Public Safety Committee on Dec. 1st, 2010

[Supt Brian Adams]

Chief Blair, yes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Blair said that a warrant would have been required, but that he didn't have one. This is what he told us on November 3. In answer to my question about the reason why all charges against people arrested in that gymnasium had been dropped, Mr. Blair said that the court had decided that the officers did not have the warrant required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Mourani, just one moment.

Mr. MacKenzie, on a point of order.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I don't believe that's exactly what Chief Blair said. I think there was a discussion about it, and if you were to go back to the record, that's not exactly what he said.

I know that Madame Mourani has said that in the past, but I don't think he said that a warrant would have been requested. They had the grounds to go in, and I think there--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Mourani, I do admit that you did not use a quote. You may want to clarify a little bit more.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very clear, and I can read. On November 3, Mr. Blair said and I quote:

The Crown and the court determined that the circumstances of that arrest required what is called a Feeney warrant and that the police didn't have the appropriate warrant to make those arrests.

I think I can read and it is written here. So, here is my question. Mr. Blair told us that the police did not have the appropriate warrant to enter the gymnasium and that those arrests—these are my words—are somewhat illegal.

Is the Feeney warrant something new for the police or is it a warrant that you use rather frequently? Does the police know that it must have a warrant to enter private places, yes or no? Don't you find that strange? I find it surprising.

[Supt Brian Adams]

I'll just try to break that down.

First, is the Feeney process new? No, it's not.

But you're asking me to comment on a Toronto investigation, a Toronto operation. I don't have all those facts. You want me to give you a simple answer. Unless I have all that information in front of me, I can't give you a truthful answer.

I apologize, but the information you are giving me is on a Toronto investigation.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I understand. Very well.

What do you think of this, Mr. Leitold? What do you think of Mr. Blair's comments to the effect that if all charges were dropped, it is because the police didn't have the appropriate warrant to enter that place?

[Mike Leitold]

Certainly the Movement Defence Committee has concluded that people's rights have been trampled upon wantonly by the security forces, both in the weeks leading up to and during the weekend of the G-20. We would opine that this is one more example of a pattern of disregard for the charter protections that people expect in this country. We're deeply concerned by that, and I think everyone should be.

It is exactly for those reasons that we need to get to the bottom of who gave those orders, who made those tactical and operational decisions. I think a public inquiry is the best forum for that to be elucidated.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Then I understand that you favour a public inquiry. The Minister came to see us at the beginning of our study. I questioned him several times about a public inquiry but it didn't seem to be a priority for him. In any case, he never told me that he would be agreeable to a public inquiry. He didn't say anything either about any need to apologize to the people who were completely cleared of all charges after October 15, if my memory serves me well.

Several people came to see me and told me that there were “agents provocateurs” in the crowd. I raised that question with Mr. Blair and the person who accompanied him and whose name I can't remember. He told me that there were no agents provocateurs.

According to the information you have, are they just allegations and urban legends? Were there any agents provocateurs or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Mourani, we're out of time.

We'll move to Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Leitold, you're a lawyer, and in your brief you seem to have covered comprehensively what you say are the rights that were violated. What is your understanding of the right of Canadian citizens to be informed of the charges against them after being arrested? When must that happen?

[Mike Leitold]

It's not only for citizens of Canada; the charter would apply to anyone in Canada. Section 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would indicate that one is to be advised of the reasons for one's detention or arrest immediately upon that transpiring. There's a line of cases that would support this view.

It's distinct, in effect, from the right to counsel, which is to be provided without delay. The right to know the reasons for one's detention or arrest is framed positively and should happen almost instantaneously upon arrest or detention.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

So when Canadian citizens are arrested, they must immediately be given the right to retain counsel.

[Mike Leitold]

That's correct.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

You had some 25 legal advisers, I presume lawyers, who were retained during the course of the G-20 process. Did you hear reports of people who had either or both of those rights ignored? If so, can you give us an idea of the extent of the violation?

[Mike Leitold]

We are concerned about what appeared to be a systemic violation of sections 10(a) and 10(b) under the charter.

To clarify, those rights apply to anyone in Canada, regardless of citizenship. Further, with respect to retaining counsel, we actually hadn't retained counsel. We received volunteer commitments from people to act in bail-hearing settings.

We saw people held at the prisoner processing centre who were not able to contact counsel. In some cases there were extensive delays. These were reported by people who were responding to phone calls. Some people were saying they had been held in excess of a day. Others never knew why they were detained or arrested. Francophones, especially, said they never understood what had happened during the last 36 or 48 hours.

To me, and I think to everyone living in Canada, that is shocking.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want to turn to you, Mr. Adams, as an experienced police officer.

What is your understanding and what are your officers in the Peel Regional Police Force told about their obligation, after arresting people, to inform them of the reasons for arrest? In their training, at what point in an arrest are officers told to make that information known to the person they're arresting?

[Supt Brian Adams]

Sir, I believe you articulated that perfectly. Our officers are taught that right at the Ontario Police College from day one of their training.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

And similarly, your officers would also be told that they had to inform someone upon arrest that they had the right to retain counsel without undue delay? Is that what your officers would tell someone?

[Supt Brian Adams]

Yes, sir.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Sir, you're probably aware that there were dozens and dozens--maybe even hundreds, I'm not sure of the number--of people who alleged during the G-20 process that they were arrested, not told the reasons why they were arrested, and were not told that they had the right to contact a lawyer for some time. Did you hear those allegations as well, sir?

[Supt Brian Adams]

Via what I've heard in regard to this committee and the media, yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Have there been any complaints that any of your officers may have violated those rights, allegations that they had?

[Supt Brian Adams]

Absolutely not.