OTTAWA — A political scientist says there is virtue in clearly defining the difference between government oversight of law enforcement and the independence of police, although it is not as straightforward as some witnesses at a public inquiry have suggested.
The concept of police oversight and independence came up time and again over six weeks of fact-finding testimony at the Public Order Emergency Commission, which is investigating the federal Liberal government’s use of the Emergencies Act last winter.
As the Canadian national soccer teams head to their respective FIFA World Cups, Derek Van Diest is on the scene to cover all the action. Expect expert insights and analysis in your inbox daily throughout the tournaments, and weekly on Thursdays for the rest of the season.
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Corner Kicks with Derek Van Diest will soon be in your inbox.
Throughout the inquiry hearings, police and politicians described a separation between police operations and policy, and said politicians and police boards should never direct operations.
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki suggested during her testimony that government should more clearly define the line that politicians should not cross in legislation.
The line was often described as a separation between church and state.
Guelph University’s Prof. Kate Puddister tells the commission, which is now in its policy phase, that too stark a distinction is unhelpful, lacks nuance, and allows politicians to “shirk responsibility” when it comes to police oversight.
