Executive Summary

Modern society is sometimes described as a risk society. In a networked world, people receive media news about events in distant communities as they happen. Millions upon millions are made part of an extended family of victimization as they watch horrific events. These episodes make us feel helpless and often lead us to take steps to fortify our own sense of personal safety.

Whether public unease with safety and security is indeed ‘new’ or ‘heightened’ in contemporary Canadian life, remains a contested claim. What is clear, however, is that certain segments of society are purchasing security and safety in the form of a commodity. We buy home intruder alarms and window bars. We hire security guards and install surveillance cameras in public spaces. We do these things individually or collectively, or as businesses, to minimizing risk. Of course, security, like any other commodity that is for sale on the open market, is available to those who can afford it.

The Canadian state has sought to provide security equally to all its citizens. However, the social safety net is developing larger and larger holes and management of risk has often shifted from the state to the ‘responsibilized’ citizen.

This Discussion Paper examines changes in the provision of security to Canadians. A review of security arrangements in Canada is followed by a discussion on the growth of networks of both public and private policing. After a brief review of policing history, the next three sections examine governance issues. Section IV looks at the current legal environment. Section V asks what values should inspire democratic policing in Canada. Section VI examines different ways of regulating policing in Canada. Policing in Canada.

The Discussion Paper makes a distinction between police as an institution and policing as an activity. Policing refers to the activities of any individual or organization acting legally to maintain security or social order. Public police forces engage in policing, but so do a range of other actors and agencies.

Policing in Canada is in the process of transformation. The provision of policing services was once presumed the exclusive domain of the state. Increasingly in Canada, complex networks of policing, both public and private, are developing. Private security firms patrol large urban areas; they make arrests for Criminal Code violations and enforce provincial statutes. Private forensic firms are involved in complex fraud investigations. The private sector is engaged in activities typically associated with public police forces. It is becoming difficult to differentiate between what is a private function and what is a public function: the line between public police and private security has blurred.

The Discussion Paper was written against the backdrop of the events of September 11, 2001. Prior to September 11, the historical trajectory was to rely more and more on private security firms to provide for economic and physical security. Does September 11, and its aftermath, signal a greater role for government? It is too early to tell how durable this movement will be after the excitement of these events fades.

The Regulatory Environment.

Private security officers have no more arrest authority for a criminal offence than the average Canadian citizen. The Criminal Code of Canada states that any one, including a private security officer, may arrest someone found committing an indictable offence. Also, property owners or their agents may arrest someone they find committing a criminal offence in relation to their property.

Also, owners of property prescribe conditions for remaining on the owner’s property. Security guards enforce these conditions on behalf of owners. It is through the exercise of property rights, that owners and their private security representatives arrest people for minor offences such as being disorderly.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to interactions between two private individuals. However, the Charter does apply when an individual is acting as an agent of the state when arresting someone, for example. As the networks of public and private policing grow, the question of when a private security agent is acting as an agent of the state and therefore subject to the Charter, will become more difficult to answer.

Policing in a Democratic Society

Four core principles ought to support democratic policing in Canada: justice, equality, accountability and efficiency. Justice means that all individuals ought to be treated fairly and their ‘rights’ are respected. Equality means, first, that all Canadians receive sufficient policing services to feel safe in their community. Equality also means all members of society require an equal and inclusive security force. Accountability means that the actions are subject to review and that there are formal channels for lodging individual complaints. Finally, efficiency means that services are provided in a cost-effective manner. To what extent do public police forces and private security agencies reflect these principles of democratic policing?

The Charter offers individuals protections against unjust treatment by public police. Because security officers are private citizens, the Charter does not always apply to their interactions with individuals. Given the transformations that are occurring in policing, is this an acceptable distinction? Inclusiveness means that the police should be representative of the community in which they are working. Community policing is one way that public police forces have responded to the challenge of equality of representation. How successful is community policing? Can private security agencies engage in this type of policing?

Accountability is a critical and contentious issue in policing. Some argue that the public officers are unfairly treated by an inefficient oversight system. Others claim that existing oversight mechanisms are weak and lack broad-based community representation. Some argue that private security officers are much less accountable than are public police because legislation does not hold private security officers accountable. Perhaps the question is not only whether private and public policing bodies are accountable, but to whom? It may be the case that law reform efforts should be directed towards the development of innovative oversight mechanisms that reflect the new reality of networks of public and private policing in Canada.

The Future of Police Governance

The current regulatory environment may not adequately reflect the reality of networks of public and private policing in Canada? Should legislation attempt to shore up this distinction? For example, policy makers could attempt to set out what actions private security personnel can and cannot perform. Should policy also be geared toward effective regulation of the new networks of security that have developed? Should we develop policing policy to encompass the activities of both the public sector and the private sector?

The professionalization of the private security industry may address some of the issues raised in this Discussion Paper. The development of an effective industry association, the enactment of minimum standards for training and the creation of effective oversight bodies may go a long way in ensuring that policing services are delivered in accordance with democratic values.

Other models have looked at broader forms of regulation that encompass the policing sector as a whole. The first model would have security companies regulated by public police forces. The second would see the development of community-driven policing boards for both. Democratic policing requires the development of new approaches of managing the relationship between private and public actors in the field of security. It also demands the engagement of Canadians in the discussion of these issues. Ed. Comment: The Law Commission “seeks to engage Canadians in the renewal of the law to ensure that it is relevant, responsive, equally accessible to all, and just.” Input and feedback from the public is solicited. (Web page address below.)

This review provides individual Canadians with an opportunity to improve policing in this country, especially as related to private policing, and it would be a pity if the Commission missed out on relevant information simply because people did not know of this initiative, or didn’t take the time to respond. www.lcc.gc.ca/en/themes/os/2002_04_15.htm

top

 previous article

next article