11 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 16th, 2006 25
21 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) (np) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) 5 Katherine Hensel ) 6 Megan Ferrier ) 7 Murray Klippenstein ) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) 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 ) 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)
31 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 ) Harris 8 Jennifer McAleer ) 9 10 Ian Smith ) Robert Runciman 11 Alice Mrozek ) 12 13 Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.) (np) Charles Harnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) 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 ) (np) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25
41 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) (np) 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 ) 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 ) (np) 18 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 19 20 Al J.C. O'Marra ) Office of the Chief 21 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 22 23 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 24 Matthew Horner ) 25 Kathleen Lickers ) (np)
51 2 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 3 Mark Fredrick ) 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 ) (np) 10 11 David Roebuck ) (np) Debbie Hutton 12 Anna Perschy ) 13 Melissa Panjer ) (np) 14 Adam Goodman ) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
61 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 4 5 Michael Dean Harris, Resumed 6 Continued Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 7 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Kevin Scullion 172 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Henderson 249 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Horton 284 10 11 12 13 14 15 Certificate of Transcript 355 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
71 --- Upon commencing at 9:01 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 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. Good morning, Mr. Rosenthal. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good morning, Mr. 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 morning, everybody. Shall we start? 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, sir. 13 14 MICHAEL DEAN HARRIS, Resumed 15 16 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Good morning, Mr. Harris. 18 A: Good morning. 19 Q: Would you please turn to Tab 8 of the 20 log -- the binder. 21 A: Sorry, 8? 22 Q: Tab 8 which is Exhibit P-498 to these 23 proceedings, Inquiry Document 1012232, and it's entitled, 24 Guidelines for Responding to Aboriginal Blockades. 25 Do you have that in front of you, sir?
81 A: I do. 2 Q: If you please turn to the second 3 page. Well, first can I ask you when did you first learn 4 about the existence of this document? 5 A: Sometime long after the events of 6 4th, 5th, 6th of September. 7 Q: Okay. Now, so you didn't know about 8 this certainly up to say September 7, 1995? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: Did you know that there existed such 11 a document? 12 A: No, sir. 13 Q: You didn't -- 14 A: I didn't -- 15 Q: -- even know that at that time? 16 A: I didn't know there existed such a 17 committee. 18 Q: You knew -- well, Ms. Hutton told you 19 that she was attending meetings of a committee right? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: So you did know and you did learn in 22 the course of the -- these events that -- 23 A: 4th -- 4th, 5th, 6th that there was a 24 committee that she was attending, yes. 25 Q: Yes. And you knew that committee was
91 a committee that considered situations like this when 2 there was an Aboriginal blockade or occupation? 3 A: That's what I understood, yes. 4 Q: But you didn't know the guidelines 5 for that committee? 6 A: I did not. 7 Q: Did you ask Ms. Hutton anything about 8 the guidelines at that point? 9 A: I may have asked what the committee 10 was about and probably got an answer very briefly; a 11 collection of various Ministries that would meet to 12 gather information and discuss the situation and make 13 recommendations to government. I think that was the 14 verbal gist of what I heard, something like that. 15 Q: Okay. I'd to ask you, in particular 16 about two (2) items on -- both on page 2 of this 17 document. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: Under Number 10(a) it says: 20 "The objectives of the Committee are to 21 guide Provincial reaction to any 22 Aboriginal blockade." 23 Did you become aware through Ms. Hutton or 24 otherwise on September 4, 5, 6, that one of the 25 objectives of this Committee was to guide Provincial
101 reaction to any Aboriginal blockade? 2 A: Well, I think I've indicated here 3 what I -- what I understood and so none of the specific 4 words I don't think were -- were relayed to me. 5 Q: Not the specific words, but did you 6 get the idea that one of the objectives of this Committee 7 was to guide Provincial reaction to any Aboriginal 8 blockade? 9 A: No. I think I had the sense that it 10 was to gather information, make recommendations, so I -- 11 I guess it depends whether somebody says guide means 12 nobody else should be involved including politicians or 13 Deputy Ministers or whether guide means to provide 14 information to other decision makers. 15 But either way that -- that seemed to be 16 my sense that -- that perhaps there would be others 17 involved at a higher level. Most of these people were 18 seconded -- or not seconded, sorry, you know, appointed 19 by their Deputies or Assistant Deputies or directors to - 20 - to be the ones that would attend these meetings. So 21 that was the sense that I had. 22 Q: But I'm not sure then, sir, if you 23 got the sense that one of the objectives was to in some 24 sense at least guide Provincial reaction to any 25 Aboriginal blockade.
111 A: Well, if guide is advise, I think it 2 was probably more of an advisory role that I understood 3 but -- 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: -- I don't want to dispute the 6 definition of the word 'guide'. I had no recollection of 7 that word being used to me so. 8 Q: Or that concept? 9 A: Or that concept. 10 Q: Now, if we can turn then to 11(d) 11 which states that: 12 "The Committee will have discretionary 13 powers to appoint a 14 facilitator/negotiator." 15 Were you aware on September 4, 5, 6, 1995 16 that this Committee had those discretionary powers? 17 A: No, I was not. 18 Q: You were not. 19 A: No. 20 Q: And Ms. Hutton did not mention that 21 to you? 22 A: No, she did not. I think she -- she 23 -- she did not mention that they had these powers if 24 that's what you're talking about. 25 Q: I see. And did you at some later
121 point find out that the Committee did have that 2 discretionary power prior to my pointing it out to you 3 right now, sir? 4 A: I don't believe so because it was 5 never mentioned to me that the Committee thought this was 6 a route they should take. So whether they had the power 7 or not, it wasn't something that they recommended. 8 So I don't think we ever got to that 9 stage. 10 Q: So you and Ms. Hutton, you told us, 11 were discussing her participation in the meetings of this 12 Committee on September 5 and 6, right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And you entered into those 15 discussions with Ms. Hutton without knowing some of the 16 basic facts about this Committee evidently, isn't that 17 fair? 18 A: Yeah. That would be fair. 19 Q: And I should like to read to you some 20 of the evidence of Julie Jai. You became aware that she 21 was the Chair of that Committee did you, sir? 22 A: I didn't say it but others have. 23 Q: Did -- you're now aware of that fact 24 are you? 25 A: I -- I believe so, yeah.
131 Q: And if we could please turn to the 2 evidence of Julie Jai on September 14, 2005 at page 24 3 beginning at about line 10. 4 "Q: It appears that on September 5 5 and September 6th, the Committee never 6 got around to being able to even 7 consider the question of a 8 facilitator/negotiator; is that fair?" 9 A: I'm sorry, what page are you on? 10 Q: Sorry. Not it's not -- it's not -- 11 you don't have that in your document, sir. It's now on 12 the screen. 13 A: Oh, okay. 14 Q: It's now being -- 15 A: I'm sorry, so what's it say? 16 Q: -- increased in size on the screen so 17 that -- 18 A: Yeah, it's hard for me to see on the 19 screen. 20 Q: -- it's easier to read. 21 A: You read it for me then. 22 Q: But I -- I'll be reading and you can 23 read along if you like, sir. 24 A: Yeah. It's hard for me to see that 25 without getting up and going around, so I'll trust your
141 reading. 2 Q: Thank you. I'm sure that your lawyer 3 will keep me honest. 4 A: Somebody will correct you if you make 5 a mistake I'm sure. 6 Q: So I should like to begin then with 7 the question at line 10. 8 "It appears that on September 5th and 9 September 6th the Committee never got 10 around to being able to even consider 11 the question of a 12 facilitator/negotiator; is that fair? 13 A: I would say there were two (2) or 14 three (3) reasons why were not able to 15 appoint a facilitator/negotiator. 16 Q: Okay. And what are those reasons 17 in your view? 18 A: One of them was the -- the sense 19 from the impression that we got from 20 Deb Hutton that the Premier wanted very 21 immediate action and wanted the 22 occupiers removed within a day or two 23 (2). 24 Q: Right. 25 A: So that was one reason that made
151 it difficult. The second reason was 2 that we were told that again that the 3 Premier's Office or the government of 4 the day did not want this viewed as an 5 Aboriginal issue. So they didn't want 6 to appoint, for example, someone from 7 ONAS because that would bring it into 8 sort of land claims or all of those 9 kinds of issues. And given that the 10 desire was to treat this like any other 11 illegal occupation as opposed to treat 12 it as an illegal occupation by 13 Aboriginal people." 14 Now, sir, according to the evidence of the 15 Chair of that Committee Julie Jai then, two (2) of the 16 reasons that interfered with the appointment of a 17 facilitator/negotiator -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Your 19 objection is to the last question or the -- 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: For -- for fairness I 21 -- I think the next question and answer should be -- 22 should be read -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The next -- 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- to be -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in the
161 transcript? 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 4 to carry on? 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm happy to read 6 the entire transcript -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Mr. 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 11 don't think the -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm trying to save 13 us time. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just the 15 next question or two (2). 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: After the Questioner says: 19 "Yes?" 20 And the Answerer says: 21 "The decision was to have the OPP on 22 the ground be the 23 negotiator/facilitator. And that we 24 had a lot of confidence in John Carson 25 as the OPP person on the ground so we
171 were hopeful that he would be able to 2 fulfill this role." 3 Now, sir, I'm going to read further on to 4 explain more about that now since your lawyer insisted 5 that we deal with this at this point. So -- and then she 6 goes on to say: 7 "There was a meeting that had been 8 tentatively set up for noon on 9 September 6th that John Carson was 10 going to attend. We thought that would 11 be an opportunity [and so on]." 12 And then if we could continue and look at 13 page 31 please? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I can read -- do 16 you want me to read the entire intermediate part? I 17 shall, sir. 18 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, it -- simply if 19 it's made clear that she was saying that they -- they 20 thought that was going to be an entry point for dialogue. 21 That's the point that's in the paragraph that My Friend 22 skipped over. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I just read that 24 point, Mr. Downard, and I'm now going to read further 25 aspects of it if I may, Mr. Commissioner.
181 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't understand 3 objections that are not objections, Mr. Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: If it's a valid 6 objection it should be made -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Downard 8 sees -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- otherwise I 10 shouldn't be interrupted. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Downard 12 sees the evidence in a little different light than you 13 do. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Indeed. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So he's 16 entitled to make an objection just as you are. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He's entitled to 18 make an objection. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I didn't understand 21 that to be an objection. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well 23 it's a -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It was just a -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If it's a
191 point of he's trying to be fair to the Witness, that's 2 his responsibility. So -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- he's 5 doing his job, as you are. So let's carry on. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I'll save 7 that for submissions, Mr. Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: In any event I read the passage that 12 your counsel requested and now I should like to look in 13 further explication of that at page 31 if I may, 14 beginning at -- at about line 8. 15 "A: Yes. 16 Q: Right. And in particular if you 17 were to appoint for example a 18 facilitator/ negotiator you might 19 appoint an Aboriginal person for 20 example? 21 A: We would probably somebody who we 22 felt would have the respect and trust 23 of the group that was occupying the 24 property. 25 Q: Yes.
201 A: Because otherwise without trust 2 and respect there's no ability to reach 3 a negotiated solution even for a 4 process solution." 5 I might interrupt myself, Mr. Harris, to 6 explain to you and you may be aware that we've had 7 evidence that there were two (2) different kinds of 8 negotiations being contemplated. 9 There was a facilitator/negotiator that 10 this Committee had the power to appoint that could 11 negotiate process; in the short run could try to have a 12 safe conclusion to the event, as opposed to a negotiator 13 with respect to long-term issues such as land claim. 14 Just explaining that to you, Mr. Harris. You might not 15 be aware of that. That's why she's saying, "even for a 16 process solution". 17 Continuing then at line 19: 18 "Q: Yes? 19 A: So that could have been an 20 Aboriginal person or somebody from ONAS 21 who had the respect of the Aboriginal 22 community. 23 Q: Right or some other. It could be 24 any person who had the respect and 25 trust of both government and the
211 occupying people. 2 And to appoint a person from ONAS or an 3 Aboriginal person would be viewing it 4 as an Aboriginal issue and therefore 5 contrary to the instructions you were 6 getting from the Premier's office. 7 A: Right, right. 8 Q: So you couldn't do that? 9 A: We couldn't do that. 10 Q: Now, you indicated that given 11 those restrictions, you were hoping 12 would it be a fair way to characterize 13 it I think. 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: That the meeting with Inspector 16 Carson might play some sort -- role of 17 a process negotiation; is that fair? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: But as you indicated a few moments 20 ago, when you appointed 21 facilitator/negotiators in general you 22 wanted it to be someone who had the 23 trust of the people, right? 24 A: Yes. 25 And it's not likely...
221 Q: And it's not likely that an OPP 2 officer who's commanding OPP officers 3 who already had some unpleasant changes 4 with the occupiers would be such a 5 person; isn't that fair? 6 A: The fact of his being in that 7 position would make it more difficult 8 for him. 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: His position would make it more 11 difficult for him to gain the trust of 12 the occupiers regardless of whatever 13 his personal qualities might be. 14 Q: Oh, yes, yes, absolutely. Even if 15 he were the most trained and excellent 16 facilitator/negotiator? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: The fact that he comes as an OPP 19 officer --" 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- would make it very difficult 22 you would think -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- to establish that kind of 25 trust; isn't that fair?
231 A: I agree." 2 So now I think we have a rather full 3 picture. I was intending to approach it in two (2) 4 stages but lets look at the full picture now, sir. 5 And I would put it to you, sir, that it is 6 clear that the Chair of this Committee, and I would 7 suggest other people might draw similar conclusions, came 8 to the conclusion that the interventions of Deb Hutton at 9 that Committee in conveying two (2) aspects of your 10 position: One that you wanted a very quick end to the 11 occupation; and secondly, that you did not want 12 negotiators other than OPP or perhaps MNR, that that 13 interfered with the possibility of appointing a 14 facilitator/negotiator in the short run who might have 15 been able to avert the tragedy that occurred. 16 Now what is your response to that, sir? 17 A: I have no -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 19 minute, before you answer, Mr. Harris. 20 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I have a concern, 21 Commissioner, and that is that the context has not been 22 fairly put to this Witness. What he's referred to is the 23 evidence of one (1) witness, namely Julie Jai. 24 He hasn't referred, for example, to the 25 evidence of Eileen Hipfner and her notes which indicate
241 that Christian Buhagier was the one had addressed 2 concerns about having anyone from ONAS speak because of 3 concerns that that may provide some legitimacy with 4 respect to a group that wasn't being recognized by the 5 Band. 6 We've heard a lot of evidence from 7 witnesses from MNR about their concerns with respect to 8 that relationship with the Band, their good relations and 9 supporting that; that's part of a context. 10 He hasn't heard the evidence of Ms. Hutton 11 that she wasn't a fact -- she wasn't in fact aware of the 12 guidelines of this Committee. 13 So again, this Witness wasn't there, he 14 wasn't at this meeting, he doesn't have that kind of 15 context, and to put these questions in this fashion 16 without providing that context is simply unfair to this 17 Witness. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, 19 with great respect -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 21 minute. I want to hear from Mr. Downard. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: May I respond first 23 to -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 25 think this is going to be on the same point.
251 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Very short. Very 2 short. Just -- My Friend puts the question that this is 3 what happened at the meeting. How does this Witness 4 know? I mean he wasn't there. So it's not an 5 appropriate question for this Witness. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Again, Mr. 7 Commissioner, My Friends are not responding to my 8 question, they're responding to a different question. 9 My question of Mr. Harris was his response 10 to the conclusions of Julie Jai that two (2) of the 11 matters that he agrees he concurred with Deb Hutton in 12 presenting that two (2) of those aspects interfered with 13 the possibility of appointing a facilitator/negotiator. 14 That is my question, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And Mr. Harris -- 17 the objections by both counsel did not respond to that 18 whatsoever. They talked about other evidence and so on. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's irrelevant 21 what happened at the meetings; I'm not asking him that. 22 I'm asking him to respond to what Julie 23 Jai told us was one of the problems -- or two (2) of the 24 problems created by this person in finding a resolution 25 of the matter that might have averted the death of Dudley
261 George. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I'm not going to 3 get into the editorial comments. I think that -- that -- 4 I think it's fair to put to a witness version A -- this 5 is version A; this is in this case Julie Jai's views, do 6 you agree or disagree with that? 7 And you could then put to a witness 8 version B if it's somebody else's; do you agree or 9 disagree or -- or do you have any comment? I think -- 10 and I think that's what Mr. Rosenthal is trying to do and 11 I don't think that's unfair. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's reading 13 a -- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 15 Millar. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- portion 17 of the transcript and as long as he's reporting it fairly 18 and giving the Witness a fair -- 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, but I don't -- 20 you -- you -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- picture. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I know he's done 23 that -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 25 fine.
271 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- but I don't -- I 2 don't -- it's not even necessary to do that if the facts 3 are; you have fact A, fact B, you put it to the Witness-- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- but he's done that. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, and, Mr. 7 Commissioner, may I respectfully request that you 8 instruct Counsel for Ms. Hutton and Mr. Downard that if 9 put version A and they want to put version B -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's up 11 to -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- they should do 13 so in their re-examination but not interrupt my 14 examination in order to do so. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 16 don't need to instruct them to do that. Let's carry on. 17 You've asked the question and my counsel believes it's a 18 proper one. Let's see if the Witness can answer it. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: Yes. Now, Mr. Harris, unfortunately 22 we've had an interruption since I asked the question and 23 I -- I asked a more omnibus question than I had intended 24 because your counsel insisted that I read the entire 25 passage.
281 So do you -- I -- I don't know if you 2 still have it in your mind the comments of Julie Jai, the 3 Chair of the Committee. Should I -- should I read it 4 again, sir, or -- or do you understand -- 5 A: No, I -- I -- 6 Q: -- the thrust of her my comments -- 7 A: -- I think I understand the -- 8 Q: -- and the thrust of my -- 9 A: -- thrust of your question and I have 10 no comment on the comments of Julie Jai. I have no 11 knowledge of the context, what was said before, what was 12 said after. All I know is -- is her testimony. 13 I was not at the meeting. I would think 14 there are a number of witnesses that were at the meeting 15 and -- and there -- fair to ask them their ebb and flow. 16 I can tell you what was reported to me from the meeting 17 that there was a consensus that on -- on the -- the 18 issues that the first thing that should be done after 19 considering all the options. 20 The first thing that could be done or 21 should be done was to seek an injunction, that there was 22 any attempt so far to get information from the occupiers 23 was that they had no demands; that this was not a 24 protest. They weren't protesting something, they weren't 25 asking the Government to do anything; this was the
291 information that I received. 2 You've given me -- me powers that the 3 Committee had as the Chair of the Committee. If she 4 didn't choose to exercise or think it was appropriate to 5 indicate that to the Committee or bring it forward then 6 that -- that was her decision, I guess, from the meeting. 7 But as the Chair of the Committee I don't think it would 8 have been difficult for her to suggest that. 9 Q: Now, Mr. Harris, may I reiterate. 10 I'm not asking you to comment on the truth or falsity of 11 anything that took place at a meeting that you were not 12 present in. I'm not asking you to evaluate anything that 13 happened at that meeting. 14 I'm asking you to respond to the 15 following. 16 You have indicated that it was in 17 accordance with your views either as formulated 18 beforehand or after speaking to Ms. Hutton after the 19 fact, to take the two (2) positions that Ms. Jai talks 20 about being problematic; one (1) that this is not an 21 Aboriginal issue -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 25 Q: -- and secondly, that the negotiator
301 should be restricted to either OPP and perhaps MNR. 2 Now, Ms. Jai gave us her conclusion that 3 those two (2) facts interfered with the appointment of a 4 facilitator to try to deal with the matter in a short- 5 term -- in a way that would have ended up safely. 6 And I'm asking you, sir -- perhaps, I 7 should ask you a preliminary question. Did you become 8 aware of any of that in the course of September 4, 5, 6? 9 Q: Yes, during the course somewhere of 10 4, 5, 6 I think it was relayed to me that it was the 11 consensus of the Committee, after considering all the 12 options that had been put on the table by every 13 participant who wished to put them on the table of the 14 Committee, the consensus of the Committee was the first 15 thing that ought to be done was to seek an injunction. 16 And -- and -- 17 Q: Sir, that was not my question. 18 A: -- and I concurred with that. I 19 believe the -- the issues that you had talked about, 20 about who would be in communication with the occupiers 21 being the lead, the OPP, possibly MNR, reported to me 22 that that was the consensus of the Committee; I concurred 23 with it. 24 I was not at the Committee, didn't hear 25 all the reasons why, but I concurred with that when it
311 was reported to me that was the consensus of the 2 Committee. 3 Now -- but if that doesn't -- 4 Q: Sir -- 5 A: -- answer your question, then ask it 6 again. 7 Q: That does not answer my question -- 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: -- but I'll ask you a different 10 question. 11 You took the position that this was not an 12 Aboriginal issue, it was just a law and order issue, 13 right? 14 A: I concurred, when it was reported to 15 me from the committee, that was the consensus, and I 16 concurred with that. 17 Q: Given that conclusion, you would have 18 assumed -- you would have concluded then, would you not 19 sir, that there was no role for this Committee, because 20 this committee was a Committee to deal with Aboriginal 21 issues; isn't that fair? 22 A: No, I don't think it's fair. I -- I 23 think any committee of the Ministries, all it involved, 24 to consider this information was beneficial. 25 That was the -- I believe it was the --
321 the purpose of the Committee. 2 Q: Didn't you understand that this 3 Committee was a Committee to deal with Aboriginal issues, 4 sir? 5 A: No. I understood this was a 6 Committee that dealt -- when there was a blockade or -- 7 by Aboriginals, I think that's fair. And I think the 8 evidence is that they were Aboriginals; members -- a 9 dissident group of the -- the Stoney Point -- the Kettle 10 and Stony Point Band. I think that's fair, that's who 11 they were. 12 Q: You say that you understood that 13 there was consensus of these issues at the Committee. 14 Did Ms. Hutton tell you that? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: I see. We've had a lot of evidence 17 that there wasn't consensus, that the -- in fact Ms. 18 Hutton was very powerful in insisting on things at that 19 meeting -- 20 A: Well, I haven't had that evidence -- 21 Q: -- Sir, I -- I -- 22 A: -- or the benefit of that -- 23 Q: -- sir, may -- may I ask the question 24 before you answer -- 25 A: Well -- well you can, but you --
331 Q: -- a different question? 2 A: -- asked me what evidence you have 3 that I don't have. 4 Q: Sir, may I ask the question? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask the 6 question, Mr. Rosenthal. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: We've had a lot of evidence that it 10 was Ms. Hutton's insistence on these points rather than 11 consensus that led to this situation. 12 Now did you, at any time, prior to my just 13 putting it to you now, find out that in fact there wasn't 14 real consensus in any ordinary sense of the word? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 16 you answer that question. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Commissioner, you've 22 heard a great deal of evidence from a number of witnesses 23 who actually did attend this committee and they've spoken 24 about what they recall, they -- they've spoken about what 25 their impressions were as to what occurred, and
341 ultimately it's going to be up to you to make a decision 2 with respect to findings as to what may have happened. 3 And I am concerned with respect to the way 4 My Friend is characterizing this and he's not being 5 specific. I'd ask him to be specific, if he's going to 6 make references to -- to the evidence that's gone on 7 before, given that this is a witness who is -- who did 8 not attend these meetings. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That is irrelevant 10 to my question, Mr. Commissioner, in my respectful 11 submission. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Your 13 question again is regarding -- 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: The question was: Did you become 17 aware at any time other than this morning when I'm 18 pointing it out to you, that it was the view of some 19 participants, at least, at those meetings, that it wasn't 20 really a consensus, that Ms. Hutton was forcing opinions 21 on the Committee? 22 A: No. 23 Q: You didn't become aware of that until 24 I told you five (5) minutes ago? 25 A: That's correct.
351 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: This matter was an issue throughout 4 your tenure as Premier, is that correct? 5 The Ipperwash matter in general, from the 6 time of the occurrence until the time of your resignation 7 as Premier, this issue kept on coming up: isn't that 8 fair? 9 A: I'm sorry? This issue was what? 10 Q: Kept on coming up from time to time 11 in the -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- press -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- and the Legislature, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And over that time period, you must 18 have done some investigation as to what happened to try 19 to learn more so you could better respond to questions in 20 the Legislature and questions from the press; is that 21 not -- 22 A: There was a little bit, but usually 23 there was some formal investigation going on throughout 24 most of my career, so I think we would have left it to 25 that.
361 Q: And you didn't do any investigation 2 yourself? 3 A: I said I think I and my office did 4 some but, as I indicated, there were others that were 5 conducting investigations from the SIU to criminal trial 6 to civil suit. And so, you know, while those were going 7 on, we did not conduct extensive investigations, no. 8 Q: But whatever investigations you did 9 conduct did not reveal to you that there was any concern 10 within the Interministerial Committee that Ms. Hutton had 11 pushed your views in the way that it interfered with 12 their work? 13 A: Absolutely not. 14 Q: Now, we talked yesterday about the 15 communication message that was put out and you said you - 16 - you thought, after the fact, agreed that it was 17 appropriate. The communication message being, on 18 September 5 or 6, that the OPP has been requested to 19 remove the people from the Park. 20 Do you recall that, sir? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now, what I'm going to ask you is -- 23 A: Is that -- is that -- is that the 24 message that was, I mean you're -- you're asking me to go 25 back ten (10) years, I can tell you I concurred at the
371 time. So -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: -- that was the message that went 4 out, that was a proposal that was an option, or that was 5 what was said and reported? 6 Q: That it was agreed at this Committee 7 meeting that the commun -- that -- where it was stated at 8 the Committee meeting by Ms. Hutton as you've seen, and 9 it was at acquiesced too apparently, that there be a 10 communication message that went out that included that 11 the OPP has been requested to remove the people from the 12 Park. 13 Do you recall we had some discussion of 14 that yesterday and you and -- 15 A: I -- I -- 16 Q: -- did we end up -- 17 A: -- I -- I recall that, sir. My only 18 knowledge is of what actually was reported. I was not 19 consulted on this nor was I aware of what was 20 communicated, so if you want to refresh my memory if -- I 21 could -- you could refer me if you like to the actual 22 reports of what was communicated; that's what I saw, I 23 concurred with that. 24 Q: Well, sir, I'm not sure if we have 25 the totality of the reports that might have been in the
381 press at that time. But that's not my question, sir. 2 May -- may I come to my question? I was 3 just reminding you that you did agree yesterday and we 4 can look at the transcript if necessary -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 6 covered this yesterday. Didn't you, Mr. Rosenthal? 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes but I'm going 8 to ask an aspect of it now that -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: A different 10 aspect? Because I think we went over this and -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. And -- and he 12 did agree yesterday -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I don't 15 understand the -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just don't 17 want to repeat it that's all. 18 THE WITNESS: Well my -- my -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I want to ask - 20 - I want to ask an aspect. 21 THE WITNESS: Might -- might I say, you 22 were saying yesterday I agreed with something that you're 23 talking about today. I think I agreed yesterday with the 24 communication message that actually went out. 25
391 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 2 Q: And what was that, sir? 3 A: I don't know. 4 Q: Well, sir -- 5 A: It was ten (10) years ago but if you 6 put it in front of me and -- and what actually went out, 7 I'd be happy to comment on that. I'm not going to 8 comment because I wasn't at the meeting. I don't know 9 what they decided and I don't know at what stage any of 10 these discussions were taking place. And I don't -- I 11 don't know that. 12 Q: We will examine the transcript of 13 yesterday in due course, sir. I don't have that at my 14 fingertips right now. Sir, may I ask you a question? 15 A: Well -- sure. 16 Q: But -- I believe it will show that 17 you agreed that whether before or after, you weren't sure 18 perhaps, you agreed that there should be, that it was 19 appropriate to have a communication message that the OPP 20 has been requested to remove people from the Park. 21 And I wasn't intending to revisit that. I 22 -- I -- 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: -- I believe you agreed to that. 25 What I was going to ask you is the following question.
401 Would you agree that putting out a 2 communication message like that to the media, might put 3 some pressure on the OPP to do that, to remove the people 4 from the Park, if the Government puts out a message, the 5 OPP has been requested to remove the people from the 6 Park; that's my question for you, sir. 7 A: No, I wouldn't. I think the OPP knew 8 very well what process was taking place; that an 9 injunction, I think it's -- injunction was requested. I 10 think we've heard that the OPP knew very well that was 11 standard practice before our Government and -- and with 12 our Government. 13 The communication message I indicated to 14 you I thought was -- was important for the safety of all 15 concerned. I think it was important that, if you look in 16 balance with that message with the residents who are 17 increasingly becoming con -- concerned, it was reported 18 to me as well and discussed I think at the Committee, 19 that it was important that everybody be reassured the 20 situation was under control and it was being looked 21 after, and there was no need for -- for concern by other 22 residents who seemed to be increasingly concerned. 23 So on balance, I think this was the right 24 message to send out. 25 Q: The message that we're talking about,
411 sir, is that the OPP has been requested to removed the 2 people from the Park, okay? 3 A: I -- I heard that and I answered your 4 question and I said no and I gave further explanation as 5 to why -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 Let's move on. 8 THE WITNESS: -- I thought it was the 9 right message. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 Let's move on. We're moving on, Ms. Perschy. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 15 minute Ms. Perschy's behind you, Mr. Rosenthal. 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: To the sake of the 17 clarity of the record, I did want -- I did want to make 18 clear that there's been no evidence to-date that such a 19 communication message went out. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 21 fine. I understand that. I'm quite aware of that, Ms. 22 Perschy, and thank you. 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, I was just 24 concerned that -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that --
421 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- for the public 2 that maybe it wasn't clear because I think there maybe 3 some confusion. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, carry, 5 Mr. -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: You don't have 7 that -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry, Mr. 9 Rosenthal. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: Now, would you agree with Ms. 13 Hutton -- 14 A: I'm sorry, could -- could -- you said 15 you have evidence of what went out? 16 Q: We don't as far as I'm aware have the 17 total evidence as to what news media coverage might have 18 been -- 19 A: Well, golly I'm sure I can get it for 20 you. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but we 23 do have it. 24 THE WITNESS: I mean, somebody could do 25 an info search.
431 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, may -- may I 2 ask the questions I want to ask, sir? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 4 counsel. You're asking the questions. Carry on. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: Now, I wanted to ask you the 10 following: Would you agree with Ms. Hutton who testified 11 on November 23rd at page 15 as follows: 12 "Q [beginning at line 11] --" 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Question by 14 whom, Mr. Rosenthal? 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: By me. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: By you. Why 17 does it matter who the questioner is? 18 But in any event the answer is the more 19 important matter I respectively suggest, Mr. 20 Commissioner. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 "Q: So, your putting out this 24 communication message would have 25 created an expectation on the part of
441 the public that the OPP would indeed 2 remove them right? 3 I should indicate the word 'expectation' 4 came in and it was Ms. Hutton's word. Perhaps I should 5 read from a little bit earlier. 6 I asked her the same question I asked Mr. 7 Harris about would it put pressure on the OPP and she 8 answered on page 14 at line 16: 9 "I would not say pressure at all, no. 10 Q: You wouldn't assume that that 11 would exert some pressure on the OPP to 12 do that?" 13 19, line 19: 14 "A: You're using the term, "pressure" 15 and I just don't agree with it. 16 Q: Well, what term would you use? 17 A: That we had requested -- 18 Q: Yes, but putting it -- 19 A: -- exactly what we said. 20 Q: Putting it out in the public line 21 -- in the public, would you not have 22 assumed that that would have meant that 23 people in the community, for example, 24 would have been asking the OPP, Why 25 don't you remove those people? The
451 government has told you to do it. 2 A: [by Ms. Hutton] I think there 3 would be an expectation -- 4 Q: Yes? 5 A: -- on the part of the public. 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: I think that's reasonable. 8 Q: Yes. So your putting out this 9 communication message would have 10 created an expectation on the part of 11 the public that the OPP would indeed 12 remove them right? 13 A: I believe that's accurate." 14 Now, sir, I should like to ask you, do you 15 agree with Ms. Hutton that putting out such a 16 communication message would have created an expectation 17 on the part of the public that the OPP would indeed 18 remove them? 19 A: No, I don't. 20 Q: You don't? So you're suggesting 21 that there could be a public message -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 25 Q: The OPP has been asked to remove the
461 people from the Park -- 2 A: That was -- 3 Q: -- and that would not create any 4 expectations on the part of the public that the OPP would 5 indeed do that; remove the people soon? 6 A: Where did 'soon' come from? It's the 7 first we've heard 'soon'. 8 Q: I'm sorry, could you speak louder 9 please? 10 A: The first term I've heard 'soon'. Is 11 that now being added to the question? 12 Q: I'm -- I'm adding 'soon'. Yes, sir. 13 A: All right. 14 Q: Would you not agree that that would 15 create an expectation on the part of the public that the 16 OPP would soon act to remove the people from the Park if 17 the public were told the Government has asked the OPP to 18 remove them? 19 A: Well, I think you're into what-if 20 questions. I don't know the public were told that. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They -- 22 THE WITNESS: And so unless you're -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sure -- 24 THE WITNESS: -- unless you're going to 25 give --
471 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 3 minute. Everybody stop talking. 4 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm going to answer-- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just stop 6 talking for a minute. 7 Yes, Ms. Perschy? 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry, I just thought 9 that My Friend should just continue reading because now 10 that we're getting into this -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- to this issue about 13 the timeframe -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- Ms. Hutton did make 16 reference and thought that it was important that the 17 issue of the injunction would also have been in the 18 public domain and that -- excuse me -- and that -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr. 20 Commissioner, that's entirely inappropriate to advise 21 this Witness -- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: What -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- of that. I am 24 asking this Witness for his opinion. He should -- he 25 should not be led --
481 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Excuse me. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- by Ms. Hutton's 3 evidence. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Excuse me. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I have a right to 7 put those portions that I wish to -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and ask him to 10 respond. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Listen, I'm 12 just trying to -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He shouldn't be 14 coached as to how -- what his answer is. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 16 Rosenthal. Mr. Rosenthal, this is not a criminal trial. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is a 19 Public Inquiry. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I am trying 22 my best to be fair to all the witnesses. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I do appreciate 24 that. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now,
491 sometimes the rules that apply in a criminal trial which 2 are very strict are relaxed a bit. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 5 important thing to me as Commissioner is to ensure that 6 the questions that are put to the witnesses are fair. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And that's 9 all we're trying to achieve here. 10 Now, if Ms. Perschy can help to ensure 11 that the question is fair, I want to hear from her. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Absolutely, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As simple as 14 that. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I would request 16 that she not be permitted to guide the answers. She made 17 an improper objection. She -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 19 believe that's what she's doing and I -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: She should -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- think 22 that what she -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: She should come up 24 with a proper objection, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think what
501 she's trying to do is ensure that the Witness is put in a 2 position where it's a fair question that he can answer 3 appropriately in this Inquiry. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I would like -- I 5 would like any unfairness in my question to be pointed 6 out by Ms. Perschy as she begins her objection. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, you -- 8 just a -- 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, I can state my 10 objection just in any way that I chose. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And I rose because Mr. 13 Rosenthal went on to discuss the issue of timeframe. And 14 the issue of timeframe, Ms. Hutton in the discussion -- 15 the exchange between Mr. Rosenthal and Ms. Hutton in 16 regards to timeframe was -- and this -- and communication 17 messages -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- and this issue of 20 any expectations, there was -- there -- that that 21 exchange, then, discussed the issue of the injunction and 22 that that would have -- that would have addressed the 23 issue. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You mean by 25 adding the word 'sooner' --
511 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to his 3 question? He added the word 'sooner' to his question -- 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: He added the word 5 'sooner' -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that -- 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- which -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- which then raised 10 the issue of timeframe. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well why 12 don't you put the evidence that you read to the Witness 13 and ask him to comment on that without embellishing it, 14 because when you do, you've got to go further and be 15 fair. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But sir -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want 18 you to be fair. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- with respect, 20 I -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 22 going to go through -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, 24 Ms. Hutton agreed that it was accurate. She agreed that 25 it would create an expectation.
521 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This Witness 3 disagreed with that. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If such a 5 communication went out, which it never did-- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so I'm 8 not sure how far I want to pursue this. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, with great 10 respect, we do not have evidence that it never did go 11 out. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe we 13 do. There was a different communication that went out -- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: There was one (1) 15 communication we know of. And I don't believe we know 16 the totality of the communications -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and I believe 19 that Mr. Harris has volunteered to provide that to us, 20 but we don't know the totality of the communications. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we -- 22 what we do know is that another communication was 23 communicated -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: We do know of one 25 (1) particular communication --
531 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- by Mr. Hodgson. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, sir, in any 5 event, on fairness of questions here, let's -- may I 6 reiterate what the record will show in my submission. 7 I've put to this Witness Ms. Hutton's 8 evidence, including her response: 9 "I believe that's accurate" 10 to the question: 11 "putting this communication out would 12 have created an expectation on the part 13 of the public that the OPP would indeed 14 remove them?" 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And the 16 Witness does not agree with that. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Harris -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Harris said he 20 did not agree with that. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. So far 22 we're on the same wavelength. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. And then I 24 said to him, I wanted to explore that further with Mr. 25 Harris. I didn't want to with Ms. Hutton, because she
541 gave the answer that I thought was appropriate. 2 But I want to explore with Mr. Harris that 3 question and I added 'soon' even to -- to emphasise it, 4 and I wish to explore that with Mr. Harris. 5 I find his answer, frankly, 6 incomprehensible. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But. -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I should like 9 to explore it and I have a right to explore it and it has 10 nothing to do with Ms. Hutton. And it is not proper for 11 someone to rise and say, Well, Ms. Hutton dealt with the 12 'soon' question in the following way. 13 I want Mr. Harris to deal with it. He was 14 the Premier, he should be able to deal with it on his 15 own. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You may be 17 right. Just stop there. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Stop there. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The issue that Ms. -- 22 the nub of the issue that Ms. Perschy rose on was, If 23 you're going to talk about time, then you should just 24 read the next sentence which is, the next question and 25 answer,
551 "At the same time recall we're also 2 seeking an injunction to support the 3 goal of ending the occupation." 4 And a Counsel may, when someone puts a 5 part of the transcript to a witness, a Counsel may get up 6 and say that you should read some more of that, and that 7 happens in civil trials all the time and in criminal 8 trials. And -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That happens 10 frequently. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- and that's simply 12 what -- the nub of what Ms. Perschy wanted was, You 13 should read on. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 15 Mr. Millar, I don't believe you've accurately 16 characterized this. The Witness had already answered the 17 question in response to Ms. Hutton's comments. 18 Ms. Hutton's Counsel had no business 19 rising to tell -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- him how to 22 respond to 'soon' -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and it's 25 independent of whether or not Ms. Hutton --
561 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- responded to 3 soon in any particular -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- way. And in any 6 event, that doesn't deal with the question of 'soon' 7 necessarily, either. But -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In order to 9 be fair, I'm asking you to read the next question and see 10 if the Witness can -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm happy to read 12 the whole transcript, Mr. Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, just 14 read the question or so and see what his answer is. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: So, okay, I'll start from where we 18 were at line 11. 19 "Yes, so you putting out this 20 communication message would have 21 created an expectation on the part of 22 the public that the OPP would indeed 23 remove them, right? 24 A: I believe that's accurate. 25 Q: Yes.
571 At the same time recall we were also 2 seeking an injunction to support the 3 goal of ending the occupation." 4 So I think putting these two (2) things in 5 context is helpful. 6 Q: Did you want me to read more? I'm 7 happy to read the whole transcript. 8 A: I don't know what the question is. 9 Q: My question for you, sir, is: I want 10 to pursue your answer where you differ from Ms. Hutton on 11 the question of whether putting out a communication 12 message, that the OPP has been asked to remove people 13 from the Park would create an expectation on the part of 14 the public that the OPP would indeed remove them? 15 And I would suggest to you, sir, that you 16 know -- is there -- maybe there's another objection. 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, that's the 18 third time the question's been asked. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I haven't been 20 allowed to pursue the question, Mr. Commissioner. 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, but the -- but 22 the -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 24 What's your problem -- what's your question, Mr. Downard? 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well the question's
581 been asked -- asked and answered. But I don't understand 2 the logic of My Friend's question, the foundation of My 3 Friend's question. 4 He's -- he's putting it to the Witness on 5 -- on the basis that -- of Ms. Hutton's evidence and Ms. 6 Hutton's evidence is, that well no, this isn't a 7 communication message simply that the OPP have been asked 8 to be able to be removed from the Park. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's in 10 connection with the -- 11 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's both together. 12 It's -- they've been requested to do that and that goes 13 together with an injunction process from the courts. 14 And that's the fair way to characterize 15 the evidence and that's the fair way to put it and any -- 16 any comment that the Witness may have on that is 17 appropriate. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm not any longer 19 referring to Ms. Hutton's evidence. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm now referring 22 to Mr. Harris' evidence. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. But you 24 have to, if you're going to -- you've read this whole 25 excerpt.
591 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'll read as much 2 as you like. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. But 4 you've read enough and now you can ask him to comment on 5 that, on what you -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm not -- I don't 7 want him to comment on that. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But that's-- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I want to comment-- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But it's not 11 fair to ask him to comment on an aspect of it that is 12 different that what Ms. Hutton was saying. 13 You're giving him the wrong impression of 14 what Ms. Hutton has said and I think in order to be fair, 15 you should give him the whole -- you have -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 17 Mr. Commissioner, I'm happy to do both. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Would you like to comment on what Ms. 21 Hutton said in exten -- as much as you would like, sir, 22 and then I'll ask the question that I want to ask you. 23 A: No. I really don't have a lot of 24 comment on what Ms. Hutton said here. I -- I don't know 25 the context of the question, I don't know the context
601 which she responding, I don't know the context of the 2 meeting, I wasn't at the meeting. 3 What I've indicated to you I think on 4 numerous times and I'm quite comfortable saying, is the 5 communication message that went out after the fact, 6 decided on without my input, agreed upon by the Committee 7 and communicated by Mr. Hodgson and reported in the 8 newspapers, I was comfortable with that. 9 I -- I -- that's what I can comment on. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Anything 11 else is not helpful to me. I'm just telling you that 12 now, Mr. Rosenthal. Everything else is speculative 13 because it never occurred. 14 And I would like you to move on and deal 15 with evidence that is more -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 17 Mr. Commissioner, we don't have all the evidence at this 18 Inquiry that we're going to have. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And in particular, 21 I do believe that there should be more searching of 22 newspaper accounts on September 5 and 6 and see what was 23 -- what was published. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you have 25 other relevant evidence to bring forward, then I'd be
611 happy to hear it. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But -- 3 OBJ MR. DERRY MILLAR: We have hundreds and 4 hundreds and hundreds. I object to this. We have 5 hundreds of newspaper articles that Mr. Rosenthal has 6 referred to. Other counsel have referred to. 7 If Mr. Rosenthal has a -- has a newspaper 8 article that he wants to put to this Witness, he's got 9 it, he's had it since -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do it. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- 2004 and let's do 12 it. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, yes. I 14 don't like to have the feeling that there may be 15 something that we don't know about because our efforts 16 have been to bring everything that's relevant forward. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, of course. I 18 -- I was not in any way questioning those efforts and I 19 don't understand Mr. Millar's response again. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, I'm asking a 22 question. The question is, would he not think that 23 putting out a communication message that the OPP has been 24 asked to remove people from the Park would create an 25 expectation of the part of the public.
621 That was answered by Ms. Hutton in one 2 way, it was answered by in another way. And I do have 3 the right with great respect, Mr. Commissioner, to 4 explore his answer -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- because I -- I 7 would like to explore it not -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But, Ms. -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- from Ms. 10 Hutton's point of view, but from the point of view of 11 him -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- as an 14 experienced politician who knows the way people react to 15 press account. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 17 think this is a fair examination, Mr. Rosenthal, and I'd 18 ask you to move on. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I strongly 20 disagree, Mr. Commissioner, but of course I must accept 21 your view. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 23 I think you should move on. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I intend to 25 make submissions about that, Mr. Commissioner.
631 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Now, sir, I should like to turn you 5 to two (2) documents; one is P-978 to these proceedings 6 and one is P-979 to these proceedings. I don't -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is it in our 8 tab somewhere? 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't believe -- 10 I have some hard copies, one for the Witness -- 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I believe we already 12 have provided those to the Witness. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, thank you. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I believe you should 15 have the -- at the -- at your desk and I believe Mr. 16 Harris, you should have it in -- just to the left. 17 There's a little pile of papers to your left, sir. 18 THE WITNESS: Right here. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. And the two (2) 20 articles should be there. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 978 and 979. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:
641 Q: Now, looking first at 978, Mr. 2 Harris, it's an article from the Peterborough Examiner of 3 Saturday, October 29th, 1994; is that correct? 4 You have that in front of you, sir? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: The heading -- headline is, PC 7 leaders slams, quote, "Do nothing, natives". 8 Now I should like to read portions of this 9 to you, sir, and ask you first if you were accurately 10 quoted on that occasion. 11 It begins: 12 "Progressive Conservative Provincial 13 leader, Mike Harris, blasted Natives 14 who, [quote] 'spend all their time' 15 [close quote] on land claims and 16 [quote] 'do nothing to help themselves 17 economically'. 18 At a small gathering of tourism and 19 business people at Elmhurst resort on 20 Rice Lake, Friday morning Harris said, 21 the NDP government [quote] 'is willing 22 to give away Northern Ontario' [close 23 quote] to settle Aboriginal land 24 claims." 25 Now, may I stop there first and ask if
651 that's an accurate rendition of your comments on this 2 occasion, sir? 3 A: No, I wouldn't think so and I think 4 the headline is totally misleading to my -- to my 5 comments. 6 My comments at this -- this meeting, I 7 think it was of tourism operators. And I think it was 8 referenced back to this reporter at the time, that we 9 disagreed with both the headline and the -- the 10 reporter's interpretation of the meeting and the 11 comments. 12 Q: So you disagree with the headline. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Do you agree with the first 15 paragraph: 16 "Progressive Conservative Provincial 17 leader, Mike Harris, blasted natives 18 who spend all their time on, land 19 claims and do nothing to help 20 themselves economically." 21 Did you say words to that effect? 22 A: I don't believe so. I think I did 23 express a concern that I felt, and I think this may be 24 the reporter's interpretation of what was said, I think I 25 recall at this meeting, because I remember disagreeing
661 with the article that I -- I did indicate that I felt the 2 amount of money that was spent, with all due respect to 3 you and your colleagues, on lawyers and land claims that 4 -- that it didn't seem to be accomplishing a lot; that -- 5 that it was regrettable that we weren't making any 6 progress. 7 There weren't any improvement in 8 conditions, in jobs, in opportunities, in healthcare, in 9 conditions, on the -- particularly on the reserves. 10 And so I may have indicated there, because 11 I believe this, that -- that a more cooperative approach 12 -- and if some of those dollars were spent on other 13 areas, that that would be a better approach. 14 The second thing I would say, this whole 15 article is in the context of our welfare reforms which 16 were work fair, which said, in order to receive money, 17 you had to do something. 18 These were quite controversial, not just 19 with some -- some of the Native bands, but were 20 controversial as well and heavily criticized at the time 21 and -- and our tour was basically at the time, explaining 22 this. 23 So that's the context of this article. 24 Q: Now, sir, the first paragraph doesn't 25 refer to lawyers at all. It says that you blasted
671 natives who spend their time on land claims and do 2 nothing to help themselves economically. 3 Now, are you suggesting that you said 4 nothing that would justify the reporter putting that 5 paragraph in? 6 A: I think I've indicated to you, my 7 sense at the time and I do have a recollection because I 8 disagreed with the tone, with the headline, and with the 9 emphasis on natives. 10 Most of my criticism was of the Government 11 and I was -- 12 Q: Were you -- 13 A: -- very -- very critical of those 14 policies that -- 15 Q: You -- 16 A: -- created dependance. Any policy 17 that creates dependence, I think, is a cruel policy, not 18 a helpful policy. And that was the heart and core, the 19 philosophy if you like, of our welfare reforms, of our 20 approach as to why native bands should be subject to the 21 same rules of work fair that we were implementing. 22 Q: Did I understand you correctly, sir, 23 as indicating that you, at the time this article 24 appeared, had concerns about it? 25 A: Yes.
681 Q: And did you write a letter to the 2 editor or do something like -- 3 A: I don't recall whether we wrote a 4 letter to the editor, but I recall having concerns, 5 expressing those to my staff and saying that I -- I 6 disagreed with this. 7 Q: And did you have any corrections 8 printed, sir? 9 A: I don't recall that. 10 Q: Which staff member did you express 11 that concern to? 12 A: I -- I don't recall. This would have 13 been in 1994. Probably whoever was travelling with me at 14 that time. 15 Q: Did you say -- you say that you 16 largely talk about the Government. Did you say what is 17 attributed to you in the second paragraph, that the NDP 18 Government is, or words to the effect, Is willing to give 19 away northern Ontario to settle Aboriginal land claims? 20 A: I don't believe those would have been 21 my words. But I did indicate and -- and the -- the land 22 claim disagreement that we had with the Government of the 23 time were well on the record in a number of campaign 24 documents. 25 As well, stating that we believed that the
691 land claims and whether land was -- was being negotiated 2 as part of these land claims, that they were not 3 inclusive, they did not -- they were too -- not 4 inclusive, if you like, of those other than the Federal 5 Government, the Provincial Government, and the various 6 Native Bands that were -- were negotiating land claims. 7 Q: Yes -- 8 A: That -- that the public needed to be 9 involved in this process. And I think we're well on the 10 record indicating why we wanted them to be successful, we 11 wanted them to have acceptance by the broad community at 12 large, and that -- that was our basic disagreement with 13 how the NDP were proceeding with these land claims. 14 Q: Sir, you seem to be speaking to the 15 third paragraph about involving all sectors of the 16 population and so on, but did you say words to the effect 17 of, The NDP government is willing to give away northern 18 Ontario to settle Aboriginal land claims? 19 A: No, I would not have said that and I 20 would not have said it in isolation. I might have 21 indicated, Willing to do -- to settle these land claims, 22 but there would have been added to that, Without 23 consultation of non-Natives, of residents, of others that 24 were using the land, of municipalities in the region. 25 So if I said words something to that
701 effect, it's possible, it would not have been in 2 isolation and it would not have ended with a period 3 there, as the reporter's done, it would have explained 4 why and I've explained that to you. 5 Q: Sir, could you look at the 4th 6 paragraph which seems to be in direct quotes and I'd like 7 to know, again, did you say words to that effect? 8 "There's a whole notion of guilt 9 because Native people haven't fully 10 adapted from the reservations to being 11 full partners in this economy." 12 A: I don't know if it was as the quote 13 is but I believe that there was a notion of guilt and -- 14 and there probably should have been a notion of guilt 15 that Natives and Aboriginal communities have -- have not 16 been able to participate in -- in this society in Canada 17 that's grown. I think there -- there should be great 18 criticism -- 19 Q: Sir -- sir -- 20 A: -- and guilt by governments and a 21 succession of governments and a history of governments 22 that -- that we've not been able to improve the quality 23 of life on reserves or the opportunities for -- for our 24 Natives. 25 Q: So you do accept that you said words
711 to the effect of the fourth paragraph; is that correct? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 3 THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I've explained 4 what I said. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 6 explaining what he may have said and I think -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, sir, and then 8 -- yes -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you're 10 asking the questions and he's giving his answers. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But his explanation 12 seems to be counter to the next paragraph. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 15 Q: Did you say words to the next 16 paragraph: 17 "We can't let that guilt preclude us 18 from reaching our common sense 19 solution?" 20 A: I may have. 21 Q: You may have said that, right? 22 A: Right. 23 Q: And what you meant by that was, any 24 guilt one might feel about the way First Nations people 25 have been treated in the past, should not stop us from
721 reaching a common sense solution, which means we don't 2 them any special attention in spite of any wrongdoings in 3 the past? 4 A: No, no, quite the contrary. I think 5 common sense would refer to, it's been a disastrous 6 failure in the past, can we look at common sense 7 solutions that will be more beneficial in the future? 8 Q: Well, would you agree the reporter 9 seemed to conclude what you had indicated you meant at 10 that time because the next paragraph reads as follows: 11 "He didn't outline what specific 12 solutions should be, but he made it 13 clear that he considers many Aboriginal 14 land claims unjustified." 15 Did you make that clear, sir? 16 A: I don't recall those words but there 17 are some land claims that -- that I felt were 18 unjustified, yeah. 19 Q: We can accept that as an accurate 20 report, that you did make it clear that you considered 21 many Aboriginal land claims unjustified, can't we, sir? 22 A: You can accept precisely what I gave 23 you as my answer. 24 Q: Can we accept that as an accurate 25 report, sir?
731 A: You can accept exactly as I gave you 2 as my answer. I'd like you to get the record and read it 3 back -- 4 Q: Is it an accurate report that you 5 made it clear that you consider -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- many Aboriginal 8 land claims unjustified? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's already 10 answered the question -- 11 THE WITNESS: I've answered the question. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He's answered -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and I 14 don't think we're going to get anywhere by just going 15 over it again and again. The record will now speak for 16 itself. You asked him -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: The record will 18 show he did not answer the question. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 20 think he did. I think he answered the question. Move 21 on. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Well, I'll move on, then, to the next 25 document. "Ontario Out of Doors," Exhibit P-979.
741 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 2 preventing you, Mr. Rosenthal, from carrying on with your 3 examination if you have more questions on this document. 4 I didn't suggest that you stop. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I was going 6 to pursue that question because, in my view, he had not 7 answered the question -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, but 9 you have other questions. You -- 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't have other 11 questions about that -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 13 have other questions, because I don't want to give the 14 impression that you're being prevented from -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- asking 17 your questions on this document. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 19 Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: Moving to the next document, P-979, 24 it's a document entitled, "Ontario Out of Doors," which 25 is in May 1995. The previous document --
751 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's 1990. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Was in October of 1994. So May 1995 5 is more or less on the eve of your election as Premier; 6 is that fair? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And if you could turn to the 9 beginning of this interview, it's an interview with you 10 headed, "Tory leader Mike Harris speaks out on game and 11 guns." 12 And the first sentence of the interview or 13 of the report of the interview reads: 14 "Fish and game laws should be enforced 15 against Indians and the registration of 16 rifles and shotguns won't solve the 17 crime problem, according to 18 conservative leader Mike Harris." 19 That's a fair summary of the interview, is 20 it, sir? 21 A: I think it's a fair summary. I don't 22 recall the whole interview, but I think what I would have 23 indicated that Aboriginal groups or Natives who did not 24 have any constitutional right to hunt and fish in areas 25 in those circumstances, the fish and game laws should be
761 applied equally, yes. 2 Q: Yes. You were provided with this 3 document in anticipation of my asking you about it, sir? 4 A: I have seen this document, yes. 5 Q: Recently? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: In anticipation of my asking you 8 questions about it? 9 A: I had no idea whether you'd ask a 10 question. 11 Q: But somebody would, you figured? 12 A: I -- possible, yes. 13 Q: And so if you could turn to the 14 second page of the interview, the second page of the 15 document. 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: I'd like to just emphasize certain 18 aspects of it. 19 The third paragraph on that page: 20 "Harris said he objected to the NDP 21 Government shutting out stakeholders, 22 like cottage owners, tourist operators 23 and hunters in its secret negotiations 24 over Indian land claims." 25 That would be an accurate account, would
771 it, sir? I think you've told us -- 2 A: Sounds like it, yeah. 3 Q: And you emphasized secret 4 negotiations? 5 A: I don't know that I emphasize. It 6 doesn't say emphasis added. But I -- I think the word, 7 if that's the word I used -- and this is the reporter, I 8 guess, summarizing, but we -- and I -- and our party took 9 strong exception to land claims being negotiated without 10 including the other parties. 11 And that would include, I guess, who are 12 mentioned here is cottage owners, tourist operators, 13 hunters, municipalities that would include in the area, 14 but other stakeholders that would have -- be using that 15 land that was going to be part of the land to resolve a - 16 - a land claim. 17 Q: I should like to turn to the -- 18 skipping the next paragraph which is -- reiterates what 19 you just told us, onto the one afterward. 20 "He said the Government is undermining 21 the Supreme Court of Canada's decision 22 to uphold the 1923 Williams Treaty 23 under which Indian Bands in South 24 Central Ontario surrendered Aboriginal 25 fishing and hunting privileges.
781 It's one thing to negotiate community 2 fishing license for the losses of a 3 legal right as an economic -- for the 4 losers, sorry, of the legal right as an 5 economic measure. [you said] 6 But it's not right to hold the 7 discussions in secret and under the 8 cover of land claims. The issue has 9 been decided with finality." 10 Again, would that be an accurate report of 11 what you communicated under -- 12 A: I believe so. 13 Q: And skipping a paragraph: 14 "All Court decisions over land claims 15 and special hunting and fishing rights 16 for Indians reaffirm the right of 17 Government to manage the resources with 18 conservation measures paramount. 19 [Quote] 'that takes precedence over any 20 treaty or any right or any negotiation 21 over any resource. The fish, the 22 wildlife, the trees.' [Close quote]." 23 Is that an accurate -- of your responses 24 during this interview, sir? 25 A: I -- I think it is pretty close, yes.
791 Q: And then you -- the article 2 continues: 3 "Unless the Supreme Court decision 4 gives an Indian band special Aboriginal 5 rights to game and fish, Natives and 6 non-natives should be treated alike, 7 Harris said." 8 Is that in accordance with what you told 9 them on that occasion? 10 A: I -- I believe it is, yes. 11 Q: And -- and finally I'd like to put to 12 you the beginning of the next paragraph: 13 "If the Conservatives form the 14 Government [quote] the orders from Mike 15 Harris will not be the same as they are 16 from Bob Rae to lay off. The orders 17 will be if somebody is violating the 18 laws of our conservation and affecting 19 the management of our resource then we 20 will apply the law. That was the 21 policy of our government while we were 22 in power and changed when Shelley 23 Peterson took over Resource Policy and 24 carried on with Bob Rae and Bud 25 Wildman."
801 Is that, again, an accurate, more or less, 2 account of your -- 3 A: Well, I think that's -- that gets to 4 the -- to the gist of it, yes. 5 Q: Yes, that accurately reflects what 6 you said? 7 A: I think it gets to the gist of it, 8 yes. 9 Q: So would you agree that it's a fair 10 summary of your opinions, as expressed here and probably 11 elsewhere, that other governments have given too much to 12 Aboriginal people and your government will more strictly 13 enforce conservation laws and other laws, and not give as 14 many special rights to Aboriginal people as previous 15 governments have? Is that a fair summary? 16 A: No, I think that's going too far. I 17 think it's -- it is -- it is -- when you talk about 18 giving to, I think the gist of most of our concerns, that 19 we had at the time, dealt with the lack of inclusiveness 20 and the lack of consultation with other groups who would 21 be sharing the resource or sharing the land at the time 22 of any of these -- any of these negotiations. 23 Q: But it also included other aspects, 24 as you've told us, about stricter enforcement of fishing 25 laws and things like that?
811 A: I -- I think it included if there 2 were areas where there had been Supreme Court rulings 3 that -- that the -- the special rights to hunt and fish 4 be given up to certain areas. 5 Then again, I think that was the case of 6 the Williams Treaty which was quite controversial at the 7 time, that in those cases and in the cases of where 8 conservation of the resource was threatened, that there 9 was a role for the Ministry of Natural Resources and they 10 should exercise that authority and -- and, in fact, to 11 not do so was -- was, in fact, being derelict of their 12 duty to manage that resource. 13 And -- and I might say -- 14 Q: Would -- 15 A: -- that would be -- be for all users 16 of the resource of the future, particularly where a 17 resource is shared with Natives and non-Natives. 18 Q: Would you please turn to your Tab 15 19 in your larger binder, which is Inquiry Document 1012239 20 and Exhibit P-418? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 22 moving into a new area, are you? Would this be a good 23 point to take a morning break? 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It certainly would, 25 sir, thank you.
821 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's take a 2 morning break. 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 4 for fifteen (15) minutes. 5 6 --- Upon recessing at 10:07 a.m. 7 --- Upon resuming at 10:26 a.m. 8 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 10 resumed. Please be seated. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 14 Rosenthal, do you have an idea of how much longer you 15 might be? 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I hope an hour, an 17 hour and a half, sir. I'm going to be as expeditious as 18 possible. And of course it depends upon the Witness' 19 answers and counsel's objections. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 21 fine, if you finish within an hour. You said to an hour 22 and a half. If you keep to an hour then I think we 23 should be able to complete today. 24 That's fine. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I will do my very
831 best. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You do your 3 best. Carry on. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: Mr. Harris, just before the break, I 8 requested that you open to Tab 15. Do you have that 9 open, sir? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Tab 15 being Exhibit P-418 to these 12 proceedings. And it's a letter of August 14, 1995 from 13 Marcel Beaubien, the local MPP at the time, to Charles 14 Harnick the Attorney General at the time. 15 Now Mr. Millar asked you some things about 16 this letter. I don't believe you saw it at the time; is 17 that correct? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And can you tell us the first time 20 that you saw this letter? Would have it been back in 21 '95, '96 or would it be more recently in preparation for 22 the Inquiry? 23 A: It may -- I -- I believe it wasn't 24 '95. I'm sure it wasn't '95, I'm not sure it was '96, 25 but my recolle -- I did -- I have reviewed it before the
841 Inquiry, yes. 2 Q: I'm sorry, sir? 3 A: I have reviewed it before the 4 Inquiry. I don't know -- 5 Q: I see. 6 A: -- if I reviewed it in 6, 7, 8, 9, 7 2001. I have reviewed it though last fall. 8 Q: Now, when Mr. Millar asked you about 9 this a couple of days ago you said words to the affect 10 that you didn't see anything wrong with Mr. Beaubien 11 exchanging information with officers. 12 A: I'm sorry. 13 Q: And you did say -- 14 A: I said what, sorry? 15 Q: I'm sorry. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 17 He didn't hear your question, that's all. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: I'm sorry. You indicated that you 21 didn't see anything wrong with Mr. Beaubien exchanging 22 information with officers back and forth. But you did 23 have -- you did agree that it was inappropriate to have 24 the Number 3 here on the second page, or you didn't agree 25 with what's written at Number 3, namely:
851 "Ministries involved have to give the 2 OPP clear guidelines for law 3 enforcement." 4 Do you recall you giving those answers? 5 A: Right. I -- I don't -- I don't agree 6 with that, right. 7 Q: Yes, sir. But you did -- you do -- 8 you did express the position that Mr. Beaubien was proper 9 in exchanging information with OPP officers; is that 10 correct? 11 A: I don't know whether I said, 12 exchanging information. I -- I think what I said was, I 13 think it was appropriate to meet, find out what was 14 happening, be able to relay that information back to his 15 constituents; I thought that was the role of an MPP. 16 Q: To relay the information back to his 17 constituents and -- 18 A: Yeah. And then -- 19 Q: -- to provide information -- 20 A: And to provide information that he 21 was here. I think that's fair. 22 Q: That's -- that's what I summarized as 23 exchange of information. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: Now, on the other hand, would you
861 agree that it's clearly problematic, if you turn back to 2 the first page in this letter, to have a sentence -- to 3 have, if it were a fact, that: 4 "The representatives from the OPP and 5 myself have reached the following 6 consensus." 7 And to reach a consensus on anything 8 related to operations with the OPP between a politician 9 and police would be improper. You -- you agree with 10 that, do you, sir? 11 A: Well, they might reach a consensus on 12 -- on something, but I don't think that it's appropriate 13 that they reached a consensus on the items that were 14 listed here. 15 Q: Yes. To reach a consensus on these 16 four (4) items, it says: 17 "Being in a position to legally uphold 18 the property, 19 2. Enforcement is only a short term 20 solution, 21 3. Ministries involved ought to give 22 the OPP clear guidelines for law 23 enforcement, and 24 4. The long term solution is to 25 negotiate a settlement."
871 That would suggest the kind of operational 2 discussions that are prohibited between politicians and 3 police officers; is that right? 4 A: Well I don't think 1 is. 1 is, they 5 concurred that it was -- the Park was Provincially owned 6 and that we should be in a position to legally uphold 7 this property. 8 Q: Okay. So that seems -- 9 A: Probably fair. 10 Q: -- acceptable? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: But as to whether enforcement is a 13 long or short term solution, and not involved in the 14 Ministries, and long term solution -- 15 A: Well 2 and -- 16 Q: -- discussing solutions, and so -- 17 A: 2 and 3 could be problematic. I 18 don't think there's anything wrong with 4, long term 19 solution is a negotiated settlement. I think that's not 20 unreasonable, but I -- I don't know what the solution is, 21 too, so. 22 Q: I'm sorry, did I under -- that 2 and 23 3 are problematic, but not 1 and 4, is your -- 24 A: I said, the long-term solution is 25 negotiated settlement, on it's surface does not appear to
881 be problematic to me -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: I would think that -- can't imagine 4 anybody, whether they were elected or a citizen or in the 5 OPP would object to that and I added, I'm not sure what 6 they were talking about, settlement too, so if it's the-- 7 Q: I see. 8 A: -- Camp Ipperwash army camp, then it 9 seems to be the -- the main gist of this letter. 10 Q: Now, with respect to number 3, there 11 is a further indication in the letter that seems to go 12 along with number 3, if you look at the last paragraph: 13 "As detailed to Ministers Hodgson, 14 Harnick and Runciman, we will take the 15 following position until further 16 instruction is received from the 17 Ministries. 18 We will be legally prepared to uphold 19 Ipperwash Park, enforcement is a short 20 term solution and we need the 21 Ministries to give clear guidelines to 22 the OPP for enforcement. 23 We would like a negotiated settlement. 24 Failing that, a clear stand on what are 25 provincial matters and that the law
891 will be upheld. 2 This is an opportune time, as elected 3 First Nation officials are supportive 4 in upholding the law." 5 There's a lot of problematic information - 6 - information in that paragraph; is that fair, sir? 7 A: I think that's fair. 8 Q: Now, in examining you the other day, 9 Mr. Beaubien's Counsel suggested that he only spoke to 10 you in passing in caucus at the caucus retreat about 11 these matters. 12 And his question was, at page 219 on 13 February 14: 14 "And you did not communicate with Mr. 15 Beaubien between June 1995 and 16 September 7, 1995 except, perhaps, in 17 passing in a caucus retreat; is that 18 right? 19 And you answered: 20 "That's correct." 21 Do you recall that answer, sir? 22 A: I do. 23 Q: And you -- well, I should like to 24 indicate what Mr. Beaubien testified in this respect on 25 January 24th, beginning at page 296; see if this might
901 refresh your memory. 2 So beginning at about line 3 on page 296, 3 from Mr. Beaubien's evidence. 4 "I'm trying to recall the date we had 5 the caucus retreat in Cambridge, 6 whenever that was. That would have 7 been the first opportunity to do it, 8 whenever that was. 9 Q: I see. In any event, whatever the 10 exact date, it would have been at least 11 a couple of weeks before September 4th, 12 1995; is that fair? 13 A: That's fair, yeah. 14 Q: Or shortly before September 4, 15 1995? 16 A: Yeah. 17 Q: And when you raised it in caucus, 18 you raised the same general concern 19 that it didn't appear that the police 20 were active enough, for example? 21 A: I raised the same concerns that I 22 laid down the groundwork last week, 23 that people were being harassed, that 24 their houses were being broken, that 25 the West Ipperwash issue, that people
911 were being threatened, people were 2 being chased on the beach. 3 Q: And with respect to houses being 4 broken into and so on, did you indicate 5 that at least some of your constituents 6 felt that there was not adequate 7 policing of that kind of break in? 8 A: That's something I would have 9 relayed, yes. 10 Q: Yes, and when you say 'caucus 11 meeting' I think we've heard something 12 about some of the attendees at that 13 caucus. Did that include Solicitor 14 General Runciman? 15 A: Yeah, well, everybody would be at 16 the caucus meeting; everybody is 17 expected to be there. 18 Q: Every member of the Progressive 19 Conservative Party? 20 A: That's right, of the elected 21 officials. 22 Q: The elected officials. And so as 23 far as you know, most or all of them 24 were there? 25 A: The best of my recollection,
921 everybody was there. 2 Q: And would that have included 3 Premier Harris then? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you recall specifically that 6 he was there? 7 A: I think he was there, yes. 8 Q: And so he, in particular, was 9 among the persons in the caucus who 10 directly heard your concerns on that 11 occasion? 12 A: I'm sure everybody did. 13 Q: You didn't speak quietly. [and so 14 on]" 15 And then continuing at line 7: 16 "The concerns that you would have 17 expressed there would have included 18 that you -- what you perceived as a 19 lack of adequate policing with respect 20 to cottage break-ins and such matters, 21 right? 22 What I was hearing from my constituents 23 I would pass on, you know. 24 Q: Which included what I've just 25 said?
931 A: Yes. It would be, you know, that 2 there were some concerns with regard to 3 law and order in the area." 4 Now, does that refresh your memory about 5 Mr. Beaubien speaking to Caucus about these issues at 6 that Caucus retreat, sir? 7 A: No, I don't think this issue was on 8 the agenda at the -- at the Caucus retreat. That's not 9 to say Mr. Beaubien may not have -- have raised this 10 concern and there may have been a Q and A session at 11 sometime during the Caucus where he may have talked about 12 it. 13 But I think what I've indicated is I don't 14 recall ever meeting with Mr. Beaubien on this issue. I 15 recall a collection of clippings that -- I can't say that 16 I read them all but gave me an understanding that -- that 17 elected officials in the area, Federal, provincial, 18 municipal would be commented on. I -- but my 19 recollection is most of that information I gleaned from - 20 - from the clippings. 21 Q: Now, you became aware that Mr. 22 Beaubien met with the Incident Commander John Carson on 23 September 6, 1995, the evening that Dudley George was 24 killed, and that that meeting took place at approximately 25 6:42 on that evening.
941 Did you become aware of that, sir, at some 2 point? 3 A: Yes, well after the fact. 4 Q: Meaning, say, well after September 7, 5 1995? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: But within the weeks following 8 September 7, 1995, or when? 9 A: I don't recall. 10 Q: Certainly within, say, a year 11 following September 1995? 12 A: I -- I believe so, but I don't recall 13 when. 14 Q: Just to briefly indicate some of the 15 evidence that we have as to what happened at that 16 meeting, and I'm going to be very quickly, if I may, but 17 I'll read more detail if necessary, just indicating a 18 couple aspects of what Mr. Carson testified to. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which 20 meeting was this? 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This was the 22 meeting between John Carson, Inspector Linton, Marcel 23 Beaubien -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and someone
951 else -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- at Command 4 quarters at 18:42 on September 6th, 1995. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 8 Q: So there is evidence that Inspector 9 Linton questioned if there was anything from the 10 Solicitor General, and Marcel Beaubien responded by 11 advising that they were meeting today. 12 And in the course of the discussion Mr. 13 Beaubien communicated to John Carson what Mr. Carson took 14 to mean that if the police couldn't handle the situation 15 it might be necessary to bring in the Military. It was 16 also communicated that the Premier is in constant touch; 17 there's good communications. 18 And Mr. Carson took from the meeting that 19 Mr. Beaubien thought that the people should be out of the 20 Park. Okay? Just as a brief summary of some of the 21 evidence we have about what transpired there. 22 Now, sir, did you learn the essence of 23 that, at some point, say even within a year of this 24 event? 25 A: I -- I don't recall when, whether it
961 was within a year or when it was but I -- I recall having 2 heard the essence of that, yes. 3 Q: Yes. Do you agree that there are 4 some problematic aspects of that meeting from your 5 understanding of the proper separation between 6 politicians and police? 7 A: Well, I -- I agreed that that 8 information could certainly be construed to him having 9 contact or discussions with me or -- more so than -- than 10 I believe was taking place. I mean, there were none 11 taking place, so. 12 Q: Yes. And you're -- you're referring, 13 I presume, particularly to the indication that he 14 communicated to the police that the Premier's in constant 15 touch; there's good communications. 16 That's what you were just referred to? 17 A: Well, I -- I don't know what 18 "constant" means. I -- it -- it wasn't a minute, hourly, 19 on a daily basis from the 4th to the 6th. I had some 20 communication on this issue but none with Mr. Beaubien. 21 Q: Yes, but what he transmitted to that 22 committee was that -- or to -- to that gathering was that 23 the Premier is in constant touch, implying with himself. 24 And we -- we've heard evidence that he was given that 25 understanding from Mr. King.
971 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 2 Sulman? 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: The statement -- no, 4 the statement that -- I'm not sure which microphone works 5 anymore. The statement that My Friend just gave is that 6 that's what Mr. Beaubien communicated; that's not the 7 evidence. 8 What we have is the scribe notes of what 9 was recorded, and there's a difference in this, a subtle 10 difference because it's important for a witness who 11 hasn't -- doesn't have those scribe notes in front of 12 him. Hasn't heard the fullness of the evidence. 13 It's not controverted evidence by the way, 14 of course, as you know. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's just 16 putting it more accurately in your view, the question. 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: It's just a question 18 of putting it more accurately -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- so that this 21 Witness has a -- and can fairly respond. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: It isn't what Mr. 24 Beaubien said he conveyed and it's not what Mr. Carson 25 necessarily said that he -- that he conveyed. It's what
981 is in the scribed notes. 2 And they are not verbatim. They're simply 3 as -- as in cross-examination Mr. Carson said, they're 4 simply a gist of what was said. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: So I -- I know it's 7 a very precise objection but I think we need that to be 8 put it in the proper context. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And I know -- I 11 don't want to slow My Friend down. I know he -- he wants 12 to go rapidly but it's important that we get the proper 13 context so the Witness can answer. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 15 Sulman. 16 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: It's not what Mr. 17 Beaubien conveyed, it's what's in the scribed notes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, 20 at the end of the day of course we'll be arguing about 21 what evidence you should accept as the true evidence and 22 what evidence you might reject as implausible evidence 23 and so on. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 25 the issue.
991 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But what I'm asking 2 this Witness is, would he consider it to be problematic 3 if -- if, and he doesn't have to -- he doesn't know if 4 it's a fact or not and I'm not asking him to testify as 5 to whether it's a fact or not. 6 But if Mr. Beaubien communicated to the 7 Incident Commander -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So it's a 9 hyp -- 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: --who he's in 11 constant touch with. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well you're 13 not putting it to him as a hypothetical. You're putting 14 it to him on -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm -- I'm happy to 16 put it hypothetically. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well then I 18 don't think there could be any objection. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well so -- 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Only that that would 21 -- I recognize that throughout this is not a trial and I 22 recognized it throughout. We've asked people to 23 constantly speculate. 24 But if you put it as a hypothetical that's 25 all it becomes and I recognize you'll give the weight the
1001 speculation deserves. But a trial we wouldn't hear it. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But it will in my 3 final submissions be speculation based on -- based on the 4 best evidence, the scribed notes which are better 5 evidence than the self serving testimony made. 6 And it will be my submissions -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then why 8 don't you put the scribed -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why don't 11 you put the scribed note to him and tell him what it is 12 and then he'll be doing -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But in any event, I 14 -- I just want to ask him if it's problematic if that was 15 communicated. And I would like to do so. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar, 17 did you want to -- 18 THE WITNESS: Well is that the question? 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Harris, wait a 20 moment for the Commissioner to rule whether I can ask 21 you. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well the 23 question that you're putting to him now is on the basis 24 of it being a hypothetical? Or the basis of you telling 25 him that it is the scribed note and it's not Mr.
1011 Beaubien? 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How are you 4 putting it? 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I will relate it 6 to the evidence when I make my submissions to you so what 7 I should like to ask him is the following: 8 Would it in your view as the former 9 Premier, would it have been in your view at the time as 10 Premier, problematic for Mr. Beaubien to communicate to 11 the Incident Commander on the eve of September 6th, 1995, 12 that the Premier was in good -- in constant touch with 13 him, there was good communications? 14 I don't see any possible object to that 15 question. 16 THE WITNESS: Well let me -- 17 MR PETER ROSENTHAL: If there is none, may 18 I ask that question? And hearing none -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: -- would you please answer that 23 question, Mr. Harris. 24 A: So as I understand the hypothetical 25 question was, if Mr. Beaubien had indicated to this group
1021 of people that he was in constant with me, would that be 2 incorrect? I would say, yes that's incorrect. 3 Q: No. It was not -- the question was 4 not would it be incorrect, sir. 5 The question was would it be problematic? 6 A: Well it's incorrect. So if being 7 incorrect is problematic and I guess that's the judgment 8 that you've made. I don't know what you mean by 9 problematic, sorry. 10 Q: Well let me explain, sir. Would you 11 not agree that it was likely to put extraordinary 12 pressure on police officers to be told when they are in 13 charge of an incident like this, managing an incident 14 such as the Ipperwash Park incident, that the Premier is 15 in constant touch with someone who has been in constant 16 touch with them -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You see, now 18 you're -- 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: -- would that not, sir, given them a 22 feeling that they are being watched by the Premier -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:
1031 Q: -- and would that not have the great 2 danger of affecting their operations? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I need to 4 hear from one of you. Either Mr. Millar or Mr. Sulman on 5 this. 6 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: We may have the same 7 objection. Mr. Millar and I may have the same objection. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: This was in the 10 hypothetical. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 Originally it was a hypothetical. 13 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Switched from being 14 hypothetical. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: To being a 16 very different situation. 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That's right, Your 18 Honour. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You ask a 20 hypothetical question, you get an answer and that's fine. 21 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: He kept saying it 22 was. That's where he's -- that's where -- that's what 23 the problem comes from -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 25 right. That's what you're switching to. So that's not--
1041 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: If it's 2 hypothetical, it's a different situation. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 4 not a fair question. 5 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And it's got to be 6 framed as hypothetical -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- so the Witness 9 knows that it's hypothetical. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Yes. 11 And I see now Mr. Sandler's on his feet. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: I -- I just want to 13 say something completely different. I've been silent 14 throughout Mr. Rosenthal's cross-examination and that is 15 that I don't to want embark on a debate about 16 hypotheticals or the facts because you're very familiar 17 with all the evidence -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- at this point. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I am. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: I don't see that some 22 of the distinctions are -- are as important as -- as they 23 might be given my some. 24 My concern is that, you know, this really 25 has to do with argument at this point. I mean we've
1051 heard evidence from the people who are engaged -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and with the full 4 context of what they have to say, what was said in 5 response, what their state of mind was, whether they felt 6 pressure, whether they didn't feel pressure, whether they 7 regarded it or didn't regard it, and we're going to have 8 extensive argument about what it all means. 9 And -- and my concern when we get into all 10 these questions about do you see it as problematic with 11 this little snippet is how helpful is that to you -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- with great respect? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I agree, Mr. 15 Sandler. It reaches a point where it's no longer -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, Mr. 17 Commissioner, may I respond before you -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Of course 19 you can respond, but I can comment on Mr. Sandler's 20 remarks to me. Carry on. What is your position? 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry. We've 22 had a lot of evidence at this Inquiry to-date as you well 23 know. Some of the evidence is contradictory. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: You will be making
1061 findings at the end of the day. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: You will be making 4 findings about the role that this Witness may or may not 5 have played in the death of Dudley George. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And for you to 8 understand what his understanding is of the separation 9 between police and politicians might assist you in 10 evaluating his evidence as well as evidence of others. 11 For you to understand -- I'm asking him 12 how he deals with these matters, sir. I'm not -- I'm 13 not -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But either 15 you're -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I'm not going 17 over the facts and Mr. Sandler was -- is saying about 18 this is a matter for argument? I would respectfully 19 submit that the objections of My Friends were a matter 20 for argument as to what you should accept. 21 And I agree with Mr. Sandler it's not a 22 question of phrasing hypothetically or otherwise. I'm 23 asking this Witness if he as Premier would see it as 24 problematic and that -- his answer to that might assist 25 you in deciding whether he knew about this, if he did
1071 know about it, what he would have done with it, -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and so on. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: We don't have the 6 end of the evidence yet and we will at the end of the day 7 with all the evidence make submissions as to what 8 findings you should make. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 10 how -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I'm surely 12 entitled to explore his view as to whether or not it 13 would be problematic for Mr. Beaubien to tell the 14 Incident Commander that the Premier is in constant touch. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He said that 16 it was incorrect but I'm not sure -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I'm not 19 sure how that would help to show that he knew it or 20 didn't know it. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no. I'm not -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But that's 23 what you said in your submission; that's what you said. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But -- well, no, it 25 might because if he's not --
1081 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- alive to that 3 being a problem -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- then maybe -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But he's 7 already said -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- maybe that would 9 support the argument that he did know it and so on. We 10 can't judge the evidence at this stage, sir, until we 11 know it all and there's no objection to that -- what was 12 the rational objection to that question -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- as to whether he 15 in his understanding as Premier of the proper separation 16 between politicians -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and police would 19 find it problematic for someone to be informing the 20 Incident Commander that the Premier's in constant touch? 21 There's no rational objection to that question that I've 22 heard, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 24 Millar...? 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And it might shed
1091 light on what's happening. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 3 Millar? 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, without all the 5 editorial, that question I think is not an improper 6 question. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It was 8 already asked, but -- 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's already 11 asked. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But not answered 13 because it was objected to. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. I 15 think you asked the question and you got the answer. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: What was the answer 17 as to whether or not it was problematic or not, sir? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The answer 19 was that it was incorrect and then -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, but that's 21 not -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and then 23 there was a supplementary question or answer as to if 24 it's incorrect does that make it problematic? 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, and so I --
1101 may I -- 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, the -- the 3 problem arose, the -- that question that My Friend put I 4 think is an appropriate question to ask. It's -- what My 5 Friend did and I think what generated the -- was all of 6 the extra stuff that went with the question and -- and I 7 don't want to get into that but if he would ask that 8 question to the Witness I think that's an appropriate 9 question. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, do you 11 want to ask the question again the way you asked it the 12 first instance? 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. And I 14 think the extra stuff came in after -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 16 question -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- with respect but 18 we can look at the record later. But may we just start 19 from the following, sir? 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: And I -- I asked you the question: 23 Would you find that problematic? You said it was 24 incorrect. 25 But I would -- but what I'd like to do to
1111 follow through on your understanding of this issue is, 2 suppose that you had been in constant touch with Mr. 3 Beaubien, would you find it problematic for Mr. Beaubien 4 to at this juncture, him to be speaking to them and 5 include the information he gave to them the Premier's in 6 constant touch? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think that a fair 8 question would be as My Friend had put it before. If the 9 -- Mr. Beaubien told the Incident Commander at the 10 Command Post that he was in constant touch with the 11 Premier do you -- is that from your perspective 12 problematic? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And that's 14 the question that is -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, and 16 independent of the -- of the correctness of it, is it 17 problematic just based on the statement. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Is what I -- 20 THE WITNESS: Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The way Mr. 22 Millar put the question -- 23 THE WITNESS: -- did -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're trying 25 to help you, Mr. Rosenthal.
1121 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The way Mr. 3 Millar put the question -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- thank you. 5 THE WITNESS: If -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is 7 appropriate. 8 THE WITNESS: -- if it was the truth I 9 don't think it would be problematic. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: If it was true it would not be 13 problematic. 14 So in your view, to tell the incident 15 commander that the Premier was in constant touch with Mr. 16 Beaubien who was meeting and giving the information, the 17 kind of information that we talked with him, that we 18 indicated, to say the Premier was in constant touch would 19 not be problematic? 20 A: Well I -- 21 Q: Now let me suggest to you, sir -- 22 A: Could -- 23 Q: -- that you might reconsider that 24 answer -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a
1131 minute. The witness wanted to say something. I think we 2 should give him a chance. You hadn't finished your 3 question -- 4 THE WITNESS: Well, I think that in of 5 itself -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But -- but -- 7 THE WITNESS: -- if it was the truth, is 8 -- is not problematic. I never -- I don't think the 9 truth is ever -- ever problematic. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: Well, may I ask you just that this 13 truth would have been problematic in the following way, 14 and get your reaction to it, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, I -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Here we -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think, Mr. 18 Rosenthal, where you're going now is into argument and 19 you can -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No. With respect-- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- make it-- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Mr. Commissioner 23 we've got to get -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 25 a question?
1141 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- this -- this 2 Premier's view on -- I'm not making my argument now. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I had 4 the sense that that -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I --- but I 6 want to give him a chance to respond to what will be my 7 argument, because I want to argue, ultimately, about his 8 credibility and about this whole issue. 9 But I don't have to -- fully understand my 10 final submissions to try to elicit evidence from this 11 Witness. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But -- but you just -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I need to 14 hear from you, Mr. Millar. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But there's no problem 16 in asking facts -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- what the Witness 19 did, what the Witness didn't do, what the Witness knew, 20 what the Witness didn't know, did the Witness -- should 21 the Witness have done something. 22 But it's not proper to ask the Witness to 23 put the argument that you're going to make at the end of 24 the day, put argumentative questions or put your argument 25 to the Witness as a fact.
1151 Ask the Witness a fact, that's -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. that's 3 what we're trying to -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But this -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- elicit 6 from this Witness. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Facts, 9 information that he knows, that he can help -- 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm trying to 11 understand his answer, Mr. Commissioner. Perhaps I can 12 phrase it this way. 13 He's indicated he did not think it was 14 problematic. May I ask the following question. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Would you not consider that the 18 following might be a possible problem, that an incident 19 commander involved in a situation like this was told the 20 Premier is in constant touch, might fear that his actions 21 are being reviewed directly by the Premier and that might 22 affect his operational decisions. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:
1161 Q: Do you not think that that is a 2 possible problem, Mr. former Premier? 3 A: No, not at all. 4 Q: You do not. 5 A: No. 6 Q: Thank you. Now, if you could turn, 7 please, to your Tab 81, which is, I gather, in your 8 second volume now. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Your Tab 81, I believe, has a number 13 of Hansard excerpt -- extracts, is that correct, sir? 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And the one I should like to turn to 19 is the one for 5 November, 1996. The pages aren't 20 numbered in my book, at least, but I don't know if you 21 can easily find that, sir. 22 I believe they're in chronological order. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's the third one, I 24 think. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, I'm
1171 looking at 5 November, 1996. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 THE WITNESS: Okay, I think so. it 6 starts with Mr. Gerry Phillips? 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: Now, Mr. Gerry Phillips was one of 12 the persons in the Legislature who asked you a number of 13 questions about this issue over the years; is that fair? 14 A: That's fair, yes. Quite a few 15 questions. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: And Mr. Phillips asked, in the second 20 paragraph of that extract: 21 "We now know, Premier, that on at least 22 three (3) occasions the local 23 conservative member, Mr. Beaubien, was 24 at the police command post. We also 25 know he says, and I will quote here
1181 from a newspaper clipping, that he was, 2 [quote] 'in constant contact with the 3 Premier's office and the Ministries 4 involved. It was my job to keep them 5 apprised.' [end quote]. 6 The question is this: Is this an 7 acceptable standard of behaviour for 8 members of your Conservative Caucus?" 9 And then you answer, according to the 10 Hansard: 11 "I believe, to the best of my 12 knowledge, everything that has been 13 brought to my attention including 14 everything you've brought forward today 15 is..." 16 So I'm not sure what that means exactly 17 but -- the second -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What it 19 means is I think it -- you've got to go back to the 20 question. Acceptable standard of behaviour from all 21 the -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh. I suppose that 23 it's a 'yes' to -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25
1191 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 2 Q: Correct. But I should turn to the 3 last paragraph of your response. 4 "I think the member acted to the best 5 of my knowledge in the best interest of 6 both Native and non-Native constituents 7 within his riding. 8 A very difficult situation for him and 9 he sought to get information from any 10 possible source that he could and 11 sought to inform everybody he could 12 with his understanding of things he was 13 hearing in his riding. 14 I would expect my members to do that, 15 yes." 16 Now first, sir, is it, to your 17 recollection an accurate recording of your response to 18 that question? 19 A: Yeah I -- I believe it is. 20 Q: There's no reason to doubt that this 21 is accurate is it? 22 A: Right. 23 Q: So now this is on 5 November in 1996, 24 more than a year after the killing of Dudley George. By 25 that time you would have reviewed this situation to some
1201 extent, is that not fair? 2 A: Yes. To what extent I don't know. 3 Yes. 4 Q: But in particular I presume before 5 answering so definitively about Mr. Beaubien's conduct, 6 you would have obtained at least the information that I 7 put to you today including the letter of August 14 and 8 the overview of the meeting with Inspector Carson on 9 September 6, 1995; is that fair? 10 A: I -- I have no knowledge of whether I 11 had it then or not. 12 Q: Well, sir, would you not have felt 13 responsible when asked the question as to whether the 14 meetings between the Conservative member and the command 15 post were appropriate to at least to do some 16 investigation before concluding that they were 17 appropriate? 18 A: Well I probably had three (3) seconds 19 notice for the question so I think I indicated the answer 20 to the best of my knowledge and the information that I 21 had seen, yes. 22 Q: As Premier, if you had doubts about 23 the appropriateness of the behaviour of a person such as 24 Mr. Beaubien, a person in your Caucus with respect to 25 interaction with the police, what would be your
1211 responsibility, sir? 2 A: To find out, I suppose, if I had 3 doubts. I don't think at this time I had any doubts so I 4 think I made it pretty clear. 5 Q: Yes. But if you had some doubts your 6 responsibility would be to find out and then what could 7 you do about it? 8 Suppose that you had determined by 9 investigation that Mr. Beaubien had inappropriately 10 interacted with the police? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How is this 12 going to help me? 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: This is pure 14 speculation. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How is this 16 going to help, Mr. Rosenthal? 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With -- with 18 respect, Mr. Commissioner, it's a question of 19 understanding his response here and in other arenas, and 20 whether he really did any investigation of what Mr. 21 Beaubien did, whether he really knew all this and still 22 made that conclusion and so on. 23 And this might assist you in determining 24 his overall credibility as well as his response to the 25 question of police -- of interference with the police by
1221 politicians which is at the heart of this Inquiry. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 3 that's the heart or one of the hearts but I don't see how 4 your question advances the situation. 5 Now, you can just ask him what he knows 6 and you've done that so far, please carry on. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: Now you indicated a few moments ago 10 that you might have just had two (2) minutes' notice of 11 this question -- 12 A: I think it was about three (3) 13 seconds. You don't get two (2) minutes. 14 Q: Well, three (3) seconds. 15 A: Right. 16 Q: I don't want to exaggerate the notice 17 you had. Three (3) seconds notice and therefore you 18 would have responded. 19 But I would put it to you -- it would be 20 your responsibility to after responding do further 21 investigation if there was serious concerns about a 22 member of your Caucus inappropriately interfering with 23 police operations; is that not fair? 24 A: I can't recall at the time. It's 25 fair that if I got a question and it raised concerns in
1231 my mind, I think from my response it did not, then it's 2 possible after Question Period somebody may have -- have 3 said, Gee, we should check, here's some new information, 4 that often occurred in Question Period. That's possible. 5 I can't tell you what occurred at that time. 6 I can tell you that -- that there were all 7 kinds of questions being asked, post the -- the shooting 8 of Dudley George on -- on the 6, 7th of -- of September. 9 Most of them at this stage, I -- my 10 recollection really got down to did -- did -- was there 11 any instructions given to the police and -- and so 12 eventually, whether it was the first question or the 13 second, the heart of the question usually came to that. 14 And I was quite comfortable that all the 15 information I had was that no direction had been given to 16 the police. 17 Q: And one of the aspects of the 18 questions was the implication that perhaps Mr. Beaubien 19 has given some direction to the police, right? 20 A: And any information that I had and 21 been given was that he had not. 22 Q: And did you do any investigation of 23 that either before or after responding on 5 November, 24 1996? 25 A: I -- I can't recall what happened ten
1241 (10) years ago, but my expectation is that -- that staff 2 would have, yes. 3 Q: Can you -- you can't direct us to any 4 results of any such investigation can you, sir? 5 A: No, I can't. 6 Q: Now, if you could turn, please, to 7 the Hansard of 29 May, 1996. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: Sorry, 29 May? 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's the first one. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 15 Q: It's the, I believe, the first one at 16 Tab 81 of your brief. And I should indicate that the 17 previous Hansard, the 5 November 1996, is tab 17 of 18 Exhibit P-973 to these proceedings and the present 19 Hansard that I wish to look at, 29 may, 1996, is Tab 3 of 20 Exhibit P-973. 21 Do you have that in front of you, sir? 22 A: Not yet. 23 Q: It should be the very first Tab -- 24 the first Hansard -- 25 A: Well, the --
1251 Q: -- at Tab -- 2 A: Okay, so the first one I have is a 3 member statements, Michael Brown, Bud Wildman -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 THE WITNESS: Alan McLean (phonetic) or 6 is it -- 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: -- the third? Is that the one you're 11 talking about? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 13 one. It's May 29th. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Yes, May 29th. 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: May 29th, yeah. 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: I should like to turn to the third 23 page of that, if I may. 24 A: Yeah, okay. 25
1261 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: Yes? 4 Q: Mr. Phillips, again, asking you 5 questions. His question on that page is: 6 "I'll take from that, Mr. Premier, that 7 your staff was told that the building - 8 - build up was taking place. If they 9 weren't, you can deny that." 10 And then he asks about whether you will 11 hold a Public Inquiry. 12 Now, your answer is, in response to 13 several of his questions, and I should like to turn to 14 your answer. 15 "Let me say a few things. It's easy 16 for you to stand in your place and make 17 silly allegations and impute motives, 18 things that are absolutely untrue. 19 We knew nothing of any OPP build up. 20 It was not our business. It is the 21 business of the OPP to deal with it. 22 Any briefing that I got would have been 23 in there." 24 You saw a statement of September 12 25 that we made on the issue, so it's an
1271 OPP matter, it's not a political 2 matter." 3 And then skipping a paragraph. 4 "You come to the question of getting to 5 the facts after the fact, obviously of 6 a situation that was taking place. We 7 have not said no to a full Public 8 Inquiry." 9 I'll come back to that later. 10 "But we have not said no to other 11 things." 12 And then, towards the end of that 13 paragraph: 14 "We have said no. We knew nothing of 15 any build-up. My staff heard nothing 16 of any build-up. I was informed of no- 17 build up that you keep repeating." 18 Now, sir, before you would make an 19 assertion about your staff not hearing of any build-up, 20 would you check with your staff? 21 A: I would assume they would have told 22 me if they knew anything, And if I gave information that 23 was incorrect, I'd try and correct it at future Question 24 Period. 25 Q: Now, you knew that Mr. Beaubien had
1281 been in touch with Mr. Bill King of your staff, right? 2 A: I don't know what I knew at this 3 point in time. What are you, a year after here now? No, 4 you're May '96? 5 Q: By May '96, you knew -- you knew that 6 much, did you not? 7 A: Well, Mr. King wasn't my staff, but I 8 may have known that there had been some contact with Mr. 9 Beaubien and Mr. King; I don't know what it was. 10 Q: And you did not -- did you know you 11 knew by then that Mr. Beaubien had been making statements 12 about a build-up, right? 13 A: I knew in May that Mr. Beaubien had 14 been making statements, when? 15 Q: About a build-up? 16 A: When? 17 Q: About the OPP build-up. 18 A: When? 19 Q: By the time you made -- this was 20 being discussed on 29 May. 21 A: I don't know that. I'm not sure what 22 I knew then. Sorry. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 24 Downard? 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: What's appropriate
1291 here, to fairly consider this questioning in -- in 2 Hansard, it's not what Mr. Beaubien may have said on some 3 other occasions, it's what Mr. Phillips is asking the 4 Premier about on this occasion. 5 And Mr. Phillips' question is very clear 6 that he's talking about a build-up, he's talking about a 7 -- a large number of officers to gather at Ipperwash, 8 sharpshooters being brought in, the OPP bringing in 9 extraordinary measures to deal with the situation. So 10 that's the context. 11 And all of this also comes in the context 12 of an article in the Toronto Star that very day, and 13 press coverage earlier in the month that talked about 14 this build-up in the terms of the OPP seeking military 15 assistance, getting military equipment, and so on. 16 So that's -- that's what is being -- and 17 to be fair, that's what a build-up is and that's what's 18 being spoken about at this time, in the political life of 19 the province. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 21 question that Mr. Phillips is asking, right? 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't disagree 23 with that, Mr. Commissioner. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:
1301 Q: And you were aware of that article, 2 were you, at the time, sir? 3 A: I don't know. I may have read the 4 article that morning, but I'm not sure. 5 Q: Sorry, Mr. Commissioner, My Friend 6 mentioned the article. I should like to see if I have a 7 copy of it, the Toronto Star article. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The article is a 12 Toronto Star article dated May 29, 1996 headed, "Secret 13 Talks Held on Ipperwash." It includes a statement that - 14 - and I do not state this for its accuracy because it's 15 not accurate. 16 It includes a statement that the Star has 17 revealed that some two hundred and fifty (250) heavily 18 armed police including snipers were among a group that 19 confronted Indians at the Park after 11:00 p.m. on 20 September 6th. 21 So two hundred and fifty (250) heavily 22 armed police. That's the sort of thing that's being 23 spoken about as a build-up. There's also reference to 24 the OPP being -- using helicopter surveillance and having 25 -- and that there was a liaison officer from the Canadian
1311 Military arriving, and so on. 2 So that's -- going at quickly, that's the 3 sort of context we're talking about on the date. And if 4 My Friend -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 6 newspaper article already an exhibit in this Inquiry? 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Unfortunately, the 8 copy I'm using is in my -- from my personal brief that I 9 have. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But it's not 11 an exhibit so if you're going to -- 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I believe it is 13 actually, but I just don't have the number at hand. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do we have a 15 number for it? If you're going to be making reference to 16 it, I want to be able to refer to it. Does it have an 17 Inquiry number or an exhibit number, just so we can keep 18 the record clear? 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: If I could look at My 20 Friend's copy for a moment? 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Sure. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That is Inquiry 23 Document 6000137. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 6000137. 25 And does it have an exhibit number? Is it already an
1321 exhibit? If you don't know the exhibit number we can 2 find it out, but do you know if it is an exhibit? 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I do not believe that 4 -- oh, it's an exhibit during Marcel Beaubien's evidence. 5 If you give me a moment I can find the number. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 You don't need it right now, just for the record when you 8 find it. Carry on. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm happy to have 10 it referred to -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and mentioned. 13 So evidently, on May 29 there was an article talking 14 about the OPP build-up, and one might conjecture that's 15 still related to Mr. Phillips' question. Okay? 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, no, no. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 18 not the way Mr. Downard sees it. Yes...? 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The article forms 20 part of the context but Mr. Phillips' own statements in 21 the House form part of the context of his question as to 22 what he was referring to as a build-up. He didn't talk 23 simply about a build-up, he -- he talked about 24 extraordinary measures -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.
1331 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- OPP sharpshooters 2 and the like. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 4 sure. In order to be fair to the Witness do you want Mr. 5 Rosenthal to refer to the article in the paper, to Mr. 6 Phillips' question, or to both? We want to get the 7 question to the Witness so it's proper. 8 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, if -- if My 9 Friend accepts that what I have said about what was 10 referred to Mr. -- Mr. Phillips is -- is accurate then 11 that's fine by me. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Then 13 let's carry on. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This is all 15 irrelevant to where I was going. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm happy to 18 accommodate Mr. Downard on his time -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. Well, 20 no -- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- of course, Mr. 22 Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're using 24 your time and if it's irrelevant then move on; if it 25 isn't then ask the question.
1341 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I -- my 2 question was going to focus on the following, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: You say, My staff knew nothing of any 7 build-up. Now, would you agree, sir, that by this time 8 you would have known that there was at least a 9 possibility that Bill King, as the person who was to 10 receive information from Caucus members, would have been 11 receiving information from Marcel Beaubien? 12 A: That's possible, but my staff would 13 refer to any of the staff that were involved in any of 14 the decisions that were made 4th, 5th, 6th on -- on the 15 Ipperwash situation. And to the best of my knowledge, 16 the answer is accurate. 17 And if it was not, then -- which sometimes 18 occurs in Question period when I've got to deal with the 19 possibility of a thousand (1,000) different issues coming 20 up with no notice, if it was inaccurate then it usually 21 would be brought to my attention and we would try and 22 correct the record. 23 So if that wasn't done I would tell you 24 that, to the best of my knowledge, this was accurate. 25 Q: You would not agree that it was
1351 incumbent upon you to check with your staff before you 2 say, My staff knew nothing of any build up? 3 A: Well, I -- unfortunately the rules of 4 the Legislature at Question Period, they don't allow you 5 to say, hold it, let's adjourn for an hour while I go and 6 consult with my staff. 7 So to the best of my knowledge at the 8 time, I'm giving an accurate answer. If it is not, it 9 could be corrected later. I don't believe it was 10 corrected. I think it was accurate from everything that 11 I know, but that's sort of how Question Period works. 12 Q: So it wasn't incumbent on you to say, 13 I haven't checked with my staff, but as far as I know, 14 they were not -- they heard about the build-up. 15 A: Actually, it's not incumbent on me to 16 say anything. I don't have to answer the question, if I 17 want. Although I think you will find, probably against 18 the advice of my lawyers who said, you know, that -- 19 particularly when it was under investigation, I honestly 20 attempted to answer all the questions as best I could 21 because I think there was a misconception out there, that 22 carries on to this day that, somehow or other, I or my 23 staff were involved in directing the OPP. 24 So I -- I did go to great pains, to the 25 best of my ability, to try and answer questions. I
1361 believe this is an accurate answer then, if there is no 2 correction further along, which somebody could check, 3 then it would have been an accurate answer. 4 I may have known for certainty. I may 5 have checked with the staff as the basis of that article. 6 There could have been a hundred (100) articles that day, 7 there could have been a hundred (100) issues that we were 8 dealing with. 9 I can't tell you. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you 11 really want to pursue -- 12 THE WITNESS: Recollect, I -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- this 14 area? 15 THE WITNESS: But if you're asking me, 16 did I honestly give an answer that I was -- was sure was 17 correct, to the best of my ability, I always did, 18 including this one. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you 20 really want to pursue this area, Mr. Rosenthal? 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I would but -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You do? 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- not the -- all 24 the matters that he mentioned, Mr. Commissioner. I'm 25 reluctant to interrupt the Witness, but I do have a
1371 couple of specific questions, if I may. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Now, you do agree that it is your 5 responsibility, if you do speak in the House, to speak 6 the truth? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And so would you agree that it would 9 be improper to say, My staff heard nothing of any build- 10 up, without checking with your staff before saying that, 11 because that gives an impression that you have checked 12 and you know that they did not hear anything of any 13 build-up? 14 A: Well, that was my understanding at 15 the time and I think it proved to be true. 16 Q: Because Bill King did testify at 17 these proceedings and he testified as to whether there 18 had been -- whether he had knowledge of the build-up or 19 not would depend on what were meant by build-up. 20 But he also testified that you did not ask 21 him whether he had been aware of any build-up. 22 Now, does that make you uncomfortable with 23 your answer, My staff did not hear of any build-up, sir? 24 A: Not in the slightest. 25 Q: Not the slightest?
1381 A: No. 2 Q: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I ask -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Now -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- please 6 that there be no reactions, please. Carry on. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 10 Q: Now, I'd like to turn to some of the 11 subsequent events. If you could briefly look at your Tab 12 76, please, which I gather should be in your second 13 Volume. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 18 Mr. Rosenthal, what Tab number? 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 76, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 76? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 25 Q: This is a -- Inquiry document
1391 1012530, Exhibit P-1078. 2 It's entitled: 3 "Office memo, subject Ipperwash. The 4 following is a draft letter re. the 5 Ipperwash situation which the Premier 6 is sending out." 7 It's dated October 10, 1995, and I just 8 wanted to draw to your attention the second to last 9 paragraph. 10 "It is my hope that the illegal 11 occupation of the Ipperwash Provincial 12 Park will end quickly and peacefully." 13 Now, that was a statement that you made on 14 October 10, 1995; is that correct? 15 A: I believe so. 16 Q: And then if you turn to your Tab 80. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Tab 80 is Inquiry Document 1012213 21 Exhibit P-1050. This is a letter to Marcel Beaubien 22 dated February 20, 1996; is that correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And one (1) thing that this assures 25 us, among other things perhaps, is that by February 20,
1401 1996 you surely knew about Marcel Beaubien's particular 2 concerns with respect to Ipperwash Park, right? 3 A: I -- I believe this is in response, I 4 guess, to a letter from Marcel Beaubien -- 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: -- which I don't have so I -- I -- 7 Q: But you were aware of a letter from 8 Marcel Beaubien -- 9 A: I believe when I signed this letter I 10 would have reviewed the contents of the other letter. I 11 don't recall them now. 12 Q: Yes. And then, in particular, you 13 wrote to him on February 20, 1996: 14 "Once the illegal occupation of 15 Ipperwash Provincial Park is definitely 16 over and the Park is returned to 17 provincial control --" 18 A: I'm sorry, where are you now? Oh, in 19 this letter. Okay. Yeah. 20 Q: " -- is returned to provincial 21 control we can begin discussions with 22 Canada and the First Nations to address 23 any legitimate concerns the First 24 Nations may have." 25 That's among the matters that you wrote to
1411 Mr. Beaubien on this occasion in February of 1996, right? 2 A: In response to a letter from him that 3 I don't have to refer to, yes. 4 Q: Yes. Well, My -- My Friend Mr. 5 Millar points out that that letter is at Tab 79, if you 6 wish to refer to it, sir. 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: And it talks about him being 9 concerned about the lack of progress by the Government on 10 the Ipperwash issue. Tab 79, for the record, is Inquiry 11 Document 1012509. It's Exhibit P-1049. 12 In any event, I -- I was going to move on. 13 You did, in February 1996, express those views to Mr. 14 Beaubien. Now, you remained Premier until April 2002; is 15 that correct, sir? 16 A: Approximately. Somewhere around 17 there, yeah. 18 Q: Thank you. Sorry. You -- you 19 remained Premier until approximately April 2002; is that 20 correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And you never pursued an injunction 23 again, with respect to Ipperwash Park, after September 24 1995; is that correct? 25 A: After which date? September --
1421 Q: There was the original injunction 2 application on September 7, 1995 -- 3 A: That's -- 4 Q: -- is that correct. 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And that was withdrawn -- withdrawn 7 several days later, right? 8 A: I believe so, yes. 9 Q: And then you never, you meaning you 10 and your government, never pursued an injunction after 11 that is that not correct? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Now, I should like to turn you to 14 Exhibit P-763 which is Inquiry Document 2000526, and I 15 don't believe it's in your book of documents and I'm not 16 sure if you were provided with a copy but, in any event, 17 I have copies. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: So Exhibit P-763 is a memorandum 22 dated March 5th, 1996 from Tim McCabe, Counsel with the 23 Ministry of the Attorney General, to Yan Lazor, who was 24 the Assistant Secretary in the Ontario Native Affairs 25 Secretariat. And this is March 5th, 1996, and talking
1431 about the remedy of an injunction with respect to 2 Ipperwash Provincial Park on that date. 3 Would you like to turn to... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Okay. Have you ever seen this 8 document before, sir? 9 A: I don't recall. 10 Q: I should like to turn to page 3 of 11 this document, in the middle of page 3 it says: 12 "The prerequisites of a motion for an 13 interlocutory injunction." 14 And then reads: 15 "There are several issues that the 16 Government must resolve internally. 17 And one step that it must take before 18 bringing such a motion." 19 And then it says: 20 "The issues to resolve are: 21 1. The Government will have to decide 22 whether it is willing to risk 23 providing, by means of injunction 24 proceedings, a judicial forum for 25 review of the police operations of last
1441 September and the death that occurred 2 on the evening of September 6th. 3 The Attorney General would, of course, 4 argue vigorously that those operations 5 in that event are entirely irrelevant 6 to the injunction proceedings, but it 7 can be expected that the Defendants 8 would make every attempt to lead 9 evidence and cross-examine on those 10 matters." 11 I put it to you, sir, that one of the 12 reasons, perhaps the main reason that your Government did 13 not seek an injunction with respect to the Park, at any 14 time during tenure as Premier, was because of your 15 concern that your activities and the activities of the 16 police would be subject to judicial scrutiny in the 17 application for any such injunction. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 19 you answer, yes, Mr. Downard? 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: A minor -- a minor 21 concern, that once we get, at any time during Mr. Harris' 22 tenure as Premier, we get further and further away -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- from the facts of 25 this matter.
1451 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: But the -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if you 4 ask the question at this -- 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The question is -- 6 as at that time, I don't object to it. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, 8 Commissioner, it's at any time, and it sheds light on 9 this Government's behaviour with respect to the whole 10 matter, the fact that it refused to call an inquiry. 11 There's nothing improper with my question. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Why doesn't My Friend 13 just make his objection and stop making speeches. He can 14 make his argument as everybody else at the appropriate 15 time. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just ask the 17 question, your question is a good one if you just keep it 18 confined to a reasonable time frame. 19 Ask the question. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, sir, I want 21 it to be his entire tenure as Premier as to why they 22 never sought an injunction. They were so anxious to get 23 them out, very immediately of the Park on that occasion, 24 and it's appropriate to ask why they didn't subsequently 25 do anything in that direction.
1461 And it's my submission that this is the 2 reason, and I put it to him, and I should like to 3 continue that question. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Go ahead. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: Now, Mr. Harris, I put it to you that 8 the reason that your Government never pursued an 9 injunction afterward was because you did not want 10 judicial scrutiny of your behaviour and the OPP's 11 behaviour with respect to the killing of Dudley George. 12 What is your response to that, sir? 13 A: Not true. 14 Q: Well what is the reason then that you 15 did not pursue it when it was so urgent that it had to be 16 done immediately or within twenty-four (24) hours or very 17 quickly, and then let it go for the entire tenure you had 18 as Premier? 19 A: Well clearly, other events, I think, 20 as we've indicated, intervened. First was the tragic 21 death of Dudley George. There was the -- the 22 investigation by the SIU, there was the possibility of 23 all kinds of investigations from the coroner's inquest, 24 to a -- then a criminal trial which all was getting 25 information out.
1471 And there was a civil -- threat of a civil 2 action, then civil action which would have provided 3 judicial scrutiny of certainly all my actions and 4 probably the -- the OPP actions. 5 And I indicated that -- that after all of 6 these processes, that if there was still more information 7 that had not come out through any of those processes or 8 if those processes -- there was -- there was no other 9 legal action, we would then consider whether we would go 10 to what you now know is -- is a very expensive, very time 11 consuming process of a full public inquiry. 12 So I didn't say no, I said let's see what 13 information comes out through these processes and that -- 14 that basically was our position. I would say further, 15 that if there was a concern for public safety as a result 16 of the occupation continuing, that might have -- have 17 made it more urgent 18 And I think there was a concern in the 19 September 4th, 5th, 6th for public safety, and if that 20 had become an issue in the ensuing years while I was 21 Premier, then we may have revisited whether, in fact, the 22 -- we should be seeking an injunction. 23 I think in the ensuing time there were 24 negotiations, or some discussion over whether the Park 25 could re-open in conjunction with the -- with the Band,
1481 the official recognized Band. 2 But there was still, at that point, not 3 agreement, I don't think, from the dissidents and the -- 4 and the official Band and there were these other ongoing 5 legal things taking place. 6 So that would be a summary, I think, of -- 7 of the reasons why we didn't address a judicial inquiry. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, the 9 injunction. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 12 question -- 13 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, while the -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The question 15 was the injunction. 16 THE WITNESS: I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, carry 18 on. 19 THE WITNESS: Or the injunction, right. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: Now, there are several questions that 24 arise from your answer, sir. 25 And with respect to the death of Dudley
1491 George, you would agree that that would have militated 2 against seeking an injunction in the short run, but 3 certainly not for years afterward, right? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: So then you mentioned the other 6 factors of the SIU investigation? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And the criminal trials? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And those ended by when; in 1997/8/9, 11 somewhere? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And then you mentioned the civil 14 action. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Now, you became aware, you were one 17 of the Defendants in the civil action, right? 18 A: Yeah. 19 Q: So you were aware of its progress? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you were aware that the people 22 pursuing the civil action had made public and private 23 representations that if you were to call a Public Inquiry 24 into this matter they would drop the civil action, right? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr.
1501 Downard...? 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Oh -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't know 4 where this is going, either. 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I think we are 6 getting beyond your mandate. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My -- if we -- if 9 what My Friend is asking about is part of your mandate 10 then we are, unfortunately, going to have to look at, 11 perhaps, the -- the particular allegations that were made 12 in the civil action, the -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- basis by which 15 they are made, the basis by which others made allegations 16 and we get into a real kettle of fish -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm going to 18 ask you to stop there. 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- and I'm happy to 20 do it. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm going to 22 ask you to stop there. Mr. Rosenthal is almost at the 23 end of his time, so I'm sure that's not his plan. 24 You're almost at the end of your time, I 25 mean to hold you to it and I know you usually try to keep
1511 to it. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm trying my best, 3 sir. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Your 5 question 6 was with respect to the injunction. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That was 9 your question. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, and he gave 11 me -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: An answer 13 that went quite beyond what might be considered a short 14 answer. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But he gave a 18 number of reasons, Mr. Commissioner -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- as to why the 21 injunction was not pursued. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I've explored 24 all but the last of them, and the last was the civil suit 25 and there's the question, the others were all done, we
1521 agree, by the late '90's, Mr. Harris and I agreed. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I was exploring 4 the question of why the civil suit would have prevented a 5 Public Inquiry -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 7 about a Public Inquiry -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Or an injunction. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's about 10 an injunction. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, but the 12 Inquiry came in, too. And then -- and then I was 13 exploring that, did the -- there was no objections, as 14 far as I can understand, that's relevant. 15 I was -- because I was exploring it from 16 the point of view the existence of the civil suit would 17 have been ended by the inquiry -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and why did he 20 not do that then. And I should like to continue that 21 question and that's all. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 25 Millar...?
1531 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The fact of the matter 2 is that the Government of Mr. Harris did not call an 3 inquiry. The -- there are many, many reasons we are here 4 today in an inquiry. 5 There are many reasons why a government -- 6 and as -- many governments haven't got into an issue, 7 haven't called public inquiries, in fact, governments are 8 often criticized for not getting in a public... 9 But this is not -- whether or not the 10 public inquiry was called is an issue completely 11 collateral to anything that you're asked to do under the 12 mandate that you have. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I didn't 14 think that is where Mr. Rosenthal was going with this 15 series of questions. If it is then we have to deal with 16 it, but that's not where you were going. If it is then 17 you better tell us. 18 I thought you were concerned about the 19 possibility of providing a forum for judicial scrutiny of 20 the decision and the question was why they didn't pursue 21 the injunction. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Exactly, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That was the 24 question. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And --
1541 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If that what 2 you're keeping your questions to, I think we can deal 3 with it. But if you're going beyond that, then -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But then it does 5 relate to other possible forums and the answer -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- I -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- the answer given 8 by the Witness, Mr. Commissioner, was because of all 9 these other judicial forums that were going on and I -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 11 going to -- I've said this before and I'll say it again. 12 This is not an Injury to investigate why there was not an 13 Inquiry called before. 14 That's not the purpose of this Inquiry, 15 all right? It's not, in my view, my responsibility to 16 determine why there was no Inquiry. 17 So if that's where you're going, I'd like 18 you to stop. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with respect, 20 may I suggest that it would be part of your 21 responsibility to determine whether this government was 22 reluctant to be exposed on this issue. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And not 25 specifically the Inquiry, necessarily, but the question
1551 of an injunction and so on and all the other things, 2 but -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 4 answered -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- but then in 6 response to my question which started from an injunction, 7 Mr. Harris offered up various reasons that they did not 8 pursue an injunction and he mentioned various suits. 9 He mentioned the civil suit among them and 10 I was up to that and I wanted to ask him, was he aware -- 11 I do believe I had asked him and he didn't answer, was he 12 aware that the persons pursuing the civil suit had made 13 public statements and private statements that they would 14 drop it if there was an Inquiry, and he didn't get to 15 answer that question. 16 I presume the answer to that question 17 would be yes. And if I'm allowed to answer that question 18 my -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- following 21 question would be, was it not because of his government's 22 fear of judicial scrutiny that they didn't do an 23 injunction or an Inquiry and they tried to limit as much 24 as possible, any public investigation into this matter. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's your
1561 last question? 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: On this -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On this -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- area. I have 5 one (1) other area to -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 7 only reason was to prevent some scrutiny of their actions 8 on that day. Is that -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: The -- now -- the 10 only reason -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In other 12 words -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- important 14 reason -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you're 16 not asking why there was no Public Inquiry, you're asking 17 a very specific question; is that right? 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 20 right? Mr. Millar, do you have any -- 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, it seems to be-- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he's 24 saying "yes." 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well --
1571 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's about 2 to ask it, but I want to know -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's in the context 4 that I indicated. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I -- but I -- 7 may I first ask -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Because I -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- a similar 10 question. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I've let you 12 ask other witnesses this question -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to some 15 limited extent. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And to some 18 limited extent, I think this is useful information. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I am not 21 prepared to embark on an investigation as to why a 22 government decides to call a Public Inquiry or does not. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Because 25 there are many, many reasons and it's a very difficult
1581 question for any government. That has many, many 2 aspects; political, financial, et cetera, and that is not 3 the purpose of this Inquiry. 4 We are in an Inquiry. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 7 government of the day called an Inquiry. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So any 10 questions that are relevant, you can ask, in this Inquiry 11 because we're here. 12 Now -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I -- I'm going 14 to be very brief as I was with other witnesses in that 15 direction and -- but then I do want to focus on the -- 16 the issue of the injunction not being pursued. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's your 18 question? Let's see if it's appropriate. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: My preliminary question, I believe 22 the -- we didn't get an answer to was: were you aware 23 that the people pursing the civil case against you and 24 others had announced years before the final settlement 25 that they would drop that suit if there were to be a
1591 Public Inquiry? 2 A: Yes, I was aware, I think as you 3 indicated before, you've rephrased this question now 4 three (3) or four (4) times, that there were media 5 reports, it was put to me in the Legislature, and even 6 sometimes before those media reports, that this was the - 7 - the position of those that were already engaged in the 8 litigation. 9 Yes, I was aware of that. 10 Q: Thank you. Now, in answer to my 11 question as to whether-- was it not the case that the 12 reason that you did not pursue an injunction, was because 13 of your concern about judicial scrutiny. 14 You mentioned a number of cases that were 15 going on -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just stop 17 there -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- you stated that 19 all except for the -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 21 a question. Why don't you let him answer it? 22 The question is, is that the reason? Why 23 don't you just let him answer that question without going 24 into -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well --
1601 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the more 2 you going into, the more complicated it becomes. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect -- 4 respect, Mr. Commissioner I believe he denied that that 5 was the reason, but I'm trying to explore that further, 6 if I may. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Which one has a 9 right to on cross-examination. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 11 think that we've gone about as far as we can go there. 12 He answered the question, that that's not the reason why 13 he didn't pursue the injunction. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Well, may I -- may I ask, say by the 17 year 2000, all of the proceedings that you did mention, 18 other than the civil suit, were ended; is that fair? 19 A: I -- I don't know the dates but -- 20 Q: Approximately. 21 A: -- at some point they were, yes. 22 Q: Probably several years before that, 23 in fact, right? 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: Now, sir, was there consideration, on
1611 your part, of applying for an injunction to remove the 2 people from the Park at around the year 2000, say, or -- 3 or 1999, 1998? 4 A: I don't recall it coming forward and 5 I think I indicated to you in my answer, which you 6 thought was too long, but I thought was helpful in 7 providing information that there was, at that point, 8 ongoing litigation and the -- there did not seem to be 9 any safety issue; nobody came forward and said, We've got 10 to open this Park next year. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 12 THE WITNESS: So, no, the -- we did not 13 apply for an injunction. I don't recall anybody asking 14 me, Should we apply for an injunction at this point in 15 time. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: So you're suggesting that the reason 19 -- one (1) of the important reasons that you applied for 20 an injunction on September 7, and that it was discussed 21 on September 5 and 6, was because of safety? 22 A: That was one (1) of the areas of 23 concern. The second was we wished to have the -- the 24 Park back, as I think -- 25 Q: Yes.
1621 A: -- you're aware, and establish that 2 ownership of the Park. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 4 THE WITNESS: I thought -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure -- 6 THE WITNESS: -- those were important 7 but -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Surely 9 you're not going to revisit the reasons for the 10 injunction now? 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Surely. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, I'm -- I'm just 14 dealing with his answer to this question, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: So the -- the latter reason of your 19 wanting to have the Park back, and we've looked at some 20 documents from the spring of '96 and so on, where you 21 indicate that you intend to get it back, that reason 22 persisted throughout your tenure as Premier, right? 23 A: Yes, I believe it did, and other 24 events, as you know, overtook that and seemed to be more 25 important to get resolved first, if that helps to answer
1631 the question that I think you're going to ask. 2 Q: Well, I put it to you there's no 3 other rational explanation for your not seeking an 4 injunction over the subsequent years other than your fear 5 of judicial scrutiny of the situation, sir? 6 A: Well, that may be your opinion but 7 given that I was actually looking forward to testifying 8 in a civil suit to set the record straight under judicial 9 scrutiny, I think that's -- that's a very erroneous 10 conclusion. 11 Q: If you could please turn to Tab 59, 12 which I believe to be the last Tab in your clearly 13 divided book of documents. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How close 15 are you to the end of your examination? 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, sir? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How close 18 are you to the end? 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This is my last 20 area, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, with one 23 (1) final little -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 Tab 59?
1641 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Tab 59 is Exhibit P-957 and it's 5 Inquiry Document 12000079, a fax that your executive 6 assistant Bill King sent -- sent to all PC Caucus members 7 on September 8, 1995. And it includes what is said to be 8 a transcript of your comments to the media and it was 9 sent out to the Caucus so they can know how you responded 10 on two (2) questions, the Quebec Referendum question and 11 Ipperwash. 12 You'll be glad to know I'm not dealing 13 with the first, Mr. Commissioner, but if we turn to -- if 14 you look, the pages are numbered -- if you look at the 15 fax numbers are the ones that are consecutive, the small 16 numbers in the upper right-hand corner. I'm looking at 17 five of five (5/5). 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The second last one? 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Which is the second 20 last page. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The second last page 23 of the notes. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25
1651 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: So this is September 8, two (2) days 5 after the killing of Dudley George. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And on that page you are quoted, 8 there's a question: 9 "There are renewed calls this morning 10 for you to get personally involved in 11 the Ipperwash situation." 12 You answer: 13 "I don't know who's renewing those 14 calls. This is an illegal occupation; 15 they are trespassing on land that 16 belongs to the Crown. This is a matter 17 for the OPP to deal with. So for there 18 to be any discussions over what we all 19 want to be a safe and peaceful 20 conclusion for this illegal occupation, 21 it should be with those in charge of 22 that and that's the OPP." 23 That's an accurate rendition of what you 24 said on that occasion, sir? 25 A: I believe so.
1661 Q: And then if you turn to the next 2 page, the question at the top of that page: 3 "Have you talked personally with Mr. 4 Mercredi about this? And if so, what 5 was the conversation about? 6 A: No. Mr. Mercredi, to the best of 7 my knowledge, never called my office. 8 He had his officials call on his behalf 9 asking for a meeting with me and we 10 indicated there would be no meeting or 11 negotiations or discussing with me on 12 the Ipperwash situation." 13 So you, at that point, took the absolute 14 position you would not meet with Mr. Mercredi; is that 15 fair? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now lastly, last area, Mr. 18 Commissioner, you'd be glad to know. You might be glad 19 to know as well, Mr. Harris. 20 As the Commissioner indicated the other 21 day, it's for the Commissioner, not for you, to determine 22 the credibility of any witness in these proceedings. 23 But it may be that you can provide 24 evidence that would assist the Commissioner in 25 determining credibility. And I should like to ask you if
1671 know of anything about Mr. Harnick that might assist the 2 Commissioner in determining his credibility with respect 3 to the statement. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not -- 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: This is where I came 6 in yesterday. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. 8 There is a question that may be appropriate if it's put 9 properly. That wasn't the question that I think is a 10 proper one. 11 Now if you can ask the question, perhaps 12 you -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I didn't finish my 14 question. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I know 16 what you're trying to do, and again, we want to be 17 helpful rather than obstruct you to ask a question that's 18 a proper question, if you can. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps Mr. 21 Millar could assist you, or somebody, because this is a 22 very delicate area and I understand that if the question 23 is asked properly, I'll permit it. If it isn't then I'm 24 going to not allow it and rather than not allow it -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I believe
1681 that I did ask it properly. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- let's see 3 if we get it right. Perhaps Mr. Falconer. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: There are several 5 aspects of this question that I wish to ask. I -- I 6 don't thing anything was improper about the question. I 7 did ask if -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well it's my 9 decision to determine credibility. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Of course. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But if the 12 Witness knows any reason why -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps Mr. 15 Horton would have some assistance. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: There's one 17 question that's been suggested by one of My Friends and I 18 didn't even see who it was. But it sounds reasonable to 19 me and this is one of several questions I would ask. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Are you aware of any reason Mr. 23 Harnick might have been lying when he reported to this 24 Commission, under oath, that he heard you say, I want the 25 fucking Indians out of the Park?
1691 A: No, I'm not. 2 Q: And in particular, you're not aware 3 of any bias he may have against you? 4 A: I -- I'm not aware of that. 5 Q: And, in fact, from everything you 6 know, it's quite the contrary and he respects you? 7 A: I hope so. 8 Q: And you are aware that he was present 9 on that occasion so he might have had the opportunity to 10 hear say something, right? 11 A: I think he had the opportunity to 12 hear me at any occasion I spoke at that meeting, if 13 that's what you're saying. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I think 15 that's about as far you can go on this. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think that's 17 about as far as I need to go, Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you very 20 much. Thank you, Mr. Harris. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 22 very much, Mr. Rosenthal. 23 It's about a quarter to 12:00. Mr. 24 Scullion is next. Mr. Scullion, how long do you think 25 you might be before we decide whether to take a break or
1701 an early lunch or a late break or just continue? 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It might be -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Advisable to 4 continue. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: To -- to continue at 6 least to 12:30. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which might 8 be enough time to complete Mr. Scullion. 9 Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal, Ms. Esmonde. 10 THE WITNESS: I wonder, Mr. Commissioner, 11 if we're going to go to 12:30, could we take a -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You need a 13 break? 14 THE WITNESS: -- maybe a four (4) minute 15 break? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You need a 17 break? By all means. Would you just give me an 18 indication of how long you might be? 19 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: If I'd estimated 20 four (4) hours, I would be less than that, sir. But -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 22 think you estimated four (4) hours. 23 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: When I -- when I 24 estimated ninety (90) minutes, I anticipated that those 25 in front of me are going to ask certain questions in
1711 certain areas. 2 My time estimate hasn't changed -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- in terms of what 5 I expect. But of course with objections, with questions, 6 it may be more or less. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 8 We'll take a break now. A short break for -- just a 9 facility break. 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 11 for five (5) minutes. 12 13 --- Upon recessing at 11:46 a.m. 14 --- Upon resuming at 11:56 a.m. 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 17 resumed. Please be seated. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we'll 19 go to about one o'clock, is that okay, Mr. Scullion? And 20 then we'll take a lunch break and then you'll finish, if 21 you still have more to do after our lunch break. 22 We'll take a shorter lunch break so we can 23 complete what I think we need to complete today. 24 So we'll have our lunch break from 1:00 to 25 2:00, is that all right?
1721 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: That's fine, 2 whatever works does for me Mr. Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 4 the plan, then. We'll go to one o'clock, take a lunch 5 break until 2:00 and then come back and see if we can 6 finish the remaining examiners that I think we can finish 7 today. 8 Carry on. 9 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: And again, I'll do 10 my best as we've done in the past to cut to the chase as 11 opposed to the usual building blocks, but we'll see how 12 well that works. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 14 always done that, Mr. Scullion. So, carry on. 15 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thank you, Mr. 16 Commissioner. 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 19 Q: I think we're in the afternoon. Good 20 afternoon, Mr. Harris. 21 A: Good afternoon. 22 Q: My name's Kevin Scullion. I'm one 23 (1) of Counsel for the Residents of Aazhoodena, that you 24 may also know as the occupants, the Stoney Pointers. 25 And I'd like to clarify -- I was listening
1731 to your evidence over the last two (2) days and I've 2 heard your term and your use of the term, "I concur", and 3 you've used it in a number of different contexts. 4 I just want to understand fully what "I 5 concur" means. 6 When you use it in the context of 7 concurring with views that Ms. Hutton expressed, either 8 at the IMC meeting or to you, does that mean that you 9 agreed with those views? 10 A: I think generally it would mean I 11 concurred with either the views or concurred with the 12 decision that had been -- that had been made by the -- by 13 the ICC or the group, the collective decision. 14 Normally that and, you know, on the 4th, 15 5th, or sorry, 5th, 6th, I guess; that would be the case, 16 yes. 17 Q: Right. I -- I appreciate that but 18 when you say you concur with the views is that your view? 19 You agree that that's your view as well as whoever's view 20 your concurring with? 21 A: It -- not necessarily. I think it 22 would be, Okay, I concur with the decision. I understand 23 you have more information than I and you were part of it 24 and you've relayed to me some of what went into the 25 thinking so that -- that's fine, I concur.
1741 Q: So when you say, "I concur," it 2 doesn't necessarily mean that's your view, it's simply, I 3 don't have any opinion? 4 A: Well, it -- it -- you know, it's a 5 difficult thing for me to say. It -- it -- the -- when 6 you have this many issues you delegate a lot of -- of 7 that type of authority. I think it would mean, I concur, 8 we'll proceed that way or, I concur, that's a good way -- 9 way to go. I -- I think that's the best way I can 10 describe it to you. 11 Q: I hear you but I've asked you whether 12 or not if you say that you concur with a view, if that's 13 your view? 14 A: Well, that -- that would become the 15 view of the government and I'd be prepared to support 16 that view. How's that? 17 Q: It's -- it's not enough. Is it your 18 view if you say that you concur -- 19 A: No. 20 Q: -- with the view? 21 A: Well, it's my view based on the 22 information that I have; that we're proceeding in the 23 right direction or that's the right decision. 24 Q: Well, I'll get to the decision and 25 the direction. I'm asking you for views, if you're
1751 concurring with a view does that mean it's your view as 2 well? 3 A: No, it means that I concur you've 4 made the right decision and that's the way we will 5 proceed. 6 Q: So somebody else has made the 7 decision, somebody else has that view, you're not 8 disagreeing but you have no opinion on it? 9 A: I may have. That's what I said. It 10 depends. I may from time to time. It may exactly be my 11 view. I may concur 100 percent. I may say, Okay, if 12 that's the decision, let's -- let's go forward. 13 Q: So when you say, "I don't -- I 14 concur," we don't really know what you're thinking? 15 A: It's possible. It could be something 16 different. But you know when you make as many decisions 17 as -- as the Premier of the province makes and the 18 government makes often a concurring can be, Okay, you've 19 been there. I've got fifty (50) other issues to deal 20 with. Good enough for me. Sounds okay on the basis of 21 what you've told me. That'd be it. 22 Q: So when you concurred with the 23 decision made at the dining room are you telling us that 24 somebody else made that decision and you didn't object to 25 it?
1761 A: I didn't object to it, no and I 2 concurred and felt as I've indicated quite clearly that I 3 believe that was the consensus of the group at the dining 4 room table that was there. Now, if -- if that's 5 incorrect, then so be it, but I -- I believe to this day 6 that was -- that was the consensus of the group, yes. 7 Q: And it wasn't your decision? 8 A: I didn't view it as my decision. 9 This wasn't one where I said, Okay, give me all the 10 information and I will make the decision. I didn't view 11 my role as -- as judge and jury, if that's what you mean. 12 I think we tried to come to a consensus, the way we 13 operated in -- in Cabinet. 14 And that would have been the way we 15 operated in a lot of the decisions that we made and I 16 think that's the way we operated there. 17 Q: But you're in your dining room or 18 your meeting room as you've described it. You're the 19 Premier in the middle of this meeting but you didn't see 20 it as a decision of yours; it was a committee decision? 21 Is that what I understand? 22 A: I believed it was committee decision 23 and I concurred with it and was comfortable with it and 24 felt that was the right decision for -- for the 25 government to make at that time, right.
1771 Q: All right. Let's move to a different 2 topic. 3 At one point in your examination-in-chief 4 you indicated to Mr. Millar that in terms of an ideal 5 position: 6 "By the time I came back --" 7 And for Mr. Downard's reference, page 80 8 of the transcript on Valentine's Day: 9 "By the time I came back Tuesday night, 10 that it was all over. The occupiers 11 left and they made their point. Taking 12 a long time for the Federal Government 13 to give them their Camp back and we 14 will probably support them in that." 15 Do you remember saying that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And that was true correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: That was your feeling as of the 20 morning of September the 5th that if they left the Park 21 by the time you finished your golf game that was the 22 ideal situation; the government wouldn't have to do 23 anything about it? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: You saw it as a situation of civil
1781 disobedience and they were simply making a point; 2 correct? 3 A: My assumption was the -- the 4 frustration, the concern, the point they wished to make 5 in the absence of -- of any evidence of anything else and 6 anything else that I had heard about was over the Camp 7 property not being returned to them, yes. 8 Q: I appreciate that. You saw it as 9 spillover from the Camp situation -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- and that they were making a point, 12 a protest, by occupying the Park? At least that's the 13 way you saw it as of the morning of September 5th? 14 A: I believe so. 15 Q: And then it wasn't a problem or 16 something that the government had to deal with, as long 17 as they'd left at some point that day? That was the 18 ideal situation? 19 A: Well, it wasn't a problem for the 20 Provincial Government. It -- because if they'd have 21 left, we would have had the Park back and that would have 22 dealt with that. 23 It would not have resolved the issue for - 24 - for the Kettle and Stony Point Band and it would not 25 have resolved the issue, I guess, as far as the Federal
1791 Government was concerned. 2 Q: Of course. 3 A: That was still to be resolved, and I 4 think I indicated that, you know, if we were asked, we 5 would be supportive of them in getting this resolved. 6 Q: I appreciate that. Up until their 7 movement into the Provincial Park, and in fact for the 8 previous fifty (50) years, this was a problem with the 9 Feds and with the Stoney Pointers and the Kettle Point 10 and Stoney Point Band. 11 A: That was my understanding. 12 Q: Right. And as soon as they moved 13 into the Park, it became a problem for the province, but 14 one that you could handle if they moved back out of the 15 Park by the end of that day? 16 A: I believe so. 17 Q: All right. What would you have done 18 to assist them if they had moved back out of the Park by 19 the end of that day? 20 A: Well, it would have -- it didn't 21 happen so I think my sense was that if they had asked for 22 our assistance, we would have been prepared to do 23 whatever we could, you know, given the limitations, I 24 guess, that -- that we were the Provincial Government and 25 it wasn't -- wasn't Provincial Government land.
1801 But sometimes support from the -- from the 2 Provincial Government and the jurisdiction where this 3 dispute with the Federal Government's taking place, 4 sometimes that might be helpful. 5 We've been prepared to do that. 6 Q: Right. One (1) of the ways to help 7 them out was to give the Feds a call and see if you 8 couldn't get them to deal with this situation that had 9 been festering for fifty (50) years. 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Right. Would you agree with me that 12 it also would have been of assistance to have had your 13 government look into the surrender issue? 14 A: I don't know what surrender you mean. 15 Q: The surrender of the Park lands. 16 A: I -- to be honest with you, at the 17 time, I didn't know that the surrender of the Park lands 18 was an issue or that it was related. 19 Q: All right, so that's not something -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- that you were considering offering 22 assistance with? 23 A: No. 24 Q: All right, it's not something that 25 you would have seen as a role for the Provincial
1811 Government if they had left on that Tuesday, September 2 5th? 3 A: Not if the issue was 100 percent the 4 Camp. If the Chief had expressed that -- that, thanks 5 very much for your offer to help, Mike, however we have 6 an issue, too, with the Camp, then that's something that 7 I would have been prepared, certainly, to look at. 8 Q: Okay. And in fact, your information 9 as of September the -- 10 A: I'm sorry, with the Park, I'm sorry. 11 I said an issue, as well, with the Park. 12 Q: I understood what you said, but -- 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: -- that's fine. Let's clarify it. 15 As of September 5th, when you went to play golf, the 16 occupiers hadn't interfered with the campers in their 17 occupying a closed Provincial Park for the season -- 18 A: Oh -- 19 Q: You were aware of that? 20 A: I -- my awareness, and again, I can't 21 tell you whether it was morning of or the evening of or - 22 - and so I kind of lump together 5th, 6th, was that 23 overnight camping was scheduled to -- to be closed for 24 the season; that normally there would be day use of the 25 Camp throughout the Fall until such time as the Ministry
1821 would then begin preparations for shutting the Camp down. 2 I think that was kind of -- kind of the 3 information that I was given. 4 Q: Right. Part of the information you 5 were getting was the MNR had a contingency plan in place 6 and they'd moved assets out of the Park. And as far as 7 they were concerned the occupation was of a closed 8 Provincial Park? 9 A: I think my understanding was it was 10 closed a little prematurely because while the occupiers 11 were there, there wouldn't be day use; that they may have 12 problems with winterizing and shutting down of the Park. 13 I think those were the two (2) issues that 14 -- that I was made aware of. Again, I'm sure not sure 15 which day. 16 Q: Okay. But you were also aware that 17 the OPP was monitoring the situation? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. And while you were off playing 20 golf, Ms. Hutton attended the IMC meeting and you were 21 aware that she was going to do that on behalf of the 22 Premier's office? 23 A: I -- I was aware she was attending a 24 meeting. I don't know whether I knew it was the IMC at 25 the time, yes.
1831 Q: Fair enough. Did you tell her that 2 your view was -- it was ideal if they had just left the 3 Park by the end of the day? 4 A: I don't know whether I expressed that 5 view. I -- I think that would be everybody's ideal, 6 but -- 7 Q: Well, did you tell her let's not do 8 anything until we see what happens today? 9 A: I believe that -- that primarily on 10 the morning of the 5th, it was, Let's go and find out 11 what's -- what's happening, yes. 12 Q: Is it fair to say that Ms. Hutton 13 went to those meetings with no direction from you? 14 A: I don't recall if there was -- there 15 was no direction. But I think primarily it was -- we've 16 got a lot of facts to find out, how did it occur, what 17 are the -- what is everybody recommending. It -- it may 18 have been we discussed if there's a way that we can our 19 Park back sooner rather than later, this -- this would 20 probably be desirable. 21 I would think that I would think something 22 like that and I might say something like that. But I 23 can't recall specifically what I said. 24 Q: Right. But she was left to her own 25 devices going to the meeting as to what to say, how to
1841 get that information and how to bring it back to you? 2 A: I -- I think that's correct. 3 Q: All right. And by the time you were 4 finished doing what you did that day, your impression 5 from what Ms. Hutton was telling you was that it was no 6 longer a simple protest, but an illegal occupation of the 7 Park lands? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Is it fair to say that by the end of 10 the day on September 5th, that's the Tuesday, that the 11 fact that they were still in that Park was creating a bit 12 of an embarrassment for your government? 13 A: No, I don't think it was embarrassing 14 to the government. 15 Q: That as opposed to allowing it to 16 dissipate on its own, you now felt that the government 17 had to do something to bring it to an end? 18 A: No, I think by the end of the day on 19 the 5th, there had already been a decision that the 20 government would like it to end. That we would like the 21 Park back, I mean I'm paraphrasing the -- the exact words 22 would have been as communicated by Mr. Hodgson. 23 And I think there is somewhere in all the 24 materials, there is a transcript of -- of what he 25 communicated, which would have come from the meeting on
1851 the 5th. 2 So that communication I think expressed 3 the views of the Government that -- that we would like 4 the Park back, that we considered it an illegal 5 occupation, and that I think indications that the 6 governments were taking steps. And I think the steps 7 that were articulated and I couldn't recall earlier. 8 And if I had that I could give you 9 precisely. But I think it mentioned seeking an 10 injunction to -- as a way to get the Park back. 11 Q: You're talking about the 12 recommendations that you understood came back from the 13 IMC meeting on September the 5th, as relayed to you by 14 Ms. Hutton. 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: All right. And we've heard a 17 significant amount of evidence about what happened at 18 those meetings. And part of the criticism from some, is 19 that Ms. Hutton was very assertive in her views and 20 represented that those views were the views of the 21 Premier or the Premier's office. 22 You've heard about that? 23 A: I -- I've read the testimony, sir. 24 Q: Right. In your view was it 25 appropriate for Ms. Hutton to attend the IMC meeting and
1861 express views that she attributed to you or to your 2 office? 3 A: I -- I think it's fair to -- to 4 express her views and I think it's fair to say I -- I 5 believe these would be the views of our administration or 6 this is consistent with what I believe the Premier -- 7 Premier's views would be. 8 I think that's -- that's fair as one (1) 9 of the participants at the meeting. And that -- that 10 would be Ms. Hutton's style, to be direct. She's a very 11 smart, a very bright person, but by the same token this 12 experience was new and the interaction with the 13 participants were new and I'm not sure she would 14 understand everybody's style at a meeting and they would 15 understand her style. 16 But she's a very honest, forthright, smart 17 person, and I think she would have no hesitation in 18 expressing her views or attributing that I believe these 19 would be the views of the Premier. 20 Q: Right. And when you said that you 21 concurred in those views, you agreed with the views that 22 she was expressing on your behalf or on behalf of the 23 Premier's Office? 24 A: I -- I -- as -- as they've been 25 relayed to me, yes. I mean there's been specific things
1871 over the last ten (10) years that have been somebody 2 else's recollection of notations. 3 A lot of them, as you know, have been 4 taken out of context, a lot of them have been put in 5 isolation. And -- and -- but I -- I have to tell you in 6 general terms I've been satisfied that Ms. Hutton 7 correctly expressed not only her views but the views of 8 the government and -- and the views of -- of me -- 9 Q: All right. 10 A: -- in -- in those situations. 11 Q: Well, I think it was to Mr. Rosenthal 12 yesterday you went so far as to say, If I was there I 13 would have generally agreed with Ms. Hutton's views. 14 A: I think that's fair. 15 Q: But it wouldn't have been appropriate 16 for you to be at the IMC meeting, would it? 17 A: I think that would have been three 18 (3) or four (4) or five (5) levels above the status of 19 everybody else who as the meeting so wasn't -- it wasn't 20 that kind of meeting. 21 Q: Right. Would you agree with me that 22 if you had been at that kind of meeting and expressed 23 your views, there's the risk that the people at the 24 meeting would take such views as directions from you or 25 from your office?
1881 A: Well, if it's an information 2 gathering and everybody's exchanging views, certainly the 3 experience that people have had with me over the years 4 before and after being in office, no. 5 I think that -- that we would want to hear 6 from everybody and we would encourage that. We would 7 encourage dissent. We would want to make sure okay, 8 we've heard five (5) options are you sure there aren't 9 any other options? That -- that would be the normal 10 modus operandus, if you like, of -- of myself and of Ms. 11 Hutton. 12 Q: You didn't see any risk that the 13 people attending that meeting would take views that are 14 attributed to either you or to your office as directions 15 as to how they do their job? 16 A: No, I -- I didn't. I mean I didn't 17 know the format of the meeting but they certainly ought 18 not to. And I don't believe that -- that my experience 19 from civil servants that I have dealt with at -- at all 20 levels when you're in that kind of a gathering, a fact- 21 finding, that kind of a meeting, I don't think so. 22 If it's -- if it's -- a decision's already 23 been made and we're communicating that decision that -- 24 that would be different. Then they would know, well, 25 that's the views, a decision's been made and -- and --
1891 but I don't think that was the purpose of that committee. 2 And I don't think that was the tenor and tone of those 3 discussions. 4 Q: Well, I suggest to you that Ms. 5 Hutton attending that meeting and asserting the views 6 that are attributed to you or to the Premier's Office was 7 effective in driving the mandate for that meeting and the 8 recommendations that come from that meeting. 9 A: I've heard that assertion. 10 Q: Did you agree with that - 11 A: No. 12 Q: -- assertion? 13 A: Well, I wasn't there so I -- I would 14 hope that's not the case and I don't believe that's the 15 case. And I don't think that's Ms. Hutton's view of it 16 but I understand some are interpreting it that way. 17 Q: Right. You could see how it would be 18 viewed that way? 19 A: I wasn't at the meeting so I -- I 20 don't know that. 21 Q: Well, you can or you cannot see how 22 it could viewed that way? 23 A: I -- I wasn't at the meeting so I 24 cannot say whether it -- it should be viewed that way or 25 not. I wasn't at those meetings.
1901 Q: Well, Ms. Todres has testified that 2 following these two (2) IMC meetings, her and Mr. Taman 3 separated political staff from the bureaucracy at those 4 meetings. You're aware of that? 5 A: I think long after the fact, I was 6 aware of that. I think I've heard that before. 7 Q: Right. You're aware that decision -- 8 A: Just that there were two (2) separate 9 meetings. 10 Q: You're aware that decision was made 11 to separate political staff from the bureaucracy? 12 A: Long after the fact, I'd been told 13 that was the case, that there were -- they'd had separate 14 meetings. I don't know whether it was, Let's separate 15 these or maybe there's a need for political staff and for 16 the civil service staff. I've heard that. 17 Q: So it's, Yes you heard it but you 18 don't know why it occurred? 19 A: No, but it often occurs. Often 20 there's time for political discussion and -- and times 21 for political staff and often the other but I -- I wasn't 22 party to any of that. I don't know. 23 Q: All right. So you understand that 24 that decision was made by Ms. Todres and Mr. Taman, along 25 the way?
1911 A: I -- I have heard that they felt -- 2 that they would like to have a meeting without the 3 political staff. I think that was what they were saying. 4 Q: In fact they wanted the meetings to 5 occur without any political staff present; correct? 6 A: Well, was that the case or did the 7 political staff want a meeting without any of them 8 present? 9 Q: What was your understanding? That's 10 what I'm looking for. 11 A: I don't have any understanding. I 12 don't have any understanding of it. I -- long after that 13 I -- that perhaps it was starting with the evidence in 14 this Inquiry. I don't know. 15 Q: Okay. I didn't hear about that 16 decision until the evidence in this Inquiry? 17 A: Well, I didn't hear about it the 4th, 18 5th, 6th, 7th, let's put it that way. 19 So I don't know when I heard it, since. 20 Q: So at some point in the next ten (10) 21 years you heard that that decision had been made? 22 A: I believe I have a recollection of 23 that, yes. 24 Q: Did you concur with that approach? 25 A: I had no -- no opinion on it. I
1921 wasn't at the meetings and it wasn't my decision. 2 I don't think I'm the right one to ask 3 whether it was the right approach or not. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: By the end of the day on September 8 5th, your view was that it was an illegal occupation; 9 correct? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: You came to that view on the basis of 12 what Ms. Hutton was reporting to you? 13 A: Yes, and -- and I think the key -- I 14 think I've indicated the key facts, if you like, that -- 15 that caused her and the committee and me to concur with 16 that conclusion were that all the evidence that she'd 17 been given was that there was no dispute over the 18 ownership of the Park; that there was no claim of 19 ownership of the Park by any of the dissident protesters; 20 and that the Chief and the officials of the Band did not 21 support the protest or the occupation and had no claim 22 over the Park. 23 Q: Right. You mention, though, that in 24 your examination in-chief and you went so far as to even 25 say that the Band had lost control with respect to these
1931 occupiers. 2 Do you recall saying that? 3 A: I may have, and if I did, it would be 4 my way of saying that they did not support this action 5 that was being taken by the -- the dissident occupiers. 6 Q: Right. But your view was that it was 7 an illegal occupation because they were occupying land 8 that wasn't theirs? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: Right. And they were therefore 11 breaking the law; correct? 12 A: Yes, I believe so. 13 Q: And they were committing a crime, 14 based on the advice you were getting? 15 A: Well, I'm not sure what the crime 16 was, but... 17 Q: Right. You had no idea -- 18 A: There must have been some laws that 19 were being broken. 20 Q: You had no idea of what the issue of 21 colour of right was, did you? 22 A: I don't know whether I had, at the 23 time. Ms. Hutton may have mentioned that. But I don't 24 believe and again, I'm a little fuzzy whether it was then 25 or later, but I know that Ms. Hutton did not believe that
1941 -- that the group felt there was any -- any colour of 2 right or claim of colour of right. 3 Q: Right. And you've heard that twenty- 4 three (23) people were charged, subsequently, with 5 forceful detainer of the Provincial Park property; 6 correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you've also heard, or it was 9 reported to you, that the Crown withdrew all those 10 charges against those individuals because there was no 11 reasonable prospect for a conviction; correct? 12 A: I don't recall the reason, but I know 13 they were withdrawn, and I -- that sounds like a 14 reasonable explanation. 15 Q: Right. You didn't understand what 16 the explanation was, but you heard that it was withdrawn 17 in -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- full, by the Crown? 20 A: Yes. I think over a period of time, 21 I'm not -- were they all at the same time? Not sure it 22 matters. 23 Q: I can advise you that it was, but 24 your Counsel's -- 25 A: Okay.
1951 Q: -- always available to correct me, as 2 well. 3 In fact, the colour of right is whether or 4 not there is an honest belief that what they're doing 5 isn't wrong. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: You know that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: And I won't debate with you all of 14 the issues surrounding the surrender and whether or not 15 that would make it legal or otherwise, we'll leave that 16 for another day. 17 But it was your view at that point on the 18 advice you were getting that it was an illegal 19 occupation? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And one of the factors you just 22 mentioned to me was the question of a sanction by Chief 23 and Council, correct? 24 A: I'm not sure what the word "sanction" 25 means in this context, but the Chief and Council did not
1961 agree with the occupation. 2 Q: And that was one (1) of the issues 3 for you? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: You'd agree with me that simply 6 having the agreement of Chief and Council that the 7 occupiers could be on that Provincial Park didn't make it 8 legal, correct? 9 A: I'm sorry, what's the question? 10 Q: The question was: You'd agree with 11 me that the simple agreement or approval of Chief and 12 Council for those people to be in the Provincial Park 13 wouldn't make it legal? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: All right. It was still illegal? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Right. Regardless of whether or not 18 the Chief and Council agreed or disagreed with those 19 actions, it was still, in your view, illegal for them to 20 be there? 21 A: In -- in -- that in of itself, I 22 don't think would have made it legal, no. It might have 23 given it more weight, though, or more concern. 24 Q: I'll suggest to you that it would 25 have made it harder for your government to take a hard
1971 line position with these people that are occupying the 2 Park if, in fact, they had the agreement of the local 3 Chief and Council. 4 Is that right? 5 A: Well, that assumes that our 6 government wanted to take a hard line. 7 Q: You're suggesting your government 8 didn't take a hard line? 9 A: I'm -- certainly it wasn't the 10 intention of the government to say, Okay, whatever it is 11 let's take a hard line. I -- I rejected that totally. I 12 -- I don't consider seeking an injunction taking a hard 13 line, but. 14 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that 15 seeking an injunction was, in fact, taking a hard line as 16 opposed to simply going and talking with the occupiers 17 about why they're there. 18 You disagree with that? 19 A: I was -- the information I was given, 20 that some had talked to the occupiers and there was ample 21 opportunity for the occupiers to express why were they 22 there. And in the absence of any reason why we were 23 there. 24 And in the absence of any reason from the 25 -- the -- from the Chief and the Band Council as to why
1981 we were there, that we came to the conclusion that the 2 reason they were there must have been because of their 3 frustration over Camp Ipperwash than with the Federal 4 Government. 5 Q: Well that was your conclusion on the 6 morning of September 5th, correct? 7 A: I don't know about the morning of 8 September 5th but by the morning of September 6th or the 9 evening of the 5th, I think that was the sense that we 10 had. 11 Q: Right. I'm suggesting to you that 12 you, in fact, knew at least suspected that ownership and 13 the burial grounds were issues for the people that were 14 occupying the Provincial Park as soon as the night of 15 September the 5th. 16 A: Well, -- as the night of September 17 5th? 18 Q: That's what I indicated. You'd 19 agree -- 20 A: Okay. Earlier you said the morning. 21 So now you're saying the evening of September 5th. I -- 22 the issue of burial ground, I indicated in testimony I 23 think it was reported to me was raised. And indication 24 that I received from Ms. Hutton that the group did not 25 consider that to be the reason why the occupation was
1991 taking place. 2 And that -- that was -- it was not deemed 3 as one (1) of the reasons. And -- and that that was our 4 sense, that was my sense. 5 Q: Let me try to keep it simple. My 6 suggestion to you is the morning of September 5th you saw 7 it as a protest and an over -- or a spillover from the 8 Army Camp situation. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: You agreed with me. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: I'm suggesting that by the evening of 13 September the 5th, you knew that there was more to it 14 than a protest over the Army Camp situation. 15 A: No. I -- I wouldn't agree with that. 16 I -- I -- we had not heard any real reason that -- that 17 was viewed by the Committee as reported to me by Ms. 18 Hutton. 19 And that I think it was reported that -- 20 that -- any communication there had been there was no -- 21 there was no communique, there was nothing to the media, 22 there was nothing to -- to the OPP, nothing to Ministry 23 of Natural Resources, there was nobody saying here's why 24 we're here. 25 Q: That's what people reporting back to
2001 you. At least Ms. Hutton was reporting back to you that 2 the people occupying the Park hadn't made any demands or 3 indicated to anybody, including the people you just 4 mentioned, why they were there. 5 Is that what I understand your evidence to 6 be? 7 A: That's right. Although I did 8 indicate that -- that there was some discussion whether 9 somebody had made reference to burial ground and whether 10 that came from -- from the occupiers or whether that was 11 something it may logically have been discussed at the 12 meeting. 13 But it was dismissed, if you like, as 14 being any credible reason, as I understand it at the 15 time, why they were there. 16 Q: Right. In fact we've heard from a 17 number of witnesses that have said there was -- there was 18 no surprise that involved the issues of ownership of the 19 land or burial grounds, and that they were aware that 20 those were issues prior to September the 4th. 21 You're saying that wasn't your impression 22 as late as the night of September the 5th? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: But you had heard back from Ms. 25 Hutton that there was a confrontation the night of
2011 September 4th with the OPP and the occupiers; correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And did she report back to you that 4 the occupiers were saying, Get off our land? 5 A: I -- I don't recall that and if the 6 evening or the morning, evening of the 4th -- morning of 7 the 5th, it may have been recorded or passed on to me, 8 because I think it was discussed somewhere around the 9 meeting of the 5th or the 6th so -- 10 Q: Right. 11 A: -- I recall hearing that phrase, yes. 12 Q: What does that mean to you, Get off 13 our land? 14 A: It means that one (1) of the 15 protestors, that's what they -- they yelled out, I guess, 16 at the time. 17 Q: Right. It indicates they think it's 18 their land, isn't it? 19 A: It indicates that that was the 20 comment made by that protestor. But I don't believe that 21 that was viewed in any legal sense or seriously by the 22 committee because it was not relayed to me as a reason 23 why they felt this occupation was taking place. 24 Q: Sorry. It wasn't relayed on to you 25 that it was a serious issue, Get off our land?
2021 A: Well, I think it was a serious issue 2 in the sense that they were occupying land that we felt 3 didn't belong to them. 4 Q: All right. But it never tweaked in 5 your mind that perhaps the demands are, Get off our land. 6 It's our land. That never occurred to you? 7 A: No. 8 Q: You always thought they're not making 9 any demands here? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: What kind of demands did you think 12 they should make, as people occupying the Provincial 13 Park? 14 A: Well, normally if -- if protestors 15 want to go in and take an occupation usually there is a 16 communique, there is a demand, there is some action that 17 they want somebody to take. 18 If you occupy land that belongs to the 19 Provincial Government normally there would be a demand 20 made to the Provincial Government. It was relayed to me 21 that there was no demand made to the Provincial 22 Government by the dissident group or by the Band. 23 Q: So the lack of -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 25 minute, Mr. Scullion. Yes, Ms. Perschy?
2031 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, I'm concerned 2 there was some reference to -- to evidence with respect 3 to demands. And since My Friend's been very careful to 4 be asking this Witness as to his knowledge as of the 5 evening of September 5, i.e., after the first of the two 6 (2) Interministerial Committee Meetings, I'd just ask if 7 he could be really quite precise in terms of references 8 to the evidence because I had thought there had been no 9 evidence at the first meeting of there being such 10 demands. 11 And so I'd just ask if My Friend could be 12 precise in that regard. 13 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I'm not sure if 14 that's an objection, or -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, -- 16 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- a comment on how 17 I've done these questions. I can't see Ms. Perschy 18 coming up. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I know. 20 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: If she's coming up I 21 need some -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I know 23 that. 24 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- cue otherwise I'm 25 going to keep asking questions.
2041 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, -- 2 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: If I've done 3 something wrong I assume Mr. Downard's quicker behind me 4 here to correct me. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 6 think she's referring to the accuracy of the evidence and 7 the dates and when information was available, and so on. 8 Is there anything that's been said so far that's 9 inaccurate or inappropriate? No. So carry on. 10 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: This is one (1) of 11 those moments where I'm trying to keep to my time limits. 12 I have My Friends passing -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take-- 14 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- me paper that I 15 can go through and say -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 17 minute -- 18 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- here's a number 19 of examples. 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The only point is 21 that when you paint with a real broad brush it's hard to 22 tell whether it's accurate or not. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: If -- and if he's 25 asking me about the state of the Witness' awareness on
2051 the evening of the 5th -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On the 3 evening of September the 5th. 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- then he -- he 5 should be careful to be speaking to information that -- 6 that he thinks the committee had as at that time -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 8 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- and whether this 9 Witness had it and so on. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. So, 11 so far you haven't done anything but there's nervousness 12 in the air. 13 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I disagree with the 14 attentions -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 16 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- but I appreciate 17 the nervousness. Perhaps I'm doing my job correctly. 18 But I'll move on. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 21 Q: My suggestion to you, sir, is it 22 wouldn't matter if they put their demands in print or 23 vocalized them to your government. In your view ,their 24 occupation of that land was still illegal; correct? 25 A: The -- the title to the land, I think
2061 in our view, was firm, it was reported, that is correct. 2 But I put back to you that in the absence of any claim of 3 the land or dispute over claim of the land or any -- any 4 evidence of -- of the -- were there specifically because 5 of the burial ground or were there over a concern with 6 your government? 7 In the absence of that the committee and I 8 and the others concluded that it was over frustration 9 with the Camp. And so I think it would have had -- made 10 a difference but I, you know, I can't comment on that. 11 Again, I wasn't at these Committee 12 meetings. 13 Q: Right. And I appreciate your 14 suggestion, but my question was pretty clear. It 15 wouldn't have mattered if they made their demands in 16 writing or verbally. 17 In your view, their occupation of the 18 Provincial Park was still an illegal act; correct? 19 A: It -- in our view it was an illegal 20 act. How we responded to an illegal act could very well 21 have -- have differed. 22 Q: So, you're making the distinction 23 about how your government would respond to an illegal 24 act; is that what I take from your evidence? 25 A: Yes. There may have a difference. I
2071 can't tell you there would have been, but it -- there may 2 have been. 3 All I can do is respond to -- to the facts 4 as we knew them. So if -- if you're asking me to 5 speculate would it have made a difference, it may have. 6 I don't know. 7 Q: I'm following your answer. I'm 8 suggesting to you that it shouldn't have mattered one (1) 9 way or the other to your government, if you still view it 10 as an illegal act. 11 A: I -- it -- okay. Would have been an 12 illegal act. Our view at the time, it was an illegal 13 act. 14 Q: And your response to that illegal act 15 was that your government doesn't accept that illegal act 16 and you're going to take action? 17 A: If we are going to seek redress 18 through the Courts, establish and confirm that it's an 19 illegal act. And then we would ask if that was 20 confirmed, to take action, yes. 21 Q: Right. In your view and the advice 22 you were getting was it's clearly our land -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Let's get an injunction and enforce 25 it; correct?
2081 A: Yes. 2 Q: Right. And I'm suggesting to you 3 that if you have suggestions from the occupiers on the 4 other side that it's their land, then the proper place to 5 decide those two (2) opposing views is, in fact, the 6 Court. 7 Would you agree with that? 8 A: Could be. Could be negotiations, 9 could be discussions, could be lots of ways to discuss 10 it, but I -- I think if there was a land claim and a 11 dispute over ownership of -- of the land, then that's 12 something that a Court could decide, yes. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: We'll go on the assumption that your 17 understanding and your view was correct. It was illegal 18 and your government's position, as I understood it, was, 19 We don't condone illegal action; is that correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you didn't want to be seen to 22 condone illegal actions, correct? 23 A: I'm sorry, we didn't want to be? 24 Q: Be seen -- 25 A: Yes.
2091 Q: -- to condone -- 2 A: To condone. 3 Q: -- illegal actions. 4 A: I think that's fair. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: And I'd suggest to you that your 9 government took this as an opportunity to set a precedent 10 on how to deal with this kind of occupation. 11 Would you agree with that? 12 A: No, I don't think we viewed it as a 13 precedent. 14 Q: I said it was an opportunity to set a 15 precedent. Would you agree with that? 16 A: No. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: At any point in time on September 5th 21 or September 6th, did you ever see it as an opportunity 22 to set a precedent for how you were going to deal with 23 this kind of occupation over the next four (4) years? 24 A: No. Seeing it as an opportunity 25 implies, golly, here's a great opportunity for us, we
2101 welcome this. At no point did we welcome this event. 2 And it -- it's something that both we wanted to end, we 3 wanted to get it resolved and I might add, there was also 4 a concern over safety for all concerned in the area, 5 including those in the -- in the -- the occupying group. 6 Q: Right. But you'll appreciate that 7 the police, a number of witnesses have testified on 8 behalf of the police that it was a stable situation into 9 the afternoon on September the 6th; you'd agree with 10 that? 11 A: Certainly, I think the information we 12 had that it was stable, it was contained and there would 13 be no reason that it -- that it ought not to be contained 14 at that moment in time. 15 Other information we had was though, that 16 there was reports of gunfire, that it was a concern that 17 it could escalate, that it could move beyond the people 18 who were there occupying at the time, and that if you 19 were able to move quickly. 20 And this was my thinking of -- and I think 21 it was everybody's thinking, if you're able to move 22 quickly to -- to end this occupation, get an injunction, 23 have it defused that -- that sooner would be less risk 24 than later. 25 I think was -- I'm correctly articulating
2111 the view that we had. 2 Q: But it never occurred to you as an 3 option, in terms of trying to resolve this quickly, to 4 simply go down and speak with those who are occupying the 5 Park? 6 A: I think that was considered by the 7 group and I think my recollection is that was never ruled 8 as not an option, either before or after seeking the 9 injunction. 10 Q: Was it considered by you, as Premier 11 of the Province, to go speak with them about what might 12 be the issue? 13 A: I -- I don't recall that being 14 recommended to me. Had it been recommended, had that 15 been -- been the recommendation that, If you went there 16 personally Premier, we think you could resolve this 17 situation, that might have been something that I would 18 have considered. 19 But I think the -- the overwhelming 20 consensus that I was getting was that that would not be 21 beneficial. 22 Q: Regardless of the consensus and 23 regardless of what was coming back to you, as Premier of 24 the Province did you have an independent thought to say, 25 Why don't I go down there and talk with them about this?
2121 A: I may have. But it would have been 2 quickly overruled and said, No, we don't think that's 3 beneficial at this stage that -- that the first thing we 4 should do is get the injunction. I think that was the 5 consensus but I don't recall that, but I don't rule that 6 out that somebody suggested it or that I brought it up. 7 I think, it makes sense to me, one of the 8 questions that would have been asked is -- is, can this 9 be peaceably resolved by anybody, that would include me, 10 anybody being able to go and talk to the -- talk to them. 11 Q: Well, who's going to quickly overrule 12 your thoughts as to how to deal with the situation? 13 A: Well, I think you will find that -- 14 that lots of people would give me advice that that's not 15 the correct path. And my thoughts at that point would 16 never be, I don't care that you've got all this 17 information, I don't care you've heard from all the 18 experts, I don't care that I know nothing about it, I'm 19 telling you I'm going down there. 20 I don't think that I would make that 21 decision in the absence of hearing from -- from those 22 that knew the situation on the ground. 23 And I don't believe it was recommended, in 24 fact I'm sure it wasn't, and -- and wouldn't have been, 25 that that would have been appropriate.
2131 Q: Regardless of the recommendations, 2 we've heard from you that you were in only three (3) 3 meetings that deal with this issue, correct? 4 Two (2) meetings with your staff September 5 5th and September 6th. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And the dining room meeting, as it's 8 been called, correct? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: So if you're overruled with your 11 thoughts about maybe going down there as Premier of the 12 Province and just simply talking to them, it had to occur 13 at one of those three (3) meetings, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Are you saying that it happened at 16 the dining room, that you suggested maybe I should go 17 down there and talk to them? 18 A: No. I -- I've been very clear about 19 what I said, I think. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 21 not what he suggested. 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- recall what he 23 recommended to him. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 25 Mr. Downard. Do you want to express your --
2141 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No. I'll -- I'll 2 leave it there. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 4 think that's what he said. 5 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: If I -- with 6 respect, and regardless of the recommendations which I 7 said, let's put those to the side. I asked him whether 8 or not he had that thought and he said, I may have been 9 overruled if I had that thought. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 11 He may have -- 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: He hasn't answered 13 me directly -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 15 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- he said I don't 16 know if I did. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, he said 18 he may have been overruled. Now what's your question 19 now? 20 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I followed him up 21 and I said that if you had that thought and you were 22 overruled, it had to be at one of these three (3) 23 meetings. And I appreciate the answer was yes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 25 think he said he was overruled. I don't think he said
2151 that. I think he was -- 2 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Again it was an 3 'if'. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: If he had had that 6 thought -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He might 8 have been. He might have been -- 9 THE WITNESS: No. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I don't 11 think he said he was. So you're going back to the three 12 (3) meetings, let's see if we can get around this by -- 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just for fairness, 14 it's possible but -- but, if so, he believed he would 15 have been quickly overruled. That's what he said. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He believes 17 he would have been. So where do we go from there? 18 What's your question now? 19 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Well my -- my 20 follow-up is who would overrule, and I think that I'm now 21 at three (3) possible meetings. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: And I'm going to 24 suggest, if I might follow that line of questioning -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If he had
2161 that thought -- 2 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: If he had that 3 thought. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- at one of 5 these meetings, who would have overruled him. Is that 6 your question? 7 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Right. That's 8 right. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 11 Q: And who would have overruled you? 12 A: Well, nobody would have overruled me 13 unless I took that thought out and expressed it. So had 14 I expressed that thought, I guess whoever was in the 15 meeting, Ms. Hutton at two (2) of them and the collective 16 is, as you know, although they are the -- I indicated we 17 may have discussed this at the morning meeting of the 18 6th, which comes to me, where we do a morning briefing. 19 I don't recall extensive discussion there, 20 but that's possible, too. But you asked me, you know, 21 all these hypotheticals, did I have that thought? I'm 22 not sure. 23 It may be, it may be if I had that thought 24 that -- that I had already heard evidence that there's 25 absolutely no point in anybody going and talking to them
2171 because they won't talk to anybody or nobody can get 2 information out and it may be that I did not then 3 verbalize the thought. 4 If you're asking me, is it possible I had 5 the thought, it's possible. 6 Q: Regardless if you had the thought or 7 not, you certainly didn't act on it; is that correct? 8 A: I think that's obvious. 9 Q: You never went down there to talk to 10 them. 11 A: No, I did not. 12 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that it 13 was a very different approach to the Ipperwash situation 14 than the one immediately preceding it that weekend, which 15 was Serpent Mounds. 16 You've indicated to us that your 17 understanding of Serpent Mounds was it was an entirely 18 different situation. Do I have that correct? 19 A: All after the fact, yes. 20 Q: And you were told that it was an 21 entirely different situation by Ms. Hutton, correct? 22 A: All after the fact, yes. 23 Q: And that information came to you from 24 her either the morning of September 5th or September 6th, 25 correct?
2181 A: I believe so. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: Some time in that 5th/6th time frame. 4 Q: Right. And you've indicated in your 5 examination in-chief that there were two (2) issues that 6 you saw that distinguished Serpent Mounds. 7 One was, you thought that the Band owned 8 the property. And the second was, the Chief and Council 9 sanctioned the occupation. 10 Do you remember giving that evidence? 11 A: Yes. I think it's more than I 12 thought the Band owned the land, it was relayed to me 13 that the Band did own the land. 14 Q: Right. 15 A: And that -- that the -- there was an 16 identifiable reason for the protests, that there were 17 handing out pamphlets that was indicating concerns that 18 they had. 19 And I think at that time over -- I don't 20 know whether it was Williams' Treaty or one of the -- the 21 areas, but I think at the time that they had, you know, a 22 reason, a notice given and no surprise and they weren't - 23 - weren't claiming the Park and I think there was still 24 lease, as I recall, discussions going on or the lease -- 25 those discussions going on.
2191 So I think, in that sense, it was viewed 2 quite differently. 3 Q: Right. 4 A: That's what was relayed to me and I 5 accepted that. 6 Q: Did the information come back to you 7 that, in fact, the Band only owned a quarter (1/4) of the 8 property and the rest was provincial land? 9 A: I don't know whether it got into that 10 detail, but I recall that the Province -- the Ministry of 11 Natural Resources, the Province, nobody seemed 12 particularly concerned about a dispute over land 13 ownership or that this was a -- an occupation that was -- 14 that was there without any declared reason or that it was 15 likely to continue. 16 Q: Right. Your understanding was they 17 were protesting the cancelling by your government of the 18 harvesting agreements? 19 A: Well, there was something that they 20 were protesting, yes. 21 Q: Right. At the time, would you agree 22 with me that that was your understanding or you just 23 don't recall? 24 A: I -- I -- it was reported to me of 25 this event, it was all after the fact and I didn't object
2201 to the way that had been handled. I didn't spend very 2 much time on it, to be honest. 3 Q: Right. The way it was handled was 4 Minister Hodgson met with the group after the group 5 illegally occupied the Provincial Parklands for the 6 Labour Day weekend. 7 You're aware of that? 8 A: I'm not, but it was in his riding and 9 he was the Minister involved and everything was very 10 peaceable and I think everybody knew what was going on, 11 so I -- if you say that, it doesn't surprise me. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: I'm suggesting to you that the First 16 Nation illegally occupied the land in order to make their 17 views known about your government's cancellation of those 18 agreements. 19 Is that accurate? 20 A: I don't know. I didn't spend a lot 21 of time at it. I don't think that there was any 22 surprise, any threat. 23 I don't think anybody deemed it as there 24 was any violence, that there was any threat of violence, 25 that -- so I -- I think it was relayed to me this was a
2211 different situation. We weren't concerned about the 2 situation. Premier, we are concerned about what's going 3 on Ipperwash. 4 Q: So it wasn't the sanction of Chief 5 and Council, and it wasn't the ownership of the property, 6 it was simply the peaceful nature of the illegal 7 occupation, that you recall? 8 A: I -- I don't know. I mean I think a 9 decision obviously was made that -- that there was no 10 need to -- to call the Interministerial Committee. This 11 wasn't a concern of the committee and I wasn't asked for 12 -- for my advice or input on it. 13 Q: In fact, your office, and you in 14 particular, were not involved at all in the Serpent 15 Mounds occupation? 16 A: I don't think we were asked to be 17 involved, nor was the committee involved, nor was I 18 involved, nor did anybody think there was need for -- for 19 any involvement other than -- than what took place, I 20 guess. 21 Q: I'm suggesting to you that your 22 government, unknown to you, set a precedent that it's 23 okay to occupy, illegally, provincial park lands in order 24 to protest, as long as it's peaceful. 25 Do you agree with that?
2221 A: Well, as I've indicated to you I 2 didn't know about, and I don't think anybody was -- in 3 these areas -- were particularly concerned about 4 precedents. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: I'm also suggesting that there was 9 another prior matter that we refer to here as Cape Croker 10 and Chippewas of Nawash, in a protest regarding 11 commercial fishing rights. 12 Are you aware, in any regard, of that 13 issue? 14 A: Well, I'm aware that -- that there 15 was concern over fishing rights in that region, and I 16 think there were, as I recall, Native and non-Native 17 concerns over that fishery. 18 Q: Right. You're aware, or you were 19 aware at the time, that there was a decision of the 20 courts, that came down, regarding that commercial fishing 21 right, correct? 22 A: What time was that? 23 Q: 1993. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: You're aware that there was a
2231 decision that allowed for commercial fishing in the area 2 by the Native fisherman? 3 A: I -- I believe I would have been 4 aware of that, yes. 5 Q: Right. And as -- as part of that 6 decision, the justice or the -- the judge ruling 7 commented, to a degree, on how the Ontario Government or 8 Provincial Government ought to be held to a high standard 9 in dealing with Aboriginal and the rights of Aboriginal 10 people. You're aware that that directive was given -- 11 A: I -- I may have been at the time. 12 Q: Right. Did you agree with that 13 directive that the Government ought to be held to a high 14 standard in its dealings with the rights of Aboriginal 15 people? 16 A: Well, I don't -- I don't recall 17 disagreeing with it or having -- having strong thoughts 18 on it, one (1) way or the other. 19 Q: Would you agree with that directive 20 from the courts? 21 A: I -- I think it makes sense, yes. 22 Q: We've also heard from Minister 23 Hodgson that he personally visited the area, on the 24 suggestion of his wife, in order to speak with both 25 Native and non-Native fisherman about that issue.
2241 A: I -- I was aware of that, I think, 2 when I heard the -- the testimony. I don't know that I 3 recalled it at the time. 4 Q: Were you aware that your Minister of 5 Natural Resources personally visited the area in order to 6 deal with a potential problem? 7 A: I -- I don't recall what I was aware 8 at the time. I'm aware that that was his testimony. 9 Q: I'm suggesting to you that the 10 personal visit by the Minister, or the Premier himself, 11 is an important way of addressing and respecting the 12 people that are part of the occupation. 13 Would you agree with that? 14 A: I think there are times when it's 15 probably appropriate, yes. 16 Q: Right. In fact, you made that 17 statement back in 1990, didn't you, when there was an 18 occupation -- or an illegal activity that was supporting 19 Oka? 20 A: I -- I believe, in the middle of the 21 campaign, when I was asked about that question, that I 22 did make that statement, yes, in reference to -- to 23 something that a Premier should -- should do or should 24 certainly consider. 25 Q: Right. In fact, you recognized that
2251 oftentimes natives, First Nation members, are frustrated 2 over land claims and conditions on the reserve that often 3 lead to these kinds of blockades or occupations, correct? 4 A: I was aware that they occurred from 5 time to time, yes. 6 Q: You recognized that that was one (1) 7 of the reasons why they occurred from time to time? 8 A: Yes. And I concurred with those 9 reasons, by the way. 10 Q: Well, it was an issue for you back in 11 1990, as the election approached and you commented on 12 that, publicly, didn't you? 13 A: I believe so, yeah. 14 Q: In fact, you said to the Star's Paula 15 Todd (phonetic): 16 "I've been warning for a long time that 17 the potential for another Oka exists 18 here." 19 Do you remember saying that to her? 20 A: I don't, but I -- I think that when 21 you look at the conditions, the length of time it took to 22 resolve disputes, if you looked at some of the 23 conditions, the lack of employment, the lack of 24 opportunity, the lack of hope that -- that a number of 25 people, particularly on reserve, and of Aboriginal origin
2261 had, I -- I think that that's a fair statement, that we 2 ought not, in Ontario, to think we're immune from -- from 3 these kinds of protests. 4 Q: Right. You further said: 5 "When natives are living in conditions 6 that are so bad they feel they have 7 nothing to lose, we're just asking for 8 trouble." 9 Do you remember making that statement? 10 A: No, but I -- I concur with that 11 statement. 12 Q: You further said: 13 "I think we should consider providing 14 what they need and arguing later who 15 would pay for it." 16 A: I may have. 17 Q: You further said: 18 "If you were Premier, you would take 19 time from the campaign, talk with 20 protesters and call high level 21 consultations between government and 22 native officials." 23 Do you recall saying that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And you concurred with the sentiment
2271 expressed in that statement? 2 A: I -- I think the sentiment was if -- 3 if that was appropriate that's -- that there's no reason 4 why, if you can diffuse a situation, you shouldn't do 5 that. 6 Q: Why wasn't it appropriate in the 7 Ipperwash situation to visit and speak with the occupiers 8 and call high level consultations between government and 9 native officials? 10 A: Well, I think the information that 11 I'd had was that -- that this was a dissident group, that 12 normally discussions would take place with the Chief and 13 the Band and -- and the group. And the Chief and the 14 Band did not support this -- this occupation. 15 And -- and so I don't think it was viewed 16 by anybody or deemed that that was the appropriate course 17 of action that should have been taken with this dissident 18 group. 19 Q: It made it a pretty good opportunity 20 to simply go arrest that dissident group and not have to 21 deal with them from a political standpoint; correct? 22 A: No. We weren't looking for any 23 opportunity, I can tell you that. 24 Q: It was a pretty good opportunity 25 nonetheless though, wasn't it.
2281 A: I wouldn't say so. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would this 3 be a good point to break? 4 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It would be a good 5 point. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's have 7 our lunch break now. Let's take a one (1) hour break, 8 and then come back. Thank you. 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 10 adjourned until two o'clock. 11 12 --- Upon recessing at 12:57 p.m. 13 --- Upon resuming at 2:01 p.m. 14 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 16 resumed, please be seated. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 18 afternoon. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, good 20 afternoon. Before we start the afternoon I wanted to 21 make a couple of announcements. The first is, on Monday 22 morning we will start at 9:30 instead of the usual 10:30 23 time and finish the testimony of Mr. Harris on Monday. 24 Secondly, Mr. Klippenstein drew to my 25 attention that there was initially -- some time ago there
2291 was a transcript created of the Carson/Fox/Coles 2 conversation and that it has actually been superceded by 3 another transcript. 4 And unfortunately it -- the earlier 5 transcript was handed out to one of the -- was provided 6 to the media earlier on and -- and someone -- as well 7 this week and it had a -- a phrase in it, "All right, 8 they just want us to go kick ass." And that transcript 9 was missing a word that appears in the transcript Exhibit 10 444A Tab 37, "All right, they just -- they want us to go 11 kick ass." The "us" was missing. 12 So that prompted me to ask Commissioner if 13 I might -- I have prepared a corrected version of Tab 37 14 that I -- I believe catches all of the errors that -- the 15 changes that were made during the course of Mr. Fox's and 16 Mr. Carson's testimony and Mr. Coles. 17 And I would ask that perhaps we could file 18 this copy of Tab 37 as part of Exhibit 444(A), it's 37 19 corrected. And I will send a -- an electronic version of 20 that tomorrow morning or this afternoon to My Friends. 21 The last thing is we've -- Mr. Scullion 22 had asked for some additional Mark Wright notes and those 23 notes were provided by Mr. Sandler and have been handed 24 out to the parties. And that's the small -- you'll find 25 on your desk a small --
2301 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do I have a 2 copy of them? I don't see them. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: You don't need them 4 right now, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't need 6 them right now? Okay. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And -- but I just 8 wanted to alert the parties, that's on their desk. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 Mr. Scullion, can you give me a rough estimate of how 11 much longer you've got so we know where you are? 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I think I'm going to 13 be pretty close. I've been about seventy (70) minutes so 14 I'll probably be another twenty (20) or so. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 16 Thank you very much. Carry on. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 21 Q: Just before we went for lunch I'd 22 asked you about a number of comments that you made back 23 in 1990. Do you recall having that discussion in 24 testimony? 25 A: This would have been around the --
2311 the election and the OKA? 2 Q: That's right. 3 A: Interview, yes. 4 Q: Do I -- do I take it that your 5 comments that we went through, expressed a level of 6 frustration with the inactivity of the Federal Government 7 in respect of Reserves and First Nations; is that fair? 8 A: Whether inactivity is the right word, 9 but certainly frustration that -- that -- that land 10 claims had not been able to be resolved, that -- that 11 more importantly I guess the net result, of whether they 12 were resolved or not, that life on -- for Aboriginals in 13 Ontario had not improved to any degree. 14 And certainly they were not participating 15 and -- and sharing in -- in the growth of prosperity that 16 -- that non Aboriginals were in this Province. 17 I think that was the -- 18 Q: Right. That was the recognition you 19 had back in 1990 -- 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: -- that the Reserves and those living 22 on the Reserves were being left far behind? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And as you indicated, a lot of that 25 frustration involved the land claims and the living
2321 conditions themselves on Reserves. 2 Correct? 3 A: Yes. The lack of opportunity, the 4 lack of jobs, the quality of life. 5 Q: Have you ever been to the Army Camp? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Have you ever seen the conditions at 8 the Army Camp either in 1995 or through to present day? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Now we've also heard testimony from a 11 number of different directions including both First 12 Nation witnesses and members of the government regarding 13 Wampum Belts and their significance for First Nation 14 members. 15 Are you aware of Wampum Belts and what 16 they signify? 17 A: No, I'm not. 18 Q: You were never made aware of while 19 you were MNR representative or while Premier? 20 A: I -- I may have but I don't recollect 21 right now. 22 Q: Maybe I could just step to -- in fact 23 this is my last topic, but the dining room meeting. 24 We've heard from Mr. Runciman that he understood that it 25 was your staff that called that meeting in the dining
2331 room. 2 And that he was summonsed by your staff to 3 attend at that meeting in the dining room. 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: Does that help your recollection as 6 to who called the meeting? 7 A: No. I -- I don't know who called the 8 meeting. But once a decision was made to have a meeting, 9 it could very well have been called by my staff. 10 Q: Do I take it then that the decision 11 to have that meeting was made by somebody in the 12 Premier's office? 13 A: No. I wouldn't conclude that. I -- 14 I actually had a sense that it was -- was kind of came 15 out at the Interministerial Committee meeting that we've 16 kind of come to a consensus here that all the Ministers 17 are -- are meeting right now in Cabinet, would it make 18 sense to -- to brief them. 19 I don't know how that came forward. It 20 could have by Ms. Hutton, it could have been by somebody 21 at -- but I thought it flowed out of the -- the 22 Interministerial Committee meeting. But it could have 23 been other options. I wasn't of them. 24 Q: Well, if it flowed out of the IMC 25 meeting, it would have been Ms. Hutton, wouldn't it, that
2341 would book your dining room for such a meeting? 2 A: She could have or could have asked 3 for it to be made available or she could have said, could 4 we just use the Cabinet office afterwards. I -- I don't 5 know. Or Cabinet room after. 6 Q: I suggest to you by the time the 7 dining room meeting came around, you had a level of 8 frustration with this whole incident that wasn't apparent 9 the day before, and which drove much of your activity in 10 the dining room. 11 And I suggest to you that by the time the 12 dining room meeting rolled around, you knew or you saw 13 this, as requiring action by your government to deal with 14 what you perceived as an illegal action. 15 Is that fair? 16 A: No, I don't recall a level of 17 frustration. I -- I've got to be honest with you. I 18 don't want to minimize the -- the concern of the -- the 19 occupiers. But back in Toronto at Queen's Park with the 20 issues before us, it was not viewed as -- as a great 21 crisis, as that huge a deal. It was something that was 22 occurring, but it wasn't something that -- that had that 23 -- that level of -- of urgency. 24 I think I was far more concerned at the 25 time with -- with $2 billion worth of cuts; could these
2351 be made? Could they be made without effecting programs? 2 That -- that was probably more on the agenda. I think 3 the -- the Quebec Referendum was on -- on the agenda, 4 there were other things. 5 So I -- I don't sense a -- and don't feel 6 to this day that -- that I was particular frustrated. 7 Q: Right. Well, the issues that you've 8 mentioned were all part of the Cabinet meeting agenda, 9 weren't they? 10 A: Not necessarily but there could have 11 been. Some of them would have been. There could have 12 been other issues that weren't on the agenda that day. 13 Q: Right. This issue wasn't on the 14 agenda for that day, for the Cabinet meeting? 15 A: No. 16 Q: And we've heard from your Solicitor 17 General and the Deputy Solicitor General that this was 18 one (1) of the most complicated issues they had to deal 19 with. Would you agree that it was a complicated issue? 20 A: I -- I -- at the time it wasn't 21 viewed, I don't think by me, certainly, and I -- I didn't 22 get a sense it was viewed by others as -- as the most 23 complicated issue. If they're reflecting that I would 24 think how this -- this event ended up in what was a very 25 tragic situation.
2361 Certainly, you know, it may -- may have 2 been complicated, but I -- I -- at the time I didn't view 3 it as -- as an issue of overriding importance, the number 4 1 issue of the day and -- and of that great a 5 complication. 6 Q: It wasn't that important? 7 A: It -- it was an important issue but 8 it didn't seem that this was -- it seemed to -- to me 9 anyway I think at the time more relatively straight 10 forward. It was -- it was certainly not viewed as, you 11 know, we talked about Oka as -- as an Oka-type situation 12 or a Gustafsen Lake type situation. 13 I think it was what -- what was -- any 14 references there was how do we make sure it doesn't 15 become that and -- and try and avoid that. I think it 16 was in that stage in the 4th, 5th, 6th. 17 Q: Right. Similar to your comments back 18 in 1990 it remained your concern that this would turn 19 into an Oka-type situation correct? 20 A: I -- I said that in '90? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: The statement I put to you before we 25 went to lunch was:
2371 "I'd been warning for a long time that 2 the potential for another Oka exists 3 here." 4 That was the concern back in 1990 and it 5 remained a concern -- 6 A: Yes, but I -- I did not view this as 7 another Oka, at this stage. 8 Q: It remained a concern for you in 9 1995; correct? 10 A: I -- I don't recall it being top of 11 the agenda in 1995, but I -- I made the statement in 12 1990. I don't know what stage Oka was at at that point 13 in time but I can tell you I don't think that life has 14 substantially improved between '90 and '95 in 15 opportunities for -- for those Aboriginals, particularly 16 on reserve. 17 Q: You made a comment in your 18 examination- in-chief that you took into consideration 19 what was going on around the country. Do you remember 20 making that...? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And are you referring to Gustafsen 23 Lake with that? 24 A: I -- I think Gustafsen Lake was -- 25 was foremost in -- in people's minds, yes.
2381 Q: It was foremost in your mind as well 2 when you were dealing with this situation wasn't it? 3 A: I don't know that it was foremost, 4 but it was one of the factors that -- that I think others 5 took into consideration and I was aware of when they 6 talked about the potential for this escalating, when they 7 talked about not being able to control anybody from the 8 outside that wished to join, whether they were welcome or 9 not. I mean I think that was the sense that -- that we 10 had. 11 Q: Right. So again you're talking about 12 what other people are considering and I'm not interested 13 in that at this point in time, I simply want to know if 14 it factored into your thinking. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Gustafsen Lake was an issue that 17 factored into your thinking about the Ipperwash situation 18 correct? 19 A: Yeah, I think that's fair to say. 20 Q: Thank you. Now, there's been a lot 21 of discussion, both in examination-in-chief and cross- 22 examination, about prevention versus having to remove 23 people after the occupation occurs. 24 Do you recall giving that evidence and 25 being --
2391 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- asked questions about that? 3 A: I do. 4 Q: That -- all of those questions 5 revolved around the OPP's failure or apparent failure to 6 prevent the occupation from occurring. 7 Do you recall that? 8 A: No, but I -- I don't recall and I 9 don't consider it only in that context. I think the 10 comment is fair for -- for that governments over a period 11 of time have not been able to resolve disputes that may 12 lead to an occupation or a confrontation. 13 I think it's fair that it could be in that 14 context, as well. 15 Q: Right. I take from your answer that 16 you recognize that it was a failure by your government to 17 address the possibility of this occupation on September 18 4th, to deal with the issue leading up to the potential 19 date for the occupation. 20 A: Well, it was -- it was a failure, 21 obviously, that it had not been resolved if -- if you -- 22 but the challenge we had at the time that what wasn't 23 resolved, we felt, was the Camp Ipperwash issue, not -- 24 not anything to do with the Park. 25 Q: Right, that's what you thought --
2401 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- correct? 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: But that's not as a result of talking 5 with anybody in August leading up to the potential 6 occupation; correct? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: So by the time we get to the dining 9 room meeting, you've got a failure with the OPP, and 10 "failure" being my term, to prevent the occupation from 11 actually occurring and a failure, again my term, of your 12 government to address this issue before it came to an 13 occupation. 14 A: Well, I guess it's fair to say that, 15 except all I can tell you is -- is from my point of view, 16 I did not know it was an issue. 17 So if you're talking about failure, I 18 don't know -- the rest of the government, how much was 19 known, but from my point of view, I'm not sure it's a 20 failure if you didn't know it was an issue. 21 Q: You must have asked somebody if we 22 had any indication that this was going to happen on 23 September 4th, in your government? 24 A: Well, I didn't before September 4th, 25 no.
2411 Q: And after -- and September 4th or 5th 2 or 6th, did you ask somebody in your government if your 3 government had any -- 4 A: I -- 5 Q: -- warning. 6 A: I indicated to you that there was 7 evidence that there -- there -- I think from the -- it 8 seemed to me it came from the Ministry of Natural 9 Resources, could have been from other sources, but 10 relayed to me that they had heard rumblings of this 11 before the 4th. 12 I was not aware of that and I think it 13 would have been in, perhaps a week before, in that period 14 of time but maybe two (2) weeks before, but I think 15 fairly -- fairly recent before the 4th that had -- some 16 rumblings had been heard of that. 17 Who they had been reported to, who they 18 were heard from, where they went, I don't know. 19 Q: 'Some rumblings' is your term. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: They were significant enough that the 22 MNR and the OPP had a full contingency plan set up in 23 case these rumblings came true; correct? 24 A: I don't know that it was a full 25 contingency plan. I didn't know anything about it at the
2421 time. But I'm told they were aware that this was 2 possible and I think that was -- was one of the 3 discussions. 4 How -- how aware were they, what did they 5 think was going to happen, who else knew about it, how 6 prepared were they, did they want to be prepared, did 7 they think it was a big concern, a little concern? 8 Those -- I think those were some of the 9 questions that were asked in the 5th, 6th. 10 Q: Those were all questions you asked or 11 you heard had been asked? 12 A: I heard had been asked and probably 13 would have been asked if not by others, by Ms. Hutton at 14 the 5th, 6th meeting. 15 Q: Right. Did you ask -- 16 A: And -- 17 Q: -- anybody? 18 A: I could have, in the 6th meeting, as 19 well. 20 Q: You don't know? 21 A: I don't know. I think I've indicated 22 that if they had not been asked by anybody and it had not 23 been relayed to me that they had been asked, I would have 24 asked them. 25 I think that those are logical questions
2431 to be asked and so whether it was Ms. Hutton in the 5th, 2 6th or if three (3) of them were asked in that time and I 3 asked one (1) in the meeting of the 6th or others did. I 4 believe I was satisfied that all those questions had been 5 asked and I had been -- answers had been relayed to me of 6 if I asked them, I'd been given answers. 7 I think that's sort of the best I can do 8 for you. 9 Q: And you've talked about Ms. Todres 10 and Mr. Taman during the dining room meeting giving the 11 room, which would include you -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: The direction that the OPP and 14 politicians or the politicians are not supposed to give 15 the OPP operational advice. 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Correct? You recall that discussion? 18 A: I do. 19 Q: And did you say anything to Ms. 20 Todres at that point, when she gave you that advice? 21 A: I don't believe so. 22 Q: All right. Did you say anything to 23 Mr. Taman when he raised that issue? 24 A: Not that I recall. 25 Q: Did you think it odd that both had to
2441 raise the issue or felt they had to raise the issue 2 during that meeting? 3 A: No. 4 Q: It just happened and you didn't say 5 anything? 6 A: I think it would be important for 7 everybody new. The people in the room I didn't know. I 8 didn't know where -- where they came from. We were new 9 Government, we had new political staff and there were 10 some people in the room who I -- I didn't know how 11 familiar they were with issues as well. 12 So I -- I think -- we had a new Deputy who 13 was -- was also may have felt, Gee, I better make sure I 14 covered all this off. 15 Q: Did you ever think to yourself, does 16 it look like we're giving direction to the OPP? 17 A: I wasn't aware of anything that gave 18 me concern that direction was being given to the OPP. 19 Q: Never turned your mind to it? 20 A: Well, I didn't hear -- I certainly 21 wasn't and I didn't -- no information came to me that 22 anybody was. 23 Q: Looking back on it, you're now aware 24 that Mr. Fox and Mr. Patrick were in that room. 25 A: Yes.
2451 Q: Does that cause you any concern that 2 they were there during that discussion? 3 A: Well, I think from an operational 4 procedural point of view how you would operate, I don't 5 think they normally would have been in a room of 6 Ministers and Deputies that -- and political, you know, 7 staff to the -- to the Ministers that would have been 8 discussing all of the information. 9 They may have been asked, and this is all 10 in hindsight looking back, they -- they have been asked 11 if they had information of the status that -- that Ms. 12 Todres wasn't comfortable relaying, they may have been 13 asked to relay at. That would been fair but not -- not 14 part of the discussion. 15 And I think I've testified that I don't 16 recall that -- that anything from the -- from that 17 meeting ought to have concerned me that I -- my 18 recollection of the meeting whether there were police 19 officers who were seconded to the Ministry were there or 20 not. 21 But I -- all I can tell you is I didn't 22 know and I wasn't thinking of it in that context at that 23 time. 24 Q: Right. So even though they were 25 there, it didn't cause you concern and still doesn't
2461 cause you concern that they were part of those 2 discussions? 3 A: Well, I've certainly heard what Mr. 4 Fox, particularly, has relayed through the taped 5 conversation. That concerns me and -- but at the time I 6 think it was a year or so later or some time in '96, I 7 was surprised, I guess, when I first heard about it, I 8 think it was in a newspaper article that OPP officers 9 were there. 10 No, they weren't and I said this is wrong. 11 I think I relayed that. Then it was, you know, when 12 inquiries were made it was explained to me that OPP 13 officers who had been seconded and were acting in the 14 capacity of civil servants to the Solicitor General were, 15 in fact, in the room. And I said, Well I didn't know 16 that. 17 And they said, I think it was probably Ms. 18 Hutton who relayed that to me, she said, I didn't know 19 that either. 20 Q: Okay. You now know that Mr. Fox and 21 Mr. Patrick were at that meeting? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Looking back on it, does it cause you 24 concern that they were part of that meeting? 25 A: Well, it -- it causes me concern,
2471 given the information, incorrect, I would say, both in 2 tone and content, that was relayed by Mr. Fox about his 3 impression of our government. 4 Now, I can't speak for his impressions 5 from other meetings but that would be my view from the -- 6 the meeting in the dining room. 7 Q: Right. That's one (1) of the reasons 8 why there's a protocol set up with reporting requirements 9 that prevents that kind of misunderstanding from 10 occurring; correct? 11 A: Could be, I don't know. 12 Q: Right. There's a procedure for Mr. 13 Fox, Mr. Patrick to report through the Deputy Minister to 14 the Minister into a meeting such as the dining room. 15 You're aware of that protocol? 16 A: I'm aware that the -- that -- of a 17 protocol for communication coming through the staff of 18 the Deputy Solicitor General. And -- and I think that 19 would be the ultimate responsibility of the Deputy 20 Solicitor General, then to the political staff. 21 Q: I'm suggesting to you that there was 22 no buffer in place between your views and the liaison 23 that could then take your views to the OPP. 24 Does that cause you a concern? 25 A: If somebody was there taking my views
2481 and felt it was their responsibility to relay those, that 2 would be a concern. 3 Q: Well, I'll suggest to you that it 4 creates the appearance of political interference. Would 5 you agree with that? 6 A: I -- I don't -- I -- I guess it 7 depends on -- on how it's relayed and -- and how it's 8 done. I -- I suggested to you and I think I've gone as 9 far as I can. 10 I wasn't aware Mr. Fox was -- had any 11 responsibility even as a liaison officer. Was that his 12 responsibility or was it the Deputy Minister or was it 13 somebody else to -- to relay information? 14 I think I've testified that -- that an 15 appropriate relay to the police who were in charge of 16 this -- this operation would have been, We'll be seeking 17 an injunction tomorrow, hopefully at nine o'clock. I'm 18 not sure why anything else would have -- would have been 19 reported and -- and I think it would be -- doesn't seem 20 to me to be appropriate. 21 Q: Thank you, Mr. Harris, those all my 22 questions. 23 A: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 25 Mr. Scullion. Mr. Henderson...?
2491 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long do 4 you estimate you might be now, Mr. Henderson? 5 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm hoping to be 6 less than an hour, Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Less than an 8 hour could be less than a half hour? I mean just less 9 than an hour? Does that mean close to an hour? 10 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I am not saying 11 less than half an hour, Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Does that 13 mean close to an hour? 14 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I would expect to 15 be more than half an hour and less than -- less than an 16 hour. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 Carry on. 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 21 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Harris. My 22 name's Bill Henderson. 23 A: Good afternoon. 24 Q: I am counsel, together with Mr. 25 George, for the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First
2501 Nation. 2 A: Okay. Bill Henderson? 3 Q: Bill Henderson. 4 A: Bill Henderson, yeah. Thank you. 5 Good afternoon. 6 Q: That's Harris with two (2) "R's"? 7 A: Oh, I'm sorry, Harrison you said? 8 Q: No, it's Henderson. 9 A: Henderson, I gotcha. Yeah, it's 10 Harris with two (2) "R's". 11 Q: On Monday I was quite intrigued when 12 you said that you had been familiar with the separation 13 of responsibilities or powers of the Attorney General 14 from the police since childhood. 15 Do you recall giving that -- making that 16 statement? 17 A: The separation from politicians and 18 the police? 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: Yes. Not the Attorney General.? 21 Q: Fair enough. 22 A: There is -- there is some protocol, I 23 think, as well, with -- that -- that I became aware of I 24 think in -- once I got involved in -- in elected politics 25 with -- with the Attorney General, as well.
2511 Q: Fair enough. I'm -- the part that 2 intrigued me of course was the reference to childhood. I 3 -- I would not have thought this was common childhood 4 knowledge. 5 A: I -- I -- that -- that is possible so 6 you may have to stretch the definition of childhood to 7 school years. I -- I think that I recall something there 8 but I recall from being well aware of it. So if 9 childhood is viewed as -- as early childhood I -- I think 10 that would be an exaggeration. 11 Q: Now, I know Mr. Rosenthal referred -- 12 referred you to this yesterday. I'm going to approach it 13 slightly differently. I want to make sure that I get it 14 right. 15 On November the 28th your counsel, Mr. 16 Downard, was cross-examining Charles Harnick. And at 17 page 58 of the transcript, as I have it, he indicated to 18 Mr. Harnick, and I'll read this carefully: 19 "Now, as you can imagine when I became 20 aware very recently of your evidence 21 regarding the inappropriate statement 22 of the Premier in the dining room, that 23 you described, I informed Mr. Harris of 24 that and I have to tell you that he 25 tells me that he does not -- and he'll
2521 testify that he does not -- recall 2 saying anything like that in the 3 meeting." 4 A: Yeah. Could be. 5 Q: Now, -- now, the conversation that 6 Mr. Downard describes would have occurred slightly less 7 than three (3) months ago. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And it must have been quite memorable 10 to you in light of the -- the revelation that was being 11 communicated? 12 A: Yes, I was shocked. 13 Q: Could you tell me the exact words 14 that you used in your conversation with Mr. Downard? 15 A: I have no idea. I may have said, 16 Recall, I may have said, I didn't say them. I'm -- I'm 17 sorry, I don't recall the exact words. 18 Q: You were first elected as a member of 19 Parliament, Provincial Parliament in 1981? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: And your -- your constituency was the 22 Nipissing and North Bay area? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: And you were Minister of Natural 25 Resources in 1984/85?
2531 A: 1985 would have been the first. 2 Q: And there was an election later that 3 year, is that... 4 A: That's correct, in the spring. 5 Q: Right. Now, during the period, and I 6 believe it was 1984/85, would you correct me if I'm 7 wrong, but you're -- about twenty (20) of your neighbours 8 of the Nipissing First Nation were charged with fishing 9 offences and selling fish; do you recall that? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Not at all? 12 A: I recall there were charges probably 13 '95 or later in '95, if that's what you're referring to. 14 Q: But that's when you were the 15 Minister. 16 A: Sorry? 17 Q: That's when you were the Minister. 18 A: I don't know if when I was the 19 Minister or whether it was after I was the Minister, but 20 it could have been in that period in there, yes. 21 Q: Okay. And do you recall that there 22 was, in fact, quite a sting operation, with a large 23 number of MNR officers brought in from all over the 24 province and video cameras set up on telephone poles -- 25 A: Yes.
2541 Q: -- that sort of thing? 2 A: Yes, I recall that. 3 Q: Now, as the local Member, did you 4 track those cases over the years? 5 A: Did I track them? Yes. 6 Q: Yes. In fact, you may have known 7 some of the individuals who were actually charged. 8 A: Yes. Some I knew quite well. 9 Q: Now you also know, I assume, Moe 10 Mantha Senior, who was also a former Conservative member 11 of the Provincial Parliament? 12 A: No, the Federal Parliament. 13 Q: I'm sorry, the Federal Parliament. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: But he was a Conservative Member? 16 A: He was a Conservative from 1988, I 17 think, somewhere in that period of time. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 19 to interrupt you, Mr. Henderson, but I can't see the 20 relevance or perhaps -- 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I didn't assume 22 that that -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Should I 24 just wait until you've -- 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I didn't assume
2551 that name would unfold my entire line of questioning for 2 you, Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You -- 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I am sorry. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It will 6 become apparent? 7 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I certainly hope 8 so. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 11 Q: You will recall, Mr. Harris, that Mr. 12 Mantha held an annual event at the Nipissing First 13 Nation? 14 A: I don't know if it was an annual but 15 he could have had events there. 16 Q: Hmm hmm. And did you ever attend any 17 of those events? 18 A: Yes, I believe so. 19 Q: Regularly? 20 A: I can't recall how regularly, but... 21 Q: What was the nature of the event? 22 A: I -- I've attended fish fries there, 23 I've attended, I don't know, some events that -- that the 24 Band, Dokis Number 10 Band may have had on their own -- 25 Q: Hmm hmm.
2561 A: -- over a period of time. Moe may 2 have had a picnic there, on an occasion or two (2). Moe 3 Mantha picnic or something. 4 Q: Dokis Number 10 is down at the south- 5 west corner of the lake, not... 6 A: Or not -- I'm sorry, yeah, Dokis is 7 at the south-west, sorry, Nipissing number 10. 8 Q: Yeah, thank you. So we get -- there 9 were at least occasions when you shared fish with -- with 10 your First Nations constituents that they had caught? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And that was true before and during 13 the period when you were the Minister of Natural 14 Resources? 15 A: I don't know about -- can't recall 16 the time but -- but certainly during my time perhaps also 17 as Chairman of the School Board and as MPP. 18 Q: Hmm hmm. In fact, that would not be 19 uncommon for a resident of that area who was familiar 20 with First Nation people. 21 A: No. I think there were -- there were 22 occasions and celebrations and whatnot. 23 Q: Okay. Now the charges that I 24 referred to were ultimately -- there were acquittals 25 directed by Judge Parra (phonetic) in 1990; do you recall
2571 that? 2 A: I don't recall a time but I recall 3 charges were -- were acquitted, yes. 4 Q: And the reason for that was that the 5 regulatory scheme for fishing regulation in Ontario did 6 not comply with the Sparrow standard? 7 A: I don't recall that. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: Judge Parra would know better than 10 me. 11 Q: I'm sure he would. The -- you are 12 familiar, however, with the Sparrow case, either -- 13 A: I have been, yeah. I'm not as 14 familiar with it right now but I recall the Sparrow case. 15 Q: And the basic rule in the Sparrow 16 case is that there is a priority system that must be 17 established in the regulatory scheme? 18 A: I don't recall all of that, but I'd 19 be happy to be refreshed, if you want. 20 Q: Well, I don't think my giving 21 evidence about it will -- will assist very much, even if 22 you agree with me. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And from the period after 1990 and I 25 will ask you to accept that the Sparrow decision and the
2581 -- the series of North Bay charges were all dealt with in 2 1990, the period after 1990, you're not aware of any 3 legislation that was enacted to put a priority scheme of 4 regulation in place with respect to fishing or hunting in 5 Ontario? 6 A: I -- I -- I'm not aware right now 7 that I can -- of that, no. 8 Q: Certainly, it wasn't a piece of 9 legislation that your Government introduced? 10 A: Not that I recall. 11 Q: Are you familiar with the Ontario 12 Federation of Anglers and Hunters? 13 A: I am. 14 Q: Are you a member? 15 A: I used to be. I don't think I am now 16 but I -- I have been from time to time. 17 Q: And they were supporters of your 18 leadership in your party and your government? 19 A: No. I think they've been relatively 20 non-partisan, but individuals who were also members of 21 Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, could have 22 been. 23 Q: Would it be fair to say that they are 24 distinctly not supporters of the exercise of Aboriginal 25 and Treaty Rights to hunt and fish by First Nations?
2591 A: I can't -- I don't want to speak to 2 that. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 4 why that's a question to ask this Witness. And I fail to 5 see the relevance of this line of questioning yet. So if 6 you're getting somewhere, I wish you would get there. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 9 Q: Are you aware the Ontario Federation 10 of Anglers and Hunters was particularly opposed to 11 fishing by Williams Treaty First Nations? 12 A: I recall a number of people, a number 13 of groups and I believe my recollection is they were 14 opposed as well. 15 Q: Okay. And did they ever make 16 presentations or submissions to you personally? 17 A: I don't know if they did to me 18 personally. But I -- I was -- I believe at the time I 19 was aware of their position. 20 Q: My Friend Mr. Rosenthal did turn to 21 an article this morning, it's now Exhibit 978, which I 22 believe you still have in front of you there. It may be 23 the one -- it's a picture of the walleye at the bottom. 24 No it's not. 25 A: 9 -- walleye, 979?
2601 Q: It's the other one. I'm sorry, sir? 2 A: 978? 3 Q: 978, yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 979. 5 THE WITNESS: I have this one 9 -- 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Sorry, it is 979. 7 THE WITNESS: I have 979, yes. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 10 Q: I had a spillover page so I had two 11 (2) exhibits there. 12 And on the, I guess it must be the last 13 page of that exhibit, halfway down the lefthand column. 14 The advertisement is "Lunch on the run." 15 And the lefthand column beside that 16 halfway down, you're reported as saying: 17 "The Government is undermining the 18 Supreme Court of Canada's decision to 19 uphold the 1923 Indian -- 1923 20 William's Treaty." 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: "Under which Indian Bands in South 23 Cental Ontario surrendered Aboriginal 24 and hunting privileges." 25 And then it continues:
2611 "It's one thing to negotiate community 2 fishing licenses for the losers of the 3 legal fight as an economic measure, he 4 said. But it's not right to hold the 5 discussions in secret and the cover of 6 land claims. That issue has been 7 decided with finality, he said." 8 Does that accurately represent -- 9 A: I -- I believe so. I think that was 10 my view. 11 Q: Okay. Now wasn't it the case, sir, 12 that the community fishing licenses had been created by 13 the NDP Government, particularly to address this problem? 14 And that you disagreed with that approach? 15 A: What problem? 16 Q: With the fact that the Williams -- 17 the Williams Treaty people had lost the case and the NDP 18 Government wanted to ensure that they had some fishing 19 rights. 20 A: In non-treaty lands. 21 Q: Well, whether they were Treaty or 22 non- Treaty is -- they were within the Williams Treaty 23 area. 24 A: Well, but they were lands that 25 Supreme Court said they did not special rights. And --
2621 Q: Yes, that's right. 2 A: -- I think, if my reading of this is 3 -- is correct, my main objection was not that -- I think 4 it says it's one thing to negotiate community fishing 5 licenses, that's one thing. 6 Q: Hmm hmm. 7 A: The big concern and the concern that 8 we had with the NDP Government, in particular this 9 approach, and it wasn't unique to the NDP Government, by 10 the way, it was not -- not unheard of in our Government I 11 think it's -- I don't know whether it's this article. 12 At some point I talked about the concern 13 of -- of tri parte discussions that were held by Allen 14 Pope way back when he was Minister of Natural Resources. 15 And the concern was the lack of 16 inclusiveness, the lack of information, the secrecy, the 17 lack of access to information of other users at that time 18 of this land. I think that was the big concern that I 19 was expressing here. 20 Q: Do you recall if the Ontario 21 Federation of Anglers and Hunters communicated to you 22 that they were -- had a lack of information about this 23 issue? 24 A: Well, I -- I don't recall 25 specifically that -- whether they did or others did but I
2631 -- obviously, there was enough communication relayed to 2 me that -- and -- and my understanding at the time, I 3 have not reviewed it since, what I -- I received was that 4 they were shut out and not part and did not feel that 5 they were part of this process and felt they should have 6 been consulted as -- as the group that represented -- I 7 was going to say non-Native but probably there was some 8 Native members as well, but those who did not have or not 9 party to the negotiations that were going to get fishing 10 privileges in these areas. 11 Q: All right. The -- now, in this 12 article you suggested you were open to the suggestion of 13 negotiate licenses as an economic measure. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Is that -- is that a correct reading? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Did that negotiation ever take place? 18 A: Not to the best of my knowledge but 19 if -- if there were to be negotiations I would not be 20 opposed to those. I think I proposed that a few times 21 for Lake Nipissing -- represented -- the area that I 22 represented. 23 Q: Hmm hmm. Now, shortly after that 24 article your government was elected and took office, I 25 believe in June of 1995?
2641 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And one (1) of the first things you 3 did was to cancel the Williams Treaty fishing licenses? 4 A: I don't know whether that was one (1) 5 of the first things but I -- I think that was one (1) of 6 our campaign commitments and I believe we did. 7 Q: And you -- 8 A: Something along those lines. 9 Q: Yes? 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: And you moved to claw back 20 percent 12 of the revenue distribution to First Nations arising out 13 of burial ground and casino project? 14 A: No. 15 Q: No? 16 A: No. 17 Q: And -- well, there's certainly 18 litigation claiming that you did, sir. Did it not 19 happen? 20 A: Well, I -- I -- claw back 20 percent, 21 I don't know where -- where that comes from. I think 22 there is litigation that is perhaps still ongoing that -- 23 that the definition we had of the profits from casinos is 24 different from the definition that -- that they had in 25 some verbal understanding as they were negotiating the
2651 Rama First Nation Casino with the Rae Government, and I 2 think we indicated to them that as we started to get into 3 -- to the -- the grievance -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? 5 THE WITNESS: -- that -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 7 could stop, Mr. Harris, because this is not helping me. 8 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Yes, I -- 9 obviously I thought that was a yes or no question. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, well it 11 certainly wasn't and this is -- this is not helpful at 12 all, Mr. Henderson. 13 THE WITNESS: Well, there was nothing 14 clawed back, I can say that. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 I just don't need to hear stuff that I don't think has 17 any relevance. So I'm not sure where you're going but I 18 cannot see it. 19 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Well, certainly 20 one (1) of the issues that's come up and which has been 21 represented by some is the relationship between Mr. 22 Harris' government and First Nations. And some are 23 painting a very rosy picture -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's -- 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- Witness.
2661 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I let you go 2 some distance but we're going into an area that is way 3 beyond. 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Well, I'm -- I'm 5 merely looking at this point, sir, at the summer of 19 -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it's not 7 the time frame -- 8 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- the summer of 9 1995. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not the 11 time frame, it's just issues that I'm not sure -- 12 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- how they 14 can in any way resolve or be helpful to us to resolve the 15 issues we have to. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean 20 political parties take positions that they take, and you 21 know that and I know that and they don't agree with -- 22 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: And they get 23 reactions, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Pardon me? 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: And they get
2671 reactions. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And they -- 3 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: The fact is this 4 is a government that moved very quickly -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well -- 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- to take a lot 7 of action -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that's 9 not -- 10 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- in the period 11 of two (2) months. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 13 what this is about. That's not what this is about. 14 Carry on, Mr. Henderson. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 19 Q: I suppose if we move forward to 20 Labour Day, which was the third month you'd had in 21 office, you became the first Premier in the history of 22 the Province to lose two (2) parks in one (1) weekend. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
2681 A: I'm not sure. What are the two (2) 2 Parks? 3 Q: The two (2) parks, Serpent Mounds and 4 -- and Ipperwash Provincial Park were both occupied on 5 the Labour Day weekend. 6 A: I don't know if I was the first. I 7 can tell you that, well, let -- if you say so. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 11 Q: Well, if you're aware of another 12 situation where that many parks have been occupied on one 13 (1) weekend or even in one (1) month, I'm sure we would 14 be happy to hear about it. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. -- 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He can ask the Witness 18 a question, the Witness has given an answer and, you 19 know, I'm -- it's not helpful that -- for Mr. Henderson 20 to say to the Witness, well if you have any information-- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it's 22 not. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He said he doesn't 24 know. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it's not
2691 helpful. Now, what's your question, Mr. Henderson? 2 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Well, I got an 3 answer to the first question, Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 5 Two (2) parks, same weekend, what's your next question? 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Yes. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 9 Q: Now, confronted with that fact, on 10 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday -- 11 A: Yeah. 12 Q: -- you must have been concerned that 13 this might become something of a trend? 14 A: Well, I -- no, I don't believe so. I 15 didn't -- it wasn't my sense, sir, that -- that Serpent 16 Mounds was similar to -- to the situation at -- at 17 Ipperwash, so I don't think we connected the two (2) and 18 said this is a -- this is a trend. 19 I think they were isolated in the sense 20 that they were separate and separate things were being 21 protested in the case of Serpent Mounds and in a separate 22 issue at -- at Ipperwash. 23 And I think we were pretty clear about 24 that, that we didn't connect the two (2), if you like, 25 that way, or did I have any indication that I thought
2701 this might be a trend. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: You were, of course, well aware that 6 many of the camps, I'm sorry, many of the parks would be 7 closing over the course of the winter and -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- and that they would be vulnerable 10 to occupation? 11 A: I don't recall, though, at the time, 12 anybody saying to me that they felt that any -- any other 13 park was vulnerable or that it was any -- any possibility 14 or any hint or any rumour or any reason why they -- they 15 might be taken or -- that certainly was not on our minds 16 at all. 17 And Serpent Mounds, as I said, was a 18 separate issue that did not seem to concern the Ministry 19 of Natural Resources or the Government and so the one 20 situation that we were dealing with was -- was the 21 Ipperwash Park. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Excuse me just a minute, sir.
2711 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Thank you for your patience, sir. 4 Mr. Millar was good enough to provide me with a couple of 5 exhibit numbers I hadn't noted previously. 6 I believe you have seen, sir, Exhibit 1079 7 which is the Cabinet submission on approaches with 8 Aboriginal policy framework. 9 A: Yeah, I just need to know -- 10 Q: It would be this -- this document. 11 A: And -- 12 Q: I'm not going to take you through 13 this one, it's -- 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: -- thirty (30) pages. 16 A: There should be a tab, though, where 17 that's located. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No I don't 19 think it's in the binder -- 20 THE WITNESS: No. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a 22 separate -- 23 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: It may be in the 24 yellow folder. 25 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
2721 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'll give you the 2 exhibit copies, Mr. Harris, because there were the -- 3 THE WITNESS: Is it a Cabinet submission? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it's a 5 Cabinet submission. 6 THE WITNESS: December 7th, 1997 -- 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: December 7. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- P-1079, the one 10 that I think My Friend wants you to look at is the 11 Cabinet minute, December 13th, 1995, sir, which is P- 12 1080. 13 Did we give -- it's coming right now. 14 THE WITNESS: P-1079 I have. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Okay. And you're just 16 going to get P-108, sir. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. All right. Thank 18 you. Sorry, Cabinet minute, yes. 19 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Yes, fine. Of 20 course, my usual thanks to Mr. Millar for his assistance, 21 Commissioner. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 24 Q: Of course my usual thanks to Mr. 25 Millar for his assistance, Commissioner.
2731 Now of course I'm not going to attempt to 2 restrain you in any way if you want to review these 3 documents. 4 But if you look particularly at Exhibit 5 P-1080, what struck me when I read it is that there is an 6 absolute lack of any intention or in fact of any history 7 of consulting the First Nations about this policy 8 framework. 9 And I take it that is not an accidental 10 course of action that these documents were not preceded 11 by extensive consultation, at least with First Nations 12 and whoever else may have been consulted. 13 A: Well, I think this was -- it would 14 have been brought forward by the Native Affairs 15 Secretariat in conjunction, it says, with the Ministry of 16 the Attorney General, so it would have been something 17 that they brought forward to Policy and Priorities Board 18 and to -- to Cabinet. 19 So without -- I don't know what 20 consultation took place to bring them forward. Probably 21 it would have been discussed when it was brought forward. 22 Without reading it, I'm not 100 percent 23 sure of the purpose. 24 Q: Your counsel is helpfully drawing my 25 attention to the second last page of Exhibit 1080 and
2741 he's referring to paragraph (d) which says: 2 "Openness --" 3 Which says: 4 "Public scrutiny of his undertakings 5 and the fair and inclusive involvement 6 of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people 7 in matters affecting them both." 8 A: I'm sorry, where is that now? Which 9 page? 10 Q: It's the second last page. If you 11 look in Appendix 'A' of the -- at the head of it. 12 A: Oh, "Openness,' okay. 13 Q: Yeah. And of course he was correct 14 in saying that as a future policy it does, in fact, speak 15 to the involvement of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal 16 people. 17 So let me rephrase my question then in 18 terms of any consultation with Aboriginal peoples that 19 would have brought this forward. And it may be we got 20 distracted there because I think you were starting to say 21 that it came from the ONAS document and -- 22 A: Well, I'm not -- I'm not aware of 23 what consultations they had had before they brought it 24 forward. What I was saying was it -- it may be that a 25 part of what they were bringing forward was how they
2751 would embark upon consultations. 2 But I -- I mean, I have to read it all for 3 that, so. My counsel's a lot faster reader than I am, I 4 guess, and got to the -- the Appendix. 5 Q: Hmm hmm. I was particularly taken by 6 3(a) which is on page 2. It's the second page of the 7 document. 8 MR. PETER DOWNARD: This is a problem 9 when we're dealing with a lengthy pair of documents. I 10 mean when we got back to the ONAS I see it at page 1 of 11 the submissions. 12 Now, the -- the issue addressed in this 13 submission is whether and how to develop an Aboriginal 14 policy framework which would provide Government direction 15 of Aboriginal matters such as there's increased 16 involvement of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people on 17 issues affecting them both. 18 I mean, you know, this is what -- this is 19 the problem we get when we, you know, deal with a lengthy 20 document. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 22 a question? 23 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Commissioner, 24 that's -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just ask a
2761 question. 2 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: My statement does 3 not say anything about consultation. It says the people 4 are cheek by jowl and there's increasing involvement. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just would 6 like you to ask the Witness questions. That's -- 7 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: That's what I was 8 doing. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know. 10 Let's carry on. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 13 Q: 3(a) on page 2? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Corporate statement on Aboriginal 16 affairs. It says: 17 "Ignore the statement of political 18 relationship and make a Government 19 statement on goals and principles which 20 represents the Government's approach to 21 Aboriginal affairs." 22 Now, that refers to a statement of 23 political relationship you had described earlier? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: The options that were presented to
2771 you in the paper were several but two (2) of them were 2 repudiate the document or just treat it as thought it 3 doesn't exist. The Cabinet decision says: 4 "Treat it as though it doesn't exist 5 and make a statement of goals and 6 principles that obviously would not 7 refer to the statement of political 8 relationships." 9 Is that true? 10 A: That's -- that's what it appears to - 11 - to me, yes. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: I think this is a political -- 14 statement of political relationship. I just want to make 15 sure I understand, this was the political relationship 16 that was signed by some of the Bands with the -- and 17 signed by some of them and by I think the -- the 18 representatives of the NDP Government, is that correct. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 20 right. 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: It was signed by 22 Premier Rae who then was -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: By the 24 former -- 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- and I believe
2781 he -- all of the associations, political associations -- 2 THE WITNESS: I -- I -- 3 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- of Ontario. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's at Tab -- it's -- 5 it was a document -- 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- Mr. Harris, that we 8 looked at at Tab, I believe it's Tab 3 of that binder and 9 the actual -- and that the actual document -- 10 THE WITNESS: I think I have the gist of 11 it but I -- I don't believe it was signed by all and -- 12 and I think it was a political understanding of how the 13 Rae Government planned to -- that he and his ministers 14 planned to -- to deal with -- with issues with those 15 Native Bands that had signed the document; that's my 16 understanding, in general terms. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 19 Q: Fair enough. Well, there's no -- 20 obviously not much point in pursuing that in any detail. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: The document speaks for itself and 23 it's in the -- 24 A: It's in the record. 25 Q: -- the record. Is that an exhibit,
2791 Mr. Millar? 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it is. 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Thank you. I'm 5 just double-checking. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's Exhibit P-643. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 12 Q: On September the 12th, 1995, National 13 Chief Ovide Mercredi, Regional Chief Charles Fox, and 14 Chief Tom Bressette met with you at Queen's Park? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And you were at that meeting together 17 with Attorney General Charles Harnick and Solicitor 18 General Robert Runciman? 19 A: The Deputy Minister, I think, Mr. 20 Taman, was at that meeting. I'm not sure about -- I 21 don't -- I'm not sure about Mr. Runciman. 22 Q: Okay. The suggestion is -- I'm 23 receiving that Mr. Runciman wasn't there, so. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: We'll -- we'll substitute Mr. Taman
2801 for Mr. Runciman. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The -- the evidence 3 that I believe Mr. Taman, Mr. Harnick, and I think Mr. 4 Mercredi, there was Mr. Harris, Mr. Harnick, Mr. Taman, 5 and Mr. Mercredi thought there was a young woman there 6 but neither Mr. Harnick nor Mr. Taman, I believe, could 7 recall that, but Mr. Runciman was not there. 8 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Okay. Again 9 thanks to -- to Mr. Millar and to the unidentified young 10 woman whoever she may be. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 13 Q: Now, Chief Bressette's evidence which 14 -- which he gave on March the 2nd of last year was that 15 the meeting was, in fact, quite brief, on the order of 16 fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes; is that you 17 recollection? 18 A: I -- that -- I would have said less 19 than half an hour, yes, or not over. 20 Q: And the Chiefs -- I'm sorry? 21 A: Or -- or not over half an hour, but 22 that would -- but that's my recollection. 23 Q: Fine. And the Chief's evidence was 24 that you were quite concerned to communicate that you did 25 not give any orders to kill anyone or to direct the
2811 Ontario Provincial Police. Did you attempt to 2 communicate that -- 3 A: I may -- I may have. I mean that was 4 -- I -- whenever those allegations started to surface I 5 was quick to refute them. 6 Q: Do you remember anything else that 7 you attempted to communicate at that meeting? 8 A: I think I indicated that -- that I 9 had extended, you know, my sympathies to the George 10 Family, that obviously regret that, if you like, that 11 this -- this situation had -- had taken place that led to 12 the death of -- of Mr. George. 13 And I think we -- we generally discussed 14 that we would like to work cooperatively to -- in all 15 issues in a -- in a general sense and that we were 16 hopeful that this situation of the -- the occupation 17 could be resolved peacefully and amiably, and I think we 18 asked for his help in that. 19 Q: Chief Bressette's evidence was also 20 that he did not personally say anything at that meeting. 21 Is that consistent with your recollection? 22 A: I -- I don't recall anything but I... 23 Q: And do you recall having any 24 conversations with Chief Bressette before September the 25 12th, 2000 -- I'm sorry, 1995?
2821 A: I don't recall. Between the 4th and 2 the 12th? Is that -- I -- I don't recall that. 3 Q: Well, particularly during that period 4 or any other conversations that you -- 5 A: I -- I think that meeting -- that -- 6 that he was at I recall, but I don't recall, right now, 7 other meetings, no. 8 Q: Right. Do you recall having any 9 discussions about any of the issues with him after that 10 meeting? 11 A: No. 12 Q: My Friend -- 13 A: Most of the issues after the meeting 14 dealt with what happened on September 6th/7th. 15 Q: And that continues to be the case, 16 sir. 17 A: It continues to be the case. 18 Q: Mr. Scullion asked you if you had 19 visited the Army Camp, and you said no. 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Would it also be true to say that you 22 have not since visited the Kettle Point reserve? 23 A: That's true. 24 Q: Had you visited the Kettle Point 25 reserve prior to that day?
2831 A: Not to the best of my knowledge. 2 Q: So your communications with people in 3 the First Nation, including members of the First Nation 4 who were also resident at the Army Camp, have effectively 5 been zero, through all of this? 6 A: I believe so. 7 Q: Thank you, sir. Those are my 8 questions, thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Henderson. 11 Mr. Horton...? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In view of 16 cross-examination so far, Mr. Horton, do you have a more 17 current estimate of how long you might be? 18 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Not really, 19 Commissioner. I think less than my original estimate of 20 two and a half (2 1/2) hours but I really don't know -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I really 22 would like to finish you today, so let's do our best. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
2841 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 2 Q: Okay. Mr. Harris, my name is Bill 3 Horton and I appear in these proceedings for Chiefs of 4 Ontario. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: I have some questions to ask. Mr. 7 Harris, the first area I wanted to cover with you was the 8 issue of expertise with respect to policing issues, and I 9 think you testified a number of times that yours was a 10 new government; that's correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you certainly had not had much 13 prior experience dealing with policing issues from a 14 governing perspective, prior to these events? 15 A: Well certainly I hadn't, as Premier, 16 and -- and most of the members of our government would 17 not have had in that capacity. Others may have had 18 experience in -- in other capacities, municipal 19 capacities. There may have been some limited experience 20 from some in -- in prior governments. 21 Q: But speaking of you personally -- 22 A: Would have been -- would have been 23 pre-'85, though. 24 Q: Yes. Speaking of you personally, not 25 much experience in policing matters from the Government
2851 perspective. 2 A: I think that's fair. 3 Q: And that would also apply to Ms. 4 Hutton? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And I think you testified that with 7 respect to issues relating to public safety and how best 8 public safety should be ensured, that you would recognize 9 that the OPP had the expertise in that area; is that 10 correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And certainly they would have greater 13 expertise than yourself or Ms. Hutton? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And that would apply to law 16 enforcement generally; that the OPP would have greater 17 expertise than yourself or Ms. Hutton? 18 A: I believe so. 19 Q: And you characterized the Ipperwash 20 events as not involving Native rights; am I correct about 21 that, from your perspective? 22 A: I have -- think we've -- I've 23 characterized the occupation and the dissidents that 24 occupied the Park that I recognized that they were First 25 Nation folks that were -- made up this dissident group.
2861 But I think that where the -- the 2 differentiation comes in is that -- that they were not in 3 that occupation -- they were not there in any official 4 capacity and they were not there in any capacity or 5 action that, in our view, and was explained to us, that 6 gave them special status or constitutional rights. 7 So that in that sense, we felt that they - 8 - they, before the law, they would be treated the same in 9 how we would deal with this -- this occupation as non- 10 Native. 11 I think -- I don't know if I'm rambling a 12 little -- well, I know I'm rambling a bit, but I'm trying 13 to differentiate that. 14 Q: And just so that you know, I'm not 15 eliciting or seeking a long explanation in every one of 16 my -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- questions. And many of my 19 questions I'm expecting that the answer will be quite 20 brief. I don't mean to cut you off. 21 A: Right, 22 Q: Obviously you can take as long as you 23 like. 24 A: I'm not trying to run you over time. 25 Q: Well, you won't do that. I promise
2871 you that, you can put that out of your mind, because we 2 will -- we will continue, at least, until I've finished 3 today -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- or we'll continue 6 another day. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 9 Q: But I thought I was just summarising 10 your evidence accurately that your view of the situation 11 was that it should be dealt with as if it did not involve 12 issues of Natives rights. 13 Is that a fair summary? 14 A: I think that was the conclusion that 15 I had come to and I think it was Ms. Hutton's view and I 16 would not have thought that we were the only two (2) that 17 had that view. I would have thought it was a consensus 18 view. 19 Q: Right. And in terms of occupations 20 that did not involve Native rights, you would agree with 21 me that the OPP would, in your view, have had 22 considerable expertise in dealing with those? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And certainly greater expertise in 25 dealing with those than yourself or Ms. Hutton?
2881 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And that would also apply to 3 trespass? The OPP would have greater experience and 4 expertise in dealing with matters of trespass than you or 5 Ms. Hutton; is that correct? 6 A: Yes. That's correct. 7 Q: What about from the perspective of 8 what is required in order to secure an area or public 9 property from intruders? 10 Would you view then and now have been that 11 the OPP had greater expertise than yourself or Ms. Harris 12 in how to deal with that situation. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You said Ms. 14 Harris, I think you meant Ms. Hutton. 15 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm sorry, Ms. 16 Hutton. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 21 Q: And equally in terms of how to 22 secure -- 23 A: We -- we weren't that close. 24 Q: And I didn't mean to imply anything 25 at all --
2891 A: That's -- 2 Q: -- Mr. Harris. I regularly confuse 3 names, more so as time goes by. 4 In terms of securing the perimeter, how to 5 go about securing the perimeter for a public area and 6 making sure that people within the area don't come out, I 7 assume that you understood the OPP to have greater 8 expertise than yourself in those matters? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And greater expertise than Ms. 11 Hutton, in those matters? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And what about in terms of assessing 14 threats from firearms? In a situation such as that were 15 you of the view at that time that the OPP had greater 16 expertise than yourself in assessing whether or not 17 firearms in that situation presented a threat? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And, for example, you testified that 20 you didn't understand what difference it made whether 21 there were automatic weapons or semi-automatic weapons, 22 but I assume that at even while you didn't understand 23 that, you understood that the OPP would have a greater 24 expertise than yourself in assessing whether that made a 25 difference.
2901 A: Yes. 2 Q: And in terms of determining whether 3 or not evidence as to the presence of firearms in the 4 Park should make a difference in terms of how the 5 situation is reacted to, would you agree with me that at 6 the time you would have known that the OPP had a greater 7 expertise than yourself or Ms. Hutton in making that 8 determination? 9 A: The determination being what? The 10 threat? 11 Q: Whether or not -- 12 A: That they were a threat? 13 Q: -- the presence of firearms within 14 the Park should affect how to respond to this situation. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And finally, in this list, you've 17 testified, actually on a number of occasions that, in 18 your view, bringing about an end to the occupation 19 sooner, was more likely to produce a peaceful resolution. 20 Do you recall advising us of your opinion 21 in that regard? 22 A: Yes, and -- and I believe I came to 23 that view that that was also the -- the consensus view. 24 And on the information that -- that they had and the 25 information that had been relayed to me; that was my
2911 view. 2 Q: For the moment I just want to focus 3 on your view. 4 You did say on a number of occasions, I 5 can take you to the transcript, that it was your view 6 that a quicker resolution was more likely to produce a 7 peaceful resolution; is that right? 8 A: I think, in general terms, that's 9 right. I don't -- I wouldn't -- I think I would want to 10 know what action was going to be taken for a quicker 11 resolution but I think that primarily came about as 12 whether we would seek an ex parte or an -- an injunction 13 with notice. 14 Q: And would you agree with me that in 15 just the issue of whether or not, all other things being 16 equal, a quicker resolution would produce a peaceful -- 17 was more likely to produce a peaceful resolution, the OPP 18 would have greater expertise than yourself or Ms. Hutton 19 on that issue? 20 A: Yes, I think so. 21 Q: And we know that issues like that 22 were discussed, Mr. Harris, in the September 5, September 23 6 timeframe. And I appreciate your evidence that you 24 were not at the meetings and the evidence of others that 25 you were not at the IMC meetings. I'm not trying to get
2921 you to tell me what happened at those meetings. 2 But to the extent that the types of issues 3 that I've been talking about were discussed at those 4 meetings, would you have expected that Ms. Hutton would 5 be determining the consensus on those types of issues? 6 Would you have expected that? 7 A: I -- I don't know who was determining 8 the consensus. I didn't know the logistics of the 9 meeting. I -- I now know after the fact that -- that 10 somebody else was chairing the meetings. All I know is 11 what was relayed to me by Ms. Hutton -- 12 Q: Yeah. 13 A: -- as her view of what the consensus 14 was. 15 Q: And I -- I do want to just briefly 16 summarize that but for now, given what you've told me, 17 that neither you nor Ms. Hutton had the degree of 18 expertise as the OPP on the types of issues that I've 19 been identifying, would you have expected Ms. Hutton to 20 be the one to be -- to be determining what the outcome of 21 the meetings would be on those issues? 22 A: I think I would expect Ms. Hutton to 23 relay to me her view of what the consensus was. 24 Q: Let me -- let me then try it another 25 way.
2931 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 2 minute, Mr. Horton, we have Ms. Perschy coming to the 3 mic. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Commissioner, I do 5 have a concern. If My Friend's trying to suggest that 6 Ron Fox wasn't in agreement with the consensus of the 7 outcome on September 6th, the September 6th IMC meeting 8 to seek an injunction as soon as possible then the -- the 9 evidence just isn't there. 10 And again, this Witness wasn't at that 11 meeting. That seems to be what My Friend is suggesting 12 and I don't think that's accurate -- an accurate 13 reflection of his evidence. 14 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Nothing -- that's 15 totally irrelevant to what I was asking about, 16 Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, then 18 let's carry on with your questions. 19 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Totally irrelevant. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 22 Q: Let me ask you this then, Mr. Harris, 23 in line with how you would like to answer the question. 24 Did Ms. Hutton -- did Ms. Hutton's reports on the IMC 25 meetings indicate to you that there had been any
2941 differences of opinion at those meetings on the types of 2 topics that I've mentioned? 3 A: What -- Ms. Hutton indicated to me 4 that there's was lots of discussion, lots of viewpoints, 5 that they were receiving information from whoever was 6 reporting, the -- the views of the OPP. 7 I think she indicated that -- also the 8 views of the Ministry of Natural Resources and -- and I 9 think both at the meeting and from what they were hearing 10 on the ground. 11 I think those were the two (2) relevant 12 Ministries that -- that somebody was relaying that 13 information as to their views. 14 And that -- that -- I don't know whether 15 I'm going further than you're asking. I mean, a number 16 of -- of options I think were reviewed over the -- the 17 5th, 6th and including I think, perhaps at her insistence 18 that more options be put on the table. 19 One (1) of the options was do nothing. I 20 was aware of that. And that -- that she had relayed that 21 the -- the consensus from that came down to seeking an 22 injunction. 23 Q: Did Ms. Hutton report to you that 24 there had been any differences of opinion between her and 25 other participants in those meetings?
2951 A: I -- I'm not sure that she did and I 2 wouldn't have asked. I was more interested in what 3 consensus did you all come to and are you satisfied that 4 -- that's the right consensus. And -- and once I'd 5 satisfied myself of that and I took that as the consensus 6 viewed. 7 Q: In particular, did Ms. Hutton 8 indicate to you that there was any difference of opinion 9 between her and any representative of the Solicitor 10 General's office or the OPP at that meeting -- at those 11 meetings? 12 A: I -- I don't recall any -- any 13 individual discrepancies or disagreements or that -- the 14 conversation I don't recall her saying, Well, here's 15 three (3) options. Her's what I thought, here's what 16 somebody else thought, here's what somebody thought. 17 I recall her saying this is -- this is a 18 consensus. I think after one (1) meeting there wasn't a 19 big consensus, more information required after the 5th. 20 But at some point through those meetings 21 that's what I recall. 22 Q: Would it have surprised you to know 23 in view of the fact that Ms. Hutton did not have very 24 much experience with respect to these matters, that there 25 was any difference of opinions between her and others at
2961 the meeting with respect to any of these issues? 2 Would that have been a matter of surprise 3 to you? 4 A: It wouldn't surprise me that Ms. 5 Hutton would insist that -- that all views be heard. 6 That -- that, in my recollection of dealing with her, is 7 Ms. Hutton's style to try and make sure that -- that all 8 options are considered. 9 At times Ms. Hutton will put forward 10 options that she doesn't think are the right options but 11 she wants to make sure they're all considered and all 12 heard. That was more of her style, is my recollection. 13 Q: Did Ms. Hutton report to you that 14 there had specifically been different views expressed at 15 the meeting with respect to whether or not going faster 16 or going slower was going to be more likely to produce a 17 peaceful resolution? 18 A: My -- my recollection is that 19 conclusion was -- was finally reached at the dining room 20 meeting. There may have been positions for and against. 21 I think I indicated that I was aware, there may have been 22 some that -- that may have -- have had -- said, Well, 23 maybe with notice, maybe with -- maybe without. 24 It was not reported to me that there was 25 any strong objections one or the other. And a consensus,
2971 I think, was -- was concluded at the -- at the dining 2 room meeting that it would go forward without -- without 3 notice. 4 Q: I know you've been asked this before, 5 Mr. Harris, but I do want to give you one (1) more 6 opportunity to provide a direct answer, if you can. 7 You've indicated that you believe that -- 8 and -- and you have, in fairness, indicated that you 9 understood it was a consensus, but certainly it was your 10 belief that going faster was more likely to produce a 11 peaceful result than going slower. Ms. Hutton has 12 testified to the same effect. 13 Other than Ms. Hutton and yourself can you 14 point to one (1) other individual involved in these 15 discussions who expressed the same point of view? 16 A: Well, I -- I can't suggest 17 individuals. A number of them have testified I think and 18 I'm -- I'm not sure what they have testified on this 19 matter. 20 I can tell you that I do not recall 21 anybody at the dining room meeting expressing an 22 alternative point of view. And if I could just say going 23 faster rather than slower I want to make sure to repeat 24 one (1) more time that that was in the context of -- of 25 whether it was an injunction with notice, without notice
2981 and -- and it was in conjunction with safety. 2 And -- and I think an overriding concern 3 that influenced a lot of people, as I understand it, and 4 influenced me, was a concern over the OPP representatives 5 reporting to the ICC and have been reported at the -- 6 that they had indicated at the dining room meeting they 7 could not control access to this Park, and that -- that 8 they were concerned that -- that if others were able to 9 join in they had no knowledge of who they would be, 10 whether weapons would be able to come in. 11 And I think that was the sense that we had 12 that -- that with the existing occupiers, it was more 13 likely that -- that if it didn't increase and didn't -- 14 didn't get reinforcements if you like, in particular. I 15 think that was one (1) of the influencing factors, as 16 well, on timing. 17 Q: Mr. Harris, I -- I asked a very 18 specific question. I understand what you've just said. 19 I've heard you say that before. I -- my question was: 20 Can you today identify one (1) other individual who came 21 to the same conclusion and expressed the same conclusion 22 at the dining room meeting? 23 A: No, I -- I cannot. But I -- by the 24 same token I would not suggest that everyone of them 25 didn't speak up and say that either. I don't recall that
2991 discussion. I recall that that was the consensus. 2 Q: I'd like to take you to evidence of 3 Ron Fox given on July the 12th, page 57. And he's 4 discussing a couple of different issues that came up at 5 the September 6th meeting. 6 And I'm going to have to start out there - 7 - page -- page 57 -- page 56, bottom of page 56. 8 And the question goes, and I -- I -- as 9 you indicated in your answer that you were speaking as to 10 what was in the minds of some, I'm wondering whether you 11 had any other basis for the formulation of your 12 perception as opposed to what you thought were in 13 people's minds. And this is just -- he's -- he's going 14 to repeat in a moment what he had been talking about. 15 And he says: 16 "The way people articulated their 17 positions, the body language that was 18 present when they did." 19 And then the question is -- this is what I 20 really want to read: 21 "Can you give me some examples, 22 tangible examples, from September the 23 6th? 24 A: Yes, when people would make a 25 point what they felt was was their
3001 point they would say that forcefully. 2 They would talk over others who would 3 try to interject with perhaps an 4 opposing point of view in that fashion. 5 Q: All right. And perhaps you can 6 just indicate who articulated strong 7 views forcefully and what those views 8 were. 9 A: The representative of the 10 Premier's Office, Deb Hutton indicated 11 again that it was the position of -- of 12 the government that the occupiers were 13 to be -- were -- were to be removed. 14 There would be no negotiations. There 15 was concern that the police would enter 16 into negotiations with the occupiers. 17 And I recall explaining that that was 18 two (2) different things and that's 19 why I had mentioned the difference 20 between negotiation and front-end 21 communication. It was that type of 22 atmosphere. You could tell from the 23 body language that this was the 24 position that was to be taken. 25 Q: And were you --
3011 A: In their view. 2 Q: I'm sorry, were you also 3 articulating a view forcefully? 4 A: Yes, I believe that I was. 5 Q: And your view as communicated was 6 what? 7 A: My view again, as I testified 8 yesterday, that it wasn't a simple 9 trespass matter, there was greater 10 complexity to it, that one had to move 11 slowly as one went through this, 12 understanding that the police were not 13 to negotiate a land claim, per se, or 14 burial site, but they needed to 15 negotiate with the people that they're 16 to effect the purpose required, and 17 that was to ensure public safety. 18 Q: And did anyone on behalf of the 19 Ministry of Natural Resources 20 articulate strong, forceful views at 21 the September 6th meeting? 22 A: Yes, they did. Again, it was 23 restated that the Park was the property 24 of the Ministry of Natural Resources, 25 or at least they had stewardship of it.
3021 They were concerned, and I believe 2 legitimately, so that the Park would be 3 damaged if the occupation were to 4 continue and be rendered inoperable as 5 a Park. My view would probably 6 contradict theirs in some fashion, in 7 that mine was that public safety was 8 paramount, and that the things and the 9 property, whether it was picnic tables 10 or it was maintenance sheds, they were 11 of lesser concern from a policing 12 perspective." 13 Now, my first question -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 15 minute before you do, you've read the evidence, perhaps 16 Ms. Perschy has something? 17 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was just wondering 18 if -- if My Friend could just continue reading the next 19 two (2) paragraphs, because it does deal with -- the next 20 few questions and answers, because they do deal with the 21 issue of public safety in the view of the committee. And 22 I think in fairness to this Witness who wasn't there, it 23 would provide some helpful context. 24 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, how far down 25 do you want me to read?
3031 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'll check my 2 transcript. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, she 4 said the next two (2) paragraphs, that that would -- 5 MR. WILLIAM PERSCHY: No, I feel I'll 6 have to read from the screen -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- make her 8 feel the question was fair. 9 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: If Ms. Perschy will 10 tell me where she wants me to stop I'll -- I don't want 11 to guess. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, she 13 said the next two (2) paragraphs, why don't you just read 14 them and see where that leaves you. You're at line 11 I 15 think. 16 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Just hold on one (1) 17 second. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 20 Q: "Q: And who at the MNR was 21 articulating that view most forcefully? 22 A: Again, the two (2) gentlemen who 23 were conferenced in, Mr. Baldwin and 24 Mr. Sturdy, and I do recall Mr. Baldwin 25 being there and articulating --
3041 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Allen. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 4 Q: "-- Mr. Allen being there and 5 articulating as well. 6 Q: Now you've indicated that the issue 7 of public safety was still of paramount 8 concern at the committee? 9 A: Correct." 10 Is that -- 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Just the next one 12 down. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 15 Q: "And was the issue of possible threat 16 to public safety a more prominent 17 concern at the September 6th meeting, 18 than it was at the September 5th 19 meeting? 20 A: Yes, I believe that it was." 21 Is that -- is that what you wanted, Ms. 22 Perschy? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
3051 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Sorry? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And where would you 4 like me to read to, Mr. Downard? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, carry on 6 please. Carry on, Mr. Horton. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 9 Q: Mr. Harris, did -- do you recall Ms. 10 Hutton reporting to you comments to this effect, mainly, 11 if I may summarize, that there was a difference between 12 negotiating land claims and front-end communications, and 13 that it was important that there be such communications? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And do you recall Ms. Hutton 16 communicating to you that there was a need to negotiate 17 with the people to the affect -- to affect the purpose 18 required, and that was to ensure public safety? 19 A: Yes, I believe that we expected that 20 negotiations would take place. 21 Q: And that the view was expressed at 22 that meeting that one had to move slowly as we went 23 through this, understanding that the police were not to 24 negotiate a land claim per se, or a burial site, but they 25 needed to negotiate with the -- with the people?
3061 A: I don't know if those exact words 2 were relayed, but they're not inconsistent with -- with 3 you know, the view of -- that I understood, that could 4 follow any actions that we would take on injunction or -- 5 or even previous to an injunction. 6 I mean, I think there was some indication 7 there -- there could be negotiations amongst the OPP and 8 -- and the -- the occupiers, prior to seeking the 9 injunction, as well. 10 Q: So your understanding is that the 11 consensus was there could be negotiations; is that right? 12 A: Yes, differentiating the negotiations 13 on -- as opposed to substantive issues -- 14 Q: Of -- 15 A: -- that we weren't aware of that may 16 come forward. We'd have to come back and get -- get a -- 17 a different direction on that. 18 Q: Let me come back to that again in a 19 moment but -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like to 21 take a break sometime. 22 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Is there a popular-- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is -- 24 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- move towards a 25 break.
3071 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is this a 2 good time to do it? 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Certainly. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Could we 5 take a shorter break, say ten (10) minutes, so we can -- 6 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- hopefully 8 finish him. 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 10 for ten (10) minutes. 11 12 --- Upon recessing at 3:30 p.m. 13 --- Upon resuming at 3:45 p.m. 14 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 16 resumed. Please be seated. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. -- 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 20 Q: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, 21 Mr. Harris. 22 Mr. Harris, if it's not apparent to you 23 yet, let me just clarify what I'm trying to assist the 24 Commissioner with, in terms of my questioning. 25 There's an issue on which we've heard a
3081 lot of evidence which we can call the go-slow-go-fast 2 issue. And there -- there are different versions of it, 3 obviously. Some might say it relates to the injunction, 4 some might say that it relates to effecting evacuation. 5 I'm not focussing on that aspect of it at the moment. 6 What I'm trying to -- and you can define 7 it any way you like, for my purposes, I'm not going to 8 argue with you about that. But what I'm trying to 9 determine is if there was a consensus, the go -- go-fast 10 was go -- was better than go-slow. 11 And you agreed with the -- you were part 12 of the consensus, which is what I understand so far. 13 What I'm trying to determine is whether 14 you initiated that idea and others agreed with you or 15 whether someone else initiated the idea and you agreed 16 with them. 17 Do you follow me so far? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. So in that line, I'd like 20 to read you some evidence that we have from Mr. Taman, 21 and that was given on November the 15th. And I'll start 22 reading at the bottom of page 190. 23 And the question at line 20: 24 "And earlier you had been involved in 25 meetings with the Attorney General and
3091 Solicitor General where you had 2 discussed a go-slow attitude, one might 3 say, right?" 4 And he's -- he's talking about, I believe 5 it's September the 6th at this point, early in the 6 morning on September the 6th. 7 A: I'm sorry, this is Mr. Taman in a 8 meeting with -- 9 Q: Those are Mr. Taman's testimony. 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: I'm reading to you Mr. Taman's -- 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: -- testimony. 14 A: Yeah, and I -- I can't read that 15 there, but just -- and Mr. Taman is saying he's in a 16 meeting with... 17 Q: He's saying that he had earlier been 18 involved in a meeting with the Attorney General and the 19 Solicitor General where they had discussed a go-slow 20 attitude, one might say. All right? 21 And he then goes on to be asked: 22 Q: And so the Attorney General was 23 informing you that in spite of his 24 previous agreement with you and others 25 that there should be a go slow
3101 attitude, he'd been instructed by the 2 Premier not to go slowly, but to go 3 quickly; right? 4 A: I think that's the sense of it, 5 yes. 6 Q: And as he informed you of that, he 7 was indicating to you that that was 8 then the ruling? There was no more 9 debate about slow or fast, we're going 10 quickly, right? 11 A: Yes. If I could just say one (1) 12 thing in fairness to Mr. Harnick, and I 13 think you put it fairly in your 14 question, Mr. Rosenthal, I don't think 15 it was so much a question that he 16 changed his mind [and I think the 'he' 17 there is referring to Harnick], it was 18 a question that in the days leading up 19 to this when we talked about it, the 20 people I've discussed, Mr. Runciman, 21 Mr. Harnick agreed that there didn't 22 seem to be any great need to go 23 quickly. 24 The Committee had asked for an 25 injunction. There was conversation
3111 carrying on but the situation did 2 change that morning. 3 Q: Yes. And had Mr. Harnick, in his 4 earlier conversations with you, 5 indicated his understanding of what you 6 understood that going quickly could 7 increase the danger of someone getting 8 hurt? 9 A: I think it would be fair to say 10 that he was content, at that time, to 11 follow the advice that he was 12 receiving. 13 Q: Including from you, you mean? 14 A: Sure. 15 Q: And so it wasn't that he had 16 changed his opinion, he just told you 17 the Premier said, Quick, then that's 18 the end of the discussion? 19 A: That's the way I see it." 20 So we have the evidence of Mr. Taman that 21 at some point -- sorry, at some point on September 6th, 22 he had been talking to Harnick. Harnick said that 23 whereas previously he had agreed with the advice he was 24 receiving that it was better to go slow, that he had a 25 discussion with you and received a ruling that the
3121 approach would be to go quick. 2 Now, I want to give you an opportunity to 3 tell us whether you recall having that discussion with 4 Mr. Harnick? 5 A: No. 6 Q: And I want to ask you whether, in 7 light of that evidence, it doesn't assist you in 8 answering my question as to whether or not you were the 9 one who originated the idea of going quick. And whatever 10 consensus emerged, was the result of others agreeing with 11 you? 12 A: No. 13 Q: And let me take you to a third 14 passage. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: I'd like to take you to Mr. Taman's 19 evidence on November 15th at page 236 when he was being 20 cross-examined by Mr. Horner. 21 And I'll -- again I'll start on 235 if I 22 may, Mr. Millar. Sorry, no, let's go down. I realize 23 that I was right there. All right. Just right -- sorry, 24 right. 25 "Cross-examination by Matthew Horner:
3131 I wanted to start, Mr. Taman, with 2 comments you made yesterday regarding 3 meeting with some civil servants in the 4 early morning of September 6th, 1995. 5 And they were concerned about the 6 Premier's views or the statements made 7 by Deb Hutton at the IMC meeting 8 regarding the hawkish atmosphere. And 9 you stated that you told them that your 10 view was that it was important that 11 nobody got hurt. And you said that the 12 Solicitor General and the Attorney 13 General agreed with this and that 14 generally you should -- we should try 15 to be stabilizing the situation both 16 internally and externally. 17 I want you to ask -- I want to ask you 18 a little bit more about stabilizing the 19 situation internally. What did you 20 mean by that? 21 A: Well, I meant that we should be 22 trying to be calm; that we shouldn't be 23 taking too seriously every word that 24 was said by whoever said it and that we 25 should be working our way methodically
3141 through the problem. 2 Q: And would you agree..." 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: "...that was this slower approach, 7 this methodical approach as you said 8 that was required in order for the 9 government to develop its policy 10 response to this situation? 11 A: I think it was more in my mind an 12 issue of giving the situation a time, a 13 decent time to develop so that it would 14 be possible to bring it to a safe 15 resolution. 16 Q: And so -- so then that -- I would 17 understand that as being more of an 18 external stabilization, that you wanted 19 the situation down at the Park. And 20 was there anything more internal within 21 government that you were concerned 22 should be stabilized? 23 A: I was concerned that we get some 24 clarity about what was going on; that 25 we get some clarity about instructions.
3151 It fairly quickly became clear to me 2 that we had to get some clarity about 3 who should be at what meeting and so on 4 so these were all things that we needed 5 to do to settle into the problem." 6 I'm wondering whether, Mr. Harris, those 7 references to the transcript assist you in recalling that 8 others were advocating that a safe approach was a slow 9 approach, a thoughtful and methodical approach, and you 10 were the one and Ms. Hutton was the one who was 11 advocating a quick approach? 12 A: No. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now, I want to turn to another 17 subject and that is -- it is one that you've been asked 18 about quite a bit so I'll try and do it without 19 transcript references. 20 But you said on a number of occasions that 21 you understood that the occupation was an escalation of 22 the situation at the Camp, is that correct? 23 A: Or an extension of the situation at 24 the Camp. 25 Q: All right.
3161 A: It related to. 2 Q: I think you did use the word 3 'escalation'. 4 A: Well -- 5 Q: Would that be incorrect? 6 A: Certainly escalating the amount of 7 property that was under occupation -- 8 Q: Right. 9 A: -- I suppose. 10 Q: An extension of the situation at the 11 camp, correct? 12 A: Yeah, I -- as long as we understand 13 we're talking about either word, I think. 14 Q: Right. 15 A: As long as we understand each other. 16 Q: I'm not hung up about the words 17 either, but -- and that you -- 18 A: I'm -- 19 Q: -- understood -- 20 A: I'm not either, but I notice that 21 sometimes there'll be fifty (50) lawyers will argue for a 22 long time over the meaning of an individual word so.. 23 Q: Fair enough. 24 A: I'm trying to be as cautious as I 25 can.
3171 Q: Well, that's for you to be as hawkish 2 as you can, because that word has a lesser known meaning 3 as well, Mr. Harris. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 5 fair in this context, Mr. Horton. Carry on, carry on 6 with your question. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 9 Q: Now, we were just talking about the 10 meanings of words -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know 12 that, I know. But the words were extension or 13 escalation. 14 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Right. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 17 Q: So coming back to that, you 18 understood all the way through the 6th that this was as a 19 result of frustration by the occupiers with the situation 20 at the camp, is that correct? 21 A: That was my understanding that -- 22 that -- 23 Q: Right. 24 A: You know... 25 Q: And you did not understand it as a
3181 claim to the land, correct? 2 A: I did not. 3 Q: You were not aware of any claim being 4 made to the land, correct? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And you were not aware of any demands 7 being made in that respect? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: So if there were -- was no claim to 10 the land being made, Mr. Harris, and there were no 11 demands being made in that regard, certainly the 12 occupiers were not looking for any negotiations with 13 respect to land claims as far as you were aware, is that 14 correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: There was no reason for you to be 17 concerned that the OPP or anyone else was going to get 18 involved in negotiating land claims, because as far as 19 you were aware, there were none. Is that right? 20 A: At this point, that's correct. 21 Q: And certainly there was no concern, 22 therefore, about negotiating land claims across a 23 barricade, is that fair? 24 A: That -- that was my understanding, 25 yes.
3191 Q: Well there would be no basis for it, 2 for any concern of that nature if -- 3 A: I -- 4 Q: -- you were not -- 5 A: The information we had at that time 6 there wasn't, that's correct. 7 Q: All right. It was really just a 8 question of dealing with people who you understood were 9 frustrated with the situation at the camp, is that right? 10 A: That was the only explanation that -- 11 that I think people could draw a conclusion to and that - 12 - I accept that. 13 Q: So I want to examine your views and 14 actions then, Mr. Harris, with you in the context of that 15 understanding that you were dealing with people who were 16 frustrated by the situation at the camp. 17 And I won't take you to the references, 18 but you seem to have indicated in your testimony that you 19 had some sympathy for the fact that the First Nations 20 people in the area had been excluded from the camp for 21 almost fifty (50) years? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And that you would have liked to have 24 supported them in terms of that issue, is that -- do I 25 understand that correctly?
3201 A: I think I indicated I likely would 2 have supported them, yes, if I'd have been asked. 3 Q: Well, it's -- it's certainly, I'm 4 sure, very welcomed among First Nations people to hear 5 that. I'm just wondering, Mr. Harris -- 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I would prefer there 7 was no editorial comment from Mr. Horton, please. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 11 Q: Mr. Harris, I'm not aware of any 12 expression of sympathy from your part contemporaneous 13 with these events. 14 Am I mistaken in that regard? 15 A: I'm sorry, contemporaneous meaning 16 what then, what time frame and what -- I don't know what 17 you're talking about. 18 Q: Up until the death of Dudley George. 19 A: I don't think I made any public 20 statements up to the time -- 21 Q: No. 22 A: -- of the death of Dudley George to 23 the best of my recollection. 24 Q: And certainly there were no 25 expressions of support from you for the experi -- the
3211 difficulties that were being experienced by the First 2 Nations people with respect to this issue prior to the 3 shooting death of Dudley George. 4 Is that a fair statement? 5 A: I think that's correct. 6 Q: And in fact, as you've described, 7 your attitude to this injustice that you say you had 8 sympathy for, if I understand it correctly, the occupiers 9 and their families and their community had been victims 10 in their minds of an illegal occupation by the Federal 11 Government of their lands for fifty (50) years, and your 12 attitude was that a single second of occupation by them 13 was unacceptable. 14 Is that correct? Do I have your evidence 15 right? 16 A: I think I indicated that this was an 17 illegal occupation, inappropriate, illegal, not the type 18 of action that should be condoned. 19 If you want me to get into the whole 20 details of the Federal Government, whether there was 21 objection to the occupying the land and for how long it 22 -- it should have been occupied, I'm not an expert in 23 that area but it seems to me that post-Second World War 24 it took a long time to -- to return those lands, as I 25 understood they were supposed to be done, to the -- to
3221 the Band. 2 Q: Mr. Harris, you've indicated that you 3 had sympathy and support and understood the injustice? 4 A: I felt it was unjust, yes. 5 Q: And here were people who were the 6 victims of a legal process that was not able to regress 7 their grievances for a period of fifty (50) years but 8 your approach was that the Government had to be in court 9 in twenty-four (24) hours or forty-eight (48) hours was 10 too long; do I have that right? 11 A: In court to seek an injunction to 12 establish the ownership of the land, that -- that is 13 absolutely correct. 14 Q: Right. 15 A: I felt that was the right action. 16 Q: Right. Right. You wanted to have 17 the legal process respond to your concern and have the 18 law come down on these people by way of an injunction 19 within twenty-four (24) hours or forty-eight (48) hours 20 when you felt in your own mind that they were acting out 21 of frustration of having been excluded from their own 22 land and not having legal regress for over fifty (50) 23 years; do I have that right? 24 A: You do. And I -- I think that's 25 entirely appropriate. And I think the Chief and the Band
3231 concurred with me this wasn't an appropriate action or 2 way to express your frustration or -- or to deal with it. 3 And I agreed it was not an appropriate the way. I think 4 it was a helpful way. 5 Q: Mr. Harris, I suggest to you that you 6 had no interest in showing either support or sympathy in 7 this situation, your interest was in showing strength and 8 control; isn't that correct? 9 A: No. 10 Q: And I suggest to you that what you 11 had an interest in doing was showing that you could get 12 the occupiers out in a few days, whereas by contrast the 13 Federal Government had been forced by the same occupiers 14 to give up the Camp; isn't that correct? 15 A: No. 16 Q: I suggest to you that it would have 17 been politically advantageous for you and certain 18 constituencies in the Province to be shown to be able to 19 deal with this same group of occupiers in a more decisive 20 manner than the Federal Government only a few months 21 earlier; do you deny that? 22 A: I deny that that was ever any 23 consideration. I -- I don't know whether it's true or 24 not, I don't know how you know it would be true or not, 25 but it was no consideration of mine.
3241 Q: And I suggest to you, Mr. Harris, 2 that the reason that you were so interested in speed as 3 opposed to a methodical approach was that you were afraid 4 that with the passage of time the occup -- the situation 5 of the occupiers would be understood and would garner 6 sympathy with the public; isn't that correct? 7 A: Not at all. 8 Q: And I suggest to you, Mr. Harris, 9 that you wanted the matter to be resolved in a way that 10 looked like your government was taking action, and that 11 you needed to be seen to be taking action, so that you 12 could get the political credit for having resolved this 13 matter in a decisive way; do you deny that? 14 A: Yes. I also suggest it's kind of 15 ludicrous and offensive, quite frankly. 16 Q: And I suggest to you, Mr. Harris, 17 that the reason that you did not want to be either 18 negotiating with the occupiers or seen to be 19 collaborating with other First Nations individuals, was 20 because you wanted to be seen to be standing up to First 21 Nations people; isn't that correct? 22 A: Absolutely not. 23 Q: And I want to come back to this issue 24 of negotiations, Mr. Harris. 25 You're aware that there was a consensus
3251 from the IMC you referred to it yourself, I believe, that 2 there were to be no negotiations, do you understand that? 3 A: No negotiations on what? 4 Q: Well, actually you tell me, what was 5 your understanding? 6 A: There'd be no negotiations of any 7 substantive issues, vis-a-vis any special Treaty rights 8 or anything that may come out of -- of anything that was 9 there. 10 I think that was understood. I don't 11 think it was dwelled on at great length and I think 12 everybody -- that was discussed at the -- at the 13 Interministerial Committee meeting. 14 So now you're down to the negotiations 15 that everybody agreed would be the preferable way for 16 this dispute to be resolved, would -- would -- as to how 17 the occupation could come to a peaceful conclusion. I 18 think everybody agreed that was preferable. 19 Q: But, Mr. Harris, we've just 20 established I think a few minutes ago, the occupiers were 21 not looking for any negotiations on Treaty rights or 22 anything of the kind; isn't that right? 23 A: At that point that's true. 24 Q: And in fact, the only people who were 25 suggesting anything that was covered by the word
3261 negotiations, was the OPP, are you not aware of that? 2 A: I'm sorry, repeat that? 3 Q: The only suggestion that there ought 4 to be negotiations were suggestions that came from the 5 OPP or through the Solic -- from the OPP by the Solicitor 6 General, are you not aware of that? 7 A: I -- I'm not aware that was the only 8 representatives that advocated it, but I'm aware that we 9 all agreed with it. 10 Q: Are you aware -- sorry, agreed with 11 that there ought to be negotiations? 12 A: Of course. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now, Mr. Harris, I don't want to take 17 you to all the documents unless I have to, or your 18 counsel require me to. But we have referred in your 19 evidence to the campaign documents, if I can call them 20 that, the -- the Northern Tour Document, you recall that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And as well, we have referred to a 23 couple of articles, Mr. -- Mr. Rosenthal did, from 24 Outdoor Canada, you recall that? 25 A: Yes.
3271 Q: And I just want to -- I want to try 2 and cover these topics at a general level, if I can. 3 When you campaigned for election in 1995, 4 one (1) of your platforms was -- one (1) of your planks 5 in your platform was to address the concerns of non 6 Native parties with respect to land negotiations. 7 Do I have that right? 8 A: I don't know if it was a plank in the 9 campaign, but it was a stated policy that we had and we 10 felt we needed to address that, yes. 11 Q: Right. To have others involved in 12 the land claims negotiations, right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And without going into it and I don't 15 mean to go into whether or not the policy is a good 16 policy or a bad policy, but will you agree with me that 17 demands for that if at all were -- were not coming from 18 Native communities they were coming from non Native 19 communities correct? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And similarly any complaints with 22 respect to Native hunting and fishing rights being too 23 broad, with respect to the Interim Harvesting Agreement, 24 with respect to hunting and fishing on non treaty land, 25 those were complaints that you were addressing from the
3281 non Native community, isn't that correct? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: You didn't have a lot of demands from 4 First Nations people to restrict those rights or to have 5 equal treatment of Native and non Native hunters and 6 fisherman, is that fair? 7 A: No, the complaints that came from 8 non-Native communities though were also part of our 9 campaign that we felt should be addressed. 10 Q: Right -- 11 A: Or from the Native community, sorry, 12 that should be addressed. 13 Q: It is fair to say is it not, Mr. 14 Harris, that your issues were addressed primarily to the 15 non Native community and the problems that they had with 16 Native rights? 17 A: I would say 99 percent of our 18 campaign had to do with neither and I think there was a 19 part of the campaign or at least the documentation that 20 was there wasn't any part of the -- the main part of the 21 campaign. 22 I don't think it was talked about by me 23 any time during the campaign. But we did have position 24 papers that said were a reflection of concerns that 25 Native communities had and natives had and I think we
3291 indicated that -- that those ought to be addressed. 2 And then there were some that non-Natives 3 had, particularly when it came to the issues that you 4 talk about. And I think these policy papers talked about 5 both of those. 6 Q: You were certainly aware, Mr. Harris, 7 that your policies were extremely popular with non 8 natives who had problems with the extent of hunting and 9 fishing rights and other rights being asserted by Native 10 communities, isn't that right? 11 A: Yes, but I would doubt that they 12 would make up any significant population to affect any 13 election. We didn't view it that way. 14 Q: And you'll agree with me in a general 15 way that the thrust of your program with respect to 16 Native issues was to restrict Native rights? 17 A: No, I would not agree with that. In 18 fact even -- 19 Q: Well, if I may take you to, sorry? 20 A: Even the areas that -- that the 21 position papers talked about talked about more 22 inclusiveness; talked about if you're going to get 23 communities at large to accept land claim settlements or 24 other agreements it is better to include them in the 25 negotiations.
3301 And I -- I don't know whether I shared it 2 here but I shared in a couple of examples of my 3 experiences with that in -- in the early '80s where there 4 was one (1) process, Minister Pope followed on land 5 claims that was -- that would -- created a terrible 6 backlash and a terrible ruckus from non Native 7 communities because they were excluded. 8 Mr. Pope engaged in another process on -- 9 on parks planning and development and significant new 10 park areas where he included all of the -- the -- those 11 interests that would have an interest in that land. And 12 I think by and large it had great acceptance and -- and 13 so I think I was reflecting those experiences as well 14 that -- that you ought to involve more people who are 15 going to be affected by that line. 16 Q: Don't you think it's a little 17 patronizing, Mr. Harris, to suggest to First Nations 18 people that they should be obliged to have their rights 19 subjected to consultation and negotiations with others 20 whose interests are opposed? 21 A: I think when it comes to -- to land 22 claims and land that -- that is being claimed that right 23 now is not part of Native land and basically that claim 24 would be made with the Federal Government or the 25 Provincial Government or the land would be under the
3311 jurisdiction of the -- of the Provincial Government. 2 That's land that many other non-natives, 3 at that time, would have had an interest in, whether 4 harvesting logs, whether fishing and hunting or mining 5 exploration or trapping or other areas. 6 I don't think it's unreasonable, if you 7 want the population in general, to -- to accept whatever 8 the conclusion is, whatever -- whatever amount of land is 9 -- is -- is part of the settlement, since it's -- you 10 know, it's Crown land, I don't think that's unreasonable 11 to -- to have them involved in that process. 12 Q: Don't you think that's a matter for 13 First Nations to decide, in terms of asserting their 14 rights as to whether -- 15 A: Well -- 16 Q: -- they wished to be inclusive or not 17 inclusive in terms of consulting more broadly? 18 A: Well, First Nations could, if they 19 wished, but so could the Federal Government and so could 20 the Provincial Government and my concern was none of the 21 three (3) were. 22 Q: I just want to take you to one (1) 23 reference if I may, to Exhibit P-979 which hasn't been 24 touched upon. 25 That's at Tab 17 of your brief, Mr.
3321 Harris. 2 A: Tab what? 3 Q: 17 of -- sorry, I'm sorry. It's this 4 document that you've been given separately. 5 A: Okay. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: You've been taken to other passages 10 from this and I won't repeat them, although it's relevant 11 to this portion of my cross-examination, but I'll adopt 12 Mr. Rosenthal's cross-examination and Mr. Scullion's 13 cross-examination. 14 On page -- the second -- actually, it's 15 the second page of the interview, just at the bottom. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: And the bottom of the first column, 20 Mr. Harris, you'll see a statement, the lead in 21 paragraph, which is always helpful to read: 22 "All Court decisions over land claims 23 and special hunting and fishing rights 24 for Indians reaffirm the right of 25 government to manage the resources with
3331 conservation measures paramount [quote] 2 'that takes precedence over any treaty, 3 over any right or negotiation, over any 4 resource. The fish, the wildlife, the 5 trees' [close quote]." 6 Stopping there, certainly that would have 7 been a very popular sentiment with non-native hunters and 8 fisherman that Native rights are subject to some other 9 considerations; would you agree with that? 10 A: I hope it would be viewed as a 11 reflection of my understanding of the Court decisions 12 that said the -- when it came to these resources, 13 particularly hunting and fishing, I -- I -- that -- that 14 the Ministry of Natural Resources, of the Ontario 15 Government, had responsibility for the conservation of 16 those resources. 17 And that, of course, is where you would -- 18 you would come in to conflict, quite naturally -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- with a constitutional right to 21 hunt and fish. And resolving those two (2) was, at the 22 time, I suppose, working its way through the Courts. 23 There were -- we were getting these Court 24 decisions and I think it was my view at the time that -- 25 that the Court stopped short of saying, well there's no -
3341 - there -- there is a role for the Ministry of Natural 2 Resources when it comes to conservation of -- 3 particularly those fish and those animals. 4 And I think everybody would be concerned, 5 if they wanted to hunt and fish tomorrow or in the 6 future, Native or non-native, that that take place. 7 Q: Let me take you to the next sentence, 8 Mr. Harris, where it says: 9 "Unless the Supreme Court decision 10 gives an Indian Band special Aboriginal 11 rights to game and fish, natives and 12 non-natives should be treated alike." 13 Does that reflect your view at the time? 14 A: Yeah, I believe so, when it comes to 15 fishing and hunting in -- in those areas. 16 Q: So, in other words, there would be no 17 attempt at accommodation of rights unless the matter was 18 litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada. 19 Was that -- that was your position? 20 A: No, I don't think it -- it says that 21 at all. I think if you're trying to accommodate, 22 particularly as I understand it, historical rights, where 23 again I think the -- the conflict comes is -- is 24 particularly when you get to commercial fishing, 25 primarily it's been fishing, but hunting is -- I don't
3351 think it's been a major issue, but it -- it is covered 2 under -- under the same. 3 There's nothing wrong with those 4 consultations, nothing wrong with negotiating, nothing 5 wrong with that. But there is no unilateral right, it is 6 my understanding, for Native Bands to say, we don't have 7 to talk to you, we have the right to do whatever we want, 8 wherever we want. That's where the line is being drawn. 9 Q: Mr. Harris, if you take the position 10 that the only rights you will recognize are rights that 11 are affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, how can you 12 at the same time take the position that Native groups are 13 spending too much money on lawyers? 14 A: Well -- 15 Q: Aren't -- aren't you being legalistic 16 in -- 17 A: No. 18 Q: -- suggesting that you will only 19 recognize rights that are litigated all the way to the 20 Supreme Court of Canada? 21 A: Not at all, I think there are all 22 kinds of rights, but nobody can unilaterally take a right 23 without negotiations, without -- without working 24 cooperatively as well. And I think you're talking two 25 (2) different things, two (2) different times, and
3361 probably two (2) different interviews. 2 But I doubt there are very many people 3 that think however many millions of dollars have been 4 spent on lawyers and negotiations have resulted in near 5 the -- the kind of results that Natives, and I hope all 6 non-Natives would have wished. 7 Q: You understood did you not, Mr. 8 Harris, that at least from a perception standpoint, that 9 your Government was perceived on, at least as far as 10 Native issues are concerned, to have run and been 11 elected on an anti-Native platform, did you -- you 12 understood that political perception -- 13 A: No. 14 Q: -- was out there? 15 A: No. 16 Q: You were not aware of that? 17 A: No. I understood that not everybody, 18 Native and non-Native would have agreed with -- with our 19 positions, but I -- I would be disappointed to hear that 20 that would have been a perception. 21 Q: I think we have your answer. I'll 22 just move onto another area if I may. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 24 you do, will you give me some indication of time, as just 25 -- I want to try to finish it, but I don't want to rush
3371 you, or if Mr. Harris is getting tired. I do want to 2 finish you if it is possible. 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I think I could be 4 finished by 5:00. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then I think 6 we should just carry on, thank you. 7 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm content to carry 8 on. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 10 fine. Are you all right to carry on until 5:00 -- 11 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 13 Harris. That's fine. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 16 Q: Now, Mr. Harris, after the death of 17 Dudley George, your Government consistently took the 18 position that the Ipperwash situation was a police 19 matter; do you recall that? 20 A: Well, that the occupation part of it 21 was a police matter? 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And essentially after the death of 25 Dudley George, you did not accept that there was any
3381 Government responsibility to deal with the situation, 2 because it was a police matter; isn't that correct? 3 A: No, I think that's too simplistic. I 4 think the -- the situation was one of considerable, as 5 I've indicated, review. 6 And I think the -- the respect initially 7 to the George family and out of respect to justice, if 8 you like, to the SIU and then the -- the criminal case, 9 and others that were ongoing, that -- that as long as 10 there was no issue reported to us of safety of either the 11 occupiers or of non-residents, that -- that the more 12 important -- I mean, I think things changed on -- on the 13 6th, 7th, that there was -- there was no point in -- in 14 proceeding with the issue of the occupation of the Park, 15 that would be differed. 16 And I didn't get any sense from any of the 17 officials, Ministry of Natural Resources or others, that 18 they -- they wished, given the change of circumstances, 19 to proceed. 20 Q: There is some evidence, there's a lot 21 of evidence, but some evidence that before the death of 22 Dudley George your government wanted to be seen as 23 actioning, taking action with respect to this matter. I 24 don't recall any evidence to that effect after the death 25 of Dudley George.
3391 Are you aware of any evidence that 2 suggests that -- that suggested, publicly or otherwise, 3 that your government needed to be taking action with 4 respect to this situation? 5 A: Well, the action before was -- was to 6 deal with the illegal occupation. And, as I said, I 7 think -- I think things shifted after the 6th, 7th, 8 after, you know, the tragic death of Mr. George. And 9 I've outlined a number of -- number of things that 10 changed on that front. 11 Q: Mr. Harris, are you -- are you using 12 the death of Dudley George to excuse the fact that your 13 government did not take any further action with respect 14 to the occupation of Ipperwash Park after September 6th? 15 A: I -- I think I've outlined a whole 16 series of -- of reasons why we didn't take action. 17 Q: Well, as far as the legal proceedings 18 that you mentioned, are you aware of any legal proceeding 19 that was taken after September the 6th in order to affirm 20 the ownership of the Provincial Park or to determine that 21 the occupiers were trespassing? 22 Are you aware of any action that was taken 23 to that -- to that end? 24 A: No. 25 Q: And certainly you're -- you're not
3401 aware because it didn't happen, there was no application 2 for an injunction, either an interlocutory injunction or 3 a permanent injunction? 4 A: I -- I don't think there's been any 5 action by Native or non-Native or Native or government to 6 -- to clarify the ownership of the land. I -- I would 7 think to this day that -- that the Government would 8 believe that those lands belong to the people of Ontario 9 and the Ministry of Natural Resources. 10 And in the absence of having heard -- I -- 11 I know there was a letter, I think, that came forward in 12 1996 from Chief Bressette and -- and that the Band had 13 passed a resolution of an intention to proceed with a 14 land claim, but to the best of my knowledge that's never 15 proceeded. 16 So neither side has sought to clarify the 17 ownership of the land. 18 Q: But this was a situation that, before 19 the death of Dudley George, you found intolerable for 20 even a second; is that correct? 21 A: No, I wouldn't say intolerable. I -- 22 I think you're -- that -- that implies that -- that, Gee, 23 I can't sleep at night with this intolerable situation. 24 I didn't view the issue that way at all. 25 In fact, it was not anywhere close to --
3411 to an issue where I thought public safety was -- was at 2 risk. I was concerned that it might be at risk if it -- 3 if it carried on. And we all know the -- the tragic 4 events that happened. I think you know my -- my thoughts 5 along the way. 6 But I -- I -- did things change after the 7 7th? Yes. 8 Q: But you testified that prior to the 9 6th you were unhappy, I think that's the correct word, 10 that the occupation existed for even a second. 11 A: I believed, when it came to dealing 12 with that issue, that -- that, yes, I was unhappy, that 13 was an illegal occupation, as I don't like to see illegal 14 actions take place without some response. 15 And so we were, as one (1) of probably 16 fifty (50) things that I was dealing with, the Government 17 was dealing with, was planning to seek an injunction to 18 take action to -- to clarify this was an illegal 19 occupation. 20 Q: And I think you testified that, prior 21 to the death of Dudley George, if you could bring the 22 occupation to an end in a day it was better than a week, 23 and a week was better than a longer period of time -- 24 A: And always -- 25 Q: -- is that correct?
3421 A: -- always with the caveat that it be 2 done peacefully. 3 Q: And -- but after the death of Dudley 4 George, six (6) years is okay; is that -- is that your 5 evidence? 6 A: Well, my evidence is that, as 7 important as this issue seemed to be to Native and 8 occupiers and Natives and the Government on the 6th, it 9 has not seemed to have been as important an issue to 10 resolve until -- while other matters were ongoing. 11 So I -- I don't see any -- any difference 12 in the Band and the -- the Kettle and Stony Point Band 13 desire to resolve this, than -- than I do from the 14 Government. 15 I think, and would have expected and would 16 have hoped that -- that all of these legal matters would 17 have ended sooner, and at that point I think that's an 18 issue that needed to be addressed. 19 Q: But, Mr. Harris, you've already told 20 us that the -- that you understood that the occupiers 21 were dissidents and not part of the Band? 22 A: That's -- 23 Q: So why would the actions of the Band 24 have any -- any impact on -- on your thinking in terms of 25 what should happen with the Park?
3431 A: Well, I think you will find that the 2 Band took a different position in 1996, following the SIU 3 investigation and the trial beginning, or whatever time, 4 from the -- of -- of the OPP officer. And I think, then, 5 we got a notice that the Band was -- was -- had passed a 6 resolution that they intended to seek a land claim. 7 So that would have been one (1) factor 8 that would have chipped in. 9 Q: So before the death of Dudley George, 10 we will treat everyone alike unless there's a decision of 11 the Supreme Court of Canada to the contrary, but after 12 the death of Dudley George we'll wait for the Band to 13 make and advance a land claim; is that -- is that -- 14 A: No -- 15 Q: -- how you approached this? 16 A: -- no, I said it was -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not a 18 fair summary. 19 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: All right. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not a 21 fair summary. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 24 Q: Mr. Harris, the fact is that, in not 25 pursuing the matter and in characterizing it as a police
3441 matter, you were simply trying to protect your own 2 political reputation to not having a speedy examination 3 of the events surrounding the death of Dudley George; 4 isn't that correct? 5 A: It's ludicrous. 6 Q: And, in fact, even the Criminal 7 Intelligence Service of Ontario complained to you that 8 you were not fair in continuing to characterize this 9 situation as a police matter, involving the enforcement 10 of laws, as opposed to accepting the political complexity 11 of it and the responsibility that went with it; isn't 12 that correct? 13 A: I have no idea. 14 Q: Well, let me -- let me take you to 15 the document that you should have, I think on your table, 16 it's right on the far left corner of your table, Mr. 17 Harris. 18 This is a letter from Julian Fantino, who 19 at that time was Chairman of the Criminal Intelligence 20 Service of Ontario. 21 Do you recall receiving the letter? 22 A: I don't right now, but I think I 23 would have received it. 24 Q: And he was writing to complain about 25 the way the Government persisted in portraying this issue
3451 as a law enforcement issue, a police matter; is that 2 correct? 3 A: Well, I'm just reading it, sir. 4 Q: All right. No, take your time. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: So he says he's including a copy of 9 correspondence directed to Mr. Runciman of March the 13th 10 and referring to a meeting Mr. Runciman had on April 11 10th, just indicating: 12 "Beginning to experience a renewed 13 escalation of activities by certain 14 Native factions, such as inflammatory 15 rhetoric and the actual move on the 16 Pinery; activities which validate the 17 quality of intelligence data known to 18 us." 19 Okay. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: Read the second page, because that's 25 what I want to refer to specifically.
3461 A: Okay. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Right. So he -- go ahead. 6 Q: Right. He's referring to the fact 7 that -- in this particular instance he's referring to the 8 fact that Chris Hodgson had said that the occupation is a 9 policing matter and that it's out of his hands; do you 10 see that? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: But he's also making a more general 13 point and, Mr. Harris, I can -- I can take you to it. I 14 don't want to take the time, but I can if you wish, the 15 fact is that you repeatedly referred to this as a police 16 matter that was not -- that was out of the hands of the 17 Government. 18 Do you -- do you agree with that? 19 A: I don't know how often I referred to 20 it or the time frame -- 21 Q: Well -- 22 A: -- that I referred to it. But are 23 you suggesting I referred to it, after receiving this 24 letter, as a police matter? 25 Q: Well, that wasn't particularly the
3471 point I was making, but let me -- let me take you to Tab 2 59 of the Commission Counsel brief, please. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: One of the documents is an official 8 transcript of your comments in the media regarding the 9 Native stand-off at Ipperwash; do you see that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And if you turn in a number of pages, 12 page 5 of 6 on the -- using the fax numbering. 13 A: Yes. No -- 5 of 6, yeah. 14 Q: Yeah. And I -- I didn't want to go 15 there because Mr. Rosenthal had already been there but 16 it's a different part of it I'm emphasising. 17 The question was: 18 "There are renewed calls this morning 19 for you to get personally involved in 20 the Ipperwash situation." 21 And you said: 22 "I don't know who's renewing those 23 calls." 24 And then: 25 "This is an illegal occupation. They
3481 are trespassing on land that belongs to 2 the Crown. This is a matter for the 3 OPP to deal with, so for there to be 4 any discussions over what we all want 5 to be a safe and peaceful conclusion to 6 this illegal occupation, it should be 7 with those in charge of that, and 8 that's the OPP." 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Right. And then later on, the 11 question: 12 "So is it the policy of your 13 government, with Natives at the end of 14 the barrel of a gun then? 15 A: No, we're not in a position to be 16 asked to come to the table to negotiate 17 while there is an illegal occupation 18 that is on." 19 A: I'm sorry, where -- where are you 20 now? 21 Q: I've dropped down a question. 22 A: Right. 23 Q: I skipped a question. 24 "Q: So is it the policy of your 25 government, with Natives at the end of
3491 the barrel of a gun then." 2 Do you see that? 3 A: At the -- the second last little 4 paragraph there? 5 Q: I think it's the second "Q" or maybe 6 the third "Q," because the first one is obliterated by 7 the highlighting. 8 "So is it the policy of your 9 government..." 10 A: I just want to read it. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: Okay, I've got, "have you 15 personally," I -- I'm not sure I'm on the right page 16 then. 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sir, I think it's the 18 page in front of that, Mr. Harris. 19 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry, okay. I'm 20 on the 6th of 6. You want me on 5 of 6. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 23 Q: 5 of 6. 24 A: I'm sorry, okay. 25 Q: Yes.
3501 A: Let's go ahead, then. I might have 2 agreed to something I wasn't reading. 3 Q: I've only asked you to agree to 4 what's -- what's on the printed page. 5 A: Okay. All right. Okay. 6 Q: There's -- there's no trick here, 7 it's -- 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: -- just I'm refreshing your memory on 10 the fact that in this document -- 11 A: All right. Okay. 12 Q: -- you said a number of times that 13 those in charge of that -- this is an illegal occupation. 14 15 A: All right. 16 Q: It should be with those in charge of 17 that and that's the OPP. Then at another point you say: 18 "We would like the situation to be 19 resolved quickfully -- quickly and 20 peacefully and I believe that is a 21 matter for the OPP to deal with." 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 25 Q: And then over the page that you were
3511 reading you say: 2 "This is a matter that should be dealt 3 with by those that are there and the 4 OPP." 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: And again you say: 7 "So far the OPP have told me this is 8 really a matter for the police and that 9 any involvement by politicians is not 10 beneficial." 11 So my -- my point -- 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: -- being and I can also -- 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: -- take you to the -- the next tab, 16 but -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- essentially after September 6th 19 and the shooting death of Dudley George you and members 20 of your government were quick to take the position that 21 this was really just a matter with the OPP and the 22 involvement of the government was not really beneficial? 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: That's not a correct 24 statement of the evidence. We had -- we had evidence 25 from Mr. Hodgson that it wasn't simply a matter for the
3521 OPP but the retainer of Mr. Girman in late '95 or early 2 '96 to attempt to deal with the Park issues as a 3 mediator/negotiator -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- and he was unable 6 to make headway. So it's not fair to describe the 7 evidence in that way. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, we had 9 that evidence but you're just referring to this document. 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes, that's right, 11 Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 13 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: But just advising 14 the Witness about other evidence is not necessarily a 15 proper objection either. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you -- 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, but it's -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please. 19 It's too late to engage in this kind of -- 20 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: --unnecessary 22 banter. 23 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just ask the 25 question and let's move on.
3531 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, I didn't 2 choose the time, Commissioner, so I'm just doing my 3 thing. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 6 Q: The -- I'm suggesting to you, Mr. 7 Harris, that your government -- you and your government - 8 - repeatedly took the position that this was a matter to 9 be dealt with by the police. 10 And would you agree with me on that? 11 A: Well, I -- I agree that was certainly 12 our position on the 8th as we have just gone through in 13 some -- in some detail. 14 I think I gave testimony yesterday or the 15 day before when this issue was talked about that there 16 was some attempt and I don't know whether it was before 17 the letter from -- from the -- Julian Fantino or after of 18 the Ministry of Natural Resources to see and explore 19 whether -- whether it was possible to resolve this, 20 whether discussions would be beneficial. 21 I don't know whether I mentioned Mr. 22 Girman at the time but I know he was offered as -- as 23 somebody I believe from the government side or from -- 24 from the Ministry of Natural Resources side but I think 25 and that -- that did not lead to -- to fruition.
3541 But as well, you know, the court cases 2 were going on and I am not aware, I'm cognizant of 3 reading this letter from Mr. Fantino and I -- I believe I 4 have read it before that -- that there was threat of -- 5 of more violence or the possibility of violence or 6 expanding of occupation to other areas. 7 So unless there was an issue of community 8 safety that required other action and in view of the fact 9 that I think both sides were -- were kind of -- when I 10 say, "both sides," the Band, I'm sure that the -- the 11 dissident occupiers and certainly the government were all 12 watching with interest the legal processes going on. 13 Q: So after the death of Dudley George 14 the mere fact of the illegal occupation was not 15 sufficient to require your government to take legal 16 action, is that correct? 17 A: I think that I've indicated there 18 were a lot of factors and that I -- I think there was 19 legal processes ongoing related to that that were not 20 ongoing on the 4th, 5th, and 6th. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Those are my questions. Thank you, 25 Commissioner.
3551 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 2 very much, Mr. Horton. Thank you very kindly for 3 speeding it up. 4 I think that brings us to a conclusion 5 for the day and the week. And we reconvene on Monday 6 morning at 9:30. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: At 9:30, yes. 8 9 (WITNESS RETIRES) 10 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 12 very much. 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 14 adjourned until Monday, February the 20th at 9:30. 15 16 --- Upon adjourning at 4:46 p.m. 17 18 Certified Correct, 19 20 21 22 ___________________ 23 Carol Geehan, Ms. 24 25