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 January 10th, 2006 25
21 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) (np) 5 Katherine Hensel ) (np) 6 Megan Ferrier ) (np) 7 Murray Klippenstein ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) (np) 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 ) (np) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) (np) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) 21 Kim Twohig ) (np) Government of Ontario 22 Walter Myrka ) (np) 23 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 24 Michelle Pong ) (np) 25 Lynette D'Souza )
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 ) (np) 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 ) (np) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25
41 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) (np) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) (np) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) Services of Toronto 12 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 13 Julian Roy ) (np) 14 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 15 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 16 17 Al J.C. O'Marra ) Office of the Chief 18 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 19 20 William Horton ) (np) Chiefs of Ontario 21 Matthew Horner ) 22 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 23 24 25
51 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Mark Fredrick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 3 Craig Mills ) (np) 4 Megan Mackey ) (np) 5 Erin Tully ) 6 Peter Lauwers ) (np) 7 8 David Roebuck ) (np) Debbie Hutton 9 Anna Perschy ) 10 Melissa Panjer ) 11 Adam Goodman ) (np) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
61 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 ROBERT WILLIAM RUNCIMAN, resumed 6 Continued Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Derry Millar 8 7 8 Motion by Mr. Julian Falconer 36 9 Discussion 65 10 Decision on Motion 84 11 12 ROBERT WILLIAM RUNCIMAN, resumed 13 Cross-Examination by Mr. Douglas Sulman 91 14 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 98 15 Cross-Examination by Ms. Janet Clermont 134 16 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 144 17 18 19 20 21 22 Certificate of Transcript 312 23 24 25
71 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-998 Document Number 2001000. MSGCS Issue 4 Note re. OPP Crested items, Ipperwash 5 April 03/96. 16 6 P-999 Document Number 1001259. OPP Crested 7 Items, Ipperwash, April 03/96. 17 8 P-1000 Document Number 3001775. MSGCS Issue 9 Note re. OPP Crested Items, Ipperwash 10 (2) December 18/96. 19 11 P-1001 Document Number 6000191. Toronto Star 12 article "OPP Apologizes to Indians for 13 Ipperwash Souvenirs." December 26/96. 21 14 P-1002 Document Number 2000995. MSGCS Issue 15 Note re: OPP Crested Items, Ipperwash, 16 January 08/97. 22 17 P-1003 Document Number 13000158. Town of 18 Bosanquet press release, Sept. 18/'95. 140 19 P-1004 Document number 1001201. Crisis 20 Management Strategy, Ipperwash Provincial 21 Park Occupation, Draft II, Sept. 13/'95 143 22 23 24 25
81 --- Upon commencing at 9:05 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 9 morning. Good morning. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, Mr. 11 Runciman. 12 13 ROBERT WILLIAM RUNCIMAN, Resumed 14 15 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 16 17 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 18 Q: If I could ask to, in the black book, 19 Mr. Runciman, to turn back to Tab 65, it's Exhibit P-992, 20 the conversation that you had with First Nations leaders 21 on September 8th, 1995. 22 And I would ask you to turn please to page 23 2 of that document. And halfway down the page there's a 24 reference attributed to you: 25 "Minister. We have made it clear we do
91 not think it is appropriate for the 2 Stoney Pointers to occupy the Park. We 3 can arrange within a matter of days 4 meetings with government officials 5 after the occupation is ended." 6 Then there's a -- Mr. -- commented 7 attributed to Mr. Hare: 8 "MNR has cancelled the meeting; there 9 seems to be no interest in the 10 Government meeting with us. 11 Minister. There is no reluctance by 12 the government to meet. I wasn't aware 13 that a meeting had been cancelled. 14 There is no reluctance to meet with 15 you. You must understand that we are a 16 new government with new ministers, new 17 responsibilities. We have a smaller 18 Cabinet and fewer staff, but we are 19 willing to deal with your concerns." 20 And does the transcript accurately to the 21 best of your recollection capture what you said in those 22 extracts? 23 A: I believe so. 24 Q: And were you prepared, you as 25 Solicitor General and the Government, prepared to meet
101 with the occupiers or excuse me, meet with the leaders of 2 the First Nations organizations? 3 A: I believe we were prepared if the 4 Park was no longer occupied. I think that was the -- the 5 position that the Government was putting forward. 6 Q: And where did that position come 7 from? 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: Who were you told that that was the 10 position of the Government? 11 A: The Centre, the Premier's office. 12 Q: And the Centre -- by "The Centre" 13 you're referring to the Premier's office? 14 A: That's right. 15 Q: And, "The Centre" was the name that 16 you called the Premier's office? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And were you aware, Mr. Runciman, 19 that the Ontario Provincial Police conducted an internal 20 review with respect to Ipperwash? 21 A: I believe I was. 22 Q: And how did you become aware? 23 A: I can't recall how I became aware. 24 I'm sure I was advised by I -- I suspect the Deputy. 25 Q: Okay. Now -- "the Deputy" being --
111 A: Ms. Todres. 2 Q: And that -- I've put in front of you 3 a copy of a document, P-457, it's on the left-hand 4 corner, Mr. Runciman, of the table. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: Your left-hand -- over on the right, 7 my right. 8 A: My right? 9 Q: Yes. There are two (2) documents 10 there. One is a document -- it's Inquiry Document 11 2000556. It's P-457. And this is a document prepared by 12 the OPP as a result of a meeting of February 21, 1996. 13 And was this document provided to you? 14 Have you ever seen it before I showed it to you? 15 A: No, I don't recall seeing it. 16 Q: And in the normal course of events 17 back in -- when you were Solicitor General, if a review 18 was conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police of an 19 operation, would you have normally been provi -- a 20 written re -- written document was prepared, would you 21 normally have received such a written document? 22 A: I believe I would have received an 23 overview. I don't think I would have had a detailed 24 report such as this. 25 Q: And as well Commissioner of the OPP
121 asked Inspector Connolly to do a document review and a 2 document collection. And the second document that I've 3 provided to you, it's Document P-483, Inquiry Document -- 4 Exhibit Number P-483, Inquiry Document 2000577. 5 This is a document that was created in 6 1977. I'm not exactly certain of the date. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I think, Mr. 8 Millar, wants to move twenty (20) years forward to '97. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Oh '97. Oh, excuse 10 me. 1997. Thank you, Mr. Falconer. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 13 Q: And prior to my showing this document 14 to you, had you ever seen this document before, sir? 15 A: I don't believe so. 16 Q: Thank you. What role, if any, did 17 you play with respect to discipline of OPP officers 18 during your tenure of -- as Solicitor General? 19 A: No role, direct role. 20 Q: And -- pardon me? 21 A: Do direct role. 22 Q: And when you say, "no direct role", 23 did you play any role? 24 A: I don't believe I did. I can't 25 recall an incident where I would have commented on -- on
131 discipline or -- or suggested a specific disciplinary 2 measure. I don't believe that would have been 3 appropriate. 4 Q: And were you made aware of discipline 5 issues within the OPP -- 6 A: Not as -- not as a matter of course, 7 no. 8 Q: Were you -- was a manual report of 9 discipline issues prepared, anything like that provided 10 to you? I don't know if -- 11 A: No. 12 Q: -- there was. I've never seen one 13 but -- 14 A: I might -- I might be made aware if - 15 - if it was a very public issue where there had been a 16 lot of public attention focussed on -- on the actions of 17 an officer, or officers, and some action was taken by a 18 police service, OPP or otherwise, that aside from that as 19 a routine matter I wouldn't have been advised. 20 Q: And were you provided with files 21 relating to the discipline of officers during your term 22 as Solicitor General? 23 A: No, I wasn't. 24 Q: And I've provided to you in the green 25 folder, some additional documents that we referred to you
141 yesterday. 2 Were you aware of an issue with respect to 3 memorabilia that arose after the events at Ipperwash 4 Provincial Park? 5 A: Yes, I was. 6 Q: And before I go to the documents, can 7 you recall today how you became aware, sir? 8 A: Not specifically. Either through 9 someone in the Ministry but it may have been through the 10 media. I can't recall specifically how I was made aware 11 of it. 12 Q: And there's a document that I've 13 provided to you that -- the first one is Inquiry Document 14 200100. It's a MSGC issue note dated April 3, 1996, and 15 it's noted at the bottom, "created by Phil Duffield". 16 Did you know who Phil Duffield was? 17 A: At that point, I don't believe I did. 18 Q: And I can tell you, he was an 19 assistant in the office of -- 20 A: The Commissioner. 21 Q: -- the Commissioner. 22 A: Hmm hmm. I subsequently met him. 23 Q: And do you recall receiving this 24 issue note that deals with unofficial memorabilia bearing 25 OPP insignia?
151 A: I believe so. 2 Q: And what, if anything, did you do as 3 a result of receiving this issue note? 4 A: Specifically, I don't believe I did 5 anything other than ask for a briefing on this and the 6 implications. I think we were all very concerned, given 7 the sensitive nature of the situation following Mr. 8 George's death, especially that this sort of thing 9 occurred. 10 Q: And can you tell us who gave you the 11 briefing and what you were told? 12 A: It was -- I can't recall any specific 13 details about a briefing. I'm -- it may have been just 14 my own staff or someone from the issues unit may have 15 been in attendance as well, but I think that would have 16 been the extent of it. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Excuse me for a minute. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: I would ask that this document be the 25 next exhibit, Commissioner.
161 THE REGISTRAR: P-998, Your Honour. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-998: Document Number 2001000. 4 MSGCS Issue Note re. OPP 5 Crested items, Ipperwash 6 April 03/96. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 9 Q: And there's a document in the green 10 folder, Mr. Runciman, that has on the top -- it's Inquiry 11 Document 1001259, "OPP crested items, Ipperwash, 3 April, 12 '96". 13 A: Hmm hmm, I have it. 14 Q: This -- do you know what this 15 document is? Have you ever seen this document before? 16 A: I suspect I have. 17 Q: And it appears to be a statement that 18 would be used with respect to -- 19 A: Question Period. 20 Q: Question Period? 21 A: That's right. 22 Q: And that would be presume -- well, 23 was this prepared for you? 24 A: That would be my conclusion, yes. 25 Q: Okay. Now, we've conducted a Hansard
171 search and we cannot find a question. We could not find 2 a question of you in April -- in April of 1996 with 3 respect to this issue. 4 And was this document prepared -- can you 5 recall why this document was prepared, sir? 6 A: Well, it was an issue, an issue that 7 had grained -- gained some media attention, and it was 8 certainly an issue that I was personally upset about with 9 respect to these actions and -- and potential 10 repercussions and so we certainly felt that it -- it 11 probably -- probably would be raised in the Legislature. 12 And I can't, you know -- I don't know why 13 it wasn't, but it -- if you say you've checked Hansard, 14 it wasn't. I can't recall. 15 Q: I would ask that be the next exhibit. 16 THE REGISTRAR: That's document 1001259? 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 18 THE REGISTRAR: P-998 -- P-999, rather. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Thank you. 20 21 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-999: Document Number 1001259. OPP 22 Crested Items, Ipperwash, 23 April 03/96. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR:
181 Q: And there's a document at -- in front 2 of you, a copy of a letter dated July 17, 1996. It's 3 dated -- Exhibit P-336. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: It's a letter from Mr. O'Grady to Mr. 6 Sam George. 7 A: Right. 8 Q: And it's an apology from the OPP with 9 respect to the memorabilia created during the incident at 10 Ipperwash. 11 Did you receive a copy of this letter in 12 or around July 17th? 13 A: I believe so. 14 Q: And did you have any discussions with 15 Mr. O'Grady about the letter, do you recall? 16 A: I don't think I did. I don't recall 17 any conversation specifically around this. 18 Q: And... 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: And the -- there's an Issue Note 23 that's in the group material in front of you, 3001775. 24 It's dated December 18, 1996. 25 A: Yes.
191 Q: And the issue is, OPP crested items - 2 - Ipperwash. 3 And just so that you're aware there's 4 another one in this group that's dated January 7th -- 5 excuse me January 8, 1997, Inquiry Document 2000995, that 6 is very similar to this document. A 7 nd I don't know which document if either 8 was sent to your office, but -- I mean down to the 9 Solicitor General's office, although on this, the first 10 document, 3001775, there's a fax header that says, 11 "Ministry Solicitor General December 1996." 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: So, my question is: Did you receive 14 a copy of this document, 3001775? 15 A: I suspect I did as I can't say with 16 certainty. 17 Q: And this relates to the memorabilia 18 that was created after the Ipperwash Provincial Park 19 matter? 20 A: That's right. 21 Q: And I would ask that this be marked 22 the next exhibit. It's Inquiry Document 3001775. 23 THE REGISTRAR: P-1000, Your Honour. 24 25 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1000: Document Number 3001775.
201 MSGCS Issue Note re. OPP 2 Crested Items, Ipperwash (2) 3 December 18/96. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 6 Q: And what if anything did you do with 7 respect this report once you received it? 8 A: I simply received it. 9 Q: And there's -- the next document in 10 that pile there's a copy of a document -- copy of a 11 newspaper report, it's the Observer and the Canadian 12 Press. It's marked -- it's Exhibit P-453, Inquiry 13 Document 2003080. 14 And do you recall seeing this document? 15 A: No, I don't. 16 Q: And there's also a -- a copy of a 17 document, Inquiry Document 6000191. It's the Toronto 18 Star, December 26th, 1996, "OPP apologizes to Indians for 19 Ipperwash Souvenirs." 20 It's the second -- do you have that? Do 21 you re -- 22 A: Yes, I do. yes. 23 Q: Do you recall seeing that? 24 A: I suspect I saw that. We were 25 provided with Toronto news clippings each morning.
211 Q: And you suspect that you probably 2 saw -- 3 A: I -- Hmm hmm. 4 Q: I would ask that that be marked the 5 next exhibit? 6 THE REGISTRAR: P-1001, Your Honour. 7 8 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1001: Document Number 6000191. 9 Toronto Star article "OPP 10 Apologizes to Indians for 11 Ipperwash Souvenirs." 12 December 26/96. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 15 Q: And then the next document is Inquiry 16 Document 2000995. It's an Issue Note dated January 8, 17 1997, and it is a three (3) page document with an 18 attached newspaper clipping. One from the -- from two 19 (2) separate -- one (1) from the Ottawa Citizen and the 20 other one I can't read but both December 27th, 1996. 21 And do you recall receiving this document? 22 A: I suspect I did, but again, I don't 23 recall. I know that I -- I did see the -- the insignia 24 at some point during this matter. 25 Q: And I would ask that that be P-...
221 THE REGISTRAR: 1002. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1002: Document Number 2000995. 4 MSGCS Issue Note re: OPP 5 Crested Items, Ipperwash, 6 January 08/97. 7 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Excuse me for a 9 minute, Mr. Runciman, Commissioner. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 14 Q: Placed on the screen, Mr. Runciman, a 15 copy of the image from Exhibit P-458 and this shows the - 16 - one of the images created. This is on -- the image on 17 the t-shirts and was that -- did you see that -- the 18 image that was on -- did you see one of the t-shirts, 19 sir? 20 A: I can't recall if I saw a t-shirt or 21 not. 22 Q: And do you recall seeing this 23 insignia on any piece of paper? 24 A: I don't know. I may well have, but I 25 don't recall.
231 Q: And the next photograph is -- shows 2 the -- an image of a crest with an arrow through it. And 3 as well on the upper side of this is a copy of the -- 4 that same crest with the arrow through it, although it's 5 not clear on this photograph, and Team Ipperwash 1995. 6 And it's the mug that's at the top of this image and this 7 is again part of P-458. 8 Do you recall seeing this crest? 9 A: I believe so. 10 Q: And it's -- this crest with the arrow 11 through it was in a number of the newspaper articles 12 including Exhibit P-453 which I referred you to this 13 morning, although that was in the Sarnia Observer. 14 And with respect to this issue of mugs and 15 the t-shirts and the memorabilia with respect to the 16 events at Ipperwash Provincial Park in September 1995 did 17 you ever -- were you ever -- were you provided with 18 details of the discipline proceedings with respect to the 19 officers? 20 A: I don't believe so. 21 Q: Were you provided with any of the 22 discipline files with respect to the officers? 23 A: No, I wasn't. 24 Q: Were you ever provided with 25 discipline files for individual officers?
241 A: I can't recall ever being provided 2 with them. 3 Q: And the -- were you provided with the 4 names of officers involved in the discipline with respect 5 to Ipperwash? 6 A: No. 7 Q: And were you advised of what steps 8 were taken with respect to the -- to an investigation? 9 A: Internal investigation? I don't 10 believe so. 11 Q: And were you advised of the outcome, 12 other than through these documents we've seen this 13 morning? 14 A: I can't recall any -- any other 15 process through the Issues Group and through media 16 reports. 17 Q: And did you become aware of reports 18 of certain statements made on a video by two (2) officers 19 of the OPP at the time, in September 1995? They were 20 Constables Whitehead and Dyke that were in the last 21 number of years played on the media with respect to 22 comments they made by -- at the time of the incident? 23 A: I don't recall being made aware of 24 that at all. 25 Q: Did you hear about those on the --
251 A: I have recently, but I don't recall 2 at the time that being brought to my attention. 3 Q: No, but those actually, just so that 4 you understand, the comments came to light in 2003 -- 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: -- not back in 1995. And they were - 7 - the tape was played on television and by the media. 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: And do you recall in 2003 learning 10 about the comments made? 11 A: I don't -- I don't recall it, no. I 12 may have been otherwise engaged in 2003. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: In 1995, 1996, 1997, up to the end of 17 your tenure as Solicitor General at the time, were you 18 aware of any other allegations of racism with respect to, 19 or what might be termed racist behaviour with respect to 20 the events at Ipperwash Provincial Park? 21 A: I don't believe so. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Were you ever advised as to the
261 creation of a beer can with a -- an arrow through it, or 2 a beer can that at -- by members of the OPP after the 3 events of September 6th, 1995? 4 A: I recall hearing about it, but I 5 don't know -- you know, in terms of time lines, I can't 6 be specific. 7 Q: And was there anything else that you 8 were told that you can recall today? 9 A: I don't know if I was told about the 10 beer can or read about the beer can. I don't -- I don't 11 recall it being an issue or part of an issue within the 12 Ministry. 13 Q: And was it part of the role of your 14 department to ensure that the policies of the Ontario 15 Provincial Police were directed to ensuring that the -- 16 there was no racism within the Force? 17 A: Certainly there were processes and 18 practices in place to -- to ensure that officers going 19 through the various training processes undertook 20 training. I think it is part of the curriculum at Police 21 College. 22 So, there were -- there was an emphasis 23 with respect to ensuring that they understood the 24 implications, the sensitivities. And also, with respect 25 to training for use of force, there was a -- a component
271 of use of force training that -- that dealt with those 2 kinds of issues as well. 3 Q: And this morning I've asked you to 4 take a look at Exhibit P-998 which is Inquiry document 5 200100. It was the April 3, 1996 issue note and if you 6 could just turn that up for a second. 7 A: Which one was that? 8 Q: It's P-998. It's dated -- it's got 9 on the top, "D. Thom" It was the... 10 A: D. Thom? Oh, yes, okay. This is it? 11 Q: Yeah. 12 A: Sorry. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And there's a reference in the fourth 17 bullet to: 18 "Enhanced training and cultural 19 sensitivity as being conducted and 20 related policies are under review." 21 And were you made aware or did you ask 22 about what the training and cultural sensitivity was? 23 A: I believe we -- we had a discussion 24 surrounding those kinds of issues in a more general way 25 and so I -- my belief is that I was involved and briefed
281 with respect to -- to the kind of training provided. 2 Q: And my -- it's my understanding, and 3 I may have -- be recalling this incorrectly, that the 4 course that's referred to here was a four (4) day course. 5 Were you told anything about the details of the course? 6 A: I probably was, I can't recall the 7 specifics. 8 Q: And were you advised by the 9 Commissioner that in 19 -- later in 1996 that regulations 10 -- the regulations of the OPP were changed with respect 11 to the use of the OPP crest? 12 A: I believe I was, yes. 13 Q: And when was -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, Mr. 15 Falconer? 16 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: With respect, I'm 17 objecting on -- with respect on the nature of the 18 leading. It's just that instead of finding out what this 19 Witness actually recalls, by virtue, and I don't mean to 20 be overly critical of Mr. Millar, but by virtue of the 21 way he's leading him, it's not about what this Witness 22 recalls any more. 23 In other words, what did you know at the 24 time or what did you ascertain about the nature of the 25 steps being taken as a result of this problem.
291 But instead he's being led on it and so 2 we're not -- we're not really getting the benefit of what 3 he recalls. We're getting the benefit of -- of his 4 answers after being led. 5 Were you told that the Commissioner did 6 'X'? Were you told about a four (4) day training course? 7 In my submission it would be useful first 8 to find out what he recalls that he ascertained about the 9 steps being taken. That's all, with respect. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Fair enough. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 13 Q: What do you recall being told as to - 14 - what the OPP did with respect to the issues of 15 memorabilia at -- after Ipper -- the incident at 16 Ipperwash Provincial Park. 17 A: Well to be quite honest without -- 18 after -- over ten (10) years, going through some of these 19 notes has refreshed my memory with respect to some of the 20 initiatives that were undertaken. 21 If I was sitting here without the benefit 22 of having the opportunity to look back ten (10) years 23 ago, it would be difficult to simply recall, you know, 24 many of the specifics of -- of what occurred in the 25 situation.
301 And certainly, you know, upon reflection 2 and upon having some -- some notes jog my memory, that -- 3 that those are issues and initiatives that I do -- I do 4 recall once having the opportunity to review some of the 5 materials. 6 Q: And do you recall anything today with 7 respect to the use of OPP crests? 8 A: Just that there was a -- a 9 requirement that Mr. O'Grady and others within the 10 service concluded was appropriate. And I certainly 11 shared the view that the -- the crest could not be used 12 for other purposes unless -- unless authorized by -- by 13 the OPP senior command. 14 Q: And before... 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: At the time when you were Solicitor 19 General, could your Ministry, the Ministry of the 20 Solicitor General, play any role with respect to internal 21 disciplinary matters at the OPP? 22 A: No. 23 Q: And during the period of time you 24 were the Solicitor General, did your department play any 25 role with respect to the outcome of the discipline
311 matters? 2 A: Never. 3 Q: And before I finish, Mr. Runciman, 4 there are two (2) questions that we've asked virtually 5 all witnesses. 6 Firstly, if there's anything else you 7 would like to say? 8 And secondly, do you have any 9 recommendations that you would like to offer to the 10 Commissioner for his consideration with respect to 11 preventing this type of situation happening in the 12 future? 13 A: Well, I have given it some thought 14 since you offered me the opportunity several weeks ago to 15 add a couple of comments. 16 I -- I do want to -- with respect to the - 17 - the insignias and the -- a misuse and abuse, I -- I do 18 want to say how personally offended I -- I was by that 19 and I guess shocked as well. 20 I thought it was an exercise in sort of 21 macho stupidity. And it was not only insensitive to the 22 cultural significance of the symbols but also to the 23 George Family and others who -- who'd lost a -- a member 24 of -- of the Stoney Pointers and -- and a family member. 25 So, that was a very upsetting period for me and for many
321 others. 2 I -- you know, I was thinking about the -- 3 this whole issue, the fact that it's -- it has dragged on 4 for so many years and the fact that a lot of people have 5 drawn conclusions about political direction, the OPP, and 6 in my view that never did occur. 7 But it may be worthwhile for the -- for 8 the Commission to -- to give some consideration to -- to 9 the, sort of a back to the future approach which is a re- 10 establishment of a -- a police commission. 11 There was one historically. I think I'm 12 going back to the Robarts here. I'm not sure exactly 13 when it existed but there was a commission sort of 14 comparable to, in some respects, to a police services 15 board which acts as a buffer between the City Municipal 16 Council and the -- and the police service. 17 And how that kind of a commission could be 18 structured I think it would still require a majority 19 being appointed through Order in Council by the 20 Provincial Government as the funders of the OPP. 21 But I think it could also have broader 22 representation from a range of -- of citizens in the 23 Province of Ontario. 24 So, that may be something worth 25 considering.
331 I also wondered about the fact that, you 2 know, First Nations policing has -- has progressed in a 3 very positive way over the years. 4 And I'm not sure what's transpired since - 5 - since I left the office but it may be worth the -- 6 considering the -- if something hasn't been done along 7 these lines, the establishment of a sort of an ERT, an 8 organization, an elite group within First Nations 9 seconding from a variety of First Nations police 10 services, so that if events of this nature occur in the 11 future, they can be responded to by a First Nations 12 policing organization. 13 And I think that if that happened in the 14 future, and hopefully we don't have these kinds of 15 incidents, occupations, blockades, or whatever might 16 occur, that hopefully we can remove the -- the questions 17 that have continued to surround this particular event. 18 Q: And when you refer to ERT, you're 19 referring to Emergency Response Team -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And anything else, Mr. Runciman? 22 A: I think that's it for the moment. 23 Q: Thank you very much, those are my 24 questions. 25 And the next order of business,
341 Commissioner, is to canvass the parties and then deal 2 with -- there's a motion that Mr. Falconer has brought 3 with respect to the discipline files which we need to 4 deal with. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Should we 6 not deal with the Motion first? 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I was going to 8 suggest we deal with the Motion first, that might affect 9 our time estimates -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It might 11 affect the time estimates. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And so perhaps what we 13 could do is ask Mr. Runciman, he can step down. I think 14 that we will probably, according to the information I was 15 provided by Mr. Falconer, he thinks he'll be about forty- 16 five (45) minutes. 17 But perhaps release Mr. Runciman until 18 eleven o'clock. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why don't 20 we. Why don't we do that? Why don't we release Mr. 21 Runciman, not that he's being held in captivity but -- 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But in terms of being 23 -- being here, being ready to -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You could 25 come back at eleven o'clock and we should be done with
351 the Motion by then. Let's assume that. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, you're 4 free to leave, Mr. Runciman. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And it might be an 6 appropriate time to take a short break to permit counsel 7 to get ready. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 9 very much. 10 11 (WITNESS RETIRES) 12 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 14 for fifteen (15) minutes. 15 16 --- Upon recessing at 9:48 a.m. 17 --- Upon resuming at 10:09 a.m. 18 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 20 resumed. Please be seated. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 22 Falconer...? 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Good morning, Mr. 24 Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good
361 morning. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My original time 3 estimate for arguing this motion had been well over an 4 hour and I whittled it down to forty-five (45) minutes 5 and I will try to keep to that -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- in the hopes of 8 moving expeditiously, Mr. Commissioner. 9 Mr. Commissioner, may I ask respectfully, 10 do you have a copy of the Motion before you? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 12 believe I do. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. I just 14 wanted to make sure. I have extra copies of it. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 MOTION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, I 20 bring this motion on behalf of Aboriginal Legal Services 21 of Toronto in circumstances where we had originally 22 sought to bring the Motion as at the beginning of the 23 evidence of Mr. Runciman yesterday morning. 24 And upon agreement we had the Motion put 25 over to today and as I understand it it's Without
371 Prejudice to the issue of the timing of the Motion, in 2 other words, the fact that he has started his evidence 3 will not play into the issue of the entitlement to have 4 it adjourned. 5 The issue is purely this, Mr. 6 Commissioner. The question is how long is too long? How 7 long is too long? 8 In August 2005 you issued a ruling, on 9 August 15th, 2005, that indicated that the objections, 10 that the objections that the OPP, the Ontario Provincial 11 Police and the Ontario Provincial Police Association had 12 to the production of the discipline files in relation to 13 the mugs and t-shirts incident and the Dyke and Whitehead 14 incidents, that those objections were not sustainable; 15 that the claims of privilege that they relied upon, the 16 statutory privilege that they relied upon was rejected. 17 That was the essence of your ruling and I'll be going to 18 it in a minute. 19 As a result of your ruling, a number of 20 issues flowed from the ruling and I'm -- I'm telling you 21 what you already know, Mr. Commissioner, but it's to 22 frame my submissions. As a result of your ruling you 23 indicated a number of things: 24 1. That the documents were to be produced 25 to your Counsel, for your Counsel's review, pursuant to
381 your rules for the purposes of determinations of any, 2 what is referred to as, case-by-case or common-law 3 privilege. 4 And number 2, should it be necessary for 5 your review in the event it is requested for you to 6 inspect them. 7 And clearly under your rules, I'm thinking 8 of Section 32 again, should a party request it, it may 9 well be a senior regional justice becomes part of the 10 adjudication process in relation to a case-by-case or 11 common-law privilege. 12 That was the essence of your ruling though 13 you noted that the party, being the OPPA, having raised 14 the request for a stated case, had an obligation to state 15 that case to you in writing within days if they still 16 wished to elect in that direction. 17 That's where we were left. That was 18 August 15th, 2005. Five (5) months later there has been 19 no adjudication as to the existence of any privilege and 20 my client has no records that it originally sought six 21 (6) months ago, by formal Motion in July 2005. 22 And the question is, how long is too long? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that the 24 essence of the Motion; how long is too long? In other 25 words, is that the essence of what your Motion is now,
391 because that isn't in the material? I'm just wondering 2 if that is now -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If I could take you 4 to ground number 1. The grounds for this Motion are as 5 follows: 6 "The OPP discipline files are relevant 7 to the cross-examination of Robert 8 Runciman and are requiring Aboriginal 9 Legal Services of Toronto to proceed 10 without the files will unfairly 11 prejudice its ability to meaningfully 12 participate in this Inquiry." 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, that -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The prejudice that 15 my client is facing with this Witness on the stand is 16 that it has been too long. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And with respect, 19 Mr. Commissioner, the issue that I'm framing is meant to 20 address a reality that is governing the process that's 21 happening, if I may put it this way, and I'm not saying 22 it nefariously or even critically, a process that's 23 happening behind closed doors. 24 There is a process and -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I --
401 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I respect it. 2 From the point of view of Aboriginal Legal Services of 3 Toronto, we have tried to be patient about it, because we 4 were the moving party, if I may say that, and you decided 5 as a result of the Motion and the issues, to actually 6 issue a summons. 7 So, to be fair to you, you obviously, in 8 issuing the summons under your ruling, came to the 9 conclusion that these files were, quote, "relevant", 10 close quotes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Nothing else, just 13 that they were relevant. Then the issues of objections 14 to their production had to be determined. 15 But I say -- I say that -- that -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 17 Mr. Falconer, but it's not as if nothing has occurred -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was trying to 19 speak to that. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, all 21 right. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But you -- it 23 focusses my submissions, so if you want to -- I didn't 24 mean to interrupt you. Please, Mr. Commissioner, it 25 focusses --
411 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- my submissions, 3 so it's fine. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but it 5 seems to me that if the issue is that it's taking a long 6 time, or how long is too long, or it's been too long, I'm 7 aware and you're aware and I believe all the parties are, 8 and even others are, that there have been discussions and 9 we're close -- hopefully close to a resolution, and if we 10 are able to resolve this matter, it would be a lot 11 shorter than if we had gone to the Divisional Court, I 12 suspect. 13 I'm not sure exactly where we are, but I 14 know that's it not that there haven't been efforts -- 15 efforts are being made at the moment to resolve this 16 matter, right at the moment. 17 So, from where I sit, I don't think that 18 we -- how long is too long, I don't think it's been too 19 long yet. It might be very soon, it might be tomorrow, 20 or next week or two (2) weeks from now, but I don't think 21 it's -- I'm prepared to say that, subject to what other 22 submissions you have, that it's too long at this point. 23 So, I do want to hear your submissions, 24 but if that's the way you're framing it, the question of 25 timeliness, then that makes a difference in terms of what
421 your submissions are. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I appreciate 3 that, Mr. Commissioner, and I have a reason for saying it 4 that way. First of all, I say it that way in terms of 5 length of time because of my respect as Counsel for the 6 process that's underway behind closed doors. 7 And I say how long is too long, for a 8 reason and it's this; there is benefit to what's been 9 happening behind closed doors -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm happy to 11 hear you say that. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. And I'm doing 13 it on the record for -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- a purpose, 16 because I'm going to have things that aren't as popular. 17 But, I want to preface my comments with those preambles, 18 because it's important. 19 Your Counsel, either Mr. Millar or Ms. 20 Vella or others and both, have been working at a problem 21 that is not easily fixable, because it involves questions 22 of privilege. 23 You can't distribute the documents and 24 then argue privilege later; the lawyers talk about birds 25 leaving cages.
431 So, that's one of the main problems. The 2 other problem is that a request for a stated case means 3 that we go to higher Courts and usually it's never one 4 (1) level. If parties are aggrieved, parties are 5 entitled to go to the next level. 6 These are unique novel issues; we could be 7 at the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada. We 8 could be into a delay that could be a year. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 10 right. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I say that as a 12 preamble because that is an important ingredient in 13 trying to arrive at a resolution where Court cases are 14 obviated and I say all of these -- these are all things 15 that you know, but if I made my submissions without 16 acknowledging those things, I wouldn't be fair to your 17 Counsel or the process. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that's why we 20 go back to how long is too long. Because while those are 21 laudable efforts and are good things, there comes a point 22 in time where it becomes -- the question is, is it worth 23 the candle. 24 You lose five (5) months, six (6) months, 25 seven (7) months on this process. You don't have the
441 benefit of a court adjudication of any kind and parties 2 go on concerned over prejudice. 3 And -- and concrete concerns that I'll now 4 go into. So I do say it starts with how long is too long 5 because the process that was originally adopted is a 6 laudable one. No one wants to go to court unnecessarily. 7 Now here is the difficulty I've set out in 8 my motion and I can take you through each ground where I 9 mention this. But at the present time on hold are two 10 (2) witnesses that are being recalled as of right to 11 address this issue; that is Deputy Commissioner Carson 12 and Commissioner O'Grady. 13 Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto and 14 others in the case of O'Grady have put aside cross- 15 examination questions on the issue of race, systemic 16 racism, generally and specifically, as they pertain to 17 matters relating to discipline. 18 And those things were put in writing with 19 your counsel and they're set aside. We now arrive as we 20 work our way up the chain, it's quite interesting, you 21 can see the hierarchy we're climbing as this Inquiry 22 progresses, we now are at the Solicitor General. 23 Your counsel asked him questions, quite -- 24 quite properly, about issues of policy and issues that 25 would be of concern one would think to the Solicitor
451 General. And we heard from the Solicitor General that he 2 had certain concerns, that is Mr. Runciman. 3 There can be no doubt that is -- it is 4 beyond contention that the role of the Solicitor General 5 is as top civilian overseer of the police. And that in 6 particular if an issues is of a systemic problem, he is 7 entitled indeed duty bound to engage policy 8 considerations, to make sure that policies are properly 9 directed through training and education and otherwise to 10 controlling the OPP. That's his job. 11 So, there can be little doubt that it's 12 appropriate and relevant for your counsel to have asked 13 questions and others to ask questions in this area. 14 Here's my difficulty and I'm now cutting to the nut of 15 the prejudice. 16 As counsel who is expected to question in 17 a -- in a, perhaps one might say, a more rigorous way, 18 the witness than Commission Counsel because that's our 19 brief. And I don't mean negatively about Mr. Runciman, 20 simply our brief. 21 Counsel is expected to conduct a critical 22 systemic analysis. It is -- it is not very wise counsel 23 that starts systemically. Counsel who prepares an 24 examination does so based on facts. And we do that based 25 on facts for what are obvious axiomatic reasons. I know
461 you know it, Mr. Commissioner. 2 We do it based on facts for several 3 reasons. 4 1. We want to remain relevant to your 5 proceedings. We don't want to be cross-examining on 6 things that have nothing to do with the facts of this 7 case. 8 2. We cross-examine on facts so at the 9 end of the day, at the end of the day when this witness 10 is long left the stand, the questions we drew out on 11 systemic issues, that he may not even be aware of, are 12 tieable to the facts through argument; that is we have 13 the records in one hand and we have the systemic answers 14 in the other hand and we tie them together. 15 And when counsel says at the end of the 16 day, in argument, the systemic issues Mr. Falconer speaks 17 to are all very interesting or they're not, but they 18 really don't arise in this case, we're able to draw the 19 ties, the links because we studied the facts, we studied 20 our basket of information and prepared our systemic 21 examination. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The basket of 24 information in this case is one-third (1/3) full, I say 25 with respect. And that is exactly why we're in the
471 circumstances where Deputy Commissioner Carson is coming 2 back and Commissioner O'Grady's coming back. 3 It's been recognized thus far that a 4 proper examination on these areas is prejudiced until 5 counsel are armed with all of the information, not part 6 of the information, not managing because we have to. 7 Because the analysis -- your analysis that 8 you elucidated on in your introductory comments yesterday 9 were heard, Mr. Commissioner. The -- the competing 10 balance of thoroughness versus efficiency, and that 11 thoroughness has to be reasonable but it's not going to 12 be sacrificed for the simple prospect of closing the 13 Inquiry down. 14 And -- and I heard all that. And -- and 15 what I say to that is, thoroughness means that the 16 analysis cannot be, can you get by, can you do this 17 examination without it? If you can do it, we go on, can 18 you get by without it? 19 That -- that can't be the right question 20 in -- in my submission. The right question has to be: 21 Should this information be available to the parties 22 before they do an examination on systemic issues that may 23 well relate to these 24 records? 25 And now I'll explain the -- I've given you
481 the broad strokes of -- of how in my submission I'm 2 expected to prepare when I do these examinations, now let 3 me get to the facts. 4 Counsel rises and says, for example -- 5 Counsel opposing my motion or -- or the issues I raise 6 rise and say, Well, this Witness has already said he 7 didn't see the discipline files. 8 Well, I -- I want to emphasize something. 9 The first witness that was adjourned, Deputy Commissioner 10 Carson, he was asked what happened and he didn't know on 11 -- on Day 1 of -- of that issue. He was asked: 12 "Were you concerned? 13 Yes. 14 What -- what happened? 15 I don't know." 16 And I rose. I don't know if you recall. 17 I rose and said, Well, I want Deputy Commissioner Carson 18 to be on notice I'm going to want to know why he doesn't 19 know because the absence of knowledge pertaining to 20 information is as relevant in examining systemic issues 21 as all the knowledge in the world because both can be 22 problematic. 23 I say, with great respect, that what we 24 see from Mr. Millar's examination is he has touched on 25 some very important issues, such as if it was important
491 enough to prepare a briefing note for the Solicitor 2 General it's clearly within his bailiwick to address. 3 When he talked about a review what was the review? What 4 is the nature of the steps the Solicitor General took to 5 address what was a very public matter of extreme concern 6 according to the Solicitor General. 7 And then we go to the next question: What 8 was actually done? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can ask 10 those questions. No -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I can't. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, you 13 can. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That -- and I don't 15 mean to argue. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you can 17 ask those questions. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: What was actually 19 done? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can ask 21 those questions. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In -- I'm engaged 23 in a discourse with you, Mr. Commissioner -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- but I mean no
501 disrespect by it. When I say, What was actually done, 2 and he does not say discipline was meted out, then he'd 3 be of course in error. So presumably one (1) of the 4 things he's going to say is discipline was meted out. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He's going to say 7 that, he's Solicitor General, top civilian overseer of 8 the police; that's got to be one (1) of the answers to my 9 question, what was actually done. It has to be. When he 10 says discipline was meted out and I ask him what kind of 11 discipline he goes, I don't know. 12 I say to him, Sir, something of extreme 13 concern to you, you know nothing about? That's right. 14 I'm going to suggest to you that you were sufficiently 15 upset that this kind of discipline wouldn't have fit the 16 bill. I don't have an answer. I don't know. I haven't 17 seen the records. 18 And I say to Mr. Runciman, Well, there's a 19 coincidence because neither have I. So we all now 20 operate in the air. I can't cross-examine on the 21 appropriate response to this incident by the OPP for 22 which he has charge because I don't know what their 23 response was. So, I don't intend to go there because to 24 go there half armed is a fool's game and -- and he is the 25 top civilian overseer.
511 I have no choice but to bring this motion. 2 I -- I'm not known for patience. I respect that so I'm 3 not going to be self-serving about this, but I did wait 4 until the eleventh hour on this. If I let the Solicitor 5 General leave the stand on this issue without questioning 6 him in -- in the fashion I say I'm supposed to question 7 him on, the issue of what was done, what actions were 8 taken will be lost. 9 If his OPP for which he, civilian -- has 10 civilian responsibility -- if his OPP is informally 11 disciplining people with a tap or a light brush when 12 circumstances warranted -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- something 15 different it may give rise to a systemic problem. 16 Now, I move on the next issue and that's - 17 - that's as it relates to mugs and t-shirts, of course 18 2003 is the revelation around Dyke and Whitehead, but we 19 move onto the next. That's only one (1); that's the mugs 20 and t-shirts. The next issue is and we have to always 21 remember because it's lost in the ether. 22 At the tail-end of the July 2005 motion 23 and at the tail-end of your ruling it has always been 24 accepted that the Cossett issue as reflected in His 25 Honour Judge's Fraser's ruling of April 28th, 1997, the
521 finding by his Honour Judge Fraser, and I'm quoting from 2 page 168 of the reasons. 3 And this is Judge Fraser, and the reason I 4 raise this is because this is a second body of 5 information that is at issue in these proceedings. I'm 6 at page 168 of his ruling. It's simply one (1) 7 paragraph. Quote: 8 "There were no Crown witnesses or 9 defence witnesses that saw any weapons 10 in the hands of the First Nations 11 people except for Sergeant Deane and 12 except for Constable Chris Cossett. 13 And at this point perhaps I will 14 comment on the testimony of Constable 15 Cossett. The Crown called his 16 testimony amusing which is one (1) 17 word. I might choose others. Rather 18 than scrutinize Constable Cossett's 19 testimony for any grains of truth that 20 might fall out, I have dismissed it 21 entirely as being clearly fabricated 22 and implausible." 23 So, on a major issue, on a major issue, 24 Mr. Commissioner, that this Solicitor General was in 25 charge of at the time, in April 1997, a Court has found
531 that a police officer, not the accused, concocted his 2 account. 3 We raised all those issues, and it's been 4 held that any records that relate to that, fall in the 5 same as the mugs and t-shirts records. 6 I am entitled to go to the Solicitor 7 General, say, do you know what was done? What action was 8 taken? Let's assume he says, I haven't seen the records. 9 Let's assume that picture of the three (3) 10 officers, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil gets 11 raised. 12 Let's assume Counsel chooses properly, 13 with respect, and I don't mean this facetiously, chooses 14 properly to say, Well, why don't you know about it and is 15 this appropriate response in your view, looking back? 16 And if it's not an appropriate response, 17 work with us, Mr. Runciman, to figure out how it is that 18 we got where we got where you wouldn't know, and what -- 19 how do we fix it so that next time a Solicitor General 20 does have hands on the tiller. 21 So, these are things that we're entitled 22 to, the basket of information, first to know what action 23 was actually taken and then number 2, to raise it, if 24 appropriate, with the Solicitor General. 25 It's conceivable that all of the actions
541 taken by the OPP were completely proper and they dealt 2 with it in a firm manner that is consistent with their 3 obligations and the Solicitor General was so satisfied, 4 but he, of course, can't say that since he doesn't know 5 what's in the records. 6 So, we have to go there to find out and 7 see if systemic issues properly arise on the facts. 8 Now, I go to the next issue that is in my 9 -- in my notice of Motion and that is at ground number 5. 10 Aboriginal Legal Services, it's in the 11 first page at the bottom of the first page, ground 5. 12 "Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto 13 has produced a media report to the 14 Commission which suggests that anti- 15 Aboriginal racism remained a 16 significant problem within the OPP at 17 least as late as the year 2000." 18 We have raised the issue through document 19 notices, discussions with your Counsel in this Motion 20 that in year 1999, year 2000, anti-Native racist 21 statements and humour were moving between Ministry of 22 Natural Resources employees and employees of the OPP, 23 being police officers, to the extent that sixty (60) 24 individuals, sixty (60) employees between the Ministry of 25 Natural Resources and the Ontario Provincial Police were
551 disciplined and six (6) were fired. 2 We propose, and want to make the 3 submission to you, Mr. Commissioner, that that kind of 4 widespread cultural difficulty within the Ministry of the 5 Solicitor General and the Ministry of Natural Resources, 6 but more particularly the OPP and MNR, that kind of a 7 widespread cultural difficulty may well represent the 8 product of a culture of indifference that this gentleman, 9 Mr. Runciman, presided over since 1995. 10 That is certainly an issue that warrants 11 exploration. That is, it doesn't start with the MNR, OPP 12 widespread anti-Native racism. That may well be the 13 culmination. 14 And the period of indifference happens to 15 jibe entirely with the time that Mr. Runciman presided 16 over that Ministry and how the OPP and this gentleman as 17 top civilian overseer dealt with issues of anti-Native 18 racism may well be linked to the ultimate result we see 19 in 1999/2000. 20 Now I say, "may well". We have the 21 information we have which is that in the year 1999/2000, 22 three (3) years, three (3) years after the informal 23 discipline, 1996 is the informal discipline, 1999/2000 is 24 when the -- the widespread racist statements are 25 circulated amongst the employees at OPP at MNR.
561 What was it that would spawn that? One 2 theory, and it's a theory because we don't yet have 3 access to records, one theory quite simply is that a 4 culture of callous indifference or denial relating to 5 anti-Native racism led to this. 6 How do we explore that? We do our job. 7 We look at the records, we ask ourselves if there are 8 linkages and we do our job. We're trying to do our job 9 and -- and that's where we're at today which is this 10 impasse. It is not about Mr. Millar or Ms. Vella seeking 11 to support the police in not providing records. 12 This is not what this motion is about. I 13 parenthetically observe though if I was the OPP or the 14 OPPA opposing the production of these records, five (5) 15 months would be pretty good for a time period that Mr. 16 Falconer still doesn't have them after an August 2005 17 ruling that rejected their statutory privilege claims. 18 That is, as the -- as Counsel for the 19 party that was arguably successful on the Motion relating 20 to statutory privilege the pockets feel light. 21 And so what I say to you is that even if 22 Counsel for the OPPA or Counsel for the OPP aren't to 23 blame because we don't have access to why the delay we 24 don't have that access to that information, even if 25 they're not the appearance to Sam George, to others, the
571 appearance is that the efforts to not produce the records 2 have been thus far successful. 3 That's an appearance issue, Mr. 4 Commissioner. I don't say that it's borne of subterfuges 5 or an effort to frustrate your processes, because we 6 don't have access to that information. I do want to 7 emphasize though from an appearance point of view -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the resolution 10 discussions have necessarily gone on behind closed doors. 11 They don't have the benefit of the transparency of a 12 stated case or the benefit of a transparency of appellant 13 courts. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: We don't have the 16 benefit of the transparency of the Motion that you heard 17 in July. So, it -- it is an issue that goes back to how 18 long is too long? 19 And -- and all I ask is this. I'm at the 20 point where I have to formally apply to adjourn the 21 evidence of Mr. Runciman because to do otherwise is to, 22 in essence, enable or appear to implicitly agree with the 23 process that still has these records out there. 24 You do have, and I accept this, you do 25 have a ruling which does not say give the records to
581 Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto. It doesn't say 2 that and -- and we've all read the ruling. And you've 3 provided a step-by-step process. 4 And really where we're at, for the record, 5 and -- and so that I can properly focus this last part of 6 my submissions. I emphasize 'last'. I think I'm getting 7 -- I'm still within my forty-five (45) minutes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Hmm hmm. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I'm 11 happy to hear that you're reaching the end. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah, but whenever 13 I say that it's always -- it's -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, that's 15 fine. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's not immediate, 17 but it's -- it's in the back end of my submissions, of 18 course prompting the question how long is too long? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You ask the 20 question. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The -- your ruling, 22 Mr. Commissioner, didn't say Aboriginal Legal Services of 23 Toronto is entitled to the -- to see these records 24 immediately, it contemplates a stage process. This 25 notion of determining -- your Counsel first determining
591 whether there's grounds for common-law privilege and then 2 perhaps you, it has to be weighed against the likelihood 3 of the finding of such a privilege. 4 In other words if it's so remote that such 5 a privilege could be found yet we've spent five (5) or 6 six (6) months worrying about that privilege that has to 7 be a factor on how long is too long. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If there's very 10 compelling reasons for such a common-law privilege 11 perhaps the balancing goes differently. But I look at 12 the four (4) parts of the Wigmore test and really it's 13 just the first one that I want to raise and bring to your 14 attention. 15 The four (4) parts of the Wigmore test and 16 the reason I'm looking at Mr. Millar's computer is that I 17 asked him to set the test out for me on screen. Number 18 1: 19 "The communication must originate in a 20 confidence that they will not be 21 disclosed. [I'm sorry] The 22 communications must originate in a 23 confidence that they will not be 24 disclosed." 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.
601 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In other words, the 2 communications, the records, must be in a confidence 3 where the parties creating the records have been given 4 the assurance they would not be disclosed and I 5 appreciate Mr. Millar helping my old eyes. 6 Backing up a step, you have found, Mr. 7 Commissioner, that the statute does not create a 8 privilege. There is nothing in the statute that creates 9 a guarantee of the level of confidentiality or secrecy 10 arriving at a privilege. The notion that we would now 11 turn and find that something outside of the statute 12 creates that confidentiality is remote at best so I'm not 13 going to argue this. I just -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm don't 15 want to argue the Wigmore tests -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I don't either. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- now or -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But I simply want 19 to point out that we're in a unique situation. 20 Discipline is governed by statute. It's not governed by 21 handshakes or agreements amongst counsel somewhere else. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Discipline is 24 governed by statute. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.
611 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that -- in the 2 Wigmore test this case-by-case is usually designed for 3 looking at a document that -- that is -- is in an ad hoc 4 setting where you have to do a case-by-case to decide. 5 We're talking about reports, for example, of professional 6 standards, reports that are done pursuant to a statute 7 you've already ruled on. 8 So we're waiting five (5) months on a case 9 by case common law privilege that has very limited 10 prospect of success. 11 I raise that because it's a factor. I 12 don't want to go into long argument -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- but it's a 15 factor, because if there is no statutory prospect of that 16 first leg, all the rest of the factors don't matter, with 17 respect. 18 The -- the final, and I'm going to 19 encourage Mr. Millar to save his computer. I don't want 20 to be responsible for it, thank you. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In your ruling of 25 August 15th, 2005 you recognized, Mr. Commissioner, the
621 following. It's at page 4, paragraph 12. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In describing the 6 mugs and t-shirts images, at page 4, paragraph 12 of your 7 ruling, you stated at the end of that paragraph: 8 "In Aboriginal tradition, the arrow and 9 feathers symbolize dead warriors." 10 A cite from the June 1st evidence. 11 What happened on the mugs and t-shirts is 12 completely offensive and we all should be ashamed. 13 Rather than us negotiating, pleading and running in 14 circles to get records of what the OPP did in the face of 15 this shameful conduct, we should be, as an Inquiry, 16 moving together to make sure it never happens again. 17 These gymnastics that we're performing, 18 have to -- with great respect, have to stop. We plead, 19 we make that submission to you. 20 Because otherwise, we can't do our work. 21 You can't, with respect, I say it, I don't mean to be 22 presumptuous, you can't do your work. 23 When you look at the -- the quote you very 24 fairly set out, Mr. Commissioner, at page 3 in relation 25 to Dyke and Whitehead, the reference by the police
631 officer at line 15 to a, quote, "big fat fuck Indian" and 2 the reference, quote, "we thought if we could five (5) or 3 six (6) cases of Labatts 50, we could bait them." 4 This is shameful. These are the 5 intelligence officers. These are the intelligence 6 officers doing their work at Ipperwash in September 1995. 7 We shouldn't be going in circles to find out what 8 happened to them, we should simply have the reports. 9 I've read the Cossett passage. If he 10 concocted his evidence as so found by Judge Fraser and 11 it's not "if" any more, he concocted his evidence as so 12 found by a Court of this Province, unreversed. 13 If he did that, which he -- a Court found, 14 that's shameful. We shouldn't have to chase for the 15 records on that. 16 This is not becoming your process. This 17 is becoming, ultimately, an expedition where we are 18 playing cat and mouse with these records. 19 We are. Your Counsel are not, because 20 they know things we don't, but we are. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm -- I'm running 23 a Motion with a blindfold on, because I don't know why we 24 don't have them. 25 So I plead with you, Mr. Commissioner,
641 that the how-long-is-too-long analysis should be now 2 performed. Mr. Runciman should be put in exactly the 3 same category as Deputy Commissioner Carson, should be 4 put in the same category as Commissioner O'Grady, if you 5 do not agree to my Motion to adjourn him in total. 6 The ultimate -- the ultimate, I say with 7 great respect, the ultimate injustice would be if Mr. 8 Runciman could leave as Solicitor General and top 9 civilian overseer, without my having the benefit of the 10 records to look at, before I question him on issues of 11 race. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 Thank you very much -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you for 15 your -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 17 Falconer. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- your patience. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 20 Mr. Falconer. Do you wish to comment on this? 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: There may be others 22 who -- I don't know if others... 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do others 24 wish to comment on this? 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I -- sure.
651 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm happy for you to go 2 first. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, no, to -- I will 4 have some comments. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but is 6 there anybody else who feels that they need to comment on 7 this, so I know what I'm facing here? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You were 12 going to comment on this as well? 13 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Very briefly, 14 Mr. Commissioner. Only to the extent that I, on behalf - 15 - act on behalf of the party who's the record keeper. I 16 anticipate that My Friend, Mr. Millar, is going to cover 17 off the points, but I do want to make it clear, for the 18 record, that the OPP has co-operated -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: -- fully in 21 conjunction with your ruling; that we have produced all 22 of the documents -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: -- that were 25 requested and that -- to the Commission and that the
661 Commission's in the process of reviewing them. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I'm 3 aware of that and I think everybody should be. So I'm 4 glad you're saying that. 5 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: I want it on 6 the record for that purpose, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Who else has 10 some comment? 11 MR. IAN ROLAND: Mr. Commissioner, on 12 behalf of the OPPA, as I understand Mr. Falconer's 13 motion, it is to adjourn his cross-examination of Mr. 14 Runciman until he obtains the discipline records. 15 But in the course of making his 16 submissions, he also refers to material that relates to 17 some incidents in 1999 or 2000. And I want it to be 18 clear on the record that if Mr. Falconer seeks to 19 introduce any of that information, I will be objecting to 20 it as not relevant in these proceedings. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. IAN ROLAND: He made some allegations 23 about the nature of those incidents that, even on the 24 public record, are completely false. And so we'll have 25 to deal with that in due course.
671 But if Mr. Falconer would look to the 2 public records, he'd know that his statements were 3 factually inaccurate about those incidents. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well again, 5 I'm not anxious to get into the detailed analysis of 6 those -- 7 MR. IAN ROLAND: And I don't want to get 8 into it either because I think whatever -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if it's 10 actually correct or incorrect. 11 MR. IAN ROLAND: Very correct, I think 12 they're relevant. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. IAN ROLAND: But it troubles me that 15 Mr. Falconer would put today on the record, information 16 that is actually inaccurate when he -- if he looked at 17 the public record would know -- know that. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, thank 19 you, Mr. Roland, I don't want to go down that road. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- I don't -- I 21 don't propose to reopen a full argument with Mr. Roland. 22 But it's unfortunate when counsel is told that what they 23 said was false, but nobody happens to mention what it is, 24 so that counsel is simply left with -- with nothing but 25 that.
681 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I am 2 sure -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So I'll speak to 4 Mr. Roland's and encourage him to actually be forthcoming 5 with me off the record, so that if there's something I 6 need to correct, I'll be happy to correct them. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's hope 8 you can do that off the record so you can do that. I 9 don't want to get into it. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well that's fine. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The -- the only -- 13 there was one other point that I had neglected to mention 14 that will take one (1) minute, and I -- and I remembered 15 when I sat there, and I -- before your counsel rises. 16 And if Ms. Tuck-Jackson wants to address it again, I 17 apologize. 18 One of the things that we're missing, by 19 not having the records, is the identities of the police 20 officers involved in these incidents. It's these 21 officers -- there are many officers proposed to take the 22 stand. 23 For all we know, some of the officers that 24 are about to take the stand are implicated in the mugs 25 and
691 t-shirts incident, the Dyke Whitehead incident or even 2 the Cossett incident. 3 And because of the -- investigative 4 reports having been done internally by the OPP. If 5 that's the case, it's essential we have information 6 before the officers take the stand. So it -- it 7 logistically it's another problem we're looking at. I'm 8 sorry I didn't mention that before. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Falconer. You're -- 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Just one (1) second. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And so Mr. Millar 17 knows, and I want to be fair to him, he's trying to be 18 fair to me about letting me know a source of confusion 19 for him. 20 I said at the time, as a result of the 21 incident, at the time, six (6) employees were fired and 22 approximately sixty (60), or sixty (60), news reports 23 suggest more, but sixty (60) were disciplined. 24 I didn't say sixty (60) were fired. I 25 said sixty (60) were disciplined.
701 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 2 did say that. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 5 you did say that. That's what -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That sixty (60) 7 were disciplined, yes. Not fired. Six (6) were fired, 8 sixty (60) were disciplined. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: According to the 11 news reports, some suggest more. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. I 13 might be able to -- yes, Mr. Scullion...? 14 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I just take this 15 opportunity to express the interest of my clients. I did 16 indicate to Mr. Millar at the break that we are fully 17 supportive of the Motion and did not want to see Mr. 18 Runciman, as you termed, released, until we've had an 19 opportunity to address these issues. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 21 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: How it's addressed, 22 of course, is up to you, Mr. Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 24 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: But I just wanted to 25 put on the record it's -- from our perspective, from my
711 clients' perspective, it's -- as opposed to a systemic 2 question, it is what occurred as a result of these 3 particular incidents. 4 And obviously we look forward to the 5 opportunity to hear from those that can speak to the 6 issue. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 8 I need to hear from everybody, I'm really not, because I 9 don't have any difficulty with this. I think I can 10 short-circuit this. 11 I don't think there's any difficulty with 12 us putting -- with me putting Mr. Runciman in the same 13 category as other witnesses. If and when these records 14 are made available, if there's anything in them that 15 warrants cross-examination or a further examination, I 16 don't see why we couldn't bring Mr. Runciman back in the 17 same way as we've agreed to bring. 18 But I don't want to say that at this 19 point. I say that the Motion can be brought at that 20 point. Is there anything wrong with that, Mr. Millar? 21 Does that accord -- 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, it -- no, there's 23 nothing wrong -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean, I 25 don't want to see --
721 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- with that position. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: There is just -- we've 4 agreed Mr. Falconer is right. We've agreed to, as of 5 right, bring back Deputy Carson and Mr. O'Grady, because 6 I want to bring back Mr. O'Grady. I wanted to ask him 7 some questions, general questions. 8 It was all agreed he should come back and 9 do -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- it all at the same 12 time. And there's nothing -- there's no impediment to 13 either, it's up to you, putting Mr. Runciman in a -- as 14 of right, come back category, or if once the -- the 15 records are disclosed, that the ALST bring a Motion to 16 say we would like him back for these reasons. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, because 18 given the answers that he gave to your questions, I'd 19 like to put him in that category, because it's not 20 apparent at this moment but it might be. 21 So if it becomes apparent, and Mr. 22 Falconer brings it up, we would certainly consider it at 23 that time. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The... 25
731 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry to interrupt My 4 Friend, Commissioner, but I just want to make sure that 5 my point gets heard before the matter is decided. 6 I suppose, in principle, I've got no 7 objection to the idea that if these records, when they're 8 finally made available to us, reveal some reason to bring 9 Mr. Runciman back, then that's fine. 10 That's an issue we can revisit, pardon me, 11 when we get to that time. But I don't want My Friend, 12 Mr. Falconer, to think that that gives him a right to 13 leave the issue entirely. 14 In my respectful view, today's the day for 15 Mr. Runciman's evidence. That should be the presumptive 16 position. Mr. Falconer should ask my client, Mr. 17 Runciman, whatever questions he's got about discipline or 18 systemic racism or all of those issues. 19 I note, for example, he asked the former 20 Attorney General about the issue of systemic racism. So 21 he can go at those issues and I haven't, with great 22 respect to My Friend, Mr. Falconer, I haven't heard him 23 give us a question that he can't ask now -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 25 MR. IAN SMITH: -- given what my client
741 has said about what he knew about discipline as a routine 2 matter and in particular, in these specific cases. 3 So just as long as we're understood that 4 it's, as My Friend Mr. Millar put it, it's not an as of 5 right situation. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 7 MR. IAN SMITH: It's an issue we'll 8 revisit when we've got the information. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 10 way I see it at the moment and that's the way I'd like to 11 keep it, if we can. We're going to proceed with as much 12 as we can, because I want this Inquiry to continue to 13 move forward. 14 And to the extent that it can, there are 15 lots of questions, lots of areas, lots of issues that you 16 can question Mr. Runciman on, Mr. Falconer. And if and 17 when, those records will be produced at some point in 18 time. 19 In my view, the process is working exactly 20 as it was intended. There are discussions going on and 21 at some point in time, all of that will be revealed to 22 everybody. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Can I address -- 24 because you've raised this after I sat down, may I 25 address this issue --
751 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- of how it's been 3 framed? I had indicated that if you were not inclined to 4 -- to adjourn Mr. Runciman's evidence in its entirety, at 5 minimum we would seek that that portion -- that he be put 6 in the same category as Deputy Commissioner Carson and 7 Commissioner O'Grady. 8 And there is a distinction in the category 9 being discussed and their category. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There is a 11 distinction because of the answers that he's given to the 12 questions -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's what 14 I'd like to -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so far. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- address. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And here's the 19 problem. I am concerned about being put in the position 20 of having to ask Mr. Runciman questions today with only 21 half the information. 22 That is, I am concerned at the prospect of 23 preparing and cross-examining a witness with only half 24 the information. 25 And the problem, you can envisage what's
761 going to happen invariably, Mr. Commissioner. We're all 2 adults here. 3 What is going to happen is, at the end of 4 the day, we will see things in the records that Mr. 5 Smith, quite understandably, sees differently. 6 We will take the position, based on what 7 we see, that there may be a basis to bring him back. Mr. 8 Smith is going to take the position, no, no, no, you had 9 your kick at the can, you don't need to. 10 This is not what should happen. In other 11 words, my client is being put in the position of having 12 to get or seek an indulgence to bring him back or to get 13 a ruling from you to bring him back. 14 The category that we refer to is one as of 15 right. And the reason we seek this, and this is the nub 16 of the point, the reason we seek it as a right is that 17 had the process worked as it was supposed to have we 18 would have the right. 19 It wouldn't be something we'd have to get 20 -- bring an application, we would have the right to 21 consult these records before we cross-examine. It's not 22 something we'd have to apply to you to do, so -- because 23 they're relevant and right now there's no privilege. 24 So, we're not getting fulfilment of that. 25 I'm not whining, I'm saying that because of events we are
771 being put in a position where we can't see them. So we 2 don't want to then look at them and have to convince 3 people, we want to simply be put in the same position as 4 with Carson and as with O'Grady; no disrespect to their 5 titles. 6 We -- we need them back as of right to 7 question them on issues of race, and the time saving will 8 be we won't question them today, because I don't want to 9 work with half the information. If you order me to I 10 will have no choice -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 12 understand. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- but, Mr. 14 Commissioner, my difficulty is that in making that order 15 what we're truly now saying is expedience is going to -- 16 to dominate over -- over Counsel's ability to prepare and 17 that's what I laid out for you before. 18 And all I ask is I'm agreeing not to 19 question on this area just like I did with Carson and 20 Commissioner O'Grady so that we don't double-up the time, 21 but that my questions are borne of education which is 22 read the records -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- on these three 25 (3) areas first. And -- and I don't -- and -- and think
781 of the Motion that you're going to hear at the end. 2 We're going to lose a half day with Mr. Smith and others 3 opposing our request to bring him back. In the end where 4 is that -- it's just going to spawn more litigation. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 6 understand, Mr. Falconer. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I very much 9 regret that we've gotten into this position, but we are 10 in it. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, I'm sorry, the 12 -- by the way the -- the -- I was looking for the e-mail, 13 I've just tracked it down. 14 The -- the bottom-line is the agreement 15 that covers both Carson and O'Grady is that Commission 16 Counsel will commit to recall Deputy Commissioner Carson 17 as of right for cross-examination. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On matters 19 involving discipline. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And issues of race. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And race. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. The 23 right to cross-examine Deputy Carson on issues of race, 24 generally, and discipline, in particular, was that same 25 agreement was applied with respect to Commissioner
791 O'Grady. 2 And I did it for a reason. My reason was 3 simple. If I go halfway into it then I'm clearly setting 4 myself up for the end of the day, the argument being you 5 already did it and whatever answers you gave you're stuck 6 with. And that's -- the problem is -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Counsel should 9 be entitled to prepare properly and do it once -- 10 properly. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Yes, 12 Mr. Millar...? We've gotten this down to a very narrow 13 point and I do want to hear you on that. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I just wanted 15 to, for the benefit of the -- the public, to just review 16 certain issues. 17 The -- Commission Counsel, the process 18 that is set out in the rules, the process that is set out 19 in the Act has -- is work -- I disagree with Mr. 20 Falconer's characterization. 21 In your decision you directed the OPP to 22 deliver the files to Commission Counsel for the review 23 and then with respect to those files you would then have 24 to do a decision with respect to the case-by-case -- the 25 case-by-case privilege issues.
801 The OPPA, as their right, delivered a 2 request for a stay -- a request for a stated case. The 3 effect of a stated case under the Public Inquiries Act is 4 that there is a stay of everything with respect to the 5 issue at hand. In this case it would be the discipline 6 issue. 7 So, that the -- once the stated case was 8 either ordered or the stated case was made by you, then 9 as Section 4 says -- Section 6, Subsection 5: 10 "Pending the decision of the Divisional 11 Court on a case stated under this 12 section no further proceeding shall be 13 taken by the Commission with respect of 14 the subject matter of the stated case, 15 but it may continue its inquiry into 16 matters not an issue in the stated 17 case." 18 So, that everything comes to a halt. 19 Commission Counsel, working with the OPPA and the OPP 20 have resolved -- are working to resolve the situation. 21 Rather than everything grinding to a halt, rather than 22 Commission Counsel never having seen any of these pieces 23 of paper, all of these pieces of paper have been provided 24 to Commission Counsel. 25 And if the matter cannot be resolved in a
811 -- as quick -- because we all want Commission Counsel and 2 we all want to have it resolved, then, which I'm hopeful 3 it will be, then we might -- we might have to do 4 something else. 5 But we are working -- the process is 6 working and we have those documents including the Cossett 7 documents. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Now, let me just 10 address one thing. Mr. -- there's a difference between 11 Mr. -- Deputy Carson and Commissioner O'Grady. They were 12 directly involved, arguably Carson was involved in the 13 facts, but Commissioner O'Grady was directly involved as 14 the Commissioner with respect to discipline. 15 And there's a different issue it seems to 16 me between them and Mr. Runciman. Mr. Runciman testified 17 that he's never seen any of these documents, that his 18 department plays no role in discipline or no role in the 19 outcome of discipline. 20 So, that the -- in my submission, issues - 21 - systemic issues can be raised and discussed with Mr. 22 Runciman, because systemic issues don't -- he had nothing 23 to do with the individual issues. He can be asked about 24 the systemic issues, he can't alter the individual cases. 25 And we have a certain amount of
821 information in the record that -- from the issue notes 2 given to him as to what was done. And those are my 3 comments. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I'm 5 anxious to move on unless somebody feels a compelling 6 need to add something. 7 Yes...? 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I hesitated to say 9 very much. I just want to put on the record that Sam 10 George and -- and my clients do support the Motion, 11 having heard all of the arguments. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 13 Mr. Zbogar. 14 Yes...? 15 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Mr. Commissioner, I 16 -- I too don't want to waste your time. I just wanted to 17 go on the record that the Chiefs of Ontario do support 18 the Motion brought by ALST. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes...? 20 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: Kettle and Stony 21 Point, as well, support the Motion brought by ALST. And 22 we specifically support the concern that was raised with 23 regards to lack of knowledge as being just as important 24 as knowledge when -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.
831 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: -- it comes to 2 systemic issues. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 4 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: And that's quite 5 relevant with regards to Mr. Runciman. 6 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Yes, on behalf of 7 the Aazhoodena and George Family Group, we also support 8 the Motion. In terms of an alternative order, we support 9 cross-examination as of right and we would also like to 10 preserve the right of Aazhoodena and George Family Group 11 to cross-examine on the disciplinary files as of right. 12 We are concerned about the passage of time 13 given the possibility that there may not be an agreement, 14 and it may still have to go to the Divisional Court. So 15 if a timeline could be set, that would be -- especially 16 because we are also concerned about the police witnesses 17 coming soon, we'd like to see an early resolution of this 18 issue. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 20 very much. I'm ready to -- 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 Then... 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
841 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The motion 2 was for an order adjourning the cross-examination of Mr. 3 Runciman pending the production to all parties of the 4 discipline files pursuant to the ruling, and in the 5 alternative an order that the discipline files be 6 produced three (3) days prior to the commencement of the 7 cross-examination. 8 I'm not satisfied at this point in time 9 that there has been any prejudice or that any prejudice 10 has been demonstrated to an inability to cross-examine 11 Mr. Runciman on all matters even including discipline 12 having regard to what he has said in his examination, and 13 having regard to the role that the Solicitor General 14 plays with respect to discipline matters. 15 systemic issues can be asked and 16 questioned. I expect that Mr. Runciman can be asked all 17 questions that are relevant and necessary at this point. 18 But if it turns out that there are matters 19 that are revealed in the discipline files that require 20 bringing Mr. Runciman back, then at that time Mr. 21 Falconer or anybody can ask for the right to bring him 22 back and at that time we'll consider it. 23 I'm not prepared, given what is on the 24 record at this point, and what we know, that that is a 25 matter that should occur as of right.
851 So I'm satisfied that we can proceed with 2 a thorough, vigorous, complete examination of Mr. 3 Runciman at this point. And if that is not the case, 4 then a case can be made and we will bring him back. 5 Now, I want this Inquiry to continue; I 6 don't believe that we're considering efficiency over 7 thoroughness at this point. 8 If that becomes a case, we'll consider it. 9 We'll reconsider it. 10 So now, I'm at the point now where I'm 11 asking Mr. Runciman to come back to the stand. And I'm 12 going to canvass the parties with respect to their 13 questions, what questions they have of Mr. Runciman and 14 begin the cross-examinations. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Just so that -- I'm 16 just going to repeat, for the record, the statements when 17 people stand up and tell us who they're going -- how many 18 people are. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. We 20 now have Mr. Downard. Do you have any questions of Mr. 21 Runciman? 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, sir. 24 Counsel on behalf of Mr. Harnick not standing. 25 Counsel on behalf of Mr. Hodgson not
861 standing. 2 Counsel on behalf of Mr. Beaubien...? 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: At this point I 4 reserve ten (10) minutes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ten (10) 6 minutes. 7 Counsel on behalf of Mr. Hutton -- 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ten (10) minutes for 9 Mr. Sulman on behalf of Mr. Beaubien, thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Hutton's 11 Counsel is not standing. 12 Counsel on behalf of the OPP...? 13 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Approximately 14 forty-five (45) minutes. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Counsel for the OPP 16 indicated approximately forty-five (45) minutes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Counsel for 18 the OPPA is not standing. 19 Province of Ontario is not present. 20 Municipality of Lambton Shores...? 21 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Ten (10) minutes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 23 is there somebody here for the Province of Ontario? I 24 don't see anybody. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think there is
871 someone here. Perhaps we could go down the list and -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And come 3 back? 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And come back to the 5 Province, yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ms. Clermont said ten 8 (10) minutes on behalf of the Municipality. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Counsel for 10 the Chief Coroner not standing. 11 Mr. Zbogar...? 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The Estate and Family 13 will reserve fifteen (15) to thirty (30) minutes. I 14 should also let you know, Mr. Commissioner, that we've 15 asked if we could switch places in the cross-examination 16 order with the ALST, which all of the other Aboriginal 17 Counsel have agreed to, if that's okay with you -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- we'll do that. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 Counsel on behalf of the Aazhoodena and 22 George Family Group, Mr. Rosenthal...? 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good morning, Mr. 24 Commissioner. I've estimated an hour to and hour and a 25 half. However, that does not include anything in respect
881 of discipline files. I may or may not get into that 2 area, depending on what Mr. Falconer does with it, so 3 it's an hour to an hour and a half not including 4 discipline. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: So Mr. Rosenthal 6 indicated, on behalf of Aazhoodena and George Family 7 Group, an hour to one (1) and a half hours, not including 8 discipline issues. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 10 Scullion...? 11 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I reserve thirty 12 (30) minutes, depending on what goes before. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Scullion reserves 14 thirty (30) minutes, depending on what went before. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And the 16 Kettle and Stony Point First Nation...? 17 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: Thirty (30) minutes 18 depending on what precedes. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And the 20 Chiefs -- 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Thirty (30) minutes 22 again. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The Chiefs 24 of Ontario...? 25 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Twenty (20) to
891 thirty (30) minutes, depending on what goes before. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Aboriginal 3 Legal Services...? 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Two (2) to three 5 (3) hours. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The ALST, two (2) to 7 three (3) hours. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That -- and 9 that includes discipline, of course, to the extent that 10 you can? If you reach a point where you can't, I mean I 11 assume you're not going to not ask questions about 12 discipline matters? 13 I assume that you're going to proceed to 14 the extent that you can? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm concerned about 16 yelling from the back, which is why I have -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- approached. 19 I've already made my submissions on my inabilities -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- so to repeat 22 them is, you've ruled and -- and I respect your ruling, 23 Mr. Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, that's 25 fine, Mr. Falconer. I appreciate that.
901 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The Government of 2 Ontario has nothing. No questions. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Counsel 4 on behalf of Mr. Runciman, depending on how others go? 5 MR. IAN SMITH: Yes, thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And do you 7 have some rough estimate as to how long that is, given 8 the minimum and maximum so we can judge where we are and 9 what we're doing? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: About seven and a half 14 (7 1/2) hours. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So all 16 things being equal, we may not finish today, but we will 17 finish some time tomorrow. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Tomorrow morning. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tomorrow 20 morning with Mr. Runciman. I know we've already had a 21 morning break, but I would like to take a very short 22 break now, if we could. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sure. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess.
911 2 --- Upon recessing at 11:07 a.m. 3 --- Upon resuming at 11:28 a.m. 4 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 6 resumed. Please be seated. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Sulman, 8 I think you're first up on behalf of Mr. Beaubien. 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Thank you, Mr. 10 Commissioner, and good morning. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 12 morning. 13 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Good morning, Mr. 14 Runciman. 15 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 16 17 ROBERT WILLIAM RUNCIMAN, resumed 18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 20 Q: As the Commissioner stated, my name 21 is Douglas Sulman and I act for Marcel Beaubien, who you 22 know -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- was the local MPP in 1995. 25 A: Right.
921 Q: And I really want to ask you about a 2 very narrow issue and it -- it results from your resume 3 and your experience and it's something I think you can 4 help me with and help the Commission with. 5 And that is, you have been a member of 6 parliament since 1981 and almost twenty-five (25) years, 7 coming onto twenty-five (25) years, correct? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And the riding that you represent, 10 although the names have changed over the years, is 11 basically, my understanding, a rural Ontario riding? 12 A: Small town, rural. 13 Q: Right. Not dissimilar to the type of 14 riding that my Client represented in 1995, correct? 15 A: I believe so. 16 Q: Okay. And that's where you can 17 probably give us some assistance in understanding the 18 role of an MPP. 19 A: All right. 20 Q: And I'd suggest to you, sir, that the 21 role of a back bench MPP, who's not in Cabinet and maybe 22 -- maybe I can make that clear, is to convey the feelings 23 and concerns and views of his constituents to the 24 Government apparatus at Queen's Park, if I can put it 25 that way.
931 Is that fair? 2 A: I believe that's fair. 3 Q: And so did you find that as a rural 4 back bench MPP yourself, in the initial years, that often 5 issues that were important in the rural riding, far 6 distant from Toronto, because you're probably equal 7 distance from Toronto in your riding as -- as Lambton is, 8 right? 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: Did you find that the issues that 11 were important in the rural riding, often just didn't get 12 on the Government's radar in Toronto, unless the local 13 MPP made an effort to make the Government aware of the 14 issues and its constituents' concerns. 15 Is that a fair comment? 16 A: It's probably a fair comment. 17 Q: And at least it's one that would be 18 perceived in the local riding -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 20 Q: -- as a fair comment. Correct? 21 A: Yes, that's correct. 22 Q: And the way for a government back 23 bench MPP to bring those issues forward to the attention 24 of the Government in Toronto, is to make calls to the 25 Caucus liaison officer, right?
941 A: Yes. 2 Q: To make calls to, and or contact, now 3 probably by e-mail, but back in 1995 by calls or letters 4 to the Ministry executive assistants, correct? 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: That's the process? 7 A: Yes, that's one (1) way, yes. 8 Q: And another is to write ministers 9 with your concerns, correct? 10 A: And/or raise the issue in a -- in a 11 Caucus meeting. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: But at Caucus meetings you're given - 15 - as a back bench MPP there's a limited period of time 16 that you're given to raise those concerns. 17 A: That's true. 18 Q: Correct? 19 A: That's true. 20 Q: And so I suggest to you that the 21 prime role of a back bench MPP is really to be a voice of 22 his or her constituents at Queen's Park? 23 A: It should be the prime role of every 24 elected official, as far as I'm concerned. 25 Q: As -- as electors we'd all like to
951 think that anyway. 2 A: Hmm hmm, yes. 3 Q: But, in fact, for an MPP, his role is 4 really centred on constituents, right? 5 A: That's true. 6 Q: And, in fact, I'd suggest to you, 7 that's the job; that when he is sworn into office that's 8 the job he's sworn to perform. 9 Is that fair? 10 A: That's fair. 11 Q: Okay. And so if an MPP has what his 12 constituents perceive to be a crisis in his riding, you 13 wouldn't find it improper to provide information to OPP 14 sergeants or local inspectors with regard to that 15 problem? That doesn't seem improper does it? 16 A: Provide information from -- an MPP to 17 provide information to -- to -- 18 Q: Local sergeants, local OPP officials. 19 A: I think that's a bit of a grey area. 20 Q: Well, I'm centered on information at 21 this point so. 22 A: Yeah. It depends if you're relaying 23 constituent concerns; that's what your referencing? 24 Q: That's exactly, sir. 25 A: Yeah. I don't see anything wrong
961 with that. 2 Q: Okay. As a local MPP, rural MPP 3 yourself, do you believe you're sworn duty to your 4 constituents when there's a crisis occurs, is to 5 communicate with local law enforcement officers and 6 higher officials, higher ups at Queens Park? 7 Now, I realize you're -- when you're in 8 the Cabinet it -- you're in a different position. But as 9 a backbench local MPP which you are now -- 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: -- or an opposition MPP -- 12 A: I guess it's the nature of the -- of 13 the information obviously. I know there have been 14 instances, for example, cottage owners in -- in my 15 riding -- 16 Q: Hmm hmm. 17 A: -- who are not resident in -- in the 18 winter, would call my office, as an example, complaining 19 about the lack of policing and, you know, break-ins in 20 the -- in the cottages in the -- in the off-season. 21 And that's the sort of thing that we would 22 certainly call the local detachment and make them aware 23 of. 24 Q: Right. You wouldn't be instructing 25 the local detachment what to do --
971 A: No. 2 Q: -- you'd be providing them with 3 information? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: And there's no impropriety in your 6 view in that, correct? 7 A: No impropriety. I think that's the 8 appropriate thing to do. 9 Q: Okay. And in the situation where 10 there is a crisis in -- in say your riding, isn't the 11 alternative between communicating with local law 12 enforcement officers, communicating with higher ups at 13 Queens Park, simply taking no action and disappearing, 14 and isn't that inappropriate; given your sworn duty to 15 represent your constituents? 16 A: Well I suppose that would have been 17 an extreme alternative. I mean, I guess there could be 18 varying degrees of action and involvement. 19 Q: But, taking no action would be 20 inappropriate, correct? 21 A: I would think so. 22 Q: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 24 very much. 25 Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? Ms. Tuck-Jackson
981 represents the OPP. I'm sure you're aware of that, are 2 you, Mr. Runciman? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Good morning 7 again, Mr. Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 9 morning. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 12 Q: And good morning, Mr. Runciman. 13 A: Good morning. 14 Q: And as Mr. Justice Linden has 15 indicated, my name is Andrea Tuck-Jackson. I'm going to 16 ask you some questions on behalf of the OPP. 17 And if I may begin, sir, if you could 18 turn, in your black binder, to Tab 50 please. 19 My Friend, Mr. Millar, took you to what 20 has been marked as Exhibit P-469 in these proceedings, it 21 appears at Tab 50, and it's a transcript of a telephone 22 conversation that we understand took place on the evening 23 of September the 6th at about twenty (20) to 10:00 at 24 night between then Superintendent Parkin and Inspector 25 Linton.
991 And in particular, sir, he took you to a 2 passage that commences at page 12. And now if I could 3 just ask you to turn to that in case you need to refresh 4 your memory by referring to it. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: Now, leaving aside for the moment, 7 the apparent confusion on the part of Superintendent 8 Parkin as to when the conversation between yourself and 9 former Commissioner O'Grady took place about the approach 10 that the OPP take to blockades or occupations. 11 As I understand your evidence from 12 yesterday, you don't dispute the following three (3) 13 points. And first of all as I understand, sir, from your 14 evidence, that you don't dispute that during a lunch 15 meeting that took place, as we've heard from Commissioner 16 O'Grady on August the 28th, he likely briefed you as to 17 the approach that the OPP takes with regards to 18 occupations and blockades. 19 And namely that is to keep the peace, to 20 negotiate and to receive appropriate direction from the 21 Courts as to any occupied land. 22 You don't dispute that that likely 23 occurred? 24 A: I do not. 25 Q: Thank you. And secondly, sir, that
1001 having regard to the timing of that meeting, so putting 2 it in the context that it was right at the end of August 3 1995, literally within a week or so of the occupation, it 4 was likely that former Commissioner O'Grady was briefing 5 you about the appropriate approach of the OPP to 6 blockades, in the context of information that was at 7 large about the likelihood that Ipperwash Park was going 8 to be occupied. 9 You don't -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 11 pretty hard question. That's a pretty difficult question 12 but I see Mr. Falconer is on his feet, so. 13 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My objection is it 14 calls for sheer speculation. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 16 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Well -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The Witness has 18 indicated -- the Witness has indicated that he has no 19 recollection of what was discussed and my submission is, 20 it's one thing to say I'm going to try to jog your memory 21 with 'X' or with 'Y', but what -- what the nature of the 22 question calls for, with respect, unhelpful evidence. 23 Even if the witness was about to say, Yes, 24 that's right, those are all the things that he did, with 25 great respect, it is problematic.
1011 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Let me put it a 2 different way, then, Mr. Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: My Friend has 5 raised a valid point. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 8 Q: When Commissioner O'Grady testified, 9 he indicated that the context of providing this briefing 10 to you was that he was, in all likelihood, drawing to 11 your attention the likelihood that the Park was going to 12 be occupied, having regard to information that the OPP 13 had. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's two 15 (2) likelihoods in there, in that question, so I'm not 16 sure if that's even any clearer. 17 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, the 18 difficulty there now is, and I object, with all due 19 respect to Ms. Tuck-Jackson, she's not advising the 20 Witness of Commissioner O'Grady's self-confessed memory 21 problems about what was discussed on the 28th. 22 In other words, he had problems 23 remembering. 24 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: That's why I 25 qualified it with the word "likely", actually.
1021 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's to be 2 fair, that's not actually -- it would have been more -- 3 you cannot use the evidence of someone who cannot 4 remember to trigger the evidence of somebody else who 5 can't remember, unless you simply want to create non- 6 probative evidence, with respect. 7 I mean, it just doesn't help. If we have 8 a foggy memory on the one hand, using it to trigger 9 anybody else's memory is just double speculation. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 11 why I said there are two (2) likelihoods in there. 12 Yes, Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? 13 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: I understand. 14 All right. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 17 Q: Mr. Runciman, let me put it a 18 different way, then. 19 Would you have any reason to dispute that 20 Commissioner O'Grady drew to your attention, at the end 21 of August of 1995, information that the OPP had received 22 that the Park would possibly be occupied, the beginning 23 of September 1995? 24 A: You know, I'm not -- I certainly 25 don't dispute it. I've said about that meeting, to be
1031 fair, that it was a -- an informal get-together. It 2 wasn't a formal briefing on any specific topic. 3 Q: Very well, then. And again, 4 recognizing the limits of your recall, I trust, sir, that 5 you would not have expressed any concern about that 6 approach being taken by the OPP in relation to an 7 occupation or blockade of that nature? 8 A: No, again on the assumption that it 9 was discussed, it would have been a series of things that 10 were being referenced by -- by the Commissioner in a -- 11 in a -- I think we were out for lunch for perhaps an hour 12 and a half, something like that, and the bulk of the 13 conversation focussed on the reporting relationships I 14 think I indicated yesterday. 15 So, I don't think any -- any lengthy time 16 was devoted on -- to specific issues. As I said, this 17 was more of a getting acquainted kind of opportunity. 18 Q: I understand. My point only, sir, is 19 that you, in your position as Solicitor General, would 20 certainly not have been opposed to an approach that 21 included keeping the peace, negotiation, and waiting for 22 direction from the Court? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Thank you. And finally, as you did 25 indicate yesterday, but I do want to make it perfectly
1041 clear, as I understand your evidence, you share 2 Commissioner O'Grady's recollection that at no time on 3 September the 4th, 5th, or 6th, did you have any contact 4 with him directly or indirectly about Ipperwash? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: Thank you, sir. Now, I anticipate, 7 moving on to a different area, that former Minister 8 Hodgson will say that on the morning of the 6th, and I 9 anticipate that he's going to be testifying that it was 10 following the Interministerial Committee Meeting that 11 took place that morning, that he had a meeting at the 12 Solicitor General's office that involved yourself, a 13 number of executive assistants, and Ron Fox. 14 So to follow this logically and having 15 regard to other evidence we've heard it would be at some 16 point either before or during the same timeframe as the 17 Cabinet meeting that was scheduled for that day and 18 certainly prior to the infamous dining room meeting that 19 we've heard so much about. 20 Now, I can also tell you, sir, that we've 21 heard from Kathryn Hunt and Dr. Todres and Superintendent 22 Fox that they don't have any recollection of any such 23 meeting and I just wanted to clarify your position, sir, 24 that the only time that you met with then Minister 25 Hodgson on the 6th is for -- with certainty during the
1051 course of the dining room meeting and quite possibly 2 during the Cabinet meeting, but at no other time in 3 relation to Ipperwash? 4 A: That's correct. I can elaborate if 5 you wish. Cabinet meeting mornings as I said yesterday 6 were very time sensitive. I had to be prepared for the 7 meeting in terms of a -- a briefing in terms of what was 8 going to occur at Cabinet. 9 Q: Hmm hmm. 10 A: I chaired Cabinet meetings so I had 11 to be there ahead of time if you will to start the 12 meeting on time. So it was virtually impossible to have 13 a type of a meeting prior to -- on a Cabinet day. 14 Q: Thank you, Mr. Runciman. Yesterday 15 My Friend Mr. Millar asked you a number of questions 16 about letters that you sent under your name to the 17 Honourable Herb Gray requesting certain equipment to be 18 of assistance to the OPP. 19 And if I can, sir, I'd like to take you to 20 Tab 52 of the binder, a letter dated September the 7th, 21 1995, and marked as Exhibit P-599. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And I'd also ask, sir, that you keep 24 your finger there and you also turn to Tab 83 Exhibit P- 25 932.
1061 A: Yes. 2 Q: That again is a letter under your 3 signature dated September the 19th, 1995. And there are 4 two (2) points that I just wanted to make clear for the 5 record. 6 You'll note in respect of Exhibit P-599, 7 that is at Tab 52, at the very bottom of the page you 8 write the following: 9 "OPP Commissioner Thomas B. O'Grady has 10 asked that I seek your assistance to 11 arrange an agreement for the loan or 12 lease of this type of vehicle on an as- 13 needed basis." 14 I've read that correctly have I? 15 A: You have. 16 Q: And I trust, sir, it was your 17 understanding that the request was being made by the OPP 18 not because they had an immediate need for the APC, but 19 it was in case it was needed that you were requesting it? 20 A: Yes, I think that's fair. The -- I 21 had -- this came to my attention following the death of 22 Mr. George so I think that whether it was brought forward 23 prior to that time or not is another issue, but in terms 24 of my knowledge and the -- and the request coming to my 25 attention was following the death.
1071 Q: Right. The only point, sir, that -- 2 that I was making is that it was a contingency -- 3 A: Yes, that's -- 4 Q: -- plan if I can put it that way? 5 A: -- that's -- that's fair. 6 Q: All right. And then turning then, 7 sir, to Tab 83, Exhibit P-932, I noted, sir, in the final 8 paragraph of your letter that you wrote: 9 "For your information OPP 10 representative and Land Forces Central 11 Area Headquarters have discussed 12 arrangements for the use of four (4) 13 Bison armoured personnel carriers to be 14 utilized for emergency evacuation of 15 civilians or OPP personnel." 16 Now again what appears to have happened is 17 that you're providing an update that you no longer 18 require the APC from the DND because it would appear the 19 OPP had sourced it elsewhere, but that's not what I'm 20 interested in and that's not what I'm focussing on. 21 I trust, sir, it was your understanding 22 that the only need foreseen for such a vehicle by the OPP 23 was for, in essence, a rescue mission, if I can put it 24 that way, for the emergency evacuation of civilians or 25 OPP personnel.
1081 That was your understanding? 2 A: That was. 3 Q: It was not, so to speak, for any type 4 of an offensive manoeuver? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: Thank you. Now I would like to turn, 7 sir, if I can, to your relationship with then Inspector 8 Ron Fox. And I gather, sir, from your evidence, that, as 9 compared with Dr. Todres, you had less of an opportunity 10 to have regular one on one contact with Ron Fox. 11 Is that fair? 12 A: That's fair. 13 Q: All right. And I acknowledge that. 14 And with that limitation in mind, however, I still, 15 nonetheless, want to ask you some questions about your 16 assessment of his abilities. 17 Dr. Todres testified before us that in her 18 dealings with Ron Fox, she found that he exhibited a high 19 degree of sensitivity to First Nations issues. And I 20 trust, sir, that in your dealings with Ron Fox, you made 21 a similar observation. 22 A: I think that's fair. 23 Q: She further testified that he 24 demonstrated to her a considerable knowledge and 25 expertise in the area. And again, I trust in your
1091 interaction with him you found the same quality? 2 A: To be fair, over time I did. 3 Certainly with respect to the time frame we're talking 4 about, I really didn't have an opportunity to get to know 5 him or get to appreciate his -- his knowledge. 6 Q: I understand and I -- I should have, 7 in fairness to you, qualified my questions and I'm not 8 restricting it solely to the period of late summer and 9 early fall of 1995. 10 Q: Right. 11 A: I speak of the full duration of your 12 relationship with him. 13 A: Right. 14 Q: Dr. Todres also found him, as she 15 testified to us, to have impeccable judgment. And I 16 trust, sir, that in your dealings with him, you found no 17 reason to disagree with that? 18 A: No reason. 19 Q: She also testified before us that she 20 found him to be calm under pressure and not easily prone 21 to lose his cool. And again, I trust that was your 22 experience with him. 23 A: I think that's fair. 24 Q: She also found that whenever she 25 received a report from him, whether it was orally or in
1101 writing, that they presented as factual and not prone to 2 exaggeration or hyperbole. 3 And again, sir, I trust you have no reason 4 to disagree with that? 5 A: I can't recall any criticism of 6 quality of work. 7 Q: And particularly on the issues of 8 exaggeration? 9 A: That's true. 10 Q: Thank you. Now moving then beyond 11 your -- your assessment of Inspector Fox, I trust, sir, 12 that during the course of your dealings with former 13 Commissioner O'Grady and other senior officers who may 14 have accompanied him, you found every indication from 15 these individuals that there was a commitment on their 16 part to Aboriginal policing within the higher echelons of 17 the OPP? 18 A: I -- I think that's fair as well, 19 yes. 20 Q: And in particular, sir, I'm going to 21 suggest to you that you -- you saw a commitment on their 22 part to making self policing a priority? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And that commitment, by way of 25 example, was reflected in the quality of the officers who
1111 were seconded to your Ministry as special advisors in the 2 area of First Nations? 3 A: Well, you know, they're good people. 4 I have no -- no fault or criticism, that's for sure. 5 Q: You spoke today in response to 6 questions by My Friend Mr. Millar about certain dealings 7 that you had with former Commissioner O'Grady in relation 8 to the discipline and the response of the OPP to the 9 incidents of misconduct, or inappropriate conduct that 10 were found to have occurred in relation to Ipperwash. 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: And I trust, sir, that in your 13 dealings with former Commissioner O'Grady on that issue, 14 he left with you -- left you with the impression, rather, 15 that he took those incidents very seriously? 16 A: I don't recall if there was ever a 17 direct conversation with respect to -- to that issue. It 18 -- in -- my suspicion is that it would have been my view 19 of -- of the actions would have been conveyed to the 20 deputy and perhaps through the deputy, the Commissioner 21 would have been made aware of the fact that I was, as I'm 22 sure he was, upset. 23 But I didn't feel, in any of these 24 situations, that it was appropriate for me to be, sort 25 of, dressing down the Commissioner, if you will, with
1121 respect to the inappropriate activities of any member of 2 the OPP. 3 Q: I understand, sir, and I would 4 suggest that that reflects, on your part, an awareness of 5 the limitations of your role as Solicitor General. 6 In -- in describing, for example, the 7 development of the four (4) day First Nations awareness 8 program that the OPP developed, and further the protocol 9 that was developed to ensure that OPP insignia was not 10 used inappropriately in the future, I trust that the 11 actions of the senior management within the OPP, as a 12 response to this inappropriate conduct, sent you a 13 message that they were committed to ensuring that this 14 type of thing didn't happen again? 15 A: I believe we were persuaded that they 16 were taking the appropriate steps. 17 Q: Thank you, sir. Yesterday, Mr. 18 Runciman, you told the Inquiry, again very, very fairly, 19 that with the benefit of hindsight, you had some concerns 20 about MPP Beaubien meeting with officers like John 21 Carson, as we've heard occurred on August the 11th, 1995. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And I believe that My Friend Mr. 24 Sulman has very fairly put in context the nature of those 25 types of exchanges, and that one must be cautious before
1131 we throw the baby out with the bath water, if I can put 2 it that way, in terms of eliminating those kinds of 3 discussions which, indeed, can be very helpful. 4 A: Right. 5 Q: And I can advise you, sir, that 6 former deputy Attorney General Taman expressed similar 7 reservations about that type of con -- contact. 8 But I also put to him a series of 9 questions and I want to put to you a series of similar 10 questions. And I trust you'd agree that the contact, as 11 between a local MPP and its value or its appropriateness, 12 has to be a function of the context of the contact. 13 You'd agree with that? 14 A: Yes, I would. 15 Q: And, indeed, it has to be a function 16 of the content of the information or words that are being 17 exchanged? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And I trust, sir, that you would also 20 agree that the value and appropriateness of such contact 21 is also a function of the integrity of the individuals 22 involved? 23 A: I would assume so. 24 Q: And in particular, with respect to -- 25 I'm interested in half of the component, as you can fully
1141 appreciate. I'm interested in the component police 2 officer -- 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: -- involved in that conversation. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: And so, in particular, I trust that 7 the value or appropriateness of the contact between those 8 individuals depends on the integrity of the police 9 officer involved, because what we're concerned about here 10 is whether the contact has any inappropriate influence on 11 the police officer, right? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. So -- 14 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I object to 15 that question. With great respect, we are not only 16 interested in whether the officer, to use the -- use the 17 analogy used of Commissioner O'Grady, we are not only 18 interested whether the officer accepted the bribe, we 19 want to know and we're interested in whether a bribe was 20 offered. 21 So when My Friend says what she says in 22 the broad strokes, excuse me, that she did, she may be 23 misrepresenting the nature, certainly, of Aboriginal 24 Legal Services of Toronto's position, which are both 25 issues are of great importance.
1151 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: And I -- I 3 didn't intend any disrespect in that regard. What I 4 should have said is what I am particularly interested in. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: All right. And 7 I will qualify it to that extent. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 10 Q: I trust, sir, that the value and 11 appropriateness of that type of contact, from the 12 perspective of the police officer involved, is a function 13 of his understanding of his roles and responsibilities 14 and duties as a police officer, you'd agree with that? 15 A: Certainly I'd agree with that. He 16 would -- he would hope if a politician of whatever 17 ranking was either perceived to be or actually trying to 18 apply pressure that -- that they would not succumb, they 19 would understand the -- the rules of the game. 20 Q: Fair enough. And that -- that's 21 using an extreme example if indeed the nature of the 22 contact is an effort to influence -- 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: -- as opposed to simply providing 25 information.
1161 A: Yes, that's right. 2 Q: But I -- what I hear you telling us 3 is that if you can be satisfied that the police officer 4 such as John Carson because that's who we are talking 5 about here. 6 If you can be satisfied that that 7 individual has a keen understanding of his statutory 8 duties and what governs his exercise as discretion as to 9 what he must do you'd be less concerned about the nature 10 of contact between himself and a politician? 11 A: Safe assumption I guess. 12 Q: Thank you. Finally, sir, I'm going 13 to turn to the dining room meeting. 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Now, Mr. 16 Commissioner, I notice it's just about twelve o'clock. 17 Did you want me to finish my examination or did you want 18 me to break for lunch? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 20 would be preferable if you could finish if you just have 21 one (1) more area to cover. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: How long will you be? 23 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: I may be 24 fifteen (15) minutes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think that
1171 would be fine. 2 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: All right. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 5 Q: Now, I should say to you, sir, at the 6 outset that none of my questions are going to be in any 7 way critical of you as to what you said or what you did 8 at that meeting and as you may already know Inspector 9 Patrick and Superintendent Fox in their testimony were 10 not critical of you as it relates to your actions at that 11 meeting. 12 And I want to begin, sir, if I can on the 13 issue of -- of the frailties of memory which is a common 14 theme I can assure you has come up during this Inquiry. 15 Q: Right. 16 A: And you, sir, have been very candid 17 with us as to the limits of the level of detail that you 18 have at your disposal in your memory as to what was said 19 at that meeting. 20 And to state the obvious for the record 21 you are clearly providing an account of events which 22 transpired now more than ten (10) years ago, correct? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And I trust, sir, that you recognize 25 the limitations that that time lapse if I can put it that
1181 way imposes upon you? 2 A: Very much so. 3 Q: And perhaps the most perfect example 4 of that is that it appears to be uncontested by the 5 Parties and if -- if I'm wrong I know somebody will jump 6 up to -- to correct me, but it appears to be uncontested 7 that Ron Fox was actually present for at least part of 8 that meeting. 9 And as you've told us very fairly today 10 presently you have no recollection of him being in the 11 meeting, correct? 12 A: I, in terms of my memory, I recall 13 people around the table, not so much people who were 14 sitting off to the side. 15 Q: I understand. 16 A: No. 17 Q: But again as I heard you tell us 18 yesterday, you have no specific recollection today that 19 Ron Fox was one (1) of those individuals in that room? 20 A: No, but I accept that he was. 21 Q: Yes. No, I understand. I 22 understand. 23 And -- and I find that interesting and 24 again I don't put this to you by way of a criticism and I 25 want to make that very clear, but I read your examination
1191 for discovery transcript and again I don't believe it's 2 contested, sir, that you provided evidence during the 3 course of examination for discovery in relation to the 4 related civil proceedings on September 20th, 2001. 5 Do I have that correct? 6 A: I'll accept that. 7 Q: I can tell you it's on the front of 8 the transcript. 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: So I don't think there's any reason 11 to -- to be disagreeing with it. 12 And for the benefit of My Friends I'm 13 referring to pages 28 to 29 and also page 39. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: And what I found interesting, sir, is 18 that approximately what, four and a half (4 1/2) years 19 ago in relation to the timing of the examination for 20 discovery -- sure. I have it up on the screen if it's of 21 assistance to you, Mr. Runciman. 22 If we go towards the bottom of page 28 23 that would be of assistance -- whoa, whoa, okay. 24 Mr. Klippenstein is asking you some 25 questions about the dining room meeting and starting at
1201 line 21 on page 28, he asks you the following question: 2 "Could you describe that to me?" 3 And your response is recorded in the 4 transcript is as follows: 5 "That was a meeting very shortly after. 6 I'm not sure of dates or timing after 7 the occupation of the Park. 8 It was a meeting in the dining room off 9 of the executive counsel chambers to 10 discuss the situation and I believe it 11 was following a Cabinet meeting. It 12 was attended by myself and the Attorney 13 General, the Minister of Natural 14 Resources, our executive assistants and 15 our deputies and Inspector Fox and the 16 Premier." 17 You go on and then if I could take you to 18 page 39, starting at line 13. 19 "Q: You say it was primarily 20 [referring to the meeting] it was 21 primarily focussed on the injunction. 22 What other issues other than the 23 injunction were discussed? 24 A: I can't recall. Inspector Fox was 25 there. He may have and the Deputy from
1211 the Ministry of Natural Resources I 2 believe gave us an update on what was 3 happening from the Natural Resources 4 perspective. 5 I can't recall Inspector Fox 6 participating but he may have. 7 Q: You say you can't recall Mr. Fox 8 participating but he might have. So 9 you can't say that he did not 10 participate? 11 A: No I can't. 12 Q: Do you know if Mr. Fox was there 13 at the beginning of the meeting? 14 A: I can't recall." 15 Now just pausing there for a moment. What 16 it appears, sir, is that in 2001 you had a recollection 17 that Mr. Fox was present in the meeting. 18 My only point is that even in the passage 19 of four and a half (4 1/2) years since that point, your 20 recollection of the events is now such that you can't 21 even have that piece in your mind still with any 22 confidence? 23 A: Well I would disagree with you. I - 24 - I don't see that as a contradiction at all. I was, you 25 know, in the interim between the incident we're talking
1221 about how many years, six (6) years something like that 2 by the time this occurred. 3 Q: Right. 4 A: And over the course of those years I 5 was certainly advised that Mr. Fox -- Inspector Fox was 6 in attendance. I did not -- I haven't seen it where I've 7 indicated that I recall him being present at the meeting. 8 I've indicated that he was present. 9 And I do not recall him being at the 10 meeting. And I didn't recall it in 2001. 11 Q: All right. That's what I wanted to 12 clarify. All right. 13 So your position is, is that in 2001 you 14 didn't recall him being present either? 15 A: No. I was advised he was at the 16 meeting. 17 Q: I understand, sir. All right. Thank 18 you for clarifying that. And again, I -- I don't want 19 you to interpret that I was suggesting that your position 20 is shifting. I'm just trying to explore the vagaries of 21 memory as they say, sir. 22 A: Right. 23 Q: Now, also it's perfectly self evident 24 that you're giving your evidence today without the 25 benefit of any notes that you took during the course of
1231 that dining room meeting, correct? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And also without the benefit of any 4 notes taken under your direction at that meeting, 5 correct? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: All right. And unlike Superintendent 8 Fox for example, you don't have the benefit of a taped 9 phone call that was made within hours of the meeting 10 which appears to capture at least part of what transpired 11 at that meeting. 12 You don't have the benefit of that to 13 refresh your memory, do you? 14 A: No, I do not. 15 Q: No. And can you assist us, sir, how 16 long it was after the meeting that you were asked to 17 recreate the events as to what took place and who said 18 what? 19 A: I suspect it was some time after the 20 events. But specifically I can't recall. I know that 21 there were allegations made very -- very quickly after 22 the -- after the shooting. 23 Q: Would it be fair to say that you 24 weren't asked to turn your mind to the matter for say six 25 (6) months after then?
1241 A: That's possible. That's quite 2 possible, yes. 3 Q: And you appreciate I'm sure, sir, 4 that the longer that timeframe is after the fact where 5 you have to recreate what occurred in a twenty (20) to 6 thirty (30) minute meeting -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- the harder it is to do it with any 9 degree of -- of accuracy? 10 A: I think that's been indicated by 11 testimony from various witnesses. 12 Q: Indeed it has, sir. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And you don't disagree with that? 15 A: I don't. 16 Q: We've heard from two (2) witnesses, 17 particularly Dr. Todres and Inspector Patrick, that their 18 ability to hear what took place at that meeting was, to a 19 certain degree, impaired by an air conditioner that was 20 operating. 21 Do you have any recollection of an air 22 conditioner being on? 23 A: No, I don't. 24 Q: All right. And as you've made it 25 clear to us and I can tell you that I don't dispute it in
1251 any way, you did not say anything during the course of 2 that meeting; correct? 3 A: I don't believe I did, no. 4 Q: And as you told us yesterday, your -- 5 your view of it was to attend as an observer, to respond 6 to a question if it -- if it came up, as it related to 7 your particular Ministry, but primarily you were there as 8 an observer? 9 A: That was my understanding, unless a 10 specific issue came up that directed towards me or the 11 Ministry. 12 Q: And would it be fair, sir, that 13 perhaps another feature that might explain your inability 14 to describe conversations that others have described is 15 that these were conversations to which you were not a 16 direct participant? 17 In other words, you're standing back as an 18 observer, you weren't a direct participant in a 19 conversation. 20 And I'm just wondering, sir, if you'd 21 agree, having regard to commonsense and human experience, 22 that it's more difficult for you having to recreate a 23 conversation to which you were not a party? 24 A: Well, if I wasn't a party, then I 25 agree with you there. I mean, I -- as I indicated
1261 yesterday in my testimony, there was -- the Premier came 2 in after most of us were in the room; that's my 3 recollection, and left immediately. 4 Now with respect to other participants, 5 some may have stayed and -- and carry on a conversation 6 and -- and that's about all I can add to your -- your 7 question. 8 Q: I understand and I'm going to be 9 getting to that point in a minute. 10 I trust that you'd agree with me that, 11 having regard to all of these factors that we've talked 12 about, the passage of the time, that you don't have any 13 notes to assist you in refreshing your memory; that you 14 weren't a direct participant in the conversations. 15 I'd trust you'd agree with me and again, 16 I'll be candid with you, I'm using the language that you 17 used in your examination for discovery, I trust you'd 18 agree that you simply do not recall a lot of the details 19 of that meeting? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Okay. Yesterday, you described or 22 conveyed to us that then-Premier Harris had a certain 23 level of concern or was anxious about the Ipperwash 24 situation, correct? 25 A: I did.
1271 Q: All right. As it -- as he expressed 2 it during the course of the meeting. 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: All right. I'm, sir, not going to 5 take up the Commission's time and your time to try and 6 refresh your memory by referring to other people's 7 testimony as to what the Premier may have said or did 8 say. 9 We'll save that for argument at the end of 10 the day. 11 I'm more interested in the impressions 12 that he left with you by his words or reaction --excuse 13 me, words or his actions, and I found it very 14 interesting, for example, you commented yesterday about 15 his certain body language and by that he was able to 16 convey with a certain degree of authority, a position 17 that he felt. 18 Fair enough? 19 A: Yes, that's correct. 20 Q: All right. So leaving aside the 21 precise words that the Premier used during the course of 22 the meeting, I trust, sir, that it was clear to you that 23 he was expressing a level of concern or frustration at 24 the fact that the occupiers were still in the Park as of 25 September the 6th?
1281 A: Yes, I think that's a fair 2 observation. 3 Q: And again, sir, I trust that by his 4 words and his manner during the course of that meeting, 5 that as you indicated yesterday, he was concerned that 6 the situation had gotten to the point it was in? 7 A: Yes, I think it was -- I think it was 8 exacerbated, perhaps, by -- by the -- by the comments 9 made by the deputy Minister of Natural Resources. 10 Q: Yes. And as you again told us, very 11 fairly, yesterday, he may very well have expressed a 12 concern that the people had gotten into the Park in the 13 first place. 14 A: That is possible. 15 Q: Thank you. We've heard from both Dr. 16 Todres and Inspector Patrick, that during the course of 17 that meeting then Minister Hodgson referred to the Park 18 as his, and that he -- he wanted the Park back, and each 19 of them used different language, or attributed different 20 language to the Minister as to how he expressed himself 21 in that regard. 22 Does your level of recall, and if it 23 doesn't I - I want you to be perfectly candid with us, 24 but does your level of recall permit you that kind of 25 detail as to that having occurred?
1291 A: No, it doesn't. 2 Q: All right. And I trust, though, 3 because of the -- the limits of your level of recall, 4 you're not in a position to dispute that it may very well 5 have occurred? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: Okay. Dr. Todres also testified 8 before us that then Minister Hodgson presented as 9 extremely agitated and concerned, very concerned, about 10 the situation. And again, does your level of detail as 11 to recall permit you to -- to comment one (1) way or 12 another on that evidence? 13 A: No, it doesn't. 14 Q: All right. So again you're not in a 15 position to dispute her observation? 16 A: I'm not. 17 Q: Thank you. You told us yesterday 18 that you don't recall a discussion between then Minister 19 Hodgson and Inspector Fox after Premier Harris left. Do 20 I have that correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: But I also, as I understood your 23 evidence, in fairness, you may very well have left before 24 Minister Hodgson did? 25 A: It's quite possible.
1301 Q: Thank you. And finally, sir, you've 2 told us again, as you've been very candid, that you don't 3 have a specific recollection that Ron Fox was present at 4 the meeting, but you don't dispute that he was there? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: All right. I trust, sir, that during 7 the course of that meeting you received no indication 8 that somebody from the OPP was seeking direction from the 9 other participants of that meeting on operational 10 matters? 11 A: Not at all. 12 Q: And I trust, sir, that similarly you 13 received no indication that the OPP at that meeting were 14 taking direction on operational matters? 15 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Objection. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. I think that -- 17 I don't think that -- Mr. Runciman can't answer that 18 question. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 20 think that... 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No direction 23 was given. I think that's clear, but I don't think he 24 can go any further than that. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: How can he say -- just
1311 to -- how can he answer what was in the minds of the OPP, 2 Fox and -- unless there's some other -- 3 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Well, no, but - 4 - but I -- I thought I was very careful to word my 5 question that there was nothing by words or actions to 6 suggest that the OPP at that meeting would do anything to 7 take direction. I did qualify it by words or actions. 8 It's -- it's frankly the same question I've asked over 9 and over again of many people at the meeting. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know, 11 but I think the question is difficult for this Witness to 12 answer or any witness to answer the way it's put. I know 13 you've asked that question before, but when you think 14 about it, it's a difficult question for any witness to 15 answer what's in the mind of some other person. 16 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: But, sir, 17 respectfully, I'm not asking what's in the mind -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know 19 you're saying by words or actions. 20 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Precisely. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, if he can recall 22 any words or actions -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or actions. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- then that's a 25 different question. I took it really that Ms. Tuck-
1321 Jackson was asking for what was in his mind. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 3 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: No, I realize I 4 couldn't possibly ask the Witness to read minds unless 5 Mr. Runciman has a talent that -- that we don't know 6 about. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We don't 8 know about. By words or actions, if there was anything 9 that he saw or heard, right? 10 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: That suggested 11 that the OPP was taking direction from the participants 12 at that meeting? 13 THE WITNESS: You know, if anyone 14 construed it that way, it certainly wasn't conveyed to me 15 either on that date or later. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 18 Q: And it wasn't apparent to you? 19 A: It wasn't, no. 20 Q: When you went home for the day, no 21 doubt it was a very long day, Mr. Runciman, when you went 22 home for the day, I trust it was your expectation, in 23 relation to the Ipperwash occupation, that the police 24 were going to continue containing the matter, staying the 25 course, so to speak, and that they would be waiting for
1331 the outcome of the injunction application? 2 A: I believe that's right. 3 Q: And I trust, sir, that nothing, from 4 what you observed, occurred at that dining room meeting 5 that gave you any reason to believe that the crowd 6 management unit was going to be deployed that night? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Thank you, Mr. Runciman. Those are 9 my questions. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 11 Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 12 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. 13 Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 15 is an appropriate point for us to take a lunch break. 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 17 adjourned until 1:30. 18 19 --- Upon recessing at 12:19 a.m. 20 --- Upon resuming at 1:31 p.m. 21 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 23 resumed. Please be seated. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 25 Clermont...?
1341 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Good afternoon. 2 Good afternoon, Mr. Runciman. 3 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 5 afternoon. 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 8 Q: My name is Janet Clermont and I'm one 9 of the lawyers representing the Municipality of Lambton 10 Shores, formerly Bosanquet Township. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And I'm just interested in your 13 meeting that you had with Municipal officials on 14 September 12th, 1995. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And I wanted to turn up that press 17 release that was generated by the -- by your office as a 18 result of the -- the meeting; that's at Tab 69, Exhibit 19 P-994, Document 1001565. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you'll see that towards the 22 bottom of -- the bottom of the page there's some point 23 forms and those are -- those reflect the concerns that 24 were raised at the meeting. 25 And I just want to take you to the last
1351 paragraph, to the second sentence, and you're quoted as 2 saying: 3 "I told them that the Government [and 4 them I assume is referring to the 5 municipality but you can correct me if 6 I'm wrong] that the Government of 7 Ontario will support their efforts to 8 have the Federal Government resolve the 9 Camp Ipperwash issue which everyone 10 realizes is at the root of the current 11 situation." 12 And do -- do you recall making that -- 13 that statement? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Would that have been consistent with 16 -- with your thoughts at the time? 17 A: I believe so. 18 Q: And can you expand on what you may 19 have meant by this comment? Do you have recollection? 20 A: I think I referenced it yesterday, 21 that there was a -- a sense that if the Ipperwash -- the 22 Camp Ipperwash concerns had been addressed in a timely 23 way that the Park occupation might not have occurred. 24 I think it was that sentiment that -- 25 Q: Okay. And did any of the Municipal
1361 officials ever express frustration to you that the 2 Federal -- over the Federal Government's apparent refusal 3 to meet with them on the Camp Ipperwash issue? 4 Was that brought up at the meeting to 5 you -- 6 A: They may have but I -- I have no 7 recollection of that. 8 Q: I'm just going to take you to a press 9 release that may help refresh your memory. Page -- or 10 Tab 81, and this is Document Number 13000158 and this was 11 a press release from the Town of -- Town Bosanquet dated 12 September 18th, 1995. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: And had you ever seen a copy of this 15 press release? 16 A: I well may have, because I recall the 17 references Rose Marie Ur -- or Ur. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: So, I recall seeing that -- her 20 reference in some -- in some communication, but this 21 specific document I don't want to say with certainty but 22 I -- I may well have because of the reference to her, I 23 certainly do have some recollection of that. 24 Q: Okay. And I just want to draw your 25 attention to the -- the second point that's underlined:
1371 "Federal Government again refuses to 2 meet with Town officials." 3 And there was a reference with -- 4 reference with respect to the municipality's frustration 5 with the Federal Government. 6 And I'm wondering if that helps refresh 7 your memory, that paragraph, whether this was brought up 8 -- brought to your attention. 9 A: You know, again based on the -- on 10 this release, I think it's a safe assumption that it was, 11 but I can't recall specifics. 12 Q: You can't recall the specifics of -- 13 A: No. 14 Q: -- of what was discussed -- 15 A: No. 16 Q: -- and what -- 17 A: No, I can't. 18 Q: Okay. And just while we're on that - 19 - that document, if you look at point 5 under, Meeting 20 with Bob Runciman, there's some -- it appears that the 21 following point was made by counsel, number 5: 22 "The need to better inform the public 23 about what is happening." 24 And I'm wondering if you recall that -- 25 that point being made, and any discussion surrounding
1381 that? 2 A: I -- I really, in a specific way, 3 it's difficult to recall. I know that I -- I was 4 listening to concerns of -- of residents and in a -- a 5 very general way, that people were concerned about their 6 safety and their properties, but beyond that it's -- it's 7 just not there. 8 Q: Okay. No, that's fine. And I take 9 it that one of the purposes of the meeting was to -- was 10 to gather information regarding the Municipality's 11 concerns and the community's concerns? 12 A: Certainly that was a part of it and 13 it was to -- to the best of my ability, to -- to allay 14 their concerns. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: And to indicate that we were 17 listening and -- and either addressing them or would be 18 addressing them. 19 Q: Did you have the sense that -- that 20 the meeting affected that? 21 A: I think it -- it -- it probably did. 22 I think it had a -- I think that I was well received and 23 I'm sure that, as a result of the meeting, if there were 24 additional steps that could be taken, we would take them. 25 Q: So you -- I take it then, that --
1391 that the inclusion of the Municipality in this -- in 2 these discussions was important or you valued their 3 input? 4 A: Very much so. 5 Q: All right. And did you meet with the 6 Municipality after September 12th or was that the only 7 meeting that you can recall? 8 A: It's the only one I can recall. 9 Q: And what about prior to, during the 10 summer of 1995? 11 A: No, I don't -- don't think -- with 12 any Municipalities. 13 Q: Okay. Thank you. And there's just 14 one other document that I wanted to take you to. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 16 document an exhibit, the one you're referring to now? 17 I'm not sure if it's an exhibit now? 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Which one? 19 THE REGISTRAR: No, it's not an exhibit. 20 MS. JANET CLERMONT: I don't have it 21 marked as an exhibit. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That isn't an exhibit 23 -- it's not -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is it? 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No.
1401 MS. JANET CLERMONT: No. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. Do you 3 want to make that document an exhibit? 4 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Sure. That's fine. 5 THE REGISTRAR: P-1003, Your Honour. 6 7 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1003: Document Number 13000158. 8 Town of Bosanquet press 9 release, Sept. 18/'95. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 12 Q: And I want to turn your attention, 13 lastly, to Tab 74, and you were brought to this document 14 in-chief and I understand that you don't have a 15 recollection of seeing this document. 16 I just wanted to get -- 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: There's some 18 handwriting on that -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- document that we 21 don't know -- I don't know whose that is, but My Friend, 22 Ms. Clermont was really interested in the press release. 23 MS. JANET CLERMONT: That's right. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The typed part, not 25 the handwritten.
1411 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 2 a clean copy of it Ms. Clermont, that doesn't have any 3 writing on it? 4 MS. JANET CLERMONT: I do not. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, okay. 6 That's fine. 7 THE WITNESS: We're looking at Tab 74? 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 10 Q: Tab 74. 11 A: And this is the crisis management 12 strategy? 13 Q: The draft dated September -- 14 A: The draft, yes, okay. 15 Q: -- 13th, 1995. 16 A: Yes, I have it. 17 Q: And it's my understanding that the 18 purpose of this strategy was to formulate a 19 communications plan post-crisis. 20 And if I could turn your attention to page 21 5, I'm wondering if you can assist me with, under next 22 steps, if you have any knowledge of -- of what this is 23 referencing? 24 "Number 1, provide municipal 25 authorities with tactical and strategic
1421 communication advice and support." 2 Now, the second of -- the second point 3 talks about assisting and establishment of dialogue and 4 communications between native leadership and local 5 municipal authorities. 6 I'm wondering if you had -- if you have 7 any information on those next steps, whether they were 8 followed through or whether that was something that was 9 within your role, your responsibility? 10 A: I would think it would be something 11 that I would be apprised of. Whether it was followed 12 through on or not, I'm not sure. 13 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this 15 document an exhibit? 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: This document is -- 17 because it was a draft that Mr. Runciman hadn't -- we can 18 make it an exhibit, I have no objection -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 20 I'm saying. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- to making it -- 22 making an exhibit. I didn't make it because he didn't 23 think he had seen it. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I know 25 that, but now that you've made --
1431 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sure. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- specific 3 reference to it, do you want to make it an exhibit, Ms. 4 Clermont? 5 MS. JANET CLERMONT: All right. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sure. 7 MS. JANET CLERMONT: And I should say 8 that's document, 10012101. 9 THE REGISTRAR: P-1004, Your Honour. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1004: Document number 1001201. 12 Crisis Management Strategy, 13 Ipperwash Provincial Park 14 Occupation, Draft II, Sept. 15 13/'95. 16 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And Commissioner, 18 while Mr. Falconer is getting ready, I just need to leave 19 for a moment to pick something up. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 24 Ms. Claremont. 25 Mr. Falconer's next. We'll just take a
1441 minute. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Runciman. My 7 name is Julian Falconer. I act on behalf of Aboriginal 8 Legal Services of Toronto. 9 A: Good afternoon. 10 Q: Mr. Runciman, if I may ask you, given 11 the -- the gist of your testimony, thus far, in relation 12 to the dining room meeting, is it fair to say that 13 nothing occurred, as far as you saw or heard, that caused 14 you undue concern at the time? 15 A: At the time, no. 16 Q: All right. Now, we know that then 17 Inspector Fox was in attendance at the time. 18 Do you recall whether then Inspector Fox 19 expressed to you concern, at the time, as to what 20 transpired at the dining room meeting? 21 A: I don't believe we did. 22 Q: Do you recall whether anyone in 23 attendance at the dining room meeting, in and around 24 September 1995 through to May 1996, expressed concern to 25 you about what transpired at the dining room meeting?
1451 A: No, I don't. 2 Q: I'm sorry, I -- I made out "no," but 3 I -- 4 A: About what happened at the meeting? 5 No. 6 Q: All right. And by the way, my 7 question was a little bit broad and I'm concerned that it 8 may have been misunderstood. I'm talking about whether 9 anyone expressed to you concern about what transpired at 10 the meeting and the "anyone" was meant to address anyone 11 who was in attendance at that meeting. 12 A: Yes. No, I understand that. 13 Q: All right. Because, of course, if 14 one has regard to the questions on the floor of the 15 Legislature, there would have been people that expressed 16 concerns, generally, correct? 17 A: That's right. That's true. 18 Q: You testified, in answer to some 19 questions asked of you by the lawyer for the Ontario 20 Provincial Police, Ms. Tuck-Jackson, and I won't try to 21 re-create her eloquence, but amidst her questions, you 22 came through a view that you held, over the long term, 23 about the sound judgment and integrity of Officer Fox. 24 Is that fair? 25 A: I think that's fair.
1461 Q: All right. What I propose to do and 2 I -- and I want to ask you something. The evidence is 3 that now Superintendent Fox had a telephone conversation 4 roughly within an hour of the dining room meeting on 5 September 6th, 1995. 6 In other words, he spoke to Incident 7 Commander Carson and Chief Superintendent Coles within 8 roughly an hour of the end of the dining meeting at 2:00 9 p.m. that day. 10 Did you know that then? 11 A: No, I didn't. 12 Q: Have you learned that since? 13 A: I have. 14 Q: All right. And it's fair to say that 15 in that conversation, and we've heard from Officer Fox 16 about his feelings at the time, but the one -- I want to 17 ask you, have you had an opportunity to listen to a tape 18 of that conversation? 19 A: I may have heard excerpts of it and, 20 I think, through the media and that's the only -- I think 21 that's the only way I've -- I've heard any of the tape. 22 Q: No one's ever sat you down and played 23 you a tape of that conversation? 24 A: No. 25 Q: All right. Mr. Commissioner, the
1471 only tape I respectfully request to play is this tape 2 given the nature of the Witness and the nature of the 3 evidence at this stage. 4 So, I would ask if Mr. Millar's in the 5 position, I'm of course referring to Exhibit 444A, P- 6 444A, and I'm referring to Tab 37 which is dated 7 September 6th, 1995, time being 14:35. 8 Do you have a copy of the transcript of P- 9 44A in front of you, Mr. Runciman? 10 A: Is this at Tab 37? 11 Q: No. It's not the Commission Counsel 12 documents. I'm going to very briefly ask if Mr. Clerk 13 could produce a copy of P-44A, the exhibit, to the 14 Witness. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Mr. Commissioner, you have your -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I have 20 my copy. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: Now Mr. Millar absented himself no 25 doubt to help out my document failings.
1481 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's still 2 in the room. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: Just before we start, I wanted to ask 7 you something, sir, you made reference to the fact that 8 in answer to questions by Ms. Tuck-Jackson, that your 9 evidence at discoveries, to the extent it referred to 10 Inspector Fox being present in that dining room meeting 11 should not be interpreted as you giving an account of 12 your recollection at discoveries. 13 Do you remember testifying? 14 A: Yes, I do. 15 Q: And you stand by that? 16 A: I do. 17 Q: All right. Before we get into the 18 tape and given where Mr. Millar is, I just want to ask 19 you a question or two (2) about that. 20 Would you please go back to Ms. Tuck- 21 Jackson's binder with the discovery transcript in it. Do 22 you have that? 23 A: I'm not sure what you're referring 24 to. What tab? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure
1491 what tab that is. I think Mr. Millar pulled that up from 2 our document database. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, I see. Oh, I 4 see. All right. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 6 if it was in our binder. I think it was in our database. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: Mr. Millar put up on screen page 28 10 of the discovery transcript. Would you bear with me for 11 one moment, Mr. Runciman. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, My 13 Friend -- the -- I'm just trying to locate the -- the 14 exact conversation. I've got so many conversations now 15 that this one I don't have a reference. And Constable 16 Evans is kindly burning me a CD so that -- with the 17 conversation on it so that we -- it'll make it faster. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 19 is the -- 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And so -- but I can 21 put up the -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah, I can -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is the 24 Fox tape that you're referring to now. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes.
1501 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And what -- 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But I can put up the 3 Discovery -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You could 5 put up the Examination for Discovery. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. And 7 that's fine because I -- I won't be wasting time or wheel 8 spinning. We can -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: And what I took from your evidence 13 before when speaking to Ms. Tuck-Jackson, and we'll be 14 going to the transcript in a minute of the Discovery, 15 what I took from your evidence was that it was not your 16 recollection in the year 2001, September 2001, that 17 prompted your knowledge as to the existence of Fox in the 18 dining room. 19 It was other information, yes? 20 A: That's my supposition. 21 Q: All right. Because my next step was 22 to ask you where that other information came from. 23 A: I'm sure at some point over the 24 intervening years there was some discussion. So, 25 specifically, I couldn't tell you.
1511 Q: Now you referred to it being a 2 supposition, so I take it your evidence then is, when you 3 qualified in the sort of definite way you qualified Ms. 4 Tuck-Jackson's questions, it wasn't actually premised on 5 you remembering someone told you that Fox was in the 6 room, was it? 7 A: Well, I would take issue with the way 8 you're portraying it. I -- I disagreed with the 9 conclusion she was reaching. 10 Q: Fair enough. 11 A: No. 12 Q: But -- and I take your point, so 13 again, it isn't because you had a concrete memory of 14 somebody informing you that Fox was -- 15 A: No, that's true. 16 Q: You purely speculated that that's how 17 you came to it? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: It is equally plausible, in fact, 20 based on what you're telling me now, that you just simply 21 remembered it in September 2001? 22 Am I wrong? 23 A: I suppose it's plausible. 24 Q: All right. So this is why I wanted 25 to go to the transcript.
1521 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Tran -- what page? 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: At page 28, please. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: And the reason I ask you this, and 6 I'm not just trying to split hairs with you, sir, though 7 I may be guilty of that at times. 8 The reason I ask you that, is that your 9 recollection of Inspector Fox's presence in the dining 10 room has some significance from the point of view of 11 these proceedings and -- and so what I'm going to ask you 12 is: Your point was simple, wasn't it, that you weren't 13 being asked for your recollection, sir, Mr. Runciman? 14 A: I believe so. 15 Q: Right. Okay. That you were simply 16 being asked a fact. And I'd like to take you to line 15 17 at page 28. Question, page 28, line 15. This is Mr. 18 Klippenstein, the lawyer for the Family. 19 "Do you remember anything about the 20 morning of September 6th, 1995?" 21 Now, you'll correct me if I'm wrong but, 22 "Do you remember," generally requires your recollection, 23 fair? 24 Is that true, sir? 25 A: Yes.
1531 Q: Thank you. And then, answer: 2 "Not -- no, I know that since we've 3 been having these conversations, the 4 only thing I recall surrounding this 5 issue is a so-called sidebar meeting 6 which I attended." 7 So that's the first time you actually say 8 you recall, right, yes? 9 A: Yes, I guess so. 10 Q: All right. And then you're asked: 11 "Could you describe that to me?" 12 MR. IAN SMITH: The transcript was moving 13 when you were reading it. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay, that's fine. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: So line 17: 18 "I know that since we've been having 19 these conversations, the only thing I 20 recall surrounding this issue is a so- 21 called sidebar meeting which I 22 attended. 23 A (sic): Could you describe that to 24 me? 25 A: That was the meeting very shortly
1541 after. I'm not sure of dates re: 2 timing after the occupation of the 3 Park. It was a meeting in the dining 4 room off of the executive Council 5 chambers to discuss the situation and I 6 believe it was following a Cabinet 7 meeting. 8 It was attended by myself and the 9 Attorney General, the Minister of 10 Natural Resources, our executive 11 assistants and our deputies and 12 Inspector Fox and the Premier. 13 Q: Is that meeting that occurred 14 after the Cabinet meeting of September 15 6th? 16 A: I believe so. 17 Q: Okay. So you mention it was in 18 the dining room. So I take it the 19 Cabinet meeting finished and some 20 individuals went to the dining room and 21 had another meeting? 22 A: That's right. 23 Q: Can you recall, and just go 24 through again for me, the people who 25 were at that meeting? You mentioned
1551 the Attorney General Mr. Harnick; is 2 that right? 3 A: Hmm hmm." 4 And before we continue, again you're being 5 asked for your recollection; are you not, sir? 6 In that transcript? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: All right. 9 "Q: And you mentioned the Premier and 10 I think you mentioned, well, what other 11 ministers were there. There was 12 yourself? 13 A: Hodgson. 14 Q: Mr. Hodgson? Any other Cabinet 15 ministers? 16 A: I don't believe. I don't recall 17 any others." 18 So you're providing the questioner your 19 recollection; is that fair? 20 A: That's fair. 21 Q: "Q: Okay, and you mention some 22 staff as well. Let's start with you, 23 can you tell me what staff of yours 24 were present?" 25 We're at the top of page 30; do you see
1561 that? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: "A: Just Kathryn Hunt. 4 Q: Kathryn Hunt? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Was Dr. Todres there? 7 A: I believe so. 8 Q: Any other staff there of yours? 9 A: None of mine, no." 10 And Mr. Brown, quite fairly -- your 11 Counsel at the time, quite fairly points out there's a 12 distinction between your staff and the staff of the 13 deputy Solicitor General; do you see that? 14 So I'm going to skip over it, I just want 15 you to be comfortable that that's all that's said. 16 A: Yeah. 17 Q: Skipping over, then, to line 21, so 18 I'm still on the same page at line 21. 19 "Q: Right, I was going to glean that 20 clarification, thank you very much. So 21 just following up on that. When you 22 mentioned Kathryn Hunt and Dr. Todres 23 there, are they considered political 24 staff or civil servants, were they?" 25 Top of page 31.
1571 "A: Hunt would be political staff and 2 Todres is public servant." 3 Do you see that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: "Q: Were there any other staff 6 members, I guess from your Ministry or 7 that were working for you or that 8 reported to you that were at that 9 meeting other than Kathryn Hunt and Dr. 10 Todres? 11 A: Inspector Fox. 12 Q: And anyone else? 13 A: No, not that I recall." 14 Do you see that? 15 A: I do. 16 Q: Now, we're at the four (4) -- by my 17 count, we're at the third time in three (3) pages you've 18 referred to your recollection; is that fair? 19 A: That's fair. 20 Q: If you continue, 21 "Q: Okay. Then going to Mr. Hodgson, 22 were there any staff that reported to 23 him or were associated with him that 24 were at that meeting? 25 A: His executive assistant.
1581 Q: Do you recall his or her name? 2 A: Jeff Bangs. 3 Q: Jeff Bangs. And anyone else 4 associated with Mr. Hodgson? 5 A: Not that I recall." 6 Q: We're now at four (4) times; is that 7 fair? 8 A: That's fair. 9 Q: It's you're referring to your 10 recollection as a means of giving evidence; is that fair? 11 A: That's fair. 12 Q: "Q: Let's go to the Attorney 13 General. Mr. Harnick was there and 14 anybody associated with him that was 15 present? 16 A: David Moran was his executive 17 assistant. 18 And who else? 19 A: No one else." 20 Flipping to the top of page 32, and 21 mercifully, Mr. Commissioner, I'm only going halfway down 22 this page that's over. 23 "Q: And you mentioned the Premier. 24 Any of his staff or anyone associated 25 with him?
1591 A: Deb Hutton. 2 Q: Anyone else? 3 A: Not that I recall." 4 I'm at number 5, you're referring to your 5 recollection; is that fair, Mr. Runciman? 6 A: That's fair. 7 Q: "Q: So I then count ten (10) people 8 present. Does that sound right? 9 A: About right. 10 Q: So, there was nobody other than 11 those people? 12 A: Not that I can recall." 13 I count six times you refer to your 14 recollection; is that fair, Mr. Runciman? 15 A: That's fair. 16 Q: Mr. Runciman, in very stark contrast 17 to another witness I'm actually pointing out the number 18 of times you were able to recall and it's six (6) times 19 in four (4) pages. 20 So can we now infer that when you told the 21 questioner in September 2001 under oath that Inspector 22 Fox was present at the dining room meeting it's because 23 you recalled his presence? 24 A: No, I don't think you can infer that 25 because I don't actually recall his physical presence.
1601 Q: That's fair. No, I -- and -- and 2 your -- your point is today as you sit here, year 2006 3 being January 10th, you do not recall his presence, 4 correct? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: Right. Now -- 7 A: At some point I was convinced that he 8 was there. 9 Q: Right. And -- and when you say you 10 were convinced, it's one (1) of those -- you called it 11 "suppositions" before? 12 A: That's what I called it, yes. 13 Q: Right. But leaving aside your 14 suppositions I'm going to ask you, based on your six (6) 15 references to your personal memory in September 2001 is 16 it fair to say that based on this transcript, assuming 17 it's accurate, that in September 2001 you were able to 18 recall Inspector Fox's presence? 19 A: No. I don't think that's fair. 20 Q: When you said, "I can recall", were 21 you speaking of someone other than Robert Runciman? No, 22 no. That's a fair question and I'm asking you to answer 23 it. 24 A: It -- that's -- I understand what 25 you're saying. I understand your point. That may well
1611 have been the case. 2 Q: All right. And so you don't know 3 today, but by the appearance of the transcript you don't 4 refer to anybody else helping your memory in September 5 2001 do you? 6 A: That's -- I do not. You're right. 7 Q: All right. And you don't say 8 somebody's given me advice or I might have gotten this 9 from somewhere else. You don't say any of those things? 10 A: No. 11 Q: You say in September 2001 to the best 12 of my memory; that's the gist of what you say? 13 A: You're right. 14 Q: Okay. And would you agree with me 15 that there's nothing particularly, biologically, 16 different about you than most people, your memory 17 diminishes over time? 18 A: That's true. 19 Q: And so September 2001 you would have 20 a better memory for events that had occurred a mere four 21 (4) to five (5) years earlier than you would in January 22 2006? 23 A: Theoretically. 24 Q: Sorry? 25 A: Theoretically.
1621 Q: And isn't it fair to say that there 2 are documents that you couldn't recognize, that Mr. 3 Millar showed you yesterday and this morning, that you 4 may well have remembered in September 2001 under the same 5 analysis? 6 A: That's possible. 7 Q: And it's also fair to say that in 8 2001 you were actually Solicitor General were you not? 9 A: In 2001? No, I wasn't. 10 Q: There wasn't a brief stint that you 11 did the job of Minister of Community Relations and Public 12 Safety in -- in the year 2000 period? 13 A: I don't believe so. I think I was 14 Minister of Economic Development at that point in time. 15 Q: All right. I -- I'm just asking as 16 to whether 2001, 2002, 2003, in that period were you ever 17 Solicitor General? 18 A: The spring of 2002 I think I was 19 reappointed. 20 Q: Fair enough. You served as a Cabinet 21 minister for a lengthy time as Solicitor General and then 22 you resumed it shortly after this examination? 23 A: I guess that's right. 24 Q: Your tenure was very fresh in your 25 mind at the time?
1631 A: Reasonably. 2 Q: Hmm hmm. 3 A: More so than today, that's for sure. 4 Q: Good. By all appearances from the 5 transcript of 2001, I'm going to respectfully suggest to 6 you, that not only did you recall that Inspector Fox was 7 at the Cabinet meeting -- I apologize, at the dining room 8 meeting of Cabinet Ministers, not only did you recall 9 that he was there but by all appearances from this 10 transcript you didn't seem to have a problem with his 11 presence. 12 Is that true? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just -- 14 MR. IAN SMITH: Sorry, I thought it was 15 going to be a different question. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I could ask a 18 different question -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, you're 20 quick on your feet, Mr. Smith, very quick. Yes. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't think -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I always encourage 23 My Friends to stay standing. It's better for their 24 knees. 25 THE WITNESS: I don't think at the time I
1641 had a problem with anyone who was in attendance, at the 2 time. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: All right. And when you say, "at the 6 time", you're referring to September '95, yes? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: But I'm also asking you, and I 9 appreciate that clarification. I'm suggesting to you as 10 of September 2001, when you testified about who was 11 there, you didn't seem to indicate any difficulties with 12 who was there, fair? 13 A: That's fair. 14 Q: All right. And that's because in -- 15 as of September 2001, you still didn't have a problem 16 with Inspector Fox having been in on that dining room 17 meeting; isn't that fair? 18 A: Well, I'm not sure that's an 19 appropriate conclusion. You know, I may have reflected 20 upon it. I certainly have with the -- the establishment 21 of the Inquiry and the appropriateness of -- of the 22 meeting and all of those who participated in terms of 23 their attendance. 24 Q: And you know and it's -- you're 25 obviously a very accomplished man and one very
1651 experienced in politics, so you -- you can tell I'm 2 sucking up, I'm working towards something, you know -- 3 you know, don't you, sir, that appearances are as 4 important as the fact of -- of political interference? 5 Appearances are as important, correct? 6 A: They can be. 7 Q: And this Inquiry would have been 8 ordered in and around the year 2002. 9 A: 2003. 10 Q: 2004, sorry. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The Inquiry was -- the 12 Order in Council was dated November, 2003. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: And so you're saying that after the 17 ordering of the Inquiry in November 2003, that's when you 18 would have looked at this again and come to the 19 conclusion that people's presence, such as Inspector Fox 20 may have been a bad thing? 21 A: I don't know. I'm -- certainly my 22 attention would be more focussed once the Inquiry was 23 launched, but I -- you know, I may have reflected on 24 these kinds of issues in the past. You know, I can't be 25 specific about it.
1661 Q: Well, I do have to query you on this. 2 It makes some sense -- to be fair, sir, it makes some 3 sense that you wouldn't remember document A or document 4 B, because you get so many. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: But an allegation of political 7 interference in the operations of the police directly 8 implicates the Solicitor General; is that true? 9 A: An allegation of -- 10 Q: Of political interference in the 11 operations of the police directly implicates the role of 12 the Solicitor General. 13 Whether the Solicitor General was 14 involved, you represent the civilian overseer of the 15 police; isn't that true? 16 A: That's true. 17 Q: So -- 18 A: Whether I would -- 19 Q: -- when an allegation -- I 20 apologize -- 21 MR DERRY MILLAR: Let him finish. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Sorry. 23 THE WITNESS: Whether I would, you know, 24 share your -- your view that it directly implicates, I 25 think would depend on the circumstances.
1671 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: The circumstances of Ipperwash were 4 such that, among other things, meetings you or your staff 5 attended became the subject of very public allegations 6 relating to political interference, correct? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: So, this isn't something you'd have a 9 vague memory about. You would remember being the subject 10 of these allegations, yes? 11 A: I do remember that, yes. 12 Q: All right. And when is it that you 13 first reflected and decided that the presence of, for 14 example, Inspector Fox may have been, in fact, not the 15 right thing? 16 A: I'm not sure I looked at it in as 17 stark terms like that. I -- I think I've looked at it, 18 whether -- more so as whether the Premier should have 19 been in attendance at a meeting like that. And I think 20 that that's led to a lot of the, you know, the concerns 21 over the years. 22 So I think my -- my concern was more 23 focussed on the attendance of the Premier rather than 24 Inspector Fox. 25 Q: All right. And when did you first
1681 come to the conclusion or have this concern crystallized 2 in your mind, as to the appropriateness of Premier 3 Michael Harris being at the dining room meeting? 4 A: I'm just guessing probably fairly 5 early on, once the -- once the, you know, concerns were 6 expressed that there was some sort of political 7 interference with respect to direction given to the OPP. 8 Q: And what was it about Premier Harris' 9 presence at the dining room meeting that caused you to 10 reflect that his attendance might have been 11 inappropriate? 12 I can get foundational. I can go 13 backwards a step, because -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- it may address 16 the rumblings from -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 18 hear -- do you want to hear from Mr. Downard? 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll withdraw the 20 question and -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- go back a step. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:
1691 Q: When you say that you reflected on 2 the attendance of Premier Harris, is it fair to say what 3 you were trying to convey to the Commissioner was that on 4 reflection you might have reconsidered having Premier 5 Harris attend that meeting? 6 A: Well that wasn't my -- my role to 7 play having the ability to advise the Premier when or 8 when not to attend the meeting. The meeting was called 9 by his staff and I attended as requested. 10 I just have felt for some time, 11 specifically how long I can't give you a specific answer, 12 that if -- if he hadn't been in attendance we may not 13 have been sitting here today. 14 Q: And what was it about his attendance 15 that made you think that? What was the difficulty 16 arising from his attendance? 17 A: Well, I think the -- the fact that 18 anything he said and you have, you know, eight (8), nine 19 (9), ten (10) people -- people can interpret, infer, and 20 sometimes those can be -- can be skewed and 21 misunderstood, and in my view that's exactly, perhaps, 22 what happened. 23 Q: And when you say can be skewed or 24 misinterpreted, you meant by the ten (10) pe -- some or 25 one (1) of the ten (10) people present?
1701 A: That's right. 2 Q: And you referred in your evidence 3 in-chief, in answer to questions by Mr. Millar, to the 4 fact that Prem -- then-Premier Michael Harris as -- as 5 you put it a strong personality. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Now you -- you also in answer to 8 queries about this indicated you weren't friends socially 9 but you were somewhat comrades -- political comrades in - 10 - in the sense that you both hailed from the early '80's 11 in terms of your political careers. 12 A: That's right. 13 Q: And that your time with him starts in 14 the early '80's in terms of political careers, correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And so it would have been with the 17 benefit of what we now have as twenty-five (25) years 18 that you say that he was a person with a strong 19 personality -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- that left a real impression on 22 people, true? 23 A: I think that's fair. 24 Q: He sat not on the seat of that chair, 25 he sat on the arm of that chair; is that true?
1711 A: That's my recollection. 2 Q: And he did that throughout his 3 presence at that meeting. 4 A: I believe so. 5 Q: And the arm of the chair like any 6 other chair, there was nothing special about the 7 Premier's chair was it? It would be an arm that may be 8 what, one (1), two (2) feet above the base of the chair, 9 fair? 10 A: I assume so. 11 Q: Two (2) feet above the seat above the 12 chair, yes? 13 A: I imagine. 14 Q: So, in addition to being a strong 15 personality, he would have been somebody who was actually 16 seated slightly above everybody else at the table, true? 17 A: True. 18 Q: And he had the kind of personality 19 that could be blunt at times, correct? 20 A: Frank. 21 Q: And frank is a -- is, sort of, a more 22 diplomatic word for blunt? 23 A: Could be. 24 Q: And I want you to know this is a bit 25 of the pot calling the kettle so I -- I'm certainly not -
1721 - not above being blunt myself. 2 I'm going to suggest to you that when a 3 person with a strong personality is frank and they occupy 4 the position of Premier, the likelihood of that skewing 5 or misconstruction or misunderstanding increases. 6 Would you agree with that? 7 A: I would say that's a possibility. 8 Certainly I as you -- I think where you're going on this 9 is that I knew him quite well and others didn't. 10 Q: Now I had asked you about the Fox 11 tape and I'm hoping that we're at the stage where it can 12 be played. So I'm going to ask you to pay attention to 13 Tab 37 of the transcript please, yes. 14 A: Tab 37? 15 Q: That's right. And so you have some 16 proper background, sir, so that you're comfortable with 17 the paper in front of you, Tab 37 at the start says 18 "Carson and Fox and Coles"; do you have that? 19 A: Yes, I do. 20 Q: And then it says the date and then 21 the military time, 14:35? Do you see that? 22 A: Hmm hmm. Yes, I do. 23 Q: All right. So that's where the tape 24 is going to start with a conversation where Korosec, a 25 police officer, receives a call from Fox and then we move
1731 from Fox to Carson and then we move from Fox to Coles in 2 the same conversation. 3 I just wanted you to have that context. 4 All right? 5 A: Yeah, all right, thanks. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And just for Mr. 7 Runciman as well, there aren't the corrections on that 8 copy of the transcript but that he'll hear words that 9 have been corrected if he's following reading along the 10 transcripts. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I'll try to 12 assist on that at the end, will be my suggestion so Mr. 13 Millar -- 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sure. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- can help me if I 16 get one wrong in terms of the corrections. 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sure. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: While 22 they're figuring out the mechanics, is it necessary for 23 you to play the whole tape -- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to do
1741 this? 2 3 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 6 the wrong tape. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: Mr. -- Mr. Runciman, I just wanted to 10 make sure you knew where we are. 11 A: Yes, I see -- 12 Q: If you go to the bottom of the page. 13 A: -- I see it now. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, okay. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: Because once we -- once you lose us 18 you might not get back. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 20 sorry. We are on the right tape. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay? All right? 22 We're all in the same place, same page right near the 23 bottom of page 1? 24 THE WITNESS: Correct. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Please continue.
1751 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Whoops, we lost it. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, we're 3 starting over again. 4 5 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now we're 8 back at the beginning. 9 10 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED) 11 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: We're back at the 13 top, okay. 14 15 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED, TRANSCRIPT BELOW) 16 17 KOROSEC: Sergeant Korosec. 18 FOX: Hi. Is Inspector Carson there? 19 KOROSEC: Yes. One moment please. 20 CARSON: Take a message. Can you take a message? 21 KOROSEC: Can I ask who's calling please? 22 FOX: Yes. Inspector Fox. 23 CARSON: Hello Ron. 24 FOX: Hi John. How you doing? 25 CARSON: Not bad.
1761 FOX: Listen, I don't want to bug you. 2 CARSON: Okay. No problem! 3 FOX: Its early. In terms of an injunction 4 CARSON: Yup. 5 FOX: I've just been speaking and I gave you the 6 name of Tim Eager. 7 CARSON: Eager? 8 FOX: Yeah. 9 CARSON: Okay. 10 FOX: Cross that out and make it Tim McCabe. 11 CARSON: Okay. 12 FOX: M-C-C-A-B-E. 13 CARSON: Uh huh. 14 FOX: He's the guy that's putting it together 15 from the AG's department. 16 CARSON: Okay. 17 FOX: They are making moves towards getting an 18 exparte injunction. In other words one 19 that doesn't have to be served. 20 CARSON: Okay. 21 FOX: What they have to do is show emergent 22 circumstances. 23 CARSON: Right. 24 FOX: And the exigency of the situation are kind 25 of increasing exponentially.
1771 CARSON: Okay. 2 FOX: Now of course what comes up in this 3 meeting is about there's been 4 machine gun fire heard. 5 CARSON: Right. 6 FOX: Well, but I Šm not aware of it but I'll 7 check into it. 8 CARSON: Right. 9 FOX: Of course, you know if I get it, then I've 10 got to go back and to the 11 people explain the difference between 12 machine gunfire and semi 13 automatic. 14 CARSON: Right. 15 FOX: We can't tell. 16 CARSON: Right. 17 FOX: There are weapons, pull the trigger 18 they'll go bang. 19 CARSON: Right. 20 FOX: If you had three weapons doing that it 21 might sound like a machine gun. 22 CARSON: That's right. 23 FOX: I said be that as it may I mean that's a 24 problem. What -- what he's looking for is 25 of course they have the affiants all lined
1781 up from MNR who are going to say it's 2 their property and here's the deed and you 3 know all the rest of it. 4 CARSON: Sure. 5 FOX: But they need somebody from a police 6 perspective. 7 CARSON: Okay. 8 FOX: And I said well, you know - I talked to 9 John about it. I talked to Chris Coles and 10 they agreed John's probably the guy to do 11 that. 12 CARSON: Mmm hmm. 13 FOX: Because he has knowledge of it. Now, what 14 of course the political people are really 15 questioning, and that's another story and 16 I'll just fill you in so you know about 17 that. 18 CARSON: Okay. 19 FOX: But I mean they're pushing to get this 20 done quick. 21 CARSON: Yes. Okay, I hear you. 22 FOX: They're lining up a judge. He is from 23 Lambton County. 24 CARSON: Okay. 25 FOX: Fellow by the name of Gardiner. Does that
1791 mean anything to you? 2 CARSON: Well no. He must be - a different guy down 3 here than when I was 4 posted here. But anyways - 5 FOX: Yeah. It didn't mean anything to me 6 either. 7 CARSON: All right. 8 FOX: What they're thinking of is they'll either 9 do their presentation to the 10 judge tomorrow or tonight. 11 CARSON: Okay. 12 FOX: And what they're thinking in lieu of 13 having an affidavit from you - 14 CARSON: Yes 15 FOX: If you'd be willing to give vivosa 16 evidence. 17 CARSON: Oh. Appear with Šem. 18 FOX: Yeah. 19 CARSON: Oh. Yeah. Mmmhmm. 20 FOX: And I said well - I said I'm sure that's 21 okay for John but I said I've done it 22 myself so I said personally I like to do 23 it. 24 CARSON: Yes. And I guess I don't have any problems 25 as long as the chief and the Commissioner
1801 don't have any problems with that. 2 FOX: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I said we'd want to 3 check that out. 4 CARSON: Yeah, well the chief's here. 5 FOX: Yeah. 6 CARSON: So tell the big guy. 7 FOX: Yeah, yeah. We'll go from there. 8 CARSON: Yeah. 9 FOX: Umm, when I'm done can I talk to him or - 10 CARSON: Absolutely. 11 FOX: Okay, well then let me just give you the - 12 I went through this meeting. John, we're 13 dealing with a real redneck government. 14 They are fucking barrel suckers. They just 15 are in love with guns. 16 CARSON: Okay. 17 FOX: There's no question they don't give a shit 18 less about Indians. 19 CARSON: All right. They just want to go kick ass. 20 FOX: That's right. 21 CARSON: We're not prepared to do that yet. 22 FOX: Well, I'll tell ya. I was then - when I 23 left that meeting I got a page. Go to the 24 Legislative building immediately. 25 CARSON: Oh.
1811 FOX: Meet the deputy. Well I went and I finally 2 ferret my way through all this media scrum 3 and I meet with the deputy all right. 4 CARSON: Yeah. 5 FOX: Our deputy. Sol Gen. AG. The deputy AG. 6 Chris Hodgson -- 7 CARSON: Oh yeah. 8 FOX: Natural Affairs. Ah huh. Ah huh. And the 9 fuckin' premier. 10 CARSON: Oh boy. 11 FOX: Well, John I'm here to tell you. This guy 12 is a redneck from way back. 13 CARSON: (laughs) 14 FOX: And he came right out and said, I just 15 walked in on the tail end of this. The OPP 16 in my opinion made mistakes. They should 17 have done something right at the time. And 18 he said that will I'm sure all come out in 19 an inquiry sometime after the fact. 20 CARSON: Yeah, yeah. 21 FOX: He believes that he has the authority to 22 direct the OPP. 23 CARSON: Oh! Okay. 24 FOX: So -- 25 CARSON: I hope that he will be talking to the
1821 Commissioner about that. 2 FOX: Umm pardon me? 3 CARSON: I hope he and the Commissioner have that 4 discussion. 5 FOX: Oh, yeah. Well of course the 6 Commissioner's already brought into the 7 loop on this. 8 CARSON: Okay. 9 FOX: So in any event, he makes a couple wild- 10 ass comments, gets up and leaves the room. 11 And then the Sol Gen asks me to brief them 12 as to what changes in the status 13 [inaudible] of the situation. Alright I 14 said well, I've been talking to the 15 incident commander, and I am able to 16 confirm that there were shots overnight I 17 said somewhere between fifty to a hundred. 18 And this is automatic weapons is what - 19 machine guns - is what this Chris - and I 20 said its possible it could be. I said that 21 there's certainly no evidence to support 22 that. I said between fifty and a hundred 23 rounds - it could have been a semi- 24 automatic. 25 CARSON: Right.
1831 FOX: And I said there's no evidence they were 2 pointed at anybody. 3 CARSON: Yup. 4 FOX: They were not used in an untoward fashion. 5 CARSON: Right. 6 FOX: So in any event, to make a long story 7 short, this guy went over [inaudible] and 8 I finally said well look. I said that with 9 respect, this is a property dispute. I 10 said what we're gonna see at the end of 11 the day is a disused provincial park, 12 closed for the season, okay, and -- 13 CARSON: Yip. 14 FOX: We're also then going to see is people who 15 have been involved in mischief. Yes. The 16 police know what mischief is and certainly 17 those folk in the AG we know about the 18 criminal offense mischief. Once read in 19 the newspaper, it sounds like stuff our 20 kids get involved in. 21 CARSON: You got it. 22 FOX: You know what the prick says to me? Well 23 I've just been told that I can have no 24 influence over the police doing their jobs 25 so I'm suggesting you let me worry about
1841 the political ramifications. 2 CARSON: Oh. 3 FOX: So I - I can't hold my tongue. 4 CARSON: Okay. 5 FOX: I thought this little prick - I've got 6 shoes older than you. And I said look - 7 all due respect - Minister - I said I'm 8 not - 9 CARSON: (interrupting) Is that Sol Gen? 10 FOX: Hmm? 11 CARSON: The Sol Gen? 12 FOX: No, no, no. This is the Minister of 13 Natural Resources. 14 CARSON: Oh, oh. Oh. Okay. I gotchya. 15 FOX: Now I said with all due respect Minister I 16 said, here's the reality. That's the way 17 it's viewed and I said perhaps, perhaps we 18 can survive the political backlash. I said 19 it may be that John Carson and his people 20 will be able to work magic and these 21 people will simply walk away. And abandon 22 their position. And I said I doubt it. 23 CARSON: That ain't gonna happen. 24 FOX: And I said my guess is we're going to get 25 a bloody nose. Or somebody is. And I said,
1851 at the end of the day - if you're prepared 2 - that's up to you. I am not making a 3 political statement. I am giving you a 4 bite of reality. Okay. He looked at me. Oh 5 the prick! Fuck! 6 CARSON: Jesus Christ! Well, I'm glad you're there 7 Ronald. 8 FOX: I mean I - I - you don't back away - let's 9 just do the bloody job right! 10 CARSON: Yeah, exactly. 11 FOX: Well, even if we get this enjoining order. 12 Like how long will the police sit on it? 13 Two weeks? He said I was told the police 14 knew about this before it happened. And I 15 said that's not correct. Well he said 16 that's my information. I said, with 17 respect its wrong. I said the police 18 certainly had a supposition that a logical 19 next step for these protesters was to 20 takeover the Park, and I said in fact I've 21 had discussions with the incident 22 commander about that. But I said did we 23 have anything to base that on, other than 24 the odd little threat and innuendo that 25 came up - no. What we did, is we based
1861 that on our knowledge of native people. 2 CARSON: Right. 3 FOX: And this was the likelihood. 4 CARSON: That's right. 5 FOX: And I said there was a contingency plan in 6 place. Well then he got into well why 7 didn't the police stop it... 8 CARSON: (laughs) 9 FOX: ...I understand they were at the Park 10 there at the time. And I said really? Well 11 I said let's put that in perspective, 12 shall we? I said how does one stop that 13 from taking place? Given at that time of 14 night there'd be limited police resources. 15 And I was - 16 CARSON: Well there was - there was 8 ERT guys. But 17 they were just overwhelmed! 18 FOX: John, if there was 108 or 210 I guess 19 they'd be overwhelmed. 20 CARSON: Well, you're right. 21 FOX: Its an exponential thing. 22 CARSON: That's right. 23 FOX: These people have absolutely no 24 [inaudible] 25 CARSON: For sure. I can appreciate it.
1871 FOX: We're in for some tough sledding! Anyways, 2 I guess the upshot is -- 3 CARSON: Yes 4 FOX: What Larry Mc - what Tim McCabe is asking 5 me is in your opinion, can we say with 6 certainty to a court that there is a need 7 for an emergent order - that makes it an 8 exparte order. 9 CARSON: Well, I think we can. 10 FOX: Yes. 11 CARSON: I think we can. 12 FOX: [inaudible] base that John, on the 13 progression of events. 14 CARSON: That's right. 15 FOX: Yeah. 16 CARSON: You know, and I'm prepared to appear and 17 give that evidence if the chief and 18 Commissioner feel that's the direction we 19 should be going and I don't see any reason 20 that we can't support that. 21 FOX: No, well I've done it before, with 22 injunctions on strikes. 23 CARSON: Right. 24 FOX: So I mean I don't - I'm sure they 25 wouldn't.
1881 CARSON: All right. 2 FOX: Personally, I like to give the evidence in 3 person 4 CARSON: Yup. 5 FOX: Because you know what I'm saying - we can 6 lead them. 7 CARSON: Right. Okay. 8 FOX: So that's it in a nutshell. 9 CARSON: Good. 10 FOX: I'll call him back. Well - 11 CARSON: Yeah. The Chief's here if you want to talk 12 to him here. 13 FOX: Yeah. 14 CARSON: Okay? 15 FOX: Okay John. 16 CARSON: Thanks Ron. Let me know. 17 FOX: Right. 18 CARSON: Okay. 19 FOX: Right. 20 CARSON: Take care. 21 FOX: Bye. 22 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: We are now 24 switching over to Chief Coles. 25
1891 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED, TRANSCRIPT BELOW) 2 3 COLES: Hi Ron. 4 FOX: Hi Chief. 5 COLES: Yeah. I guess sitting here just listening 6 and I haven't heard what John has got to 7 tell me now. I've got a concern that we 8 want to be careful what we're doing here 9 that we don't give them - the people that 10 you're talking to - that we don't give 11 them the information too fast. The problem 12 with that Ron is that if you're not 13 careful, you're gonna run the issue there. 14 As opposed to myself and the Commissioner 15 running it here. So we've got to be 16 careful. I have no objections to it - I 17 have no objections to you phoning John but 18 the only trouble if not, you're going to 19 be the fastest source of information 20 they've got. And now with them we're going 21 to end up in it, we're going to end up 22 running it politically. And I don't want 23 that. 24 FOX: Yes. 25 COLES: Because its dangerous if you think about
1901 it. 2 FOX: Yeah, well - 3 COLES: Because they're gonna - they're gonna ask 4 you questions. You're going to try to find 5 the answers. And the quickest way for you 6 to do it is to come here to John. John's 7 going to give you an honest answer. The 8 trouble is now is all our - all what we 9 are doing here - sometimes too much 10 information is a dangerous thing. 11 FOX: Oh well clearly it is Chris. And you know, 12 I don't know if you've heard from somebody 13 else, maybe you have, and that's why you 14 and I are having this conversation... 15 COLES: No, this is just off my head. The last 16 time I talked to you I heard (?), the only 17 thing I've talked - the only person I have 18 talked to - on this - is Tony. And I told 19 John as far as Marcel Beaubien it looks 20 good. That's pretty well all I've got on 21 this. 22 FOX: Okay well where the majority of 23 information comes that's provided 24 to political masters is coming from MNR. 25 COLES: Yup.
1911 FOX: Okay. And I'll tell you I've not been too 2 impressed with it. 3 COLES: (interrupting) Ron don't be, don't be. 4 I've dealt with them three times on three 5 incidents and do not be impressed with 6 MNR. 7 FOX: Well. See I mean that's the beauty of 8 having me there. I can say I don't know. 9 COLES: Yeah. 10 FOX: Well this guy here, Peter Sturdy, was 11 getting fed by people who were there. 12 COLES: Yup. 13 FOX: And of course it came up in the meeting 14 about the automatic weapon fire, and you 15 know, they're doing damage. There's heavy 16 equipment rolling around at night. And 17 they're - 18 COLES: (interrupting) That's the trouble. And 19 they're going to react to that kind of 20 stuff. And it's the same thing I just told 21 them here. It might - you see my position 22 is - and now I can't do it - my position 23 is just been here some half an hour ago is 24 Mark you downplay all the heavy weaponry. 25 Because I'll have the fuckin' Safety and
1921 backup issue myself here. And it was the 2 same as I had at Aquasasney (sp?) - 3 everybody said there was automatic guns 4 going off all of the friggin' time. And it 5 wasn't. It wasn't. It was just semi- 6 automatic. Its just - they were just 7 pulling ?? triggers. But if you have three 8 or four guys shootin' - nobody knows the 9 difference. 10 FOX: Well that's what I said today. There's no 11 evidence that there are automatic weapons. 12 I said certainly there was the sound of 13 gunfire and I said I mean that's - that's 14 a qualified observation. But it could be 15 semi-automatic. We don't know. There's no 16 indication that the weapons were pointed 17 at anybody. Okay? 18 COLES: Yeah but there you see - there's 19 conversation - as far as I'm concerned 20 there's conversation going there that's 21 operational. 22 FOX: Oh yeah. 23 COLES: That - that really - its gonna get 24 dangerous Šcause now its - that's 25 dangerous to have that happen.
1931 FOX: Mmmhmm. You're right. But you see then, 2 what do I do with it Chris? Sit there and 3 say well I don't know. Ummm - you know - I 4 mean - the best is to give them then what 5 little information you can. 6 COLES: Well, stall them to the amount. I mean 7 right now I know that the Commissioner is 8 umm resurrecting the old - what has always 9 been our approach, because he feels he's 10 now going to start getting some pressure 11 with people saying why arenŠt you acting? 12 Why aren't you acting on this now? 13 FOX: He's already - He's already got it Chris. 14 COLES: Sure he has and so he's trying to 15 resurrect the?? of why we go in for 16 injunctions. And of course the reason we 17 go for injunctions is because otherwise we 18 go into provincial offenses and we give 19 them a ticket and they don't give a shit 20 about the stuff. And we want some kind of 21 court conditions on these people. One of 22 them being that maybe - you know - if we 23 can that we don't want them to go back 24 within a mile of the base, etcetera. 25 FOX: Right.
1941 COLES: You know, those kinds of things. 2 FOX: Right. 3 COLES: So, all I know - this just - this just - 4 and now I'm glad I talked to you because 5 this just went through my head. I mean I'm 6 hearing you talk to John - I have no 7 problem with that and John I know will 8 fill me in on what's going on. But then my 9 point is - we the OPP - its like me 10 talking to Marcel Beaubien - which I'm 11 supposed to do because he is a constituent 12 and that. But however, he now goes and 13 talks. And this is where - this is a 14 problem that we have. 15 FOX: Well. 16 COLES: You know I - my ?? is I will call the 17 Commissioner. I don't know if he's there 18 but I'll call Boose's office anyway and 19 say you better get to the Commission to 20 say be very careful here. ŠCause that's 21 what's going to happen. We're going to 22 lose control of it. 23 FOX: Mmmhmm. Well - 24 COLES: Do the best you can. That's all you can 25 do. And I have no problem with you calling
1951 John because I know and - but that's it. 2 Just make Šem step back. If - you may be 3 the - what they might do is bring up every 4 rumour for you to substantiate every 5 rumour and then in fact what you do is you 6 ??? 7 FOX: ?? but I don't fall into that trap. 8 COLES: But that's what you have to be careful of 9 though- that you don't. 10 FOX: Yeah. Yeah well I guess... 11 COLES: I think you know where I'm coming from. 12 FOX: Oh, I do Chris. But I guess you - what I 13 want to do is just tell you some more of 14 what's gone on here. 15 COLES: Okay. 16 FOX: So that you know. I was called to meet 17 with the - the Deputy Solicitor General 18 over at the legislature. 19 COLES: Yup. 20 FOX: And I walked in. And there was the deputy 21 Solicitor General and the Sol Gen and the 22 AG. and the Deputy AG. and Hodgson, the 23 Minister for MNR. and the Premier. 24 COLES: Okay. 25 FOX: Okay? The Premier was quite adamant that
1961 this is not an issue of native rights and 2 in his words - I mean we've tried to 3 pacify and pander to these people for too 4 long. Its now time for swift affirmative 5 action. I walked in the tail end Chris of 6 him saying something like well I think the 7 OPP made mistakes in this. They should 8 have just gone in. He views it as a simple 9 trespass to property. That's in his 10 thinking. He's not getting the right 11 advice. Or if he is getting right advice 12 he sure is not listening to it in any way 13 shape or form. 14 COLES: Okay. 15 FOX: The fellow who supported our position the 16 best was the Deputy Attorney General. 17 Larry Taman - 18 COLES: (interrupting) Ron - give me your phone 19 number there. 20 FOX: Yup. 21 COLES: I'm going to give you a phone call. Hang 22 on here. Give me - what's your phone 23 number there. I'm going to call you back 24 from another line. 25 FOX: Yup. 416
1971 COLES: Yup. 2 FOX: 314- 3 COLES: Yup. 4 FOX: 3372. 5 COLES: Yup. Don't get involved in anything else. 6 I'm going to give you a call back. 7 FOX: All right. 8 COLES: Okay. Thanks. Bye-bye. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: If you could keep that transcript 12 handy please, Mr. Runciman, I have some questions that 13 relate to it. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: First of all, I take it, if nothing 16 else, you could glean from Mr. Fox's voice, from 17 Inspector Fox's voice that he was somewhat agitated from 18 his experience at the meetings. 19 Is that fair? 20 A: I think it's a reasonable assumption. 21 Q: And he has testified in these 22 proceedings, and to be candid with you, I believe in 23 cross-examination by Mr. Downard, he testified that some 24 of what he said amounting to "venting," quote/unquote. 25 But he, in examination-in-chief, and he
1981 repeated during my cross-examination, that all of what he 2 said was accurate. 3 He qualified one sentence, and I want to 4 bring it to your attention, during a cross-examination by 5 Mr. Downard. He qualified one sentence and if you turn 6 to page -- and do you have page numbers on the bottom -- 7 A: Yes, I do, yes. 8 Q: -- right hand corner? 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: The bottom right hand corner should 11 say 264, do you see that? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: He qualified, that is Inspector Fox 14 qualified the statement that's at the top of that page, 15 quote: 16 "He believes that he has the authority 17 to direct the OPP." 18 He qualified that in terms of he did not 19 hear Premier Harris say that he believed he had such 20 authority, and he did not hear an express direction, all 21 right? 22 I'm simply telling you that to try to be 23 fair to the record. 24 And having said that, with that 25 qualification, it was this man's evidence, the man you
1991 talked about having the sound judgment and being cool in 2 tense situations, it was this man's evidence that all of 3 what he said here was accurate. 4 Now, first of all, do you note the time, 5 that it was approximately one (1) hour after the dining 6 room meeting? 7 Do you note that? 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: You'll need to say 'yes' or 'no' for 10 record just because -- 11 A: Yes. Yes, I do. 12 Q: -- of the transcripts. Thank you. 13 And would you agree with me that that's a useful record 14 to have for a police officer's account of an event, 15 within one (1) hour of the event? That would be a useful 16 record to have? 17 A: I think that's a safe conclusion. 18 Q: All right. And leaving aside some of 19 the editorializing we find here, I do want to take you 20 through some of the facts of the events of the meeting 21 and see if we can (a) determine whether it triggers your 22 memory and (b) I have some other questions arising from 23 it. 24 So firstly, sir, can I ask you this: Is 25 it fair to say that it would have been in keeping with
2001 the role of then Inspector Fox to have been contacting 2 Incident Commander Carson with the view to assisting in 3 the preparation of materials for an injunction? 4 A: I wouldn't think so. 5 Q: And that would be why? 6 A: Well, his -- his responsibilities 7 were primarily with -- in -- in terms of growing, if you 8 will, in monitoring and assisting with the expansion of 9 First Nations policing. So I'm not sure, you know, 10 whether it would be a direct linkage with him with 11 respect to dealing with the incident commander with 12 respect to the preparation of an injunction. 13 Q: Would it surprise you to hear that 14 witnesses, including then Incident Commander Carson now 15 Deputy Commissioner Carson, Inspector Fox himself, 16 Sergeant Patrick, and Deputy Attorney General Taman have 17 all testified that their understanding of Fox's role 18 included him being a liaison officer between the OPP and 19 the Ministry of the Solicitor General? 20 Would that surprise you? 21 A: Yes, I didn't see that as his -- his 22 role. I saw Barb Taylor in that role as liaison. 23 Q: And I take it your point is, if he 24 wasn't a liaison officer then it would not have been 25 appropriate for this gentleman to have been contacting
2011 the OPP, correct? 2 A: Well, I think listening to the -- the 3 audio there's some suggestion where Carson is indicating, 4 you know, about I don't mind you calling me kind of 5 approach. 6 So that might be suggesting, I guess you 7 can interpret it in a variety of ways, that -- that it 8 wasn't a normal, sort of, course of action for Fox to be 9 playing that role, but he may have been asked by -- by 10 the Deputy to -- to play that role. I'm not sure. 11 Q: Could I ask you to please turn, for a 12 moment, to Exhibit P-973? If I could ask Mr. Clerk to 13 place it in front of the Witness, it's the Hansard 14 extracts? 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Depending on which 16 extract, Mr. Runciman has it in the book in front of him, 17 the extracts that refer to Mr. Runciman. It's at either 18 Tab 92, Mr. Runciman, or Tab 93. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And -- and I 20 appreciate it, it's just that the reason I included 21 reference to Exhibit P-973 in my document notices, the 22 way I've broken this down -- 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Tab 94? 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The way I've broken 25 this down, Mr. Commissioner, I'm -- I'm more comfortable
2021 working with P-973 because there's a number of -- of 2 Hansard extracts. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 4 is P-973. 5 THE WITNESS: It does say that on the top 6 of it, yes. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: In its entirety? 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's -- it's -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think the 10 document -- 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, it's -- what's 12 there, Commissioner, is P-973 that relates to Mr. -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's just 14 excerpts of P-973 -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, but -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You want the 17 whole -- 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That -- that relate to 19 Mr. Runciman. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I know, that's the 21 problem, but -- 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's where Mr. 23 Runciman spoke in the Legislature. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I appreciate My 25 Friend's just trying to be helpful. If P-973 though, the
2031 -- the binder, could be put in front of the Witness, I'd 2 appreciate it. 3 THE WITNESS: I think I -- I have it 4 here. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, you 7 haven't got the whole... 8 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. Sorry. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Now, in our research, Mr. Runciman, 12 the first time there is reference, not by name, to 13 Inspector Fox, is by Premier Harris. It's in the Hansard 14 dated May 29th, 1996, and frankly it represents one of 15 the very first times the issue of Ipperwash is raised in 16 the House -- 17 A: Could you give me a tab number, 18 please? 19 Q: Yes. It's Tab 3. 20 A: 3. All right. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And Tab 3 is from Document 6000025, 25 which is also Exhibit P-530.
2041 And Mr. Harris is asked, on the second 2 page of that, do you see -- you should see something in 3 the left hand corner, front page, saying 29th May 1996. 4 Do you see that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. And if you could simply 7 flip to the second page. 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: Half way down the page, Jerry 10 Phillips asks the following question -- you, of course, 11 are familiar with Mr. Phillips, yes? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: "Jerry Phillips for Scarborough- 14 Agincourt. To follow up with the 15 Premier, and just to confirm, on 16 September 5th at the time the meeting 17 was taking place, I gather the OPP were 18 assembling a large number of officers 19 to gather at Ipperwash to deal with the 20 crisis? 21 At the same time, many of the senior 22 staff, the political staff were at this 23 meeting. I can only assume that it was 24 a meeting designed to bring your staff 25 up to date on what was being planned.
2051 A very important question, Premier. 2 Was your staff informed of the OPP 3 plans for a build up and what was the 4 response of your staff that you had at 5 that meeting to the build up? 6 HONOURABLE MR. HARRIS: First of all, 7 the meeting involved twenty (20) people 8 of whom there would have been one (1) 9 political staff member from each of the 10 Ministries that were affected and that 11 were involved in the situation. 12 The Ministry of Natural Resources, 13 because it was their Park and they had 14 responsibility for the Ipperwash 15 Provincial Park and I believe the 16 Attorney General's Ministry. 17 By the way, the meeting was called as 18 it ought to have been, by the Minister 19 responsible for Native Affairs. 20 That person is the one who would call 21 the meeting, call the people together 22 and give a briefing on the situation 23 that's taking place at that time. 24 Here's the update, here's the best 25 information we have available.
2061 Invited from the OPP was the liaisonal 2 officer who was assigned to that 3 committee in these circumstances." 4 Now, the uncontroverted and uncontested 5 evidence, Mr. Runciman, by Mr. Fox and others is that the 6 member of the OPP assigned to the IMC meeting that 7 they're referring to, of September 5th, 1995, was 8 Inspector Fox. 9 Premier Harris referred to him as a 10 liaisonal officer. Did Premier Harris know something 11 that you didn't? 12 A: Apparently. 13 Q: Now, do you recall taking any steps 14 to correct this Hansard record? 15 A: No, I did not. 16 Q: All right. If you could flip to the 17 next tab, which is Tab 4. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: You are personally the subject of a 22 number of questions on May 30th, 1996. If you look at 23 the top left hand corner of the first page, it should 24 say, "30 May, 1996"? 25 A: Yes.
2071 Q: Thank you. Ms. Lyn McLeod, leader of 2 the Opposition has a number of questions. 3 "My question is for the Solicitor 4 General. It concerns the issues 5 surrounding the meeting of September 6 5th". 7 So, you see that? 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: And you know, having been in the 10 House and having fielded many questions, they were 11 referring to the Interministerial Committee meeting of 12 September 5th, 1995; isn't that right? 13 A: That could be. 14 Q: You answer -- an answer to the first 15 question in the first full -- second full paragraph, and 16 I want to give you an opportunity, sir, even though this 17 is part of a document notice, to just familiarize 18 yourself with this paragraph and the next paragraph. 19 My questions actually relate to page 2. I 20 just don't want to skip so fast that you feel 21 uncomfortable. I have to be efficient in my questioning, 22 but I have to be fair. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: My question is directed to the second 25 page, and it's the first full paragraph that starts,
2081 "Honourable Mr. Runciman". 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Yes, I do. 4 Q: The Honourable Leader talks about, as 5 clear as a fact, there being a decision 6 taken to confront. To my 7 understanding, that has never been 8 indicated. Superintendent Coles, to 9 whom that quote was attributed in one 10 of the media outlets, denied the 11 following day that he had said that. 12 To assume that is indeed the case, I 13 think is improper and inaccurate." 14 Then skipping the paragraph -- and this is 15 the part I want to draw to your attention, sir. 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: This is what you said in May, 1996. 18 Quote: 19 "All I can indicate to the Honourable 20 Member is whether she wants to accept 21 it or not, is that the Government felt, 22 throughout this exercise, and certainly 23 my Ministry and the representative who 24 advises on Native affairs at the time, 25 Inspector Fox, now Superintendent Fox,
2091 always reinforced the message 2 throughout this difficult time that the 3 OPP were, in terms of operational 4 matters, operating outside of any 5 political direction or influence. 6 I've always reinforced that message in 7 my role as Solicitor General and I do 8 not believe that in any way, shape or 9 form was that advice ignored or 10 breached." 11 Now in referring to Superintendent Fox 12 here and Inspector Fox, do you at all suggest that he 13 didn't act according to his duties at the time? 14 A: No, I do not. 15 Q: Isn't it fair to say that the 16 paragraph you're quoted here refers to Superintendent Fox 17 and Inspector Fox as a central figure in the handling of 18 the Ipperwash matter from the point of view of the OPP? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And isn't it fair to say that when 21 you used the word, "representative," to describe 22 Inspector Fox, you're referring to the fact, different 23 than your Ministry, that he was a representative of the 24 OPP? 25 A: That he was a representative of the
2101 OPP, certainly. 2 Q: And it's fair to say then, when 3 Inspector Fox calls Incident Commander Carson to assist 4 in the preparation of injunction materials, an officer 5 who is termed by many as a liaison officer, is simply 6 doing his job in contacting Incident Command; isn't that 7 right? 8 A: It could well be. 9 Q: All right. And then moving from 10 there, what I want to ask you is this: In terms of the 11 views that this liaison officer developed, as reflected 12 on this tape, isn't it fair to say that he had concerns, 13 just looking over all of this tape, he had concerns about 14 what went on in that dining room meeting? 15 A: I agree. 16 Q: He had concerns about the propriety 17 of what went on in that dining room meeting. 18 A: That could be certainly inferred from 19 some of the comments. 20 Q: And isn't it fair to say that, in 21 addition to him having concerns, his superior, Chief 22 Superintendent Coles, had concerns? 23 A: I think he -- he had concerns about - 24 - about the potential, I'm not sure about the -- the 25 meeting itself. I'm not sure that he knew enough about
2111 the meeting to have concerns about what transpired in the 2 meeting. 3 Q: All right. Let -- let me stop there 4 and simply ask you this: Accepting your answer for a 5 moment that then Inspector Fox had concerns about what 6 was transpiring in that meeting, you've indicated that, 7 subsequently, in hindsight, your -- your real concern was 8 the presence of former Premier Harris, correct? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And that his views could be, in 11 essence, misconstrued, if you didn't really know him? 12 A: That's a possibility. 13 Q: Some people have a tendency to speak 14 in a blunt, strong fashion and they may be simply 15 misinterpreted as to how strong their opinion is, fair? 16 A: I think that's fair. 17 Q: And Premier Harris was one of those 18 people that you had that concern about, in terms of the 19 dining room meeting, fair? 20 A: I think that's fair. 21 Q: Now, looking at what Inspector Fox 22 depicts in this transcript, just in terms of events, 23 would you agree with me that he actually did, in fact, 24 now that you've seen the transcript and heard the 25 telephone call, he did, in fact, misconstrue what he was
2121 hearing from Premier Harris? Based on what you see in 2 this transcript. 3 A: I don't think there's any doubt about 4 it. 5 Q: And the person who misconstrued this 6 was a person, as you testified earlier in answer to Ms. 7 Tuck-Jackson questions, was a person who you spent years 8 with and developed respect for his judgment. 9 A: I did. 10 Q: And so this person, who's judgment 11 you respected, represents a classic example of another 12 reasonable person who could misconstrue what the Premier 13 was telling him, if he didn't know the Premier, correct? 14 A: I don't know if he'd misconstrue what 15 he was telling him but he -- he might misconstrue the 16 intent, I think might be more like it. 17 Q: Fair enough. And your point is he -- 18 he -- and I want to take you to some of the words. And 19 I'm now not talking about the editorializing, I'm talking 20 about words recounted in the record. 21 So if I could draw your attention, please, 22 to the nature of the discussion, and I'll move as quickly 23 as I can through it. 24 You'll see the transcript starts at page 25 258 in the bottom lower right hand corner, correct?
2131 A: Yes. 2 Q: Do you see that? 3 A: Yes, I do. 4 Q: All right. If you flip to 259, what 5 you see is Carson and Fox discussing -- Fox is organizing 6 Carson's involvement in an ex parte injunction process. 7 Do you see that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Then Fox says the following about 10 two-thirds (2/3's) of the way down the page, you see: 11 "And of course what comes up in this 12 meeting is about there's been machine 13 gunfire heard?" 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: And then -- and -- and I'll need to 16 say -- I don't mean to be irritating, sir, but -- 17 A: Sorry. 18 Q: -- you'll need to say 'yes' or 'no'. 19 A: Yes, I see that. 20 Q: And -- and Carson says: 21 "Right." 22 Fox says, quote: 23 "I said, Well, I'm not aware of it, but 24 I'll check into it." 25 Carson answers:
2141 "Right." 2 Now, was it consistent with your 3 understanding of Fox's role that he provided information 4 and, in essence, provided a source of information, be it 5 IMC, Interministerial Committee Meeting, or at Cabinet as 6 in the dining room meeting that it was Fox's role to 7 provide information by way of hard data from the 8 operation? 9 A: If it was I wasn't aware of it. 10 Q: Now -- so it's fair to say that that 11 would be a function you're quite confident you would not 12 have endorsed? 13 A: I'm not sure I wouldn't have endorsed 14 it if I'd had an opportunity to sit down with the -- with 15 the Deputy, for example, who invited him to the meeting 16 to discuss the role she saw him playing in the situation, 17 but that conversation didn't take place. 18 Q: And you're quite satisfied the Deputy 19 Solicitor General invited Inspector Fox to the meeting? 20 A: I think -- I think that was indicated 21 in the transcript at the outset. 22 Q: Well -- 23 A: The Deputy called. I think I -- I 24 saw that somewhere. I -- I've always assumed that the 25 Deputy asked him to -- to attend. He -- he worked in the
2151 Deputy's office. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: So I don't think he'd be there 6 without her endorsation. 7 Q: If you look at the -- page 263, if 8 you look at the bottom right-hand corner with the page 9 number? 10 A: Yes? 11 Q: Third line down: 12 "Well, I'll tell you. I was -- then 13 when I left that meeting I got a page, 14 go to the Legislative Building 15 immediately. 16 Oh? 17 Meet the Deputy. Well, I went and I 18 finally [and that term is supposed to 19 be 'found'] found my way through all 20 this media scrum." 21 A: All right. 22 Q: All right. And I'd ask you write the 23 word in 'found' over "UI"; that was one of the 24 corrections that happened on the record. If I ask you to 25 write it in --
2161 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I thought 2 the word -- was the word 'thread'? 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It was -- it was -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think the 5 word was 'thread'. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's 'thread'. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, I read 'found'. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And I would appreciate 9 if the Witness wouldn't write on the -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, okay. I 11 apologize. I thought I was being helpful and the first 12 effort -- 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I make, it 16 failed dramatically. 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, no I think it -- 18 you said "ferret"? 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Found. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No. It -- 21 "Meet the Deputy and I went and I 22 finally ferret my way through all the - 23 - 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ferret? 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ferret my way.
2171 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: How do you spell 2 ferret? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I had ferret 4 but then for some reason I had ferret crossed out and 5 wrote 'thread'. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: As you can see -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, I'm not 8 sure which it is. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But I don't think 10 it's -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This is rather an 12 art than a science, Mr. Runciman, so -- 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But, I would 14 appreciate it if My Friend would not have Mr. Runciman 15 write in the -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My apologies. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: Interpret the term to be 'ferret' or 21 'thread'. So he either ferreted his way through or 22 threaded his way through or he had a ferret to help him 23 thread his way through, but either way this man went 24 through a media scrum. All right. Do you see that? 25 A: Yes.
2181 Q: And it says, Meet the Deputy and it 2 says: 3 "I got a page to go the Legislative 4 Building." 5 So, there's actually no indication on this 6 transcript that the Deputy summonsed him. 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: You accept that? 9 A: I do. 10 Q: Dr. Elaine Todres said, in fact, she 11 did not summons Inspector Fox, that she had nothing to do 12 with the decision to have him attend. 13 Does that surprise you? 14 A: Yes, it does. 15 Q: And you had nothing to do with the 16 decision -- 17 A: I had nothing to do -- 18 Q: -- to have Inspector Fox attend, 19 fair? 20 A: Don't believe -- no. 21 Q: If you had had something to do with 22 the decision to have Inspector Fox attend it's -- the 23 gist of your evidence is that you would have taken steps 24 to create safeguards on what Inspector Fox did and didn't 25 say at that meeting, correct?
2191 A: You know, that's getting into a what 2 if scenario. I -- I'm not sure at the time that I knew 3 who would be attending that meeting, simply that we were 4 having a meeting in the anteroom. I think if I was 5 making assumptions at the time it would have been just 6 the -- the political representatives at the Cabinet 7 table, but beyond that I -- you know, I can't -- 8 Q: I'm sorry. I was just interpreting 9 evidence you'd given a moment ago. Maybe I should just 10 go back to it. 11 I thought you testified to the 12 Commissioner that you might have been comfortable with 13 Inspector Fox providing hard data if you had an 14 opportunity to meet with the Deputy Solicitor General, 15 understand what his role was going to be at the dining 16 room meeting and then, somewhat, control the flow of 17 information. 18 Wasn't that the gist of what you said 19 before? 20 A: Well, I don't think I used the term, 21 "control the flow of information." 22 Q: No, I didn't -- I didn't -- but, 23 wasn't that the gist? 24 A: The gist was that you were talking 25 about his role at the meeting or his role in being in
2201 attendance and -- and the role he was playing in terms of 2 liaising with -- with the Incident Commander. 3 And I said, at the time, I wasn't aware 4 that he was in -- acting in that capacity and if, indeed, 5 the deputy had apprised me of that and we had had an 6 opportunity to discuss it, I probably would not have had 7 a problem with it. 8 That's all I was saying. 9 Q: Fair enough. And in that role of 10 providing hard data, that would involve accessing 11 information on the ground, correct? 12 A: Providing hard data? 13 Q: That is, machine gun fire versus 14 semi-automatic fire, versus automatic fire. That's hard 15 data as to a police incident, correct? 16 A: It may well be. I -- I'm not sure if 17 I would construe that as hard data, but... 18 Q: Facts. 19 A: Facts, sure. 20 Q: Facts that -- 21 A: Confirming facts, yes. 22 Q: Confirmed facts that he would get 23 access to from incident command, correct? 24 A: I assume so, yes. 25 Q: And you've testified that you didn't
2211 know that that was his role. The only thing I want to 2 ask you, then, is -- is it fair to say, then, that you 3 didn't play a role in either seeking to have him brief 4 the members of the dining room meeting, or in any way 5 facilitating his briefing the members of the dining room 6 meeting as to the status of the matters on the ground. 7 That was not your job, correct? 8 A: I believe that's indeed what 9 happened; I did not, that's right. 10 Q: Okay. When you say, "I believe," 11 it's my failures on the negatives. You didn't do that, 12 did you? 13 A: I didn't do that, no. 14 Q: And it's your memory that that was 15 not what you understood he was doing there, correct? 16 A: To be quite honest with you, I've 17 indicated earlier I don't recall him being there in terms 18 of my recollections of the meeting, so, you know, I don't 19 think it was a consideration at the time. You know, I 20 simply can't recall him being at the meeting. 21 Q: And so what -- you see, there's some 22 things that memories can be foggy about, but if you had 23 been the one instructing him to brief Cabinet ministers, 24 whether it's Mr. Harris, Mr. Harnick or Mr. Hodgson, if 25 you had been the one to instruct this police officer to
2221 brief Cabinet ministers about what was going on on the 2 ground, you'd remember that? 3 A: In greater likelihood. 4 Q: Yes. Could you turn to page 264, 5 please? 6 A: I'm there. 7 Q: Now, what's happened here is that Mr. 8 Fox, and if you look at the previous page, 263, Mr. Fox 9 first describes events of the IMC meeting and we've heard 10 evidence about how this plays out, but then at the top of 11 263. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: The dining room meeting comes into 14 play and you see it coming into play by the reference to 15 the page. 16 A: Right. 17 Q: Right? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And so we go over his attendance at 20 the meeting and, "I meet with the deputy all right." Do 21 you see that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: "Our deputy Sol Gen, the AG, the 24 deputy AG, Chris Hodgson was there. 25 Yes. From Natural Affairs, and the
2231 fucking Premier. Oh boy." 2 Now stopping there, you don't doubt Mr. 3 Fox's ability to remember one hour later that Chris 4 Hodgson was at that meeting, do you? 5 A: No, I don't -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 7 minute. Just hold on there for a second. 8 Yes, Mr. Downard? 9 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's not helping. 10 It's asking as to the credibility of another witness. 11 The question's been answered now, so. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I see My 13 Friend's point. It was really because he was somewhat 14 hazy about Hodgson and I was asking did he doubt Hodgson 15 being there. 16 THE WITNESS: Who was hazy about Hodgson? 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Were you hazy about Hodgson? 20 A: No. Oh no. 21 Q: Oh you clearly recall Hodgson being 22 there? 23 A: Well, I believe Hodgson was there. I 24 -- I think I'm -- 25 Q: Right.
2241 A: -- quite sure he was there, yeah. 2 Q: All right. Fine. And Carson says: 3 "Oh boy. [reading on] 4 Well, John, I'm here to tell you this 5 guy is a red neck from way back 6 [laughs] and he came right out..." 7 And this is the part, you see, there are 8 these -- these editorial comments that, no matter what my 9 view of them is, sir, I'm going to ask you to ignore them 10 for a moment, all right? 11 I'm just talking about the facts. So, so 12 far you have certain people in attendance; that's an 13 example of facts, all right? 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: And an hour -- and it's an hour 16 later. Then he says: 17 "And he came right out and said [he's 18 referring to the Premier], I just 19 walked in on the tail end of this." 20 And then he's quoting the Premier. 21 "The OPP, in my opinion, made mistakes. 22 They should have done something right 23 at the time. And he said that I am 24 sure it'll all come out in an Inquiry 25 sometime after the fact."
2251 Now this is Superintendent Fox's 2 recollection, unshaken in cross-examination of what 3 Premier Harris said one (1) hour earlier. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, we've 5 got Mr. Downard on his feet. Just hold that for a 6 second, Mr. Runciman. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It would be fair to 8 say that Inspector Fox did not withdraw that statement at 9 cross-examination. To say it's unshaken at cross- 10 examination -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay, that's too 12 strong. 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- his credibility 14 is -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no. I see his 16 -- I see his point, and I think I should have just 17 removed that. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: That was Superintendent Fox's 21 evidence on what Premier Harris said -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 23 sufficient. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:
2261 Q: -- both in the transcript and in 2 Court. Now, I'm asking you do you -- is it a 3 recollection issue or do you actually dispute 4 Superintendent Fox that Premier Harris never said that? 5 A: I don't dispute it. 6 Q: All right. He goes on: 7 "Yeah, yeah. 8 Fox: He believes that he has authority 9 to direct the OPP." 10 And I clarified that for you already, sir, 11 do you recall? Mr. Runciman, I clarified that for you. 12 A: Yes. He withdrew that. 13 Q: Right. 14 "Oh yeah, okay." 15 So -- and then I'll ask for Mr. Millar's 16 help. I believe the next passage it says "Carson" and it 17 says, "I'll be talking to the Commissioner about that." 18 The correction should be, "I hope he'll be 19 talking to the Commissioner about that." That's what my 20 correction reads. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I hope that he'll be 22 talking to the Commissioner about that. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: All right. So can you just -- don't
2271 write it in but work with me. 2 "Pardon me -- and the Commissioner and 3 have that discussion. 4 Fox: Oh yeah. Well of course the 5 Commissioner's already brought in the 6 loop on this. 7 Okay." 8 Now it's this paragraph I want to bring to 9 your attention Mr. Runciman. 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: "So, in any event he makes a couple 12 wild ass comments, gets up and leaves 13 the room. And then the Sol Gen asks me 14 to brief them as to, you know, what 15 changes in the status of the situation 16 are. And I said, well I've been 17 talking to the Incident Commander and 18 I'm able to confirm there were shots 19 overnight. 20 I said somewhere between fifty (50) and 21 a hundred (100) and this is automatic 22 weapon, is what machine guns, this is 23 what this -- Chris and I said, it's 24 possible it could be I said but there's 25 certainly no evidence to support that.
2281 Between fifty (50) and a hundred (100) 2 rounds, I said it could have been semi- 3 automatic. 4 Carson: Right. 5 And I said there was no evidence that 6 they were pointed at anybody. 7 Carson: Yeah." 8 Stopping there, Mr. Runciman -- 9 A: yeah. 10 Q: -- do you dispute, first of all, that 11 you were the Solicitor General at the time? 12 A: I do not. 13 Q: Do you dispute that Superintendent 14 Fox knew who you were as the Solicitor General? 15 A: I agree he did. 16 Q: And is it fair to say that one (1) 17 hour after that dining room meeting, Superintendent Fox 18 states that you, Mr. Runciman, asked him to brief those 19 present at the dining room meeting, and I might point out 20 to you for your edification, that appears to exclude Mr. 21 Harris, because it looks like he left right before you 22 asked for it. 23 It appears that you, Mr. Runciman, asked 24 Superintendent Fox to brief those in attendance on the 25 quote "status of the situation", and then he referred to
2291 his discussions with the Incident Commander and went onto 2 brief those at the meeting in the dining room. 3 Isn't that fair? 4 A: That's what is says. 5 Q: Do you dispute you did that, sir? 6 A: I do, yes. And in fact I think other 7 witnesses have as well. 8 Q: Who -- who were the other witnesses? 9 A: I thought, and I could stand to be 10 corrected, I thought the Deputy Minister had indicated 11 she asked Mr. Fox to bring the group up to date. 12 Q: The Deputy Minister didn't have the 13 benefit of a conversation one (1) hour after the 14 incident. 15 Do you know of anyone who has the benefit 16 of notes one (1) hour after the incident? 17 A: I do not. I do not. 18 Q: Do you recall whether Superintendent 19 Fox having difficulties mixing up yourself with Elaine 20 Todres at any time the two (2) of you worked together? 21 A: No, I do not. 22 Q: So he refers to you as the person who 23 asked him to do the briefing, doesn't he? 24 A: He could be referring to the Ministry 25 rather than me. I'm not sure. I just -- I just know
2301 that I didn't ask him. 2 Q: There's one other possibility isn't 3 there? 4 A: That I'm mistaken? 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: yeah. I suppose that's a -- I'm 7 certainly not infallible. That's a possibility but I 8 certainly don't recall participating and asking him to 9 bring us up to date on a policing situation. 10 Obviously I didn't know he was there. I 11 mean, my recollection is that he's not there. That's -- 12 I don't recall him being there. That's -- so to suggest 13 that today I'm going to recall asking him to do it is a 14 bit of a leap, a bit of a stretch. 15 Q: It's your testimony today since you 16 don't, today in January 2006, don't recall Inspector Fox 17 being there, we can infer from that that you wouldn't 18 have asked him to brief the group in September 1995; 19 that's your testimony, fair? 20 A: Well, you know, it's -- my testimony 21 is -- 22 Q: You raised the stretch. 23 A: I say it's a stretch, yes. 24 Q: Yes. And in September 2001 -- you've 25 conceded for this Commissioner that, in September 2001,
2311 your memory did allow you to recall Fox's presence at the 2 meeting, fair? 3 A: The transcript indicates that, yes. 4 Q: Yes. So in September 2001, on your 5 logic, we can infer from that that you might have asked 6 him to brief the meeting, because in September 2001 you 7 certainly knew he was there, didn't you? 8 A: No. Again, I -- I would dispute 9 that. 10 Q: When you testified to Mr. 11 Klippenstein, as you did between pages 28 and 31, as to 12 your best recollection of who was in attendance at the 13 meeting in the dining room, did you understand you were 14 under Oath? 15 A: I believe I did. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: And did you understand -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah, he's been over-- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- did you 23 understand -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 25 minute --
2321 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, this is proper 2 cross-examination -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And every time 5 something gets skittish, I get a lot of people rising. 6 I've just had a witness telling me -- 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's not -- that's 8 not -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that he didn't 10 brief -- that he didn't ask somebody to brief him and the 11 reason he didn't -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 13 You're -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The reason he 15 didn't is because today he doesn't remember him when in 16 '01 he did. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we 18 heard that, we heard that. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right, now I'm 20 cross-examining him as -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 22 understand, but the lead up to the question is what's 23 raising the objections and I -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, my question 25 to you, sir --
2331 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you ask 2 the question straight, without a lead up, then perhaps 3 you won't be -- 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: That's fine. Did you know you were 7 under Oath in September 2001? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, is 9 that the question that you're objecting to? 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Could you 12 stop there. 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yeah. My objection 14 is that we've been around this -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- many times. This 17 is plain brow beating, absolutely plain. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's getting 19 to the point. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, Mr. 21 Commissioner, first of all, I'm stunned by this. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I'm -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Harris is 24 complaining about browbeating of Mr. Runciman. We've all 25 talked --
2341 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- about parties 3 having roles on objections. I don't know why it would be 4 that Mr. Smith, who represents Mr. Runciman isn't 5 objecting. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He will now, I'm 8 sure -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He is -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I can see him 11 rising behind me -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 13 fine. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- without even 15 turning my head. But I -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you're -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- think it's -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 19 browbeating it doesn't matter who objects at this point. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, in fairness, 21 though, in fairness, I don't want to be fighting Mr. 22 Harris about what I can ask Mr. Runciman because then -- 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, I was the first 24 one to rise and -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr.
2351 Millar. 2 And I was beginning to think that you were 3 reaching the point of browbeating, so let's back up a 4 step. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. I'll be 6 happy -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, let's-- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Perhaps it's just 9 my tone. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's hear 11 from Mr. Smith. And Mr. Smith is representing Mr. 12 Runciman. 13 MR. IAN SMITH: Thank you. I don't -- 14 first of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with 15 Mr. Downard making that objection. 16 Secondly, when I stood up the first time a 17 few minutes ago and then sat down again, the question I 18 was going to object to was the one that Mr. Falconer has 19 asked now, on the basis that he's asked it at least three 20 (3) times, I think -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. IAN SMITH: -- four (4) times now and 23 if we count Ms. Tuck-Jackson's answers -- or questions in 24 the same area, we've been over the ground quite a few 25 times.
2361 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 2 that's true. And let's see where you're going now, Mr. 3 Falconer. I don't want you to keep going over the same 4 ground or repeating the same evidence again and again. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: The confidence you get, that you 8 didn't ask Mr. Fox to brief the members of the dining 9 room meeting, flows from your failure to remember Mr. 10 Fox's attendance at that meeting. 11 Was that not the evidence you just gave 12 the Commissioner? 13 A: Partly, but I think also the fact 14 that going into that meeting, I wasn't aware of who would 15 be in attendance. 16 I didn't invite anyone to be there for a 17 specific reason. I was asked to attend a meeting to 18 discuss the Ipperwash situation, so I didn't ask anyone 19 to be there to explain anything. 20 Q: It goes on to describe, and could you 21 look at page 264 on the bottom? 22 It goes on to describe having been asked 23 by the Sol Gen to brief on what changes in the status of 24 the situation: 25 "I said we've been talking to the
2371 Incident Commander and I'm able to 2 confirm that there were shots 3 overnight." 4 Whether or not you actually asked him, 5 that is Mr. Fox, to brief the attendees that were left in 6 the meeting, and they were really everyone but Mr. 7 Harris, it's fair to say that would have been done in 8 front of you, yes? 9 A: Possibly. I can't say with any 10 certainty that it was. 11 Q: Well, can I ask you this, sir. If 12 the deputy Solicitor General asks Superintendent Fox, as 13 you'd have us believe, to brief the attendees as to 14 whether there's any change in the status of matters at 15 Ipperwash, are you saying that's when you would have 16 chosen to rise and leave the room? 17 A: No, that's a fair assumption, but I - 18 - I can't, with 100 percent certainty, say that that's 19 the case. But it's certainly a relatively safe 20 assumption. 21 Q: Fair enough. He goes on to say: 22 "I said somewhere between fifty (50) 23 and a hundred (100) and this is 24 automatic weapon is what machine guns 25 is, Chris, I said. And it's possible
2381 it could be, and he describes the 2 rounds. 3 I said there was no evidence that they 4 pointed at anybody." 5 Again, that would have been said in your 6 presence, correct? 7 A: Possibly. 8 Q: Now, you would have been free, there 9 was nothing stopping you to stop Mr. Fox -- to stop 10 Inspector Fox from briefing people in the fashion he was, 11 with the details from the incident command. 12 This is not something that -- there was 13 nothing operating in that dining room that would have 14 stopped you, was there? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 16 you answer, Mr. Runciman? 17 Yes, Mr. Smith...? 18 MR. IAN SMITH: My Friend Mr. Falconer is 19 asking Mr. Runciman about something he doesn't remember. 20 He's asking for a hypothetical question. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I'm not. 22 MR. IAN SMITH: And in my respectful 23 submission, it's not helpful to the purposes of the 24 Inquiry and we ought to move on. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Now, first of all
2391 the -- the reference to, "we ought to move on," and he's 2 asked this before, it becomes a mantra so it doesn't even 3 matter whether I've asked it before, they just say it 4 anyway. I clearly didn't ask this question before so I 5 don't know what he's talking about, the moving on. 6 Is it moving on -- 7 MR. IAN SMITH: Right. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- because the 9 question was difficult for the Witness? So -- so my 10 submission -- 11 MR. IAN SMITH: I didn't ask whether it 12 was -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. IAN SMITH: I didn't say that he'd 15 asked the question already. What I said was, the 16 question was unhelpful. He's asking about a conversation 17 or a briefing he doesn't remember. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. 19 MR. IAN SMITH: And so in my respectful 20 submission, the question he's asked about whether he 21 could have stopped it is completely unhelpful, and in the 22 interest of efficiency we should move on. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, here -- here's 25 my answer to it.
2401 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's quite simply 3 this. I want to know whether this Witness recalls 4 anything operating in this meeting that would have barred 5 him from speaking up, that's all. And that's something-- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 7 not the way you were asking the question. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That was the last 9 question I asked, Mr. Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, but 11 you're putting it in -- 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That was the 13 question he objected to. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in the 15 context of a specific statement and he doesn't remember 16 so how could he -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I understand 18 that. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: I'm asking you: That dining room 22 meeting, do you recall, at any time during your presence 23 at that dining room meeting, feel you -- feeling that you 24 were not entitled to speak up? 25 A: No.
2411 Q: Did you -- do you recall feeling, at 2 any time during your presence at that dining room 3 meeting, that you were not entitled to direct members of 4 your staff or the staff of the Deputy Solicitor General, 5 that they were to stop providing information if you were 6 of the view that information was improper? 7 Do you recall ever being limited in that 8 way? 9 A: No. 10 Q: So am I safe to infer from that, that 11 had you heard something improper, you would have simply 12 put a stop to it if it came from your staff or the staff 13 of your deputy? 14 A: If it was clearly improper, 15 certainly, yes. 16 Q: Now, you didn't have a concern about 17 what you heard while you were there, true? 18 A: What I can recollect in terms of 19 specifics, no. 20 Q: Now, we know about Fox. Dr. Todres 21 testified that one of -- in answers to questions by Mr. 22 Sandler from the Ontario Provincial Police, that one of 23 the reasons she gave a caution at the meeting about the 24 importance of the separation between politicians and the 25 police, was her concern and discomfort about some of the
2421 things being said at that meeting. 2 I take it you did not share her 3 discomfort? 4 A: Well -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Before you 6 answer, Mr. Runciman, yes, Mr. Smith? 7 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm just not sure that 8 Mr. Runciman's evidence suggests that he remembers such a 9 thing from Dr. Todres. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No -- 11 MR. IAN SMITH: I think the evidence is 12 that he didn't remember such a -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's not the 15 point of the question. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All I asked was, I 18 gave him an accurate rendition of evidence -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Of her 20 evidence. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. And 22 then I asked whether or not he shared a discomfort at any 23 time during the meeting. That's a simple question and 24 he'll either tell me he did or he didn't. 25 THE WITNESS: I think I indicated
2431 earlier, with respect to what I can recall in terms of 2 specifics or the meeting generally, no sense of 3 discomfort. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: All right. So we've looked at Fox 7 and we've looked at Dr. Todres, although briefly. Let's 8 look at Chief Coles for a moment, shall we? 9 Chief Coles is -- is in the transcript at 10 page -- could you flip please to page 27... 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: I apologize. 268 is where his 15 conversation starts. This is Chief Superintendent Coles. 16 And you know that this -- Chief Superintendent Coles is 17 sort of two (2) levels superior to Carson; you know that? 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: He was the superior of Superintendent 20 Parkin who was, in turn, the superior of Carson. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 22 Millar...? 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: You are looking at 24 page 271. 25
2441 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: Could -- now I -- I want to make sure 3 we track this conversation because I was discussing with 4 you levels of discomfort, all right? 5 So you'll see the conversation starts at 6 page 268 at the bottom, between Coles and Fox. 7 Do you see that? 8 A: I do. 9 Q: All right. And halfway down 269 10 Coles says the following -- and we're going to be out of 11 this transcript very soon, Mr. Commissioner. But in 12 fairness to me this -- this Witness has some very 13 important evidence to give about that meeting and I'm -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 15 to break you -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- aware of the 17 timelines. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in a 19 critical point so let's go a little longer. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: "Coles: Yeah, I guess just sitting 24 here just listening, I haven't heard 25 what John has got to tell me now. I've
2451 got a concern what we want to be 2 careful what we're doing here that we 3 don't give them, the people that you're 4 talking to, we don't give them the 5 information too fast." 6 Do you see that? 7 A: I do. 8 Q: "Fox: Um Coles, the problem with 9 that Ron, is that if you're not careful 10 you're going to run the issue there as 11 opposed to the -- myself and the 12 Commissioner running it here. And so 13 we had better be careful. 14 I have no objection to it because I 15 know you have no objection to you 16 phoning John but the only trouble is 17 you're not going to be the fast [and 18 it's suppose to be] the only trouble is 19 if you're not, you're going to be the 20 fastest source of information we've 21 got. 22 Uh huh. And now with them we're going 23 to end up with -- we're going to end up 24 running it politically." 25 Do you see that?
2461 A: I do. 2 Q: All right. And then flipping over -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sorry. Do 4 you have a question out of that because -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. I'm going to 6 -- I'm going to give him the full gist of -- of Chief 7 Coles' expressions of concern. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Flipping over -- 11 MR. IAN SMITH: Just before he goes on, 12 can we just make it clear for the Witness if it's not 13 already, that at this point it's not clear at all that 14 Mr. Coles knows about the dining room meeting at all. 15 He's not expressing that concern at that point. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. -- Officer 17 Coles testified here about where his concerns lay. They 18 lay with both the IMC meeting and the dining room 19 meeting. 20 He -- he testified about this. I'm being 21 completely fair to the record. I'm not suggesting that 22 it's one or the other. I hear Mr. Smith, but the 23 bottomline is I haven't made that suggestion. I'm simply 24 giving him the statement of concerns and I'm going to 25 discuss the issue of information flow up.
2471 MR. IAN SMITH: Okay that's -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: The next page 271, if you flip the 6 page, the top of the page: 7 "Fox: Well this guy here Peter Sturdy 8 was getting fed by people who were 9 there. 10 Coles: Yeah. And of course it came up 11 in the meeting about the automatic 12 weapon fire, you know they're doing 13 damage, there's heavy equipment roaring 14 around at night in there. 15 Coles: That's the trouble, and 16 they're going to react to that kind of 17 stuff and it's the same thing I just 18 told them here, it might see my 19 position is and now I can't do it. 20 My position is just been here some half 21 hour ago is, Mark, you downplay all the 22 heavy weaponry because I'll have a 23 fucking safety and backup issue myself 24 here. And it was the same as I had at 25 Akwesasne.
2481 Everybody said there was automatic guns 2 going off the frigging time and it 3 wasn't -- wasn't. I was just semi- 4 automatic. It was just pulling their 5 frigging triggers. But if you have 6 three (3) or four (4) guys shooting, 7 nobody knows the difference. 8 Fox: Well, that's what I said today. 9 There's no evidence [et cetera]. 10 [And then] Coles: Yeah. But you see 11 there's conversation go -- as far as 12 far as I'm concerned, there's 13 conversation going there that's 14 operational." 15 Now, stopping there for a moment. You 16 testified that you received a -- a briefing as to the 17 existence of these IMC meetings, correct? 18 A: Yes. But, I don't know if I received 19 your briefing. I was -- it depends on how you define a 20 briefing. I was -- I was told of the IMC meetings. 21 Q: And would you agree with me that 22 providing operational details to political staffers among 23 others at a meeting, in relation to an ongoing incident 24 is problematic? 25 A: Operational details, yes.
2491 Q: And you -- did you know Chief Coles? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Do you know -- 4 A: No, no, I didn't. 5 Q: Do you have any reason to doubt his 6 judgment in terms of his ability to determine what's 7 operational? 8 A: None. 9 Q: He had a concern that the information 10 that Fox felt compelled to impart at minimum -- minimally 11 at the IMC meeting on September 5th was operational in 12 nature. Do you see that? 13 A: I do. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Just 15 before you go on, I see Ms. Perschy up. 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, my concern of 17 course is that Superintendent Coles wasn't actually at 18 these meetings. And we did hear from Inspector Fox with 19 respect to his understanding of the information that was 20 conveyed at these meetings and what he regarded was 21 conveyed. 22 And my recollection was is that he didn't 23 think operational information had been conveyed. And of 24 course, in fairness to this Witness, he wasn't at these 25 meetings so he doesn't have that sort of background;
2501 that's the concern that I have. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But this is -- I 3 talked about -- 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: so, he doesn't have 5 that context. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Coles' -- the 7 Chief's comfort level. I wasn't talking right now about 8 Fox's comfort level. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but 10 the -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was talking about 12 Coles' comfort level and that My Friend is able to cross- 13 examine another witness to agree -- disagree with Coles' 14 life. But I'm talking about the comfort level an hour 15 later of Chief Coles, and it's a completely fair 16 question. 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, but I think that-- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Chief Coles 19 wasn't at that meeting. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- the point is -- is 21 -- I think that the point that -- that is being made is - 22 - My Friend just -- and I didn't catch it, but Ms. 23 Perschy did, he said -- he's talking about the September 24 5th meeting. 25 What Coles is talking about here is the
2511 dining room meeting. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: September 3 6th. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: September 6th, the 5 dining room -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- meeting. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And I think that -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You -- 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That was -- I 13 apologize when I -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. And 15 there's a difference. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: There is. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: And can I ask you this: You didn't 20 share Coles' views of his concerns about operational 21 details being discussed at the dining room meeting? 22 You didn't see it, you didn't -- you 23 didn't share his view, correct? 24 A: Well, I -- my point is that I -- I do 25 share his view that they shouldn't be sharing operational
2521 details with -- 2 Q: And do you recall -- 3 A: -- staff. 4 Q: Do you recall at the dining room 5 meeting, there being operational detail first provided by 6 Vrancart for the Ministry of Natural Resources and then 7 by Fox? 8 A: I -- you know, I certainly recall -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 10 an objection Mr. Millar? 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, no. I may have 12 misspoke myself about what's being referred to here, so I 13 -- I -- I step back from it. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: Do you recall -- I moved on. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I've moved on. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The record 21 has to be correct. 22 Yes, Mr. Smith...? 23 MR. IAN SMITH: Indeed, I think the 24 record does have to be correct. Mr. Millar, I think, 25 just indicated that Coles was talking about the dining
2531 room meeting when he made the comments My Friend, Mr. 2 Falconer, was just referring to. 3 And I think it's not until a couple of 4 pages later in this transcript that Coles becomes aware 5 of the dining room meeting. 6 So, he can't possibly be talking about it 7 at that point. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: And I want to be clear that I was 11 fair with the Witness and I did it in a fashion that 12 described two (2) meetings, an issue, and I described 13 whether operational details happened in meeting 1 or 14 meeting 2, would it be correct and the Witness has 15 naturally testified, no it wouldn't. 16 Coles had a discomfort and I'm going to 17 get to the point of where I'm going, which is, at the 18 dining room meeting of September 6th, 1995, you heard Mr. 19 Vrancart relay information that, as you put it, caused 20 alarm, correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And the information he relayed that 23 caused alarm were facts stemming from the incident below, 24 correct? 25 A: Facts stemming from...?
2541 Q: The incident command. Facts -- 2 A: No, no. These were facts conveyed by 3 MNR staff, park rangers, that sort of thing. 4 Q: Did you know that representatives of 5 MNR have testified here before Mr. Commissioner, whether 6 it's Mr. Vrancart, whether it's Mr. Kobayashi, or whether 7 it's Mr. Sturdy, they have all testified that the source 8 of their information going to MNR was the police. 9 Did you know that? 10 A: No, I didn't. 11 Q: Did you ever ask Mr. Vrancart where 12 the information he learned, that he imparted at the 13 dining room meeting came from? 14 A: No, I didn't. 15 Q: Would you agree with me that if that 16 information did come from the police, that would be a 17 matter you'd be concerned about? 18 A: Not necessarily. Given the -- the 19 nature of the comments, I don't think I would construe 20 that as operational details. 21 Q: And that's because the details didn't 22 relate to tactical decisions they're about to make; is 23 that the distinction? 24 A: What they were doing on the ground 25 and manpower levels, those kinds of things.
2551 Q: And I'm going to wrap up, because 2 you're you want to take a break -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I do want to 4 get a break. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Mr. 6 Commissioner. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: I just want to understand something. 10 Chief Coles expressed the concern that when operational 11 information flows upward this way, among politicians, 12 that there is a risk or a danger it starts being run from 13 up there, by the politicians. 14 Do -- are you familiar with the concern he 15 has? 16 A: Well, I can appreciate the concern he 17 has. I think the fact that he's talking specifically, as 18 I read it, about reports of heavy weaponry and those 19 kinds of issues, which do generate increasing alarm and 20 that may increase pressure. 21 I'm sure that's what he's -- what he's 22 suggesting. 23 Q: Example, AK-47's? 24 A: That's right. 25 Q: And his concern that the movement of
2561 this op -- information up to political circles would 2 result it in being run, that is the incident being run, 3 politically; is that a legitimate concern? 4 A: I -- I can see it as a concern but I 5 don't -- I don't know how, you know, in terms of the -- 6 the possibility, I suppose, from his perspective, but in 7 terms of reality, I don't think that ever could have 8 occurred. 9 Q: And just to close out, we've looked 10 at Inspector Fox's discomfort, yes? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: We've looked at Dr. Todres' 13 discomfort, yes? 14 A: I guess you have. 15 Q: And we've looked at now-Chief 16 Superintendent Coles' discomfort, yes? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: You had no discomfort? 19 A: I -- you know, you -- I'll raise this 20 issue. You talked about whether or not I was in 21 attendance for this which has been testified as -- by Mr. 22 Fox with respect to his briefing. 23 I may well -- if we're going to speculate, 24 I may well have left the room at that point for other 25 commitments and could have been on the basis of being
2571 brought up to speed later on by Ministry staff; that's a 2 possibility as well and -- 3 Q: So if you had been present, as you 4 think about it, you would have had a discomfort level 5 with this? 6 A: I'm not sure I would have, to be 7 quite frank, and I don't -- I don't see Mr. Fox 8 suggesting that the Deputy interject here at any point 9 during his -- his presentation to whomever was present at 10 that point so -- 11 Q: No, he -- he -- 12 A: -- I'm not sure she had a discomfort 13 at that point either. 14 Q: He only refers to you, the Solicitor 15 General; isn't that right? 16 A: Yes, I see that. 17 Q: And -- and -- and the -- and the -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 19 minute. Just a minute. 20 Yes...? 21 MR. IAN SMITH: I want to thank -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Before you 23 go to the next question, I take it you're objecting to 24 the last one? 25 MR. IAN SMITH: Yes, I'm -- I just want
2581 to thank whoever it was who passed me this note but in -- 2 in Mr. Fox's evidence-in-chief he does indicate that the 3 person who asked for the briefing was either Mr. Runciman 4 or the Deputy Solicitor General. He gives the two (2) 5 options. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So sometimes 7 when you say, "Sol Gen", you might mean the individual or 8 the Deputy or somebody else? 9 MR. IAN SMITH: Quite right. But 10 whatever he meant in this telephone call he certainly 11 testified before you that it was one (1) or the other. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 13 MR. IAN SMITH: It wasn't just Mr. 14 Runciman. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 16 MR. IAN SMITH: That wasn't the only 17 possibility of the person who asked for the briefing. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: Do you recall testifying that you 22 would have stayed in the room until the Premier left 23 minimally? Do you recall saying that? 24 A: I don't recall, but I think I -- I 25 would have certainly.
2591 Q: All right. You testified that in 2 answer to questions, as I recall, by Ms. Tuck-Jackson, 3 but I could be wrong about who asked you. 4 But the bottomline is this: Do you see 5 how Inspector Fox describes an event where the Premier 6 left and he was immediately asked to brief those in 7 attendance? Do you see that? 8 A: That's quite possibly what occurred. 9 Q: And so, again, I suggest to you, sir, 10 that what really happened here is that, as an observer as 11 -- you -- you described yourself as an observer, correct? 12 A: That's right. I wasn't a 13 participant. 14 Q: Right. As an observer, you didn't 15 feel it was your role to control the information coming 16 out at that meeting; isn't it true? 17 A: No, I -- I don't agree with that. I 18 think if there had been some suggestion of -- of explicit 19 direction to the police to -- to enter the Park and 20 remove the -- the occupants I -- I don't think there's 21 any doubt whatsoever that I would have intervened and 22 would have interjected and made it clear that that was 23 inappropriate. 24 Q: Anything else goes? In other words, 25 if they discuss operational matters but nobody makes a
2601 direction -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not-- 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to get the 5 Indians out of the Park, it's okay? 6 THE WITNESS: Well, it's -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Is that what you're 8 saying? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. -- 10 THE WITNESS: That's not what I'm saying. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 13 Falconer, you say you're winding down -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's fine. 15 This is a good time for -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and it 17 appears like you're winding up. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's a good time 19 for a break. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 21 it is. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Probably need some 23 sugar. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess
2611 for fifteen (15) minutes. 2 3 --- Upon recessing at 3:24 p.m. 4 --- Upon resuming at 3:41 p.m. 5 6 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 7 resumed, please be seated. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 12 Falconer, we usually go to 4:30 when we start at 9:00 in 13 the morning because it makes for a very long day for the 14 Witness and for all of us, but I'm prepared to go a 15 little longer because I want you to finish your 16 examination today. 17 So we'll go as long as is necessary, but I 18 hope that you stay in the time limits that you've 19 estimated. You've said two (2) to three (3) hours. 20 You've been an hour and three-quarters (3/4's) so if you 21 go for another hour or so we should be finished, if not 22 at 4:30, pretty close. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 24 I'm just wondering. I -- I canvassed Counsel for the 25 Witness just -- it is a long day and -- and my only --
2621 and I'll wait to hear from Mr. Millar. 2 My only point is, first of all, I would 3 expect to be going about an hour and fifteen (15) minutes 4 more. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 6 get it done. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, no, I just 8 thought we should hear -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I just 10 want to get going and get it done. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Okay, but let me just 12 -- Mr. Smith said that Mr. Falconer spoke to him and Mr. 13 Smith spoke to Mr. Runciman, and it was to put to Mr. 14 Runciman on the basis that -- or Mr. Smith that -- that 15 if we stopped at 4:30, Mr. Falconer would be no more than 16 a half an hour tomorrow morning, and the Witness would 17 prefer, if possible, to stop at 4:30 and -- and finish 18 the half hour in the morning. 19 I just pass that on, because Mr. Smith 20 just -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's just it's a 22 long day for everyone and I -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a long 24 day for everyone. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I don't want to
2631 make it a sea of objections at five o'clock because I'm 2 framing questions poorly. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 4 If you have a half hour left in the morning and you are 5 saying you have a half hour and that pleases the Witness, 6 then I think that's what we'll do. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. So 8 I'll go to 4:30 -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So we'll 10 stop at 4:30. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and then no more 12 than thirty (30) minutes and Mr. Runciman has my word. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And he knows that 15 there is someone to enforce my word. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 17 Mr. Falconer. Thank you very much. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's move 20 on. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: Now, Mr. Runciman, in terms of the 24 discussions in the transcript at Tab 37, and we're almost 25 finished with this, if you could turn it up to a section
2641 where -- and it's page, right-hand corner, 274. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And it's where -- from the record 4 it's obvious officer Coles, that is Chief Coles and 5 Inspector Carson are discussing the dining room meeting. 6 Do you see that? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Fox. You said Carson. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: I'm sorry, Fox. Inspector Fox and -- 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: -- Chief Coles are discussing the 14 dining room meeting. Do you see that? 15 A: Yes, I do. 16 Q: And again: 17 "So you know I was called to meet with 18 Deputy Solicitor General over at the 19 Legislature." 20 And he describes that he walked over to 21 Deputy Solicitor General and the Sol Gen and the AG and 22 the deputy AG. 23 Do you see that? 24 A: Yes, I do. 25 Q: And do you see how Inspector Fox
2651 actually distinguishes between the Deputy Solicitor 2 General and the Sol Gen. 3 Do you see that? 4 A: Yes. Hmm hmm. 5 Q: And then he says the following to 6 Chief Coles, and I'm going to suggest to you he says it 7 in a less colourful fashion than what he said to his 8 colleague, Carson. He says: 9 "Okay, the Premier is quite adamant 10 that this is not an issue of native 11 rights. 12 And then his words: 13 "Ah, I mean we've tried to pacify and 14 pander to these people for too long. 15 It's now time for swift, affirmative 16 action." 17 Now, an hour after the dining room 18 meeting, Inspector Fox quotes former Premier Mike Harris 19 as stating, quote: 20 "We've tried to pacify and pander to 21 these people for too long. It's now 22 time for swift, affirmative action." 23 Are you in a position to dispute Inspector 24 Fox's recollection? 25 A: Well, I -- I think I indicated
2661 earlier in my testimony that there were references to the 2 question of a burial site on the property and there was 3 some discussion around the merits or lack of merits with 4 respect to that claim. 5 So that reference could have been, you 6 know, dealing with the -- that discussion as to whether 7 or not there was some kind of right to be occupying the 8 property or not. 9 Q: And so you would not contest 10 Inspector Fox's recollection an -- an hour later. And he 11 actually put, do you see that, his words, do you see 12 that? 13 You see where he quotes Premier Harris, 14 his words? 15 "I mean, we've tried to pacify and 16 pander to these people for too long." 17 A: I see where he says that. 18 Q: So you don't dispute Inspector Fox's 19 recollection that Premier Harris would have said that? 20 A: I doubt it that he would have put it 21 that way, but I can't recall specifics with respect to 22 any comments made along those lines. 23 Q: One way or the other, is that fair? 24 A: One way or the other, that's right. 25 Q: And:
2671 "I walked in the tail end, Chris, 2 with him saying things like, 'well I 3 think the OPP have made mistakes in 4 this one. They should have just gone 5 in.' He views it as a simple trespass 6 to property. That's in his thinking." 7 And you recall testifying, before the 8 break, that that was somewhat consistent with the 9 impression you believed Premier Harris conveyed at the 10 meeting, correct? 11 A: I think some could have taken it that 12 way, that's for sure. I -- I don't think he was happy 13 with the fact that it had evolved the way it had evolved. 14 Q: And when you use the words, That way, 15 you're referring to what I've just read to you, correct? 16 A: The fact that the occupation had -- 17 had occurred and -- and was, at least struck us at that 18 point and time, a worsening situation. 19 Q: To be fair, sir, if, in fact, you 20 concede on the stand that Premier Harris stated in front 21 of a, as you put it, representative of the OPP, that the 22 OPP made mistakes, you know that that would be something 23 that would be politically damaging to you; isn't that 24 fair? 25 A: I'm --
2681 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: I -- politically damaging 3 to me personally? 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: Yes, sir. 7 A: If I admitted that he said the OPP 8 made mistakes? 9 Q: That's right. 10 A: No, I don't see that would be 11 politically damaging to me. 12 Q: Would you consider -- now I'm asking 13 you a separate question. Would you consider an 14 allegation that either you or one of your colleagues 15 misled the legislature to be -- to be proven as 16 politically da -- potentially politically damaging to 17 yourself? 18 A: To myself? 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: Not necessarily. I, you know, if 21 someone else was engaged in -- in that kind of activity, 22 I'm not sure that it would necessarily have an impact on 23 me personally. 24 Q: You testified that you would have 25 been at the dining room during the entire stay of Michael
2691 Harris in that meeting. 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: You've testified that Inspector Fox 4 was a trustworthy officer. He has given an account one 5 (1) hour after the event. At no time have you said Fox 6 is wrong about what Michael Harris has said. 7 Did I miss it? 8 A: I -- what I would say is that the 9 language used is not necessarily reflective of the 10 language that the Premier may have used. 11 Q: And when you see the words by Fox, 12 quote, "his words," closed quotes, a seasoned police 13 officer quoting someone, are you saying that Fox was 14 mistaken? 15 A: He may have been. 16 Q: Or not, correct? 17 A: Or not. 18 Q: All right. And so at the end of the 19 day, it's fair to say that your concern about Michael 20 Harris' presence was for the very reasons you see in this 21 transcript, giving the impression of his, quote, "frank," 22 closed quotes, opinions on the conduct of the incident 23 thus far, right? 24 A: His -- his presence and the 25 interpretation of comments made, yes.
2701 Q: And -- now leaving aside Premier 2 Harris' presence, there's another way to analyse that, 3 isn't there? Premier Harris could well have been 4 present, but then it would have been important that, in 5 essence, those who ought not to -- that -- that only 6 politicians and their staff were present; isn't that 7 true? 8 A: That's true. 9 Q: So that another way of looking at 10 this would have been, if Premier Harris was to be there, 11 then representatives of the OPP should not have been 12 there, correct? 13 A: I think that's probably right. 14 Q: And there was no doubt, as you said 15 on the floor of the legislature, you perceived this man 16 to be a representative of the OPP. 17 That's what you said on the floor, didn't 18 you? 19 A: Perceived him to be a member of the 20 OPP? I knew he was a -- 21 Q: A representative. 22 A: -- member of the OPP, yes. 23 Q: Yes. And in terms of the decision to 24 have him there, you didn't participate in that decision 25 to have Fox there, correct?
2711 A: That's correct. 2 Q: You didn't participate in the 3 decision to have Patrick there, correct? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Deb Hutton was at the Premier's side 6 as the two (2) of them walked into the dining room 7 meeting, correct? 8 A: That I can't recall. I know she was 9 in attendance but whether she was at his side when he 10 entered, I'm not sure. 11 Q: You testified in-chief that they 12 walked in together, that's why I asked. 13 A: Oh, did I? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: I -- I don't recall that testimony. 16 Q: Could that be consistent with your 17 memory, that you saw them come in together? 18 A: Well I'd like to have clarification 19 that I actually said that, because I don't recall saying 20 that. 21 Q: We'll -- we'll get it for you, sir. 22 In terms of your evidence, you also had a recollection 23 prior to testifying, didn't you? In other words you -- 24 you met with Commission counsel, yes? 25 A: Yes.
2721 Q: You had to give an account of what 2 you recall, yes? 3 A: That's true. 4 Q: Do you recall whether or not you 5 recalled them coming in together then? 6 A: No I do not. 7 Q: All right. Deb Hutton sat beside 8 Premier Michael Harris? 9 A: Yes, I believe so. 10 Q: Right beside him? 11 A: Right beside him, yeah. 12 Q: She was the go-to person in the 13 Premier's office over Ipperwash, yes? 14 A: She was the contact with my executive 15 assistant, so I guess the go to person is one way of 16 describing it. 17 Q: Well, she was more than just a 18 contact wasn't she? It was her evidence that she 19 actually was in charge of delegating who would respond in 20 Question Period to the issue of Ipperwash. 21 Did you know that? 22 A: I probably knew that. I'm unsure 23 that we were given that advice. 24 Q: She handled the brief from the 25 Premier's office point of view of Ipperwash.
2731 Did you know that? 2 A: I think that's the fact, yes. 3 Q: All right. So she was more than a 4 contact for your executive assistant, she was the lead 5 person in the Premier's office on Ipperwash, correct? 6 A: It's probably fair. 7 Q: And as a political staffer, she 8 basically was simply a representative of the Premier, 9 correct? 10 A: I would think that's -- in most 11 instances that would be the assumption. 12 Q: And would you agree with me that she 13 wielded a fairly exceptional level of power and influence 14 in her position in the Premier's office? 15 A: I think over time that was exhibited. 16 At that point in time, new to government, she was, I 17 think, strongly counted on by the -- by the Premier. 18 He'd -- she'd been in his employ for some time. 19 Q: And you said over time that became 20 apparent and what you're saying is is that your 21 experience with the Premier's office made clearer and 22 clearer over time the amount of influence she exercised, 23 correct? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And in terms of her role were you
2741 familiar with the fact that she was conveying the 2 Premier's views at the IMC meetings of September 5th and 3 6th, 1995 as they pertained to Ipperwash? 4 A: No, I wasn't. 5 Q: Were you familiar with the fact that 6 she was indicating that, among other things, that the 7 Premier was hawkish? According to the testimony of those 8 present, the Premier was hawkish on the issue of the 9 removal of the occupiers. 10 Were you familiar with that? 11 A: That wasn't, to the best of my 12 recollection, brought to my attention. 13 Q: Now, having a representative of the 14 OPP, such as Mr. Fox, present at the meeting, at a 15 meeting, where such an opinion was expressed, that the 16 Premier was hawkish about the removal of the occupiers, 17 would that be something that would give you pause for 18 concern? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 20 you answer, Mr. Runciman, yes, Ms. Perschy? 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My concern is how Mr. 22 Falconer has described the comments, the hawkish comment, 23 and since this Witness wasn't at that meeting, I think in 24 fairness to this Witness we try -- we should try to be as 25 accurate as possible. He wasn't there. He doesn't know
2751 and -- and I think -- I don't agree with Mr. Falconer's 2 characterization. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And if he can turn up 5 something. If he can try -- if he can make another 6 attempt, if I can put it this way. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, there 8 was only some witnesses who used the phrase, "hawkish," 9 but some did. Yes? 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: But none of them 11 referred to it in quite the words that he just used. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he was 13 using some short forms, but yes, Mr. -- 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My only concern is 15 that this is completely unfounded in any recollection of 16 this Witness. He can take the Witness to any of a 17 hundred (100) things and say, Well, does that cause you 18 concern? Does that cause you concern? But it's not 19 helpful evidence for you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 21 not sure. I thought he was leading up to a question. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I am. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean, 24 again, I don't think that was the end of the question -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, it's not.
2761 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I think. 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And I'm not sure what 3 the question is and I -- and I may have the -- the 4 objection to -- to the question, but my concern was 5 different. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know 7 that. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My concern was the 9 way that he referred to the hawkish comment. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, all 11 right. 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I don't believe it's 13 accurate. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I think 15 he would -- 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And that was the -- 17 that was the concern that I wanted to raise at this -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If the 19 preamble to your question were accurate and if you put 20 your question then we can see where we are. I hope 21 that's clear. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That -- that could 23 well be your first hypothetical ruling, Mr. Commissioner, 24 I say with respect. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.
2771 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: I'm just going to take a step back 4 because I -- I can see that this is going to take more 5 time than it's worth to -- to go -- continue down this 6 path. 7 I ask you this, Mr. Runciman: In your 8 dealings with the Premier's office, in particular with 9 Ms. Hutton, did you have any -- did you form any views as 10 to her personality, in terms of dealing with crises, as a 11 person who tended to be mild or as a person who tended to 12 be more aggressive? 13 A: I didn't form any opinions in 14 Opposition and as you know we were only in government for 15 seven (7) or eight (8) weeks so I had not really been 16 exposed to her in that capacity for any -- any length of 17 time in terms of forming an opinion. 18 Q: And then moving on to the full length 19 of your exposure to Ms. Hutton, could you now answer the 20 question based on your experience with Ms. Hutton over 21 the years? 22 A: I think she is a -- a strong 23 individual and is not shy about expressing her views. 24 Q: And Mr. Taman has testified that he 25 became concerned about the interaction between political
2781 staffers on the one hand, and civil servants on the 2 other, at the IMC level. 3 Do you recall those concerns being 4 discussed? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, again I 6 see -- 7 THE WITNESS: No. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Ms. 9 Perschy -- 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My only -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 12 positioning her -- 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My only concern, 14 again, is that, in fairness to this Witness, if Mr. 15 Falconer's going to refer to the testimony of other 16 people, he should be accurate in terms of referring back 17 to that evidence. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm being 19 completely accurate. 20 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's a 22 short form and -- 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It -- it -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it may 25 not be inaccurate, but it's not complete.
2791 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It is a short form and 2 I'd appreciate it if -- if he's going to refer to that 3 testimony -- if he doesn't need to refer to it, then why 4 go there? 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Is My Friend -- 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: But if he is -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- saying that I'm 8 inaccurate? She's actually not saying that. 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So if I'm not 11 inaccurate, then why is -- 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, I -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- she objecting? 14 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I believe -- I believe 15 you are inaccurate, which is why I'm on my feet. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well what is it 17 that Mr. Taman said, Mr. Commissioner? Because that's 18 what I heard -- 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- repeatedly from 21 him. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, yes, 23 let's back up. 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: All I'm requesting, if 25 he's going to refer to the testimony of Mr. Taman, that
2801 he do so by reference to that testimony so that we can 2 ensure the accuracy, because I'm not sure that he was 3 accurate. 4 That was the basis of my concern. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 And, Mr. Downard...? 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I thought we'd been 8 around this before in terms of a process, that if one is 9 going to purport to state the gist of evidence, which is, 10 in theory, fine, that one would have a page reference so 11 that people can simply check it. 12 He doesn't have to read the whole 13 transcript, just so you can say and -- she or he said 14 this at X page, at X day, and we were doing that and it 15 was -- it's fast, but it -- it was working. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That would 17 be helpful. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I've seen it 19 done by numerous Counsel -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- including Ms. 22 Tuck-Jackson and others without referring to page 23 numbers -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if 25 it's not controversial --
2811 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right, that's 2 right. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- then 4 that's fine, but if it is -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But they're making 6 it -- they're making it controversial. I'm just going to 7 move on, it's not worth it. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If it is 9 controversial, then we have to back up and do it the long 10 route. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: In terms -- in terms of the evidence 14 of Dr. Elaine Todres to be found, this is the long route, 15 at page 297 through 299, Dr. Todres' evidence. 16 A: This is in the same book that you've 17 provided. 18 Q: No. I'm going to read you -- 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: -- a passage. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: November 29th, 2005. 25
2821 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Dr. Todres said the following with 4 respect to political staff, and this is what I want to 5 find out, if you share her view of political staff. 6 At line 25, page 296: 7 "A: Well, I think in order to 8 exercise the filter which is -- that it 9 was my responsibility as the deputy 10 Minister to sort out the operational 11 from the policy, and what data and 12 information needed to be presented to 13 the Minister. As a matter of practice 14 I would have tried not to have 15 political staff present, and I mean we 16 might -- I might just spend a moment or 17 two (2) on that to provide context. 18 I don't think -- well my view of 19 British parliamentary democracy and 20 ministerial accountability through 21 experience has been defined such that 22 it is highly problematic for a minister 23 to stand behind a defence that he 24 wasn't in the room, but his assistant 25 was..."
2831 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 2 Runciman, it's on the Board behind you if you want to 3 read while he's reading it to you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: And the last paragraph I just read to 7 you, Mr. Runciman, was at line 9. So if you look across 8 to the left side -- 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: "I don't think -- well my view of 11 British parliamentary democracy and 12 ministerial accountability through 13 experience has been defined such that 14 it is highly problematic for a minister 15 to stand behind a defence that he 16 wasn't in the room, but his assistant 17 was. 18 And to stand behind that argument and 19 say, oh, and therefore I wasn't 20 informed. 21 So, as a matter of practice, in order 22 to ensure that the Minister was 23 protected in most, perhaps not all, 24 cases, I would have had a private 25 briefing and as it turns out, Mr. Fox
2841 and Mr. Patrick usually had offices 2 very close to mine, literally half a 3 desk, you know, a desk away. 4 I would have met with them first." 5 And then at the bottom of page -- sorry, 6 at page 298, line 13. Page 298, line 13 -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: "Q: In terms of your observation 9 and comment that the executive 10 assistant is tantamount to having the 11 Minister in the room, do you know how 12 widely that sentiment was shared? 13 A: Well, I would have suspected that 14 that would be what most Deputy 15 Ministers would assert." 16 Do you agree with Dr. Todres' view of the 17 role of political staff? 18 A: Well, it would be tantamount to 19 having the -- the eyes and ears of the Minister in the 20 room, yes. 21 Q: All right. So -- and -- and that's 22 to be contrasted, is it not, for example, from a Deputy - 23 - Deputy Minister, say the Deputy Attorney General -- the 24 Deputy Attorney General stands in distinction in position 25 and under the British Parliamentary model of
2851 accountabilities, that Deputy stands in distinction from 2 the Attorney General; isn't that right? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And so political staff are really 5 considered the arm of the Minister; is that not right? 6 A: That's true. 7 Q: And that's the way you practice in 8 your profession as Solicitor General? 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: Sorry? 11 A: I agree. 12 Q: It -- it's not your fault. It's just 13 you have to say "yes" or "no." 14 A: I understand. 15 Q: Use words. 16 A: You have to keep reminding me, I'm 17 afraid. 18 Q: No, that's all right. In -- in terms 19 of -- unless I don't like the answer, then I -- I won't 20 say anything. 21 In -- in terms of the process that you 22 engaged in, therefore, as far as you were concerned, 23 whether we're talking about Deb Hutton, she was political 24 staff, yes? 25 A: But she wasn't an executive
2861 assistant. I suppose you could make a distinction there. 2 Q: But she was political staff? 3 A: She was political staff. 4 Q: And she, in essence, was as if she 5 was the Minister, yes? 6 A: I guess I would make a distinction 7 between the Chief of Staff and other political staff. I 8 think that there is a -- I think the Deputy is making a 9 distinction as well. 10 Q: So an executive assistant -- 11 A: Chief of Staff. 12 Q: -- would be the Minister? Is that 13 right? 14 A: The executive assistant or Chief of 15 Staff, the same -- same -- just interchangeable title. 16 An executive assistant is, in effect, the Chief of Staff 17 to the Minister or the Premier. 18 Q: And therefore -- 19 A: That was the case in our government 20 in any event. It may be different in others. 21 Q: And therefore, this Chief of Staff or 22 executive assistant, having them in the room would be 23 tantamount to having the Minister in the room? 24 A: I would think more so yes, 25 absolutely.
2871 Q: All right. And then you say that 2 someone like Deb Hutton, a political staffer, would enjoy 3 more distance from the Premier? 4 A: I think in terms of that not being 5 specific about Ms. Hutton, but in terms of her role I'm 6 not sure what her role was, Policy Advisor, Special 7 Assistant; whatever her title was at the time. 8 Q: Well, you -- 9 A: So I'm thinking in terms of -- of job 10 positions rather than individuals. 11 Q: You spent years with Ms. Hutton, 12 correct? 13 A: I did. 14 Q: All right. She -- she was Premier 15 Harris' -- one (1) of Premier Harris' major advisors. 16 A: But, and I'm not trying to defend 17 anybody here, but I think it's fair to say that, again, 18 we were new to government, so that understanding or 19 appreciation of -- of Ms. Hutton's closeness, if you 20 will, to the Premier would not necessarily have been 21 appreciated by most in the Civil Service. 22 Q: And it's fair to say, though, if she 23 clarified it for them and indicated what specifically the 24 Premier's views were, that would assist them in educating 25 them, wouldn't it?
2881 A: Again, it's -- it's a subjective kind 2 of thing. I -- I really, you know, it would depend on 3 how the individual interpreted it. 4 Q: Now, in terms of the reference by Dr. 5 Todres, in the passage I just read to you, she speaks to 6 the issue of being a filter. 7 Did you see that? 8 A: Yes, I did. Yes. 9 Q: And it's fair to say that one (1) of 10 the roles of the Deputy Solicitor General is to act as a 11 filter in respect of information going to the Solicitor 12 General, true? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: There may well be operational facts 15 that the Solicitor General ought not to know about, 16 correct? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And you recognized that the Deputy 19 Solicitor General served in that buffer role? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Though I take it I can infer from the 22 evidence that you provided during your examination-in- 23 chief about the buffer, near the end, that perhaps, from 24 an appearance point of view, it's not an ideal buffer; is 25 that fair?
2891 A: I -- whether it's an ideal buffer or 2 not, I think that it can certainly be open to conjecture 3 and I think that when I made those comments it was to try 4 and -- given the experience that we'd been through, that 5 it's worth considering an additional buffer. 6 Q: Fair enough. 7 A: That was my point. 8 Q: Could you turn to Tab -- well, let me 9 ask you this just before we do. 10 The idea of the filter is that, for 11 example, operational details, not absolutely essential to 12 your function as a Cabinet Minister and a Solicitor 13 General, need not go to you, correct? 14 A: That's correct 15 Q: And -- and an extension of that is 16 operational details not essential to the conduct of other 17 Cabinet Ministers need not go to them, correct? 18 A: I would agree. 19 Q: And one of your jobs in fact as 20 Solicitor General was to be a guardian of the line of 21 demarcation in order to ensure that there was neither the 22 fact of political interference by other Cabinet Ministers 23 or the appearance of it, correct? 24 A: I don't disagree. 25 Q: Kathryn Hunt was your Executive
2901 Assistant. 2 A: She was. 3 Q: She was your eyes and ears? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: She was your personal representative, 6 yes? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Having her in the room was tantamount 9 to having you in the room, yes? 10 A: Not necessarily. But I -- I'm saying 11 that she was my eyes and ears, not necessarily my mouth. 12 And so -- 13 Q: Well I only went for eyes and ears. 14 A: -- that she -- I -- I make that 15 distinction because she may in certain situations 16 certainly be reluctant to speak on my behalf. 17 Q: Fair enough. But in fact you 18 referred that in terms of proximity or closeness of 19 relationship, the Executive Assistant was very close, 20 correct? 21 A: Absolutely. 22 Q: And when I talked about eyes and 23 ears, you brought up mouth. But isn't it fair to say 24 that the mouth did operate from Kathryn Hunt and I don't 25 mean it derogatorily.
2911 Example, the cautions she repeated on a 2 number of occasions about maintaining the line of 3 demarcation between politicians on the one hand and the 4 police operations on the other. 5 It was Kathryn Hunt that was giving that 6 caution? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: And she was giving that caution on 9 your behalf? 10 A: She was. 11 Q: And so she, to be fair, in addition 12 to being eyes and ears in that example in the context of 13 Ipperwash, she was also with all due respect, your mouth? 14 A: But after discussing it with me. 15 Q: Fair enough. And you knew it was 16 important to send that signal out? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: And you used Kathryn Hunt to do it? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Dr. Todres had a job as the buffer. 21 Kathryn Hunt had a different job. But could you -- could 22 you explain one thing for me? 23 Why was it important for Kathryn Hunt or 24 for you, sir, to know the surveillance tactics that were 25 going to be employed in the future by operations at
2921 Ipperwash? 2 Why did you need to know that? 3 A: Surveillance tactics? 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: Can you give me an example? 6 Q: Well I'm just asking, was it 7 important for you to know? 8 A: I wouldn't think so. 9 Q: And that would be pure operational? 10 A: I would think it would be, yes. 11 Q: That would be tactical? 12 A: Surveillance? Yes. 13 Q: And so tactical discussions would be 14 something that you shouldn't know? 15 A: I would have no need to know. 16 Q: Fair enough. And the reason you are 17 confident that there was no fact of political 18 interference or appearance of political interference, is 19 tactical discussions were not something you engaged in, 20 correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Could you turn to Tab 32, Volume I of 23 the Commission counsel documents, please? 24 A: Are we done with the transcript? 25 Q: Yes, sir.
2931 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: All right. 4 Q: You testified in-chief to Mr. Millar 5 that you believed you received either the contents of 6 this e-mail or this e-mail. It's from Ron Fox. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He actually said he 8 does not recall receiving the e-mail. That was his 9 evidence. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. And 11 this is Exhibit P-513. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right I -- I 13 misstated, then I apologize. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But he did say: 15 "Q: Do you recall being advised by 16 Ms. Hunt or Ms. Todres of the 17 information set out in the e-mail? 18 A: I'm sure I was. 19 Q: But you're sure you were but do 20 you have any independent recollection? 21 A: No. I do not know." 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: Now this e-mail that you said quote:
2941 "I'm sure I was given the contents of 2 it but I don't have an independent 3 recollection." 4 Says the following: 5 " From Ron Fox to Elaine Todres, 6 Kathryn Hunt copied to Barbara Taylor." 7 Now Elaine Todres is the Deputy Solicitor 8 General, yes? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Kathryn Hunt is your Executive 11 Assistant? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: And copied to Barbara Taylor who 14 you've indicated was also an OPP liaison officer? 15 A: That's right. 16 Q: The date of the e-mail is September 17 6th, 1995 at 7:55 in the morning? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: This would have predated any meetings 20 you had with respect to Ipperwash? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Whether it was your conversation with 23 Charles Harnick in Cabinet or the dining room meeting, 24 correct? 25 A: That's right.
2951 Q: "Elaine/Kathryn: The following is 2 an update on the Ipperwash Provincial 3 Park situation which may be useful for 4 our meeting [and then an S] or meetings 5 today." 6 And then there are eight (8) points set 7 out by Ron Fox: "The Stoney -- 8 1. The Stoney Pointers have identified 9 a spokesperson, Bert Manning, brother 10 to Rose Manning who was -- is the 11 spokesperson relative to the takeover 12 of CFB Ipperwash. 13 2. The Stoney Pointers have made no 14 demands as yet. They have, through 15 Manning, stated to the OPP the Park is 16 their land and is burial site. This 17 claim has been reported by the media 18 and was attributed to the occupiers. 19 3. The Stoney Pointers have not 20 captured an OPP cruiser as reported by 21 "informed sources", [quotes around 22 informed sources] from the MNR. 23 5. The number of occupiers continued 24 to be estimated by the OPP as thirty- 25 five (35) to forty (40) persons,
2961 comprised of men, women and children, 2 rather than seven (7), again reported 3 by informed sources from the MNR. It 4 must be noted that there is 5 unrestricted access by the occupiers of 6 the military base to the Park. 7 I am advised the OPP will have a 8 surveillance helicopter in the air 9 today." 10 Now, may I ask you, sir, would you agree 11 with me so far the vast majority of the information in 12 this e-mail is operational in nature? 13 A: No, I wouldn't agree. 14 Q: All right, let's continue. 15 "Chief Tom Bressette of the Kettle 16 Stony Point First Nations has publicly 17 stated that he and his Council do not 18 support the actions of the Stoney 19 Pointers as they relate to the Park." 20 Next point: 21 "OPP investigation has identified three 22 (3) persons responsible for incidents 23 of damage and minor assault which 24 occurred during the takeover. Warrants 25 have been obtained for three (3) male
2971 persons." 2 Next point: 3 "The occupiers started a fire on the 4 Army Camp Road south-east of the Park 5 over night. Police responding to the 6 incident were pelted with rocks. No 7 injuries, minor damage to police 8 vehicles." 9 Next point: 10 "The OPP Inspector John Carson has 11 attempted to arrange a meeting with the 12 Stoney Pointers scheduled for noon 13 today." 14 Would you agree with me that that 15 information is operational in nature? 16 A: You know I don't -- I don't see it as 17 sensitive information or information that should 18 necessarily be restricted from -- from the -- the folks 19 at the Ministry. 20 Q: Now, you said the word "sensitive" 21 and what I -- my question was directed as to whether some 22 or all of this information is operational in nature. 23 That was my question, sir. 24 A: Well, some might deem it operational. 25 I --
2981 Q: Some might. 2 A: I think when I'm talking about 3 operational is more of a confidential nature. I don't 4 see any of this as being necessarily fitting into that 5 category. 6 Q: You would expect to see on the front 7 of the Toronto Star on September 6th, 1995, that the OPP 8 intend to use a surveillance helicopter that day? 9 You'd expect to see that? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. -- 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: In fairness, in 14 fairness, we've seen media clips of a helicopter -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- over the camp. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That is when it is 18 over it. I said you -- future. I said what they intend 19 to do. There is obviously a reference of what their 20 intentions are going to be, not what they have done. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: Could you assist me, sir. Did the
2991 fact that the OPP were going to use a surveillance 2 helicopter on September 6th, 1995, was that the subject 3 of a public statement the previous day? 4 A: The previous day? 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: Not that I'm aware of. 7 Q: Was it the subject of a public news 8 release of any kind the morning of September 6th, 1995? 9 A: Not that I'm aware of. 10 Q: Why did you need to know about that? 11 A: There was no real need to know. 12 Q: And isn't it fair that that's an 13 example of a surveillance tactic? 14 A: I would think it was, yes, but I 15 think that that's -- I mean, I'm thinking more of wire 16 intercepts, telephone conversations, those kinds of 17 surveillance techniques. 18 Sending a helicopter over a Park site to 19 see who's there, I don't see that falling into the same - 20 - same category. 21 Q: Now, when the police obtain warrants 22 for the arrest of individuals, are you familiar with the 23 fact that the individuals have no notice of the warrants 24 having been obtained prior to the effect of an arrest. 25 Are you familiar with that fact?
3001 A: Not normally, I wouldn't -- I would 2 agree with you, yes. 3 Q: Right. Do you know of any public 4 release by the OPP that they had obtained arrest warrants 5 for the arrest of individuals at Ipperwash? 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: If My Friend might 7 take him to Tab 38, Exhibit P-433. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, this is -- this 9 -- either Mr. Millar is going to allow me to conduct my 10 examination. I asked him a question: Are you familiar 11 with any statement, public statement? 12 That was my question. And Mr. Millar may 13 have wanted to consider pausing and listening to my 14 question first before rising. 15 I understand the issue and I framed my 16 question carefully. I want to know what this Witness 17 knew about what was public and what was not when he 18 received this e-mail. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You talked 20 about splitting hairs -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's fine 22 and you'll decide. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 24 Falconer. I think what you're doing now is splitting 25 some hairs but carry on.
3011 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Did you know on the morning of 4 September 6th, 1995, as to whether the OPP had made 5 public their intention to effect arrests? 6 A: No, I didn't. 7 Q: Do you recall expressing any concerns 8 over the issue of the e-mail that Kathryn Hunt received? 9 A: She may not have shared the specifics 10 with me, she may have given me a brief rundown. I'm not 11 sure. I can't -- as I said I can't -- I said the 12 information probably would have been shared with me, but 13 I can't confirm that with any certainty whether she would 14 have provided all of those details or not. 15 Q: We covered the issue of the 16 helicopter surveillance and you indicated you didn't need 17 to know that. 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: How would you classify the 20 information distinguishing between AK-47's, semi- 21 automatic, and machine gun fire? 22 Is that something Chris Hodgson needed to 23 know in Cabinet? 24 A: Well, I think it was -- I think it 25 was relevant. Whether it was accurate or not is another
3021 question, but I think it was relevant in terms of giving 2 members an indication of -- of the gravity of the 3 situation you know versus this kind of information which 4 perhaps Inspector Fox felt it was necessary to -- to 5 provide that update but certainly wasn't requested by me 6 or anyone in my office. 7 Q: Now, the flow of information, you -- 8 you said that the AK-47 discussion would be something 9 that needed to happen? 10 A: I think it was -- in my view it -- I 11 think it was appropriate for the Deputy to -- to provide 12 that information because I think there was -- there was 13 concern that it was a rapidly deteriorating situation and 14 that it could become as was suggested I believe by the 15 Premier an Oka type situation and I think that was -- I 16 think in that sense that that was appropriate to -- to 17 reference. 18 Q: What steps if any did you take to 19 restrict the informational flow to the Cabinet Ministers 20 on September 6th, 1995? 21 A: There were no steps taken directly at 22 the meeting. I -- Kathryn Hunt had on -- on at least two 23 (2) occasions indicated to me that she had emphasized and 24 re-emphasized with the executive assistants of the 25 Ministers involved that there would be and -- and could
3031 not be any -- any political direction given by -- by the 2 Ministers. 3 So I think the message had been delivered 4 and been delivered I think very effectively. 5 Q: You say that the message had been 6 delivered effectively but would you agree that in terms 7 of the information discussed the opinions expressed by 8 the Premier for example or the opinions expressed by the 9 Minister of Natural Resources by way of other example 10 that these would be opinions about police operations? 11 A: No, I don't -- I think in terms of 12 the situation getting to the point where it was if -- if 13 indeed those comments were -- were made and construed as 14 a criticism I think that probably someone could -- could 15 infer that that was a criticism. 16 But with respect to his other comments, 17 that I recall that he was adamant about getting the -- 18 the matter resolved and so -- and it was focussed again 19 on the legal remedies available and not in any view, in 20 my view, should have been construed as -- as -- in any 21 way, shape, or form telling the police that they had to 22 do -- do anything. 23 Q: Now, there has been somewhat of a 24 melding so I'm going to try to keep the distinction if I 25 can between the issue of direction and the issue of
3041 opinion. 2 I -- my question, if I can just focus on 3 for a minute, was about the expression of opinion in 4 front of people, because that can create the danger you 5 and I discussed before, agree? 6 A: Yes, I do. 7 Q: All right. Now, for example, if you 8 turn back to Tab 37 -- if you turn back to Tab 37 you 9 will note a description by -- sorry, my apologies. It's 10 the -- back to the tape transcript. 11 A: Well that's -- 12 Q: Right there. Thank you. My 13 apologies, Mr. Runciman. If you go to Tab 37, P-444A, 14 the logger tape transcript. 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And I'm particularly looking at page 17 263. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Now this is Inspector Fox describing 20 his interactions with the Minister of Natural Resources, 21 among others. And I directed you to 263 so you can -- 22 just to remind you, you can see he's describing to -- to 23 Incident Commander Carson, his interactions at the dining 24 room meeting. 25 Do you see that, if you look at 263?
3051 A: I do. 2 Q: And then you see 264 and then the 3 reference to the briefing by Fox that I took you to 4 before. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Now you see he gets into a discussion 7 of number of rounds whether it was semi-automatic or 8 gunfire. 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: Halfway down the page: 11 "You know what the prick says to me? 12 Well I've just been told that I can 13 have no influence over the police doing 14 their job so I'm suggesting you let me 15 worry about the political 16 ramifications." 17 Do you see that? 18 A: What page are you on now? 19 Q: Next page, 265. 20 A: 265? Okay, I see it, yeah. 21 Q: Then you flip to 266 and this is 22 still Mr. Hodgson being quoted; do you understand? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: At 266, at the top of the page: 25 "You know and I said with all due
3061 respect, I said here's the reality, 2 that's the way it's viewed. And I said 3 perhaps we can survive the political 4 backlash. I said it may be that John 5 Carson and his people will be able to 6 work magic and these people will simply 7 walk away." 8 And then he -- then skipping: 9 "And I said my guess is we're going to 10 get a bloody nose." 11 Do you see that? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Then -- then Fox quoted, right near 14 the bottom, second last paragraph Fox, quote: 15 "I -- John, I couldn't believe it. 16 Like I mean you don't back away, let's 17 just do the bloody job right. Well 18 even if we get this adjourning order, 19 like how long will the police sit on 20 it? Two (2) weeks. He says, I was 21 told that the police knew about this 22 before it happened, and I said that's 23 not correct. 24 Well, he said that's my information. I 25 said, with respect, it's wrong. I said
3071 the police certainly had a supposition 2 that the logical next step for these 3 protesters was to take over the Park. 4 And I said, in fact, I've had 5 discussions with the Incident Commander 6 about that but did we have anything to 7 base that on, et cetera." 8 And what I'm asking you, sir, having 9 quoted that to you, would you agree that Cabinet Minister 10 Hodgson is expressing his opinion about police operations 11 to a representative of the OPP, being Inspector Fox? 12 A: If it's accurate -- it certainly 13 sounds like a criticism to me. 14 Q: Well, I acknowledge that it's a 15 criticism. But you'd agree that whether it's a laudatory 16 slap on the back or it's a criticism, as you've termed 17 it, expressing the opinion to the OPP on its operations 18 that are ongoing is the essence of the problem, isn't it? 19 A: The essence of the problem. I'm not 20 sure I'd agree with you with respect to that particular 21 conversation being the essence of the problem. 22 Q: I'm asking -- let me rephrase it. 23 Isn't it true, sir, and we're going to windup, but -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 25 Downard...?
3081 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's not an accurate 2 characterization of the statement. He's not talking 3 about operations that are ongoing. That's not what it's 4 about. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's absolutely - 6 - that's completely for argument. That was a proper 7 question. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think the 9 question is a matter for argument. But, in any event, 10 from what I -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well no, I've asked 12 the Solicitor General, who was present at the meeting, 13 whether opinions were expressed about police operations. 14 And I have an account by an officer that 15 the Cabinet Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, when 16 presented with a briefing requested either by this 17 gentleman or his Deputy, expressed his opinion -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I want you 19 to ask your question. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fine. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: And would you agree with me in the 24 end, sir, that when -- that it is of concern and a 25 problem, giving rise to the appearance of political
3091 interference, for a Cabinet Minister to express an 2 opinion about a police operation? 3 A: I would say it was inappropriate. 4 But you know, you've referenced to me being in attendance 5 and this to me -- I read this and listened to the 6 transcript. 7 It was obviously a fairly lengthy and 8 heated conversation and I said that I have no 9 recollection of being present for that. And I think that 10 it's really -- I suspect that if -- if this kind of 11 discussion took place in my presence, that I would have - 12 - I would have remembered it. 13 So I think it -- it probably transpired 14 after the Premier had left and -- and I had left. 15 Q: Fair enough. One of the things I'm - 16 - want to be clear with you is that there are certain 17 facts that are, in essence, coming to the surface for you 18 from this Inquiry or discussions that have happened since 19 the events, correct? 20 A: True. 21 Q: And some of them are pretty important 22 facts such as what, for example, one of your fellow 23 Cabinet Ministers told a representative of the OPP, 24 correct? 25 A: I guess so.
3101 Q: And would you agree with me that, as 2 Solicitor General at the time, the one thing that is 3 clear in your mind, that you have a clear recollection, 4 is that early in 1996 serious allegations of political 5 interference were being levelled at minimum in the House 6 by members of the Opposition? 7 A: Yes, that's true. 8 Q: Would you also agree with me that it 9 is within the powers of the Solicitor General, as a 10 person who is supposed to be a guardian of the line, to 11 seek or request an investigation of the issue from 12 another police service? 13 That would be within your powers, if you 14 thought it appropriate? 15 A: I believe it would be. 16 Q: And if you had requested that 17 investigation as to the existence of political 18 interference, one of the things that might have surfaced 19 would be this tape of the concerns expressed by the 20 representative of the OPP, one (1) hour after meeting the 21 former Premier of the Province; isn't that true? 22 A: Now I'm -- I'm assuming it would be, 23 yes. 24 Q: And it's also fair to say that if you 25 had requested an investigation, say by the Royal Canadian
3111 Mounted Police, of the allegations of political 2 interference in relation to the occupation at Ipperwash, 3 that that would have been politically very difficult as 4 it would have attracted negative attention to your 5 government by simply requesting the investigation; isn't 6 that true? 7 A: Not necessarily. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This is a good 9 time, Mr. Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 11 very much, Mr. Falconer. Thank you very much Mr. 12 Runciman. Today has come to a conclusion. We'll adjourn 13 now until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. 14 15 (WITNESS RETIRES) 16 17 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 18 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January the 11th at 19 9:00 a.m. 20 21 --- Upon adjourning at 4:29 p.m. 22 23 24 25
3121 2 3 4 Certified Correct, 5 6 7 8 9 _________________ 10 Carol Geehan, Ms. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25