Inquiry into Emergencies Act urged to recommend greater political oversight of police

There is virtue in clearly defining the difference between government oversight of law enforcement and the independence of police, experts told a public inquiry Thursday, although it is not as straightforward as some witnesses have suggested.

There is virtue in clearly defining the difference between government oversight of law enforcement and the independence of police, experts told a public inquiry Thursday, although it is not as straightforward as some witnesses 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.

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.

The line was often described as a separation between church and state.

"For me, it's pretty clear. Anything operational, we're advising what's happening, but we're not taking direction on how to do things," RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki testified on Nov. 15. She suggested the federal government should more clearly define the line that politicians should not cross in legislation.

While an expert panel of witnesses agreed Thursday that the line should be more clearly defined, Guelph University political science professor Kate Puddister said such a stark distinction is unhelpful.

"My perspective is that this distinction, in an attempt to draw a clear line between the two, does a disservice," she said. "This formulation allows governments to shirk responsibilities with respect to policing, perhaps as a method of political strategy."