1 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 Hearing on Standing Only 23 24 April 20th, 2004 25


1 Appearances 2 3 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 4 Katherine Hensel ) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon Commencing at 10:30 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Standing and Funding 4 Hearing is now in session. The Honourable Mr. Chief 5 Justice Linden of the Ipperwash Inquiry presiding. Please 6 be seated. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 Good morning everybody. I'd like you to notice that we're 9 starting sharp on time, 10:30. 10 My name is Sidney Linden, I was appointed 11 Commissioner of this Inquiry by Order in Council by the 12 Government of Ontario. I'm also a Judge of the Ontario 13 Court of Justice and I served as the Chief Justice of that 14 court from 1990 until 1999. 15 Before making my opening remarks, I'm going 16 to call on -- on Lillian Pitawatikwat who is an Elder of -- 17 who will conduct what is referred to as a traditional 18 opening. 19 As most of you know, the public Inquiry 20 process in Canada inherently incorporates protocols and 21 customs that are based on Anglo-Canadian heritage. By 22 adding a traditional opening we are also acknowledging the 23 importance and significance of some of the traditions of 24 aboriginal peoples. Ms. Lillian Pitawatikwat...? 25


1 (OPENING PRAYER) 2 3 ELDER LILLIAN PITAWATIKWAT: I'll say 4 boozhoo to everyone. Boozhoo. My name is Standing Strong 5 Woman from the Thunderbird Clan. It is with -- with great 6 humility that I come before you today. Tobacco has been 7 presented to ask for the help that we so direly need. I'd 8 like to share a little bit about the wheel of life. 9 It's called the wheel of balance. And this 10 is it. On here we are taught that there are four (4) 11 colours of man. Since time immemorial that was the circle 12 that evolved around the Creator, the essence of all life. 13 And something happened down the line to 14 bring this wheel into imbalance. One quadrant of the 15 circle did not have a voice. This represents the yellow 16 people, the black people, the white people, the red people. 17 This did not have a voice. And today we ask 18 that our voice -- ollect -- our collective voice be heard 19 once more. Not for the sake of one individual but for the 20 sake of the quadrant that we are humans also that have a 21 mind, a heart, a body and a spirit. 22 We were in ceremony last night and I asked 23 this person, this great teacher who's teaching we're 24 inquiring about, beginning today. He came to visit our 25 circle and you all know him. But did you hear him. Today


1 the Inquiry begins. Tobacco has been passed and that's our 2 911 connection to the Creator. Imagine that in this day 3 and age because that's our teaching. 4 As an Aniishinbek, the aboriginal people, 5 whatever you choose to call us, our teaching is that we 6 offer one another tobacco so that we can be in balance, not 7 imbalance, but in balance with one another. 8 So, as an honour, the spirit of that link, I 9 also honour his spirit name today. His spirit name is 10 Grandson of Grandfather Thunder -- I mean Fire. His 11 Thunderbird Clan is with him. 12 He was so happy last night, Grandson of 13 Fire. Do you know what that fire is, it's that fire of 14 forgiveness; to know that I can live in the circle as the 15 rest of the quadrant. That's what we're calling for is 16 Justice. Justice for all. 17 And we honour that his spirit name tonight 18 in ceremony. How it's going to happen, I have no idea, but 19 I will be there because the agenda of spirit is not like 20 ours, where at ten after 9:00 we begin or 10:30 we begin 21 and finish at five (5) to 12:00. Spirit has no time but 22 has every minute count -- accounted for. 23 So, that's what I'd like to share with -- 24 with you at this time and I'd like to sing a song to invite 25 all the ancestors to join us at the opening ceremony of


1 this special assembly. He has invited us. It is not by 2 choice that we're here. He has invited us. How prepared 3 are you for truth. When truth first -- first hits you 4 between the eyes it spins you for a loop. When -- when 5 we're ready for truth, then it comes as the teacher. 6 There are seven (7) gifts that the spirits 7 nurture in each and every one of us; the gifts of honesty, 8 humility, courage, wisdom, respect, generosity and love. 9 When we can carry those in balance within, then that wheel 10 will be in balance without. 11 We have also prepared tobacco ties and we 12 will hand those out. Receive them well. Receive them for 13 the intent that it's given, that we may be open to one 14 another. Again, they're in four (4) colours, pick a colour 15 and carry it with you for the rest of this week. 16 When I was being taught as young girl, as a 17 child, how to offer my tobacco, it was said to me, dad 18 said, Danis (phonetic) (OJIBWE SPOKEN). My daughter, he 19 said, when you receive that tobacco in hand, in your left 20 hand, when you ask for what you need your prayer will be 21 answered. 22 And I know that. I know that deep inside of 23 me. I know that my prayer is going to be answered. I was 24 ready to pack up last night after ceremony because my job 25 was done. I had offered the tobacco.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Those of you that have a job to do, to take 4 pictures, please present the truth. This is not a game of 5 life. This is life and this is my drum. My thunder beings 6 are with me. My mother is from thunder beings of the 7 south. My dad is from thunder beings of the -- of the 8 west. So, I'm like a -- a double barrel shotgun and 9 indeed, my prayer will be answered today as it already has. 10 Please stand. 11 12 (OPENING PRAYER) 13 14 ELDER LILLIAN PITAWATIKWAT: I want to 15 thank everybody for your participation. Hold that tobacco 16 close to your heart. That is your connection, that has it 17 -- something that has begun that is very special today. 18 Miijwetch. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 20 very much. 21 Today marks the first public session of the 22 Inquiry. However, the Commission staff has been working 23 full time over the last few months putting our team in 24 place, establishing our infrastructure, gathering evidence, 25 identifying and interviewing witnesses and experts and


1 sifting through the thousands of pages of documents. 2 Today and the balance of this week have been 3 designated to hear applications by individuals and groups 4 to obtain standing and possibly funding for the Inquiry. 5 According to the Order in Council, the 6 Commission was established to inquire into and report on 7 events surrounding the death of Dudley George in Ipperwash 8 Provincial Park in September 1995. 9 The Commission has also been asked to make 10 recommendations aimed at avoiding violence in similar 11 circumstances. The Inquiry will be undertaken in two (2) 12 parts. Part I will inquire into and report on events 13 surrounding the death of Mr. George. Part II will make 14 recommendations directed to avoidance of violence in 15 similar circumstances. 16 Part I of the Inquiry will be conducted in 17 the typical way of public hearings at which witnesses will 18 be called and examined by Commission Counsel and, if 19 necessary, will then be cross-examined by parties who have 20 standing. 21 Part II will be conducted differently. 22 Although part II will be informed by Part I, evidentiary 23 hearings alone are unlikely to foster the participation and 24 analysis required to address the second part of the 25 Inquiry's mandate.


1 As a result, Part II of the Inquiry will use 2 additional approaches to collect information on key issues 3 identified including research -- research, expert panels, 4 round tables, community dialogues and advisory committees. 5 Our intention is to proceed with both parts 6 concurrently and we will ensure that the timetables of the 7 two (2) parts do not conflict with one another. I invite 8 everyone to consult the Inquiry website which will be 9 updated regularly for the anticipated schedule for hearings 10 and other events. 11 The Inquiry website address, for those who 12 don't know it: www.ipperwashinquiry.ca 13 And I intend to briefly deal with the 14 hearings in the next few days which, as I've said, are to 15 hear applications for standing and funding. 16 It's essential that an Inquiry of this kind 17 be as thorough as possible and that the Commissioner 18 consider all relevant information from a variety of 19 perspectives. This is achieved through the participation 20 of interested parties. 21 In an Inquiry of this kind, people or groups 22 that have been given status are entitled to participate in 23 the proceedings. This official status is called Standing. 24 Standing is granted to facilitate the orderly, timely and 25 fair conduct of the Inquiry.


1 Today's hearings are intended to identify 2 those people or groups that should have Standing. As set 3 out in the Rules of Procedure and Practice, this official 4 status may be given to those who: 5 "have a direct and substantial interest 6 in the proceedings of the Inquiry or 7 whose participation may be helpful." 8 One of the advantages of a two-part process 9 is that some individuals or groups that may not have 10 sufficient connection to the events of September '95 to 11 warrant Standing for Part I may still be able to receive 12 standing and participate in Part II. 13 Our intention is to interpret the criteria 14 for Part II standing as broadly as we can to enable the 15 participation of any individual or group who can contribute 16 to the achievement of the Commission's mandate. 17 The Commission received thirty-five (35) 18 applications for standing. As in other Commissions of 19 Inquiry, categories of standing will be either full, 20 limited or special, depending on the extent of the 21 applicant's direct legal interest and or contribution to 22 the proceedings. 23 Full standing will entitle a party to access 24 the documents, advance notice of documents that will be 25 introduced in evidence, advanced provision of statements of


1 anticipated evidence, a seat at the counsel table, the 2 right to examine or cross-examine witnesses as appropriate 3 and the right to make submissions. 4 Limited or special standing will be 5 determined based on the written and oral submissions and 6 will entitle a party to some, but not all, of the rights of 7 parties with full standing. 8 The Order in Council provides that the 9 Commissioner may make recommendations to the Attorney 10 General for funding for parties who have been granted 11 standing and who might otherwise be unable to participate 12 in the Inquiry without funding. 13 The Commission does not provide funding to 14 parties with standing, it makes a recommendation to the 15 Government who may or may not accept the recommendation. I 16 intend to reserve my decision regarding standing and 17 funding and will send a copy of the decision to each 18 applicant as soon as possible and the decision will also be 19 put up on the website. I repeat, any parties should 20 consult the website regularly. 21 The rules of procedure of this Inquiry were 22 modelled on rules used in other public inquiries. They 23 were initially posted on the Inquiry website in early March 24 and comments were sought. 25 Some of the suggestions we received have


1 been incorporated and are reflected in the version that is 2 now on the website. Any further comments regarding the 3 rules should be communicated to our Commission Counsel, who 4 I will be introducing shortly. 5 The Commission will be completely 6 transparent and disclosure of all relevant documents will 7 be made available on disk to all parties that are granted 8 standing and a paper copy will be available in the hearing 9 room for witnesses as needed. 10 I'd like to take a few minutes to discuss or 11 address the importance of public inquiries. Public 12 inquiries are usually called in response to a matter of 13 public interest. Very often there is also some element of 14 public controversy involved. The purpose of an Inquiry in 15 these circumstances is generally to find out what happened, 16 what went wrong and to look at what can be done to avoid a 17 similar occurrence. 18 As a result, inquiries can look backward and 19 forward at the same time. This dual mandate is what makes 20 public inquiries both unique and perhaps unusual to some 21 observers. The dual mandate, however, is also what makes 22 public inquiries useful in our democracy and is why they 23 provide a valuable public service. 24 This particular Inquiry was borne out of a 25 sense of anger and a feeling of frustration regarding


1 unanswered questions as to what occurred at Ipperwash Park 2 in September 1995. And that sense of anger and that 3 feeling of frustration are the foundation of the 4 considerable and lengthy effort that was put forward by 5 many groups and individuals requesting that a public 6 Inquiry take place. 7 For these reasons, I think it's important to 8 speak for a minute about what an Inquiry is but also what 9 it isn't. A public Inquiry investigates and reports on 10 matters of substantial public interest. In other words, 11 it's not simply an Inquiry, it's a public Inquiry. 12 An important aspect of our democracy is the 13 right of all citizens to know what happened in a given 14 situation, particularly in a situation where there has been 15 loss of life and there remain unanswered questions. 16 Although the events that we are inquiring 17 about took place almost nine (9) years ago, the Commission 18 is committed to doing all it can, given our mandate and our 19 legal authority, to gather all relevant evidence and call 20 all necessary witnesses to make the Inquiry as complete as 21 possible. 22 Public inquiries can also serve the policy 23 development process by considering public opinion, 24 proposing and exploring the policy options and making 25 recommendations. Among the advantages of the public


1 Inquiry process are its openness, its investigative 2 capability and its independence. 3 It's this openness and transparence of the 4 inquiries' system that distinguishes it from the policy 5 development process carried on, in house, by government 6 agencies and these factors, coupled with the inquiries' 7 independence, means that the Inquiry should be free from 8 the personal, political, partisan or organizational 9 influences that often accompany public controversies. 10 The investigative capability of an Inquiry 11 distinguishes it from a court of law, where a judge and 12 jury, or jury, is confined to determining questions of 13 guilt or innocence and fault or no fault; and fact finding 14 is necessarily limited to the particular dispute in 15 questions. 16 A public Inquiry is not a trial and the 17 Commission has not be established to revisit judgments 18 already passed, nor to investigate criminal offences or 19 assign civil liability. While the Commission may determine 20 wrong doing, it does not find anyone guilty of a crime, nor 21 does it establish civil responsibility for monetary 22 damages. 23 However, an Inquiry is expected to go 24 beneath the surface of the controversy and to explore the 25 factors and conditions that gave rise to the incident. A


1 public Inquiry can and should consider the broader context 2 in which the events occurred. 3 A key aspect of public inquiries, that is 4 fact finding in public, makes it possible for an individual 5 or organizational reputation to be at risk. Accordingly, 6 principles of natural justice and procedural fairness 7 require that due process safeguards are in place and these 8 will be rigorously observed by this Commission. 9 There has been a great deal already written 10 and said about the events in Ipperwash Park in September of 11 '95 and the causes. Among other things, there have been 12 criminal trials, a civil action, an SIU and a coroner's 13 investigation. All this has resulted in thousands of pages 14 of transcripts, documents and other evidence. 15 As we proceed to fulfill the specific 16 mandate of the Commission, one of the -- the broader goals 17 is a desire to contribute to restoring good relations among 18 the people affected and to restoring their faith in the 19 institutions of Government and of democracy. 20 Our hope is that process of this Inquiry 21 will contribute to healing and to moving forward for those 22 whose lives were affected by the events of September '95. 23 In due course, the Commission's 24 recommendations will be submitted to the Government and to 25 the public at large. Our hope is that the report will be


1 supported by most, if not all, of the people involved in 2 this process and in that way, it will contribute to the 3 shaping of public policy. 4 The Inquiry should also contribute to public 5 education and to a greater understanding of the many issues 6 stemming from the shooting of Mr. George. We intend to be 7 guided in our efforts by the same principals that have 8 guided other commissions, namely, thoroughness, expedition, 9 openness to the public and fairness. 10 Timely information will be available on the 11 website, transcript of today's proceedings will be posted 12 almost immediately and other means of sharing the 13 proceedings are still being explored. 14 The Inquiry will also use its website to 15 distribute the research documents, the public submissions 16 and to seek comments from parties in the public. We expect 17 the media will actively report on the Inquiry, thereby, 18 informing those who are not able to attend in person. 19 Commission staff will make every effort to ensure material 20 is available for the media and to answer questions. 21 Mr. Peter Rehak, who I would ask to stand if 22 may, to identify himself, is the Commission's Communication 23 and Media Relations Advisor. He's held the same positions 24 with other recent inquiries including the Walkerton Inquiry 25 and the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry.


1 Before introducing some other Commission 2 staff, another important issue I would like to speak to is 3 the question of location or locations of the hearings. 4 Selection of an appropriate location should be based on 5 consideration of a number of factors, these include 6 accessibility to the public, preference of the parties, 7 location of the majority of the parties, any local interest 8 in the proceedings, availability of suitable facilities, 9 accommodation capacity and other logistical concerns and 10 cost. 11 The Commission has contemplated these 12 factors and also considered the Rules of Civil Procedure. 13 We have decided that some of the hearings should be held 14 here in Forest, a location near where a substantial part of 15 the events occurred and some of the hearings in Toronto. 16 We intend to continue with the next phase of 17 the Inquiry process here in Kimble Hall. In July, we will 18 being with an examination of the historical context of the 19 events of September 1995. 20 However, the location of hearings beyond the 21 end of September has not yet been determined and I 22 encourage anyone with a view on the merits of holding the 23 hearings either here or in Toronto to communicate their 24 views to the Commission. 25 At this time, I would like to introduce some


1 of our Commission staff and, in particular, our Commission 2 Council. Mr. Derry Millar is the Commission's lead 3 counsel. He's a senior litigation partner with the Toronto 4 law firm of Weir Foulds. 5 Among other things, he's a Bencher at a Law 6 Society, the governing body for Ontario Lawyers, and his 7 contribution to Ontario's legal community and profession is 8 extensive and highly respected. 9 Incidentally, more biographical information 10 on our counsel and all of our staff is already on our 11 website. Katherine Hensel at the counsel table is a 12 Commission's Assistant Counsel. She is a Secwepemic lawyer 13 who practises in Toronto. She's a part of the litigation 14 group of the law firm of McCarthy Tetrault. 15 Other Commission counsel, who are not here 16 today, include Susan Vella who is a law partner in the firm 17 of Goodman and Carr located in Toronto. She's been 18 recognized as one of Canada's Top fifteen (15) women 19 lawyers. 20 Mr. Tod Ducharme is a sole practitioner. 21 He's a Metis lawyer who practises predominantly criminal 22 and quasi-criminal litigation in Toronto. He's also a 23 Bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada just finishing a 24 murder trial. 25 Nye Thomas is the policy director for the


1 Commission who is behind the counsel table. Mr. Thomas has 2 held a number of senior policy positions in the Ministry of 3 the Attorney General, the Centre for Public Law and Policy 4 at Osgoode Hall -- at Osgoode Hall Law School. He has his 5 law degree from Queen's University and an LLM, a Masters 6 Degree, from New York Uni -- University. 7 I'm now going to call on our Commission 8 Counsel, Mr. Derry Millar, who will make a few remarks 9 before we call on the first applicant. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Thank you, Commissioner. 11 What I would like to do is just outline a bit of what we're 12 going to do this week from the practical aspect. 13 What we've done is we've divided the 14 thirty-five (35) applications into different days. We have 15 set aside four (4) days and what I have done -- what we've 16 done is assume that most applications will take a half an 17 hour. 18 Some where standing and funding is being 19 sought may take a longer period of time so that -- but we 20 have used the half hour guide so that rather than have 21 everyone attend in Ipperwash and Forest today and wait 22 their turn, we've divided it up and there will be eleven 23 (11) applications heard today, twelve (12) on April 21st, 24 some more on April 22nd and because of the availability of 25 certain counsel who are in court during the next three (3)


1 days, we will be sitting for four (4) applications on 2 Friday. 3 We have provided to everyone a schedule and 4 what we're going to do is simply go through the schedule, 5 starting with the first Mr. Murray Killippenstein and then 6 follow the schedule for the balance of the day. 7 What we will do is have a short break this 8 morning and then a break from lunch from 1:00 to 2:15. 9 Then a short break at the appropriate time in the afternoon 10 and we'll be sitting today until 5:00. 11 Tomorrow will start at 9:30 in the morning 12 and run to 5:00, although given the fact that at least one 13 (1) of these applications has been moved, it may not take 14 until 5:00 tomorrow. On Thursday, April 22nd we'll again 15 start at 9:00 a.m. and go until we finish the nine (9) 16 applications that day and lastly, on April 23rd, we will 17 start at 10:30 and deal with the four (4) applications that 18 day. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, very 20 much. I'd now like to call on Mr. Klippenstein who speaks 21 for the George family group. Mr. Murray Klippenstein...? 22 Do you want to come up here, Mr. 23 Klippenstein, make yourself -- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Someone said that -- I 25 have been just told that I misspoke myself. I said 9:00


1 a.m. on April 22nd. It's 9:30. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 9:30. Do you 3 have enough room there? 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. You've 6 got the floor. 7 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Good morning, 8 Commissioner. My name is Murray Klippenstein. I'm legal 9 Co-Counsel for Mr. Maynard Sam George and the applicant 10 group for whom he is the spokesperson which includes four 11 (4) brothers and sisters of Dudley George, as well as -- 12 some of whom are here today, as well as sons and daughters, 13 grandsons, nieces and nephews who are here today to watch. 14 With me as Co-Counsel, Andrew Orkin and Bilkos Bovar 15 (phonetic). 16 With your permission, Commissioner, Mr. 17 Maynard Sam George would like to address the Commission for 18 just a few moments. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 20 MR. MAYNARD SAM GEORGE: When I first saw 21 Dudley's body lying on a gurney at the Strath -- Strathroy 22 Hospital, he was gritty with sand, with sand from Ipperwash 23 where he had stumbled and fell. And there were some 24 medical tubes in him and I saw a small round hole in his 25 chest with a little blood slowly coming out of it but there


1 was no life in him. I could not believe that this was 2 Dudley. I could not believe that this had happened to my 3 brother. I just could not believe it. 4 At that moment, and to this day, I have not 5 been able to stop asking why our brother Dudley was killed. 6 I believed then and I believe now that Dudley did not need 7 to die. 8 My brothers and sisters and I became 9 determined to find out the truth about why he died and 10 whether he really had to die alone on a gurney at the 11 Strathroy Hospital. 12 From the beginning and over the last eight 13 and a half (8 1/2) years, there were three (3) main things 14 that we wanted. We wanted to find out about the truth, 15 about why our brother was killed. 16 We wanted to make sure that our brother's 17 name and his memory and his defence of our people's 18 Aboriginal and Treaty rights are remembered and lived on. 19 And we want to make sure that something good would come out 20 of this, that Dudley's death would not have been in vain. 21 No other family in Ontario or Canada, Native 22 or non-Native, should ever have to go through what we went 23 through in the last eight and a half (8 1/2) years. 24 We have waited a very long time for this 25 Inquiry and I know that this Commission is facing a very


1 difficult job. And I know that this Inquiry is going to 2 require a lot of courage and wisdom but we have confidence 3 and we have trust, Mr. Commissioner and your staff will do 4 the job that now must be done and do it right. 5 So on behalf of my brothers Reg George, 6 Laverne George, my sisters Pamela George and Joan Price and 7 my wife Veronica, I would like to welcome you to this area 8 and to our communities. We wish you strength for the task 9 that lies ahead. 10 I would now like to ask Mr. Klippenstein to 11 come up and make some further comments. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 13 very much. 14 MAYNARD SAM GEORGE: Thank you. 15 MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: This Commission has 16 been requested to inquire into the events surrounding the 17 death of Dudley George and to make recommendations directed 18 to the avoidance of violence in similar circumstances. 19 Sam George and this Applicant Group have 20 been inquiring into the events surrounding the death of 21 Dudley George for the last eight (8) years. The group is 22 now applying for standing and funding and as part of that 23 application is respectfully suggesting that those eight (8) 24 years of effort and the results make this Applicant Group 25 able to provide assistance in the work the Commission has


1 been mandated to do. 2 The Statement of Claim the group filed eight 3 (8) years ago identified many of the aspects of the events 4 surrounding Dudley's death that deeply concerned them then. 5 During the eight (8) years since then, 6 evidence has gradually been uncovered, much of it through 7 the group's efforts, that has deepened and validated those 8 concerns of the family members. 9 The Applicant Group believes that this 10 Commission's mandate will lead it to inquire into those 11 questions and that the Applicants can assist in an 12 important and unique way. 13 Those questions include: Why were the 14 aboriginal burial grounds which were apparently uncovered 15 during the construction of Ipperwash Provincial Park not 16 protected then, and why was the memory of those burial 17 grounds essentially suppressed by governments and basically 18 ignored by the non-native community ever since? 19 How could it be that ancestral aboriginal 20 lands, guaranteed to the First Nations forever by a treaty, 21 were taken away in a land deal that the family believes was 22 sleazy and exploitative, to be turned into a park and that 23 the laws, police and courts could reinforce that taking 24 over of the park lands? 25 Why were government officials at the highest


1 level in the province apparently determined to ignore the 2 unique status of First Nations and their land, previously 3 agreed to in the treaties and recognized in the very 4 constitution of this country? 5 Why were the highest governmental leaders in 6 the province apparently attempting to ignore the 7 independence of police and thus the rule of law by 8 pressuring for rapid removal of protestors who posed no 9 threat to anyone? 10 Why did police rush to use force and rush in 11 with force to confront people who were simply saying, stop 12 taking our treaty lands and restore to us those that have 13 been taken? 14 Why did political and police officials cover 15 up and suppress the facts about what happened, year after 16 year? 17 And most important of all, how can all of 18 us, for the sake of our children, make something good out 19 of something bad? 20 The Applicant Group respectfully suggests 21 that these are important questions that the Inquiry should 22 address and that the Applicant's can make a contribution. 23 And now I'll ask legal Co-Counsel, Mr. Andrew Orkin, to 24 make a few additional comments. 25 Mr. ANDREW ORKIN: Commissioner. The


1 George Applicant Group has submitted a detailed submission 2 in support of its application for standing and funding. I 3 would like, with your permission, to touch on some of the 4 high points without repeating what I -- I know that Comm -- 5 you and the Commission staff have already examined. 6 In light of the points in the submission and 7 the points made by Mr. George and Mr. Klippenstein, the 8 Applicant respectfully suggests that it's essential for the 9 effectiveness, comprehensiveness, thoroughness and 10 credibility of the Ipperwash Commission Inquiry in 11 establishing the truth in this situation and making 12 meaningful recommendations, that they be granted standing 13 as a full party in this Inquiry process. 14 It is submitted that the applicants 15 manifestly have an interest in Part I which is directly and 16 substantially affected by the subject matter of Part I of 17 the Inquiry and that they also represent perspectives that 18 are essential to the discharge of the Commission's mandate 19 in Part I which ought to be separate -- separately 20 represented. 21 It's further respectfully submitted with 22 respect to Part II of the Inquiry that the applicants are 23 significantly affected by Part II of the Inquiry and that 24 they represent distinct interests and perspectives that are 25 essential to the discharge of the Commission's mandate in


1 Part II and which ought to be separately and distinctly 2 represented before the Inquiry. 3 The key criterion in the Commission's rules 4 and procedures with respect to standing before the 5 Commission is connection with the Inquiry subject matter 6 and special experience and expertise. 7 In using the word "manifestly" a moment ago, 8 with respect to both Part I and Part II, I think it's -- it 9 is manifest, with all humility, that this applicant has 10 special experience and expertise in this regard and I 11 believe that that is what Mr. George spoke to a moment ago. 12 But in March of 1996 the George family 13 plaintiffs that launched a civil suit did so with great 14 reluctance. And, Mr. Commissioner, you spoke to some of 15 the reasons as to the difference between a commission and a 16 trial. 17 And these applicants made a very early 18 selection in favour of the Commission of Inquiry as their 19 simple request to the Government and people of Ontario 20 arising out of the circumstances in which they found 21 themselves. 22 And only after some months in which it 23 became apparent and as the deadlines for filing a civil 24 suit became clear, they filed a civil suit with great 25 reluctance and immediately stated that the civil suit would


1 be dropped in the event that, as has happened now, this 2 Inquiry came to be and they were good to their word. 3 But in, as Murray Klippenstein has said, in 4 the eight (8) years that followed, the applicant embarked 5 on a learning journey. It was an extraordinary one and Mr. 6 Klippenstein has covered some of the thematic high points, 7 if you wish, of what it was that this applicant has 8 learned. 9 I would like to touch base with some of the 10 more practical aspects, if you wish, that justify this 11 applicant's request for standing on the question of special 12 expertise and experience. 13 The context of this applicant's efforts over 14 the last eight (8) and a half years, the backdrop to it, if 15 you like, was an extraordinary and concerted effort by the 16 official defendants in the case of George v. Harris et al, 17 to discredit and stigmatize Dudley -- Dudley George and his 18 fellow demonstrators, to frustrate and prevent the George 19 family plaintiffs from proceeding with their civil case, to 20 avoid and resist discovery and -- and any disclosure in 21 open court of the facts concerning the killing of Dudley 22 George and to discourage and punish the George family 23 members and their legal counsel for their attempts to 24 uncover and disseminate the truth. 25 In the course of responding to that


1 extraordinary backdrop, and the applicant was throughout 2 this year -- throughout these eight and a half (8 1/2) 3 years in a completely responsive mode. 4 A number of essential facets which bear on 5 expertise and experience of their work occurred. In no 6 particular order, the George family and their legal counsel 7 were forced to undertake extensive investigation. 8 And in the initial phases of those eight 9 (8), eight and a half (8 1/2) years, it was apparent that 10 no one else was investigating because there were many 11 witnesses who, some months after the shooting, said, this 12 is interesting, you're the first people to get in touch 13 with us. 14 We did, to the greatest extent possible, 15 conduct that investigation and that investigation continued 16 as witnesses became available or became known through that 17 entire period. 18 The very early facet of the applicant's 19 efforts in this case involved establishing and opening 20 relations with all inv -- involved parties. The applicant 21 sought to open and maintain effective and good relations to 22 the greatest extent possible throughout that long period 23 with all involved parties irrespective of divergent or 24 opposed interests, because the applicants realized that an 25 essential component of this exercise would occur at some


1 distant point in the future which was a coming together and 2 the kind effect as, Mr. Commissioner, that you spoke to in 3 talking about the essence of public inquiries. 4 This case has enormous historical 5 underpinnings going back moderately at least, as far as 6 some of the treaties involved which reach back centuries 7 and it also has a modern history in the days leading up to 8 and immediately after the shooting itself. 9 It was an immediate and ongoing necessity 10 for the applicant and legal counsel to identify, gather, 11 research and gain an enlarged understanding of these 12 crucial historical underpinnings to this case and all of 13 their related issues that relate to the killing of Dudley 14 George. 15 Another major underpinning of the responsive 16 effort that the applicant has undertaken is, of course, 17 Aboriginal and Treaty rights and in engaging in -- in the 18 activities surrounding the civil trial and in addition, 19 explaining and responding to the ground positions that were 20 put -- put forth about Aboriginal and Treaty rights, the 21 George applicants and their legal counsel had to 22 investigate and gain a fuller understanding and an evolving 23 understanding of the profound aboriginal and treaty rights 24 issues involved. 25 To touch briefly on some of the other high


1 points; national and international policing standards were 2 investigated, public comment and debate was engaged in 3 again, necessarily and responsively because great efforts 4 were being made to shape this -- this context and had to be 5 responded to at least to maintain an open record and that 6 involved media relations, relations with community groups, 7 relations with churches, trade unions, national and 8 international human rights organizations. 9 There were civil -- a civil society aspects 10 to the killing that the applicant has been actively 11 involved in throughout the period and legal aspects, as 12 well, which go without saying, had to be gone into with 13 very great depth over the eight and a half (8 1/2) years in 14 which the civil case was being pursued until it was dropped 15 late last year. 16 Throughout this, the applicants have made 17 every effort to maintain a constructive attitude and a long 18 view -- viewpoint on some kind of positive outcome in spite 19 of the circumstances of the eight and a half (8 1/2) years 20 that went by. 21 The applicant, therefore, respectfully 22 submits that as a result of its involvement over the years, 23 as I've just described, it has a valid -- valid and 24 important interests in this Inquiry. It has unique and 25 valuable perspectives on all the issues that the Inq --


1 Inquiry is likely to deal with or many of them and can make 2 a substantial contribution to the Inquiry and should be 3 accepted as a separate party. 4 The request for funding -- forgive me, these 5 things are never switched off when one needs them to be. 6 The request for funding is dealt with on a number of pages, 7 Mr. Commissioner, and in the event that you need us to deal 8 with that orally in any way or answer any questions, we'd 9 be glad to do so. Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 11 Thank you very much. Anything else that you wish to say? 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: We have no further 13 -- no further points to make but we are, obviously, happy 14 to answer any questions that would occur now or later. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 Do you have any questions? No. You're not going to ask 17 questions in this and that -- that's fine. 18 Thank you, very much. As I indicated at the 19 outset, I will not be making decisions on each application. 20 It seems to me in your case it's pretty obvious, we will -- 21 but we will make all of the -- all of the decisions at one 22 time and release the decision at the end. So, unless you 23 have anything else to say, you've kept within the time 24 limit. Thank you very, very much. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'll now call 4 on Mr. Peter Rosenthal who will be speaking for the group 5 of people from -- from Stoney Point, the Aazhoodena. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. Good 7 morning, Mr. Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good morning. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: As you know, sir, in 10 1942 the land that remained to the Stoney Point First 11 Nation was seized by our Government under the War Measures 12 Act. I'm here applying for standing on behalf of eleven 13 (11) persons who are descendants of those who were 14 expropriated at that time, and we are applying for full 15 standing in both parts I and II of the Inquiry and also for 16 funding to fund that participation. 17 We've submitted their materials to you that 18 include affidavits from the eleven (11) persons I'm 19 representing and I should like to briefly highlight some of 20 that, if I may. Beginning at Tab 2 is the affidavit of 21 Perry George, also known, better known as Pierre George who 22 is a brother to Dudley George. 23 And as he indicates in paragraph 3 of his 24 affidavit, his father grew up as a child at Stoney Point 25 and he was one of those removed by the government in 1942


1 and relocated to Kettle Point. 2 Pierre George also deposes that he was a 3 pallbearer at the funeral of his uncle, Dan George, that 4 took place on October 11, 1990 and that funeral seems to 5 have been an important event in the recent history of this 6 area and I'll be pointing out a little bit more about that 7 as I look at another affidavit. 8 In May of 1993, as Pierre deposes in his 9 affidavit, some Stoney Point descendants decided to re- 10 enter their land and he and Dudley joined them at that 11 point. And he participated with Dudley in a ceremony of 12 burying the hatchet at that time to indicate that they 13 would not use violence in their reclaiming of the land. 14 Pierre George lived on the ranges of the 15 camp on and off and, as you know, Mr. Commissioner, there 16 was a gradual acceptance of Stoney Pointers' living on the 17 camp area. 18 In his affidavit, Pierre talks about an 19 event on March 11, 1994 when Stoney Point descendants 20 gathered to pay tribute to Stoney Point residents who had 21 spent the whole winter in trailers on the firing ranges and 22 to celebrate the birthdays of Dudley George and Clifford 23 George. 24 And in the materials, sir, attached as 25 Exhibit A to this affidavit, is a copy of the tribute --


1 tribute to Dudley George that was made at that time for his 2 heroic stance in living through the winters on that land in 3 difficult circumstances. 4 Pierre George's affidavit talks about 5 September 6th, 1995 as well and how earlier in the day he 6 had been down in the park part of the camp but then went 7 back to the camp part and, late that night, he heard that 8 there was shooting going on in the park. 9 His brother Dudley was brought up to where 10 Pierre was, moved into the back of Pierre's car and there 11 was a rather harrowing trip to the hospital, where Pierre 12 drove his car, no assistance by ambulance or by police 13 officers; Dudley dying in the back of his car. 14 Having a flat tire midway to the hospital, a 15 long trip to the hospital in Strathroy, continuing on the 16 flat tire. Arriving at the hospital outside the Emergency 17 room only to be, as he reached for Dudley, grabbed by a 18 police officer and placed under arrest; Pierre placed under 19 arrest. 20 And he spent the night in custody wondering 21 what had happened to his brother who he had delivered to 22 the hospital. Dudley George was the most extreme victim of 23 what happened, but Pierre George and many others were also 24 victims. 25 Pierre George indicates in his affidavit how


1 he's called for a public Inquiry ever since. He's spoken 2 at many events, called for an inquest and so on and worked 3 very hard to try to have this case brought to light 4 publicly and certainly, Commissioner, we are all very 5 assured by your opening remarks that -- that you will do so 6 and confident that you will do so. 7 He deposes that Dudley found his purpose 8 during the short time that he lived in Stoney Point. Now, 9 the other affiants include Cheryl Faye Stonefish, whose 10 Affidavit can be found at 10-4 of the materials. 11 She indicates in the second paragraph that 12 she is the fourth child of Daniel and Melva George: 13 "My father, Daniel George," 14 she deposes: 15 "was born and raised on the territory 16 known as Stoney Point Reserve Number 17 Forty-Three (43). My father's family was 18 forcibly removed from their home in 1942 19 and the community was destroyed by the 20 Canadian government to make way for an 21 army base. They resettled at the nearby 22 Kettle Point Reserve." 23 She goes on to tell how her parents kept the 24 dream of returning to Stoney Point alive and she details 25 that in her Affidavit. I won't take you through all of it,


1 given time constraints. 2 In paragraph 8, she points out what happened 3 when her father passed away on October 11, 1990: 4 "To uphold his dream to return to Stoney 5 Point, my mother, with the assistance of 6 my brother Graham, arranged for his 7 internment at the Stoney Point cemetery. 8 He was finally home. He was the first 9 Stoney Point descendent to be buried 10 there in fifty (50) years." 11 And she deposes: 12 "I sincerely believe that this was a 13 major turn of events that my father's 14 burial inspired the push to reclaim 15 Stoney Point." 16 She goes on to indicate that she supported 17 the return of the Stoney Pointers in 1993 and talks about 18 the close relationship, the close family relationship, 19 between Dudley George and her family. 20 And she tells us that Aazhoodena is the 21 traditional word that our people use for the land also 22 known as Stoney Point and that is the name that the group 23 of eleven (11) decided to apply under for standing at this 24 Inquiry. 25 At Tab 5 is the Affidavit of Kevin Simon,


1 who is, as he indicates, a grandson of Daniel and Melva 2 George. The son of Marcia (phonetic) Simon from whom he 3 learned about the history of Stoney Point. 4 He moved back to Stoney Point on May 6, 1993 5 and has lived there ever since. He was an eyewitness to 6 the shooting of Dudley George, as he deposes; and he was, 7 in fact, called at the -- as a witness at the trial of 8 Officer Dean who shot Dudley George. 9 At Tab-9, there is the Affidavit of Laura 10 Mia George who, as she deposes, is the granddaughter of 11 Daniel and Melva George. 12 She moved to Stoney Point in 1996 and lived 13 in one (1) of the barracks with her children and spouse 14 until 2001. She doesn't live there at the present time. 15 At Tab 10, is the Affidavit of Christina 16 Laura Wakefield, who as she indicates in paragraph 2 is 17 another daughter of Dan and Melva George. 18 She tells us that when she was growing up, 19 discussions about Camp Ipperwash were always kept quiet. 20 Other family -- all the family members went to work at the 21 base in the Summer but no one ever seemed thrilled to have 22 job there. 23 "When I went with my Dad to pick up my 24 Mom after work we would have to wait 25 outside. She says that this trip was


1 never a happy trip for my Dad. I could 2 just imagine the pain and suffering that 3 my Dad endured all those years. It 4 wasn't until my parents started their 5 small two (2) or three (3) person 6 protests, that I really understood what 7 was behind Camp Ipperwash, Stoney Point." 8 She indicates at the beginning of paragraph 9 4, that she supported the reclamation of the land that 10 began in 1993; and in the Spring of 1994, she helped to 11 clean up the cemetery at the old base, where her father was 12 buried in 1990: 13 "The Army had built a chainlink fence 14 practically over the top of my dad's 15 grave and it was a joyous moment when 16 that fence came down." 17 She deposes. She writes in paragraph 9 of 18 her affidavit: 19 "I feel I owe it to my children, ages 12, 20 8 and 5, to help with the fight to have 21 Stoney Point returned to our families. 22 They deserve to know their roots and 23 their culture, to be proud of who they 24 are and where they came from especially - 25 - and especially to live there if they so


1 choose." 2 At Tab 11 is the affidavit of Robert Darryl 3 Stonefish who deposes that he is a grandson of Daniel and 4 Melva George and the son of Darryl and Cheryl Stonefish. 5 And he writes that: 6 "Ever since people moved back to Stoney 7 Point in 1993 I have come here often and 8 stayed for the night, for a week, or for 9 a couple of weeks. Now I live at Stoney 10 Point in one of the barracks." 11 At Tab 12 is the affidavit of Leanne Louise 12 George who, as she deposes, is a granddaughter of Daniel 13 and Melva George. She talks about her earlier memories of 14 Stoney Point going on a skidoo with my father through the 15 territory knowing that it was our land and wondering why we 16 weren't allowed to live there: 17 "I was nervous to ask my father about it 18 because I knew it was a very touchy 19 subject." 20 And she deposes in paragraph 4: 21 "In 1993 I learned that a group of Stoney 22 Point descendants have moved back to 23 Stoney Point. I started going there 24 every chance I had, sometimes spending a 25 week or two (2) at a time. I felt that I


1 was going home and this is where I was 2 meant to be." 3 She describes her reaction in subsequent 4 paragraphs when she heard of Dudley as being shot. 5 In paragraph 7 she deposes, she moved to 6 Stoney Point in January of 1996. She lived there for seven 7 (7) years and she plans to return there when she finishes 8 school. She's currently enrolled. 9 At Tab 13 is the affidavit of Cathryn May 10 Madoka -- Mandoka, excuse me, who deposes in paragraph 4 11 that she is the fifth of twelve (12) children of Daniel and 12 Melva George. She indicates that her parents: 13 "always stressed to us that we were not 14 originally from Kettle Point and that we 15 would return to Stoney Point some day." 16 Paragraph 7, she indicates, that she's been 17 involved with the family in attending the trials, speaking 18 and singing and drumming at as many events as possible 19 since the tragic events of September 6th, 1995. 20 She indicates in paragraph 8 that: 21 "the events of September 1995 affected my 22 life profoundly. I've set myself to 23 continue the struggle of my people and 24 made up my mind to not be deterred by 25 Dudley's death. When my mother passed


1 away in 2000 we had the headstone for 2 both of my parents made under the 3 original family name of Mandoka. Since 4 then I have changed my name legally from 5 George to Mandoka to reclaim what was our 6 original name prior to European contact." 7 You'll appreciate, of course, Mr. 8 Commissioner, I'm not reading the entirety of these 9 affidavits and I trust that you will, in due course. I'll 10 highlight again though paragraph 11 of this affidavit. Ms. 11 Mandoka writes: 12 "I want to be part of a group that is 13 represented at the public Inquiry because 14 it is my duty and obligation to carry on 15 what my parents had started, the plight 16 of getting our land rights recognized and 17 our land back. It's important for all of 18 my ancestors to continue to work for my 19 children. We are taught to think of our 20 people in future generations, to protect 21 and preserve our lands and way of life, 22 seven (7) generations to come." 23 At Tab 14 is the affidavit of Graham 24 Fletcher George who was also the child of, as he deposes in 25 paragraph 4, Daniel George and Christina Melva George, Dan


1 and Melva George as we -- according to the other affidavit. 2 He's their oldest child. 3 And he deposes, towards the middle of 4 paragraph 5, that: 5 "his dad always felt that he belonged 6 there" 7 Stoney Point that is: 8 "and he made an effort to instill that 9 same feeling in me." 10 In paragraph 8 he deposes: 11 "Near the end of his life my father knew 12 and sensed that at some point in the 13 future he would enter the spirit world. 14 He picked for himself a site in the same 15 burial grounds at Stoney Point where he 16 already had a brother and sister buried. 17 When he passed away in October 1990, it 18 was his wife who wanted his wishes to be 19 upheld." 20 His brother, Robert George, and me, his 21 eldest son, approached the commander at Camp Ipperwash and 22 asked for permission to carry out his wishes. 23 These wishes were granted. His funeral was 24 very sad but a historical moment in time. What a way to 25 return to your homeland.


1 The same holds true for my mother. She 2 entered the spirit world in November 2000 and is buried 3 beside her husband. 4 Graham George continues that he wasn't at 5 Stoney Point the night of September 6th but he describes 6 his involvement since and he deposes in paragraph 16: 7 "I want to be part of this group because 8 I feel that Stoney Point should be 9 returned to the rightful owners. Dudley 10 would never have been murdered if the 11 Government of Canada had upheld their 12 promise, that being, to return Stoney 13 Point Number 43 to the resident members 14 of Stoney Point according to the band 15 list dated 1942." 16 At Tab 15 is the affidavit of Daniel Ray 17 George Junior, who is the son, as he deposes also, of 18 Daniel and Melva George and he deposes in paragraph 6: 19 "I feel that the police should have dealt 20 with the people much differently on 21 September 6th, 1995 without shooting. I 22 also question why Canadians think they 23 can build provincial parks on other 24 people's burial grounds. I hope the 25 Inquiry will ask these questions but I


1 also wonder when we will be able to focus 2 on getting our land back. I want to be 3 able to leave my children and 4 grandchildren some property." 5 Tab 3 is the affidavit of Darryl Kerry 6 Stonefish. He and Pierre George are the only two (2) who 7 are not biological descendants of Dan and Melva George 8 among our affiants and applicants but he is, as he deposes, 9 he married into that family. He is the husband of Cheryl 10 Stonefish, another applicant. 11 Darryl Stonefish indicates that he married 12 into the George family in 1990 -- 1971 and met Dudley 13 George around that time. 14 "We were friends and I enjoyed his 15 company on many occasions. In 16 particular, we would fish together at my 17 fishing location." 18 He deposes in paragraph 5 of his affidavit 19 that: 20 "On September the 6th, 1995, I was at 21 Stoney Point from 1:30 p.m. until 2:30 22 p.m. I visited the chapel in the park 23 area where the shooting took place." 24 He bought some sandwiches and soft drinks 25 for the protestors at the park, left at 2:30 p.m. He had


1 made plans to return at 11:00 that night to show support 2 but he fell asleep that night, otherwise he would have been 3 there when Dudley George was shot that night. 4 It is my submission to you, sir, that there 5 is a dual sense in which these persons have direct and 6 substantial interest in this Inquiry. As close family 7 members of Dudley George, that would suffice in my 8 submission to give them substantial and direct interest, 9 but then a completely independent basis would be their 10 participation in the struggle with Dudley George and their 11 connection to it and their aspirations for the future with 12 respect to that struggle. And in my respectful submission, 13 given those two (2) bases, the case for their standing in 14 parts I and II is very high indeed. 15 Now, with respect to Part I of the Inquiry, 16 you've told us this morning that this Commission intends to 17 go beneath the surface and really find out in detail what 18 happened and that is the intent of my clients and that is 19 one of our intents in seeking standing here and we would 20 very much attempt to do that. 21 And also you indicate one possible 22 consequence might be to restore some faith in the process 23 and some healing process and the partic -- participation of 24 my clients might very well assist in that, as well. 25 Now, with respect to Part II of the Inquiry,


1 you indicated you're going to interpret that as broadly as 2 you can, you told us this morning, and in my submission, 3 even if you had much narrower interpretation than -- than 4 you apparently will have, my clients would also have a 5 direct and substantial interest in Part II. 6 They are committed to continuing the 7 struggle that Dudley George started and there may well be 8 similar situations, hopefully, with different outcomes that 9 might arise in the future. And what they have learned as 10 participants would be of great assistance to Part II as 11 well, in my submission. 12 This is also an application for funding and 13 within our materials, we have materials that would assist 14 you in making that recommendation. I don't intend to go 15 through them in detail orally. 16 There are -- there is an affidavit from 17 Pierre George indicating that he has virtually no income at 18 this point and then there is an affidavit from Cheryl 19 Stonefish describing the financial situation of the other 20 applicants. 21 None of them has a large enough income to 22 have any disposable income and, in particular, to fund 23 participation at a public Inquiry. There is also some 24 material in our written materials that might assist you in 25 the level of recommendation for funding that you might


1 make. 2 I'd be glad to answer any further questions 3 about it -- any aspects of that. In particular, we are 4 applying, in addition to funding for myself as counsel, 5 funding for a junior counsel to assist given the number of 6 applicants and given the complexity of the issues and, in 7 addition, for some funding for my clients, for the 8 applicants, to travel to Toronto at least for some of the 9 procedures in Toronto, as appropriate. 10 Subject to any questions you may have, sir, 11 those are my submissions. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 13 much, Mr. Rosenthal. We have read all the materials and 14 all of the affidavits. I have and counsel has as well. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, very much. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, for 17 touching on the highlights. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 20 might be a good point to take a short break. It's almost 21 twelve o'clock. It's a little later than we anticipated 22 for a break but I do think we should have a short break. 23 So I think we're going to break now. It's 24 five to 12:00, we'll break until fifteen (15) minutes until 25 ten (10) minutes after 12:00. And then we'll continue.


1 Thank you very much. 2 THE REGISTRAR: All rise please. 3 4 --- Upon recessing at 11:50 a.m. 5 --- Upon resuming at 12:05 p.m. 6 7 THE REGISTRAR: This Hearing is now 8 resumed. Please be seated. 9 COMMISSIONER LINDEN: Okay, Mr. Ross...? 10 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you, Mr. 11 Commissioner. It's with a sense of deja vu that I stand 12 before you, Mr. Commissioner, for a couple of reasons. 13 In 1992 I was retained to represent families 14 with respect to the Westray Inquiry. As we proceeded down 15 that track, I couldn't help but recall that some ten (10) 16 years earlier I was involved in another mine explosion 17 inquiry and I had the feeling that had the recommendations 18 from the earlier inquiry been employed, it's very likely 19 the Westray disaster would not have happened. 20 And with respect to this Inquiry, I cannot 21 help but recall, some fifteen (15) years -- seventeen (17) 22 years ago, going to the Donald Marshall Jr. Inquiry looking 23 at the role of the Attorney General and if it's the one 24 thing that really caught me about the Marshall Inquiry, it 25 was the word "abuse" as it relates to power and what would


1 happen if it's not reined in. 2 I am now standing before you and I believe 3 that in -- in time I will be presenting to you a lot that 4 I've learned from the Marshall Inquiry. And sometimes I 5 wonder whether or not it was only the people who attended 6 that Inquiry who learned because the problems seem to 7 exist. 8 Mr. Commissioner, I am representing fifty 9 (50) individuals who are resident at Aazhoodena; of these, 10 thirteen (13) are minors but in the First Nation tradition, 11 the line is not drawn as it is with the society that we've 12 come to know. 13 These individuals have rights and if it had 14 been that I was only representing those thirteen (13), I 15 would still be here standing before you seeking standing in 16 the Inquiry and also petitioning you for funding. 17 But with respect to the thirty-seven (37) 18 adults, fifteen (15) were witnesses -- fifteen (15) can 19 tell you first hand things that happened that night in 20 September 1995 when Dudley George was shot. 21 I believe that just on the strength of those 22 clients we would be entitled to standing. And I say 23 "entitled," Mr. Commissioner, because these fifteen (15) 24 people will be witnesses. They'll be called and their -- 25 their rights as witnesses must be protected.


1 I will take a big signal from what you've 2 indicated before we had the break that the Commission has 3 read the material, and I will then allow myself to be 4 captured by the tyranny of the obvious and say that if 5 somebody is representing fifteen (15) witnesses before a 6 Commission of Inquiry, it is hardly unlikely that they 7 would not be granted standing. 8 I must say, Mr. Commissioner, and refer to 9 just one (1) paragraph in my affidavit. In paragraph 5 -- 10 not my affidavit, in the affidavit filed for the funding 11 process. 12 In paragraph it reads 13 "The involvement of the Aazhoodena people 14 who were not only present alongside 15 Dudley George at the time of the police 16 shooting resulting in his death, but who 17 had been for two (2) years prior to this 18 shooting death involved in the non- 19 violent occupation of the Aazhoodena 20 lands in an effort to reclaim the same 21 lands which now form at least part of the 22 subject matter of Phase II of the Inquiry 23 is necessary and of undeniable benefit to 24 the Inquiry." 25 On the question of standing, I have


1 indicated to you that the Aazhoodena, they have been a 2 persistent and cohesive group established substantially 3 before the -- the incidents of September 1995. 4 And that the occupation of Camp Ipperwash is 5 incidental to the reasons for organization which was to 6 assert and protect the individual rights and the collective 7 responsibilities of the Aazhoodena people which included 8 Dudley George. 9 I then refer, very quickly, Mr. 10 Commissioner, to the rights that we are talking about. 11 Some of them are personal rights and personal interests. 12 They have got practical interests and they've got legal 13 interests. 14 And I separate these in my submission and 15 say, the interests are personal in that they were all 16 present throughout the occupation and protest and can speak 17 to the circumstances surrounding the police shooting of 18 Dudley George which relates to Part I. 19 The interests are practical in that they can 20 provide cogent evidence as to the situations substantially 21 before and after the police shooting of Dudley George. And 22 I say their interests are legal in that Aazhoodena people 23 expect the Inquiry to probe into history of the affairs of 24 Stoney Point, Kettle Point and the creation of the Kettle 25 and Stoney Point Band.


1 I don't think that this is the appropriate 2 time to get into the full merits as to why there was an 3 occupation. Sufficient to say, Mr. Chair -- Mr. 4 Commissioner, that they were there, that they've got cogent 5 evidence to bring before you and, as a group, they have 6 demonstrated a high sense of what I call group maturity, in 7 that they have -- they have constituted themselves into a 8 group for the purpose of managing their involvement in the 9 Inquiry process. Something that I think will be very, very 10 helpful to you. 11 On behalf of the fifty (50) individuals that 12 I represent, Mr. Commissioner, the thirteen (13) minors and 13 the thirty-seven (37) adults, of which fifteen (15) were 14 witnesses, of each will be able to give you direct evidence 15 as to what happened on September 5, 1995, I ask that you 16 seriously consider giving them standing. 17 But, Mr. Commissioner, standing without 18 funding is tantamount to granting a high bail to an 19 indigent. They are going through the process but not 20 achieving any result. 21 Having been involved in four (4) major 22 inquiries before this one, Mr. Commissioner, I believe that 23 my experience should be considered. And I'm suggesting to 24 you, Mr. Commissioner, that it will be necessary because I 25 am dealing with fifty (50) individuals, fifty (50) clients,


1 and because of the distance between Toronto and Aazhoodena, 2 it's going to require the involvement not only of myself, 3 as senior counsel, but I think somebody else at my category 4 level as co-counsel. 5 And in that regard, I will identify my 6 partner, Mr. Kevin Scullion, there are many things I can 7 say about but you'll find that out for yourself, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 And, over and above that, Mr. Commissioner, 10 because of what I understand to be the volumes of documents 11 that have been prepared by my group over the years, not 12 specifically for the purpose of the Inquiry, primarily to 13 do with the return of the Aazhoodena lands. 14 We have substantial documentation which is 15 available. These documents must be reviewed, they must be 16 assessed. They must be segregated and, in time, numbers of 17 these documents turned over to the Commission, together 18 with identification of the authors so that they could be 19 called to give evidence, if necessary. 20 So, Mr. Commissioner, my submission to you, 21 apart from the written material which is before you, and 22 which I accept that you've read, I would ask that serious 23 consideration be given to not only standing of legal 24 counsel for Parts I and Parts II, full standing that is, 25 but full funding which would include a senior counsel and


1 co-counsel of that category and the rights to be able to 2 use a junior from time to time and a clerk. 3 We understand, Mr. Commissioner, that 4 accounts as and when rendered will be reviewed by an 5 appropriate assessment officer and all that we can say that 6 we stand on our honour as officers of the Court with 7 respect to any funding from the public purse. 8 Mr. Commissioner, I thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 10 much. We do intend to have an assessor appointed, as has 11 been done in other Commissions, to review accounts on a 12 periodic basis. 13 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you, Mr. 14 Commissioner. Any other questions -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. No, 16 I have no other questions but thank you very much. 17 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 19 much, Mr. Ross. 20 The next applicant is the Province of 21 Ontario. I'll call on Kim Twohig. 22 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Good afternoon, Your 23 Honour. We are with the Ministry of the Attorney General. 24 My name is Kim Twohig and my colleagues are Walter Myrka 25 and Susan Freeborn. We all wanted to attend today for the


1 opening of the Inquiry but we anticipate that if the 2 province is granted standing, we will be alternating our 3 attendance at the Inquiry. 4 We act for the Province of Ontario which, 5 for purposes of the Inquiry, consists of the Ministries of 6 the provincial government, employees and former employees 7 of the government. 8 At the Inquiry we will not be representing 9 the former Premier of the province, former Ministers, 10 political staff, the Ontario Provincial Police or the Chief 11 Coroner and it is important, in our view, to distinguish 12 the Province of Ontario from the Government of Canada when 13 we talk about government. 14 The province has applied for full standing 15 in respect of both Parts I and Part II and we submit that 16 the province meets the criteria for full standing in that 17 its interests will be directly and substantially affected 18 by the subject matter of Part I and Part II. 19 The province also represents distinct and 20 ascertainable interests and perspectives essential to the 21 mandate of the Commission. For example, there will be 22 numerous witnesses called who are a part of the government 23 with the Ministry of Natural Resources which is involved 24 with the park, the special investigations unit which 25 conducted the investigation into the shooting of Mr.


1 George, the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat and a number 2 of other Ministry employees who have evidence to give about 3 the events that are the subject of the Inquiry. 4 The province respects the independence of 5 the Commission and wants to assist the Commission in 6 fulfilling its mandate. We assure you that the province 7 will cooperate fully with the Commission if granted 8 standing. Thank you, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 10 much. Do either of your colleagues have anything they wish 11 to add? No? 12 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I don't believe so. Thank 13 you. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 15 kindly. We're moving right along. 16 We're going to next call on Mr. Peter 17 Downard who is asking to speak on behalf of the applicant 18 former Premier of Ontario, Mr. Michael Harris. 19 Sir...? 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yes, thank you, Mr. 21 Commissioner. I do appear for the Honourable Michael D. 22 Harris and with me are my colleagues, Bill Hourigan and 23 Jennifer McAleer. 24 Sir, obviously the primary concern of this 25 Inquiry must be the violence at Ipperwash and the direct


1 consequence of that violence in terms of the loss of a 2 man's life. The larger historical context is also vital. 3 It remains that there are other issues in this matter. 4 In the case of Mr. Harris, it was alleged in 5 a civil lawsuit that commenced in early 1996, that he had 6 acted wrongfully. It was alleged that as Premier of 7 Ontario, he had personally ordered the Ontario Provincial 8 Police to utilize a para-military force to take severe 9 action against the occupiers at Ipperwash Park. The 10 lawsuit claimed that Mr. Harris personally caused the death 11 of Dudley George as a result. 12 Now, there can hardly be a more sensational 13 allegation than that a Premier of this Province has 14 directed police to use force that resulted in a man's 15 death; but, it was a false accusation. It has not been 16 validated and it cannot be validated. It was that 17 allegation, I say with respect, and not any conduct of Mr. 18 Harris that was wrong. 19 Now, that allegation undoubtedly was a great 20 use in the public realm in calling for this Inquiry into 21 all the circumstances and all the issues surrounding the 22 events at Ipperwash. Opposition politicians also used that 23 allegation to attack Mr. Harris' character in a manner that 24 also plainly intended to advance their own political 25 fortunes.


1 Unlimited number of journalists joined the 2 attack and there is a liable case that remains pending in 3 the courts as a result. And regrettably we've seen a trace 4 of these character attacks this morning when Mr. Orkin has 5 told you -- he's made many representations to you as to how 6 his clients and he and counsel have sought to maintain 7 positive relations with Government Defendants in the civil 8 action throughout, but at the same time this morning, we 9 hear that the official Defendants in that case undoubtedly 10 are in reference to our client, sought to discredit and 11 stigmatize the Defendants and to discourage and punish 12 their counsel; that again, is sadly typical of the sort of 13 character attacks we have seen in this matter that are 14 completely unjustified. 15 Now, as this Inquiry begins, our client has 16 returned to private life and the lawsuit that was commenced 17 against him last Fall was dropped; but, it remains that 18 precisely because of the sensational and wrong allegations 19 made against him in this matter that Mr. Harris has a 20 direct and substantial interest in the true facts being 21 determined in this public forum. 22 And so, we submit that Mr. Harris should be 23 recognized as a person of standing in this Inquiry and in 24 accordance with Section 5.1 of the Public Inquiries Act. 25 We make no application for funding from the Inquiry.


1 We also submit that Mr. Harris has a 2 substantial interest in the policy issues to be considered 3 in the Part II. Those proceedings will plainly involve 4 consideration of government policy and practice, during our 5 client's time as Premier. 6 And in our submission, it is appropriate 7 that he have standing to participate in that process. And 8 we appreciate, of course, that -- the nature and extent of 9 that participation in Part II will be of a different sort 10 than in Part I. 11 So, subject to any further assistance we can 12 provide, those are my submissions. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Any of you 14 have anything to add? Thank you very kindly, sir, thank 15 you very much. 16 I don't know if anybody -- you're acting on 17 behalf of Charles Harnick? Are you a Strosberg? 18 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: No, I'm not, but 19 I'm with Strosberg. My name is Jacqueline Horvat. Both 20 Harvey Strosberg and I will be representing Charles Harnick 21 at this Inquiry, assuming standing is granted. 22 Mr. Strosberg could not attend and he sends 23 his regrets, he's at trial. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: I'll be very brief


1 this morning. As I think that our written application sets 2 out our position clearly and you have our letter of April 3 5th? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Mr. Harnick seeks 6 full standing for both Parts I and II of the Inquiry. We 7 are not seeking funding at this time. We didn't file any 8 affidavit evidence but if you would like I can arrange for 9 that to be done. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 11 think that's necessary. 12 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Essentially, we 13 submit that Mr. Harnick is clearly entitled to full 14 standing for both Parts I and II based on the position he 15 held within the Provincial Government at the time relative 16 to the subject matter of this Inquiry. 17 I apologize, I'm getting over a cold. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is there some 19 water there we can help you with. 20 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Thank you. 21 Specifically, Mr. Harnick was Attorney General during 22 September 1995. Actually he was Attorney General from 1995 23 to 1999. 24 Further evidence of Mr. Harnick's direct and 25 substantial interest in the subject matter of this Inquiry


1 is the fact that he was named as an individual defendant in 2 the wrongful death suit commenced by Mr. George's family. 3 Various allegations have been made against 4 Mr. Harnick both in the civil action and in the press and, 5 therefore, along with historically having a direct and 6 substantial interest in the issues and subject matter of 7 the Inquiry, Mr. Harnick also has a substantial and direct 8 interest in the process and outcome of this Inquiry. 9 Given that Mr. Harnick's reputation will be 10 at risk, he deserves a chance to respond. Further, based 11 on Mr. Harnick's former position as Attorney General, he 12 will undoubtedly have -- undoubtedly have unique 13 information and insight into the questions and evidence 14 which will be considered in both Parts I and II and this -- 15 by the Commission. 16 In carrying out its mandate under Part II, 17 the Commission will review, among other things, the 18 relationship between the government and the police. Given 19 Mr. Harnick's position as both Attorney General and the 20 Minister responsible for Native Affairs during his time 21 with the Provincial Government, any review of policy issues 22 raised by the events at Ipperwash and recommendations 23 directed towards preventing violence, in similar 24 circumstances in the future, I respectfully submit will 25 sufficiently affect Mr. Harnick to afford him full standing


1 for Part II. 2 The mandate and objectives of this 3 Commission will also allow Mr. Harnick many opportunities 4 to share his unique knowledge, experience and ideas with 5 the Commission. 6 Therefore, Mr. Harnick also represents 7 distinct, ascertainable interests and perspectives that are 8 essential to the Commission's mandate. I submit, 9 therefore, that Mr. Harnick fits squarely within the tests 10 for full standing outlined in the Commission's Rules of 11 Procedure and Practice for both Parts I and II of this 12 Inquiry. 13 Subject to any questions, those are all the 14 comments I have. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 very kindly. 17 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 19 much. 20 I'll call now on Mr. Mark Fredrick who will 21 be speaking for the applicant Mr. Chris Hodgson. 22 MR. MARK FREDRICK: Thank you, Your Honour. 23 Indeed, I am joining in with the other ministerial 24 applicants to obtain status for standing in the Hearing but 25 only with respect to Part I of the Hearing respecting Mr.


1 Hodgson. 2 Mr. Hodgson, his position and status, I 3 think, was put to you in my application of March 15th, 2004 4 which I think details the reasons. I really don't have 5 much to add to that at this time other than to say, based 6 upon certain comments I've heard this morning, both from 7 counsel for the George's and counsel for Mr. Harris, 8 obviously, there are a number of issues that will become 9 forefront to some of the deliberations that you'll have to 10 make. 11 And I think that re-echoes the position I 12 put in this application that Mr Hodgson, as Minister of 13 Natural Resources at the time, responsible for the park 14 system in the Province of Ontario does, in fact, indeed, 15 have a substantial and direct interest as required by the 16 Public Inquiries Act and by the Rules that your Commission 17 has put forward. 18 I'm not asking for funding at this juncture 19 and subject to any questions you may have, I really can't 20 add much to what I've otherwise put out to you in the 21 application itself. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 23 Hodgson was also a defendant in the lawsuit? 24 MR. MARK FREDRICK: He was a defendant in 25 the lawsuit as well.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. I 2 have no other questions. That's fine. It's going very 3 quickly. Thank you very much. 4 MR. MARK FREDRICK: Thank you, Your Honour. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are we all 6 right? I'm not sure if everybody who is on this list was 7 expected to be some this afternoon, so, may not be here. 8 The next applicant is Marcel Beaubien and 9 the firm is Raphael Partners or Raphael, Raphael, I'm 10 sorry, and Mr. Douglas Sulman. 11 Are you Mr. Sulman? 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Sulman. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sulman. 14 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And Mr. Raphael would 15 be pleased that you -- you got him right on that, Your 16 Honour. Thank you very much. 17 Good afternoon. I represent Marcel Beaubien 18 as I have throughout the eight (8) years of the litigation 19 referred to by Mr. Klippenstein. Only Mr. Klippenstein, 20 his associate and I have had the distinction of having been 21 counsel throughout the eight (8) years of the litigation 22 and potentially counsel in this Inquiry. 23 On April 7th, we filed with the Commission 24 Counsel a brief written application for standing and we are 25 not applying for funding -- a funding order from the


1 Commission at this time. I only intend to do a brief oral 2 submission in addition to our written application. 3 I can advise you that should we be granted 4 standing, I will be senior counsel representing Mr. 5 Beaubien but I would anticipate that my junior counsel Mr. 6 Hinnegan will be here on occasion also. He is not present 7 today. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: My client, Marcel 10 Beaubien, was the member of the Legislative Assembly or MPP 11 for the riding that encompassed the Ipperwash Provincial 12 Park, the reservations of both the Stoney and Kettle Creek 13 Indian bands, the Town of Forest, the Town of Grand Bend 14 and all the lands surrounding both Ipperwash Provincial 15 Park and the Canadian Armed Forces bases that throughout 16 will be referred to as Camp Ipperwash from about July 1995 17 to November 2003. 18 Marcel Beaubien was one (1) of the 19 defendants in the lawsuit brought by Maynard Sam George 20 based on the death of Dudley George in with -- in which the 21 plaintiffs made several allegations concerning Mr. 22 Beaubien's alleged involvement in the death of Dudley 23 George. 24 Now, among those allegations is that Mr. 25 Beaubien had acted wrongly and had contributed to the death


1 of Dudley George, a very, very serious allegation; one 2 which throughout the litigation and at the -- we have 3 learned, throughout that litigation, that that allegation 4 is not substantiated and, as you are aware, the litigation 5 has been dismissed as against Mr. Beaubien. 6 Mr. Beaubien has been involved in the 7 lawsuit and in the -- the lawsuit in -- for eight (8) 8 years, just as has the family, the George family, and we 9 have learned throughout that lawsuit that there are many 10 sides to what surrounded the park occupation and much of 11 that has not been made public and that, as I understand it, 12 is the process and the purpose of this Inquiry. 13 And it is Mr. Beaubien's position that it is 14 vital that all sides be heard and that all facts come 15 forward and that it be a matter of not simply one side 16 coming forward with information, but, the totality of all 17 the facts coming forward, so that there is a balanced 18 approach in the Inquiry and it is our submission that he 19 has valid information, he is a valid participant in order 20 that all that information come forward. 21 Mr. Beaubien communicated with the residents 22 adjacent to the Ipperwash Provincial Park, the Ontario 23 Provincial Police representatives, Band Chief Bourcette 24 (phonetic), Ontario government officials who will be 25 represented if granted standing, the Government of Canada


1 Officials who I don't see here today in any capacity, and 2 others in both the time frame immediately prior to the 3 death of Dudley George and in the time frame subsequent to 4 his death, including the subsequent civil disorder that 5 followed his death and during the years of Mr. Beaubien's 6 service as MPP. 7 It is our position that we must look at that 8 broad time frame, that it not be simply the September days 9 of 1995 and that only in looking at that broad time frame 10 can we get a full perspective of what occurred and how it 11 might be prevented. 12 Mr. Beaubien, as MPP, had a real and 13 substantive connection to the time frame that I've just 14 spoken about both before and after the park occupation. It 15 is our submission that Mr. Beaubien's perspective is 16 important to any recommendations directed to avoid similar 17 circumstances. 18 Mr. Beaubien, as I've pointed out, has an 19 interest in all the true facts being presented at the 20 Inquiry. And given the circumstances of the George v. 21 Harris et al case, there will be, in this hearing, 22 statements involving Mr. Beaubien, those which may affect 23 his reputation. 24 He is, as Mr. Hodgson, now a private citizen 25 and, in fact, he is seeking to continue to represent this


1 area at the federal level. Many facts could not come out 2 in the -- in the lawsuit itself, partially because of the 3 nature of civil litigation and criminal proceedings and the 4 evidentiary proceedings there. 5 And I would hope that some of those matters 6 do come forward here that might not otherwise come out in 7 the -- in the litigation process. And Mr. Beaubien wants 8 all those facts to be made public and to be heard by the 9 general public. 10 Mr. Beaubien is not part of a group that is 11 of a similar interest. You have had Mr. Hodgson's 12 representative come forward, you have had Mr. Harris' 13 representative and you will, at some point, hear from Mr. 14 Runsomen's (phonetic) representative. 15 But Mr. Beaubien was not a cabinet minister 16 in the Ontario Government at the time. He was not involved 17 in any meetings with cabinet ministers in that time frame 18 and their interest may be somewhat different than his. So 19 he's not a member of a similar group in that regard. 20 He was involved in the negotiations and 21 resolutions of the issues following the September '95 22 incident. And that, I respectfully submit, will be of 23 great assistance in Part II, the healing process. And he 24 was involved in what healing process was done in the 25 aftermath.


1 And so it's our submission that he has a 2 real and substantive interest in Part II. Part I may be 3 very obvious because of his participation in the litigation 4 and his participation in the area as the MP. 5 Not only is he the MP, but he's also a 6 former municipal elected official in this area and has a 7 long history of community involvement and, to this date, 8 remains active in the Ipperwash community. 9 And I respectfully submit he can make a real 10 and substantial contribution to both parts of the Inquiry 11 from that perspective alone. 12 It is -- there are many interests that need 13 to be represented at this Hearing and among them is the 14 interests of the neighbours of the Ipperwash Park and the 15 Ipperwash Camp. 16 And those people were represented by Mr. 17 Beaubien in his time as MPP; that is one of the sides of 18 this unfortunate incident that must be brought forward. 19 You must hear about the concerns that they had and that 20 will come forward if Mr. Beaubien is granted standing. 21 It is submitted that on the basis of the 22 facts that I've set forward that he, Mr. Beaubien, has a 23 distinct and ascertainable interest and a perspective which 24 is important to making sure that all the facts come 25 forward.


1 Finally, it's my respectful submission to 2 you, Your Honour, that it's important that this applicant 3 be granting standing to assist in assuring that there be a 4 balance, an important balance, between the interests in 5 this matter and the interests of the broader public come 6 forward. 7 It ought not to be one-sided. It ought not 8 to be just from -- viewed from one perspective. It is 9 important that both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal views 10 come forward and be heard at this Inquiry and it is 11 important that Mr. Beaubien be granted standing at both 12 stages -- at both parts, in order that that information 13 come forward. 14 Those, Your Honour, are my submissions with 15 regard to Marcel Beaubien's application for standing and 16 they are respectfully submitted to you, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 18 much. 19 Mr. Sandler, do you want to go now or do you 20 want to have it -- you want to do it now? 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: Now is fine. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Mr. 23 Mark Sandler, who has a great deal of experience in 24 Commissions will be speaking on behalf of the applicant, 25 the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner, Gwen Boniface


1 and Commissioned Officers, I believe. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes, good afternoon, Mr. 3 Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 5 afternoon. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: I wish to introduce 7 Andrea Tuck-Jackson (phonetic) who's my partner and I 8 expect, if granted standing, will be here on occasions that 9 I am not. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How are you? 11 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Good afternoon. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: I intend to be very 13 brief, Commissioner. As you've indicated, I represent the 14 Ontario Provincial Police, the organization itself, 15 Commissioner Boniface and the present and former 16 Commissioned Officers of the police force. 17 I should indicate, I know you're familiar 18 with this, but since this is a Public Inquiry, that 19 Commissioned Officers is a phrase that's reparable to the 20 senior members of the Force and specifically refers to the 21 Queen's Commission that is conferred upon officers by the 22 Lieutenant Governor; that would include inspectors, 23 superintendents, chief superintendents, deputy 24 commissioners and the commissioners, amongst other ranks. 25 I am applying on behalf of my clients for


1 full standing at Parts I and II of this Inquiry. My 2 respectful submission is that they have a direct and 3 substantial interest in all of the factual and systemic 4 issues which will be addressed by you. 5 Factual, of course, includes the events in 6 September of 1995, what did happen and why; and I expect 7 that a number of the Commissioned Officers will give 8 important evidence that bears upon that issue. 9 In relation to the systemic issues, we are 10 very much interested in the relationship between the First 11 Nations' community and the OPP; and the relationship 12 between the OPP and the government of the day; and the 13 relationship between existing or outstanding land claims 14 and policing issues as they arise in that context; and 15 these are of obvious and profound importance to the OPP. 16 I do want to say that there will -- there 17 are divergent views in this room as to what happened and 18 why -- on Septem -- in September of 1995; and those 19 divergent views will undoubtedly find expression during 20 this commission. 21 But I do want to publicly express on behalf 22 of my Commissioner, Gwen Boniface, who I believe is well 23 known to the First Nations Community, that it is also our 24 hope that what will come out of the Commission will 25 enhance, not take away from, the relationship between the


1 OPP and the First Nations' community and that we will 2 assist the OPP and the First Nations Community and the 3 OPP's officers in dealing with the difficult and complex 4 policing issues that will be explored in context of this 5 inquiry. 6 There has been much work done since 1995 by 7 Commissioner Boniface and sometimes that's lost sight of 8 and I expect that one of the things that I'll be able to 9 do, and that she will be able to do, is provide you with 10 information as to what has happened since 1995 and how -- 11 what can be done -- what has been done, can be improved 12 upon in the future; and that is an important part of the 13 systemic work that you will be doing. 14 I also wish to note that I heard earlier on 15 in the submissions of Sam George and also in the 16 submissions of Mr. Klippenstein, that what they'd like to 17 see happen here is part of a healing process and that 18 something good come out of something bad. 19 And as I say, despite the fact that there 20 will be divergent views here, no denying it, at this 21 Inquiry, we also share in those sentiments. We'd like to 22 see something good come out of something bad; we'd like to 23 see a healing process that might be improved upon through 24 the work of this Inquiry; and we intend to commit ourselves 25 to assist this Inquiry in any way that we can to make that


1 happen. 2 To deal with two (2) practical issues, the 3 first is that you will be hearing from Ian Roland on behalf 4 of the Association and in my submission, and you'll hear 5 from Mr. Roland directly on the point, there is a special 6 and different perspective that Mr. Roland will bring here 7 on behalf of the Association. 8 As well, he will be acting on behalf of non- 9 commissioned Officers, who obviously are differently 10 situated than the Commissioned Officers that I represent. 11 But I also wish to articulate my commitment to you, and I 12 know this is shared by Mr. Roland, that we are also mindful 13 of the fact that there is some commonality of interest 14 between our groups and we will not duplicate efforts in the 15 work that's done before you. 16 And, finally, I want to point out that 17 because the events occurred in 1995, some of the officers 18 who were involved were non-commissioned at the time and 19 have since become commissioned and I would ask for the 20 exercise of discretion on our part, that we're given 21 standing as to which category these officers will fall 22 within. We'll try to position the officers in a way that 23 makes sense in the presentation of the evidence. 24 Those are my respectful submissions. Thank 25 you, Commissioner.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 2 much. It's very gratifying to have such experienced and 3 senior counsel involved, thank you very much. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: Thank you, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar...? 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner I would 7 suggest that we hear Mr. Roland. This is one of the few 8 times where a lawyer made an estimate, time estimate, and 9 it's not run longer than the estimate that was made. 10 We will be done today with Mr. Roland's 11 submission and it may be that we should have had more 12 individuals listed today but we made that decision and 13 after Mr. Roland, we'll start again tomorrow morning. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't think 15 anybody would ever complain if it ends early. 16 Mr. Roland...? On behalf of Ontario 17 Provincial Police Association and, as already been 18 explained, non-commissioned officers. 19 MR. IAN ROLAND: Yes, thank you, Mr. 20 Commissioner. I appear with my partner, Karen Jones, who 21 will be here representing our clients when I'm not 22 available -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 24 MR. IAN ROLAND: -- and I will be here 25 representing them when she's not available.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When she's not 2 available. That's great. 3 MR. IAN ROLAND: I come before you acting on 4 behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police Association. It's 5 the statutory bargaining agent of the approximately eighty- 6 two hundred (8200) police officers who hold the rank or 7 ranks up to and including that of Sergeant Major, as 8 described already, non-commissioned officers. 9 In effect, the OPPA represents all of the 10 front-line officers of the OPP, these being the officers 11 that were directly involved in the events both leading up 12 to the Ipperwash Park incident of September 6, 1995, as 13 well as the events that followed. There were, I'm told, 14 about fifty (50) or more such officers involved directly in 15 the events of September the 6th, '95 and a total of 16 something like four hundred (400) officers before, during 17 and after those events. 18 Many of these officers have retired from the 19 OPP in the last nine (9) years. All of them had a direct 20 involvement, some greater involvement than others, in those 21 events, direct knowledge and thus a direct interest in the 22 work of this Inquiry and the evidence that you're going to 23 he -- we're going to hear in Part I. 24 This Commission will be examining into their 25 conduct, the conduct that these officers have had, to some


1 greater or lesser degree, already put into the public forum 2 in various other proceedings, conduct and events that 3 they've -- that are a significant aspect of their careers 4 and for which they lived with for the last nine (9) years. 5 They, I can tell you, are looking forward to 6 a full exposition of all of the facts and closure on the 7 controversy, the public controversy, that's occurred with 8 respect to the Ipperwash Park events. 9 Let me also say that the OPPA, as their 10 representative, seeks standing so that it can properly 11 assist the Commission to organize and advance the 12 evidentiary part of Part I, given the number of officers 13 that they represent and the OPPA, not the officers, seeks 14 standing in Part II. 15 I hear you this morning that Part II is a 16 part of your work for which standing will be more readily 17 granted. I simply want to emphasize that the OPPA and 18 their members have a very direct interest in any work that 19 is done in Part II and any recommendations that come out of 20 it. 21 They are the police officers, the men and 22 women in our society, who are appointed with the difficult 23 responsibility to enforce the laws that our governments 24 enact and that -- the enforcement of the laws of our 25 governments have -- has inherent in it risks and the


1 possibility of violence, not only to the citizens who the 2 police officers must deal with, but, to the police officers 3 themselves, and so they have, I -- I put before you, a very 4 direct and substantial interest in Part II, as well as in 5 Part I and I seek standing through the OPPA on behalf of 6 all of the non-commissioned officers, both past and 7 present, who had any involvement in any of the matters that 8 are the subject matter of your Inquiry. Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you very 10 much. Thank you very much, Mr. Roland. That's all the 11 people we have today, right? 12 I'm very gratified by the remarks that 13 counsel have made this morning and statements of 14 cooperation and assistance and so forth and so on by 15 virtually all of -- all of the counsel. 16 That's exactly the spirit that I hope we can 17 maintain, notwithstanding that there will be some 18 differences, obviously, in the facts. The fact that 19 everybody's indicated a willingness and, indeed, a wish to 20 be helpful and cooperative is very -- is very gratifying. 21 So I think that is it. That brings to a 22 conclusion the applicants that we had set for today. We 23 thought it would take longer. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's correct. As I 25 said, I assumed that it would have taken longer today. We


1 may have the same problem tomorrow, but having set this 2 schedule, we now need to live with it. 3 And so that's it for today. We'll have a 4 tighter schedule in the future, Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We start 6 tomorrow with the Office of the Chief Coroner seeking 7 standing; correct? 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's correct. 9:30. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 It isn't necessary for anybody who's here today, who's 11 already made their application, to be here on future days. 12 You're, of course, welcome to come anytime, 13 all the time but if you're not making application it 14 certainly isn't necessary for you to be here tomorrow. 15 So thank you very, very much. That's it for 16 today. 17 THE REGISTRAR: Order. All rise please. 18 This hearing is adjourned until tomorrow morning, 19 Wednesday, April 21st at 9:30 a.m. 20 21 --- Upon adjourning at 12:50 p.m. 22 23 24 25


1 2 3 4 5 Certified Correct, 6 7 8 9 10 11 ______________________ 12 Wendy Warnock, Ms. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25