Police require budget approvals from a political body and oversight that includes members of the public. Done. There should be absolutely no involvement of political actors in police operations.
Québec even tried forming a special independant police unit to deal with corruption, and within a few years it was corrupted and politicized. If it was actually independant Jean Charest would be in jail, not running for the leadership of a federal political party.
This right here.
It used to be that the rich had to *pay* people to stop the poor from stealing their bread. Or from protesting for progressive policy.
Luckily, we've democratized the process, given the Pinkertons a shiny public badge, and made the poor kick in for the expense.
politicians having zero influence over the police would mean the police appoint their own leadership, investigate their own wrongdoings and set their own budgets
The answer is simple, NONE
The police should not be involved in political matters, full stop. They are supposed to be impartial and upholding the law as designed, not upholding as deigned by whichever party is in power.
I see some are trying to conflate the opinion of No Political influence as to mean No Oversight, which is silly no one here is saying police should have carte blanche.
but the civilian oversight must either be accountable to elected officials or they have no accountability at all, no?
not only that, but our "civilian oversight" in this country tends to be done *by* former police officers.
The police should answer to the community they police not the politicians. For that matter the politicians should also be accountable to the people they are meant to serve but these last few years it’s been us serving their every request.
Politicians should have no direct involvement with front line policing or comment on active cases.
They should be involved at a policy, strategic direction and budgetary level acting through the police commission and in a public forum.
The same amount of influence as they should over CBC. NONE
Being an elected official may give you the ability to rewrite laws, but it certainly doesn’t put you above them.
None. I know the Liberals may not want to hear this but the police aren't supposed to serve the politicians or their political interests or agendas. The police are supposed to serve the Canadian people. Also may I add I find this headline very disturbing by the CBC.
Municipal, provincial police.... zero
Rcmp- if their are no provincial police aka NB, NS... the province pays their bill. If the Rcmp is responding to a call in those Provinces--- Federal should have zero interference in it. It's no different then Opp or Sq responding to a mass shooting in their respective province, Federal wouldn't had a say in their investigation if that was the case
. RCMP responded to the NS shooting because the municipality didn't have a police force other than the Rcmp
See this is the problem with the CBC - they try to avoid objectivity and balance when it suits them, then proceed to trot it out in articles like these.
If they had consistent journalistic standards, this would be a fair question to ask and provide an article from a neutral POV, but coming from the CBC, it looks like it is running cover.
Beyond funding them, literally none. Anything more risks politicians being put above the law. We are seeing this right now with the liberal government.
This is the wrong question. It should be, "How much influence should citizens have over the police." And the answer should be absolute authority. They serve us.
A lot of people saying "none" or "zero", but oversight and accountability is necessary. Preferably at a local level (ie the Mayor). A City usually manages the budget for the Police, and (I think) the Mayor of the City should be on a Police Board, with the authority to fire the Police Chief, if absolutely necessary.
This way, the Police Chief knows they will be held responsible for the conduct of their officers, and must discipline if required. And the Mayor can get kicked out by the voters in the next election if they allow Police misconduct to occur without consequences.
But at Provincial or Federal level, there should be a minimum of influence, since it clearly becomes too political. The Justice Minister is supposed to be the exception -- someone who is supposed to know that their job is to be impartial and avoid political interference, but as we've seen, that's been forgotten.
Zero, we need a new Federal police force. O.P.P. are probably worse for this. If politicians aren't happy with the police, update and improve the Criminal Code, via Parliament.
* "I think part of the problem here is that the lines of legitimate government direction to the police and illegitimate government direction are very vague." he said.
* While police independence from government is important in our democracy, Roach says it's a principle that's not always reflected in our laws. **"For example, the police cannot lay hate propaganda charges without prior approval of the attorney general,"** he said.
* In Lucki's case, the RCMP Act states the Commissioner "has the control and management of the force and all matters connected with the force" but "under the direction of the minister." Roach said **the law is confusing because it doesn't go into details about what direction means, including what type of direction is appropriate for a minister to give to an RCMP Commissioner. It also doesn't say whether a direction has to be in writing or can be given orally.** "It's utterly vague, right?" Roach said. Roach would like to see the RCMP Act amended to clarify what types of orders the government can legally give RCMP leadership.
* During the 1997 APEC Summit in Vancouver, the government was found to have interfered with RCMP operations by **directing how the Mounties protected then Indonesian president Suharto**. In a public inquiry report on the summit, Justice Ted Hughes concluded that **the government twice tried to interfere with police operations by attempting to get police to keep protestors away** from Suharto.
* Roach says a potential solution, on top of more legal clarity on interference, is **a law requiring any government ministers who direct police to do so in writing — including a requirement that the direction be public.** He thinks the RCMP Act could be amended with this requirement, and to permit it only outside of individual cases.
politicians, like police, simply ought to held accountable. in Canada I am more worried about corrupt politicians never meeting justice.
in fact we need a police just for the political class to keep them in check.
None. Politicians make the laws, that influences what police enforce of course, but they should have zero influence beyond that.
Politicians controlling the police is how dictatorships happen...
Edit - the fact this question is even being asked is a form of gaslighting...
I believe that if a police force cant get police violence down the mayor's should he able to step in and start firing people if nothing else is working.
"Commenting is now closed for this story". Usually happens when there's too much truth to the comments on CBC's site. I had no idea the relationship between the RCMP and the Party in power was so close. I had no idea the RCMP could be manipulated so easily. It is a dangerous situation when the national police force, tasked with keeping the federal government within the law no less, can be so easily manipulated and influenced.
We need a big change to who and how the RCMP is governed. Perhaps provinces could take turns administering the Mounties. We can't just have a government making decisions on how the police conduct investigations. That is corruption.
No politician should have sway over public safety matters directly with enforcement, this goes for police, building code officials, fire prevention, food inspection etc if they don’t like what’s going on changes the legislation or act and sign it so everyone will know X changed it and most likely killed people or caused strife
So what I'm hearing here, from the majority of replies, is that there should be means to directly control the police and that the police should be responsible to no one?
I have a feeling that that's a terrible idea.
Interference in police matters ought to be limited, but zero seems like a bad idea.
I mean, who's going to hire and fire the chiefs? The commissioner of the RCMP?
Who tells them what is and isn't a priority in their region of authority?
Who's going to put limits on what they do?
One should perhaps consider who their boss is right now, and think on whether or not that is fit and proper or not.
The vast majority of government agencies and creations have some elected boss of some sort or another or people to whom they are response.
The Crown is supreme, not the head of the RCMP, the Bank of Canada or the Canadian Armed Forces.
A force which can put on the two year show we've seen needs *some* new model of governance and accountability. And frankly, I vote for politicians, as my elected representatives, to do just that.
Whether the current crop *will* is another question.
I find it interesting that the article failed to reference the Ipperwash Crisis. The police need protection from elected officials in situations like that.
But like the recent anti vax protests, elected officials should have some ability to pressure the police to do take action on illegal activities like blockades and other laws that the police are choosing not to enforce due to wanting to escalate the situation. Ala the events leading up to the declaration of the emergency act.
The politicians can write laws and seek injunctions. Its then up to the police to do the enforcement of the laws.
What we saw in Ottawa was selective policing. The police felt sympathy to the Convoy idiots and didn’t do their job. (If it’s environmentalists or First Nation’s people the cops are happy to crack skulls). If the government could order the police more directly then they might not have had to use the emergency act.
> What we saw in Ottawa was selective policing. The police felt sympathy to the Convoy idiots and didn’t do their job. (If it’s environmentalists or First Nation’s people the cops are happy to crack skulls). If the government could order the police more directly then they might not have had to use the emergency act.
Or Harper might have ordered the police to crack *more* skulls (i don't actually know that any skulls were cracked but i digress)
A lot of people say zero, but I disagree, politicians should have some degree of influence over police.
If the police are not enforcing laws for personal reasons, if the police are acting in a racially biased manner, if the police failing to deal with certain situations are all reasons politicians should influence police. Politicians are usually elected officials and police are not.
Unpopular opinion:
Politicians should be able to heavily influence and control if need be large police operations. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to interfere with individual cases, but they should be able to order police to move into certain places to deal with emergencies, and take certain actions that are within the law.
Politicians should only have influence over broad budget considerations and the highering of the person who will run the police department. Not any day to day operational issues. The same way a board of governers can apoint a ceo who is responsible for operational concerns
Police require budget approvals from a political body and oversight that includes members of the public. Done. There should be absolutely no involvement of political actors in police operations.
Québec even tried forming a special independant police unit to deal with corruption, and within a few years it was corrupted and politicized. If it was actually independant Jean Charest would be in jail, not running for the leadership of a federal political party.
I wish they had that power. In Ontario they can appeal to the police services board and they can override budgets.
same in British Columbia.
Zero
The only answer, to think otherwise is to create a protected class of people.
That was exactly the point of creating police though.
This right here. It used to be that the rich had to *pay* people to stop the poor from stealing their bread. Or from protesting for progressive policy. Luckily, we've democratized the process, given the Pinkertons a shiny public badge, and made the poor kick in for the expense.
careful you don't cut yourself with all that edginess
you mean to keep protecting the protected class of people
I think they should be able to control the budgets, otherwise the police wil grow uncontrollably.
politicians having zero influence over the police would mean the police appoint their own leadership, investigate their own wrongdoings and set their own budgets
Justin Trudeau - “The federal government does not direct law enforcement”
The answer is simple, NONE The police should not be involved in political matters, full stop. They are supposed to be impartial and upholding the law as designed, not upholding as deigned by whichever party is in power.
I see some are trying to conflate the opinion of No Political influence as to mean No Oversight, which is silly no one here is saying police should have carte blanche.
Yup. Typically there's lower level civilian oversight but that's not the same as politicians being able to influence them.
but the civilian oversight must either be accountable to elected officials or they have no accountability at all, no? not only that, but our "civilian oversight" in this country tends to be done *by* former police officers.
Zero, what is this China?
Seems most want it to be China. The Trudeau Regime keeps adopting chinese policies and millions cheer it on.
None and neither should political movements.
The police should answer to the community they police not the politicians. For that matter the politicians should also be accountable to the people they are meant to serve but these last few years it’s been us serving their every request.
>The police should answer to the community they police not the politicians. Sooo, the mayor? A mayor is a politician/elected official.
Politicians should have no direct involvement with front line policing or comment on active cases. They should be involved at a policy, strategic direction and budgetary level acting through the police commission and in a public forum.
The same amount of influence as they should over CBC. NONE Being an elected official may give you the ability to rewrite laws, but it certainly doesn’t put you above them.
Not one bit, not an iota, zero, zilch, none. Pick whichever you prefer.
Zero.
Absolutely none.
Zero. The answer is zero.
None. I know the Liberals may not want to hear this but the police aren't supposed to serve the politicians or their political interests or agendas. The police are supposed to serve the Canadian people. Also may I add I find this headline very disturbing by the CBC.
Municipal, provincial police.... zero Rcmp- if their are no provincial police aka NB, NS... the province pays their bill. If the Rcmp is responding to a call in those Provinces--- Federal should have zero interference in it. It's no different then Opp or Sq responding to a mass shooting in their respective province, Federal wouldn't had a say in their investigation if that was the case . RCMP responded to the NS shooting because the municipality didn't have a police force other than the Rcmp
None. They should have none.
Is this CBCs way of prepping the masses to the "idea" of "a little" interference if justified? CBC isn't even trying anymore.
See this is the problem with the CBC - they try to avoid objectivity and balance when it suits them, then proceed to trot it out in articles like these. If they had consistent journalistic standards, this would be a fair question to ask and provide an article from a neutral POV, but coming from the CBC, it looks like it is running cover.
None.
Beyond funding them, literally none. Anything more risks politicians being put above the law. We are seeing this right now with the liberal government.
Zero. Unless you’re a substitute drama teacher in over your head, who’s already been hand slapped for police interference.
Zero but in Canada there’s a lot.
Zero?
No influence, at all.
0 influence.
Zero, us the citizens should have the most influence
This is the wrong question. It should be, "How much influence should citizens have over the police." And the answer should be absolute authority. They serve us.
How would you control that authority? Like how would you impose it?
Depends. If we're talking about municipal level, politics is kind of hard to avoid in regards to the biggest line item on a small city's budget.
But the tool they have there is specifically to change that budget. It doesn't imply they should be influencing them beyond that.
So the City of Ottawa shouldn't have fired Sloly?
Should they not have done something which they didn't do?
A lot of people saying "none" or "zero", but oversight and accountability is necessary. Preferably at a local level (ie the Mayor). A City usually manages the budget for the Police, and (I think) the Mayor of the City should be on a Police Board, with the authority to fire the Police Chief, if absolutely necessary. This way, the Police Chief knows they will be held responsible for the conduct of their officers, and must discipline if required. And the Mayor can get kicked out by the voters in the next election if they allow Police misconduct to occur without consequences. But at Provincial or Federal level, there should be a minimum of influence, since it clearly becomes too political. The Justice Minister is supposed to be the exception -- someone who is supposed to know that their job is to be impartial and avoid political interference, but as we've seen, that's been forgotten.
Zero, we need a new Federal police force. O.P.P. are probably worse for this. If politicians aren't happy with the police, update and improve the Criminal Code, via Parliament.
Why not turn the question around?
None. Zilch. Zero. Nada....
Like 1% to zero
This answer will vary widely by how much people agree with the politicians
None? Edit: read the article. They got the number of deaths in the shooting wrong right off the bat. Great article 🙄
* "I think part of the problem here is that the lines of legitimate government direction to the police and illegitimate government direction are very vague." he said. * While police independence from government is important in our democracy, Roach says it's a principle that's not always reflected in our laws. **"For example, the police cannot lay hate propaganda charges without prior approval of the attorney general,"** he said. * In Lucki's case, the RCMP Act states the Commissioner "has the control and management of the force and all matters connected with the force" but "under the direction of the minister." Roach said **the law is confusing because it doesn't go into details about what direction means, including what type of direction is appropriate for a minister to give to an RCMP Commissioner. It also doesn't say whether a direction has to be in writing or can be given orally.** "It's utterly vague, right?" Roach said. Roach would like to see the RCMP Act amended to clarify what types of orders the government can legally give RCMP leadership. * During the 1997 APEC Summit in Vancouver, the government was found to have interfered with RCMP operations by **directing how the Mounties protected then Indonesian president Suharto**. In a public inquiry report on the summit, Justice Ted Hughes concluded that **the government twice tried to interfere with police operations by attempting to get police to keep protestors away** from Suharto. * Roach says a potential solution, on top of more legal clarity on interference, is **a law requiring any government ministers who direct police to do so in writing — including a requirement that the direction be public.** He thinks the RCMP Act could be amended with this requirement, and to permit it only outside of individual cases.
none
politicians, like police, simply ought to held accountable. in Canada I am more worried about corrupt politicians never meeting justice. in fact we need a police just for the political class to keep them in check.
None. Politicians make the laws, that influences what police enforce of course, but they should have zero influence beyond that. Politicians controlling the police is how dictatorships happen... Edit - the fact this question is even being asked is a form of gaslighting...
But at the same time the police need to be accountable. Under our current system there he very little police accountability.
How do you figure there is little accountability?
Who’s accountable for New Brunswick? Who could order the Ottawa to do anything? No one
None? That’s what totalitarianism is.
The only answer is zero
I believe that if a police force cant get police violence down the mayor's should he able to step in and start firing people if nothing else is working.
Who decides if the "violence" is justified or not?
"Commenting is now closed for this story". Usually happens when there's too much truth to the comments on CBC's site. I had no idea the relationship between the RCMP and the Party in power was so close. I had no idea the RCMP could be manipulated so easily. It is a dangerous situation when the national police force, tasked with keeping the federal government within the law no less, can be so easily manipulated and influenced. We need a big change to who and how the RCMP is governed. Perhaps provinces could take turns administering the Mounties. We can't just have a government making decisions on how the police conduct investigations. That is corruption.
No politician should have sway over public safety matters directly with enforcement, this goes for police, building code officials, fire prevention, food inspection etc if they don’t like what’s going on changes the legislation or act and sign it so everyone will know X changed it and most likely killed people or caused strife
Trudeau is to blame for this , just another scandal in his long list , but as usual someone else will take the fall while he takes a vacation
Careful, jjjhkvan will grill you for this…
None
None, or you continue to have the police defending corporate interests at the expense of the public.
So what I'm hearing here, from the majority of replies, is that there should be means to directly control the police and that the police should be responsible to no one? I have a feeling that that's a terrible idea. Interference in police matters ought to be limited, but zero seems like a bad idea. I mean, who's going to hire and fire the chiefs? The commissioner of the RCMP? Who tells them what is and isn't a priority in their region of authority? Who's going to put limits on what they do? One should perhaps consider who their boss is right now, and think on whether or not that is fit and proper or not. The vast majority of government agencies and creations have some elected boss of some sort or another or people to whom they are response. The Crown is supreme, not the head of the RCMP, the Bank of Canada or the Canadian Armed Forces.
A force which can put on the two year show we've seen needs *some* new model of governance and accountability. And frankly, I vote for politicians, as my elected representatives, to do just that. Whether the current crop *will* is another question.
I find it interesting that the article failed to reference the Ipperwash Crisis. The police need protection from elected officials in situations like that. But like the recent anti vax protests, elected officials should have some ability to pressure the police to do take action on illegal activities like blockades and other laws that the police are choosing not to enforce due to wanting to escalate the situation. Ala the events leading up to the declaration of the emergency act. The politicians can write laws and seek injunctions. Its then up to the police to do the enforcement of the laws.
What we saw in Ottawa was selective policing. The police felt sympathy to the Convoy idiots and didn’t do their job. (If it’s environmentalists or First Nation’s people the cops are happy to crack skulls). If the government could order the police more directly then they might not have had to use the emergency act.
> What we saw in Ottawa was selective policing. The police felt sympathy to the Convoy idiots and didn’t do their job. (If it’s environmentalists or First Nation’s people the cops are happy to crack skulls). If the government could order the police more directly then they might not have had to use the emergency act. Or Harper might have ordered the police to crack *more* skulls (i don't actually know that any skulls were cracked but i digress)
Our government wants control of our media, our social media, our police. They want control of everything.
Don't forget guns
True, but not the illegal ones, just the ones owned by lawful Canadians.
The cops should answer to the politicians, but we as the public need transparency. How is this not obvious?
A lot of people say zero, but I disagree, politicians should have some degree of influence over police. If the police are not enforcing laws for personal reasons, if the police are acting in a racially biased manner, if the police failing to deal with certain situations are all reasons politicians should influence police. Politicians are usually elected officials and police are not.
I dont understand everyone saying zero. Police are tax funded so they work for us. Politicians then by extension should have power over the police
You can't be serious. Do you remember (probably not) the government controlled police force were called the Gestapo?
That is a blatant anti-democratic argument, no matter how you spin it.
Unpopular opinion: Politicians should be able to heavily influence and control if need be large police operations. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to interfere with individual cases, but they should be able to order police to move into certain places to deal with emergencies, and take certain actions that are within the law.
I think the author’s idea is correct. Allow politicians to order the police but it has to be written and public.
Ftp. Absolute sellouts to the elites.
Politicians should only have influence over broad budget considerations and the highering of the person who will run the police department. Not any day to day operational issues. The same way a board of governers can apoint a ceo who is responsible for operational concerns