QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PSB

 1: Has the PSB issued new policies or updated existing policies for the police service concerning the policing of major events in the past two years? If so, which policies were they? Why has the Agenda for Excellence remained as a draft and never been formally adopted as OPS policy?

It is my understanding that the ‘Agenda for Excellence’ was accepted by the Board and that it has been implemented. I do not believe that the last question has a sound premise. Acceptance by the Board of the "Agenda" was its response to the events of the G-20. As response to the first two questions, I believe that the subsequent test provided by the G-8 manifestations demonstrated that the OPS had learned significantly from the G-20 and had adapted.

2: How has the PSB played a part in building trust between the police and the community? What else could be done to improve the situation?

This Board member has:

Attended the post G-20 ‘debriefing’ session at St Paul University,

attended many of the sessions which were held by the Citizen’s Panel to hear from those who had participated during the G-20 demonstrations,

attended the public release of the report prepared by the Citizen’s Panel.

At the Board and elsewhere, I have encouraged all rational considered efforts to build trust between the community of peaceful demonstrators, whose rights to express their dissent is uncontested and deserves support, and that of the Police Services charged with maintaining public law and order.

3: More than 200 complaints were made to the PSB last year about alleged police misconduct in Ottawa. The Board found that less than 5% were substantiated.

(a) As the guardian of the population in terms of "policing the police", are you concerned that this low number may create the appearance that the PSB is less than diligent in its monitoring role related to police behaviour?

The Police Services provides regular tabular statistics of numbers of complaints in various categories. I have stated frequently that I find such information singularly unhelpful. Simply put, I can find no way to make good use of that sort of information. Unfortunately, I would make the same comment with respect to this question. There is nothing that I can conclude from the ‘percentage’ information provided in the preamble to this question.

(b) Why did the Board not uphold any of the complaints lodged by November 2001 G-20 demonstrators or hold a public inquiry given the evidence of untoward police behaviour presented at the Citizens Panel on Policing and the Community?

There is no way that I could answer the first part of this question without contravening privacy issues, even assuming that I could remember sufficient details of any one complaint/incident. For the second part, it is simply not in the Board’s purview.

4: Does the Board have any means to obtain independent information about the complaints which are put before it or is it forced to rely solely on the investigation made by the police service itself?

No, the Board has no source of independent information under its control. It has, of course, that information which is available to all through the press, many of whom brought forward allegations of improper behaviour at the Citizen Panel hearings, although I do not recall if any formal complaints were filed by members of the media.

Question
5: The PSB is supposed to provide civilian oversight to the Ottawa Police Service. Yet as noted in question 3, the number of complaints substantiated by the PSB against the OPS is minimal.

(a) Do you think the oversight process can be made more effective?

Yes.

(b) If yes, in what way? What tools or resources are needed to ensure an independent and thorough examination of the complaints from the public?

The Board should have, as a start, a modicum of resources, independent of the Police Service, in order to better fulfill its mandate as an oversight agency. I don’t believe that the Board currently provides adequate resources to itself. One very small example of this was my inability to convince the Board, at budget time earlier this year, to provide resources so that it might have its own web site, its own face to the community as it were. I know that this example is not exactly on point with respect to the complaints system – but it is an example of the Board’s current reluctance at adopting a pro-active stance.

(c) Does the Board feel able to challenge the OPS or does it feel under pressure to show support for the police service?
 

No comment. Any answer must come from the Service itself if it feels free to divulge the information.

With respect to the possibility of disciplinary action, previous complaints (with respect to events unrelated to the G-20 or G-8) have demonstrated that disciplinary action is possible and has in fact occurred. Disciplinary action has included the full range, including dismissal.

7: Although the wearing of identification by police during major events has improved, some officers still do not wear ID? Why is this? How can officers be accountable in the event of a complaint if no ID is visible?

It is OPS policy that officers will wear visible means of identification. It is still possible, with some older protective gear that some instances may still occur where that policy is breached.

8: Although videotaping is much less intrusive at major events (it is now done by plainclothes officers and sometimes at a distance), videotaping continues to be a common feature at major and political demonstrations.

(a) How is the privacy of individuals protected given the omnipresence of videotaping at major events?

(b) The police stated in 2002 that videotape collected at G-8 demonstrations not used in the prosecution of an offence would be destroyed. That was over a year ago. Has this been done?

On this point, I do not agree that people involved in a public demonstration have not voluntarily given up their right to anonymity.

9: In addition to the use of pepper spray, there have been instances where peaceful demonstrators have been tasered. Amnesty International has expressed serious concern about the use of both pepper spray and tasers.

(a) As an accountability measure, will you commit to making public the guidelines for both of these weapons by the OPS? If not, why not?

I don’t believe that there should be any problem with making the guidelines public, if they are not already in the public domain.

(b) Given the concerns expressed by Amnesty International, will you commit to stopping the use of both weapons by the OPS? If not, why not?

NO. Forces of law and order surely should have access to a variety of non-lethal enforcement tools. I don’t believe that society would be well served by limiting the availability of such non-lethal tools. The circumstances of their use must be appropriate, of course, hence (a) above.

 10. In July 2002, a massive police presence at 246 Gilmour St. was used to evict peaceful protesters demonstrating against homelessness.

(a) What was the total cost in terms of police services to evict these demonstrators?

(b) What are the estimated costs of damage done by protestors and police during the sit-in and eviction?

(c) Why was force used to evict the demonstrators instead of the approach laid out in the Agenda for Excellence?

I have insufficient information and time to answer this question at this time.