The second public hearing of the civilian review into Toronto’s G20 policing went down at the Etobicoke Civic Centre. Turnout at the hearing Monday night understandably was lower than the first hearing at Metro Hall, considering it was in a far less central location.
The speakers’ list was only 13 names long, and by the time the hearing began it had been pared down to 11, compared to about 50 last week at Metro Hall. Not to mention there is still confusion about the goal of this review.
Despite the small number, there was a wide spectrum of opinion about the summit, with one speaker drawing boos from the audience by asserting that “the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the worst thing that’s ever happened to Canada.” He suggested that in the future there should be less civilian oversight of the police.
Another speaker, Douglas Johnson Hatlem of the Mennonite Central Committee, vented his frustration over the lack of police accountability. “I’m someone who categorically rejects violence,” he said, “but I do understand the impulse when you see such a lack of civilian oversight.”
The small turnout had something to do with the location, but it’s also partly attributable to the constraints placed on members of the public who wish to address the review. Former Ontario associate chief justice John W. Morden, who’s leading the review, instructed speakers beforehand to confine their comments to the answering the question “what role should civilian oversight play with respect to the policing?”
Snooze, right? If Morden was looking for a question that captured the high emotions the G20 continues to stir for Torontonians, he failed completely. However, it’s important to note that these public hearings represent only a small fraction of the work of the body known as the Independent Civilian Review Into Matters Related to the G20 Summit.
A week after the hearings began, there is still confusion about the goal of this review, and as such expectations are low. Perhaps they shouldn’t be.
Much has been made in the media of the review’s terms of reference, a six-page document in legalese so mind-numbing it appears many reporters haven’t read beyond the first two pages. But a closer look shows 56 separate subjects the review is supposed to tackle, and many of them get right to the heart of what went wrong at the summit.
These issues include whether or not Stephen Harper’s hasty decision to hold the summit in Toronto left the Toronto Police Service with enough time to plan for it, how and why policies like kettling and the so-called five-metre rule were enacted, whether officers violated police policy by removing their name badges, and what led to the fiasco of mass detentions and poor conditions at the Prisoner Detention Centre on Eastern Avenue.
It’s practically a wish-list of questions Torontonians want answered, so why limit the scope of the hearings to that single, bureaucratically stifling question?
“We thought that it was important for these public hearings to be guided by a theme that united all of our terms of reference, and the concept of civilian oversight is that theme,” said Ryan Teschner, who’s serving as review counsel to Morden. “It’s certainly our intent to provide a comprehensive report that explains what occurred leading up to the G20, and what occurred during the G20, and then to look forward and talk about what lessons we can learn from this experience.”
And just as the question asked at the public hearing represents only a sliver of the issues the review is intended to address, the actual process of hearing from citizens is only a small part of the review’s work.
“The media made it sound like these hearings were the launch of the review,” Teschner said. “The review was actually launched at the end of September 2010. Since that time we’ve been working hard to do lots of different types of research on our end, to identify documents of relevance that are in the possession of the Toronto Police, and we’re actually fairly close to making our request for the documents.”
After those documents are reviewed, Teschner says Morden will begin the interview process with members of the Toronto Police Servies Board, the civilian body that oversees the police, as well as Chief Bill Blair and if needed, other members of the force. Unlike the Special Investigative Unit, which is conducting its own investigation into police conduct, Teschner says the Toronto Police have given him their full cooperation. The final report will be handed over to the TPSB, the civilian oversight board that convened the review in the first place.
The reviewers don’t have the power of summons, which means it can’t compel officers to speak to them. Disappointedly, this review will not do much about the culture of silence that continues to protect cops who may have committed abuses of power. Teschner says that’s a job for the SIU and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director. Only a federally-appointed public inquiry could look at the bigger picture of the RCMP’s involvement in the summit.
However if, and it’s a big if, Morden and Teschner answer all 56 questions put to them, we could have a report that has ripple effects to the highest level of government. The very first question in the terms of reference is whether Harper’s decision to hold the summit in Toronto on such short notice put police over the barrel. The prime minister may have something to answer for when the legalese clears.
The Independent Review has been immaculately designed to do, well, something. We just can’t know for sure what it is until we see the final product. Either it’s set up to provide political cover for the TPSB and avoid the tough task of holding the police to account, or it’s wisely left that task to other bodies and is instead going quietly about clearing the acrid smoke that still lingers around other important issues a year after the summit.
Like the head of any public review, Morden has no power to compel government or the police to implement his recommendations, and so it will be up to the public to pressure those in power into taking action on the conclusions he reaches.
The third and final round of public hearings will take place at the Scarborough Civic Centre on Monday, June 13.
