Thank you for your invitation. I am here on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I am accompanied by Graeme Norton.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been in existence since 1964 and is a rights and liberties advocacy agency in Canada. My predecessor is Alan Borovoy, whom you no doubt know. In Toronto, the association had 50 trained volunteers, neutral observers, who circulated throughout the week.
First I will speak in French and then in English. My presentation is divided into three parts. The first part contains the on-site observations that the association made, and I obviously invite you to look beyond the images conveyed by the media to see what actually happened across the city of Toronto. We had the opportunity to obtain evidence and to see it directly.
Second, I will talk
about the issues that this raises for a democracy, about several factual issues that need to be investigated, and about some really fundamental issues in future public security for other large events in the public policy order in Canada.
Finally, I have some conclusions about the need for a public inquiry. We have some proposed terms of reference that we want to circulate to the committee. I want to conclude on that.
First of all, the association had recruited 50 volunteers. We had met with representatives of the Integrated Security Unit in early May to discuss our evaluation and observation program with them. They were aware of the program. We also discussed certain issues that are generally the same in the context of major demonstrations. Among other things, we tried to raise the capital importance of international relations after large demonstrations, such as
“Adapting to Protest”, which was done after the London G-20.
In this report that was issued after an inquiry into the policing of the G-20 meeting in London, the first recommendation starts this way:
The right to freedom of assembly places obligations on the police. The starting point for the police is the presumption in favour of facilitating peaceful assembly. [Certainly] police may impose lawful restrictions on the exercise of the right....
But these restrictions must have a legitimate aim; they must be lawful and they must be necessary and proportionate.
The association's findings, based on the reports that have been submitted to it and on the observations it made during that weekend, were as follows.
We have circulated the summary of our report. It is our view that, despite instances of commendable and professional conduct, security efforts, especially after 5:00 p.m. on June 26 and June 27, failed to come up to the standard of constitutional commitments. Police conduct and actions were at times disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive.
We obviously recognize that the task of police officers was difficult, and we also noted that there were instances of competent and professional conduct throughout the week—and we were there all week. In spite of everything, Canadians are entitled to police services that do not undermine constitutional values. It is therefore essential to investigate to determine to what extent constitutional values were disregarded. How is it that we experienced the weekend that we had? How is it that more than 1,100 people were arrested? We now know that no charges will be laid against 1,000 of them. Consequently, 1,105 individuals were arrested and, in 1,000 of those cases, no charges will be laid. These were therefore innocent people.
I want to move quickly to the fact that throughout our media observations, five of our monitors were arrested in these mass arrests. There was a mass arrest on the Saturday night at The Esplanade and one on Sunday morning that was described very eloquently here. There was another mass arrest on Sunday afternoon at the corner of Queen and Spadina, which has been well documented. Some of our monitors were arrested both Saturday night and Sunday at Queen and Spadina.
I'll just read the quote from our monitor, who, with his partner, was in charge of following the march:
My monitoring partner and I followed the march of about 300 protesters down Yonge Street and onto The Esplanade. A line of police officers dressed in riot gear with what appeared to be tear gas guns formed a line about 300m west of Yonge St. on The Esplanade. The protesters stopped in front of the police line and continued chanting the lines they had been chanting for as long as we had been following them that day: “This is what democracy looks like!”, “Peaceful protest!”, “Who's streets? Our streets!”, and so on. This continued on for about twenty minutes without the police line or the protesters moving, or anything more than chanting and cheering. Then, from the east out of Scott St., a line of police officers in riot gear formed along The Esplanade and marched towards the crowd.
The officers in both police lines began marching slowly towards each other, clattering their batons and shields, and so forcing the crowd together. The police lines stopped when they were about 30 meters apart. The protesters, and anyone else who happened to be on the street or sidewalk, were now boxed in between two police lines, including my partner and I, and three people who had been standing outside of a restaurant, smoking. The protesters chants where more urgent and more often people called out or chanted with “Peaceful protest!” at the police lines. Several times then, and in the time that followed, small groups of officers would suddenly charge into the crowd, grab someone and pull them back behind their line. One protester called out to the crowd to say that everyone should sit down, which many did. The crowd was much more quiet, and we all were waiting. Calls and chants began saying, “Let us go!”, and one protester called out, “Okay, I’ve learned my lesson, I want to go home now!” After an hour or more of waiting like this, an officer announced that if we raised our hands and waited we would all be peacefully arrested. This was the first time we had heard any communications from the police. My partner and I waited for another two hours or so before it was our turns to be pulled from the crowd and arrested.
He stayed in a detention centre for 20 hours. We were unable to call him. His hands were tied for 20 hours, and so on.
This is the testimony. I think you will hear more testimony. It was certainly a sad weekend for civil liberties in Canada. We can do better. These are some of the issues that have arisen.
I want to speak now to some of the larger issues that I think a public inquiry could look at. There are some questions about where the police were, why they were not where the vandals were, why they stayed with the protestors, what orders were given, and why there was dispersement of a peaceful crowd. We were there. We saw that it was peaceful. Was there a miscommunication somewhere? Something went wrong.
Second, I think the larger issues are what I want to discuss briefly. During the G-20 and in preparation for it, I think security imperatives redefined fundamental aspects of Toronto life and Canadian life, without much democratic engagement or discussion and without legal authority.
Space and mobility were redefined. Weaponry was redefined. Privacy was redefined. Policing and criminal law were redefined. Such redefinitions may have been necessary, we don't know, but they occurred without public input and without some legal framework around them. It's not true that martial law was declared during the weekend of the G-20.
The price tag is questioned, but is presented as a fait accompli. Indeed, it is a major issue for our democracy that the security infrastructure is not only costly, but it appears to be immune from any scrutiny or democratic input.
The cost to our liberty, to the freedom of peaceful assembly, and to the freedom from arbitrary detention and arrest and from unreasonable search and seizure are mentioned and presumed necessary. This is dangerous. Our system of government requires that all powers be exercised according to law. The absence of a legal framework for a broad exercise in redefining police powers and space and weaponry is dangerous.
In our report we mentioned the difficulty in how the fence was set up. I think the issue of what the framework is for defining a fence should be looked at in a public inquiry. It's not that people say there shouldn't be a fence; it's how big it would be and who decides how big it will be. Will it be a prioritization where Parliament or some other official can look at and evaluate whether indeed it is necessary, because “reasonableness” and “necessity” are the words that are mentioned in the act? As you know, it's the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.
The only thing we're saying is that the way in which it was done...we may learn from what has happened to indeed ensure that there are some appropriate safeguards ahead of time.
It is interesting that in the design of the roots for protest no one paid attention to what the APEC's report mentioned at the end of the 1990s. In the APEC's report, Ted Hughes, who was then the chairman, said that in establishing the parameter of security, the foreigners are not allowed to be completely immune from seeing and hearing the protesters. Their business must be conducted, they should not be interrupted, but the idea that you can create a retreat-like atmosphere completely immune from looking at or seeing the protesters was described as incompatible with our constitutional law.
I understand my time is running out.
