11 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 January 12th, 2006 25
21 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) (np) 5 Katherine Hensel ) (np) 6 Megan Ferrier ) (np) 7 Murray Klippenstein ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) (np) 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) Family Group 14 15 Anthony Ross ) (np) Residents of 16 Cameron Neil ) Aazhoodena (Army Camp) 17 Kevin Scullion ) 18 William Henderson ) (np) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) (np) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) 21 Kim Twohig ) (np) Government of Ontario 22 Walter Myrka ) 23 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 24 Michelle Pong ) (np) 25 Lynette D'Souza ) (np)
31 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 6 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 7 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 8 Jennifer McAleer ) 9 10 Ian Smith ) (np) Robert Runciman 11 Alice Mrozek ) 12 13 Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.) (np) Charles Harnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) 15 16 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 17 Mary Jane Moynahan ) (np) 18 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 19 Trevor Hinnegan ) 20 21 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25
41 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) (np) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) (np) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) (np) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) Services of Toronto 12 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 13 Julian Roy ) (np) 14 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 15 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 16 17 Al J.C. O'Marra ) Office of the Chief 18 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 19 20 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 21 Matthew Horner ) 22 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 23 24 25
51 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Mark Fredrick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 3 Craig Mills ) (np) 4 Megan Mackey ) (np) 5 Peter Lauwers ) 6 Erin Tully ) 7 8 David Roebuck ) (np) Debbie Hutton 9 Anna Perschy ) 10 Melissa Panjer ) 11 Adam Goodman ) (np) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
61 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 Christopher Douglas Hodgson, resumed 6 Continued Examination-In-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Certificate of Transcript 275 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
71 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-1009 "Exclusive Interview: The New Minister 4 of Natural Resources", by Jim Poling of 5 Ontario Out of Doors, August, 1995. 10 6 P-1010 Diagram of floor plan of Premier's 7 office, Premier's Boardroom, Council 8 Chamber, EA's office, reception, hallway 9 and washroom, marked by Witness, Mr. 10 Christopher Hodgson, Jan. 12/'06. 180 11 P-1011 Document Number 3001431. Minister's 12 Note from R. Vrancarte. Update on 13 reopening of Ipperwash Park, May 02/'96. 262 14 P-1012 Document number 1004052. Letter from 15 Chris Hodgson to Ron Irwin and David 16 Collenette re. Perceived inactivity of 17 Dept. of Indian Affairs and Ministry 18 of National Defence, April 02/'96. 266 19 P-1013 Document Number 1003920. Letter from 20 Ron Irwin to Chris Hodgson in response 21 to letter re. Perceived Inactivity of 22 Dept. of Indian Affairs, June 14/'96. 268 23 P-1014 Document Number 1009486. Letter from 24 Chris Hodgson to Ron Irwin re. Letter 25 of June 14/'96, Sept. 09/'96. 270
81 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-1015 Document Number 1004305. Letter 4 from Ron Irwin to Chris Hodgson 5 re. Letter of Sept. 09/'96, Nov. 6 04/'96. 272 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
91 --- Upon commencing at 9:01 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 morning, Mr. Hodgson. 11 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 13 14 CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS HODGSON, resumed 15 16 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 17 Q: Good morning, Mr. Hodgson. 18 A: Good morning. 19 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 8 of 20 Commission Counsel brief. It's an article reflecting an 21 interview entitled, The New Minister of Natural 22 Resources, from Out of Doors, August 1995. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Do you recall giving -- granting an 25 interview to this publication?
101 A: I don't recall it but I obviously did 2 it. 3 Q: All right. And have you had the 4 chance to review the article? 5 A: Just briefly in our preparation for 6 this. 7 Q: All right. To the best of your 8 recollection, does it accurately set out your quotes? 9 A: I believe so. 10 Q: I'd like to make this the next 11 exhibit, please. 12 THE REGISTRAR: P-1009, Your Honour. 13 14 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1009: "Exclusive Interview: The New 15 Minister of Natural 16 Resources", by Jim Poling of 17 Ontario Out of Doors, August, 18 1995. 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sorry, what 21 tab was that at? 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm sorry, it's Tab 8. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 8. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It doesn't -- it's not 25 an Inquiry Document number.
111 2 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 3 Q: In the event, you'll see on the first 4 page, last paragraph, it reads as follows: 5 "Before the election, Premier Harris 6 promised to enforce fish and game laws 7 especially, including against Native 8 Indians..." 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Excuse me. I'll bring the document 13 closer, too. I'll repeat the quote. 14 "Before the election Premier Harris 15 promised to enforce fish and game laws 16 equally including against Native 17 Indians and said he does not believe in 18 the value of Federal Justice Minister 19 Allan Rock's gun control legislation." 20 Then at page 2, the next page of the -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- says as follows: 23 "In an OOD interview published in May, 24 Harris outlined part of the way he 25 would handle the controversial Native
121 hunting and fishing issue. 2 If the Conservatives form the 3 Government the orders from Mike Harris 4 will not be the same as they are from 5 Bob Rae to lay off. The orders will 6 be, if somebody is violating the laws 7 of our conservation and affecting the 8 management of our resources, then we 9 will apply the law. [is a quote] 10 Hodgson says he agrees but needs time 11 before acting." 12 And you're quoted as saying: 13 "As far as I'm concerned, conversation 14 of species takes precedence over the 15 race of the hunter." 16 And later on in the article at the last 17 paragraph: 18 "Hodgson says he agrees but needs time 19 before [sorry]. Hodgson says he 20 personally has as much at stake as 21 other anglers and hunters in the 22 Province. He hunts small game and 23 white-tailed deer in the Haliburton 24 area from a camp that's been in his 25 family for fifty (50) years."
131 Now, can you give us some ideas to what 2 you were referring to with respect to the comment that 3 orders will be different under Mr. Harris' government 4 than from under Mr. Rae's government? 5 A: I can't comment specifically on that; 6 I think that's an editorial comment. But I can comment 7 on the quotes and I talked about this yesterday. This 8 was a specific issue around the Algonquins of Golden Lake 9 and hunting on the east side of -- inside Algonquin Park. 10 And the arrangement that Chief White Duck 11 and I concluded later on that year and in the early part 12 of '96 was a system where the moose were surveyed and 13 allocated and there's harvesting licenses that he handed 14 out to the First Nation members. 15 And outside of the Park, surveys were done 16 and tags were released on the Area Management Units based 17 on the conservation of moose, so that the harvest yields 18 would be sustainable -- 19 Q: All right. 20 A: -- in both areas; both for Aboriginal 21 hunting and for non Aboriginal hunting. The conservation 22 laws would be applied equally. 23 Q: And you've indicated -- suggested 24 this is specific to a particular factual situation. 25 A: Yes, it was.
141 Q: Did it have -- did it have any 2 broader implications for the way you would approach other 3 similar situations? 4 A: Similar situations; it depends on the 5 treaty law or Aboriginal rights. And some of those 6 Aboriginal rights have been defined by Courts, but the 7 paramount principle of conservation had to be preserved. 8 You couldn't over harvest whether you're Aboriginal or 9 non-Aboriginal to endanger the sustainability of the 10 species. 11 Q: All right. Thank you. Now, do you 12 recall having a meeting or participating in a meeting 13 with the Ontario Chiefs to discuss this -- this issue? 14 A: No, I don't. 15 Q: Do you recall having a meeting with 16 the Chiefs of Ontario with respect to just to -- to have 17 a discussion with respect to how your government would be 18 approaching these types of issues and relations with 19 Aboriginal parties? 20 A: No, I don't. I dealt specifically 21 with Chief White Duck and his counsel on this issue. 22 Q: Yes, I understand, but do you recall 23 in -- in August of '95 attending at a meeting with the 24 Chiefs of Ontario? 25 A: No, I don't.
151 Q: All right. We heard evidence at this 2 Inquiry from Dr. Elaine Todres on November the 29th, 3 2005. She testified that she attended at a meeting with 4 yourself and Minister Runciman and likely your Deputy 5 Minister at provincial meeting of chiefs and she said 6 that, quote: 7 "If memory serves, the purpose was to 8 be polite but to inform the Chiefs of 9 Ontario that there would be a new 10 approach and a new policy, framework, 11 whatever it would be, and the current 12 framework was no longer in place." 13 Now, do you recall attending at such a 14 meeting with your colleagues and Dr. Todres with the 15 Chiefs of Ontario? 16 A: No, I don't. I know I had a lot of 17 meetings that summer. Most times we were meeting with 18 the First Nations or Aboriginal communities it was on the 19 Northern Development, with Don Obonsawin I would go to 20 meetings. So, Don and I may have been at a meeting like 21 that, I can't recall. 22 Q: That would be your Minister of 23 Development and -- and -- Mines? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And I believe Dr. Todres was
161 referring to your Deputy Minister Vrancart? 2 A: I can't recall that. 3 Q: All right. Do you recall having any 4 -- all right, let me ask you this: Do you recall having 5 any meetings in which the -- with the Chiefs of Ontario 6 whatsoever in the summer of '95 at which this topic was - 7 - was raised? 8 A: I can't recall. It doesn't mean it 9 didn't happen, but I just can't recall. 10 Q: Was there, in fact, a new framework 11 which was going to govern the relationship between your 12 Ministry and the First Nations of this Province which 13 differed in a material way from the prior government? 14 A: Not that I'm aware of. I'm aware 15 that there are specific instances such as the one we've 16 been talking about; the Williams Treaty that we talked 17 about yesterday. 18 Each issue was handled on an individual 19 basis because, quite frankly, they varied quite a bit 20 throughout the whole province; in some cases there's 21 treaty rights that apply, in other cases there's court 22 decisions. 23 Each case had to be analysed and there's 24 Ministry staff that would do that and come up with 25 recommendations.
171 Q: Okay. And I think what -- what I'm 2 asking is a -- is a broader question and that is whether 3 or not there -- you had a different vision with respect 4 to how to approach these issues and the relationship with 5 First Nations which differed materially from the prior 6 government? 7 A: I don't know of any formal framework 8 that was changed. The approach was changed. They wanted 9 to make sure that the confrontations that -- and I don't 10 mean that in the sense of physical confrontations, I mean 11 it in the sense that there was a lot of angst in 12 communities on -- and it varied from community to 13 community. 14 But we -- my job was to try to make sure 15 there was a balance and to take that antagonism out of 16 the system and be clear on what the rules were. 17 Q: All right. Was it your view as 18 Minister that the prior government had undervalued the -- 19 the interests of non-Native Ontarians with respect to 20 these types of natural resource issues? 21 A: I'm not sure if -- undervalued would 22 be probably too strong a term. I thought that there were 23 some areas where there was a festering of potential 24 problems that could have been dealt with in a clearer 25 way.
181 Q: All right. I should have indicated 2 for the record, the extract that I read from Dr. Todres 3 was at page 312 of her testimony given on November 29th, 4 2005. 5 Now, we have also heard testimony at this 6 Inquiry that prior to your Government's election there 7 had been an agreement entered into as between Ontario 8 First Nations and the Government of Ontario governing, if 9 you will, the -- how the two (2) parties would inter- 10 react. 11 And I'd like you to now look at Tab 2 of 12 your brief. This is Exhibit P-9 -- sorry, P-643 and it's 13 Inquiry Document Number 1007239. It is entitled, 14 Statement of Political Relationship, August 1992 prepared 15 by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat. 16 Now, were you familiar with the contents 17 of this document when you became Minister of Natural 18 Resources? 19 A: Not particularly I was aware of, but 20 I didn't know all the details. 21 Q: What was your understanding of the 22 purpose of this document? 23 A: My understanding of the purpose was 24 to treat First Nations with respect and with, almost in 25 terms of Government to Government relationships.
191 Q: A Government to Government 2 relationship. Do you recall whether you were 3 specifically briefed as to the contents of this document? 4 A: I'm sure I was. 5 Q: All right. And would you have read 6 it? 7 A: No I didn't read it. 8 Q: Were you briefed on it early in your 9 tenure, that is in the summer or so of '95? 10 A: Yes, it would have been involved in 11 one of the early briefings, yes. 12 Q: And why are you certain of that? 13 A: Because we went through every aspect 14 of the Ministry and game and fish was one area, forestry 15 was others, and occasionally there would be Aboriginal 16 issues that would be discussed. And then we'd put it in 17 the context of how we dealt with this issue in the past. 18 Q: All right. Now, did your -- well let 19 me ask you this: Did your Ministry abide by the terms 20 set out of this document in dealing with Ab -- First 21 Nations when such Aboriginal issues arose? 22 A: I can't comment on, you know, in 23 every instance they did. In general I assumed that they 24 were following some of the protocols on who you call and 25 who you'd talk to, similar to how you would treat the
201 municipal governments as well. 2 Q: All right. Was it your intention 3 that this be -- that the practice reflected in this 4 statement be followed by your Ministry and yourself? 5 A: I believe -- I don't think there was 6 a change in that. 7 Q: All right. Now, over the summer of 8 1995, were there any particular Aboriginal matters 9 involving protests or disputes upon which you were 10 briefed and which affected your -- your jurisdiction as 11 Minister of Natural Resources? 12 A: I'm sorry, could you repeat that 13 question? 14 Q: Were there any matters, Aboriginal 15 matters, in the summer of 1995, upon which you were 16 briefed which involved disputes or protests and had 17 implications for your Ministry? 18 A: There was a number of areas that had 19 potential for that that I was briefed on. 20 Q: All right. Were there any particular 21 disputes that were brought to your attention that summer? 22 A: Yes. In Owen Sound the conflict 23 between First Nation commercial fishery in the local 24 salmon derby in Owen Sound Bay, that was brought to my 25 attention.
211 Probably Bay of Quinte, in terms of 2 sustain ability of the fish stock in Bay of Quinte. Lake 3 Erie was more commercial fishery, it wasn't really 4 Aboriginal/non- Aboriginal, but there was an issue around 5 the conservation and sustain ability of the species. In 6 Northern Ontario there was probably three (3) or four (4) 7 places where there could be potential problems or had 8 been in the past. 9 Q: All right. And do you also recall 10 there being an issue in relation to the Serpent Mounds 11 Provincial Park that summer? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And what -- I'd like to -- to focus 14 first on the Owen Sound situation. Now, that involved 15 the Chippewas of Nawash and the Cape Croker Reserve? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Can you -- can you tell me, first of 18 all, what criteria were used in determining whether a 19 matter of this nature was serious enough to be brought to 20 your direct attention as Minister? 21 A: This was an issue that was a 22 conservation issue around a dispute over fishing or 23 alleged overfishing of the area. Also there was a 24 species mix between whitefish and salmon. There had been 25 Court decisions that had given some guidance to what the
221 law was in terms of treaty rights and Aboriginal rights. 2 There was some areas that needed to be 3 filled in. The previous government had filled it in in 4 terms of what the conservation limits should be and the 5 type of species. 6 And there was sort of an arrangement that 7 had been worked out where the First Nation commercial 8 fishery would fish outside of the Owen Sound bay and 9 inside the Owen Sound bay would be for the local anglers 10 and the salmon. That wasn't a -- a constitutional or a 11 legal arrangement, that was a political arrangement to 12 try to figure out how to allow both sides to co-exist in 13 a sustainable manner that had been worked out by the 14 previous government. 15 In August of '95 it came to my attention 16 through reports that there was a growing controversy 17 involving an incident that had taken place at a market 18 with a local MPP, a member of our party, and a 19 grandmother and her nine (9) year old daughter at a 20 market. 21 I was briefed on it extensively on the -- 22 on the history. I can't recall all the details. But ten 23 (10) years ago I was briefed on the history and this area 24 had had a history of confrontation and there was a lot of 25 angst in the community and the local press were reporting
231 on it. There was a concern that this could develop into 2 a more serious situation. 3 Q: All right. And just for 4 clarification when you talk about there being a 5 controversy and growing angst, was this as between the 6 Aboriginal community and the non-Aboriginal community? 7 A: There was various factions, I 8 wouldn't stereotype it quite that black and white. It 9 was -- the local community of anglers and hunters had an 10 outdoors club that volunteered their time in a hatchery 11 and produced salmon and they had a big salmon derby each 12 year which was a major tourist attraction. They felt 13 that that might be in jeopardy if commercial fishing with 14 nets was in the bay before the derby. 15 Q: And what, if anything, did you do 16 upon being briefed of this situation, the developing 17 situation? 18 A: As I recall I was at the cottage, 19 we'd worked all July and most of August, and I was trying 20 to get a week's holiday and the phone keep ringing. I 21 talked to Ron Vrancart, Peter Allen, Jeff Bangs and 22 they'd give me updates, and finally my wife said, If 23 you're going to spend all the time on the phone why don't 24 you just drive over and talk to people. 25 So, I went over and I met with both sides
241 and I believe it was in the evening when I got there, 2 about six o'clock. I had meetings with, I believe, the 3 outdoors association, some of the local press, and I met 4 with the Chief and the Council of the First Nations. 5 Q: All right. And do you recall when 6 approximately these meetings occurred. what -- what 7 month? 8 A: Yeah. It would be mid to late 9 August. 10 Q: 1995? 11 A: No, actually it was after -- it was 12 the first part of August or mid-August, I believe. I 13 can't be specific on the date. 14 Q: That's fair. In 1995? 15 A: 1995. 16 Q: All right. And what was the -- what 17 was the -- or let me ask you this: What -- what did you 18 talk about with these various groups? 19 A: Well, this is was a pretty tense 20 situation, actually. I remember, most specifically 21 meeting with the First Nation Council and Chief at their 22 band office. In the parking lot there'd be a couple 23 hundred people and then inside the room was fairly full, 24 met with the whole Council and we had about a three (3) 25 to four (4) hour long discussion, as I recall.
251 Q: And what was the purpose of these 2 discussions? 3 A: The purpose of the discussions was to 4 try to take the -- the tension out of the system and to 5 talk about the issues; what was working, what wasn't, 6 could there be a more permanent resolution to these 7 tension. 8 Q: And so you were raising or discussing 9 what possible resolutions might be -- which your Ministry 10 might participate in with these -- 11 A: Exactly. The result -- it was a 12 complicated situation because the law was clear in the 13 sense that the First Nation had a right to fish in these 14 areas for specific species of fish. 15 Q: Hmm hmm. 16 A: It denied the right to fish salmon, 17 but when you have a net, it's pretty hard to tell the 18 fish which fish is allowed in the net and which one 19 isn't. So, the previous government's credit, it worked 20 out with all the parties, sort of a -- an ad hoc 21 arrangement. 22 What we were looking -- in -- then inside 23 the First Nation community there was allocations handed 24 out for harvesting and it came out in the meeting that 25 one of the commercial fishermen had felt that he wasn't
261 being treated fairly in terms of the allocation and he'd 2 actually gone outside of the line. 3 He told me this, that they -- they knew 4 that they had the right to do that and I knew they had 5 the right to do that and I'd explained that to the local 6 anglers and hunters, that they had the right to do that. 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: What we wanted to look for was maybe 9 a solution where they could have more area than what the 10 Court said they could fish in, have as much harvesting as 11 they had that they fished the Owen Sound bay and then 12 allow the local anglers and hunters to -- for their 13 derbies and other things, to fish in the Owen Sound bay. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: That would have to be in a -- an 16 arrangement -- that was the start of the discussions. In 17 about two (2) years time it was concluded. I believe I 18 was Chair of a management board at the time and we 19 allocated, and I maybe corrected on this, but I believe 20 it was $15 million to conclude that deal in terms of 21 compensation. 22 Q: Compensation for whom? 23 A: The First Nations. 24 Q: All right. So, it would appear that 25 this is an example where there is a dispute in which --
271 and in which you -- your Ministry and yourself got 2 personally involved in discussing options and possible 3 solutions as between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal 4 interests? 5 A: That's right. It was clearly within 6 the MNR's jurisdiction. It was an issue on conservation 7 of species. 8 Q: All right. Now, I'd like to talk a 9 little bit about the Serpent Mounds Provincial Park 10 situation; when was that first brought to your attention? 11 A: That would have been a phone call or 12 -- from Ron Vrancart informing me that the First Nation 13 had informed the MNR that they were going to have a 14 protest and a blockade of the Provincial Park. 15 Q: An occupation? 16 A: An occupation. 17 Q: And which First Nation was this? 18 A: This was the Hiawatha, I believe. 19 Q: Hiawatha First Nation. And do you 20 recall approximately what time or what -- what date this 21 occupation was to take place, if you knew that? 22 A: I believe it was going to be Friday 23 before the long weekend. 24 Q: All right. So, September the 1st, 25 1995?
281 A: I believe so. 2 Q: All right. And what was your 3 understanding of the -- the nature of the dispute that 4 was giving rise to this occupation? 5 A: I believe they were dissatisfied 6 about our decision on the Williams Treaty hunting and 7 fishing agreement or protocol that they had with the 8 previous government, that being rescinded. 9 That's what I believe it was about. 10 Q: Okay, fair enough. Now, to your 11 knowledge, or what -- I should say, what steps did you 12 take upon being apprised of the fact that there was going 13 to be an occupation of a Provincial Park? 14 A: After being briefed by Ron Vrancart, 15 we talked about it. It was clear that the First Nations 16 owned part of the land. He recommended that campers be 17 evacuated. 18 I believe I suggested that there be rain 19 checks given, so they could use in any other provincial 20 Park, and we note -- I believe he notified the OPP. 21 Q: All right. Did the occupation, in 22 fact, take place? 23 A: Yes, it did. 24 Q: And were campers evacuated? 25 A: Yes, they were.
291 Q: To your knowledge, was there any 2 violence during the course of this occupation? 3 A: To my knowledge, absolutely none. 4 Q: And this occupation took place over 5 the Labour Day weekend of 1995? 6 A: Yes, it did. 7 Q: So, just prior to the occupation of 8 Ipperwash Provincial Park? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: You indicated that the OPP were 11 notified. To your knowledge were they involved in 12 evacuating the campers and day users? 13 A: I don't know. I don't -- I didn't 14 assume they were. 15 Q: All right. Do you know whether they 16 were assisted at all in the closing of the Park? 17 A: I don't believe they did. 18 Q: Was the -- the staff then, the Park 19 staff and MNR staff used to close this Park? 20 A: Yes, I believe they were. 21 Q: All right. And do you recall how 22 long the occupation lasted? 23 A: I believe it ended on the Monday. 24 Q: Monday the 4th of September 1995? 25 A: I believe so, yes.
301 Q: All right. Now was -- what was the 2 resolution which -- which resulted in the ending of the 3 occupation? 4 A: We'd had a good relationship with the 5 First Nation. They'd informed us ahead of time that they 6 were going to do a protest and they were going to do an 7 occupation. 8 They own part of the land that the 9 Provincial Park was situated on and I believe when the 10 occupation ended, we entered into discussions on 11 potential opportunities for the community. 12 Q: And what -- what, if anything, came 13 of that? 14 A: We entered into a co-management 15 agreement of the operation of the Provincial Park. The 16 Ontario Parks, we'd passed a leg -- or a legislation 17 allowing for a special purpose account to be set up for 18 parks to, not only be accountable for their revenue but 19 also -- I'm not -- for their expenditures, but as well as 20 their revenues that went into the special purpose 21 account, so the parks could be more entrepreneurial and 22 we could enter into partnerships such as this. 23 I believe that this was the first co- 24 managed Provincial Park by a First Nation. 25 Q: All right.
311 A: It took a while to finalize that 2 agreement. I believe it was in '96 that it concluded. 3 Q: Now, just for clarification, was it 4 your understanding that the Province was leasing at least 5 a part of those lands -- the Park lands from the First 6 Nation? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And was there any discussions or 9 contact with the people, the Hiawatha First Nation, the 10 occupiers, during the course of the occupation by -- by 11 members of your Ministry? 12 A: I don't believe so. 13 Q: Do you recall what the circumstances 14 were under which the occupation ceased? 15 A: Not specifically. I know that they 16 informed us that it was over, in terms of the occupation. 17 Q: Who informed you? 18 A: The First Nation would have informed 19 the MNR. 20 Q: And when did discussions with respect 21 to the co-management agreement commence? 22 A: Some time after that. Ron Vrancart 23 and myself had talked about some opportunities around 24 that, in terms of economic development for the First 25 Nation.
321 Q: And you indicated that it was your 2 understanding that this was the first co-management 3 agreement ever in the context of Ontario Provincial 4 Parks? 5 A: With a First Nation. I could stand 6 to be corrected on that but I didn't have any precedents 7 before us to do that. 8 Q: All right. And whose idea was this? 9 A: That was Ron and mine jointly. 10 Q: And when did you come up with -- when 11 did you first discuss this idea? 12 A: Well there was a lot of pressure in 13 terms of budgetary constraints. The previous Government 14 -- that wasn't something new to our Government. 15 The previous Government had closed a 16 number of operating parks. In the summer of '95 it was 17 our desire to try to reopen these parks, the people of 18 Ontario's parks, and we felt they should be open to the 19 public. 20 We were looking for partners and we 21 entered into a number of arrangements. I believer there 22 was about six (6) with co-management or operations that 23 were done by third-parties. 24 Q: All right. And so you -- you'd first 25 discussed this concept in the summer of 1995?
331 A: The -- be the fall of '95. 2 Q: The -- the fall of '95? 3 A: Yeah. Day after the Labour Day 4 weekend. The concept of partnering out was discussed on 5 the terms of re-opening the parks that had been closed. 6 Ron and I might have been talking about 7 that at the time, but I don't believe there was anything 8 formally done about it until in the fall of '95. 9 Q: Okay. I just want it to be clear for 10 the record. In the summer of 1995 you had discussions in 11 the -- of a general nature with your Deputy Minister 12 about the possibility of entering into partnerships with 13 third-parties to re-open closed provincial parks? 14 A: That's correct. And that would have 15 been with the Parks Branch as well, the -- the head of 16 the Parks Department. 17 Q: And in September of '95 it was the -- 18 the first opportunity that you had or discussion you had 19 to specifically apply this concept to a First Nation 20 partnership with -- in relation to a provincial park? 21 A: Yes, and specifically to a First 22 Nation, yes. 23 Q: Now, this -- 24 A: We were entering into discussions 25 with other partners in some cases, or municipalities in
341 other instances. 2 Q: Earlier? 3 A: Around the same time probably, the 4 fall of '95. 5 Q: Okay. Now, you indicated there were 6 other Aboriginal disputes that were brought to your 7 attention in the summer of 1995; one was Quinte Bay, I 8 believe you said? Was that a dispute? 9 A: I would have been briefed on that. 10 I'm not -- you know it's ten (10) years ago, but my 11 recollection is that First Nations had a -- a right to 12 fish in Quinte Bay. There was a concern about the 13 sustainability of the species. 14 The -- the ranking would be that you had 15 to determine what the sustainable level of harvest would 16 be for the species and then the First Nations had the 17 first right to that. If there was anything left over 18 then non-Aboriginal were allowed to fish. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: I believe later on we had to actually 21 close the fishery to non-Aboriginals in order to preserve 22 conservation, but the laws were pretty clear on that. 23 Q: All right. And you've also mentioned 24 Lake Erie, that there was a dispute -- 25 A: Lake Erie, I just recall spending a
351 lot of time on that, but that was more of a commercial 2 fishery issue in terms of allocations. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: It was more in terms of getting the 5 correct data in terms of inventories, as I recall. 6 Q: All right. Now, moving to a slightly 7 different topic for a moment. Did you receive, as part 8 of your initial orientation as Minister, any briefings or 9 directions regarding the interrelationship of the OPP and 10 the Provincial Government? 11 A: I can't recall specifically. I'm 12 sure that in our orientation as Cabinet Ministers that 13 was probably covered. 14 Q: And why do you say it was probably 15 covered? 16 A: Because there was a series of 17 speakers and presentations organized by Rita Burak that 18 talked about pitfalls of being a Cabinet Minister and 19 they would use historical examples. 20 There's been examples of Ministers getting 21 in trouble around policing issues or Young Offenders Act; 22 sort of a do's and don't's list of what a Cabinet 23 Minister should avoid or what he should be doing. 24 Q: All right. And remind us who Rita 25 Burak was?
361 A: Secretary -- Principle Secretary of 2 Cabinet. I can't be specific. I can't remember the 3 details of the briefing. 4 Q: Would you have received that 5 briefing, likely, over the course of the summer of 1995? 6 A: It would have been right after the 7 induction ceremony, June 26th/95; the next -- that day or 8 the day after. 9 Q: I wonder if you would go to then, Tab 10 1. It's Exhibit P-472, Inquiry Document 3000759? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: It's a briefing note for the 15 Interministerial Policy Forum, November 26th, 1991, 16 issued by the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial 17 Police and it deals with the protocols of the OPP at that 18 time with respect to management of protestors, blockades, 19 and dissent. 20 And I would like to know first of all 21 whether you recall being provided the copy of this 22 document as part of your briefings? 23 A: No, I don't. 24 Q: All right. And have you had an 25 opportunity to review this document before today?
371 A: Not really, no. 2 Q: All right. Perhaps you would look at 3 it. And my question is going to be whether or not you 4 were aware of the contents of this document during the -- 5 during -- during the summer of 1995? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: Most of it's common sense but not 10 specifically, no. 11 Q: All right. This appears to outline 12 the OPP's approach to handling -- 13 A: Right. 14 Q: -- such matters. And is there 15 anything in there that's inconsistent with your -- your 16 understanding of the situation? 17 A: Not that I can see -- 18 Q: All right 19 A: -- at this time. 20 Q: What was your understanding, as of 21 the summer of 1995, as to the inter-relationship between 22 the Ontario Provincial Police and the Provincial 23 Government. 24 A: Well, I was quite aware, even before 25 1995, probably from High School or University, that there
381 was a distinct separation between the police and 2 government. 3 The police did not lay charges on behalf 4 of the government, they lay charges on behalf of the 5 Crown; that's one of the fundamental principles of our 6 society. 7 So I was quite aware of the -- the line 8 between government and police. 9 Q: What did that mean to you, as a 10 practical matter, as Minister? 11 A: As a practical matter that meant 12 there would be no direction given to OPP on policing 13 matters. The Government cannot suggest who be charged, 14 who not be charged. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: That's done on behalf of the Crown. 17 Q: Were you aware as to who, within 18 government, had jurisdiction over the Ontario Provincial 19 Police? 20 A: I understood that we had a Solicitor 21 General, we also had a Commissioner of the OPP. 22 I understood that, basically, a break down 23 the Ontario Government, pretty well. 24 Q: What was your view with respect to 25 the propriety of government officials communicating with
391 the Ontario Provincial Police regarding operational 2 matters? 3 A: I was very aware that that was a line 4 that should not be crossed. 5 Q: All right. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: And do you think that this practice 10 of non-involvement on the part of government officials 11 and employees is appropriate? 12 A: Yes, I do. I think it's one of the 13 tenets of civil society and the -- in our democracy that 14 there's a separation between police who lay charges on 15 behalf of the Crown, and -- and government that's elected 16 by the people. 17 Q: All right. Now with respect to the 18 Serpent Mounds occupation, did you consider that to be a 19 policing matter, an MNR matter or a combination of both? 20 A: It was a combination. The OPP were 21 called to monitor the situation and make sure that public 22 safety was upheld. 23 The MNR -- the issue was a Provincial 24 Park, the safety of the campers was one of the concerns 25 of the MNR and we tried to minimize any risks for that.
401 Q: Hmm hmm. Who called in the OPP? 2 A: I believe it was through ran -- Ron 3 Vrancart's shop. It might have been somebody that was 4 delegated from the Park's branch but -- 5 Q: Yeah. 6 A: -- I know that Ron mentioned that the 7 OPP had been called in. 8 Q: All right. And certainly was called 9 in by -- on behalf of your Ministry? 10 A: I believe so, yes. 11 Q: Now who, as between your Ministry and 12 the OPP, did you believe had the authority to determine 13 whether or not the protesters should be removed from that 14 Park? 15 A: Oh, that would have been the OPP in 16 my opinion. 17 Q: Who, as between your Ministry and the 18 OPP, did you believe -- 19 A: I don't believe anybody believed they 20 should be removed? 21 Q: Sorry? 22 A: To be clear on it, I -- I never 23 believed that anybody believed they should be removed 24 from the Park. 25 Q: And -- and what's the basis of your
411 belief? 2 A: My belief is they owned the land, 3 they owned a good portion of the Park. 4 Q: As I understand it, that you leased 5 it. 6 A: They -- that's right. It was... 7 Q: And did that not give rise to a 8 conflict in your view? 9 A: No. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: I'm just telling you the way it was 12 then. 13 Q: Sorry? 14 A: That's just what I understood at the 15 time and that didn't provide a conflict to me. 16 Q: Okay. Who had the authority, as 17 between your Ministry and the OPP, to enter into, or to 18 make the decision as to whether or not to negotiate with 19 the Hiawatha First Nation during the course of the 20 occupation? 21 A: The on-ground during the occupation, 22 my understanding, would have been the Ontario Provincial 23 Police. When the occupation was over, it was back to the 24 MNR. 25 Q: All right. Were you, as Minister,
421 adverse to -- to the notion of entering into direct 2 negotiations with the Hiawatha First Nation occupiers 3 during the course of the occupation? 4 A: Probably. I don't think we ever 5 discussed that. You know, it happened fairly quickly and 6 we were given some notice. It was handled in a very 7 civil manner. 8 Q: All right. And just remind me, how 9 long did this occupation last? 10 A: That's what I meant. It happened 11 very quickly. It was from Friday until Monday. 12 Q: All right. Four (4) days? 13 A: Yeah. Three (3) or four (4) days, 14 yes. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Okay. Now, when did you first become 19 alerted to the existence of a potential Aboriginal 20 dispute in relation to the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 21 A: That would have been around the long 22 weekend of 1995, August long weekend. 23 Q: Just prior to the occupation? Do you 24 mean the September weekend or...? 25 A: No, no. The civic holiday, the
431 August 1st weekend. 2 Q: Oh, excuse me. Okay. The August 1st 3 long weekend. And who informed you? 4 A: The press were phoning, the local 5 press, I can't remember which ones, and were asking for 6 comments about an incident that happened out in front of 7 Ipperwash Provincial Park. 8 Q: Can you be more specific? 9 A: There was an allegation that there 10 was an incident involving a vehicle and -- and some 11 campers from the Park and some members -- 12 Q: Can you be a little more specific? 13 A: -- and some members of the community 14 that occupied the Military Base adjacent to the Park. 15 Q: The Camp Ipperwash? 16 A: Camp Ipperwash. 17 Q: And what was the nature of that 18 incident, do you recall? 19 A: I can't recall the specifics other 20 than some of the campers -- I believe one (1) person had 21 a broken leg or something, but I can't be specific on 22 that. 23 Q: All right. Who brought this 24 specifically to your attention? 25 A: That would have been Rob Savage and
441 Jeff Bangs mentioning that the press wanted to do an 2 interview. 3 Q: All right. So the context was, the 4 press were calling and they thought they should brief 5 you? 6 A: No, they were telling me that the 7 press were phoning wanting a comment and then we ordered 8 and asked for briefings from the Ministry around this 9 situation. 10 Q: Okay. What -- and -- and did you 11 receive a briefing? 12 A: Yes, we did. 13 Q: From whom? 14 A: Ron Vrancart and Peter Allen. 15 Q: What did they tell you? 16 A: Went through briefing documents that 17 had been prepared by the Ministry staff on the history of 18 the situation, chronologically, right up to the present, 19 and suggested and informed me that this wasn't an MNR 20 issue. 21 The -- the police were monitoring, ONAS 22 was involved, and I believe there was after that an 23 Interministerial -- what they called the Barricades 24 Committee Meeting that was initiated or had been ongoing. 25 Q: All right.
451 A: But they were meeting on this issue 2 and it wasn't an MNR issue, so I didn't comment to the 3 press. 4 Q: All right. Now, we'll -- we'll 5 return to the IMC meeting in a moment, but can you tell 6 me what your specific recollection of the history of the 7 situation was, as -- as you understood it? 8 A: I recall the specifics of the 9 briefing was quite long. We talked about the land of 10 Camp Ipperwash, the Provincial Park, the fact that the 11 Provincial Park, according to our legal people was clear 12 title to the Province in terms of the -- we dealt mostly 13 with the Camp. 14 The Federal Government's responsibility, 15 in our opinion, to hand back the land to the First Nation 16 hadn't been done. It had caused tensions in terms of the 17 local community not seeing any action from the Federal 18 Government to live up to their obligations and hand back 19 the property in an environmentally clean state. 20 There was some information around the need 21 for an environmental cleanup of the site. There was also 22 a discussion about the history in terms of the local 23 community, how there was a recognized First Nation. 24 And then there was a -- a breakaway group 25 or a dissident group that had taken over the Federal
461 lands, part of it in '93 and the rest of it in '95, and 2 that they weren't recognized by the Federal Government or 3 by the local chief and council. But they occupied the 4 Military Base and they were exercising their control by 5 patrolling the beach areas and there may be incidents 6 that arise from that. 7 But that wasn't our issue. The OPP were 8 on the site. They were monitoring the situation from a 9 public safety standpoint and ONAS was the lead on the 10 First Nation issues. 11 Q: All right. And were you also told 12 that in 1993 the First Nation people, from what you 13 described as a dissident group, had delivered a document 14 to the MNR asserting an intention to take over the Park? 15 A: No, I don't believe it was. 16 Q: Were you aware that they had made an 17 assertion in this document that a burial ground existed 18 within the Park? 19 A: No I wasn't. 20 Q: Were you told anything else about 21 this -- the -- this group of people other than that they 22 were, quote, "breakaway of dissident group" from the 23 recognized Band? 24 A: The -- like I said there was quite a 25 bit of detail, the briefing notes, and a lot of them are
471 included in this binder; that's the information that we 2 received. 3 Q: And did this group have a name that 4 you identified them by? 5 A: The First -- I'm sorry? 6 Q: The -- the occupying group. 7 A: The occupying group, it was always 8 referred to in the briefing notes as dissident group or 9 breakaway group. They called themselves the Stoney 10 Pointers. 11 Q: Now were you apprised of what the 12 position was repor -- as reported to you of the Kettle 13 and Stony Point First Nation in relation to the Stoney 14 Pointers' actions? 15 A: I'm sorry, the relationship? 16 Q: The position of the -- the official 17 Band that they took -- 18 A: Yes, there was. 19 Q: -- in relation -- and what was your 20 understanding of that? 21 A: My understanding is that they did not 22 approve of the breakaway group or their action. 23 Q: Now, what was your initial reaction 24 to the information you received in the briefing? 25 A: My initial reaction, I didn't phone
481 the press back, so that didn't disappoint me. It was a 2 Federal issue in our mind, that the Federal Government 3 should live up to their obligations. 4 What they should do is hand back the 5 Military Base. We felt it was a Federal issue and that 6 it wasn't an MNR issue in terms of the Ontario 7 Government. The police were on the site and ONAS was in 8 charge of Native affairs. 9 Q: All right. So was it your view then 10 at the time that -- that the -- that the real problem 11 here was the -- had to do with the -- the Military Base 12 as opposed to the Park? 13 A: Oh, exactly. The discussion was 14 around the Military Base, primarily. 15 Q: And so you saw this is a Federal 16 Government issue and as a policing matter but not a 17 matter for the MNR? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And you indicated earlier that, in 20 relation to Serpent Mounds, it was your view that MNR -- 21 it was at least a joint MNR issue from the perspective of 22 the safety of the Park users. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: How did -- how did that differ, if at 25 all, with respect to what you were hearing about the
491 Ipperwash Provincial Camp -- Provincial Park? 2 A: The answer I got to that question was 3 that the OPP had -- were onsite, in fact had officers 4 posing as campers to make sure that the safety of the 5 campers was ensured. 6 Q: So, then what was your assessment of 7 any public safety risk? 8 A: Well, that was the OPP's job, on the 9 public at large and First Nation people, et cetera. My 10 question was specifically around the campers. 11 Q: Now, did you discuss what you had 12 learned in the briefings with any of your Ministerial or 13 Cabinet colleagues over the summer of '95 or August of 14 '95, I guess? 15 A: I don't believe so. 16 Q: All right. Did you raise this at 17 caucus? 18 A: No, I don't believe so. 19 Q: Do you recall had -- whether or not 20 you had any discussions with the local Member of 21 Provincial Parliament, Marcel Beaubien, over the summer 22 of 1995 in relation to the Ipperwash Park issue? 23 A: No, I did not. 24 Q: Did you know Marcel Beaubien well, at 25 this time?
501 A: He was elected in 1995, in June. I 2 probably would have met him at a couple of caucus 3 meetings. 4 Q: Is that the extent? 5 A: Yes. The House hadn't come into 6 session yet so we weren't sitting everyday in Toronto. 7 Q: All right. Did any complaints or 8 concerns from the local community or, in and around 9 Ipperwash Provincial Park, come to your attention over 10 the summer of 1995? 11 A: I'm not aware of any. Other than the 12 press were reporting the incidents, that was it. 13 Q: Now, did you receive any reports 14 about the specifics of the OPP policing operations at the 15 -- in and around the Park over the summer of 1995? 16 A: No, I did not. I was only aware that 17 when asked about the security of the safety of the 18 campers that the OPP were monitoring and had, what I was 19 told, were some officers posing as campers inside the 20 Park. 21 Q: And were you content with that level 22 of -- of measures, precautionary measures? 23 A: Yes. Well, OPP were monitoring it. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
511 Q: Now, at the end of July 1995, we've 2 heard evidence that the barracks of Camp Ipperwash were 3 occupied by members of the Stoney Point group with the 4 result that the Federal Military abandoned the base. 5 Were you made aware of that event as 6 Minister? 7 A: Yes, I would have known about that. 8 Q: And do you know when you were made 9 aware of that event? 10 A: Probably at the first briefing that I 11 had. 12 Q: And did this action raise any 13 concerns for you in relation to the safety and security 14 of the adjacent Park? 15 A: Not particularly. I remember 16 thinking the Federal Government should have handed back 17 the land in a clean state to the recognised First Nation, 18 or if not the recognized First Nation, then sort out who 19 should be represented with the First Nation in that area. 20 This situation had festered for many years. 21 Q: Now, did you see any potential 22 negative implications for the Park and the safety of the 23 Park as a result of the -- your observed lack of movement 24 or progress by the Federal Government in handing back the 25 Military Base?
521 A: Not at that time. Later on in the 2 summer there were rumours that were circulating that the 3 Park, in an attempt to get the attention of the Federal 4 Government, could be subject to an occupation or, more 5 likely, the roads surrounding Camp Ipperwash could be 6 blockaded. 7 Q: All right. And did you take any, or 8 consider any taking any approach or having your 9 government take -- make any approach to the Federal 10 Government, to try and head off that possibility by 11 dealing with the Military Base? 12 A: No that was, I assumed, being dealt 13 with by ONAS and the Interministerial Barracks Committee 14 that were in charge of the issue and the OPP on the 15 ground. 16 But in terms of proactively trying to 17 avoid a situation, it was our belief that that was ONAS' 18 lead and that's what you would assume they would be 19 doing. 20 Q: Now, did you take any -- were you 21 provided with any information that indicated that ONAS or 22 any other governmental Ministry or department was, in 23 fact, making that type of proactive initiative with the 24 Federal Government? 25 A: To my recollection, you know,
531 assumptions are always bad to make, but ONAS was the 2 lead. They had convened Interministerial Committee to go 3 over the issues and then they had all of August of -- 4 saying that, you know, they were in charge of this issue, 5 and the OPP were in charge of the security and safety on 6 the ground. 7 Q: All right. All right. So, your 8 understanding at this point in time is that, from the 9 Government's perspective, ONAS -- it was an ONAS issue 10 and on the ground it was a policing issue? 11 A: That's right and every time we asked 12 a question I was reminded of that throughout late August 13 by Ron Vrancart, my Deputy. 14 Q: And I should ask you as well, with 15 respect to the take over of the Military barracks did you 16 -- were you provided with any information about how that 17 occurred or the nature of that take over? 18 A: Not specifically. I -- not 19 specifically, just that the take over took place; the 20 Federal Government officials vacated in a rather -- in a 21 hurry. 22 Q: Okay. Now, let me ask you this: Did 23 the nature of -- your understanding of the nature of that 24 takeover cause you any additional concerns with respect 25 to the safety and security of the Park?
541 A: No, that -- the same answer I had 2 before. 3 Q: All right. And you indicated that 4 you understood that ONAS struck an Interministerial 5 Committee to -- to look into the Park issue? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And we have heard evidence that a -- 8 that, indeed, an Interministerial Committee was struck 9 and met on August the 2nd, 1995 in relation to Ipperwash 10 Provincial Park. 11 Is that consistent with your 12 understanding? 13 A: Yes, it is. 14 Q: And what was your understanding of 15 the -- the functions and purposes of this 16 Interministerial Committee? 17 A: My understanding was that ONAS was 18 the -- in charge of this Interministerial Committee and 19 that this Committee was in control, or overseeing the 20 situation around Ipperwash. 21 Q: And just step back for a moment. 22 Were you aware of the mechanism of an Interministerial 23 Committee? 24 A: No, I wasn't. 25 Q: All right. Were you aware of the
551 composition of this particular Committee? 2 A: I probably was at the time. 3 Q: Were you aware that your Ministry has 4 representation on this Committee? 5 A: I was aware that we'd attended the 6 meetings, yes. 7 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 7 8 please? This is Exhibit P-498, it's Inquiry Document 9 Number 1012232. It's a document entitled, Guidelines for 10 Responding to Aboriginal Emergencies (Blockades). 11 And this document appears to set out the, 12 if you will, the terms of reference of Interministerial 13 Committees dealing with these types of issues and their 14 powers and -- and objectives, if you will. 15 I'm wondering, first of all, whether you 16 were provided with a copy of this document or had an 17 opportunity to review it as Minister of Natural 18 Resources? 19 A: No, I wasn't. 20 Q: And were you familiar, nonetheless, 21 with the --the contents of this document? 22 A: Somewhat. 23 Q: All right. And what -- what were you 24 aware of? 25 A: I was aware that ONAS had the lead
561 for this Committee, that the Ministry of the Solicitor 2 General would be involved, that they were there to try to 3 prevent any violent situations from taking place. 4 Q: All right. Now, what was your 5 understanding at the time, in August of '95, with respect 6 to what the -- the power of the -- powers of the 7 Interministerial Committee would be? 8 A: I assumed it was like a committee of 9 Cabinet, that they were actually in charge of the 10 situation and could give direction. 11 Q: And to give direction to whom or 12 what? 13 A: To ONAS staff and to others to try to 14 avoid violent confrontations and to avoid situations 15 before they happen. 16 Q: And did you have any further 17 understanding as to what specific powers they had? 18 A: No, that was -- that was it. 19 Q: All right. And were you aware that 20 their -- that they had the -- the power to recommend 21 solutions to the Government as to how to deal with this - 22 - these types of situations? 23 A: Yeah. I was aware of that. It 24 wasn't like -- I should correct myself. I didn't 25 consider it to be a Cabinet committee, I considered it to
571 be a committee that ONAS brought together for information 2 on what they were doing and any assistance they may need. 3 Q: All right. Were you aware that this 4 Committee had the discretionary power to appoint 5 negotiators or facilitators to attempt to resolve the -- 6 any blockades or occupations, though not the underlying 7 issues? 8 A: I would have assumed that, yes. 9 Q: All right. And when were you 10 informed that this Committee would be meeting, with 11 respect to Ipperwash Park? 12 A: Probably right around the time of the 13 meeting. 14 Q: All right. Do you know whether you 15 were informed prior to the meeting? 16 A: I can't recall. 17 Q: In other words would you have been 18 apprised by Mr. Bangs and Mr. Allen that they had 19 received an invitation to go to this meeting? 20 A: I probably was. 21 Q: And is it likely then -- well, let me 22 ask you this: What was your understanding of what their 23 roles on this Committee would be? 24 A: My understanding was that this 25 information meeting -- they'd be sharing information or
581 receiving information from ONAS. 2 Q: All right. Were these individuals 3 authorized to make representations on your behalf at the 4 Interministerial Committee Meetings? 5 A: I can't recall. 6 Q: Did you advise them what positions 7 you thought they should be taking on your behalf? 8 A: I don't believe so at that time. 9 Q: Not -- not in August, but later? 10 A: Later we had quite a few discussions 11 about it. 12 Q: All right. Do you recall whether he 13 was providing specific directions to Mr. Bangs and/or Mr. 14 Allen as to what their goals or objectives of this 15 meeting should be? 16 A: Not at that time, no. 17 Q: And up to this point in time, August 18 the 2nd, '95, had there been any discussion, to your 19 recollection, with respect the role that an injunction 20 might play in the event of a Park occupation? 21 A: No, I was never made aware of that. 22 Q: All right. I wonder if you would 23 next go, please, to Tab 10 then. This is Exhibit P-777, 24 Inquiry Document 3000626. 25 And it's a doc -- it's e-mail to Barry
591 Jones from Peter Sturdy. And you'll see on the second 2 page that it appears that both Peter Allen and Jeff Bangs 3 received a copy of this e-mail and it is dated August the 4 lst, 1995, 11:24 p.m. 5 It appears to be a report of a meeting 6 that Peter Sturdy had with Inspector John Carson who was 7 the incident commander, you'll recall. 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: And that there was a discussion, 10 apparently, with respect to possible scenarios of 11 occupations of the Ipperwash Park and potential 12 responses, as reflected in this e-mail. 13 And my question is: Were you apprised of 14 this discussion and/or the details of it? 15 A: No. 16 Q: All right. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Now, did you -- to your knowledge, 21 did Mr. Allen and Mr. Bangs attend the August 2nd IMC 22 meeting? 23 A: Yes, I believe they did. 24 Q: And did you receive a report as to 25 what transpired?
601 A: Yes, I did, a verbal report. 2 Q: All right. Do you have any 3 recollection as to what transpired of significance at 4 that meeting? 5 A: Specifically one, you know, that I 6 remember quite clearly, was that it wasn't an MNR issue, 7 that ONAS and the police were in charge of this issue, so 8 it wasn't something that we were to be involved in, other 9 than at a local level on information sharing. 10 Q: All right. And I was going to ask 11 you, what was the implications of -- of that -- that 12 position in terms of your role or your need to be 13 involved? 14 A: It was fine. The Park wasn't really 15 in play at that time, in our opinion. It was a number of 16 options that could happen if the situation escalated in 17 terms of trying to get the Federal Government's attention 18 to do the right thing and hand back the military base in 19 a clean state. 20 There was a number of scenarios, as I 21 mentioned. The roads surrounding the Park or Highway 22 21 -- 23 Q: Hmm hmm. 24 A: -- that were equally suggested as 25 potential targets of an escalation campaign to get the
611 Federal Government's attention. 2 Q: All right. Perhaps you would go to 3 Tab 11, then, please. It's Exhibit P-506, Inquiry 4 document 100 -- sorry, 1011682. 5 And these are the minutes of the IMC 6 meeting of August 2nd, 1995, and did you receive a copy 7 of these minutes? 8 A: No, I didn't. 9 Q: All right. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: As a result of being briefed on the 14 IMC meeting, in your view, was any action or proactive 15 activities required of you or your Ministry, at this 16 time? 17 A: There may have been some action 18 required by our Ministries on the ground, locally. I 19 believe there may have been action required of our 20 Ministries in research and other areas. 21 To my knowledge, there was no action 22 required of me. 23 Q: All right. And what reason -- 24 A: Or suggested -- 25 Q: I'm sorry.
621 A: Or suggested that I take any action. 2 Q: All right. What research was 3 undertaken? 4 A: I believe around the title to the 5 property. 6 Q: All right. Title -- 7 A: But, I could be -- 8 Q: -- of the -- 9 A: -- corrected on that. I just recall 10 that there was -- Ron Vrancart and others were pretty 11 sure on the title, but in the briefing notes they refer 12 to the chain of how the Park was transferred over from a 13 private owner. 14 So there may have been. I'm just speak 15 hypothetically, there could have been. 16 Q: Well, did you have any concerns at 17 this time with respect to the validity of the Province's 18 title to the Park? 19 A: No, I did not. 20 Q: Did you -- 21 A: But that was based on the information 22 I was receiving from the Ministry so. 23 Q: All right. Did you give any thought 24 as to whether it would be prudent for local park 25 officials to be proactive on the ground and try to
631 develop relationships with -- with the occupiers of the 2 Camp? 3 A: I don't recall discussing the issue 4 that much. I don't recall that. 5 Q: All right. You testified that you 6 thought that the -- that the potential threat, if you 7 will, against the Park or the surrounding roadways was 8 motivated by a desire to draw attention to the military 9 base. 10 Was there any other motivating factors 11 that you were aware of or discussed as possibilities? 12 A: No, there weren't. It a was pretty 13 common view that it was a Federal issue that hadn't been 14 handled properly by the Federal Government. 15 Q: Okay. And you testified that you 16 don't recall having any substantive discussions with Mr. 17 Beaubien over the summer of 1995 in relation to the 18 Ipperwash Park, but do you recall receiving any 19 correspondence? 20 A: No, I didn't. I received 21 correspondence after the incident of September 6, but I 22 didn't receive it before. 23 Q: Perhaps you -- you would go to Tab 24 12. This is Exhibit P-418 and Inquiry Document 1012239. 25 It's a fax cover page and a Minister's request. And then
641 there is a letter dated August 14, 1995 addressed to the 2 Honourable Charles Harnick. 3 And it appears to have been sent by Marcel 4 Beaubien. And I see that on the second page you appear 5 to have been copied. And I'm wondering whether you might 6 look at this -- this document, whether that refreshes 7 your memory at all. 8 Did you receive this document prior to 9 September the 4th? 10 A: No, I did not. 11 Q: Did you receive it after? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Do you recall how long after? 14 A: It would have been a week, at least. 15 Q: After the -- the events of September 16 the 6th? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. Were you apprised of its 19 contents, prior to September the 4th? 20 A: No, I was not. 21 Q: Did you have any indication or 22 understanding that Mr. Beaubien was apparently meeting 23 with members of the Ontario Provincial Police in relation 24 to Ipperwash Park concerns, prior to September the 4th? 25 A: No, I did not.
651 Q: Now, we have heard evidence from Les 2 Kobayashi and I should ask you, are you familiar with 3 what position Mr. Kobayashi occupied at the time? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And he was the Park Superintendent? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: We've heard evidence at this Inquiry 8 from him that the Ministry of Natural Resources had 9 contingency plans in place which set out what the 10 Ministry's response would be in the event of an 11 occupation of the Ipperwash Park. 12 And -- in other words, it set out the 13 protocols for evacuation, identified personnel who would 14 be involved and the lines of communications, that type of 15 thing. 16 And my question is: Were you aware of the 17 existence of the Park evacuation plan in the summer of 18 '95? 19 A: No. 20 Q: And -- all right. Was it brought to 21 your attention at any time? 22 A: It would have been brought to my 23 attention that we had plans in place when I was notified 24 of the occupation on September 4th, that it had been 25 looked after.
661 Q: Do you know whether it was this 2 particular plan or do you have any -- 3 A: No, I couldn't say. 4 Q: All right. In retrospect, do you 5 think that you ought to have been apprised of the -- that 6 the existence of an evacuation plan and what it entailed? 7 A: Not particularly. If it's an 8 operational issue that would come about because the 9 Interministerial Committee had met and I believe would 10 probably have identified a risk and the local staff would 11 have -- had to make contingency plans around that risk. 12 Q: All right. We have also heard 13 evidence that the Ontario Provincial Police developed its 14 own contingency plan to deal with the possibility that 15 Ipperwash Park would be occupied by the -- the members of 16 the Stoney Point Group. 17 Were you apprised of the existence of this 18 plan at any time prior to September the 4th? 19 A: No, I was not. 20 Q: Were you aware that this plan existed 21 at all? 22 A: Other than police officers posing as 23 campers, that was the limit to my knowledge of the police 24 operations. 25 Q: All right. You didn't have any sense
671 as to what their role would be in an evacuation? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Did you have any information about 4 what role an injunction might play in these 5 circumstances? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Did you know that local park 8 officials attended at a briefing at the OPP London 9 Detachment led by Inspector Carson on September the 1st, 10 1995, specifically in relation to the possibility that 11 the Ipperwash Park might be occupied that weekend? 12 A: Not specifically, no. 13 Q: Did you have any awareness? 14 A: Not of that meeting, no. 15 Q: All right. You didn't know that Mr. 16 Kobayashi, Mr. Sturdy, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Vervoort, and Mr. 17 Elliott from your ministry attended there? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Or were briefed by Inspector Carson? 20 A: No, not that I recall. 21 Q: Were you advised that they were 22 provided with direction as to what the OPP's expectations 23 of the MNR would be in the event of an occupation? 24 A: No. 25 Q: And we have heard evidence from Mr.
681 Kobayashi and others at this Inquiry that, in his view, 2 Inspector Carson made it clear that a key component of 3 the police operation was the expectation that the 4 Ministry of Natural Resources would obtain an injunction 5 in the event that the occupation took place. 6 Were you told this? 7 A: No. 8 Q: When did you first find out that -- 9 that an injunction would -- might play a role in this 10 operation? 11 A: I believe it was either the evening 12 of September 4th or the early morning of September 5th. 13 Q: All right. So after the occupation 14 commenced? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Were you advised that -- that 17 Inspector Carson told your personnel, at this briefing, 18 that the OPP had information that an occupation of the 19 Park on Labour Day Weekend was a real possibility, and 20 that the police would increase their presence as a 21 result? 22 A: I wasn't told specifically who said 23 what to whom, but I was told that there were concerns 24 about an occupation taking place on the long weekend. 25 Q: Now, is that arising from this
691 briefing that you said you -- you didn't have any 2 knowledge of, or from some other source? 3 A: It came from Deputy Minister 4 Vrancart. 5 Q: Just from Deputy Minister Vrancart? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And do you know what his source of 8 the information was? 9 A: No, I do not. 10 Q: Do you recall when you received that 11 advice? 12 A: It would have been -- I was in 13 Toronto at the time, so just before the weekend. 14 Q: All right. And as a result of 15 receiving this advice, did you make any further inquiries 16 or -- or ask for any action to be taken pursuing this -- 17 this advice? 18 A: No, the advice was probably given in 19 the context that the OPP were monitoring the situation on 20 the ground, the safety of the campers, there would be 21 plans drawn up to handle that. Things would have been 22 under control from -- Ron would have probably expressed 23 that to me. 24 Q: All right. Now, in retrospect, do 25 you believe that you should have been told, specifically
701 that this police briefing was -- was going to occur or 2 had occurred? 3 A: No, I don't believe I needed to know 4 about the operations of the police or what their requests 5 of the local MNR staff were. In terms of the injunction 6 I believe it would have been helpful if I had known, in 7 terms of just personally helpful. 8 Q: And helpful in what respect? 9 A: I probably wouldn't have been asking 10 a number of questions around why the need for an 11 injunction. 12 Q: Okay. Was it, in your view, 13 appropriate for your field personnel to have attended 14 this type of meeting with the OPP? 15 A: I'm -- it was, you know, I don't know 16 the specifics of the meeting or I don't know the context, 17 but I can tell you that lots of times the OPP need 18 information from local MNR staff involving, you know, 19 specific operational matters at the Park. 20 Q: In other words -- 21 A: So I don't find that inappropriate 22 that they would be asking the MNR that, you know, there's 23 some assistance they need in this regard or that regard. 24 Q: All right. So you're aware that 25 there was this type of information sharing relationship
711 between Park officials and the OPP in a general way, 2 prior to this? 3 A: I believe I would have known that 4 after the Interministerial Committee meeting on August 5 2nd. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: Just in a general sense. 8 Q: Now when did you first learn that the 9 Ipperwash Provincial Park had become occupied? 10 A: It was in the late afternoon of 11 September 4th. 12 Q: And that was a Monday, holiday 13 Monday? 14 A: I believe it was, yes. 15 Q: All right. Where were you when you 16 received the information? 17 A: I was at our cottage in Haliburton. 18 Q: Who advised you? 19 A: I believe I received a telephone call 20 from Ron Vrancart. 21 Q: And what did Mr. Vrancart tell you 22 during the course of this telephone call? 23 A: He explained to me that there had 24 been an occupation take place at Ipperwash Park. The 25 occupiers of the military base had proceeded to occupy
721 the Park. He mentioned that the camping season was over, 2 that the campers were evacuated. 3 He thought we had minimized any security 4 risk to campers or park attendants or park staff; went 5 through a history of the issue again and in terms of the 6 military base, the dissatisfaction with Federal 7 Government's inaction to hand over the lands in a clean, 8 environmental state or to hand it over in title at all. 9 And mentioned that the OPP were in charge 10 of the situation on the ground and he would keep me 11 informed. 12 Q: All right. Did you have any concerns 13 with respect to the -- either the security of the Park or 14 the safety of the persons who were in -- in and around 15 the Park, as a result of this briefing? 16 A: We focussed primarily on the MNR in 17 the Park. There was a general concern for safety of the 18 area and possible escalation to, you know, blocking roads 19 or to some of the adjacent landowner's access to their 20 homes or cottages. 21 But specifically we dealt primarily around 22 the Park and asked if there was any demands that had been 23 made. Ron didn't know of any. There -- and that was 24 basically the extent of my knowledge of first learning 25 about the occupation.
731 Q: All right. And did -- were you told 2 at all of the manner in which the occupation had been 3 carried out at this time? 4 A: I may have been. 5 Q: And what was your recollection? 6 A: My recollection was that the Park 7 staff had co-operated with the occupiers to make sure 8 there was no confrontation at the time. 9 Q: All right. And did you hear of any 10 interactions as between the OPP and the occupiers, at the 11 time of the occupation's commencement? 12 A: No, I did not. 13 Q: All right. And did you have any 14 further -- well, let me ask you this: Did you -- did you 15 provide any directions to Mr. Vrancart over the course of 16 this telephone call? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Do you recall anything else of 19 significance during the course of this call? 20 A: Not that I can recall. 21 Q: And as a result of it, what, if 22 anything, did you do? 23 A: I don't believe we did anything. 24 There was -- the situation seemed to be under control. 25 Q: All right. So you had no -- no
741 significant concerns at this time, other than the fact 2 that an occupation had occurred? 3 A: That's right. It had not been an MNR 4 issue all summer and it wasn't an MNR issue that day. 5 Q: All right. So you didn't see it as 6 an MNR issue -- 7 A: No, I did not. 8 Q: -- yet? Why? 9 A: I felt that it was a Federal 10 Government issue, that their frustration had spilled over 11 to a Provincial Park -- 12 Q: Hmm hmm. 13 A: -- and the police were monitoring the 14 situation on the ground in terms of public safety. 15 Q: All right. So it was a policing 16 issue and a Federal Government issue, from your -- 17 A: At this time and -- 18 Q: -- perspective. 19 A: -- ONAS had been in charge all of 20 August to try to avoid these situations. 21 Q: And you were content to rely on ONAS 22 to do whatever it thought appropriate? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Notwithstanding the implications to 25 your Ministry?
751 A: Well there's a balance to everything, 2 but in terms of the general management of the issue, in 3 terms of my personal involvement, it hadn't been our 4 issue. 5 Q: All right. Now did you receive any 6 further briefings or reports with respect to the 7 occupation on September the 4th? 8 A: I'm sorry? 9 Q: Did you receive any other briefings 10 or reports with respect to the occupation on September 11 the 4th? 12 A: Yes. I received another phone call 13 from Jeff Bangs. 14 Q: All right. And this was subsequent 15 to Mr. Vrancart? 16 A: Subsequent to Mr. Vrancart's. 17 Q: And what were you informed by him? 18 A: Essentially the same things that Ron 19 just informed me of. 20 Q: So was there any new information or 21 different information? 22 A: No, not that I recall. 23 Q: All right. And were you aware that - 24 - that there had been uniformed police officers in the 25 Park in anticipation of a possible occupation?
761 A: Yes, I was told that in August. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: I'm not sure I would characterize it 4 as anticipation of an occupation. It was more in terms 5 of safety and security for the campers after the 6 incidents on the beach, is how I interpreted it. 7 Q: All right. But specifically, were 8 you aware that there would be police officers -- 9 uniformed police officers in the Park on the 4th, in 10 anticipation of a possible occupation? 11 A: No, I wasn't aware of that nuance to 12 it. 13 Q: Okay. Had you been -- did you learn, 14 that day, that there had been an altercation, of sorts, 15 as between the OPP and the Stoney Point group members, 16 which resulted in the OPP leaving the Park? 17 A: No, I wasn't aware of that. No. 18 Q: Were you aware that, in fact, well, 19 let me ask you this: What was your view of the fact that 20 the OPP left the Park at all? In other words, left the 21 Park to the occupiers? 22 A: I don't think I had a view on that at 23 the time. 24 Q: All right. Now we have heard 25 evidence -- well, let me ask you this: Was it your
771 understanding that the Park was closed as a result of 2 this event? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And we've heard evidence that there 5 are two (2) types of Park closings; one in which the Park 6 is closed but that it's not -- it precludes citizens from 7 access to the Park, and the other closing is one such 8 that it is closed to all public use. 9 Do you know which closing was evoked in 10 these situations -- this situation, excuse me? 11 A: No, I don't. I assumed that it was 12 closed to all public access. And it was scheduled to 13 close on that day as well. 14 Q: All right. And just to be clear 15 though, what was your understa -- you said it was to be 16 closed on that day, in any event. What type of closing 17 would normally -- 18 A: I assumed it was closed to the public 19 access, but -- 20 Q: All right. 21 A: -- I may be corrected on that, but -- 22 Q: All right. 23 A: -- that was my assumption at the 24 time. 25 Q: No, I just want to know your -- your
781 understanding. 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: All right. Now, were you briefed, at 4 all, on the 4th, with respect to what the prior 5 interrelationship as between Park staff and First Nations 6 peoples with respect to this Park had been? 7 A: Yes, I had been. 8 Q: And what was your understanding of 9 that? 10 A: My understanding was that there had 11 been a good relationship; that a number of First Nation 12 people from the community worked at the Park and had so 13 for generations. 14 Q: All right. Were you aware as to 15 whether or not there was any sites within the Park that 16 had a special significance to the local Aboriginal 17 people? 18 A: No, I can't recall the specifics. 19 No. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: It wouldn't surprise me, though. 22 Q: Okay. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
791 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Right, Commissioner, 2 I'm wondering, it's 10:30, is it appropriate for the 3 morning break at this time? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 5 this would be a good time. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 8 very much. 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 10 for fifteen (15) minutes. 11 12 --- Upon recessing at 10:25 p.m. 13 --- Upon resuming at 10:57 a.m. 14 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 16 resumed. Please be seated. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes, Commissioner, I 19 should just explain for the record, we took a little bit 20 longer of a morning break because I understand that a 21 very important hockey tournament is scheduled to 22 commence. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The Silver 24 Stick. 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The Silver Stick. And
801 we received -- the building just received of number of 2 supplies and we didn't to interrupt the Hearing and 3 that's the reason for our -- our longer break. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 5 Thank you, Ms. Vella. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 9 Q: Now, we're still on -- on September 10 the 4th, 1995. And were you apprised of any specific 11 demands that were being made or may be being made by the 12 occupiers through the two (2) briefings you had that day? 13 A: No, I was not. And I had asked the 14 question, as well. 15 Q: And so when you indicated the -- your 16 belief that this was motivated in large part by a desire 17 to draw attention to the Federal Government with respect 18 to the status of the Army Camp, that was an assumption on 19 your part? 20 A: No, that was conveyed to me. It was 21 a widely shared view at the time. 22 Q: But within the Ministry, or a widely 23 shared view where? 24 A: Between the Ministry and other 25 information sessions that I attended after.
811 Q: All right. Now -- 2 A: But at that time, specifically I had 3 asked the question, were there any demands being made, 4 and the answer was no, there's been none. 5 Q: All right. Fair enough. You also 6 indicated that you were provided with a further briefing 7 concerning the circumstances under which -- or at least 8 the history of the situation. 9 And was your specific understanding of the 10 way in which the Park land had been acquired by the 11 Ontario Government? 12 A: I'm going by memory here, but my 13 understanding is that the Federal Government had 14 purchased land from the First Nation, subsequently sold a 15 part of it to private individuals, that subsequently sold 16 it to the Provincial Government to be a park. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: I believe that was 1930, 1930's, '38, 19 somewhere like that. 20 Q: All right. And were you at all 21 familiar with the specifics of any purported surrender of 22 the -- of the Park land, the original purported 23 surrender? 24 A: In a general sense. I would have 25 been briefed on the -- on the history that the title was
821 good, that there was no land claim being made, no formal 2 land claim by anyone. 3 Q: All right. So, that was the extent 4 of your knowledge in that respect? 5 A: It was probably more elaborate than 6 that but that was, in a nutshell -- 7 Q: All right. 8 A: -- what was conveyed to me. 9 Q: And did you have any specific 10 familiarity with the treaty that applied to the First 11 Nations of this general region? 12 A: Not specifically, no. 13 Q: Now, did the -- what was your 14 specific understanding with respect to the acquisition of 15 the Camp -- the Army Camp lands by the Federal 16 Government? 17 A: My understanding was that they had 18 requested the use of the Army Camp lands for the Second 19 World War and after which they were to return it back to 20 the First Nation in a clean state, and then throughout 21 the years there had been various promises, commitments, 22 but they'd never done that. 23 And as recently as '93 and '95, when it 24 was obviously an issue, it still wasn't being done. 25 Q: All right. And did you have any
831 specific knowledge of the Order in Council which had been 2 issued to facilitate that use of the -- the lands by the 3 Army Camp? 4 A: No, I did not. 5 Q: And were you briefed on the specifics 6 of that order? 7 A: I would have been briefed on the 8 legitimacy of the claim that the Military land should be 9 returned to the First Nation. 10 Q: All right. And what was -- can you 11 tell me more specifically what your -- your recollection 12 of that briefing was in terms of the legitimacy? 13 A: My recollection and my belief was 14 that the Federal Government should have done what they 15 were obligated to do and what they had agreed to do and 16 that was to hand back the land that they had used on a 17 temporary basis back to the First Nation. 18 Q: And did you learn anything over the 19 course of the subsequent few days which altered that -- 20 that understanding and belief? 21 A: None whatsoever. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Now, was there any mention made to
841 you of the -- the possible existence of a burial ground 2 in the Park by either Mr. Vrancart or Mr. Bangs on the 3 4th? 4 A: No. 5 Q: What was your understanding of the 6 source of Mr. Vrancart's information which he passed over 7 to you on the 4th? 8 A: I would assume that it had come 9 through the proper people in the Ministry or from ONAS or 10 from the Ontario Government. 11 Q: Okay. That's your assumption? You 12 don't have -- 13 A: My assumption. 14 Q: -- specific knowledge? And what 15 about with respect to Jeff Bangs? 16 A: The same. No, actually, it wouldn't 17 have been why -- it would have been -- come from the 18 bureaucracy. 19 Q: From the bureaucracy, the civil 20 servants? 21 A: Yeah. Probably, specifically Peter 22 Allen? 23 Q: And you say that because that would 24 be the normal channels? 25 A: Yes. And he seemed to be very
851 familiar with the issue and was the most knowledgeable in 2 our office, or Mr. Vrancart's office, about the issue. 3 Q: And what was the line of 4 communication from the ground up, if you will, in 5 relation to this matter once the occupation commenced? 6 A: I'm not familiar with that. 7 Q: All right. Your sources of 8 information, primary sources of information, came from 9 whom within your Ministry? 10 A: Mr. Vrancart and his executive 11 assistant, Peter Allen. 12 Q: All right. And, to a lesser degree, 13 Mr. Bangs? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And what were your primary concerns 16 when you received the news that the Park had been 17 occupied? 18 A: I'm sorry. 19 Q: What was your primary concern when 20 you received the news that the Park had been occupied? 21 A: Probably the safety of the campers 22 and the staff of the MNR. 23 Q: And did that continue to be a concern 24 after you received your briefings from Mr. Vrancart and 25 Mr. Bangs?
861 A: No, it did not. 2 Q: And why not? 3 A: I felt that there had been steps 4 taken that minimized that risk. 5 Q: And based on these briefings, did you 6 form any views as to who in government should be carrying 7 the ball on this matter? 8 A: We assumed that it would continue as 9 it had since August 2nd, that ONAS would be in charge of 10 First Nation issues and the Solicitor General's 11 department, the police who were on the ground, would be 12 in charge. 13 Q: All right. What role, if any, did 14 you envision for the Ministry of Natural Resources to 15 play at this time? 16 A: I didn't. 17 Q: What role -- 18 A: Personally -- personally, I didn't. 19 On the ground I would assume that there would be 20 information sharing, local staff, et cetera. 21 Q: Information exchange or sharing 22 with -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- whom? With whom? 25 A: With the OPP on the ground.
871 Q: Okay. So, as between your -- your 2 field personnel, if you will, and the OPP? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Anything else? 5 A: No. 6 Q: And do I take it from your answer 7 that you didn't think there was any role for you 8 personally at this time? 9 A: No, I did not. 10 Q: And what was the basis of that 11 belief? 12 A: It had never been our issue in 13 August, and now there was an occupation, the police were 14 in charge on the scene locally. 15 First Nation issues -- this was a 16 complicated file. There's many facets to it, the Park 17 just being one of them. Our concerns around the Park had 18 been addressed in terms of the safety of the campers and 19 the staff. 20 The physical plant, we talked about that 21 quite a bit. There was a water system had needed to be 22 winterized, but this was early September. I'm pretty 23 familiar with water systems in rural areas and I realised 24 that, you know, you've got a few months to work that out. 25 Other than that, we felt that most of our
881 concerns had been addressed. 2 Q: Now, what Ministry or Committee 3 within the Government did you think would direct matters 4 from the Government's perspective in terms of the Park's 5 occupation? 6 A: I assumed that, in terms of the 7 occupation itself, the police were handling that aspect 8 of it. 9 Q: Yes. But, was there any -- any 10 Ministry or Committee within the Government who you 11 believed would be directing the -- the Government's role 12 and direction. 13 A: Yes, I assumed that ONAS would be the 14 lead. It had been the lead all of August, along with the 15 Solicitor General's department that was part of that 16 Committee. 17 Q: Now were you apprised of the roles 18 that were played by your Park officials in the evacuation 19 of the Park? 20 A: Not specifically, no. In regard to 21 what? 22 Q: With respect to what assistance they 23 may have rendered in facilitating the evacuation? 24 A: No, I agreed with that. I thought 25 that they had avoided any confrontation; that they had
891 made sure that the campers were evacuated smoothly; that 2 the staff were safe; that the issue was contained. 3 Q: All right. Subsequent to the 4 evacuation of the Park, were you aware as to what roles, 5 if any, your Park officials were playing in relation to 6 the -- the ongoing occupation? 7 A: No, I was not. 8 Q: All right. Did you know, for 9 example, that Mr. Kobayashi and Ed Vervoort, who was the 10 compliance officer in your Ministry, were present from 11 time to time at the OPP command post for certain police 12 briefings throughout September 4th to 6th, 1995? 13 A: No, I did not. There was one (1) 14 caveat to my previous answer. I was aware that Les 15 Kobayashi and the OPP had tried to serve a Notice of 16 Trespass, I believe it was. 17 Q: All right. And were you apprised of 18 the results of those efforts? 19 A: Yes, I was. 20 Q: What was the result? 21 A: I believe they couldn't find anyone 22 to receive it or no one would receive it. 23 Q: All right. Now you indicated that 24 you were not aware that some of your personnel were at 25 the command post for police briefings between September
901 4th and 6th, 1995. 2 Does knowing that now raise any concerns 3 for you? 4 A: No, I don't think so. 5 Q: Would it raise any concerns for you 6 in the event that these personnel were privy to certain 7 police operational matters? 8 A: Well, it would depend on which ones. 9 I would assume they'd be only there to give logistical 10 help or information about the physical plant or the Park 11 itself. 12 Q: All right. My question is a little 13 more abstract. In the event they received information in 14 the nature of -- of affecting police operations such as 15 information about the -- the occupiers themselves, for 16 example, would that raise a concern for you? 17 A: I don't know. I'd have to think 18 about it more. 19 Q: Sorry? 20 A: I don't know. 21 Q: All right. Would you have any 22 concerns with respect to the perception that might be 23 created of MNR personnel being privy to police briefings 24 during the course of an operation? 25 A: I would assume that the OPP would
911 follow the proper protocols and only share information on 2 an as need to know basis. 3 Q: All right. And does that go back to 4 your understanding of -- of the concept of police 5 independence? 6 A: It's part. My understanding was more 7 along the lines of elected officials in Government as 8 opposed to field staff that the OPP may need to call upon 9 for their expertise. 10 Q: All right. So, you see a distinction 11 between elected officials being privy to these matters 12 and field staff who may need to know these matters on an 13 as need basis? 14 A: Well, no I guess it would be the same 15 concept, that you had only need to know the information 16 on an as need to know basis, and that they would follow 17 their proper protocols and not violate any of the 18 procedures that safeguard separation between the Crown 19 and -- and Government. 20 Q: And who would you rely on that to 21 ensure that that division or distinction was respected? 22 A: I would assume that would be the 23 OPP's responsibility. 24 Q: Okay. In retrospect do you have any 25 -- do you think that it was prudent for Mr. Kobayashi and
921 Mr. Vervoort to be part of the police briefings at the 2 command post during September 4th to 6th? 3 A: I think it was probably prudent. 4 They had a -- a great deal of information about the -- 5 the Park and physical structures of the buildings, et 6 cetera. 7 Q: All right. Now, were you aware that 8 Mr. Kobayashi in turn was relaying certain information he 9 received from the command post briefings to Peter Sturdy 10 who in turn relayed those to the IMC meetings of 11 September 5th and 6th, 1995? 12 A: I am now. 13 Q: And -- 14 A: At the time I -- I knew that there 15 was information that came to Peter Allen that came 16 through the MNR side of the local scene. 17 Q: Are you saying you're aware of that 18 now? 19 A: I was aware that Peter Allen was 20 receiving information, I wasn't aware of who and what the 21 chain was. 22 Q: All right. You didn't understand 23 that the source of some of that information were these 24 command post briefings? 25 A: No, I did not.
931 Q: Do you have any concerns about -- 2 about the fact that information was being channelled from 3 -- some information was being channelled from the 4 briefings at the command post to the IMC meeting? 5 A: Well, it depends if they needed to 6 know the information, if it, you know, wasn't in our 7 field of responsibility I don't think they needed to 8 know. 9 Q: I'm sorry, I didn't get the -- 10 A: If it wasn't in our field of 11 responsibility I don't think we needed to know. 12 Q: All right. Are you aware of any such 13 information that was received by the IMC, as relayed to 14 you, that, in retrospect, should not have been passed 15 along? 16 A: Not particularly, no. 17 Q: All right. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Now, in the event that the IMC 22 meeting was receiving information in the nature of police 23 operational information, do you think that that was 24 prudent? 25 A: My personal belief, no.
941 Q: And why do you think that was not -- 2 that would -- that would not be prudent, if that was the 3 case? 4 A: Unless it was to ask for policy 5 decisions or background, I don't think the IMC needed to 6 know that, if it was strictly a policing matter. If it 7 was to influence how the ONAS was going to resolve some 8 of the fundamental causes behind the issue of the 9 occupation, then I'm sure they'd use their judgment on 10 what information was shared with the IMC committee. 11 Q: And who would -- whose judgment are 12 you talking about? 13 A: The police. 14 Q: All right. The OPP? 15 A: The OPP. That's what the question 16 was, it wasn't around the operations? 17 Q: Yes, I'm just clarifying -- 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: -- for the record. Thank you. 20 A: Okay. Thank you. 21 Q: Now, do you recall having any further 22 discussions or receiving any further information, 23 concerning the occupation, from anybody or any source, on 24 September the 4th, that you haven't shared with us? 25 A: No, I don't.
951 Q: Then I'd like to move to Tuesday, 2 September the 5th, 1995. 3 Do you recall what your first contact or 4 involvement was in relation to the Park occupation on 5 that day? 6 A: I'm assuming that I would have 7 received a phone call in the morning from Jeff Bangs, 8 just because we did it every day. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: And we would have talked about that 11 issue and maybe some others, but I can't recall the 12 specifics. 13 Q: All right. And where were you 14 Tuesday morning? 15 A: I was in Haliburton at our home. 16 Q: And how is it that you have a clear 17 recollection of that? 18 A: It was the first day of school for 19 Cody. 20 Q: Your son? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. And do you recall 23 approximately what time you would likely have received 24 that telephone call? 25 A: It would have been before school, so
961 it would have been eight o'clock, quarter to 8:00, 2 somewhere like that. 3 Q: Do you have any recollection today as 4 to what you were advised by Mr. Bangs that morning? 5 A: No, I don't. We would have probably 6 covered the same ground we talked about the evening 7 before. 8 Q: All right. If there had been 9 something of significance which was different, in 10 relation to the occupation, do you think you would have 11 remembered it? 12 A: Yes. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Were you aware that there was an IMC 17 meeting scheduled for that morning? 18 A: Yes, I would have been. 19 Q: And would you have been aware of that 20 in advance, in other words, that it was going to happen? 21 A: Probably not, but Jeff probably would 22 have told me that. 23 Q: And why is it your expectation that 24 he likely would have told you? 25 A: Because I usually asked him what he
971 was going to do that day. 2 Q: And was it your understanding that he 3 was going? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Did you authorize him to go as your 6 representative? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And did he have your authority to 9 speak on your behalf at this meeting? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And do you recall whether or not 12 there was any discussion that morning, with you, 13 concerning the issue of an injunction? 14 A: It was either that morning, but I 15 think it was -- might have been the Sunday of -- with 16 Ron, Jeff, the conversation at that time. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: We heard testimony from Jeff Bangs on 21 November the 3rd, 2005. And I'm just going to -- we 22 asked him some questions about his recollection of the 23 morning of September the 5th and I'm just going to share 24 that with you, to ask you, then, whether or not that 25 alters or refreshes your recollection:
981 "Q: And let me just ask you, did you 2 have..." 3 And I'm sorry. This is at pages 150 to 4 51, commencing at line 20 and ending at line 10 of the 5 following page. The question is as follows: 6 "Q: And let me just ask you, did you 7 have a chat with the Minister that 8 morning? 9 A: Yes. As I indicated earlier, we 10 had talked about this and the question 11 of what would happen once an injunction 12 was obtained and what it might 13 precipitate was discussed. 14 Q: And what did the Minister say 15 about that, to the best of your 16 recollection? 17 A: Basically, what I've said here 18 was, I was relaying a report of my 19 discussion with him that a meeting -- 20 that morning to the meeting and he was 21 concerned that if we sought an 22 injunction and if it was granted by the 23 Court, there would be some expectation 24 that it would be actioned or something 25 be done with it, and he was concerned
991 about that. 2 Q: Did you share his concern? 3 A: Yes." 4 Now, as I read this, I realize that that 5 probably is a report you received after the IMC meeting; 6 is that fair? 7 Does that refresh your memory at all? 8 A: I don't know if I -- I would assume 9 it was before, because we had talked about that issue. 10 Q: Okay. And does that refresh your 11 memory at all? 12 A: I recall the discussion. I can't say 13 specifically. We talked -- it might have been after, it 14 might have been before; I can't remember. 15 Q: But at least at some point that 16 morning you had that discussion? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. And what was your 19 concern, if any, with respect to the option of seeking an 20 injunction? 21 A: I didn't understand why they needed 22 an injunction, you know, the Attorney General and the 23 police said that's what they needed. I didn't object, 24 but I just wondered why they needed it. 25 Q: Okay.
1001 A: If you get an injunction, you might 2 be expected to do something about it. 3 Q: Meaning? 4 A: Meaning removal of the occupiers or I 5 didn't really know exactly what they would do, but that's 6 sort of the question I had. 7 My opinion was that it's easier to avoid 8 these situations, prevent occupations from occurring, if 9 you can, than it is to remove people. 10 So I just had a question, if you get an 11 injunction, you might be expected to do something. What 12 are you going to do? 13 Q: All right. And so that was a 14 question you wanted -- 15 A: You know, what are the options that 16 they are going to do? I never did get an answer to it, 17 so. 18 Q: Okay. It was a question you wanted 19 Mr. Bangs to pursue at the IMC meeting? 20 A: Yes. And I think I also mentioned it 21 to Mr. Vrancart as well. 22 Q: All right. And do you recall 23 speaking with Mr. Vrancart at all, on the morning of 24 September the 5th, while you were in Haliburton? 25 A: No, I don't.
1011 Q: Did you attend at your office at any 2 time on Tuesday, September the 5th? 3 A: Did I attend the office? 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: I drove from Haliburton to Toronto 6 and I arrived at the office after two o'clock in the 7 afternoon. 8 Q: Some time after two o'clock? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: All right. And did you meet with Mr. 11 Bangs and/or Mr. Vrancart and Mr. Allen on your arrival 12 at the office? 13 A: Yes, I did. 14 Q: Do you recall what you discussed that 15 afternoon with them? 16 A: Yes. They gave me a briefing of what 17 took place at the IMC meeting. We always call it the 18 Interministerial Committee, but I realize everything has 19 acronyms. 20 Q: Sorry, the Interministerial 21 Committee's fine. 22 A: And they relayed what had taken place 23 there and conveyed to me that it was the decision of the 24 Committee that I be the Government spokesperson on the 25 issue.
1021 Q: How did you react to that? 2 A: Not well. I said that it hadn't been 3 our issue all of August, that ONAS was in charge of First 4 Nation relations, the OPP were monitoring the situation 5 on the ground and were in charge there, that I didn't 6 feel that it was my responsibility to be the Government 7 spokesperson on issues that we had no control over or say 8 on. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: And particularly around injunctions, 11 I didn't feel that -- I still don't feel that I know 12 enough about injunctions to go out and convey to the 13 public what the ramifications are around that. 14 Q: All right. And so as of this date, 15 Tuesday September the 5th, then, you continued to see 16 that this was not an MNR issue, the Park occupation? 17 A: And that was the advice of my deputy 18 Minister as well. 19 Q: All right. And what, if anything, 20 did you direct your deputy Minister and/or executive 21 assistant, in relation to your concerns about being the 22 Government spokesperson? 23 A: I directed Jeff Bangs to inform 24 whoever suggested this that I wasn't doing it. 25 Q: I'm sorry?
1031 A: I suggested that -- I directed Jeff 2 Bangs to get a hold of whoever suggested this, as a 3 result of the meeting, that I wasn't going to be the 4 Government spokesperson on this issue; it wasn't an MNR 5 issue. 6 Q: All right. And do you -- do you have 7 any understanding as to who had directed that? 8 A: My understanding was it was the 9 Interministerial Committee that had recommended it. 10 Q: Okay. And what role, if any, did you 11 believe that you had to play with respect to the 12 occupation at this point in time on Tuesday? 13 A: Very little. We had made sure that 14 the staff and the campers' security was addressed, we 15 thought to the best of our ability. And we felt that it 16 was an illegal occupation that was taking place; that 17 police were in charge of the situation on the ground. 18 And that First Nation issues -- because 19 this was a complicated file, there was a number of 20 factors at play, and that ONAS was the head of the 21 Interministerial Committee; that they were in charge. 22 Q: All right. And did you express that 23 view to Mr. Vrancart and Mr. Bangs? 24 A: It was a shared view. It was 25 actually Mr. Vrancart's recommendation.
1041 Q: All right. I'd like you to go, 2 please, to Tab 16. It's Exhibit P-509. 3 A: I'm sorry, 16? 4 Q: Yes, 16. It's a copy of the meeting 5 notes of the September 5th IMC or Interministerial 6 Committee Meeting, Exhibit P-509, Inquiry Document 7 1012288. Do you have that before you? 8 A: Yes, I do. 9 Q: Thank you. And first of all, I 10 wonder if you would look at the second page. In fact, 11 it's the first page of the meeting notes that's behind 12 the fax cover page. 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: And you'll see it's entitled, 15 "Meeting Notes." 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you'll see there is a list of who 18 was in attendance or participated at the meeting? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: I wonder if you would just go through 21 the list and identify for me which of these individuals 22 you had -- you had knowledge of or -- or were familiar 23 with, as at September the 5th, commencing with Julie Jai. 24 A: I would have known Dan Newman. 25 Q: From ONAS?
1051 A: From ONAS. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: Kathryn Hunt, Deb Hutton, Peter 4 Allen. I probably would have known Leith Hunter. 5 Q: Who did believe him to be? 6 A: She. 7 Q: She? Excuse me. 8 A: A lawyer in the Ministry of Natural 9 Resources. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: David Moran, I may have known. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: Jeff Bangs. 16 Q: Hmm hmm. 17 A: At that time those are the only 18 people I would have known. 19 Q: All right. And did you include -- 20 did you also consider the people who were on the 21 conference call? 22 A: Yes, I didn't know them either. 23 Q: All right. 24 A: I did not attend this meeting. 25 Q: I appreciate that.
1061 A: Okay. 2 Q: That's fair enough. Now, we have 3 heard testimony from Peter Sturdy who was with your 4 ministry at the time, and regarding what information, as 5 relayed in these minutes, he relayed to the 6 Interministerial Committee. 7 And I would like to know what, if any, of 8 the following information, reported at the IMC meeting on 9 September 5th, you were apprised of, on or about the 5th? 10 Excuse me. 11 And if you would look at, please, page 2 12 of the notes, Item 2, Updates from the Solicitor General 13 and MNR. And again, my question is: What of this 14 information did you know as of September the 5th? 15 The first point: 16 "September 4th, 1995 at about 7:30 p.m. 17 a group of Stoney Pointers composed of 18 about thirty (30) to forty (40) men, 19 women and children entered and 20 established a camp in the Park. MNR 21 staff were asked to leave and have not 22 been allowed back on the premises." 23 Now did you know that information? 24 A: Yes, I would have. 25 Q: Second:
1071 "The Province holds valid title to the 2 Park. The land was surrendered in 1928 3 to the Federal Government which in turn 4 sold it to private citizens. Ontario 5 subsequently purchased the land from 6 private citizens." 7 Do you know that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: "The Park has now been officially 10 closed pursuant to the Provincial Parks 11 Act. The OPP and MNR have informed the 12 Stoney Pointers that they are 13 trespassing and asked them to leave the 14 Park." 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: "The Stoney Pointers refused to leave 17 the Park." 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: "MNR have since been denied access to 20 the Park's maintenance facilities. It 21 had been unable to proceed with the 22 closure of the Park's physical plant, 23 e.g., turning the water off." 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: "MNR attempted to serve Notice of
1081 Trespass upon the Stoney Pointers but 2 were unsuccessful because no one was 3 willing to accept service. There has 4 been no identified spokesperson or 5 leader of the group." 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And finally: 8 "MNR indicates that there have not been 9 any discussions between the Stoney 10 Pointers and MNR or the OPP. As a 11 result, it is not yet clear what their 12 demands are. 13 It should also be noted that the group 14 has not resorted to violence. However, 15 they may have stolen an OPP vehicle, 16 cut down some trees and have blockaded 17 Matheson Road." 18 Did you know all of that information? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: All right. I wonder, next, if you 21 could look at Number 3 on this page. It's 22 entitled, "Options." And it appears that 23 a discussion was held in which certain 24 options were discussed as possible ways of 25 resolving the occupation.
1091 "First, criminal charges might be laid, 2 e.g., mischief. 3 Second, trespass offenses under the 4 Provincial Parks Act, Trespass to 5 Property Act, Public Lands Act, might 6 be laid. 7 Third, a civil injunction either ex 8 parte [which means without notice] or 9 interim might be sought." 10 Q: Now, were you aware that these were 11 the options that were discussed? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: All right. 14 A: I didn't know the -- the difference 15 between the ex parte or the interim, but it was explained 16 to me that those were the three (3) options. The one 17 around an injunction just being injunction at that time. 18 Q: Also indicates at the end of this 19 page that: 20 "It was agreed that more work was 21 needed to evaluate the legal risks, 22 logistics and timings related to those 23 options. It was agreed however that 24 staff would recommend that Ministers 25 approve an injunction."
1101 My question is whether or not you were 2 asked by your staff for your views on an injunction and, 3 specifically whether you would approve the seeking of an 4 injunction? 5 A: No, I don't recall that. 6 Q: All right. Did you have any 7 understanding as to whether or not the Ministry would 8 have to be, of necessity, implicated in an application 9 for an injunction? 10 A: No, I did not. 11 Q: You weren't aware that, as landowner, 12 you would be required to be part of that? 13 A: I was the next day. 14 Q: Sorry? 15 A: I was the next day, but not on the 16 day we're talking about. 17 Q: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Now 18 if you look on page 3 under item 4, "Next Step." Now I 19 understand from your earlier evidence that you received a 20 briefing on this meeting? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I also understand that you were 23 not content to be spokesperson? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And is that even in the short term?
1111 A: That was even in the short term. 2 Q: All right. However, then there are 3 three (3) points here that were to comprise the message 4 that would be delivered to the public on the part of the 5 Government: 6 "First: The Province has valid title 7 to the Park. 8 Second: The occupiers have been told 9 they are trespassing and have been 10 asked to leave. 11 Third: The Province will take steps 12 to remove the occupiers as soon as 13 possible." 14 My question is: Were you in agreement 15 with the substance of the message that was being proposed 16 to be delivered on behalf of the Government to the 17 public? 18 A: In general, I would say I was in 19 agreement. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: The third point, Ron Vrancart and I 22 had discussions about that, in terms of the occupation 23 itself. The Park was closed; we didn't see any urgency 24 around the Park. 25 The larger concern for the Government, as
1121 a whole, was the escalation or possibility of an 2 escalation, that there may be roads blockaded if the 3 Federal Government didn't pay attention to this Park 4 takeover, which was Provincial lands. That might not 5 motivate the Federal Government. 6 It might move on to more disruptions in 7 the surrounding area, either the Pinery Park or, more 8 likely, roads would be blockaded. 9 Q: All right. So -- 10 A: So it was our feeling that, you know, 11 there wasn't an immediate threat to the Park, per se, or 12 -- or that issue in terms of public safety, but in terms 13 of a larger issue, that the quicker this was dealt with, 14 the better it would be to resolve the issue than to let 15 it keep festering and escalating. 16 Q: Okay. And did you have any separate 17 views or different views with respect to what might be an 18 appropriate way to approach the resolution of the 19 occupation, other than the three (3) options that were 20 reviewed at this Interministerial Committee meeting? 21 A: Not at this time. Like I say, I 22 arrived there at shortly after two o'clock. I was told 23 that I was going to be the spokesperson and this is what 24 happened, being here's key messages. 25 It was only about twenty (20) minutes, I
1131 would say. 2 Q: You mean your briefing? 3 A: The briefing. 4 Q: All right. And then what did you do 5 after you received this twenty (20) minute, or so, 6 briefing? 7 A: The press, for the first and only 8 time in twelve (12) years, had showed up at my office en 9 mass to do a scrum. 10 So I went out and delivered the messages, 11 key messages approved by this Committee. 12 Q: Now, do you recall being provided 13 with any specific briefing notes for that press 14 conference? 15 A: Yes, I had a briefing note prepared. 16 Q: And would you look at Tab 13, please? 17 It's Exhibit number P-918, Inquiry document 30008061. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: It's also Inquiry document number 20 3000806. And are these the briefing notes you received, 21 prior to participating in the scrum? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: Yes, I believe it is.
1141 Q: Okay. I take it you reviewed this in 2 advance? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And did you generally agree with the 5 position set out in the briefing note? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Is there anything that you either 8 disagreed with or had some concern about? 9 A: No, I don't recall thinking about 10 that. I was trying to digest the information so that I 11 could convey the Government's position, as expressed 12 through this Committee, to the media and to the public. 13 Q: All right. Now, specifically when 14 you look at page 2 under, "Background," and in particular 15 item 2: 16 "Over the last few weeks a number of 17 incidents involving vandalism and 18 harassment were directed toward 19 Ipperwash Provincial Park and the 20 people camping there." 21 Did you have any knowledge about that? 22 A: Yes, I did. 23 Q: All right. And what was the extent 24 of your knowledge? 25 A: Just media reports of incidents.
1151 Q: All right. 2 A: And Peter Allen, from time to time, 3 would mention incidents that had taken place in front of, 4 or around the Park. 5 Q: Now, I note that in the -- in the 6 background part, or indeed in any part of this note, 7 there doesn't appear to be any mention with respect to 8 the Federal Government or Camp Ipperwash; is that right? 9 A: That's correct. I -- yes. 10 Q: Indicates -- it does indicate of 11 course that the First Nation occupied Camp Ipperwash but 12 there doesn't seem to be any background about the -- how 13 -- how the lands came into -- 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: -- usage by the Military. Was that 16 in your view an admission? 17 A: Maybe it was just a given that that 18 was the reason for the occupation and these were notes to 19 talk specifically about the occupation that day. 20 Q: All right. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: I wonder if you would next go to Tab 25 14 please. It's Exhibit P-529 and it's Inquiry Document
1161 Number 3000575. 2 And this appears to be a recording, a 3 transcription if you will, of the news conference or the 4 scrum of September the 5th. 5 I'm wondering, did you have a chance to 6 review this after the -- the scrum? 7 A: Not right after the scrum but I've 8 seen it in preparation for this Inquiry. 9 Q: Is that the first time you would have 10 seen it? 11 A: I would have saw it under discovery 12 back in 2001 as well. 13 Q: All right. To the best of your 14 recollection is this an accurate rendition of the 15 substance of what you said at that scrum? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: And you indicate on page 2 or at 22 least it's recorded that you indicated down at the -- the 23 second -- the last question, the question was raised as 24 follows: 25 "Minister, are you concerned that this
1171 could be the first of many; that 2 provincial parks will be targeted 3 basically saying this is a -- a burial 4 ground of some kind that could also end 5 up as being..." 6 And you answer: 7 "I'm not aware of any claims like that. 8 I think this came about because of the 9 Military occupation of the Military 10 Base and so I think this is an isolated 11 case. They took over the Military Base 12 earlier and now they've come into the 13 Provincial Park which is right next 14 door." 15 And does that accurately set out your view 16 of the situation at the time -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- in terms of motivation? And I do 19 see that's raised in the question that there -- at least 20 the burial ground issue is raised. 21 Was that the first time this had come to 22 your attention? 23 A: Yes, and it didn't really register 24 with me when the reporter said it either. It wasn't 'til 25 subsequent days later that I was aware of that.
1181 Q: All right. So you're indicating this 2 -- this didn't resonate with you at the time? 3 A: No, I thought he was referring to a 4 land claim but... 5 Q: Okay. And did you pursue -- raise 6 the issue of a -- of the burial ground reference with 7 your Deputy Minister or executive assistant, during the 8 5th or 6th? 9 A: No, I didn't. I was nervous after 10 I'd done the conference similar to how I am today. 11 Q: All right. 12 A: And I was concentrating on trying to 13 follow the script that they had given me and -- but it 14 didn't register with me. 15 Q: All right. Fair enough. Now, what 16 was your understanding of the status of the situation in 17 terms of police progress as of Tuesday, September the 18 5th? 19 A: My only understanding was that they 20 were trying to make contact with the leadership of the 21 occupiers or a leader. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: Or a spokesperson; somebody they 24 could talk to. 25
1191 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, I wonder if you would -- well, 4 let me -- let me ask you this. To some the issue of 5 burial grounds, I understand your evidence that you -- 6 you weren't aware that that was a component or potential 7 component of this occupation, am I right? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Did you have any understanding as to 10 what remedies or options there were for First Nations 11 people who asserted that Aboriginal burial grounds were 12 located on a provincial park or public property? 13 A: Yes, I understood there was a -- a 14 detailed process that could be followed, upon notice. It 15 went under the Cemeteries Act which was under the 16 Consumer and Commercial relations and I was quite aware 17 of that at the time. 18 Q: All right. And to your knowledge, 19 was there any such process in place as of September 6th 20 in relation to Ipperwash Park? 21 A: I would have assumed that. Most 22 staff in the Ministry are familiar with -- with grave 23 sites and sacred sites or historically significant sites 24 in all our operations, so it's not that unusual or 25 uncommon.
1201 Q: Okay. 2 A: And I'm sure that there was a process 3 that it -- you know, it can be triggered by a phone call 4 or a letter notifying that we believe there's a site of 5 significance on your Park or on the Crown land in such 6 and such an area. 7 And then it kicks in a process through 8 Consumer and Commercial relations where they do a formal 9 investigation along with the First Nation or whoever 10 makes the preposition that there is a sacred site or a 11 grave site. 12 Q: Thank you. I'd like to take you 13 next, if I may, to Tab 15. It's Inquiry document number 14 10009014. And I don't have the exhibit number, but I 15 noted it was made an exhibit in the testimony of Robert 16 Runciman and it's a fax from XXXX, Barrister and 17 Solicitor, to Marcel Beaubien and it's a request to the 18 Minister's office. 19 It includes an attached letter from Mr. 20 XXXX dated September 5, 1995, and on the last page of the 21 letter it indicates that, amongst others, you were 22 copied. 23 And my question is, first of all, do you 24 recall seeing this letter addressed to Mr. Beaubien by 25 Mr. XXXX a constituent, and copied to you?
1211 A: No, I don't. 2 Q: All right, do you recall ever being 3 apprised of its contents? 4 A: No, I don't. 5 Q: Thank you. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: We'll -- we'll indicate the exhibit 10 number for the record shortly, but it was made an exhibit 11 over the last couple of days. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Now, do you know whether, in fact, 16 you received a copy or your office received a copy of 17 this letter? 18 A: No, I do not. 19 Q: All right. Would you have any 20 concern about a local MPP sending you a letter of this 21 nature, during the course of -- of an occupation. 22 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Wasn't sent by him. 23 THE WITNESS: It's a -- 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA:
1221 Q: Well, delivered. I'll cla-- from 2 here. I'll clarify the question. I understand this 3 letter wasn't written to you, but would it be appropriate 4 or inappropriate for a local MPP to send a copy of the 5 letter to you? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: oh -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 11 minute, before you answer. Yes...? 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Not a big issue, but 13 just so the evidence is clear, the MPP -- the evidence is 14 not that the MPP sent, but rather that the writer -- the 15 author, copied the Minister directly. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right, I see 17 what you're saying. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Fair enough, thank you 19 very much for that clarification. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 22 Q: All right. All right, fair enough. 23 I don't think I need to pursue that any further then, 24 thank you. 25 Do you recall receiving any communications
1231 or having discussions with Mr. Beaubien on the 5th of any 2 sort in relation to the Ipperwash matter? 3 A: No, I do not. 4 Q: All right. And we have heard 5 testimony from Inspector Carson, amongst others, that Mr. 6 Beaubien attended at the command post during the time of 7 the active operation. 8 Did you know that at the time? 9 A: No, I did not. 10 Q: And when did you first find out? 11 A: Months later. 12 Q: Okay. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: All right. Now, are you aware of any 17 protocols or practices that were in place at the 18 Government, at this time, which would inform whether or 19 not an elected member of Government ought to be 20 presenting him or herself at the command post in these 21 circumstances? 22 A: No, I'm not aware of any. 23 Q: All right. Let me ask you this. Had 24 you been invited to attend at the command post between 25 September 4th and 6th of 1995, would you have accepted
1241 that invitation? 2 A: It would have depended on the 3 context. If it was an information session with the local 4 Mayor and other local officials, I may well have 5 attended, to be able to convey information to my 6 constituents, or if questioned by the media, be able to 7 relay the information as presented. 8 Q: All right. And those are the 9 circumstances under which you would accept such an 10 invitation? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: All right. Did you receive any other 13 briefings or information with respect to the occupation 14 on September 5th, other than what you have told us? 15 A: Not from the Minister. I believe we 16 watched the news that night and watched television 17 coverage of the event. 18 Q: And what, if anything, did you -- did 19 you learn anything from -- as a result of media coverage 20 that was new? 21 A: No, not particularly. Only a 22 recognition that police had a very stressful job on site. 23 And I think there was images of occupiers sitting on a 24 police cruiser or something like that. 25 Q: All right. And what impression, if
1251 anything, did that image leave with you in terms of the 2 behaviour of the occupiers? 3 A: I didn't really think about it in 4 terms of -- I just thought that it was a very stressful 5 situation on the ground. 6 Q: All right. Stressful? 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: Okay. Fair enough. And did you 9 speak to or have any communications with any of your 10 ministerial colleagues or the Premier on September the 11 5th, concerning the Park occupation? 12 A: No, I did not. I believe I had a 13 request from Bill King to talk to Mr. Beaubien. And I 14 relayed the message back through Jeff Bangs that it was a 15 police matter, that politicians shouldn't be commenting 16 on it. 17 Q: I'm sorry. 18 A: I did not talk to Mr. Beaubien. 19 Q: Okay. It was a police matter and -- 20 and -- I didn't catch the last part. 21 A: That politicians should not be 22 involved. 23 Q: Okay. And you believe you relayed 24 that to Mr. King to relay, in turn, to Mr. Beaubien? 25 A: Yeah. And I couldn't ascertain if
1261 Mr. Beaubien had even asked Mr. King, but I know the 2 request came through Bill King. 3 Q: Fair enough. Now do -- did you have 4 -- did you speak to or have any communications with any 5 police officer on September the 5th who had involvement 6 in the Ipperwash Park operation? 7 A: No, I did not. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Thank you very much. Just excuse me 12 for a minute. The -- the letter that I referred to, 13 Inquiry Document 1009014, is Exhibit P-952 just for the 14 record. I thank Mr. Millar for that. 15 All right. And just for clarity, with 16 respect to your last answer, did you have any discussions 17 with then Commissioner O'Grady? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Or Deputy Commissioner Boose or 20 Nagel? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Chief Superintendent Coles? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Superintendent Parkin? 25 A: No.
1271 Q: Inspector Carson? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Or Inspector Linton? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Did you have matters other than the 6 Park occupation to deal with on that day? 7 A: Probably. 8 Q: Probably? Do you recall any -- any 9 of significant? 10 A: We were pretty busy back in the 11 summer of 1995 and I spent probably equal time with the 12 Minister of Northern Development and Mines. 13 Q: Okay. When -- what time did you 14 likely leave the office that day? 15 A: I'm assuming about ten o'clock. My 16 family was in Haliburton and I was in Toronto so I 17 usually stay at the office every night. 18 Q: All right. So you drove from Toronto 19 to Haliburton that night? 20 A: No, no. I would have stayed at the 21 office until about ten o'clock. 22 Q: Oh, excuse me. 23 A: And stayed at a hotel or at an 24 apartment. 25 Q: All right. And aside from the
1281 information that you received from the media, did you 2 receive any other information that evening? 3 A: No, I did not. 4 Q: At the end of the day, on September 5 the 5th, did you alter your risk assessment at all, with 6 respect to the issue of public safety or the public -- or 7 the Park's security or integrity, from the prior day? 8 A: No, I did not. 9 Q: And so in -- what -- what was your 10 assessment then? 11 A: We felt that the situation around the 12 Park itself had been stabilized, that there was a concern 13 of the occupation expanding to road blockades or -- 14 particularly road blockades, to stop access for cottages 15 and homes nearby or Highway 21. 16 There was also a possibility of the Pinery 17 Provincial Park being occupied but that was -- our 18 assessment of the Park was that the water -- being 19 winterized could wait for a few months. The public risk 20 to the campers didn't exist because we'd evacuated the 21 campers. 22 Q: And did you -- was it part of your 23 risk assessment to consider the safety of the local 24 residents in and around the Park? 25 A: I would have assumed that was the
1291 responsibility of the police, that they were looking 2 after the public at large and which would have included 3 our campers as well. But I specifically remember asking 4 about campers and the Park staff. 5 Q: Okay. Now, did you have any 6 concerns, as at the end of the day of September the 5th, 7 about how the police were handling the matter, based on 8 what you knew? 9 A: No, I did not. 10 Q: Or as to what the Government's public 11 response was as reflected in your press conference and 12 the IMC meeting? 13 A: Well, you're always self-conscious 14 about how you conveyed the -- the message -- 15 Q: In terms of the substance I mean? 16 A: No, I was comfortable with it then. 17 Q: All right. Commissioner, it's -- 18 it's noon and this should be a very convenient time to 19 break for lunch. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 We'll break now then for lunch. 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 23 adjourned until 1:15. 24 25 --- Upon recessing at 11:55 a.m.
1301 --- Upon resuming at 1:15 p.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 4 resumed. Please be seated. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 afternoon. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VALLA: 10 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Hodgson. 11 A: Good afternoon. 12 Q: I would like to move now to September 13 the 6th, 1995. Do you recall approximately what time you 14 likely arrived at your office that morning? 15 A: Probably 7:30, eight o'clock, 16 somewhere in there. 17 Q: Did you receive an early morning 18 briefing? 19 A: Yes, I would have. 20 Q: And by whom? 21 A: Probably Jeff Bangs. 22 Q: And did you learn anything of 23 significance with respect to the Park issue? 24 A: Not that I can recall. 25 Q: Had anything of significance
1311 transpired overnight to your recollection? 2 A: Not that I was aware of. 3 Q: Were you aware that there was to be 4 another meeting of the Interministerial Committee as 5 scheduled for 9:30? 6 A: Yes, I was. 7 Q: And were you also aware that Mr. 8 Bangs would be attending as one of the representatives of 9 the MNR? 10 A: Yes, I was. 11 Q: And again, did he have your authority 12 to represent your views at that meeting? 13 A: Yes, he did. 14 Q: Did you have any discussions with Mr. 15 Bangs as to what positions he should take at this 16 meeting? 17 A: I know we talked about it and we 18 would have had opinions on issues that we thought should 19 be addressed. 20 Q: And what were those basic issues and 21 opinions that you discussed with him? 22 A: I can't recall specifically, but one 23 for sure would have been the fact that I wasn't going to 24 be the Government's spokesperson on an issue that we 25 weren't responsible for.
1321 Q: All right. And that was still a very 2 important thing in your mind at that time? 3 A: Yes, it was. 4 Q: All right. And for the reasons you 5 spoke of earlier? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Any other issues or positions that 8 you wanted reviewed or explored at the IMC? 9 A: No, I think that was our main focus. 10 Q: The main focus was whether or not 11 you'd be the spokesperson? 12 A: The fact that I wasn't going to be 13 the spokesperson. 14 Q: Right, okay. And do you recall 15 additionally, whether you had any conversation or 16 discussion about -- about injunctions prior to this 17 meeting? 18 A: I can't recall. 19 Q: And you indicated earlier though that 20 you had an ongoing question about -- 21 A: Yes, we -- we talked about it prior 22 to that. 23 Q: In particular, what the ramifications 24 of an injunction would be, in other words, how would it 25 be enforced?
1331 A: That's right. 2 Q: All right. And to your knowledge did 3 Mr. Bangs attend at the meeting of the Interministerial 4 Committee on your behalf? 5 A: Yes, he did. 6 Q: Did you receive any briefing with 7 respect to the outcome and what transpired at that 8 meeting? 9 A: I did. 10 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 26. 11 It's part of Exhibit P-509, Inquiry Document 1011766; 12 some meeting notes of the Interministerial Committee held 13 on September the 6th, 1995. 14 Now, would you have received or did you 15 receive a copy of this document? 16 A: No, I did not. 17 Q: All right. Were you briefed with 18 respect to the contents? 19 A: No. 20 Q: This indicates that the meeting was 21 held at the ONAS green boardroom, 595 Bay Street, Suite 22 1009, I believe that's the tenth floor. 23 Was that your understanding? 24 A: I can't recall. 25 Q: All right. Had you been at that
1341 boardroom before? 2 A: I was there once, later that morning. 3 Q: All right. This indicates that the 4 time of the meeting was from 9:30 a.m. to 11:45 -- it 5 says "p.m." but I -- we were advised in testimony that 6 should be a.m. 7 Q: Hmm hmm, okay. 8 A: Does that -- do you have any 9 information to dispute that? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Now, under item 1, "re. next 12 steps",from September 5, 1995 meeting, there's an 13 indication that: 14 "There will be no negotiations with the 15 Stoney Pointers regarding their claim 16 to ownership of the land and that the 17 goal of any discussions would be 18 removal of the occupiers from the 19 Park." 20 Now, is this something that you were -- 21 this is the position that you were aware of? 22 A: I was aware of that from the previous 23 meeting and the briefing notes that I was provided to do 24 the press interview that there be no negotiations while 25 the occupation was taking place.
1351 Q: And what was your view with respect 2 to the -- the wisdom of that position at the time? 3 A: I was okay with that as a -- a 4 principle, that you wouldn't negotiate when there's an 5 illegal occupation. If the occupation ended then you 6 negotiate. 7 Q: Item 2 is update from the Solicitor 8 General and -- and the Ministry of Natural Resources. It 9 indicates first that: 10 "On September the 5th, 1995, the Stoney 11 Pointers appointed Bert Manning as 12 their spokesperson. He is the brother 13 of Rose Manning, who has been a 14 spokesperson for the occupiers of Camp 15 Ipperwash." 16 Were you aware of that information? 17 A: I can't recall that, no. 18 Q: There's also an indication on page 2 19 that: 20 "A tentative meeting is scheduled to be 21 held today at noon between the OPP and 22 representatives of the Stoney Pointers. 23 It is expected that the Stoney Pointers 24 will articulate their demands at this 25 meeting and these demands will most
1361 likely center on the burial ground site 2 allegedly located within Ipperwash 3 Provincial Park." 4 Do you recall being apprised of that? 5 A: No, I do not. 6 Q: Item 3: 7 "The Stoney Pointers appear to have 8 ignited a controlled fire in the middle 9 of County Road number 21, cut down 10 trees, used picnic tables to blockade 11 another access road which leads to the 12 Park, used MNR equipment and broken 13 into MNR Park facilities." 14 Were you apprised of -- of any of this? 15 A: Yes, I was, but in general terms, 16 they surround the road in the belief that the situation 17 may escalate. 18 Q: Okay. Next, 19 "The OPP have identified three (3) 20 individuals who are suspected to have 21 been involved with the various acts of 22 mischief. Charges have been laid and 23 warrants for their arrest have been 24 issued." 25 Were you apprised of -- of that report?
1371 A: I don't recall that, no. 2 Q: And finally: 3 "An aerial surveillance of Ipperwash 4 Provincial Park will be conducted today 5 to determine the extent of the damage 6 down to MNR's equipment and facilities, 7 what the Stoney Pointers are doing with 8 MNR's equipment, and whether the Stoney 9 Pointers have any weapons." 10 Were you apprised of -- of that? 11 A: I may have been. I can't recall the 12 specifics. 13 Q: Okay. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Under item number 3, "Minister's 18 directives", next to "MNR", it states: 19 "The Minister wants to act as quickly 20 as possible to avoid further damage and 21 to curtail any escalation of the 22 situation." 23 Now, is this a viewpoint which you 24 authorized to be expressed on your behalf at this 25 meeting?
1381 A: No, I never saw that until 2 preparation for this Inquiry. 3 Q: Okay. But my question is whether you 4 authorized this position to be taken? 5 A: No, I don't recall ever authorizing a 6 position one way or the other. 7 Q: All right. Looking at it now, is 8 that -- is that reflective of your position? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: No, I don't recall having a position 13 on that other than a general agreement with what the 14 Attorney General was -- and the police were doing, that 15 they were in charge of that. 16 I might add that Jeff Bangs was at the 17 start of that meeting but then he left, and picked myself 18 and Ron Vrancart up, and we went down and joined the end 19 of that meeting. So, he wouldn't have been involved when 20 they did this -- recommendations, as well. 21 Q: All right. And we will certainly get 22 to -- to that event in -- in a little bit, but your -- 23 your -- is it fair to say that you're assuming that Mr. 24 Bangs didn't have any role to play in Item 3? 25 A: I'm assuming that because I wasn't
1391 aware of that as a MNR position or a Minister's 2 directive. 3 Q: And then Item 4, Communications: 4 "It was agreed that MNR as the Park's 5 only and steward will continue to be 6 the ministerial spokesperson regarding 7 the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial 8 Park." 9 Now, were you aware that -- of that 10 agreement or apparent agreement? 11 A: No, I wasn't. 12 Q: Okay. It was something you agreed 13 with? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Under Item 5, Next Steps: 16 "It was agreed that an injunction 17 should be sought as soon as possible." 18 Now, were you apprised of that position? 19 A: I may have been. 20 Q: Was that -- 21 A: I can't recall the specifics, but I 22 know later in the afternoon I was aware that that was the 23 direction the Government wanted to take. 24 Q: And what was your view with respect 25 to the wisdom of that position?
1401 A: I didn't disagree with it. If that's 2 what the Attorney General and the police said they needed 3 I was fine with that. 4 Q: All right. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, you indicated that during the 9 course of the -- of this meeting you received a telephone 10 call? 11 A: Yes, I was still at the office. Jeff 12 Bangs had gone to the meeting about 9:30 and he phoned me 13 at the MNR office and said that we were requested to go 14 to a Minister's briefing with our Deputies; sort of an 15 information briefing at the tail end of the 16 Interministerial Committee Meeting, so he thought it 17 would be around eleven o'clock to 11:30. 18 Q: All right. And do you recall 19 approximately what time you would have received this 20 telephone call? 21 A: It was before ten o'clock. 22 Q: Were you given any other information 23 about this meeting that your attendance was being 24 required for? 25 A: No, I wasn't other than it was going
1411 to be the Ministers and information, being the so the 2 Ministers were informed on what was happening. 3 Q: And did Mr. Bangs come and collect 4 you? 5 A: Yes, he did. 6 Q: And approximately what time did you - 7 - well, let's put it this way, did you receive any 8 further information from him en route to this meeting? 9 A: He may have updated Ron Vrancart and 10 myself on some of these discussions that were taking 11 place. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: I can't recall his specific wording, 14 but I can recall some of the -- the content that was 15 there. 16 Q: All right. So, Mr. Vrancart was also 17 accompanying you to this meeting? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Do you know who called the meeting? 20 A: Not specifically, no. 21 Q: All right. Were you told afterwards 22 or did you learn? 23 A: I assumed it was Deb Hutton. 24 Q: What was the basis of your 25 assumption?
1421 A: I think she had talked to Jeff and 2 informed Jeff that were -- thought it might be necessary 3 to have the Ministers get together to understand what was 4 happening. 5 Q: All right. And you're quite clear 6 that -- that this telephone call came during the course 7 of the IMC meeting? 8 A: Yes, I am. 9 Q: All right. Where did you go? 10 A: I remember the boardroom. I'm 11 uncertain if it was at the Solicitor General's office or 12 at the ONAS office but I knew it was the same room that 13 the IMC meeting had taken place in because it was just 14 wrapping up when we walked in. 15 Q: The -- you believe that the 16 Interministerial Committee Meeting was just wrapping up 17 as you walked into the boardroom? 18 A: I know it was, yes. 19 Q: All right. And you can't recall 20 which boardroom it was but you're quite certain it was 21 the same one that they had met in? 22 A: I can describe the room, it's the 23 only time I've ever been in that room. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: But I can't describe the outside of
1431 the building. I can't remember which building it was but 2 I remember walking into the room with Ron Vrancart and 3 Jeff Bangs. 4 Q: All right. Now, how do you know that 5 what you were walking into was the conclusion of the 6 Interministerial Committee meeting? 7 A: Jeff had been at the meeting earlier. 8 Peter Allen had gone with Jeff and then Jeff come back to 9 pick up Ron and I. Peter stayed at the meeting and there 10 was a -- a table, sort of in the centre of the room, with 11 chairs on one side and then chairs on this side of the 12 table. 13 A table a little bigger than this. And 14 along the side wall were chairs where people were 15 sitting, and behind this table were other tables where 16 people were gathering up their papers and shuffling, 17 doing notes. 18 Peter Allen met us at the door and 19 informed us that the other Ministers were at Cabinet, so 20 we wouldn't have the other Ministers. Somebody opened up 21 two (2) chairs for Jeff and I to sit down on. 22 And Ron Vrancart went over and sat beside 23 Peter Allen on the side wall. 24 Q: All right. Who -- who else was at 25 this meeting?
1441 A: I can't -- there was twenty (20) or 2 thirty (30) people, I can't recall, other than Peter 3 Allen that was sitting on the side wall. Directly in the 4 centre of the table was Ron Fox. And that's about the 5 extent of my recollection. 6 Q: All right. And do you recall who 7 else was at the meeting? You've said Ron Fox, Peter 8 Allen, yourself, Ron Vrancart, Jeff Bangs, do you recall 9 any -- obviously there were other people, but do you 10 recall who any of the other people were? 11 A: No, I don't. I know there was no 12 other Cabinet Ministers, they were at Cabinet. I don't 13 recall any Deputy Ministers, who I would have recognized. 14 I don't recall Deb Hutton being there. 15 She was obviously at Cabinet at that time. 16 Q: Okay. And where was the -- are you 17 clear that there was a Cabinet meeting that day? 18 A: Yes, there was a cabinet meeting that 19 day. 20 Q: And where would the Cabinet have been 21 held? 22 A: At Queens Park. 23 Q: And so this was in a different 24 location -- 25 A: This was in a different location.
1451 Q: All right. Do you recall 2 approximately what time it was when you arrived at this 3 meeting? 4 A: I believe it was around 11:15 to 5 11:30. 6 Q: Okay. Now you've indicated -- well 7 let me ask you this: Was -- do you recall whether or not 8 Julie Jai was there? 9 A: I don't know Julie Jai. I wouldn't 10 know one way or the other. 11 Q: All right. Were there any 12 introductions at this meeting? 13 A: No there wasn't. The conversation 14 was underway when we came into the room. We sat down. 15 There was a discussion going on involving Ron Fox and 16 people around the room asking questions. 17 Q: All right. And just before we get to 18 that, we have heard evidence from Jeff Bangs at this 19 Inquiry, as you know, and he did testify, on November the 20 14th, 2005, at page 112, that a meeting took place on 21 September the 6th at -- but he says that it was at the 22 Solicitor General's office. 23 Mr. Vrancart also gave evidence on October 24 the 27th, 2005 at pages 51 to 53 of his transcript. And 25 he indicated that there was a high end meeting or high
1461 level meeting, I should say, at which there were various 2 people including Mr. Runciman and Mr. Harnick, and that 3 it was at the Solicitor General's office. 4 Neither of these individuals indicated, to 5 us at least, that it was at the tail end of the IMC 6 meeting. Now I'm just telling you that, to ask whether 7 or not that information assists your recollection with 8 respect to the meeting that you are now testifying about? 9 A: No it doesn't. I -- I can -- I'm 10 pretty certain that it was at the tail end of the IMC 11 meeting. I'm not sure which building it was at. 12 Q: All right. And I should also 13 indicate that we have heard evidence from a number of 14 attendees at this Interministerial Committee meeting, and 15 we have not received any testimony that you appeared at 16 the tail end or at the end of this meeting. 17 And I just offer that to you to see if it 18 assists in your recollection at all. 19 A: I obviously didn't make that big an 20 impression. The -- I can't help you there, that them to 21 say that it was a brief appearance. It was maybe fifteen 22 (15) minutes in length. 23 Q: Your appearance at this meeting was 24 about -- 25 A: My appearance was about fifteen (15)
1471 minutes. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: And the meeting had wrapped up and 4 people were leaving and we left. 5 Q: All right. Now assuming the minutes 6 are accurate and the meeting finished -- the IMC meeting 7 finished at 11:45, approximately what time do you think 8 you would have arrived at that -- at the end of that 9 meeting? 10 A: I thought we left about 11:45, but 11 the meeting -- the formal part of the meeting, what -- 12 maybe they considered that to be the meeting. 13 I do recall Jeff briefed me on the way to 14 the meeting that it was just a series of roundabout 15 conversations. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: And there was some issues that he 18 mentioned to me that had taken place, but that was it. 19 Q: And so does that mean you would have 20 arrived, assuming the 11:45 time is accurate -- 21 A: Yeah. 22 Q: -- you would have arrived at around 23 11:30? 24 A: Yeah, 11:30-ish, 11:20, 11:15, 25 something like that.
1481 Q: Okay. Now what was going on when you 2 entered that boardroom? 3 A: There was a discussion underway about 4 serving the injunction. 5 Q: About serving the injunction? 6 A: Serving the injunction. 7 Q: All right. And did you make any 8 observations as to who appeared to be leading this 9 meeting? 10 A: Yes, I assumed that Ron Fox was the 11 head of the Interministerial Committee and he worked for 12 ONAS. He was the one sitting at the centre of the table, 13 he was answering all the questions and that was my 14 assumption. 15 Q: All right. So it was your 16 understanding that he was working for the -- for ONAS? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And that he was the Chair of the 19 Interministerial Committee? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And it appeared to you that he was 22 leading this meeting? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And what was the basis of -- of that 25 judgment, that he was leading --
1491 A: All the questions were directed to 2 him. He was sitting in the centre of the table. 3 Q: All right. And where did you sit, in 4 relation to Mr. Fox, at this meeting? 5 A: They opened up two (2) chairs for us 6 when we entered the room and they were almost directly 7 across from Mr. Fox. 8 Q: All right. At the same table? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: And there was Jeff Bangs sitting 12 beside me and, as I mentioned, Ron Vrancart went over and 13 sat beside Peter Allen. 14 Q: Okay. Now who's interest, if you had 15 formed -- did you form a view as to who's interests you 16 believed Mr. Fox to be representing at this meeting? 17 A: I assumed he was the head of the 18 committee representing ONAS. 19 Q: All right. Were you aware that -- at 20 this meeting, that Mr. Fox was an OPP officer on 21 secondment to the Minister of the Solicitor General? 22 A: No, I was not. 23 Q: Did you ever find out that he was an 24 OPP officer on secondment to the Solicitor General? 25 A: Months later.
1501 Q: Months later? 2 A: A couple of hours later I knew he had 3 been seconded to the Solicitor General. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: When I saw him at the Premier's 6 dining room meeting, by then I knew that he was seconded 7 to the Sol Gen. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: But I thought he was seconded from 10 ONAS to the Sol Gen. 11 Q: All right. Were you aware that he 12 was an OPP officer? 13 A: No, I was not. 14 Q: When did you become aware of that, if 15 ever? 16 A: About three (3) months later. 17 Q: All right. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Now, can you tell us, as carefully as 22 you can, your recollection of what transpired during the 23 time that you were present at this meeting? 24 A: Yes. We walked in, we sat down. 25 There was a conversation underway about how to serve an
1511 injunction and the security of how we would -- the safety 2 of how you would deliver the injunction. 3 And Mr. Fox said there's a number of 4 options. He didn't say they were his ideas, but he said 5 one option would be dropping the injunctions from a 6 helicopter. 7 And I made the mistake of asking how heavy 8 are these injunctions and somebody behind him said, Well, 9 they're about that thick. 10 Q: And I'm sorry, you can't see the 11 gesture on the record. 12 A: Well, I said is -- they gestured with 13 their hands, they put their fingers apart, about three 14 (3) or four (4) inches and said they're pretty thick. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: And so I pointed out, you know, that 17 that might not be safe, that dropping a number of 18 documents from a helicopter might actually injure 19 somebody. 20 I asked them if they'd ever seen the 21 television program WKRP, where they thought turkeys would 22 fly and they dropped them out of helicopters. 23 I said this is bizarre and this, you know, 24 people might have laughed a bit and then the conversation 25 went on.
1521 There was other questions asked of Mr. Fox 2 at that time. 3 Q: And if you can recall, what -- what 4 prompted you to use that particular scenario or to 5 interject with that scenario of WKRP at that moment in 6 the meeting? 7 A: Well, I wish I hadn't. The -- it 8 just struck me as kind of peculiar that one of the 9 options of delivering a injunction might be to drop them 10 1000 feet from a helicopter. 11 And I don't know if they expected people 12 to catch them or what. But as I said, Mr. Fox didn't 13 offer that as his recommendation; he just said those are 14 options. 15 Q: All right. Now, did you -- did Mr. 16 Fox offer any type of reaction or -- or response to your 17 queries? 18 A: Not particularly, no. 19 Q: All right. Did you question Mr. Fox 20 regarding whether or not it was an option for the police 21 to arrest the occupiers as trespassers, at this meeting? 22 A: There was questions coming from all 23 over the room. And when they -- they finished up on the 24 service of the injunction with that comment and somebody 25 else asked a question about, Well, is there other
1531 options, you know, or can you not just arrest people for 2 illegal activities? You know, are we dealing with the 3 First Nation or are we dealing with people that aren't 4 recognized as First Nation or just ordinary citizens that 5 are in an illegal act? 6 There was discussion that rambled around 7 those issues for a number of minutes. 8 Q: Did you specifically join in that 9 question or raise that question? 10 A: No, I did near the end of the 11 discussion though. 12 Q: What did you say at the end of the 13 discussion? 14 A: The answer to one (1) of the 15 questions or a number of the questions was, well, that 16 the optics wouldn't be good around that or that the 17 police could do that but the people would be released 18 within twenty (20) minutes. It's a futile attempt and it 19 would be all over the front page of the paper and it 20 wouldn't look good. 21 Q: All right. And who said that? 22 A: That was Mr. Fox's response to a 23 number of these questions. 24 Q: And did you make any response to that 25 observation about the political optics?
1541 A: Well, I thought that, you know, some 2 of the questions were touching on policing operations and 3 I pointed out that I didn't think, we as a group, as I 4 said "we," should be talking about police issues or 5 matters. And I didn't feel that Mr. Fox should be 6 talking about politics, that, you know, we could move on, 7 basically. 8 Q: All right. Now, based on -- well, 9 let me ask you this: Did anything else of significance 10 transpire in -- during -- in your presence, during the 11 balance of the meeting, that you were -- 12 A: Yes, Mr. Fox responded to that 13 statement by saying that he wasn't talking about 14 politics, he was talking about reality and that's the 15 reality of the situation. I recall that quite clearly. 16 Q: All right. How did you -- 17 A: And then I chipped in and responded 18 that the reality of the situation was you knew there was 19 an issue brewing here for some time and it's easier to 20 prevent these situations, in my opinion, than it is to 21 try to remove people. 22 Q: And when you made that comment to Mr. 23 Fox, were you intending to query why it was he and those 24 he was working with hadn't done more to prevent the 25 occupation?
1551 A: I wondered what he'd been doing, as 2 Chair of this committee, to prevent the situation from 3 occurring when we knew it was or assumed it was a -- a 4 federal issue with the Military Base, if they had talked 5 to any of the local people involved or any of those kinds 6 of issues. 7 And that was the nature of my question. 8 It was obviously misunderstood and completely, totally 9 misunderstood by Mr. Fox because he proceeded to give me 10 a long answer of -- in response to my inquiry of what 11 they'd been doing and my experience is it's easier to 12 prevent these situations than it is to remove people once 13 they're there. 14 He talked about a thousand (1,000) police 15 officers linked arm to arm around the Park wouldn't have 16 stopped the occupation. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: And -- 19 Q: Do you recall anything else about his 20 response? 21 A: No, that was a long response, but 22 that was the gist of it. And at the end of it I do 23 recall just looking at him, I was kind of surprised that 24 he gave a policing answer to a question. 25 I was talking about what ONAS was doing,
1561 but he obviously -- in hindsight, I can understand 2 exactly why he misinterpreted what I was talking about 3 but, I probably wasn't clear enough. 4 Q: Did you make any further response or 5 did you reply to Mr. Fox's response or explanation to 6 you? 7 A: No, I did not and I'd already made it 8 clear that I wasn't going to be the spokesperson. So I 9 felt that I'd delivered the information I was going to 10 share, and I'd heard enough. 11 Q: You heard enough? All right. 12 A: And the meeting was wrapping up. 13 There was people closing binders behind us and that and 14 we proceeded to leave. 15 Q: All right. Now, based on your 16 interaction with Mr. Fox and -- and your observations 17 during the course of that meeting, did you form any 18 impression about what his -- what his reaction was to the 19 questions you were raising and -- and the queries you 20 were -- you were raising in relation to the possibility 21 that there may have been a prevention of the Park and the 22 methodology of service that was being discussed? 23 A: No, I didn't. I thought Mr. Fox was 24 very professional, actually. He was very calm and I 25 wouldn't have even remembered this exchange if I hadn't
1571 heard his tape some years later. 2 I didn't remember the incident in 2001. I 3 only remembered it after hearing his tape. 4 Q: And which tape was that? 5 A: It's a tape that he is talking with 6 Inspector Carson. 7 Q: A telephone conversation? 8 A: A telephone conversation. 9 Q: That one that was played on the 10 media? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: All right. Now given -- you 13 indicated to us that you were surprised that his response 14 to your question about prevention or preventing the 15 occupation was a policing response, I think you said. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Did you -- 18 A: I probably didn't word it as 19 prevention. I probably said it was easier, in my 20 opinion, to avoid these situations, prevent these 21 situations from occurring, than trying to remove people 22 after they're already occupying an area. 23 Q: All right. Did it occur to you that 24 -- or did you ask him why it was he was responding in -- 25 in the way that he did?
1581 A: No, I didn't. I just let it drop. 2 Q: And why is that? 3 A: It wasn't my issue. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: If this is what ONAS and the police 6 were doing, I just let it drop. 7 Q: All right. Was there any resolution 8 reached with respect to -- first of all, with respect to 9 the service of the injunction issue that you recall was 10 part of this discussion? 11 A: No. The discussion -- like I say, it 12 wasn't like a formal meeting. It was people asking 13 questions from the side of the room, from behind, all 14 over the place. And I think it just went from that was 15 the possible options to, well, was there other options 16 than an injunction, you know, what about trespass or 17 arrest; sort of that kind of flavour of a meeting. 18 Q: All right. Were there any -- any 19 consensus arrived, to your awareness, with respect to how 20 -- what the next step should be with respect to the 21 occupation or how to handle it? 22 A: Not that I was aware of. They might 23 have done that earlier. 24 Q: All right. Now you indicated that 25 you left the meeting, did you -- what -- were there still
1591 people in the room after you left the meeting or...? 2 A: Yeah, there was a few. There was 3 people leaving though, as well. 4 Q: All right. And why is that you chose 5 to leave the meeting at the time that you did? 6 A: I'd already stated that we weren't 7 doing the communications on the injunction. I'd 8 mentioned that at some point, probably prior to getting 9 into the exchange with Mr. Fox. It was probably after 10 the turkey comments, some place in there; I know I'd made 11 that point. 12 Q: Now you've indicated that you 13 believed that Mr. Fox, at the time, was the chair of 14 ONAS. Did you have any awareness that he was also acting 15 as a liaison, of sorts, as between the Government and the 16 OPP on this matter? 17 A: No. I had no idea of that. 18 Q: Did you have any awareness that he 19 was in contact with the Incident Commander at the -- with 20 respect to the Park situation? 21 A: Absolutely not. 22 Q: Had you known either of these points, 23 would you have spoken to him as candidly as you did? 24 A: I wouldn't have spoken to him at all, 25 probably.
1601 Q: Why is that? 2 A: I thought he the person that had 3 recommended me to be the spokesperson for the Government. 4 He was the head of the Interministerial Committee. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: He was the one answering all the 7 questions at that -- that meeting. 8 Q: I guess my question is, though, you - 9 - you said that you wouldn't have spoken to him at all 10 had you known that he had contact with the Incident 11 Commander and was the liaison. 12 And my question was: Why -- why wouldn't 13 you have spoken to him? 14 I'm perhaps not understanding your -- your 15 answer. 16 A: No I don't understand the question. 17 I thought he was the head of the Interministerial 18 Committee, that's why I was there to -- stayed there, 19 after I found out the other Ministers weren't attending. 20 Q: Okay. And you're quite certain that 21 -- that neither of Mr. Harnick nor Mr. Runciman was at 22 this meeting? 23 A: I'm certain on that, yes. 24 Q: And nor was Ms. Hutton. 25 A: Nor was Ms. Hutton, no.
1611 Q: All right. Do you recall whether or 2 not Dr. Todres was at this meeting? 3 A: I don't believe she was and I think I 4 would have recognized her maybe. 5 Q: Do you rec -- do you recall whether 6 or not Mr. Taman was there? 7 A: No. There was no Deputies, that I 8 can recall. Over the summer we -- that I was on the 9 board. I'd seen most of the deputies. I think I would 10 have remembered them. 11 Q: Okay. Just your deputy and your 12 executive assistant? 13 A: Yes, and Peter Allen. 14 Q: And Peter Allen. All right -- 15 A: But there was other people in the 16 room. 17 Q: I appreciate that. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: Okay. We've eliminated who you -- 20 A: That's -- 21 Q: -- know weren't there and I guess 22 we'll leave it at that. 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: But I appreciate that that there were 25 other people who you didn't know at that meeting.
1621 A: Yeah. 2 Q: Okay. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Now, let me ask you this: Do you 7 recall making any references, during this discussion, to 8 guns? 9 A: No, I don't recall that. I know they 10 talked about that at the meeting before I got there 11 though. 12 Q: And how do you know that? 13 A: Because in a general sense, I 14 remember Jeff explaining to Ron and I that the discussion 15 was around the difference between a automatic and a semi- 16 automatic gun. 17 Q: And what was the significance of 18 that? 19 A: I couldn't figure that out either. 20 Q: Okay. All right. And what was your 21 understanding of -- of the context of the discussion? 22 A: That it was just going around in 23 circles, is the way it was described to me. 24 Q: All right. I'm sorry. Had you -- 25 what gave rise to the discussion of guns then?
1631 A: I don't know that. All I know is 2 Jeff said they were talking about a number of issues and 3 that was one of them. 4 Q: Okay. Was there any discussion 5 brought to your attention with respect to the use by the 6 police of guns? 7 A: No, there wasn't, to my knowledge. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: All right. Now when you left the 12 meeting, did anyone accompany you? 13 A: Yes. Jeff Bangs and Ron Vrancart, we 14 travelled together back to the MNR office. 15 Q: Okay. And the MNR offices were 16 located where at that time? 17 18 A: The Whitney Block, directly across 19 the street from Queen's Park. 20 Q: All right. So, in a different 21 location from both ONAS and the Solicitor General's -- 22 A: Yes, roughly. 23 Q: -- office? And how long -- well, 24 what time do you think you arrived, approximately, at 25 your office?
1641 A: I don't know. It was around 2 lunchtime, I know that. 3 Q: So, around -- is noon lunchtime? 4 A: Noon -- noon would be a good 5 approximation. 6 Q: All right. And you indicated that 7 there was a Cabinet meeting that day? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And what time did Cabinet generally 10 meet? 11 A: Usually began at ten o'clock and it 12 wrapped up around 1:00/1:30. 13 Q: All right. And was attendance at 14 Cabinet compulsory for all Cabinet Ministers? 15 A: Generally. 16 Q: And these were the early days for the 17 new Cabinet -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- is that fair? And you were a new 20 Minister? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Do you know whether it was expected 23 that Ministers would attend at these Cabinet meetings if 24 at all possible -- 25 A: Yes.
1651 Q: That was the expectation? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: And in the early days, is it fair to 4 say that priorities were being set that all the Ministers 5 should be apprised of in these Cabinet meetings? 6 A: No, there was binders that were 7 distributed prior to the meeting. You read your binder 8 and there was some areas that concerned your Ministry -- 9 Q: Hmm hmm. 10 A: -- but you read other Ministry's 11 positions as well, so you could comment on the discussion 12 if it affected your Minister or if it just -- in general 13 nature of the debate. 14 It wasn't uncommon, though, for Ministers 15 to be late occasionally, to Cabinet. 16 Q: All right. Now, why didn't you 17 attend that day? 18 A: I intended to be late that day. 19 Usually prior to ten o'clock there was a press scrum 20 outside of the Cabinet doors on the way in. 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: And I thought it would be good for me 23 to be a little late that day for Cabinet. I wasn't going 24 to be the spokesperson on this issue. I didn't feel I 25 needed to do another scrum on this issue.
1661 Q: All right. So, it's fair to say that 2 -- that you were trying to avoid the media scrum that 3 day? 4 A: I was trying to avoid being the 5 spokesperson on this issue, yes. 6 Q: All right. And why didn't you then, 7 join the Cabinet in progress after the -- after you left 8 the meeting that you've just described? 9 A: I had been phoned by Jeff Bangs, as I 10 described, and mentioned that there was a meeting that I 11 was expected to be at roughly around eleven o'clock/11:30 12 when the IMC meeting was over. 13 Q: All right. Yeah, but my question 14 was -- 15 A: Well, the -- the logistics, if you 16 show up late for Cabinet then you'd have to leave before 17 11:00. So I thought, well, there's nothing on the agenda 18 that I'm particularly concerned with today or nothing 19 affecting either MNDM or MNR. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: So instead of going to Cabinet I'll 22 just go to this meeting. 23 Q: Okay. And let me ask you more 24 specifically: Was there anything that you could recall 25 on the Cabinet agenda that related to Ipperwash Park?
1671 A: Not that I'm aware of. 2 Q: All right. So, you are back at your 3 office at Whitney -- Whitney Block, in or around noon 4 hour -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- on the 6th? What did you do next? 7 A: I probably did work. There's always 8 phone calls to make. There's always letters to review. 9 There was lots of constituency work. There's the MNDM 10 issues. I remember working until approximately one 11 o'clock or a little after that. 12 Q: And what happened at approximately 13 one o'clock? 14 A: Ron Vrancart and Jeff came into the 15 office and mentioned to me that we'd been summonsed to a 16 -- a meeting after Cabinet with the Ministers and I 17 assumed it was the meeting that was supposed to be 18 scheduled about 11:00/ 11:30. 19 Q: And why did you make that assumption? 20 A: Well, because it was to meet with the 21 other Ministers and receive information on what the 22 Government was doing. 23 Q: So you understood that this was to be 24 a meeting of the -- involved or -- involved Ministers 25 concerning --
1681 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- what the -- the Government was 3 doing with respect to the Park occupation? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Do you know who convened this 6 meeting? 7 A: No, I don't. 8 Q: Were you given any other details or 9 particulars as to what the purpose of the meeting would 10 be? 11 A: No, I can't recall. 12 Q: Or who would be presenting? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Or who besides the Ministers would be 15 attending? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Where was this meeting held? 18 A: It was in the dining room which is -- 19 if you have a map of Queen's Park there's the Cabinet 20 Room and there's a doorway at the end of the Cabinet Room 21 which leads into a -- a short hallway. 22 Directly across from the door of the 23 Cabinet Room is the Premier's office and to the right 24 there's a short hallway which has another hallway back 25 out the main legislative halls, and if you turn left
1691 there's the dining room meeting room. 2 Q: All right. Was this also sometimes 3 referred to as the Premier's dining room? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And it's on the same floor as the 6 Cabinet and -- Cabinet -- Council office and the 7 Premier's office? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. Were you the first -- 10 well, let me ask you this: What -- what time did you 11 arrive at the Premier's dining room? 12 A: Ron and Jeff and I walked from the 13 Whitney Block across the street. We went in through the 14 anteroom outside of the Cabinet Room, through the Cabinet 15 Room. There was staff in there cleaning up papers, like 16 the civil servants. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: So the Cabinet meeting was over. All 19 the political staff had left. I'm guessing, but I -- I 20 thought it was around 1:30, in that range of time. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: Quarter to 2:00. 23 Q: And were you the first to arrive in 24 the Premier's dining room? 25 A: No, we were one of the last if not
1701 the last group. Deb Hutton was standing just outside the 2 doorway, met us and walked in with us. The Premier was 3 standing up talking to some people behind his chair. 4 There was two (2) empty seats to the left of the Premier 5 and Ron Vrancart and I sat down in those seats. 6 Q: And you're talking -- 7 A: And Jeff Bangs sat behind us. 8 Q: Sorry. Okay. And I -- I'm going to 9 give you an opportunity to be more specific about the 10 positioning of -- 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: -- people in the moment but first of 13 all then you believe that you were possibly the last to 14 arrive? 15 A: Yes, I believe that. 16 Q: Okay. And you recall -- do you 17 recall who else was already in the dining room when you 18 arrived? 19 A: Yes, I do. 20 Q: Who was that? 21 A: As I mentioned the Premier was 22 standing talking to some people. Seated to the -- you 23 know if you take the -- 24 Q: Before you talk about positioning 25 just tell me who was there and then --
1711 A: Oh, yeah. Minister Harnick was 2 there, Minister Runciman, their Deputies, Elaine Todres, 3 Larry Taman, Ron Fox was seated at that time. 4 Q: Where was he -- okay -- 5 A: I'm sorry? 6 Q: -- I'll get to that in a minute. 7 A: We'll going to get to that in a 8 minute? 9 Q: Go ahead. Go ahead. 10 A: I know there was other people there 11 and I might be forgetting a couple of names. 12 Q: Do you recall whether any executive 13 assistants were there? 14 A: Yes, I do. 15 Q: Do you recall who? 16 A: Dave Moran, Kathryn Hunt. 17 Q: And Ms. Hutton was -- was -- 18 accompanied you into the room? 19 A: She accompanied me into the room, 20 yes. 21 Q: Was there anyone else from the 22 Premier's office that you can recall? 23 A: Not that I can recall, no. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
1721 A: Oh, Paul Rhodes, sorry. 2 Q: Thank you. Now -- 3 A: I don't know if he was in the meeting 4 or just -- I know at the end of the meeting he was there. 5 Q: Okay. All right. So, he -- at 6 minimum he joined at the end of the meeting? 7 A: Well, he could have been there the 8 whole meeting, I don't know. I have a visual 9 recollection of Paul Rhodes briefing the Premier at the 10 end of the meeting. 11 Q: Okay. Do you recall whether there 12 were other people in the room who you didn't recognize? 13 A: I know there was other people in the 14 room, but I can't recall them or didn't recognize them. 15 I don't know. 16 Q: All right. Now, you said the Premier 17 was standing when you walked in, so had the meeting 18 already started? 19 A: No, it had not. 20 Q: All right. And what did you do when 21 you entered the room? 22 A: I sat down. 23 Q: Okay. When did the meeting start? 24 A: When the Premier sat down. 25 Q: Now, do you have a recollection as to
1731 where people were positioned in this meeting, once it 2 started? 3 A: Some people, yes. 4 Q: I'd like to -- we've asked other 5 witnesses to do their best with filling out a diagram. I 6 think you've had an opportunity, at least, to look at the 7 blank diagram in advance of today. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And I wonder, Mr. Registrar, if you 10 could -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Or Mr. -- sorry. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 17 Q: And Counsel will appreciate this is 18 the diagram that we had -- the floor plan that we asked 19 other witnesses to mark, and Ms. Hutton and Dr. Todres, 20 and Mr. Runciman, I believe. 21 Now, you've got a diagram in front of you 22 and it indicates on it that there's an EA's office, 23 reception, hallway, Council Chamber, Premier's office and 24 Premier's boardroom. 25 And do you recognize the configuration of
1741 -- configuration of the rooms there? 2 A: Yes, I do. 3 Q: And do they seem to be accurate from 4 your recollection? 5 A: Yes, they are. That reception area 6 actually leads straight out to the main hallway in the 7 Leg building. 8 Q: Okay. And is the Premier's boardroom 9 also what we have referred to as the Premier's dining 10 room? 11 A: Yes, it is. 12 Q: And I'm advised that north is at the 13 top of this page? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: So south at the bottom, west on the 16 left and east on the right. Does that accord with your 17 recollection? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. And perhaps you would -- do 20 you recall there being a -- a table in the center of the 21 -- the dining room? 22 A: Yes, there is. 23 Q: Okay. Perhaps you could draw that in 24 for us? 25
1751 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And was this the table at which you 4 and the Premier and others were seated? 5 A: Yes, it is. 6 Q: Would you proceed by using initials 7 to mark down the positions of all the persons who were at 8 the table, to the best of your recollection? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: You've completed that? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: All right. Thank you. And do you 16 recall whether or not there was an air conditioning unit 17 in the room during the course of this meeting? 18 A: No, I do not. 19 Q: You don't recall. All right. Now, 20 perhaps you could just describe for us very carefully, 21 commencing with the north side of the table, who was 22 seated and where. 23 A: I recall the Premier being seated at 24 the north side of the table. There may have been people 25 on the west side of him, but I can't recall that.
1761 Q: All right. And anyone on the -- on 2 his east side -- 3 A: No. 4 Q: -- or on his left? 5 A: No. 6 Q: No. So just he as far as you can 7 recall with certainty? 8 A: With certainty the Premier sat at the 9 north end of the table. 10 Q: And you're leaving open whether there 11 was anyone to his right? 12 A: I can't recall anybody. They might 13 have been right in the corner of the table to the right 14 but I can't visualize that. 15 Q: Okay. And who if anyone was seated 16 on the east side of the table? 17 A: The east side of the table, closest 18 to the Premier, was Ron Vrancart. I sat next to Ron and 19 my recollection is Bob Runciman sat next to me. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: And there was others sitting past 22 Runciman but I can't recall who it was. 23 Q: Okay. Are there people along that 24 side of the table but you can't recall whom? 25 A: I cant' recall whom.
1771 Q: Anyone at the south side of the 2 table? 3 A: There may have been, I can't recall. 4 Q: All right. And anyone sitting across 5 from you on the west side of that table? 6 A: Yes. Closest to the Premier that I 7 can recall, there may have been someone in between. Like 8 I mentioned I can't -- 9 Q: Just to the best of your 10 recollection. 11 A: Yeah. Charlie Harnick I recall was 12 sitting there and next to Charlie was Larry Taman, his 13 Deputy. 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: And Elaine Todres was next to Larry 16 and Ron Fox was next to Elaine Todres. 17 Q: All right. And there may have been 18 other people along that side of the table? 19 A: There may have been, yes. 20 Q: Was there anybody, to your 21 recollection, anyone else in the room but not sitting at 22 the table? 23 A: Yes. I recall political staff were 24 along back walls of the room in chairs. 25 Q: Okay.
1781 A: I can recall Jeff Bangs. He sat 2 behind Ron Vrancart and myself. 3 Q: And do you believe there are other 4 political staff? 5 A: Yes there were. I just can't recall 6 which -- who sat where. 7 Q: And let me just ask, was there any 8 particular protocol, if you wish, which determined by 9 position who got to sit at the table and who didn't? 10 A: I don't know if it was ever formally 11 expressed that way. But any meetings I was at, for 12 example, in Cabinet only Ministers sat at the table. If 13 there's a Deputy Minister giving a presentation, they 14 would give him a special chair to sit in to give the 15 presentation. 16 At committee room meetings, political 17 staff generally didn't sit beside the Ministers at the 18 table if there was Ministers -- if there was -- you know, 19 you're having a meeting and it's just one (1) Minister 20 then political staff could sit around. 21 But if it was a meeting of Ministers and 22 the Premier, I can't recall a meeting where political 23 staff ever sat at the table. 24 Q: All right. And so therefore were you 25 -- were you surprised at all to have Ron Fox sitting at
1791 the table with the Premier? 2 A: No. There was -- civil servants 3 could sit at the table at committee meetings or other 4 meetings we were at with Ministers. 5 Q: All right. Had you ever been -- 6 A: People that were giving presentations 7 for example. 8 Q: Excuse me. Okay. Thank you. Have 9 you ever been at -- at a meeting of this kind before in 10 the Premier's dining room where there was -- 11 A: No, I have not. 12 Q: Okay. Was there -- do you recall 13 whether or not Ms. Hutton was present in the room during 14 this meeting? 15 A: I can't recall if she was present or 16 not. I know she met us at the door and showed us two (2) 17 chairs to sit in. I think she was trying to get the 18 meeting going, but I can't recall if she was in the 19 meeting. 20 Q: All right. Okay. 21 A: I would assume she was. Other 22 political staff were there. I can't recall. 23 Q: All right. Okay. I would like the - 24 - the diagram as marked by Mr. Hodgson, the next exhibit 25 please.
1801 THE REGISTRAR: P-1010, Your Honour. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1010: Diagram of floor plan of 4 Premier's office, Premier's 5 Boardroom, Council Chamber, 6 EA's office, reception, 7 hallway and washroom, marked 8 by Witness, Mr. Christopher 9 Hodgson, Jan. 12/'06. 10 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I wonder, Mr. 12 Commissioner, I just want to have a quick look at the 13 diagram. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 18 Q: Mr. -- I wonder if we could put the 19 following exhibits; please place them before the Witness 20 Mr. Hodgson, we did ask three (3) other 21 witnesses to draw similar diagrams and I just want to -- 22 you to have an opportunity to review them to see if that 23 alters or refreshes your memory in any way. 24 The Exhibits P-985, P-987 and, I believe, 25 Exhibit P-968.
1811 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And perhaps we can return this 4 exhibit, as well, to Mr. Hodgson. Thank you. And just 5 so you know, P-968 is the diagram prepared by Ms. Hutton, 6 985 is the diagram prepared by Dr. Todres and 987 is the 7 diagram prepared by Mr. Runciman. And I believe you'll 8 see that they put initials as well. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: All right. Does that, at all, in any 14 way, refresh or alter your recollection of the 15 configuration of that room, as you recall it? 16 A: No, it's all over the place, Mr. 17 Commissioner. 18 Q: That's fair enough. I want you to -- 19 I'm just giving you an opportunity to see what others 20 have done. 21 A: Yeah. The -- I'm pretty certain 22 where the Premier was sitting, I'm pretty certain where I 23 was sitting. I may have Bob and Charlie reversed, but I 24 was pretty certain that I sat beside Bob Runciman. 25 Q: All right. And that -- that's your
1821 recollection today. 2 A: Right. Could stand to be corrected 3 on that. 4 Q: Thank you. Now -- and you're quite 5 certain that Mr. Fox was at the table at the commencement 6 of this meeting? 7 A: Yes, I am. 8 Q: All right. And that he sat across 9 from you? 10 A: On an angle. 11 Q: Yes, okay. 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: All right. Now how long did this 14 meeting last, to the best of your recollection? 15 A: My recollection is about fifteen (15) 16 minutes. 17 Q: All right. And were there any 18 introductions made at this meeting? 19 A: No, there were not. 20 Q: And you said the meeting started when 21 the Premier sat? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Did you overhear any conversations 24 involving the Premier prior to him sitting down? 25 A: No, I did not.
1831 Q: Who spoke first at the meeting? 2 A: My recollection is that Charlie 3 Harnick said a couple of words of introduction. Larry 4 Taman outlined what we were going to be talking about. 5 Ron Fox gave a update of the situation on the ground at 6 Ipperwash and Larry Taman then went to the next steps 7 through an injunction and options around an injunction. 8 Then the Premier spoke and that was the 9 end of the meeting, is my recollection. 10 Q: All right. And did you say anything 11 at this meeting? 12 A: No, I did not. 13 Q: And let's go back to -- and have we 14 covered all the people who you recall making any 15 statements at this meeting? 16 A: That I recall, yes. 17 Q: All right. And you indicated first 18 Mr. Harnick gave a brief introduction. Can you just tell 19 me what the introduction stated? 20 A: He might have just introduced Larry. 21 He might have just said, Larry Taman's going to say -- 22 take us through the meeting -- 23 Q: All right -- 24 A: Something -- something very brief. 25 Q: Okay. And then you indicated that
1841 Mr. Taman outlined what the agenda would be. Can you 2 tell me more specifically what he said? 3 A: I think he said that we're going to 4 receive an update on the situation as it exists at 5 Ipperwash from Ron Fox and then he went through -- he 6 would go to next steps, is how I recall. 7 Q: Okay. And did he tell the meeting 8 who Ron Fox was? 9 A: No, he didn't. He just said Mr. Fox, 10 as I recall. 11 Q: And did he call him Mr. Fox? 12 A: I think he did, yes. 13 Q: And next Mr. Fox then gave an update 14 on the ground, you said. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Can you tell us more specifically 17 what he reported to the meeting, with as much detail as 18 you can please? 19 A: I don't remember the specifics, I 20 just remember that he recounted what the situation was 21 at; that it was tense but it was stable. It was 22 contained to the Park. It hadn't spread to the roads or 23 to the surrounding area. 24 Q: All right. Do you recall him 25 reporting on any incidents that had occurred in relation
1851 to the Park? 2 A: He may have. He gave -- I would have 3 just said in fifteen (15) seconds but he probably added 4 more detail and talked for about three (3) or four (4) 5 minutes. 6 Q: Do you recall whether or not the 7 topic of -- of gunfire was raised at this meeting? 8 A: I can't recall specifically. I can 9 recall that it probably -- he probably mentioned that 10 there were reports of gunshot fire. 11 Q: And do you recall any further 12 discussion around that? 13 A: No, I don't. 14 Q: All right. Did anything that he say 15 -- said, during the course of the -- of this update, 16 cause you any concern? 17 A: No. I think he concluded by saying 18 the situation was stable, that it wasn't spreading. 19 Q: All right. Did you learn anything 20 from his report which you hadn't known before that 21 meeting? 22 A: No, I did not. 23 Q: And did he add anything else that you 24 -- you can recall? 25 A: Not that I can recall, no.
1861 Q: And you indicated that Mr. Taman made 2 a presentation with respect to the next steps and that he 3 outlined the injunction and options? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Okay. And can you be more specific 6 again? First of all, did he only talk about injunctions? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: He didn't talk about any other 9 possible options concerning removal? 10 A: No. 11 Q: All right. And what specifically did 12 he -- do you recall him reporting with respect to the 13 injunction vehicle? 14 A: Generally, he outlined two (2) types 15 of injunctions: One that could be delivered quicker and 16 one that would take longer, with notice or without 17 notice. 18 I still don't recall the specifics or 19 understand the specifics but he outlined the options 20 around an injunction and recommended which one would be 21 the faster one and whether there was a likelihood that it 22 would be successful. 23 Q: Okay. And what did he -- what did he 24 say with respect to what would be the faster one, to use 25 your...
1871 A: I believe it was the one without 2 notice; that there's ex parte and parte -- 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: -- and I... 5 Q: And -- and what did you understand, 6 "without notice," to mean? 7 A: I was paying attention to another 8 part that he was focussing on as well, more importantly 9 than the ex parte/parte but I'll get to that. 10 I thought that without notice was a 11 quicker route, but that was about it, is my recollection 12 on that. 13 Q: Did you have any sense as to what the 14 "without notice" meant aside from being quicker? 15 A: Well, I assume it meant without 16 notice to the occupiers, but I might be wrong on that. 17 Q: All right. And do you recall what he 18 said about the chances of success with respect to the 19 without versus with notice? 20 A: I think he -- my recollection is that 21 both routes had high probability of success -- 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: -- of being granted. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: The one obviously would be easier
1881 than the other, but my recollection is that both could be 2 done. 3 Q: And did he -- do you recall if he 4 said what would be easier? 5 A: The "with notice," as I recall. 6 Q: With notice? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: So easier in the terms of actually 9 obtaining the release? 10 A: Easier might be the wrong word to 11 use; more certainty that it would be granted. 12 Q: That's fair. Thank you. And did -- 13 do you recall whether or not Mr. Taman made a 14 recommendation or gave a preference with respect to which 15 injunction ought to be sought? 16 A: I can't recall specifically but 17 there's an assumption that this was, on my part anyways, 18 that this was an information meeting, that they were 19 recommending an injunction that would be the faster 20 route. 21 Q: So the "without notice?" 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And when you say that was, "your 24 assumption," what gave rise to your assumption? 25 A: The fact that the meeting, in my
1891 opinion, was an information meeting to inform the 2 ministers of what decisions were being taken, what the 3 next steps were. 4 Q: Okay. In other words, they weren't 5 seeking direction? 6 A: I never had that impression. I -- 7 I'd assumed a decision had been made. 8 Q: All right. And you said that when 9 Mr. Taman was speaking, you were concentrating on 10 something else. What were you concentrating on? 11 A: He was referencing who would do the 12 communicating around the injunction -- 13 Q: Ah. 14 A: And that was Charlie Harnick. 15 Q: The spokesperson -- 16 A: Would be the spokesperson. 17 Q: And -- and you understood it would be 18 the Attorney General. 19 A: He stated that. 20 Q: All right. And I take it you were 21 content with that? 22 A: I was quite pleased with that. 23 Q: All right. Now did you have any 24 concerns, at all, with respect to what you were hearing 25 from Mr. Taman?
1901 A: No, I did not. I had confidence in 2 the Attorney General and their department and I had 3 confidence that this is what the police were asking for, 4 that was the proper route to go. 5 Q: All right. So you were content that 6 it was appropriate that the Government seek a without 7 notice injunction? 8 A: Yeah, and I probably still don't 9 understand all the nuances of that, but I was comfortable 10 that I had confidence in the Attorney General and his 11 department. 12 Q: All right. And were any questions 13 asked of any of the participants at the meeting during 14 the course of this general presentation? 15 A: Not that I'm aware of. 16 Q: So it was just the four (4) people 17 who spoke and then the Premier at the end, is that -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. Now did -- what do you 20 recall the Premier saying at the end of the meeting? 21 A: I recall the Premier basically stated 22 that it was a police matter, it was in the police 23 operations, that politicians and himself could not 24 interfere with or direct. He was quite clear on that. 25 He stated, and I don't know if it's just
1911 because it's my belief that I remember this, but I 2 remember him quite clearly stating that it's -- it's 3 easier to avoid these situations than it is to remove 4 people once an occupation has begun. 5 I recall that quite specifically because 6 it would agree with what I'd said earlier and what we -- 7 we believed in. 8 The -- he talked about the need to try to 9 resolve this as quickly as possible. 10 Q: Hmm hmm. 11 A: That he didn't want to see the 12 situation escalate. He thought that things look to -- in 13 terms of avoiding the situation, that things can ferment 14 and become bigger over time, that it was easier to have 15 avoided it. 16 There was some frustration expressed by 17 the Premier that, you know, we were here at this point. 18 But he concluded by stating that it was a police matter 19 and he was, you know, no problems with the Attorney 20 General's recommendation, and carry on. 21 And stood up and that was the end of the 22 meeting? 23 Q: All right. And just so that the 24 record is clear, is your recollection that the Premier 25 said something to the effect that it would have been
1921 easier had the occupation not occurred in the first 2 place? 3 A: I think he was -- it's easier to 4 prevent these things than it is to remove people from a - 5 - a position. 6 Q: All right. Okay. 7 A: I remember that because it was almost 8 identical to what I'd been thinking earlier in the day 9 and in the subsequent previous days. 10 Q: So it resonated with your views? 11 A: Yes. Maybe that's why I remember it. 12 Q: And I think you indicated, in your 13 testimony, that you'd detected or perceived there to be a 14 degree of frustration on the part of the Premier when he 15 made that statement? 16 A: Yeah, a lot of frustration at that. 17 Q: And can you just help us with 18 understanding what the basis of your opinion was, that he 19 appeared frustrated? 20 A: It was body language, speaking in a 21 loud voice. Not yelling or anything, but it was just -- 22 it was a firm voice and that was my recollection of it. 23 Q: All right. Now, you indicated that 24 the meeting ended when the Premier got up? 25 A: Yes.
1931 Q: Okay. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Now, do you have any recollection as 6 to whether there was any discussion with respect to the 7 time lines that would be anticipated in a with notice 8 versus without notice injunction? 9 A: Yes, I do recall Larry Taman talking 10 about that. 11 Q: And what's your recollection about 12 what those time lines would likely be? 13 A: I can't recall the specifics. 14 Q: All right. Was it your recollection 15 that -- that one would take longer to proceed through the 16 courts than the other? 17 A: Yes. He gave those time lines in the 18 two (2) types of injunctions that could be sought. 19 Q: Okay. And what's your recollection 20 as to which would take longer? 21 A: Like I said earlier, the one without 22 -- with notice would take longer. 23 Q: All right. Do you recall what day 24 was being represented that the Government would be able 25 to get into court on the without notice?
1941 A: No, I don't recall that. 2 Q: All right. And you indicated that 3 you had an impression that there had already been a 4 decision made with respect to what injunction to pursue? 5 A: That was my impression, that we were 6 there for an information session. 7 Q: But you indicated that the Pre -- 8 A: It wasn't a formal Cabinet meeting or 9 anything like that so. 10 Q: You indicated that -- well would this 11 type of decision normally require a Cabinet decision? 12 A: No. I don't imagine it was the 13 Attorney General's decision but I really didn't know. I 14 hadn't gone to Cabinet that day so I -- but I had assumed 15 that the decision was made by the way it was presented, 16 that we were there for information. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: And that's -- that was my 19 observations. 20 Q: In other words, you weren't asked for 21 your position or whether you agreed or disagreed? 22 A: No. There was no request for, you 23 know, does anybody agree or disagree, to put it your way. 24 Q: All right. And how much did you 25 actually know about the -- about -- about what an
1951 injunction was, prior to this meeting? How knowledgeable 2 were you? 3 A: Probably about the same as today. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: Not very. 6 Q: All right. Now do you recall there 7 being anything -- well, first -- well, anything said at 8 this meeting on the topic of police operations? 9 A: I don't -- I don't believe there was 10 any discussion on that other than the Premier stating 11 that it's a police operation. Politicians cannot 12 interfere in that. He's not interfering in it, or in any 13 way, shape or form trying to direct it. 14 And then he talked about situations like 15 this, that they're easier to avoid. They're very 16 difficult once people are in an area if you're going to 17 try and remove them. 18 Q: All right. And when he made that 19 comment, did you form any current opinion or impression 20 as to -- to whom that comment was directed, if anybody? 21 A: I don't think it was directed at 22 anybody. I had directed it earlier at ONAS but he wasn't 23 directing it at anybody. It was just -- it's just an 24 observation. And his other observation was that we 25 didn't want to see this situation prolonged and escalate.
1961 He thought that made it more dangerous, 2 the longer it went on. 3 Q: And you indicated that that was -- 4 both of those points resonated with you. 5 A: Yes, they did. 6 Q: Were there any comments aside from 7 what you heard from the Premier with respect to the 8 propriety of the Government directing or being seen to 9 direct the police as to how to handle this matter? 10 A: Not that I'm aware of, no. 11 Q: No -- no discussion at all? 12 A: Not that I'm aware of. 13 Q: Do you recall any -- 14 A: He could have, but I just can't 15 recall it, that's -- I didn't mean aware of. 16 Q: Well that's -- 17 A: I just -- I don't recall. 18 Q: All right. Fair enough. You're not 19 disputing that that may have occurred, but you're -- 20 A: It may have occurred, but I -- I 21 can't recall that. 22 Q: Thank you. Do you recall -- were 23 there any comments that were made by the Premier to the 24 effect that if matters worsened it would all come out in 25 an Inquiry some day?
1971 A: Yes. I recall that. 2 Q: And do you -- do you have a more 3 specific recollection about what that comment was? 4 A: It was in regard to it's easier to 5 avoid these situations than it is to remove people. It 6 was we want to make sure this is dealt with, you know, as 7 quickly as possible so it doesn't spread, roads aren't 8 blockaded and other things, we don't have more serious 9 situations on our hands -- 10 Q: All right. 11 A: -- that -- I think he might have 12 mentioned that, you know, if there's mistakes made here, 13 it's -- it will all come out in an Inquiry. 14 But for now it's -- we're accepting the 15 AG's recommendation and the police are handling it. That 16 was it. 17 Q: All right. And did you form any 18 impression as to what the Premier was referring to when 19 he said that mistakes were made? 20 A: No. It was if mistakes are made, 21 they'll all come out in an inquiry. 22 Q: Okay. Thank you. 23 A: Now -- and that was in -- how we got 24 to where we are today. 25 Q: Okay. But -- I'm sorry.
1981 A: At that time. 2 Q: Did you have any impression as to 3 what he was referring to with respect to, If mistakes 4 were made they would all come out in an inquiry? 5 A: Yes, he was just saying that if the 6 situation -- you know, it's easier to avoid these 7 situations, in his opinion, than it is to try to remove 8 occupazers -- occupiers, but, you know, if there's 9 mistakes have been made that'll come out in an inquiry. 10 That's my recollection of what he said. 11 Q: All right. Did the Premier, in your 12 presence, make any comments which led you to believe that 13 -- that he was concerned about the way the police had 14 handled the matters to-date? 15 A: Not that I heard, no. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Did you hear any references by the 20 Premier, at this meeting, with respect to the holocaust? 21 A: Absolutely not. 22 Q: All right. When you say, "absolutely 23 not," why is it that you are so certain? 24 A: I would have remembered that. 25 Q: Why?
1991 A: Well, people don't usually talk about 2 the holocaust in general conversation. I've read a 3 number of books on it and that would have made an 4 impression on me. 5 Q: Okay. Now, this Inquiry has heard 6 testimony from Ron Fox and Scott Patrick, that they heard 7 such a reference. But we've heard from others such -- 8 including Mr. Runciman and Mr. Harnick that they did not. 9 Does that information alter your 10 recollection in any way? 11 A: All right. 12 Q: Did you hear any reference by the 13 Premier, during the course of this meeting, to the Oka 14 situation? 15 A: I don't recall that. I'm saying it 16 couldn't have happened, but I don't recall that. 17 Q: All right. Now, on November the 18 28th, 2005 this Inquiry heard evidence from Mr. Harnick. 19 And he testified that prior to the meeting officially 20 commencing, but while the Premier was standing in the 21 dining room, he heard the Premier say, quote: 22 "Get those fucking Indians out of the 23 Park." 24 End of quote. 25 Did you hear that?
2001 A: No, I did not. 2 Q: Sorry? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 4 the quote is a little bit different, slightly different. 5 Are you reading from the transcript, Ms. Vella? 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Excuse me. I 7 apologize. I thought I was reading an accurate quote, 8 but let me just take a moment. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 10 something about "I want." 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Excuse me. Excuse me. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 16 Q: I do apologize, Mr. Commissioner, and 17 I apologize, Mr. Hodgson. I -- I have the quote slightly 18 wrong. Let me -- let me say it again. Apparently this 19 was prior to the commencement of the meeting, but in the 20 dining room. And Mr. Harnick testified that he heard the 21 Premier say, quote: 22 "I want the fucking Indians out of the 23 Park." 24 Close quote. 25 Did you hear that statement?
2011 A: No, I did not. 2 Q: Did you hear words to that effect 3 from the Premier at any time during the course of the 4 dining room meeting? 5 A: No, I did not. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Now, did you hear the Premier or 10 anyone else during the course of that meeting say words 11 to the effect of, Get those fucking Indians out of the 12 Park. Use guns if you have to? 13 A: Absolutely not. 14 Q: As a result of what you learned at 15 this meeting, did you have any concerns about the 16 developing situation at the Park? 17 A: No, I didn't. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Mr. Runciman testified that he 22 believed everyone was concerned about the potential for 23 the occupation becoming dangerous if the report of 24 gunfire and the possible presence of an AK-47 at the Park 25 was true.
2021 And do you recall any discussion around 2 that? 3 A: No, I don't. 4 Q: Did you share his concern about a 5 concern for escalating the danger? 6 A: I shared the concern that I've 7 already mentioned, that there was a general concern about 8 an escalation of the situation, involving the fact that 9 if the Federal Government wasn't going to respond to the 10 Provincial Park being taken over -- 11 Q: Hmm hmm. 12 A: -- they may want to blockade a road 13 or a -- other roads in the area, including Highway 21 or 14 another Provincial Park, the Pinery; that was a concern 15 that was raised and -- and talked about. 16 But in terms of the report that Mr. Fox 17 gave, the situation was stable on the ground as I 18 understood it after that meeting. 19 Q: All right. Do you recall anything 20 else of significance occurring during the course of this 21 meeting? 22 A: No, I don't. It was a rather short 23 meeting, as I recall. 24 Q: All right. And who was the first 25 person to leave the room at the end of this meeting?
2031 A: I can't be certain, but the Premier 2 stood up, and I do recall right behind his chair over to 3 the side, Paul Rhodes was briefing him, because the media 4 were waiting outside in the main hallway -- 5 Q: Hmm hmm. 6 A: And he was going to walk down that 7 corridor and go out and do the scrum after Cabinet. And 8 I know that Ron Vrancart, Jeff Bangs, myself had to walk 9 by the Premier to go out the door and down the hall 10 through the back entrance, out of Queen's Park and back 11 to our offices at the MNR. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: So I know that we were sitting close 14 to the Premier when he stood up. I think we were one (1) 15 of the first ones to leave. 16 Q: All right. Now Mr. Runciman has 17 testified that he believes that he left before you did. 18 Does that alter your recollection at all? 19 A: No, it doesn't. He would have had to 20 step over me, yeah. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now, I believe you indicated that you 25 recall that Dr. Elaine Todres was present at this
2041 meeting? 2 A: Yes, I did. 3 Q: And that you were familiar with her, 4 prior to this meeting? 5 A: A little bit, yes. 6 Q: You knew that she was the deputy 7 Minister for the Solicitor General? 8 A: Yes, I would have known that, yes. 9 Q: And had you had any interactions with 10 Dr. Todres prior to this meeting? 11 A: Not that I'm aware of. 12 Q: All right. Did you have any past 13 disputes or disagreements with Dr. Todres, over the 14 course of your term as Minister of Natural Resources? 15 A: No, I can't recall any. I sat on a 16 management board but I can't recall any -- any 17 disagreements there, either. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: Now, this Inquiry has heard the 21 testimony from Dr. Elaine Todres. And she testified on 22 November the 30th, 2005, and it's at pages 56 to 57, as 23 to a comment that she attributed to you as having been 24 made on -- at the September 6th Premier's dining room 25 meeting.
2051 And because of the nature of the comment, 2 I am going to go to the transcript of her testimony and 3 then I'll ask you a question. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: And I'm going to start at line 6, 8 just to give you context. 9 "Q: And how did that accord with the 10 way that you understood events from the 11 day previous and even earlier in the 12 morning? 13 A: We felt no -- no sense of urgency. 14 I think it would be fair to say that 15 from the -- from a political point of 16 view, this was a new government that 17 was keen on presenting itself to the 18 public as being on top of issues, and 19 as time went on their notion of -- of 20 immediacy was not in sync with the time 21 that would have been associated within 22 or with negotiation and they wanted it 23 done with. They wanted to move on. 24 They had a legislative agenda and they 25 wanted this dealt with as quickly as
2061 possible. And they didn't want to be - 2 - they didn't want to be -- they didn't 3 want it to linger, if I can put it that 4 way. 5 Q: All right. Can you describe any 6 words or phrases that would have taken 7 you to this understanding? 8 A: Well, there were -- there were -- 9 I did get the sense that they wanted 10 things done. I mean I recall -- the 11 first thing that I recall is that the 12 Minister of -- of Natural Resources was 13 extremely agitated and very concerned. 14 And in a moment of apparent 15 exasperation, uttered the phrase that I 16 would prefer not to repeat. 17 Q: I'm going to ask you to repeat it. 18 A: He said in my recollection, quote 19 'Get the, expletive deleted, Indians 20 out of my Park.' Close quote. That is 21 the phrase that I recall. 22 Q: He didn't say 'expletive deleted'? 23 A: No, he didn't. You're asking me 24 to say that word? 25 Q: I'm asking you.
2071 A: He said, quote, 'Get the fucking 2 Indians out of my Park.' Close quote. 3 Q: All right. Did you attribute any 4 such words or anything like that to any 5 other people within the -- within that 6 meeting? 7 A: No." 8 Mr. Hodgson, at any time did you say in 9 the presence of Dr. Todres "Get the fucking Indians out 10 of my Park" or words to that affect? 11 A: No, I did not or in the presence of 12 anyone else. I've read that quote extensively in the 13 news media and it is embarrassing. I can assure you I 14 absolutely did not say anything to that affect. 15 Q: Do you have an explanation or any 16 explanation as to why Dr. Todres would testify in -- in 17 the manner she did then? 18 A: No, I do not. I wish I did but I 19 don't. 20 Q: Now you've testified that you did not 21 say anything during the course of this meeting; is that 22 right? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: We've heard evidence from Ron Fox to 25 the affect that you raised the issue of automatic
2081 gunfire, and that he responded that sometimes automatic - 2 - or automatic gunfire can be mistaken with semi- 3 automatic weapons fired, and that's at July the 12th, 4 2005 testimony, page 66. 5 Does that refresh your memory in any way? 6 A: That's not true. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: The only time I'd know about the 9 debate on automatic gunfire was what Jeff Bangs told me 10 was discussed when he was at the Interministerial meeting 11 in the morning of the 6th. 12 Q: Do you deny that that exchange 13 occurred or do you not recollect? 14 A: No, I deny it. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I wonder, Mr. 16 Commissioner, if we might take a break at this time? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 18 will be a good time. 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 20 for fifteen (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 2:42 p.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 3:04 p.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now
2091 resumed, please be seated. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 4 Q: Mr. Hodgson, just before we proceed 5 any further with the meeting do you recall what position 6 Mr. Harris was physically in when he was sitting at the 7 chair? 8 A: Yes, I believe he was sitting down in 9 the chair. 10 Q: Okay. We -- we have heard evidence 11 from Mr. Runciman that he thought that Mr. Harris was 12 sitting on the arm of the chair. Does that alter your 13 recollection, or do you have any comment? 14 A: I don't recall that. I believe he 15 was sitting down in the chair. 16 Q: All right. Thank you. Now, Ron Fox 17 testified on July the 12th, 2005, at this Inquiry that he 18 suggested to you that a co-management agreement be 19 considered as a potential solution to the occupation. 20 Do you recall Mr. Fox making that 21 suggestion to you at any time? 22 A: No, I do not. 23 Q: Do you recall Mr. Fox -- at least do 24 you recall advising Mr. Fox that he should not concern 25 himself with the political optics of the situation?
2101 A: I covered that earlier today at an 2 earlier meeting, yes. 3 Q: All right. But you don't recall him 4 making a suggestion with respect to a co-management 5 agreement? 6 A: The specifics -- he used the Serpent 7 Mounds as an example. 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: That -- that's impossible that 10 happened. 11 Q: And why do you say that that's 12 impossible? 13 A: The co-management of Serpent Mounds 14 didn't come about til after this event. 15 Q: After the 6th? 16 A: After the 6th. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: The occupation at Serpent Mounds had 19 ended on the 4th; the co-management discussions didn't 20 begin til in the fall. There wasn't an agreement reached 21 until the spring of '96. So for him to have said that he 22 suggested that as a precedent, it's impossible that 23 happened. 24 Q: All right. Now, going back to Mr. 25 Fox's evidence with respect to the Premier's dining room
2111 meeting, he testified further on July the 12th that you 2 asked -- that you asked about the enforcement of an 3 injunction and particularly how long it would take the -- 4 how long the OPP would sit on it once it was granted by 5 the court. 6 Do you recall any such discussion of which 7 you participated? 8 A: No, I did not participate in a 9 discussion like that. 10 Q: All right. Do you deny that -- that 11 you may -- asked that question or -- or do you not 12 recall? 13 A: I deny that. 14 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 18 of 15 your brief? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: It's Exhibit P-515 and Inquiry 20 Document Number 3001088. It's been identified, Mr. 21 Hodgson, as a handwritten note of Julie Jai, and it 22 reflects a conversation which she recalls having with Mr. 23 Fox on September the 6th. 24 Mr. Fox reportedly told Julie Jai at -- 25 that at the end of this meeting you and the Premier came
2121 out strong in terms of wanting the occupiers removed as 2 soon as possible. 3 Is that an accurate reflection of your 4 position from the Premier's dining room meeting? 5 A: I didn't say a word at the Premier's 6 dining room meeting. 7 Q: Was that -- is that -- all right. Do 8 you recall staying behind in the Premier's dining room, 9 after the Premier left and sitting across from Ron Fox? 10 A: No, I specifically recall leaving 11 when the Premier stood up. He was being briefed by Paul 12 Rhodes. Ron Vrancart, Jeff Bangs and I walked past the 13 Premier and Mr. Rhodes, out of the door. 14 And as we were going through the door, the 15 Premier's obviously being briefed for a media scrum, I 16 can vividly recall Ron Vrancart saying, Well, I guess you 17 don't have to worry about being the lead of 18 communications any more. 19 And I thought we were a little close to 20 the Premier for him to be making a remark like that. 21 Q: Okay. Do you recall having -- 22 A: I know we left right after. 23 Q: All right, and so you do not recall 24 having a discussion with Ron Fox in the Premier's dining 25 room --
2131 A: No, I did not. 2 Q: -- at any time during the course of 3 that meeting or shortly thereafter? 4 A: At any time during the course of that 5 meeting or shortly thereafter, no. 6 Q: All right, we have heard evidence 7 from Ron Fox and Scott Patrick who was Ron Fox's 8 assistant, to the effect that such a conversation 9 occurred as between yourself and Ron Fox. 10 And specifically Officer Patrick testified 11 on October the 17th, 2005 that this discussion took place 12 shortly after Mr. Harris left and perhaps I will take you 13 to that testimony. 14 And for the record, it's October the 17th, 15 2005 and it's pages 109 to 111 of the transcript. 16 And I'm going to read from the transcript 17 for you and then I'll ask you some questions. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: "Q: And after the Premier left, how 20 long did the meeting go on [and they're 21 talking about the dining room] 22 A: We were there for -- 23 Superintendent Fox and I were in 24 attendance for approximately another 25 five (5) minutes or so, I would say.
2141 We were excused from the meeting and 2 the meeting appeared to be continuing 3 after we left. 4 Q: After you left, and what happened 5 after the Premier left? 6 A: Minister -- 7 Q: While you were there? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Minister Hodgson began to speak to 10 deputy Minister Taman. 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: And that a point deputy Todres 13 gestured to Superintendent Fox and I to 14 join her at the table. 15 Q: Yes? 16 A: So we did, and we were now seated 17 next to deputy Todres and we were 18 direct -- directly across from the 19 table from Minister Hodgson. 20 Q: And what if anything, did Mr. 21 Hodgson say? 22 A: He said several things. He began 23 to speak to Superintendent Fox. He was 24 -- he gave the appearance that he was 25 quite angry. He indicated that his
2151 officials, meaning him and our 2 officials, had been assured by the OPP 3 that the Park -- Park's occupation 4 could be prevented and now we know 5 that's not the case. 6 He indicated he was the property owner; 7 that it was his Park and he wanted it - 8 - and that he wanted it back. 9 And there was a comment directed to 10 Superintendent Fox that he was not in 11 the position to direct the police, so 12 don't presume you can proffer political 13 advice. 14 Q: And did -- did Mr. Fox have a 15 discussion with Mr. Hodgson that 16 prompted this comment? 17 A: Yes, yes. Those are the comments 18 that I remember from the Minister that 19 occurred over two (2) or three (3) 20 minutes. 21 Q: And there was a discussion between 22 Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Fox while this was 23 going on, and these comments were made 24 by Mr. Hodgson during this discussion? 25 A: That's correct, yes.
2161 Q: And do you recall what Mr. Fox 2 said to Mr. Hodgson? 3 A: One (1) comment I recall, he -- he 4 said to the Minister that in response 5 to his concern about the Park -- Park's 6 occupation being prevented, that short 7 of putting off OPP officers shoulder to 8 shoulder around the Park parameter, 9 that that may not even -- that may not 10 have even prevented the occupation of 11 the Park. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: That was one (1) comment I recall. 14 Q: Okay. Any other comments that you 15 recall made by Mr. Fox? 16 A: Not specifically, no. 17 Q: And the -- was there -- did the 18 Minister speak about the title to the 19 Park? 20 A: In the general way, yes. It was 21 clear that he viewed the Park as a 22 Provincial Park, an MNR Park, and he 23 was expressing what I believed to be 24 some frustration that this was taking a 25 while to get resolved.
2171 Q: Okay. And while you were there 2 after the Premier left, did anyone else 3 speak besides Ron Fox and Mr. Hodgson? 4 A: Yes. Deputy Taman began to 5 dialogue with the Minister and it was 6 shortly after that that we were 7 excused. 8 Q: And what do you recall of the 9 dialogue between Mr. Taman and the 10 Minister, Mr. Hodgson. 11 A: I don't recall." 12 Now having heard this testimony, does that 13 alter, in any way, your recollection as to whether or not 14 you had a conversation with Ron Fox at the end of the 15 Premier's dining room meeting? 16 A: No, not at all. I believe that Mr. 17 Patrick is confusing the meeting that we had earlier in 18 the day. 19 Q: The meeting that you dis -- 20 A: And I believe he's taken a 21 misinterpretation. And firstly, I don't know or recall 22 Scott Patrick. 23 Q: Okay. Fair enough. And you're 24 indicating that -- that you recognize some of the -- 25 what's being described here as having occurred at the
2181 meeting -- 2 A: Only the one part where he talked 3 about Mr. Fox's response being officers lined arm to arm 4 around the Park. 5 Q: All right. 6 A: And I've explained that circumstance 7 earlier. As far as calling Mr. Fox, himself, up the 8 table, that didn't happen. Mr. Fox was giving a 9 presentation. He was sitting at the table. 10 Q: All right. Thank you. Now we've 11 heard played at this Inquiry, a taped recording of a 12 telephone conversation which occurred on September the 13 6th, 1995 at approximately 14:00 hours between Inspector 14 Fox, Incident Commander Carson, and later in this 15 telephone conversation is Mr. Fox and Superintendent 16 Coles. 17 And in this telephone call Mr. Fox 18 purports to report on the Premier's dining room meeting, 19 which had finished just an hour or so before to -- to Mr. 20 Carson and Mr. Coles. 21 And have you been played the tape of this 22 entire conversation before? 23 A: Yes, I have. 24 Q: All right. Would it assist you to 25 hear the tape again in its completion or would you like
2191 me to take you to some segments in the transcript? 2 A: I don't need to hear it all and I 3 prefer not to hear any of it but if you have to. It 4 doesn't matter to me. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If he 6 doesn't need it, I don't think we need to hear it again. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 9 Q: All right that's fine. That's fine. 10 And I wonder if you would please present Exhibit P-444A 11 to the Witness. 12 A: If it's easier for the counsel, you 13 can play the parts that you think are important. 14 Q: No, no, no, not at all. I -- I'm 15 giving you the option. I just want to be fair to the 16 Witness. And perhaps -- we have actually a corrected 17 version of the transcript, which perhaps you could hand 18 up to the Witness to use instead. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: All right. Okay? All right. I 23 wonder if you would go to page 263. You'll see there are 24 numbers at the bottom right-hand corner. 25 And this demonstrates halfway down through
2201 the page that he -- you'll see that he's describing a 2 meeting at the Legislative Building, which we're advised 3 was the Premier's dining room meeting, all right? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Okay. And it indicates halfway down 6 that the Solicitor General was there, the Attorney 7 General, yourself, the Deputy AG, the Deputy Solicitor 8 General, the -- and the Premier, amongst others, just to 9 be clear? Do you see that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: All right. And on page 264, the next 12 page at the bottom, the second last quote from Mr. Fox. 13 He's referring to the Premier as making a couple of wild- 14 assed comments. He gets up, leaves the room. So the 15 Premier has left the room and -- and then I'm going to 16 quote: 17 "And then the Sol Gen asked me to brief 18 them as to, you know, what changes in 19 the status of the situation are. And I 20 said, Well, I've been talking to the 21 Incident Commander and I am able to 22 confirm that there were shots 23 overnight. I said, Somewhere between 24 fifty (50) and a hundred (100) and this 25 is automatic weapon is what machine
2211 guns -- is what this Chris and I said. 2 It's possible it could be, I said, but 3 there is certainly no evidence to 4 support that I said between fifty (50) 5 and a hundred (100) rounds. I said, It 6 could have been a semi-automatic. 7 Carson: Right. 8 Fox: And I said, There is no evidence 9 that they were pointed at anybody." 10 Now, this is a reference that Mr. Fox is 11 reporting that he reported at the Premier's dining room. 12 Now, does that refresh or alter your 13 memory at all with respect to there being a discussion 14 after the Premier left, and there being a discussion 15 specifically with respect to the issue of automatic 16 gunfire? 17 A: No, it does not. It doesn't change 18 my opinion. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: I believe he made a report near the 21 start of the meeting. 22 Q: Yes, but that's -- 23 A: But I don't recall the specifics of 24 it. 25 Q: Okay. I appreciate that.
2221 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And then if you go on to page 265 and 4 they're continuing the discussion that he's reporting he 5 had with you after the Premier left. 6 "Fox: So in any event, to make a long 7 story short, this guy went and I 8 finally said, Well, look, I said, With 9 respect to this is a property dispute. 10 I said, What we are going to see at the 11 end of the day is a disused -- [sorry] 12 a disused Provincial Park closed for 13 the season. Okay? 14 Carson: Yeah. 15 Fox: And what we're also then going 16 to see is the people who have been 17 involved in mischief. 18 Yes, the police know what mischief is 19 and certainly those folk in the AG, we 20 know about the criminal offence 21 mischief. Once read in the newspaper 22 it sounds like stuff our kids get 23 involved in. 24 Carson: You got it. 25 Fox: You know what the prick says to
2231 me, well, I've just been told that I 2 can have no influence over the police 3 doing their job so I'm suggesting you 4 let me worry about the police -- 5 political ramifications. 6 Carson: Oh. 7 Fox: So I -- I can't hold my tongue. 8 Carson: Okay. 9 Fox: I thought, You little prick, I 10 got -- she was older than you and I 11 said, With all due respect, Minister, I 12 said, I'm not. Carson: Is that the 13 Sol Gen? 14 Fox: Hmm hmm? 15 Carson: The Sol Gen? 16 Fox: No, no, no. This is the 17 Minister of Natural Resources." 18 Now, do you -- does that refresh your 19 memory at all as to whether or not you had a discussion 20 with Mr. Fox in the priming -- Premier's dining room 21 meeting at the -- after Mr. Harris left the -- the room? 22 A: No, it refreshed my memory of a 23 meeting we had earlier. And there was only one (1) 24 little part that I believe took place and that's when he 25 was talking about, yes, the police know what mischief is
2241 and certainly, you know, the criminal offences and it 2 won't look good in the newspaper and stuff like that. 3 And there was a conversation around that. And I was 4 sitting in front of Mr. Fox at that time and beside me 5 was Mr. Bangs. 6 Q: And that was earlier in the day -- 7 A: Earlier in the day -- 8 Q: At what -- 9 A: In the dining room. 10 Q: At what you've described as being -- 11 A: And -- 12 Q: -- at the end of the -- 13 A: -- he never -- he never called me any 14 of those names. Sorry, he was very, very professional to 15 my recollection, so. 16 Q: Okay. And I just -- we just have to 17 be careful that we don't speak over each other. 18 A: Sorry. 19 Q: This occurred... 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Just to be clear, you recall a 24 discussion to that effect occurring when you met with Mr. 25 Fox earlier in the day at the -- what you describe as the
2251 end of the IMC meeting? 2 A: Yes, not between us, but I remember 3 that discussion. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: That I was involved in, yeah. 6 Q: And just -- 7 A: But not specifically that way it's 8 laid out, but I recall some of the phrases. 9 Q: Fair enough, and I should indicate 10 also that Mr. Fox testified that -- or he did not 11 indicate that he called you a prick, face to face. This 12 is what he is -- 13 A: He couldn't hold his -- 14 Q: His description. 15 A: He couldn't hold his tongue, so he 16 thought. 17 Q: In any event, okay. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: And then he carries on at page 266, 22 the next page, as follows: 23 "Fox: You know, and I said with all 24 due respect, I said, Ah, here's the 25 reality. That's the way it's viewed
2261 and I said, Perhaps -- perhaps we can 2 survive the political backlash. 3 I said, It may be that John Carson and 4 his people will be able to work magic 5 and these people will simply walk away 6 and abandon their position. 7 Carson: Yeah. 8 Fox: I said, I doubt it. 9 Carson: That ain't gonna happen. 10 Fox: And I said, I -- my guess is 11 we're going to get a bloody nose or 12 somebody is. And I said, At the end of 13 the day, if you're prepared, that's up 14 to you. I'm not making a political 15 statement, I'm giving you a bite of 16 reality. 17 Carson: Okay. 18 Fox: He looked at me and I thought, 19 you prick fuck. 20 Carson: Jesus Christ, well, I'm glad 21 that you're there, Ronald. 22 Fox: I -- John, I couldn't believe 23 it. Like I mean I -- I -- I -- you 24 don't back away. Let's just do the 25 bloody job right.
2271 Carson: Yeah, exactly. 2 Fox: Well, even if we get this 3 injoining order, like how long will the 4 police sit on it? Two (2) weeks? He 5 says, I was told that the police knew 6 about this, ah, before it happened. 7 And I said, That's not correct. 8 Well, he said, That's my information. 9 I said, With respect, it's wrong. I 10 said, The police certainly had a 11 supposition that a logical next step 12 for these protesters was to take over 13 the Park. And I said, In fact, I've 14 had discussions with the incident 15 commander about that, but I said, Did 16 we have anything to base that on other 17 than the odd, little threat and 18 innuendo that came up? No. 19 What we did is we based it on our 20 knowledge of Native people." 21 Now, he has ascribed this as being part of 22 the discussion he had with you after the Premier left 23 from the Premier's dining room meeting. 24 Does that refresh your memory in any way? 25 A: No, I deny that took place.
2281 Q: Deny? Do you recall having a 2 discussion at any time about any of the matters that I've 3 just reviewed? 4 A: Not other than this jogged my memory 5 to an earlier meeting we had that day, which I've already 6 described. 7 Q: All right, fair enough. And then 8 continuing on, finally, to page 267. 9 "Fox: And this was the likelihood? 10 Carson: That's right. 11 Fox: And I said there was a 12 contingency plan in place. Well, then 13 he got into -- well, why didn't the 14 police stop it. 15 Carson: Laughs 16 Fox: I understand they were at the 17 Park right at the time and I said, Ah, 18 really, well, I said, Let's put that 19 into perspective shall we? 20 I said how does one stop that from 21 taking place giving at the time of 22 night there would be a limited -- would 23 be limited police resources and I..." 24 And I'll stop it there. Does that refresh 25 your memory at all as to whether the meeting occurred?
2291 A: No. 2 Q: Okay. And do you recall there being 3 a discussion earlier in the day about there being a 4 contingency plan in place with... 5 A: That was the long answer that I 6 referred to earlier in today's testimony. 7 Q: All right. So I -- 8 A: But it wasn't -- my recollection 9 isn't exactly the same as he's describing it. But it's 10 more like I described earlier today. 11 Q: Fair enough, thank you. Now you've 12 indicated, as well, earlier in your testimony, that there 13 was a discussion about the propriety of serving notice of 14 the injunction on the occupiers via a helicopter. 15 And you said that that discussion occurred 16 at the tail end of the IMC meeting on September the 6th; 17 is that right? 18 A: That's the discussion that I was 19 involved in, yes -- present at. 20 Q: Now we have heard evidence in this 21 Inquiry to the affect that the first time the issue of 22 the propriety of service via helicopter was raised, was 23 after the judge was hearing the injunction application, 24 imposed that term on September the 7th, 1995. 25 And that this discussion occurred on
2301 September 7th at a meeting held at the Solicitor 2 General's office late in the day at 5:30 p.m. 3 Does that alter your recollection at all? 4 A: No. That's not my recollection. I 5 believe that September the 6th was the only time I was 6 ever in meetings with Mr. Fox. 7 Q: All right. And, specifically, we 8 heard evidence from Scott Patrick on October the 17th, 9 2005 at pages 114 to 116. And I'm going to read an 10 excerpt from that to you to see if that assists and then 11 I'll ask you a question. 12 And perhaps you can also put before you at 13 the same time, it's Tab 19 of your binder. This is 14 Exhibit P-517, Inquiry Document Number 2003794 and it's 15 documents, essentially, of the Will Say of Scott Patrick, 16 notes of a meeting that Mr. Patrick had on May 12th, 17 1997. 18 And if you keep going -- maybe you could 19 follow along with me there, you see that there are 20 handwritten notes, if you keep going, dated September 21 6th, 1995. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: All right. And keep turning the 24 page. And I'd like you to go right to the second last 25 page of that production. So right to the second last
2311 page and you'll see it's entitled, Ministers Boardroom, 2 17:30, 07 September '95, at the top. 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: Are we at -- on the same page? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. And it starts: 7 "Ron's update..." 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: And Mr. Patrick has testified that 10 these are the notes that he took of a meeting that he 11 attended at the Solicitor General's boardroom at that 12 time on September the 7th. 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: And that you were present at this 15 meeting as well -- as well as Mr. Runciman and Mr. 16 Harnick, according to his evidence. So that's just the 17 background for what I'm going to read to you now: 18 "Q: And these notes refer to three 19 (3) meetings that you attended on 20 September 7th? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: And they related to the -- the 23 issues at Ipperwash? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: And the first one Ipperwash
2321 Contentious Issues meeting was in the 2 morning, as I understand it? 3 A: It was, sir. 4 Q: And then there was a second 5 meeting at 3:30 in the afternoon, 6 15:30? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And then a third meeting at 17:30 9 or 5:30? 10 A: Yes, sir. And that meeting was a 11 meeting of a larger group than the 12 Interministerial meetings previous. 13 Q: And the meeting at 5:30 involved 14 who? 15 A: It involved the Ministers. 16 Q: And the Ministers were Mr. 17 Runciman? 18 A: Mr. Harnick and Mr. Hodgson 19 Q: And what went on at this meeting, 20 that you can recall? 21 A: This was a -- there was -- there 22 was a good deal of information that was 23 imparted to the Committee. 24 Superintendent Fox gave an update. I 25 recall the Chief Coroner Dr. Jim Young
2331 was in attendance, and he was speaking 2 to some matters that were occurring in 3 London at the hospital. 4 Beyond that, without referring to my 5 notes, I -- I don't recall. 6 Q: Would -- if you would just take a 7 moment and refer to your notes which 8 are a part of Exhibit P-517. 9 A: I see there's an update from 10 Deputy Taman regarding the injunction 11 process, quote, 'Orders stayed until 12 Monday noon,' close quote. 13 Q: Then there's a note: Discussion 14 re. service of documents." 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 "A: Yes, I believe that was Deputy 19 Taman again. 20 Q: And by this time it was understood 21 that one (1) of the provisions in the 22 order was to drop the material from a 23 helicopter; is that correct? 24 A: I believe so, yes. 25 Q: And was there a concern about that
2341 provision of the order? 2 A: Yes, there was. 3 Q: What was the concern? 4 A: Just generally as to effecting 5 service in that matter. 6 Q: And what was the concern, of 7 safety? 8 A: Safety was one (1), the helicopter 9 and the proximity it would have to the 10 Park. I recall there was -- there was 11 a discussion around just the notion of 12 dropping documents from the air to the 13 protesters and that that might not be 14 well received." 15 Now, does that evidence alter, in any way, 16 your recollection as to when you participated in a 17 discussion concerning the service of injunction papers by 18 helicopter? 19 A: No, it doesn't. I don't recall that 20 meeting. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, I just don't 21 recall it. 22 Q: Is it still your position that you 23 had a conversation regarding the propriety of serving 24 injunction papers by helicopter on September the 6th? 25 A: That's right and I don't recall being
2351 at a meeting with Mr. Fox after September 6th. 2 Q: Thank you. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Now, I'd like to refer you to one (1) 7 more area of evidence. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Now, do you recall giving evidence, 12 at an examination for discovery, in relation to the 13 litigation that was commenced by the George Family and 14 the evidence -- the examination for discovery took place 15 on September 28th, 2001? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And do you recall that you were asked 18 questions under oath? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And do you recall that you were asked 21 some questions concerning your recollection of the events 22 of September 6th and what meetings you attended? 23 A: Yes, I do. 24 Q: And at question 304, page 95 of the 25 transcript you were asked the following question and you
2361 gave the following answers: 2 "Mr. Hodgson, I'd like to ask you a 3 number of questions about some of the 4 meetings that occurred on September 5 6th, 1995 and there were a variety of 6 meetings, as I understand it. 7 I understand there was a Cabinet 8 meeting on the morning of September 9 6th. Do you recall the Cabinet 10 meeting? 11 A: No, I don't. 12 Q: Do you know if you attended it? 13 A: I'm assuming I did. 14 Q: And when do Cabinet meetings 15 usually start? 16 A: Ten o'clock. 17 Q: At ten o'clock and how late or 18 long do they usually go? 19 A: Sometimes they go to one o'clock." 20 And you recall giving those answers? 21 A: Yes, I do. 22 Q: And is it your evidence today that 23 you -- that you did not attend at the Cabinet meeting? 24 A: Yes, it is. 25 Q: And do you agree with me that,
2371 generally speaking, one's memory fades with time? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And is it your position today, 4 notwithstanding that answer, that you did not attend 5 Cabinet? 6 A: Yes, it is. 7 Q: And can you provide -- 8 A: And the reason -- the reason for that 9 is that Mr. Fox is taped with Inspector Carson. I 10 wouldn't have remembered that other meeting until I heard 11 that. And there were some things in his statement that 12 jogged my memory. 13 Q: So in other words, you had not heard 14 that tape -- 15 A: I probably wouldn't have remembered 16 what took place. 17 Q: All right. I was just going to say, 18 you hadn't that tape prior to being examined for 19 discovery; is that right? 20 A: That's right. 21 Q: And I'd like to refer you to one more 22 area of your examination at page 96, question 311 and 23 312. You gave the following answers to the following 24 questions: 25
2381 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: No, sorry, I'm not going to take you 4 to that, excuse me. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Thank you. Now did you make any 9 notes of your meeting with Ron Fox at the conclusion of 10 the IMC meeting on September the 6th? 11 A: No, I did not. 12 Q: Do you have any day timer or other 13 record of such a meeting? 14 A: No, I don't. 15 Q: Thank you. Now -- now let's deal 16 with after the -- the Premier's dining room meeting. Do 17 you recall what you did upon leaving the Premier's dining 18 room? 19 A: I know I went back to the office and 20 after that I can't recall. Just went to work, I believe. 21 Q: And do you recall, during the course 22 of that day, having a discussion with Mr. Vrancart in 23 which the deputy raised concerns about the safety of your 24 Park staff? 25 A: He may have, I can't recall the
2391 specifics. 2 Q: Would you please go to Tab 23. This 3 is Inquiry Document Number 1012311. It's Exhibit P-727 4 and it's a memorandum from Ron Vrancart to Peter Sturdy, 5 September 6th, 1995 and you're shown to be copied. 6 It says in the first paragraph: 7 "I have discussed, with the Minister, 8 our mutual concerns for the safety of 9 Ministry of Natural Resources staff 10 working at Ipperwash Provincial Park. 11 Given the current uncertainty of 12 circumstances in the Park, I am 13 requesting that the Park staff be 14 reassigned to other duties until such 15 time as the situation at Ipperwash 16 returns to normal. 17 I appreciate the work the Park 18 Superintendent and others have done, 19 attempting to manage the Park under 20 these very difficult circumstances. 21 Please convey our appreciation to staff 22 for the good work they are doing." 23 Now, does that refresh your memory at all 24 about whether or not you had a conversation with your 25 deputy Minister?
2401 A: Now I'm assuming I must have. 2 Q: All right. Do you have any 3 recollection of having concerns on September the 6th with 4 respect to the existence, or possible existence of 5 warriors within the Park? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Did you have any other discussions or 8 receive any other information, of note, concerning the 9 Park occupation, prior to leaving your office on 10 September the 6th? 11 A: Not that I'm aware of, no. 12 Q: And when do you recollect leaving 13 your office that day? 14 A: I don't recall specifically. It 15 would have probably been the usual time, nine or ten 16 o'clock. 17 Q: All right. And as at the end of the 18 day on September the 6th, whose issue did you think the 19 Park was? 20 A: As I left the office on September 21 6th, it was the Attorney General that had been expressed 22 at the dining room meeting. 23 Q: All right. 24 A: He'd be communicating on behalf of 25 the government around the injunction.
2411 Q: And did you see it -- sorry, did you 2 have any -- did you see it also as a -- as a Ministry of 3 Natural Resources issue? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Why not? 6 A: Because it was a -- an occupation 7 that the police were on the ground. ONAS had, through 8 the Interministerial Committee, been in charge of it all 9 summer, and the communications was going to be done by 10 ONAS and the Attorney General. 11 Q: What was your view of the nature of 12 the occupation, as at the end of September the 6th? 13 A: At the end of the dining room meeting 14 we felt that the situation was contained, from the 15 reports that we had been given. It hadn't spread outside 16 of the Park boundaries, there was no roads being occupied 17 or blockaded. 18 Q: Do you have any views as to whether 19 or not the occupation was justifiable or not justifiable? 20 A: I felt then and I feel today that it 21 was an illegal trespassing. 22 Q: Do you have any understanding as to 23 what the motivations of the occupiers in having occupied 24 the Park were, as at the end of the day on September 6th? 25 A: It was still the same as it had been
2421 prior to, that we see inaction of the Federal Government 2 and a lack of attention to their -- lack of action, that 3 the Federal Government was suppose to have turned the 4 land back, the Military Camp, done an environmental 5 cleanup. 6 And that hadn't happened, and they were 7 getting no response from the Federal Government around 8 those issues. 9 Q: And at the end of the day on 10 September 6th, did you believe that the occupation was 11 motivated, in any way, by an allegation that there was an 12 Aboriginal burial ground within the Park? 13 A: No. I think there might have been 14 some information starting to trickle in around potential 15 for a burial site. ONAS, at that time -- from the 16 information that I was receiving through the MNR and ONAS 17 was that there was no validity to that. 18 Even if there had been, my own view was 19 that, if that was the motivating factor, somebody would 20 have just phoned or written a letter or mentioned it to 21 somebody, either before the occupation or during the 22 occupation, when they first approached the Park. 23 I didn't feel -- feel that you needed to 24 have an occupation to get action on a potential sacred 25 site or a grave site. That that could have been done --
2431 the Park was closed for the season, it wouldn't have been 2 a big deal for the staff to say, Sure, we'll do an 3 examination and refer to the Cemeteries Act and go 4 through the proper process. 5 Q: Did you continue to hold the view 6 that the Government should not enter into negotiations 7 with the occupiers as long as they were in possession of 8 the Park? 9 A: I agreed with that. That was the 10 Interministerial Committee's recommendation and I didn't 11 disagree with that. 12 Q: Did you have any conversations with 13 Marcel Beaubien on September the 6th '95? 14 A: No, I did not. 15 Q: Other than the meetings which you 16 have already told us about which occurred on the 6th, did 17 you receive any communications or have any discussions 18 with the Premier or any of your Ministerial colleagues 19 regarding the occupation? 20 A: No, I did not. 21 Q: Do you recall having any other 22 discussions with Mr. Vrancart of Mr. Bangs regarding the 23 Park, which you haven't told us about yet? 24 A: I can't recall. I know that we would 25 have been talking, but I can't recall any specifics.
2441 Q: Okay. Did you have any 2 communications whatsoever with any police officers who 3 were involved with the policing operation at the Park? 4 A: No, I did not. 5 Q: Did you have any other discussions, 6 other than what you've told us, with Mr. Fox or -- well 7 Mr. Fox? 8 A: No, I did not. 9 Q: At any time between September the 4th 10 and 6th, 1995 did you witness any conduct or behaviour or 11 did any conduct or behaviour come to your attention which 12 suggested to you that -- that someone in the Government 13 either directed or attempted to direct the policing 14 operations in relation to the Ipperwash Park operation? 15 A: No, I did not. 16 Q: Are you aware of any facts which 17 might so suggest? 18 A: No I'm not. 19 Q: When did you first learn that a 20 confrontation had occurred in the sandy parking lot? 21 A: I'm not sure if it was ever described 22 to me that way. 23 Q: All right. Let me put it this way 24 then: When was the next contact you had with respect to 25 the Ipperwash Provincial Park?
2451 A: On the morning of September 7th I 2 received a phone call from Jeff Bangs who informed me 3 that one of the people occupying the Park had been killed 4 in a confrontation with the police. 5 Q: All right. And were you provided 6 with any details regarding what precipitated that event? 7 A: He may have mentioned that it was 8 outside of the Park, but I can't recall any more specific 9 details. 10 Q: Did he advise you as to who it was 11 who had been killed? 12 A: No, he didn't know the name. I think 13 he mentioned that a bus had come out of the Park, and 14 that was the information he knew, as best as I can 15 recollect. 16 Q: Can you be a little bit more specific 17 as to how that fit into the conversation? 18 A: I think he just outlined what had 19 taken place, as far as he knew. The information he had, 20 he was just relaying to me. 21 Q: All right. Were you advised as to 22 whether or not there had been any other injuries? 23 A: I may have been. I think I was aware 24 that some other people had been injured. 25 Q: Were you advised as to whether the
2461 person, or at least the status of the person who had been 2 killed? 3 A: I'm sorry? 4 Q: Were you aware as to the status of 5 the person who had been killed? 6 A: I understood it to be an Aboriginal 7 person. 8 Q: And did you have any information as 9 to which people had been injured? 10 A: No, I don't believe I did. 11 Q: And what was your initial reaction 12 when you found out that there had been an incident 13 outside the Park which had resulted in the death of an 14 Aboriginal person? 15 A: We were quite shocked. I think that 16 was shared by Jeff and myself. When we got home on the 17 6th we thought that -- reports that we'd been given, that 18 things were stable. 19 That it was totally unexpected. 20 Q: All right. And what, if anything, 21 did you do after receiving this information from Mr. 22 Bangs? 23 A: I think we just went to work. 24 Q: You went to the office? 25 A: Yes.
2471 Q: Do you recall approximately what time 2 you arrived at your office? 3 A: It probably would have been 7:30, 4 eight o'clock, something like that. 5 Q: All right. And do you recall 6 approximately what time you received this phone call from 7 Mr. Bangs? 8 A: It was probably half an hour before 9 that, or forty-five (45) minutes before that. 10 Q: All right. Did you receive a further 11 briefing, upon your arrival at the hospital or at the 12 office, with respect to the events of the previous night? 13 A: I might have been updated on the 14 information that Ron Vrancart and Peter Allen had. 15 Q: Can you advise what it is you recall 16 you were told? 17 A: No, I don't. 18 Q: Do you recall attending at any 19 meetings relating to Ipperwash on September the 7th? 20 A: No, I don't. 21 Q: Did you speak to the Premier 22 concerning Ipperwash on the 7th? 23 A: No, I don't believe I did. 24 Q: Did you speak with any of your 25 Ministerial colleagues with regard to Ipperwash on the
2481 7th? 2 A: No, I don't believe I did. 3 Q: Or Mr. Beaubien? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Mr. Fox? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Any OPP officer? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Were you aware that an 10 Interministerial group meeting was convened for the 7th? 11 A: I can't recall that, no. 12 Q: All right. Perhaps you can go to Tab 13 27, Exhibit 659, Inquiry document 1011845. 14 It appears to be briefing material for 15 Elaine Todres, Larry Taman and Ron Vrancart. 16 And you'll see there's a background note-- 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: A map, a document entitled, 19 "Potential Hot Spots," with a chart. And then a document 20 entitled, "Managing Aboriginal relations with respect to 21 the Ipperwash Provincial Park Occupation," dated 22 September the 7th, 1995. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: Now, do you recall receiving a 25 briefing from Mr. Vrancart, particularly with respect to
2491 the issue of identifying potential problem areas or hot 2 spots as a result of the events of the preceding night? 3 A: No, I don't recall that, but that 4 doesn't mean it didn't happen. 5 Q: All right. Do you recall receiving a 6 briefing with respect to the plan that was put into place 7 with respect to managing the Park occupation under the 8 document, Managing Aboriginal Relations with Respect to 9 the Ipperwash Provincial Park Occupation? 10 A: No, I don't. I just don't recall. 11 Q: All right. You'll see that there are 12 options that are posed at page 2 of that document. There 13 are six (6) options. And then there's a written 14 discussion with respect to the implications of pursuing 15 each of the options. 16 A: I'm on the wrong page here. 17 Q: Certainly, it's -- you're looking for 18 a document towards the end of the production entitled, 19 Managing Aboriginal Relations with Respect to Ipperwash 20 Provincial Park Occupation. 21 A: Okay. I've got that. 22 Q: And then behind that you'll see 23 there's Issues, Background and Concerns. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Next page, Options.
2501 A: Okay. 2 Q: And then following there is a 3 discussion with respect to the different options: One 4 (1) option was having no Aboriginal leadership 5 involvement; the second was using local First Nation 6 leadership involvement; third making courtesy calls only; 7 fourth the use of Aboriginal facilitator or Elders; fifth 8 option, Ontario and national Aboriginal leadership 9 involvement in the local issue; and option 6, Ontario and 10 national Aboriginal leadership involved to prevent 11 escalation. 12 So these were options as to how to try to, 13 I assume, de-escalate the tensions. 14 Do you recall being briefed by your -- the 15 Deputy Minister about such strategies? 16 A: No, I do not. 17 Q: All right. And is it possible that 18 you don't recall or -- or do you think you weren't -- 19 A: I -- 20 Q: -- you didn't have that discussion? 21 A: I don't recall. 22 Q: Thank you. As a result of receiving 23 the briefings you did from the Deputy Minister and Mr. 24 Bangs with respect to the events of the evening of 25 September the 6th, did you have any concerns as to how
2511 the police had handled the situation? 2 A: No, I did not. 3 Q: Did you have concerns with respect to 4 how the public might react to this occurrence? 5 A: No, I did not. 6 Q: Did you have any concerns with 7 respect to the ability of -- the ability to reach a 8 peaceful resolution of the occupation in light of the 9 unfortunate death? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And what, if anything, did you do 12 with respect to those concerns? 13 A: Over time we got involved trying to 14 find some resolution to some of the underlying issues as 15 well as the -- the Park itself. 16 Q: As well as...? 17 A: The Park itself. 18 Q: Okay. As at this point time, that is 19 September the 7th, did you see the Park occupation as an 20 MNR issue? 21 A: No. 22 Q: All right. Who in government did you 23 understand was to take the lead on -- on this issue? 24 A: ONAS and the Attorney General at that 25 point.
2521 Q: All right. Do you recall any -- 2 having any -- any -- receiving any other information with 3 respect to the occupation and the events of the evening 4 of the 6th, on the 7th? 5 A: Not that I can recall. 6 Q: Moving then, to September the 8th, 7 did you attend at any meetings on September the 8th, 1995 8 in relation to the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 9 A: Not that I'm aware of. Usually, you 10 know, I can't remember specifically but usually on 11 Thursday afternoons we headed back to the riding. We 12 usually did riding events on Thursday night and on 13 Fridays. 14 Q: All right. Do you know whether you 15 did this time? 16 A: I'm quite sure I would have because 17 it's fair season, so there would have been country fairs. 18 We have about twenty (20) or so in our riding. 19 Q: All right. We have heard evidence at 20 this Inquiry from Scott Patrick on October the 18th, 2005 21 in relation to there being -- his recollection there 22 being a meeting on September the 8th, 1995 at 16:30 in 23 the Solicitor General boardroom. 24 And he recalls that you were in 25 attendance, together with Attorney General Harnick and
2531 Solicitor General Runciman, Ron Fox, himself of course, 2 Deputy Minister Taman, deputy Minister Todres, Yan Lazor 3 and the executive assistants to the Ministers, Jeff 4 Bangs, David Moran and Kathryn Hunt, as well as Deb 5 Hutton and Paul Rhodes. 6 Does that refresh your recollection at 7 all? 8 A: I don't recall that meeting. 9 Q: All right. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: He testified that, at this meeting, 14 the discussion evolved around the possible use of -- of 15 military equipment by the OPP and the injunction process, 16 and also raised how the Federal Government might become 17 involved. 18 Does that refresh your memory at all? 19 A: No, I don't recall that at all. 20 Q: Okay. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: If you would go to Tab 31, please. 25 This is Exhibit P-662, Inquiry Document 1003773. It's a
2541 fax dated September 7th, 1995 from Leith Hunter and it 2 contains a transcription of the endorsement of the Judge 3 on the injunction application. 4 Take a moment and -- and look at it, and 5 I'd like to know -- and the addendum, also, I should 6 indicate is there. 7 Do you believe you were ever apprised of 8 the -- the contents of the endorsement or saw the Order? 9 A: No, I don't believe I did, no. 10 Q: All right. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: And Tab 33, which is Exhibit P-443, 15 Inquiry document 1003489. It's an Order issued varying 16 the Order of -- of Justice Daudlin dated September 7th, 17 1995 and it's with respect to a modification of the -- of 18 the service. 19 Do you recall seeing this Order? 20 A: No, I do not. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And if you go next then to Tab 36, 25 which is Exhibit P-756, Inquiry document 1003722. It's a
2551 fax dated September 12, 1995 and there is a statement 2 that was to be read to the Court. And, essentially, it 3 indicates that the Government has decided to withdraw its 4 Motion for an Injunction in deference to the funeral of 5 Anthony O'Brien George. 6 Do you recall being apprised of the 7 decision by the Government to withdraw its injunction 8 application? 9 A: I can't recall the specifics, but I 10 was probably aware of it at the time. 11 Q: All right. And did you play any role 12 in the decision to withdraw the injunction? 13 A: No. Never was asked. 14 Q: Okay. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And if you would go next to Tab 38, 19 please. It's Exhibit P-975, Inquiry document number 20 1011908. And this is a minister's briefing form that was 21 prepared for Minister Harnick. 22 And it reflects, amongst other things, 23 that there was an announcement by the Federal Government, 24 Minister Ron Irwin, that he had discovered, or that the 25 department had discovered archival records which
2561 indicated that in 1937 the First Nation requested 2 protection for a burial site within the proposed Park. 3 Now were you familiar with this 4 revelation? 5 A: Yes, I was. 6 Q: And what was your reaction to it? 7 A: In terms of the Federal Government 8 arriving on the scene with a document that they suddenly 9 found when this issue had been festering away for a 10 number of years, I thought they should have shared that 11 with us a long time before they did. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: That was my opinion at the time. 14 Q: And were you aware of the existence 15 of this exchange of correspondence prior to September the 16 -- the 12th, 1995? 17 A: No, I was not. 18 Q: All right. Had you known about the 19 existence of this correspondence would that have altered 20 your assessment of the actions of the occupiers as an 21 illegal trespass? 22 A: We would have probably had more 23 questions, but I don't think it would have changed our 24 perception given the fact that -- that there's believed 25 to be a grave site. I don't consider that as a reason to
2571 have an occupation. You can just make a phone call or 2 talk to the Park staff officials and express your 3 concern. 4 The Park was closed for the season, it was 5 scheduled to be closed that day. My opinion, they would 6 have granted access and helped with the -- the process of 7 -- through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial 8 Relations under the Cemeteries Act. 9 Q: Okay. All right. 10 A: That's just my opinion. 11 Q: All right. Thank you. And at some 12 point in time, subsequent to September the 7th, does your 13 Ministry take the lead in communications with respect to 14 Ipperwash Park? 15 A: I don't know if we took the lead in 16 communications but we got more involved as the situation 17 on the ground became totally stable, in our opinion. I 18 met with Chief Bressette at some point in the fall of '96 19 -- '95, the fall of '95 and we tried to be of any 20 assistance that we could. 21 Q: All right. And what assistance did 22 you give? 23 A: We -- Chief Bressette requested a 24 meeting in -- in the fall. I can't be specific on the 25 actual date. He mentioned a number of concerns. There
2581 were some that I told him I probably couldn't help him 2 with and others that we could, we would. 3 And I think the long -- the long story to 4 that it ended up we hired I believe it was Lloyd German 5 (phonetic), I might be mispronouncing his name, as a sort 6 of a mediator and negotiator, to come in to see if he 7 could find some resolutions to some of the -- the 8 problems locally with an attempt to try to get the Park 9 back into operation but also an attempt to try to engage 10 the Federal Government to address some of the outstanding 11 issues. 12 Q: All right. And was part of Mr. 13 German's mandate to commence negotiations with the Stoney 14 Point Group members about the underlying issues 15 surrounding the Park occupation? 16 A: I believe it was. I believe we were 17 working with ONAS a bit on that, that in order to resolve 18 the issue of the Park we really have to resolve the -- 19 some structural problems: (a) the Federal Government's 20 role and (b) there's a division on -- in the community 21 that was a recognized First Nation council and chief. 22 It's a very complicated file and he'd have 23 to work through that. 24 Q: All right. And do you recall what 25 the outcome of those efforts were?
2591 A: Yes, I do. 2 Q: And what was the outcome? 3 A: He couldn't engage the Federal 4 Government. They didn't want to be a party was my 5 understanding -- 6 Q: All right. 7 A: -- to these kinds of discussions. 8 Q: And how did that impact his mandate? 9 A: He felt that he couldn't do his 10 mandate without getting all the parties to the table. 11 Q: All right. And perhaps you would go 12 to Tab 43 Exhibit P-302, Inquiry Document Number 1010587. 13 It's Minister's note prepared by Ron Vrancart, dated 14 September 26th, 1995, regarding the occupation of 15 Ipperwash Provincial Park. 16 A: I'm sorry, which tab? 17 Q: It's Tab 43. 18 A: 43. Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And do you recall specifically, but I 25 know I would have received it, yes.
2601 Q: All right. And the purpose of this 2 would be to provide background for you and -- and 3 suggested responses to questions you might have, might 4 receive? 5 A: I believe so. In preparation for the 6 legislature coming back in, there's briefing binders that 7 are prepared, there's issue notes that are prepared. 8 Q: All right. And this is one (1) of 9 those issue notes? 10 A: I would assume that. 11 Q: And to your knowledge, is the 12 information contained in it accurate and accurately 13 reflects the position that you were taking? 14 A: It was the information that Ministers 15 provided me, yes. 16 Q: And then if you turn next to Tab 56, 17 Exhibit P-301, Inquiry Document 1012179, it's a 18 memorandum to Ron Vrancart from Andromache Karakatsanis 19 dated January 23, 1996 re: situation at Ipperwash 20 Provincial Park. 21 And she's indicating that as of January 2, 22 1996 it's her understanding that the Ministry of Natural 23 Resources has a lead with respect to the resolution of 24 the situation at Ipperwash Provincial Park and the future 25 of the Park.
2611 Do you agree with that? 2 A: I probably wasn't aware of this at 3 the time. 4 Q: Oh, that's fair. But do you agree as 5 to whether -- as to the accuracy of her understanding? 6 A: I would assume it's correct. 7 Q: All right. And in that respect, this 8 referenced the appointment of Mr. German, in part. It 9 doesn't specifically address it. I mean the -- whether - 10 - whether that would be part of the -- your taking the 11 lead? 12 A: I didn't really know about this memo 13 but I did know that it was becoming strictly around the 14 Park issue, but at the reopening of the Park -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- that are staff were involved in 17 discussions. I'd met with Chief Bressette because he 18 requested the meeting and I said that I'd try to be 19 helpful. 20 Gord Peters was involved in the process. 21 I believe the Federal Government also kick started a 22 process or two (2). So that would have been, in a 23 general sense, aware of this and Lloyd German's 24 appointment would be an actual falling from that. 25 Q: All right. And as of January of '96,
2621 was it your hope that the Park would be reopened for the 2 '96/'97 season? 3 A: It was always my hope. I would hope 4 that it would reopen again. 5 Q: If you look next at Tab 69. This is 6 Inquiry Document Number 3001431. It appears to be 7 another Minister's note dated May 2, 1996, and prepared 8 by Ron Vrancart. Is it likely that you received this 9 document? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And this is to provide you with 12 background with respect to the update on the reopening of 13 the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Can we make that the next exhibit 16 please. 17 THE REGISTRAR: P-1011, Your Honour. 18 19 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1011: Document Number 3001431. 20 Minister's Note from R. 21 Vrancarte. Update on 22 reopening of Ipperwash Park, 23 May 02/'96. 24 25 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Sorry, which tab is
2631 that? 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Tab 69. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA. 7 Q: And it indicates in the first -- do 8 you have it before you? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: All right. The first point: 11 "It is my desire to see the situation 12 at Ipperwash Provincial Park return to 13 a normal -- as normal a situation as 14 possible, and that would include the 15 opening of the Park for operations this 16 season." 17 Is that accurate? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: "And to assist in a resolution of 20 this issue, the Ministry intends to 21 announce the appointment of a 22 Provincial Facilitator very shortly. 23 Discussions are currently taking place 24 with appropriate nominees. 25 Obviously because of the sensitivity
2641 surrounding issues it is vitally 2 important that a facilitator be chosen 3 who is accessible to all sides." 4 And is this foreshadowing the appointment 5 of Mr. German? 6 A: I believe it is, yes. 7 Q: All right. And as I understand it, 8 the Aboriginal members were still in occupation of the 9 Park at this time? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And what, if anything, led to the 12 apparent change in the government's position that there 13 would be negotiations, notwithstanding the ongoing nature 14 of the occupation? 15 A: I'm not sure there was a -- a change 16 in terms of -- there's lots of issues we had to negotiate 17 around, the opening of the Park would be one (1). From 18 the Government's point of view if it was a land claim or 19 any other kind of title around the occupation, I don't 20 think we were negotiating. But we were negotiating local 21 issues in terms of the possibility of re-opening the 22 Park. 23 Q: All right. And had you also had 24 negotiations, by this time, with respect to the 25 winterization of the Park facilities?
2651 A: Yes, I believe that took place in 2 December or late November probably. 3 Q: And was that done -- was that 4 resolved successfully, from your perspective? 5 A: I believe it was, yes. 6 Q: And the Park was winterized? 7 A: Yes. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: All right. Now, would you go next to 12 Tab 65 please? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And first of all did you initiate any 17 correspondence or communications with the Honourable Ron 18 Irwin and the Honourable David Collenette, the Ministers 19 of Indian and Northern Affairs and National Defence, 20 respectively? 21 A: I believe I did. 22 Q: And if you look at Tab 65 it's 23 Inquiry Document 1004052. Is this -- and it's a letter 24 dated -- not dated, but date stamped April 2, 1996; is 25 this a letter that you sent?
2661 A: Yes, this would have been after my 2 meeting with Mr. Bressette and -- and after Ron's 3 briefing note that outlined some steps that we were 4 doing. 5 Q: All right. And perhaps you can be 6 more specific. What was the purpose of writing this 7 correspondence? 8 A: We wanted to help the First Nation 9 get the Federal Government involved to do what they were 10 legally and, in my opinion, morally obligated to do, 11 return the Military Base, clean it up in good condition. 12 Q: All right. And I'd like to make this 13 the next exhibit please? 14 THE REGISTRAR: P-1012, Your Honour. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1012: Document number 1004052. 17 Letter from Chris Hodgson to 18 Ron Irwin and David 19 Collenette re. Perceived 20 inactivity of Dept. of Indian 21 Affairs and Ministry of 22 National Defence, April 23 02/'96. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA:
2671 Q: And you indicate in the third 2 paragraph: 3 "The failure of your departments to 4 deal expeditiously with this matter led 5 to the occupation in September 1995 of 6 the adjoining Ipperwash Provincial 7 Park. 8 For the past seven (7) months there has 9 been no evidence of significant 10 activity on the part of Canada to 11 resolve the underlying issues that have 12 led to those -- to these occupations." 13 And does that accurately reflect your view 14 of the matter? 15 A: Yes, and the advice I received from 16 my Deputy Minister in his briefing notes, as well. 17 Q: And did you receive a -- a response? 18 A: I believe I did. 19 Q: And perhaps you would go to Tab 72? 20 It's a letter date stamped June 14, 1996. It appears to 21 be from the Honourable Ronald A. Irwin with copies -- to 22 yourself, sorry, addressed to yourself with copies to the 23 Honourable David Collenette, the Honourable Charles 24 Harnick, the Honourable Robert Runciman. 25 Is this the response that you received
2681 from Minister Irwin to your earlier letter? 2 A: I believe it is. 3 Q: I'd like to make that the next 4 exhibit please? 5 THE REGISTRAR: P-1013, Your Honour. 6 7 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1013: Document Number 1003920. 8 Letter from Ron Irwin to 9 Chris Hodgson in response to 10 letter re. Perceived 11 Inactivity of Dept. of Indian 12 Affairs, June 14/'96. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: And were you satisfied -- well, let 16 me read a bit of it for you and then I'm going to ask you 17 whether you were satisfied with the response. It says 18 that -- he's writing with respect to the perceived 19 inactivity of the Federal Government. And he says then 20 in the third paragraph: 21 "There is as you know a real potential 22 for a further escalation of violence at 23 the Camp and the Park unless both 24 governments and the First Nation assume 25 responsibility for addressing those
2691 areas under dispute, which fall within 2 their respective jurisdiction. 3 We consider the prime area of Federal 4 responsibility to be the safe return of 5 the Military Camp to the First Nation, 6 who take the view that the First 7 Nations claims with respect to the 8 Provincial Park and particularly the 9 understandably emotional issue of the 10 burial ground within the Park, to be 11 primarily a provincial matter. 12 The occupied Park is within your 13 Ministry's administrative jurisdiction 14 and the law enforcement and 15 administration of justice aspects are 16 within the purview of the Provincial 17 Government." 18 And were you content with his response? 19 A: I was encouraged by his response, but 20 we wanted some clarifications around some other issues, 21 so I sent a subsequent letter. 22 But I was encouraged that he wanted the 23 Federal Government to be involved, to live up to their 24 obligations. 25 Q: All right. And if you go to Tab 73
2701 there's a further letter, it's date stamped September 9, 2 1996 addressed to the Honourable Ronald Irwin and 3 reportedly sent by yourself. This is a copy of the 4 letter response -- a reply that you sent to the Minister. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: Yes? 7 A: Yes. I see it. 8 Q: All right. I'd like to make this the 9 next exhibit please. 10 THE REGISTRAR: P-1014, Your Honour. 11 12 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1014: Document Number 1009486. 13 Letter from Chris Hodgson to 14 Ron Irwin re. Letter of June 15 14/'96, Sept. 09/'96. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 18 Q: And can you tell us, in a nutshell, 19 what it was you were looking for the Gov -- the Federal 20 Government to do at this time? 21 A: I believe we wanted clarification on 22 the title of the land to be absolutely certain that our 23 position was the position of the Federal Government, as 24 well, in terms of the title to the property. 25 And if any land claims had been made to
2711 their knowledge. 2 Q: And is that with respect to the Park? 3 A: That's just in respect of the Park, 4 yes. 5 Q: All right. And so you were 6 questioning or wanting clarification with respect to 7 whether the original Surrender was valid? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: I didn't want anymore surprises from 11 coming from archives if I was going to become involved in 12 this. And we wanted to make sure they had the same 13 understanding. 14 Q: And did -- 15 A: If they didn't, then we would make 16 adjustments 17 Q: All right. And did you receive a 18 response to that letter? 19 A: Yes, I believe I did. 20 Q: And if you go to Tab 74, it's a 21 letter date stamped November 4, 1996 to the Honourable 22 Chris Hodgson from Ronald Irwin with various copies. 23 This is a copy of the response to your letter. 24 A: I believe it is. 25 Q: I'd like to make that the next
2721 exhibit please. 2 THE REGISTRAR: P-1015, Your Honour. 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1015: Document Number 1004305. 5 Letter from Ron Irwin to 6 Chris Hodgson re. Letter of 7 Sept. 09/'96, Nov. 04/'96. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 10 Q: And I note that in the second 11 paragraph, in part it reads: 12 "With respect to the filing of a land 13 claim by the First Nation, the 14 Government of Canada is of the opinion 15 that the Surrender of the land in 1928 16 was valid." 17 Now what was your assessment of that? 18 A: That was the same opinion that our 19 department -- our legal department had -- or the AG's 20 department -- legal department had said was the case. 21 Q: All right. It also indicates, in the 22 third paragraph of this letter, that -- that there was 23 funding for research presently being conducted with 24 respect to burial -- the burial sites at the Park. 25 Do you have any knowledge about the
2731 Federal Government providing or saying that it was going 2 to provide funding for research in that respect? 3 A: No. But based on this letter, I've 4 always assumed that they flowed funds for research and 5 examination to find the burial site. 6 And I thought that was done, from just 7 reading this letter. That was my assumption. 8 Q: Yes. Did you -- did you take any -- 9 make any inquiries or follow-up to see if, in fact, that 10 occurred? 11 A: No. I assumed it was happening 12 because I got a letter from the Minister that told me 13 that. But -- 14 Q: All right. Were you aware of -- of 15 any results of such efforts? 16 A: Not directly, no. 17 Q: All right. 18 Commissioner, I have probably another half 19 hour or so. Would you like me to continue until we 20 finish or shall we adjourn? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 22 sure, what's the consensus. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 25 any -- are you tired? We start nine o'clock in the
2741 morning and it's a long long day when it gets to 4:30. 2 But we'd like to finish but -- 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm quite prepared to 4 carry on, subject to the Witness and -- 5 THE WITNESS: It makes no difference to 6 me. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 9 going to take a vote or anything, but is there a 10 consensus out there? If we come back on Monday morning 11 and finish the last half hour, it's not the end of the 12 world. Or we can forge on. I mean, I assume the cross- 13 examinations are going to take some time and we're going 14 to use up all of Monday. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, in any event, we 16 know that we won't finish today and we'll be back on 17 Monday. So perhaps, with respect, I would suggest that 18 we adjourn for the day. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So does 20 anybody violently oppose that suggestion? 21 I don't see anybody standing or opposing 22 it. I think that we've had enough. I feel my own 23 attention beginning to go around 4:30 when we start at 24 9:00 in the morning, so I'm sure that everybody else is 25 as well.
2751 I think we'll adjourn now and reconvene on 2 Monday morning at 10:30. 3 4 (WITNESS RETIRES) 5 6 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 7 adjourned until Monday, January the 16th at 10:30. 8 9 --- Upon adjourning at 4:23 p.m. 10 11 12 Certified Correct, 13 14 15 16 17 _________________ 18 Carol Geehan, Ms. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25