APEC – Commission Interim Report
Part of Mr. Singh's complaint is that his photo was posted in the ACCO offices prior to the APEC conference. He said he found this to be intimidating.
Mr. Singh actively and vocally opposed the APEC conference. His activities, mainly associated with APEC Alert, extended over several months leading up to the November event. He was known to those responsible for conference planning and in the weeks just before the event had been involved in confrontational, but non-violent, interactions with police and campus security personnel. (His involvement on campus November 7-24, and the operations of APEC Alert, are discussed in Chapter 17)
Cst. Joanne Boyle was the VPD representative on the Threat Assessment Group involved with the APEC conference. Because she believed that Mr. Singh would be one of the main agitators during the conference, she obtained a photograph of him from VPD records. She said her purpose was:
Just to be able to readily identify him or show his photo to any members that might be at any of the sites that would have dealings with him during APEC that wouldn't otherwise be familiar with him.
Cst. Boyle had seen Mr. Singh a few times "loitering" outside 1125 Howe Street where ACCO and the joint RCMP/VPD planning offices were located. Insp. Murray Day of the VPD acquired a copy of the photo and instructed that it be posted at the reception desks and in private areas of the ACCO office. Insp. Day was familiar with Mr. Singh's activities. He said he found Mr. Singh to be polite in his conversations with him, but that he was an "in your face kind of demonstrator - very vocal."
Mr. Singh went to the ACCO office at 1125 Howe Street on November 21 because he had been told that his photo was posted there. He saw the picture posted inside the hutch sitting atop the reception desk. A sheet of paper listing such information as his age, height, weight and hair colour accompanied the colour photograph. He acknowledged that they appeared to be posted for use by the person sitting at the reception desk. Believing that the posting of his photograph was totally inappropriate and, there being no one else present, he removed it and the information sheet and put them in his pocket.
As he prepared to leave, Insp. Day and an RCMP member approached him. They searched Mr. Singh's bag and, after some conversation, told him to leave. He protested that he had a right to be in the building but left without incident. He did not tell the officers that he had removed the items and had them in his possession.
Mr. Singh acknowledged at the hearing that the photo originated with the VPD. He correctly presumed that the VPD had provided it to ACCO. There is no evidence whatsoever that RCMP members had anything to do with the posting of the photograph. This aspect of Mr. Singh's complaint does not concern the RCMP and therefore does not require further consideration.