1 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 January 11th, 2006 25


1 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 ) 23 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 24 Michelle Pong ) (np) 25 Lynette D'Souza ) (np)


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 6 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 7 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 8 Jennifer McAleer ) 9 10 Ian Smith ) 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


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) (np) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) (np) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) 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 ) Chiefs of Ontario 21 Matthew Horner ) 22 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 23 24 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Mark Fredrick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 3 Craig Mills ) (np) 4 Megan Mackey ) (np) 5 Erin Tully ) 6 Peter Lauwers ) 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


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 ROBERT WILLIAM RUNCIMAN, resumed 6 Continued Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 9 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 59 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Kevin Scullion 199 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Colleen Johnson 220 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Matthew Horner 241 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Vilko Zbogar 259 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian Smith 286 13 Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Derry Millar 298 14 15 CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS HODGSON 16 Examination-in-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 302 17 18 Certificate of Transcript 343 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-1005 Ontario Provincial Police Orders, 4 Definitions and Acronyms; Police 5 Service Act, Complaints About Police 6 Officer's Conduct 64 (1-17); Part 1 7 Police Orders Administration. 46 8 P-1006 Canadian Press article "Lying in 9 Legislature Not Only Wrong But Not 10 Necessary, Experts Say." 11 December 01/05. 57 12 P-1007 Document Number 2003081. Sarnia 13 Observer article "OPP Shot Arrow 14 Through Heart of Native Community" 15 (no date). 182 16 P-1008 Document Number 1007879. Handwritten 17 notes of Ed Vervoort, 18:15 briefing, 18 Sept. 05/'95. 266 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:04 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 7 Good morning. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 9 Commissioner. Good morning, Mr. Runciman. 10 Before we begin there's an announcement 11 I'd like to make. We have been scheduled to sit on 12 January 23rd, election day. A number of the parties 13 have, through the -- a number of the Counsel for the 14 parties have requested that that decision be 15 reconsidered. 16 And I just wanted to announce to the 17 parties that the decision has been reconsidered and 18 you've made -- you've made a decision that we will not 19 sit on Monday, January 23rd, but we will start on 20 Tuesday, January 24th at 10:00 a.m. instead of 10:30 so. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 22 very much, Mr. Millar. 23 Mr. Falconer, are you ready to start now? 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I am. Good 25 morning, Mr. Commissioner.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 2 Good morning. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Good morning, Mr. 4 Runciman. 5 6 ROBERT WILLIAM RUNCIMAN, resumes 7 8 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir. 9 10 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Mr. Runciman, you had indicated to 12 Mr. Millar during your examination-in-chief that you had 13 a theory as it related to the evidence of former Attorney 14 General Harnick. 15 Do you remember giving that testimony? 16 A: I do. 17 Q: And as I understood your theory, your 18 theory was that if allegations are repeated often enough, 19 people start to simply believe they're true. 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: So I take it it's fair to say then 22 that you believe it's true that the Government improperly 23 interfered in police operations. Is that true? 24 A: That's not the conclusion I would 25 draw from that comment.


1 Q: All right. So it's fair to say that 2 your theory isn't absolute and watertight. It doesn't 3 affect all people. 4 A: Of course not. 5 Q: So your theory I take it -- may I 6 call it an allegation syndrome? Is that what it is? 7 It's a syndrome where you hear an allegation enough you 8 just -- is that fair? 9 A: I'm not a psychologist. I -- perhaps 10 it would be described that way. 11 Q: Is there some failing or deficiency 12 on the part of former Attorney General Harnick in your 13 view that would make him susceptible to this allegation 14 syndrome? Is there something about him that makes him 15 vulnerable? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 17 that that's a proper question in the circumstances. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I -- the 19 theory advanced is that there's something -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can ask 21 about the theory. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, his theory, 23 and he applied it to Harnick. He told us that he had a 24 theory about Harnick's evidence. I want to know if 25 there's something he knows about Harnick that makes him


1 vulnerable to this syndrome. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 3 that he'd be in a position to answer that. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, he gave the 5 evidence though, with respect, Mr. Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he can 7 talk about the theory but I don't -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Well, is the theory -- you knew Mr. 12 Harnick over the time of his role in Cabinet -- 13 A: I did. 14 Q: -- was there something -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. You're 16 asking the question I'm asking you not to ask. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I'm asking a 18 different question now. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it seems 20 to me the same question. 21 Yes, Mr. Smith...? 22 MR. IAN SMITH: Yes, you've anticipated 23 by objection. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 25 suggest that you not --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. If I'm 2 not allowed to explore this, with respect it means that 3 the answer that the Witness gave during his chief about 4 his theory and why Mr. Harnick may have said what he said 5 is not something I have to make argument at the end, 6 because to be fair, if I can't test his evidence in this 7 area, it would be a -- a unique proposition. 8 He's -- he's testified that he has a 9 theory about the repetition of allegations as it applies 10 to Mr. Harnick's evidence. So with respect, if I can't 11 test that evidence, then that means that it's to be given 12 no weight in argument. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can test 14 the theory, you can ask him the questions, I just don't 15 want you to ask him about -- well let's see where -- 16 let's see how you phrase the question. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: All right. Now you referred to this 20 what I'm calling for a moment, for lack of a better term, 21 an allegation syndrome, you referred to this allegation 22 syndrome in the context of Mr. Harnick's evidence, did 23 you not? 24 A: Not totally. I was -- I mentioned -- 25 I think I referenced, I stand to be corrected, that there


1 were two (2) witnesses who testified they heard the -- 2 roughly the same comment from two (2) different people. 3 And that's what I was referencing, not one (1) specific 4 individual. 5 Q: All right. And is this based on your 6 review of media reports or your actual review of 7 transcripts of evidence or watching your evidence? 8 A: Just reading the -- the media and the 9 fact that two (2) people contend they heard the same 10 words from two (2) different people. 11 Q: I ask you that, Mr. Runciman, 12 because, in fact, the testimony of former Attorney 13 General Harnick was that he was quite certain he heard 14 Mr. Harris say, words to the affect of, 'Get the fucking 15 Indians out of the Park.' 16 Now -- I'm sorry, "I want the fucking 17 Indians out of the Park." 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: I apologize. "I want the fucking 20 Indians out of the Park" is what he heard Mr. Harris and 21 he's quite certain it was Mr. Harris who said it. Dr. 22 Todres testified that she heard Mr. Hodgson say, quote -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- "Get the fucking Indians out of my 25 Park."


1 A: Hmm. 2 Q: So, I just want you to understand 3 that the evidence that the Commissioner has heard was 4 that there were two (2) different statements made by two 5 (2) different people. 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: Did you know that? 8 A: Well, I did say that the -- they were 9 roughly similar phrases. 10 Q: Did you know what I've just asked 11 you? Did you know that the alle -- 12 A: Specifically, different? No, I 13 didn't. No. 14 Q: All right. So would you agree with 15 me that that somewhat changes your allegation syndrome if 16 the evidence is that these statements, different in 17 wording, were heard from two (2) different people? 18 Would you agree with me? 19 A: I think the other important element 20 which you haven't touched on is the fact that none of the 21 other witnesses have testified they heard that kind of a 22 comment, whether one -- one way or the other. 23 So, I think that that's -- that's 24 essentially perhaps what I've arrived at that conclusion 25 that this -- the allegation, whatever the wording was, it


1 certainly has the same expletive contained in it and I 2 think that that's the important element, from my 3 perspective. 4 Q: So, it's no longer the repetition of 5 the allegations? We've left that. We're now somewhere 6 else where the fact that others didn't hear it; is that 7 fair? 8 Is that your evidence? 9 A: Well, that's certainly I think 10 something that should be considered. 11 Q: Now, former Attorney General Harnick 12 indicated that he misled the House as to his knowledge of 13 this statement based on his loyalty to former Premier 14 Harris and based on his friendship to former Premier 15 Harris. 16 You would have had an opportunity to see 17 former Attorney General Harnick and former Premier Harris 18 interact over a number of years, fair? 19 A: Reasonably so, yes. 20 Q: Would you say that the enjoyed a 21 closer relationship than you and former Premier Harris? 22 A: No. 23 Q: All right. So whatever there was 24 about his loyalty or friendship with Premier Harris it 25 wasn't, in your mind, dramatically different than your


1 relationship with Premier Harris, true? 2 A: Not -- not dramatically different, 3 no. 4 Q: No. So, we've heard from former 5 Attorney General Harnick why he said what he said, and 6 would you agree with this, that had there been a 7 revelation by former Attorney General Harnick in the 8 House that Mike Harris said, "I want the fucking Indians 9 out of my Park", had that revelation been given in the 10 House in May or June of 1996 when they were being 11 questioned that would have been extremely damaging to 12 your government, true? 13 A: Probably a safe assumption. 14 Q: And so one of the incentives for 15 people not to disclose this earlier may well be the 16 saving of their political careers; is that fair? 17 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: Objection. 18 THE WITNESS: Well -- 19 ME. JULIAN FALCONER: When -- while we're 20 hypothesising, if the Witness can speculate on different 21 reasons for this, presumably I can put other theories to 22 him. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 24 the question -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 2 Downard has an objection -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I want to 5 hear it. 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: This -- this whole 7 thing, this -- all morning is about the credibility of 8 other witnesses. This question is specifically -- 9 specifically trying to undermine the credibility of other 10 witnesses to get this Witness to give evidence about 11 their credibility, and that's inappropriate in my 12 submission. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And -- and this is -- 15 this is all just argument; it's all argument. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, you do 17 understand my dilemma that the Witness gave argument two 18 (2) days ago on a theory and I have to test his theory. 19 It's not based on any knowledge, it's not based on any 20 expertise, and it's certainly not based on any facts. 21 It's -- and so I end up in argument testing an argument. 22 So that's my dilemma, Mr. Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 24 that this is a helpful exercise. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. Well,


1 no, but I -- I hear you. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 3 this is a helpful exercise, Mr. Falconer. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I thought I should 5 be fair and attempt to wade into -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- an area that was 8 odd evidence to give. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 10 think you should proceed with this. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fair. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 13 helpful at all. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- I'm -- but I - 17 - I did have one (1) more question but not on the very 18 question I just asked but -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- in the general 21 area but I have one (1) more question. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's see 23 what the question is before we -- 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:


1 Q: Would you agree with me that the 2 repetition of allegations -- theory you had, the 3 allegation syndrome would be equally applicable to the 4 repetition of denials; that is that if you repeat denials 5 often enough you believe they're true? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 7 not -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Is that also 9 applicable? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not a 11 question for this Witness. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not a 14 question for this Witness. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Save it for 17 your argument and we'll hear it then. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: I'd like to turn to another area with 22 you if I may. 23 You -- you testified yesterday that the -- 24 what we've come to know as the mugs and T-shirts' affair, 25 that the -- the revelations about the racist


1 paraphernalia. We've come to term that the 'Mugs and T- 2 shirts' Incident'. 3 You indicated that you were upset and 4 shocked by the revelations? 5 A: That's what I said, yes. 6 Q: And I take it that that was because 7 of your view that this was serious misconduct? 8 A: It was -- I think I was more -- more 9 upset because of the fact that this had occurred shortly 10 after the death of Mr. George and the insensitivity to 11 the -- the loss of a member of their family. 12 Q: Making it serious misconduct? 13 A: Certainly, yeah. 14 Q: Right. And you'd agree with me that 15 the distribution among members of the OPP, because it 16 wasn't just the three (3) or four (4) who created the 17 paraphernalia, it was also those who purchased it or 18 obtained it, correct? 19 A: I'm not sure how extensive that was. 20 Q: But whoever did purchase it or wear 21 it proudly or otherwise would have also been engaging a 22 form of misconduct? 23 A: That's true. 24 Q: And so in the end the mugs and 25 T-shirts' affair, we can agree, would have an adverse


1 affect on the reputation of the Ontario Provincial 2 Police; can we agree on that? 3 A: I think it did. 4 Q: Now, you have actually and -- and I'm 5 -- I'm trying not to refer to documents too much, just 6 based on the document Mr. Millar showed you yesterday, 7 the April 3, 1996 briefing note. 8 You remember Mr. Dunfield creates a 9 briefing note for you on the issue and then there's a 10 House note as well? 11 A: Duffield. 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: Duffield. 14 Q: Dunfield, I apologize. 15 A: This is the -- 16 Q: Well, I've got it right here; it's a 17 Mr. Duffield? 18 A: Duffield. 19 Q: Phil Duffield. 20 A: Phil Duffield, yeah. 21 Q: April 3rd, 1996, you were shown the 22 document -- 23 A: You'd better reference the -- 24 Q: P-998. 25 A: -- the tab? Oh, this is in the --


1 Q: It's a loose document that Mr. Millar 2 worked with you yesterday, Exhibit P-998. 3 A: Okay, I've got it right in front of 4 me. 5 Q: Document number 2001 -- 6 A: Yes, okay. 7 Q: -- 0000. 8 A: I have it right in front of me, yeah. 9 Q: You'd agree with me that it was 10 anticipated as a result of looking at this document, the 11 -- the briefing note and P-999, which is located in the 12 small folder of materials, that the -- remember you were 13 prepared by way of potential House questions? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. You'd agree with me that it 16 was anticipated that you may have to speak to the issue 17 of the mugs and T-shirts' affair in the House? 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: And this is an example, would you 20 agree with me, of a Solicitor General recognizing that 21 individual acts of misconduct may well give rise to 22 issues of a public nature requiring him to respond? 23 A: I -- I agree with that. 24 Q: And it's not too different, is it, 25 than the issues, for example, that you described with


1 respect to chase protocol or early release. 2 There are individual fact cases, chase 3 protocol or early release from institutions, individual 4 fact cases that give rise to systemic concerns that the 5 Solicitor General may well, in his policy making 6 function, have to step in to address? 7 That happens, correct? 8 A: It happens, yes. 9 Q: And you mentioned the chase protocol 10 because you were concerned, when you took over as 11 Solicitor General that the methods being used to pursue 12 individuals suspected of crimes may not be sufficiently 13 the subject of uniform, regulatory frameworks across the 14 Province? 15 A: I wasn't personally, but that -- one 16 of my predecessors, I'm assuming, had those concerns. 17 Q: And those concerns don't happen in 18 the air, they're based on fact scenarios that create 19 unfortunate incidents or tragedies or regrettable 20 occurrences that suggest there's a systemic problem, 21 correct? 22 A: Yes, I guess that's probably correct. 23 Q: And similarly, you referred to an 24 early release case that caused concern in your 25 constituency, and you had occasion to look at issues


1 surrounding the granting of parole? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And you made reference to a specific 4 case, I think you referred to McDonald? 5 A: Yes, I did. 6 Q: And the McDonald case, specific fact 7 scenario, but you felt it might have systemic 8 ramifications reflecting a broader problem? 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: So as Solicitor General, part of you 11 job, part of your policy making function is to have 12 regard to those factual cases that may be simply a tip of 13 the iceberg? 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: Correct? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: All right. Now, I'm going to suggest 18 to you that when you were briefed on the mugs and T- 19 shirts' affair, you recognized that it was appropriate 20 for you to speak to some of the facts of the affair 21 because, as a policy maker responsible for civilian 22 oversight of the OPP, you knew that you were answerable 23 on this issue? 24 A: Can you go over that again? 25 Q: I apologize, it was a long,


1 convoluted question. 2 As civilian overseer of the police, you 3 realized you were ultimately accountable to answer, on 4 the floor, related to the mugs and T-shirts' affair? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: Now, would you agree with me that in 7 order to answer to the affair, one of your jobs would 8 have been to ascertain the facts? 9 A: Right. 10 Q: Did you do that? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: All right. And would you also agree 13 with me that, going back to the chase protocol -- going 14 back to the chase protocol issue for a moment, that in 15 ascertaining the facts, you also would want to know what 16 steps the authorities took by way of corrective measures, 17 internally, to address whatever concerns arose, say in a 18 police chase? 19 You'd want to know what they did? 20 A: In most instances, yes, yeah. 21 Q: And the reason you want to know what 22 they did is, while there may be a problem identified, 23 case in point, McDonald's release, or there may be a 24 problem identified, case in point, a bad chase, it may be 25 the institution in issue has measures designed to deal


1 with the problem, correct? 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: You don't want to fix a mousetrap 4 that's not broken, correct? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: What steps did you take to ascertain 7 the corrective measures the Ontario Provincial Police 8 took in respect of the officers that engaged in the 9 misconduct? 10 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 12 Smith? 13 MR. IAN SMITH: Mr. Falconer's been 14 asking questions about a systemic -- systemic problems. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Let's back up. 16 I'll -- I'll -- I am concerned that while My Friend and I 17 agree on the question I was asking, for the record, I 18 should have been more specific so can I just -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- re-ask the 21 question without meaning to interrupt My Friend's 22 objection? 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: What steps did you take to inquire as


1 to the corrective measures taken with respect to the 2 officers engaged in the mugs and T-shirts' affair? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 4 is that -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's the 6 question, but I didn't say, "mugs and T-shirts' affair" 7 and because I talked about chase protocol -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- before I was 10 worried the record might poorly reflect my question. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's your 12 objection? 13 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry, that's the 14 same question. I thought Mr. Falconer -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It is. 16 MR. IAN SMITH: -- was inquiring into his 17 -- the -- the lead-up questions were about what a 18 Solicitor General does to ensure that the systemic 19 response is created. I'm not sure -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, he's not -- 21 he's not allowed to figure out whether my lead-up was 22 good enough for my next question. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. No, 24 no. You're -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He's either


1 objecting to this question or he's not. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So I -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 5 objecting to this question, Mr. Smith? 6 MR. IAN SMITH: I guess I'm trying to 7 clarify. I mean he's -- he's -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: There's nothing to 9 clarify. 10 MR. IAN SMITH: -- put to the Witness a 11 number of questions as to what a Solicitor General does 12 to ensure that there's a -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? 14 MR. IAN SMITH: -- systemic response and 15 he's gone from that -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And -- 17 MR. IAN SMITH: -- directly into the 18 individual cases. I'm not sure that that's what -- 19 anyhow let's let Mr. Falconer carry on. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 21 think -- 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: What steps did you take to inquire as 25 to the corrective measures taken by the OPP in respect of


1 the officers engaged in the mugs and T-shirts' 2 misconduct? 3 A: Specifically, I was advised of -- of 4 what the OPP was doing in response to the -- the public 5 exposure of -- of what occurred in -- in this situation 6 and, yeah, whether it was an internal investigation which 7 would determine the facts, who was responsible, and what 8 -- and that report would come to me at a later date. 9 Q: Do you recall receiving the report or 10 knowing what was done to the officers? 11 A: Yes, I -- I believe, you know, the -- 12 the problem was saying you recall it versus the fact that 13 we've reviewed this information over the past couple of 14 months; that's -- it's difficult to say with -- with any 15 degree of certainty. 16 But I think it's safe to say that I was 17 advised and -- and concurred. I was advised and -- and 18 had no difficulty with -- with the course of action 19 adopted by the OPP. 20 Q: Are you familiar with the fact that 21 the course of action adopted by the Ontario Provincial 22 Police in respect to the mugs and T-shirts' affair was to 23 proceed by way of informal discipline? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Now, I've put some documents in front


1 of you, and in particular I've put a -- a package of 2 documentation that includes a definition section used by 3 the Ontario Provincial Police in respect of their 4 standing orders. 5 The title of it is, Ontario Provincial 6 Police Orders, Definitions and Acronyms. Do you see 7 that? 8 A: I do. 9 Q: All right. Could you please turn to 10 the definition of informal discipline, please. If you 11 flip through -- I apologize, the pages aren't numbered, 12 but it's alphabetically set up so if you simply flip 13 through to "I" for informal discipline you should hit it. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: And my apologies. 16 A: Yes, I see it. 17 Q: Would you agree with me that the 18 definition used by the Ontario Provincial Police by way 19 of policy for informal discipline is quote: 20 "A corrective action that may be taken 21 in relation to a complaint that does 22 not involve allegations of a serious 23 nature." 24 A: I do. 25 Q: Would you agree with me that that was


1 the operation definition for the usage of informal 2 discipline? 3 A: I'm not sure that I was familiar with 4 the definition. 5 Q: At the time? 6 A: At the time. 7 Q: Fair enough. So, you'd agree with me 8 that in an ideal world if you were assessing the quality 9 of the corrective action taken by the OPP you would want 10 to know the definition of when informal discipline is 11 appropriate to use? 12 A: I -- I had no difficulty with the 13 discipline that was applied. 14 Q: Now, sir, I want to make sure. Are 15 you simply avoiding my question the way you said people 16 can do in the House or are you going to answer my 17 question. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Because my question 20 to you was: In an ideal world -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- you would want 23 to know the definition of the criteria for informal 24 discipline in assessing whether the OPP properly applied 25 it to these officers?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just -- 2 OBJ MR. IAN SMITH: I object to the -- to the 3 wind-up. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it's 5 the wind-up. Just ask the question. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll repeat the 7 question. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 9 questions you're asking are -- 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: I'll repeat the question. Could you 13 please ask -- answer it? 14 A: No, I wouldn't. I -- I don't see 15 that as the role of a -- of a Solicitor General or a 16 Minister, especially with an arm's length organization, 17 to be involved in the -- in the nitty gritty of the 18 administration of that organization. 19 And that's essentially what you're talking 20 about, in my view. 21 Q: Could you please turn to the 22 definition of misconduct of a serious nature, in the same 23 -- in the same package that I handed you there's a 24 definition for misconduct of a serious nature, could you 25 turn to that definition please.


1 A: I'm there. 2 Q: Under the title, Misconduct of a 3 Serious Nature. Do you see the definition? 4 "An allegation that an employee has: 5 1. One committed a criminal offense, 6 2. Two been charged with a criminal 7 offense or, 8 3. Engaged in conduct which may 9 adversely affect the reputation of the 10 OPP or the morale of its employees." 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: You testified a few minutes ago that 13 the conduct involved in the mugs and T-shirts' incident 14 was both serious and as far as you were concerned 15 adversely effected the reputation of the OPP, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: You were the -- the civilian overseer 18 of the OPP at the time, yes? 19 A: I was. 20 Q: You were the community's assurance 21 that the police were being watched by somebody other than 22 police, right? 23 A: I assume so, yes. 24 Q: To Sam George and members of the 25 Aboriginal communities, it would be you they are expected


1 to look to know that the right thing was done with the 2 appalling mugs and T-shirts' affair, correct? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: But you didn't know what the 5 definition of the discipline criteria used for the 6 officers was, correct? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: Isn't it fair to say that looking 9 back on it now, that knowing that informal discipline is 10 not to be used for matters of a serious nature and 11 knowing that matters of a serious nature are actually 12 defined as adversely affecting the reputation of the OPP, 13 that it is unfortunate that informal discipline was used? 14 A: No. I disagree. 15 Q: So do you say you disagree for a 16 principled reason or do you say you disagree because you 17 have no choice in terms of your political career? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just ask the 19 question. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's cross- 21 examination. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it's not 23 a question. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:


1 Q: Why, sir, do you disagree? 2 A: I disagree because I -- I would think 3 in terms of serious or degrees of seriousness and I would 4 not share your -- your view with respect to the -- the 5 degree of seriousness with respect to this. 6 I thought it was offensive and certainly 7 insensitive but not to the -- to the degree where what 8 you're talking about, I suspect, would be suspension or 9 something more -- more damaging to the careers of these 10 officers and I would disagree with that. And I disagreed 11 with it then and I would disagree with it now. 12 Q: So, as far as you're concerned then, 13 an admonition was appropriate for officers engaged in 14 making humour and light in respect of spiritual symbols 15 such as the feather that that was not serious in nature. 16 That is now your evidence as opposed to your evidence 17 before -- 18 A: Well, you're only giving a part of 19 the picture here. The OPP also indicated that they felt 20 it was more of a systemic problem and accepted that; 21 accepted that this concern didn't apply only to a number 22 of -- a small number of officers. 23 So, I think there was more to it that what 24 you're suggesting and they weren't -- and I accepted that 25 that they felt they're in a position to assess that


1 through their own internal investigation and I accepted 2 that. 3 Q: And you defer to their view on it? 4 A: I did. 5 Q: And you saw your role at the time as 6 a role in which, in these kinds of circumstances where 7 the institution is investigating itself, that you ought 8 to take a deferential posture? 9 A: I felt it was appropriate when we're 10 talking about the disciplinary measure that I felt was 11 certainly insensitive and offensive that there was the 12 appropriate way to deal with it. 13 Q: You called the conduct before when I 14 asked you originally, you called the conduct this morning 15 serious. Do you still agree it was serious? 16 A: I think it was serious, yes. 17 Q: You called it conduct that adversely 18 affected the reputation of the OPP. Do you remember 19 calling it that? 20 A: Yes, I do. 21 Q: Now, would you agree with me that in 22 essence as a result of the papers that came up to you, in 23 your views you played an observer role in respect of what 24 corrective actions were taken by the OPP in relation to 25 this, as you put it, shocking and upset incident.


1 A: Observer role? 2 Q: Yes, you didn't intervene in any way. 3 A: I didn't. 4 Q: Right. You played an observer role? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: Right. Much like the role you played 7 in the dining room on September 6th, 1995, correct? 8 A: Yes. If you want to equate it you're 9 right I didn't participate. 10 Q: You used the word 'observer', 11 correct? 12 A: Yes, I did. 13 Q: There's a newspaper in Sarnia called 14 the Observer, correct? You're -- you're an old newspaper 15 man that's why I ask you, there's an Observer, Sarnia? 16 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 18 Smith? 19 MR. IAN SMITH: Commissioner, can we ask 20 Mr. Falconer to stick to relevant questions? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, stick 22 to -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I want to 24 talk about the definition of 'observer' if I could. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. I'll 2 move on and withdraw the question. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, do 4 that. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: You understand that an observer is 8 someone who does not actively participate? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, there's 11 nothing wrong with that question. You understand that 12 an -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It depends 14 on where it's going. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: -- observer is someone who's not 18 actively participating? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: Right. And so when someone does not 21 actively participate, we shouldn't expect them to step in 22 and find out for themselves whether an institution has 23 engaged in proper and appropriate corrective action, 24 because an observer doesn't do that, do they? 25 A: It depends on the situation.


1 Q: Now, anti-Native racism, you're 2 saying to me, was identified by the OPP as a systemic 3 problem, that was your evidence a little while ago, you 4 said that. They saw it as -- 5 A: No, I didn't use that term. 6 Q: You said systemic, sir. That was 7 your evidence. 8 A: They indicated they had a systemic 9 problem -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: -- with respect to sensitivity; 12 cultural sensitivity, I believe, was the term -- 13 Q: Do you agree with me that the mugs 14 and t- shirts incidents reflects a racist view, don't 15 you? 16 A: No, I do not. 17 Q: And -- and isn't it fair to say that 18 it's prem -- your views, in fact, animated what you 19 thought was the appropriate discipline? It was your 20 views that animated that? 21 A: No, I don't -- I don't believe that's 22 the case. I felt it was an appropriate course of action 23 by the OPP. I don't think that, you know, my views about 24 -- you're right, if I, in a sense, that if I'd felt that 25 it was a -- a racist comment by the officers involved


1 that perhaps I would have, and I suspect that I would 2 have had a -- a less receptive reaction to the -- to the 3 discipline. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is an 5 appropriate line of questioning, Mr. Falconer, but I 6 don't want you to keep going over it and over it and over 7 it. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's fine. 9 I'm moving on. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 11 -- yes. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: You've said that it was a systemic 15 problem that they identified. I think we now need to 16 hear what the systemic problem that the OPP identified 17 was. 18 What was it? 19 A: Well, I think it was cultural 20 sensitivity was what they referenced and they were -- 21 were prepared to engage in providing additional culture 22 sensitivity training to -- to all officers. 23 Q: How, as the civilian overseer of the 24 police did you determine whether the systemic issues they 25 identified and the corrective measures they took were


1 adequate? 2 How did you go about doing that? 3 A: I think we relied on the OPP to -- to 4 assess the impact, and they were getting professional 5 advice with respect to how go -- how to go about that, 6 how to accomplish their goal. 7 Q: You played an observer role? 8 A: I played the appropriate role. 9 Q: An observer role. 10 A: The appropriate role -- 11 Q: But was it -- 12 A: -- of not sticking my nose and 13 fingers into the day-to-day administration of the OPP and 14 not -- 15 Q: It was a systemic -- 16 A: -- directing the OPP. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just let him 18 answer the question. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My apologies, my 20 apologies. Please finish, sir. 21 THE WITNESS: And not directing the OPP. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 24 Q: It was a systemic issue, you knew 25 that at the time?


1 A: That was the conclusion of the -- the 2 review, the internal investigation. 3 Q: And as a systemic problem, you still 4 didn't feel it was your role to intervene by way of 5 assuring yourself that policies were specifically in 6 place that met the standards necessary for the multi- 7 cultural society we live in today? 8 A: I was satisfied with the response of 9 the OPP and the actions they were taking. 10 Q: What role did you take to analyse the 11 policy? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 13 answered the questions. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 16 you've gone over this sufficiently. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I want to file, Mr. 18 Commissioner, subject to your approval -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I want to file the 21 definition section -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- in respect of 24 informal discipline, and the supporting standing orders 25 that I've filed as a copy, including the section of the


1 Police Services Act, with the -- the Commission at this 2 stage. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Could we just 5 identify -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The first document 7 I propose to file is the definitions section that we've 8 been referring to. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: So, that would -- it's 10 entitled, Ontario Provincial Police Orders, Definitions 11 and Acronyms. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The second section, 13 64 sub 11 of the Police Services Act refers to the 14 appropriateness of informal discipline along the same 15 lines. 16 I simply respectfully suggest that it 17 ought to be attached to this definitions section, as well 18 as the standing orders that accompany informal 19 discipline, all provided by the OPP. 20 I simply suggest that because, in my 21 respectful submission, it should be a package. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I don't know if 23 this Witness has ever seen -- perhaps -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm simply trying, 25 for the record, to put us in the right place. The OPP


1 have provided these documents as what supports informal 2 discipline has been a regulatory structure, so what I'm 3 trying to do is keep the documents together. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I have no trouble 5 putting -- does My Friend have copies -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- of what he wants to 8 put in? 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The standing 10 orders. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Okay, the stand -- 12 okay the -- the first -- and I suggest we put them all as 13 one (1) -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As one (1) 15 exhibit. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- exhibit. It's the 17 Ontario Provincial Police Orders, Definitions and 18 Acronyms, the extract from the Police Services Act. 19 And we need to make sure that the Section 20 64(11) that's part of this extract is actually the -- 21 what -- what I suggest we do is make sure and make part 22 of this Section 64 of the Police Services Act as it stood 23 in 1995, because this particular copy has got amendments 24 that -- or at least took place in 1997 so we'll do that. 25 We'll make sure we get the 1995 section


1 from the Police Services Act, and then My Friend has the 2 1995 Police Orders Administration. Mr. Falconer...? 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's correct, the 4 OPP Standing Orders as they pertain to the issues. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 6 Section 11 which is Informal Resolution of Conduct not 7 Serious to Section as it was in '95? 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: This -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's what we're 10 trying to ascertain. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's what was -- it 13 what was provided to us. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, okay. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But I undertake -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to correct the 18 record -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- in terms of -- 21 of any legislative problem in that respect. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: I had -- I had one (1) last couple --


1 THE REGISTRAR: P-1005, Your Honour. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- of questions for 3 you, sir. I had referred to a quote attributed to you 4 and I'm -- I'm providing you a copy of it. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's P -- that's -- 6 THE REGISTRAR: P-1005. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: P-1005. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-1005 is 9 the last exhibit. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1005: Ontario Provincial Police 12 Orders, Definitions and 13 Acronyms; Police Service Act, 14 Complaints About Police 15 Officer's Conduct 64 (1- 17); 16 Part 1 Police Orders 17 Administration. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: You've been provided by way of 21 document notice, notice of the fact that one of the 22 documents Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto may refer 23 to in their questioning of you is a Canadian Press Report 24 dated December 1st, 2005, quoting you as follows: 25 "When former Ontario Attorney General


1 Charles Harnick lied in the 2 Legislature --" 3 MR. IAN SMITH: Sorry, he's not reading a 4 quote now just to be... 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm quoting the 6 article as follows and then I -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's not -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- will ask him to 9 tell me what he did or didn't say. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but the 11 impression you gave is you were quoting the Witness. 12 You're not quoting the Witness. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, I apologize. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 17 Q: I'm quoting the article as follows, 18 quote: 19 "When former Attorney General Charles 20 Harnick lied in the Legislature to help 21 his friend and then Premier Mike Harris 22 it was not only the wrong thing to do, 23 but also an odd decision considering 24 that legislatures dodge and side-step 25 tricky questions every day experts and


1 politicians say. 2 [Quote] 'There are ways to avoid 3 answering question which we see on a 4 daily basis', [Close quotes] said Tory 5 Opposition House Leader Bob Runciman 6 who's due to testify next year at the 7 Ipperwash Inquiry where Harnick made 8 his admission Monday. 9 [Quote] 'Rather than telling an untruth 10 you don't respond in a direct fashion. 11 There is no obligation in standing 12 orders to respond to a question', 13 [Close quotes] Runciman said." 14 And they injected the Legislature's 15 standing orders to respond to a question. 16 First of all may I ask you, Mr. Runciman, 17 were you accurately quoted in the December 1st, 2005, 18 article in the Canadian Press? 19 A: I believe so. 20 Q: And would you agree with me that the 21 gist of what you told the Canadian Press is rather than 22 lie, Charles Harnick have opted to have simply not answer 23 the question? 24 A: Rather than lie he simply could have 25 opted not to answer the question?


1 Q: That was the gist of what you were 2 saying. 3 A: Yes, I think that's -- that's a good 4 reading of it, yes. 5 Q: And where do I find you saying in 6 this article -- where do I find you saying that it was 7 wrong for Charles Harnick to have done what he did? 8 Where do I find that? 9 A: You'll have to go through the 10 article. I don't know if I was asked that question. 11 Q: Could you go through the article 12 right now and see if you can find it? 13 A: Well, you can tell me if it's there 14 or not. 15 Q: Well, you said you'll have to go 16 through the article so I'm going to suggest to you, sir, 17 having gone through the article myself I can find no 18 quote -- 19 A: Okay then I'll accept your -- 20 Q: -- where you say the -- 21 A: -- reading of it. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just ask the 23 question. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fine. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just ask the


1 question. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 4 Q: I can find no quote where you say the 5 former Attorney General was wrong for lying in the House. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Do you agree with 8 me that you didn't tell that to the Canadian Press? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 10 Now you've asked the question and now Mr. Downard has an 11 objection. 12 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: I just object to the 13 endless theatrics. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I just -- it's 16 totally inappropriate. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: You know I -- and - 19 - and with respect -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- when Mr. Downard 22 refers to endless theatrics, like he refers to the media 23 I -- I just want to be clear -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that as far as


1 I'm concerned every time he gets up and does that, I feel 2 like I'm on a theatre with someone who's trying to make a 3 point to somebody other than you, Mr. Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So with respect -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- if he doesn't 8 want to engage in what he calls endless theatrics then he 9 ought not to do it himself. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 11 move on. Now, Mr. Smith, you've got an objection. 12 MR. IAN SMITH: I just want the questions 13 to be relevant. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So do I. 15 MR. IAN SMITH: Whether or not Mr. -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's -- 17 MR. IAN SMITH: -- Runciman said 18 something about Mr. Harnick's conduct -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Did or 20 didn't. 21 MR. IAN SMITH: -- to the Canadian Press 22 is irrelevant to your work. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a 24 matter of argument. 25 MR. IAN SMITH: Exactly.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a 2 matter of argument. And I think we've had enough of 3 this, so that's sufficient. You've gotten the point that 4 you wanted to get from this article -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. Fair 6 enough. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 8 you've quoted him. He's agreed that the quotes are 9 accurate. Now, you indicated that you were just about 10 finished and I assume you are. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, that's true. 12 That's true. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 15 Q: Sir, I take it that no matter what 16 you said in this article, that had you been of the view 17 you are today that it was unfortunate and regrettable 18 that Mike Harris was in that dining room for that 19 meeting, you would have told and answered that question 20 candidly in the House in May 1996 had you been of that 21 view then? 22 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry. I don't 23 understand the question. I mean -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I'm not 25 sure --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'll rephrase 2 it again. 3 THE WITNESS: If I've been asked whether 4 it was appropriate -- 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: Regardless of what you told the 8 Canadian Press, if you had been of the view in May 1996 9 of what you told us yesterday in January 2006, that it 10 was unfortunate that Michael Harris was in that dining 11 room in the same room with people such as a 12 representative of the OPP, you would have told that in 13 answer to questions in the House in May 1996 had you been 14 of that view. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 16 Just stop there. 17 MR. IAN SMITH: This is incredibly 18 unhelpful to your work, in my respectful submission, 19 Commissioner. This is hypothetical upon hypothetical. 20 You know, My Friend's well past the thirty (30) minutes 21 he committed to yesterday and -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 23 not worried about that. 24 MR. IAN SMITH: -- in my respectful 25 submission is it's time to get to relevant questions.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, I 2 think that's a matter that you can make in your argument. 3 I don't think you need that answer from this Witness. I 4 think there's enough information for you to make your 5 argument on that point, Mr. Falconer. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 8 Q: You've seen the decision of Judge 9 Fraser of April 1997 stating in categorical terms that 10 Officer Cossett concocted his version of events in a 11 courtroom under oath? You've seen that decision by Judge 12 Fraser, correct? 13 A: I haven't seen the decision. I 14 recall the press reports. 15 Q: Well, I ask you that because if 16 you'll have regard to Hansard, you were actually asked 17 about Judge Fraser's decision, that's why I just assumed 18 you had. 19 Now I can take you to the Hansard or I can 20 take you directly to Judge Fraser's decision. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As long as 22 the quote is accurate, you don't have to do either. Is 23 your quote accurate? 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I assume


1 that if it isn't, somebody will say so. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, the quote is 3 accurate. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If your 5 quote is accurate then -- 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 8 Q: Judge Fraser found that Constable 9 Cossett's version of events was so unworthy of belief 10 that, as he put it: 11 "It wasn't worth shaking to see if a 12 grain of truth dropped from it." 13 He called it concocted and he called it 14 fabricated. 15 Now, what I'm asking you, sir, first of 16 all, did it come to your attention after the reasons of 17 His Honour, Judge Fraser, in 1997 in relation to the 18 trial of Kenneth Deane around the shooting of Dudley 19 George, did it come to your attention that a member of 20 the OPP, a witness in the proceeding, was the subject of 21 a finding that he had concocted his version of events to 22 support Kenneth Deane? 23 Were you aware of that? 24 A: Yes. I assume it came to my 25 attention.


1 Q: What, if any, actions did you take to 2 make inquiries about what, if any, corrective measures 3 the Ontario Provincial Police had taken in respect of 4 this officer who was the subject of the finding by the 5 Judge. 6 A: I can't recall. 7 Q: Does it matter to you as Solicitor 8 General in such a case of public importance much less any 9 case, that a police officer in relation to the shooting 10 of a First Nations person, would have been found to have 11 concocted his version of events to support a fellow 12 officer? 13 Does that matter to you as Solicitor 14 General? 15 A: It would matter. I -- but I can't 16 quite honestly recall the details surrounding that -- 17 that view from the Judge. 18 Q: Would you agree with me that if you 19 had taken concrete action, if you had done something 20 about it concrete, participated actively, you'd remember 21 that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: So, it's safe to assume and presume 24 that you again played an observer role in relation to 25 whatever corrective measures --


1 A: I think it's safe to assume that I -- 2 I didn't take any action with respect to that situation. 3 That's right. 4 Q: So, whatever criticisms may be 5 levelled against you, sir, it's fair to say that you were 6 fairly consistent in how you dealt with the Ipperwash -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 8 don't think you need that last question. Now you're 9 getting into the point where you're making argument. 10 You've asked -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 13 questions, you've got the answers. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you, sir, 15 those are my questions. Oh I propose to file the article 16 of December 1st, 2005 as the next exhibit on the 17 proceedings. 18 THE REGISTRAR: P-1006, Your Honour. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-1006. 20 21 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1006: Canadian Press article 22 "Lying in Legislature Not 23 Only Wrong But Not Necessary, 24 Experts Say." December 25 01/'05.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Those are my 2 questions. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 4 Next -- thank you, Mr. Falconer. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you, Mr. -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Next up is 7 Mr. Rosenthal. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, on 12 agreement, Mr. Falconer was the first cross-examiner on 13 behalf of the Aboriginal parties and covered a fair wide 14 range of areas, so, I'm hoping that you will not repeat 15 some of those -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I think I'm 17 going to be quite disjoint from Mr. Falconer, although 18 there will be some interactions -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 But just keep that in mind, as you do usually. Let's 21 carry on. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, may I also say 23 good morning, without taking too much time. Good 24 morning, Mr. Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good


1 morning. 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: And good morning, Mr. Runciman. 5 A: Morning. 6 Q: My name is Peter Rosenthal. I'm one 7 of the Counsel for a group of Stoney Point people under 8 the name Aazhoodena and George Family Group. 9 Now, you told us yesterday that there was 10 a problem due to the fact that the discussion of this 11 Ipperwash matter had dragged on for so many years, and 12 you told us about people drawing conclusions from what 13 they read in the press and there's the obvious problem, 14 also, of people's faulty memories, memories disappearing 15 with time -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- and so on, and rumours and so on. 18 You agree that we are fine -- it's good that we are 19 finally having a public inquiry into this matter so we 20 can investigate and find out the truth as to what 21 happened? 22 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry, I think Mr. 23 Runciman's opinion about whether it's good to have a 24 public inquiry is irrelevant. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr.


1 Commissioner, it's not irrelevant, and I'm going in a 2 certain direction that is quite relevant in my view. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 4 don't think it's a bad question at this point. So 5 whether it's relevant or not, I think -- let's see where 6 it goes. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, thank you. 8 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I -- 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: So, do you recall the question, sir? 12 A: Yes, I do. 13 Q: Thank you. 14 A: From a personal perspective, I was 15 never opposed to the idea of a public inquiry, although, 16 I didn't feel there was real justification for it. But I 17 felt that at some point and I -- some point I did talk to 18 the Chief Coroner about the possibility of an Inquest. 19 I felt that that would -- could have been 20 an appropriate first step and if the Inquest findings 21 suggested the need for an Inquiry, that would have been 22 the -- the appropriate flow as I saw it, at that time. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The reason 24 why it may not be relevant is I don't want to go into a 25 long examination of whether or not, why not, all those


1 years. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It won't be a very 3 long examination -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- but I'd just 6 like to follow that with -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- few questions if 9 I may, sir? 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: You recognize, do you not, sir, that 13 an Inquest is much more limited in scope than a public 14 inquiry? Is that correct? 15 A: Yes, I do. Yes. 16 Q: And so you -- you were always of the 17 view that a public hearing into this would be useful? 18 A: No, I didn't quite say that. I said 19 I had no strenuous objections to ultimately if it 20 indicated it was merited, a public inquiry being held. 21 But I felt there, and contend to this day, 22 that there wasn't justification for a public inquiry. I 23 felt that it would have been appropriate to have an 24 Inquest and -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want


1 to get into a review of the decision to hold or not to 2 hold a public inquiry. 3 We are here; this is a public inquiry. 4 Let's get on with it. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. But with 6 great respect, Mr. Commissioner, we're here ten (10) 7 years late. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 9 mean, that's a fact. We're -- 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- here ten 12 (10) years later and we're in a public inquiry and the 13 object of it is to find out what happened then, not why a 14 public inquiry didn't occur sooner, or should have, or 15 would have, or whatever. It's not an area that I want to 16 get into. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay, I'll, of 18 course, accept your ruling, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: If I may, Mr. -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm -- 22 you'll have your chance. 23 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I think it's -- Mr. 24 Rosenthal is asking the questions and my client has a 25 perspective on this --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can ask 2 the questions and we'll deal with it when you do. I want 3 to do it one (1) lawyer, one (1) party at a time. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right, I'm just 5 reacting to Mr. Rosenthal's question and your response to 6 that, because I think it's important -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When you ask 8 your questions -- 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: that -- okay. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If they're 11 appropriate, we'll -- 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- let you 14 continue, if they're not, we'll make our comments at that 15 time. Yes...? 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: May I just, sir, 17 with great respect, suggest the following; that the 18 question as to why the Harris government refused to call 19 an Inquiry for so many years might shed some light on the 20 overall events and, with great respect, I think that 21 should be -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- an area explored 24 briefly. I don't expect to spend much time. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I'm not


1 prepared to do that. At this time, that is not something 2 that I think is part of our mandate. Carry on. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, I don't 5 want to hear on this. We can -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, with respect, 7 Mr. Commissioner -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Aboriginal 9 Legal Services had their opportunity -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, but that 11 last -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to cross- 13 examine. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- statement about 15 what's in the mandate and the Inquiry triggers more than 16 simply Mr. Rosenthal's question, and Mr. Downard rises 17 routinely when he's not -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- when he's not -- 20 when he's not the one triggered -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and he's heard 23 routinely, so -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- with respect,


1 while I stayed down, when it now became an issue of what 2 is in the mandate of the Inquiry, with respect, that -- 3 that -- the problem -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- is that there 6 are submissions to be made by some parties on it. If you 7 don't need -- want to hear from me now, fair enough, but 8 I would ask this, that before you rule on whether the 9 steps taken or not taken to have this matter properly 10 canvassed, before you rule on that -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- whether the 13 steps taken or not taken by the Harris regime to have 14 this matter -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 16 an issue before me at the moment and I'm not going to 17 review at this time the years that occurred before this 18 Inquiry was called. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that was the 20 part I didn't rise on. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The part I'm rising 23 on is an extension of that which is, if there's 24 allegations of political interference the body that's the 25 subject of political interference may well have an


1 interest in -- in essence -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- keeping that 4 from scrutiny and that's a different question than Mr. -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That may be. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's -- and so as 7 long as that's not being ruled out then I sit down. I 8 just -- there was an extension there -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that -- that 11 caused me some concern. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sit down. 13 Let's carry on. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, Mr. 17 Commissioner, I was going to move to something else but I 18 -- I didn't understand the -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 20 distinction. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- the last 22 interchange. The -- may I continue to explore the 23 question as to the reasons that it was not subject to 24 public scrutiny earlier? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure


1 what you mean by that. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- well -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have a 4 witness on the stand, he knows things, he's going to 5 answer your questions. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What 8 questions do you wish to ask him? 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, sir, this 10 Witness -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And how is 12 the relevance -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- this Witness, 14 during all the material times as one says, was a member 15 of the Cabinet of this Government. There were, for many 16 years, demands from various quarters that there should be 17 a public inquiry into this matter and we have suffered, 18 to some extent, from the fact that it's ten (10) years 19 later in the ways that he identified. 20 Now, of course we will do, and you are 21 doing, and we all do as well as we can given the 22 timeframe, but the fact that the Harris Government 23 refused to call an inquiry for so long has -- does shed 24 light on their entire behaviour during and after this 25 event and might lead to some consideration at the end of


1 the day as to -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- what we do in 4 future in these situations. And so I -- I didn't expect 5 to spend nearly as much time as has already been spent 6 discussing the possibility of the question. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 Well -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, I did want to 10 explore just a little bit from this high-ranking Cabinet 11 officer as to what happened in those discussions when 12 they were faced with these demands for a public inquiry. 13 He told us that he recommended an inquest, 14 although he acknowledged that that's a much more limited 15 investigation than a public inquiry, and I just wish to 16 explore that with a few more questions, I thought, and 17 then I was going to move onto something else. I'm in -- 18 I'm in your hands of course, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 20 Downard...? 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just for the record, 22 sir, the -- the issue is beyond the scope of the terms of 23 reference of this -- this Inquiry. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar, 25 do you want to help me?


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I think you -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 3 interested in opening up my terms of reference at this 4 point. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: We're not -- I'm not 6 getting into the terms of reference. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but 8 obviously now Mr. Falconer -- 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- as soon 11 as he hears 'terms of reference' feels that -- 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it's a 14 broader question. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But, you had ruled a 16 moment ago that -- that the question with respect to, and 17 I can't remember the exact word of Mr. Rosenthal's 18 question, was not a question -- was not helpful to you in 19 your investigation and you asked him not -- and so I 20 think we should just carry on to the next question in -- 21 in a different -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And rule on 23 him question by question. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have no


1 other option. I don't want to get into a long discussion 2 of principle at this point. 3 You're rising again and you're not -- 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I -- I do because of 5 the issue raised about the terms of reference. And I do 6 have to say -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I haven't 8 raised that. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, it was raised by 10 Mr. Downard and I -- I think that affects -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- Sam George, 13 certainly, and all -- all of the parties. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm 15 conducting this Inquiry not Mr. Downard, and Mr. 16 Rosenthal is asking questions and we're ruling on them as 17 he asks them so we're going to continue. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: But, if -- if a party 19 makes a submission about a certain matter that affects 20 our client, I certainly think it's fair to have a short 21 submission to address that point. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're never 23 going to finish if -- 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I -- I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- anybody


1 can rise on any issue, anytime, and carry on and as Mr. 2 Rosenthal said he would have been finished this if we had 3 carried on. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I -- I agree and 5 that's -- that's one of the issues, but -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But? 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- I -- I haven't 8 risen on specific questions, I'm rising on a point which 9 affects the -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If -- 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- what -- what 12 somebody characterized as the entire mandate of the -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 14 want to get to there. I'm saying to you that if you have 15 a question to ask when you're examining, you'll ask it 16 and if it's appropriate, it'll be allowed and if it 17 isn't, we'll deal with it then. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's the 20 only way we can proceed. 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The other trouble I 22 have with submissions -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We can't go 24 to matters of principle with every question that every 25 Counsel asks on every matter and have all lawyers speak


1 on it. We just will never finish. 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The other trouble I 3 have with that point, Mr. Commissioner, is that we're 4 very mindful of your comments from the beginning of this 5 week and -- and repeated previously and are doing our 6 best to avoid repetition and have some kind of -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I appreciate 8 that. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- division of labour. 10 I don't want to repeat the same points that Mr. Rosenthal 11 will be making. So, I won't have an opportunity to 12 address this later on -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You will. 14 You will ask a question. If you don't ask it, then you 15 won't have an opportunity but if you do and if it's a 16 relevant question it'll be allowed and if it isn't, it'll 17 be objected to. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay, I guess -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can we carry 20 on? 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- I have a problem 22 with peoples talking about the terms of reference without 23 other Counsel having a chance to respond to -- to that. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 Thank you.


1 Mr. Rosenthal...? 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think maybe -- why 3 don't we just, as I suggested before, let's not talk 4 about the terms of reference, let's just talk about the 5 question. And -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 7 I'm trying to. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- and you -- and you 9 had made a ruling about a question and then -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 11 we're trying to do. Mr. Rosenthal, you asked the 12 question, you want to ask another one? 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, sir. I 14 am trying to. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And please, 17 whoever's counting time, realize that I have not used up 18 very much time myself yet. I've used up about a minute 19 so far myself. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Now, sir, I'm not sure we're going to 23 rule on a question by question basis, so perhaps before 24 you answer any question you should wait a moment to see 25 if there is an objection or whatever. I'm not trying to


1 trap you into anything. 2 Now, you were aware, sir, from shortly 3 after the killing of Dudley George, that there were 4 people requesting, at least, a public inquiry into this 5 matter; is that fair? 6 A: At some point, I can't recall -- 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: -- precisely. 9 Q: But within a few months, certainly? 10 A: Probably. 11 Q: And continuing over a period of many 12 years? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And continuing until, in fact, the 15 Harris Government fell; isn't that fair to say? 16 A: That's fair to say. 17 Q: And during that time, were you -- was 18 this matter discussed in Cabinet as to whether or not 19 there should be a public inquiry? 20 A: I don't believe so. 21 Q: If a decision as to whether or not 22 there should be a public inquiry, who would make that 23 decision? Would Cabinet make that decision or would the 24 Premier make it personally or...? 25 A: The Attorney General would -- would


1 bring it to Cabinet. 2 Q: Bring it to Cabinet and Cabinet would 3 make a -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- joint decision? 6 A: I would assume, you know, prior to 7 being brought to Cabinet, there would be some discussion 8 with the Premier's office. 9 Q: And did Cabinet discuss the question 10 of a public inquiry? 11 A: I don't -- don't believe so. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 13 getting into areas that I think are beyond -- 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He's answered the 15 question. I don't -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 17 a few questions in there. The questions you've asked so 18 far have been fine, but I don't want to go much beyond 19 this. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no, I can't go 21 much beyond it and I don't intend to. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 So let's -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- move on.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: So you don't believe it was ever 4 discussed in Cabinet? 5 A: I don't believe so, no. 6 Q: Turning to a different matter -- 7 different area of questioning. 8 With respect to the dining room meeting 9 and the two (2) different comments, and just to -- to 10 clarify, the evidence before this Commission is that Mr. 11 Harris said, "I want the fucking Indians out of the 12 Park", and Mr. Hodgson said, "Get the fucking Indians out 13 of my Park", just to clarify. 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: Now, you told us earlier in your 16 testimony that you may not have been in the room when Mr. 17 Hodgson was speaking to Inspector Fox, you might have 18 left already. 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: So, that could be a reason that you 21 might not have heard Mr. Hodgson say that, if he did 22 indeed say that; is that fair? 23 A: That's possible -- that's possible, 24 yes. 25 Q: But you would have been in the room,


1 presumably at the time that it is alleged Mr. Harris 2 said, "I want the fucking Indians out of the Park"? 3 A: I was there, certainly, while he was 4 there. 5 Q: Yes. Now, you said you don't recall 6 those words and -- and I take it you're fairly sure you 7 didn't hear them or you're not absolutely sure? 8 A: I -- I don't recall them. 9 Q: You don't recall them. 10 A: I don't recall them at all. 11 Q: Yes. But it's possible that you just 12 don't recall and that they were -- were said -- 13 A: Well, certainly a number of things 14 that I don't recall about that meeting, there's no 15 question about it. A number of things that I do 16 remember, I mentioned yesterday, I think, Oka being 17 referenced; that sort of thing that stood out in my 18 mind -- 19 Q: Now -- 20 A: -- for whatever reasons. 21 Q: You do -- do you recall at that 22 dining room meeting people using the phrase, if we may 23 call it that, 'the fucking Indians'? 24 A: No, I do not. 25 Q: Well, do you recall Mr. Harris at


1 some point during this Ipperwash matter saying, "the 2 fucking Indians"? 3 A: No. 4 Q: He did tend to speak, using 5 expletives from time to time; is that fair? 6 A: No, I don't recall him using 7 expletives. He may have, but I -- I think my testimony 8 was that he was a -- he's strong and he has a strong 9 personality and a forceful personality. So that didn't 10 necessarily include expletives, I don't think, in most 11 instances, that was necessary. 12 Q: But most -- 13 A: You understood how strongly he felt 14 about something. 15 Q: But he did, from time to time, in 16 meetings with members of his Government, say 'fucking' 17 didn't he? 18 A: I don't really recall that. 19 Q: You don't recall that? 20 A: He may have, but I certainly don't 21 recall it. 22 Q: Well you -- you certainly would not 23 be absolutely certain that he didn't say, The fucking 24 Indians, in the course of these events, would you? 25 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry, Commissioner,


1 how many times can we ask the same question a different 2 way? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He said that 4 he didn't hear it. He said he didn't hear it. 5 MR. IAN SMITH: Let's to move on. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 7 the question, he's answered it, he said he didn't hear 8 that phrase in this context. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I'm not sure 10 that he answered that question -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I think 12 he did. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- but I'll read 14 the transcript and find out. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he 16 did. 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Peter, he did. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay, I'll read the 19 transcript and learn what everybody else knows. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Would you agree, sir, that to just say 23 the words, The fucking Indians, would be a racist remark? 24 A: I, you know, I'm not one who likes to 25 toss that word around in a cavalier way, I think that


1 people sometimes do and say thoughtless things without 2 necessarily being racist. And so I think it was 3 certainly -- if -- if someone described any one of those 4 terms, that it certainly is less than polite. 5 But to describe -- describe something as 6 racist I -- I'm more reluctant to do that. I think you 7 would have to look at a -- sort of a larger body of -- of 8 commentary to reach that kind of a conclusion. 9 Q: If someone, The fucking Jews, would 10 you take that as a racist comment? 11 A: Again, you know, to -- to suggest 12 that, as I said, I'm not going to loosely throw the word 13 around, racist. I tend to look at -- certainly it's an 14 offensive comment and -- but I'm not going to reach any 15 conclusions about whether it's a racist comment or not. 16 Q: Yes, well you reached conclusions 17 about the memorabilia, so called. 18 A: I said -- 19 Q: You told Mr. Falconer this morning 20 that it was not racist; is that right? 21 A: I don't believe it was racist. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: I think it was dumb. 24 Q: I'm sorry? 25 A: I think it was dumb. I don't think


1 it was racist. 2 Q: It was dumb, but not racist. And you 3 -- you would be comfortable, for example, then, would 4 you, sir, having an officer who had referred to, The 5 fucking Indians, policing Indians? Would you, sir? 6 A: Probably not. 7 Q: Probably not. Why not, sir? 8 A: Well, I think it shows insensitivity. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're two 10 (2) steps away. There's no evidence of any officer using 11 the term 'fucking Indians' so -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, no, I... 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Not that I'm 14 aware of. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, I appreciate 16 that, Mr. Commissioner. I'm trying to explore how this 17 man monitored the OPP for racists. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's a 19 good area to question. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And this man who 21 did so, has told us that he doesn't consider 'the fucking 22 Indians' a racist remark and -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he 24 considered it offensive -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- that's useful


1 information. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so, you 3 know, and dumb, but he didn't consider it racist. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, dumb but not 5 racist. That's his view. 6 MR. IAN SMITH: Well just so the record's 7 clear, he said a lot more than it was just dumb. He said 8 it was insensitive and offensive -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. IAN SMITH: -- among other terms. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR, IAN SMITH: So, just so we're clear 13 on that. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 15 fine. The record is clear. He's used a number of terms 16 to describe the term. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Now, as the Solicitor General, would 21 you agree that you were the main person in Government to 22 have responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate 23 separation between police and politicians was maintained? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: So had that in a double sense, I


1 would suggest. You'd have that, in general, for all 2 police services, as Solicitor General, and then a 3 particular responsibility with respect to the OPP because 4 of their special relation to the Solicitor General; is 5 that fair? 6 A: That's fair. 7 Q: And that responsibility, then, would 8 include, if the need arose, your informing your 9 colleagues in government of this separation, right? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Including other members of the 12 Legislative Assembly? 13 A: If appropriate, yes. 14 Q: If appropriate? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Even back benchers like Mr. Beaubien, 17 if -- if the matter arose? 18 A: Yes. I would think so, yes. 19 Q: Now, the matter did arise, in the 20 course of the discussions in Government, about the 21 Ipperwash matter; isn't that fair? 22 A: About the Ipperwash matter? The 23 occupation of the Park -- 24 Q: During the -- during the occupation 25 of the Park, the question and the need to clarify the


1 separation between politicians and police arose. 2 A: Yes. Yes, it did. 3 Q: And that's reflected, for example, in 4 your Tab 36, which is an issue note. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's Exhibit P-930. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, sorry. Thank 7 you, yes. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 10 Q: It's Exhibit P-930 and Inquiry 11 Document Number 1011585. And it's an MSGCS Issue Note, 12 as it's titled, on September 6th, 1995 at 10:30 a.m., the 13 morning of the day that Dudley George was killed. 14 And it indicates in the third bullet 15 point: "Although the police have the 16 duty to enforce the law, the police 17 have the discretion to determine what 18 action, if any, will be taken." 19 And so on. 20 So this issue note evidently arose because 21 of the concerns during the discussions surrounding 22 Ipperwash of the appropriate separation; is that fair? 23 A: I assume so. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: Now, yesterday you were asked 2 questions by counsel for the OPP, Ms. Tuck-Jackson. I -- 3 sorry, sir, I wasn't intending to ask you any more about 4 that issue note. 5 A: Oh, okay. 6 Q: And those who wish to check my 7 accuracy can look at the transcript yesterday, pages 113 8 to 116. 9 But you were asked questions to the 10 following effect: If an officer such as John Carson, she 11 proposed, had a good understanding of his 12 responsibilities and had substantial integrity, you'd be 13 less concerned about the nature of his contact with a 14 politician and you answered, Yes, to that question. 15 Do you recall that line of questioning and 16 that answer, sir? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And don't -- don't you recognize, 19 though, sir, that even an officer of the highest 20 integrity, who totally understands his responsibility, 21 might be subconsciously affected by political pressure if 22 he's told the Premier's watching him and things like 23 that? 24 A: It's possible. 25 Q: Yes. So it's a very serious matter


1 no matter no matter how high the integrity of the officer 2 may be and no matter how much he understands his 3 responsibility; isn't that fair? 4 A: I think that's possible. 5 Q: And you told Ms. Tuck-Jackson you 6 would hope that an officer would not succumb to the 7 pressure, right? 8 Do you recall saying that? 9 A: Not specifically, but I'll accept it. 10 Q: Well, the transcript -- 11 A: I'll accept that. 12 Q: -- does reveal you said that and -- 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: -- we would all hope that, surely. 15 A: Yes, right. 16 Q: But we cannot rely on such hopes, 17 right? 18 A: That is a safe assumption. 19 Q: And -- and even if an officer really 20 thinks that he is not succumbing to the pressure, you 21 recognize, unconsciously, it might affect his actions; 22 isn't that fair? 23 A: I think that's a possibility. 24 Q: And, in particular, you -- you didn't 25 know John Carson in September of 1995, enough to know


1 what integrity or...? 2 A: No, I didn't know him at all. 3 Q: You didn't know him? Now, if we 4 could turn to your Tab 23, please, which is Exhibit P- 5 418, Inquiry Document Number 1012239? 6 Now, sir, this is a letter addressed to 7 the Honourable Charles Harnick dated August 14, 1995, on 8 the letterhead of Marcel Beaubien. And if you look at 9 the bottom of it it says that you are one of the persons 10 copied on this letter. Do you recall, sir? 11 A: Yes, I do. I see my name misspelled 12 on the letter, yes. 13 Q: I'm sorry? 14 A: Nothing. It's not relevant. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The name is 16 misspelled, 'Runciman'. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, I see. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Sorry, sir. I have a hearing 21 problem, sir, and I didn't -- didn't hear your -- I miss 22 all the jokes and side remarks in life. It's a very 23 unfortunate. But anyway, in spite of that misspelling, 24 it undoubtedly it would have gotten to you, a copy? 25 A: I would think so.


1 Q: Yes. And I believe you testified 2 that, in retrospect, you might have been concerned about 3 this. You did testify that -- in fact, on Monday of this 4 week at page 88, if anybody wants to check the 5 transcript, you said, with respect to the letter, you 6 would be concerned, in retrospect; at the time you're not 7 sure whether you would have been concerned. 8 And you said that you think he was just 9 repre -- he was representing his constituents and being 10 given an update. 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: Now, sir, let's look at what this 13 letter says. It says: 14 "On August 11, 1995 I met with the 15 following individuals from the Ontario 16 Provincial Police." 17 And he lists, then, Superintendent Parkin, 18 Inspector Linton, Inspector Carson and Staff Sergeant 19 Lacroix. Now we have evidence at this Inquiry that 20 Inspector Carson was the Incident Commander at Ipperwash 21 during the time of the killing of Dudley George. 22 Inspector Linton was the person who took 23 over as Incident Commander when Carson wasn't there. And 24 Wade Lacroix was the person who led the officers down the 25 road that night in -- in a march that ended with the


1 killing of Dudley George. 2 Now, Mr. Beaubien wrote to Attorney 3 General Harnick and copied Solicitor General Runciman, 4 saying he met with them on Oct -- on August 11, it says: 5 "They were here to discuss the issues 6 at Ipperwash Provincial Park." 7 And so on. 8 And then towards the bottom of the page he 9 says: 10 "The representatives from the OPP and 11 myself have reached the following 12 consensus." 13 Now, sir, do you not agree, at least in 14 retrospect, that when you read a letter saying that a 15 member of the Provincial Parliament and representatives 16 of the OPP have reached a consensus about something 17 related to an operation, that should ring big alarm bells 18 in the Solicitor General? 19 A: It should have been a concern, I 20 agree. 21 Q: It should have been a very serious 22 concern that an MPP is mak -- reaching consensus with OPP 23 officers? 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: Should it not?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And I would like you to look at 3 Number 3 of the consensus, it's on the second page. 4 "Ministries involved have to give the 5 OPP clear guidelines for law 6 enforcement." 7 Now it appears that the consensus that was 8 brought to your attention on August 11 -- sorry, August 9 14, 1995 was that the Ministries have to give the OPP the 10 guidelines -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: -- in this situation. 13 A: Right. 14 Q: That would seem to suggest, would it 15 not, sir, that the consensus included that the Ministries 16 would give operational guidance to the OPP with respect 17 to Ipperwash Park? 18 A: It's an understandable inference, I 19 agree. 20 Q: Yes. And then it says, if you go to 21 the last part of the -- that letter: 22 "As detailed to Ministers Hodgson, 23 Harnick and Runciman [spelled correctly 24 this time, I believe] we will take the 25 following position until further


1 instruction is received from the 2 Ministries." 3 So that reaffirms that this was a 4 consensus that included having political direction as to 5 the OPP operation with respect to the Ipperwash Park; is 6 that not fair? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 8 minute. Yes, Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? 9 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Yes, Mr. 10 Commissioner. I just want us to be very careful. 11 If My Friend is asking these questions to 12 push the point that perhaps the Minister or his staff 13 ought to have been more careful in reading it and ought 14 to have set up red flags, that's fine; I agree that's a 15 relevant area. 16 But I just want My Friend to be very 17 careful, because you have to bear in mind the evidence of 18 -- of Deputy Commissioner Carson, that he took issue with 19 the correctness and accuracy of the representation in the 20 letter and indeed that there was no consensus reached and 21 that he was not going to be subject to direction. 22 So, I'd just -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: -- ask that we 25 all be very careful about that.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 2 Mr. Commissioner, and I do have great respect for Ms. 3 Tuck-Jackson, that was an editorial comment to be saved 4 for argument. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It is irrelevant to 7 my present line of questioning -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- what Inspector 10 Carson may or may not have said. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 12 completely irrelevant but, in any event, I think what 13 you're doing is appropriate, so carry on. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Now, I forget exactly what I was 18 doing. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you're 23 trying to demonstrate, because this is the Witness you 24 have on the stand -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no, I -- no, I


1 don't -- I do know, in general, what I'm doing, I'm just 2 asking for a moment's indulgence. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You want 4 your questions to relate to Mr. Runciman and what he did? 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, thank you. 6 Just a moment's indulgence. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 8 that's Ms. Tuck-Jackson's point. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: So the letter says: 12 "As detailed to Ministers, we will take 13 the following position until further 14 instruction is received from the 15 Ministries." 16 I will be looking later at the record that 17 will show about that further -- something about -- give 18 some indication that there was further instruction to be 19 coming from the Ministers. 20 So looking at it now, carefully, as I've 21 pointed out to you, you do agree this letter should have 22 shown -- should have caused you great concern at the 23 time; do you not, sir? 24 A: Well, I think there should have been, 25 as someone said, a red light go off, an alarm bell --


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- with respect to -- to the 3 conclusions he was reaching about that meeting. 4 Q: Yes. And after you heard that alarm 5 and woke as a result of that alarm, you should have 6 immediately contacted MPP Beaubien and said, Mr. Beaubien 7 there is a required separation between politicians and 8 police. Please do not discuss operational details of 9 Ipperwash Park or any other matter with police officers 10 in future. 11 I'd be glad to give you more details if 12 you wish. 13 A: I don't know that -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, just a 15 minute -- 16 THE WITNESS: -- contact didn't occur. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 18 Runciman, before you answer, your Counsel's objecting so 19 I want to hear what he says. 20 MR. IAN SMITH: The only point I want to 21 make is that the question assumes that the alarm was 22 heard and in my recollection, my check of the note -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 24 MR. IAN SMITH: -- in-chief is that Mr. 25 Runciman doesn't actually recall receiving this letter


1 so -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. IAN SMITH: -- that's my only point. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, again, 5 that -- the question is a proper one. You want to ask it 6 again? 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: The question was, if you had -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You would 11 put it on -- 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 14 Q: If the alarm had gone off and heard - 15 - and it was heard and you woke up, I said, if you'd 16 woken to this problem in August of 1995, would you not 17 have contacted Mr. Beaubien and at least cautioned him? 18 A: I would hope so and I -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- again, I just want to add to that, 21 that he may have been contacted and perhaps that can be 22 confirmed when he appears. But, I think we're suggesting 23 he never was contacted and I -- I don't know that for a 24 fact. 25 Q: Well, sir, do you have any knowledge


1 whatsoever that Mr. Beaubien was cautioned, in any way, 2 about his -- 3 A: I -- 4 Q: -- interaction with the police? 5 A: I do not. I do not. 6 Q: You do not. 7 A: No. 8 Q: At any time at all? 9 A: No. I don't believe so, no. 10 Q: "No." And you agree that the 11 appropriate Ministry to issue that caution was your 12 Ministry, Solicitor General. 13 A: Yes, it would have been. 14 Q: And the person in Cabinet responsible 15 for that was you, Solicitor General Runciman? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Now, and you'd agree, by the way, 18 that the word 'consensus' means something like consensual 19 agreement or win-win outcome of collaborative -- 20 collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution, is 21 the definition I got somewhere. 22 That's a reasonable one, is it? 23 A: Consensus usually, for me, indicates 24 that everyone agreed with the course of action. 25 Q: Yeah. There was a discussion?


1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: Instead of one person insisting on 3 something, there was a common agreement as to what to do? 4 A: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But to be 6 fair, I think to be fair you have to mention what Ms. 7 Tuck-Jackson said, that Mr. Carson, when he testified, 8 indicated that he was not in agreement. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is Mr. 11 Beaubien's interpretation of the meeting. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 14 and this does relate to other questions. I'm not 15 objecting, I'm simply clarifying for the record. 16 We have not heard, for example, from Mr. 17 Lacroix, who was is in charge of liaison with Mr. 18 Beaubien, so we can't assume, with great respect, 19 anything about the actual nature of the ultimate evidence 20 on the existence of the consensus. There has been an 21 underlying suggestion -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I just 23 don't want it to be that there was consensus -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- because


1 the issue of consensus was raised by another witness. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It -- it was. I'm 3 simply saying that since we haven't heard from -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: From other 5 witnesses. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the person 7 responsible for dealing with Beaubien, or Beaubien, we 8 still don't know if there was a consensus. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm just pointing 11 that out that -- that... 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That is true, Mr. 14 Commissioner -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- of course. And 17 we haven't heard from other participants in the meeting 18 other, like Parkin, for example. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 20 right. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: So, we don't know what everybody will 24 say as to whether or not there was a consensus, but we do 25 know that Mr. Beaubien wrote to you and Mr. Harnick that


1 there was, right? That's where we're at. 2 A: He wrote to Mr. Harnick with a copy 3 to me, yes. 4 Q: Yes. Now, did you -- at any point, 5 when you became aware of Mr. Beaubien's concerns, did you 6 discuss his concerns with OPP Commissioner O'Grady, at 7 any point? 8 A: No, I don't believe so. 9 Q: Now, yesterday you were asked by 10 counsel for Mr. Beaubien whether there was anything 11 improper about an MPP providing information to the OPP. 12 Do you recall that -- 13 A: Yes, I do. 14 Q: -- line of questioning? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And you answered to the effect that 17 it's a grey area; it depends upon the nature of the 18 information; is that correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And, in particular, you said if he 21 just merely expressed concerns of his constituents that 22 would be acceptable, you would think? 23 A: Right, right. 24 Q: Now, what I'd like to do is look at 25 some of what he did present, according to the evidence we


1 have so far, and ask you to assist us as to where in that 2 grey area -- whether it falls in the grey area or is it 3 clearly on one (1) side or another of no matter how wide 4 a line. 5 A: Right. 6 Q: Now, if we could look first to your 7 Tab 49, please. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Tab 49, which is part of the OPP 12 scribe notes of September 6th, 1995, and it's part of 13 Exhibit P-426, Inquiry Document Numbers -- I believe 14 there are two (2) different Inquiry Document numbers, 15 3000073 and 1002419, I believe. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. 1002419 is the 17 actual scribe note. The three thousand (3000) number is 18 an extract that was used on an examination for Discovery. 19 So it's -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I see. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- the actual number 22 is 10002419, but I am using the extract. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. So we -- we 24 have oscillated back and forth from time to time. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Yes, and thank you. Mr. Millar has 5 put it up on the screen for us, the appropriate part. I 6 want to begin at 18:42 hours. This is on September 6th. 7 It's about five (5) hours before Dudley 8 George was killed and it reads as follows. These -- as 9 you, I believe, may know, sir, the scribe notes are the 10 notes kept by the OPP with respect to the Incident 11 Commander. Instead of him taking his own personal notes 12 he has a scribe who keeps scribe notes and that what 13 we're reading from. And it says: 14 "Inspector Linton, Inspector Carson, 15 Les Kobayashi, and Member of Parliament 16 Marcel Beaubien meeting in Command 17 Trailer. [Sorry, next line]. 18 Marcel Beaubien advised that he had 19 sent a fax to the Premier advising of 20 his intentions and that he wanted a 21 return phone call regarding his 22 intentions. 23 Inspector Carson advised there's a 24 court hearing for an injunction at 9:30 25 a.m. September -- 7 September '95."


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 2 says 9:00 a.m. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9:00 p.m., sorry. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 9:00 a.m. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: "...at 9:00 a.m. 7 September '95. 12 Marcel Beaubien aware of situation." 13 And continuing on the next page: 14 "Marcel Beaubien wondered if there was 15 anything else that he could do. 16 Inspector Carson advised that things 17 are towards the court order so that the 18 Criminal Code charges can be laid." 19 The next paragraph: 20 "Marcel Beaubien advised that property 21 owners are very concerned. They are 22 frustrated and feel they are not being 23 treated equally." 24 Would that come within the area of 25 acceptable information communicating the views of his


1 constituents in your view, sir? Just that -- just that 2 one -- the one sentence I'm talking about. 3 A: Sure that would be fine. 4 Q: I'm sorry? 5 A: I can't see a problem with that. 6 Q: Yeah. So -- so, that's what you were 7 thinking of. He can say the property owners are 8 concerned, they're frustrated, please take care of the 9 situation? 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: That -- that's acceptable? 12 A: Conveying that they're concerned and 13 frustrated, sure. 14 Q: Sorry, could you perhaps move a 15 little closer to the mic. 16 A: That there convey -- that they're 17 frustrated and concerned, certainly I would think that's 18 appropriate. 19 Q: Thank you. Sorry, it's my hearing 20 problem, sir. 21 A: I appreciate it. 22 Q: Now then, though, if we could go a 23 little bit further down, Inspector Linton questioned if 24 there is anything from the Solicitor General. 25 Now I might explain to you, sir, that


1 unfortunately Inspector Linton who played a big role in 2 these events is subsequently deceased and so we don't 3 have evidence from him. 4 But it says: 5 "Inspector Linton questioned if there 6 is anything from the Solicitor General. 7 Marcel Beaubien advised that they were 8 meeting today." 9 Now, sir, to understand that I wonder if 10 we could flip to another tab and then we're going to have 11 to come back to this one, sorry. 12 A: That's okay. 13 Q: But if we could go to your Tab 31 14 which is Exhibit P-426, Inquiry Document 3000782, pages 15 50 through 53. It's -- it's another portion of the 16 scribe notes. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Do you have that tab, sir? 19 A: I do, yes. 20 Q: Now, I'm sorry for being a little bit 21 disjointed, but I want to try and save time. So, first 22 on a different related issue, at the bottom of the first 23 page of that, page 52 -- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 52? 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Page 52 in the


1 scribe notes. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Oh, sorry. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 5 Q: This is talking about a meeting note 6 with Mr. Beaubien, but with the Mayor of -- I don't 7 pronounce it correctly -- Bosanquet, Fred Thomas, 8 attending. And it says that he inquired about an 9 injunction -- 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He doesn't have that-- 11 THE WITNESS: I don't have that, no. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 14 Q: Oh, I'm sorry. At the top of this 15 document brief that was made up for me -- 16 A: I have -- 17 Q: -- at -- sorry. 18 A: -- 39 through 41. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's -- just to assist 20 My Friend and Mr. Runciman, it's at Tab 33. 21 THE WITNESS: 33. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Page 52 is at Tab 33. 23 THE WITNESS: All right. I have it. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. Thank you. 25 I have it at both my tabs.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 3 Millar, once again. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: And I'm looking then at the bottom of 7 page 52 and it says: 8 "Fred Thomas inquired about injunction. 9 John Carson advised that if we went in 10 and physically removed them, they are 11 just trespassing, we can only fine 12 them. Get a court order and fine them; 13 with a criminal offense, we can charge 14 them." 15 It sounds like he's discussing operational 16 matters with Mr. Thomas according to this, doesn't it, 17 sir? Great details as to what we do. 18 A: Telling him the implications of that 19 kind of an action, yes -- 20 Q: Once we get a court order we'll do 21 this and so on? It sounds pretty operational to me, what 22 about to you? 23 A: No. I wouldn't -- 24 Q: Wouldn't characterize them -- 25 A: -- wouldn't characterize it that way.


1 Q: Okay. Now this is from -- on 2 September 5th, by the way, at 8:17 a.m. and the main 3 point of my turning this up is to look at the next page, 4 53, where it says -- the second paragraph on -- well -- 5 it says: 6 "John Carson states Premier and 7 Solicitor General want to deal with 8 this. Interministerial meeting is this 9 morning." 10 Now -- 11 A: Sorry, I'm -- I'm not seeing that -- 12 what page is that? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's right 14 at the top, 53. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: It's page 53 towards the top, sir. 18 A: Okay, yes I see that. Sorry. 19 Q: John Carson states: 20 "Premier and Solicitor General want to 21 deal with this." 22 Now it is ten (10) years later, sir, but 23 did you want to deal with this? 24 A: No, I -- I don't believe that it was 25 accurate. I'm not sure where it came from.


1 Q: So, this is on September 5th and the 2 reason that I turn this up now is because you'll recall 3 Inspector Linton was asking on September 6th, Have we 4 heard anything from the Solicitor General yet? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And this helps to explain as best as 7 the records can, ten (10) years later, why he was asking, 8 What about the Sol Gen, right? 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: And you can't assist us? 11 A: I cannot. 12 Q: Okay, so sorry. If we could turn 13 back to the previous tab and Mr. Millar could turn back 14 to the previous slide, your Tab 49. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I want to 16 take a break sometime this morning, Mr. Rosenthal, so 17 whenever an appropriate time is, you tell us. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm always ready to 19 have a break, sir, as long as you don't count the time 20 against me. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, we won't 22 count it against you. Is this a good a time as any then? 23 I think we should have a morning break. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's fine. Thank 25 you.


1 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 2 for fifteen (15) minutes. 3 4 --- Upon recessing at 10:31 a.m. 5 --- Upon resuming at 10:53 a.m. 6 7 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 8 resumed. Please be seated. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 13 Rosenthal? 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: Good morning again, Mr. Runciman. 19 A: Good morning. 20 Q: If you could please turn back now to 21 your Tab 49, maybe you had just before the break, and I 22 should first like to ask you about something on page 70 23 there. 24 Well, just to remind you that we've 25 flipped to the earlier portion of the scribe notes so we


1 could understand better the fourth paragraph there: 2 "Inspector Linton questioned if there's 3 anything from the Solicitor General. 4 Marcel Beaubien advised that they were 5 meeting today." 6 Now, sir, did you have some meetings on 7 September 6th, this --the date of this is September 6th, 8 with respect to Ipperwash? 9 A: With respect to Mr. Beaubien? 10 Q: No, no. I don't read that as saying 11 that you met with Mr. Beaubien. 12 A: Well, we certainly, I believe, had a 13 meeting that day. Is that not the day of the Cabinet 14 meeting? 15 Q: I see. 16 A: So -- 17 Q: That might have been what -- 18 A: -- we had a meeting but -- 19 Q: -- Mr. Beaubien was referring to when 20 he advised Inspector Linton that they were meeting today. 21 A: I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't 22 think so. I don't think he would have been aware of it. 23 Q: I see, so -- 24 A: I'd be surprised if he was now. 25 Q: So, this would suggest to you he


1 thought, at least, it was some other meeting involving 2 you? 3 A: He, I think his -- the bulk of his 4 contact was with Bill King in the Premier's office. 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: So, Mr. King may have been aware of 7 the meeting prior to me being aware of it. The -- I'm 8 not sure. 9 Q: How did you become aware that the 10 bulk of his contact was with Mr. King? 11 A: I believe I've heard it through 12 testimony here. 13 Q: I see. So, you've reviewed some of 14 the transcripts of the testimony? 15 A: Some of them. 16 Q: Did you review Mr. King's testimony? 17 A: No, I did not, no. 18 Q: Now, turning back to the previous 19 page of the same document, page 69, towards the bottom of 20 that page and towards -- at the very beginning of the 21 meeting, evidently, it reads: 22 "Marcel Beaubien advised that he had 23 sent a fax to the Premier advising of 24 his intentions and that he wanted a 25 return phone call regarding his


1 intentions." 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: There may be two (2) different 'his'' 4 and 'his' there, but do you see a problem with an MPP 5 advising an incident commander and other high ranking 6 officers that he sent a fax to the Premier about this and 7 he's waiting a return phone call? 8 A: It was probably, you know, unwise. 9 Q: If you had known he was going to do 10 something like that you would have told him don't do it, 11 would you not? 12 A: I wasn't really aware of his 13 activities -- 14 Q: We appreciate that. 15 A: -- until later. 16 Q: You weren't aware because the alarm 17 bell that should have gone off didn't go off in your 18 head, right? 19 A: You say in my head; as I said I'm not 20 sure that he was or wasn't contacted by someone in the -- 21 within the Ministry. 22 Q: In any event if -- if you had been 23 aware, if he said, I'm going to go there and I'm going to 24 tell these guys the Premier's on top of this and I'm 25 sending a fax to him and waiting for a return fax you


1 would have said don't do that, would you not? 2 A: I think I would have, yes. 3 Q: Well, one would hope you would have, 4 would we not -- 5 A: Yeah. 6 Q: -- in your role as Solicitor General 7 given your responsibility? 8 A: I -- I think it was probably 9 inappropriate. 10 Q: Yes. Now, in the handwritten notes 11 and I -- I didn't realize that this was not in this 12 document until a few moments ago, but I can refer to 13 transcripts and so on, there are, and just let me tell 14 you though, there are handwritten notes of the scribe 15 which are in some accordance with the typed version but 16 sometimes have additional things. 17 And in the handwritten notes which are P- 18 427, Inquiry Document Number 1000152, at page 472 -- I 19 don't think it's necessary to turn up unless somebody 20 doesn't trust me -- it says that in addition Mr. Beaubien 21 informed those present that the Premier is in constant 22 touch, good communications. 23 That's further to the remark that is in 24 these printed notes and I assume that would cause you 25 similar concern would it not?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Because it suggests to the assembled 3 officers that the Premier is watching over their shoulder 4 with respect to operational details of what they're doing 5 at Ipperwash Park, right? 6 A: That -- 7 Q: That's what it suggests? 8 A: -- conclusion could be drawn, yes. 9 Q: Yes. Well, there's no other 10 conclusion to draw than that is there, sir, reasonably? 11 A: It depends on the individual. 12 Q: I'm sorry? 13 A: It depends on the individual, I would 14 think. 15 Q: Yes, but you would draw that 16 conclusion would you not? 17 A: Well, it depends again on the 18 circumstances and how well they knew Mr. Beaubien and 19 whether they took everything that he said at face value. 20 Q: I see. So, they -- if they thought 21 that Mr. Beaubien was -- 22 A: Exaggerating. 23 Q: -- exaggerating his connection to the 24 Premier then they might not have believed him? 25 A: That's right.


1 Q: But if they thought he was a 2 responsible member of the Provincial Parliament who when 3 he says he's in touch with the Premier really is, that 4 would have put great pressure on them wouldn't it? 5 A: It could well have. 6 Q: Thank you. Now, going back then -- 7 sorry to keep flipping around but my linear order is 8 different from the scribe notes, evidently. If you turn 9 back to page 70 of that document -- 10 A: Yes? 11 Q: -- approximately, right after the 12 quotation about the question about the Solicitor General: 13 "John Carson advised that before the 14 Park was taken over he originally had 15 members there but had to leave for 16 safety reasons. We were outnumbered. 17 Les Kobayashi was present when the 18 natives took over. He confirmed that 19 the officers were swarmed. There was 20 approximately twenty (20) to forty (40) 21 natives. Agreed with the decision for 22 the officers to leave. 23 John Carson states that they are using 24 women and children and it puts us in a 25 tough position.


1 John Carson advised Marcel Beaubien 2 that he understands the residents' 3 concerns. John Carson reported to 4 Marcel Beaubien that we have thirty 5 (30) people on the ground at all times 6 having the members talk to the 7 residents to let them know of our 8 presence. 9 Foot patrols are being completed around 10 the residences. Safety is important." 11 Does that sound a little bit operational 12 to you, sir? 13 A: Yes, but I -- I don't see it as 14 inappropriate. It's not the kind of, you know, 15 confidential operational information. I think -- 16 Q: I see. 17 A: -- the -- Mr. Carson was trying to -- 18 to calm the nerves and I know they were very frayed at 19 the time. 20 Q: But, that includes details as to we 21 have thirty (30) people in the ground at all time; that's 22 appropriate in your view? 23 A: Well, I don't think it was necessary 24 to give numbers but I -- I don't see it as a, you know 25 a --


1 Q: And describing -- 2 A: -- critical fault of Mr. Carson. 3 Q: -- describing the previous situation, 4 describing -- we were outnumbered and so on -- to have 5 that kind of a discussion with an MPP is, in your view, 6 no problem? 7 A: I don't see it as being necessary, 8 but I don't see it as a real -- a real problem either. 9 He may -- 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: -- he may have felt that he had to, 12 in some respects, justify what occurred. In that sense 13 he shouldn't have felt -- felt that way -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- I agree. 16 Q: Yes, he -- well, he -- but then the 17 onus shouldn't be put on the officers should it, sir? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Because he might well feel that way 20 if an MPP is in his command trailer asking questions, he 21 may feel he has to justify himself, right? 22 A: It's a real possibility. 23 Q: And that's one reason that MPP's 24 cannot do this, right? 25 A: Shouldn't do it.


1 Q: Well, yes, you're absolutely right. 2 They could -- can do it and it was proven by Mr. 3 Beaubien. But they shouldn't do it, right? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: Now, then going to the next 6 paragraph: 7 "Marcel Beaubien states that he doesn't 8 mind taking controversy if situation 9 can't be handled by police services, 10 something has to be done to handle the 11 situation." 12 Now, in cross-examination, Inspector 13 Carson indicated what he took from that and he took the 14 following, to the effect -- and persons who wish to, can 15 check the transcript of June 20th, 2005, pages 29 to 31. 16 He took from it, essentially, if it is not 17 appropriately handled by the police, they, the 18 politicians, might do something like call in the 19 military. 20 That's what he took from: 21 "If the situation can't be handled by 22 police services, something has to be 23 done to handle the situation." 24 A: That's in the handwritten notes, is 25 it?


1 Q: No. 2 A: Is that what you're -- 3 Q: What's in the printed notes is what I 4 just said again -- 5 A: It references the Military here, does 6 it? 7 Q: No. 8 A: Oh, okay. 9 Q: What's in the printed notes, sorry, 10 let me be clearer. What's in the printed notes, as you 11 see, is: 12 "If situation can't be handled by 13 police services, something has to be 14 done to handle the situation." 15 A: Yes, I see that. 16 Q: But Inspector Carson testified that 17 what he understood Mr. Beaubien to be saying, and this 18 was in the context when military had been called in in 19 other circumstances -- 20 A: Right. 21 Q: What he understood was that if it's 22 not appropriately handled by the police, then the 23 politicians might do something like call in the military. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: That's what he took from that.


1 A: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 3 minute, Mr. -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Now -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 6 Rosenthal. Yes, Mr. Sulman...? 7 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I think there is a 8 difficulty with the accuracy of the quotation, and Mr. 9 Rosenthal has added the words -- or my recollection, 10 maybe is the better way to put it, and if Mr. Rosenthal 11 can give the accurate transcript reference and read it 12 in, because there's a big issue of whether -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- there's a one (1) 15 inter -- one (1) possibility, if that's what Inspector 16 Carson testified, or Deputy Commissioner now, Carson. 17 And secondly, whether the -- whether the words that 18 Carson used were, The military might need to be called 19 in, as opposed to what Mr. Rosenthal has said, that the 20 politicians would have to call in the military. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, and if 22 you have -- 23 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Those -- that's a 24 very important distinction that should be put properly to 25 the Witness.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you have 2 the quote there, Mr. Rosenthal. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I shall read 4 the quote and it says "they." I can't imagine any other 5 interpretation of "they" but politicians, but we'll see 6 what this Witness takes from it. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: So, I'll read now, then, from the 10 transcript of June 30th, Inspector Carson, beginning at 11 page 30, about line 6, and it's talking about this 12 passage, sir. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: And the question was: 15 "So he's suggesting, in other words, 16 that if it's not appropriately handled 17 by the police, and even though it may 18 be controversial, they might do 19 something like calling in the military 20 -- like calling the Military in to 21 handle it; is that correct?" 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Who's 23 questioning at that time, Mr. -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm questioning -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You were?


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Inspector 2 Carson. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 4 that's fine. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: And the first answer is: 8 "I guess that's a possibility." 9 Then question: 10 "That's what you understood as one of 11 the possibilities? 12 A: Well, I can't tell you what I 13 understood. I'm telling you today -- 14 [there is some other evidence before 15 this, sir, but], I'm telling you today 16 this is my best guess that the only 17 thing I could think that he might have 18 been referring to. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: I don't recall the specific 21 discussion at the time. 22 Q: You don't recall the specifics now 23 or you're suggesting that, given the 24 context and everything you know, it's 25 reasonable that that's what you would


1 have taken at the time, although you 2 don't specifically remember; is that 3 fair? 4 A: Fair enough." 5 So, in my submission, sir, I did put the 6 situation accurately to you. But, from whatever you take 7 from the exact words that I read, and whatever you take 8 from that, you agree that that would put extremely 9 inappropriate pressure on an incident commander, unless 10 he thought that Mr. Beaubien was just talking without any 11 content to his talk? 12 A: No, I -- rather than me express how 13 an incident commander would respond to something like 14 that -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Runciman- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 18 Runciman, Mr. Beaubien's Counsel has an objection to the 19 question. 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well, it's -- it's - 21 - you now have the more accurate representation that was 22 one (1) possibility, but what Mr. Rosenthal hasn't gone 23 on to do is read one (1) question further, in which he 24 asks Mr. -- Deputy Commissioner Carson the exact same 25 question that he's just asked Mr. Runciman. Carson is


1 better able to answer, but I think Mr. Runciman should 2 know what Mr. Car -- what -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 4 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- Deputy 5 Commissioner Carson answers on whether he felt the 6 pressure. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I -- I'm not 9 asking whether Mr. Carson felt the pressure; that's a 10 question for Mr. Carson. I'm asking Mr. Solicitor 11 General Runciman does he feel, as somebody whose 12 responsibility it is to stop improper interactions 13 between politicians and police, that this has a great 14 danger and would he -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 16 That's a fair question. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- therefore advise 18 an MPP, Do not, under any circumstances, say to an 19 Incident Commander, in addition to the Premier's watching 20 you, in effect, if you -- if it can't be handled 21 appropriately we might call in the Military; that's my 22 question, as Solicitor General. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 I think it's a proper question. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 2 Q: And what's your answer to that 3 question, sir? 4 A: Well, I don't know what he would be 5 saying that, for sure, but it could be construed by 6 someone as sort of a threat, I suppose. If you're not 7 doing your job, we'll get somebody in here who can do it. 8 Whether that was -- I can't speak for -- 9 for Mr. Carson or -- or any other Incident Commander in 10 comparable situations how they would respond to it, but 11 certainly it could be construed that way and could be 12 taken, you know, depending on the individual involved. 13 Q: I'm not asking you to speak as to how 14 Inspector Carson would take that, I'm asking you to speak 15 as to how you, as Solicitor General, would take that, in 16 your role of advising members of the Government as to 17 their proper interaction with the police. 18 A: I don't think it would be 19 appropriate. I think I indicated that to -- 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: -- come in and suggest that if you're 22 not doing the job well enough we'll get somebody else in 23 here. 24 Q: And you would regard it as 25 dangerously inappropriate because it might put pressure


1 on the police that would perturb the situation in a 2 dangerous way; is that not fair? 3 A: I don't want to reach that 4 conclusion. 5 Q: I see. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: So you wouldn't -- if you were 8 speaking to Marcel Beaubien and he said, I'm going to 9 tell them if they don't do it properly we're going to 10 call in the police, what would you have said to Marcel 11 Beaubien, sir? 12 A: I'd say back off, that's not your 13 role. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You mean 15 call in the Military. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I -- I understood. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And you 18 said, Call in the police. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry. Thank you. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: But would you have speak -- spoken 25 very -- would you have told them that has great danger if


1 you say something like that? We can't put that kind of 2 pressure on police officers. What's the matter with you, 3 right? You would speak -- 4 A: I would have said -- 5 Q: -- very strongly; wouldn't you? 6 A: I would have told him that it was 7 inappropriate. It's not the role that he should be 8 playing. 9 Q: You would have just said it's 10 inappropriate; that's all? No strong words? 11 A: It's not the role that he should be 12 playing. 13 Q: I see. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: If we could please turn to -- this is 18 a document that was not in the original binder and -- and 19 there were some of the documents -- I'm not sure if it's 20 in the green binder or if it is one (1) of the other 21 documents that was given to you; it's P-632, Inquiry 22 Document 2001028. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps we could 24 give -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And it's --


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- P-632 to the 2 Witness. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. Thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: I -- it is -- it was handed to you 7 somehow, sir, I'm not sure. It's in an issue note dated 8 November 7, 1996. 9 A: 632? 10 Q: It's P-632, yes. 11 A: I have it. 12 Q: Did you -- did you mark the exhibit 13 number on it, sir? 14 A: Yes, I did, yes. 15 Q: Thank you. Okay. So -- and if Mr. 16 Millar could do his usual kind display. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Now, sir, this issue note seems to 21 be in response to allegations that Marcel Beaubien had 22 inappropriately interacted with the police. And the 23 bullet points at top say: 24 "Aware of Lambton MPP's comments as 25 reported in the Press."


1 That would have been Mr. Beaubien, right? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: He was the Lambton MPP? 4 A: Yes, that's right. 5 Q: "Lambton MPP visited the OPP command 6 post but was not involved in any 7 operational decisions." 8 Now what sort of investigation did you or 9 your office do prior to your being prepared to issue 10 statements that he was not involved in any operational 11 decisions? 12 A: I'm not sure what the process would 13 have been. I -- I -- assumptions are always dangerous 14 but I'm not sure if there's any direct contact with Mr. 15 Beaubien. 16 There probably would have been through the 17 Deputy's office and the liaison officer contact with the 18 officers on the site with respect to Mr. Beaubien's 19 activities and how they viewed them. 20 Q: Now would you have relied upon this 21 issue note in -- in your public statements, sir? 22 A: I believe so, yes. 23 Q: Yes. And do you recall actually 24 relying on it or you don't specifically recall? 25 A: I don't know if -- if the issue was


1 raised by the media or -- or in the legislature. I don't 2 recall. 3 Q: But certainly it's fair to say that 4 you relied on -- on this in your general responsibility 5 as Solicitor General in order to ensure the appropriate 6 separation between police and politicians. 7 You relied on your understanding that 8 although he had visited the command post, he was not 9 involved in any operational decisions, right? 10 A: That's right. 11 Q: Because had he been involved in any 12 operational decisions, you would surely have conducted 13 further investigations, would you not? 14 A: Certainly if there was clear evidence 15 that in some way, shape or form he had -- had an impact 16 with respect to his visits in terms of operational 17 decisions, we would have pursued it. 18 Q: Yes. You said that if there was 19 clear evidence. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Would you agree that even if there 22 was reasonable suspicion, it was your responsibility to 23 investigate to see if there was clear evidence after an 24 investigation? 25 A: I think we did and talked to the


1 officers involved and they assured us that they were in 2 no way, shape or form influenced by -- by his activities 3 or his comments. 4 Q: But I think you agreed with me 5 earlier, sir, that an officer may honestly assure you 6 that he was not influenced but there still may well be 7 subconscious influence from pressure of this type. Isn't 8 that fair? 9 A: Well, you know, how do -- I don't 10 know how you would determine that. 11 Q: No. It's very difficult to 12 determine? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Agreed. So you couldn't determine 15 that by speaking to the officers obviously but -- 16 A: No. We have to determine the basis 17 the officers made the decisions they made and -- and 18 whether Mr. Beaubien's presence and comments influenced 19 any decisions that were taken and they clearly indicated 20 that wasn't the case. And we accepted that. 21 Q: Yes, so you -- 22 A: There was nothing to prove to the 23 contrary. 24 Q: Yes. So you would evaluate the 25 decisions they took and see if they were justified on


1 other grounds or if it was likely the pressure 2 contributed to it. Is that fair? 3 A: I think that's fair. 4 Q: And so you knew did you, that they 5 marched down the road that night onto what turned out to 6 be a false apprehension that a person in a car had been 7 attacked by eight (8) to ten (10) people with baseball 8 bats? 9 You learned that did you, sir? 10 A: At some point. With respect to the 11 details, you know, I don't want to say with certainty in 12 terms of what you're describing whether that was the 13 information provided or not. 14 But certainly at some point we were 15 apprised of -- of some of the details of what happened, 16 at the meeting. 17 Q: Yes. That might have been later. 18 A: It may have been, yes. 19 Q: But certainly right away, you knew 20 that they marched down that road late at night, right? 21 A: Yes, I believe so. 22 Q: And what did you understand was the 23 reason that they marched down that road? 24 A: I -- you know, specifically I can't 25 recall. I think there was some reason, some disturbance


1 and -- and complaints from the public and they were 2 responding to that. 3 Q: But, sir, at the time you had to do 4 at least a little investigation as to why they marched 5 down the road in order to have confidence that it wasn't 6 because of political pressure. 7 Isn't that fair? 8 A: I don't think there was any concern 9 about political pressure at that point in time. The -- 10 the OPP provided an explanation of what they were doing 11 and why they were doing it. 12 And I don't think there was any -- any 13 issue certainly not at that stage that -- that there was 14 something improper or that they were influenced in terms 15 of the decision to -- to move down the road as a result 16 of some sort of political pressure. 17 Q: Well didn't it occur to you, sir, 18 that it would seem to be intrinsically dangerous to have 19 officers marching down a road in this kind of a context, 20 a number of officers, on people in the Park at 11:00 at 21 night, and that there would have to be a very strong 22 reason for doing that -- that -- in that context? 23 Didn't that strike you as very strange, 24 why did they do this at 11:00 at night? 25 A: I think that's a question more


1 appropriately asked of the officers themselves who 2 participated in the context, in the environment that they 3 were operating in and -- 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: And I think I testified earlier, some 6 of the information that was provided to us, I believe 7 that morning with respect to warriors coming in and, you 8 know, automatic weapons, that sort of thing. Whether it 9 was accurate or not -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: That's, I think, from my perspective, 12 sitting in Toronto versus the folks who were actually out 13 there, and having to do the job, it's difficult for me to 14 -- to assess it. 15 Q: But warriors and AK-47s couldn't wait 16 'til the morning? 17 A: You'll have to ask the -- the 18 incident commander, you'll have to ask the actual -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- folks who were there and why they 21 did it and why and whether it was appropriate or not. 22 Q: Well, of course we did do that and we 23 will continue to do that, sir, but I'm asking you, 24 Solicitor General responsible for policing and 25 responsible for separating politicians from police.


1 And the allegations of political pressure 2 being made as influencing that decision to march down the 3 road late at night and end up killing Dudley George. 4 Did you not have a responsibility to do 5 some investigation to see if there were good reasons to 6 march down that road? 7 A: No, I don't believe I did. There 8 were no allegations of -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 THE WITNESS: -- that nature. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 12 the question, you've got an answer. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 18 Q: One last aspect of what Inspector 19 Carson was informed of by Beaubien. His testimony -- 20 Carson's testimony on June 20th, 2005 and we haven't 21 heard from Mr. Beaubien yet. We don't know how he'll 22 respond -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- to these allegations. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: At page 36, he said that Mr. Beaubien 2 had given him the understanding that he thought they 3 should be out of the Park, they the native people who 4 were in the Park. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Now, is it appropriate in your view - 7 - your view as Solicitor General monitoring these things, 8 for an MPP to go tell officers in this situation, I think 9 they should be out of the Park? 10 A: You know, that's a bit of a grey area 11 again. In terms of expressing a -- a view, you know, I - 12 - I don't think the, for example, saying that only 13 visiting a -- I mentioned this the other day in 14 testimony, a cottage area once a week is adequate to 15 protect the -- the owners of that property. 16 I -- you know, that's the sort of area 17 that I -- I think this is in this -- essence really 18 conveying the concerns of their constituents and from 19 that perspective, I'm not sure that that's the sort of 20 thing that would be -- would be inappropriate -- 21 Q: Well, sir -- 22 A: -- bit of a grey area. 23 Q: Let me explore this a little bit more 24 and see what's grey and what's on the clear side of the 25 line.


1 A: Okay. 2 Q: You suggest that if his constituents 3 were worried about their cottages -- 4 A: No. 5 Q: And patrols were being made just once 6 a week, it would be within his appropriate behaviour for 7 Mr. Beaubien to say to Mr. Carson, my constituents don't 8 feel that's enough. They don't feel protected with that. 9 Please have some more patrols, right? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: That would be okay, right? 12 A: I think so. 13 Q: But here we have a situation where 14 the people he was meeting with, Inspector Carson and the 15 other officers, were in command of a situation where 16 people were in a Park, the Park wasn't being used at that 17 point and they're talking about what to do with the 18 people in the Park. 19 Not, well they are his constituents in 20 some way, but Mr. Beaubien didn't seem to be representing 21 those of his constituents at this point, the people in 22 the Park, and so he's saying, I want them out of the 23 Park. 24 This is what you should do to those 25 people, is I would suggest --


1 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: No. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- the phrasing of 3 that. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I would suggest 6 that phrasing of it. I can suggest that, Mr. 7 Commissioner. 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: No, I think you've 9 got to be accurate. Mr. Commissioner, I think the 10 problem is that it's unfair to Mr. Runciman, but it's 11 also unfair to my client because that isn't what -- I 12 have the June 20th transcript of Mr. Rosenthal's cross- 13 examination of Mr. Carson and that isn't what was asked 14 and answered and Mr. Runciman, it's unfair and misleading 15 to put to him that Mr. Beaubien is advocating that they 16 be out of the Park. 17 Mr. -- Mr. Rosenthal read part of it and 18 then he stops -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- because he 21 doesn't want Mr. Runciman to hear all of it. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Mr. 25 Commissioner, that kind of personal attack is not


1 appropriate. 2 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I would be happy to 5 read the entire transcript. 6 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Please do. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I was trying to be 8 short. 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Please do. And it's 10 not meant to be personal but I've -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- sat -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Don't be personal 14 then. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on, 16 Mr. Sulman. What were you about to say? 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'll ignore that, 18 but the -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What were 20 you about to say? 21 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Line 13, if you 22 would start on line 13 which is where he's asking right 23 now again and it starts with a question, now and -- and I 24 -- if -- if My Friend won't I will, but it reads -- 25 starts at line 13 and goes down to the next page of


1 course which is starting on page 36 -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- and goes to page 4 37 June 20th transcript. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, we 6 haven't heard from Mr. Beaubien yet; that would make 7 this -- 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- even more 10 complicated. 11 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well, it would make 12 it clearer -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- is what it would 15 do. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And the trouble is 18 that there are suggestions and I just -- I think it's 19 important that Mr. Runciman understand. Not have things 20 put to him as facts that aren't facts and then ask him to 21 comment on them. 22 And if we would just read we would find 23 exactly what occurred. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's try it 25 that way, Mr. Rosenthal.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Do you want me to 2 read it? 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Do you want to use 4 mine? 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Do you want me to 6 read over your shoulder? 7 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Certainly, it's 8 highlighted for you. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. And 10 yeah, well, we'll -- we'll see how this turns out. It's 11 very interesting. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: We've got it on the 13 screen too, Peter. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, it's up there 15 too. Okay, Thank you. 16 Sir, you can read along as well. It's -- 17 beginning at line 13: 18 "Now, sir, you certainly sensed that 19 Mr. Beaubien's position was that he 20 wanted more or less immediate action 21 taken against the occupiers, isn't that 22 correct? 23 He thought they should be out of the 24 Park, yes. 25 And you sensed he wanted you to take


1 immediate action; right? 2 He never, ever indicated that I should 3 do anything in particular. 4 But you sensed from everything he did 5 do that, that was his view; did you not? 6 He was working with his colleagues on 7 that and I explained to him how we were 8 moving towards the injunction and he 9 seemed supportive of that. 10 Well, sir, I'm not sure where you have 11 -- whether you have the Discovery 12 transcripts." 13 I don't know how much My Friend wants me 14 to read. 15 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I think that's where 16 the question that you were asking -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It -- sorry, this 18 is page... 19 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: This is 36 and 37. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 36 to the top of page 21 37. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh. 23 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: It really ends 24 there. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. Oh, sorry.


1 Yeah. What I had -- I had read the beginning. That's 2 fine. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: What -- whatever you take from that, 7 Mr. Runciman, that is the exact evidence that Mr. Carson 8 said and what I had put to you that he expressed that Mr. 9 Beaubien expressed to Mr. Carson that he thought they 10 should be out of the Park and I was asking you if you 11 thought that was appropriate. 12 You, in your role as Solicitor General, 13 monitor these things -- these things independent of what 14 Carson might do with it because you didn't know Carson. 15 A: Well, it's -- I suppose you'd have to 16 be there and witness how it was -- that message was 17 delivered. I suppose you could interpret it as, I want a 18 resolution of the -- of the situation or, you know, I 19 want them out of the Park kind of effort. 20 You know you and I weren't there, 21 obviously the -- Mr. Carson didn't interpret it as any 22 kind of specific direction. So I have to accept that. 23 Q: But you as Solicitor General, would 24 you not -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well...


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- would you not be 2 concerned if an MPP with all the authority that an MPP 3 conveys to the world even if not to you goes to an 4 Incident Commander and says -- conveys that he wants them 5 out of the Park would you not have that concern? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 7 minute, Mr. Runciman? 8 MR. IAN SMITH: I just think the 9 question's been asked a number of times. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The question 11 has been asked, I was going to say that, in a different-- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't believe 13 it's been answered because of objections. Sorry, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 15 question's been asked and I think it's been answered. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And -- and the 17 answer is "yes" or "no"? I -- I just want to know the 18 answer. If it's been answered please tell me if the 19 answer was "yes" or "no." 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you 21 remember what you said? 22 THE WITNESS: I think so. I -- again, I 23 think I did answer it in the sense that it's difficult 24 since we weren't witnesses to this in -- in terms of, you 25 know, that you want a resolution of -- of the issue. I


1 think that's something that most of the residents aspired 2 to and wished for. So you know it would depend in -- in 3 the interpretation of it by the police -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 5 THE WITNESS: -- and the way Mr. Beaubien 6 conducted himself when he -- when he -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, that -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It can't be 9 answered clearly. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That answer was 11 clearly given before; that's not an answer to my 12 question. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 14 "yes" or "no." 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's not an answer 16 to my question at all. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But it is an 18 answer. It's not a "yes" or "no" answer, but it's an 19 answer. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no. It's no 21 answer to my question, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 23 think it's an answer. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's -- it's -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's


1 an answer, just not a "yes" or "no." 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect 3 -- with great respect may I clarify the question? 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: The question is, you not knowing what 7 may happen when people interact with police officers, in 8 your role as Solicitor General, sir, if Mr. Beaubien had 9 told you I'm going to go to the command post and convey 10 the concept that I want them out of the Park, would you 11 have great concerns about that? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 13 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry, Commissioner. 14 In my respectful submission, this field has been plowed 15 and plowed again and it's time to leave it that way. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well he's 17 given you an answer. It's not a "yes" or "no" answer. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's not an answer 19 to my question. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 21 an answer to the question. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 23 Mr. Commissioner, this is an example of what Mr. Falconer 24 was referring to in quoting Mr. Runciman in the House. 25 As he -- as he's saying, you do something else, you evade


1 the question, you don't answer it. 2 Now that cannot be done in a -- in a court 3 and it cannot be done in this proceeding. And if the 4 question's been answered, I'd like to know what the 5 answer is to the question. 6 What he as Solicitor General would advise 7 an MPP who in these circumstances told him he was going 8 to go to the command post and convey the idea that he 9 wanted them out of the Park. That's the question, sir. 10 MR. IAN SMITH: It's a completely 11 inappropriate submission in my respectful submission, 12 Commissioner. Mr. Runciman has been here, he's been 13 asking -- answering the questions to the best of his 14 ability and there's nothing to indicate the contrary. 15 And My Friend's submissions in that regard 16 in my submission, should be withdrawn. The question has 17 been asked into the issue at hand and it's been answered 18 and it's time to move on in my submission. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 20 Millar...? 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I agree that -- 22 that it was inappropriate for Mr. Rosenthal to make the 23 comment that he did. And I would ask that he not do 24 that. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I believe the question 2 was asked and answered but I don't have the answer -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well it's 4 not a clear "yes" or "no" answer, that's for sure. But 5 it's an answer that the Witness has given. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But it -- Mr. 7 Commissioner, it is a question that has a "yes" or "no" 8 answer. Would you be -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Not 10 necessarily. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Would you be con -- 12 would you express concern to him? And he has not told us 13 if he would or not. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He has said, 15 in effect, that it depends on a lot of circumstances. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, he said it 17 depends on what the policeman was thinking. So may I -- 18 okay, may I clarify the question? 19 MR. IAN SMITH: With respect, 20 Commissioner, what's wrong with the Witness saying it's a 21 difficult issue. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 23 what he said. 24 MR. IAN SMITH: It depends on a great 25 deal of contextual factors.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 2 he's saying. 3 MR. IAN SMITH: The answer is given. He 4 said he wasn't there. And that's an appropriate 5 response. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, I'm happy to 7 take it from there. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 9 he's saying. You're happy to take it from there, move 10 on. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 12 there -- there is an issue that has arisen and I agree 13 with Mr. Smith by the way. There is an issue that has 14 arisen though that's beyond that but in more general 15 terms. 16 And as the Witnesses become more and more 17 complicated as they go over the next few days, my 18 respectful submission is that counsel's right in raising 19 whether an answer is responsive or not. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And the issue in 22 the -- may I finish? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 24 not sure that -- the person who's asking the question is 25 moving on. So I'm not sure --


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well no. I'm -- 2 I'm going to move on in the direction suggested by this 3 Witness' counsel to explore that area more clearly. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm simply asking - 5 - I'm simply asking, Mr. Commissioner, when -- when we do 6 -- the concerns expressed are whether the Witness is 7 being responsive. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's not whether 10 they give an answer. It's whether they're responsive. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well -- 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And my only concern 13 is that we end up back and forth about whether there's an 14 answer. The issued isn't whether there's an answer, it's 15 whether they were responsive to -- to the question. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 17 fine. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Now Mr. Runciman's 19 counsel raised the problem and I accept that could be a 20 problem that a general question depends upon many other 21 things. And then the Witness reconfirmed that. So let 22 me be more specific then, if I may. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 25 Q: If on September 6th, 1995 knowing


1 what you knew about the Ipperwash situation, Mr. Beaubien 2 had telephoned you before he went to visit at the command 3 post and said, 'I intend to tell them my view that they 4 should be out of the Park', would you have indicated to 5 Mr. Beaubien that that was inappropriate and if so, how 6 inappropriate? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he 8 can answer the question. I think you can answer that 9 question. 10 THE WITNESS: You know, again, I would 11 have -- I would have cautioned him. I think I certainly 12 said that it was unnecessary and cautioned him with 13 respect to -- to the -- the role in terms of politicians 14 and police, in terms of -- of, you know, not interfering 15 in operational decision making. 16 So I think that's the role -- the approach 17 I would have taken if he'd made that call. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: You would have said it was 21 unnecessary and you would have cautioned him about the 22 role? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Would you have told him that it is 25 your view that this goes -- that would go over the line


1 and would be inappropriate interaction between a 2 politician and the police in those -- in that context? 3 A: Well I would be, you know, it's 4 difficult to -- I know you want yes or no answers with 5 these speculative questions but the reality is that, you 6 know, he wouldn't call me and say I'm going to go in 7 there and tell them to get the occupiers the hell out of 8 the Park. 9 I think he'd -- he would call me in -- 10 with his frustrations and say that I -- in a general 11 discussion and say, Well, I'm going into the headquarters 12 of the -- and tell them that the situation has to be 13 resolved; something along those lines. 14 And I would have said that's wrong, you 15 can't do that -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- you shouldn't do that, you're 18 going to be in trouble. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There you 20 go. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: Well, sir, we're having enough 24 difficulty dealing with the specific circumstance, I 25 don't want to deal with another hypothetical, if he said,


1 Get the hell out of the Park. 2 A: Well -- 3 Q: I want to deal with -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've got 5 an answer now, Mr. Rosenthal, you really do -- 6 THE WITNESS: I'm trying the best I can-- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, sorry. He 8 answered a different question. 9 THE WITNESS: I'm not trying to avoid 10 you're -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He said -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 14 Mr. Commissioner, what he just told us is, If Mr. 15 Beaubien had said I'm going to go tell them, get the hell 16 out of the Park, I would have said that's inappropriate. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's not my 19 question. My question is -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's the -- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- if he told -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- essence 23 of your question -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- you he was going 25 to convey his view that they should be out of the Park or


1 that he -- rather than he wanted them out of the Park. I 2 want to stick to the facts that he wanted them out of the 3 Park, would you have told him that would be crossing the 4 line? 5 For you in -- and -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- with all the 8 power that you have as -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- just stop 10 there, forget the rest of the question. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 13 gotten to the end of the question. Just stop there. 14 Let's see if he can answer it? 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Can you answer that question, sir? 18 A: If he -- if he phrased it that way, 19 yes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: You would say it's over the line? 24 A: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay.


1 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 2 Q: To convey that message is -- is 3 inappropriate -- it's an inappropriate interaction 4 between politicians and police -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 6 Rosenthal, you asked the question -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you got 9 an answer. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, and now I want 11 to -- want to clarify and I'll be moving on, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm not trying to 15 waste -- 16 THE WITNESS: The way you posed it, the-- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- time here, Mr. 18 Commissioner. 19 THE WITNESS: -- answer is "yes." 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, sir? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The way you 22 posed it, the answer is "yes." 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: The way I posed it 24 the answer is "yes." 25 THE WITNESS: Yeah.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, now he's being 2 very careful in his phrasing. The way I posed it, the 3 answer is "yes." 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, we have to find 6 out what he really means, Mr. Commissioner, or else the 7 record -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I assume you 9 know what you meant by the question you posed? 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, but I'm not -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And he 12 answered "yes." 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- going to be a 14 witness as to that, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well I 16 think he's answered "yes," so I think you've really mined 17 this ground as much as it can possibly be mined. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with great 19 respect -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I'm not 21 sure where you are now. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: If that's your 23 ruling, I will move on -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 25 given you a "yes" answer to the question that you asked.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay, but then the 2 interpretation that you're going to have to make on this 3 if you're try to decide this fact, is what was in my mind 4 about the question, and I'll be glad to tell you at any 5 time you ask me, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: In any event, I'll 8 move on. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How much 10 longer do you have, Mr. Rosenthal, just as a matter of 11 curiosity? 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm now going to 13 move to discipline. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but I 15 mean is that your last area? 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's my last 17 area. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: Now you didn't agree when Mr. 22 Falconer asked you this morning that the creation and 23 displaying of the mugs and the T-shirts was racist; am I 24 correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Do I understand your evidence 2 correctly? 3 A: Yes, you understood me correctly. 4 Q: Now, there was this other incident, 5 this videotape of the two (2) officers -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- and did you see that videotape, 8 sir? 9 A: No, I didn't. 10 Q: You never saw it? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Even -- even in recent years -- 13 A: I've seen a -- just recently saw a 14 transcript of it. 15 Q: A transcript, but not the actual 16 tape? 17 A: No, not the actual video, no. 18 Q: But you'll recall, then, that one of 19 the officers uses the expression, "A great big, fat, fuck 20 Indian", right? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And then one of them says something 23 to the effect of, "we thought if we could get five (5) or 24 six (6) cases of Labatts 50, we could bait them", one of 25 the officers is also heard to say, and then the "creative


1 thinking", the other guy says, and then the other one 2 says, "works in the South with watermelon". 3 Now do you characterize that as expression 4 of racism, sir? 5 A: I -- I probably -- yeah, I think I 6 would. When I looked at the -- the transcript, 7 certainly, it was -- that was my conclusion, yes. 8 Q: So, you have a line as to what's 9 racist, between what's just merely culturally insensitive 10 and what's racist and this crosses the line to racist in 11 your line; is that correct? 12 A: It did, yes. 13 Q: Now, discipline of officers can 14 involve a whole range of things. Not having a pressed 15 uniform, for example, one could be disciplined for; is 16 that right? 17 A: I'm not sure of that, but that could 18 be correct. 19 Q: There used to be regulations about 20 how long one's moustache could be -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- and discipline for that. 23 A: Facial hair, that's right, yeah. 24 Q: But -- so there are some relatively 25 minor infractions, right?


1 A: Yes, I believe so. 2 Q: That are appropriately dealt with by 3 informal discipline in most people's view, right? 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Now, would you agree that, if there's 6 racism among police officers, that is a very serious 7 matter? 8 A: I would. 9 Q: Because police officers have a lot of 10 power and they exercise force a lot, correct? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And if they have racist attitudes and 13 they have that power, and they're dealing with people who 14 are members of the group against whom they have those 15 racist attitudes that could be very serious, right? 16 A: I agree. 17 Q: It can lead to injury and even death, 18 right? 19 A: I agree. 20 Q: So, this is among the most, I would 21 suggest, the most -- well, I'll leave that because there 22 could be more serious things. But this is a very, very 23 serious matter, is it not, racism in policing? 24 A: Yes. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, also -- so therefore it's very 4 important is it not that officers be made aware of the 5 fact that racism on a police force will not be tolerated; 6 isn't that fair? 7 A: Absolutely. 8 Q: And that would be on the OPP or any 9 other police force in Ontario or in fact in the world, 10 hopefully, right? 11 A: Hopefully. 12 Q: And in your role as Solicitor 13 General, one (1) of your responsibilities would be to 14 ensure that there are policies on place and operations to 15 try to the best you can to ensure that that's so, right? 16 A: To the best we can, yes. 17 Q: Yes, and you can't do a perfect job 18 of that just like none of us could do a perfect job of 19 anything? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: But that would be an important thing 22 in your role as Solicitor General? 23 A: I agree. 24 Q: Now, the other documents that I'm 25 going to be referring to, I think were in your


1 supplementary book there, the green -- 2 A: Green folder. 3 Q: -- supplementary folder or something. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: The first one is Exhibit P-999, which 6 is Document Number 1001259, and it's entitled, OPP 7 Crested Items Ipperwash, 3 April '96. 8 So, this was a note as to what you might - 9 - sorry, do you have that, sir? 10 A: I'm having trouble finding it. 11 Q: Perhaps with -- with your indulgence, 12 Mr. Registrar, he could be given the exhibit copy of P- 13 999? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I've got a 15 copy. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 THE WITNESS: I may have taken it with me 20 at some point, I don't know. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: I'm -- I'm sorry, sir? 24 A: I have a copy of it now, so that's 25 fine.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: Proceed. 3 Q: All's well that ends well. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: So, you have a copy in front of you, 6 sir? 7 A: I do. 8 Q: Now, at the -- at the time that you 9 prepared -- this suggests the kind of comments that you 10 might make, either in the House or to the Press, about 11 this issue; is that correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: That's the purpose -- 14 A: I think -- I think that's accurate, 15 yes. 16 Q: That's the purpose of a document like 17 this is to give suggestions to you as to the kinds of 18 things you might say, right? 19 A: For me and other members of the 20 Government, I suppose. It may have been shared with, for 21 example, the Premier's office. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: Yeah. 24 Q: But, it would be primarily prepared 25 in your Ministry for your use --


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- and could be shared by others. 3 A: It would be, that's right, yes. 4 Q: And this is evidently on 3 April '96. 5 Now, I notice that this seems to talk just about the 6 mugs, it doesn't mention the T-shirts, so I -- I'm not 7 sure if they were so much in the news at the time. 8 But had you -- you had not at this time I 9 gather seen either the mugs or the T-shirts yourself; is 10 that correct? 11 A: I may have seen media reports. I 12 think that would be the extent -- 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: -- in terms of the -- of the mugs and 15 the crests. I don't believe I had -- 16 Q: Now -- 17 A: -- seen the T-shirts until the other 18 day. 19 Q: Yes. Now, the third bullet point 20 says: 21 "My understanding is that the OPP has 22 described the incident as inappropriate 23 and insensitive." 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: Now, that's the way you've described


1 it as these proceedings; isn't that fair? 2 A: I -- that's reasonably accurate. 3 Q: As opposed to, some might argue, 4 racist? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And then the fourth bullet point 7 says: 8 "I can tell the Members [so this is 9 presumably if you were speaking in the 10 House] that the OPP Professional 11 Standards Bureau is conducting an 12 investigation." 13 Right? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: Now, just briefly, the professional 16 standards bureau is a bureau within the OPP; is that 17 correct? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: It's a group of senior officers 20 appointed by the Commissioner to investigate situations 21 like this? 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: Sorry, if you'd say yes or no, it -- 24 A: Yes, sorry, yes, that's correct. 25 Q: Sorry. And then you also refer, or


1 this note, rather, also refers the last bullet point: 2 "As the member well knows, the SIU is 3 investigating the death of Anthony 4 Dudley George and in the light of that 5 investigation and pending civil action, 6 further comment is inappropriate." 7 Right? 8 A: Right. 9 Q: So -- and that was -- was your 10 position at the time, that you would not want to speak in 11 detail about this incident because there were those two 12 (2) investigations proceeding? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And there's even a -- a way of your 15 saying that, that's suggested at the very bottom. 16 "I've said it before and I'll say it 17 again. The police do a difficult job 18 and when they do a good job I'm there 19 to support them, and when they are 20 wrong, I'll be the first to say they're 21 wrong. But I'm not going to comment 22 further as the matter is under 23 investigation by the OPP Professional 24 Standards Bureau." 25 Right?


1 A: That's right. 2 Q: So that's consistent with the 3 position that you decided to take at that time, for those 4 reasons? 5 A: I believe that was an actual quote of 6 mine at some point. 7 Q: Now, it mentions the -- the SIU as 8 investigating the criminal matter and that, of course, we 9 notice is a fact. 10 Do you know if the SIU was made privy to 11 the information in the investigation of the Professional 12 Standards Bureau about mugs and T-shirts? 13 A: I do not. 14 Q: Do you know if any of the officers 15 implicated in mugs and T-shirts were directly involved in 16 the incident in the evening of September 6th, 1995; the 17 marching on the Park? 18 A: No, I don't. 19 Q: You don't know to this day whether 20 they were? 21 A: I do not, that's right. 22 Q: Do you -- did you know then how wide 23 the distribution of mugs and T-shirts was among the 24 officers in the OPP? 25 A: I may have. I can't, you know,


1 specifically recall. I think, you know, again, because 2 of information that we've taken a look at in the last 3 couple of weeks, I know that it was -- I believe it was 4 limited, but whether that information was conveyed to me 5 at the time or not, I can't say with certainty. 6 Q: So the last couple of weeks, you 7 learned that four (4) persons were actually disciplined; 8 is that right? 9 A: I believe so, yes. 10 Q: But then did you learn -- do you 11 know, up to this point, how many officers received those 12 mugs? 13 A: I think I recall seeing a figure of a 14 dozen, but whether -- what that referred to, I can't be 15 specific. 16 Q: Well, might I suggest that it might 17 be that it -- there were a dozen mugs. The figure you 18 might be remembering is that there were a dozen mugs 19 produced that had an arrow on them. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: I believe. 22 A: That could be. 23 Q: And -- but -- and do you know how 24 many T-shirts were produced? 25 A: No, I do not.


1 Q: And you don't know how many officers 2 received such T-shirts or mugs? 3 A: No. 4 Q: If we could please turn to another 5 exhibit from your second group of exhibits. It's now 6 Exhibit P-1000, it's Document Number 3001775. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: Thanks. 11 Q: And this is an issue note dated 12 December 18, 1996, so it's approximate -- more than half 13 a year after the one we were just looking at. 14 A: What -- you're looking at the issue 15 note? 16 Q: I'm looking at -- I hope it's the 17 same one I have, it's issue note, December 18, 1996? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Is that the one that you have in 20 front of you? 21 A: Yes, that's the one I have, yes. 22 Q: And that's the one that is on the 23 screen. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: And here it speaks more generally of 2 memorabilia, not just of mugs, right? 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: And it -- sorry, sir, if you could 5 answer yes or no, sorry. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And you understood, at the time, the 8 memorabilia being talked about were the mugs and the t- 9 shirts; is that correct? 10 A: I assume so. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: And it says that: 15 "Development of these items was ad hoc 16 initiative of individual members of the 17 OPP." 18 A: You mention -- just to get back for 19 clarification, it did say T-shirts but I -- I guess, yes, 20 it didn't get into specifics, but you didn't in your 21 answer, you didn't mention insignia, but it is in the 22 issue note. 23 Q: I'm sorry, sir? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's -- 25 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I was just -- my


1 confusion. You were just focussing on the -- on the mugs 2 and the T-shirts and not the OPP's insignia, you didn't 3 reference that, that's all. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: Yes. Well, okay. So I was referring 7 now -- I'm just looking at the top of the document, sir. 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: I'm referring to the second bullet 10 point: 11 "Development of these items was ad hoc 12 initiative of individual members of the 13 OPP." 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And then it says: 16 "OPP Professional Standards Bureau 17 investigated and corrective action 18 taken against four (4) OPP members." 19 Now, sir, again -- well sorry, let me turn 20 to the next bullet point and then move onto the essence 21 of it more: 22 "Civil action by family, further 23 comment inappropriate." 24 It says. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Now was that your position, sir, that 2 as long as there was a civil action by the family 3 continuing, it would be inappropriate for you to comment, 4 in any detail, about these matters? 5 A: That was a Government position. 6 Q: And who -- 7 A: Not an individual Ministry position. 8 Q: Who determined that to be the 9 Government position, sir? 10 A: The centre. 11 Q: Sorry? 12 A: And perhaps the Attorney General's 13 office. I can't recall specifically. I think both of 14 them would have been involved. 15 Q: I'm sorry both of the Attorney 16 General -- 17 A: The Premier's office and the Attorney 18 General's office, is my suspicion. The Attorney 19 General's office would -- one would assume have some role 20 to play with respect to that. 21 Q: But now you were the person who had 22 responsibility in respect to policing, sir? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Were you involved in the decision 25 that you should not speak about these matters in any


1 detail, as long the civil action pursued? 2 A: No. 3 Q: No. And you just accepted that, sir? 4 A: I did. 5 Q: So who gave you that order? 6 A: Specifically, I -- I don't recall any 7 individual giving me that -- as you've described, an 8 order. It was a -- a policy approach which I believe was 9 supported by the Ministry of the Attorney General, that 10 there was a court case in progress or pending and that no 11 comment should be made while that was the case. 12 So we were accepting advice, if you will. 13 Q: I see. So you accepted that advice? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And why did you accept that advice, 16 sir, as opposed -- considering your responsibility, with 17 respect to policing in the Province, and may I put a 18 couple of other considerations in front of your, sir. 19 At least some people might well argue that 20 the mugs and T-shirts were evidence of racist behaviour 21 by police officers. And this was a public issue. Police 22 officers throughout the Province, not just in the OPP, 23 would become aware of it to some extent. 24 And would become aware of the fact that 25 the officers were only admonished for this behaviour.


1 And you've acknowledged the importance of eliminating, as 2 much as we can, racism in the police force. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 4 Rosenthal, you're making -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No I -- I want to 6 give him a full -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you're 8 making a statement, quite a long statement -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, no, no. I'm 10 asking him, in light of the following -- I -- I'm trying 11 to avoid a whole series of questions here, Mr. 12 Commissioner. I'm at your disposal, but I was going to 13 add one more aspect to the -- to the situation, to the 14 circumstances. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Namely that, in your role as 18 Solicitor General, a public statement by you as to how 19 offensive these memorabilia were, how or whether it was - 20 - if it was racist, if you said that, and how it would 21 not be tolerated in future, might have had the goal of -- 22 it might have had the effect of informing police officers 23 that, in future, there would be more serious discipline. 24 Now given, I suggest, that circumstance, 25 if you consider that when you acceded to the advice, that


1 you would not make a further comment until the civil 2 action, which is you knew and we all know, often goes on 3 for years and years, is wound up. 4 A: No, I don't believe the circumstances 5 were as you -- as you've described. 6 Q: I see. 7 A: I -- I don't recall. Now, again, you 8 may refresh my memory but I don't recall, at the time, 9 that this information was made public, that this had 10 occurred, that there were any allegations of -- of 11 racism. 12 Some people were upset and I've, the last 13 a couple of days, been reading some of the quotes from 14 people like Ovide Mercredi and others, but none of them 15 accused the OPP officers involved of -- of racism. 16 So, you know, and -- and the way you posed 17 the question suggested that that was the kind of 18 environment that I would be operating under, and that 19 wasn't the case. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Your indulgence, Mr. Commissioner, I 24 didn't expect that answer, I must say. Excuse me. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: I'm not sure, Mr. Commissioner, if 4 any of the newspaper accounts do contain that allegation. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: If a newspaper account had said 9 somebody said it's racist you would -- your view would 10 have been different? Is that what your answer -- 11 A: Well, no, that's not -- I don't want 12 to say that. I -- if there had been significant concern 13 and an acceptance, broadly, that what occurred there was 14 racist, I think that there -- there may have been more, 15 you know, desire to -- to comment specifically with 16 respect to that particular issue. 17 But I didn't construe it as -- as racist, 18 and at the time there certainly didn't seem to be anyone 19 else who was suggesting that. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 24 minute, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Falconer's trying to get your 25 attention.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. Thank you. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, my -- my 6 being deaf makes it very difficult to have confidential 7 conversations. Excuse me, Mr. -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Take your 9 time. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My being loud makes 11 it also very -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It helps. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, but that's a 14 good combination, a loud guy and a deaf guy. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: So your -- your answer is that what 20 you don't accept of my description of the circumstances 21 is the notion that there was any serious concern that 22 this might be racist? 23 A: I don't believe that I recall that 24 being expressed. 25 Q: And you, of course, didn't feel that,


1 you just thought it was cultural insensitivity? 2 A: And, as I indicated earlier, not very 3 wise, to be polite. 4 Q: Well, it's not wise to be culturally 5 insensitive. 6 A: To do what they did, that's for sure. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: There is a document that doesn't use 11 the word 'racist' I acknowledge, but there is a document 12 that we have that was not made an exhibit, I don't 13 believe, although it's in one of your folders as a 14 supplementary document. 15 It's Inquiry Document 2003081, and it's 16 from the Sarnia Observer. And, unfortunately, I don't 17 believe that we know the date of this document. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's correct. I 19 believe only because of the date on Exhibit 100 -- P- 20 1001, the Toronto Star article that it -- it's in 21 December of '96, but I don't have a date. 22 Do you have that -- it's -- 23 THE WITNESS: I -- I -- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Runciman, it says: 25 "OPP shot through the heart."


1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have the document. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: Now, we can infer, from the beginning 7 of this article, that it is some time close to when 8 Commissioner O'Grady offered the apology, because it 9 says: 10 "OPP Commissioner Thomas O'Grady 11 recently offered a written apology", 12 And you, as a former newspaper man, would 13 also know that old news doesn't get very much reported. 14 So we can assume that this is some time in 15 the time frame that Mr. Millar suggested; is that fair? 16 A: I think it's fair. 17 Q: And this doesn't, apparently, use the 18 word racist, as my reading indicates, but the headline 19 is: 20 "OPP shot arrow through heart of native 21 community." 22 And the insert box, as displayed on the 23 screen, "our opinion," this is an editorial, evidently, 24 "Insensitive behaviour of six (6) 25 officers received more than slap on


1 wrist." 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And the editorial goes on to dispute 6 the quest -- the conclusion of Commissioner O'Grady that 7 it's merely policy and training issues and concludes, 8 third last small paragraph: 9 "At the very least, Commissioner 10 O'Grady should have suspended the 11 guilty officers without pay for their 12 offensive and insensitive acts." 13 Now, so there was at least some public 14 expression of distress about the way the OPP had handled 15 it; is that fair to say? 16 A: At least in the Sarnia Observer. I'm 17 not sure how widespread it was. 18 Q: So in that context, you didn't feel 19 that it was your responsibility to at least seriously 20 question the notion that you should refuse further 21 comment until the civil action ended, possibly many years 22 later? 23 A: Not at that point in time, I didn't. 24 I felt -- I'm expanding on your question a little bit. I 25 felt, at some point, in the intervening years, that we


1 should have been responding more directly to some of the 2 questions that were posed in the Legislature because we 3 were allowing rumour and innuendo to -- to grow and -- 4 but the advice we were receiving was that we should not. 5 But, certainly I -- at some point down the 6 road, and when that occurred I'm not sure, but I think it 7 was -- certainly I had personal frustration and I -- I 8 did express that to, I think, at one point, the Premier 9 and to the Attorney General. 10 Q: You expressed a frustration at not 11 being allowed to comment further -- 12 A: I thought -- 13 Q: -- about this? 14 A: -- we should be responding more 15 directly to -- to some of the questions that were posed, 16 because by not doing so, it was allowing some of these 17 rumours, allegations, to continue to fester. 18 Q: So you're suggesting that, not just 19 with respect to the issue of memorabilia -- 20 A: No. 21 Q: -- and OPP discipline, but more 22 generally with respect to the whole Ipperwash matter? 23 A: That's right, yes. That's right. 24 Q: Mr. Millar pointed out, Mr. 25 Commissioner, that I neglected to make this last document


1 an exhibit. Inquiry document 2003081, article from the 2 Sarnia Observer entitled, "OPP shot arrow through heart 3 of native community." 4 THE REGISTRAR: P-1007, Your Honour. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1007: Document Number 2003081. 7 Sarnia Observer article "OPP 8 Shot Arrow Through Heart of 9 Native Community" (no date). 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: Now, there is another article that we 13 do have the date for. It's now P-1001, Inquiry document 14 6000191, and I believe that's also in your folder, sir. 15 And it's an article from the Toronto Star 16 of Thursday, December 26th, 1996. 17 A: Okay. I do have that, yes. That 18 was -- 19 Q: You do have that one? 20 A: -- given to me earlier, yes. 21 Q: Okay. Now, according to this 22 article, if you look in the second paragraph, they say 23 about a dozen Team Ipperwash '95 coffee mugs with an 24 arrow over the OPP crest; that's why I was suggesting to 25 you before that the number 12 you remembered might well


1 be that number, but then it says: 2 "Investigators also found several dozen 3 T-shirts." 4 And you don't know if that's accurate or 5 not? 6 A: No, I don't. 7 Q: Now, it doesn't say the word 'racist' 8 as far as I can tell, but it does say, if you go to the 9 last paragraph on -- of the first column: 10 "Indians reacted with disgust at the 11 memorabilia, saying the arrow and 12 feather symbolized dead warriors." 13 That should give you some concern should 14 it, sir? 15 A: I shared the concern. 16 Q: They didn't say this shows a little 17 bit of insensitivity, they reacted with disgust, 18 according to the article? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: You didn't, by the way, at any point, 21 consult with any native leaders about this issue, did 22 you? 23 A: It depends on what time frame you're 24 talking about. Certainly, I -- I think we -- we had 25 testimony earlier with respect to the conference call


1 which happened -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: -- shortly after the shooting. 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: So there was, you know, a number of 6 First Nations people involved in that conversation. 7 Q: Yeah. That was not about the mugs 8 and T-shirts? 9 A: No, about the mugs and T-shirts, no. 10 No. No, that's correct. I may have, you know, there may 11 have been discussions with Inspector Fox about it, but I 12 can't recall that and I'm not sure whether he commented 13 on that during his testimony. 14 Q: Now, in the second column on this 15 article, towards the bottom of the second column, it 16 says: 17 "The six (6) officers who produced the 18 memorabilia have been told their 19 actions were unprofessional, police 20 said, but they will not face official 21 sanctions because [quote], 'they should 22 not be made scapegoats for something 23 that was an organizational shortcoming 24 relating to our policy and training 25 issues.'"


1 And then the response about the training 2 courses is described. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Now, in retrospect at least, sir, are 7 you concerned, when you think of your responsibilities as 8 Solicitor General, with the message that was being put 9 out to police officers in this province, by the way this 10 incident was handled by the OPP and your acceptance of 11 that handling of it? 12 A: Was I concerned or am I concerned? 13 Q: Now, you indicated at the time you 14 accepted it, and we all do have the benefit of hindsight 15 from time to time, and I'm asking you, with the benefit 16 of hindsight now, would you agree that you should have 17 taken some more vigorous action, at least, sir, I would 18 have suggested to you you could have done the following, 19 may I suggest? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why don't 21 you just ask the question and -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- no, no, I - 23 - I'm going to. I'm going to ask a very specific 24 question. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It


1 complicates it. It makes it more difficult for him to 2 answer. The question you've asked -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. We've got -- 4 okay. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: Do you think that you should have 8 done something else? I'll leave the question where it 9 was, as Mr. Commissioner suggested. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It makes it 11 easier to answer. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I'll ask the 13 other as a follow-up question. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 15 THE WITNESS: No, I don't -- I don't 16 believe so. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: Well, let me suggest to you what you 20 could have said and tell me if you agree that this would 21 have been appropriate. 22 You could have said something to the 23 effect of: The OPP has found that there were 24 organizational shortcomings that were, in part, at least, 25 responsible for this behaviour.


1 They are taking steps to rectify those 2 shortcomings. In the future this kind of behaviour will 3 not be tolerated, as officers will not be able to claim 4 any excuse if they make similar remarks in future. 5 Would that have been appropriate for you 6 to say, as Solicitor General, sir? 7 A: I don't believe it would have been 8 inappropriate, that's for sure. 9 Q: Do you agree that it might have 10 helped to lessen, at least, cultural insensitivity 11 towards First Nations people in this Province, if you had 12 made such a statement? 13 A: It may have. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Now, this morning, sir, Mr. Falconer 18 asked you if your theory as to why there might be some 19 inaccurate testimony at this Inquiry could be applied to 20 your -- your own testimony. 21 And you seemed a bit uncomfortable with 22 that question as -- for obvious reasons. But would you 23 not accept, sir, that the denial of certain allegations, 24 over the period of the last ten (10) years, might well 25 replace some people's memories as to what they actually


1 heard? 2 A: Well I, you know, I don't really want 3 to, you know, I -- I gave one possible theory, I suppose 4 that's another possible theory. 5 Q: Yes, well you gave a possible theory 6 applied to Mr. Harnick and Ms. Todres. 7 A: Yes. Because -- primarily because my 8 understanding of the testimony was that they were both 9 saying essentially the same thing about two (2) different 10 people. So that's -- that's why I drew that conclusion. 11 Q: I see. So now you know that they 12 were saying different things. They both said, The 13 fucking Indians, according to the evidence, but one of 14 them was saying what -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're going 16 into a whole new area now, Mr. Rosenthal. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Let me finish the 18 question and then -- and then -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You 20 indicated -- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I want to follow 22 up on what he said, Mr. Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 24 not sure what you're doing. Now, you indicated you were 25 finishing on discipline.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm close to 2 finishing everything. But I -- but I should like to pick 3 up on what he said, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 5 What's the question again? 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He -- he indicated 7 to us, just now, that he was basing what he said earlier 8 about how the false memory -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- might have -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, yes, 12 yes. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- on his 14 understanding that there were two (2) different people 15 saying the same thing, according to the evidence. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I want to 18 emphasize to him what I understand to be the difference 19 between the two (2) and then ask him if that leads to a 20 revision of his opinion. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think that 22 was asked earlier. I think it was asked by somebody. 23 I'm not sure if I know -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't recall. If 25 so, what was the answer, sir?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 Yes, sir...? 3 MR. IAN SMITH: I've got two (2) points. 4 First is the one you've made, that this question has been 5 asked and answered. And the -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think by 7 Mr. Falconer, if I'm not mistaken. 8 MR. IAN SMITH: Yes. And that the 9 difference is between the two (2) alleged statements have 10 been pointed out to Mr. Runciman. But the second point 11 is that he's never said that they were exactly the same. 12 He said -- he's been careful to say that the statements 13 were roughly the same -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Were 15 similar. MR. IAN SMITH: -- or in essence the 16 same. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 18 why this is important. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, Mr. Commiss -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 21 why this is important to us. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, 23 this is -- I'm following up on what he said and the 24 question was not asked by Mr. Falconer. Mr. Falconer 25 pointed out the differences and that's why I presume that


1 Mr. Runciman, when he gave an answer a few moments ago, 2 said, thinking they were the same statement, I concluded. 3 Is that -- may I ask him, sir? But -- and 4 I just -- sir, I'm on the verge of ending here -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, then 6 end it. Let's go. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: Thank you. Now, sir, and perhaps I 10 misunderstood you. But did I -- did I understand you to 11 be saying, a few moments ago, that the reason that you 12 expressed that theory, one might call it, about the 13 testimony, was that you would -- it was, in part, because 14 you thought the two (2) statements were the same 15 statements being reported by two (2) different people. 16 And if they were -- if one were to take 17 them as having different essentials, then your theory 18 might not apply with the same force; is that fair? 19 A: Well I certainly took them as -- as 20 the same -- essentially the same comment. 21 Q: Yes. Now the people who testified, 22 however, expressed them quite differently. Dr. Todres 23 who testified about Mr. Hodgson's comment -- 24 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry. But, 25 Commissioner, we've been through this. Mr. Falconer went


1 through this exercise and I submit -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't know 3 what -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He did not, Mr. 5 Commissioner. He did not -- and show me the transcript 6 of yesterday's testimony that does this, sir? 7 MR. IAN SMITH: It was this morning, 8 actually. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Falconer 10 did go through this. I'm not sure if you're doing the 11 same thing as he is. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm not doing -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But he did 14 go through this. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He -- he pointed 16 out the differences. He didn't say what I'm now going to 17 say to clarify. Mr. Commissioner -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You got one 19 question -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I would be 21 finished -- if there were no objections, I would be 22 finished instantly. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Instantly? 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Not quite. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner,


1 please bear with me and you -- you'll see what I -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're trying 3 to, but you seem to be opening up new areas. You're 4 saying you're not, but that seems to be what's happening. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 6 Mr. Commissioner -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or areas 8 that have already been dealt with. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I'm not doing 10 so, I'm following up on his answer. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: May I just clarify, 13 Mr. Commissioner? 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Dr. Todres told us that she took, 17 from Mr. Hodgson's statement, the emphasis that she took 18 from it was, My Park, Get the fucking Indians out of my 19 Park. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: And what she told us was that the 24 essence as she -- the thing that shocked her particularly 25 about it was he's saying My Park.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Okay? And -- and to, Get them out, 5 is, of course, more like an instruction, whereas it could 6 be argued and I anticipate might be argued by Mr. Harris, 7 his lawyer, that, I want them out, is merely an 8 expression of opinion. 9 So at least some of the parties to this 10 proceeding and some of the Witnesses who testified, 11 construe them as quite different statements. 12 If they are construed as quite different 13 statements, would you then find your theory that you 14 expressed, less applicable? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 16 fair question. 17 MR. IAN SMITH: It was done this morning. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a fair 19 question, let him answer it. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm sorry I offered 21 the theory. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sure you 23 are. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:


1 Q: Would you agree it would be less 2 applicable if one of the hypotheses that you had going 3 into it, did not obtain. 4 A: If -- if there was a clear 5 understanding they were two (2) different statements, 6 yes. 7 Q: Thank you, Mr. Runciman, thank you 8 Mr. Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Rosenthal. 11 Okay, we're -- 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, I know 13 we're almost at the lunch break -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Almost at 15 the lunch break, but I would like, very much, to finish 16 Mr. Runciman, if possible. 17 So I want to carry on, if we can. The 18 time estimates are not very extensive and I'm assuming 19 that they may be adjusted as a result of areas that have 20 been covered, but it's now 12:10, let's see what happens. 21 Mr. Scullion, would you like to carry on? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You


1 estimated, when you were first asked, about a half hour; 2 is that right? 3 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It remains fairly 4 accurate. My estimate was based on the ones before me 5 most likely covering certain areas -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And they 7 haven't. Is that right? Are you saying now they haven't 8 covered the areas that you've -- 9 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I anticipated on 10 carrying -- covering areas and they have -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, okay -- 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- covered those 13 areas. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so you -- 15 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: So I tried to give 16 my estimate on the basis that by the time you reach me -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You would 18 have a half hour -- 19 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I'm going to be down 20 to half an hour. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And you 22 still do. 23 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: And that's around 24 where I am. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay.


1 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It may be less; it 2 may be more. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 4 understand Mr. Scullion. 5 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: If Mr. Runciman 6 agrees with all -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I never hold 8 you to it exactly. 9 THE WITNESS: Yeah, before -- could I 10 interrupt? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 THE WITNESS: With respect, Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: By all 14 means. 15 THE WITNESS: Just sitting here -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 THE WITNESS: Just on a rough estimate of 18 how much longer I will be required to sit here, because 19 I'm feeling a bit of pressure, if you know what I mean. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well 21 that's what we try to do, Mr. Runciman. 22 THE WITNESS: So, no, I don't mean -- I 23 mean... 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think the Witness 25 means --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's got to 2 go to the bathroom. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- we should have a 4 short break. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's have 6 our lunch break now. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Okay. We'll have a 8 lunch break now. 9 THE WITNESS: Thanks. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's have 11 our lunch break now. 12 THE WITNESS: Thanks very much. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sorry, Mr. 14 Runciman. We'll have our lunch break right now. 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 16 adjourned until 1:30. 17 18 --- Upon recessing at 12:14 p.m. 19 --- Upon resuming at 1:30 p.m. 20 21 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 22 resumed. Please be seated. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 2 afternoon, Mr. Scullion. 3 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Good afternoon, Mr. 4 Commissioner. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 9 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Runciman. 10 A: Good afternoon. 11 Q: My name's Kevin Scullion. I'm one of 12 the Counsel for the residents of Aazhoodena, also known 13 as the Stoney Point Group. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: Which I trust you're familiar with 16 the -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- the terms and the group. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: If I can just back up a little bit 23 with evidence, sir, you gave on the cross-examination. 24 You referred to something that was deemed the centre or 25 you called the centre, and my impression was that you


1 were referring to the Premier's office as the centre? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Now, we heard from Ms. Todres that 4 the centre actually included a little bit more than 5 simply the Premier's office. 6 I'm wondering if that's consistent with 7 your understanding? 8 A: I think I -- I usually thought of it 9 as the Premier's office. I am -- could from her 10 perspective, involve the Cabinet Secretary's office as 11 well. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: Cabinet office. 14 Q: If I can help, she just testified 15 that it included the Premier's office, the management 16 board and the Treasury board and Cabinet. 17 Would that be consistent with the centre 18 as it was seen at the time? 19 A: I think I always thought of it as 20 when it was referenced with -- with me as the Premier's 21 office, essentially. 22 Q: Okay. So, when you refer to the 23 centre or if you slip and refer to the centre, that's 24 simply the Premier's office -- 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: -- in your view. 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: All right. In your evidence in- 4 chief, you indicated that you chaired many Cabinet 5 meetings, and I wasn't sure whether or not you chaired 6 this particular Cabinet meeting on September 6th. 7 A: Yes, I did. 8 Q: Okay. From your evidence in-chief, 9 it sounded, to me anyways, that this issue of Ipperwash 10 came up momentarily in the Cabinet meeting and it was 11 deferred to the dining room meeting which was to occur 12 after the Cabinet meeting; is that fair? 13 A: I think that's fair. 14 Q: And was that a typical or a usual 15 occurrence for an issue, or was it an unusual occurrence? 16 A: Unusual. 17 Q: All right. And if it was something 18 that Cabinet would be dealing with, I trust it would be 19 dealt with in the confines of that Cabinet meeting, it 20 wouldn't be deferred to another room and another group of 21 people? 22 A: That's fair. 23 Q: All right. Can I take from that, 24 that the issue of Ipperwash, as of the morning of 25 September 6th, was not a high priority for Cabinet; they


1 had other issues on their plate? 2 A: I agree. 3 Q: All right. And likewise, can I take 4 it from your evidence, that as Sol Gen at the time, and 5 we're dealing with the morning of September 6th, it 6 wasn't a high priority for you either? 7 A: I think that's fair. 8 Q: And I trust that's part of the 9 explanation as to why you were an observer in the dining 10 room and why you didn't take part, or an active part in 11 the conversation? 12 A: I think that's fair as well. 13 Q: I'll suggest one (1) more thing and - 14 - and perhaps that the reason for that is you saw it as 15 an issue that the OPP were handling on the ground and 16 that there was no reason for you to be taking -- or 17 putting it at a higher level of priority? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Is it fair to say that your 20 impression when you went into the dining room meeting is 21 that the Premier's office considered it a higher priority 22 than that? 23 A: I think -- I think that is the case, 24 but I -- I don't want to be really definitive, but I -- I 25 believe that to be the case.


1 Q: Yeah. I -- I think it would be 2 difficult to be definitive. I'm just looking for your 3 view -- 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: -- of when you were in that meeting 6 and I trust I have your answer. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: In parts of your testimony in-chief 9 and in cross you referred to a term by the word, 10 'sensitivity'. And I provided to your Counsel and I -- 11 I'm hoping he provided a copy to you, or you're familiar 12 with it, Section 1 of the Police Services Act? 13 Perhaps you didn't have a chance, but I -- 14 A: No, I -- 15 Q: -- I can be fairly quick. Section 1 16 simply indicates police service shall be provided 17 throughout Ontario in accordance with the following 18 principles, one (1) of which is the need for sensitivity 19 to the pluralistic, multi-racial, and multi-cultural 20 character of Ontario society. 21 Are you familiar with that aspect of the 22 Police Services Act? 23 A: Well, in a general way, yes. 24 Q: And you'd agree with me that the 25 operations of the OPP should be conducted in accordance


1 with that aspect of the Police Services Act? 2 A: I do. I do. 3 Q: In this situation we have the OPP 4 dealing with issues on the ground and we have the 5 Government dealing with the concept of an injunction in 6 the background. 7 Would you agree with me that the issue or 8 the idea of sensitivity to the multi -- or the 9 pluralistic multi-racial and multi-cultural character of 10 Ontario Society should be equally applicable when the 11 Government's dealing with a situation like that? 12 A: I think it should be part of the 13 consideration. Yes, I'd agree with you. 14 Q: When I cross-examined Ms. Todres on 15 the Ipperwash issue she was very candid in indicating 16 that it was one (1) of the most complicated issues that 17 the Sol Gen was facing at the time. 18 Would that be consistent with your view? 19 A: It's, you know, difficult to express 20 an opinion because there were so many matters. You know, 21 this was the first few weeks of -- of being in the 22 office, not just for me but for Ms. Todres as well so, 23 you know, I don't -- I don't want to say it wasn't, but 24 I'm -- I'm not sure that it was either. 25 Q: All right. You're not in a position


1 to dispute her -- 2 A: I'm certainly not in a position to 3 dispute that, no. 4 Q: All right. I would suggest that it 5 was a complicated if not the most complicated issue in 6 that in involved many separate issues; one (1) of which 7 was the fact that this has been a longstanding out -- or 8 a long outstanding issue between those that were 9 protesting, those that were in occupation in the Army 10 Camp, and the fact -- and the Federal Government. 11 Do you agree with that? 12 A: I believe it was a longstanding 13 issue, yes. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: The Army Camp element, yes. 16 Q: And I think in -- in-chief you'd 17 indicated that your view of what the occupiers were doing 18 with the Provincial Park was in part a protest about how 19 long that issue had been outstanding? 20 A: That was my view, yes. 21 Q: And that factored into the -- what 22 I've termed a complicated file? 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: Is that fair? 25 A: I'm not sure that at the time I -- I


1 viewed it as a particularly complicated file; that's -- 2 that's the only reason I -- I don't want to be as, you 3 know, as specific as you're suggesting I should be. 4 Q: All right. Let me help you along the 5 lines that I'm suggesting; is, some have testified at 6 this Inquiry that it was simply a law and order issue, 7 and I'd suggest to you that there's more to it than 8 simply a law and order issue and that all these other 9 aspects factor into the issue at hand. Is that fair? 10 A: They certainly do today. And I'm not 11 sure at the time, you know, the sense was, that whatever 12 the reasons for being there that they were -- they were 13 illegally there in occupation of a Provincial Park. 14 So, beyond the reasons, whether there was 15 a burial ground, whether there was a protest of the -- 16 the way they were not being responded to by the Federal 17 Government, whatever the rationale might have been, I 18 think the perspective that was rather narrowly being 19 looked at was the -- the occupation of provincial 20 property. 21 Q: All right. Let me break that down a 22 little bit. 23 It sounds, from your testimony, that some 24 within the Government viewed it very narrowly as a 25 situation of trespass but that there were other views; is


1 that fair? 2 A: Yeah, I'm not sure that if there were 3 other views that they were -- they were expressed. I 4 think there was certainly the question of, as I've 5 indicated in earlier testimony, the question of -- of 6 whether or not there were -- whether or not there was a 7 burial ground sited on the -- somewhere within the Park. 8 And I'm not sure how that arose; whether 9 there was a -- whether that came through the Ministry of 10 Natural Resources, the Attorney General or the OPP, I 11 can't recall, but I know that it was a subject of 12 discussion. 13 But going beyond the rationale or the 14 explanation for the occupation, I don't recall any other 15 -- any other discussions related to that. 16 Is that helpful in... 17 Q: It's an answer. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: Let me follow it up. How did -- how 20 did you view this situation? Was it simply a law and 21 order trespass issue, or did you view it as involving 22 more issues than that? 23 A: No, I believe I viewed it as a 24 trespass issue, solely, whatever their rationale for 25 being there.


1 Q: You didn't see it as involving the 2 rest of the issues we've just talked about; simply 3 trespass? 4 A: I viewed it as an expression of -- of 5 their frustration, but beyond that and in my view at the 6 time, frustration was no excuse for breaking the law. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Nonetheless, you still favoured a go- 11 slow and cautious approach to the issue, did you not? 12 A: That's the recollection of others, 13 and I -- I certainly -- by nature a cautious person, so I 14 would accept their recollections of that. 15 I don't recall the specifics of those 16 discussions. 17 Q: I'd suggest to you that the go-slow 18 and cautious approach was the appropriate approach and it 19 was consistent with the approach taken in years past; is 20 that fair? 21 A: Yes, but there were circumstances 22 surrounding this that I think whether they were accurate 23 in retrospect or not, I think it's what people were 24 hearing and making decisions based on what they were 25 hearing, or reaching judgments based on what they were


1 hearing, and I've referenced those earlier. 2 Q: Of course, and I don't want to go 3 over ground that you've already covered, at least not to 4 the extent that I don't have further questions. 5 Now, one of which is you referred in 6 brief, in the examination-in-chief, to something called 7 the Connolly report which was commissioned by the OPP to 8 look into the issue and to provide some recommendations. 9 A: I didn't reference that, other 10 Counsel referenced that. 11 Q: No, that was your examination in- 12 chief, it was referenced by Mr. Millar. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: But you were aware -- I'm being 15 corrected by Mr. Millar. Perhaps I'll just clarify. 16 Had you ever seen that report? 17 A: I don't believe so, no. 18 Q: Were you ever advised of the 19 recommendations? 20 A: I don't believe I was, no. 21 Q: Cuts short a few of my questions. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: We heard from Ms. Todres with respect


1 to the concept of buffers, and I'd just like to ask you a 2 few questions about your impression and your view of 3 buffers that were, at that time, in place and being used 4 in the Sol Gen's office. 5 Ms. Todres indicated, in examination-in- 6 chief, that she viewed the role as Deputy Ministers being 7 an appropriate buffer between the political authority and 8 the Commissioner of the OPP. 9 Did you see the Deputy Minister in that 10 role? 11 A: Yes, I did. 12 Q: All right. She also testified that 13 Mr. Fox and Mr. Patrick reported directly to her and that 14 she operated, to an extent, as a buffer between 15 information that they gathered on the ground and 16 information that was then relayed onto you. 17 Do you agree with that assessment as part 18 of her role? 19 A: Well that -- that would be a judgment 20 call on her -- on her part. I -- I don't know that we 21 ever discussed that directly, whether she indicated to me 22 that there was other information that she wasn't 23 apprising me of. 24 But I'm assuming, based on her testimony, 25 that that's what -- the way she approached it. But it's


1 -- I don't recall her saying to me, This is the way I'm 2 approaching, you know, communication between those 3 officers or myself and yourself. 4 Q: I'm -- I'm advising you what she 5 testified to and the context that you referred in your 6 examination-in-chief at Tab 1 of your book of documents, 7 page 18 and page 25. 8 With respect to having reporting 9 relationships in place, in order to avoid a perception of 10 political interference, fair or unfair, those reporting 11 relationships were in for that purpose. 12 Do you agree with that? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And I suggest to you that Ms. Todres, 15 receiving information from the ground and filtering it to 16 an extent before it came to you or other Ministers, would 17 have been part of that reporting relationship in effect 18 at the time. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And that in that capacity she was 21 able to act as a buffer and to filter the information, 22 the raw information that was coming from the ground, and 23 provide what was necessary to the -- what's referred to 24 as the political group, in order that decisions could be 25 made.


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And I suggest that that was part of 3 the -- the underlying reason for the comments that you 4 heard from Chief Coles, on the tape that was played for 5 you yesterday, where he refers to information coming up 6 the ladder too fast. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And that it's that fear that that 9 type of raw information, accurate or otherwise, coming up 10 too fast, could be a problem, could affect the decision 11 making ability of the upper management, and that's why 12 the buffer was in place. 13 A: That's certainly one of the reasons. 14 I don't doubt that. 15 Q: Okay. And would you agree with me 16 that one of the re -- another one of the reasons for Ms. 17 Todres to be a buffer was to manage the information that 18 was going back down from those making decisions, like 19 Cabinet level or otherwise, down to those that are 20 dealing with people on -- in the field? 21 A: Yes. My understanding that it would 22 normally be done through either directly with her 23 conversing with the Commissioner, perhaps, or through the 24 OPP liaison who was stationed in her office. 25 Q: Right. And the Sol Gen respected


1 those relationships and that reporting requirement and 2 followed it at the time, did they not? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And I would suggest to you that one 5 of your concerns, when looking back at the dining room 6 meeting, was that that type of raw information, from on 7 the field personnel, was coming up through MNR and 8 through Mr. Fox, as opposed to following the reporting 9 requirements we've just discussed? 10 A: Well, I don't know if it was a 11 concern of mine at the time. I think that -- I don't 12 believe anyone, at the time, expressed a concern about 13 that information being brought to our attention. 14 I think it was, you know, whether it was 15 appropriate or not, appropriate for us to be privy to 16 that is obviously open for debate or discussion, but I 17 don't think anyone felt, at the time, that it was 18 inappropriate. 19 I don't -- I don't recall anyone 20 expressing that -- that concern and I didn't have a 21 concern at that time. 22 Q: I appreciate that and I'm not only 23 looking at the time, but now, looking back at it, would 24 you agree that that's a concern, that that type of 25 information, whether accurate or not, was making its way


1 up, too fast? 2 A: You know, I'm -- I'm of two (2) minds 3 on it. I can, you know, in -- in retrospect, dealing 4 with this particular situation, I think an argument can 5 be made that certainly it -- it caused unnecessary, 6 perhaps, alarm, with respect to the -- the political 7 representatives and deputies. 8 But on the other side of that debate, if 9 you will, one could argue, I suppose, that if a situation 10 like that, that involves public safety, is deteriorating 11 to a significant extent, that there's an obligation on 12 the part of the police service in question to -- to 13 ensure that the -- the decision makers are aware of a 14 worsening situation. 15 So it's -- it's a difficult one to sort of 16 be, you know, to definitively come down on one (1) side 17 or the other. 18 Q: I appreciate that, but a worsening 19 situation, if that was indeed the case, would come up 20 through the Sol Gen's office through the reporting 21 requirements, and then be distributed in accordance with 22 what we just talked about, wouldn't it? 23 A: I believe that's -- unless there was 24 something, that would be the normal course, I agree. 25 Yes.


1 Q: Right. So coming from a different 2 direction would not only be unusual, but potentially 3 dangerous? 4 A: Certainly it could -- it could raise 5 unnecessary concerns on what the reactions to those 6 concerns could be is, you know, there's always something. 7 It ultimately could be inappropriate. 8 Q: Right. Because one of the 9 fundamental aspects for the OPP is not only to gather 10 information but to authenticate it before it goes 11 anywhere? 12 A: One would hope so. 13 Q: Well, that's the goal, is it not? 14 A: That's right. 15 Q: And then that information would be 16 relayed through the reporting requirements we've talked 17 about to the upper management, correct? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: All right. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Would you agree with me that one of 24 the main problems here was that type of reporting 25 relationship or that type of buffer wasn't in place for


1 that dining room meeting? 2 A: I think, yes, I -- if you want me to 3 elaborate, if you don't, I'll stand down with yes. 4 Q: I appreciate the yes, but -- 5 A: I think, you know, in retrospect it 6 was a -- it was a product of a -- of a new government and 7 the fact that that meeting was structured the way it was 8 and the way that it evolved I -- I do agree with you that 9 -- that under other circumstances and with a little more 10 experience under the -- under the belt, if you will, I 11 don't think it would have been handled in the way it was 12 handled. 13 Q: I appreciate it, I'm just looking 14 into how it could have been different. Obviously, my 15 clients are very concerned about that. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: And one (1) of the key concerns was 20 that information was coming outside of the Sol Gen's 21 reporting system. 22 Do you agree with that? 23 A: I do. 24 Q: And the dining room meeting, from 25 what we've heard from other witnesses, wasn't called by


1 the Sol Gen's office, it was called by the Premier's 2 office. 3 A: I believe so. I -- I've never had 4 that confirmed. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: That was my view of it at the time. 7 Q: I can only tell you what we've heard. 8 A: Continues to this day that it was 9 called by the Premier's office. 10 Q: Okay. And one of the problems, if, 11 in fact, that evidence is correct, that it was called by 12 the Premier's office, is that the Solicitor General lost 13 the ability to manage that flow of information. 14 A: Well, I suppose you could certainly 15 say that. I mean the reality was going into that meeting 16 -- personally, as the Solicitor General, I had no idea of 17 -- of who was going to be in attendance or other than 18 simply the fact we're getting together in the back room 19 to have a -- to have a chat about the situation. 20 Not being aware of the fact that there 21 would be a whole range of folks present to either 22 participate or listen to what transpired. 23 Q: So leaving the Cabinet meeting, you 24 were under the impression that it was going to be a much 25 less formal meeting of much less, or much fewer people?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: All right. I'd suggest to you that 3 having Mr. Fox and Mr. Patrick at that meeting without 4 the buffers and the reporting requirements that we've 5 talked about, was a problem. 6 A: I would agree. 7 Q: Both for information going up and for 8 opinions that might have been coming down? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Let me turn to a -- a different 11 topic. And I can advise, Mr. Commissioner, this is my 12 last topic. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 16 Q: With respect to Minister Hodgson, 17 who's responsible for the MNR, at the dining room meeting 18 -- sorry, let me back up a step. 19 Were you aware, prior to the dining room 20 meeting, that Minister Hodgson, on behalf of the MNR, had 21 dealt with two (2) previous situations that we've looked 22 at in the Inquiry called Serpent Mounds and the Cape 23 Croaker incident? 24 A: No, I don't recall being aware of 25 that, no.


1 Q: All right. And I put it as before 2 the dining room, but it sounds as though you were never 3 made aware of either of those two (2) incidents at the 4 dining room meeting, either. 5 A: I don't believe so, no. 6 Q: So to the best of your recollection, 7 Minister Hodgson didn't raise either one of those two (2) 8 issues in the discussion of how to approach this 9 Ipperwash issue? 10 A: I don't -- as I think I've said 11 earlier, I don't recall Minister Hodgson's comments at 12 that meeting, at all. 13 Q: Okay. Those are all my questions, 14 thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Mr. Scullion. 17 Ms. Johnson...? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Johnson, 22 how long do you anticipate you might be? 23 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: Half an hour. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25


1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 2 Q: Good afternoon, sir. My name is 3 Colleen Johnson and I represent the Chippewas of Kettle 4 and Stony Point. 5 A: Good afternoon. 6 Q: You indicated, sir, in your first day 7 of testimony, that you were, in addition to being the 8 Solicitor General at the time, also the Minister 9 Responsible for Correctional Services; is that correct? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And the question was posed to you, 12 and I'm at page 76 of the transcript for My Friends 13 assistance, on your first day of testimony. 14 The question was posed to you if you were 15 aware of Aboriginal issues in regards to Native peoples 16 being incarcerated and their numbers in that regard. 17 Do you recall that? 18 A: Yes, vaguely, yes. 19 Q: In your answer with regards to 20 Aboriginal issues in that regard, indicates: 21 "In terms of the number of individuals 22 being incarcerated, I'm sure there was, 23 it was looked at in terms of -- of the 24 costs of operating the system and the 25 concerns surrounding the population,


1 Native population. 2 But beyond that I think that most of 3 those kinds of issues, other than the 4 fact that we were the -- the innkeeper, 5 if you will, most of those kinds of 6 issues would have been dealt with 7 through -- through ONAS." 8 A: I think that's quite accurate, yes. 9 Q: Okay. And is that -- you would stand 10 by that testimony today? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Was it your belief, at the time, that 13 really all Aboriginal issues should be dealt with through 14 ONAS? 15 A: I don't know if I had a -- a firm 16 belief at that time, as you phrase it. We were in a 17 learning mode at that point in time so, you know, we 18 wouldn't have an opportunity or had had an opportunity in 19 those early days to, you know, explore all of those kinds 20 of complex issues. 21 So to indicate what my view was, you know, 22 seven (7) or eight (8) weeks into our mandate is, you 23 know, difficult to -- to provide. 24 Q: Has your view in that regard changed 25 today?


1 A: That ONAS should be looking after 2 those kinds of issues? 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: Is that what you're suggesting today? 5 Q: We'll go there first. 6 A: Generally, yes, unless you can be 7 more specific about specific kinds of issues that perhaps 8 I can -- 9 Q: Okay, with -- 10 A: -- address. 11 Q: With regards to systemic reasons and 12 effects of Aboriginal over representation in jails, whose 13 responsibility would you see that as being? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 15 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: And I'm sorry, 16 Commissioner, but I am leading -- we're dealing with 17 issues of racism here. We're dealing with the issues of 18 systemic racism. This is the last question I'm asking in 19 this regard and it will tie in with the rest. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 21 ask the question, but I hope it is relevant to what we're 22 doing. But if it's -- ask the question. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 25 Q: With regards to systemic reasons and


1 effect of Aboriginal over population in jails, whose 2 responsibility from the Government do you see it is to 3 deal with those kinds of issues? 4 A: Well, I think it would be a range of 5 responsibilities. The, you know, you can look at it from 6 a whole range of perspectives, whether it's from 7 community and social services, through ONAS, through the 8 Minister of Economic Development. 9 There's a whole range of -- of 10 responsibilities within Government to deal with the 11 challenges of the -- of the Native population in Ontario. 12 Federal Government, obviously, has a role 13 to play here as well; a significant role. So you just 14 can't, I think, narrow it down to, you know, when you 15 take a look at the bigger issues, if you will, to the 16 responsibility of one -- one (1) Minister, one (1) 17 Ministry. 18 Q: And would you agree that the 19 Solicitor General's office also has a -- has a 20 responsibility in that regard? 21 A: The Solicitor General's office, they 22 may have, and certainly I think that in some Northern 23 communities that there's a real effort through -- 24 primarily through the OPP to -- to assist communities. 25 And certainly the effort, in terms of the


1 expansion and growth of -- of Aboriginal police services 2 has been, I think, an effort in that direction, as well, 3 to address, you know, many of the concerns that the 4 Native population of the Province has had about justice 5 issues and their treatment through the justice system. 6 Q: Now, you had a meeting and I'm 7 referring to Inquiry document 1001565, Exhibit P-994. I 8 believe it's at your Tab 69 -- 9 A: 69? 10 Q: And -- but I'm simply referring to it 11 generally. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: You had a meeting with some of the 14 community leaders along with Mr. Beaubien. 15 A: Yes. I have it in front of me. 16 Q: And at that time, in the second 17 paragraph, at -- I believe it's a quote from you. 18 "I came here today to assure the people 19 of North Lambton, through their elected 20 representatives, that the Government of 21 Ontario's committed to preserving 22 public safety and to ensuring the 23 peaceful conclusion to the illegal 24 occupation of the Provincial Park." 25 Does that accurately reflect your views at


1 that time with regards -- 2 A: I -- 3 Q: -- to that meeting? 4 A: I believe so. 5 Q: Okay. And further down, you 6 indicated: 7 "I wanted to make clear -- I also 8 wanted to make it clear to them that 9 there's one code of law for all 10 Canadians and that this government will 11 not be party to any double standards." 12 Did that accurately reflect your statement 13 at that time? 14 A: I don't recall saying that 15 specifically, but I think it was, you know, certainly the 16 position of the Government. 17 Q: I believe that you met with the Mayor 18 at that time; is that correct? Of Lambton Shores? 19 A: We had this discussion. I -- 20 apparently there were two (2) meetings and I think they - 21 - they both occurred in the same location. I don't have 22 any, you know, strong recollection of this but I believe 23 we met in one building with some elected representatives, 24 then moved into another room to moot -- meet with some 25 residents.


1 Q: And with regards to your statement 2 about one (1) code of law, did you have any understanding 3 of there being a special relationship with Indigenous 4 Peoples in Canada and the Crown, at that time? 5 A: I wasn't terribly familiar with -- 6 with those kinds of issues, no. 7 Q: Did you have any understanding with 8 regards to special rights or responsibilities flowing 9 between the Indigenous Peoples of Canada and the Crown 10 and the provinces at that time? 11 A: Maybe in a vague way, from media and 12 newspaper articles and other readings, but not in any 13 detailed way, no, or detailed sense. 14 Q: Does that cause you concern, that you 15 didn't have that information at that time? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 17 to say something, Mr. Smith? I'm not sure -- 18 MR. IAN SMITH: Anticipating my 19 objection. I'm just not sure that the concern about that 20 issue is helpful to you. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. It 22 could be a point to make in argument, but the fact is he 23 didn't have any knowledge. 24 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: That's fine. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 2 Q: Now, there was a request for a 3 meeting from some Native leaders September 8th, and I 4 believe you have, at Tab 65, a transcript of that phone 5 call. And it would be Inquiry Document 1000986 and 6 Exhibit P-992. 7 And it's a call between Chiefs Hare, 8 Peters, Mercredi and Bressette and yourself. 9 A: Yes, I have it. 10 Q: And at that time it was the 11 Government's decision, the Premier's decision, that he 12 would not be attending a meeting with the Native leaders; 13 is that correct? 14 A: I wouldn't want to specifically say 15 it was the Premier's decision. It was the -- I think I 16 was suggesting or indicating that, to my recollection, it 17 was the direction we were provided with by a 18 representative of the Premier's office. 19 It would have been communicated through my 20 executive assistant and that's -- that's in terms of the 21 position that we were -- we were going to take in the -- 22 with me representing the Government perspective in the -- 23 in the conference call. 24 Q: Well, at the bottom of the page it 25 indicates these are your words or words attributed to


1 you: 2 "The Premier has made it clear that he 3 will not attend a meeting until the 4 occupation of the Provincial Park is 5 resolved." 6 A: Yes, but he may not have specifically 7 said that to me. I imagine it was conveyed to me that 8 that was the -- the position of the Premier's office, 9 which one could conclude means the Premier. 10 Q: So on September 12th you saw fit to 11 meet with homeowners or property owners in the Ipperwash 12 area and the mayor of that township, but the request to 13 meet with Native leaders, chiefs, including the National 14 Chief was something that was seen as not -- not to be 15 followed through on; is that correct? 16 A: Well, initially. I think, correct me 17 if I'm wrong, but I -- I believe that there was -- a 18 meeting did occur very shortly thereafter with Mr. 19 Mercredi and -- and the Premier, I believe. And the -- 20 the Attorney General at the time may have been in 21 attendance, as well. I know I wasn't there, but I think 22 that meeting did occur. 23 Q: There was a meeting that occurred 24 later -- 25 A: Yes --


1 Q: -- but it was -- 2 A: I believe so. 3 Q: But would you agree that on the 8th 4 of September, when you were having this telephone 5 conversation, the decision was to not meet? 6 A: That was the position of the 7 Government, that's right. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Did you take any position in regards 12 to whether those leaders should be met with or not, the 13 Native leaders? 14 A: I don't believe so. I can't recall 15 taking a position on it. I may have -- from a personal 16 perspective, I may have indicated that I was willing to 17 meet with them, but I'm not sure Mr. Harnick would have 18 been willing to meet with them. 19 But I think their -- their view at the 20 time was that they had to meet with the Premier. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: I have one (1) question with regards 25 to the mugs and the T-shirts, and let me assure you there


1 is simply one (1) question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 5 Q: With regards to the mugs, the logos, 6 the T-shirts and those things, you indicated that you did 7 not see those things as being racist. 8 Do you stand by that testimony now? 9 A: Yes, I do. 10 Q: Okay. And later, with regards to the 11 comments made by individual OPP officers including the, 12 "fat fuck Indian" comment, and, "cases of beer", and then 13 the comment that, "it works with water melon in the 14 South", you did see that as being racist? 15 A: Yes, I did. 16 Q: Can you indicate what you see the 17 difference as being? 18 A: Well, I think the language used and 19 the -- the fact that the individuals were expressing 20 some very offensive, and I would deem racist views, not 21 simply confined to one race but to several races. 22 And so that's -- that struck me. This 23 other matter dealing with the crests and the use of the 24 symbols, I guess one could make the argument if they were 25 very much aware of the importance and significance of the


1 symbols when they did what they did, perhaps an argument 2 could be made that the individuals involved had -- were 3 less than being foolish, but -- or more than being 4 foolish, I should say. 5 But, you know, my -- my view of -- of the 6 products was primarily that it was foolish, dumb, and, as 7 I indicated yesterday, terribly insensitive to -- to the 8 loss the George family suffered. 9 Q: With regards to the second set of 10 comments, was it the comment regarding the watermelon in 11 the South that really clenched it for you as being -- as 12 making it racist? 13 A: It was the total message delivered. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: I think one sort of confirms the 18 other. 19 Q: Would you agree that in dealing with 20 racism in society there's -- you're dealing with a 21 dominant group and an oppressed group? 22 A: It's a field that I can't say that 23 I'm an expert in, in terms of groups and, you know, 24 assessing who's being impacted or who's not being 25 impacted, so I guess you'll have to be a little more


1 specific with what you're driving at here. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 3 that this is the right witness to ask that question. 4 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: That's fine. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: But, we are asking 7 about views of racism from him. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, but 9 I mean this requires some knowledge or, perhaps, 10 experience or expertise that he doesn't have, you know, 11 regarding racism. 12 You can ask him what he knows or what he 13 thinks, but... 14 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: Okay. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 17 Q: Ron Fox, in the phone call that was 18 played for you yesterday, indicated that the Premier 19 expressed that they had pandered and pampered these 20 people for too long. Do you recall that? 21 A: No, I -- I don't recall that. 22 Q: At page 266 of your testimony, you 23 indicated that you weren't sure that he would have used 24 those terms exactly, but would you agree that the 25 sentiment was there, that Native people had been pampered


1 and pandered for too long? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 3 minute. 4 Mr. Downard...? 5 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: Perhaps, I can 6 rephrase the question. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well -- 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 10 Q: Was it your sentiment -- 11 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well -- 12 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: -- and then we 13 could -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You wanted 15 to -- 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, first of all, 17 my recollection of the evidence, that the Witness says 18 that he -- he doubted anything like that was said. 19 Secondly, the Witness is now being asked 20 about something he does not recall and what -- and what - 21 - whether the sentiment of something he was -- not 22 recalled, it was something he perceived. 23 It -- it just seems to me to be beyond the 24 pale of being useful to you, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.


1 You want to try to rephrase the question or ask a 2 different question? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 7 Q: At page 265 of the transcript from 8 January 10th, the question is posed: 9 "Now, an hour after the dining room 10 meeting, Inspector Fox quotes former 11 Premier Mike Harris' as stating, quote 12 'We've tried to pacify and pander these 13 people for too long. It's now time for 14 swift affirmative action.' Are you in 15 a position to dispute Officer Fox's 16 recollection?" 17 And then you proceed to answer with 18 regards to: 19 "Well I think -- I think I indicated 20 earlier in my testimony that there were 21 references to the question of a burial 22 site on the property and that there was 23 some discussion around merits or lack 24 of merits with regards to that claim." 25 So, let me repose that question: Are you


1 in a position to dis -- 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Wait, wait a minute. 3 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: That's fine. 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My -- my only -- my 5 only point is that the relevant passage of -- of the 6 transcript continues and if it's going to be put, it 7 should be put in full. 8 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: And my question is, 9 simply: Does -- is he in a position to dispute those 10 words? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 12 minute. 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, wait a minute. 14 Wait a minute. Wait a minute. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Dispute 16 which words? Words to -- 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Wait a minute. He's 18 -- he said -- his evidence that he gave in the 19 transcript, two (2) questions on, is that he doubt -- 20 doubts it was said. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That's 22 my recollection. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Excuse me, Mr. 24 Commissioner. I do think the transcript should be read 25 because neither impression is accurate.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've got 2 feuding computers here. People walking up. Draw your 3 computers. Yes, sir? 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With your -- with 5 your permission, may I read from the transcript. At page 6 266 it continues -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I would like 8 to get to the question. Go ahead, Mr. Rosenthal, maybe 9 you could you help us. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. On page 11 266 at line 9 it says: 12 "Q: So you would not contest 13 Inspector Fox's recollection an hour 14 later?" 15 And he actually put -- do you see that his 16 words to that? Do you see where he quotes, Premier 17 Harris' words, quote: 18 "I mean we've tried to pacify and 19 pander to these people for too long. 20 A: I see where he says that. So you 21 don't dispute Inspector Fox's 22 recollection that Premier Harris would 23 have said that. 24 I doubt if he would have put it that 25 way, but I can't recall specifics with


1 respect to any comments made along 2 these lines." 3 So, he did not say that he doubts Mr. 4 Harris said that, he doubts that the put it that way. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's a very 7 important difference. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if you 9 can put the question that way -- 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 12 Q: The question is, simply: Do you 13 dispute that today? 14 A: Well, I wouldn't share the 15 interpretation that was just delivered. I -- I 16 indicated, as I read that, that I -- I don't recall that 17 -- that commentary and the -- and the specific words that 18 counsel used or Inspector Fox used. 19 Q: And that's fair. 20 A: I doubt it that -- that the Premier 21 would use that -- that just didn't sound like the Premier 22 to me. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON:


1 Q: Were the sentiments there in your 2 understanding of dealing with the people at the Park? 3 A: No. I don't recall him being that -- 4 that -- having that kind of an attitude about the general 5 -- the occupiers or -- or others, so I -- I don't share 6 that view. I think I've indicated that if that was part 7 of a -- of a discussion or conversation, I didn't hear 8 it. 9 Q: Did you at any time, surrounding the 10 events at Ipperwash, understand that there was an 11 attitude about Native people being pampered and pandered 12 for too long; and not those words specifically, but that 13 attitude? 14 A: Not in my circle of colleagues or 15 friends. You know, it's not something that I was -- 16 those kinds of issues, historically, were not the kinds 17 of issues that I would have -- would have dealt with or 18 they came across my desk. And certainly, in the terms of 19 my own riding responsibilities, historically, they're not 20 the issues that would have confronted me. 21 So -- so, they're the kinds of discussions 22 that, in all likelihood, I wouldn't have been privy to or 23 part of. 24 Q: So, let me say it one (1) more time. 25 With -- with respect to dealing with the events of the --


1 the Camp or the Park occupation were you aware, or did 2 you hear at any time that sentiment expressed, that 3 native people had been pampered and pandered for too long 4 and that it was time for swift action? 5 A: Not while I was present. 6 Q: Thank you. Would you agree, sir, at 7 the time that you had no training or education with 8 regards to Aboriginal issues? 9 A: I agree. 10 Q: With regards to racism? 11 A: It -- training? No, no training. 12 Q: Education? 13 A: Only, sort of, in the broadest sense, 14 but no, not in a formal sense, no. 15 Q: Training or education with regards to 16 systemic racism? 17 A: No. 18 Q: What about training or education with 19 regards to the history of Native peoples in Canada? 20 A: No. 21 Q: With regards to Native people's 22 relationship with the Crown in Canada? 23 A: No training if that's what you're 24 talking about; some vague understandings in -- but 25 nothing in a formal way, no.


1 Q: And at the time, that you had no 2 background in dealing with Aboriginal issues, would you 3 agree with that? 4 A: I agree with that. 5 Q: Would you agree, sir, that for 6 someone in that position it's highly relevant that if the 7 Government is going to -- that in dealing with Native 8 peoples if -- if the relationship will improve that it's 9 very important for a person in the position of Solicitor 10 General to have that kind of background and training? 11 A: I think it would be helpful. 12 Q: Those are my questions. Thank you, 13 sir. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 20 Horner...? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long do 25 you estimate you might be?


1 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: I estimated half an 2 hour at the outset, Mr. Commissioner, and I think I might 3 -- the area -- unless the area hadn't got touched upon, 4 and it really hasn't so I'm still estimating 5 approximately a half an hour. I assure you I have no 6 desire to go longer than I need to. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 10 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Runciman. 11 A: Good afternoon. 12 Q: My name's Matthew Horner and I 13 represent the Chiefs of Ontario. 14 Mr. Runciman, I wanted to just pull back 15 once more to the dining room meeting, and I just want to 16 make sure that I have a clear understanding of your 17 evidence with respect to that meeting. 18 What was your understanding of the purpose 19 of that meeting? 20 A: Simply to have a discussion about the 21 situation at Ipperwash; that was essentially it. 22 Q: And what did you understand your role 23 at the meeting to be? 24 A: I don't know that I had any 25 understanding going into it what my role was going to be,


1 because there hadn't been, you know, any indication of an 2 agenda or ground rules. It was just -- in my view it was 3 just an informal gathering, if you will, off to the side 4 of the -- of the -- the Cabinet chamber. 5 So, I didn't have any sort of preconceived 6 notion of -- of what was going to happen or who -- who 7 would be there or what the -- what the discussion would 8 be other than the -- the current situation. 9 Q: And in retrospect, today do you have 10 a better understanding of what your role at that meeting 11 was? 12 A: I think it was relevant to have the 13 Solicitor General in attendance, because it was a -- a 14 situation that involved the -- the OPP. So, I think 15 that, you know, given the policing implications of the 16 situation, having the two (2) justice officials, Attorney 17 General and Solicitor General present was -- yes, I think 18 it was probably appropriate. 19 Q: So, in retrospect, now you view the 20 discussion of policing issues at Ipperwash being one (1) 21 of the topics that was going to be discussed at the 22 dining room meeting? 23 A: Not necessarily. I think there was, 24 you know, the view that you were going to talk about the 25 -- the situation, obviously, and -- and how do you


1 resolve it. So, I think any -- any resolution that the - 2 - at the very least the Solicitor General's office should 3 be made aware of -- of what -- what the intentions might 4 be. 5 Q: And today in retrospect, would that 6 be your view of why Inspector Fox would have been at the 7 meeting? 8 A: I'm still curious about why Inspector 9 Fox was at the meeting. I believe it was probably a 10 product, as I said earlier, of -- of the new Deputy and a 11 new government. 12 And I think that the meeting occurred in 13 the way it was structured and the people in attendance 14 that, given some experience that perhaps it wouldn't have 15 occurred in the way it did with the -- the people being 16 present who were present. 17 I think that it would have been a 18 different -- different make-up of that meeting. I don't 19 think we would have had the -- the conflicts or the -- 20 the suggestions of impropriety that have arisen as a -- 21 that -- that flowed from that -- that meeting, the 22 suspicions that have flowed from that meeting. 23 Q: And I just have -- I've just a little 24 bit perplexed -- not perplexed, but I just want to tease 25 that out a bit more of -- the purpose was to discuss the


1 meeting and was it common to have a meeting attended by 2 the Premier and the Solicitor General and the Attorney 3 General and their deputies and their executive assistants 4 and -- and an OPP inspector to just broadly discuss an 5 issue without any decision making goal? 6 A: Well, I don't think anything could be 7 construed as -- as common at that point in time. We were 8 only in the Government seven (7) or eight (8) weeks, 9 probably. In terms of getting our offices organised, 10 probably six (6) weeks that we'd been sort of operating, 11 you know, with staff. 12 So, you know -- 13 Q: But today -- 14 A: -- certainly in that -- in the -- in 15 the intervening years it was not -- not -- it was, I 16 would say, a rare occurrence and certainly a meeting 17 structured the way that meeting was structured, I don't 18 believe ever occurred again. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: You testified that one (1) of the 23 areas of conversation at that meeting was this whole 24 issue of injunctions and different types of injunctions. 25 A: Right.


1 Q: Is that correct? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And there was a discussion of the 4 difference between obtaining an injunction in the normal 5 course and obtaining one ex parte. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And you testified that legal analysis 8 was provided by the Deputy Attorney General? 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: Or we've heard that evidence, at 11 least? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Now, as Solicitor General, you 14 wouldn't have had anything to add to this discussion 15 about the legal analysis of the two (2) types of 16 injunctions? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: I mean -- and you have no personal 19 legal knowledge that you wanted to add to that 20 discussion? 21 A: That's right. 22 Q: And neither did Minister -- you 23 wouldn't have expected the Minister of Natural Resources 24 would have anything to add to that sort of conversation? 25 A: That's right.


1 Q: And you wouldn't expect that the 2 Premier would have anything to add to that type of legal 3 conversation? 4 A: Not in terms of the intricacies of 5 the -- of the merits of one versus the other. I think 6 I've indicated that his -- his involvement in my view was 7 focussed primarily on -- on an early remedy to resolution 8 of the -- of the situation. 9 So, from that perspective, that was 10 probably at where he felt it was appropriate to engage in 11 the discussion. 12 Q: So, the purpose of discussing this 13 whole injunction discussion at this meeting was more 14 geared towards obtaining a faster remedy; is that 15 correct? 16 A: That's right. 17 Q: It was not to differentiate between 18 how service would be made of this injunction? 19 A: No. 20 Q: And the position of the Government 21 coming out of that meeting was that the Government wanted 22 a fast remedy of the situation? 23 A: They -- they wanted the -- the most 24 timely option utilized, yes. 25 Q: And that had been Mr. -- Mr. Harris'


1 point of view, as you recall, from the... 2 A: Yes, he was supportive. 3 Q: And so this whole discussion as -- as 4 you recall it from the dining room meeting was about 5 establishing the timeline for getting the occupiers out 6 of the Park? 7 A: The bulk of it was. I -- I think I 8 indicated in my testimony that there was some discussion 9 again focussed on the Attorney General and his Deputy, 10 because of their Secretariat responsibilities focussed on 11 the claim, apparently that had arisen at some point, with 12 respect to a burial ground being located somewhere within 13 the Park, so that there might be some sort of a 14 legitimate claim to the property. 15 So, that -- that was -- that may have 16 prefaced the discussion related to the type of injunction 17 that could be utilized. 18 Q: But, just to come back to my 19 question. The -- the primary purpose of this discussion 20 was to find a fast remedy to have the occupiers removed 21 from the Park? 22 A: To find a resolution, yes. 23 Q: And the resolution would be to obtain 24 an injunction as quickly as possible, correct? 25 A: That was the outcome --


1 Q: And that -- 2 A: -- decided upon, yes. 3 Q: In order for the occupiers to be 4 removed from the Park? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: Now, would you not agree, Mr. 7 Runciman, that this whole issue of the timeline for 8 getting the natives, the occupiers, out of the Park was a 9 key aspect of the operational issues facing the OPP? 10 A: Well, I -- I wouldn't want to say 11 that was -- the -- the meeting itself was a key aspect of 12 the operational decisions made by the OPP? 13 Q: The timeline was a key aspect. 14 A: The fact that there was a meeting 15 held on September the 6th? No, I -- I wouldn't 16 necessarily agree with that. 17 I think you'd have to get that kind of 18 feedback from the OPP whether it affected them in that -- 19 in that way. Certainly I felt that the -- the focus was, 20 and I think some of the testimony in some of the 21 transcripts indicate that they were advised that there 22 was going to be a pursuit of an -- of an injunction so, 23 you know, how that would -- would indeed affect their 24 operational decisions, I'm not sure. 25 Q: Okay. And I -- I -- and I'm just --


1 I want to make sure -- 2 A: At some point down the road obviously 3 it would. If an injunction was granted, then of course 4 they had to serve it, deliver it; at that point it would 5 -- it would have an impact. But at that stage of the 6 game the -- the meeting itself, in the short term, no; in 7 terms of operational decision making, no. 8 Q: I just want to clarify one (1) thing, 9 you mentioned the meeting: Do you not agree that the 10 timeline of undertaking an operation, how quickly to 11 remove the occupiers from the Park, that question of how 12 quickly to move, the timeline, is an operation -- is a 13 key aspect of any operational -- any operation? 14 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm sorry, but I think 15 the evidence so far is about a timeline with respect to 16 an injunction, not about how the injunction is to be 17 enforced. So, I think it's an important distinction that 18 My Friend needs to be clear about. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 20 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: The -- the evidence, 21 Mr. Commissioner -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: -- is that the -- 24 I've just elicited, is that the purpose of the meeting 25 was to find the -- the fastest possible way to have the


1 occupiers removed from the Park, and I'm asking my 2 questions based on that. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 4 your question is fair. The timeline -- 5 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Hmm hmm. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is that a 7 key element or is that an aspect of operations? 8 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Yes. 9 THE WITNESS: I -- no, I -- I don't see 10 myself being able to answer that question. I think it's 11 -- and maybe you can explain it to me if I'm wrong on 12 this, but I -- it seems to me that that meeting should 13 not have had any impact on the operational decision 14 making of the OPP in terms of the timing of it. 15 You'll have to be, I guess, a little more 16 specific in terms of what you're driving at here. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 21 Q: I suppose what I'm trying to say is 22 that -- do you disagree, then, that the -- do you not 23 think that with having -- I'm sorry. 24 With a member of the OPP in attendance at 25 that meeting and attempting to decide how quickly and how


1 fast to move the occupiers out of the Park, do you not 2 believe that that would have an effect on operations of 3 the OPP? 4 A: Well, again I understand where you're 5 going now. I -- I think we did cover this ground be -- 6 because I think that it's difficult for me to interpret. 7 I think some would suggest that perhaps an 8 OPP officer or officers, plural, could respond in that 9 manner, but we've had testimony here, I gather, that they 10 -- they weren't impacted or affected in that way. 11 So, for me to -- I have agreed, I think, 12 earlier, that it is possible that someone could -- could, 13 you know, be affected in that -- in that way, but beyond 14 that, I don't think I can be any more specific. 15 Q: Fair enough. But leaving aside the 16 message -- whether the message was received, was it not 17 clear to you that this discussion would be interpreted as 18 an indication of the Government's preference regarding 19 the timeline for moving in to the Park and for removing 20 the occupiers from the Park? 21 A: Well, I certainly didn't have that 22 impression at the time. You know, when you look back on 23 it, I guess, it certainly may have had that impact. But 24 again, I would say you would have to rely on the officers 25 involved and -- and their recollections of the impact


1 that -- the knowledge of the meeting and what transpired 2 at that meeting would have had on their decision making 3 processes. 4 Q: If I could ask you to turn to Tab 50 5 of the Commission Counsel's documents. This is Exhibit 6 P-469, Inquiry Document 1000016. 7 It is the transcript of a telephone 8 conversation between Superintendent Parkin and Inspector 9 Linton on the evening of September 6th, just hours before 10 the -- just over an hour before the CMU and TRU teams 11 moved down the road towards the Park. 12 A: Right. 13 Q: Now, I know you were not a party to 14 this conversation, but I'm just going to read one aspect 15 -- one portion of it and see what your reaction to that 16 is. 17 I'll take you to page 13 of the 18 transcript. 19 A: All right. 20 Q: And Mr. Millar, you'll recall, took 21 you to this in your examination-in-chief, but I just want 22 to go a bit further. 23 Linton, who was the -- the Incident 24 Commander, along with John Carson who's not there at the 25 time, is speaking; he's on site, and Superintendent


1 Parkin is -- is his direct supervision, and Parkin says: 2 "And he had been talking to Runciman 3 and that -- and they were more than 4 pleased with what the OPP was doing, so 5 there's no problem there. 6 What happened, though by that -- by 7 that information about the automatic 8 weapons going up the MNR side, they 9 went from that, that regular type of 10 injunction to the emergency type which 11 you know, isn't really in our favour. 12 Linton: Yeah. 13 Parkin: We want a little bit more 14 time. 15 Linton: Yeah. 16 Parkin: But -- but they've gone for 17 that and then that's why those papers 18 must come down tonight for us to serve, 19 but I would suggest that's not up to us 20 to serve those initially. 21 Linton: No. 22 Parkin: It's up to the MNR to serve 23 those. 24 Linton: Yeah. 25 Parkin: It's an MNR injunction.


1 Linton: Yeah. 2 Parkin: And we would assist them in 3 serving that. 4 Linton: Yeah. 5 Parkin: Um, you know, but this is 6 typical where we get kind of caught and 7 ultimately the ball's going to be our 8 lap anyway, if they get this injunction 9 tomorrow. 10 Parkin: Uh, but I guess what we would 11 rather have happen, if we can, if you 12 can lock that place down so that, you 13 know, the general public isn't put in 14 any danger. 15 Linton: Yeah. 16 Parkin: And uh, you know, if they 17 want to burn like -- if they want to 18 come act like yahoos back in there, 19 fine. If they come into your term and 20 we can safely make an arrest, well then 21 that's fine too. 22 Linton: Yes." 23 Would you agree, Mr. Runciman, looking at 24 this transcript, that on the evening of September 6th, 25 just over an hour before the CMU and TRU teams moved down


1 the road towards the Park, that the police on the ground 2 were aware of the Government decision to move for a 3 faster, as opposed to a slower, injunction? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And would you agree, Mr. Runciman, 6 that looking at those statements of Mr. Parkin, that it 7 isn't really in our favour and we want a little bit more 8 time, that the decision of the Government to seek a fast 9 injunction was affecting operational decisions? 10 A: Well clearly they weren't enthused. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 12 minute, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Downard has an objection. 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's a long 14 conversation. I'm just concerned about the Witness being 15 inadvertently misled. 16 Earlier in the transcript there are -- 17 before one gets to this part of the conversation when 18 they start talking about an injunction, Linton says that 19 they were planning to go down and arrest these guys, the 20 people who were outside the Park. 21 And even earlier of the conversation 22 Linton is talking about going and arresting the guys out 23 in front of the Park. 24 So, to suggest -- to go straight to the 25 discussion of an injunction and then suggest that there's


1 an affect on operations, plainly leading to the scene 2 you're going down the road, can be a little bit unfair 3 and a little bit -- inadvertently misleading the Witness, 4 if one doesn't know the whole conversation. 5 I -- I don't mean to have us go through 6 the whole conversation, but I'm just concerned about the 7 fairness and -- and the Witness' state of information. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How can we 9 be fair to the Witness then, Mr. Downard, unless we've 10 gone through it all? 11 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, I think -- I 12 think my having made the point satisfies my concern. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 14 That's fine then. Carry on. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 17 Q: Well, that may be true but you'll 18 agree that they are discussing, in this excerpt that I 19 read to you, they are discussing the decision that was 20 made at the dining room meeting, do you not, Mr. 21 Runciman? 22 A: I -- I do. 23 Q: And you can see on page 14 that they 24 were -- they are discussing how to turn that decision, 25 how to operationalize that decision; you'll agree?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And so do you agree that the time 3 line decisions, that were made at the time they were 4 meeting, cause operational decisions that would not 5 otherwise have been made? 6 A: Well, I suppose that's one way of 7 looking at it. I don't think it's in conflict with what 8 I said earlier that once the -- once the injunction was 9 issued and obviously would have operational implications 10 and that's essentially what -- what they're referencing 11 here. 12 So I guess, you know, you could say well, 13 certainly you had the meeting on a specific date, that 14 led to an application for an injunction, which led to the 15 issuance, which led to operational decisions based on the 16 issuance. 17 I mean, you know, I'm -- I'm certain you 18 could -- you could -- you could make that connection, but 19 I don't think there's any straight line there. 20 Q: A moment's indulgence, Mr. 21 Commissioner. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Thank you, Mr.


1 Commissioner, those are all my questions. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 3 very much. 4 I think, Mr. Zbogar. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long do 9 you estimate you might be? 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I should be under half 11 an hour. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You 13 originally -- 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I don't know when you 15 anticipate taking a break; if I shouldn't just go ahead 16 now and... 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 18 should take a break now. Is that all right, Mr. Zbogar? 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Perfect. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 21 short break now. 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 23 for fifteen (15) minutes. 24 25 --- Upon recessing at 2:45 p.m.


1 --- Upon resuming at 3:01 p.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 4 resumed, please be seated. 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Good afternoon, Mr. 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 8 afternoon. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 11 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Runciman. 12 A: Good afternoon. 13 Q: My name is Vilko Zbogar. I'm counsel 14 for the Estate of Dudley George and members of Dudley 15 George's family including Sam George. 16 Now, I've put in front of you, Mr. 17 Runciman, two (2) documents and I'd like to, first of 18 all, refer you to the first one of those and identify it 19 for you. And I've put a copy before you, Commissioner, 20 as well. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 22 Thank you. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 25 Q: What I'm referring to is Inquiry


1 Document Number 1007879. And these are apparently the 2 handwritten notes of Ed Vervoort, who is an MNR official 3 at the time of September 1995, who attended -- among 4 other things, attended some meetings at the OPP Command 5 Post at Ipperwash or at Forest on September 5th, 1995. 6 So I've given you an excerpt of his notes from September 7 5th, 1995, which is a three (3) page excerpt. 8 And I don't want you to -- don't want to 9 take you to all of it, but I want to ask you if you can 10 flip to the third page of that document, and it begins at 11 the top with: 12 "18:15 briefing, September 5th, 1995." 13 Do you see that? 14 A: I do. 15 Q: The evidence is that Mr. Vervoort 16 attended a meeting in the OPP command post at about this 17 time on the afternoon of September 5th, 1995 in the late 18 afternoon, early evening. And that this meeting was also 19 attended by the head of the crowd management team or the 20 riot squad and the head of the TRU team or the tactical 21 or sniper squad. 22 And what I want to take you to is at the - 23 - the page that I have before you is his notes or summary 24 of that -- of that meeting, as I understand it. 25 I'd like to refer you to the last entry,


1 the last bullet point under that heading of, "18:15 2 Briefing." And what it says is, and I quote: 3 "Lots of political pressure; strong in- 4 house comments by Premier/Sol Gen." 5 And I can also advise you, Mr. Runciman, 6 that the evidence is that John Carson was in attendance 7 at this meeting and was communicating to the officers and 8 others, and that Mr. Vervoort was apparently paraphrasing 9 or quoting John Carson when he says that -- it was said 10 that, Lots of political pressure, strong in house 11 comments by the Premier/Solicitor General. 12 Are you with me so far? 13 A: Yes, I am. 14 Q: And as further context, I can also 15 advise you that there are handwritten scribe notes which 16 we've already seen which are Exhibit P-450 -- sorry, 17 Exhibit P-427 on page 450 of that document, Inquiry 18 document 1000152, in which Carson is paraphrased or 19 quoted as saying that there was, and I quote from the 20 notes: 21 "Heat from the political side." 22 Now, what I want to ask you is: Were you 23 aware at the time of September 1995, prior to the 24 shooting of Dudley George, that the OPP officers on the 25 ground were being told that there was strong political


1 pressure connected with the Premier and/or yourself? 2 A: No, I wasn't. 3 Q: Have you become aware of that since 4 that time, prior to preparing for this Inquiry? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: Following the -- the death, you're 9 talking about? Is that -- 10 Q: Following the death of Dudley George 11 and up to -- 12 A: At some point I'm sure I was, yes. 13 Q: Can you give me more information 14 about that? 15 A: No, I really -- I can't give you a, 16 sort of a time line on it. I know I'm certain that I did 17 and prior to getting ready for the Inquiry. 18 Q: So you've become aware some time -- 19 can you -- 20 A: Probably -- 21 Q: -- maybe help me whether it was -- 22 A: -- within six (6) months to a year, I 23 would think. 24 Q: Within a year after -- 25 A: Something like --


1 Q: -- the shooting, probably -- 2 A: Yes, I would think so. 3 Q: And am I -- is it correct that -- did 4 you become aware of these specific comments or did you 5 become aware of specifically the fact that the OPP 6 incident commander had been communicating to his people 7 that there was lots of political pressure, as a general 8 allegation, or something that some notes had said? 9 A: I don't recall the specifics. I 10 don't believe I have seen this document before. It's 11 possible, but I don't recall seeing it and not -- I don't 12 recall being aware of this individual's recollections. 13 But -- so I guess what I'm saying is that 14 I wasn't aware of the specifics. I knew there was 15 concern about -- primarily about Mr. Beaubien and -- and 16 some about -- obviously, as it evolved, about the -- the 17 meeting and what transpired at the -- at the meeting on 18 September the 6th. 19 Q: Okay. I want to try to narrow that 20 down a bit. I understand there was many allegations 21 arising around that time in the House and in the media 22 about political pressure; I'm aware of that. 23 Now, what I wanted to ask you is whether - 24 - and you mentioned the concerns about Mr. Beaubien 25 attending the command post. And what I want to ask you


1 about is whether you became aware, after the shooting, of 2 the fact that the OPP incident commander was 3 communicating to his people, his officers, that the 4 Premier and Solicitor General were connected with some 5 political pressure? 6 A: I can't recall that specifically. 7 Q: Or generally? 8 A: Or generally, to be quite honest, no. 9 Q: Now having seen that reference now, 10 the reference to lots of political pressure and the 11 reference to heat from the political side, does it 12 concern you, as the former Solicitor General, having 13 charged the relation between police and the Government, 14 that the OPP officers on the ground at Ipperwash, at that 15 time, were being told that there was strong political 16 pressure? 17 A: Certainly the way he has -- he's 18 described it there's lots of political pressure, you 19 know, that -- it could have been, I don't know if this 20 individual has appeared here but that may have been his 21 interpretation of what -- what was said by the OPP and 22 perhaps the OPP wouldn't have -- have viewed it in that 23 manner. 24 But when you read, certainly, his 25 description of it, that -- that is -- would have been of


1 concern, certainly. 2 Q: Right. Because whether or not it was 3 -- the fact that there was or wasn't political pressure, 4 it would be inappropriate for that kind of information to 5 be communicated to the officers on the ground; is that 6 fair? 7 A: The fact that they're getting 8 political pressure, and again, he's indicating that it's 9 from -- from the -- from the Premier and the Solicitor 10 General. You know, certainly it's hard for me to -- to 11 debate the fact that, you know, if they felt that they 12 were getting significant and extensive pressure from the 13 politicians that that would be inappropriate, I would 14 agree with you, if that was the sense that was there. 15 Q: Right. And there's two (2) things 16 going on here: One is John Carson sensed that there is 17 political pressure. And the other is his communication 18 of his sense that there is political pressure to his 19 people. 20 And I think I've gotten some information 21 from you as to the -- the former of those two (2) and I 22 wanted to ask you as to the latter. If it so happened 23 that an Incident Commander in this situation became aware 24 of or became of the impression that there was political 25 pressure, that would not be an appropriate thing to


1 communicate down the line to the people on the ground; is 2 that fair? 3 A: Yes, I would agree with you, yes. 4 Q: Mr. Commissioner, I propose that we 5 make document or the excerpt of Document 1007879, Mr. 6 Vervoort's notes of September 5th, 1995, the next 7 exhibit, since I've referred to in my -- although I do 8 hope Mr. Vervoort is called. I don't know if he will be 9 so I think it appropriate to do that. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar-- 11 THE REGISTRAR: P-1008, Your Honour. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1008: Document Number 1007879. 14 Handwritten notes of Ed 15 Vervoort, 18:15 briefing, 16 Sept. 05/'95. 17 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you don't 19 have any difficulty with that? What number is it? 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-1008. 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: P-1008. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is the whole 23 -- you're talking about the whole three (3) page exhibit 24 or just the one (1) page that you read from or -- 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Actually the one (1)


1 page would be fine. 2 THE REGISTRAR: That is the last page? 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The last page. And 4 that's Ed Vervoort's notes of the September 5th, 1995 5 briefing in the OPP command post. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I didn't get 7 the number, Mr. Zbogar. 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: At 18:15. 9 THE REGISTRAR: P-1008, Your Honour. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 14 Q: And I want to ask you some questions, 15 Mr. Runciman, about Ms. Joan Smith. Do you know who that 16 is? 17 A: I do. 18 Q: And just so we make sure we're on the 19 same page as to -- as to the situation I'm referring to, 20 Joan Smith was the Liberal Solicitor General in 1989, 21 right? 22 A: I believe so. 23 Q: And at that time there arose a 24 situation where Ms. Smith went into a police detachment 25 in Lucan and -- and there arose some controversy in the


1 House and in the media about that. 2 Am I right so far? 3 A: You are. 4 Q: And the issue surrounded, as I 5 understand it, the facts were that she received a phone 6 call from, I don't know if it was a family friend or an 7 associate, in the middle of the night on April 6th of 8 1989. And as a result of that she went to the Lucan 9 Police -- into the Lucan Police Detachment to inquire 10 about the well being of a person they had in custody. 11 Is that correct so far? 12 A: I believe so. 13 Q: And you recall this being an issue in 14 the Legislature for a period of about a week in May of 15 1989? 16 A: At least a week. 17 Q: Now, I've put before you, Mr. 18 Runciman, copies of excerpts from Hansard for that period 19 of time, and this Exhibit P-631. And it's a package of 20 Hansard from May 18th, 1989 through to, I think, the 29th 21 or -- 29th of that month. 22 And I want to ask you some questions about 23 that situation and connect it to some of the things that 24 happened later on in -- in Ipperwash. 25 Now, what I'd like to do is just refer you


1 to some of the specific passages and the first one I'd 2 like to take you to is the bottom of the first page of 3 that package. And I trust, Mr. Commissioner, you have a 4 copy with you? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I do. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 10 Q: Now -- and before we get into 11 specifics I should also say, if it's fair, that you 12 recall taking a strong position in response to Ms. 13 Smith's actions saying it was inappropriate and calling 14 for her resignation; is that fair? 15 A: I think that's fair. 16 Q: Okay. So if I could take you to some 17 specific passages. First of all, the first one I want to 18 look at is the bottom of the first page of the material. 19 And you're quoted as saying: 20 "The Solicitor General has led us to 21 believe that she is a great believer in 22 independent and public investigations 23 of police conduct, but the 24 investigation of her own conduct was 25 done by the force that reports directly


1 to her and was never made public until 2 the media found out about it. This 3 whole affair smacks of a whitewash and 4 I ask the Minister to tell us why she 5 did not insist on an independent 6 investigation of her conduct." 7 Now, first of all, can we take it that you 8 don't take issue with anything that Hansard reports in 9 terms of its accuracy of what you said? 10 A: No, I do not. 11 Q: And what you're asking about in this 12 situation, in this particular question, is the fact that 13 there had been, following Ms. Smith's attendance at the 14 police detachment, there was an investigation conducted 15 by the OPP who was the same force that, as Solicitor 16 General, she's responsible for, right? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: Okay. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: And is it fair to characterize what 23 your -- what your position is at this time, as being 24 that, where there is an allegation or possibility of 25 interference by the Solicitor General with the police


1 operation or law enforcement issue, that that is 2 inappropriate and that should be independently 3 investigated? 4 A: Where she had, in our view at the 5 time, and I think it was substantiated, very directly and 6 -- and personally tried to influence a police service, 7 representatives of a police service, yes. 8 Q: Okay. Well, I think it's also fair 9 that the issue at this time, and correct me if I'm wrong, 10 wasn't whether political influence was actually received 11 or acted upon by the police, because the evidence was 12 that they, in fact, charged the individual who was in -- 13 in custody, who Ms. Smith was going to inquire about, and 14 there was a police report by the OPP which said there was 15 no -- was no interference or involvement or undue 16 involvement. 17 Am I correct so far? 18 A: I believe so. I think, essentially, 19 going back a few years, that the criticism of her 20 actions, essentially, she would not indicate, throughout 21 the process, that she had made an error in judgment. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: But the fact was that she was, in our 24 view, dressing down a police sergeant for the arrest of a 25 friend of the family. And for all we knew, demanding his


1 release from -- from the lock-up, and questioning his -- 2 his care while he was incarcerated. 3 Q: Right. You certainly had a 4 perspective or some assumptions or allegations about what 5 went on. You also had a police report which said there 6 was no influence. 7 And the issue, as I -- as I understand it, 8 eventually became, not whether the OPP took or accepted 9 influence, or I think Mr. Falconer used the analogy of 10 taking a bribe, but whether the bribe was offered, 11 whether the influence was attempted to be exerted; is 12 that fair? 13 A: I think that's fair, yes. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: And there was a police investigation 18 or report that came out of that incident by the OPP, the 19 same force that reported or was ultimately responsible to 20 Ms. Smith. 21 And it was the other a part of -- one of 22 the other major parts of the whole scandal was that, as 23 far as the Opposition was concerned, including yourself, 24 there should have been an independent investigation of 25 that by somebody other than the OPP; is that right?


1 A: That's right. 2 Q: And that's what the passage I've just 3 read to you a while ago refers to? 4 A: Correct. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, the next question that you 9 asked, following the one I just read to you, and I'll 10 begin on the third line, it says, "The Minister," and 11 this is your position or your allegation in the House: 12 "The Minister --" 13 A: Excuse me. Is this is the second 14 page, or what page are we on? 15 Q: This is page 2 of 4. 16 A: Page 2. 17 Q: And it's where -- the first time your 18 name appears on that page. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: What date? 20 THE WITNESS: Page 2 of 4, okay, all 21 right, fine. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: This is still on May 23 the 18th of 1989. 24 THE WITNESS: All right. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 2 Q: And page 2 of that excerpt where your 3 name appears. It starts with: 4 "This is an unbelievable response." 5 A: Yes, yes. 6 Q: And third line down begins: 7 "The Minister contacted her employees, 8 Ontario Provincial Police officers, on 9 two (2) occasions enquiring about the 10 arrest of a friend's son. She has 11 endorsed an investigation of her 12 activities by people answerable to her 13 contrary to everything she tells us she 14 stands for. She is guilty of terrible 15 judgment if nothing worse, and I ask 16 her, is she prepared to do the right 17 thing and submit her resignation to the 18 Premier, Mr. Peterson, pending an 19 independent investigation of her 20 actions?" 21 And that was your position at the time, 22 that she should submit her resignation, right? 23 A: It was. 24 Q: And she should submit her resignation 25 because of her poor judgment in, at the very least,


1 giving the appearance that she was influencing the OPP. 2 A: That's right. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: If I can turn to the next page over, 7 page 3 of 4. And two-thirds (2/3's) of the way down, 8 after -- following a question by you, Ms. Smith starts by 9 answering: 10 "I would point out..." 11 Do you see that? 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: And in the -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- second paragraph, I want to refer 16 you to, of her comments. Ms. Smith says: 17 "I wanted to reassure this person. By 18 doing so I believe I protected the 19 police as well as myself because I was 20 able to reassure them that, indeed, 21 their conduct had been excellent and 22 that he was in safe and secure hands." 23 And your question following that is: 24 "I think there is a question of public 25 confidence in the administration of


1 justice in Ontario and certainly this 2 is an assault against public confidence 3 in respect to the system, there is no 4 question about it." 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, again, I want to reemphasize 9 that again what you're referring to there is not 10 necessarily -- it's her actions in -- in attending the 11 police Detachment and giving, at the very least, an 12 appearance of influence that concerned you and that gave 13 rise to your comments here; is that right? 14 A: Partially right. But there were 15 other circumstances surrounding that, which being -- my 16 memory being refreshed reading this about her -- her 17 original justification not standing up to scrutiny. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: Meeting the parent in the parking 20 lot, still proceeding and then following with another 21 phone call. So I think there were -- certainly the fact 22 that she did what she did, but there were extenuating 23 circumstances surrounding it, as well, that were part of 24 the -- the concern. 25 Q: She did what she did and she wasn't


1 forthcoming with it, as she should have been? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Right. Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 5 Smith? 6 MR. IAN SMITH: I'm just, you know, the 7 Commission's got enough to inquire into -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. IAN SMITH: -- without going into 10 every breach of protocol by a Solicitor General. If My 11 Friend has a point -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 13 MR. IAN SMITH: -- that he wants to put 14 to the Witness -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He should 16 get to it. 17 MR. IAN SMITH: -- he should get to it. 18 Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I was going 20 to say, certainly you can condense -- 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the Smith 23 incident -- 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes, and I'm -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- without


1 going through the whole Hansard. 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you can, 4 it would be helpful. 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right. I -- I'll try 6 to do so. I don't think I have that much more to go -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well that -- 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- there's a couple of 9 entries, but I should be done within five (5) or ten (10) 10 minutes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 14 Q: Now, I think Mr. Falconer, and I 15 think you accepted this analogy, it's not whether you 16 take the bribe -- not just -- just whether you take the 17 bribe, it's whether it was offered. You accepted that. 18 It's not the -- the -- it's problematic if 19 influence is accepted, but it's also problematic if 20 influence is exerted, right, in -- in a police situation 21 with government? 22 A: Yes, I think that's true. 23 Q: I think I've seen analogy -- it -- it 24 doesn't make sense to say that you went to a ball game 25 but didn't watch. Would that -- that be fair as a way to


1 characterize the problem? 2 A: Not necessarily. I don't -- don't 3 see the linkages between the two (2) comments. 4 Q: All right. I think Mr. Rae referred 5 to that in one (1) of the -- 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: -- debates on this issue and which 8 may have been apt. But I want to turn you now, a couple 9 of days later. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is it 11 necessary, that's the point? Is it necessary to go 12 through each excerpt? 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you not 15 just get to the point? I mean -- 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, I'll skip to one 17 very near the end then, Mr. Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 23 Q: Now, quite a few pages in, if you 24 could find the entries for the 25th of May. 25 A: Is there a page number?


1 Q: And specifically page 5 of 6? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Okay. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: 5 of 6? Yes, I have it. 10 Q: Sir, I'm just -- Mr. Millar's trying 11 to find the specific entry. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: And if I could refer you to the last 16 paragraph on that page. And you're quoted there, Mr. 17 Runciman, as saying: 18 "I think that tells it all right there. 19 Obviously the Premier is telling us 20 that his minister conform to the 21 guidelines. He does not know what she 22 said. He does not know what the police 23 officer said to her. There is a..." 24 And then it goes on to talk about 25 guidelines.


1 And I take it that another problem that 2 you had in that situation was that the Premier, who is a 3 senior politician in the province, didn't take proper 4 steps to ascertain the facts of the situation, right? 5 A: That's fair. 6 Q: And is it your position that the 7 Premier should have taken steps to ascertain the facts of 8 the situation and determine what was said? 9 A: I believe that's fair. 10 Q: And was it your position in 1995, 11 that where there is an allegation of political 12 interference, that both the Premier and the Solicitor 13 General and possibly other Cabinet ministers have a 14 responsibility to inquire about the details surrounding 15 those allegations? 16 A: I guess one could make that argument 17 and that's what you're doing, but I didn't see it in that 18 way, still don't see it in that way. I was party to, I 19 guess you could say, that -- that allegation in the sense 20 that I attended the meeting which it seems to, 21 essentially, have flowed from. 22 And from my perspective there was -- these 23 were nothing more than allegations and rumours and there 24 was no merit to -- to the allegations and I stand by that 25 today.


1 Q: All right. Ms. Smith was also taking 2 the position that there was no merit to the allegation 3 that her actions were inappropriate. And -- and a 4 similarity between that situation and Ipperwash was that 5 the OPP were both saying in both cases that they were not 6 influenced. 7 And take it that one of the factors that 8 you relied upon with this par -- Ipperwash in -- in 9 deciding not to further investigate these allegations of 10 political involvement was that the police said that there 11 was not political involvement; is that right? 12 A: The police certainly indicated, at 13 every stage, there was no political influence with 14 respect to operational decision making. 15 Q: And these are the police that would 16 be -- potentially be asked to investigate allegations of 17 political involvement which might implicate you, their 18 alternate boss, right? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: Did you ever ask any other police 21 force or any other entity to undertake an investigation 22 of these allegations? 23 A: I did not. I mean, there are 24 processes available, as well. This involved the Minister 25 of the Crown very directly. There are processes


1 available through the police complaints system whereby an 2 individual could have launched a complaint, a formal 3 complaint through the -- through the system and it would 4 have been dealt with. 5 Ultimately it could have been dealt with 6 by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. 7 So, there were avenues available -- 8 Q: Did you -- 9 A: -- which could have been exercised 10 and to my knowledge were not. 11 Q: Did you or anybody on your behalf 12 exercise any of those options? 13 A: No. We were not the complainants. 14 Q: You were the people who were aware of 15 these allegations and had some responsibility to find out 16 whether they had some merit or not; isn't that right? 17 A: We may have advised the complainants, 18 I can't recall. I know certainly, in my own riding when 19 individuals phone to complain about treatment by a police 20 service, we -- we provide the forms and the fax numbers, 21 the e-mail addresses of the -- of the Civilian Commission 22 on Police Services and try to guide them through if they 23 don't want to directly deal with the Police Service 24 itself; how they can directly launch their complaint with 25 the -- with the Civilian Commission.


1 Q: Are -- are you telling me that it's 2 not the Solicitor General's responsibility or onus, but 3 some private citizen's onus to make a complaint where 4 there's allegations of political involvement in a police 5 operation to the Civilian Commission? 6 A: I guess it depends on the -- on the - 7 - on the ingredients of the -- of the complaint. If -- 8 if there was very strong merit and it was very clear, I 9 think that at that point the Solicitor General, whomever 10 it might be, could make a decision to initiate that kind 11 of an investigation. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Downard, 13 I think we've gone as far as we need to go on this in 14 this area. I think you made a point and I think you've 15 made it -- 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I just have one more 17 question which arises from the last question. If I could 18 ask it and if it's objected to then we can deal with it. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 21 Q: But do -- can I -- do I take your 22 answer as saying that the fact that somebody can initiate 23 a police complaint relieves the Solicitor General of its 24 responsibility to investigate situations where there's 25 such allegations?


1 A: Well, there are processes put in 2 place. I mean, every complaint cannot be reviewed and 3 dealt with by any Solicitor General, whomever that might 4 be. 5 The process was put in place to deal with 6 civilian complaints and there are appeal processes 7 involved. And if it was a very significant matter of -- 8 of public import, I think at that point, perhaps, the -- 9 a Solicitor General might consider intervening and 10 ensuring that political influence wasn't exercised. 11 But you do have an independent body in 12 place, and that opportunity is there and to my knowledge 13 was never utilized. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 15 Do you have any other areas, Mr. Zbogar? 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Just a couple, very 17 quickly. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 21 Q: Now, just following up on an answer 22 some time ago, the Solicitor General never caused an 23 investigation to be initiated into the allegations of 24 political involvement, nor I understand it, did any other 25 -- the Premier or anybody else on the -- on behalf of the


1 Government, initiate such steps prior to the calling of 2 this Inquiry; is that right? 3 A: That's right. I believe so, yes. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 8 Thank you, Mr. Runciman. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Zbogar. 11 We come now to, Mr. Smith. Do you have 12 any questions, Mr. Smith? 13 MR. IAN SMITH: I do. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you. Can 15 you give me some indication of how long you might be? 16 MR. IAN SMITH: Ten (10) or fifteen (15) 17 minutes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 MR. IAN SMITH: Hopefully shorter. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IAN SMITH: 23 Q: Mr. Runciman, can we start with one 24 of the last things first, and that is Exhibit -- the last 25 document to have been made an Exhibit, P-1008, that's the


1 handwritten notes of Mr. Vervoort, My Friend Mr. Zbogar 2 took you to. 3 A: All right. 4 Q: And he brought your attention to the 5 bullet point: 6 "Lots of political pressure. Strong in 7 house comments by Premier/Sol Gen." 8 I just want to -- this is probably clear 9 for everyone, but do you have any recollection of making 10 any strong statements on the Ipperwash issue up to and 11 including September 5th? 12 A: None at all. 13 Q: And to your knowledge, were there any 14 in- House comments to that point? 15 A: I don't believe so. 16 Q: Was the House sitting? 17 A: The Legislature, when you're talking 18 about in-House, the Legislature, or -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: The House was not sitting, no. 21 Q: Thank you. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Now, you'll recall some questions


1 from Mr. Falconer wherein he explored the issue of you 2 being an observer with respect to a couple of issues. Do 3 you recall that? 4 A: I do. 5 Q: And is it fair to say, Mr. Runciman, 6 that a lot of the time when you are a Minister of the 7 Crown, that you spend your time observing things; is that 8 fair? 9 A: Observing and listening, yes. 10 Q: And one of the things you're doing 11 when you're observing is trying to decide whether you 12 need to act; is that fair? 13 A: I think that's fair. 14 Q: And it would be fair to say, wouldn't 15 it, that in respect of your oversight duties of the OPP, 16 you observe what they're doing, you observe what you're 17 told, you listen to the briefings and you decide whether 18 or not you need to act; is that fair? 19 A: That's fair. 20 Q: Now, in respect of this issue of the 21 mugs and T-shirts, can I draw your attention to Exhibit 22 P-998 which is, I think, one of the loose documents 23 that's in front of you. It's Inquiry Document 2001000 24 and it's an MSGSC issue note dated April 3rd, '96. 25 A: What was the number, sorry?


1 Q: P-998. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: I have it. I have it. Yes. 6 Q: And in this issue note, you see the 7 third bullet point that you're advised that the 8 Professional Standards Bureau of the OPP is conducting an 9 investigation. 10 Do you see that? 11 A: I do. 12 Q: And then the next bullet point that: 13 "Enhanced training and cultural 14 sensitivity is being conducted and 15 related policies are under review." 16 Is that fair? 17 A: That's fair. 18 Q: And did you think that those 19 responses to the conduct that had been described for you, 20 that is with respect to the mugs and T-shirts was 21 appropriate? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And was it sufficient in your view, 24 at that time? 25 A: At that time it was, yes.


1 Q: And were you prepared to rely on the 2 good offices of the OPP to pursue that? 3 A: I was. 4 Q: Thank you. Now turning, a little bit 5 later in the game, on the same issue, if I could ask you 6 to address -- to turn to rather Exhibit P-1000 which I 7 think is another loose document. It's... 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: It's a later note on the same topic. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: December 18th. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. IAN SMITH: 15 Q: December 18, 1996. Do you see that 16 date? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: And if I -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And you'll see on the first page the 21 third bullet point indicates: 22 "The Professional Standards Bureau 23 investigated and corrective action was 24 taken against four (4) OPP Members." 25 And then if I could ask you to turn to the


1 second page the bullet -- it's pretty much right in the 2 middle of the page, halfway down the page: 3 "The OPP developed and is delivering a 4 four (4) day presentation for members 5 in relation to First Nations culture 6 and spirituality. Members assigned to 7 duties involving First Nations people 8 or detachments in proximity to a First 9 Nations territory will be given 10 priority status to receive this 11 training which is an enhancement to the 12 general cultural awareness training 13 given to all police officers." 14 And you observe that the OPP had taken 15 these steps; did you? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And again did you think that they 18 were appropriate steps to have been taken at the time? 19 A: I did. 20 Q: And did you think that they were 21 adequate and sufficient steps? 22 A: I believe we did. We were convinced 23 that they were at the time. 24 Q: And again were you prepared to rely 25 on the professionals at the OPP and the professionals


1 they'd engaged to insist -- to assist them on this topic? 2 A: Develop -- develop the programs, yes. 3 Q: Thank you. Dealing with this issue 4 of you being an observer on a more general level in 5 respect of the Ipperwash files and stepping -- going to a 6 higher elevation than -- than just the mugs and T-shirts. 7 It's fair to say isn't it, Mr. Runciman, 8 that you were an observer in -- in part because there 9 were operational issues involved and you didn't want to 10 get involved in that for all the reasons we've been 11 hearing about; is that fair? 12 A: In -- in the sense that operational - 13 - you say operational issues were involved in terms of 14 the -- the monitoring of the Park; that's what you're 15 referencing? 16 Q: Well, I -- I guess to -- to be more 17 pointed, you didn't what to be seen to be directing the 18 OPP on an -- on an operational issue? 19 A: Never. 20 Q: And in addition, isn't it fair to say 21 that other ministries were more directly implicated in 22 the file? 23 In other words, that the Ministry of 24 Natural Resources had responsibility for the Park and the 25 Ministry of the Attorney General had carriage of the


1 issue of the injunction and its relationship with ONAS. 2 Is that fair? 3 A: That's fair. 4 Q: So to that extent your ministry took 5 a bit of a back seat. Can I put it that way? 6 A: I think that's correct. 7 Q: So when you attend a meeting like the 8 dining room meeting or -- I'm not sure that there were 9 other meetings like it -- so when you attended the dining 10 room meeting you were there as you said as an observer to 11 see if you needed to act in any way. 12 Is that fair? 13 A: Needed to act if there was any input 14 required, any advice required. 15 Q: Right. And I take it given that you 16 didn't say anything at that meeting or at least not very 17 much you didn't see the need for that action? 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: And is that because you didn't hear 20 what you thought at the time was any inappropriate 21 informational information -- sorry, operational 22 information coming up the chain? 23 A: Certainly I -- I didn't consider the 24 information we heard as -- as operational information -- 25 Q: And --


1 A: -- it was sort of a status report on 2 -- on what was occurring in the Park at that point in 3 time. 4 Q: Thank you. And then going the other 5 way back down the line you didn't see any inappropriate 6 direction being given to the OPP at that meeting did you? 7 A: Absolutely not. 8 Q: And to the extent that the decision 9 that's made at the end of that meeting; that is to get an 10 injunction on -- on a -- on a quick basis did you see 11 that as any kind of inappropriate direction to the OPP? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Or any kind of direction to the OPP 14 at all? 15 A: None at all, no. 16 Q: In fact it was a direction to the 17 Attorney General wasn't it? 18 A: With implications for the OPP at some 19 point but at that stage not. 20 Q: Right. And just getting to that 21 issue of the implications for the OPP, you were asked 22 some questions about, based on a transcript of a 23 telephone call, about the impact of the decision to get - 24 - to get an injunction on a -- on a speedy basis and how 25 it might have impacted the officers who were on the


1 ground. 2 And you gave an answer that indicated a 3 certain chain of events, a kind of a hypothetical chain 4 of events where a decision is made which leads to an 5 application on a speedy basis which leads to the issuance 6 of an injunction which leads to the police doing 7 something and so on and so forth. 8 Do you remember giving that answer? 9 A: Yes, I do. 10 Q: And just -- do you have any idea 11 relative to that conversation that you were taken to? 12 Whether or not the injunction had been issued at that 13 time? 14 A: I -- I really don't know. 15 Q: Okay. But is it an important part of 16 your answer that in this -- in the chain of events that 17 the -- the injunction gets issued and then the police 18 have to act on it? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Thank you. Did the discussion in the 21 -- did the direction that was given at -- at the end of 22 the dining room meeting have anything to do with how the 23 injunction was to be enforced by the police? 24 A: I don't believe so. I -- I think I 25 indicated in my earlier testimony and I wasn't sure that


1 it was discussed at this meeting or that I heard about it 2 at some point. I know testimonies indicated it was 3 mentioned by the judge when he issued the injunction that 4 -- that there was -- I recall at some point the whole 5 issue about delivery by helicopter I believe. 6 And that -- but when that occurred I -- I 7 really can't say. 8 Q: Except there is evidence to suggest 9 that's after the fact you don't dispute it. 10 A: No. No, I don't, no. 11 Q: Now with respect to that meeting, it 12 seems now, I think it's undisputed Mr. Fox was present. 13 And I just want to ask you a couple of questions about 14 what you thought his role was at the Ministry. 15 And is it -- and I'm going -- I'm going to 16 be drawing some -- from some of the evidence of -- of 17 your Deputy Ministry, Ms. Todres. 18 Would you agree with her evidence that 19 she was of the view that Fox reported to her? 20 A: He was certainly in -- in her office. 21 How that alignment worked, I'm not sure whether he would 22 report to a senior OPP officer. Certainly what the terms 23 of the secondment were in terms of the reporting 24 mechanism, I'm not really clear. 25 My only view of Mr. Fox was that he was


1 working out of her office on -- on the First Nations 2 policing contract. So, no, I wouldn't dispute her 3 version. I -- I can't say that I really knew what the 4 reporting relationships were. 5 Q: Did you have a view as to whether Mr. 6 Fox would be aware of the sensitivity of reporting 7 operational information up the chain and political 8 direction back down? 9 A: No. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: And did you know that Mr. Fox was 14 likely to be reporting on the dining room meeting after 15 it occurred to Inspector Carson? 16 A: I did not, no. 17 Q: And would you share having read the 18 transcript and heard the tape, would you share Ms. 19 Todres' conclusion that that telephone call and what he 20 reported in it was -- represented a lapse in judgment? 21 A: I think -- I think my reading and I 22 mentioned this in I think when we were in cross- 23 examinations earlier, that my interpretation of the 24 transcript with Carson and Fox was that Carson was 25 expressing reservations about what was happening.


1 In my view, that wasn't his role. His 2 role was, as I said, First Nations contracts. And we had 3 an individual appointed as a liaison officer within the 4 Ministry and if that kind of a communication was to 5 occur, it seems to me that that would have been the 6 appropriate avenue. 7 So, yes, I agree with the deputy -- former 8 deputy. 9 Q: Thank you. Those are all my 10 questions, Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 12 Mr. Smith. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I have just two (2) 14 questions. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 16 Millar? 17 18 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 19 Q: The first question relates to Exhibit 20 P-1000, Inquiry document 3001775 and the issue note of 21 December 18, 1996. 22 Do you have that, sir? 23 A: That's 998? P-998? 24 Q: No, 1000, sir. 25 A: I have 1000, but I thought you


1 referenced another one as well. 2 Q: No, 1000. 3 A: Okay, I have that, yes. 4 Q: And My Friend Mr. Rosenthal asked you 5 about the comment: 6 "Civil action by family. Further 7 comment inappropriate." 8 Do you recall that, sir. 9 A: Yes, I do. 10 Q: And with respect to the issue of 11 comments in relation to civil actions, with respect to 12 either the Government or police, was there a position 13 taken by the Government with respect to Court actions 14 that were outstanding? 15 A: Civil actions? 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: I'm not really sure whether there was 18 a -- any policy. I think that, to this day, is the 19 policy of governments and various political stripes. 20 Q: The policy not to comment? 21 A: Not to comment. 22 Q: And the second question that I had, 23 could I take you, please, to the binder, and it's -- 24 firstly it's Tab 38, Mr. Runciman. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And you will recall being asked the - 2 - yesterday by Mr. Falconer, with respect to the e-mail 3 at Tab 32, it's Exhibit P-513, Inquiry Document 1000911, 4 in relation to persons being charged, arrest warrants 5 being issued with respect to individuals -- 6 A: I'd better refer back to it. 7 Q: Sure. Could you go back to -- 8 A: Tab 32? 9 Q: Tab 32, sir. 10 A: Oh yes, I recall that, yeah. 11 Q: And it's the third bullet from the 12 bottom. 13 "OPP investigation has identified three 14 (3) persons responsible for incidents 15 of damage and minor assault which 16 occurred during the takeover. Warrants 17 have been obtained for three (3) male 18 persons." 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And at Tab 38 is a copy of Exhibit P- 21 433, Inquiry document 1009044, and that's a press release 22 issued by the Ontario Provincial Police on September the 23 6th, 1995. And in the -- can you tell us, do you recall 24 receiving or seeing this press release on September 6th, 25 1995?


1 A: No, I don't. 2 Q: Thank you, those are my questions. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 4 very much, Mr. Millar. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And Mr. Runciman, I'd 6 like to thank you very much for attending and giving your 7 evidence over the last three (3) days. 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like to 10 repeat that as well. Thank you very much for coming and 11 giving us the benefit of your evidence. You're finished 12 now so -- 13 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thanks very much. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very kindly. 16 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 17 18 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Should we 21 take a short break? We really don't have much time. Is 22 Mr. -- is our next witness -- 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Our next witness is 24 here. It might be appropriate just to take a five (5) 25 minute break. We could get set up and our next --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 2 we'll take five (5) minutes to let you leave and let the 3 next witness come and then we'll go right into it. Thank 4 you. 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 6 for five (5) minutes. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 3:53 p.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 4:05 p.m. 10 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 12 resumed. Please be seated. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good afternoon. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 19 afternoon. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The Commission calls as 21 its next witness Christopher Hodgson. 22 23 CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS HODGSON, Sworn 24 25 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA:


1 Q: Mr. Hodgson, from June 26th, 1995 to 2 October 10th, 1997 you held the dual portfolios of 3 Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Northern 4 Development and Mines; is that right? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And that as the Minister of Natural 7 Resources, the Ontario Parks Program fell under your 8 jurisdiction? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And that program, in turn, included 11 responsibility for the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: I'd like to briefly review your 14 professional background. I understand that you graduated 15 with your Bachelor of Arts at the Honours Level in 16 History and Political Science from Trent University in 17 1985? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: You then worked as a real estate 20 agent with ReMax in Ontario from 1987 to 1991? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: You were then warden of the County of 23 Haliburton and Reeve of the Township of Dysart from 1992 24 to '93? 25 A: I was the Reeve from '91 until '93


1 and I was the warden '92/'93. 2 Q: Thank you. And did that -- was that 3 your first elected position? 4 A: Yes, it was. 5 Q: Then in 1994, you turned to 6 provincial politics? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: You were elected as MPP for Victoria 9 Haliburton in March of 1994 as a member of the 10 Progressive Conservative Party? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And what gave rise to your interest 13 in provincial politics? 14 A: It was a local concern. I come from 15 the small town Haliburton. There was a number of things 16 that our town lacked and started to get involved in 17 politics to see if we could bring about a better hospital 18 and better schools and basic infrastructure around sewage 19 systems, et cetera. 20 Q: And while you were the Member of 21 Provincial Parliament, I understand that you held various 22 positions, including critic for Natural Resources from 23 April 15th, 1994 to April 28th, 1995? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And what qualifications or experience


1 did you have that recommended you to that position? 2 A: I think we probably had a small 3 caucus and the Premier had to divvy up critic 4 responsibilities and that was the one that I was chosen 5 for. 6 Q: The leader of your party, you mean? 7 A: I believe it was Ernie Eves, 8 actually, the House leader at the time. 9 Q: House leader, thank you. And I 10 understand that you are also a recreational hunter and 11 fisher? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And as a hunter, I take it that you 14 have owned or -- one (1) or more hunting firearms? 15 A: I've had a shotgun, I guess, since I 16 first got my hunting license, I've had the same one, and 17 a deer rifle for probably twenty-five (25) years. 18 Q: All right. Now, what was your role 19 as critic for Natural Resources? 20 A: You are sort of the shadow 21 government, so you question what the Government of the 22 day is doing, their minister, particularly around MNR. 23 Q: All right. I understand that while 24 MPP, you were also a member of the Standing Committee on 25 Regulations and Private Bills from April 28th, 1994, to


1 April 28th, 1995? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And then there was a general 4 election, the result of which your party was elected to 5 the Government? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: With Mr. Harris as the Premier? 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: Yes? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And you were appointed Minister of 12 Natural Resources and Minister of Northern Development 13 and Mines? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Who was responsible for your 16 appointment as Minister? 17 A: That would be the Premier. 18 Q: And what -- what qualifications 19 and/or experience or other factors did you have that 20 recommended you to these portfolios? 21 A: Well, you'd have to ask the Premier 22 specifically, but I assume that he thought I did a good 23 job as critic and would do a good job as minister. 24 Q: Did you have any concern with respect 25 to accepting these appointments?


1 A: No. 2 Q: I understand that on October the 3 10th, 1997 you became Deputy Government House Leader? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: You also became Chair of the 6 Management Board of Cabinet? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you held that position until 9 February 8th, 2001? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And while you maintained your 12 portfolio as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, 13 you were no longer the Minister of Natural Resources? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: I understand that you held the Deputy 16 Government position -- House Leader position and the 17 Minister of Northern Development and Mines portfolios 18 until June 17th, 1999? 19 A: I believe there was an election then, 20 yes. 21 Q: And I also understand that on 22 February the 8th, 2001 you became Minister of Municipal 23 Affairs and Housing and you held that post until January 24 13th, 2003? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: You left Cabinet in 2003 and did not 2 seek re-election? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: What is your current occupation? 5 A: I'm president of the Ontario Mining 6 Association. 7 Q: Is there any significant component of 8 your current position that requires direct dealings with 9 First Nations? 10 A: I have extensive dealings with First 11 Nations. 12 Q: And in what -- how so? 13 A: A lot of mining takes place in rural 14 areas of Ontario. A lot of those areas, the population 15 at hand is First Nation residents. 16 Q: All right. And what's the nature of 17 your interaction? 18 A: We have various seminars, meetings, 19 conferences. There's a lot of common interest. 20 Q: And whose interests do you represent 21 at these meetings? 22 A: I'm employed by the mining companies. 23 Q: Now, moving to the 1995 election, if 24 I may, I wonder if you would turn to Tab 3 of your brief; 25 it's Exhibit P-922. It's a document entitled, The Common


1 Sense Revolution, May 1994. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: Do you have that in front of you? 4 A: Yes, I do. 5 Q: Thank you. Do you recognize this 6 document? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 Q: What was its purpose? 9 A: This was our campaign platform that 10 we got elected in June of 1995 campaigning on. 11 Q: All right. Did you play any direct 12 role in the development of the policies and objectives 13 outlined in this document? 14 A: Some role. I was in part of some of 15 the consultations and town halls and arena auditoriums 16 and church basements. 17 Q: All right. Is it fair to say that 18 you subscribed to the positions set out in this document 19 as Minister of Natural Resources? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Does The Common Sense Revolution 22 document specifically address Aboriginal rights or 23 concerns? 24 A: I believe it does. 25 Q: And in what way?


1 A: It talks about the legal 2 Constitutional rights of First Nations and Aboriginal 3 peoples. 4 Q: Do you recall where that -- that is 5 addressed? 6 A: It's in the companion pieces of Voice 7 for the North and in the Natural Resource section. 8 Q: All right. Not in this document but 9 in companion documents. 10 A: Not in this document particularly, 11 no. 12 Q: Thank you. 13 A: It's been a number of years since I 14 went through this document in detail, so. 15 Q: Fair enough. I wonder if we might 16 then move on to Tab 4; it's Exhibit P-924. It's a 17 document entitled, Bringing Common Sense to Community 18 Development. 19 Do you recognize this document? 20 A: I would have seen this document, yes. 21 Q: Do you have any understanding as to 22 what the purpose of this document was? 23 A: There was a series of discussion 24 papers that were provided called, New Directions, and 25 subsequent to releasing the Common Sense Revolution,


1 these became companion pieces to the Common Sense 2 Revolution. 3 There was only so much room you can put in 4 one pamphlet, so. 5 Q: This was a companion piece? 6 A: There's a number of them. There's 7 some for rural Ontario and there's others for Northern 8 Ontario, education I believe and others. 9 Q: All right. Now did you play any role 10 in -- in informing the position set out in this document? 11 A: Not particularly, other than some of 12 the consultations mainly around rural Ontario. 13 Q: Now I wonder if you would go to page 14 2 -- or the second page, I should say. It's the third 15 page in. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I think it's actually page 5 at 18 the bottom. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: There are three (3) points at the 21 top. Do you see that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And the first point reads as follows: 24 "Strike a balance between Native 25 hunting and fishing rights and


1 Ontario's conservation priorities, 2 insist on the same conservation rules 3 for all Ontarians." 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Do you have any understanding as to 6 what that statement -- or how that statement informed 7 conservative policies and programs with respect to 8 hunting and fishing rights as between Native and non- 9 Native Ontarians? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Can you tell me? 12 A: What it meant was that conservation 13 had to be at the forefront. That was the species could 14 not be at risk. 15 Q: All right. So as -- as the top 16 governing factor in determining these policies, you were 17 looking at conservation as opposed to Aboriginal or non 18 Aboriginal rights? 19 A: No. I think the way this is framed 20 is in recognition of the laws of the country when we 21 brought back the Constitution. There was a change in the 22 laws of Canada, is my understanding. 23 There used to be Federal Provincial Law 24 Treaty and Aboriginal Rights. When we patriot the 25 Constitution, Treaty and Aboriginal Rights were ahead of


1 Federal and Provincial laws. 2 How that interpreted down to hunting and 3 fishing regulations, the backstop in the decisions from 4 the court was that conservation had to be upheld as well. 5 Q: All right. 6 A: It wasn't fine, but it was to be a 7 paramount issue. 8 Q: And if you look at page 17 of that 9 document, a couple of pages further in under, "Hunting 10 and Fishing." 11 A: Page 17? 12 Q: That's right. 13 A: Same document? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: And it reads as follows: 17 "Native Canadians have traditionally 18 hunted and fished for food for 19 themselves and their families. For 20 many Aboriginal groups it's still the 21 basis of their economy. The right of 22 Natives to fish or hunt for food has 23 been confirmed by the Supreme Court of 24 Canada. 25 But hunting and fishing are important


1 to many non Native Ontarians. Across 2 Ontario, hunting and fishing provide a 3 major tourist attraction for people 4 from around the world. 5 Many thousands of jobs depend on that 6 tourism. Of course, conserving 7 wildlife is vital to our environment. 8 We believe that the challenge to 9 government is to balance these 10 sometimes competing interests. 11 The first priority must be 12 conservation. Unless our natural 13 resources are preserved today, no one 14 will be able to depend on them or enjoy 15 them tomorrow." 16 Now, can you tell me, did this statement 17 inform your policies as Minister of Natural Resources 18 with respect to hunting and fishing when it came to 19 balancing the Native and non Ontarian -- non-Native 20 Ontarians? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And how so? 23 A: The law had to be followed; whatever 24 rights for First Nations and Aboriginal peoples, they had 25 to be upheld. And conservation of the species had to be


1 preserved as well. 2 Q: Was there also a -- a third interest 3 that required address, that you address in this document? 4 A: Well that's -- you're managing people 5 so you have to balance the conservation and who has the 6 priority in lots of cases. 7 First Nations Aboriginal people have a 8 right to hunt and fish and if the species can absorb more 9 harvesting, then others can participate and that 10 balancing is -- is difficult but that's the role of the 11 Government. 12 Q: Was the third factor that you had to 13 balance the right of non Native Ontarians to fish and to 14 participate in the tourism industry? 15 A: That's an important industry in 16 Ontario and that was one of the considerations that we 17 wanted to take into account. 18 Q: And was there a perception by your 19 party that there existed an imbalance with respect to the 20 three (3) interests that we've just identified? 21 A: I wouldn't -- that's too strong a 22 term. I think there was a lot of concern in the general 23 public about the direction of fish and wildlife policies 24 in the early 1990's and we wanted to make it clear what 25 our position would be if we were elected.


1 Q: Did you subscribe to your party's 2 views as outlined in this document during your term as a 3 Minister? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Okay. And did the concern that there 6 be a balancing of these three (3) interests inform what 7 policies and positions you formulated as Minister of 8 Natural Resources? 9 A: I tried to. 10 Q: How -- how so? 11 A: Oh, there's numerous examples of 12 issues that had to be resolved, decisions that were made 13 to try to balance those interests. 14 The Algonquians at Golden Lake, for 15 example. We signed an agreement with Chief White Duck on 16 a harvesting agreement which balanced the conservation of 17 the species with -- with their legal rights. 18 Q: I wonder if you would next go to Tab 19 5, please. It's a document entitled, A Voice for the 20 North: Report of the Mike Harris Northern Focus Tour, 21 dated January 1995. 22 It's Exhibit P-925. And are you familiar 23 with this document? 24 A: Somewhat, yes. 25 Q: And can you tell me what the purpose


1 of this document was? 2 A: This was a -- a campaign appendium to 3 the Common Sense revolution. It was policies for 4 Northern Ontario. 5 Q: All right. Did you play any role in 6 forming the positions set out in this document? 7 A: No, I didn't. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: I wonder if you would go to page 2, 12 under the heading, Native Issues, there appears the 13 following statement, and I'm looking at the last 14 paragraph: 15 "In many instances, Northern focus 16 found that Queen's Park was alienating 17 non Natives. People believe that two 18 (2) systems of conservation law are 19 being created, one for natives and 20 another for non Natives." 21 Do you see that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And if you go to page 11, which is 24 the next page in this production, third paragraph reads 25 as follows:


1 "The Ontario Federation of Anglers and 2 Hunters told Northern Focus in Thunder 3 Bay that the rate of Native harvesting 4 of fish and game was depleting 5 resources more quickly than that of non 6 Natives. It was argued that such 7 natural resources should belong equally 8 to all Canadians." 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Do you see that? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: All right. Do you have any 13 understanding as to how this statement would inform or 14 informed the policies that you had, that you developed, 15 under your tenure as Minister of Natural Resources? 16 A: No, these were public perceptions 17 that are documented. And our job was to make sure that 18 there wasn't this antagonism when we were done. 19 Q: All right. And how did you attempt 20 to rectify that? 21 A: Mostly through education and 22 negotiation. 23 Q: All right. Would you agree that 24 these paragraphs appear to suggest that there was a 25 perception, recorded by your party, that there was an


1 imbalance in fishing and hunting rights as favouring 2 Aboriginal over non- Aboriginal hunters and fishers from 3 a conversation policy viewpoint? 4 A: This is a compilation of public 5 feedback that they heard when they consulted for policies 6 for the North. 7 Q: Yes, and do you agree with my 8 statement or disagree with it? 9 A: I believe that it probably, 10 accurately reflects what they heard, and so I'd agree. 11 Q: All right. And was this a fair 12 characterization of your party's perception of this 13 issue? 14 A: I couldn't categorize that. I didn't 15 have any involvement in drafting this. 16 Q: Was it -- is it a fair 17 characterization of your view of the situation when you 18 became Minister of Natural Resources? 19 A: No, I didn't really have an opinion 20 at that time. I wasn't from northern Ontario but I tried 21 to learn as much about the community as I could. 22 Q: All right. Now, I'd like to focus on 23 your term from -- as Minister of Natural Resources and of 24 Northern Development and Mines for a moment. 25 You -- you have testified at -- that at


1 the time of the Ipperwash Park occupation you held both 2 those portfolios? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: From an administrative view point did 5 you have separate deputy ministers, one (1) for each 6 portfolio? 7 A: Yes, I did, separate offices. 8 Q: Who were they? 9 A: Ron Vrancart for the Ministry of 10 Natural Resources, Don Obonsawin from the Minister of 11 Northern Development -- 12 Q: All right. 13 A: -- and Mines. 14 Q: Now, focussing on Northern 15 Development and Mines for a moment, can you just give us 16 a brief background of Don Obonsawin? 17 A: Don Obonsawin was my Deputy. He had 18 been a deputy for a number of years in the Civil Service 19 pool that -- I'm sure if he was deputy at Ottawa or not 20 but he had federal experience as well as provincial. 21 He's a First Nation person and he was invaluable. He -- 22 I'm still friends with Don. He was very professional and 23 did a great job. 24 Q: All right. And was there any 25 significant component to this portfolio which required


1 direct negotiations and discussions with First Nations? 2 A: A tremendous amount. 3 Q: Can you describe it? 4 A: We had the Heritage Fund and we dealt 5 with First Nations in Aboriginal communities across 6 northern Ontario so there was ongoing meetings and grant 7 requests that had to be approved and sometimes 8 negotiated. 9 Q: Did you also have two (2) executive 10 assistants? 11 A: Yes, I did. 12 Q: And who where they? 13 A: Barry Devolin for Northern 14 Development and Mines and Jeff Bangs for the Ministry of 15 Natural Resources. 16 Q: All right. And focussing again, 17 briefly, on the Northern Development and Mines portfolio, 18 can you provide us with a brief background of Barry 19 Devolin? 20 A: Barry had his Masters in Political 21 Science and he taught politics in Upper State, New York. 22 He'd grown up in Haliburton. We'd been childhood friends 23 and we're still friends today. 24 Q: All right. Now, what were your 25 primary areas and -- and responsibilities as Minister of


1 Northern Development and Mines? 2 A: The primary responsibility was a 3 number of areas. One (1) was the telecommunications and 4 the Northland Rail. There was a Heritage Fund and also 5 the Ministry of Mines. 6 Q: Now, did you see any benefit to the 7 fact that you held a dual ministerial portfolio, 8 specifically the two (2) that you did, Natural Resources 9 and Northern Development and Mines? 10 A: Yeah, I thought there was a great 11 advantage to that. 12 Q: What was that? 13 A: Well, they -- for a large extent the 14 Natural Resources is focussed in northern Ontario and the 15 Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, there's a lot 16 of issues that come into conflict. 17 And it's -- I found it helpful that I 18 could resolve them without having to go to a number of 19 meetings with two (2) different ministers. So normally 20 the staff worked it out before it got to my level. 21 Q: All right. And on reflection was it 22 beneficial to have separate Deputy Ministers and 23 executive assistants devoted to your respective 24 ministerial portfolios as opposed to a common Deputy 25 Minister and executive assistant?


1 A: No, I felt that it was appropriate. 2 These are not large ministries compared to the Ministry 3 of Health, but they're large in the terms of the number 4 of issues that have to be dealt with. 5 Q: And then why did you find that 6 appropriate, then? 7 A: It allowed for each, for example, 8 Mines have a voice through their own Ministry and their 9 issues could have a proper, professional vetting from the 10 civil service. If there was a conflict with Natural 11 Resources, there was -- their interests were not 12 conflicted with that. 13 Q: All right. So it provided the 14 portfolio or the projects and programs with a stronger 15 voice and it minimized the opportunity for conflicts? 16 A: I felt it did, yes. 17 Q: Now, I'd like to focus on your 18 natural resources portfolio. 19 Did you bring to your portfolio as 20 Minister of Natural Resources any vision of how you would 21 like to influence that Ministry in terms of its programs 22 and priorities? 23 A: Not other than what we campaigned on. 24 I couldn't --not particularly, that's ten (10) years ago. 25 I can't recall exactly.


1 Q: Do you recall being provided with any 2 such priorities by the Premier or Cabinet? 3 A: Other than what we campaigned on in 4 the Common Sense Revolution and compendium documents, no. 5 Q: And can you tell me whether there was 6 anything that comes to mind from those documents which 7 specifically impacted Aboriginal interests? 8 A: There was probably a number of areas 9 where we had to work through. 10 Q: And can you give us some examples? 11 A: The Williams Treaty, for example. 12 The Algonquin -- hunting in Algonquin Park. Those are 13 two (2) that spring to mind. 14 Q: Okay. And what was the issue with 15 respect to hunting in Algonquin Park? 16 A: The First Nation was hunting on the 17 east side of Algonquin Park with permission from the 18 Provincial Government. There was concern about the 19 conservation of the species. 20 And so we had to resolve that. 21 Q: And what was the concern? 22 A: The concern was that there would be 23 over harvesting. 24 Q: All right. You were concerned that - 25 - that the Aboriginal people were over -- were hunting to


1 a degree that prejudiced the existence of the species? 2 A: That was the concern, yes. 3 Q: All right, and how -- was that 4 resolved? 5 A: Yes, it was. 6 Q: How? 7 A: Chief White Duck and his Council and 8 the Ministry of Natural Resources, represented by me, we 9 signed an agreement which brought in a licensing system 10 for white -- for moose at first, and there was counts 11 done on the number of moose and then the number of tags 12 that would be allocated came out of those studies. 13 And that was later followed up, I believe, 14 with white tail deer. 15 Q: Hmm hmm. And do you recall what time 16 frame you brought that through negotiation, the licensing 17 system into place? 18 A: Well, it was actually Chief White 19 Duck that brought the system into place but it would be 20 the Fall of '95, early '96. 21 Q: All right. And what was the issue 22 with respect to Williams Treaty? 23 A: Williams Treaty issue was around 24 harvesting of fish and hunting without a licence and it 25 had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and they had


1 ruled that the treaty was valid, that the Williams Treaty 2 had surrendered the rights to hunt and fish as an 3 Aboriginal right under the Treaty. 4 And they were still allowed to hunt and 5 fish without a licence on and off the shore of the 6 reserve but not in the territorial lands. 7 Q: All right, and -- and so what -- what 8 required resolution after that Decision? 9 A: We campaigned on upholding the 10 Supreme Court decision and we cancelled the former 11 government's agreement to allow hunting and fishing 12 without a licence. 13 Q: And can you tell me why -- why you 14 cancelled that agreement? 15 A: It was part of our party platform. 16 The reason behind it was that the Supreme Court had ruled 17 on that issue and we felt that if the law was to mean 18 anything, you should follow it. 19 The law shouldn't be a matter of 20 convenience, you pick the ones you like and if you don't 21 like it, just change the rules. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: If you're going to uphold Aboriginal 24 rights where Courts are defining them in places where, 25 you know, maybe the general public doesn't like it, you


1 have to abide by the law. 2 Then where things that you didn't like 3 were decided by the Supreme Court, you should abide by 4 those decisions; that was the reason behind it. 5 Q: Thank you. Just so I am 6 understanding, is it the case, then, that under the prior 7 government, notwithstanding the Supreme Court of Canada 8 Decision, that Government made a decision to allow 9 fishing without a license -- 10 A: And hunting. 11 Q: -- and hunting. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And that under your Ministry was seen 14 that that was an example of a favourable treatment with 15 respect to Aboriginal fishing and hunting rights? 16 A: No, it was -- we didn't look at it 17 that way. The issue had gone to the Supreme Court, the 18 Supreme Court had ruled. We felt that the law should be 19 applied and the law should be applied equally to all 20 Canadians; if the court ruled on this, it should be 21 upheld. 22 Q: In other words, this was a position 23 that you changed from the prior Government; is that fair? 24 A: It was the position that was in 25 response to the prior Government's response to the


1 Supreme Court decision. 2 Q: Yes. And you changed their position? 3 A: That's right. 4 Q: You changed your -- the approach 5 that -- 6 A: That's right. We campaigned, now 7 it's in our documents and when we were elected, it was my 8 job as Minister to affect that change. 9 Q: All right. And do you recall when 10 the agreements were cancelled by your Ministry? 11 A: I believe it was in August of 1995. 12 They had to give advance notice before the hunting season 13 if you're going to be fair to the First Nation peoples. 14 They'd have to have a chance to buy a license and get 15 tags. 16 Q: Now did you formulate any short term 17 goals which you wished to accomplish or at least to 18 attempt to accomplish in the first three (3) to six (6) 19 months of your term as Minister of Natural Resources? 20 A: We probably had checklists that we 21 wanted to accomplish. I can't recall them today. 22 Q: All right. Do you recall whether any 23 of them were specific or specifically affected Aboriginal 24 interests? 25 A: No, I can't.


1 Q: Would the Williams Treaty be one (1) 2 example? 3 A: It would have been one (1), yes -- 4 Q: All right. 5 A: -- that I've referred to already. 6 Q: Now, can you describe the basic 7 organization of your office? That is who were your key 8 personnel and how did your office function? 9 A: The office is similar to other 10 Ministries. On the political side we have Ni-a 11 (phonetic). I divided up policy people according to 12 issues. 13 Q: And do you recall what issues 14 specifically? 15 A: Well, Fish and Wildlife would have 16 been Art Sinclair. Forestry was -- later on it was Kelly 17 Mitchell. So it was based on function then we'd have a 18 communication person who was Rob Savage on the MNR side. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: And then on the MNDM side the 21 Executive Assistant was Barry Devolin. 22 Q: Let's just stick with the MNR for now 23 so we don't get confused. 24 A: Sure. Okay. And then you have a 25 caucus liaison person in the MNR, Leslie Shimmin who was


1 the caucus liaison person for me I believe. 2 Q: All right. Any other key personnel 3 within your office? 4 A: Marie Collette was my scheduler. 5 There was probably others. I hope they're not watching, 6 I don't want to offend them but I can't recall right now. 7 Q: All right. Now what did you do to 8 inform yourself as a new Minister with respect to the 9 main issues and operations of the Ministry of Natural 10 Resources? 11 A: I'm sorry, can you repeat the 12 question? 13 Q: What did you do to inform yourself 14 with respect to the -- what the main issues were and the 15 operations of the Ministry of Natural Resources? 16 A: Through the Deputy Minister, he 17 arranged a series of briefings that began the day I was 18 sworn in basically. We flew up to Thunder Bay to review 19 the fire operations. 20 And we would either travel together and go 21 on site inspections or we would have meetings at Queens 22 Park with various staff responsible for different 23 functions and operations. 24 Q: All right. Now did you implement a 25 particular management style as the Minister in relation


1 to your dealings with your key personnel? 2 A: Yes. I always like to deal directly 3 with the people in charge of the policy usually. 4 Q: All right. And was it a -- a very 5 formalistic structure or more informal? 6 A: More informal. 7 Q: All right. Now who was your 8 Executive Assistant for -- with respect to the Natural 9 Resources? 10 A: Jeff Bangs. 11 Q: When did Mr. Bangs first work on your 12 behalf? 13 A: We met during the by-election in 14 1994. 15 Q: And what skills and experience 16 recommended him to you as appropriate to be your 17 executive assistant in this portfolio? 18 A: He had a good education. He had also 19 worked for David Turnbull, Ernie Eves, and had experience 20 around Queen's Park. 21 Q: All right. And can you just tell us 22 what -- what was the process by which he was appointed 23 your executive assistant? 24 A: He was my executive assistant as an 25 MPP at Queen's Park. I thought he did a tremendous job.


1 He's bright and he works hard and I asked him to be my 2 executive assistant in the Ministry of Natural Resources. 3 Q: All right. So that was your 4 decision? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: What were his key responsibilities as 7 your executive assistant? 8 A: He would have made sure that I was 9 briefed on the issues. He was knowledgeable about events 10 that were taking place and basically making sure that I 11 was up to speed in House duties and coordinating the 12 office. 13 Q: And was he directly accountable to 14 you for his actions? 15 A: Yes, he was. 16 Q: How would you characterize your 17 working relationship with him? 18 A: Excellent. 19 Q: And did he have your implicit 20 authority to speak on your behalf at Government and 21 Ministry meetings? 22 A: Yes, he did. 23 Q: During the summer and fall of 1995 24 did you receive regular briefings from Mr. Bangs? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And was there a typical frequency 2 with which you received briefings? 3 A: Well, we talked every day. We'd 4 start in the morning and finish late at night. 5 Q: Okay. So throughout the day? 6 A: Throughout the day. 7 Q: And what was the format of those 8 briefings generally? 9 A: His office was next to mine. I'd 10 either go into his office or he'd come into mine. 11 Q: All right. Did you ever -- 12 A: If I was out of the office and he was 13 in Toronto we'd talk by phone. 14 Q: So, it was primarily verbal? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Did he ever provide you with written 17 briefings? 18 A: Not that I'm aware of. Normally it 19 was verbal and if there was briefings that had come from 20 the Ministry he would sometimes give them to me. There 21 was always a binder that went home at night. 22 Q: If he -- you mean passing along 23 other written briefings? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: All right. And it sounds like these


1 briefings were largely one on one briefings? 2 A: No, there was oftentimes a group of 3 people in the room. 4 Q: All right. Did you also have a 5 regular format with respect to group briefings then? 6 A: Yes, we had staff meetings on a 7 regular basis with all the staff. 8 Q: How regular? 9 A: Probably once every couple of weeks, 10 both Ministries. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: And at the end of the day how did you 15 rank Mr. Bangs' overall performance as your executive 16 assistant for this portfolio? 17 A: He was excellent. 18 Q: All right. And you testified that 19 Ron Vrancart was your Deputy Minister for Natural 20 Resources? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And did you have a sense of what his 23 background was prior to becoming your Deputy Minister? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: What was it?


1 A: At the time he'd been a Deputy in the 2 previous government for the Ministry of Natural 3 Resources. He'd come through the Parks branch of the 4 Ministry. That was my understanding. 5 Q: All right. And was this position 6 your first working relationship with Mr. Vrancart? 7 A: Yes, it was. 8 Q: By what process was Mr. Vrancart 9 appointed as your Deputy Minister? 10 A: That would have been through Rita 11 Burak, the Secretary of Cabinet. 12 Q: The Secretary of Cabinet? Did you 13 have any say in it? 14 A: No. 15 Q: To whom was he directly accountable 16 for his actions? 17 A: Probably to Rita Burak. 18 Q: All right. How would you 19 characterize your working relationship with him? 20 A: He was really good. 21 Q: And did he have your implicit 22 authority to speak on your behalf at internal government 23 and Ministry meetings? 24 A: He would have but we talked every day 25 pretty well.


1 Q: To ensure that you were on the same 2 page? 3 A: That's right. 4 Q: Okay. And so you received daily 5 briefings from him as well during the summer and fall? 6 A: We had a formal structure where once 7 a week Peter Allen, Jeff Bangs, and Ron Vrancart and 8 myself would go through issues or events. On an informal 9 basis we talked most days. 10 Q: All right. Just tell me again who 11 participated in the weekly formal briefings? 12 A: That would be Jeff Bangs, my 13 executive assistant and Peter Allen, Ron Vrancart's 14 executive assistant. 15 Q: All right. And Ron Vrancart? 16 A: Yeah. 17 Q: So the four (4) of you? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Thank you. Now, with respect to the 20 formal weekly briefings what types of things would you 21 expect to be apprised of? 22 A: He'd let me know issues that were 23 arising or issues that were ongoing, things that he 24 thought should be done, things that he thought were 25 unfolding.


1 Q: So he would provide you with advice 2 and recommendations? 3 A: Yes, he would. 4 Q: And would you in turn provide him 5 with direction when necessary? 6 A: Yes, I would. 7 Q: And how did you rank your Deputy 8 Minister's overall performance at the end of your term? 9 A: I was extremely fortunate to have two 10 (2) excellent Deputy Ministers. 11 Q: You indicated that Peter Allen was 12 also part of the formal weekly briefings and that he was 13 the executive assistant to Ron Vrancart. 14 And do you know in that capacity what -- 15 what his role was then, what his main responsibilities 16 were? 17 A: Yes, he had -- you know if you look 18 at a parallel structure he was the equivalent of what 19 Jeff Bangs did for me. Peter Allen did that for Ron 20 Vrancart. 21 Q: And what role did he play at the 22 formal briefings? 23 A: Peter would bring up issues, go 24 through things that he thought were important, bring 25 forward his recommendations as well.


1 Q: All right. And I'm just wondering 2 why Jeff Bangs' executive assistant wouldn't also be part 3 of the formal briefings? 4 A: He was. 5 Q: Oh, he was? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And who was that? 8 A: Myself, Jeff Bangs, Peter Allen, and 9 Ron Vrancart. 10 Q: Who was -- 11 A: There would be four (4) of us and we 12 met on a weekly basis. 13 Q: And who was Jeff Bang's executive 14 assistant or did he have one? 15 A: No, he didn't have one. 16 Q: Okay. That's -- I misunderstood your 17 answer. 18 A: That's fine. 19 Q: Thank you. Now, were you familiar 20 with an employee named Julie Jai in the summer of 1995? 21 A: Not that I can recall. 22 Q: All right. Do you recall having any 23 interactions with Ms. Jai during the summer of 1995? 24 A: No, I can't. 25 Q: Or the early fall?


1 A: No, I can't. 2 Q: Do you have any understanding now as 3 to what her function was at that time? 4 A: I do now but -- 5 Q: And when -- 6 A: -- at the time I wouldn't have. 7 Q: -- when did you learn of it? 8 A: In preparation for this Inquiry. 9 Q: All right. Do you recall being 10 briefed by anyone on behalf of the Ontario Native 11 Secretariat concerning Aboriginal issues in the summer of 12 1995? 13 A: I don't recall. That doesn't mean it 14 didn't happen, I just don't recall it. 15 Q: All right. Do you recall receiving 16 any briefings whatsoever whether it be by ONAS or members 17 of your own staff with respect to Aboriginal rights and 18 Constitutional status issues? 19 A: Yes, I would have been on numerous 20 occasions briefed on that. 21 Q: All right. And do you recall whether 22 that occurred in the summer of 1995 at all? 23 A: It would have occurred in '95 and it 24 would have occurred thereafter in issue by issue. 25 Q: Now, what was your understanding then


1 as of the summer of 1995 with respect to the 2 Constitutional status of Aboriginal Ontarians? 3 A: My understanding is what I reiterated 4 earlier that when the Constitution was repatriated treaty 5 law and Aboriginal rights went ahead of federal and 6 provincial law and that -- that was my understanding. 7 There are a number of lawyers here who could probably 8 elaborate on that, but it's in Section 35 and I would 9 have been briefed on that as well. 10 Q: Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to know 11 what your understanding was as the Minister. 12 A: That was my understanding. 13 Q: All right. Did you have any 14 understanding of the relevance of -- of treaty rights as 15 they impacted on your decisions as Minister? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And what was your understanding? 18 A: My understanding was that treaty 19 rights had to be upheld and lived up to. 20 Q: Okay. Did you have any such 21 knowledge prior to becoming Minister? 22 A: Yes, I probably would have. 23 Q: All right. And can you elaborate on 24 that? 25 A: I took Political Science at Trent


1 University and I'm sure it would have come up, the 2 Constitution being repatriated in the early '80's. I was 3 in University at that time. 4 Q: Now, as Minister of Natural Resources 5 did you have any concerns in 1995 that there was an 6 actual, or perceived imbalance of hunting, fishing and 7 harvesting rights as between Aboriginal and non- 8 Aboriginal hunters, fishers and forestry workers or 9 people? 10 A: There was a perception that wasn't 11 healthy that there was an imbalance. 12 Q: And what was your understanding of 13 the perception when you say there was an imbalance? An 14 imbalance in favour of whom? 15 A: Well, wherever you went, you heard 16 about problems that existed across rural Ontario and in 17 Northern Ontario. Part of our campaign was to lessen the 18 tension and make it so that resource issues, hunting and 19 fishing issues, worked for everyone. 20 Q: And who was identifi -- 21 A: And they perceived it that way. 22 Q: I'm sorry. Who was identifying this 23 as a problem, if you will. Did you detect any -- 24 A: Local newspapers, letters that I was 25 receiving in the Ministry --


1 Q: Hmm hmm. 2 A: Letters I received when we were in 3 Opposition. 4 Q: And were they, to your knowledge, 5 Aboriginal constituents or non-Aboriginal constituents 6 who were indicating that they felt there were problems? 7 A: Both. 8 Q: Okay. Did you take any steps to 9 rectify this perception? 10 A: Everything we did we tried to rectify 11 that perception, to try to make it so that the laws were 12 abided by. Where the law said that there was treaty 13 rights or the Courts had defined an Aboriginal right, we 14 tried to uphold that and to educate the community at 15 large on what we were doing and why we were doing it. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Vella, 17 whenever you reach a convenient spot. It would be a good 18 time to break. Not immediately, but whenever you reach a 19 convenient spot. If it's right now, that's fine, but 20 whenever you feel is good. 21 It's ten (10) to 5:00. We started at 22 9:00. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: You're quite right, 24 thank you very much. It would be most convenient to -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this a


1 good point -- 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- adjourn at this 3 time, absolutely. 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll 6 adjourn now until 9:00 tomorrow morning. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 10 11 (WITNESS RETIRES) 12 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 14 adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday January the 12th, at 15 9:00 a.m. 16 17 --- Upon adjourning at 4:52 p.m. 18 19 Certified Correct, 20 21 22 _________________ 23 Carol Geehan, Ms. 24 25