This is the second report of the Ottawa Witness Group and concerns our activities from July 2002, when we reported on the policing of G-8 events in Ottawa, to October 2003. During this time the OWG has attended numerous demonstrations and engaged in many related activities. They include:

• meetings with the Ottawa Police Services Board (OPSB) and police liaison personnel, demonstrators, the media and those interested in policing in the community;
• sponsoring a public teach-in at Saint Paul's University; and
• canvassing of 2003 municipal election candidates through a questionnaire concerning the policing of major events in Ottawa and police accountability to the community.

• To report on the performance of the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) at major events since July 2002, indicating improvements as well as concerns regarding this performance (pages 1 - 6).
• To release the results of the September 2003 questionnaire sent to all candidates in the municipal election concerning the policing of major events in Ottawa (pages 6 - 7).
• To discuss the role of the Ottawa Police Services Board (OPSB) and concerns about its role as a civilian overseer of the police (page 8).

However, improvements in the policing of major events since the November 2001 G-20 and June 2002 G-8 demonstrations have unfortunately been offset and the rebuilding of trust eroded by certain police actions at demonstrations since April 2003, particularly the gratuitous arrests of activist leaders, questionable bail conditions, and the use of tasers against peaceful protesters. The OWG recommends that such actions not be employed in future due to their negative effect on the relationship between police and demonstrators.

While we are encouraged that, since our first report, more officers at demonstrations wear identification, and videotaping is less intrusive, our concern about the overwhelming use of pepper spray has not been addressed by making guidelines for the use of this weapon public.

Twenty percent of candidates responded to the OWG municipal election questionnaire. Highlights of a survey of responses included the following findings, that the majority would:

• support efforts to establish a more independent and objective complaints process. They would urge the provincial government to change the legislation mandating the process.
• like to see third-party complaints of police misconduct allowed in Ontario.
• seventy-five percent would make public the guidelines for the use of pepper spray and tasers, but would not ban the use of these weapons by police unless better alternatives are found.

Candidates' views are important since three seats on the Police Services Board are filled by members of Ottawa City Council.

The OWG appeared before the OPSB in September 2002 to present its report on the policing of G-8 events. The experience proved disappointing: OWG members do not believe their concerns regarding the policing of major events were taken seriously. It is up to the Police Services Board to protect citizens; a Board that does not challenge the police service is not doing its duty to the community.

This report also contains seven recommendations on the policing of major events in Ottawa (page 9) and four appendices (pages 10 - 14).
Back to top

The Ottawa Witness Group was formed in early June 2002 out of concern over aggressive police behaviour toward peaceful protesters during G-20 demonstrations in Ottawa in November 2001. (For background, see The Citizens Panel on Policing and the Community: Overview Report and Recommendations, May 2002. Available at: http://members.rogers.com/citizenspanel.)

Witnesses participated in G-8 events as observers to protect the rights of protesters and to hold police accountable during these protests. While the policing of G-8 demonstrations was improved, there were also concerns. (See Appendix 1 for a summary of the OWG report. The full report is available on the first OWG website under "Reports".)

Since then, Witnesses have attended numerous demonstrations to monitor and report on how police have dealt with dissent, in particular during political and homelessness demonstrations. Witnesses have also engaged in a variety of other activities, including:

• meetings with the Ottawa Police Services Board and police liaison personnel, demonstrators, the media and those interested in policing in the community;
• sponsoring a public teach-in at Saint Paul's University; and
• canvassing of 2003 municipal election candidates through a questionnaire concerning the policing of major events in Ottawa. (See Appendix 2 for a complete list of activities.)

• To report on the performance of the Ottawa Police Service at major events since July 2002, both in terms of what the police have done well and also concerns regarding their performance.
• To release the results of the September 2003 questionnaire sent to all candidates in the municipal election concerning the policing of major events in Ottawa.
• To discuss the role of the Police Services Board and concerns about its role as a civilian overseer of the police.

The policing of these events reflected a more co-operative and less confrontational approach than those employed during both the G-20 and also G-8 protests. For example:

• In contrast to anti-war demonstrations in other cities and to the approach police took during G-20 protests in Ottawa, tactical units with police in riot gear were not automatically deployed as a first approach. Instead, police in regular "soft-tact" uniforms walked with marchers as protests progressed.
• Police worked co-operatively with marchers concerning the routes of marches and the flow of traffic.
• Police identification by officers, an important accountability mechanism, continued to improve; more officers wore identification than during the G-20 and G-8 protests, and the display of this identification was more visible.
• During the course of some demonstrations, entrances to various buildings were blocked by protesters. For example, during a demonstration on February 14, protesters blocked a number of entrances to the Department of National Defense as a protest against the possibility of Canadian involvement in a war in Iraq. (The Canadian government had not yet announced its decision not to participate in the war.) Police redirected people attempting to gain access to the building to entrances that were not blocked. OWG members observed several demonstrators thank police.
• During demonstrations that occurred on days of exceptionally cold weather such as the February 14 protest outside the Department of National Defense, police officers asked that the doors to the Rideau Centre on the MacKenzie Building, which had been closed, be reopened to allow protesters inside to warm themselves.
• Videotaping and photographing of protesters occurred during these demonstrations. However, unlike the recording done during G-8 demonstrations when videotape teams shoved marchers, waded into the middle of large crowds, and aggressively blocked the flow of marches at tight corners, videotaping was done from a distance. (Having said this, it is important to note that Ottawa Witness Group members continue to question the need for videotaping of protesters.)
• In general, the comportment of officers involved in these demonstrations was professional, courteous, co-operative and helpful. The Ottawa Witness Group believes that such an approach should form the basis of the policing of demonstrations in Ottawa.

The Ottawa Witness Group believes that MELT's original mandate as a liaison between police and demonstrators designed to facilitate communication between the two groups worked well during these events.

However, at the least conspicuous entrance to the Congress Centre on Daly Avenue underneath the link between the Rideau Centre and the Congress Centre and not visible either from Colonel By Drive or from Nicholas Street, police were not stationed outside the doors to escort conference delegates to one of the other relatively open entrances. At the doors of this less visible entrance, four protester leaders who had stationed themselves outside the doors were arrested. No pre-arrest warnings were given to the majority of protesters sitting at the doors of this entrance.

This lack of warning effectively gave the appearance of "snatches" to these arrests such as those that engendered distrust of the police in after G-20 and G-8 protests.

In addition, there were reports from those who were arrested that their conditions in jail were inadequate (for example, dirty cells, exposure to cold and questionable circumstances surrounding the opportunity for detainees to sign releases).

Charges against the four activists were later dropped by the Crown.

In a letter to MELT officers on May 6, the OWG outlined its concerns regarding the apparent effort to arrest activist leaders and recommended against this approach. "Such an approach seems to us to be counterproductive, and likely to further alienate the activist community with whom the police can build relationships."

The OWG attempted to organize a meeting with MELT, activists and Witnesses to discuss the circumstances surrounding these arrests and their impact on the relationship between protesters and police. However, activists declined to meet with police. Instead, OWG members met with members of MELT in July to discuss this situation. OWG members noted to MELT the view of some activists that the unit has become an intelligence-gathering function of the police as opposed to a communication mechanism. MELT officers maintained that they were committed to open and transparent communication.

OWG notes that at the demonstrations against security certificates on October 31 at the headquarters of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, four protesters were arrested while engaging in civil disobedience. MELT attended this demonstration. In contrast to the arrests described above, clear warnings were issued and this action was completed calmly. The OWG advocates this model be employed.

On August 22, Mr. Mike Ejainek, Director of Traffic and Parking Operations with the City of Ottawa, stated in the Ottawa Citizen that the city "can't prohibit demonstrating if it's done in a lawful manner." ("Mayor, police at odds over sit-in protest". This article characterized the protest as a "political hot potato" between police and the Mayor's office.) Sgt. John Lamothe of the Ottawa police also stated in this same article that police visited the site at least four times a day, but no one has been seen engaging in a criminal act.

Given this statement, it begs the question why demonstrators were evicted, their leader arrested and their property seized.

In an August 30 article in the same newspaper, Sgt. Lamothe stated that the removal of the protesters' belonging was not prompted by an order but rather a municipal mandate to clean the underpass twice instead of once a week. ("Camping protesters kicked out") This is of interest given that this site has had homeless individuals reside there on and off for several years.

Police also stated in the August 30 article that protesters "intimidated" passersby so they had to be evicted for public safety reasons. Sgt. Monique Ackland said in the same article that the police had shown "tolerance" toward the demonstrators but "we will not let them sleep there anymore . . . they do not have the right to demonstrate." In contrast, Councillor Elizabeth Arnold stated in the August 22 article in the Ottawa Citizen that she had visited the site and never experienced any problems. She stated that "I support protesters' right to protest."

During the public Teach-in sponsored by the Ottawa Witness Group, Jane Scharfe recounted her experiences with police and discussed the issue of cleaning in particular. "They tried to do everything they could to interfere. . . Bottom line is, we don't have the freedom to exercise our right to protest in Ottawa." (Also cited in "Police board 'begs for a third party', Ottawa Citizen, October 5, available on the OWG website under "Background Documents".)

Later in the evening, police broke up the occupation. Amnesty International characterized the police response as "clearly disproportionate force", observing that the testimony of both the victims and other people who were present, and the burn marks on the bodies of a number of them, indicate that the police beat the demonstrators and used Taser guns repeatedly." (Press release, June 4, 2003)

Outside the building, members of the Ottawa Witness Group observed demonstrators supporting those inside also being subjected to Tasers by police — one after he was handcuffed and on the ground, and another who was nowhere near the police but was approached by an officer who fired directly into her breast.

In 1999, Amnesty advocated that the use of all electroshock weapons, including tasers, "should be suspended pending a rigorous inquiry into their use and effects." ("United States of America: Cruelty in Control; The Stun-Belt and Other Electro-shock Equipment in Law Enforcement," AMR 51/54, June 8, 1999. (http://www.amnesty.ca/library/1999/7amr5154.htm) Given this recommendation, the use of tasers raises troubling questions. OWG has requested OPS guidelines on the use of tasers and has been told it is not available. We believe these guidelines should be made public, as should guidelines on the use of pepper spray.

After the G-20 protests, the Police Services Board declined citizens' requests to hold a public inquiry into the aggressive police response to this demonstration, stating that demonstrators could file complaints if they took issue with the treatment accorded to them. A number of people did file complaints, only to have them rejected. (Over 60 people appeared before the Citizens Panel on Policing and the Community to testify about what happened to them during the G-20 events. This testimony is available on the Citizens Panel website noted on page 1.)

In 2002, more than 200 complaints were made concerning police behaviour. Less than five percent were substantiated. In his response to the OWG municipal election questionnaire, Councillor Alex Cullen noted that "while we have a good police force, it is hard to believe that it is 95% perfect all the time." (See section III)

As Councillor Cullen stated at the OWG public Teach-in at Saint Paul's University on October 4: "There's no escaping the fact that it's police judging police. It begs for a third party to validate this process." Some complaints may be referred for investigation to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, however, this body is staffed with many former police officers.

The Ottawa Witness Group strongly advocates three measures concerning the complaints process:

• An audit of the OPS complaints process along the same lines as the performance audit of the complaints process for the Toronto Police Service completed in August 2002. (This is available on the OWG website under "Background Documents".)
• A third-party to hear and judge complaints.
• And the ability to lodge third-party complaints. This is currently not allowed in Ontario under the Police Services Act, the only Canadian jurisdiction where this is the case.

• raise the awareness of all candidates about policing issues;
• obtain the views of all candidates about policing issues and have their views on the public record as a matter of civilian oversight and accountability for policing; and
• raise public awareness about policing issues and advance public discussion.

In response to requests from a number of candidates for further information about the questionnaire and also requests by some candidates to meet with the Ottawa Witness Group, we invited all candidates to a meeting on October 14. Five candidates attended this meeting: two mayoralty and three councillor candidates, including one incumbent.

Responses to the questionnaire have been posted on the Ottawa Witness Group website under "2003 Municipal Questionnaire".

The following is an assessment of the replies received by the Ottawa Witness Group questionnaire. It highlights the most positive responses to the issues raised in the survey and draws attention the candidates who demonstrate the greatest interest in improving municipal services related to policing of major events and achieving a more effective complaints process.

Of these, 15 replied with detailed information. This response rate of 20% compares well with the average for postal surveys.

During the course of a campaign there are numerous demands on a candidate’s time. Since the Ottawa Witness Group believes that policing services and processes are fundamentally important to citizens, members very much appreciate the attention paid by these candidates to the questionnaire. Members encourage citizens to visit the OWG website to read candidates' detailed replies.

Some candidates did not complete the questionnaire but gave brief statements of their views, values and platforms. These are also posted on the OWG website.

A special questionnaire was sent to the two members of the Police Services Board who are running for re-election. The Chair, Herb Kreling (Ward 1) did not reply. Jacques Legendre (Ward 13) gave a very informative response. Mr. Legendre has been a strong advocate on the Board and has spoken out courageously on accountability issues. Mr. Legendre reflects in his responses, and in the actions in his tenure on the Board, a serious commitment to providing the oversight which is a key function of the PSB.

Some highlights from the survey:

• demonstrated a strong concern for the rights and freedoms of the public.
• indicated that they understand the need for the Police Services Board to act independently to protect the public in maintaining standards of police conduct.
• expressed a willingness to work to change the restrictive complaints process in the interests of both the citizens and dedicated police officers.

Civilian oversight is critical to police services because of the use of force. The public has turned over significant powers to the police in return for their enforcement of the laws citizens have all agreed to live by. While Ottawa generally enjoys very good policing, these powers can be abused if not rigorously monitored, as the G-20 experience illustrated.

Given the current complaints process, and since the police determine the tactics and force to be used against citizens and then investigate their own conduct, the PSB is obliged to help protect the public from police excess. A strong watchdog function ultimately gives more credibility to the police service, and supports those officers who consistently maintain high standards of professional conduct.

The Board is required to do more than approve budget items. It must set the policies for the conduct of policing and it is the eyes of the community when police misconduct is alleged. Although there are municipal councillors on the Board, City Council has no direct authority over the police. While there is provincial legislation governing police services, the provincial government is even further away. It is up to the Police Services Board to protect citizens; a Board that does not challenge the police service is not doing its duty to the community.

The Ottawa Witness Group appeared before the PSB in September to present its report on the policing of G-8 events. The experience proved disappointing: OWG members do not believe their concerns regarding the policing of major events were taken seriously by the PSB. Police also alleged that Witnesses "interfered" with police work, a claim never substantiated. (See the OWG letter to PSB Chair Herb Kreling and his response on the Group's website under "Background Documents".)

There have been real improvements in the policing of major events since the November 2001G-20 protests. In particular, the policing of anti-war demonstrations over this past winter proved successful. The police approach to these demonstrations was professional, courteous, helpful and co-operative.

While improvements in the policing of major events have occurred since November 2001, unfortunately, this progress has been marred and the rebuilding of trust eroded. This has happened because of regressive policing choices that have been employed since April 2003, including the arrests of activist leaders and the use of tasers against peaceful protesters. The OWG recommends that such actions not be employed in future due to their reciprocal negative effect on the relationship between police and demonstrators.

In 2004, the OWG will continue to pursue its mandate of police accountability to democratic standards of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in demonstrations. The Group will engage in several initiatives concerning legislative and regulative change, lobbying different levels of government, communications projects and outreach events.