When misconduct happens, who investigates? In many Canadian police services, the answer is still Internal Affairs — officers investigating their own colleagues. While intended to uphold integrity, this model raises a fundamental concern: can a system police itself fairly?
Internal Affairs: The Case For
Institutional knowledge: Officers understand procedures, culture, and technical details outsiders may miss.
Speed and access: Easier access to internal files, evidence, and personnel.
Discipline culture: Supporters argue internal accountability strengthens professional standards.
Internal Affairs: The Case Against
Conflict of interest: Colleagues may be reluctant to impose serious consequences on their own.
Public trust gap: Communities often see internal investigations as cover-ups.
Opacity: Findings are rarely shared publicly, fueling suspicion.
Pattern denial: Internal processes may downplay systemic issues in favour of case-by-case explanations.
Independent Oversight: The Case For
Transparency: Civilian agencies provide distance from police services.
Public legitimacy: Independent findings carry greater credibility in communities.
Systemic lens: Oversight bodies can examine structural issues, not just individual misconduct.
Broader expertise: Can include health, equity, and community perspectives.
Independent Oversight: The Case Against
Limited powers: In many provinces, civilian boards can recommend discipline but not enforce it.
Under-resourced: Backlogs and delays reduce effectiveness.
Dependence on cooperation: Oversight often relies on police services to share records or testimony.
Fragmentation: Different provinces, different rules, different standards.
Canadian Context
Ontario’s SIU (Special Investigations Unit): Investigates serious injury or death involving police — but has faced criticism over delays and reliance on police cooperation.
Civilian review boards: Exist in provinces like B.C. and Quebec, but authority is uneven.
National patchwork: No consistent Canadian standard for independent oversight.
The Challenges
Institutional resistance: Police associations often resist external control.
Public skepticism: Neither internal nor independent bodies have fully won trust.
Political will: Governments often stop short of giving oversight agencies real enforcement power.
Transparency trade-offs: Balancing officer privacy with public right to know.
The Opportunities
Hybrid models: Internal reviews for technical matters, independent bodies for public accountability.
Mandatory transparency: All findings published with clear reasoning.
Community-led oversight: Ensure representation from marginalized groups most affected by policing.
National standards: Create a consistent baseline for oversight across provinces.
The Bigger Picture
Oversight is only as strong as the trust it inspires. Internal Affairs may be efficient, but trust is thin. Independent bodies may be credible, but power is often weak. Without balance, accountability risks becoming an illusion.
The Question
If police investigating police undermines trust, and independent bodies lack teeth, then who — ultimately — holds policing accountable?
Internal Affairs vs Independent Oversight
The Built-In Conflict
When misconduct happens, who investigates? In many Canadian police services, the answer is still Internal Affairs — officers investigating their own colleagues. While intended to uphold integrity, this model raises a fundamental concern: can a system police itself fairly?
Internal Affairs: The Case For
Internal Affairs: The Case Against
Independent Oversight: The Case For
Independent Oversight: The Case Against
Canadian Context
The Challenges
The Opportunities
The Bigger Picture
Oversight is only as strong as the trust it inspires. Internal Affairs may be efficient, but trust is thin. Independent bodies may be credible, but power is often weak. Without balance, accountability risks becoming an illusion.
The Question
If police investigating police undermines trust, and independent bodies lack teeth, then who — ultimately — holds policing accountable?