Bill 219 amends Manitoba’s Police Services Act to require any police officer who is reasonably able to do so to intervene when they observe another officer committing a wrongdoing, and to file a written report to their police chief within 24 hours. The bill defines wrongdoing to include use of force beyond what is authorized under federal or provincial law and breaches of the Criminal Code or other prescribed statutes, and gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council a regulation-making power to prescribe additional statutory provisions.
Failure to intervene or report is a provincially created offence punishable by up to $50,000, up to six months’ imprisonment, or both. A conviction also bars the convicted person from being employed as a police officer by any Manitoba police service for 12 months after the conviction date.
The measure moves misconduct oversight into criminal and employment‑law territory, raising practical questions about operational safety, prosecution and disciplinary overlap, and protections for reporting officers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires officers to intervene when they observe another officer committing a wrongdoing and to submit a written report to their police chief within 24 hours. It defines wrongdoing to include excessive force and violations of the Criminal Code or prescribed provincial/federal provisions, authorizes criminal penalties, and imposes a 12‑month hiring ban following conviction.
Who It Affects
All sworn officers employed by Manitoba police services are directly obligated by the new duties; police chiefs and police services will receive and process written reports and face new hiring restrictions. Prosecutors, provincial courts, and police employers (including municipal services) will handle enforcement, prosecution and hiring consequences.
Why It Matters
The bill converts a professional duty into a statutory, punishable obligation, inserting criminal exposure and employment consequences into frontline policing. That changes incentives and compliance burdens for services, reshapes how misconduct is reported and processed, and creates immediate operational and legal questions for chiefs, unions and oversight bodies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new provision (section 25.1) to the Police Services Act requiring a police officer to step in when they see another officer commit a wrongdoing, but only when they are “reasonably able to do so.” It also requires a written report to the officer’s police chief within 24 hours of observing the incident. The legislative definition of wrongdoing is narrow in form but broad in reach: it captures any force that exceeds the legally authorized degree and any violation of the Criminal Code or other statutory offences designated by regulation.
The Act creates a provincially enforceable offence for failing to comply with these duties, carrying a maximum fine of $50,000, up to six months’ imprisonment, or both. Separately, it requires police services to refuse to employ anyone convicted under that offence for 12 months after the conviction.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council can add additional prescribed statutory provisions to the definition of wrongdoing, which gives the executive branch levers to expand the list without further legislative amendment.Operationally, the bill places new obligations on individual officers and administrative burdens on chiefs and police services to receive, manage and possibly investigate written reports on a 24‑hour clock. It also creates overlapping accountability tracks: a provincially prosecuted offence sits alongside internal discipline, and a conviction can trigger hiring and career consequences regardless of internal outcomes.
The text is silent on protections for reporting officers, procedures for investigating the reported misconduct, or how the 24‑hour requirement interacts with ongoing criminal investigations or safety concerns.Because the bill applies through the provincial Police Services Act, it targets officers employed by Manitoba police services; the statutory language does not specify federal RCMP governance or cross‑jurisdictional mechanisms, so how it will operate in detachments under contract to municipalities or in joint operations will require interpretation and administrative guidance. Finally, the lack of explicit whistleblower or anti‑retaliation measures means the enforcement architecture and workplace protections will be key to whether the new duties produce more reporting or merely new legal exposure for officers who hesitate to act under uncertain conditions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 25.1(3) requires the officer who observes wrongdoing to file a written report to their police chief within 24 hours of observing the act.
Section 25.1(4) defines wrongdoing to include (a) use of force that exceeds what federal or provincial law or common law authorizes, and (b) violation of the Criminal Code or any additional prescribed statutory provisions.
Section 25.1(1) conditions the duty to intervene on an officer being “reasonably able to do so,” creating a situational standard rather than strict liability.
Section 25.2 makes contravening section 25.1 an offence punishable by up to $50,000, up to six months’ imprisonment, or both.
Section 25.3 requires police services not to employ anyone convicted under section 25.2 for 12 months after the conviction date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New duty provisions inserted into Division 1 of Part 4
The bill inserts sections 25.1–25.3 into the Police Services Act as part of the Division that deals with conduct and discipline. That placement signals lawmakers’ intent to treat intervention and reporting as core statutory duties for operational policing rather than merely internal policy. Practically, it means these duties will be enforceable under provincial law and will be interpreted alongside existing statutory obligations in Part 4.
Mandates active intervention when feasible
Subsection (1) requires an officer to intervene when they observe another officer committing wrongdoing, but only when they are reasonably able to do so. The phrase gives courts and employers a fact‑specific standard to apply — considering safety, capacity, and environment — rather than an absolute requirement. That creates room for situational judgement but also introduces adjudicative complexity when assessing whether non‑intervention violated the statute.
24‑hour written reporting and a statutory definition of wrongdoing
The bill requires a written report to the police chief within 24 hours and defines wrongdoing to include excessive force and violations of the Criminal Code or prescribed statutes. The 24‑hour timeline forces rapid documentation, which may preserve evidence but could clash with immediate operational realities, such as officer safety or ongoing criminal investigations. The regulation‑making power in 25.1(5) lets the Lieutenant Governor in Council add prescribed offences to the definition without further legislative approval.
Creates a provincial offence with significant sanctions
Section 25.2 makes failure to comply a punishable offence carrying a fine up to $50,000, up to six months’ imprisonment, or both. Framing non‑compliance as an offence elevates the conduct from an employment or disciplinary matter to one that can involve prosecutors and courts, with attendant evidentiary and due‑process considerations. The availability of imprisonment, even with a relatively low maximum term, is notable for a duty that will frequently involve split‑second operational judgment.
12‑month post‑conviction hiring ban and immediate commencement on assent
Section 25.3 requires police services to refuse to employ anyone convicted under section 25.2 for 12 months after conviction, creating an employment‑law consequence distinct from internal discipline. The Act comes into force on royal assent, so if enacted, the obligations and penalties would apply immediately rather than after an implementation period; that immediacy increases the importance of guidance, training and administrative readiness for police services.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People subject to police use‑of‑force incidents — increased chances an intervening officer will stop excessive force and produce a contemporaneous written report to support accountability and evidence.
- Civilian oversight bodies and police chiefs — more reported incidents on file could improve detection of misconduct patterns and provide documentary leads for investigations.
- Law‑abiding officers who intervene — a statutory duty can legitimize intervention actions taken to stop unlawful force, potentially supporting later defence against discipline or civil suits when those interventions are reasonable.
Who Bears the Cost
- Police services and chiefs — responsible for receiving and processing 24‑hour written reports, which will increase administrative load and investigative work without allocated resources in the bill.
- Individual officers — face criminal exposure and potential imprisonment for failing to intervene or report, and may face career disruption under the 12‑month hiring ban after conviction.
- Police unions and legal defence — greater demand for legal representation and grievance work contesting prosecutions, discipline and the interaction with collective agreements and labour rights.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between deterrence and practicality: imposing criminal penalties and hiring bans strengthens accountability incentives but risks punishing officers for reasonable operational decisions made under danger or uncertainty, while insufficient procedural protections and guidance may either chill necessary reporting or produce uneven enforcement that undermines both fairness and public trust.
The bill translates a professional expectation into statutory duty and criminal liability, but it leaves several implementation and legal questions open. The “reasonably able to do so” standard is central and inherently case dependent: it must encompass officer safety, whether intervention would escalate risk, and logistic realities (e.g., single‑officer calls or chaotic scenes).
Without guidance, prosecuting or disciplining non‑intervention will require retrospective judgments about split‑second decisions, which increases litigation risk and inconsistent enforcement.
The Act creates parallel accountability channels — criminal prosecution, internal discipline, and employment‑based hiring restrictions — without specifying how they should interact. That can lead to duplicative processes, timing conflicts (for example, criminal investigations that advise silence) and tension with collective‑bargaining protections.
Crucially, the statute does not include explicit protections for reporting officers against retaliation, nor does it create safe‑harbour for reporting made in good faith. Those omissions may chill reporting or expose whistleblowers to workplace reprisal, undermining the bill’s objectives unless supplemented by policy or regulation.
Finally, the regulation‑making power allows the executive to expand the list of prescribed offences, which can materially widen the duty’s reach without parliamentary debate; administrative practice and clear prosecutorial guidelines will be essential to avoid uneven application.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.