Public Interest Investigation into RCMP Member Conduct Related to the 2010 G8 and G20 Summits

Concept of Operations

The RCMP approached planning for the G8 (and subsequently the G20) by creating a G8 Strategic Concept of Operations document, which served as the basis for planning and operational management of the Summit. It provided the assumptions under which the ISU partners agreed to proceed for the purposes of planning and providing security during the Summit. These included that the RCMP was the lead agency for security, and that intelligence would dictate the applicable threat level for the Summit at any given time. It also discussed processes including the protection of critical infrastructure, design and conduct of operations, corporate management and finance issues, logistics and business continuity and information technology processes.

Unlike the G8 process, no Concept of Operations document was agreed to by the partners for the G20. While a Strategic Concept of Operations document was drafted, there was insufficient time to complete the document due to the pressing need to continue the security planning process. The RCMP lead planner for the Summits told the Commission that the need to create detailed tactical plans and to outline a structure for command and control amongst the policing partners was more pressing than the formalization of a Concept of Operations document for the G20.

Governance and management structures were also created as part of the planning process, including:

• Executive Steering Committee – an executive level management body which provided strategic direction and championed solutions to issues outside of the ISU's authority.
• Joint Operations Planning Group Muskoka – comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of security partners that created the operational plans and standard operating procedures for the G8, as well as plans for the transition of resources to the G20 in Toronto.
• Joint Operations Planning Group Greater Toronto Area – same as above but with responsibilities for the G20.

Operational Plans

For both Summits, the ISU opted to use a series of operational plans. The plans addressed a specific aspect of the overall security envelope for each of the G8 and G20. For the G8, plans were developed by an integrated team of security partners. For the G20, police partners crafted their own operational and logistical plans with the intent that they would complement each other. According to the RCMP lead planner, the decision to have the security partners develop their own plans was made because of time constraints and jurisdictional issues. Although the G20 planning process was not integrated^{Footnote 47} to the degree it was for the G8, in an interview with the Commission, a Toronto Police Service deputy chief explained that the Toronto Police Service and RCMP G20 planners met regularly to ensure proper coordination.

The Commission reviewed the RCMP's operational plans for both Summits, as well as the Toronto Police Service operational plan for the Public Order Units (POUs).

Summits Command Structure

Unified Command Centre – Greater Toronto Area

Text Version

Unified Command Centre – Greater Toronto Area

The G20 command structure included key Command and Control Centres: the Unified Command Centre (UCC) was the highest level of command, followed by the Toronto Area Command Centre (TACC) at the tactical level, and the Major Incident Command Centre at the jurisdictional level. The various site commanders reported to their respective Command Centres.

The approach taken to the command structure for both Summits was predicated on the Incident Command System, as outlined in Appendix F, which essentially contemplates three levels of command: tactical, operational, and strategic. The Command and Control document set out the unified command structure for the Summits:

... Unified command provides all agencies ... with geographic or functional jurisdiction for an incident, the opportunity to manage the incident by establishing a common set of objectives and strategies. Agencies ... will not relinquish their authority, responsibility, or accountability but will contribute to the command process by determining overall objectives, planning jointly for operational activities while conducting integrated operations and maximizing the use of all assigned resources.

Accordingly, security during the events was managed and coordinated through a series of command centres. When the Summits began, most of the members of the ISU transitioned from their planning roles into operational roles. For example, the RCMP member who had served as the Federal Security Coordinator in the planning phase became the UCC Commander during the operational phase.

The UCC was identified in the Command and Control document as:

... the highest level of command and control for the G8 and G20 Summits. It will be comprised of Commanders from all participating agencies/departments/services/forces. The RCMP Incident Commander will assume the role of the overall Commander.

According to the Concept of Operations, the role of the UCC was to coordinate all major security requirements during the Summits. It included representatives from all security partners and other essential supporting agencies. The security partners did not relinquish authority, responsibility or accountability.

The UCC was specifically responsible for:

• strategic communication;
• coordination and requests for additional police resources;
• air incursion/incidents;
• deployment of air and aviation assets;
• Internationally Protected Persons air transport coordination;
• Internationally Protected Persons motorcade coordination; and
• Internationally Protected Persons evacuation.

The UCC had three RCMP incident commanders, two on the day shift and one on the night shift. These members were experienced incident commanders, most recently having worked at the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

The Commission reviewed the scribes'^{Footnote 48} notes for all three UCC incident commanders and interviewed the senior day Commander, who had also assumed the role of Federal Security Coordinator during the planning phase. The scribes' notes in particular confirmed that the UCC was aware of ongoing events; received regular intelligence from the JIG; was in direct contact with the Muskoka Area Command Centre (MACC) and the Toronto Area Command Centre (TACC); and provided direction to the MACC and TACC commanders where necessary and appropriate. The UCC did not have direct contact with the Toronto Police Service's Major Incident Command Centre (MICC), in keeping with the Summit Command and Control document.

The MACC, which reported to the UCC, was located in Huntsville and was the Command and Control Centre for the G8. The RCMP was in command and the relevant security partners were represented. The MACC's role was to coordinate security issues pertaining to the G8, such as motorcades, with the police partners located in the UCC (depending on the seriousness of the issues involved). Given that the focus of the Commission's investigation was primarily the G20 Summit, MACC commanders were not interviewed.

The TACC, which served as the Command and Control Centre for the G20 operation, was located at the Toronto Pearson International Airport. The TACC, which was also commanded by the RCMP, was tasked with coordinating security issues pertaining to the G20, such as motorcades, with the UCC and local police partners. As stated in the ISU G20 operational plan: "It [the TACC] supports local operations to coordinate and provide leadership under the direction from the Unified Command Centre . . . ." The TACC included representatives of the RCMP, the Peel Regional Police, the Toronto Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Canadian Forces.

In particular, the MACC and the TACC were responsible, within the established inner controlled zones (the Controlled Access Zone and Restricted Access Zone) for, among other things:

• marine operations;
• consequence management;
• chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and enhanced explosives management;
• deployment of POUs; and
• Emergency Response Team / Tactical Team deployment.

In addition to the UCC, the MACC and the TACC, security coordination for the G20 included the MICC at Toronto Police Service Headquarters in Toronto. Under the Toronto Police Service's command, the MICC coordinated the response to policing issues within the City of Toronto. The MICC was responsible for the same items as the TACC and the MACC, but within the outer fenced area (the Interdiction Zone) and the larger City of Toronto. As noted in the Toronto Police Service After Action Review:

The MICC was the central point of command, control, communication and information for the [Toronto Police Service]. The MICC Incident Commander had a full perspective of all resources under the command of the [Toronto Police Service] and tactical control of those resources in his function of ensuring the safety and security of the public in all areas of Toronto outside of the RCMP protected zones.^{Footnote 49}

The RCMP had two senior members (superintendents) assigned to the MICC as liaison officers (one on day shift and one on night shift). Their role was to support the Toronto Police Service and to communicate relevant information between the MICC and the TACC. Both members stated during their interviews with the Commission that they were not part of any command decisions made by the Toronto Police Service Incident Commander in the MICC, nor were they consulted on operational matters. However, the RCMP liaison officers were part of the regular briefings in the MICC. This was confirmed by a review of the members' scribe notes and in interviews. The RCMP also had a public order liaison officer in the MICC to assist with the coordination of tactical troops.

The Commission was informed that the MICC was not initially part of the RCMP's G20 plans, but the Toronto Police Service opted to have their own command centre to control operations in the city. Some RCMP planning officers interviewed by the Commission expressed their belief that the MICC was not necessary and that the extra layer of command created confusion among the police officers on the ground. This was echoed by a small number of individuals who responded to a questionnaire provided to security partners after the Summits, including tactical troop commanders. When asked by the Commission about the MICC, the ISU Lead commented:

I would have preferred to have one command centre. That would have been my preference, you know, as we had in Huntsville. One command centre is an easier animal to control. The Toronto Police felt strongly about having their own command centre... .That was an operational decision on their [Toronto Police Service] part. Being the police service of jurisdiction, they decided that the way to do it would be to have their own command centre ... It really wasn't for us [the RCMP] to say otherwise ... .

It is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission to review Toronto Police Service plans, including the role of the MICC. As previously noted, such issues fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

Each police partner maintained representatives and/or liaison officers in the command centres and there were regular briefings throughout the operations. In addition, connecting each of the centres was an electronic situation board (sitboard) on which occurrences and information were posted to allow persons in each of the other centres to see at a glance the issues arising. The postings were entered as soon as possible; while information was not posted in real time, it was kept current.

Decision-Making

To facilitate decision-making and to ensure that all partner agencies knew which agency held primary responsibility and that appropriate notifications of decisions were made in a timely manner, the ISU planning group created a responsibility assignment matrix as well as a decision-making matrix. The RCMP's After Action Report described the responsibility assignment matrix as follows:

A fundamental document to any project is the [responsibility assignment matrix]. This document at the high level shows project function for which organizations are Responsible, Accountable, Consulted or Informed and at the lowest level individual names can be assigned to tasks to indicate a working [Responsible, Accountable, Consulted or Informed].

The decision-making matrix took the form of a chart that indicated the level(s) at which decisions could be made and which other levels were to be informed of those decisions. For situations in which operational decisions needed to be made quickly, the authority to decide was provided to the operational commanders at the relevant sites, who would have the closest perspective on what was occurring. The more serious the decision, the more authority would be required. The determination of the level of seriousness was left to the operational commanders.

The decision makers for the G8, in descending order, were the Executive Steering Committee, the UCC Commander, the Area Commander and the Site Commander. POU commanders, if deployed, were given authority to make decisions with respect to the tactics and equipment to be used during time-sensitive operational situations. A similar matrix was created for the G20, but an added level of Jurisdictional Commander, e.g. the MICC Commander, appeared below Site Commander to reflect the addition of the MICC.

Government Involvement

The Commission also explored the possibility of inappropriate interference in the security planning. A senior government official in the Privy Council Office told the Commission that while security concerns may have impacted substantive preparations for the Summits, the RCMP was never directed to organize its security plan in a specific way. The Commission found no information which would indicate that anything other than legitimate security concerns influenced the planning.

Exercises

In preparation for the Summits, three training exercises were also carried out. As noted in the RCMP's After Action Report:

[For Summit 2010, a] planned and progressive exercise program was created that relied on a layered and developed approach. Each partner organization had responsibility for their specific individual or collective training. At the ISU level, with the assistance of various external agencies and partners, the exercise regime included the Pinnacle series of workup exercises that culminated in an all level of government exercise Trillium Guardian. The exercise program was fundamental to the success [of Summits 2010] and is a critical requirement for preparation and validation of plans and personnel.

In an interview with the Commission, a senior RCMP member commented that exercise Trillium Guardian was very realistic, testing the capacity and response to various scenarios.

According to the RCMP's lead planner, the decision-making matrix (noted above) was adjusted following the exercises. This demonstrates how the exercises helped inform the planning process.

Orientation and Training

Police officers attending the Summits were expected to arrive already trained in the general tasks they were to accomplish, at which point the ISU intended that they be given orientation to apply their skills to the particular environment of the Summits.

Upon their arrival at the Summits, a one-day orientation session was provided to RCMP members and support staff (there were separate sessions for the G8 and G20). At this session, members and support staff were given a handbook, developed by the ISU. The handbook included forewords from the heads of all partner agencies, which set the tone for the security operation and provided an overview of the G8 and G20 Summits. It set out information of use to all police officers during the Summits, including details regarding the command structure, media and communications, legal authorities, Internationally Protected Persons, protests, arrest procedure and first aid.

In addition to the exercises and orientation, efforts were made to provide some specific training as required. For instance, "E" (British Columbia) and "O" (Ontario) Division RCMP members were specifically trained in hand searches in order that they could conduct venue searches prior to the Summits. Some RCMP members who worked with the Toronto Police Service in advance of the G20 Summit also received on-line training offered by the Toronto Police Service to provide some information in respect of provincial statutes^{Footnote 50} and other aspects of security for the G20, such as crowd management, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and enhanced explosives management, incident management system, crowd use of force,^{Footnote 51} search authorities, arrest procedures, and gate management. In addition, RCMP, Toronto Police Service and other members received training from the Calgary Police Service in respect of event monitoring (discussed on in the Event Monitoring Units section).

The Commission was informed that RCMP POUs assigned to the G20 Summit did receive training together with Toronto Police Service POUs to better understand the use of water cannons and the Toronto Police Service's various public order tactics, such as the use of horses. POU commanders also participated in a briefing in Toronto prior to the start of the Summits, as it was expected that they would be re-deployed from Huntsville to Toronto.

Controlled Access to Summit Venues

An issue raised by the CCLA in its complaint was the placement of the security fences during the G20.

As a general rule, security fencing and barriers designed to keep individuals away from a specific location help police manage crowds by defining the areas that the public, including protesters, are not allowed to access, and by channelling or guiding protesters along a particular route. Similarly, security fencing designed to keep individuals safe within a given area, such as a designated protest zone, help police manage a reasonably large crowd with fewer resources, while allowing as much freedom of movement to event participants as possible.^{Footnote 52} This may result in a much smaller police presence around designated protest areas than would normally be needed in the absence of a fence.

While barriers and fencing are regularly used to secure large events, consideration must be given to securing the event while continuing to allow protesters to exercise their rights. Security measures that result in a limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms must be necessary and proportional. As stated in the Commission's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference Interim Report, the police should ensure that "... generous opportunity will be afforded for peaceful protesters to see and be seen in their protest activities by guests to the event ... ."

No security fencing was used at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. According to a report submitted to the Seattle City Council, it was "one of the most disruptive events in Seattle's history."^{Footnote 53} Having witnessed the disruption of policing efforts at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle compared to the relative calm during other similar events, it appeared that the lack of security fencing may have contributed to the increased level of violence. As such, police planners responsible for the 2000 International Monetary Fund/World Bank meeting in Washington, DC, and the subsequent Organization of American States meeting in Windsor opted to construct an exclusionary perimeter fence.^{Footnote 54}

For the 2000 Organization of American States meeting in Windsor, the planners' decision was based, in part, on intelligence indicating the potential likelihood of more than 20,000 to 30,000 protesters attending the event.^{Footnote 55} Accordingly, a six-block area around the Summit site was cordoned off by an eight-foot-high continuous metal fence.^{Footnote 56}

Compared to the Seattle meeting, the Windsor and Washington, DC, meetings resulted in relatively peaceful demonstrations, which may in part be attributed to the installation of fences. These lessons were subsequently used in planning the 2001 Summit of the Americas meeting in the City of Québec, where a 6.1-kilometre, three-metre-high fence was erected to cordon off the entire conference site. The fence itself became the focus of protests and anger, whereby protesters sought to challenge the legitimacy of the fence by bringing it down.^{Footnote 57} It has been argued that the wall was too extensive for police to secure, and that its size alone may have made it a target for protesters.^{Footnote 58}

Based on the unexpected breach of the perimeter in Québec, and the fact that the fence itself became the centre of protest attention, the tactic of using security fences was altered in several ways. Barriers and fencing were built higher, stronger and made more rigid, and they were deployed in a layered defensive system (i.e. with inner and outer fences as backups).^{Footnote 59}

The principles outlined above appear to have been reflected in the decisions relating to the security fences installed for the G8 and G20 Summits. Through interviews and a review of documents, the Commission confirmed that the security fences were considered necessary by the RCMP and ISU planners in order to provide a safe venue for the Summits, both in terms of the physical security of the Internationally Protected Persons and their delegates, and making the most efficient use of limited resources in securing the areas around the various venues.

As determined through a vulnerability risk assessment conducted by the ISU in December 2009, Internationally Protected Persons were protected by a series of concentric rings delineated by fences. For the G20, the "Controlled Access Zone" referred to the areas of downtown Toronto in which the G20 Summit took place and in which most Internationally Protected Persons were housed. The Controlled Access Zone, encircled by a fence, would have the highest level of security and would be accessible only to those with Controlled Access Zone accreditation. A second fenced area, the "Restricted Access Zone" encompassed the Controlled Access Zone and two of the hotels housing Internationally Protected Persons. These two zones were to be the responsibility of the RCMP. Finally, a third fenced area, the "Interdiction Zone," would encompass the Restricted Access Zone, and would be the responsibility of the Toronto Police Service.

Interviews with RCMP and security personnel representing the Government of Canada confirmed that the security fences for both the G8 and G20 Summits were erected for the purpose of providing security as required for the Internationally Protected Persons and delegations. Fences were not erected or moved, nor was the footprint of the secure zones made larger than was necessary, to ensure security. The Commission saw no indication that security zones were created or sized to ensure that protesters were kept farther away from Internationally Protected Persons than was necessary. RCMP decisions respecting the security fences were consistent with general practice and the Commission found no indication that these decisions were based on inappropriate considerations.

Police Presence

The ISU identified the number of police needed to provide an adequate level of security based in part on an examination of past summits, as well as completed threat risk assessments and the development of operational plans. Ultimately, the total number of police and security personnel mobilized for the Summits was approximately 21,000.

In addition to the police officers staffing the command centres and those tasked to the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG), numerous specialized units were also required to be in place. These included:

• rapid response assessment teams,
• quick response teams,
• critical incident response teams,
• explosive disposal units,
• chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and enhanced explosives response teams,
• police dog units,
• marine and dive units, and
• air operations.

To achieve its operational goals, the RCMP temporarily moved several thousand of its members from other areas of the country into the Toronto and Huntsville areas. To maintain security for Summit venues, it was necessary to clear and hold these venues to ensure that no infiltration could take place prior to or during the Summits.

The RCMP in its planning also provided for the possibility of violence in the week leading up to the G20 (which included the time prior to and during the G8 Summit). The ISU planned to allow the downtown streets to remain open to those requiring access for as long as possible before closing them off prior to the G20, but recognized that in the event of violence, it may have been necessary to close the access points sooner. As a result, the RCMP needed to have in place the resources to close these access points and keep them secure pending the arrival of the Internationally Protected Persons and delegates.

In this regard, RCMP members from British Columbia were tasked with conducting site searches in both Summit locations. These members arrived nearly a week in advance of the Summits. Once the searches were complete and the sites secured, these members would not have been engaged until the G8 began. As such, in June 2010, the RCMP and the Toronto Police Services Board entered into a memorandum of understanding allowing these members to work alongside Toronto Police Service members in the latter's jurisdiction, as what the RCMP came to call "high visibility team" members during the period of June 20 to 23, 2010. The memorandum of understanding allowed the RCMP members, all of whom were posted in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and who were experienced in policing urban areas, to assist ". . . the [Toronto Police Service] with the provision of specific security for the G20 Summit." In particular, the memorandum of understanding stated that the RCMP would make available uniformed members to assist the Toronto Police Service in carrying out its traffic control duties and in responding to public incidents related to the G20 Summit.^{Footnote 60} As a result, Toronto Police Service members were freed from the area of the Summit for use in other areas of the city. The RCMP members were sworn in as provincial constables, pursuant to the Ontario Police Services Act, which provided the necessary authority to enforce provincial statutes. These members were under the direct command and control of the Toronto Police Service during the stipulated time.

According to the RCMP, the intangible benefit in this agreement was that the public would be able to see RCMP members in working uniform—a sight less common on Ontario streets because the RCMP carries out mostly federal statute duties in the province and its members generally work in plain clothes. It was expressed to the Commission that the RCMP felt this presence would raise the profile of the RCMP. The unintended consequence is that it may have led to the perception that the RCMP was in overall charge of security not only for the G20, but also within the City of Toronto in the area of the Summit.

With the cooperation of the Toronto Police Service, the Commission was provided with and reviewed the notes of the 300 RCMP members, along with other relevant documentation. The Commission confirmed that no arrests were made by these members between June 20 and 23, 2010.

Communications

The G8/G20 Public Affairs Communications Team was an integrated unit which included media relations personnel from the primary partner agencies. Its role was to provide information relating to security issues to the media and the public to mitigate the effects of closures and inconveniences and to provide background information.

According to the G20 Concept of Operations, the Public Affairs Communications Team was responsible for external and internal communications, including proactive and reactive media relations to external and internal parties and the provision of public affairs advice to commanders on security incident responses. The Public Affairs Communications Team was also charged with ensuring that all federal, provincial and municipal partners were informed of operational matters relevant to their respective mandates. The Public Affairs Communications Team was equally responsible for maintaining the content of the ISU website and managing social media and media relations. In an interview with the Commission, the RCMP's Director of Communications for the Summits explained that the Public Affairs Communications Team's chief role was to provide information on a variety of platforms to ensure that the community could access pertinent information in the format that best suited their needs.

The Commission notes that the Public Affairs Communications Team employed appropriate strategies to provide information on as close to a real-time basis as possible by making use of social media. Via this method, Public Affairs Communications Team members could potentially counter electronic feeds that were incorrect or misinformed much faster than traditional media processes would have allowed.

During the Summits, the Public Affairs Communications Team was responsible for the development of media lines. Media lines were created prior to the Summits, but if an incident commander in the UCC, TACC, MACC or MICC required additional media lines, they were often written and approved for use by senior officials within half an hour. This contributed to the Public Affairs Communications Team's mission to provide ". . . accurate and timely communications leading up to and during the summits."

The G8/G20 ISU websites contained media lines and frequently asked questions, including timely information on road closures and information for demonstrators. While the Information for Demonstrators section of the G20 Summit website laid out specific pieces of legislation which give police the authority to limit the activities of demonstrators, it failed to mention the Public Works Protection Act. When questioned about this during an interview with the Commission, the RCMP's Director of Communications for the Summits stated that the statute had no impact on the ISU or the RCMP and was the responsibility of the Toronto Police Service's Communications Team. Despite this opinion, the Commission is of the view that the G20 ISU website was intended to be a primary source of information for the public, explicitly listing statutes that could affect demonstrators. The website therefore should have been updated to contain information about the Public Works Protection Act and the expanded powers it gave to peace officers during the G20 Summit.

Outreach (Community Relations Group)

The UK's 2010 Association of Chief Police Officers policy manual and most other open source literature examining policing best practices relating to large-scale events all place strong emphasis on pre- and in-event communication initiatives.

They explain that establishing a dialogue well in advance and leaving the lines of communication open throughout an event are critical to decreasing the likelihood of violence.

In its Interim Report concerning the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference, the Commission also recommended the following:

• The RCMP should continue to follow, and enhance where appropriate, its existing open door policy of meeting and working with the leadership of protest groups, well in advance of a planned public order event, with a view to both police and protestors achieving their objectives in an environment that avoids unnecessary confrontation.^{Footnote 61}
• Before taking action that could result in physical confrontation, police should make all reasonable efforts to warn protestors of the duty then resting with the police (such as to clear a roadway), the steps they intend to take to fulfil that duty, and what actions the protestors should take to allow the police to fulfil that duty and to allow the protestors to avoid arrest. Once the warning has been given, the protestors should be given a reasonable opportunity to comply before the police take further steps.^{Footnote 62}

Dialogue allows police and demonstration organizers alike to explain their aims, requirements and responsibilities, while helping the organizers understand their liabilities in terms of health and safety. It also gives police an opportunity to express the thresholds of acceptable behaviour throughout the event. Pre-event dialogue allows for a joint agreement on the type and duration of protest activity, while attempting to minimize the element of surprise during the event on both sides.^{Footnote 63}

One of the key tasks of the ISU was to:

Establish robust community outreach programs to ensure that the mission, aim and goals of the ISU were well understood by diverse stakeholders.

To provide outreach to both protest groups and to residents and business people affected by the Summits, the ISU created the Community Relations Group, which reported through the Public Affairs Communications Team and was composed of members of the different involved police agencies.

As noted in the RCMP After Action Report:

The [Community Relations Group G8 and subsequently, separate G8 and G20 groups] was designed and implemented to establish and maintain effective lines of communication between the ISU and stakeholders affected both directly and indirectly by G8 and G20 Summits. The [Community Relations Group]'s mandate included the development of constructive community relationships that would reinforce the timely bi-lateral exchange of critical information in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. The [Community Relations Group] acted as a bridge between the security teams, and those affected by, or involved in the event. The information gleaned from [Community Relations Group] outreach efforts was included in the preparation of communication strategies and operational plans.

The G8 Community Relations Group was led by the RCMP and included members of the Ontario Provincial Police, the Canadian Forces and other law enforcement partners. The G20 Community Relations Group was led by the Toronto Police Service and included members of the RCMP and the Peel Regional Police.

The G20 Community Relations Group was divided into two stakeholder groups: Protester/Activist and Business/Resident. The groups acted independently but shared information regularly.

The Business/Resident Group focused its initial outreach efforts on Toronto's financial district, as this was the area expected to be most affected by the G20 Summit. Once the specific venue was announced, outreach expanded to all businesses and residents in the surrounding area, particularly those who worked or resided inside the controlled access zones.

The Protester/Activist Group was tasked with establishing bilateral communication with the various protest and activist groups expected to attend the G20, which ranged from Aboriginal rights activists to organized labour and anti-globalization groups:

The team's primary objective was the facilitation of peaceful, lawful protest, and the identification of key contact people within the protest/activist groups. Another of the team's objectives was to ensure that the protest groups understood the role of the police, and what could be expected if protest was in fact, not peaceful and lawful.^{Footnote 64}

The Community Relations Group used a toll-free line, the ISU website and in-person meetings to answer questions and relay information, and also produced YouTube videos.

Criticism was levelled by some activists/protesters through the media that Community Relations Group members were merely intelligence officers who were interested in obtaining whatever information they could, primarily from protest groups, and feeding that into the intelligence process.

In its review of documentation, and after conducting interviews with some RCMP Community Relations Group members, the Commission noted neither intent nor any action on the part of the Community Relations Group to target any particular group to obtain intelligence to thwart the right of a group to have its issues heard. The Commission specifically sought to identify any instance in which the Community Relations Group was tasked to target a particular protest group or to provide intelligence on a particular group or person of interest to the JIG. The Commission found none. The Commission was told by Community Relations Group members that they, at no time, targeted any particular individuals or groups in this manner. Community Relations Group members said that their aim was to assist protesters by providing information and by attempting to facilitate groups being heard and seen.

The information reviewed indicated that the Community Relations Group provided what assistance it could to those inconvenienced by the Summits. For example, the Commission was made aware of assistance provided by the Community Relations Group to facilitate the transport of a child awaiting surgery to the Hospital for Sick Children in downtown Toronto during the G20. In another instance during the G20, the Community Relations Group was involved in assisting a wedding party through crowds and road closures to reach their hotel in downtown Toronto.

Members of the Community Relations Group did attend meetings of protest groups in advance of the Summits, and identified themselves as police officers. The Commission was told by an RCMP member of the Community Relations Group that these meetings were usually identified by reviewing postings on open Internet sites. The Commission was informed that the Community Relations Group members were often not welcome at such meetings and that some individuals, who had attended several different meetings, publicly accused Community Relations Group members of harassing them. Despite the accusations, the Commission did not receive any public complaints in this regard.

During the G20 Summit, members of the Community Relations Group's Protester/Activist Group also attended the various demonstrations. They were visible and identifiable by their bright green jackets. The purpose of attending the protests was to continue outreach efforts. In interviews with some CCLA monitors who were also on the ground, the Commission was informed that Community Relations Group members were visible at locations such as Queen's Park and Allan Gardens. One CCLA monitor commented that he was pleased that the police were engaging in such outreach.

On the issue of record-keeping, the standard operating procedures for the Community Relations Group stated: "[Community Relations Group] members are tasked with completing both a daily and weekly ... report which includes all meetings with stakeholders and contacts." The members of the G20 Community Relations Group who dealt with residential and business contacts reported regularly to the RCMP member who was heading up that part of the Community Relations Group. All of these reports were available in the Event Management System. The Protestor/Activist Group, led by a member of the Toronto Police Service, did not keep precise records of their contacts, contrary to standard operation procedures. Commission staff was told that the Protester/Activist Group contacts were inputted to a chart which was maintained by the Toronto Police Service member in charge of that group. The Commission found none of this information in the Event Management System, nor was it provided to the Commission as part of the investigation documentation.

Post-Summits Debriefing

The RCMP prepared an After Action Report in the wake of the Summits, which it provided to the Commission in July 2011. This report canvassed numerous issues and identified many areas in which plans worked as intended as well as issues and areas requiring improvement.

The Commission believes that in order to provide a more comprehensive view of the operation, participants, including external security partners, should have had the opportunity to provide such input in order to identify issues, deficiencies or best practices. While both the RCMP and the Toronto Police Service produced after action reports, the Commission sees a clear need for a combined review in light of the integrated nature of the security operation.

Dispersal of Protesters at Queen's Park on June 26, 2010

In the late afternoon of June 26, 2010, individuals returned to the grounds of Queen's Park, which had been designated a protest zone. An earlier march had degenerated into property damage and violence. Police, in the wake of the events that had occurred that afternoon, began attempting to clear the zone, and a number of physical altercations ensued. A number of individuals were arrested.

The RCMP did not make or assist in any arrests at Queen's Park. The Commission was informed that an RCMP POU was directed to Queen's Park just prior to the arrests; however, that POU was re-deployed by the MICC Commander prior to arriving at the location.

Although the RCMP was not directly involved in the arrests, RCMP-led JIG information did play a role in the events of June 26, 2010. An undated briefing note to an RCMP Deputy Commissioner stated:

The June 26 protests resulted in many broken windows at downtown businesses and the burning of four police vehicles. The JIG investigations provided timely information on the location of protests and movement of protest groups enabling commanders to plan effectively.

This is confirmed by the sitboard entries reviewed by the Commission, which reveal that both the JIG Event Monitoring Units and the MICC were providing near real-time updates on the protest events as they unfolded, leading up to the arrests. While the arrests were occurring, the primary source for information, according to the sitboard entries, was the Toronto Police Service video feeds.

Detentions and Arrests at The Esplanade on June 26, 2010

The Commission determined that an RCMP POU was briefly at Yonge Street and The Esplanade at approximately 8:30 p.m. on June 26, 2010. However, within 30 minutes of arrival, the MICC redeployed this troop to another location. The RCMP POU Commander confirmed that his troop did not make any arrests, nor was it involved in detaining the crowd.

Kettling at Queen Street and Spadina Avenue on June 27, 2010

According to the Toronto Police Service After Action Review, in the late afternoon of June 27, 2010 the MICC responded to a protest moving along Queen Street West. At Spadina Avenue, that group was blocked on all sides at the direction of the MICC Commander. Video of the event indicates that the group was first blocked by Toronto Police Service bicycle police officers, and later by POUs. At approximately 5:25 p.m., an RCMP POU, under the direction of the MICC, was ordered to the intersection of Queen Street and Spadina Avenue to "box in" and arrest the protesters for conspiracy to commit mischief. Although the crowd was already boxed in or kettled, the RCMP POU can be seen on RCMP aerial surveillance moving through the middle of the crowd, thus creating two kettles.

The Commission's jurisdiction does not extend to an examination of the MICC and its decisions to employ this particular crowd control tactic. However, to the extent that an RCMP POU was involved in the containment or kettling of individuals, the Commission reviewed the conduct of the RCMP members who took action as part of that POU, notwithstanding that it was under the control of the Toronto Police Service at the time, as well as the conduct of RCMP commanders on duty at the time.

Kettling is a crowd control tactic whereby the police surround protesters to keep them in a particular area and to control any exit or entrance to the area. Its intended use is to prevent disorder or protect public safety. It is believed that kettling was first used by police in Germany in the 1980s,^{Footnote 73} and subsequently in the UK sometime after 1990. The tactic is based on the idea that police officers would be in physical contact with the outermost circle of contained protesters, while those closer to the centre would be surrounded by protesters and therefore become effectively self-policed (assuming protesters do not turn on one another). Kettling is now also used by western police services. Kettling gained notoriety after its use during the 2009 G20 Summit in London, England.

Policing policy in the UK, as set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers, originally endorsed the unconditional use of kettling.^{Footnote 74} However, a 2009 report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary following the 2009 G20 Summit in London recommended that the tactic should instead be used in moderation and only if and when deemed necessary.^{Footnote 75} While the practice of kettling has not yet been evaluated by the Canadian courts, a 2011 case from the UK High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division in response to the use of kettling during the G20 protests in 2009 summarized the general principles with respect to the legality of kettling in that country as follows:

1. Kettling may be permissible in order to prevent a breach of the peace occurring in the presence of the police, or if they reasonably believe that a breach of the peace is imminent.
2. What is imminent depends on the circumstances and is not an inflexible concept; a breach of the peace is imminent if it is likely to happen.
3. The action taken must be necessary, reasonable and proportionate.
4. Action may lawfully be taken even if it affects people who are not themselves going to be actively involved in the breach of the peace.^{Footnote 76}

The UK courts have condoned some uses of the tactic, and deemed others unlawful. In the above noted case, the use of kettling was considered to be premature, as a breach of the peace was not "imminent," but the court recognized that the tactic may have become justifiable at a later time.

SOURCE: Screen capture of RCMP video

An aerial shot from the RCMP's Stetson aircraft of the kettling at Queen Street and Spadina Avenue on June 27, 2010.

Regarding the events of June 27, 2010, the Commission learned that the RCMP Lower Mainland District POU was deployed to the corner of Queen Street and Spadina Avenue in full riot gear, arriving at the east side of the intersection at 5:52 p.m. According to the scribe notes of the Lower Mainland District POU, the kettle had already been formed, with POUs positioned to cover the entire intersection. The RCMP POU Commander stated during his interview with the Commission that he was ordered to box in the protesters, as they were all under arrest for conspiracy to commit mischief.

Once on the scene, the RCMP POU Commander had his Toronto Police Service liaison officer (who was embedded with the unit)^{Footnote 77} confirm these orders with the MICC. The RCMP POU Commander was attempting to understand whether the decision to make the mass arrests was based on articulable grounds. He was also concerned with the order to box in, as neither he nor the troop Non-Commissioned Officer (who was a seasoned tactical troop member) had previously employed this technique. According to RCMP POU policy and training, crowds should be provided an egress route.

While the orders were being confirmed, the RCMP POU Commander attempted to locate the on-site tactical commander, an Ontario Provincial Police officer. The Ontario Provincial Police Commander was to be in charge of the scene (i.e. Incident Commander) and direct the assembled POUs (believed to include the Toronto Police Service, the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police and the London Police Service). Because he could not initially locate the tactical commander, the RCMP POU Commander, along with the other POU commanders, came to an agreement on how to proceed, including having a Toronto Police Service POU commander serve as the Incident Commander (as he had direct contact with the MICC) until such time as the Ontario Provincial Police Commander could be located. The concern of the RCMP POU Commander was that absent a clear chain of command, one POU could receive different orders than another, which would lead to greater confusion.

Following the discussion with other POU commanders, the RCMP POU positioned itself on the northeast side of the intersection, boxing the crowd in. Although the RCMP POU Commander had some concerns about the order, as a practical matter, where one police service is supporting another in situations that require quick and decisive action, it is difficult for the supporting agency to act contrary to the instructing agency or to refuse to follow through with the provision of support. While there may be legitimate questions surrounding the approach taken by the instructing agency, to act contrary to their instructions could jeopardize the safety of all involved. In light of the foregoing, the Commission is satisfied that the RCMP POU Commander took reasonable steps to ensure that his orders were legitimate in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Commission also finds that the POU members acted reasonably in executing the orders from the Toronto Police Service MICC to surround the protesters.

As the troop held the line, the RCMP POU Commander continued to look for the Ontario Provincial Police Incident Commander. Meanwhile, the RCMP Arrest Rank Team had begun to arrest people and turned them over to the Toronto Police Service, reasonably believing that those were their orders. The RCMP POU Commander also related to the Commission that his unit had removed a number of people from the kettle because of medical issues, in addition to escorting some media personnel out of the kettle.

Sometime before 8:00 p.m., nearly two hours after arriving, the RCMP POU Commander located the Ontario Provincial Police Incident Commander. When the RCMP POU Commander told the Ontario Provincial Police Commander that they had made arrests, the latter confirmed that it was the Toronto Police Service who was to go through the line and make arrests. The RCMP Commander then ordered his team to stop making arrests. In total, the RCMP arrested five individuals before being told to stop.

In his interview with the Commission, the RCMP POU Commander stated that some of his members had expressed concern about whether those being detained in the intersection had been told that they were under arrest. When the RCMP Commander raised this with the Incident Commander, the Ontario Provincial Police officer told him that the crowd had been warned three times to leave the location or they would be under arrest. The Commission interviewed a number of persons in the kettle; some indicated that they did not hear such warnings, while others said they did but that the warning came after the kettle was already formed, leaving the crowd no way out. The Commission was unable to confirm whether the warning had been provided and at what time, as the RCMP did not give the warning, nor were any RCMP members present when the warning was reportedly issued.

In his ongoing discussion with the Ontario Provincial Police Commander, the RCMP POU Commander also questioned why individuals continued to be held, as the G20 Summit was nearly over. He was told that Toronto Police Service Command (MICC) wanted everyone arrested. At this point, the RCMP POU Commander asked for his troop to be relieved, as they were wet and needed to let their equipment dry before taking an early flight back to Vancouver the next morning. The Ontario Provincial Police Commander relieved the RCMP POU at approximately 8:00 p.m. At that time, the crowd was still confined in the kettle.

In interviews with the UCC and TACC commanders, it was confirmed that neither the UCC nor the TACC were involved in the decision-making process related to this event. This was further confirmed by the Commission in interviews with a Toronto Police Service officer assigned to the UCC that night as well as a Toronto Police Service Deputy Chief. Since these interviews, the Toronto Police Service After Action Review of the G20, dated June 2011, confirmed that the MICC ordered the boxing in.

Through the course of its investigation, the Commission learned that of the five individuals arrested by the RCMP team, two of them were plain-clothes police officers with the Toronto Police Service. According to the RCMP POU Commander, the RCMP arresting officers were not aware, at the time, that these two individuals were plain-clothes officers with the JIG Event Monitoring Unit (described earlier on in the Event Monitoring Unit Section).

The notes of the arresting officers were not detailed, there were no names provided, and no indication that two of the individuals were police officers. In the past, the Commission has commented on the need for better note-taking by RCMP members. In March 2011, the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP issued a broadcast in advance of a formalized, updated policy regarding members' notebooks. The broadcast highlights the importance of notes in documenting relevant details, refreshing members' memories after a period of time has passed, and articulating actions that have been taken. A formal policy in this regard was implemented in January 2012. In light of the broadcast and policy, neither of which were in place at the time of the Summits, it is not necessary to make a recommendation in this regard.

In his interview with the Commission, the POU Commander indicated that the five arrested individuals were singled out because it was felt that they may pose a risk to the tactical troop: for example, one individual was intoxicated while another was believed to have a weapon. During the interview, as in the arresting officers' notes, the POU Commander did not indicate that two of those arrested were plain-clothes officers, later stating that he did not believe it to be significant. It was only through an inadvertent comment that the Commission was made aware of the incident. That being said, the RCMP was forthcoming in providing additional details upon request by the Commission. There was no indication in the information provided that the two plain-clothes officers were acting in a provocative manner, thus prompting the arrests.

There is insufficient information available to enable the Commission to assess the appropriateness of the arrests made by the RCMP POU.

Despite the Commission's finding that the actions of the RCMP members involved in the kettling at Queen Street and Spadina Avenue were reasonable, the Commission notes, as above, that RCMP POU policy and training maintains that crowds should be provided an egress route.

In this regard, the RCMP policy may have been inconsistent with the Toronto Police Service policy. In his interview with the Commission, a deputy chief of the Toronto Police Service stated that the use of containment as a tactic by the Toronto Police Service ". . . wasn't unknown, but it wasn't standard practice." However, nearly a year after the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto, the Toronto Police Service reportedly terminated its use of this tactic.^{Footnote 78}

The legal opinion sought by the Commission addressed the issue of inconsistencies in operational policy among police agencies conducting integrated operations. As previously outlined, RCMP policies continued to apply to members while exercising their policing duties. Given the inconsistencies in the policies of the two agencies, however:

To expect RCMP police officers deployed as POUs to take common briefing instructions together with other [Toronto Police Service] police officers from [Toronto Police Service] command and then conduct the very same police operations shoulder-to-shoulder in the field in support of [Toronto Police Service] responsibilities, but somehow identify conflicting procedures and conduct themselves differently, may not be a realistic expectation.^{Footnote 79}

In light of the foregoing, and consistent with its earlier recommendation regarding entering into comprehensive agreements prior to the onset of integrated policing operations, the Commission recommends that the RCMP make best efforts to establish, together with its partners, clear operational guidelines prior to an event where integrated policing will occur to ensure consistency of application. In this manner, inconsistencies may be addressed by prior amendment or agreement. It is difficult to hold individual police officers to account if the policy and directions they are to follow are not clear and consistent.

The Commission spoke with a number of senior RCMP officers regarding the kettling incident. Some said they were not aware of the ongoing kettle because they were preoccupied with the movements of Internationally Protected Persons to the airport or with the movement of resources from Ottawa to Toronto. Others said they saw the video of the kettle, but did not ask questions because the incident occurred in the outer area of the Summit and was therefore the responsibility of the Toronto Police Service, not the RCMP. This was echoed by the ISU Lead. When asked what his expectations were of the UCC Commander and the TACC Commander in this situation, the ISU Lead stated that he would only expect the UCC Commander to get involved if there had been a strategic need to do so (e.g. need for additional resources). The ISU Lead was clear that the kettling was a tactical decision—that is to say, it was made by the Toronto Police Service. The ISU Lead went on to add:

The TACC is a different... Now, our expectation from them was that they would be very well in tune with what was happening on the streets in Toronto. And if they had a concern, they would be raising it to the UCC. Although the TACC wasn't directly responsible for the streets of Toronto, we did have liaison people from the TACC in that command centre [i.e. the MICC].

However, when the Commission interviewed the TACC Commander who worked the night shift on June 27, 2010, he stated categorically: "I wasn't aware. I never made a call to find out what was going on or to question it."

A similar response was received from the RCMP Liaison Officer in the MICC who indicated that although he was aware that there was an RCMP tactical troop at Queen Street and Spadina Avenue, he was preoccupied with the movement of resources from Ottawa to Toronto. However, an entry on the sitboard at 6:21 p.m. on June 27, 2010, states: "On June 27, 2010, at 1818 hrs, RCMP Supt... . (MICC) updated the crowd is still at Queen and Spadina where POU units, and [Toronto Police Service] Mounted Units are monitoring." A second entry eleven minutes later goes on to note: "On June 27, 2010, at 1829 hrs, RCMP Supt... . advises that the crowd is contained, ongoing extraction and arrests." This suggests that the senior RCMP officer in the MICC was aware of the situation at the time.

The Commission accepts that the decision to contain the crowd at Queen Street and Spadina Avenue was made by the Toronto Police Service and that neither the UCC nor the TACC were part of that decision-making process. However, there is an apparent disconnect between the RCMP POU Commander on the ground, who had concerns with the ordered tactic, and senior RCMP commanders, including the Liaison Officer in the MICC, who either were not aware of the ongoing situation, or were aware but did not have or did not express concern. In any event, their responsibility and authority did not extend to public order issues in the outer area which did not affect Summit security or internationally protected person protection.

Police Conduct Outside the Eastern Avenue Detention Centre on
June 27, 2010

The RCMP was not present outside the Prisoner Processing Centre on Eastern Avenue on June 27, 2010.

Arrests at the University of Toronto on June 27, 2010

In the morning hours of June 27, 2010, police entered the gymnasium of the University of Toronto Graduate Student Union, where a number of individuals who had traveled to Toronto for the G20 Summit, mainly for the purpose of attending demonstrations, had been sleeping. Police arrested approximately 70 persons.

According to documentation reviewed by the Commission and statements made in interviews, RCMP members did not participate in the June 27, 2010, arrests at the University.

Use of Force by the RCMP

The Commission found no information to suggest that RCMP members were engaged in the unreasonable use of force.

Detention and Treatment of Those Held at Queen Street and
Spadina Avenue

The RCMP issued a similar Final Report to all of the complainants. The Final Report indicates that the first task was to determine whether any RCMP personnel were deployed to that area on the date and during the time in question, since there were a large number of officers from different police agencies working at the G20 Summit. They determined that there were two^{Footnote 81} RCMP POUs present at different times in that area during the relevant time period. However, the report notes that their attendance was at the request of the Toronto Police Service and both units were under the command of the Toronto Police Service. To determine the issue of jurisdiction and command authority, the RCMP looked at the Toronto Police Service After Action Review in which the Toronto Police Service "took full responsibility for the command decision and action taken against protesters" at the location in question. On that basis, the RCMP did not support the allegation against the unidentified members in question.

In the Commission's view, the RCMP's Final Report is not fulsome in that it fails to address the complaint about "boxing in" and why this is contrary to RCMP policy, and also in its approach to the jurisdiction and command decision issue. As discussed above, there is at least some onus on the RCMP to ensure that any actions taken—even at the command of another police force—have a reasonable basis in law and some justification from a policing perspective.

Despite the limited analysis provided by the RCMP in response to these specific complaints, the Commission reiterates its general findings regarding the kettling incident, stated above.

Arrest, Treatment and Observations of Complainant A

Complainant A made a number of allegations about police conduct that included his arrest, search subsequent to arrest, detention in the prisoner transport vehicle, etc.

The RCMP's Final Report indicates that after consultation with the Toronto Police Service Professional Standards Unit, it was determined that no RCMP members were involved with the arrest of Complainant A. It was also determined that all aspects of prisoner transport, detention, and access to counsel were handled by the Toronto Police Service and that no RCMP personnel were involved. As such, the RCMP found that none of its members were responsible for any of the allegations numbered 4 to12, above.

During its investigation of the RCMP's conduct during the G8 and G20 Summits, the Commission interviewed Complainant A and received a number of documents that confirmed that Complainant A was arrested by an officer from a police force other than the RCMP. In addition, the record indicates that the RCMP was not involved in prisoner transport, detention, or access to counsel. As such, there is no indication that any RCMP member was involved in any of the alleged conduct, and therefore the RCMP's disposition of the complaint was reasonable, albeit not for the reason stated in the Final Report.