Because if you're going to have civilian oversight of policing, and we've given police extraordinary powers, then I think there is a quid pro quo in terms of accountability for those powers.
Historically, as members of society, we enforced public safety. Then we moved to institutionalize policing, and we've given police powers that citizens don't have. You, as a citizen, can't intercept private communications. You, as a citizen, cannot break the law to enforce the law as per subsection 25(1) of the Criminal Code. There are all sorts of things out there that are unusual powers. They get to use deadly force, if need be, to administer the law. These are unique powers. If you have them, you have to account for them.
What I'm saying is that an officer then has to account, but conversely, the officer has to be given protection. So he's accounting, because I have to find out if there is a behaviour problem with the individual officer, or is there a systemic problem or a lack of clarity, and so on?
The public, to have faith in the powers given to police, has to have a sense of transparency and accountability. So when I ask what you did and how you did it, I will never find out if it's a systemic problem or a policy or training problem unless someone tells me what they've done and why.
But as I say, the officer has to be protected. He cannot be used in any other administrative procedures and so on. We should be able to make remedial recommendations to improve the officer's behaviour and ensure that others don't have to in the future.
But these are unusual powers people have.