Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
McGuinty doesn't rue secrecy on G20 law
02/07/2010 11:36:31 PM
LINK
The Ontario government should have done more to inform the public about broad police powers to search and arrest people within Toronto's G20 summit perimeter, Premier Dalton McGuinty acknowledged Friday.
"Some confusion arose, and in hindsight I think that we could have, and probably should have, done something to make it perfectly clear to people," McGuinty said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
He said his government could have "done a better job" of informing people about the temporary, powers-granting regulation the cabinet passed on June 2.
But McGuinty said he doesn't feel he owes the public an apology for what happened during the summit last weekend.
The temporary powers regulation, which will only be published in the official Ontario Gazette on Saturday, five days after it lapsed, became publicly known when a man was arrested two days before the summit for refusing to provide ID to police while exploring the fence around the G20 "red" zone.
Promulgated under the provincial Public Works Protection Act, the regulation designated the fence and public areas within it as a "public work." As a result, police had several typically unconstitutional powers:
- To require anyone entering the red zone to identify themselves and state their purpose for being there.
- To search anyone entering the zone.
- To demand from anyone found in the zone that they prove their authority for being there.
- To arrest anyone refusing to obey these requirements.
In several pre-summit meetings between civil liberties advocates and security personnel, and in interviews with reporters who specifically asked about the laws that would be used to secure the G20, officials never mentioned the new police powers.
McGuinty said Friday that "there were ads placed in newspapers, and a note was put on our website and a note was put on the City of Toronto's website," but he conceded readers wouldn't have necessarily known "what we were actually talking about."
The advertisements did not mention the Public Works Protection Act or any special regulations, nor police's new arrest powers or the penalty for breaking the act - a fine of up to $500 and up to two months in jail.
Mass arrests, random searches
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and others blame the government for confusion over the exact powers held by police during the summit.
Well away from the G20 zone, constables were systematically stopping, interrogating, demanding ID from and searching people in public spaces. In many cases, officers snatched items they found during those searches, including bandanas, scarves, black clothing, goggles, recreation medieval armour and gas masks.
Police also arrested nearly 1,000 people during the G20 and the G8 meeting that preceded it in Huntsville, Ont. Several hundred of those were in mass roundups of protesters, bystanders and media at peaceful sit-ins straddling the Toronto G20 zone.
And it was widely reported and thought that the new, temporary police arrest powers extended to a five-metre tranche beyond the G20 zone. Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said as much in a news conference last Friday, before admitting Tuesday that the five-metre buffer never existed.
The Works Protection Act regulation lapsed on Monday, a week after it went into effect.
It won't necessarily fade into history, though. One of the two people arrested for breaching the regulation has said he will contest the charges against him by challenging the act's constitutionality.
Crown lawyers could obviate that challenge, however, by dropping the charges.
With files from The Canadian Press
======================================================================
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Toronto G20 Security, road closures, fence perimeter and your rights!
Saturday, 26 June 2010 07:44
Written by Glen Allen
LINK
Today we learned that the police standing guard outside the G8 and G20 summits have been granted special temporary powers by legislation that was passed by Ontario's cabinet on June 2nd, 2010 without debate. These powers will only last for the seven days around the time of the summit and are set to expire on June 28th. The laws require anyone that approaches within 5 metres of the security fence to supply security personnel with identification, submit to a search and explain why they are in the area. If they refuse to co-operate, they can be arrested and fined up to $500 and cold face up to 2 months in jail.
The regulation was passed under the province's
Public Works Protection Act; the cabinet responded to an "extraordinary request" made by Toronto's Police Chief Bill Blair. The 5 metre buffer zone is being used to protect the fence itself since the police want to ensure that no one has an opportunity to pull down the fence that is being used to separate the world's VIPs from the unwashed masses of Canadian society. I'd like to know who came up with the seemingly random distance of 5 metres since it appears nowhere in the Act. What happens if you stand precisely 6 metres from the fence; are you in violation of the Act? The Act also refers constantly to "public works". If you live in a condo that you own within the secure zone but require access through a publicly owned street, does the law still apply in the same fashion since the condo is obviously privately owned? If I thought that the fence was actually there to protect the VIPs from terrorists, I would feel somewhat differently but I believe that it exists solely to keep the "small people" (us) away from the "important people (them).
From the Public Works Protection Act, here is the pertinent section about identifying yourself. Remember, don't leave home without it (your wallet that is)!
Powers of guard or peace officer
3.A guard or peace officer,
(a) may require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise;
(b) may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work or a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger; and
(c) may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 3.
Here is the pertinent section about the penalties for disobeying your local security official:
Refusal to obey guard, etc.
5.(1)Every person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction made under this Act by a guard or peace officer, and every person found upon a public work or any approach thereto without lawful authority, the proof whereof lies on him or her, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two months, or to both.
Arrest
(2)A guard or peace officer may arrest, without warrant, any person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction of a guard or peace officer, or who is found upon or attempting to enter a public work without lawful authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 5.
What I found interesting was flipping through the pages of comments posted by online readers following the articles in the online versions of the major Canadian newspapers (
Globe and Mail,
Toronto Star,
National Post). It seemed that there was about a 50;50 split between those that thought the law was a good idea to maintain control over the "protesting hoodlum element" and those that thought that the law was a very bad idea and that it infringed on the rights of people to pass freely through the society. I also took into account the "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" that other readers use to rank comments made. I had actually expected a far stronger anti-legislation movement than there appeared to be. I'm not certain whether readers responses in favour of the use of this legislation reflects the movement of Canadian society to the right, people's frustration with the hooligan element who actually negate the power of protests by legitimate interest groups or that it just reflects the nature of Canadians that take the time to post their feelings online.
On a personal note, I'm totally against the use of this legislation in this particular case, unfortunately, the powers that we have elected "democratically" seem helpless in the face of a few thugs who may cause problems for the rest of society. It's kind of like being back in junior high when the teacher threatened detentions for the entire class for the misdeeds of one or two students. We are all being tarred with the same brush whether we are guilty or not. One thing I do think; the implementation of this legislation for the duration of these summits should have been made public long before today. That is the least that our elected officials could have done for those who voted them into positions of power. We deserve to know exactly what you are doing on our behalf.
=====================================================================
It might be noted that Union Station, as did numerous other public infrastructure, already fell under this legislation, before temporary measures were put into place.
