NDP introduce private member's bill to ban racial profiling in Canada

NDP Press Release

Thu 04 Jun 2009

OTTAWA - Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) has again tabled in the House of Commons a Private Member’s Bill that seeks to ban racial and religious profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and officials.

The bill is in response to concerns raised about the practice of racial and religious profiling, and stems from consultations held by the New Democrats during the 38th and 39th Parliaments. It requires federal law enforcement agencies to ban racial and religious profiling and report to Parliament on their actions, and requires agencies to do an analysis of how racism plays a role in the law enforcement context.

“Racial and religious profiling has been very serious and costly to those who have been its victims. Such actions by law enforcement officers and agencies are based solely on false stereotypes. It is bad public policy and bad law enforcement practice, plain and simple”, said Siksay. “This bill will ensure sound policy and procedure is developed and maintained by all federal law enforcement agencies.”

The bill was seconded by Libby Davies (Vancouver East) who tabled an earlier version of it in the 38th Parliament.

Increased civilian oversight legislation brewing in Manitoba

In Manitoba, the Doer government is proposing changes to the Police Act which would provide for meaningful civilian oversight of police forces in cases involving death or serious bodily harm. One of the proposals is to create an Independent Investigation Unit, like the SIU in Ontario, which would handle these kinds of cases. The Unit would also investigate other allegations against the police where there is a public interest in having an independent investigation. Public consultations are scheduled to begin at the end of February on the proposed changes. For more information, see Police Act Consulations: Background and Issues; and, Police Act Consultations: Questionnaire.

Currently, incidents involving serious injury or death are handled in accordance with a 2004 protocol. Under this protocol, the police agency involved decides whether to investigate the incident or to call in an outside agency. That decision is made by the Chief of Police. The results of the investigation are then reviewed by an independent legal counsel appointed by Manitoba Justice to determine if criminal charges should be laid. The Provincial Police Act also has a regulation requiring a major police department not involved in the incident to review the completed investigation in cases involving a police shooting and injury or death. Finally, there is the Fatality Inquiries Act which requires an inquest whenever a person has died in police custody.

Civilian oversight for non-criminal conduct is the domain of the Law Enforcement Review Agency (LERA). To learn more about LERA, click here. Criminal conduct is investigated by the police through Police Professional Standards Units.

Posted by Professor Tanovich

Reflections on Scadding Court Summit on Bill 103

In May of 2007, the Liberal government passed Bill 103: An Act to establish an Independent Police Review Director and create a new public complaints process by amending the Police Services Act. This introduced a much-needed overhaul of the complaints system that was previously instituted in 1997. It came on the heels of a report by former Chief Justice Patrick LeSage on the complaints process in Ontario.Very little is known about the new police complaints process and when exactly it is expected to be in effect. We do know that the system will be headed by Independent Police Review Director, Gerry McNeilly. On February 5, 2009, Mr. McNeilly attended Windsor Law to launch LEAP. The IPRD has wide-ranging decision making powers to develop regulations, policy, and procedural aspects of the system as well as the discretion to refuse complaints. Mr. McNeilly was also present at the summit.

In response to Bill 103, Scadding Court Community Centre and CEAPC, extended invitations to the three pillars to engage in constructive discussion focused on critically analyzing the new legislation. I attended as note-taker on behalf of LEAP for the sessions on accessibility, transparency, accountability, public education and support. The different pillars were integrated into small working groups to discuss their perspectives and make recommendations to improve the proposed system. An executive summary of the report is available here.

I was also given the opportunity to participate in the discussions taking place. Given my experiences, including as a member of Students Against Anti-Black Racism at the University of Windsor, I entered the conference with cynical views of the current state of our criminal justice system and the seemingly widening power imbalances between systemic powers and ordinary citizens. SAABR has been struggling vigorously to seek redress for several Black students implicated in incidents of alleged police brutality and racism at an on-campus party in mid-January 2008. The footage of one student’s arrest, Bright Kyereme, is available on You Tube. None of the individuals chose to file complaints with the police because there is little faith, trust, and confidence in the current police complaints system. Professor Tanovich discussed this lack of faith in a commentary in the Windsor Star. This fact was a consistently recurring theme at the summit in Toronto.

Community members from all over Ontario came together to share their narratives and experiences. Many expressed their frustrations with the government’s delay in overhauling the system and criticized the lack of civilian oversight with enforcing police accountability. Their concerns also voiced the risks that racialized communities face at the hands of the police. I feel that their perspective was the one that I benefited from most from. As the least developed and often ignored pillar, communities at risk for police misconduct are an essential component that require much consideration and attention in implementing a successful police complaints process. In essence, their suggestions on how to improve police-community relations and community policing activities and how to ensure community safety remain critical factors to maintain communities’ participation and interaction with the new system. What made the Summit so important was that these voices were heard by lawyers, government members, police officers, human rights agencies, and community leaders who have the capabilities and resources to take these views into consideration and implement some real change. And unless this actualizes, it remains easy to be cynical of the new system that’s on its way in.

This event was a remarkable learning experience. It truly demonstrated the importance of bringing together the three pillars of government, police, and communities to share meaningful dialogue on Ontario’s new police complaints system.

Posted by Lily Tekle, Student Director