Riot police sweep activists from the streets of Canada's largest city, with Queen's Park legislature in the background. Is this our future?
A Foreward by Doug Draper After months of petitioning and rallies from citizens across Ontario for an independent inquiry into the actions of security forces at last June’s G20 Summit in Toronto, a majority of MPPs voted against a private member’s bill by the NDP for the provincial government to hold one.
Arguing against the bill put forward by Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath and defended in the legislature this November 4 by the party’s justice critic and Welland Riding member Peter Kormos, Toronto area MPP Mike Cole and others in the Liberal government argued that the inquiry should be held at the federal level. It was Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his federal Conservatives who decided to hold the summit in Toronto’s downtown in the first place – a decision Cole and his Liberal colleagues believe set the stage for a possible confrontation between legions of police shipped in from all over the country and citizens gathering at rallies on climate change, trade, poverty and other issues during the late June summer weekend.
Ontario’s Conservative party argued that a public inquiry at the provincial level could be potentially costly. The party’s leader, Tim Hudak, has also argued that if there is any blame to go around for security problems at the summit, it should go to individuals other than the police. “Let’s put the finger of blame where it belongs,” said Hudak in one interview following the summit. “These are professional thugs and hooligans. It wasn’t about protest. It wasn’t about making any kind of political statement. It was about creating violence and property destruction and getting a thrill out of it.”
More than 1,000 people were arrested during the summit – the largest number of arrests during any one event during Canadian history, including the October/FLQ crisis of 40 years ago when the civil rights of all citizens across the country were literally suspended under the temporary invocation of the War Measures Act. The vast majority of those arrested during the summit were released without any charges and, interestingly enough, a few hundred people that made up the so-called ‘Black Bloc’ – a group that made up what Hudak referred to as “professional thugs and hooligans” – ran through streets in the downtown, smashing store windows and burning cars with a fraction of the police force applied to thousands of people gathered around Queen’s Park – supposed “safe zone” during the summit – to hear everyone from Council of Canadians head Maude Barlow to representatives for Doctors Without Borders, the Sierra Club, labour groups and others speak.
For Niagara At Large readers, a text of some of the debate this November 4 over the private member’s bill is included below, with comments from NDP representatives Peter Kormos and Andrea Horwath, Toronto area Liberal MPP Mike Colle, Simcoe North Conservative MPP Garfield Dunlop and others.
We ask you to share your views on the defeat of the bill to hold an independent inquiry in the province on the security measures taken at the G20 Summit in Toronto. Be sure to include your full (and real name) as per NAL’s comment policy, along with your views in the boxes at the bottom of this post.
Excerpted from Hansard
Ontario Legislature, Nov. 4, 2010
G20 PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT, 2010
Mr. Kormos moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 121, An Act to require a public inquiry into government action and spending in connection with the G20 Summit
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Pursuant to standing order 98, the honourable member has 12 minutes for his presentation. Mr. Kormos.
Mr. Peter Kormos: Today we have the opportunity to debate An Act to require a public inquiry into government action and spending in connection with the G20 Summit. That bill, of course, was tabled in this House on October 5, 2010, by Andrea Horwath. Bill 121 was subsequently tabled by me—it’s the very same bill; it’s the Horwath bill—so as to facilitate its debate here in this House in a timely way.
June 26 and 27, 2010, will forever be dark days, sad days, not just for the city of Toronto but for Canada. I suppose that if the inevitable movie is made or book is written, one might suspect that it would be titled If the Bubble Touches Me, You’re Going to be Arrested for Assault. That video, that shocking and rattling video, has now traveled the world, and we’ve all seen the regrettable image of Officer Bubbles confronting a young woman behaving very peacefully and peaceably and, for somebody my age, in a manner reminiscent of the sorts of protests that we participated in the 1960s and 1970s. But we saw a police officer, with incredible levels of aggression, anger and malice, confront, in a way that was shocking and disturbing, a young woman peaceably and peacefully protesting. It was shocking and disturbing not just for all New Democrats, we in Queen’s Park and those across the province; it was shocking and disturbing for communities wherever you went in Ontario and beyond. Whether you’re in downtown Toronto or whether you were up in Timmins or Sudbury or the Nickel Belt area or whether you’re down in Welland, where I come from, or Hamilton, it was the sort of thing that people spoke to us about on a regular basis as we went to the market squares on Saturday mornings. It was folks who came from all walks of life, and all political persuasions, for that matter, who told us how shocked they were about the response to peaceful protest here in the city of Toronto. It was folks who told us how shocked and outraged they were that a handful of hooligans wreaked mayhem on the city of Toronto on Saturday and that the response, by Sunday, was to arrest over 1,100 people, the vast, vast, vast majority of them without charges, and to detain them in primitive, cruel conditions.
John Pruyn is a constituent of mine; I know him. He’s 57 years old. He works for Revenue Canada, for Pete’s sake. He’s an amputee; he lost his leg in a farming accident 17 years ago. John Pruyn is a peace activist. He was at the event with his wife, Susan, and his daughter. He was sitting on the lawns of Queen’s Park, which so many people had believed was sort of a safe zone—not safe to commit crimes but safe to be removed from any of the fray that was going on out there. He was attacked by police officers, arrested, handcuffed, had his prosthesis torn off his leg, was hauled off to spend a couple of days in the primitive, makeshift, oh-so-Guantanamo-reminiscent holding cells down on Eastern Avenue, and then was released without charges.
We learned about kettling, where thousands of people were encircled by aggressive police officers and held in the rain in what became a cold night—al fresco, if you will. What we’ve never learned is, what was the chain of command? Who was making the decisions? Who was giving the orders?
We learned just recently that over 90 Toronto police officers—we don’t know how many from other police forces—removed their name badges, their identification badges. I put to you, Speaker, that there is only one inference to be drawn when a police officer removes his or her name tag. That is that they intend to do something that is improper or outright illegal. That’s the only inference that can be drawn.
While we can credit Chief Blair with scanning the film footage and discovering 90, one asks, where was the supervision of these police officers out there on the streets of Toronto? I was out there. I saw these police officers. I talked to them. I talked to demonstrators. Where was the supervision of these police officers? Where were the sergeants and staff sergeants, who I know were out there with their police officers, telling their police officers to get those damn tags back on tout de suite, or else there’s going to be hell to pay? Well, they were there, but nobody was telling those police officers to put those name tags back on, were they?
Chain of command: Who was calling the shots? Who were the parties involved? A billion dollars later, a thousand-plus people arrested, illegally in most circumstances, the vast majority of them, and the vicious response of the police by the time Sunday had come around, while the police seemed to be incapable—notwithstanding thousands of police officers on the streets of Toronto, notwithstanding helicopters circling downtown, notwithstanding all sorts of surveillance, including undercover officers—of controlling the property damage that took place along Yonge Street and one, perhaps two, police cars being torched.
The government members, I suspect, will respond by saying there’s a number of inquiries taking place. There are. I look forward to Ombudsman Marin’s report, for instance—but limited to a very narrow subject, and that is the subject of the notorious regulation passed by this government, this Premier, in secrecy, then kept secret, and then misinterpreted purposefully so as to mislead police officers and the public about its effect. That’s the now-notorious five-metre law, which was phony, which was faked. The law was fraudulent. It resulted in people getting arrested illegally. I, for one, would very much like to know whether this was an instance of the police calling government and calling the shots. That’s not how it’s supposed to work in a democratic country. It’s for government to enact the law; it’s for police to enforce it. It’s not for police to have a Premier sitting on their lap like a secretary taking dictation and dictating the sorts of laws that they want for a particular period of time. Sorry for the imagery. I apologize. I retract it. I’ll do one better, okay, Speaker? Too many young people won’t get it, but it’s not a matter of Edgar Bergen having Charlie McCarthy sitting on his lap, manipulating the words that Charlie McCarthy says. This is reprehensible stuff. This is very serious stuff.
1550
The Toronto Star, as you know, just recently wrote an editorial saying, “Public Inquiry Still Required.” The piecemeal inquiries taking place are not going to be enough to connect all the dots, to fill in all the gaps. There are so many pieces of the puzzle still missing. Why, the House of Commons’ public safety committee—I think that’s what it’s called—Vic Toews, the minister, said there was a reason why the locations of Muskoka and then Toronto were chosen for the G8 and G20, respectively, but for the life of me, he couldn’t remember them. I suspect he’d be less inclined to respond so flippantly if he were under oath in a public inquiry. Why a public inquiry? Because a public inquiry, under the Public Inquiries Act, has the power to summons people; has the power to issue search warrants; has the power to hire an investigator; and has the power to, again, require people to testify under oath.
To those who would argue expense, I say, on the contrary, Ms. Horwath’s bill so very, very carefully and neatly outlines the very limited scope here. The interest is to:
“(a) inquire into and report on the decisions and actions of the government of Ontario and of Ontario’s law enforcement agencies in connection with the G20 summit; and
“(b) make recommendations to the government of Ontario and to Ontario’s law enforcement agencies about how to reduce spending, reduce arrests and reduce violence in connection with similar events that may be held in Ontario in the future.”
This isn’t a wide-ranging, broad inquiry; it’s a very specific and clear one, and it’s one that, in all respects, is quite compact. But it’s an inquiry into issues that simply aren’t going to be answered by the plethora of ragtag investigations and inquiries being held now, most of which are not public. A public inquiry, by its very name, has to be public.
People in this province and in this country have lost a great deal of confidence in law enforcement and in their government over the course of the time from June 26 through to now. The only way we can restore confidence—because it’s a very dangerous thing, when people lose confidence in the criminal justice system, isn’t it? It’s a very dangerous thing when people lose confidence in their ability to ensure that the state protects their constitutional rights, isn’t it? It’s a very dangerous thing, and no good can come of it. The only way to restore confidence is to have a public inquiry, one that’s transparent, one that produces the facts, reveals the facts, pulls the layers back.
Good grief, we had OPP involved. Where was Julian Fantino on this matter? We had RCMP involved. Where was the RCMP commissioner on this matter? We had police forces from Montreal and other provinces. Who was supervising them and to whom were they responsible? Why was there the major shift in policing perspective from Saturday through to Sunday? These are questions that have to be asked because the answers are imperative.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?
Mr. Mike Colle: I certainly commend the member from Welland for bringing this forward. I think it’s an important bill that’s before this House. We should be examining this and we should be debating this, because it is a very troubling event that occurred in the city of Toronto, the G20 summit.
The major disagreement I have with my colleague from Welland—he talked about Charlie McCarthy—is that the perpetrator, the one who pulled the strings and orchestrated this whole tragic event, was found to be in the city of Ottawa: our federal government. I think we cannot let them off the hook. They basically foisted this summit, as they called it, on the city of Toronto against the will of the elected members of council and the mayor, who said they didn’t want it, and if it was to be held, it would be held on the Exhibition grounds. That was denied and overruled by the federal government.
The last-minute switch: Originally, if you recall, this was supposed to be held in Muskoka, in Huntsville. The grandiose plan of the Harper government was to hold it in Muskoka. Then, at the last minute, it got switched without any consultation, without any kind of input from the mayor and the council of Toronto. They said, “You’re going to have it in your city. We’re going to establish our parameters here, and we’re going to do it whether you like it or not.” That was the order from Ottawa.
It was their plan, their idea, their showcase. It was supposed to be a showcase for the world. I agree with the member from Welland: It was a disaster as far as Ontario, Toronto and Canada were concerned. It was the wrong place, the wrong time and the wrong approach.
I will not stand here and defend every police action. Some of them were inappropriate to say the least; we can concur in that. But on the other hand, who put our police, the people of Toronto and also the peaceful demonstrators in this untenable situation? Who dictated that this be the theatre for the G20 summit? Whether it was the RCMP who were supposed to be in charge of the whole operation, they were running the show: “We’re running the show. You people in Toronto don’t know what you’re doing. We’re going to have this summit here and we’ll manage it.”
You put people in an untenable situation—in a frightening situation. Certainly the police officers were in a frightening situation, given the hype, given the intense media coverage, given the confrontational attitude that developed. I think that what happened on those two days was really deplorable. But on the other hand, the perpetrators of those two horrible days are not even discussed here; that is, the federal government which, as I said, managed, orchestrated and financed—and we can talk about the financing of this event, a billion dollars-plus that was hoisted on everyone without any kind of acceptance by anybody. “Here is what it’s going to cost. We are going to fund it. We are going to undertake this summit.”
I want to quote from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association: “What is needed is a comprehensive review that can examine the decisions and policies of all of the actors involved in the G20. The G20 was a federal summit, hosted by the federal government, policed by a federal security agency and paid for by federal funds. The federal government is therefore best suited to coordinate such an inquiry….”
As the member from Welland said, there are ongoing investigations being done by the Ombudsman of Ontario and by former Ontario Chief Justice McMurtry. There is an independent police review being done right now. Also, the Toronto Police Services Board is undertaking and has commissioned an independent review. I think it would be interesting to see whether the federal government has taken this upon themselves. I know they’ve been doing some hearings in the last couple of days. Again, what they’re doing is, they’re almost as if the federal government and the federal MPs are questioning what we did in Toronto when they perpetrated it on Toronto and, to this very day, ordinary people in Toronto have never been apologized to for what was perpetrated upon them. That’s why we need to hold the federal government to account.
1600
I’m not saying that they’re the only ones to blame. There were a lot of mistakes made by all governments in this case. But the main culprit—and the member from Parkdale–High Park refuses to acknowledge that: that the federal government needs to be held to account here, and I think they should be held to account.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?
Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to rise to speak to this bill today, Bill 121, from the member from Welland.
It has been very interesting to watch this process from the very beginning. We’ve had other G20–G7 summits in our country. Just to answer the previous speaker, that’s a choice the federal government has in holding these events. They’re considered to be fairly national and prominent events that would help the country in the long run. It’s hard to believe we’ve escalated into this. It sounds like the government members are going to blame the federal government. That’s what I take from the previous comments, and it will be interesting.
I know myself that we call for inquiries here all the time in this House. The government never calls an inquiry, and I suspect they will never support this. I think, before an actual inquiry is called, that we should listen to what the McMurtry report says, what the Ombudsman report says and what the internal reports of the police services say. If you look at the history of the Ombudsman, he has never been a really friendly person, in his previous careers, toward policing, so I suspect that any report coming from the Ombudsman will be fairly critical of anything the police could have possibly done wrong.
Up our way, in Mr. Miller from Parry Sound–Muskoka’s riding, we had the G7, and it went off almost perfectly. We can’t be very critical of that. The police did a great job. The leaders went to Deerhurst Inn at that time. Overall, I would say it was a very positive response for that community, for the police services and for all the people visiting from other nations around the world.
What happened in Toronto—I say that a lot of it has to be blamed on the provincial government. We all know that in this House, when we were sitting back on June 1 and 2 of this year, a cabinet meeting took place, a special regulation was passed, and it was somehow put on some kind of a website that we certainly weren’t aware of. I know that all the people who came to this city to peacefully demonstrate had no idea that a lot of those rules applied to them.
I’ve got a copy of the regulation. I’d like to read it into the record, because I can tell you, if you can understand this—you’re going to need to have a few Bay Street lawyers just to follow this, I think.
What it says is:
“Ontario Regulation 233/10
“made under the Public Works Protection Act
“Made: June 2, 2010
“Filed: June 14, 2010
“Published on e-Laws: June 16, 2010
“Printed in the Ontario Gazette: July 3, 2010
“Designation of Public Works
“Designation
“1. The following are designated as public works for the purposes of the act:
“1. Everything described in clause (a) of the definition of ‘public work’ in section 1 of the act that is located in the area described in schedule 1, including, without limitation and for greater certainty, every sidewalk in that area.
“2. The places described in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 2.
“Revocation
“2. This regulation is revoked on June 28, 2010”—meaning, as soon as the G8 is over, this is revoked.
“Commencement
“3. This regulation comes into force on the later of June 21, 2010, and the day it is filed.
“Schedule 1
“Area Referred to in Paragraph 1 of Section 1
“The area in the city of Toronto lying within a line drawn as follows:
“Beginning at the curb at the southeast corner of Blue Jays Way and Front Street North; then north to the centre of Front Street West; then east along the centre of Front Street West to the east curb of Windsor Street; then north along the east curb of Windsor Street to the centre of Wellington Street; then east along the centre of Wellington Street to the centre of Bay Street; then south along the centre of Bay Street to a point directly opposite the north wall of Union Station; then west along the exterior of the north wall of Union Station to the centre of York Street; then south along the centre of York Street, continuing east of the abutments under the railway overpass, and continuing south along the centre of York Street to the centre of Bremner Boulevard; then west along the centre of Bremner Boulevard to the east curb of Lower Simcoe Street; then south along the east curb of Lower Simcoe Street to the north curb of Lake Shore Boulevard West; then west along the north curb of Lake Shore Boulevard West to the south end of the walkway that is located immediately west of the John Street Pumping Station and runs between Lake Shore Boulevard West and the bus parking lot of the Rogers Centre; then north along the west edge of that walkway to the bus parking lot of the Rogers Centre; then west along the south edge of the bus parking lot of the Rogers Centre to the west edge of the driveway running between the parking lot and Bremner Boulevard; then north along the west edge of that driveway to the north curb of Bremner Boulevard; then west along the north curb of Bremner Boulevard to the east curb of Navy Wharf Court; then north along the east curb of Navy Wharf Court to the southwest point of the building known as 73 Navy Wharf Court; then east along the exterior of the south wall of that building; then north along the exterior of the east wall of that building to the curb of Blue Jays Way; then north along the east curb of Blue Jays Way to the curb at the southeast corner of Blue Jays Way and Front Street West.”
If you’re a surveyor, you likely can understand what I’ve said so far.
Schedule 2 is a little bit shorter.
“Designated places referred to in paragraph 2 of section 1:
“1. The area, within the area described in schedule 1, that is within five metres of a line drawn as follows:
“Beginning at the south end of the walkway that is located immediately west of the John Street Pumping Station and runs between Lake Shore Boulevard West and the bus parking lot of the Rogers Centre; then north along the west edge of that walkway to the bus parking lot of the Rogers Centre; then west along the south edge of the bus parking lot of the Rogers Centre to the west edge of the driveway running between the parking lot and Bremner Boulevard; then north along the west edge of that driveway and ending at Bremner Boulevard.
“The area, within the area described in schedule 1, that is within five metres of a line drawn as follows:
“Beginning at the southwest point of the building know as 73 Navy Wharf Court; then east along the exterior of the south wall of that building; then north along the exterior of the east wall of that building and ending at the curb of Blue Jays Way.
“The below-grade driveway located between Union Station and Front Street West and running between Bay Street and York Street in the city of Toronto.”
How you could ever blame that regulation on the federal government is beyond me. That was passed down the hallway here on June 2, when none of us knew it; it was in secrecy. Anybody who was prepared to go and peacefully demonstrate had no idea these rules applied, not any at all.
I’m quite sure that in a lot of cases, the police may not have understood this, as well. As a result of this misunderstanding and as a result of this lack of communication between these government members and this cabinet—that is why a lot of these problems happened. I blame it fully on Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal government. That is who I blame, not Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper paid his way. He paid for the policing costs. He sent the cheque to the OPP and the Toronto police for their costs. It’s up to us to do our job in community safety.
You all know full well that the minister only lasted about three weeks after that and he was tossed out of that job. He switched jobs with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. That’s my understanding of it. I’m not blaming anything on the police. I think the police did the very best job they could. I talked to the police outside this building from the Barrie Police Service, from the Toronto Police Service, from the OPP. They were hot summer days. The last place they really wanted to be on overtime or anything else was in the city of Toronto fighting off demonstrators or being involved in any kind of scuffles.
I think for the government to come out and say that it’s a federal government responsibility is completely irresponsible. This is solely on the hands of Dalton McGuinty. I blame him fully for this. I can tell you, there was absolutely a lack of communication here, and if you do any kind of inquiry or if McMurtry comes out with his inquiry or if the Ombudsman comes out, I hope he’ll take into consideration what happened here.
We could have been notified in this House. Every one of us knew about the G20 and the G8. We were here the week that that bill was passed. None of us knew about it until about June 24 or June 25. So anything that happens as a result of this is, I think—I’m hoping that these inquiries that are taking place will put the blame where it actually belongs, and that’s at the cabinet table of the McGuinty government.
1610
As far as a separate inquiry, I think you’re going to spend money after money after money. I would like to see what becomes of these other three inquiries before I would support another expensive inquiry, because it will be very expensive if we go to a full inquiry. And you know what? We’ve got a $21-billion deficit. I’m not sure we’ve got enough money to afford a coffee at this stage of the game.
With that, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words today and congratulate the member for bringing this to the floor of this House. I think it’s important that this debate take place, and I’ve been really surprised today that after all this, the government members would start up and their message is, “Let’s blame Stephen Harper again.”
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Just before we start with the third party, I remind members to please use riding names and not first names, that’s for sure. Please speak through the Chair so we can have a peaceful afternoon.
Further debate?
Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians deserve answers. Ontarians deserve respect. Ontarians deserve a public inquiry to get to the bottom of what really happened in Toronto during the G20 summit. That is the bottom line. Otherwise, we risk setting a terrible, terrible precedent for the next time a major international meeting takes place in our province. When Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Law Union of Ontario all say that something is rotten in the cupboard, that means we have to clean house.
Over the course of the G20 weekend, as was already stated, 1,100 people were arrested. That’s more arrests than during the FLQ crisis. That’s more arrests than at any other time in Canadian history. That’s mass arrests, with little or no cause. Only 230 individuals were ever criminally charged. Ontarians of every age and background came to express themselves, which is their legitimate right as citizens of this province and this country, and here in Ontario, in Toronto, many of those citizens were denied that basic freedom. Worse yet, some were repaid with arbitrary police action and detention. The government colluded by enacting a secret law that was translated by police into sweeping new powers, the law that was just outlined by the member for Simcoe North.
Yes, there were ugly scenes; many of us saw them. Yes, there were violent confrontations. But there was also peaceful protest and lawful assembly. Some people had just the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Credible journalists and ordinary pedestrians alike reported acts of intimidation and a nightmarish situation of panic and fear. That is unacceptable.
One of the better-known accounts came from Steve Paikin, a very well-known TVOntario journalist, who witnessed democracy take “a major step backwards” during the G20. In a piece published by the Ottawa Citizen, Paikin described “inexplicable behaviour by too many police officers.” One incident in particular left him very confused and, in fact, outraged. Like many journalists just trying to do their job that weekend, Paikin himself was threatened with arrest. Before he could be “escorted” away, he witnessed three police officers punch and elbow Jesse Rosenfeld, a UK newspaper correspondent, when he refused to stop covering a legitimate news story. Paikin called the treatment of “an asthmatic journalist … all of 5’6” tall … missing one kidney” an “unnecessary overreaction.”
I don’t think any of us can forget the incident that occurred at Queen Street and Spadina. The Toronto Star reported that no violence spurred this action by police—no violence. Hundreds of law-abiding citizens were corralled like livestock in the pouring rain. Riot-gear-clad police blocked any opportunity for those people to peacefully disperse. Some were tourists. Some were innocent bystanders. All were left shivering in soaked clothing for over four hours and then released with nary an explanation.
A recent university graduate was caught up in that chaos, and she couldn’t believe that she was experiencing that kind of treatment in Canada. She told a reporter, “My charter rights have been trampled. My human rights have been trampled. It’s shameful.” New Democrats agree.
Deep questions remain about what really happened in Toronto that weekend. The public deserves coherent answers. These answers cannot be provided by the patchwork of investigations that are currently under way. None of the six separate reviews has the mandate or the jurisdiction—or the impartiality, I charge—to ask the fundamental questions.
The faith of Ontarians in the responsibilities of law enforcement, in the accountability of government and in Canadian democracy has been shaken.
We need a formal mechanism for people to share their stories. We need an inquiry with broad scope, binding recommendations and the teeth to subpoena. That’s an important issue, and it was outlined by the member for Welland in his opening remarks. It’s extremely important, the power to subpoena, to compel witnesses and documents on the public record.
One month ago, I introduced a private member’s bill that is going to remedy that wrong, and it’s the one we’re debating right now, the G20 Public Inquiry Act. It will establish an independent commission, empowered to carry out a full public inquiry. It will probe and report on the decisions and actions of government and law enforcement during the G20. It will provide a fuller account of how more than a billion taxpayers’ dollars were spent and whether that money was, in fact, well spent. It will determine whether the basic human rights and freedoms of Ontarians were compromised that weekend in June.
Yes, I think everyone would agree that the G20 was an important global meeting. Yes, visiting politicians and delegations have the right to convene in a safe and secure atmosphere. But Ontarians have a right to gather and voice their opinions, too, even when those opinions are different than the ones of those dignitaries who are collecting for their meeting.
Ontarians have paid very dearly over the years for this right to collectively gather and voice their opinions in freedom without being accosted by law enforcement and police. They’ve had this right since the founding of our province. It must be respected and it must be protected.
If there’s a consensus among all of the parties and all of the factions, it’s that what happened in Toronto during the G20 should never be allowed to happen again. That’s why we need a public inquiry: to put this event in the past. We also need a public inquiry to be able to move forward.
I want to say one last thing, and that is on the issue of costs. This bill very clearly sets parameters not only in scope, as Mr. Kormos mentioned, but it also sets parameters in terms of time frames to ensure that this is done in a timely and cost-effective manner: a six-month interim report and a 12-month maximum duration for the inquiry, to hold the line on costs.
I ask, as I finish my remarks: At what price is democracy and freedom going to be protected in this province?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?
Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 121.
The member from Welland, I believe, knows that I hold him in great respect. His capacity as a trained lawyer is well known. I think his arguments are reminiscent of closing arguments of a case that could be made here today.
I don’t necessarily subscribe to his characterization of the independent review commissioned by the Toronto Police Services Board. The Office of the Independent Police Review Director is directly conducting a systematic review. The Ontario Ombudsman is conducting an investigation. There are numbers of civil proceedings that are being pursued as we speak. We’ve also appointed Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry to lead a detailed review of the Public Works Protection Act.
1620
I don’t agree with his characterization—and he’ll probably check Hansard for this, because somebody else said something that he checked, and I’m sure he’ll check this—as a ragtag group of investigations and, as portrayed by the leader, a patchwork, questioning the impartiality of whether or not this batch of reviews, as he’s calling them, is going to be fair and reasonable. What I want to do is make sure that Mr. McMurtry’s esteem has not been tarnished a little bit by the comments that were being made, in that he will be reviewing the focused discussions on key stakeholders.
My friend opposite is very disappointed that I’m bringing this up simply because I’m not the one who called it impartial. That wouldn’t be impartial. I’m not the one who said it was a patchwork and I’m not the one who said it’s a ragtag operation. I’m concerned that Mr. McMurtry would not be seen as impartial, as being a Chief Justice of Ontario. I honestly believe that he’s going to be doing that work—and he’s going to be including in his discussions the legal community. He’s going to go to the stakeholders. He’s looking for the legal community, the policing organizations, the civil liberties groups, other levels of government, including the federal government, and interested members of the general public. So I hope, as one of my friends from the Tory party, whom I also disagree with in terms of the sole responsibility of the province of Ontario—that we would include levels of government and that the general public will be participating in this.
I also look forward to the Ombudsman’s review. His report is going to be on the very thing that we’re talking about this evening. I honestly believe that the characterizations of what’s been happening here are a little bit rich.
Let me make it perfectly clear, in my position of what I observed. I too agree that we should never have this happen again. I too agree that there were some civil liberties that were removed. And I too believe that there should be some actions as a result of that. The questions I think we should ask ourselves are: What did we learn already, what can we learn further, and where else are we going to show some improvements in this?
Let’s talk about the bill that people are referring to, which precipitated the use of a regulation versus a bill—because twice now from the opposition, it’s been characterized as a secret bill that was passed. We all know that it was not a bill that was passed. The bill has actually been in existence for over 60 years, and it requires the removal of Second World War-era types of security concerns that were established back then to what they are today. I, for one, look forward to that bill being reviewed and improved upon.
The other thing that I wanted to talk about was the characterization that the civil liberties were totally on one side of this, solely responsible for that removal. I hope we would acknowledge that the tactics of the Black Bloc, as I believe they are called, would not be perceived as “civil liberties” to pursue and not have something to do with this review as well.
In terms of the balance, am I defending actions that were taken by the citizenry to be there to protest? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, that’s the part that I am disappointed in. That’s the part that I have been appalled about in terms of the actions. Those kinds of reviews that are taking place right now will take care of that. I would say that the request for an inquiry is a reasonable one insomuch as the timing part of it; I want to see this part of the process finished. Then we can look at an inquiry. I would definitely be open to do that, because they do have their place in our government, they do have their place in our society here in Ontario, and they have their place to help us make a better process for it, vis-à-vis the inquiry in Ipperwash, which was called for and was done.
Having said those things, right now as it stands, I was very disappointed in this Black Bloc process that I don’t support, and I’m guessing that no one in this building does, because not only did they cause their chaos and their anarchy belief, they also dressed in black from head to toe, perpetrated some of the very extreme things we saw happening and then discarded those robes immediately to blend back in with the law-abiding, peaceful protestors, who, I believe, deserve our respect.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?
Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The weekend of the G20 was the weekend that civil rights and democracy died in the province of Ontario, in the city of Toronto, and certainly were put to the test throughout Canada.
This was a black weekend, a weekend when we remember the chant, “Whose street? Our streets.” We remind ourselves of that. I was part of every single day of the weekend, standing with the Tibetans to demand autonomy and freedom for Tibet one day, a prayer vigil of faith leaders where we were muscled and refused to allow to sit on the street that we own the next day. And finally, I came home to Parkdale–High Park to witness the occupation—I can only call it that—of Parkdale. Most of Queen Street was shut down—hundreds of police in riot gear. I personally witnessed people being harassed, handcuffed and kept without notice or charge.
This is unconscionable. One of the screams—and I say it’s a scream—that we yelled in my community, on my street during the G20 was, “We want our police, not their police.” That’s how concerned our citizens were with what was happening in their community.
Certainly Roy McMurtry is an honourable man. We have no problem with Roy McMurtry. We have a problem with the limitations of his inquiry. He is not able to subpoena testimony from cabinet members, and we want testimony from cabinet members. He is not able to subpoena testimony from Dalton McGuinty, and we want to hear from Dalton McGuinty.
Listen, I’m no fan of Harper—far from it—but we have to admit that those across the aisle bear some responsibility for what happened here that weekend, and we want to know where that responsibility started and where it stopped—absolutely.
I’m going to leave some moments for my friend from Trinity–Spadina.
It’s a weekend I’ll never forget. It’s right up there with the War Measures Act—another attempt by Liberals to deny civil liberties to Canadians. This can never happen again.
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?
Mr. Rosario Marchese: My friend from Welland has covered much of the field, but he started by asking who was in charge. The real question for me is, no one was in charge. Why? That is the question.
In my mind, the reason why no one was in charge was because no one wanted to be held accountable. Nobody wanted to be blamed, because blame will come and would come, and they knew it. If we knew who was in charge, blame would be assigned. It was organized confusion, it was predictable confusion and it was systemic.
I remember that within the police force nobody knew who was in charge, but Chief Blair seemed very confident that the five-metre rule was there in the regulation and he seemed to be very clear the day before. The day after, it wasn’t so clear anymore. Lawyers looked at it again. It wasn’t clear. When they called the Solicitor General, he was not available for comment, said the Toronto Star. The cover-up was systemic.
The outrage in my riding was swift. I have letters from three people I thought I would be able to read out of 20 that I got, one from Patrick who said, “Like many others, I feel that a wide-ranging and in-depth public inquiry into how and why the security was handled as it was is essential. Without this, the trust in our police services is undermined and our charter rights trampled with impunity.” I had other letters that I wish I could have read into the record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate? Seeing none, the honourable member Mr. Kormos has two minutes for his response.
Mr. Peter Kormos: Referring to the recent Toronto Star editorial, let’s go down the list. “Laws were changed without public input; the public was misinformed about broadened police powers; unconstitutional searches occurred across the city; excessive force was used to disperse peaceful protestors … more than 1,000 people were arrested, held in an overcrowded detention centre and not allowed to call their family or a lawyer. More than 900 of them had not done anything wrong and were subsequently released without charge.”
Never before have we witnessed in this province such an outrageous and aggressive attack on fundamental freedoms and on basic and clear charter rights. We reverted to barbarism on June 26 and June 27. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the people across would not want some light shone on this sordid moment in the province’s history.
Regulation 233/10 was made in secret. For the life of me, I can’t understand why government backbenchers wouldn’t be as outraged that they were kept in the dark as well, because they’ve had to wear it in their ridings, weekend after weekend.
A public inquiry is the only way we’re going to clear the air. A public inquiry is the only way we’re going to build a system where this can never happen again.
I do encourage people to go to the website torontog2exposed.ca—
Interjection: G20.
Mr. Peter Kormos: —torontog20exposed.ca—it’s an age thing, Speaker. I hope folks will bear with me. Torontog20exposed.ca: There is a movie starring, amongst others, Officer Bubbles. I suspect people will find it most interesting.
Please, colleagues, support this bill. Support this endeavour to nestore some civility and some fundamental freedoms and rights back to Ontarians, and to restore some confidence of Ontarians in their government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It’s time to vote on today’s ballot items. The time provided for public members’ private business has expired.
Following the above exchange, the NDP private member’s bill was voted down.
For another view on this, read Jim Coyle’s column in the November 5 edition of The Toronto Star by clicking on http://www.thestar.com/article/886128–coyle-shining-a-light-on-g20-
(Visit Niagara At Large at http://www.niagaraatlarge.com for more news and commentary on matters of interest and concern to our greater binational Niagara region.)
Niagara At Large 
Good speech, Mr. Kormos. We need this inquiry.
LikeLike