RISE OF THE PSEUDO-POLICE

Private police services have become a fact of life in Canada, but
they're not regulated nearly well enough for the powers they've been given.

The Law Commission of Canada, a government think-tank that seeks to
modernize federal legislation, says there are about 80,000 law
enforcers in Canada who aren't strictly "public police." They include
everyone from airport bag-checkers to security guards at malls, and a
lot of them fall into a grey legal area. They enjoy (by legislation)
some of the powers accorded to regular police and also (by common-law
tradition) some of the powers accorded to property owners -- but they
are held to lower standards of accountability. The Charter of Rights
applies only to agents of the state, and it's not always clear who
acts for the state and when.

Part of the problem is the sheer number of groups granted policing
powers. At least nine organizations have some kind of policing
authority at Toronto's Pearson airport, including the RCMP, local
police, four private security firms working for different employers,
and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. To which uniform
wearers are you legally required to show identification? Who can
throw you off the property -- or into a cell? The law commission
quotes a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that says determining when a
security officer is acting for the state requires a "case-by-case analysis."

In Ottawa, private security guards hired by business groups have
certain powers to enforce city bylaws. Notoriously, some have chased
undesirables from public spaces and two years ago others told a
busker to stop playing his bagpipes in the Byward Market. They use
their judgment and guidelines from their clients to know which bylaws
to enforce and when.

There are also some perverse incentives at work in the private police
industry. Some merchants wouldn't at all mind having guards with a
reputation for being brutal with rule-breakers and loiterers, for instance.

The law commission calls for new "public security boards" to regulate
all policing services, public and private alike, in particular
communities. This seems inadequate in some ways and like overkill in
others. The idea is to recognize that public, semi-public and private
policing outfits work together and should have some kind of joint
oversight. The problem is that those different agencies get their
authority from different sources: the same people can't oversee
everyone from Mounties to mall security.

Instead, the public interest would be better served by making private
police more accountable. A bill working its way through the Ontario
legislature would impose licensing requirements on private security
workers and standards for uniforms and equipment, among other things.
This is good: private police must know what powers they have and
don't have, and it must be possible for them and their employers to
be run out of the business if they abuse their authority.

Furthermore -- though it's not in the proposed law -- so-called
parapolice should be required to explain their powers when
challenged. If that's a pain for them, so be it; citizens' legitimate
confusion shouldn't be used to help private security services get
away with abusing people's rights.