Meeting of the Police Services Board

Monday, November 26, 2001

Check against delivery

Good evening,

In the post-September 11 world, democratic societies face an enormous challenge. As never before, we must try to balance the interests of public safety and security with those of preserving the fundamental values of democracy.

Events such as the meetings of G-20 Finance Ministers / International Monetary Fund and World Bank Development Committee in Ottawa, this month, illustrate some of the complexities involved in responding to this challenge.

I want to make a few comments about the security arrangements for the G-20 meetings and the way in which this process was managed.

First, I want to be very clear on some basic principles. Freedom of expression and peaceful protest are central to our democratic system. And the same holds true for safety and security - not only for members of the public and delegates, but also for those engaged in legitimate protest, as well as those charged with keeping the peace.

Public security was our number one priority during the G-20 meeting. The approach taken was one of protecting life and property with a minimum of force.

This joint security operation was intelligence-lead. Information from a variety of sources was used in determining a specific course of action at any given moment. Our "measured response" approach enabled us to react effectively to the situation as it evolved. Interventions taken by police officers during the protests were based on reliable information we obtained from several sources. Actions taken were not random and escalated and de-escalated in response to what was happening at the time within the crowds.

I believe that the planning and management of public security for the G-20 meeting in Ottawa was exceptional. And I wish to commend the men and women from the City of Ottawa Police Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Toronto Police Service for their professionalism during this important event.

It should be noted that a total of 12 members of the Joint Security Team sustained injuries during the weekend of the G-20 meeting. This number included one member of the Ottawa Police Service who was struck in the face by a rock. There were also two officers who were injured after protestors released an aerosol substance into the air as police were attempting to re-open streets that had been closed during the G-20 meetings.

I want to remind you that the planning for the Ottawa meeting was done in three weeks. In the short time that was available to prepare for this event, efforts were made to contact some of the groups planning to protest at the G-20 meeting. The purpose of this contact was to exchange information and seek to understand the various positions of these groups. The police took this opportunity to reaffirm support for the right of peaceful demonstrations while letting it be known that violence would not be tolerated.

An example of these efforts was a session mediated by Dr. Redekop of St. Paul University in the week prior to the G-20 meetings. This session, involving police, government officials and representatives of protest groups, provided an opportunity to share concerns and apprehensions.

As for the G-20 meetings, planning was shaped by intelligence gathered from a variety of sources. The security approach taken was based on the principle of measured response, where security personnel make decisions based on the behaviour of the crowd.

The presence of additional personnel from the Toronto Police and the OPP was directly linked to our anticipated requirements, as identified through available intelligence. We took pro-active steps necessary to ensure public security and safety. These steps were appropriate and justified.

I am aware that there are those who disagree with this analysis. Some may point to specific incidents such as a video clip of a police dog appearing to attack protesters.

Like many others, I have seen that clip. But what was not broadcast on television were the events leading up to what you see on the tape.

What is important here is to understand the context of this particular incident. That clip does not tell the whole story. In fact, careful, slow motion review of what was shown tells a different story than what appears to be the case in real time.

Another issue raised involved the seizure of gas masks. Where seizures were made, they were not arbitrary. Previous experience shows a strong connection between those who wear gas masks and those seeking to evade detection or avoid apprehension for criminal acts. Proactive seizure of certain individuals' gas masks was based on evidence of their association to particular groups and other intelligence information. During our preparations we sought and received legal opinions which helped to determine our strategies. The steps taken were not, I repeat, arbitrary measures.

We were heartened by the fact that the City of Ottawa experienced very little violence during the G-20 meetings. But for anyone who may feel that security measures were disproportionate to the potential threat, I would draw to their attention the array of objects displayed on the table behind me.

These potentially dangerous materials remind us that not everyone came to Ottawa to engage in peaceful protest.

Overall however, I wish to emphasize that the G-20 meetings reflected a substantial degree of restraint - both on the part of the majority of protesters and security personnel. In those cases where police intervention was called for, I believe that our level of preparedness and measured response was evident.

This is not to suggest, for a moment, that we cannot learn from our experience with the G-20 meeting. We are serious about honouring our responsibilities to preserve public safety and security.

But we are also serious in our desire to foster more constructive and open communications with those groups and organizations which choose to exercise their right to engage in legitimate protest.

We are reviewing all aspects of the G-20 security operation and will be preparing an after-action report. This process will include consultation with the community at large.

As part of this review and consultation, there will be a meeting tomorrow night at St. Paul University with representatives from various protest groups.

Hopefully, this meeting will form part of a continuing dialogue. And from this exchange of views will come a better understanding of how we can achieve a more effective balance between legitimate protest and public safety.

Mr. Chair, in closing, let me reiterate, we did what we did and I stand by our members. After listening to the presentations this evening, I see an opportunity to consult with and dialogue with representatives from our community who bring another view to the table. I think we can profit from discussions and invite them to St. Paul University tomorrow night.

Thank you.