A Winnipeg bylaw requires police misconduct hearings to be held in camera.David Lipnowski/The Canadian Press
At a news conference announcing criminal charges against two of his own officers, Winnipeg police chief Gene Bowers made a curious request of the province. He asked it to order him to release information about internal disciplinary proceedings.
At issue is a city bylaw that requires police misconduct hearings to be held in camera. That must be changed. At the same time, the province needs to clarify the scope of privacy legislation that the city has interpreted too expansively.
Police are given substantial authority to detain people, even use lethal force, and must be held to a high bar. When they don’t live up to the standard, it’s not enough that they face discipline. The public must know that they are being disciplined. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
Chief Bowers told reporters last month that Winnipeg is one of the few Canadian jurisdictions with a city bylaw specifically prohibiting the release of information about police misconduct. But provincial legislation could supersede the bylaw and mandate disclosure, he said.
The province’s justice minister responded noncommittally to the chief’s request at the time. The men have since met but announced no plan of action.
Not only does the city bylaw require that police disciplinary hearings be held behind closed doors, police say that the findings of those hearings must also be secret, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The city lost a court case in 2022 related to how far it can go to restrict police information under this privacy legislation. The case centred on a CBC reporter who was told she could not receive a list of punishments levied on police, with the city arguing that revealing even the penalty alone could be enough for people close to the officer to identify the person. A Court of King’s Bench judge shot down the argument.
The city could – and should – revoke its own bylaw, but only the province can fix that problem while also making clear that privacy legislation must not be abused. It should do so promptly.
This is vital to the people retaining confidence in the police. Making disciplinary information public would also help Winnipeggers understand whether there is a problem with police behaviour. The numbers could show whether there is an unusual amount of misconduct within the force, which would point to the need for a leadership change or tighter oversight rules.
B.C. police cite privacy as investigators probe chat groups
Modern policing began in the 19th century when Robert Peel, later prime minister of Britain, created a force for London. His key principles included the idea that police legitimacy is rooted in public consent, with the basis for their authority conferred not by law but by the extent to which the people accept that authority.
Still, early policing was often corrupt and unprofessional. It took decades for Peel’s model to spread around the world. Codes of conduct were gradually tightened and stricter use of force rules brought into place. Internal affairs units now deal with allegations of misconduct that don’t rise to the level of criminality. Meanwhile, external bodies have been formed to assess more serious allegations.
A crucial final step in any oversight process is the public being able to see what the investigations found and what punishments were handed down. That is standard in the case of criminal charges, under Canada’s principle of most court proceedings being open to the public. But in Winnipeg, full transparency is thwarted by keeping internal discipline secret. In fact, the public can’t even know whether the officers charged last month had any earlier disciplinary issues.
Such secrecy has no place in modern policing.
The charges announced by Chief Bowers relate to a long list of allegations, including selling drugs, conducting illegal evictions while in uniform, stealing police ammunition and taking and sharing an intimate photo of a dead woman.
The charges have not been tested in court and the men are innocent until proven guilty. But the chief says the very laying of charges has hurt his force’s reputation.
“We understand the damage this does to public trust, trust which must be earned every day,” he told reporters. “That is what we intend to do.”
In Winnipeg and everywhere, the legitimacy of police and the ability to do their jobs depends on them gaining the support of the people. And trust withers without transparency.