Don’t go too far on security

At what point do measures to protect a democratic institution undermine its very purpose as a place for public gatherings, open government and active participation in debates?

That’s the thorny question that will be before Mayor John Tory’s executive committee next week as it debates a mostly secret report on increasing security measures at Toronto City Hall.

The mayor and councillors must ensure they strike the right balance between security and open access as they consider the proposals from Toronto Police and Public Safety Canada. They should resist the temptation to go overboard and barricade what is now a welcoming, bustling building that by its very nature encourages democratic participation.

Still, councillors must also face reality. The report warns that city hall is a “target for serious threats” from “lone wolf terrorists, organized terror groups and other individuals with grievances.”

Right now the building could certainly be perceived as vulnerable. Visitors are free to roam the atrium and offices that serve the public while those who want to watch committee meetings are not screened. Only those who want to enter the council chamber must open their bags for inspection.

Indeed, the only visible changes to security since the 2014 attack on Parliament Hill is that additional contracted security officers watch over secondary doors now restricted to city staff and others with access passes.

That would change dramatically if council adopts all the recommendations in the report, which Tory’s office says he supports.

First, visitors would be screened by metal detectors and their bags would be inspected.

Second, Nathan Phillips Square would be protected from vehicle attacks, like those that have become all too common in Europe, with new barriers.

And, most controversially, the report recommends that the waist-high glass wall that separates the public gallery from councillors’ seats should be made up to 30 centimetres taller.

That would be a step too far. There is no such barrier separating the public from politicians in either the House of Commons or the provincial legislature. Citizens who simply want to see their representatives in action shouldn’t be walled off from them (especially if they’ve already been checked before they go into the chamber.)

Happily, the recommendations are already stirring heated debate at city hall — as they should.

Some, like councillor Jim Karygiannis, worry that things are now too open. “We’re sitting ducks,” he says. Others, including councillor Gord Perks, understandably fear limiting access by the public. “The accessibility of city hall should be the same as the accessibility of the sidewalk,” he argues.

It’s all very well to make that type of argument; in an ideal world, city hall would have no more security than your own home. But it would take just one bad incident to make that position look ridiculous. City hall should take sensible precautions.

Toronto won’t be alone if it does adopt enhanced security measures. Edmonton City Hall, for example, has metal detectors and bag searches for people attending both committee and council meetings, as well as a glass partition between visitors and councillors.

In these troubled times it’s tempting to double-down on security precautions — just in case. But that urge must be measured against the imperative of making sure city hall remains open and accessible. The public should never feel intimidated or unwanted.

It’s a fine balance. For the sake of democracy, council must find it.

Citizens who simply want to see their representatives in action shouldn’t be walled off from them