular technique or practice.
But a directive that would not be acceptable would be to direct the police to charge someone with a crime.
During the 1997 APEC summit in Vancouver, it was found that the government had interfered in RCMP operations by directing how the mountains protected then-Indonesian President Suharto. In a report of a public inquiry into the summit, Judge Ted Hughes concluded that the government had twice tried to intervene in police operations by trying to get police to keep protesters away from Suharto.
Hughes recommended that the government amend the RCMP Act to clarify the legal independence of the police from the government. So far, no government has accepted the recommendation.
Roach says there may be a reason for the lack of action and clarity.
“I suspect that somehow the police and politicians like to keep the status quo, which is quite vague and vague,” he said. “I think that’s a pity.”
What happens when politicians try to be police officers?
Politicians don’t have to tell the police what to do, but sometimes they can’t resist. While some politicians come from law enforcement, most do not – and this can happen when they try to interfere in the work of the police.
“They don’t have the skills, the knowledge, the expertise, the living experience to make operational decisions,” said Laura Huey, a sociology professor at Western University.
She cites the 1997 APEC Suharto dispute as an example, but there are newer ones.
Huey says Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson’s attempt to negotiate with protesters from the Freedom Convoy earlier this year comes to mind – a move told to her by experts at command of a critical incident exacerbates the situation.
Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson tried to negotiate with protesters from the freedom convoy during the occupation of Ottawa earlier this year. Western University professor Laura Suy says the incident is a good example of why it is a bad idea for politicians to take over law enforcement responsibilities. (Giacomo Panico / CBC)
“Most police services that deal with public order have people with a lot of experience, highly trained professionals who specialize in negotiating in such situations,” she said.
“So, do we want the mayor to come down and bang on something he knows absolutely nothing about and has no zero effect anyway?”
Roach says his favorite example includes former RCMP commissioner Leonard Nicholson, the most ornate Mountie in history, named after RCMP headquarters.
In 1959, John Diefenbaker’s government told Nicholson to send more officers to police in a labor dispute in Newfoundland. Nicholson chose to resign instead of carrying out the order.
“So this shows that this idea that the RCMP doesn’t like the political direction … is embedded in the RCMP’s DNA,” Roach said.
Is there a better way?
If too much political interference in the police is a problem, there are too few dangers.
Voters do not elect police officers, but elect politicians, so they have a role to play as a police check.
“Society also cannot afford to have a police service that is not accountable to anyone,” Oriola said.
Part of the platform of the Liberal Campaign for 2021 is dedicated to changes in the RCMP, in particular to increase the responsibility of Mounties.
Oriola called the relationship between the government and the police “delicate”, which requires a “fine balance” and those in which intentions must be taken into account.
“Are you instructing the police to punish political opponents, or are you giving instructions … so that we have a better society and a better society based on the political priorities you are campaigning for?” He said.
Huey says more training for police service boards that hire police chiefs can allow them to make better hiring decisions, which in turn can inspire more confidence in police leadership and lead to less political intervention.
“I think if we hire highly competent people, we should give them space to make decisions,” she said.
Roach says a potential solution, in addition to more legal clarity about the intervention, is a law that requires all ministers who direct the police to do so in writing – including requiring the guidelines to be public.
He believes that the RCMP Act can be amended with this requirement and allowed only in individual cases.
“It seems to me that in a democracy, citizens have a right to know what the minister is doing,” Roach said. “I think that this directive system can not only promote transparency, but also avoid all these contradictions.
Add Comment