1 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE 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 23 24 February 9th, 2006 25


1 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) (np) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) 5 Katherine Hensel ) 6 Megan Ferrier ) (np) 7 Murray Klippenstein ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) (np) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) (np) Family Group 14 15 Anthony Ross ) (np) Residents of 16 Cameron Neil ) Aazhoodena (Army Camp) 17 Kevin Scullion ) 18 William Henderson ) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) (np) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) (np) 21 Kim Twohig ) Government of Ontario 22 Walter Myrka ) (np) 23 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 24 Michelle Pong ) (np) 25 Lynette D'Souza ) (np)


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 6 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 7 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 8 Jennifer McAleer ) 9 10 Ian Smith ) (np) Robert Runciman 11 Alice Mrozek ) (np) 12 13 Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.) (np) Charles Harnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) (np) 15 16 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 17 Mary Jane Moynahan ) (np) 18 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 19 Trevor Hinnegan ) 20 21 Mark Sandler ) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) (np) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) 9 Caroline Swerdlyk ) (np) 10 11 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 12 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 13 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 14 Julian Roy ) (np) 15 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 16 Linda Chen ) (np) 17 Chris Darnay ) 18 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 19 20 Al J.C. O'Marra ) (np) Office of the Chief 21 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 22 23 William Horton ) (np) Chiefs of Ontario 24 Matthew Horner ) (np) 25 Kathleen Lickers ) (np)


1 2 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 3 Mark Fredrick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 4 Craig Mills ) (np) 5 Megan Mackey ) (np) 6 Peter Lauwers ) (np) 7 Erin Tully ) (np) 8 Michelle Fernando ) (np) 9 Maanit Zemel ) 10 11 David Roebuck ) (np) Debbie Hutton 12 Anna Perschy ) 13 Melissa Panjer ) 14 Adam Goodman ) (np) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 Anthony Gilbert Parkin, Resumed 6 Continued Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 9 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 145 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Kevin Scullion 252 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Henderson 288 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Basil Alexander 303 11 12 13 14 15 16 Certificate of Transcript 310 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-1070 Mr. Anthony Parkin's handwritten notes, 4 08:00 hours to 18:00 hours, July 28, 5 2003. 140 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 9 morning, everybody. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: A couple of 11 administrative items before we begin. The first is, on 12 Monday, I believe it was, I indicated that we would deal 13 with the issue of scheduling today and we're going to 14 deal with that on Monday instead, when we're back on 15 Monday. 16 The second administrative issue relates to 17 the notes of Mr. Parkin. Mr. Parkin checked last night 18 and found his notes for July 28th, 2003, and we've 19 distributed that note. 20 And the third item is, a few minutes ago 21 Mr. Worme received a call from Mr. Falconer who said that 22 he was running five (5) or six (6) minutes late due to an 23 emergency of some sort and so I suggest that we take a 24 short break until Mr. Falconer arrives. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine.


1 We'll take a short break and we'll start as soon as Mr. 2 Falconer arrives. 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess. 4 5 --- Upon recessing at 9:01 a.m. 6 --- Upon resuming at 9:03 a.m. 7 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 9 resumed. Please be seated. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 morning, Mr. Falconer. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Good morning, Mr. 13 Commissioner. Sorry about the delay. I apologize. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 15 16 ANTHONY GILBERT PARKIN, Resumed 17 18 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Good morning, Mr. Parkin. 20 A: Good morning, sir. 21 Q: Mr. Parkin, could you direct your 22 attention please to the binder of transcripts? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Now, what I want to do is, as 2 efficiently as possible, simply canvas with you first 3 what the transcripts that follow Tab 7, in other words we 4 spent a great deal of time on Tab 7, but what the 5 transcripts that follow Tab 7 represent. 6 Now as I understand it, starting at Tab 8, 7 in other words the telephone conversation you would have 8 had at 11:07 on the evening of September 6th, 1995, these 9 would be the first conversations you have following the 10 fatal shooting of Dudley George; is that correct? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And when I say first conversations I 13 should have been more precise; first conversations you 14 would have had with Incident Command, correct? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And in terms of your learning of the 17 shooting, was it through these conversations or were 18 there conversations outside of these taped transcripts 19 that reflect when you first learned of the shooting? 20 A: Only through these transcripts, sir. 21 Q: So to some extent these transcripts 22 represent a true window into what was going on in terms 23 of what you uttered and what was uttered to you by 24 Incident Command surrounding the shooting. 25 They are an accurate reflection of exactly


1 what was discussed? 2 A: Correct, sir. 3 Q: Is that a good thing or a bad thing 4 to have such a record ten (10) years later? 5 A: It's a good thing. 6 Q: And it's a good thing, would you 7 agree with me, because first of all obviously we're in a 8 practical reality whereby a Royal Commission of Inquiry 9 is ordered some years after an event and you don't have 10 an encyclopaedic memory, correct? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: And so this provides us the 13 transcript, right? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Is there anything that makes the 16 existence of such a transcript, that is the information 17 flow exactly between you and Incident Command, something 18 that you should discourage in your officers. 19 Is there anything about this that would 20 make you want to say, hey, this shouldn't happen this 21 way, these shouldn't be recorded? 22 A: No, sir. 23 Q: Excuse me for a minute. I'll tell 24 you why I ask you that. If you could turn to Tab 11. 25 At Tab 11 there's an indication whereby


1 you ask Mark Wright, two-thirds (2/3's) of the way down 2 the page, and this is a telephone conversation between 3 you, Superintendent Parkin and then Mark Wright, 4 Detective Sergeant, correct? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: And we discussed this yesterday. In 7 essence Mark Wright was John Carson's second, correct? 8 A: Correct, sir. 9 Q: And Mark Wright had been involved in 10 the matter for years and so ultimately Mark Wright was a 11 very key figure. 12 If you couldn't talk to John Carson or 13 couldn't talk to Dale Linton, Mark Wright was the person 14 worth talking to, correct? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: Now two-thirds (2/3's) of the way 17 down the page it says: 18 "AP: Are you on a secure line?" 19 Right? Do -- 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: -- you see that? 22 And he says: 23 "Yep. No, it's not secure. Do we have 24 one that isn't? 25 62 is not taped."


1 Do you see that? 62 is not taped. 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: "Uh, 62, you'll have to call me back. 4 And you ask the number and he says: 5 "Yeah". 6 Right? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: And 62 is actually coincides quite 9 nicely with the number 786-1262, correct? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And this would coincide with the 12 phone line you'd understood earlier was an untaped phone 13 line, correct? 14 A: In the Detachment, yes, sir, I 15 believe. 16 Q: All right. And -- and so -- and when 17 you say "in the Detachment" this is what is happening 18 here, is an untaped line in the Detachment, yes? 19 A: I don't believe so, sir. I believe 20 this is from the command trailer. 21 Q: All right. But the point was that 22 this was a line you understood to be untaped, correct? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: All right. And so the call then 25 resumes at 4:07 on this what you thought was an untaped


1 line which is Tab 12, correct? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: All right. Now, I want to understand 4 something. First of all, would you agree with me that 5 you had intimated, certainly in your evidence to Mr. 6 Worme, Commission counsel, that there's calls of an 7 administrative nature that really don't need to be 8 recorded, right? 9 A: It wasn't our general practice, 10 that's correct. 11 Q: Well, in addition to it not being 12 your general practice, you were of the view that calls of 13 an administrative nature simply didn't need to be 14 recorded, right? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And you know, I take it that's to be 17 distinguished between operational matters which you 18 accept ought to and were recorded, right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And that's quite similar to your 21 point about, for example, note taking where as you put 22 it, your note taking habits as a criminal investigator 23 would be contrasted of your note taking habits as a 24 supervisor, a superintendent when you were doing 25 administrative duties, right?


1 A: Correct. The investigative notes 2 would be much more detailed. 3 Q: Because they'd be operational? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And your supervisory duties, when 6 it's just pure administrative, you don't take such clear 7 notes, correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: I shouldn't say "clear," I apologize, 10 such precise notes? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: All right. And basically the 13 imperative for a formal record will increase if it's 14 operational, right? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And that would have been something 17 not only you knew but Incident Commander Carson knew? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Incident Commander Linton knew? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And you would have expected Mark 22 Wright would know that? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: All right. Now, what I want to do is 25 understand something here.


1 At Tab 1 way back on September 5th it's 2 only really the day before but it seems way back because 3 first of all the length of my examinations, but second of 4 all Tab 1 September 5th is 9:45 a.m. when there's a lot 5 less pressure and there's just discussions going on. 6 And if you could just flip back to Tab 1 7 for a minute, if you look at page 25 of Tab 1 you'll see 8 page 25 in the first sort of conversations you have with 9 Carson, and I don't need to take you to each line, but 10 suffice it to say in this first conversation we can 11 actually find in this transcript where you explain to 12 Carson the -- the chain of command; that Coles is dealing 13 with the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner's office and 14 you're dealing with Carson, right? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: That's kind of the division of tasks. 17 You have responsibility for the Incident Commanders and 18 Coles, in essence, while he obviously is -- has 19 supervision over them if he wants it, he's -- his real 20 task is Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner's office, 21 right? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Okay. At twenty-five (25) though 24 Carson, when you're talking, here's what the chain of 25 command is, here's how it's going to work, Carson says to


1 you halfway down the page: 2 "By they way, this is all -- all this 3 phone stuff is on a recorder in the 4 Command Post here. 5 PARKIN: That's fine. 6 CARSON: Okay. Just so you know." 7 So it's clear that you've now been advised 8 by your Incident Commander it's being taped, right? 9 A: Correct, sir. 10 Q: All right. Tape 2, the conversation 11 that happens a little less than two (2) hours later, 12 right? Tape 2 you have a discussion with Carson about 13 this issue of taping at page 66; could you flip to that. 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Now, page 66: 16 "PARKIN: Okay. You're line, you're 17 on the direct line now? 18 Yes. 19 Is it taped also? 20 Yes." 21 Do you see that? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: And you're asking Carson if the lines 24 you're talking on are taped, you and your Incident 25 Commander, right?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: Okay. 3 "PARKIN: So all the priv -- private 4 line is taped? 5 CARSON: Right. 6 PARKIN: Command Post? 7 Yes. 8 Forest Detachment? 9 No, only -- only the Command Trailer. 10 PARKIN: Only the Command Trailer? 11 We're probably going to need a line at 12 some point in time where we can talk to 13 you. 14 CARSON: I can go into the detachment 15 and call you and it won't be taped. 16 PARKIN: Okay." 17 So it's obvious, first of all, that when 18 you say, We're going to need a line where I can talk to 19 you, it's obvious that he understands from we need an 20 untaped line; would you agree with that? 21 A: I would agree with that. 22 Q: Right. And -- and you say, "Okay". 23 So you don't correct him, right? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: So we can infer when you say the


1 words, I can talk to you, what you're telling him is we 2 need an untaped line, right? 3 A: I wanted a clear line that I could 4 get a hold of him at any time I chose, not in the Command 5 Post. 6 Q: Well, to be fair, sir, you say to 7 him: 8 "We're probably going to need a line at 9 some point in time where we can talk to 10 you." 11 And Carson says: 12 I can go into the detachment and call 13 you and it won't be taped." 14 And you said: 15 "Okay." 16 A: I don't dispute that, sir. 17 Q: All right. So you intended -- well, 18 let me just take a step back. You just finished agreeing 19 with me that Carson took from what you said that you 20 needed an untaped line, right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And you intended for him to take 23 that, correct? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: All right. Now, he says:


1 "Okay. 2 PARKIN: We may have to do that off 3 and on." 4 In other words we may have to have an 5 untaped line off and on, right? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: All right. 8 "CARSON: Well, in fact I can just 9 make a point of going into the 10 Detachment when I call you. 11 PARKIN: Yeah, well you know, it's 12 just that -- 13 CARSON: No, I understand. 14 PARKIN: -- down the road it may 15 become an issue. 16 CARSON: Yep, yep. I can appreciate 17 that. 18 PARKIN: Okay. I've got a Ministry 19 meeting at 11:00 [et cetera]." 20 "Down the road it may become an issue."; 21 you agree with me that that's a fairly open-ended 22 statement? 23 A: It can be interpreted in many ways, 24 yes, sir. 25 Q: Yes. And you're giving instructions


1 to your incident commander about how lines should be 2 recorded or not recorded, right? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And the parameters around whether it 5 should be recorded or not recorded are not, for example, 6 If it's an administrative matter, John, we need not, you 7 know, record it; you didn't tell him that? 8 A: No, I didn't, sir. 9 Q: You didn't say, But if it's 10 operational, John, let's make sure it's taped, that's the 11 way we're suppose to do this; you didn't say that? 12 A: No, I didn't. 13 Q: You just said, Make sure, on and off, 14 we have an untaped line because down the road it may 15 become an issue, right? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: You left it wide open, didn't you, 18 yes? 19 A: How do you mean that? 20 Q: Well, you left the criteria for when 21 the call should recorded or unrecorded wide open. 22 A: Possibly. 23 Q: All right. I just want to know if 24 there's something in this transcript at Tab 2 where you 25 actually say to him, what it is it happens down the road


1 that makes him turn off or on the recorder, then I'd like 2 to see that. 3 In other words if you can show me that. 4 A: I don't believe it's there, sir. 5 Q: No. Now can you assist me, what road 6 would you be going down where you wouldn't want it 7 recorded? What -- what is that road? 8 A: As I tried to explain to Mr. Worme, I 9 take full responsibility and accountability for what I 10 said here. This is probably going back to my days in 11 Incident Command. 12 And one of the problems we always had was 13 trying to keep enough free lines where if we needed to 14 get a hold of the Incident Commander, we could get to him 15 without tying up the command post. 16 So it was clearly my thought to have 17 installed a couple of phone lines within the Detachment 18 that would be free and we would never have a difficulty 19 getting a hold of whoever we were looking for, and it 20 eliminated calling into the command post which lines were 21 usually always busy and it just freed up some lines. 22 That's the only explanation I can give 23 you, sir, and I take responsibility for what I said. 24 Q: And when you say that's, quote, "The 25 only explanation I can give you", close quotes, that's in


1 recognition that what you've just said has nothing to do 2 with whether the line's recorded or not, right? 3 They're completely independent. You could 4 have an extra line strictly for you and John Carson -- 5 it's red and it's marked Superintendent's line, right? 6 You could have that and it could be 7 recorded, right? 8 A: Or anybody else that might want to 9 get a hold of John, yes, sir. 10 Q: Correct? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: So you could have access to your 13 Incident Commander and it could be recorded and it could 14 be exclusive access, correct? 15 A: I had that in the command post, yes, 16 sir. 17 Q: And you could have it at the 18 Detachment if that's what you wanted, correct? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: So the fact that you were looking for 21 a line where you can get through all the time has nothing 22 to do with whether the lines taped or not, right? 23 A: It doesn't have anything to do with 24 whether it was taped or not, it was just my decision. 25 Q: Right. I'm just raising that because


1 you answered to me when I asked you about that; I said, 2 You didn't give him any criteria for when it should be 3 recorded or not. 4 You said, I take responsibility for that 5 because I wanted a line where I was sure I could get to 6 John. 7 That's why I asked you or put it to you, 8 okay? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: All right. Now moving on though, I 11 need to understand something, you'd agree with me that to 12 the extent there are calls between you and John Carson or 13 you and Dale Linton where those calls are operational and 14 not taped. Operational and not taped. 15 In terms certainly, first from a 16 perception point of view, it certainly doesn't look very 17 good in terms of why you wouldn't want a record of 18 operational discussions between you and your Incident 19 Commander. 20 You'd agree with me from a perception 21 point of view that's problematic? 22 A: I don't disagree at all, sir. 23 Q: And that's because from an 24 accountability point of view, the whole point was to have 25 operational discussions recorded, right?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: Now we're going to get back to the 3 example of you and Mark Wright but I -- I just want to 4 ask you something. 5 If you look at the scribed notes, page 37, 6 and we're going to bounce very quickly because Mr. Worme 7 and you did this already, so I don't need to take a lot 8 of time, but if you look at the scribe notes, page 37, 9 and it's Tab 18 of your materials, I'm told. 10 It's P-426 and I'm not even sure, Mr. 11 Commissioner, you need to turn it up because Mr. Worme's 12 already raised the evidentiary issue; I'm simply 13 focussing our discussion for a moment. 14 At page 37 of those scribe notes is a 15 perfect example of a situation where -- for the strangest 16 reason, there's a conversation between you and command 17 with absolutely no record of the conversation, and it's 18 page 37 and Mr. Worme raised it with you. 19 It says: 20 "14:35: Inspector Carson contacted 21 Superintendent Parkin to update him. 22 Updated on tanks, press release by the 23 Town of Bosanquet and contact with the 24 Natives." 25 Clearly operational matters, we agree?


1 A: Update on the tanks? 2 Q: 14:35, sir. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Could you look at the board if you're 7 still looking for it, because it's right there. 8 "14:35: Inspector Carson contacted 9 Superintendent Parkin to update him. 10 Updated on tanks, press release by Town 11 of Bosanquet and contact with the 12 Natives." 13 And you should be very clear that 14:35 14 contact is September 5th, 1995; that's what the scribe 15 notes say; will you take my word for it? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: All right. So 2:35, right, in the 18 afternoon, you're being updated by your incident 19 commander on operational matters, right? 20 A: Correct, sir. 21 Q: And you and I are agreed that, by all 22 accounts, that should be recorded, right? 23 A: I don't disagree. 24 Q: And I suppose one of the things you 25 said in examination-in-chief ought to be given some


1 serious consideration; where was Carson? Maybe he wasn't 2 at command post or an incident command such as it could 3 be recorded, right? 4 A: I don't know where he was, sir. 5 Q: All right. I thought I could help 6 you with that. 7 If you look at P-444A, which is the logger 8 tapes we do have, if you look at Tabs 15 and 16, I think 9 we can get a pretty quick answer on where Carson was. 10 Now, that call that you had with Carson 11 happens at 14:35, right? September 5th, 1995, the 12 unrecorded one? 13 A: Yes, sir, but where -- 14 Q: All right. 15 A: -- am I now? 16 Q: If you go to Tab 15, please, of P- 17 444A, and I'm sorry, I know that we're jumping a bit. I 18 apologize. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: Tab 15, please. 21 A: September 5th, 14:21? 22 Q: That's right. So 14:35 is fourteen 23 (14) minutes after 14:21, correct? Just the math. 24 Correct? 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 Q: And in the fourteen (14) minutes, 2 Carson actually has a substantive conversation with 3 somebody, as you can see. Carson and Coffey about tanks, 4 right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: All right. And you know that this 7 call happens at the command post; you see that, Tab 15? 8 Fourteen (14) minutes before your 2:35 call, right -- 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: -- Carson's at command post, right? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Could you flip to Tab 16, please. 13 This is Carson and Ron Fox at 14:47, you see that? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: 14:47, we have another recorded call, 16 right? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: It looks like Carson's either at 19 command post or at Detachment, recording a call again, 20 right -- 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: -- between Carson and Fox? You'd 23 agree with me, leaving aside whether the scribe notes hit 24 the time minute by minute, second by second, you'd agree 25 with me, in and around 14:35 John Carson is at command


1 post and has access to recorded lines, right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Decisions were made not to record the 4 chat you had with John Carson at 14:35, right? 5 A: I don't know if they -- John made 6 conscious decisions, but clearly they're not recorded. 7 Q: Right. Now, you could say, I don't 8 know if John Carson made conscious decision, but you 9 certainly made a conscious point of stating to John 10 Carson, Make sure there's an untaped line, so down the 11 road, if it becomes an issue, we can use it, right; 12 that's what you said to him? 13 A: I've already acknowledged that, yes, 14 sir. 15 Q: Yeah. And now we're down the road 16 and you used it, right? 17 A: If he called me, he would have used 18 it, correct. 19 Q: Or if you called him, you would have 20 used it. 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Either way, he had access to a 23 recorded line but for reasons that you don't know or 24 remember, you didn't use it? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: What did you talk about? 2 A: I don't know, sir. 3 Q: We'll never know, will we? I mean, 4 beyond the generalities that we find in various note 5 references we'll never have specificity on what you and 6 John Carson talked about on September 5th, the day before 7 Dudley George was shot will we? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Now, I want to ask you about that 10 meeting that you had with Chief Coles and John Carson at 11 the Command Post on September 6th, 1995. I want to ask 12 you about that. 13 You recall yesterday you -- you -- and the 14 day before you testified that there was abundantly clear 15 to you, based on some information you learned from John 16 Carson in your meeting with Chief Coles, that there was 17 some information about automatic weapons from a guy named 18 Boxtator (sic). Remember you talked about that? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And you talked about that in a 21 meeting that you had with John Carson and -- and Chief 22 Coles at the Command Post on September 6th, 1995, the 23 afternoon in the hours before the shooting of Dudley 24 George, correct? 25 A: I believe that's where I would have


1 received the information, yes sir. 2 Q: Yeah. And then you -- there's no 3 doubt that's operational information? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And you didn't say to John Carson in 6 any taped conversation I can find or note I can find, 7 John, we're coming to meet you, Chief Coles and I, your - 8 - your superiors, right, We're coming to meet you but the 9 only thing we're going to chat about is administrative 10 matters; that never happened? 11 A: I believe it is recorded somewhere 12 that I asked John if it was all right if we attended, the 13 Chief and I, to wave the flag. What was the second part, 14 sir? 15 Q: Administrative matters. Did you say 16 to John -- 17 A: No, no. 18 Q: -- we're only coming to talk to you? 19 Did you? 20 A: No, sir. No. 21 Q: And -- and that's kind of a bit silly 22 isn't it? You -- you wouldn't take the trouble to meet 23 in a confidential setting with your incident commander 24 about a serious incident and only talk about 25 administrative matters; that wouldn't happen?


1 A: Correct. And I made the point when I 2 was talking to John that we were just down there to wave 3 the flag and say hi to the fellows and show some support. 4 Q: Okay. So when you were waving the 5 flag one (1) of the fellows said, Hey, Boxtator (sic) 6 knows something about automatic weapons and AK-47's when 7 you were waving the flag, right? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just don't 9 be too dramatic -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and the 12 name is Doxtator. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Sorry, Doxtator. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Doxtator. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: Doxtator. I'll take my arm down. I 18 won't wave the flag. I'll use your words. 19 When you're waving the flag somebody turns 20 to you as you're waving that flag and says, By the way, 21 Doxtator's got automatic -- says they have automatic 22 weapons; is that right? 23 A: At some point I -- I learned that 24 information while at Forest Detachment. 25 Q: Would you agree with me, as indicated


1 by Chief Coles, that there was a confidential meeting as 2 indicated by John Carson, that there was a confidential 3 meeting between Chief Superintendent Coles, 4 Superintendent Parkin, and Incident Commander Carson at 5 Command Post? 6 A: Yes -- 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: -- I acknowledge that. 9 Q: And would you agree with me that in 10 that confidential meeting you discussed operational 11 matters? 12 A: I'm sure they would have come up. 13 Q: Not by the by. Not, Oh, by the way. 14 They would have come up -- 15 A: Yeah. 16 Q: -- because they would have been a 17 topic of discussion? 18 A: That wasn't the purpose of our visit, 19 but yes, they would have come up. 20 Q: And they would have come up because 21 one (1) of your jobs is to have some level of onsite 22 supervision, right; that's one (1) of your jobs? 23 A: I was there to see what was going on 24 and see how John was doing, see how the people that were 25 assigned down there were doing, that's correct.


1 Q: As -- as was Chief Superintendent 2 Coles? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And that term 'see what was going on' 5 isn't to see if the guys are getting good lunches 6 although that might matter to you? 7 A: Yes, it would. 8 Q: Right. It's -- it's to make sure 9 that Incident Command, as far as you could tell, is 10 running a safe, tight, effective, competent ship. 11 A: And knows it -- it has our support. 12 Q: Right. But the first part's 13 important too isn't it? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Right. And when you determine 16 whether they're running a safe, competent -- competent 17 and professional ship you're going to discuss operational 18 matters with your Incident Commander, right? 19 A: To a degree that would probably come 20 up. 21 Q: Where are the notes of those 22 operational discussions? 23 A: I don't have any, sir. 24 Q: John Carson told his scribe not to 25 take notes of that meeting, did you know that?


1 A: I learned that, yes. 2 Q: Do you remember the details that you 3 discussed at that meeting? 4 A: No, sir. As I said earlier I don't 5 believe I was in with John the entire time I was there 6 and Chris Coles. 7 Q: I didn't say you were. It doesn't 8 matter whether you were there for the full two (2) hours. 9 I'm asking you, do you remember the details of what you 10 talked about in the period of time during the two (2) 11 hours that you were there? 12 A: No, sir. 13 Q: Do you have -- do you have any 14 specific recollection of the operational details you 15 discussed with John Carson in the period of time that you 16 were there at the meeting? 17 A: No, sir. 18 Q: Do you have a specific recall of the 19 operational matters Chief Coles, your boss, discussed 20 with John Carson in the period of time that you were 21 there? 22 A: No, sir. 23 Q: So that is there any other meeting 24 that happens on September 6th, 1995 in the hours before 25 Dudley George dies, between the Incident Commander, his


1 manager and his manager's manager? 2 Is there any other meeting where that 3 happens? 4 A: Face to face, sir? 5 Q: Yeah. 6 A: No. 7 Q: So the only meeting where the 8 Incident Commander sits down with his boss, the 9 Superintendent, and his boss, the Chief Superintendent, 10 we have no record of that meeting, do we? 11 A: No, sir. 12 Q: Well, that's convenient, isn't it? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, there's 14 no need for that. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm putting 16 it him and I -- in my respectful submission -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that's a proper 19 question. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can make 21 a submission at the -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- time -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I'm putting to 25 him it's convenient.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm putting to him 3 it's convenient in the context -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 5 think that's a good question -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. I can - 7 - I can rephrase it. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: You'd agree with me that if things 12 were said that you'd rather the world never learned 13 about, that would be one (1) way of ensuring that? If 14 that happened, that would be one (1) way of ensuring 15 that? 16 If things were said that you'd rather the 17 world never knew about, that would be one way of ensuring 18 it, simply having no notes, right? 19 A: I can't dispute what you're saying; 20 that was, I'm sure, never our intent. 21 Q: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: But somewhere down the road,


1 somewhere down the road, it might be an issue whether 2 things should be recorded. That's what you told Carson 3 in relation to the recording of phone lines, correct? 4 Yes? 5 A: I don't think that that was my slant 6 on what I was telling John. I -- I'm not going to argue 7 with you that that can be interpreted that way. 8 I would be probably looking at it more 9 that it would be convenient down the road if we did get 10 busy and I did have to get a hold of him. 11 Q: So you did kind of use my word 12 convenient, didn't you? I'm just asking, just asking -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 14 could move on. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He said it. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it's 17 unnecessary, Mr. Falconer. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine, let's 19 keep moving. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're -- 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: Now, you -- you had a reference to 24 not recording lines before the shooting, but we find one 25 at Tab 11, so let's go there, now. Tab 11 of the binder.


1 I apologize, we're now back to the 2 transcript binder, Tab 11. Now, we're after the 3 shooting. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: And Tab 11 is Exhibit P-1061. It's a 8 conversation at 4:05 a.m. between you, Tony Parkin, and 9 Mark Wright, Detective Sergeant. 10 Now, so we -- 11 A: Excuse me, I was on the wrong book. 12 Q: No problem. It's my fault, I'm -- 13 Tab 11. 14 A: 04:05? 15 Q: That's correct. Now, would you agree 16 with me, and you can just flip through the pages if you 17 like, of this conversation, the next conversation, which 18 is at Tab 12, with Wright, and the previous conversation 19 where you are just getting information about the 20 shooting, you're full bore into trying to collect data 21 about what happened, right? 22 If you look at Tabs 8, 9, 10, 11, you're 23 trying to collect information from your incident command 24 about what happened. 25 You can just flip through those. I could


1 start you at Tab 8, that's where you hear about the 2 shooting and you get some explanation, and then Tab 9, 3 you have a further conversation; Carson and Parkin, 4 planning around SIU contacts, et cetera. 5 Tab 10 is a brief conversation with Wright 6 about what he knows and then Tab 11. 7 I'm just pointing out to you that it seems 8 to be that's what's happening? 9 A: Correct, sir. 10 Q: And you'd agree with me what happened 11 in the shooting is operational? 12 A: Correct, sir. 13 Q: So you're getting information from 14 your people, key information, so that you can understand 15 how a life was lost, right? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And what the situation was in terms 18 of the jeopardy to your officers on an ongoing basis, 19 right? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: You have to be concerned about all 22 those things? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And all of those things are 25 operational?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: So the one thing that the 3 administrative operational distinction, that's gone out 4 the window, there's no issue that what you're doing is 5 administrative is there? 6 A: No. 7 Q: No. Now, at Tab 10, you say -- I 8 apologize. At Tab 11, we -- we're back to Tab 11. At 9 Tab 11, you say: 10 "Are you on a secure line?" 11 Wright answers: 12 "No, it's not secure." 13 And then: 14 "62 is not taped. You'll have to call 15 me back. 16 Yeah." 17 You'd agree with me that it was indicated 18 to you that the line that was going to be used would be 19 untaped, right? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Can I find anywhere at Tab 11 where 22 you say to Wright, Wait a second. This is operational. 23 We've got to make sure this is recorded? 24 Did you say that to him? 25 A: No, sir.


1 Q: All right. In fact what happens is, 2 you say. Find a secure line. He says, We're getting an 3 untaped line, and the conversation then resumes two (2) 4 minutes later, right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And you see how you then engage in a 7 discussion about the shooting at Tab 12? 8 A: Correct, sir. 9 Q: And there's no doubt in your mind 10 that this is the only conversation that happens 11 immediately after, Let's get an untaped line, right? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: Because when we talk about, Let's get 14 an untaped line, that happens at 4:05 a.m. and then at 15 4:07 a.m. the conversation resumes, right? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Mark Wright says, We're back 18 together, right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: Right. So you thought it was 21 untaped, it just turned out that it was taped, correct? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: All right. And so from the point of 24 view of posterity and the ability to access a record, the 25 one thing we do know is that through no design of your


1 own, a record was made of this conversation but you 2 didn't intend for one to be made, correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Now -- and we also know something 5 else that when we look at this record, this is a record 6 not only that you intended to be untaped, but it's a 7 record of operational matters, right? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Now, I want to ask you a few 10 questions about what is said. On this page, page 1, 11 there is a discussion with the view to you obtaining an 12 account of what's occurred, correct? Am I right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: What's occurred in the shooting, 15 that's the point, page 1, you're trying to get some more 16 data? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And you actually say to Mark Wright 19 and -- and Dudley George dies in and around 11:00 p.m. to 20 midnight on the night of September 6th, 1995, right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And four (4) hours after, you as 23 Superintendent are still gathering data about what 24 happened, right? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And you know, to some extent am I 2 right that you can't be faulted for that that there's a 3 lot of officers involved, it takes time for information 4 to make its way back from the sandy parking lot to the 5 command post and then onto the managers, right? 6 A: Information was continually changing, 7 yes, sir. 8 Q: Well, I didn't ask if it was 9 continually changing. I was asking if it takes time for 10 it to get back; yes? 11 A: It sometimes takes time for accurate 12 information to get back, yes, sir. 13 Q: Okay. And that's -- that's just a 14 practical reality of you doing your work, right? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And so you try to stay on top of it 17 by getting as much up to date information as you can, 18 correct? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: But we're now at the -- we're now at 21 the four (4) to five (5) hour mark after the incident. 22 So I take it by this point you're counting on getting a 23 fairly reasonable picture of what happened from your 24 managers who are on the ground, right? 25 A: Certainly trying to, yes, sir.


1 Q: And you knew that's part of your job? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Would you agree with me that the one 7 (1) thing that is certain -- the one (1) thing that is 8 certain was that as of the call that takes place at 4:07 9 a.m. that you thought was unrecorded, as of that call at 10 4:00 a.m. you still did not have reliable information on 11 what had happened in the shooting. 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: You as the Superintendent, one of 14 your jobs was to get that reliable account so you could 15 1) assess your situation, for example, officer safety, 16 correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: 2) Ascertain what happened that would 19 cause the taking of a life, correct? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And 3) give instructions to those who 22 work for you on what to do in the hours that follow. 23 A: That would -- those decisions would 24 still be more at the Incident Command level. 25 Q: But you would need to know what the


1 decisions are that are being taken. 2 A: I was trying to get information to 3 forward up to the Commissioner's office. 4 Q: That was the fourth thing I was going 5 to raise; that's a fourth thing, that you need to get 6 that information so that you inform your superiors so 7 they can do their jobs? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: But the third that I mentioned, I 10 want to make sure you agree with me, that one of the 11 things you're supposed to do is gather information so 12 that you can properly supervise the decisions that are 13 being made on the ground? 14 A: Support the decisions being made on 15 the ground. 16 Q: Do you just support any decisions? 17 Like, that -- that's the distinction we're talking about. 18 I want to make sure about this. 19 You don't just support them and if they're 20 wrong decisions in your mind you supervise them? 21 A: If they were categorically wrong, 22 yes, sir, or if I didn't agree, yes, sir. 23 Q: Right. That's part of your job? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: Okay. And so that third issue of


1 gathering data so that you can supervise is as important 2 as the other issue we talked about, correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Okay. Now, that being the case all 5 those four (4) things that you're trying to follow 6 through on, would you agree with this, that as of 4:05 7 a.m. -- 4:07 a.m. the one (1) thing that we can all be 8 quite certain about is you actually didn't really know 9 what happened yet? 10 A: In hindsight that's correct. 11 Q: Well, it's not just hindsight is it 12 because if you look at the first page of the discussion 13 at 4:07 a.m. you say two-thirds (2/3's) of the way down 14 the page, it says, "AP". 15 And AP is you, Anthony Parkin, right? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: You say to Mark Wright: 18 "We've got a couple of different 19 versions." 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Okay. So there's no doubt about one 22 (1) thing, at this stage you still don't know what 23 happened? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And you actually know at 4:05 a.m.


1 that you don't know what happened? 2 A: At that time, that's correct. 3 Q: Where do I find a record of you 4 contacting Carson to say don't send down any press 5 releases we still don't know what happened? Where do I 6 find that? 7 A: Other than the discussion about the 8 press release, nowhere. 9 Q: Okay. Would you agree with me that 10 when Carson tells you this a window of opportunity, in 11 the previous conversations in the -- in the -- literally 12 the few hours that precede this conversation, when Carson 13 says to you, This is a window of opportunity for us to 14 put out our version of what happened before SIU puts the 15 gloves on us, when he tells you that, the idea that 16 Carson's conveying to you is we should put our version of 17 events out there before we're not allowed to anymore, 18 right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And you knew and you -- you reflected 21 your knowledge that really that was dicey because once 22 you knew that the jurisdiction of SIU was invoked as it 23 undoubtedly was here, once you knew that you really 24 shouldn't be issuing press releases, right? 25 A: That was a debatable issue, sir.


1 Q: Okay. Having said that you expressed 2 reservations based on that didn't you? 3 A: I expressed my reservations, yes. 4 Q: Yes, and would you agree with me that 5 protocol or not, rules or not, as a senior criminal 6 investigator which you are, right, you're a senior 7 officer who has done many years of criminal 8 investigation, right? 9 A: Correct, sir. 10 Q: As a senior criminal investigator 11 you'd agree with me that you'd rather leave it to the 12 investigators who are investigating an incident including 13 this shooting to issue press releases than have the 14 people involved in the shooting issue press releases, 15 right? 16 A: Once CIB, our Criminal Investigation 17 Bureau, would arrive at this scene -- 18 Q: Hmm hmm. 19 A: -- as they did that evening then 20 their responsibility is also to issue any media releases 21 because it is turned over to them as their investigation. 22 Q: Hmm hmm. 23 A: So they are independent from us, but 24 they're in the region supporting our investigation, if 25 you will.


1 Q: You'd rather leave it to them to 2 issue press releases than have the people who are on the 3 hot seat, the people whose actions, who are under 4 scrutiny, have them issue the press release? 5 You'd rather have the people who are 6 investigating do it? 7 A: I believe, sir, there's -- there's 8 two (2) issues here. 9 1) When something initially happens and 10 you have an Incident Commander, you have a media person. 11 When it's serious injury or death there's a requirement 12 to notify SIU. I'm fully aware of that; that was a 13 discussion that John and I did have. 14 At that point in time CIB or SIU hadn't 15 arrived on the scene. The issue of whether or not to 16 send out an immediate press release, in some cases and in 17 some areas that had been done because I knew that SIU 18 would invoke their mandate; as you said it was my 19 position that we shouldn't issue a press release. 20 John's opinion was, as he stated, that 21 this was a window of opportunity to put something out so 22 that the community and the media would be aware. 23 Q: I understand. 24 A: Once CIB arrived at the scene, and of 25 course, SIU arrived at the scene, the CIB inspector who


1 was Bob Goodall then became the OPP liaison officer to 2 work with SIU through the investigative process, and then 3 any media releases would fall to SIU. 4 Q: Now, having said that, if there's a 5 number of different versions of events, that's a classic 6 example of why you wouldn't issue a press release about 7 what happened, right? 8 A: Any press release that John would 9 have contemplated, were one to go out, should be very 10 limited. 11 Q: Well, you talk about should be. You 12 were the Superintendent, you were actually discussing the 13 prospect of issuing a press release with John Carson in 14 the minutes that followed the shooting, correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And you issued reservations to him 17 about the wisdom of doing that, correct? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: So did you follow up and determine 20 what the press release looked like that did go out? 21 A: I saw the -- at a later point in 22 time. 23 Q: No, no, I mean before the horse 24 leaves the barn. 25 A: I didn't see the press release before


1 it went out. 2 Q: All right. So you left it to the 3 Incident Commander who's actions are under scrutiny, 4 who's told you he saw it as a window of opportunity to 5 put their version out there, you left it to him to decide 6 what should be in the press release? 7 A: I gave him my opinion -- 8 Q: Yeah. 9 A: -- we moved on to other things and he 10 did issue a press release. 11 Q: All right. I'm going to read, first 12 of all, to you from the first press that the evident -- 13 evidence reflects went out. It's P-440, and it's the 14 one, certainly, that in terms of the evidence before this 15 Commission, is reflected as the press release that John 16 Carson issued pursuant to that window of opportunity. 17 "On Wednesday, 6th of September, 1995 18 at 7:55 p.m. a disturbance was reported 19 to the OPP at Parkway Drive and Army 20 Camp Road where police had removed a 21 number of picnic tables and two (2) 22 tents from the public roadway 23 yesterday. 24 A private citizen's vehicle was damaged 25 by a number of First Nations people


1 armed with baseball bats. 2 As a result of this, the OPP crowd 3 management team was deployed to 4 disperse the crowd of First Nations 5 people with had -- which had gathered 6 at that location." 7 You see that? 8 A: Yes, sir. 9 Q: That's a lot more detail than you 10 wanted John to put in, wasn't it? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: That was more detail than we 15 discussed, yes, sir. 16 Q: Yeah. And the reason you didn't want 17 him to put in that level of detail was that, in view of 18 your reservations, you thought the appropriate thing was 19 simply to put out a release that said a shooting had 20 happened and SIU had taken over; that's what you thought 21 should happen. 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And this press release went to the 24 world, that is to the public, as the OPP's version of 25 events of what happened, correct?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And when it says: 3 "A private citizen's vehicle was 4 damaged by a number of First Nations 5 people armed with baseball bats." 6 When it says that, you and I now know 7 today that simply did not happen, right? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And when it says: 10 "As a result of this, the OPP crowd 11 management team was deployed." 12 Do you see any other fact, any other fact 13 in terms of violence of First Nations people quoted in 14 those first two (2) sentences that I've just read to you, 15 in terms of violence? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: You see there's a reference to -- 20 A: You mean the second paragraph? 21 Q: No, the first paragraph. You see, he 22 says, "as a result of this" in this press release -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Right? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: You see, the first sentence just 2 talks about some picnic tables, right, and it talks about 3 two (2) tents, yeah? Would you agree with that? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: And we're not having a crowd 6 management team deploying and dispersing people because 7 of tents, are we? 8 A: No, sir. 9 Q: And we're not doing it because of 10 picnic tables, are we? 11 A: No, sir. 12 Q: So let's go to the only sentence that 13 depicts violence. You see how it says "as a result of 14 this", right? 15 A: Yes. Yes, sir. 16 Q: What's the only sentence that depicts 17 violence? Could you read it out, please. 18 A: "A private citizen's vehicle was 19 damaged by a number of First Nations 20 people armed with baseball bats." 21 Q: Now, this press release, in the hours 22 that followed the fatal shooting of Dudley George, would 23 have been disseminated to the public and available to the 24 local non-Native community in the area, correct? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: You'd expect this would have scared 2 them, yes? 3 A: Could you repeat that please? 4 Q: You would expect that this would have 5 scared the community who read this? 6 A: It would be alarming. 7 Q: Yeah. But it's not true, right? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And that's one of the reasons you had 10 reservations about issuing a press release, true? 11 A: I don't know that I got into thinking 12 about the fact that whether a press release would be 13 accurate or inaccurate, I simply stated my opinion to 14 John with respect to a press release. 15 Q: All right. Now, I want to go over 16 your efforts. 17 We know about the level of inaccuracy 18 going on before the shooting, right, that you had all 19 these things going on, these rumours, these statements by 20 Linton at 9:42 to you, right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: That were inaccurate, right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Now, I want to talk to you about how 25 the inaccuracies continued in terms of the information


1 available to the OPP. Could you please look now at Tab 2 11 -- I'm sorry, Tab 12. 3 If you look at Tab 12 on the information 4 you gather, all right? The first page of Tab 12 you say 5 to Wright, We've got a couple of different versions. 6 You're trying to get information from him, 7 correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: He says to you, the next page, you 10 ask for Linton or Carson and -- and you're just not able 11 to get them so Wright's the second best alternative as 12 the second most senior person of the Incident Commanders, 13 right? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: I shouldn't have said "right," but he 16 is isn't he? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: Thanks. You're struggling with the 19 same thing I am to avoid the word "right". 20 And then you say a third of the way down 21 the page on page 2: 22 "What I want to know is, as accurately 23 as possible, do you feel you have a 24 good handle on what took place there 25 now?"


1 Do you see that? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: And you're not entirely confident so 4 far based on what you're getting back to you in the 5 previous tabs we've looked at that you are getting the 6 sense that they have a good handle on what took place 7 yet, correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And so you send a -- a non- 10 controversial or a diplomatic method -- message, Do -- do 11 we have a handle on this now, right? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: Okay. And so now at 4:07 a.m. we see 14 if -- if Mark Wright, Detective Sergeant: 15 "MARK WRIGHT: Yes, I think I do and - 16 - and I've got the TRU Team leader who 17 was -- is Kent there? 18 Yeah, he's right on the ground there. 19 Okay. All right. But maybe I should 20 turn him over to you but what I can 21 tell you is, you know, I said we said 22 that guy in custody he was shot? 23 Well, apparently he wasn't shot. It 24 appears that they -- they -- they 25 appear to be flashlight inflicted


1 wounds to the head. 2 Uh huh. 3 Okay. So a blunt instrument to the 4 head rather than a round to the head. 5 ANTHONY PARKIN: All right. So let's 6 take it -- just take it back to the 7 start here. 8 Yes. 9 Your teams were down here, right?" 10 And I'm going to move through these pages 11 because we're looking at the information the OPP gathered 12 after the shooting and the account they had and the 13 information they relied on. 14 "And they were down there as a result 15 of there being a previous incident with 16 the car being damaged." 17 Do you see that at the top of the page? 18 A: Yes, sir. 19 Q: So you're starting him over because 20 you've got, as you put it, different versions and you're 21 trying to get a handle on what happened, right? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: And so the first thing he tells you 24 is that, understandably there was somebody seriously 25 injured but it turns out it was blunt injuries to the


1 head rather than a shot to the head, right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And that's Cecil Bernard George, 4 correct -- 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: -- you later learned, yes? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: All right. And now top of the page 9 you -- and you started over again, you -- you go: 10 "I'm putting this on rewind and I want 11 to know how this started all over 12 again." 13 So you're at the bottom of the page. 14 "The ERT teams were down there? 15 Right." 16 And you ask him: 17 "And they were down as a result of 18 their being a previous incident with 19 the car being damaged?" 20 And he says: 21 "Right. 22 That the Councillor was in? 23 Right. 24 Is that correct? 25 Correct.


1 So that puts them down there? 2 Yeah. 3 And then they were down there? 4 Yeah. 5 And there was a large group of First 6 Nations?" 7 Now, stopping there. You were relying on 8 the account you had, whether it was a Councillor or 9 person at a private meeting, you were relying on the fact 10 that First Nations persons armed with bats attacked a 11 private citizen's car, correct? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: Right. And that's why you said that 14 would be a basis, basically, of going down there, right? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And you identified that having all 17 the briefings you had before as the reason they would go 18 down there, right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: The reason Crowd Management Unit 21 would march as far as the superintendent of the OPP in 22 charge of Incident Command was concerned. The reason 23 they'd march as of 4:00 a.m. on September 7th was the -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- act of bats.


1 Sorry, Mr. Commissioner? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just carry 3 on. Just ask the question. Just ask the question. 4 Carry on. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: The reason as far as you were 8 concerned, as Superintendent in charge of Incident 9 Command, the reason they were marching down that road was 10 the infliction of damage by a group of Natives with 11 baseball bats to a car; that's what you determined, 12 correct? 13 A: That's the reason that I was aware 14 of, yes. 15 Q: Right. Now, you go on to say, That 16 the councillor was in, right; is that correct? Correct. 17 So that puts -- 18 A: Excuse me, sir, just -- I just want 19 to catch up to where you are. 20 Q: No problem. I apologize. Page 3 of 21 that. 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: "So that puts them down there? 24 Yeah. 25 And when they were down there there was


1 a large group of First Nations and they 2 came out of the Park. 3 WRIGHT: They were already out of the 4 Park." 5 Do you see that? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: So he's telling you that when they 8 got down there, there was a large group of First Nations 9 already out of the Park? 10 A: Yes, sir. 11 Q: And -- and you know that that is 12 inconsistent with the SIU report I showed you yesterday, 13 correct? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: "They were already out of the Park 16 when we arrived? 17 A: Yes, yes." 18 So, so far now, you've got two (2) incon - 19 - inaccurate statements, correct? 20 The first one is the attack on the car 21 with Indians bearing, Natives bearing baseball bats, 22 right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And now you're being told that when 25 they get down there, there's a large group of First


1 Nations people outside the fence and that's wrong, 2 correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: All right. 5 "Okay so the plan was then to put them 6 in the Park. 7 A: That's right." 8 So the ERT team moved in to do that? 9 Right. Supported by TRU because we 10 were concerned about weapons in there. 11 So the TRU team was covering them. 12 Okay. So the ERT team moved in. 13 Yeah. 14 Moved the people back. 15 And they had cover provided by TRU 16 because of the concern about weapons." 17 I'm at page 4. 18 "That's right, because we had heard 19 automatic gunfire the night before as 20 you're aware." 21 And then he refers to this conversation 22 that was had at 3:00 in the morning where he -- Mark 23 Wright alleges a First Nations person said, quote, "We'll 24 do our talking with guns", right? 25 Do you see that?


1 A: Yes, sir. 2 Q: And then we keep going: 3 "All right so we got the TRU team. 4 They're supporting them in case there's 5 any weapons. 6 Right. 7 The ERT team move in to move them back. 8 Right." 9 You asked: 10 "With shields? 11 Ah, Yes. Some of them had shields. 12 Some of them had shields." 13 It's a -- and the top of page 5: 14 "It's a full CMU. They call it Crowd 15 Management Unit. Two (2) full teams 16 together with a Staff Sergeant charge - 17 - sergeant in charge as per policy. 18 Okay. A full Crowd Management team in 19 charge." 20 Do you see all that? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: "Yeah. Lacroix. 23 That was Lacroix. 24 So they move in to push them back. 25 Were they successful?


1 They moved -- they moved them back." 2 And then there's an account how they came 3 out of the Park again. Do you see that? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: And then the next page, there's a 6 reference to the citing, third of the way down the page 7 on page 6. 8 "And then a TRU team guy said he 9 thought one (1) guy had a rifle, so 10 Lacroix had the Crowd Management Unit 11 split and go to one (1) knee." 12 Do you see that? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: And at the bottom of the page. 15 "And they all went down on one (1) knee 16 -- one (1) knee. And the TRU team -- 17 the TRU team was still keeping 18 observation. 19 Yeah, they had the bead on them." 20 That's Mark Wright talking. 21 "They had the bead on them. They had 22 two (2) what they call Sierra teams on 23 them, sniper teams." 24 Right? 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 Q: You say -- repeat "Sniper teams". 2 And then a third of the way down the page, 3 page 7: 4 "And ah, there was a few minutes like 5 that. And then it came from a TRU that 6 he did not have a rifle. It was a 7 stick. A piece of wood of some sort. 8 So TRU ..." 9 And you say, that is Anthony Parkin says: 10 "All right. So TRU identified that in 11 fact the individual did not have a 12 weapon. It was a stick." 13 Do you see that? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: Then Mark Wright, at page 7, two- 16 thirds (2/3's) down the page: 17 "And again before that when they jumped 18 over the fence the first time, it's 19 quite clear on the tape and I recall 20 this, you know, very clearly that Wade 21 gets it from -- Wade tells the command 22 post where John is that they're back in 23 the Park and the message comes back, do 24 not enter the Park. Take a defensive 25 mode.


1 And that's what Wade, Waddie, gives to 2 his people so there's no attempt 3 whatsoever to go in the Park. Okay?" 4 Now who's Waddie? 5 A: Wade Lacroix. 6 Q: Lacroix's nickname is Waddie, 7 correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And going to the next page, at page 10 8, you again ask him: 11 "Okay, so they're down on one (1) knee 12 and then it's clear the fellow doesn't 13 have a gun? 14 He says: 15 "Right. 16 "So now they get back up in formation. 17 So now they reform." 18 Correct? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And they engage the First Nations 21 people in the public area, right? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And then Mark Wright says: 24 "And they make an arrest. They affect 25 an arrest and one ERT guy is assaulted


1 with a 2x4 over his back during this." 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: Okay. 5 "So during the arrest one (1) ERT 6 member, yeah, is assaulted with a 2x4 7 to the back. With a 2X4 to the back. 8 That's right. (phonetic) 9 Okay. So they've got this individual 10 under arrest. And they're pulling back 11 because of the -- the rest of them are 12 back over -- 13 Was the arrest made because we were 14 assaulted? 15 I don't know, sir, I couldn't tell you, 16 don't know." 17 Now, stopping there. The assault you're 18 referring to is the 2X4 over the back, correct? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: Did you ever learn about who the ERT 21 member that was assaulted with the 2X4 over the back was? 22 A: At a point later. 23 Q: Who was it? 24 A: I believe it was Wade Lacroix. 25 Q: Wade Lacroix's version of events is


1 that someone struck his shield and broke the shield. Did 2 you know that? 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: Did you know that Wade Lacroix's 5 version of events is not that he was struck in the back 6 by a 2X4? 7 A: I am aware that Wade did have his 8 shield struck. 9 Q: No, no, it's the part I asked. Were 10 you aware that Wade Lacroix's version is not that he was 11 struck in the back by a 2X4? 12 A: Not at this time. 13 Q: You weren't aware at that time, but 14 you are aware now? 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: So that's inaccurate that an ERT 17 member was struck in the back with a 2X4; that's 18 inaccurate, correct? 19 A: If, in fact, they were referring to 20 Wade. 21 Q: That's right. I asked you, I -- my 22 question to you started with, who was the person that you 23 think they're referring to here and you told me Wade 24 Lacroix, right? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: All right. So it's not an "if". 2 From your mind now, you now know that Wade Lacroix was 3 not struck in the back with a 2X4? 4 A: I know in my mind now that Wade was 5 struck on the shield. 6 Q: Yes. And you'd agree with me that 7 striking a shield, breaking it or not, and striking an 8 officer in the back are very different forms of violence 9 in terms of the violence done to the officer, right? 10 A: Only by location. 11 Q: Right, thank you. Now -- but in any 12 event, it's inaccurate, correct? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Okay. Now, at page 9: 15 "Like, our position was to arrest them, 16 anybody who was found in there, because 17 there was -- they were committing the 18 offence of mischief with respect to 19 public property." 20 Do you see that, page 9? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: Now, so you're being told by the -- 23 the most senior guy you can get a hold of, that the idea 24 was to arrest people for mischief to public property, 25 that's why they were down there, right?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: "And also possession of weapons, 3 dangerous, because of the clubs and 4 stuff they had in their hand. So 5 anybody we found there we were going to 6 arrest." 7 Right? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: So, if you had a baseball bat and you 10 were down there, you were going to be charged with 11 mischief and possession of weapons, right? 12 A: I don't know that all those charges 13 would be laid. 14 Q: As one of the officers said to you 15 later, It's sure not clear that they would stick, right? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Now, going to the next page, while 18 they were arresting him, I'm at page 10: 19 "Yeah, right, right. 20 So they're withdrawing -- 21 Yeah, yeah, that's right. And all of a 22 sudden it hits the fan." 23 And you say: 24 "So now the bus comes driving out of 25 the Park through the fence.


1 They've got a large industrial garbage 2 container. 3 So the bus comes through, knocks the 4 industrial garbage container out of the 5 way." 6 You see that? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: All right. And you had learned 9 already, and you see at the top of page 11, you had 10 learned already that both a bus and a car came out of the 11 Park and from the point of view of the police officers, 12 was directed at them, right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And at the top of page 11: 15 "The guys -- our ERT team starts to 16 scatter because they're trying to get 17 away from this and what I understand, 18 some of our guys received minor 19 injuries because they're knocked by the 20 bus and/or the car." 21 And you put: 22 "So, okay, when the bus comes out it's 23 followed by the car? Now, does the car 24 get up beside the bus? 25 Don't know."


1 But in any event, your state of 2 information at the time is that officers perceived a 3 threat from this bus that came out of the Park and the 4 car, right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And you -- there's no doubt in your 7 mind, then, or now, that that would be a dangerous state 8 of affairs for police officers to have a vehicle bearing 9 down on them? 10 A: Extremely. 11 Q: Right. And that they would be 12 entitled, Under the Law, to Repel Force with Force, to 13 Protect the Community and Themselves? 14 A: Correct, sir. 15 Q: And it's fair to say at this point 16 you understand a life has been taken in the process, 17 correct? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: But there's not much doubt in your 20 mind, is there, that if someone drives a motor vehicle at 21 a police officer, the officer may well be justified to 22 end the threat, and the means for doing that may well 23 include discharging lethal force by way of a weapon at 24 the driver? 25 A: It could, sir.


1 Q: Or an occupant of the vehicle who was 2 threatening, yeah? 3 A: Possibly. 4 Q: And so your thinking, in your mind at 5 the time is, I've now -- that is Tony Parkin -- as I'm 6 getting these facts -- I got a lot of different versions; 7 that's what you said, right? 8 A: Yes, sir. 9 Q: And you -- you want to know if they 10 have a handle on the facts now, right? 11 A: Yes, sir. 12 Q: And you're getting that handle and 13 what you're hearing is you're hearing there was some kind 14 of scuffle, there was an arrest but in the end the real 15 threat you're now focussed on is this bus and this car 16 and there was a discharge of weapons as a result of the 17 bus and car, right? 18 A: Yes, sir. 19 Q: And that for a supervisor who has 20 serious years of experience, that could well be a basis 21 for use of lethal force, right? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: And so you're focussed on it quite 24 naturally, on the threat to your officers and what 25 happened as a result of the threat, right?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And you understood, certainly in your 3 mind at that time, you linked up the -- the fatality, 4 that is the death of Dudley George with the threat of the 5 car and the bus, yes? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: As far as you were concerned, well, 8 we'll keep going and we'll deal with that. 9 Now, going on it says at the bottom of 10 page 11: 11 "And there's gunfire coming out of the 12 bus and the car." 13 Do you see that? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: And so you've been informed that not 16 only is the car or the bus coming at people but there's 17 gunfire emanating from them, right? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And you know as far as you're 20 concerned this is not something you would have welcomed 21 but as they put it: 22 "Is Kent back yet? 23 No." 24 Okay. This is the top of page 13. 25 "Was the gunfire -- was exchanged?


1 What did they do? 2 Where did the bus go? Where did the 3 car go? 4 He's right here. 5 All right. Okay." 6 Now, I just want to be clear on something. 7 It's -- I -- I skipped a page. The top of page 12 is 8 what I was trying to direct your attention to. I 9 apologize. 10 After you learned of gunfire from the car 11 and bus, at the top of page 12: 12 "We returned fire. 13 We returned fire. 14 That's right. And then it gets real 15 quiet." 16 Do you see that? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: So you understood what had happened 19 was a serious threat from the car and bus whether by 20 driving or by people in the car firing weapons occurred 21 to your officers, they returned fire and someone died, 22 right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And that was the version of events 25 that you understood and it made sense to you, right?


1 A: Yes, sir. 2 Q: You have further discussions about 3 the bus and car at page 13. You ask where the bus and 4 car go, right? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: And -- and you put -- and -- and Mr. 7 Worme directed you attention to it: 8 "Yeah, but the crunch we're in is where 9 did the bus and car go, right?" 10 Do you see where you say, "Crunch," page 11 13, two-thirds of the page: 12 "Yeah, but the crunch we're in is..." 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: And -- and you're collecting 15 information from Wright, Mark Wright, but you're trying 16 to convey to him that there's a crunch here. 17 And I'm going to suggest to you what 18 you're trying to convey to him is the evidence appears to 19 have gotten away, like the bus and the car, potentially 20 the weapons have all left? 21 Isn't that what you mean when you say, 22 "the crunch we're in?" 23 A: That's quite possible. I don't 24 recall what I meant -- 25 Q: Right.


1 A: -- by "the crunch". 2 Q: But that's quite possible. 3 A: That's quite possible. 4 Q: All right. And so -- and Mark Wright 5 actually -- actually adds that, is: 6 "Where did the bus and the car go? 7 Right? That's what Wright actually says 8 to you? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Because you feel that the -- that the 11 use of lethal force was tied to that bus and car, 12 correct? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: Because as far as you're concerned 15 there is no other reason you have seen so far to 16 discharge weapons and use lethal force other than the 17 charging car and charging bus, right? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Next page, page 14? 20 "WRIGHT: I'm not going to give you a 21 half-assed answer. You're asking where 22 the vehicles were, what cluster they 23 were in." 24 I'm at page 14. 25 "Okay. The names of the victims.


1 Yeah. 2 How they got to hospital. 3 Okay. Now, you said to me we had a guy 4 in custody? 5 Yeah." 6 And -- and then halfway down the page, do 7 you see that? 8 "And then that puts Dudley -- was he 9 driving?" 10 Do you see that? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: All right. Dudley, you knew that 13 Dudley George had died, yes? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: And you assumed he was driving or in 16 the car or the bus, right? 17 A: I asked the question. 18 Q: Well, you said: 19 "And that puts Dudley -- was he 20 driving? 21 I don't know if he was. I don't know 22 if he was driving but he was shot in 23 the -- up in the clavicle area. 24 Okay. So the guys said he must have 25 been sitting right in the car because,


1 you know, in the car? 2 Yeah and pow." 3 Right? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: The information you were being 6 provided by the senior officer you could talk to at the 7 time four (4) hours after Dudley George was shot was that 8 he was either the driver of the car of the occupant of 9 the car charging at the officers, right? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And for you that made sense because 12 as far as you could determine so far, the only threat to 13 officers came from the car or the bus, correct? 14 Threat that would justify the discharge of 15 lethal force? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Right. And so ultimately you 18 naturally assumed that this man got shot, he was driving 19 the car or driving the bus or was an occupant of either 20 one, correct? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Another inaccuracy, right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: A serious inaccuracy, right? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: You go on to reference confirming who 2 was in the car, at the top of page 15, right? 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: And then you're asking to get that 5 information for you, right? 6 Do you see that? 7 Halfway down the page, page 15, "as 8 quickly as possible". Do -- 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: -- you see that? And then you asked 11 did Ovide Mercredi call you; do you see that? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: Okay. Now I want to turn to Tab 13. 14 Do you remember you said, Mark Wright at 4:07 a.m., Get 15 that information back to me as quickly as possible, 16 right? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: All right. Now I just want to be 19 clear about this. This was a conversation that as far as 20 you knew wasn't being recorded, right? 21 A: At that point in time I don't know 22 whether I was thinking about recorded or unrecorded. But 23 it was recorded. 24 Q: No, no, no. At 4:05 a.m., two (2) 25 minutes before this call you asked for an unrecorded


1 line. 2 A: Oh that's -- that's correct. 3 Q: Okay. I'm just saying that. So we 4 agree. But this -- and this entire conversation was 5 entirely operational, wasn't it? 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: Why on earth would you want this not 8 to be recorded? Tell me, sir. 9 A: There's no reason. 10 Q: Okay. Just random, fair? 11 A: Fair. 12 Q: Kind of like the reason you'd be 13 discussing the Solicitor General or the Attorney General, 14 just random, right? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: Yeah. Tab 13 please. You ask for 17 more information. You ask him to get back to you as 18 quickly as possible; do you see that? Tab 13? 19 The call -- it's -- I don't have an 20 exhibit number for Tab 13. It's a call that happens at 21 4:31 a.m., Tony Parkin and Mark Wright. 22 MR. DONALD WORME: It's actually at Tab 23 14. It's my read -- Exhibit Number P-1063. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I have a call at 25 Tab 13. It's 4:31 a.m. I just don't want to mix this


1 up. Do you have a call -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's at Tab 3 14 in our binder I think. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, my apologies. 5 All right. It's going to get tricky. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 8 Q: All right. We'll quickly move 9 through these two (2) tapes. You have asked -- you're at 10 Tab 14 and you have a call at 4:31 a.m.? Yes, sir? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And in that call, that's the call 13 where Mark Wright gets back to you with facts, correct? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Because you wanted them checked out 16 because you still had some discomfort with the level of 17 specificity you were getting, correct? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: All right. So: 20 "Hi, sir, it's Mark. Got those answers 21 for you. 22 Great, okay. 23 You ready? 24 Vehicles. How'd they get -- where'd 25 they go after the shooting?"


1 He's going to tell you, right? And he 2 tells you they went back in the Park. 3 And then he tells you who's dead, right? 4 Anthony Brian -- O'Brien George. Do you see that? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: And then you're told that that's a 7 nickname for Dudley, right? 8 A: Okay. In serious condition is Cecil 9 Bernard George. I'm sorry, Bernard Cecil George. Do you 10 see that? 11 A: Yes, sir. 12 Q: And that's -- he's being transferred 13 to London Hospital. Do you see that? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: And you ask: 16 "And he's serious? 17 serious would be accurate." 18 Do you see that? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: Now I'm stopping you there for a 21 moment. Can you help me on this? 22 As far as you're concerned Cec -- there's 23 no doubt from the record we've seen so far and you can 24 disagree with me, but there's no doubt that you've 25 learned that Bernard Cecil George suffered blunt head


1 wounds that have put him in serious condition, right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Where do I find where you ask about 4 how those blunt wounds came to his head? Mark Wright 5 says there was a flashlight. That -- that's there but 6 where do you ask more about it? Who did it? 7 A: I don't know if I did. 8 Q: Okay. And maybe on re-examination 9 your counsel will show us where you did. I just -- I 10 didn't see it when I first reviewed it this morning. But 11 I -- you know, if I'm wrong, I apologize. 12 You know, the reason I ask you that, sir, 13 is you'd agree with me that if a police officer uses 14 serious force like a flashlight or other item to a 15 citizen's head, blunt force, causing him to be in serious 16 condition in the hospital, the one thing you'd want to 17 know is that officer reported the use of force, right? 18 You'd want to know that? 19 A: At this -- at this time, I probably 20 wouldn't be turning my mind to starting to conduct an 21 investigation, simply because of the fact that we had a 22 CIB inspector on the scene who would take over that role. 23 Q: Fair enough. But in any event, the 24 one thing that you'd want to be confident at, whether a 25 CIB inspector took it over, SIU or both, or a


1 combination, is that ultimately the officer who engaged 2 in that level of violence, perhaps justifiably, who used 3 a blunt instrument, and put a person in a hospital in 4 serious condition, would report on the use of force? 5 A: It would be determined, yes, sir. 6 Q: Pardon me? 7 A: It would be determined, yes, sir. 8 Q: No, no. I asked, you'd want to know 9 that the officer reported on the use of force? 10 The officer who did it? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Right. And, in fact, there's a 13 legislative, statutory requirements that they file a use 14 of force report, right? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: So -- and the whole point is officers 17 shouldn't be using serious force without reporting on it, 18 right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: Did you know that, to this day, we 21 still don't know who caused the blunt head injuries to 22 Bernard Cecil George? 23 A: I'm aware of that. 24 Q: Do you honestly think one of the 25 occupiers beat Bernard Cecil George over the head with a


1 blunt instrument? 2 A: No, sir. 3 Q: So that am I safe to infer that a 4 police officer beat Bernard Cecil George over the head 5 with a blunt instrument? 6 A: There was certainly -- would be an 7 altercation between the police and Bernard Cecil George 8 and that probably led to his injuries. 9 Q: Am I safe to infer that Bernard Cecil 10 George was beaten with a blunt instrument about the head 11 by a police officer? 12 A: The word 'beaten' -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: Sorry. Was struck with a blunt 17 instrument about the head by a police officer? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: But here we sit in 2006 and no police 20 officer had acknowledged having doing it, correct. 21 A: To my knowledge, correct. 22 Q: That is a sad state of affairs, would 23 you agree? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 A: It's unfortunate. 2 Q: A brief indulgence. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: you're going 7 to give us -- 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Now, I don't want to mislead you. 11 There are reports that there were officers who 12 acknowledged being engaged in restraining Bernard Cecil 13 George. 14 I am suggesting to you, and I want to be 15 clear for the record, there is no acknowledgement by any 16 officer as to their role in causing the blunt injury to 17 the head that put this man in serious condition. Did you 18 know that? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: All right. Now, moving on. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I want to 22 remind you of the time. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I've got a watch 24 that I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, okay,


1 so you're keeping track? 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, I -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: Now, we're agreed at page 4 that 7 you're asking about the people that appeared at the 8 hospital. You see, "a white car showed up at Strathroy"; 9 you see that? 10 A: Yes, sir. 11 Q: At the bottom: 12 "Do they think that they were in the 13 car when the shooting took place?" 14 You're referring to the people that came 15 to the hospital, right? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: And you're identifying that white car 18 as the white car that would have followed the bus, right? 19 A: That would have been my thinking at 20 the time. 21 Q: Right. You're getting a report that 22 basically the people that showed up in the hospital -- at 23 the hospital with Dudley George, fatally shot, at the 24 time he wasn't -- fatally shot, those people were in the 25 car along with Dudley George that threatened the


1 officers, right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Once Dudley George isn't in the car, 4 once Dudley George isn't in the back seat, it doesn't, in 5 any way, meet with your construction of the facts as at 6 4:30 a.m. on September 7th, 1995; are we agreed? 7 A: I just didn't catch the first part of 8 what you said, sir. 9 Q: Once it's established, as we have, 10 that Dudley George was neither in the car nor in the bus, 11 the attack with the officers, it doesn't meet with your 12 understanding of the events in any shape or form, does 13 it? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Now, we turn to the next tape which 16 is at Tab -- should be -- where do you find the tape -- 17 look at, please, at your Tab 15. Would you look at your 18 Tab 15. 19 Do you see a tape of September 7th, 6:05 20 a.m.? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: Okay. I'm just -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's Exhibit 24 1064. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Now, I just want to establish, am I 4 right, that the next queries you make are of Dale Linton, 5 correct? And those queries happen at 6:05 a.m., now six 6 (6) to seven (7) hours after the shooting of Dudley 7 George, correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And those queries establish, very 10 clearly, right, that Dale Linton gives you an account of 11 what happened with the baseball bats and the cars, right? 12 Do you see that account at page 3? 13 Do you see that at page 3? 14 A: Whereabouts on page 3, sir? 15 Q: You ask Dale Linton the following, 16 page 3: 17 "What -- what's your spin on the 18 shooting incident?" 19 Remember you asked him that? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: And that's because you're still 22 trying to understand how this happened, correct? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: It's 6:05 a.m. and you're talking to 25 the Incident Commander at the time of the shooting,


1 right? I'm sorry, Carson's back on scene so it's -- he's 2 -- he's -- there's two (2) high-ranking officials at the 3 -- at the Command Post, right, and at TOC? 4 A: One (1) is at Forest, the other's at 5 the TOC or the Forward Command Post. 6 Q: All right. And Dale Linton, when you 7 talk to him at 9:42 a.m., he was the one actually giving 8 directions to marshall the officers, to marshall the CMU 9 Team, to marshall the TRU Team; that was all Dale Linton, 10 right? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 12 minute. Yes, Mr. Sandler? 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: With respect, that's 14 not the evidence. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. I'll 16 withdraw the question. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: In any event, Dale Linton is who you 20 access as one (1) of the persons in charge, correct? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: At page 3: 23 "What's your spin on the shooting 24 incident? How did it take place to 25 your knowledge?


1 Okay. There was those eight (8) or ten 2 (10) guys on the road that had damaged 3 the car." 4 Do you see that? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: So Dale Linton continues to tell you 7 about something that never happened, correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Yeah. Then at the next page, page 4; 10 at page 4 you say you want a meeting or there may be a 11 meeting with Beaubien and Thomas. 12 "We can set that later today. 13 Okay. Wade's in no condition to do 14 it." 15 Do you see that at the bottom of page 4? 16 "Yeah, or probably even be there. He's 17 rattled." 18 Do you see that? 19 A: I see that. 20 Q: That's Wade Lacroix that's rattled. 21 A: That's Dale Linton's perception. 22 Q: Right. But -- but Dale Linton was 23 one (1) of his superiors, yes? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: Wade Lacroix is rattled, according to


1 his superior, correct? 2 A: If -- if -- that is obviously Dale's 3 opinion. 4 Q: Right. Well, it's not yours because 5 you weren't there. 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: But Dale Linton was. Help me on 8 something; when you said that Wade Lacroix, you had no 9 doubt he was the man for the job in terms of leading that 10 CMU team, that is what you said, isn't it? 11 A: That's what I said, sir. 12 Q: Yeah. Were you familiar with Mr. 13 Lacroix's role as tactical leader in the sad, unfortunate 14 shooting of Mr. Bastien in the late 1980's, in 1988 or 15 1989? 16 Were you familiar with that? 17 A: Vaguely familiar with the Bastien 18 occurrence. I was at the other end of the province when 19 that took place. 20 Q: Did you gain any additional 21 familiarity with the Bastien incident in terms of the 22 role that Wade Lacroix played in that? 23 A: He was one (1) of a number of people; 24 that there was some communications issue with respect to 25 the call, and it was reviewed and some recommendations


1 were made. 2 Q: In August of 1988 a man was killed -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 4 to go into this in any great detail. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm not going into 6 great detail but -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I have to -- I 9 have to ask the question. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 11 where you're going with this but I do not want to have a 12 review of the Bastien -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm not doing a 14 review of the Bastien -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- but in order to 17 ask my question I have to ask it. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Well, 19 yes, Mr. Roland? 20 MR. IAN ROLAND: I ask My Friend to be 21 very careful what he says about Mr. -- about Wade Lacroix 22 in this because there's been no -- there's been -- there 23 was never any suggestion that -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, no, I haven't 25 asked the question.


1 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- Wade Lacroix did 2 anything wrong. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: We're not going to 4 get into speeches. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 6 minute, Mr. -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: There has to be 8 objection to a question. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please, Mr. 10 Falconer, let Mr. Roland -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine, it's - 12 - I'm just -- I have a short amount of time left. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know that. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I should be allowed 15 to ask my question before the objection. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If the 17 question is fair you're allowed to ask it. Mr. Roland is 18 adding a cautionary note. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So there's going to 20 be cautionary objections before the questions? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we 22 know that there was a large investigation involving -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I just want 24 to ask my question first before the objection. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the


1 Bastien matter and I don't want to go into it in any 2 great detail. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine, but I 4 still -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- want to ask my 7 question and then he objects. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 9 that's... 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Because we're just 11 -- we're going to lose a lot of time based on -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'll hold 13 you five (5) minutes and you'll keep that. 14 Yes, Mr. Downard? 15 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: I just have an 16 objection. My Friend doesn't seem to understand that you 17 run the fairness of this Hearing, he doesn't. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, well, that's 20 unfair. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 22 that. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's completely 24 unfair. That's not true. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on,


1 ask the question -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but if 4 it's an unfair question, we're going to stop it right 5 away. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: Were you familiar with the fact that 10 in August of 1988 that an individual was shot by virtue 11 of the TRU team, the Tactical Response Unit, being at a 12 wrong address in the Province of Ontario. 13 A: I'm familiar with that, yes, sir. 14 Q: Were you familiar with the fact that 15 Wade Lacroix was the Tactical leader of that TRU team? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: Were you familiar with the fact that 18 one of the issues identified in the Drinkwater Report of 19 1989, following the mistaken identity death, following 20 the mistaken identity death of Mr. Bastien, was the 21 problematic communications between Wade Lacroix and the 22 Incident Commander? 23 Were you familiar with that? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: All right. So it's safe to say that


1 one of the things operating in your mind, was that it was 2 necessary for the Incident Commanders to keep tight 3 control on Wade Lacroix, correct? 4 MR. IAN ROLAND: That -- the issue -- he 5 misstates it. My Friend is -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I did not misstate 7 it. 8 MR. IAN ROLAND: Just because he leaves 9 the information -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 11 Falconer, stand down please. 12 MR. IAN ROLAND: -- that there was 13 something improper -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just -- 15 MR. IAN ROLAND: -- about what Wade 16 Lacroix did or said or conducted himself and there was no 17 such finding. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I looked at 19 the report because I knew -- 20 MR. IAN ROLAND: The implication -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 22 Falconer might be raising it and I couldn't find 23 anything. 24 MR. IAN ROLAND: The implication is -- 25 is personal to Wade Lacroix --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. IAN ROLAND: -- that My Friend makes 3 and it's quite improper. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 5 fair, from what I've read from the Bastien -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I should be heard 7 first before anybody rules, shouldn't I? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, the 9 question that you put and the windup to the question is 10 what is putting in an unfair light. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I want to 12 respond then. If My Friend -- I'm going to respond with 13 facts, not -- not sort of in the air speeches. 14 The finding of the Drinkwater Report 15 states the following, quote: 16 "At this change of venue some critical 17 deviation from policy take place or 18 continue to take place. Detective 19 Sergeant Matthews and Staff Sergeant 20 Wade Lacroix would, under normal 21 circumstances, direct subordinates from 22 the command post and keep the Incident 23 Commander fully informed." 24 Next page: 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What page


1 are you on? 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Page 1. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 4 to go into this in detail. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Of the appendices 6 of the Bernard Bastien. Well I -- I just want to be 7 clear. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, okay, 9 go ahead. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Page 2, paragraph 11 3: 12 "The activity of the negotiator 13 Sergeant Smith, the Investigator 14 Detective Sergeant Matthews and the 15 Tactical leader Staff Sergeant Lacroix 16 had not been co-ordinated through the 17 Incident Commander, Inspector McKenna." 18 Third to last paragraph: 19 "When Sergeant Smith learned of 20 Jarriett's presence at the Harper 21 residence this information was relayed 22 on the OPP car to car channel. The 23 communications linked to TRU officers 24 was through the Tactical van and Staff 25 Sergeant Lacroix's vehicle.


1 The Lacroix vehicle communication 2 system was reported to be 3 malfunctioning so it would not receive 4 TRU channel messages." 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 6 Now what's your question? 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Page 4. I don't 8 want you to read that whole paragraph. What's your 9 question? 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My question to the 11 Witness has already been posed. And the question was: 12 It was the concern about controlling Lacroix through 13 Incident Command and the failures in controls at the 14 Bastien shooting, in part, that caused you to sound a 15 cautionary note to make sure Wade Lacroix was tightly 16 controlled. 17 THE WITNESS: The Bastien Report, the 18 Bastien incident never came into my mind, sir. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: Fair enough. So is it true then, 22 that as far as you knew at the time, you -- you had no 23 linkage, in your mind, between the usage of Wade Lacroix 24 as the head of the CMU team, there was no linkage, in 25 your mind, or cautionary notes, in your mind, between


1 that and his role as Tactical leader in the mistaken 2 shooting of Mr. Bernard Bastien, is that correct? There 3 was no linkage. 4 A: Not in my mind, that's correct. 5 Q: Right. I'm going to ask you now, 6 very quickly, I understand -- I received two (2) volumes 7 of discipline records. Brief indulgence. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's now 9 half past 10:00, Mr. Falconer. I'm going to ask you how 10 long you expect to be before you're finished. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I expect to be 12 between five (5) and ten (10) minutes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: I've got two (2) volumes of 17 discipline records that I received last Friday evening as 18 being Exhibits P-1051, P-1052 and P-1053. 19 They reflect that which was disclosed 20 pursuant to settlement discussions with the OPP. I'm 21 going to as you something. 22 As I understand it, you played a role in - 23 - in ultimately being the complainant in respect to three 24 (3) sets of incidents, being: The mugs and t-shirts 25 incident, the beer can with tape incident and the


1 bullseye on a police car incident. Is that right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And you received the report at Tab 4 17, being the Atkin Report, as a result of the 5 investigation, correct? There's a report at Tab 17 by 6 Staff Sergeant Dennis Atkin. You received that report? 7 A: Yes, I did. I -- do I have that? 8 Q: It's -- it's -- the questions I have 9 to ask you, because of the answers I expect from you are 10 quite limited but -- 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: -- I'd be happy to have that opened 13 up in front of you. 14 A: No, that's fine. 15 Q: You did -- you did read the report, 16 yes? 17 A: Yes. Yes, sir. 18 Q: All right. Were you in charge or did 19 you play a role in the decision making as to the 20 discipline meted out as a result of the Atkin Report? 21 A: I put a recommendation along with the 22 report and forwarded it -- forwarded the whole report 23 into Professional Standards. 24 Q: Could you tell me what the 25 recommendation you did was? And now I'll ask for those


1 records to be put in front of the Witness please? 2 THE REGISTRAR: Is that Volume I, sir? 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, please. And 4 Volume 2, if both volumes could be put in front of the 5 Witness? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: You've reviewed these records? 11 A: The -- the recommendation was around 12 a non-disciplinary discussion with their immediate 13 supervisors, based on, excuse me, on the report that I 14 saw. 15 Q: All right. And you've reviewed these 16 records that are in front of you now which are P-1051, P- 17 1052, and P-1053? 18 A: I have gone through them. 19 Q: Yes. So you've gone through the 20 volumes I have? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: Your recommendation was for non- 23 disciplinary action, yes? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: You recommended non-disciplinary


1 action on the mugs and t-shirts incident, yes? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And when I say, "non-disciplinary," I 4 mean you recommended neither formal discipline nor 5 informal discipline, correct; under the Police Services 6 Act, correct? 7 A: I believe I specified non- 8 disciplinary discussion which is a discussion between the 9 member and senior staff where they work. 10 Q: You -- oh, sorry, I didn't mean to 11 cut you off. 12 A: However, that's a recommendation and 13 it can be changed. 14 Q: You were a superintendent at the time 15 that you made those recommendations? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: All right. And you subsequently 18 became the Chief Superintendent? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: So there's no doubt that part of your 21 job is to know that -- generally, the discipline 22 structure of the Police Services Act? 23 A: Generally, yes, sir. 24 Q: Right. And you know that there's a 25 provision under the Police Services Act for two (2) means


1 of discipline; informal discipline and formal discipline, 2 correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And you were recommending neither, 5 correct? 6 A: I'm not sure if at the time a non- 7 disciplinary discussion came within the area of informal. 8 Q: So you -- is it your evidence that 9 you were making recommendations but you didn't actually 10 know what they qualified as, whether they were informal 11 discipline or they were something else? 12 A: I'm trying to go back ten (10) years 13 to what the process was that we were -- we were working 14 under. Discipline processes had changed over the years. 15 It very well may have come under informal discipline at 16 that time. 17 Q: You don't know? 18 A: I don't know for sure, sir, no. 19 Q: I've reviewed these records, and 20 based on my review of these records it is apparent to me 21 that, in relation to the beer can with tape, there were 22 two (2) admonitions given in the form of informal 23 discipline. 24 Were you familiar with that? 25 A: I came to learn that --


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: -- sometime later. 3 Q: In relation to the bull's eye 4 incident where officers took a toy bow and arrow and a 5 bull's eye and put them on an OPP cruiser, took a 6 picture, and showed the picture around, there were 7 admonitions in respect of that. 8 Did you know that? 9 A: I learned that sometime later, sir. 10 Q: Again, is it your understanding that 11 those both qualify as informal discipline? 12 A: I'm not sure, sir. 13 Q: And then, in respect to the incident 14 involving officers Dyke and Whitehead, there was a 15 docking in pay, correct? 16 A: I had no involvement with the 17 Whitehead and Dyke incident. 18 Q: I just -- I just want to be clear on 19 what there was; what we've learned from these records. 20 But I put it to you -- I've put it to you that what isn't 21 in these records anywhere is any reflection of 22 discipline, informal or formal, as it relates to the mugs 23 and t-shirt incident. 24 Did you know that? 25 A: I believe that some time later


1 certain people were spoken to with respect to the mugs 2 and t-shirts. 3 Q: Who? Who was spoken to? 4 A: The -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 6 minute. Who was spoken to? 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Who was spoken to? 8 The officer said some people were spoken to. Who? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 10 have an understanding here. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's with respect 12 to the records, not -- not with respect to this officer's 13 knowledge. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 15 sure. Yes, what's your position on this, Mr. Sandler? 16 I'm not sure I know. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: Perhaps you should 18 hear from Mr. Roland first because it's really his -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 20 should hear from Mr. Roland. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- clients are 22 impacted, I can totally see the distinction that would be 23 drawn here. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 25 where we are with this.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm asking, 2 this is the man that -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 4 minute. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Sorry. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 7 Roland? 8 MR. IAN ROLAND: Yes, there is -- there 9 is, and we argued this matter before you and it was going 10 to be the subject of the stated case. 11 There is, we say, provisions in the Police 12 Services Act that prevents persons who were engaged in 13 the administration of the -- of the Act, which would 14 include this officer as the complainant, and senior 15 officer, from disclosing, without consent, the 16 information that's contained in those discipline records. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 18 MR. IAN ROLAND: Or -- and in that 19 discipline investigation. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 21 MR. IAN ROLAND: And My Friend is asking 22 him to disclose that information. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. IAN ROLAND: I say that's not an 25 appropriate question.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not a 2 relevant piece of information that I need at this point 3 in time. I think that was our understanding. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes. I was going to 5 say that, Commissioner, you don't have to resolve this by 6 re-opening the question as to what arose on the stated 7 case and what statutory privilege and confidentiality -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- applies, because as 10 part of the agreement that -- that has your imprimatur -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, yes. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- it was determined-- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's why I 14 asked. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- that it's not 16 relevant. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's why I 18 asked. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and I say that 20 I have no objection and I expect that I would lead it, if 21 it weren't led by Commission Counsel through Commissioner 22 O'Grady or Commissioner Boniface, of -- of the 23 generalities, without talking about the names, at least, 24 of these people. 25 But in my submission, having determined


1 it's irrelevant for the purposes of the records, I don't 2 know how it becomes relevant through the cross -- cross- 3 examination of Mr. Parkin. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 5 Millar...? 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's exactly the -- 7 the position as Mr. Falconer knows, and that the 8 arrangement and the settlement was that, apart from the 9 officers -- none of the officers who were disciplined -- 10 who were subject to the discipline were at Ipperwash on 11 September 4, 5 and 6. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So their 13 identity is irrelevant to me. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's irrelevant. 15 There were discussions, we've heard, between Mr. Carson 16 who was there on 4th, 5th and 6th at some point, and I 17 don't know if that's what Mr. Parkin's referring to. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But the names of the 20 individual officers who were involved in the mugs and t- 21 shirts and the other items, were all officers who came 22 subsequent to the 7th. 23 The agreement that you approved was on -- 24 their names are irrelevant and it's -- and Mr. Falconer 25 knows that.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. It 2 might be interesting for you, Mr. Falconer, but it's not 3 relevant for me, so I ask you to move on. 4 You said you would be five (5) or ten (10) 5 minutes, and I would ask you to complete your examination 6 as quickly as you can. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I -- my 8 difficulty is, Mr. Commissioner, I wasn't even given a 9 chance to respond to the objections. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I've 11 already made a ruling. It's already a ruling that those 12 names are irrelevant to my -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, but -- but -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I have 15 the impression that's what you were trying to get. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But you never heard 17 from me. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I never 19 heard from you? You asked a question. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that wasn't 21 what I was trying to get at. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 23 sorry, then, Mr. Falconer. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's all right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It wasn't


1 very clear. I thought -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I know, I -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- yoo were 4 asking for exactly the information that we've ruled 5 around that. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I had a completely 7 separate issue that I was seeking to canvass and I'm just 8 asking if I can be heard, that's all. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: By all 10 means. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If I was 13 mistaken, I apologize. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, no, it's 15 all right. I just -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- want to be 18 heard, that's all, because there were -- I can understand 19 that there were a number of lawyers speaking. It's just 20 I never responded to them. 21 Mr. Commissioner, the issue, pure and 22 simple, is that the records we were provided, we were 23 told by the Ontario Provincial Police and your counsel, 24 represent the full compendium of information, file 25 information that exists as to the existence of discipline


1 as applied to the mugs and t-shirts. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, with 3 some redactions of -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- of some 6 information. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Of names, of 8 identities. Nowhere in those records, nowhere, I repeat, 9 is there any reflection of discipline, informal or 10 formal, having been meted out in respect of the mugs and 11 t-shirts. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I'm 13 aware of that, having been -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's not there. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Now, this officer 17 says, in -- in his way, and he's not an expert from 18 Professional Standards, so I appreciate it, he says, in 19 his way, that something was done. 20 Well, the records show nothing was done. 21 If he's now saying something was done, I want to know 22 what his knowledge base is. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 24 can ask him what he understands -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- was done, 2 that's fair. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right, but I can't 4 get at it. I mean, I'll try it another way, but I'm 5 trying to establish what was done -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- because the 8 records show nothing was done. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 10 think what was done could be relevant, but -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fine, all right. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: So, officer -- 15 MR. DONALD WORME: I agree with that, 16 Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's all. 18 MR. DONALD WORME: Sorry, I just want to 19 interrupt, briefly. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 21 Worme? 22 MR. DONALD WORME: The question that he 23 put to him was not what was done -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 25 right, it wasn't.


1 MR. DONALD WORME: -- it was rather who 2 had spoken to -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Exactly. 4 That's why I stopped him. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm trying 6 to -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask what was 8 done, if he knows. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: What was -- what -- do you have 12 knowledge, specifically, of what was done? 13 A: With respect to the mugs and 14 t-shirts -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- I don't have specific knowledge 17 with respect to the constables that were involved. 18 However, I'm led to believe that I learned, at some point 19 in time later, that some commissioned officers were 20 spoken to in General Headquarters. 21 The extent of what was said in those 22 meetings, I don't know, but I know it was relative to the 23 mugs and t-shirts. 24 Q: All right. Could I have Exhibit P- 25 1002. I'm putting it in front of you. I've got two (2)


1 copies. I'm handing copies up in front of you. It's a 2 statement, a draft issue note for the Solicitor General, 3 Exhibit P-100 -- I'm sorry, P-1002, 1-0-0-2. 4 This was put to Mr. Runciman, then 5 Solicitor General, by Mr. Millar in examination-in-chief. 6 It is an issue note dated January 8th, 1997. 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: And it says, it's one of the briefing 9 notes. It ultimately never has to be used because no 10 questions are opposed in the House. It says the 11 following: 12 "Unofficial memorabilia bearing OPP 13 insignia was produced in relation to 14 the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial 15 Park in the fall of 1995." 16 You and I can agree, can we, that that's 17 the mugs and t-shirts? 18 A: Correct, sir. 19 Q: Secondly, it says: 20 "Development of these items were ad hoc 21 initiatives -- initiatives of 22 individual members of the OPP. The 23 Professional Standards Bureau of the 24 OPP has completed the investigation." 25 Do you see that?


1 A: Yes, sir. 2 Q: And that would be the investigation 3 you requested, right? 4 A: I don't think that that's exactly 5 what that means, sir. 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: My investigation, or excuse me, not 8 my investigation, but once the investigation was 9 completed by the investigating officer, a report was 10 prepared and delivered to me. 11 I then forwarded that report, with 12 recommendation, to Professional Standards Bureau. They 13 also would have the ability to conduct a further 14 investigation, because while I wouldn't have, at the 15 time, when I made my recommendation, was any type of 16 history with respect to the officers and -- which may or 17 may not have changed discipline. 18 Q: Thank you for that. The next one is 19 the summary: 20 "There are reasonable grounds to 21 believe that a sergeant and three (3) 22 constables acted improperly and that 23 they created illustrations and 24 materials that were insensitive and 25 unprofessional while at Ipperwash.


1 The four (4) officers have accepted an 2 admonition as corrective action. And 3 this will remain on the record for two 4 (2) years." 5 Do you see that? 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: Now, I take, right, the reference to 8 corrective action being taken against the four (4) 9 members of the OPP, I take the reference above it to the 10 unofficial memorabilia and I infer from that, combined 11 with the evidence of Detective -- I'm sorry, Deputy 12 Commissioner Carson, the statements of your counsel on 13 the record, that informal discipline was invoked against 14 the officers involved in the mugs and t-shirts incident 15 based on this exhibit and what I've just told you. 16 First of all, let me split the question up 17 because it was three (3) barrelled. Let me deal first 18 with this exhibit. 19 Based on this exhibit, would you agree 20 that it appears that the officers involved in the mugs 21 and t-shirts incident received admonitions? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: And would you agree with me that, in 24 fact, once one reviews the records, the only four (4) 25 officers that received admonitions had nothing to do with


1 the mugs and t-shirts incident? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: So it's safe to say that on the 4 knowledge we have so far, that is the records and this -- 5 and the issue note and what you know, there were no 6 formal admonitions towards the police officers involved 7 in the mugs and t-shirts incident, as far as you know? 8 A: As far as I know, correct. 9 Q: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm -- I'm in my 12 last four (4) questions. Last four (4) questions. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: Can I ask you something important. 17 You sat in on a meeting in 2003 for which you've provided 18 notes for us. If I could get another copy of the notes 19 because I managed to bury the single page that was 20 provided to me. 21 Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. 22 I'm showing you a copy of that note. 23 Could you take a look at it, please? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: Now what's the -- the date of that


1 note is what exactly? 2 A: Monday, 28th of July. 3 Q: What year? 4 A: 2003. 5 Q: So on the 28th of July 2003 you met 6 with Detective -- I'm sorry, Deputy Commissioner Pilon 7 and then was it Superintendent Fox? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And yourself. You met over the 10 Ipperwash tapes, yes? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: And these were, of course, the tapes 13 that have been played in respect of Ron Fox's 14 communications with the Command Post on September 5th and 15 September 6th, 1995, correct? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And those tapes were played in Deputy 18 Commissioner Pilon's offices, right? 19 A: No, sir. 20 Q: They weren't played? 21 A: They were played but not in his 22 office. 23 Q: Oh. 24 A: We met at Cambridge Detachment -- 25 Q: My apologies.


1 A: -- and that's where they were played. 2 Q: And they were played in the presence 3 of Deputy Commissioner Pilon and Ron Fox and you? 4 A: Yes, he played them. Yes, sir. 5 Q: So you heard the tapes? 6 A: Yes, I did. 7 Q: Was it the first time you heard them 8 or...? 9 A: The first time. 10 Q: All right. Now, we've heard from 11 Ron Fox that it was an extraordinary -- extraordinarily 12 unusual event to be meeting with, among others, the 13 Premier in his dining room, as he did on September 6th, 14 1995. We've heard that in evidence. Would you concur 15 that that's extremely unusual? 16 Would you concur that it would be unusual 17 to meet with the Premier in that fashion? Have you ever 18 heard of such a meeting before? 19 A: I don't know what capacity he was in 20 within the Government there and what type of meetings he 21 attended or where he went to attend -- 22 Q: All right. 23 A: -- or who he interacted with. 24 Q: Fair enough. Can I ask you this 25 though, in terms of Ipperwash did you know of any other


1 officers, seconded or not, who met with the Premier? 2 Did you know of any other officers -- 3 A: No, sir. 4 Q: All right. Is -- am I safe to infer 5 that when such a meeting came to the attention of the guy 6 you work so closely with, Chief Coles, he would have told 7 you about it? 8 A: He may have. 9 Q: Okay. And to be fair to me though, 10 if you'd been told by Chief Coles that Ron Fox was in a 11 meeting with the Premier, and he was upset about it, if 12 you'd been told by Chief Coles that on September 6th, 13 1995, don't you think you'd remember? 14 A: I would think so. 15 Q: And so you -- he probably did tell 16 you and you probably remember that he told you, correct? 17 A: No, sir. 18 Q: All right. Would you also agree with 19 this though, that -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You said you 21 had four (4) questions, Mr. Falconer. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please bring 24 it to a conclusion. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I am.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Would you also agree with this 4 though, that you've reviewed the Connolley Report, do you 5 see any reference in the internal audit of the activities 6 at Ipperwash? 7 Do you see any reference in the internal 8 audit by Connolley, years later, to the meeting in the 9 dining room with the Premier and Ron Fox and Patrick? Do 10 you see anything in there? 11 A: Not that I recall, from the Connolley 12 Report. 13 Q: No, me neither. To this day, as a 14 superintendent and now Chief Superintendent, do you know 15 of any reason why the OPP, through Connolley, would have 16 wanted to keep this undisclosed, that meeting? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's completely-- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 20 what -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm asking if, as a 22 Chief Superintendent -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's not a 24 Chief Superintendent, he's retired. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He was. He was


1 then. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's retired 3 now. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: As a person who was 5 a Chief Superintendent -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and then a 8 Superintendent in charge of Ipperwash, do you know of any 9 reason why the OPP would have wanted to have kept the 10 existence of that meeting undisclosed? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 12 not sure. Yes, I need to hear from you but I don't think 13 that's a question he can answer at this point? 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Why? The Connolley 15 Report doesn't disclose the meeting. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The Chief knew 18 about the meeting, the Superintendent may have known 19 about the meeting, certainly Fox knew about the meeting-- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It wasn't in 21 there. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and yet it 23 doesn't show up in the Connolley Report. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It wasn't in 25 the Connolley Report.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And the Connolley 2 Report says it was looking into the issue of political 3 interference. So I want to know why the OPP didn't 4 disclose it. He may know or he may not know. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, if 6 that's the question you were asking -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's the 8 question. That's the question. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You see, 10 it's your lead-up -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I apologize. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it's your 13 background, and your editorial comment that make it 14 difficult -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- for all 17 of us. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's the question 19 I want to know. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you ask 21 the questions properly then it's relevant. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fair enough. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: So could you tell me, please, sir --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 2 Mr. Downard -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I've withdrawn the 4 question and I'm rephrasing it. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I need to 6 hear from Mr. Downard, Mr. Falconer. 7 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: I object to the 8 manner in which Mr. Falconer is proceeding. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: He proceeds in a very 11 misleading fashion to the Witness. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 13 He just said that -- 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: He talks about Ron 15 Fox meeting with the Premier. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm withdrawing the 17 question. 18 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's a gross 19 exaggeration. I'm entitled to make a submission with 20 respect to inappropriate conduct. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Yes. 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The last question 23 implies that the OPP made a choice, knowingly -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- to -- to keep the


1 dining room a secret which -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- is entirely 4 unsupported in the evidence. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Now, 6 ask your questions and you know how to ask a fair 7 question, Mr. Falconer. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Do you know any reason why the OPP 11 would have not disclosed the existence of the dining room 12 meeting in the Connolley Report, that looked at the 13 question of political interference? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: See, you had 15 to add that last piece. Yes, Mr. -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Would it -- the -- 17 oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I'll take that out. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: Do you know of any reason why -- 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: Can I say something? 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the OPP wouldn't 23 have disclosed the existence of the dining room meeting 24 in the Connolley Report? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, just


1 stop there. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Sure. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Sandler 4 is entitled to stand and make an objection. Go ahead, 5 sir. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: My Friend has said to 7 this Witness, and a couple of times, and -- and I'm 8 concerned about it. There's evidence as to what the 9 Connolley report was there for and My Friend has now 10 said, two (2) or three (3) times, it looked into 11 political interference -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He left that 13 part out of the question. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: That -- that's not the 15 evidence though, with great respect. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's left 17 that part out of the question. Ask the question without 18 that -- 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: I understand, but he's 20 states things -- he states things, they're picked up. 21 This is a Public Inquiry -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I realize 23 that. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: And that's why I 25 wanted to articulate the point.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: That's -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The point 4 well taken, Mr. Sandler. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please, I 7 don't want to get into this. Just ask the proper 8 question and let's move on. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough, Mr. 10 Commissioner, but -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You asked 12 it. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But I -- Mr. 14 Sandler elicited evidence from Commissioner O'Grady that 15 political interference, in that issue, was looked into by 16 the Connolley report -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It was Mr. Sandler 19 that elicited that evidence in re-examination of 20 Commissioner O'Grady. 21 For him to stand here today and suggest 22 that the Connolley report didn't look at political 23 interference, is completely inaccurate. Now -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is not 25 helpful.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- well, but I'm 2 -- he shouldn't rise and suggest I got it wrong, when 3 he's the one that elicited the evidence. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask the 5 question that you were going to ask -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- please, 8 Mr. Falconer. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Do you know -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 14 already asked the question. Do you know the question? 15 You don't have to ask it again if you know the question. 16 Can you answer it? 17 THE WITNESS: I believe -- I believe I 18 know the question. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you 20 answer it? 21 THE WITNESS: No, I have -- I know of no 22 reason. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:


1 Q: All right. And would you agree with 2 me, if the Connolley report, and I can pull it out and 3 show you one of the issues was political interference, 4 I'm sure Mr. Commissioner remembers it was an issue 5 listed in the -- in the Connolley report. 6 I can pull it out and show you, but if you 7 take my word for it, it's one of the issues that's 8 listed. 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: Would you agree with me that since 11 the Connolley report listed an issue as political 12 interference, would you agree with me it would have been 13 better, preferable, from a disclosure point of view, to 14 have made reference and included and disclosed the 15 existence of the dining room meeting, as far as Ron Fox's 16 participation, and Chief Coles' knowledge -- 17 A: Well -- 18 Q: -- went, as to its existence in the 19 report, it would have been better? Would you agree? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you 21 answer that question? Again, there's some parts to it 22 and it just -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll break it down, 24 I'm sorry. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: It would have been preferable to have 3 included it in the report -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm going to 5 cut you off in a couple of minutes -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 8 Falconer, so ask the question quickly and simply and 9 directly, one piece. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: It would have been preferable to 13 include it in the report, would you agree? 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: Can I -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 16 you are objecting to that question? 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes. This is 18 argument. We're into argument now. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No -- 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, I do get to make 21 my submissions. This is argument. My Friend and I can 22 debate -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It would 24 have been better -- 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: What the Connolley


1 report was about, the extent to which it was an internal 2 audit, the extent to which it dealt with political 3 interference, because some parts of My Friend's questions 4 I agree with, but ultimately, to ask this gentleman, not 5 an author of the report, doesn't profess to be an expert 6 in the report, to start characterizing whether it should 7 have been or shouldn't have been better for it to be in 8 there or not, that's argument for you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And this -- 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: If we ever get to 11 argument. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Falconer 13 can make those arguments and nothing is being advanced by 14 you asking this question. 15 So I'm going to ask you to please bring 16 your examination to a conclusion. You've made some 17 important points, Mr. Falconer, and I'd like you to 18 conclude your examination. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: You had made, and this is my last two 25 (2) questions, you had told, in your examinations by, I


1 believe it was Ms. Perschy, but it could well have also 2 been Mr. Downard, that nothing -- it was Ms. Perschy. 3 Ms. Perschy asked you a question: Did you 4 receive any impression from Carson that he was receiving 5 any political impression -- political pressure? 6 Do you remember being asked that question? 7 She asked, Ms. Perschy asked you: Did you receive any 8 impression from Carson that he was receiving any 9 political pressure? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Do you remember you were asked that? 12 And you answered, No, you didn't. 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Page 31, May 18th, 2005. This is 15 what Mr. Carson, your incident commander, told Mr. 16 Millar. Quote: 17 "Obviously, the information that's 18 being passed along through Staff 19 Sergeant Lacroix, there's also the 20 comments from Mayor Thomas, Ken 21 Williams, I mean, there's a number of 22 people with the various areas of 23 responsibility who are voicing concerns 24 and issues. 25 So it's, quite frankly, coming from all


1 angles." 2 Now, that answer was given in answer to 3 Mr. Millar's question about to the existence of political 4 pressure. Mr. Millar asked him about that. And it was 5 Carson's evidence that it was coming from all angles. 6 And my question to you is: In view of 7 Carson's evidence that it was coming from all angles, 8 does that refresh your memory as to the existence of 9 political pressure and what your incident commander 10 conveyed to you? 11 A: No. It's understandable that 12 pressure would have been coming from all angles. That's 13 part of being an incident commander. 14 That's the reality of the job and you have 15 to deal with it. 16 Q: Okay. So that wouldn't be a surprise 17 to you today, right? 18 A: No, sir. 19 Q: And it wasn't a surprise to you back 20 then? 21 A: No, sir. 22 Q: So you did know that there was 23 political pressure coming from all angles on Carson, 24 correct? 25 A: I don't know if I termed it political


1 pressure. There's all kinds of pressures from all kinds 2 of concerned citizens that he had to deal with. 3 Q: Right. And the same with Linton? 4 A: That's reality. 5 Q: And the same with Wright? 6 A: I don't know so much with Wright but 7 he was in the command post. 8 Q: And the same with Lacroix? 9 A: Pressure is part of the business. 10 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Take a 12 break. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you for your 14 patience. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Take a 16 break. 17 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 18 for fifteen (15) minutes. 19 20 --- Upon recessing at 10:55 a.m. 21 --- Upon resuming at 11:12 a.m. 22 23 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 24 resumed. Please be seated. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, Mr.


1 Falconer's not here but the note that was provided by Mr. 2 Parkin this morning, it's the note of May of -- I think 3 it's July 28th? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: July 28th, 5 2003? 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. It should have 7 been marked as an exhibit. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-1070, Your Honour. 9 10 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1070: Mr. Anthony Parkin's 11 handwritten notes, 08:00 12 hours to 18:00 hours, July 13 28, 2003. 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 16 Rosenthal. 17 Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Henderson. 18 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Thank you, 19 Commissioner. I -- I wanted to take an opportunity at 20 this point to sound what may be only a cautionary note. 21 And that's in relation to the definition 22 of relevance we heard in terms of the names of the police 23 officers which was expressed in terms of if the officers 24 were not present on the 4th, 5th or 6th but possibly on 25 the 7th. The -- the latter names would -- are not


1 considered to be relevant for purposes of your ruling. 2 Obviously we have a lot of evidence from 3 Aboriginal people that the Commission has heard who were 4 not there prior to September the 7th but who were engaged 5 in activities after that. 6 We have concern about the standard of 7 relevance and whether there's a different standard in 8 terms of the names and identities of police or their 9 conduct or the access to documents. 10 I simply sound that note now. I can 11 indicate that's on behalf of the First Nation. I'm also 12 acting for -- as agent for Mr. Horton and Mr. -- Mr. 13 Horner this morning so I reserve their right to make 14 submissions in due course of -- if that becomes 15 necessary. 16 And I simply wanted to make the point 17 because I just heard it and it was just put on the record 18 for the first time, we do have concerns about that. 19 That's all I wanted to indicate to you at 20 this point, sir. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That was an issue that 22 Ms. Vella addressed extensively on Monday morning as part 23 of the settlement of the stated case and to get the -- 24 and with respect to the record, the names of the police 25 officers who were disciplined and who were involved in


1 the mugs and t-shirts and these issues occurred 2 substantially after, not on September 7th. 3 But those police officers came 4 substantially after these events so... 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 6 don't want to go into that argument now but you weren't 7 here then Mr. Henderson, I don't think. I may be 8 mistaken. You can read what Ms. Vella said. 9 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: In fact I did 10 read it, Commissioner. As I say, I just heard it on the 11 record -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- and neither 14 Mr. Horton or Mr. Horner were here on Monday morning -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- for various 17 reasons. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It may come 19 up again. We'll deal with it if it does. 20 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: But -- yes, I 21 just wanted to sound the concern. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 23 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I didn't want to 24 engage an argument on it. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you


1 very much. 2 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I just wanted to 3 -- to indicate we consider it to be an open issue and may 4 -- may have to be revisited in some form at some point. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like to 6 go on with Mr. Rosenthal's cross-examination. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, I 8 do have to add something that what Mr. Henderson said and 9 it's simply this. 10 I conducted my examination on what I had 11 which is the discipline volumes I was provided. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And obviously I 14 expressed my gratitude for that. But I want to 15 emphasize, I have raised with your counsel off the 16 record, concerns Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto 17 has -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- about the 20 redactions. And there was a settlement between your 21 counsel and the OPP. Obviously the concern or the -- and 22 the OPPA, there is a concern on the part of my client 23 that we not be taken as -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 25 mentioned that before. You don't need to mention it


1 again. You did mention it. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My difficulty is, 3 Mr. Commissioner, that when you made pronouncements on 4 relevance based on the settlement it then became an issue 5 as to whether we've gone past simply a settlement that 6 happened with your Counsel and the OPP and the OPPA, but 7 has now become something that's been the subject of -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, part 9 of my rulings so I'm not sure how you're going to raise 10 it, but -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, it's -- 12 that's the -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 14 ruling and it's on the record. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I know and so 16 I'm waiting to hear back from your Counsel. I just -- my 17 concern is that our efforts to try to work this out don't 18 operate against us so that rulings get built on the 19 settlement even though we never got an opportunity to be 20 heard on it. I'm just asking that we be given some 21 latitude -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- not on the 24 questions, but -- but on the fact that the -- the issue 25 is still live and open and we're trying to sort it out.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 2 that you're doing that. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 5 there was a meeting and that's why I don't want to deal 6 with it now. Let's go on. 7 Mr. Rosenthal...? 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. Good 9 morning, Mr. Commissioner. 10 On behalf of My Client we might have some 11 concerns in that direction too but I shall move onto the 12 cross-examination at this point if I may. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Good morning, Mr. Parkin. My name is 17 Peter Rosenthal. I'm one (1) of the counsel for a group 18 of Stoney Point people under the name Aazhoodena and 19 George Family Group. 20 A: Good morning, sir. 21 Q: Excuse me I have a bad cold which may 22 make me even more difficult to listen to than normally 23 so... 24 Could you please turn to your Tab 7 of the 25 transcript brief which is Exhibit P-469 to these


1 proceedings and which is a telephone call between you and 2 Inspector Linton on the evening of September 6th, 1995, 3 at 21:42, 9:42 p.m. in other words? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which Tab 5 number is that? 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's -- 7 MR. DONALD WORME: Tab 7. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Tab 7 of the 9 transcript brief. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tab 7? 11 That's fine. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 15 Q: And I should like to look if I may at 16 page 54 of that conversation; it's towards the end of the 17 conversation. 18 And in the -- in the last two (2) entries 19 on that page, one (1) Inspector Linton says to you: 20 "Okay, so ah you know it's not that 21 things are going to get away on us I 22 don't think." 23 And you say: 24 "No, no. Okay. All right. Just let 25 me know if things start to really take


1 a tumble." 2 Now, this was at 9:42 on the evening of 3 September 6th. 4 We understand that sometime in the next 5 while after that as you know the Crowd Management Unit 6 accompanied by snipers from the TRU team marched down the 7 road and there was the confrontation that we've heard 8 much about, right? 9 A: Correct, sir. 10 Q: Now, you would agree with me would 11 you not that marching a large number of officers down the 12 road at night accompanied by TRU team snipers was an 13 indication that things were really starting to take a 14 tumble to use your vernacular? 15 Isn't that fair? 16 A: That's fair. 17 Q: And so evidently you were expecting 18 Inspector Linton to let you know if things started to 19 take a tumble and I would put it to you that there must 20 have been a phone call from either Inspector Linton or 21 Inspector Carson or someone else to you at some point 22 after 9:42 before that final marching down the road an 23 hour and a half later or an hour and twenty (20) minutes 24 later? 25 A: No, sir.


1 Q: Well, we don't have any record of 2 such a phone call do we? 3 A: No. 4 Q: But you had asked for unrecorded 5 lines, right? 6 A: I did. 7 Q: And there must have been a response 8 to your request to let you know if things really take a 9 trumble -- tumble. 10 Didn't there have to be a response to that 11 request, sir? 12 A: No, sir. 13 Q: No? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Did you admonish Inspector Linton and 16 Inspector Carson afterwards for not letting you know when 17 they had those officers march down the road? 18 A: No, sir. 19 Q: Didn't you mean by this that they 20 should let you know if anything at all like that was 21 about to happen? 22 A: When they were able to do so, yes, 23 sir. 24 Q: And you're suggesting that they 25 wouldn't have had the opportunity to do so, to telephone


1 you at any point from 9:42 until eleven o'clock when they 2 killed Dudley George? 3 A: All I know is that they didn't, sir. 4 Q: All you know is they didn't? You 5 must have been concerned about that were you not, sir? 6 A: They were in the Incident Command 7 Post. They were the Incident Commanders. They have to 8 make those decisions -- 9 Q: I would -- 10 A: -- and there's not always going to be 11 a call to me to ask if it's all right. 12 Q: I would put it to you, sir, that 13 given all the evidence that we've seen including your 14 asking them to inform you if things really take a tumble, 15 and your insistence on having unrecorded lines, that the 16 most likely thing is that they did call you but we just 17 don't have a record of it; isn't that fair, sir? 18 A: No, sir, it's not. 19 Q: Now, if we could please turn to your 20 Tab 3 of your transcript brief -- excuse me, Mr. 21 Commissioner -- page 169 thereof, please. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: This is part of Exhibit P-444(A).


1 It's a phone call between you and Inspector Carson on 2 September 5th at 16:04. Now, Inspector Carson says to 3 you, on the fourth entry on page 169: 4 "Yeah, yeah, that Blockade Committee, 5 sounds like there is some waffling 6 going on there by some individuals." 7 Now you took Inspector Carson to mean, 8 when he said "waffling", that people were not acting 9 decisively enough; is that fair, that's what "waffling" 10 meant to you? 11 A: That would be what the words would 12 indicate, yes, sir, that's fair. 13 Q: And then you say: 14 "Yeah. And apparently they want to go 15 for a regular injunction." 16 Carson responses something's that 17 inaudible. 18 You say: 19 "So?" 20 And he says: 21 "Are we prepared to live with that?" 22 So you understood, did you not, sir, that 23 Carson was suggesting to you he wanted something more 24 quickly done, more aggressively done than a regular 25 injunction; is that what you took from that, sir?


1 A: No, sir. The injunction was -- we 2 were going to deal with the injunction whenever we got 3 it. 4 Q: Yes. But he says: 5 "Are we prepared to live with that?" 6 Didn't you take from that at least a 7 concern on his part that he wanted something more 8 decisive done, more quickly done? 9 A: I can't really say what he was 10 thinking, sir. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: That was his position. 13 Q: Thank you. Excuse me. Sorry, Mr. 14 Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: And then you said -- you reported to 19 Mr. Carson that -- that: 20 "Apparently the people from the 21 government are saying, you know, why 22 don't we treat them just like a bunch 23 of bikers." 24 And Inspector Carson said: 25 "Well, they've got a point."


1 And you say: 2 "Yeah." 3 So did you take from that that Inspector 4 Carson was saying, Yeah, there's a point, we shouldn't 5 give them any special treatment, we should treat them as 6 if they were criminals? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. --- 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: I just think, in 9 fairness, the very next line should be read in the 10 transcript. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- Mr. 12 Commissioner, I can read an entire transcript. What I 13 read is up to me, unless I do something unfair. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 15 point that Mr. Sandler is making. You may not agree but 16 Mr. Sandler is suggesting in order to be fair you should 17 read the next couples lines in the transcript. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Well, I -- I will come to the next 21 line but may -- well, okay, I'll read the entire thing. 22 You say: 23 "Depends who you listen to. Apparently 24 the people from the government are 25 saying, you know, why don't we treat


1 them just like a bunch of bikers." 2 Carson says: 3 "Well -- well, they've got a point. 4 And you say: 5 "Yeah." 6 And Carson says: 7 "Ah, but I guess for trespassing that's 8 not very, you know I mean." 9 Now, did you not take from that that 10 Inspector Carson was saying, I wish we could treat them 11 just like criminals but all we have is trespassing, 12 unfortunately, that's not going to do a very good job; 13 that's what he meant, right? 14 A: I don't think it would be as strong 15 as that. He's just commenting on the fact of what we had 16 heard around the -- treating people the same issue. And 17 he indicates: 18 "Well, they've got a point." 19 Then we get back to the fact that the 20 reality is that this is a trespassing issue so regardless 21 of who is in there, it would still be a trespassing 22 issue. 23 Q: Thank you. I should explain, I'm 24 going to move more quickly than I might otherwise do 25 because we're under a great time pressure so don't take


1 it as impolite or -- 2 A: I'll try and -- 3 Q: -- lack of interest in what you say. 4 So if we could move on then please to your Tab 4 which 5 has been entered as Exhibit P-1057 to these proceedings. 6 I should like to look at page 9 of that if I may. 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: Now, this is a phone call between you 9 and Inspector Linton on September 5th. I'm interested 10 just in finding out what you meant by one (1) phrase in 11 here. 12 Towards the bottom of that page 9 there's 13 an entry from you: 14 "No, no, I'm just -- that was just off 15 the top of my head. No, I think you've 16 got everything under control there and 17 like you say touch up those couple of 18 issues with John tomorrow and depending 19 on that injunction and depending on the 20 political will we'll make our decisions 21 accordingly." 22 Now, sir, "depending on the political 23 will" I take it you meant the will of some of the 24 political people; is that fair? 25 A: That's fair.


1 Q: And you meant, among the political 2 people, you meant people at the Solicitor General's 3 office, perhaps? 4 A: I don't believe I was thinking of any 5 area in particular, but that's fair. 6 Q: Yes. So you were aware -- Mr. 7 Falconer asked you a while ago if Mr. Carson was aware, 8 but you were certainly aware of political pressure of 9 various kinds? 10 A: Political pressure isn't unusual, 11 it's what you do under the pressure. 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: That it doesn't affect your decision 14 making. 15 Q: Well whether it does or doesn't that 16 might be difficult to determine in any particular case; 17 isn't that fair? 18 A: That's fair. 19 Q: I mean, you know that people are 20 subconsciously influenced by pressures as well as being 21 consciously influenced by pressures, right? 22 A: That's fair. 23 Q: So it may be hard to determine the 24 extent of which any pressure actually had an effect. But 25 you were recognizing here that your actions, the OPP


1 actions, depended on the political will as well on the 2 OPP decision making; is that fair? 3 A: Our actions didn't depend on the 4 political will but it's clearly the political will could 5 have changed. It was a position that, until the 6 occupiers left, that the Government wasn't going to speak 7 to the issue. 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: That was kind of the proviso they put 10 out there. However, there was nothing to -- to prevent 11 them from changing their mind and saying we'll talk. 12 Q: You have a copy of your handwritten 13 notes there, sir, I believe. 14 A: Yes, I do. 15 Q: Which have been entered as Exhibit P- 16 499 to these proceedings and are Inquiry Document Number 17 2005524. I should like to look at page 22 of that 18 document if we could. 19 A: Which tab is that, sir? 20 MR. DONALD WORME: It's the last tab. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: It's the last tab in your fat binder. 24 Thank you. 25 A: The page number, sir?


1 Q: Page 22 please, which should be, if 2 I've counted the pages correctly, Wednesday 16, August 3 '95. 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: If you look at the 1:10 entry for 6 that date of 16 August, 1995 it reads: 7 "Deputy Commissioner Boose called. 8 Commissioner concerned that we say we 9 will enforce law but we are -- but are 10 we doing that?" 11 Now, I would put it to you that that was a 12 reflection of the kind of concerns that politicians such 13 as Marcel Beaubien were expressing at that time that the 14 OPP was not sufficiently enforcing the law; isn't that 15 fair? 16 A: I can't argue that Marcel Beaubien 17 and constituents were concerned with the way the OPP was 18 operating. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And the -- this is very close to the 22 kind of expression that people like Marcel Beaubien were 23 making that, we say -- he would say, would he not, words 24 to the effect of, The OPP says that they're enforcing the 25 law, but they're not really doing it, right?


1 A: Deputy Commissioner Boose called to 2 inquire what we were doing with respect to the incident 3 at the base. 4 Q: Yes. But my question was: Marcel 5 Beaubien and others were putting that kind of question to 6 the OPP, right? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And apparently, the way you've 9 written this, it sounds as if the Commissioner was 10 sharing the concern that Marcel Beaubien and others had 11 expressed, right? 12 A: Something had brought it to Deputy 13 Commissioner Boose's attention, I agree. 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: Causing him to inquire from me what 16 was happening. 17 Q: Yes. But he wasn't saying, just some 18 politicians are concerned about this. He was saying the 19 Commissioner himself is concerned that we're not properly 20 enforcing the law, right? That's what he told you. 21 A: That's correct. And not unusual. 22 Q: So that must have been quite 23 upsetting to you? 24 A: No, sir. 25 Q: No?


1 A: No, sir. 2 Q: When the Commissioner tells you that 3 we, OPP, say we're enforcing the law, but are we doing 4 that? 5 A: That's a -- I would take that as a 6 relatively basic, simple question, that the Deputy 7 Commissioner, my chief, or the Commissioner could ask me 8 at any time. 9 I -- you can't be thin-skinned in this 10 business and you certainly can't take it as criticism 11 every time a superior calls you and asks you a question. 12 Q: Well, in any event, it certainly 13 shows, and I presume you have other indications of this, 14 that the Commissioner was on top of the political 15 pressure that was being exerted, right? 16 A: He would certainly be aware of the 17 issue and the effect that it was having on the 18 politicians, absolutely. 19 Q: Yes. And he was perhaps concerned, 20 to satisfy himself, that he could give appropriate 21 answers to the politicians. Would that be fair? 22 A: That would be very fair. 23 Q: Now, if you could turn to your 24 transcript Tab 7, please, which is P-469. You looked at 25 that earlier, I believe.


1 And on page 51 of that document... 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: Now, that document, as we indicated, 7 was a phone call at 9:42 p.m. between you and Inspector 8 Linton, 9:42 p.m. on September 6th. 9 When you're at page 51... 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: ...there's a discussion of 14 politicians. You say towards -- your first entry on the 15 page: 16 "And then the next thing it was, uh, 17 sitting in the, uh, deputy Solicitor 18 General's office, so there was some 19 concern that, you know, maybe we 20 weren't doing the right thing." 21 And Linton responds: 22 "Marcel Beaubien was in tonight and he 23 talked to the Solicitor General and, 24 uh." 25 And you say:


1 "Yeah." 2 And Inspector Linton continues: 3 "The Attorney General and they were 4 comfortable, but he -- he --" 5 And then you respond: 6 "Well, that's right. We called the 7 Commissioner, uh, tonight." [and] 8 LINTON: Yeah. 9 PARKIN: And he had been talking to 10 Runciman and they were more than 11 pleased with what the OPP were doing." 12 And so on. So, this is a further 13 indication that the Commissioner was on top of the 14 concerns of the politicians in dealing with it; is that 15 fair? 16 A: That's fair. 17 Q: And so even on the evening of 18 September 6th, you had called the Commissioner to speak 19 about these issues, and in particular, he had informed 20 you that he had been talking to Runciman about it? 21 A: In this conver -- excuse me, in this 22 conversation, I -- as I believe I said before, I was 23 somewhat paraphrasing. 24 I'm not sure exactly when that call took 25 place. It was -- I would have gotten that information


1 from Chief Superintendent Coles. 2 Q: So when you say that, "we called the 3 Commissioner", you meant, really, Chief Superintendent 4 Coles had called the Commissioner? 5 A: They had been in discussion. Whether 6 he called the Commissioner or the Commissioner called him 7 I don't know. 8 Q: Yes, you don't know who made the call 9 but you know that it was sometime that evening. You 10 don't know what time, but you -- 11 A: But -- 12 Q: -- but you said tonight. You 13 wouldn't have said tonight if it hadn't been the evening 14 presumably? 15 A: I did say tonight but I can't really 16 say that it was that night, but I'll accept that it 17 probably was. 18 Q: There's no reason to doubt that you 19 were -- 20 A: No. 21 Q: -- accurate when you said tonight, 22 right? 23 A: No reason to doubt. 24 Q: So -- so we can take from this -- we 25 can be pretty confident that sometime that evening prior


1 to 9:42 when you were speaking to Inspector Linton Chief 2 Superintendent Coles had phoned the Commissioner and 3 among other information that the Commissioner had given 4 him was that he and the Commissioner had been talking to 5 Mr. Runciman and that Mr. Runciman was more than pleased 6 with what the OPP had been doing, right? 7 A: Correct, sir. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: If we could turn please to Exhibit P- 12 1051 which was the first of the two (2) disciplinary 13 binders. Do you have a copy of that in front of you, 14 sir? 15 A: Yes, I do, sir. Volume I? 16 Q: Yes. Thank you. I should like to 17 look first at Tab 23 of that document. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Tab 23 is dated August 28, 1995, and 22 is a memorandum to all Park Wardens, subject: Procedures 23 Dealing with First Nations People; is that correct, sir? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: And one (1) of the several complaints


1 that Mr. Cloud had made about what he's perceived to be 2 racism, I gather, against First Nations people was this 3 procedure having been initiated; is that correct, sir? 4 A: Yes. This -- 5 Q: This -- this document was a document 6 that Mr. Cloud had complained about as part of the 7 general complaint that you initiated as an internal 8 complaint with respect to several related issues; is that 9 correct? 10 A: Yes, this is a Ministry of Natural 11 Resources document. 12 Q: Yes. Yes, but this was part of his 13 complaint. 14 A: It was part of the whole issue, yes. 15 Q: Yes. And he complained that having a 16 document like this, dealing specifically with First 17 Nations people, the policing of First Nations people, was 18 discriminatory; that was the substance of his complaint 19 with respect to this document, right? 20 A: I believe that to be so. 21 Q: And this document says -- the first 22 subheading is: 23 "First Nation Person in Contravention 24 of the Law. Park Wardens ought to be 25 the eyes and ears for the OPP when a


1 First Nations person has contravened 2 the law. Park Wardens shall contact 3 the OPP immediately and advise officers 4 who are dispatched what offences can be 5 charged and direct the OPP constables 6 to lay the charges." 7 So this document is not restricted to the 8 possibility of people taking over a park, it talks about 9 policing First Nations people in general, right? 10 A: Sir, this is a -- a Ministry of 11 Natural Resources internal document that I had nothing to 12 do with. 13 Q: Yes. No, no, no. I appreciate that, 14 sir, but would you agree -- would you agree that a 15 document like this saying special policing for one (1) 16 particular race of persons is something that is totally 17 unacceptable in modern society? 18 Would you agree to that, sir? 19 A: I don't know the -- the reasons that 20 they prepared this document and -- and I don't know that 21 I can speak to a Ministry of Natural Resources document 22 or -- or their thinking behind it. 23 Q: Well, sir -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 25 how he can either, Mr. Rosenthal. I'm not sure how he


1 can answer questions about this document. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 3 Mr. Commissioner -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- this talks about 6 Natural Resources people having special contact with the 7 OPP -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- about persons of 10 a certain race and -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, there 12 might be reasons for that. I don't know and I'm not sure 13 that he does. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If he does 16 you can ask him but -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, this was part 18 of the complaint and I just want -- I do want to pursue 19 this, Mr. Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If he knows 21 something about it you're entitled to pursue it, but I 22 don't think -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it's fair 25 to assume that he does.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: Well, would you agree, sir, that to 4 have a document saying, Especially police members of a 5 particular group, is unacceptable in modern society? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 7 not sure that that's a question that's -- it's got a lot 8 of context to it, I'm not sure that's a question that can 9 be answered. 10 Yes...? 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes. I -- I think 12 that involves characterization of what this document was 13 intended to do and whether it truly involves -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's -- 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- special policing, 16 and I don't know how he can speak to that. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't know 18 either. There are all kinds of special considerations -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- for First 21 Nations peoples in the law, generally, we know that. I 22 don't know how he can answer that question. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 24 Mr. Commissioner, I did want to approach this in the way 25 I'm approaching this. But he was the person who put this


1 complaint forward, and this was dealt with as part of the 2 complaint and it involves the OPP in ways that I shall go 3 into. And, in my respectful submission, to have a 4 document that says -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Especially 7 police First Nations people, is obviously racist. And if 8 this officer doesn't think so, that's interesting 9 information for this Commission as well. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 11 not -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And in any event, I 13 -- I must be allowed to ask the question and pursue it. 14 This was part of the complaint that was dealt with, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 17 Twohig? 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Twohig 20 is standing up behind you, I'm asking her what her 21 observations -- yes...? 22 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes. This document was 23 prepared by Ministry of Natural Resources staff and there 24 were a number of them here who gave evidence. And for My 25 Friend to suggest, through another witness, that the


1 document somehow contains racist views, in my submission, 2 is unfair. 3 Questions could have been put to MNR staff 4 if, in fact, they weren't. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 6 not -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. Except that I 8 didn't have this document -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Mr. Commissioner 11 -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I know 13 that. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- because it 15 wasn't disclosed. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know that. 17 We didn't -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And it wasn't 19 disclosed because of alleged privilege. And this was an 20 MNR document, and My Friend who just spoke should have 21 disclosed this document to this Commission. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I don't know 24 why it wasn't disclosed, Mr. Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have


1 any comment on this, Mr. Worme? 2 MR. DONALD WORME: Only to the extent, 3 Commissioner, that I -- that Mr. Rosenthal is right that 4 these documents weren't produced -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I know 6 that. 7 MR. DONALD WORME: -- and obviously could 8 not ask those questions at that moment. But having said 9 that, again, it escapes me how this Witness can answer 10 those questions. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 13 Q: Okay. Well, I shall indicate -- Mr. 14 Commissioner, I'm being forced to reveal the end of my 15 cross-examination here and I shall do so. 16 This document was prepared in conjunction 17 with an OPP officer; you're aware of that, are you not, 18 sir? 19 A: I see that there's an OPP officer 20 cc'd on it -- 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: -- but I don't know that he had any 23 part in the -- 24 Q: You don't, sir? 25 A: -- production of it.


1 Q: Okay. Well, can we please turn to 2 Tab 39 of the same exhibit. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: If you could turn, please, to -- Tab 7 39 is the statement of Staff Sergeant K. Bouwman of the 8 Ontario Provincial Police; is that correct, sir? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: And you knew he was a member of the 11 Ontario Provincial Police? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: And you've discussed this complaint 14 with him at the time, in fact, sir, did you not? 15 A: Parts of the complaint, sir, yes. 16 Q: Yes. And if you look at the third 17 page of the statement attributed to him at page 39, sir, 18 the second paragraph on that page reads: 19 "Cloud also talked about a policy that 20 was set this summer by --" 21 And then there's some blanked-out 22 portions, and then it says: 23 "-- and myself in dealing with Native 24 people that entered Ipperwash 25 Provincial Park illegally. He felt


1 that part of this policy was 2 discriminatory. He has also shown this 3 policy to his sister." 4 Now, sir, according to the evidence, this 5 policy was designed partially by your officer, Staff 6 Sergeant K. Bouwman, so it is not simply an MNR document, 7 sir. 8 A: I'll accept that. 9 Q: Yes. And it talks about special 10 policing of First Nations people not only with respect to 11 an occupation but generally; do you agree with that, sir? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: And you agree with me that it is 14 totally unacceptable to have a document that says, One 15 will specially police people of a certain race; do you 16 agree with that, sir? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: And if this document said, specially 19 police all Jews in the Park, that would create a big 20 outcry; would it not, sir? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: Was this document meant to apply to 23 somebody whose mother was Jewish and whose father was 24 First Nation, sir? 25 How are they to make those decisions when


1 they saw somebody committing an offense in the Park as to 2 whether they should enforce it or not, sir? 3 A: I don't know how they make those 4 decisions. 5 Q: Do you agree that this document has 6 no business in modern Canada? 7 Do you agree with that, sir? 8 A: I agree that it would be ill advised, 9 yes, sir. 10 Q: And, sir, how could it be that there 11 was no discipline that eventuated from the preparing of 12 this document within the OPP; preparing a document that 13 you'd expect to see in 1895, not 1995? 14 A: I can't answer that, sir. 15 Q: Let's look at the findings with 16 respect to this document at Tab 17. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: Tab 17? 21 Q: Yes. Tab 17 is the report prepared 22 by the officer that you assigned to do this 23 investigation, Detective Atkin; is that correct? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: Now, why did you assign Detective


1 Atkin? Did he have any expertise with respect to racism 2 or First Nations issues? 3 A: We had used so many people that had 4 been involved with respect to the Ipperwash and Camp 5 Ipperwash situation for an extended period of time, and 6 he hadn't played a role in planning or policing of 7 Ipperwash. 8 Q: Yes, in fact, he was a traffic 9 officer; right? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: His expertise was in traffic issues. 12 A: I believe he'd had more expertise 13 than that, sir. He was a seasoned career police officer 14 who had worked at various jobs and tasks with general law 15 enforcement right up to traffic. And he had been 16 promoted through the ranks. 17 So he had all the experience and skills of 18 a police officer at -- at that level. 19 Q: Now he, on page 18 of his report, at 20 Tab 17, it says: 21 "Findings. This policy was drafted by 22 Ministry of Natural Resources personnel 23 and not the Ontario Provincial Police." 24 A: What page are you on, sir? 25 Q: Page 18 of Tab 17.


1 A: Okay, sir. 2 Q: Do you see that, sir? "Findings?" 3 A: I have the page. 4 Q: "Findings. This policy was drafted 5 by Ministry of Natural Resources 6 personnel and not the Ontario 7 Provincial Police." 8 He seems to have missed the statement of 9 Staff Sergeant Bouwman that we just looked at; isn't that 10 correct? 11 A: Yes, sir. 12 Q: And you missed it at the time, I 13 gather, too, is that correct? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: Would you agree that, given Staff 16 Sergeant Bouwman's statement that he had collaborated 17 with MNR people in producing this document, there should 18 have been a very serious investigation of possible 19 disciplinary proceedings within the OPP. 20 A: It should have been more closely 21 looked into. 22 Q: I'm sorry? 23 A: It should have been more closely 24 looked into. 25 Q: Now with respect to memorabilia,


1 staying at the same tab here, the findings of the 2 investigator. If you look at page 14, two-thirds of the 3 way down. 4 There's a paragraph that begins: 5 "When joint operations are organized or 6 a massing of personnel occurs, a 7 memento is invariably produced." 8 Do you see that, sir? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Now that's a generally correct 11 statement, to your knowledge? Mementos have been 12 produced when -- in other situations when there are joint 13 operations or a massing of personnel? 14 A: Up to that time, yes, that had 15 happened. 16 Q: And had there ever been a situation 17 where somebody had been killed by the police, where a 18 memento was produced, prior to this occasion? 19 A: Not, that I'm aware of, sir. 20 Q: No. The fact that a massing of 21 personnel had resulted in the killing of someone, that 22 fact alone should have given people pause about whether 23 or not to create mementos of such an occasion, right? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: But it didn't seem to give your


1 investigator much pause. He didn't suggest that it was 2 inappropriate. 3 He said, Well, mementos are invariably 4 produced, right? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 6 Sandler...? 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: That's just a 8 misreading of what the investigator said. It was 9 specifically recommended that they should consider the 10 merits of the practice of manufactured mementos in these 11 kinds of circumstances. 12 So you can't just take one (1) line out of 13 a report and say it didn't seem to concern your 14 investigator. A recommendation was made about that very 15 topic, by that investigator. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with respect, 17 Mr. Commissioner, it wasn't about the issue that I 18 mentioned. It did -- he did not seem to, in any way, 19 recognize the fact that a killing made a difference. 20 But in any event, I'll move on, if I may. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: And he -- well, he does conclude, 24 does he not, at the bottom of the same page: 25 "I find the officers acted properly in


1 their actions." 2 Right? Page 14. 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Right? 5 A: Correct. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Now, if you could turn to Tab 43 of 10 this discipline file, please. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: Excuse me for a second. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: This is a statement attributed to 20 Inspector John Carson; is that correct? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: And it reads: 23 "States that he heard of the mugs at 24 Forest Detachment around the time the 25 t- shirts were made. He was speaking


1 with Staff Sergeant [blanked out], 2 Detachment. 3 When he heard about the arrow, he 4 commented, 'there better not be.' 5 He understood the potential of what the 6 arrow could cause or he felt that 7 [blank] was aware of sensitivity. 8 He was showed a t-shirt and has one. 9 He has had Native awareness training, 10 saw nothing wrong with shirt. 11 He did not give any briefings to 12 personnel." 13 Now, you were aware of this aspect of the 14 investigation at the time that you received this report, 15 sir, were you? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And were you concerned that the 18 Incident Commander seemed to possess one of those t- 19 shirts and hadn't found any problem with it? 20 A: The reason that this report is before 21 us, is because when I heard about it, at the start of 22 October, that was the first knowledge that it had come to 23 my attention. 24 Q: Right. 25 A: So clearly, I was concerned enough,


1 when I just heard the allegations, to call for an 2 investigation. 3 Q: Right. 4 A: So that's what I did. That's why we 5 have this report. 6 Q: Right. And it would have been, I 7 take it, of particular concern to you when you found out 8 that the Incident Commander himself had a t-shirt and 9 hadn't seen any problem with it, right? 10 A: It was a concern in the fact that it 11 was clearly inappropriate and ill-advised, given the 12 circumstances, to be making mementos. 13 But I think in the report, and that's what 14 the investigator, not to excuse the action, because 15 clearly, even though they may have had asked some people 16 about the appropriateness of making some of these 17 articles, the people that were involved were from out of 18 the area who came after the fact. 19 I don't excuse it at all. I think it is 20 just a case where some people didn't think the whole 21 issue through thoroughly enough. 22 Q: But according to this memorandum of 23 what Inspector Carson said when interviewed by your 24 investigator, even upon reflection, he didn't see 25 anything wrong with the shirt, right?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And this was -- this is a report of 3 an interview according to the document, on 8 November 4 1995 at 14:30 hours; is that correct? 5 A: On page 43, yes. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: Excuse me. There is 7 nothing there that suggests that, even on reflection, 8 that he saw nothing wrong with the shirt. 9 It said he has had Native awareness 10 training, saw nothing wrong with the shirt. 11 My Friend can ask John Carson, he's 12 already given testimony about this. And I take issue 13 with -- with that telling you that he -- with -- with the 14 matter being brought to his attention he still saw 15 nothing wrong with the shirt. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that-- 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: That wasn't his 18 evidence nor does it say that. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: Well, what it does say, sir, is, and 22 this is dated 8 November 1995 at 14:30, right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: So the reason I suggested, on 25 reflection, you agree that this is a couple of months


1 after the killing of Dudley George? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And at that time, evidently, he said 4 he saw nothing wrong with the shirt, right, according to 5 these notes? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Thank you. Now, if you could turn, 8 please, to the second volume of the discipline files, it 9 is Exhibit P-1052. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: And Tab 105 of that. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Tab 105 is a document on the 18 letterhead of Ontario Provincial Police and the upper 19 right-hand corner says Provincial Command Operations in 20 Orillia. And it's a document that's addressed to the 21 Commissioner, evidently, and it's dated November 21, 22 1996. It says: 23 "Re. Ipperwash Memorabilia." 24 And at the -- the bottom it's -- the 25 signature is redacted or it indicates that whoever did


1 sign it is of Provincial Command Operations. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And a carbon copy is to someone who's 4 redacted and to the Professional Standards Bureau. So 5 the Provincial Command Operations is not the Professional 6 Standards Bureau, obviously? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And can you tell what is the 9 Provincial Command Operations? 10 A: That is the -- in a commissioned 11 officer rank within the Office of the Commissioner. 12 Q: I'm sorry. It's within the Office of 13 the Commissioner -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Sandler 15 wants to assist you. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: I can assist My 17 Friend. This was one (1) of the items that we had agreed 18 that needn't be redacted, and I believe Ms. Vella was 19 going to be circulating something in that regard. This 20 is the Deputy Commissioner Boose, to assist My Friend. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you very 22 much. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: Just in case you think 24 I can't be helpful at times. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you,


1 Mr. Sandler. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I know you can be 3 helpful, unfortunately you are not usually helpful. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: So we now know that this is by Deputy 7 Commissioner Boose? 8 A: Correct, sir. 9 Q: So I gather that there's a different 10 way of treating possible discipline among commissioned 11 and non-commissioned officers; is that correct? 12 A: The rules of discipline apply across 13 the organization. 14 Q: The same procedures? 15 A: The same procedures. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Well, the reason I thought that, 20 mistakenly, obviously, but was because of reading this 21 note. It says -- it's addressed to the Commissioner, it 22 says: 23 "As per your direction, I reviewed the 24 report entitled, Internal Complaint 25 Ipperwash, with a view to identifying


1 which serving commissioned officers 2 would have had knowledge of the 3 production and distribution of 4 memorabilia related to the Ipperwash 5 incident." 6 So evidently, Deputy Commissioner Boose 7 was -- was asked by the Commissioner to look specifically 8 at the -- what commissioned officers might have had some 9 involvement; is that correct? 10 A: That appears to be the direction, 11 yes, sir. 12 Q: Were you aware of this at the time, 13 that there was a separate investigation by Deputy 14 Commissioner Boose of commissioned officers who might 15 have been involved? 16 A: I don't believe that I was aware that 17 they had undertook a separate investigation, but I did 18 hear about the fact that these commissioned officers were 19 spoken to. 20 Q: Yes. And I believe you alluded to 21 that before in answer to a question of Mr. Falconer; is 22 that correct, you -- 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Right. You were -- you didn't have 25 the specific memory that you now have upon seeing this


1 document, but you were alluding to this document as one 2 of your answers to Mr. Falconer earlier this morning, 3 right? 4 A: My memory was as specific, with the 5 exception I hadn't seen this document -- or I didn't 6 recall this document. 7 Q: Yes. So now this document, then, 8 indicates that there were four (4) officers interviewed 9 by Deputy Commissioner Boose and the four (4) are named 10 but only one (1) is named in the redacted copy, Inspector 11 J.F. Carson; right? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: And Deputy Commissioner Boose writes: 14 "In each instance I reviewed the facts, 15 discussed the need to be culturally 16 sensitive and the expectation that our 17 commissioned officer core was to lead 18 by direction and example. I'm 19 confident that our officers have 20 learned from this experience and that 21 it will serve to guide them in the 22 future." 23 Am I correct in reading this as sort of 24 the equivalent of an admonishment but for commissioned 25 officers?


1 A: That's a word that could be used. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 3 Sandler? 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm sorry to keep 5 rising -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. No. 7 You have to keep rising because I'm finding you helpful. 8 Whether Mr. Rosenthal is or not, I -- 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, I think he'll 10 find this helpful as well. I -- I just wanted to be 11 clear. Because we're a little bit -- the horse is a 12 little bit ahead of the cart here, and you will hear 13 about discipline down the road, I just wanted to advise 14 My Friend that "admonishment" is a term that has actually 15 been used at various times in the history of -- of the 16 act to refer to informal discipline, and not to this. 17 So this is a non-disciplinary discussion. 18 An admonishment is -- is often used, for example, in 19 relation to the four (4) officers described in Mr. 20 Falconer's cross-examination, to reflect informal 21 discipline that results in a record of discipline. 22 So -- so I just wanted to point out, 23 "admonishment" may not be the correct term and I didn't 24 want My Friend to -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I


1 understand. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- to create a record 3 that was unfortunate, that's all. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It is 5 confusing. It is informal discipline but it is formal in 6 the sense that it is recorded. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: It -- it's a finding-- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- of misconduct 10 against an officer -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'm 12 aware of that. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- but it's done 14 through an informal process. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have to 16 be careful with the terms. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: What I -- what I 18 had asked this officer was: Is this -- is this roughly 19 equivalent -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Roughly. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- to an 22 admonishment for a commissioned officer and he said in 23 his view it was. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 25 Roland...?


1 MR. IAN ROLAND: I rise to assist My 2 Friend and the parties to understand that the -- the 3 other term, there are a number of terms of art, the other 4 term of art is 'reprimand,' that's also informal 5 discipline. 6 'Admonishment' and 'reprimand' are -- have 7 been used and are statutorily used to constitute a level 8 of informal discipline. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are they 10 interchangeable? 11 MR. IAN ROLAND: They are -- they're 12 interchangeable, 'admonishment' and 'reprimand.' The 13 other terms used are 'discussion' and 'counselling,' 14 which are non-disciplinary. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Any rate, I was 16 about to move on, if I may. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 I would like you to go to about 12:15, does that suit 19 your time? 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm in your hands, 21 sir. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And just 23 take a break around 12:15? 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's fine, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: If we could please turn to Tab 116 of 4 this same volume, the discipline volume. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: This document is entitled, 9 Confidential Note; is that correct, sir? 10 A: Yes, sir. 11 Q: I always get interested if I see 12 something entitled, Confidential Note. But I can't tell 13 what this note is. I mean, it's sort of a summary but I 14 can't tell who wrote it, for what purpose or what. 15 Can you -- can you assist me in that 16 respect, sir? It's headed, Confidential Note, Actions of 17 OPP personnel during Project Maple. And it gives an 18 overview, to some extent, of the complaint by Stan Cloud 19 to Sergeant Bouwman, but I don't know who wrote this to 20 whom. 21 Can you assist me? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: If it wasn't part of the original


1 investigative report I can't tell you who put this 2 together. 3 Q: It was -- it was not part of the 4 original report, you're quite confident? This is... 5 A: Well, I'm not a 100 percent sure, 6 sir, so I wouldn't want to say it definitely wasn't. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: It would appear to be part of the 11 original report, I just can't swear to that. 12 Q: Well, the last part of this document 13 says: 14 "Remedial Action. A copy of the report 15 has been provided to the Bureau 16 Commander, Operational policy and 17 Support, for policy consideration." 18 That suggests this is a document prepared 19 after the report, I guess, as you just conjectured, is 20 that correct? 21 A: No. I believe it would be because 22 what it's talking about here is where copies of the 23 original report were distributed to. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: So one copy went to Operational


1 Policy and Support, as it was known in that day, one (1) 2 copy came to the Commander of Western Region, and one (1) 3 copy went to the Director of Training Branch, and that 4 would be for future use in training officers in respect 5 to cultural sensitivity. 6 Q: But -- and the report that's being 7 referred to here is the report compiled by Detective 8 Sergeant, I believe he is, Atkin? 9 A: That's what I would believe, sir, 10 yes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: For what 12 it's worth, it looked like an earlier draft or something, 13 or a working draft, when I first read it. But I can't 14 tell of the Atkin report -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That may be, but 16 then of what? We don't have any -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it 18 looks a lot like the Atkin report. It looks like some of 19 the paragraphs are similar. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with respect, 21 the fact that it says a copy of the report has been 22 provided elsewhere suggests it's not that report -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It is 24 confusing, so. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- it was something


1 written subsequently. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: But -- now when it refers to the 5 Commander of Western Region, that would be John Carson at 6 the time? 7 A: No, sir. 8 Q: I see. I don't want to risk getting 9 a name that we shouldn't get by asking who it was. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: I don't have any 11 problem if he asks who was the commander of the Western 12 Region was. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. Who was 14 the -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 16 I'm sorry, what's the question? Somebody else may have a 17 problem. I've got to be careful. What's the question? 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Who was that 19 person -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you with 21 me Mr. Worme? Do you know what question we're... 22 MR. DONALD WORME: Yeah, I think I heard 23 and I also heard Mr. Sandler providing Mr. Rosenthal 24 some -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Does Mr.


1 Roland have any -- 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He said that -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've made 4 some arrangements, I don't want to be doing something 5 that we're not supposed to do. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no. I was 7 careful not to do that, but then Mr. Sandler said this 8 does not conflict with those arrangements, in his 9 understanding. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 11 then. Carry on. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 14 Q: So, sir, who was -- who, at the time, 15 was the Commander of the Western Region? 16 A: I'm just trying to find the date that 17 this went to the Commander of Western Region. 18 Q: Yes, I don't think there's a date on 19 this document. 20 A: Chief Superintendent Coles was the 21 Commander of Western Region during the time and after the 22 incident. 23 And I believe it would have been Chief 24 Superintendent Coles. There was a change in leadership 25 further down the road but I think that this is still in


1 the time frame of Chief Superintendent Coles. 2 Q: I see. Well -- and so it says that 3 the Commander of Western Region will conduct an 4 operational review to address cultural, corporate and 5 professional concerns. 6 Do you know if that review was ever 7 conducted, sir? 8 A: There was a review done in Centralia, 9 some time after the incident, to address -- a debriefing, 10 if you will, to address a number of issues. 11 Q: And do we have documents describing 12 that debriefing in front of us, sir, or...? 13 A: I believe that they're available. 14 Q: I'm -- well, perhaps over the break I 15 can inquire about that, Mr. Commissioner. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: I confirmed with your counsel that, 20 over the break, we'll try to investigate that. So this 21 might be then, three (3) minutes before you suggested, 22 but it might be an appropriate time to take that break, 23 Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 25 Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 5 Twohig...? 6 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I'm sorry, Mr. 7 Commissioner. Just before we break, in response to an 8 objection that I had made earlier regarding the -- 9 regarding questions about an MNR memorandum, Mr. 10 Rosenthal had indicated that he didn't have that memo 11 because privilege had been claimed for it. 12 And I just wanted to clarify that that 13 was, in fact, in the database as Document Number 1010267 14 and was part of the original disclosure. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Ms. Twohig. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: One (1) of many of 18 the thousand documents I haven't read yet. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 20 very much. 21 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 22 adjourned until 1:25 p.m. 23 24 --- Upon recessing at 12:11 p.m. 25 --- Upon resuming at 1:25 p.m.


1 2 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 3 resumed. Please be seated. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 5 we start, Mr. Millar, can we do a shaking out of where we 6 are in the timing in the rest of the day or are you going 7 to do it, Mr. Worme? 8 MR. DONALD WORME: Yeah, I was -- I was 9 simply going to ask if the parties might indicate as to 10 how long they might -- they have -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. DONALD WORME: -- remaining for 13 cross-examination for Mr. Parkin today. But perhaps for 14 planning purposes if they might also indicate who has 15 cross-examine -- cross-examination yet to do with respect 16 to Mr. McCabe, our next witness. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. McCabe 18 is coming on Monday and we want -- 19 MR. DONALD WORME: Correct. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to try to 21 finish him on Monday. So I think we should if you don't 22 mind taking a minute because I don't want to end it, and 23 I know Mr. Sandler's re-examination might be longer than 24 anticipated, and I don't think it will be a good idea if 25 we went and ended before your re-examination and have you


1 come back on Monday just for re-examination. 2 So I'd like to see if we can finish today 3 with Mr. Parkin. I just want to see where we are, where 4 people's estimates are. 5 So, Mr. Rosenthal, you're first. How -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I -- I -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- much 8 longer? You originally estimated three (3) hours; you've 9 used about one (1). 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's exactly 11 right and I -- I will be less than my two (2). I -- I 12 won't guarantee how much less but I'll be less than my 13 two (2). 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you 15 don't expect to go beyond 3:30 in any event? We need to 16 take a break. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Depending on how 18 long this discussion takes yet. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's 20 only going to take another minute or two (2). 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Less than two (2) 22 hours for sure. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 24 And you're still up to an hour? 25 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Still up to an hour.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And then 2 after that I think, Mr. Henderson, you're speaking for 3 both the Chiefs and the First Nation now I understand? 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I would say half 5 an hour, possibly a bit less. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 7 We're very close and, Mr. Alexander, you indicated 8 perhaps nothing and maybe fifteen (15) minutes? 9 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Fifteen (15) 10 minutes or less. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fifteen (15) 12 minutes or less. And, Mr. Sandler, roughly how long do 13 you think at this point? I know that it changes with 14 each subsequent examiner. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: It does. Unfortunately 16 it's probably about forty-five (45) minutes and -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, so -- 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: And I really don't 19 want -- to be frank I don't want to start it today and -- 20 and continue it on Monday. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I wouldn't 22 want that either. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: Even if we started a 24 little early on Monday but -- and we only have ten (10) 25 minutes for Mr. McCabe I should say as well so...


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 2 think what we should do then is do a bit of a run through 3 to see what there is in terms of Mr. McCabe so we see how 4 Monday will shake out because Mr. McCabe is coming back. 5 We've had the privilege waived on the 6 document, right? Has that been circulated? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 9 perhaps you'd tell us where we are with Mr. McCabe? 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The document has been 11 circulated, 200568, which is the memorandum of March 1996 12 from Mr. McCabe to Yan Lazor and that's been circulated 13 to the parties, as well some notes that Mr. McCabe -- 14 some notes of his attendance before that were made on 15 September 7th -- 6th or 7th for his attendance before 16 Justice Daudlin; privilege was waived in those and they 17 have been distributed. 18 So it's those two (2) items that we need 19 to -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I remember a 21 couple of Counsel specifically reserved the right to 22 cross-examine Mr. McCabe. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, what happened, 24 they did but then I -- I sent an e-mail around asking who 25 wanted to -- me to recall him and Mr. Rosenthal was the


1 prime-mover and -- and so... 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's 3 okay, Mr. Falconer, you'll get a chance, I promise you. 4 Who intends to re-examine Mr. McCabe on 5 Monday? Would you please stand up and give me some 6 indication of how long you might be so we can gauge our 7 time? 8 Now, let's start with Mr. Alexander. 9 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: I'll actually have 10 to consult on that. We probably will want re-cross -- 11 re-examine Mr. McCabe, but I will have to consult Mr. 12 Klippenstein on that. So, I'll try to get in touch 13 with -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would you 15 see if you can do it by the end of the day? Is that 16 possible? 17 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And then, 19 Mr. Rosenthal, how long do you think? 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I will not be 21 here on Monday but Ms. Esmonde will be here and she will 22 do the cross-examination. I anticipate up to an hour. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And, Mr. 24 Scullion...? 25 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I'd only reserved


1 thirty (30) minutes but I'm not sure I'll be that long. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And, Mr. 3 Henderson...? 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'll reserve 5 thirty (30) minutes for Mr. Horton. I'll consult him as 6 well this afternoon. For the First Nation I don't 7 anticipate any. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 9 Falconer...? 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Forty-five (45) 11 minutes and I expect that probably Mr. Roy will be 12 conducting the cross-examination, so forty-five (45) 13 minutes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 15 Sandler...? 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Ten (10) minutes at 17 most, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So it looks 19 like we would be able to complete Mr. McCabe on Monday 20 even if we have to bring Mr. Parkin back for some re- 21 examination. 22 Now I don't want that to be 23 misinterpreted. In other words, if we finish all the 24 examinations and cross-examinations and all that's left 25 is your re-examination, I don't want that to be


1 misunderstood. 2 It's simply because we're running out of 3 time. Is that fair? 4 So if we complete all the cross- 5 examinations today and bring Mr. Parkin back on Monday 6 for Mr. Sandler's re-examination, and Mr. McCabe, we 7 should be able to complete that on Monday; is that right? 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. Except for Mr. 9 Alexander, we've got approximately three (3) hours. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So -- 11 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: I can advise now 12 that Mr. Klippenstein will reserve three-quarters (3/4's) 13 of an hour. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: So that's four (4) 15 hours. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ah, the 17 miracle of modern technology. So we should still be able 18 to complete the balance of Mr. Parkin and the complete 19 examination -- recall of Mr. McCabe on Monday. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: On Monday, yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So we can 22 still keep to our schedule. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: So I would suggest 24 that we start at the normal time of 10:30 on Monday. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And finish


1 today at the normal time of -- 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Time 4:30. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 4:30 4 rather than try to squeeze in part of -- 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And apparently Mr. 6 Worme said that there's a snow squall warning out too, 7 so, for later in the day so. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 9 Yes, Mr. Falconer. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I've just got a ten 11 (10) second point. We -- we have -- there's a number of 12 things that come from the discipline files that we've 13 already addressed, I don't want to speak that. 14 There's a second layer of issues that has 15 developed and -- and that is what the actual rules that 16 were in place in 1995. 17 It has been brought to my attention by 18 counsel for the OPP that my examination of Mr. Runciman 19 and specifically a reference to the definition of 20 informal discipline has caused additional research to be 21 made. 22 And -- but we still don't have answers on 23 what the actual rules definitely, precisely were in place 24 in 1995 for the disciplining of officers. 25 I don't want to be caught -- and -- and in


1 the second layer to this problem is that, for example, 2 this Witness says, well when I think of speaking to 3 someone I think of that as a form of informal discipline. 4 And so what we have is a very odd 5 situation that because the OPP isn't entirely clear 6 themselves on what the rules are, we may -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Were. What 8 the rules were in 1995. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Were, were. We may 10 be in the odd situation of -- of not being able to get to 11 the bottom of this because they don't know. 12 And I don't want to be in that situation 13 but I don't want to be prejudiced by the fact that we 14 still don't have clear answers. 15 So what I'm now asking because we got 16 discipline records, because for example, yesterday or the 17 day before not through any fault of his own, Mr. Parkin 18 referred for example to discipline and Mr. Fox, and we -- 19 we pretty well all now know that Mr. Fox wasn't 20 disciplined, right; that's an example; that we do need to 21 get some things straightened out. 22 A) Was there informal discipline for the 23 officers involved in mugs and t-shirts as informal 24 discipline is defined under the Police Services Act? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As it was


1 defined at the time of the -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: At the time. If 3 the answer to that is no, we should simply be told that 4 now. Enough is enough. We shouldn't be told they were 5 talked to and they might have thought that was -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 7 time for argument, Mr. Falconer. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. I 9 just want to know. Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Not time for 11 argument. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll stop. I'll 13 stop. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And we could get at 15 the facts then. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. That 17 first question was: Was there informal discipline 18 specifically under the Police Services Act as it then 19 existed for the officers involved in mugs and t-shirt? 20 Simple yes or no, was there or what's -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At some 22 point in time you'd like that question answered in -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. Well -- well 24 frankly -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- save a


1 fair bit of cross-examination. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And a loss of 3 research time. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Any other 5 questions that you think are relevant? 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. Secondly, I 7 have raised that the issue of the hierarchy that dealt 8 with the discipline issues we've dealt with is a live 9 issue for my client; that is the hierarchy; who these 10 reports were passed onto and who made the decisions on 11 the meting out of discipline. 12 That is the second issue that my client's 13 concerned with and what -- I simply ask that the OPP take 14 best efforts to determine that hierarchy so that we can 15 understand it. 16 It's not necessarily about redacted names, 17 it's about the hierarchy and how it was dealt with. It 18 might be about redacted names but I don't know. But I'm 19 saying these are two (2) facts that need to be clarified 20 because we're just -- we're operating without 21 information. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 Is this something that you were speaking to Ms. Vella 24 about or is this something else? 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It is -- it's an


1 overlap. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But it's a kind of 4 overlap that troubles me because I don't want to leave it 5 out there. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 7 Now I want to hear from Mr. Millar. Yes, Mr. Millar? 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, we're dealing 9 with the -- the one (1) question and Ms. Vella was 10 waiting for other questions from Mr. Falconer that, if he 11 had any, but -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- on the hierarchy 14 issue we're going to deal with. But I'm trying to 15 identify the appropriate witness to come to explain the 16 discipline procedure back in 1995 and we will do that. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 Do you have anything to add to that, Mr. Sandler? 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: No, I was just going 20 to say that this may have to be, with all due respect to 21 Mr. Falconer, the subject of the evidence that's yet to 22 come. 23 We haven't heard from Commissioner 24 Boniface -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know.


1 MR. MARK SANDLER: I suspect she's going 2 to cast some real light on it. We haven't heard from 3 Commissioner O'Grady. 4 And some of these things, I have to say, 5 going back ten (10) years, we're doing our very best, but 6 I'm not sure the answer is by my feeding information to 7 Mr. Falconer, it may just have to come out through the 8 witnesses -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and deal with it 11 that way. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. And, 13 yes, Mr. Downard...? 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just briefly, sir. 15 Mr. Falconer states that we all know that Inspector Fox 16 was not disciplined. Well, the Witness had no difficulty 17 in telling me three (3) times yesterday that he was 18 disciplined, without putting any qualifications on it. 19 So, there's a little bit of lack of 20 clarity for me on this issue. And we do know from 21 Inspector Parkin's evidence that it's his view that there 22 may be additional documents that may cast some light upon 23 the substance of that discussion. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And 25 additional witnesses.


1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Indeed. And so it -- 2 but in any event, I would simply note for the record that 3 I am requesting that there be efforts made to determine 4 whether there are any -- there is any additional 5 documentation that exists with respect to that meeting 6 that might assist us as to the content of what was 7 discussed on that occasion. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 I think we can carry on now. We're not finished with the 10 discipline issue; there's obviously more to come. 11 Yes, Mr. Rosenthal, you now have -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- twenty- 14 five (25) to 2:00. Carry on. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, sir. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: Good afternoon, sir. 19 A: Good afternoon. 20 Q: Just before the break for lunch, we 21 had looked at Tab 116, I guess it is, of Exhibit P-1052, 22 the second volume of disciplinary exhibits. 23 And I had asked you what that document 24 was, and we -- we haven't been able to determine, even 25 over the lunch break, exactly what that document was.


1 And on the last page of that document it 2 says, "Remedial Action", and the -- I had asked you about 3 the second bullet point. 4 "The Commander, Western Region, will 5 conduct an operational review to 6 address cultural, corporate and 7 professional concerns." 8 And you told us that the Commander of 9 Western Region would have been Chief Superintendent Coles 10 at the time; is that correct? 11 A: Correct, sir. 12 Q: So, over the lunch break I did 13 attempt to determine, by speaking to your counsel and Mr. 14 Millar and other knowledgeable people, whether there was 15 such a review and nobody still is sure. 16 But it was suggested that possibly what 17 you have at Tab 36 of your other binder, the big binder, 18 which is Exhibit P-457 to these proceedings and is 19 Inquiry Document Number 2000556. 20 And is headed, Ipperwash Review, February 21 21, 1996, and refers to Inspector Carson welcoming people 22 and Chief Superintendent Coles speaking, giving an 23 overview. 24 That doesn't appear to be, in my view, the 25 kind of review discussed here, but is -- is that possibly


1 the review or no? 2 A: That's the only one I could think of, 3 sir. 4 Q: It's the only one you could think of. 5 An operational -- this appears to be a report of a 6 meeting at Tab 36, right? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And I would have thought an 9 operational review would be more than just a simple 10 meeting; is that not fair? 11 A: Well, again, sir, the request was for 12 an operational review. 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: This was a review in a broad sense, 15 with respect to Ipperwash. 16 Q: I see. In any event, this is the 17 only document that you can think of that might qualify -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- as the review being discussed; is 20 that fair? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 24 Exhibit P-457, right; that's the one we're talking about? 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 5 Q: Now, if you could turn, please, to -- 6 of the Commission document binder, the -- the fat binder 7 that has the document -- we just looked in it, but to Tab 8 18 thereof. 9 Tab 18 is a portion of the scribe notes 10 which is Exhibit P-426 to these proceedings and Inquiry 11 Document Number 1002419. I should like to look at page 12 78 of that document if I could? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Towards the bottom of page 78 it 17 says: 18 "21:48 hours Dale Linton calls 19 Superintendent Parkin -- Park -- 20 Parkin..." 21 Sorry, sir 22 A: I'm sorry -- 23 Q: "...two (2) hours ago. Citizens were 24 there..." 25 And so on. Do you -- do you have page 78,


1 sir? 2 A: It is 78? 3 Q: Yes, page 78. 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: At 21:48 on page 78 there's a 6 description that appears to be of the -- the phone call 7 that you've been -- that we've looked at the transcript 8 of between you and Inspector Linton where you pointed out 9 you're asking to be called back if -- if anything serious 10 happens, right? 11 That was that discussion on the evening of 12 September 6th? Here it's at 9:48 listed in the scribe 13 notes. A: The -- 14 Q: The timing might be slightly 15 different from the transcript timing. 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And then I had suggested to you that 18 it must have been the case that you did get a call back 19 if they were marching down that road. 20 Now, if you go to the next page, 79, at 21 22:35 hours it reads: 22 "Superintendent Parkin called back to 23 get update." 24 Do you see that, sir? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Now, do you know who you spoke to at 2 approximately 22:35 in respect to getting an update? 3 A: I can't recall, sir. 4 Q: And as far as you know do we have a 5 transcript of that telephone call, sir? 6 A: Not as far as I know. 7 Q: So we can extrapolate from that that 8 undoubtedly this was made on an unrecorded line; is that 9 fair? 10 A: That's correct. I might have called 11 into that number. 12 Q: Might have called to a -- to a number 13 that was not being recorded? 14 A: It would appear so, sir. 15 Q: Yes. And you don't recall who you 16 spoke to at that time? 17 A: No, sir. 18 Q: Do you recall what you were told as 19 far as update? 20 A: No, sir. 21 Q: Now, I don't -- when I look at the 22 scribe notes here I can't find a place where it records 23 the decision to march down the road. 24 Do you -- do you know where -- where that 25 decision is recorded here, sir?


1 A: No, sir. 2 Q: Have you seen any record of that 3 decision to send the officers down the road that night? 4 A: My knowledge of it is that it was a 5 decision made by Inspector Carson. 6 Q: At what time? 7 A: I don't know, sir, 8 Q: Well, when you received an update of 9 22:35 were you informed that they were planning to march 10 down the road? 11 A: No, sir. 12 Q: You didn't know that until after 13 Dudley George was shot, right? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Nobody told you they were planning to 16 march down the road, you only found out that they had 17 marched down the road after the event? 18 A: I think in the prior call we 19 discussed -- Inspector Linton was looking at options. 20 Q: He didn't say marching down the road 21 or anything? 22 A: No, I don't -- I don't believe so 23 but -- 24 Q: No. 25 A: -- it could have -- during the


1 interim they could have made that decision. 2 Q: But we looked at the -- towards the 3 end of the prior call leaving it with you telling him if 4 anything major happens get back to me, right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And he hadn't indicated anything 7 operational at that point, right? 8 A: Not directly. No, sir. 9 Q: And then -- so at 22:35 you don't 10 recall what you were told as far as update? 11 A: No, sir. 12 Q: Then later on at the page, 22:50, it 13 says: 14 "Off phone. Superintendent Parkin 15 wants meeting with Major [sic] Thomas 16 tomorrow." 17 Can you assist us as to what that refers 18 to, sir? 19 A: I believe that should be Mayor 20 Thomas. 21 Q: Yes, Mayor Thomas, not Major Thomas, 22 thank you. And then, so you had a conversation with 23 somebody about -- which included the possibility of 24 meeting with Mayor Thomas on the next day, right? 25 A: Yes. Mayor Thomas was the Mayor of


1 the Town of Bosanquet. 2 Q: Yes. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: And do you recall with whom you had 7 that conversation, sir? 8 A: No, sir. 9 Q: And are you aware of any transcript 10 of that conversation? 11 A: No, sir. 12 Q: So we can conclude, again, that that 13 must have been on an unrecorded line; is that correct? 14 A: Correct, sir. 15 Q: As far as you know, transcripts of 16 all conversations that were recorded have been turned 17 into this Inquiry, right? 18 A: Yes, sir. 19 Q: Now, according to the scribe notes, 20 if you turn the next page, 80, it says: 21 "23:00 hours, 'go' heard on radio." 22 Do you see that, sir? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: So, however these times may correlate 25 with transcript times, presumably the chronology here is


1 correct. 2 So it would suggest, according to the 3 chronology in the scribe notes, that after the phone call 4 that we do have a transcript of, between you and 5 Inspector Linton beginning at 9:42 and before the "go" 6 was heard on the radio, you had at least two (2) 7 communications by telephone with people in the command 8 centre, so the scribe would have known about it, right? 9 A: Possibly. 10 Q: Not possibly, almost definitely; 11 isn't that correct? 12 A: If it would have been into the com. 13 centre, I would assume it would have been -- or the 14 command post, I would assume it would have been recorded. 15 I can only think I called into a line at 16 the Detachment. 17 Q: And that would -- 18 A: Which were side by each. 19 Q: That would have been speaking to John 20 Carson then? 21 A: I could have been, I'm not sure. 22 Well, probably I wasn't, because I believe during this 23 time he was down at the forward TOC. 24 Q: Well, wherever these phone calls were 25 made to and whoever you spoke to, you're telling us that


1 you are quite certain, even though it's ten (10) years 2 later, that in neither of those phone calls were you 3 informed that the officers were getting ready to march 4 down the road? 5 A: That's correct, sir. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: In light of your request in the 10 previous phone call that we looked at, that Inspector 11 Linton notify you if anything -- I forget the word that 12 you used. 13 If anything... 14 A: Started to tumble, I believe. 15 Q: Something. But in light of that, 16 were you, afterward, concerned that you had not been 17 told, even though you had phoned for an update and phoned 18 back again just moments before they went down the road, 19 that you had not even been told that they were going down 20 the road? 21 A: No, sir. 22 Q: And even in retrospect now, ten (10) 23 years later, that doesn't cause you concern, sir? 24 A: I can't manage the incident from my 25 residence.


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: That's why the incident commander is 3 there and that's why he or she is given the authority to 4 make decisions without having to check first with a 5 senior officer. 6 It would -- had they called and wanted to 7 discuss the issue, there would have been no difficulty 8 with that, but there's certainly no requirement on the 9 incident commander to do that. 10 Q: Now, Mr. Falconer took you through, 11 in great detail, your concern with the surveillance from 12 the kiosk, right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Compared to marching a number of 15 officers down the road at eleven o'clock at night, that 16 was a relatively unimportant aspect, wasn't it, sir? 17 A: It was a small part of a bigger 18 picture that -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- they were dealing with. 21 Q: And you had told Inspector Linton: 22 "Phone me back if anything serious is 23 happening." 24 A: That's true. 25 Q: And even now, ten (10) years later


1 then, in retrospect, you're not concerned that you 2 weren't told that they were marching the road in that 3 operation? 4 A: I believe I was called when Inspector 5 Linton got the first reasonable opportunity. I'm 6 assuming that. 7 Q: Well, according to the scribed notes 8 there were two (2) other opportunities that which you 9 called them, right? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: But we don't know what was said -- 12 A: Not necessarily to the Incident 13 Commander. 14 Q: Now, if you could please turn to your 15 transcript booklet, the smaller one. And Tab 7 of that 16 which is Exhibit P-469 to the proceedings. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: I'm sorry. I made a mistake. Excuse 21 me, sir. I believe it's Tab 9 for that, I'm sorry. It's 22 part of 444(b). And if you could please turn to page 103 23 of that document. 24 A: Tab -- Tab 9 or 8? 25 Q: Tab 9.


1 A: Tab 9. 2 Q: Which is a call between you and 3 Inspector Carson shortly after midnight, on the 4 transition from September 6th to September 7, after 5 Dudley George had been shot, and you're discussing that 6 event. 7 And then if we could turn to page 103. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The pages 9 might be different. I don't have a 103. Are you looking 10 at the same one as I am? 11 THE WITNESS: That's correct, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It starts at 13 321. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Do I -- do I have 16 the wrong tab again? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 18 the right tab but just a different paging. The first 19 page of that tab is 321 on the copy I'm looking at. 20 This is a call of September 7 at 2:37? Is 21 this the one you're referring to, Mr. Rosenthal? Between 22 Inspector Carson and Superintendent Parkin? 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry. My 24 documents were made up differently before we got the 25 transcript tab. Excuse me.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Excuse me, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 That's fine. Just get us -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I have a very bad 7 head cold, excuse me. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No problem, 9 just get us onto the same page. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, it's a 14 different pagination -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 16 I thought. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- of the same 18 transcript perhaps. Yes, thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 20 I thought. So we have to make sure that we're on the 21 same page as you are. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So perhaps -- with 23 your indulgence. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, Mr. 2 Commissioner. I am getting there. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this the 7 page you're looking for, because if it is it's page 322. 8 I'm sorry, 372. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. Ms. Hensel's 13 going to help me out. It's already assigned. Thank you. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: 376. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's not the same 19 thing. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: 379. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, thank you very 25 much. That's what I wanted. Sorry about that, Mr.


1 Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 379. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 5 Q: So you're speaking to Inspector 6 Carson shortly after Dudley George was shot and you then 7 say, towards the bottom of page 379 in the version that 8 you have: 9 "TONY: Okay. I think three (3) 10 things have got to be done. 11 CARSON: Okay. 12 TONY: Number 1 is that they are en 13 route to hospital." 14 Continue please, next page? 15 "CARSON: Right. 16 TONY: They may, in fact, be taking 17 the car that they were shot in." 18 Now you, as Mr. Falconer established, you 19 didn't really know about any of those things but you just 20 conjectured that, right? 21 A: I was surmising from the information 22 that I had been given. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And it turned out be false, but it


1 was a reasonable conjecture for you to make at the time? 2 A: I think so, sir, yes. 3 Q: "CARSON: Okay." 4 And then: 5 "TONY: If that's the..." 6 Now Carson, you notice, does not affirm 7 that, right; to you? He doesn't say, Yes, that's right, 8 he just says, Okay, right? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And then you say: 11 "If that's the case, we need that car. 12 CARSON: Okay. Okay. 13 And I doubt that the weapons is also a 14 possibility that they..." 15 Well, there were some corrections there. 16 But you indicate that there may still be guns in the car, 17 right? Right? 18 A: Based on what I had known it was a 19 possibility. 20 Q: Yes. Yes. And Carson: 21 "Yeah." 22 So you say: 23 "So that's got to be done. We've got 24 to be down there to interview them and 25 everything, in any case."


1 Right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Now first, let me just stop you there 4 for a minute and ask you, you told me before that you 5 wouldn't interfere with operational matters of incident 6 commanders. If they had told you they were marching 7 officers down the road you wouldn't have interfered, but 8 yet you tell, in detail, what to do with respect to the 9 hospital afterward? That seems a bit of a contradiction, 10 sir. 11 A: I didn't say I -- I certainly didn't 12 mean that I wouldn't interfere, I wasn't concerned that I 13 didn't get a call from the Incident Commander indicating 14 what he was doing. 15 Q: I see. 16 A: Okay? Then in this case, now that he 17 has called me -- 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: -- telling me what's going on, we 20 were brainstorming here and I'm trying to assist him. 21 Q: And you make suggestions, as his 22 commanding officer, right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And if they had told you, in one (1) 25 of the phone calls after the one that we have the


1 transcript of and before they march down the road, that 2 we're marching down the road in a few minutes, you would 3 have asked some questions and maybe made some 4 suggestions, right? 5 A: I possibly might have, yes, sir. 6 Q: Now, if we could then skip, I don't 7 how many, about five (5) pages. I'm sorry. There is 8 some discussion. Perhaps you could skim, if you don't 9 want to take my word for what happens in the adjoining 10 pages. 11 They're discussing various things, 12 including the fact that there's a Trevor at the hospital, 13 and you ask how many other officers are with him and so 14 on. 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And then you say -- at one point, 17 you've been referred to: 18 "You better make sure there's enough 19 there in case a bunch of those Indians 20 go over there and go crazy." 21 Right? You recall being referred to that? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: So you did strongly suggest to 24 Inspector Carson that the people driving to the hospital 25 in that car be, at least, carefully investigated, and


1 that there be a lot of officers there, right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Now, you later found out what 4 happened at the hospital, didn't you? That that car did 5 arrive at the hospital after a rather harrowing drive 6 because of a flat tire, in addition to other problems. 7 You heard about that, right? 8 A: I had become aware of those facts, 9 yes, sir. 10 Q: And they managed to make it to the 11 hospital, with Dudley George dying in the back of the 12 car, right? You know that, right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And you know that they arrived at the 15 hospital and then the driver of the car, Pierre George, 16 Dudley's brother, and he and Dudley's sister Carolyn 17 George were grabbed roughly by your officers and placed 18 under arrest for attempted murder. 19 You learned about that, right? 20 A: I learned about that, sir. 21 Q: It would seem that that approach to 22 these people might have been, at least, partially 23 stimulated by the instructions you gave to Inspector 24 Carson, that we've just looked at; is that fair? 25 A: I don't believe I would have control


1 over how they perform their duties. 2 Q: No. 3 A: I would have expected them to perform 4 their duties in a professional manner. But, yes, I did 5 indicate that that vehicle, for the potential evidence, 6 should be obtained and care used in whoever was in the 7 vehicle. 8 Q: But you know now that that vehicle 9 wasn't anywhere near where the shooting took place, 10 right? 11 A: I know that now, sir. 12 Q: And Pierre George was not anywhere 13 near where the shooting took place? 14 A: Not to my knowledge, sir. 15 Q: To your knowledge, what I just said 16 is correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And the same with his sister Carolyn 19 George? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Now, in fact, I believe this is -- 22 I'm queasy now and I'm turning to another transcript. 23 But I believe it's your Tab 14. 24 A transcript of a discussion between you 25 and Mark Wright at 4:31 hours on September 7, which has


1 been entered as Exhibit P-1063 to these proceedings. 2 If you could please turn to page 4 of 3 that. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: So here Officer Wright is explaining 8 to you what happened at the hospital, at the beginning of 9 page 4. 10 "Dudley got there by a white car." 11 You respond: 12 "White car?" 13 OFFICER WRIGHT: Yeah, now it -- in 14 the white car, when it showed up at 15 Strathroy Hospital, there were four (4) 16 people in it. 17 Yeah. 18 Dudley, a guy by the name of J.G., he's 19 a Y.O., and Perry and Carolyn George 20 arrested for mischief." 21 And then Officer Wright tells you: 22 "And the other two (2) are under arrest 23 for attempt murder." 24 And then you ask: 25 "Do they think that they were in the


1 car when the shooting took place?" 2 To which Officer Wright responds: 3 "Yeah, but don't hold your breath for 4 those charges ever sticking. 5 A: Okay. 6 But that's the word hanging around." 7 So you were informed at 4:30 in the 8 morning that Pierre, as he's also known, or Perry as he 9 was identified to you, and Carolyn George, brother and 10 sister of Dudley, had been arrested for attempted murder, 11 right? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: You were also told at the same time, 14 by Officer Wright, don't hold your breath for those 15 charges ever sticking, right? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And you didn't inquire any further 18 about what was so flimsy about the charges, did you? 19 A: I was in no position to. 20 Q: You were in no position to? Wouldn't 21 you have been in a position to ask Mr. Wright, what do 22 you mean? What's so bad about those charges ever 23 sticking? 24 A: I could have asked that question. 25 Q: Yes. And maybe he would have told


1 you, well because it's a different car and they weren't 2 even there. 3 A: I think the inference I took from 4 charges not ever sticking was more along the lines of 5 sometimes charges are laid and changed. 6 Q: Yes. But you didn't inquire at all? 7 A: No, sir. 8 Q: And we know that they spent the 9 better part of a day in custody. And they were in 10 custody when they learned that their brother had been 11 killed by the police. 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: Was there any investigation of that 14 afterward, by your or other officers, as to how they'd 15 been treated and how that happened? 16 A: There was a criminal investigation 17 ongoing by this time by the CIB inspector assigned to the 18 case. 19 Q: Criminal investigation of the 20 possibility of charges being laid against somebody who 21 might have fired at the officers; is that you mean? 22 A: Over the whole issue. 23 Q: Well there were various possible 24 charges over various possible issues, right? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: But what was presumably suspected of 2 Pierre and Caroline George is that they had been in the 3 car firing shots at officers. That's why they were 4 charged with attempted murder; is your understanding? 5 A: At that point in time that would be 6 my understanding. 7 Q: Yes. And, in fact, the investigation 8 never revealed that anybody had shot at officers with any 9 definitive evidence; isn't that right? 10 A: Correct. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Did you come to any understanding as 15 to why Pierre and Caroline George were released later on 16 the next day? 17 A: I would have to believe that they 18 were released because the CIB inspector in charge deemed 19 that there was nothing to hold them on. 20 Q: So that would have been Inspector 21 Goodall then? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Now with respect to Marcel Beaubien, 24 you knew that he had rather strong views about the people 25 occupying the Park, right?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And he had views that you or the OPP 3 should act very decisively to get them out of the Park, 4 right? 5 A: He certainly, and the community, 6 didn't want the Park occupied. I can't recall if he ever 7 said it in that fashion to me; he may have. 8 Q: Okay. Now, you told us on February 9 7th, and if necessary we could turn it up at page 340 of 10 your transcript of evidence on February 7, it might not 11 be necessary, that you didn't recall having any 12 communication with Mr. Beaubien between August 11 and 13 September 6, 1995. 14 But I'm going to suggest to you that there 15 are some documents that indicate you did have such 16 communications. And if you could look at your Tab 1 of 17 the transcript brief, which is part of Exhibit P-444A, 18 and it's a telephone call between you and John Carson on 19 September 5th at 9:43 or thereabouts, page 38 of that 20 document. 21 If you look towards the bottom of page 38, 22 the next to last entry, it says: 23 "PARKIN: Okay, um, are you getting 24 calls from any, ah, is anybody getting 25 to you the Park and government


1 officials? 2 We've been talking to Beaubien this 3 morning." 4 You see that, sir? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: So you wouldn't have misinformed John 7 Carson about that, would you, on September 5th? 8 A: No, I wouldn't have. 9 Q: No. And so you undoubtedly had been 10 talking to Beaubien that morning. 11 A: Myself or Chief Superintendent Coles. 12 Q: You or Chief Superintendent Coles. 13 And you ask Inspector Carson here: 14 "Are you getting calls from, ah, 15 anybody getting to you, the Park and 16 government officials?" 17 You're asking him about what pressure he 18 might be getting from government officials, right? 19 A: Not just government officials, 20 anybody. 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: Because generally what happens in 23 these types of incidents, of course, once the public and 24 other people start to become aware of it, and if they can 25 get access, including the media, and if they can get


1 access to those phone lines, then the next thing, your 2 phones are all tied up; that's why I was asking. 3 Q: Oh, so -- 4 A: To make sure he was able to 5 concentrate on doing his job. 6 Q: With respect, I would suggest the 7 context suggests that your answer -- asking that question 8 because you are concerned in general with government 9 pressure here, because you ask him: 10 "Are you been getting calls from, 11 government officials?" 12 And then you say: 13 "We've been talking to Beaubien." 14 So the topic of discussion, sir, I would 15 put it to you, is not a question of having free phone 16 lines, it's a question of what kind of pressure are we 17 getting from the Government. 18 Isn't that fair, sir? 19 A: And other people taking up his time 20 and taking him away from the purpose that he's there, 21 which is incident command. 22 Q: Well -- 23 A: I'm not trying to argue with you, 24 sir. I -- your question is fair, but -- 25 Q: My conclusion is fair. My conclusion


1 is fair that it is a discussion, you're concerned about 2 pressure from government officials and others on Mr. 3 Carson, on yourself, on the police in general. 4 You want to get an overall view of what 5 pressure is being exerted, isn't that fair? 6 A: I particularly don't want pressure on 7 him from outside sources, that's correct. 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: That's fair. 10 Q: But also you want to -- you want to 11 know the overall view of the pressure that's being 12 exerted? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And so you ask him if he's getting 15 any and then you inform him you had some contact with 16 Beaubien, so you -- 17 A: I -- 18 Q: -- you're trying to put together all 19 the knowledge that the two (2) of you have about 20 government pressure? 21 A: Correct. But I do want to clarify. 22 When I say "we", and maybe it's not the best way to 23 speak, but that could include me having a conversation 24 with somebody or Chief Superintendent Coles. 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: So with respect to, did I have any 2 contact with Mr. Beaubien in those times that I said I 3 didn't, I believe to the best of my knowledge I didn't. 4 Q: I see. It might have been 5 indirectly, only through Chief Superintendent Coles that 6 you learned Beaubien's views? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Yes. And even more generally, when 9 you say "we", you might mean the OPP generally. 10 Sometimes you might have got information from somebody 11 other than Chief Superintendent Coles as well, right? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: So with the topic of discussion there 14 is, what is the government pressure that's coming in? 15 What have you gotten? We've gotten some from Beaubien, 16 right? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And then continuing on the next page 19 you ask about other possible things including, Is anybody 20 else bothering you or media -- media getting to you and 21 so on, right? 22 A: Correct. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: And then if we could look, please, at 2 your Tab 4 of the transcript brief, which is Exhibit P- 3 1057 to these proceedings. 4 And this is a telephone call between you 5 and Inspector Linton on September 5, 1995 at 21:53 and 6 there -- if you could look at page 11. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: You're discussing various pressures 11 and so on with Inspector Linton and then in the middle of 12 that page 11 Dale Linton says to you: 13 "And it's like we said to Marcel 14 Beaubien, this is an ideal situation we 15 find ourselves in now because we 16 basically have an abandoned Park, it's 17 all provincial property. There's no 18 private interests. You know, some guy 19 saying, Oh, you know, this my farm, you 20 know." 21 And you say: 22 "Yeah." 23 And he says: 24 "It's kind of isolated down on the 25 point here. We've got water on one (1)


1 side [and so on]" 2 So am I correct in understand this, as 3 Inspector Linton was saying to you: 4 "As we've said to Marcel Beaubien this 5 is a good place to take a stand on 6 these issue because we don't have 7 private people which could complicate 8 things." 9 Right? That's what you took from that? 10 A: This is what Dale's saying, yes. 11 Q: And -- and you evidently agreed with 12 him? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: That's -- yeah. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And it was evident to you at the time 17 that Dale Linton had been discussing that aspect of it 18 with Marcel Beaubien. He says: 19 "As we said -- it's like we said to 20 Marcel Beaubien, this is an ideal 21 situation in which to take a stand." 22 Right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And were you -- were you involved in 25 that discussion with Marcel Beaubien as you recall, sir?


1 A: No, that appears to be a discussion 2 that either Dale or perhaps John had with Marcel -- 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: -- but it appears that it would be 5 Dale. 6 Q: Yes. Well, again he uses the word, 7 "we" and of course we don't know what he might have meant 8 by, "we". 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Unfortunately we can't ask him but so 11 -- but -- 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: -- you're quite certain you don't 14 recall being involved in any such discussion with Marcel 15 Beaubien yourself? 16 A: That's correct, sir. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Now, I'm not going to take you to it 21 in detail but Mr. Falconer asked you a bit about any 22 possible concerns you might have had about Wade Lacroix 23 based on his previous involvement in a different 24 incident, right? 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 Q: And I would suggest to you that -- 2 and we could listen to it if necessary, but listening to 3 the transcript of the phone call where you -- or rather 4 listening to the actual audio of the phone call where you 5 said: 6 "Well, Wade's a good guy and I've 7 worked with Wade a long time. Just 8 make sure you or John control it." 9 Now, we listened the other day to the 10 actual audio. It suggests to me more than the written 11 words do that you were a bit concerned about Wade Lacroix 12 being in that position; is that not fair, sir? 13 A: No, sir, that's not fair. 14 Q: You had no concern whatsoever? 15 A: That's correct, sir. 16 Q: Well, why did you add the phrase: 17 "Just make sure that or John control 18 it"? 19 A: That's simply because as I believe I 20 explained earlier I had worked with Wade, I had been an 21 incident commander with him on a number of times. I 22 believe I indicated he has a strong personality. 23 He has a very broad knowledge and 24 background of tactics. He was probably one (1) of the 25 most senior people with respect to number of calls that


1 he had attended or assisted. 2 Q: Sir, not to interrupt you. I did 3 interrupt you, but all those are things that would 4 suggest you don't need to control him. He's such an 5 experienced guy. 6 You wouldn't normally say somebody who is 7 to lead a group doing something, make sure you control 8 him unless you had some concerns about that person; 9 wouldn't you? 10 A: May I finish my answer, sir? 11 Q: Certainly. 12 A: Because of my knowledge of him and 13 because of having worked with him as an incident 14 commander part of his role is to present the Incident 15 Commander with options or ideas. I know Wade, he speaks 16 his mind; he'll tell you what he thinks. 17 I don't have any difficulty with that. 18 But I did subtly want to remind Dale that as the Incident 19 Commander he's the one who has to make decisions. 20 It's a subtle thing but if you're not 21 strong as an Incident Commander, Wade would tell you what 22 he thought should be done in a way that could persuade 23 you unless you made sure you kept all your options open. 24 So it was just a general reminder that 25 you're the Incident Commander, you run the incident.


1 Q: And you were afraid it could persuade 2 him in a more aggressive direction than was appropriate, 3 right? 4 That's what you were worried about, 5 right? 6 A: I just wanted to make sure he kept 7 the options open. 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: Wade would -- Wade would be one form 10 of information. There was other people there that I'm 11 sure would be advising him. 12 Q: Yes. But your concern was that Wade 13 Lacroix would have been somebody who would have pushed 14 things in a more aggressive direction and you wanted 15 Inspector Linton to be aware of that possibility, is that 16 fair? 17 A: No, that's not fair, sir. 18 Q: I see. 19 A: Wade will give you options and he 20 will tell you directly what he thinks. But once you tell 21 Wade as the Incident Commander, if you said, no we're not 22 doing that, we're going to do this, then Wade will be 100 23 percent on line. 24 But he's not going to be shy about telling 25 you what he thinks.


1 Q: Now you told us that you knew that 2 Wade Lacroix was -- had some relationship with Marcel 3 Beaubien, is that right? 4 A: I believe I learned more about that 5 here than I was previously aware of. 6 Q: At the time that this was going on 7 you had some knowledge that they knew each other or not? 8 A: I -- yes, because Marcel's 9 constituency office was across the street -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: -- from Wade's Detachment. So yes, I 12 knew that they knew each other in a professional manner 13 but as I was told here apparently there was a business 14 relationship with respect to insurance -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- that I was unaware of. 17 Q: So you didn't know about the business 18 relationship but you did know that they certainly had 19 personal knowledge of each other prior to this incident? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And you knew that Marcel Beaubien had 22 a rather aggressive attitude shall we say towards the 23 people occupying the Park, right? 24 A: Marcel Beaubien had -- he was very 25 opinionated, yes.


1 Q: And in the direction I suggested? 2 Not in the passive direction but in the more aggressive 3 direction, right? His opinions? 4 A: I found Mr. Beaubien to be emotional 5 about many issues. He -- he was just another strong 6 personality. 7 Q: Yes. But people could be emotional 8 on either side of something. I'm suggesting to you that 9 both Marcel Beaubien and Wade Lacroix were in the 10 direction of wanting more aggressive action in general 11 than some other people would be. 12 Isn't that fair? 13 A: No I -- I can't agree with that, sir. 14 Not with resp -- you can't compare Marcel's as you put 15 it, aggressiveness to a police officer doing his duty. 16 Q: Oh. So you're suggesting in spite of 17 what I said an officer would do his duty you would hope 18 and expect, right? 19 A: I would expect a police officer to 20 carry out his duties professionally. 21 Q: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 23 Sandler...? 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: He did not say that at 25 all, with great respect.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm having a 2 little difficulty. You put both Mr. Lacroix and Mr. 3 Beaubien in the same question -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 6 that's causing some difficulty. He did answer your 7 questions with respect to Lacroix earlier. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And now 10 you're asking him about Beaubien. But you lumped them 11 together. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I -- I'd asked 13 of Beaubien earlier probably before Lacroix so -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But in any event -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 17 area has been over in any event by both Mr. Worme and Mr. 18 Falconer. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, yes. I was 20 about to end it right there. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And in fact I'm 23 going to end my examination. Thank you very much, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, my 25 goodness.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 2 Commissioner. 3 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 5 very much, Mr. Rosenthal. I wasn't expecting -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I -- I hope you 7 do appreciate that. I hope I get credit for future, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I wasn't 9 trying to cut you off. I just -- 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no, I -- I hope 11 you do appreciate it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I've been trying to 14 be extremely expeditious in the last couple of months on 15 my -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 17 very much, Mr. Rosenthal. 18 Yes, Mr. Millar...? 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, before 20 we begin, I just wanted to correct something that I said 21 at lunch -- after the lunch break and it's covered in a 22 January 25th e-mail when the McCabe notes were sent out. 23 The McCabe notes that were sent out were 24 the handwritten notes of Tim McCabe relating to his 25 attendance at the September 6th, 1995 IMC meeting.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 2 Mr. Millar. 3 Mr. Scullion...? 4 It looks like we might finish today even 5 with you, Mr. Sandler. 6 There's a good chance that we might 7 complete the examination today including the re- 8 examination and we'll see. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 13 afternoon, Mr. Scullion. 14 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Good afternoon, Mr. 15 Commissioner. We did think there was a chance to finish 16 today. I'm not sure when you wanted to take the 17 afternoon break, but you just let me know as we go along. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 19 approximately quarter to 3:00. Would that be all right? 20 Would that suit your timing? 21 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: That's fine, I'll -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Quarter to 23 3:00, let's go to a quarter to 3:00 and then -- 24 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- work with what we 25 have.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we'll 2 break. 3 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 5 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Parkin. 6 A: Good afternoon. 7 Q: My name's Kevin Scullion. I am one 8 of the counsel for the residents of Aazhoodena, you 9 probably know better as the Stoney Point group. 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: I'd like to take you back a little 12 bit to matters that took place before the shooting of 13 Dudley George, and one in particular which was Serpent 14 Mounds, the occupation of the Provincial Park. 15 I understand from your evidence in-chief 16 that you were briefed when the takeover occurred on 17 September the 1st. 18 Do you recall giving that evidence? 19 A: I wouldn't refer to it as being 20 briefed. I was on a phone conversation with Nancy 21 Mansell who worked within the Commissioner's office and 22 her role was preparing briefing notes and such. 23 It appears that I was on the phone having 24 a discussion with her when she relayed that information 25 to me. So it wasn't that I went to any type of police


1 briefing. It was a civilian letting me know, oh, by the 2 way, have you heard. 3 Q: Right. No, I appreciate that and I 4 think we have a note in your notes as to the information 5 that she conveyed to you at that point in time. 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: My -- my approach is more general. 8 I've been asking many witnesses about Serpent Mounds and 9 the difference in approach that was taken between the 10 inspectors that were responsible for each of those two 11 (2) incidents. 12 And you seem to be the first one that 13 we've had up that is aware of Serpent Mounds at the same 14 time as the Ipperwash is occurring. 15 And I just wanted to ask you a few 16 questions about Serpent Mounds in terms of the approach 17 that was taken. 18 It sounds from your answer that you just 19 gave to me is that you weren't involved in any way in any 20 police briefing prior to Serpent Mounds or the police 21 response that was undertaken for Serpent Mounds, is that 22 accurate? 23 A: That's accurate, sir. 24 Q: All right. Were you involved in any 25 police briefing after the occupation occurred on


1 September 1st of Serpent Mounds to receive a briefing on 2 what occurred at Serpent Mounds? 3 A: No, sir. 4 Q: Not in any way, shape or form? 5 A: Not in any way, shape or form that I 6 can recall and -- and I don't see any reason why I would 7 have been at this time. 8 Q: All right. Well, I'll suggest a 9 reason why. We've heard from a number of witnesses from 10 the MNR that part of what they attribute to the success 11 of the peaceful resolution at Serpent Mounds was the use 12 by the inspector at the time, of First Nation constables 13 and the retreat, so to speak, of the regular non-native 14 OPP officers to an area away from the actual Provincial 15 Park. 16 Have you ever heard of that situation, or 17 the fact that that occurred? 18 A: No, sir, not that I can recall. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: I don't dispute it. 21 Q: With respect to Ipperwash, did you 22 ever have a chance to speak with Superintendent Buxton 23 who was overseeing the Serpent Mounds occupation? 24 A: No, sir. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And I was talking about before the 4 occupation of Ipperwash, but have you had a chance at any 5 time after September 4th, 1995 to speak with 6 Superintendent Buxton about the two (2) separate 7 incidents? 8 A: I know Superintendent Buxton. 9 Whether I had conversations with him during that period, 10 I can't recall. I don't believe I did. 11 And, no, I never had any discussions with 12 Superintendent Buxton with respect to Serpent Mounds. 13 Q: Okay. Did you ever consider the use 14 of First Nations officers at Ipperwash in the same way 15 that they apparently used them at Serpent Mounds? 16 A: I didn't. I believe Inspector Carson 17 may have had some thoughts around that issue, but I can't 18 speak for him but -- 19 Q: Okay. I appreciate that, and we've 20 heard from Inspector Carson, but I'm asking you as the 21 person that he reported to, whether or not that ever 22 crossed your mind, using First Nations constables in that 23 situation? 24 I take it that never occurred to you? 25 A: That never occurred.


1 Q: All right. Did it ever occur to you 2 to use First Nations constables from the Kettle Point 3 Police Service? 4 A: There may have been discussions 5 around the use of First Nations constables but it never 6 took place. 7 Q: All right. What -- what discussions 8 took place around the use of First Nations constables 9 from Kettle Point? 10 A: I'm just speaking in general. Like I 11 say it seems to me that Inspector Carson had some thought 12 around that and I guess he'd have to explain, perhaps, 13 why he never followed up on that. 14 Q: Okay. You never took part in any 15 discussions of any kind about whether or not to use 16 constables from Kettle Point Police Services? 17 A: No, sir. 18 Q: I take it you're aware of an incident 19 that involved a person by the name of Darryl George that 20 happened in February 1995 and involved rumours of an AK- 21 47 on the Kettle Point Reserve? 22 A: I was in Sault Ste. Marie at that 23 time so I don't know any of the particular details. I do 24 know that I had heard about the incident after arriving 25 in London in June or July but, again, it was over by that


1 time. 2 Q: All right. So you weren't overseeing 3 that particular incident, you heard about it after the 4 fact in June when you came to London? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: In 1995? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: All right. Because we've heard from 9 the Chief of the Kettle Point Police, Miles Bressette, 10 about his involvement in that particular incident which 11 also involved the TRU team, Dale Linton, and a couple of 12 other officers who were also involved in the Ipperwash 13 matter. 14 And what we heard from him was, although 15 he violated some police protocol, he assisted to resolve 16 that situation peacefully, even though there appeared to 17 be an armed stand-off. 18 Is that consistent with your recall of the 19 situation? 20 A: I've heard that, sir, yes. 21 Q: Okay. And had you heard that in June 22 of 1995, or is that sometime after September of 1995? 23 A: I can't recall exactly when I heard 24 it. I may have -- I may have heard about it even when I 25 was in Sault Ste. Marie. I'm just not 100 percent sure.


1 Q: Okay. You don't know if you heard 2 about it between the time that the incident occurred or 3 June when you returned to London in September of 1995 in 4 terms of the detail I just provided to you? 5 A: I can't narrow it down any closer 6 than that, sir. 7 Q: All right. Looking back on 8 Ipperwash, generally, do you think it would have been a 9 good idea for the OPP to do that specific task, to 10 consult and see if Kettle Point Police would be of 11 assistance? 12 A: In hindsight, it would have been of 13 assistance if we could have maybe brought some First 14 Nations persons in. It certainly may have helped. 15 Q: Right. And I -- I trust that when 16 you say that it certainly could have helped, you probably 17 mirror some of Miles Bressette's concerns because he 18 indicated, if he'd been asked, he knew a number of the 19 people from the Camp and had grown up with a number of 20 the people from the Camp and thought that he had a 21 relationship such that he could speak with the people 22 from the Camp. 23 Is that consistent with why you would 24 think Kettle Point Police could be of assistance? 25 A: Those points would make him of


1 assistance. 2 Q: Okay. And I put it that way because 3 you have, from what I could see, significant experience, 4 back at Six Nations and Oneida, in dealing with a 5 separate kind of situation, which is policing First 6 Nations. 7 And I say separate and different because 8 it's outside of the mainstream and you're aware of the 9 differences that could arise, on reserve; is that fair? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: All right. So you brought to the 12 situation, and I -- and I suggest to you that you would 13 have been a very valuable resource for the OPP in 14 addressing how this situation might be addressed from a 15 perspective of somebody who'd worked at First Nation 16 reserves before. 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: But am I correct to hear that 19 Inspector Carson did not consult with you in terms of the 20 preparation of the Project Maple? 21 A: He was assigned the task of putting 22 Project Maple together and, of course, picking 23 individuals to help him. 24 Now, through this period from June, I was 25 trying to get up to speed not only with respect to


1 Ipperwash, but with a number of things that were going on 2 across the region, as well as bringing some structure to 3 the new region, with the breakdown of the old districts. 4 So there was a lot going on. John was 5 left to pull the plan together. I had been briefed that 6 John was very familiar with the -- the area. 7 He had had -- he had been the Incident 8 Commander since '93 when the initial movement went on to 9 the military base outside of the barrack area. 10 And I also became aware that there were 11 some differences of opinion with respect to the Kettle 12 Point police and the OPP. 13 How severe those issues were, I don't 14 know, but I did hear that there wasn't the best working 15 relationship. 16 Q: Okay. Were you consulted by 17 Inspector Carson with respect to putting together the 18 Project Maple plan? 19 A: Not directly. 20 Q: Okay. I'm sure he would have, 21 perhaps, bounced something off of myself and Chief Coles 22 or we might have asked, How's it coming along? 23 But not in a daily, consultation basis, 24 no. 25 Q: Right. Now, your view of the


1 occupation of the Park is it was a civil dispute, 2 correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Right. It was an example of civil 5 disobedience. They were making a point by occupying the 6 Provincial Park, correct? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And it was a dispute over the 9 ownership of the Provincial Park, correct? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And added to that was the question of 12 the burial grounds, which you became aware of back in 13 August of 1995? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: All right. So those two (2) issues 16 were front and centre when the occupation occurred; the 17 burial ground and the ownership of the Park? 18 A: True. 19 Q: Okay. And you were aware of that at 20 the time, in September? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Do I take it you were also aware of 23 the division that was apparent in the Kettle and Stony 24 Point community, between the chief and council and 25 various parts of the First Nation, and the people who


1 were occupying the army camp lands, and subsequently the 2 Provincial Park lands? 3 Were you aware of that? 4 A: We were aware of that. 5 Q: Okay. And there were a number of 6 issues, and they're all complicated issues, but a number 7 of issues relating to that division in the Band itself? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Right. And you quickly became aware 10 that the chief and council did not support the occupation 11 of the Park and were actively encouraging the OPP to take 12 steps to remove the people from the Park, correct? 13 A: That did occur, yes. 14 Q: This might be a good time, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure. We'll 17 take our afternoon break now. 18 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 19 for fifteen (15) minutes. 20 21 --- Upon recessing at 2:39 p.m. 22 --- Upon resuming at 2:57 p.m. 23 24 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 25 resumed, please be seated.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, sir? 5 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Commissioner, I 6 asked your Commission counsel over the break to find 7 Exhibit P-472 for the Witness. And I appreciate that he 8 was referred in-chief -- I spoke with Ms. Hensel, he was 9 referred in-chief to this document. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 12 Q: But what I wanted to ask about this 13 document is whether or not this is consistent with your 14 approach to dealing with a civil protest? 15 If you subscribe to the various -- the 16 basic directive that negotiation above physical force is 17 the approach of the OPP? That's what you followed? 18 A: Yes, sir. 19 Q: All right. And you agreed with the 20 approach of trying to negotiate a resolution as opposed 21 to looking to physical force to solve a civil protest 22 situation? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And do I take it that you agreed with 25 one of the lines in this directive that:


1 "In most cases, the question of 2 ownership or rightful occupation can be 3 addressed from a police point of view 4 if the complainant is successful in 5 obtaining an injunction which specifies 6 what actions, if any, the police must 7 take." 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: All right. And, in fact, that's one 10 of the directives that's underlying the approach of the 11 OPP to many of these situations, certainly to Ipperwash, 12 was resolve the ownership issue by way of a court order, 13 an injunction, and then the OPP can enforce that. 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: All right. And as a recognition, if 16 you read with me the last whole paragraph, it says: 17 "The long term result of the use of 18 force must also be considered -- or 19 always be considered. In some 20 instances, force will quickly resolve a 21 short term problem but result in the 22 commitment of massive resources for 23 long periods of time in the future. 24 In the final analysis a negotiated 25 solution is always more desirable than


1 one brought about by the use of force." 2 You would agree with that? 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: And, in fact, in looking back at 5 Ipperwash and the costs involved, which I understand for 6 the OPP were between $2 million and $3 million, this 7 specific directive seems particularly appropriate, does 8 it not? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Okay. And I look back at Project 11 Maple and the deployment of force that's inherent in the 12 implementation of that project, and it seems to me that 13 it's one of confrontation with the occupiers as opposed 14 to a wait and see approach. 15 Is that a fair characterization, from your 16 view? 17 A: No. I don't believe that's quite 18 fair. And I -- I don't want to argue with you but, from 19 our position, I think that the issue that we ran into was 20 that the Provincial Park wasn't an isolated incident in 21 this whole long standing issue. 22 It had started back in '93 with the 23 movement onto the military base. You know, we come to 24 '95 and then we have the movement into the barracks where 25 there was violence and the military left.


1 So I think we -- we had taken the same 2 position with the Canadian military with respect to the 3 base. Now some of this is prior to my getting there, but 4 clearly, the direction of Chief Coles and Inspector 5 Carson of the day, was that they wanted an injunction 6 before they were going to do anything there and one never 7 came. 8 Then after the barracks it became -- or it 9 became to our attention that there was the possibility of 10 movement into the Park, which eventually did take place. 11 And because we knew of the potential for movement into 12 the Park, there were contingency plans drawn up based on 13 peaceful resolution, as the first page of -- of Project 14 Maple indicates. 15 If it should happen, the plan was contain 16 and negotiate a peaceful resolution. So that was what 17 the OPP wanted. 18 Now, in the occupation of the Park there 19 was a confrontation. The OPP backed off to remove the 20 day campers. The extra resources that you're referring 21 to, yes, they were there and deployed outside in a 22 perimeter, but they were there for public safety. So 23 they weren't there to be used as a show of force. In 24 fact, most of the resources were kept away from the 25 public site.


1 So we ran into a position which we had to 2 be prepared for any eventuality. The only thing that 3 might have made it different would be, had the occupiers 4 moved in, let's say two (2) days after the Labour Day 5 Weekend, in the middle of the night, and we all woke up 6 and there they were, that would have been a different 7 scenario. 8 So it's a long-winded answer but it's -- 9 it's a complex issue as -- and I don't have to tell 10 anybody here that. But I do believe that this document 11 that you gave me really did form the basis of Inspector 12 Carson's plan. 13 Q: Okay. I take it from your answer 14 that, in your view, this was an overflow from what was 15 occurring at the Army Camp and the failure to resolve 16 that issue? 17 A: That clearly didn't help, you're 18 correct. 19 Q: Right. And if that had been 20 resolved, in your view, back in September of 1995 this 21 occupation of the Park might not have occurred? 22 A: It might not. I really can't say 23 whether it would have or wouldn't have. But clearly, the 24 resolution of the other issue would have been a major 25 step.


1 Q: Right. Was that part of your 2 thinking in September of 1995: Why didn't the Feds do 3 something about this issue? 4 A: Well, I -- I think even prior to my 5 getting there, clearly back from '93 it was a major issue 6 as to why some action wasn't taken with respect to the 7 injunction. 8 Q: Okay. And from your answer, I take 9 it that the committal of resources was dependent upon the 10 movement into the Park on September 4th and not on the 11 confrontation, which I'll get to in a second, that 12 occurred that evening? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: In fact, regardless of whether or not 15 there was a confrontation that evening, the committal of 16 resources had already occurred? 17 A: The committal of standby resources? 18 Q: Right. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now, in terms of that confrontation, 25 you'd agree with me that the OPP was aware that there was


1 a good chance this was going to occur on September 4th, 2 1995 and that's why preparations were taken for that day, 3 in particular? 4 A: There was enough information and 5 rumour out there that it certainly couldn't be taken for 6 granted. 7 Q: Right. And you knew that the protest 8 and the occupation was going to take place because of the 9 two (2) issues we've talked about, burial ground issue 10 and the ownership issue of the Park, correct? 11 A: If it did take place, those were key 12 issues. 13 Q: Right. And key -- one (1) of the key 14 issues was the view of the occupiers, the people who 15 moved into the Park, that they considered it to be their 16 land, correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And they wanted the OPP off of their 19 land, out of the Park, correct? 20 A: They want -- well, whether the OPP 21 were there or not they wanted the land. 22 Q: I appreciate that, but you -- you had 23 briefings and those briefings included detailed 24 information about what happened on September the 4th and 25 the confrontation I just referred to, correct?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And part of that briefing, I trust, 3 was you being advised by your inspectors, the Incident 4 Commander, that they were asked to leave the Park and 5 they did not leave the Park, prior to this confrontation 6 occurring? 7 A: That our officers asked them to leave 8 the Park or the other way around? 9 Q: The other way around. The officers 10 were asked to leave the Park and a confrontation ensued. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: That's possible. I can't speak to 15 that with definite knowledge. 16 Q: All right. Well, we have time frames 17 and we have evidence of Mr. Kobayashi, the Superintendent 18 at the time, that over the course of, in excess of an 19 hour, requests were made for the OPP and the MNR to leave 20 the Park, which they did not do, and a confrontation 21 ensued. 22 Was that not your understanding of what 23 occurred the night of September 4th? 24 A: My understanding was that we had 25 officers in the Park, the fence was cut, some First


1 Nations people came through into the Park from the 2 military base. 3 Our officers advised them that they were 4 trespassing and the confrontation took place and then a 5 decision was made to remove the day campers and leave the 6 property. 7 Q: Right. And you're aware that in 8 Serpent Mounds the officers were not in the Park and, in 9 fact, the officers, other than First Nation officers, 10 retreated. 11 Do you recall talking with me about that? 12 A: In Serpent Mounds? 13 Q: In Serpent Mounds occupation. 14 A: No, I wasn't all that familiar with 15 everything that took place. I recall you talking about 16 the use of First Nations officers. 17 Q: Right. I'm suggesting to you that 18 the approach used by the OPP in the Ipperwash matter was 19 confrontational in nature from the outset, an in-your- 20 face approach to the people that went into the Park. 21 Do you disagree with that? 22 A: We were working on behalf of the 23 Ministry of Natural Resources who had assured us that 24 there was no issue with the ownership of the Provincial 25 Park.


1 Therefore, their belief that the Park was 2 theirs, or the provinces, and they were legally entitled 3 to it, put us in the position of putting some officers 4 into the Park, that if anybody did try and occupy the 5 Park, they would be told that they were trespassing. 6 Q: Right. And they did and you told 7 them they were trespassing, and they asked you to leave 8 at that point in time. 9 And I'm suggesting to you that the OPP 10 took a confrontational approach, an in-your-face approach 11 to this occupation. 12 A: I can't agree that our intent was to 13 put up a confrontational approach. I understand where 14 you're coming from, but I don't believe our mind set was 15 to go in there and cause a confrontation. 16 Q: But it appears that way, doesn't it? 17 A: You can say that. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: That question's been 19 asked and answered. What does it mean, it appears that 20 way? It's up to you to decide how it ultimately appears. 21 I -- I'm not sure what that means. 22 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Well -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he 24 answered the question so. He could have said he couldn't 25 answer it. Go ahead.


1 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: He said, I can see 2 where you're coming from, and I followed that up -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 4 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- and said it 5 appears that way. It seemed fairly straightforward. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, all 7 right. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 10 Q: The briefing note that we just talked 11 about is to take a peaceful -- or an approach seeking a 12 peaceful resolution, and part of that included having an 13 injunction in place before using force, correct? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Would you agree with me that this 16 approach, what I've termed a confrontational approach, is 17 inconsistent with the approach we just talked about? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 A: With respect to not having the 22 injunction in our hands? 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: I agree. 25 Q: And I suggest to you that the


1 approach was to try to maintain control of the Park and 2 it failed, correct. 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And that as a result of it failing, 5 the OPP was forced to retreat and to go back to plan B, 6 which was to maintain the status quo. 7 A: I think the word 'fail' might not be 8 the appropriate word. Clearly, we had a plan and the 9 plan provided for the fact that if we were unable to 10 maintain the park, clearly it was contain and negotiate. 11 A decision was made by the Commanders at 12 the time to move the day campers out safely and that was 13 done. The other alternative they would have had which 14 they didn't choose and as far as I'm concerned, they made 15 the right decision. 16 However, they did have extra resources, 17 they did have the option of calling in those extra 18 resources, that would have provided the confrontation you 19 speak of and I'm glad that they didn't and they chose not 20 to confront but to move out. 21 Q: Right. You know I'm not talking 22 about bringing in other forces and encouraging a 23 confrontation, I'm simply saying they made the right 24 choice and they retreated eventually -- 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: -- but -- but before doing that, 2 they did confront the occupiers? 3 A: As they were trying to occupy, 4 correct. 5 Q: Right. You're saying that that 6 confrontation was simply to allow those stragglers in the 7 Park to leave the Park and it wasn't meant to maintain 8 control over the Park? 9 A: No. They were there to try and 10 maintain the Park, to advise anybody that came in that 11 they were in fact trespassing given the honest belief 12 that the Province had title and ownership to the 13 Provincial Park. 14 When it was realized that those people 15 were going to continue to come in, they made the decision 16 to move the day campers that were there, out without a 17 further confrontation. 18 Q: All right. But you just told me if 19 they did it two (2) days later, they would have walked 20 into the Park, there would have been nobody there, 21 correct? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Right. And they could have done that 24 at any point in time following the closure of the Park, 25 September 4th all the way up until the opening the next


1 spring. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: So maintaining the Park, maintaining 4 control over the Park wasn't a realistic option, was it? 5 A: We, and everybody knew in the 6 community, that the Provincial Park may be occupied on 7 the Labour Day weekend. Had we not been seen to be doing 8 anything, we would have had the rest of the community 9 upset and it would have only supported their position 10 that they were getting no policing from the OPP. 11 Q: Right. And the rest of the community 12 would have been very impressed if the OPP had been able 13 to maintain that Park in the face of people coming to 14 occupy it. 15 And that was a concern for the OPP at 16 the time, wasn't it? 17 A: It was an issue that had to be dealt 18 with. 19 Q: Right. And once an hour or two (2) 20 went by of confronting the occupiers, it was decided to 21 retreat and to deal with it as an occupation of the Park, 22 correct? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: All right. And as a result of that 25 marine units, the helicopter, further resources were


1 sought and you approved the use of those resources, 2 correct? 3 A: Those -- I wouldn't have to approve 4 each of those, the Incident Commander had full authority 5 to approve any of those. 6 Q: He did but you were aware of them and 7 you approved of the use of them? 8 A: I was aware of them, yes. 9 Q: Okay. But you're saying there wasn't 10 as a show of force, it was simply as extra resources 11 available as and when needed, if needed? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: All right. Did you authorize an 14 individual by the name of Jim Moses to act as an 15 informant for the OPP? 16 A: That wasn't within my area. 17 Q: I appreciate that. But were you 18 aware of a fellow by the name of Jim Moses acting as an 19 informant for the OPP? 20 A: I did become aware of it at some 21 point in time. 22 Q: Okay. When was that? 23 A: I don't know exactly when, sir. 24 Q: All right. But you became aware that 25 the OPP had an informant that was inside the Park


1 providing them with information about the people that 2 moved into the Park, correct? 3 A: Providing the intelligence people, 4 yes, sir. 5 Q: Right. Intelligence was very 6 important at this point in time because you weren't in 7 the Park and you wanted to know what was going on in 8 there, correct? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And the use of Jim Moses providing 11 information about what was going on complimented whatever 12 photographs, video, sightings from the helicopters or 13 from their marine units, that you were able to put 14 together, correct? 15 A: It could have. 16 Q: Right. And in fact you were referred 17 by Mr. Falconer to a Connolley Report. 18 Do you remember that reference? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: And do you have that in front of you? 21 Have it still in front of you? 22 A: Was it at one (1) of the Tabs? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 24 think so. I think it was a separate document. 25 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It -- it's not one


1 of your tabs. It should be a separate document. 2 MS. KATHERINE HENSEL: P-483. 3 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It's P-483. It 4 should be on the front. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I have it. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 11 Q: Do you have a copy of that? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: If you could turn to page 11, 11 14 being the bottom of the text as opposed to other parts of 15 the page, the first bullet point at the top being number 16 5, The OPP complete the review, 17 Do you have that page? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. And if I can refer you to 20 recommendation number 6 which is the OPP review: How 21 Intelligence Information is Gathered, Authenticated, and 22 Analysed. 23 Do you see that section? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: You'd agree with me that that is a


1 very important aspect of an operation such as this? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: All right. If you go on, you've been 4 quoted or a quote has been put to you from this 5 recommendation but I'd like to focus on the issues of how 6 is the information obtained, how is it authenticated? 7 These are questions that will have to be answered. 8 It then says: 9 " One (1) concern that was identified 10 was the erroneous or that erroneous 11 information was provided by one (1) 12 faction involved in attempts to 13 discredit another faction." 14 Do you see that? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Okay. Was there discussion within 17 the OPP as to what this meant, what this recommendation 18 meant? 19 A: Not with me. 20 Q: Okay. In particular were you aware 21 of any information which is described here as erroneous 22 information being provided by one (1) faction in this 23 situation? Are you aware -- 24 A: No, I -- I -- clearly it's being 25 identified that I received erroneous information but with


1 respect to this, no, I can't think of any specific 2 examples. 3 Q: Right. Mr. Falconer walked you 4 through a number of instances where intelligence gathered 5 turned out to be incorrect. 6 I'm asking you specifically in relation to 7 this whether you're aware of any information that's being 8 referred to here as erroneous information coming from one 9 (1) side against the other? 10 A: And I -- I believe I answered that, 11 sir. I'm not aware of anything that pertains to that -- 12 Q: All right. 13 A: -- point. 14 Q: All right. But in your history, your 15 experience, you're aware that that oftentimes happens in 16 a First Nation that information may come from one (1) 17 group within the First Nation that may or may not be 18 correct in relation to another? 19 A: From my experience that does happen 20 and it doesn't just happen in First Nations cases. 21 Q: Right. And it's important that that 22 type of information is analysed and reviewed carefully 23 before it's acted upon, correct? 24 A: Correct, sir. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And I'd suggest to you that you were 4 aware at the time in September 1995 that information 5 coming from Chief and Council that might require the OPP 6 to act in a certain way would fall in this category that 7 it should be analysed carefully before actions are taken. 8 Do you agree with that? 9 A: I would agree with that. 10 Q: All right. And of course we're 11 seeking recommendations in the Inquiry. That would be 12 one (1) of the recommendations I take it you would make 13 having been overseeing this operation, that that kind of 14 information should be analysed very carefully before OPP 15 action was taken in relation to it, is that correct? 16 A: I would agree with that. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: I know you've been referred to a 21 number of examples of intelligence that was incorrect but 22 I have two (2) more and I'd just ask you, with relation 23 to the concept and what we've heard as rumours that there 24 was automatic gunfire in the Park, was that information 25 that you considered as part of overseeing this operation?


1 A: The fact that there had been reports 2 for an extended period of time prior to the Provincial 3 Park issue of gunshots, rapid fire, clearly it had to be 4 taken into consideration. 5 Q: Right. But we've heard from, again, 6 Chief Miles Bressette, chief at the time, that gunfire in 7 Kettle Point reserve was not unusual. 8 I take it from your experience in policing 9 First Nations communities that gunfire in and of itself 10 on a reserve or in an area is not unusual? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: That in and of itself wouldn't cause 13 you any real concern, unless it's pointed at somebody or 14 used to threaten somebody, correct? 15 A: Or causing the rest of the community 16 to be fearful. 17 Q: All right. So it's the community 18 concern about that particular information that would be a 19 cause for concern for the OPP? 20 A: Yeah, you'd have to look at the whole 21 picture, yes. 22 Q: Right. Did it ever come back to you, 23 to the extent that you can recall, September 1995, that 24 in fact if there was any gunfire, it was from within the 25 camp and not the Park.


1 Did that information ever come back to 2 you? 3 A: Well, intelligence information, if 4 you -- are you referring to intelligence information? 5 Q: I'm referring to this particular 6 information. 7 A: I would have heard about it but I 8 think, and I'm not trying to duck your question, but my 9 role as the overseer, if you will, of this operation and 10 any other operation that was taken -- taking place within 11 Western Region, again these are issues that are going on 12 at the ground level, okay? 13 And the incident commander would be the 14 one that would be getting most of this information. 15 Now, clearly, in discussions or talking 16 around as to what was happening with respect to 17 Ipperwash, I would have heard about those issues. 18 Q: Okay. And I'm suggesting to you that 19 we're going to hear from some of the police officers at 20 the checkpoints that they clearly identified gunfire 21 coming from within the camp, not the Park. 22 Do you recall ever getting that 23 information as overseer of this operation? 24 A: I was aware that there were concerns 25 about gunfire in the -- in the base.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: But again for you, that wouldn't have 4 been a large concern, other than addressing the community 5 concern that might arise from it? 6 A: Correct and as an officer safety 7 issue, you would have to be cognizant of it. You would 8 at least have to take it into consideration. 9 Q: Okay. The second example that I take 10 you to is, there's a discussion with Inspector Carson 11 respecting something that occurred with picnic tables 12 and what he referred to as an ambush that occurred at the 13 Park. 14 Do you recall that? 15 A: I recall that. 16 Q: Okay. In respect of these picnic 17 tables, was it ever -- did information ever come back to 18 you as overseer of the operation, that in fact part of 19 the confrontation was a police officer using his cruiser 20 to move these tables? 21 A: Yes, it did. Now, I learned about 22 that issue after the fact. 23 Q: It wasn't information that came back 24 to you prior to the shooting that occurred the night of 25 the 6th?


1 A: Well, I would have known about it 2 prior to, yes. 3 Q: Did you know that the police officer 4 used his vehicle to move the picnic tables prior to what 5 occurred September the 6th or was that information you 6 received after the fact? 7 A: I received information after the fact 8 that the picnic tables had been piled up and there was an 9 issue with them. I don't recall whether I was told at 10 the time that a cruiser was used. 11 Q: But you were later told at some point 12 that Constable Whelan used his police cruiser to move 13 those tables and a confrontation ensued, correct? 14 A: The constable's name I'm not aware 15 of. The issue about the fact that a cruiser was used I - 16 - I did become aware of, yes. 17 Q: All right. Is that something that 18 you followed up in terms of discipline for the officer 19 involved? 20 A: No, sir. 21 Q: Is that something today that would 22 cause you concern that a constable would use his cruiser 23 to move a picnic table in the parking lot? 24 A: I'd have to know all the facts 25 involved as to why the cruiser was used. There may have


1 been some reason for it. I don't know. 2 Q: There's been evidence that people 3 were on that picnic table when it was moved by the 4 constable. 5 Would that cause you concern? 6 A: That would cause me concern. 7 Q: But that's not the information that 8 came back to you when you were told that the cruiser was 9 used to move the picnic tables. 10 A: No, and I don't recall whether I was 11 aware that a cruiser was used. I certainly recall the 12 issue you're talking about with respect to the picnic 13 tables. 14 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thank you, Mr. 15 Commissioner, those are all my questions. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 17 Mr. Scullion. I think Mr. Henderson's -- 18 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thank you, Mr. 19 Parkin. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Thank you, 24 Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good day,


1 sir. 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 4 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Parkin. My name 5 is -- 6 A: Good afternoon, sir. 7 Q: My name is Bill Henderson. I act for 8 the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation and 9 this afternoon I have the -- the double honour of also 10 representing the Chiefs of Ontario office. 11 I'm going to ask you to turn briefly to 12 Tab 7 in the -- the transcript book if you would please. 13 It may be that most of us know it by heart now but if you 14 would turn to page 51. 15 The last paragraph on that page and I'm -- 16 I'm just going to touch on this because My Friend, Mr. 17 Scullion just went over the concern about automatic 18 weapons with you. 19 In the context of this discussion you 20 were under the impression that information about 21 automatic weapons had led to a decision to get an 22 emergency injunction instead of an injunction in the 23 ordinary course? 24 A: Correct, sir. 25 Q: And then after that you say:


1 "An emergency injunction really isn't 2 in our favour." 3 And going over the page you were quoted as 4 saying: 5 "We want a little bit more time." 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And would it be also correct to say 8 that in terms of an injunction or what you and your 9 forces might have done pursuant to an injunction you 10 hadn't laid out a strategy for that yet? 11 A: Correct, sir. 12 Q: And if the injunction directed that 13 the Park be cleared you didn't have a strategy how to do 14 that that would be effective either in the short-term or 15 over the longer term? 16 A: No. Clearly we would have had to see 17 what the direction of the injunction was. 18 Q: And at page 54... 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: I'm sorry, it's page 53, the top of 23 page 53. You're quoted there as saying: 24 "I guess what we would rather have 25 happen is if we -- if we can -- if you


1 can lock that place down so you know 2 the general public isn't put in any 3 danger." 4 I won't ask you to verify that that's what 5 it says. 6 The -- would it be correct to say that 7 this -- this is along the same lines of we need time to 8 do things and if you can lock the situation down to buy 9 us that time, that would be in the general interest of 10 trying to achieve some resolution of the problem? 11 Is that fair? 12 A: That's very fair. We always maintain 13 the go slow position. 14 Q: I guess one is always tempted to use 15 the pun but, you know, essentially you're saying if we 16 could park the problem until we have the best way to deal 17 with it, then that gives us a lot more options over the 18 longer term. 19 A: Clearly we were just looking for ways 20 to resolve this issue peacefully. 21 Q: Okay. Now the -- this conversation 22 is obviously related to deploying the ERT and TRU units 23 down East Parkway Road to the sandy parking lot that 24 night. 25 And that action imminent at the time that


1 you were having this conversation, is that correct? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 3 minute, Mr. Henderson. 4 Yes, Mr. Sandler...? 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: Just to be clear and 6 I'm trying to be more helpful. But actually if you look 7 at page 46 and I was going to deal with it in re- 8 examination, it -- it may be inaccurate to say that that 9 action was imminent because it appears they're already 10 down there. 11 So I just point that out to Mr. Henderson. 12 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm grateful. I 13 didn't understand that the march had -- had already 14 commenced at that point. I believe -- doesn't the 15 conversation say there are some TRU people down there 16 gathering information? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 18 heard some evidence that there was some surveillance 19 people. Is that not right? The TRU Sierra? 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: I just wanted to point 21 out to -- to My Friend that -- that his -- his 22 interpretation may not be -- may not be correct. That -- 23 that they haven't gone down. It's because the reference 24 is made both to TRU already being down there conducting 25 their surveillance and is also the use of the 3 and 6


1 District ERT teams. 2 So it's just not that clear from the 3 transcript that's all. 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: It says they're 5 going to use, Commissioner. I mean -- obviously I would 6 appreciate the assistance if I -- if I'd misstated that. 7 But I don't think the bulk of the -- the three (3) ERT 8 teams had gone down the road at the time of this 9 conversation. 10 If it turns out that I'm wrong about 11 that -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes -- 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: No, you're right. No, 14 the TRU's down there. The TRU is down there doing 15 surveillance, I'm sorry. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Okay. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 19 right, Mr. Henderson. You can carry on. 20 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: No, I'd rather 21 quit if I must, if I got that far. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 24 Q: So the conversation actually was, I 25 think I used the term, the deployment was imminent during


1 the course of this conversation. 2 The conversation was essentially about the 3 deployment of those -- let's say the ERT units down the 4 road? 5 A: It may have been one of the options 6 that Dale was dealing with and thinking about, yes, sir. 7 Q: Okay. And I know you -- you've gone 8 through this once or twice and the -- the fact is that 9 that is exactly what did happen within the hour. 10 And you did not direct would it not have? 11 A: Correct, sir. 12 Q: And you were clearly discussing the 13 option if you will of exactly that happening. And that 14 the units were even designated, who's going to go down 15 the road? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: All right. Now in having that 18 discussion, did you -- did you consider the deployment of 19 those units as being consistent with you desire to lock 20 down the situation? 21 A: That certainly could have been one 22 (1) way of blocking off the area. 23 Q: Hmm hmm. 24 A: With respect to the use of the Crowd 25 Management Unit?


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: Yes. Those -- those people could 3 certainly be used for that purpose. 4 Q: And parts of this conversation 5 obviously relate to moving people back into the Park? 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: Okay. So the conversation is really 8 all about peace. The CMU unit is going to be used to 9 lock down the problem by moving people back into the 10 Park? 11 A: Well that was certainly an option to 12 use them. It -- it doesn't eliminate other 13 possibilities, but that was clearly what he was thinking 14 of. 15 Q: And you were thinking of it, too? 16 A: I -- I mentioned the fact about 17 locking down the area, yes. 18 Q: Okay. Now, you were aware, of 19 course, that, and I believe you've already given some 20 evidence about this, the actual geographical area that 21 would have to be locked down, overall, is about 4 square 22 miles. 23 A: If -- 24 Q: If you were -- you're going to 25 contain the problem within the Park and all -- all


1 accesses to the Park. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And when the units were deployed, 4 basically there was exactly -- I mean, literally, a 5 confrontation because it is your information, I believe, 6 that when the CMU unit arrived on the scene, the 7 individuals were back, and by individuals, I'm referring 8 to the people who have been described as the occupiers, 9 they were, in fact, back behind the fence? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And Staff Sergeant Lacroix, at one 12 (1) point, gave evidence saying that he had radioed back 13 to the TRU command saying mission accomplished, without 14 anybody doing more. 15 Is that -- do you have that information as 16 well and you believe it to be correct? 17 A: I believe it to be true. 18 Q: Thank you. Now, at that point what 19 happened and the Inquiry has heard considerable evidence 20 about this and you, of course, have informed yourself the 21 CMU unit deployed along the sandy parking lot across the 22 road from the fence. Is that correct? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And at that point, or shortly 25 thereafter, they advanced up to the fence and there was a


1 physical altercation between the occupiers behind the 2 fence and the CMU unit in front of the fence, if you 3 will; is that correct? 4 A: That's not the way -- I believe one 5 (1) or some of the occupiers came over the fence on -- 6 and advanced on the CMU. 7 Q: Okay. Well, there's clearly going to 8 be some conflict about the evidence on that, because we 9 have had months of evidence from the people who were 10 behind the fence saying that there was an altercation at 11 the fence before anybody went over it. 12 That happened afterwards, and that's not 13 your information or you've never heard information to 14 that effect? 15 A: I'm not going to dispute what you're 16 saying, sir, it's just I know that I had been informed 17 and told on numerous occasions that an individual came 18 over the fence and swung at the crowd management unit. 19 Q: Okay. I'm going to ask you, just for 20 the purposes of getting on with this, would you assume 21 that that is what is -- what had happened? 22 I'm not going to -- if you're not 23 comfortable saying that's your understanding or your 24 knowledge, that's fine. 25 I want to rely on your experience and your


1 judgment to assume for the moment that what happened is 2 what I described; there was a deployment face to face 3 across the road, that the CMU unit advanced to the fence, 4 there was a physical altercation and the CMU unit 5 withdrew. 6 Are you with me to that point? 7 A: With the exception of the physical 8 confrontation. 9 Q: I'm asking you to assume that 10 happened, because we have -- we have evidence to that 11 effect. 12 A: Okay, sir. 13 Q: Okay. If that happened, the people - 14 - and I'm also going to ask you to assume that the people 15 behind the fence, and I'm sorry to do it this way. I 16 didn't realize that this was contentious. 17 Assume that the people behind the fence 18 thought the OPP or the CMU unit was going to try to cross 19 the fence and drive them out the Park. 20 Are you with me that far? 21 A: Sir, I -- are you asking me a 22 hypothetical question? 23 Q: Yes, I was saying -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's losing 25 its value --


1 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: For your 2 purposes -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's losing 4 its value as you keep adding assumptions -- 5 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Well, I'm aware 6 of that, Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that he's 8 not prepared to make. 9 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean, 11 we've all heard the same evidence you've heard, but this 12 Witness hasn't heard that. 13 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: No, I appreciate 14 that -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: And as I say, I 17 wasn't -- wasn't expecting that difficulty, and I'm aware 18 of the difficulty. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 20 You've got to get used to it. 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm -- I'm not 22 even asking a question at the moment -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I know, 24 carry on. 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- I was making a


1 -- I was making a declarative statement. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm being very 3 respectful. I'm waiting til you're finished. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it's 5 too late to argue now, just carry on. We're getting near 6 the end of the day. Carry on, Mr. Henderson. 7 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Well, I -- I was 8 at the second assumption. Did -- did you want... 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: To be frank I'm a 11 little concerned about where this is all going because we 12 have assumptions based upon assumptions that don't accord 13 with his understanding. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: And there's 16 conflicting evidence about all of this, as you know. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That's 18 why -- 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: So I'm a little 20 concerned about, perhaps My Friend could indicate to you, 21 Commissioner, where the bottom line is as to what he 22 wants to seek from Mr. Parkin. And maybe we can do it in 23 a way that doesn't involve all of the different 24 permutations that attend what happened at the scene. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. What


1 do you want to ask him, Mr. Henderson? 2 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm sure Mr. 3 Sandler could have included that part as well. I'm mean, 4 obviously where I wanted to go with this, Commissioner, 5 is in -- into the area of the conflicting perceptions 6 when nobody has announced their intentions and -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I see. 8 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- this has come 9 up before and in this area perhaps I can approach it a 10 little bit differently. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. I'm 12 not sure you need all those assumptions to -- 13 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I believe -- I 14 believe I can probably shorten it. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: The -- and of 17 course I -- as I say I am relying on Mr. Parkin's 18 judgment and experience in this area. So a hypothetical 19 is one (1) -- one (1) way of getting there. Let -- let 20 me try a different -- a slightly different route. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 23 Q: Would you agree that if a -- a CMU 24 unit is involved in a confrontation that it is important 25 to communicate to the other side for purposes of


1 containing or locking down the situation, what their 2 intentions are and what action they will take if their 3 intentions or expectations are not met? 4 A: I would agree if it's feasible to 5 announce those intentions, given the circumstances that 6 you're dealing with, that you should. 7 Q: Okay. Now, we have heard extensive 8 evidence including evidence that's in the -- the phone 9 call at Tab 7 that there was no intention to enter the 10 Park at all. 11 And that was your understanding clearly 12 because that's information that was given to you in the 13 conversation at Tab 7? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: In your inquiries and your 16 debriefings and the information that you have received 17 from the night of that incident to the present day are 18 you aware that anyone from the OPP communicated in a 19 simple declarative sentence to the occupants within the 20 Park or even within the hearing of the occupants within 21 the Park that the OPP did not intend to enter the Park 22 but did expect that they would confine themselves within 23 the Park? 24 A: No, I'm not, sir. 25 Q: And I believe you've already


1 indicated that in the general situation it would be 2 helpful if those expectations -- that kind of expectation 3 were communicated would you take that to the specific 4 when you consider what happened here? 5 Would it have been more useful if that 6 intention and those expectations had been communicated? 7 A: If it was feasible to do so, yes, 8 sir. 9 Q: Okay. Are you aware of any facts 10 that would have made it unfeasible over the course of 11 September the 4th to the night of September the 6th? 12 A: It's just that I wasn't there, sir. 13 Q: That you weren't there? Thank you, 14 Commissioner. I think those are my questions. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Mr. Henderson. 17 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Thank you, sir. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 20 Alexander...? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: Good afternoon, Mr. 25 Commissioner.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 2 afternoon. 3 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: 5 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Parkin. 6 A: Good afternoon. 7 Q: My name is Basil Alexander and I'm 8 one (1) of the lawyers for the Estate of Dudley George 9 and several members of the George Family, including Sam 10 George, who's sitting here beside me. And My Friends 11 have covered most of the areas I would have intended to 12 cover so I have just a very few brief questions and two 13 (2) areas to very briefly talk to you about. 14 The first is I want to clarify a small 15 part of your evidence from your evidence in-chief on 16 February 7th. And it has to do with your visit to the 17 area on the afternoon of September the 6th. 18 Now if I understand your evidence 19 correctly, you had a meeting at the Detachment, then you 20 took a drive in the area and you visited the -- and you 21 went to the Forward command centre. Does that sound 22 about right? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: Okay. Now on the transcript for 25 February 7th at page 98, line 1, it refers that you drove


1 along Army Camp Parkway Drive. Am I correct that what 2 you actually meant was Army Camp Road and East Parkway 3 Drive? 4 A: Could you tell me what I said before? 5 Q: According to the record it says "Army 6 Camp Parkway Drive" and I'm suggesting to you that what 7 you may have actually meant was Army Camp Road and East 8 Parkway Drive. 9 A: Correct, sir. 10 Q: Okay. So you would have ended up 11 driving by the Park in any eventuality by taking that 12 route and taking those two (2) roads? 13 A: Correct, sir. 14 Q: And during that drive and while you 15 were in the area that afternoon, there didn't seem to be 16 anything happening with the situation; correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: So there didn't appear to be any 19 urgency at that time; correct? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And all was quiet during that time; 22 correct? 23 A: From what we saw, correct. 24 Q: Okay. The second one is if you could 25 take your large binder and turn to Tab 19 and go to page


1 329. For the record this is Inquiry Document Number 2 1002419 and these are the scribe notes. 3 The reference -- the part I'm referring to 4 I don't believe has been made an exhibit yet, but it's 5 only a very small -- two (2) very small portions that 6 I'll be referring to. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What page is 8 it again? 9 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: 329. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 329. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: 13 Q: And Mr. Parkin, if you look at the 14 page right before it, page 328, it has a date of 18 15 September in the top corner. 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: So if you go back to 329 and I'm 18 looking at the very bottom of the page at 08:10 hours. 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: And it says: 21 "Acting Detective Staff Sergeant Mark 22 Wright attended Forest Golf and Country 23 maintenance shed at rear of property. 24 Located one (1) male deceased, the name 25 of Jean Deshooter, apparent self


1 inflicted gunshot wound, fatal to head. 2 Correct? 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: And if I ask you to turn to page 335, 5 and again if you look at page 334 right before it, it 6 indicates that 335 is actually part of a unit leaders 7 meeting on Monday, September 18th, 1995 at 11:00 hours. 8 A: On 335? 9 Q: 334. 10 A: Sorry. 11 Q: 334 just indicates the -- the time of 12 the reference. The reference I'm going to take you to is 13 on 335. 14 A: I've got it, sir. 15 Q: Okay. Now if you look at the 335, 16 the middle, the last point under Crime Management. 17 "At 10:45 it was discovered behind the 18 Forest Golf and Country Club this 19 morning, it turned out to be a suicide 20 victim, not related to this incident." 21 Is that -- am I reading correct? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Yeah. Now I'm advised that Jean -- 24 now it appears that this is a reference to the suicide at 25 page 329 that I just referred you to.


1 Would that be a fair interpretation? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: I am advised that Jean Deshooter was 4 one (1) of Dudley George's best friends and this occurred 5 on the day of Monday, September the 18th, 2005. 6 Would that have changed -- would that have 7 influenced the reporting of whether or not the suicide 8 may have been related to the incident? 9 A: Sir, this is the very first I'm aware 10 of the suicide. 11 Q: That's fair enough. I'm just asking 12 would that have made it -- would that have changed the -- 13 the question is, it's reported in the -- on page 335 at 14 the unit leaders meeting that it's not related to the 15 incident. 16 If it had been known and if it was -- if 17 it had been known that Jean Deshooter was on of Dudley 18 George's best friends, would it have changed the 19 characterization of whether or not the suicide was 20 related to the incident, in your opinion? 21 A: I think if that information had been 22 known, it certainly would have been taken into 23 consideration. I really can't say what the effect of 24 that might have been; I'm not -- I'm not prepared to say 25 that.


1 Q: No, that's fair enough. Thank you, 2 Mr. Parkin, those are all my questions. 3 A: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 5 very much, Mr. Alexander. 6 Mr. Sandler, are you prepared to begin and 7 finish your re-examination between now and 4:30, do you 8 think? 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: I won't finish by 10 then. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Because if 12 you're not going to finish, then there's no point rushing 13 you. I don't want to rush you. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: No, that's -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We discussed 16 earlier that if we have to put it over, the only reason 17 we would is we don't have time to finish you. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: It looks like we'll 19 finish regardless, on Monday, both my re-examination and 20 Mr. McCabe and I won't finish this afternoon. 21 So I'm in -- I'm in your hands. I can 22 start it if you'd like or -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 24 fine. Do you have any re-examination? 25 MR. DONALD WORME: I don't --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't? 2 It's five (5) to 4:00. Does anybody object to us 3 adjourning now for the day or do you think we should 4 start. Yes...? 5 All kinds of objections, nobody wants to 6 go home. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: I knew that it would 8 be popular if I suggested that I went until I completed 9 my examination tonight, but it doesn't seem that there's 10 much interest in that. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Nobody wants 12 to beat the snow squalls that are being threatened. 13 Well, it's five (5) to 4:00, we've had a long, difficult 14 day. 15 It means you have to come back on Monday, 16 in any event. Whether or not he starts, he's not going 17 to finish, so we might as well put it over now until 18 Monday morning at half past 10:00, the usual time; 10:30. 19 Is that right? 20 MR. DONALD WORME: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Because we 22 should be able, starting at our usual time at 10:30, we 23 should be able to finish Superintendent Parkin and Mr. 24 Tim McCabe. 25 I'll wait and see what the outcome of this


1 discussion is before -- 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Oh, no, no, that was 3 about something else, I'm sorry. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can we 5 adjourn now? 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: So I suggest we start 7 at 10:30. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 10:30 on 9 Monday morning; we'll adjourn now. Thank you very much. 10 11 (WITNESS RETIRES) 12 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 14 adjourned until Monday, February the 13th, at 10:30. 15 16 --- Upon adjourning at 3:55 p.m. 17 18 Certified Correct, 19 20 21 22 _________________ 23 Carol Geehan, Ms. 24 25