Were the Toronto police granted extra powers for the G20 Summit, or weren’t they? Conflicting evidence from politicians and citizens caught in the crossfire cause confusion and debate.

Photo Courtesy of Emmanuel Lopez

The G20 Summit in Toronto took place June 26-27, 2010. One day before the event began, the Toronto Star announced there had been an arrest made under a new regulation the province secretly passed on June 2, 2010, providing police the power to arrest anyone within 5 metres of the G20 security zone who refused to identify themselves or agree to a police search.

This amendment to the Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act was not debated in the Legislature and kicked into effect on Monday, June 21, four days prior to the summit. While the new regulation appeared without notice the week before on the province’s e-Laws online database, official public notification in The Ontario Gazette wasn’t scheduled until July 3 — one week after the regulation expired.

From the TorontoStar.com:

“It reminds me a little bit of the War Measures Act,” said lawyer Nathalie Des Rosiers of the new regulation. Des Rosiers is a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which has been working to monitor arrests during the summit. “This is highly unusual to have this declaration done by order-in-council without many people knowing about it.”

The amendment empowered “guards” appointed under the act the ability to demand identification and search anyone coming within five metres of the security fence perimeter. Those who refused to comply to police requests faced arrest and, if convicted under the regulation, up to two months in jail or a $500 maximum fine.

The new regulation also contradicted information distributed in a pamphlet, “Know Your Rights,” by the Toronto Community Mobilization Network offering legal advice to protesters for the G20 Summit. Nathalie Des Rosiers, a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which worked to monitor arrests during the summit, said:

“Protesters would have been told that the law of the land is that you don’t have to talk to police officers if you don’t want to,” she said. “This changes things because even if you attempt to approach, it gives the power to the guard to demand identification. It’s a significant intrusion on people’s rights.”

On June 30, 2010, the Toronto Star reported Toronto’s police chief, Bill Blair, said there was never a 5-metre rule and admitted there was initial confusion from police about their orders. Blair said as soon as the information was clarified, they immediately notified officers of the directive and the appropriate application of the new legislation.

While authorities maintain only one person was arrested under the legislation, anecdotal evidence of citizens attending the G20 protests suggest police, at the very least, overstepped their boundaries. At the very most, they directly contradict the province’s assertion that police “had the same powers before, during, and after the summit.”

Besides the first arrest mentioned above, the Toronto Star reported at least one other instance of police demanding identification and search, and citing the new regulation as justification for the request. Also, four journalists have filed complaints for their treatment while under arrest.

From the TorontoStar.com:

Toronto defence lawyer Paul Calarco said the government is “playing with words.” The police have been given much greater power because they have been given the power to enforce a statute for an area that cannot reasonably be a public work as defined by the statute,” said Calarco. They’re taking microsurgical definitions of legislation to try to say that we have not been violating Canadians’ constitutional rights,” he added. “These are facile justifications on behalf of the government.”

University of Toronto law professor Lorne Sossin told the Star’s Tracey Tyler his concern is the province’s failure to clarify what the amendment covered, why it was enacted in light of existing powers and how it would be enforced. Also, the “failure to publicize the change seems to undermine its intent, which is to ensure those coming near the security zone understood it was to be treated like a courthouse or other public building where additional police scrutiny (such as demanding ID) would apply,” said Sossin.

“The government and the police could not have been surprised that the amendment would cause anxiety with the public and especially those already concerned about the massive police presence in the city. Whether or not arrests were made under the amended authority, this aspect of the security arrangements for the summit could and should have been handled better.”

Here are some of the numbers the Toronto Metro reported on July 6, 2010 concerning the events at the G20 Summit:

• Detained: 1,090
• Released at scene without charge: 113
• Arrested and released without charge within 24 hours: 714
• Arrested and still face charges: 250
• In custody: 16

How do you feel about the law amendments for the G20 Summit and the general confusion surrounding it?