Citizen Editorial March 13, 2002

Don't cop out on policing

The Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, March 13, 2002

Several times in recent weeks, groups of up to 60 people have crammed into a small room at City Hall to complain about how the Ottawa Police Service handled protesters at the G20 meeting last November.

The sessions were convened by a group called the Citizens Panel on Policing and the Community, comprised of former mayor Marion Dewar, former judge Kenneth Binks, Anglican Bishop Peter Coffin and organizational consultant Jacqueline Pelletier. One by one, people who participated in the November protests have shared their views of police actions that weekend. Some allege that officers targeted people wearing black, or used dogs as intimidation tools, or created a general atmosphere of fear for law-abiding protesters.

Are the complaints valid? It is almost impossible to know, because the official system that should have searched for the truth has failed the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

All we have is a self-appointed citizens' panel, accountable to no one. Ms. Dewar, the head of the panel, admits that her report, due next month, will have no official weight. But when the Ottawa Police Services Board declined to launch an open investigation of its own, the panel was the only alternative, she correctly says.

The police services board, the official city of Ottawa body that monitors the police, should have dealt with the G20 issue when it first heard concerns in November. The board, made up of three city councillors and four appointees, handles individual complaints about police policy, but also can call for a larger review. It didn't.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services can review Ontario's police services, too, using section 25 of the Police Services Act. City council, a police services board, and the solicitor general can also invoke section 25 for a general inquiry. The provincial commission didn't order one, because it didn't get any complaints. Police won't say how many complaints it received, although its board heard from 14 objecters who made presentations a week after the G20 events.

The board's reasons for not requesting an objective investigation are weak. Councillor Herb Kreling, who chairs the police services board, said an open forum would bias the board, making it difficult to review official individual complaints. Councillor Jacques Legendre, vice-chairman, said the board is waiting until the six-month time limit for filing an official complaint is up, and will then see if a larger review is necessary.

This is a cop-out: If they want to be unbiased so they can potentially judge future complaints, Mr. Legendre shouldn't have attended every meeting of Ms. Dewar's citizens' panel, and the board shouldn't look at the panel's final report. But both Mr. Kreling and Mr. Legendre have said they're interested in reading the report.

The police sat in on the citizens' panel meetings, too, and will also read the report. But because the panel wasn't an official process, the police didn't participate, couldn't defend themselves and don't have to follow its recommendations. In fact, the police have already reviewed their own actions in November and concluded, unsurprisingly, that they did nothing wrong.

This is not how the system should operate.

There may have been problems with how the police handled the G20. Conversely, their actions may have been entirely appropriate. The point is, we don't know. Until the police services board fulfils its role and arranges an official, objective review, we're left only with the views of a roomful of protesters.