Evidence of meeting #29 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
I've just been advised that the translators are having a difficult time keeping up with some of the remarks that are being made. Maybe we could slow down a little bit so that they can keep up. Thank you very much.
I have five people left: Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, Ms. Mourani, Mr. Del Mastro, Mr. Calandra, and Mr. MacKenzie.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We've had quite a bit of discussion about commending the front-line police officers. I'd like to take a moment to also express my respect and support for Chief of Police Bill Blair, who also worked under extremely difficult circumstances, including a chain of command that it appears was terribly unclear at points in time. That added to the confusion and perhaps the mistakes that occurred around security issues during the summit. In fact there are allegations surfacing that there was second-guessing. So we need to clearly establish who the decision-makers were in that chain of command. Who was ultimately responsible? Was it in fact the head of the ISU, the integrated security unit, Superintendent Alphonse MacNeil? Was someone directing him out of the PCO? Who was making those decisions? Obviously there were terrible lapses--lapses in security and lapses in terms of Canadian civil rights being impinged upon.
Secondly, I want to add my voice to denouncing the so-called “Black Bloc”. I actually called them a mob of miscreants and misfits. Not only did they damage, as is mentioned in this particular motion, police cars, they damaged public and private property. Owners of individual small businesses were victimized by these people--as were all taxpayers of Toronto--when they destroyed public property. That needs to be addressed. They also hijacked legitimate protesters' abilities to speak out, assemble peacefully, and have their issues and voices heard. They drowned out the legitimate ability of Canadians to have their voices heard.
Finally, unfortunately, they have become the useful dupes for providing cover to what is a $1.2 billion and possibly a $2 billion security boondoggle and photo op for the Prime Minister.
I have to say as a person who was born and raised and who lives in and has lived in Toronto all my life, I was shocked, as were so many Torontonians, by what happened. We've never seen “Toronto the good”, as we like to call ourselves, being portrayed that way on the front pages of papers.
A million Torontonians lost their freedom of movement. We saw vibrant streets turn into empty canyons. Someone should have realized that the core of the city being devoid of its life, of its citizenry, would provide a perfect opportunity, with all the cameras rolling, for this mob.
That needs to be addressed. How was the decision made to put this in the city core, which would not only be a $1.2 billion boondogle but also restrict the rights of the citizenry of Toronto and leave the streets open and empty of citizens for this particular mob?
As will my colleagues, I'll be supporting this particular motion, and I look forward to supporting the motion that brought us here today. It's important so that we can look into all of the related issues surrounding this debacle.
Conservative
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am listening to my colleagues in the government, and I realize, yet again, that when we stand up for human rights, they always pull out their famous line where they claim we are here to protect the rights of anarchists, criminals and terrorists. Furthermore, a certain member, whom I will not name because it is not worth the trouble and who is on this House of Commons public safety committee, actually said that the committee is in place to promote the agenda of hooligans. I have to tell you that I am not familiar with that agenda. He will have to explain to me what that famous hooligan agenda is.
That said, as soon as any NGO, group or member stands up for human rights that conflict ever so slightly with the government's party line, the story is they are either supporting criminals, as we have frequently heard in the House of Commons, or defending hooligans, as is the case right now, or terrorists, of course. Take your pick.
I want to give some context, if I may. I will be reading, as they so like to do. I am going to read you a few excerpts taken from the media. This one is from Le Devoir:
The controversy surrounding police actions during the G-20 demonstrations [...] Toronto police also admitted that it lied to the public on two occasions.
The article actually says “lied”. It goes on to say:
Although a number of videos on YouTube draw shaky comparisons between the violent actions of some demonstrators and the alleged actions of the police, other images recorded by members of the public appear to be quite telling. One such video, which is just over a minute long, shows undercover police officers disguised as demonstrators, some wielding riot batons and billy sticks, hiding behind police cordons. One of them is donning all black attire and wearing a hood, similar to the radical supporters of the Black Bloc, who attend demonstrations to create mayhem.
Further on, the article says:
Toronto police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) did not return Le Devoir's telephone calls [...]
Amnesty International and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), which had more than 50 observers on site, called for [...] an investigation at the beginning of the week.
While I do not consider the people at Amnesty International to be hooligans or terrorists, you might, but you will have to be clear about that. Then you could ban them, too; you could take it quite far. As for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I am not sure whether it, too, represents terrorist groups, but you never know.
Another quote:
Furthermore, the Toronto police force [itself] admitted that certain objects allegedly seized from demonstrators—which the chief of police, Bill Blair, described as “weapons”—and presented to the media on Monday in fact never belonged to demonstrators.
Look at that! I will continue:
That is the case with the chainsaw, the crossbow and the props (batons and shields) belonging to a passerby on his way to a medieval-themed role-playing game in the park when he was arrested by police.
[...] Mr. Blair admitted that the order secretly passed by the Ontario government never gave him the authority to arrest anyone found within five metres of the security perimeter, as he had claimed. The order applied only to the inside of the perimeter.
And it goes on, Mr. Chair; the allegations and statements do not stop there. There is one I really want to read to you because people called my office about it. The allegation that was reported is as follows:
The head of the Fédération des femmes du Québec [Quebec federation of women], Alexa Conradi, indicated that women, in particular, were the victims of ill-treatment by police.
“We heard that sexist and sexual remarks were made about women when they went to the washroom. Others were reportedly threatened with mass rape or rape by law enforcement officials” [...]
That kind of allegation is very serious. She was also reported to have said, “that her organization was calling for a public inquiry, among others, to determine ‘whether there was a serious problem with how law enforcement officials treated women’”.
Le Devoir also said:
A number of people were there, in particular, to band together in calling for a public inquiry [...]
There is more, and I will go over a few details. It says:
Yesterday, Toronto police confirmed that just over 900 people were arrested on Saturday and Sunday. Without providing any exact figures [...]
Now, however, those figures are starting to come out.
[...] police indicated that the majority were released without any charges being laid [against them].
Amnesty International called for an inquiry. The public has the right to demonstrate. There is another example. You could argue that it was demonstrators, hooligans. But reporters were arrested. I am not sure whether their cards helped move things along, but it also says:
No fewer than seven reporters or photographers were arrested on the weekend, and some of them had their yellow G-20 and G-8 Summit press cards clearly displayed.
Independent photographer François Pesant, who works for a number of media outlets [...] witnessed the “strange” conduct of police officers. He has covered numerous demonstrations throughout his career.
This is what that photographer said:
Everything went well on Friday. Police conducted themselves perfectly. They were in control, but on Saturday morning, riots broke out downtown for two hours without a single police officer around. I have never seen that.
He said that. I am just repeating what he said. He went on to say:
And then, all of a sudden, there they were, arresting everybody, and the rioters had already fled several minutes before.
That was what the photographer said. Surely, you must have heard that a reporter, some cameramen and so forth had been arrested.
Mr. Chair, I want to tell you this: I received emails and telephone calls from people in Quebec who are not hooligans, criminals, murderers or terrorists; they are parents, young people and students in Quebec who say they were the victims of various forms of ill-treatment. They told me—and these are allegations—that they were strip-searched. They said they were crammed into cages—with 25 to 40 people—in some sort of area where movies were filmed and that the cages had been equipped for the situation. There was a toilet bowl where people had to do their business in front of everyone. A number of them said they were not allowed to call their... They were not permitted to call their family. Parents called my office trying to find out how to locate their children who were there. To you, they might be hooligans and terrorists.
They also told me about other kinds of allegations, which need to be verified. It seems that guys—not the girls—boys and men were reportedly given shots against their will and told it was for tuberculosis. Those are things people have told me, and they are serious. For seven to ten hours, people were given 100 ml of water and a slice of bread. They were cold, scared and humiliated. No one spoke French, of course. They were not spoken to in French. They said that when they spoke French, it was worse: they endured racism and harassment. All of these allegations are serious, Mr. Chair. They tarnish Canada's reputation in the world. I heard about complaints being made to the UN. That is a disgrace! These allegations need to be verified.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, we are calling for an independent public inquiry. As soon as the committee reconvenes in the fall, immediately after the chair is elected, we want the committee to begin looking into what happened with respect to the G-20 Summit and security, as well as finances, for those who want to discuss it. It involves not only Canada's reputation around the world, but also the reputation of the Toronto police force, the OPP, and all the security agencies who provided their services during the G-20 Summit.
That is key. It is their reputation on the line. My colleagues in the government are saying that the police did a wonderful job and should be commended, but we need to get to the bottom of the situation. Frankly, it surprises me that the government itself has not called for an inquiry, if not simply to restore the reputation of the law enforcement officials involved with the G-20 Summit. That is key. I cannot understand why the government is not calling for the inquiry itself. If there was no wrongdoing and they are not afraid of the truth, why not hold a public inquiry? Why are they so against holding several sessions on the issue?
I would like to hear from a number of witnesses: Mr. Toews, the Minister of Public Safety; the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Amnesty International; Toronto police chief Bill Blair; the famous G-8–G-20 Integrated Security Unit; the Ontario Provincial Police; and the RCMP. I would also like Toronto firefighters to appear. Why? Because they have something to say. I would invite the Ontario ombudsman, who is also investigating the situation, as well as Ms. Fraser.
Furthermore, if this famous committee that is meeting has completed its report, we should know that. Finally, I would ask the 15 people who contacted my office to appear, as well. Who are they? University students who have their whole lives ahead of them. They believed in Canada and had no idea they could be treated the way they were. They say they were the victims of various forms of abuse by police when they took part in demonstrations in Toronto. Not only are these young people traumatized, but they are also totally disillusioned with Canadian democracy. We need to restore the faith of all those people who demonstrated and who no longer believe in their democratic right to demonstrate.
So what should we do? We should help these people realize that the system works. When mistakes are made, there needs to be a public inquiry. We need to determine whether mistakes were really made and make recommendations so they do not happen again. We need to figure out whether there was abuse and whether people's rights and physical safety were compromised. People were reportedly vaccinated against their will. That is pretty mind-blowing.
Once all the allegations have been either proven or rejected, we can restore the reputation of those involved. You can go ahead and move your motion of congratulations, but that does not change what average citizens had to deal with or the parents... Remember that these young people are not hooligan anarchists who live on the streets. They have parents who pay taxes and who want to know why their children were treated the way they were by Canada's democratic system. They want to know what happened. Those people are entitled to answers. The way I see it, holding a public inquiry or even having the committee study the issue starting in the fall, as soon as possible, can only restore Toronto's reputation, and that of law enforcement. That is key.
I think the committee should hold several meetings beginning in the fall, and hear from a number of witnesses, in order to get to the bottom of this. Once we have completed that study, only then will we, the Bloc Québécois, decide whether or not to commend the security agencies involved in the G-20 Toronto Summit. We will not tell people what a great job they did in this manner. We will not give you a green light to commend everyone. That is what the Liberals are doing, which really surprises me, but that is another story.
So long as we have not gotten to the bottom of what happened, we will not be commending anyone. If we are wrong, all the better. If those hundreds of people were all anarchists, in your opinion, we will have been wrong, but at least we will have gotten to the bottom of the events that took place and proven that Canada's democratic system works on all levels—national, local and international.
We will vote against Mr. MacKenzie's motion if we debate it. Obviously, we will not be discussing it just yet; as you pointed out, Mr. Chair, we are trying to decide whether we want to undertake a study on all the issues surrounding the G-8 and G-20.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me this time.
Conservative
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I was just wondering if we thought we'd be getting to a vote. We do have a witness here from out of town. I'm wondering, since everyone's pretty much had a chance to speak, if we could deal with the motion. We have a guest here from out of town.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I'm sorry, you can't force a vote on a point of order.
I have five more speakers.
Do you have a point of order, Mr. MacKenzie?
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Chair, I would appreciate if you would explain to Mr. Dewar, who obviously doesn't know the rules, that if he has something he wishes to say he should make it as a point of order to the chair, as opposed to simply interrupting the chair.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, we have the opposition members, frankly, all over the board, all hitting different issues, all coming at it from a different perspective, but ultimately, this is a case of ready, fire, aim. That's what we're discussing here. They're way out ahead of themselves. They don't have any of the facts. Madame Mourani is throwing around unsubstantiated allegations and asserting them, at least in part, as truth.
Mr. Holland, in his comments, indicated that the whole problem is that you shouldn't hold anything in Toronto. That's what I heard. Maybe we should move the Maple Leafs out of downtown Toronto--
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
--so that when the eventuality of them winning the cup happens, we won't have to worry about anybody congregating down there. I mean, for goodness' sake, this is ridiculous.
The bottom line is that in Ontario, under the Police Services Act of Ontario, given individuals are empowered to oversee this. In Toronto, it's the Police Services Board. So that members are aware, how is a police services board put together? Half of the board is nominated by the municipality, half by the province. That's the way it is in Peterborough. And this board is an independent, civilian oversight body of the police. They've indicated they're going to look into this. That is their job. It's not the job of the public safety committee of the House of Commons to determine if these allegations have merit or not. It is their job, the Toronto Police Services Board. That's what they're empowered for.
The Ontario ombudsman has indicated that he has received some complaints, or some applications that he is going to review. That is their job. I just wonder why it is that members of this committee feel that they need to get out in advance.
Paul, I do understand... Mr. Dewar, since you're speaking, I do understand a thing or two about federal jurisdiction, and in this case, policing in the province of Ontario is not a federal jurisdiction, but that's what you want to review.
I think that primarily what this committee should be doing, if you want to be responsible, if you want Canadians to respect the committee process in this Parliament--because I see a constant shift toward committees being nothing but gong shows to try to push out a partisan political wedge, which is nonsense... If you want this process to be respected, then you allow the bodies that are empowered in the province of Ontario to undertake their reviews and to report. And if there are issues with that report, then you can undertake to review that, to see if in the future maybe we should change how we approach something, how we plan something if we're having a major international event.
We hosted the Olympics in Vancouver. There were protesters at that as well. I would argue that in some ways, the big difference was that they didn't get all the attention.
I agree with somebody on the other side--and I can't remember who it was, Mr. Chairman--who indicated that legitimate protesters... There were tens of thousands of people who attended rallies in Toronto. The overwhelming majority of them went, they had their rally, and then they went home. And the police were there. They protected their safety. They enabled those individuals to go there, to make whatever their point was. There were various groups and they had different points of interest. But then they went home.
There were some who went with an entirely different intent, Mr. Chairman. That is our point. And we will allow these bodies to undertake their reviews. That is the government approach to it. You don't just decide that this committee's the only appropriate place, apparently, to review this. That's nonsense. That's why we put people in these positions in the first place. You either have confidence in the people who are in these positions and you trust them or you don't.
For the Liberal Party, several of you have indicated that you support Chief Bill Blair, that you support the Toronto police, that you support the motion Mr. MacKenzie proposed, which is not yet for a vote.
If that is the case, then you'll allow the process to take place. Then, if there is an issue and it is befitting of this committee to undertake a study on this issue, that's when you do it. You don't do it before the groups charged with this responsibility actually have the opportunity to do their work. That's nonsense.
The fact that we're here... Madam Mourani indicated she'd like to have the hearings in the fall. What in the world are we here for? What are we here for?
Mr. Chairman, I implore all members of the opposition to allow the individuals charged with the responsibility of oversight in issues related to the G-20 to do their job. Let them do that.
This is not a good issue. Frankly, this is very thinly veiled, Mr. Chairman. This is purely partisan politics playing out on an issue where there are responsible individuals who will deal with this. If there is a reason, a cause, that members would like to have the opportunity to undertake a review, once those reports are completed, once all the facts are known, then I think that would be a responsible thing for the committee to do. It is certainly not responsible right now.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you very much.
My list now has Mr. Calandra, Mr. MacKenzie, Mr. McColeman, Mr. Dechert, Mr. Desnoyers, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and Mr. Dewar.
Mr. Calandra, please.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to comment, because as a GTA member and as somebody whose riding borders on Toronto, and whose businesses were certainly improved by the G-20, it strikes me that what we're hearing a lot from the opposition is, why Toronto? It goes without saying that Toronto obviously had the capacity to handle such an event. It goes without saying that Toronto is the financial hub of the province of Ontario, if not all of Canada.
It also goes without saying that Ontario manufacturers have been hurt by the global economic downturn, and bringing 30 world leaders representing 95% of the world's population to the city of Toronto, with the media and all of the delegates that attend such an event, not just for the G-20 but for the time leading up to the G-20, can only be viewed as a positive thing for all of these individuals.
I actually have a visitor expressing his way into my riding on some point during the week. I wonder what his message is going to be to the people of the GTA when he expresses himself into my area. His message obviously, if I judge the members opposite, is going to be that Toronto, the GTA, is simply not a world-class city. His message is going to be that the GTA is simply not mature enough to handle such an event. His message is going to be that Canada, under the opposition coalition, will once again be a follower and not a leader.
I say with the greatest of respect to this visitor that that's simply not a message that Canadians are telling me. That's not what the people in my riding are telling me. The businesses in my riding who were able to make connections and were able to talk to the people that they actually export their products to, who mentioned...“Wow, we saw Toronto; we saw a lot of things, and we're getting to know your country a little bit better”; it was because of all of the work that led up to the G-20, all of the work that led up to the G-8, and all of those connections. They are ecstatic about what happened. The manufacturers in my area, particularly those in Markham, which is one of the hubs of manufacturing in all of the GTA, could not have been happier about this.
I simply cannot understand why it is that the members opposite simply cannot understand that Toronto and the GTA are areas that are capable of having these types of events. I guess it should be no surprise that under their watch we lost the 2008 Olympic bid. They simply have no vision. They simply do not have the same level of respect for the police forces in Toronto, they do not have the same level of respect for all of the businesses, they do not have the same level of respect for the people of the city of Toronto, in fact the entire GTA, so that they can actually host an event of this magnitude.
Let's talk about what we did here at the G-20. We saw, through the leadership of the Prime Minister, that we were able to make sure there was no banking tax. At the G-8 in Huntsville we finally made some advances on millennium goals 4 and 5.
We brought 30 of the world's most powerful leaders, as I said earlier, representing 90% of the population of this planet to the city of Toronto, with their delegates and their delegations, who visited, not only during the weekend but before that, who were in our hotels.
I believe it was the head of the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association who said this was the biggest stimulus to hit the city of Toronto ever. What an absolutely incredible opportunity. What do the members opposite say? They put their hands up and simply say, well, it can never happen again. Under a coalition of the opposition, Toronto and the GTA will never ever have the opportunity to host such an event again.
It is simply absolutely staggering to me that after all of these years they still do not believe that Toronto is a world-class city. They do not believe that the people of Ontario, that the people of the city of Toronto, the entire GTA, the most powerful region in the entire country, I would submit, once the economic engine of this country and again moving towards that distinction, can hold events like this.
I can tell you I'm extraordinarily proud of what we accomplished. I'm extraordinarily proud, as I said earlier, of all the police forces. But more importantly, too, I'm excited by the connections that were made because of the G-20. I'm excited by what the business people and the manufacturers and exporters in my riding are saying are the benefits of the G-20.
I guess I would just hope that the opposition would reflect on those things. If someone asks why we are talking about thugs and hooligans, it's because those are the people who ruined or tried to ruin the G-20. Those are the people who broke the law. Those are the people who threw bricks, who put themselves in the path of peaceful protesters, of people who had a legitimate voice, of people who actually wanted to accomplish something. They insinuated themselves into that.
We discussed how many people there were. The reality is those aren't people we should be defending. We should be defending those who have a legitimate reason to demonstrate, those who have a legitimate voice. We should be condemning the thugs and the hooligans. You want to talk about thugs and hooligans? We're talking about the person we all saw throwing a brick at a Starbucks or who had a club and was trying to break windows. That's who we're talking about when we're talking about thugs and hooligans.
Again, I just have to say as a GTA member, as somebody whose riding borders on Toronto, it would certainly be refreshing in all of this if just for a moment the opposition reflected on all of the benefits, if they just for a moment congratulated the city of Toronto for what it accomplished and how it used the results of the G-20 to improve the lives of the manufacturers, of the businesses, of the people of the city of Toronto and all of the GTA, so that as we come out of this global downturn, strong as we are, we will continue to grow.
Somebody talked about economic growth. You know, I look at this and I see 95,000 jobs created. That's extraordinary. It's extraordinary, but there's a lot of work to be done still. As I said in my remarks, our recovery is fragile. Bringing all of these people to Canada, to Toronto, to make sure that global recovery continues on I don't see as a bad thing. I see that as a good thing. I can tell you that all the people of my riding certainly share that view.
I guess my message to the people of Toronto is this. At least on this side of the table, they have people who appreciate what they accomplished, who will always fight to make sure that Toronto is a place that will continue to lead not only in Canada but in the world. We will never be ashamed of what it accomplishes and what our people accomplish. We will always seek to promote it and the entire region, because it's an extraordinary place.
I encourage some of the people opposite who have not had an opportunity to come and visit not only Toronto but perhaps my riding, Markham, to see what they're talking about, what they're saying the advantages were. They might have a bit of a different perspective on this from simply coming here and bringing forward a motion that seeks to divide us, that seeks to point out the actions of hooligans over the actions of our Prime Minister and the other world leaders who are leading the world and helping make sure we have economic growth and sustained prosperity going forward.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair.
There are a few issues I'd really like to clarify, because Canadians at home had a chance to hear a few things said from the other side that were inaccurate, and maybe not meant to be inaccurate, but can easily be repeated as being the gospel truth.
The very first thing I'd like to say is that not once did we mention the names of any organizations. Mr. Dewar and a couple of others have indicated that we have said some organizations support the thugs, hooligans, and anarchists. We didn't say that. You've made that connection, not us. We've never mentioned those organizations.
Mr. Kania, who I have a great deal of respect for, mentioned some figures here. He's usually accurate. As he frequently does to witnesses we have who come before the committee, he always asks them to produce that. He indicated some fairly low costs in England for a summit that was held there. I would like to know if he can produce those documents, so that everybody understands. I do not think they're accurate. They may reflect some costs, but they don't reflect all of the costs of the summit. That's one of the things we certainly have been very open to. The Auditor General is going to audit ours. I would respectfully suggest that those people who float numbers out there that are obviously ridiculously low compared to what we are talking about don't have all of the information. We've heard numbers from other countries, including Japan. We've heard numbers from Great Britain that are certainly different from those that Mr. Kania quoted, and I'd really like to see him produce those numbers and the accuracy of them.
Three times since we've taken power we've had screaming matches in the House of Commons about everything that's going to go wrong, and I'll tell you what they are. On the H1N1, the other side were just over the top--that the world was coming to an end and that Canadians were in huge, huge danger. Obviously we took the concerns seriously. We reacted to it, and I think we reacted to it in a proper way. And you know, when the H1N1 didn't develop into what either they thought it would or hoped it would, all of a sudden they went quiet.
If Canadians will recall, prior to the Olympics there was a great deal of hollering and screaming and moaning about the cost of security for the Olympics and the cost of the Olympics in general. Well, you know, Mr. Chair, the Olympics were a great success. Canadians are extremely proud of our Olympians. They're extremely proud of what occurred with the organization. I think we had an opportunity for the world to see a picture of Canada as somewhat more cosmopolitan than what many around the world would have believed of us before that. And guess what? The G-8 and G-20 were the same thing.
It's interesting, because the rest of the world saw two summits, which has never occurred before in a country. And I would say to you, Mr. Chair, we didn't just decide to have the G-8. If you're part of the G-8, you host it on your turn. This was our turn. And I think that Canadians and the rest of the world had an opportunity to see good things. Unfortunately, a few bad apples may have spoiled it for some others.
I have a quote here:
If you step outside of Canada for a moment, these kinds of summits attract violent protests, they have everywhere. By those standards, Toronto's police acquitted themselves very well and I think most people around the world are not going to associate Toronto with these violent acts, they will associate the G-20 with those acts.
That was from David Miller, the mayor of Toronto.
In another quote, more recent:
To suggest, as some do, that police Chief Bill Blair should resign or be fired is as absurd as holding an inquiry, which would serve only those who don't like the police and want to embarrass the city.
That was from Peter Worthington in the Toronto Sun on the ninth of this month.
Mr. Dewar seemed agitated about a witness who was here today. I don't know who called the witness. Certainly it would have been premature to call a witness to come before the committee before decisions were made.
You know, Mr. Chair, I feel bad for the witness who was brought here. Somebody took it upon themselves to contact the witness to be here, which is somewhat the cart before the horse, obviously.
Some of my colleagues talked about Toronto being paralyzed. Toronto wasn't paralyzed. I think my colleague mentioned the hospitality industry, talking about it being their economic stimulus package. They did very well. I would say to my friends that when the gay pride parade is on, or the Caribana parade, or the Toronto Grand Prix, parts of Toronto are shut down and you can't move in them. That's fair. Those are big events, as is this a big event.
Now, my friend Mr. Holland doesn't like any of those things, but that's a fact of life. They all bring money to Toronto. From time to time people are inconvenienced. Toronto is a big city. And I would say that the rest of the world had an opportunity to see Toronto in a very good light, with the exception of a couple of people, or maybe more than a couple, who took it into their own minds to act as thugs and break the law.
Ms. Mourani, you did say a few things that I would certainly agree with. Canadian democracy works: it was nice to hear you say that. We agree.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
The other part she talked about was that it's too early to hold these meetings. If you will recall, I said previously, and I'd just like to make this clear, an independent civilian review is being undertaken by the Toronto Police Services Board. Ontario's ombudsman has announced that he will be looking into the role the province played. As I've already mentioned....
To back up a bit, I think Mr. Dewar was alleging that there was a law passed. I'll use the words of one of my favourite cabinet ministers, who said that their premier was now being blamed for some of these issues. You know what? I think the ombudsman will look into those issues, and I think that's appropriate. As I've already mentioned, the Auditor General will be conducting a review.
Are we saying no to this committee studying the matter, as some in the press have suggested? Absolutely not. We're not. But as we've said from the start, we'll remain open and transparent. We will serve Canadians better by waiting until the integrated security unit and others have had a chance to complete their work. We on the government side believe we owe it to the victims of the thugs, hooligans, and anarchists to do this properly, and this means waiting to study the issue once all the facts are available. To do so before that is wasting Canadian taxpayers' money.
I think my colleagues have talked about what it costs to bring the committee together. It only makes sense that we wait until we have all the facts. We might all agree on a number of issues, we may disagree on some, but you know what? I think that if we thought about it in a logical sense, we could all agree that we look at this when all of the facts are known. We don't need to go on the hunt on our own. People are out there doing the same thing. Why duplicate it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Mr. McColeman, then Mr. Dechert, Mr. Desnoyers, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and Mr. Dewar.
Mr. McColeman.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Interestingly enough, my colleague Mr. MacKenzie covered off--
Conservative
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Mr. Chair, we're here today based on this motion for a special meeting.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
It is a point of order. Thank you. I'm addressing it to the chair.
What I'd like to know, Mr. Chair, is that it's my understanding... Obviously we've all been brought here and borne this expense. I'd like to know whether we're going to actually have a vote today or whether the Conservatives are going to be allowed to talk out the clock. We only have seven minutes left, and to my understanding there's nobody on the opposition side who actually wishes to speak any more. I just want to make it clear, to find out whether that's what's going to happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
That's actually not correct. My last three speakers are all from the opposition--Mr. Desnoyers, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and Mr. Dewar.
