1

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

2

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

3

1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 6 Peter Downard ) (np) 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 ) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) (np) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25

4

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

5

1 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

6

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 Christopher Douglas Hodgson, Resumed 6 Continued Cross-Examination by Mr. Kevin Scullion 9 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Jonathan George 87 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Horton 113 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Roy 155 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Lauwers 250 11 Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Susan Vella 253 12 13 14 Marcel Beaubien, Sworn 15 Examination-In-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 257 16 17 18 19 Certificate of Transcript 318 20 21 22 23 24 25

7

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-1022 Parliamentary history of Marcel 4 Beaubien. 262 5 P-1023 Document Numbers 12000029, 12000036, 6 12000037, 12000039, 12000045. Letters 7 to Marcel Beaubien re. West Ipperwash 8 Beach Civil Action, June and July/'95. 287 9 P-1024 Document Number 12000059. Letter to 10 Marcel Beaubien re. West Ipperwash 11 Beach Land Claim, August 18/'95. 312 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

8

1 --- 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 9 CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS HODGSON, Resumed 10 11 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 13 morning, everybody. Good morning, Mr. Scullion. 14 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Good morning, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Lovely day. 17 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: A little different 18 from yesterday. A little more of what we're used to. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It's not bad enough 23 to cancel the day so we'll carry on. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Yes.

9

1 THE WITNESS: Don't even joke about that. 2 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: You haven't asked me 3 about time yet but my estimate is still probably between 4 an hour and an hour and a half today. I'll probably go 5 to the break. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: All right. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 11 Q: If I can just back up one little bit 12 from when we were talking yesterday. We looked at 13 Serpent Mounds and one of the issues that I wanted to 14 raise with you, if you can turn to Tab 59 in your book of 15 Commission documents... 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Do you see that? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: I think you touched upon that in your 22 examination-in-chief but that was the -- Hostile 23 Occupation's Review is the title to it, and that's the 24 review that your department did after the fact, for 25 Serpent Mounds and for Ipperwash, correct?

10

1 A: Correct. I hadn't seen it before 2 this Inquiry, but... 3 Q: I appreciate that and I -- I 4 appreciate that all these documents don't come to your 5 attention but you're briefed presumably on the results of 6 such a review. 7 And it's one specific recommendation or -- 8 or aspect to this review I'd like to turn you to because 9 my understanding yesterday was that Serpent Mounds you 10 saw as an MNR issue and you had the assistance of the OPP 11 in dealing with it; is that correct? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: All right. If you look to the last 14 page of Tab 59, the second paragraph there says: 15 "The decision of OPP Superintendent 16 Buxton to have only Band constables at 17 the blockade site was felt to be a 18 contributing factor to the peacefulness 19 of the demonstration." 20 Do you see that? 21 A: No, can you...? 22 Q: Second paragraph. 23 A: Where what could have worked better 24 or -- okay, I do see it, yes. 25 Q: Do you need me to go through it

11

1 again? 2 A: No. I -- 3 Q: You see it there? 4 A: -- I understand it, yes. 5 Q: All right. And that's one of the 6 conclusions that was reached by your staff after 7 reviewing the incidents, correct? 8 A: Well, this is the first time I've 9 seen it. I wasn't aware that that was the case on the 10 ground. I wasn't aware of the OPP operations. 11 Q: All right. Your staff never briefed 12 you on their review of that incident? 13 A: Not that I'm aware of, no. 14 Q: They never mentioned to you that they 15 thought that one of the key aspects and -- and one of the 16 key reasons why it was peaceful was that decision made by 17 the OPP in their operation? 18 A: I don't dispute it. I just don't 19 recall having a discussion about it. 20 Q: All right. So you can't offer 21 anything for or against that conclusion reached? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Now following the -- I -- let me just 24 jump forward a little bit. Following the IMC meeting, 25 we've had testimony from Mr. Bangs that he was spoken to

12

1 by Ms. Hutton and that one of the issues raised was the 2 Serpent Mounds occupation. 3 And one of the issues... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Just one moment, Mr. Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. 9 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I've been asked by 10 Ms. Vella which meetings related to. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 15 Q: Taken a look and it's not clear from 16 Mr. Bangs' testimony which meeting this was following; if 17 that becomes an issue. I don't think it will. 18 Well, let me just suggest that Mr. Bangs' 19 testified that following one of the IMC meetings, Ms. 20 Hutton raised the issue of Serpent Mounds with him and 21 asked why protocol -- proper protocol wasn't followed in 22 respect of MNR calling the Premier's office to let know 23 about the Serpent Mounds issue. 24 Do you know of any protocol that would 25 have required MNR to call the Premier's office in respect

13

1 of that issue? 2 A: I did after that. I didn't before. 3 Q: All right. And what's the protocol 4 that she's -- you believe or that you understood she's 5 referring to? 6 A: I'm not sure if it's a written 7 protocol but I do recall the issue. It was felt that the 8 MNR should let the Premier's office know if there's any 9 issues just in case the Premier's asked a question. 10 Q: So, it's simply with respect to if a 11 question's asked, he should be aware that something may 12 be occurring in that regard? 13 A: That's my understanding. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: I recall Mr. Bangs conveying that to 16 me, that he'd taken the flak from Deb Hutton. 17 Q: I suspected that was true. In fact, 18 following these meetings, Mr. Bangs gave you a full 19 briefing of what occurred at the IMC meetings, did he 20 not? 21 A: The first IMC meeting, my 22 recollection is that Mr. Vrancart took me through it 23 because he only had a few minutes and the press showed up 24 and I had to go out and do a -- a scrum. 25 The -- other than that I got full -- I got

14

1 briefings on I -- on the general nature of what was 2 taking place. 3 Q: Right. You had a lot of time 4 following the press scrum to discuss these matters with 5 Mr. Bangs, Mr. Vrancart, Mr. Allen? 6 A: If I had time. I was also working on 7 the two (2) Ministries at the time, so. 8 Q: Sure, you had other issues, but you 9 had time to talk to them. 10 A: Lots of stuff going on. 11 Q: And they gave you a full briefing of 12 what occurred at the IMC meetings, did they not? 13 A: They gave me a briefing of what 14 occurred, probably the highlights of it, yes. 15 Q: All right. And did they indicate to 16 you that Ms. Hutton was the driving force behind the MNR 17 being the voice for the Government in this issue? 18 A: Not on September 5th. I recall quite 19 specifically Ron mentioned that it was the IMC Committee 20 recommendations that I be the spokesperson. By the 6th 21 and 7th I understood a bit better that Deb Hutton had 22 recommended that I be the spokesperson in the short term. 23 Q: All right. For obvious reasons I 24 make a big distinction between the 6th and 7th. Is it 25 your evidence that by the 6th, you were aware that Ms.

15

1 Hutton was the driving force behind MNR being the 2 spokesperson for this issue? 3 A: Not specifically, but by the 7th for 4 sure. 5 Q: So. you weren't aware after speaking 6 with Mr. Bangs, Mr. Vrancart, Mr. Allen, about what 7 occurred at the IMC meeting that the Premier's office 8 wanted you to be the spokesperson for this issue? 9 A: No, specifically I recall Ron 10 Vrancart mentioning that it was the IMC Committee 11 recommendation. 12 Q: A recommendation you could accept or 13 reject, isn't that the case? 14 A: Well, that's the way I understood it 15 but then the media showed up at my door. 16 Q: Right. So you had to do that one -- 17 A: I had to do that one, right. 18 Q: -- press scrum? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: And -- and I'll get to that in a 21 second. Now, yesterday we talked about a term that's 22 been referred to as a law and order part of the platform. 23 And I understand from your background that 24 you were familiar, through your political science 25 background, you were familiar with Section 35 of the

16

1 Constitution? 2 A: I'm sorry? 3 Q: You were familiar with Section 35 of 4 the Constitution were you not in 1995? 5 A: Yes. I wouldn't consider myself an 6 expert but I was familiar with it, yes. 7 Q: I'm not looking for expert testimony 8 I'm simply asking you whether or not, in your view of an 9 law and order platform, law and order included all the 10 laws, both Federal and provincial, as opposed to simply 11 an aspect of the law such as criminal law? 12 A: Yes, I still believe that in a 13 civilized society we should follow the rules and the laws 14 should be applied. 15 Q: All right. And part of those rules 16 is a recognition that there are treaties that govern much 17 of the relationship with First Nations, correct? 18 A: That's correct and I've testified to 19 that already. 20 Q: And the concept of treating all 21 citizens the same would disregard some aspects of that 22 treaty would it not? 23 A: I never viewed it that way. All 24 citizens are equal under the law and the law is very 25 specific on treaty rights, Aboriginal rights. Most

17

1 Aboriginal rights are undefined but the Courts have given 2 some guidance in some areas around what are -- Aboriginal 3 rights are or are not. Then there's Federal and 4 provincial laws -- 5 Q: Right. I appreciate that and I don't 6 want to get into an argument with you on that, but you'll 7 agree with me that Natives have treaty and Aboriginal 8 rights, however defined, and non-Natives do not, correct? 9 A: That's correct and I testified to 10 that. 11 Q: So -- so treating them simply equally 12 is not appropriate. You have to recognize the other 13 rights, the treaty and Aboriginal rights that Natives 14 have? 15 A: I probably just looked it as equal 16 under the law. 17 Q: Which is a little different than 18 treating them equally, correct? 19 A: I don't know. I know the laws -- you 20 know, by case by case, you take a look at it there's 21 different rulings on different treaties, different 22 Aboriginal rights, but equal under the law. The law has 23 to apply. 24 Q: Right. And that would -- I raised 25 that with you yesterday with the Cape Croker situation

18

1 and your meeting with Chief and Council when they showed 2 you the case that gave them the commercial fishing 3 rights -- 4 A: Well, I -- 5 Q: -- it recognized the right to 6 commercial fishing, right? 7 A: Exactly and I -- I was quite familiar 8 with that case. And what the judge had ruled on was that 9 there had to be a conservation principle preserved and 10 that was really the issue that there wasn't enough fish 11 to have two (2) commercial fisheries, and allow for the 12 law to be met. 13 So, the first priority was the Aboriginal 14 right and then if there was fish left over, and on a 15 sustainable basis, then you'd have other fishing. It 16 turned out that there -- there wasn't enough. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: According to the science. 19 Q: And we won't get into that. 20 A: So, the judge gave them clear 21 guidance on the conservation and that was -- that was a 22 difficult issue. 23 Q: I appreciate that and we dealt with 24 that, I think, extensively yesterday and -- and I'm not 25 getting into that.

19

1 What I'd like to ask you about is the 2 concept of the two-wampum belt. And as Minister of 3 Natural Resources I trust that you're familiar with that 4 term? 5 A: I might have heard it ten (10) years 6 ago. You might want to familiarize me with the -- the 7 details. 8 Q: All right. We've had testimony in 9 the Inquiry with respect to the two-wampum belt and the 10 aspect of having a belt that told the story, in or around 11 treaty time, that goes along with understanding the 12 treaty. All right? 13 It's an integral part of understanding the 14 treaty from the First Nations perspective. Does that 15 ring a bell for you? 16 A: Vaguely. I'm not an expert on that. 17 Q: All right. Does it ring a bell that 18 First Nations saw it as two (2) nations coming to an 19 agreement under the treaty as to how to live together in 20 the -- 21 A: It was -- 22 Q: -- on the land? 23 A: I'm assuming I was briefed on that. 24 In any of these issues, I would have relied on the legal 25 advice that I received through the civil service side.

20

1 It just -- yeah. 2 Q: Okay. And I'm just -- I'm just 3 getting into a little bit and just seeing your 4 perspective going I into Ipperwash -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: -- whether or not you had that type 7 of legal advice that the First Nations saw it as two (2) 8 Nations living side by side on the land as opposed to one 9 (1) Nation surrendering all its rights and being 10 dominated by the other? 11 A: In regards to Ipperwash it hadn't 12 been our issue in the -- in the summer. When I had 13 asked, it was an ONAS issue. So, I don't recall 14 receiving in depth briefings on -- on Ipperwash at all 15 other than just a cursory history and the advice that 16 came through the civil service side. 17 Q: Okay. I'd like to focus on June, 18 July and August. 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: Do you recall having any briefings 21 that dealt with the concept of First Nation seeing 22 treaties as agreements between two (2) Nations? Do you 23 recall anything of that nature? 24 A: Well, that would have been part of 25 the introductory briefing on the whole MNR dealing with

21

1 the First Nations in the -- in the general sense. 2 Q: All right. So, that was part of your 3 background going into Ipperwash? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Other than the Serpent Mounds 6 threatened occupation and in fact an occupation on Labour 7 Day weekend, did you deal with any other threatened 8 occupations of MNR land in June, July or August of 1995? 9 A: I never looked at it in those terms. 10 We looked at issues that could potentially become 11 challenges. Cape Croker around Owen Sound was one. The 12 Algonquins of Golden Lake and the hunting on the east 13 side of Algonquin Park, I know we spent a lot of time 14 researching that and thinking about it. 15 As well as -- there may have been a few 16 others issues I can't recall specifically. 17 Q: All right. I appreciate that there 18 were a lot of issues on your plate as MNR Minister, but 19 my question was specifically, did you deal with any 20 threatened occupations of MNR land other than Serpent 21 Mounds, and we'll get to Ipperwash, in June, July or 22 August of 1995? 23 A: Our approach was to try to avoid 24 those situations. So the answer was, there could have 25 potentially been some but, no.

22

1 Q: So, the answer to my question as to 2 whether or not there were any threatened occupations is 3 no. 4 A: Not that I can recall. There may 5 have been up in the north around forestry, issues around 6 roads. I can't recall specifically. 7 Q: So, possible blockades of roads but 8 no specific occupation of MNR land? 9 A: I can't be specific on that, there 10 may have been, I don't know. 11 Q: And leading up to Ipperwash, you as a 12 Ministry and -- and I'm asking whether or not you were 13 briefed by your staff, you were aware that in 1993 there 14 had been a short occupation of the lands by a person by 15 the name of Maynard T. George. 16 A: Are you talking the Military -- 17 Federal Military lands? 18 Q: The provincial park. 19 A: No, I was not. 20 Q: So you weren't aware of that 21 occupation in 1993 leading up to Ipperwash -- 22 A: No I wasn't. 23 Q: -- in 1995. 24 A: I was -- I was quite aware of the 25 military Federal lands being occupied.

23

1 Q: Now, I understand from your evidence 2 that you viewed Ipperwash as a matter of civil 3 disobedience and most likely -- and a spillover from what 4 was happening with the Army Camp lands as you've -- as 5 you've termed them? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And I -- do I understand correctly 8 that you were of the view back then that this occupation 9 could very well have been avoided if the Feds had stepped 10 up and done something about that issue with what you've 11 referred to as Army Camp lands? 12 A: Yes, that's correct. I felt that if 13 they'd shown that through -- going through the proper 14 processes that they got results, that there wouldn't have 15 been a need for any further protests. 16 Q: If they'd addressed what was a fifty 17 (50) year festering problem? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: All right. So, do I take it then 20 that your view at the time was the Park was being used to 21 assist in dealing with that bigger problem with the Feds? 22 A: That was -- that's correct and that 23 was a widely shared view. 24 Q: Right. And they were looking to your 25 Government for assistance in dealing with that festering

24

1 problem? 2 A: Or just to draw attention to the 3 problem. 4 Q: Right. And the way to draw attention 5 is to draw attention from the Provincial Government and 6 to enlist your assistance in dealing with that bigger 7 issue? 8 A: That was my assumption. I could be 9 wrong on that. 10 Q: Well -- 11 A: And I'm -- that was shared. 12 Q: Again, I'm only looking for your 13 view. I don't -- 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: -- want you to tell me about other 16 people's view or assumptions, just what you were working 17 from, okay? 18 We looked yesterday at a contingency plan 19 that you had for Serpent Mounds, as a Ministry, not you 20 personally but as a Ministry, and there was a contingency 21 plan that we've heard from at this Inquiry with respect 22 to Ipperwash. Were you aware of that? 23 A: I am now. 24 Q: Were you aware on September 4th, 5th, 25 or 6th, 1995, that your staff had implemented a

25

1 contingency plan for the potential occupation of the 2 Park? 3 A: Not the specifics, but I would have 4 assumed they would have had contingency plans drawn up, 5 yes. 6 Q: Okay, but let's avoid assumptions for 7 a second. You were briefed by your staff that leading 8 up to Ipperwash, and in fact on September 4th they were 9 moving assets out of the Park and they were ensuring that 10 the contingency plan was followed for a possible 11 occupation of the Park, correct? 12 A: Not specifically, now. 13 Q: You were never briefed on that by 14 your Deputy Minister? 15 A: I was briefed that there rumours that 16 the Park could be one of the targets for protest. The 17 roads were another highly likely candidate. I may have 18 been told that they were, you know, global staff were 19 drawing up contingency plans. 20 Q: All right. But we're now into the 21 occupation; I -- I want to look at September 4th and 5th. 22 The 5th is when you really learned about the details? 23 A: Right. And on the 4th, on the 24 briefing -- I understand the question now. 25 Q: All right.

26

1 A: I was told about what had happened on 2 the ground with the MNR staff. The campers' safety was, 3 as a risk, we felt was minimalized because people had 4 been evacuated. Staff -- Mr. Vrancart might have gone 5 through what precautions were around the staffing as 6 well. 7 Q: Right. And they would have briefed 8 you on the steps that were taken by MNR in order to 9 prepare you for your press conference and to address any 10 issues as to what was happening with MNR, correct? 11 A: No, not really. We didn't have time. 12 We talked on the 4th of the occupation. We had a 13 discussion about what the MNR had been doing, but that 14 twenty (20) minutes, as I recall, we stuck mainly to what 15 had happened at the IMC what the key messages to be 16 delivered would be. 17 Q: All right. Let's -- let's move from 18 that moment in time for a second and just talk generally. 19 You were advised by your DM that it didn't 20 require the Park to be closed for the Labour Day weekend 21 in anticipation of this occupation, correct? 22 A: Well, the occupation took place when 23 the Park was scheduled to be closed. 24 Q: Right. It was closing and you didn't 25 require the Park to be closed any earlier than it

27

1 normally would have for the season? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: All right. And the only campers that 4 needed to be evacuated were the ones that weren't out of 5 the Park by the time it would normally have closed for 6 the day, right? 7 A: That's correct, that's my 8 understanding. 9 Q: All right. Nobody -- nobody's 10 campsites had to be moved, that they would otherwise be 11 using, for the next few days? 12 A: That was my understanding, yes. 13 Q: Okay. You didn't have to provide any 14 rainchecks in other words? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Right. And I'd suggest to you that 17 you were briefed at some point that MNR assets, to the 18 extent that they could, such as computers, files, and 19 otherwise, had been moved offsite prior to this 20 occupation taking place? 21 A: Yeah, I just can't recall that but 22 I'm assuming that as well. 23 Q: Right. So, by the time the 24 occupation occurred MNR had put in place its contingency 25 plan and it wasn't disused or unopened Park, she's closed

28

1 Park for the season, that was now being occupied, 2 correct? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And the only real issue for MNR, at 5 that point in time, other than getting the Park back, at 6 some point in time is to address the water situation 7 before December, correct? 8 A: That's correct and I testified to 9 that, yes. 10 Q: I -- I agree and you had lots of time 11 to address that situation. It didn't need to be done in 12 one (1) or two (2) days? 13 A: That's right, we had until freeze-up. 14 Q: Right. So, like Serpent Mounds there 15 was no real urgency to the situation and in your mind you 16 saw it as something that could resolve itself in some 17 time? 18 A: In an MNR perspective, yes. In terms 19 of a general concern about the possibility of escalation, 20 there was a concern about that. 21 Q: All right. But you didn't see a need 22 for an injunction? 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: That wasn't your view at the time 25 that you needed an injunction to deal with this issue?

29

1 A: I didn't know. I had questions about 2 the need for it, but I didn't disagree with it. If 3 that's what the Attorney General and ONAS wanted, they 4 were the lead on this issue, I didn't disagree with them. 5 Q: All right. I'm just looking at your 6 initial view. You didn't use an injunction for Serpent 7 Mounds and I suggest to you, that you weren't thinking of 8 an injunction to deal with Ipperwash? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: All right. You didn't see a need for 11 press releases at the outset to deal with Ipperwash, did 12 you? 13 A: No, I didn't, but I didn't feel it 14 was our issue, either. It had been ONAS' issue all 15 summer and I had assumed on the 4th and the early part 16 until about two o'clock on the 5th, that ONAS would 17 continue to be the lead. 18 Q: All right. And your view was that 19 ONAS, even though it wasn't a line Ministry, should have 20 taken responsibility for this issue and put somebody out 21 there to talk with the occupiers, the First Nation, and 22 the people in the area, correct? 23 A: Yes. And I assumed they were doing 24 that all of August and I assumed that they were the lead 25 Minister on this.

30

1 Q: All right. But you didn't check. I 2 think we talked about this yesterday -- 3 A: Oh, yes I did. 4 Q: You didn't take any steps to check 5 whether ONAS was doing anything in August of 1995 to 6 address this issue? 7 A: Yes I did. I asked a number of times 8 my Deputy -- we hear reports about incidents 9 occasionally, and I would ask, Is there anything we 10 should be doing. 11 And I was advised that this was an ONAS 12 issue, that it didn't involve the Park directly, just one 13 of a potential list of potential threats, that the OPP 14 were monitoring the situation on the ground and they were 15 working with ONAS. 16 Q: All right. I was going to suggest 17 that to you, that this was an issue that was bordering on 18 MNR property for the last two (2) years, correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: There were incidents that were 21 occurring when campers were interacting with those that 22 were occupying the Base? 23 A: That's my understanding. 24 Q: Right. And as a result of those 25 incidents, it sounds, and you can correct me if I'm

31

1 wrong, but it sounds like you were asking, well, what's 2 happening in regards to dealing with this issue? 3 A: I was. 4 Q: All right. And you were satisfied 5 from the reports that you were getting back that 6 something was, in fact, being done? 7 A: Yes, I was. 8 Q: All right. And what did -- 9 A: I was told that -- 10 Q: -- you understand was being done? 11 A: -- basically campers' safety was 12 being addressed by the OPP; that undercover officers 13 posing as campers in the Park; that'd be early August I 14 was told that. 15 Later on the summer I was told that the 16 Interministerial Committee led by ONAS; ONAS was in 17 charge of the issue and the OPP were in charge on the 18 ground. 19 Q: All right. But the OPP were 20 negotiating any -- 21 A: No, not the -- 22 Q: -- of these underlying issues? 23 A: No, and I didn't assume they were. I 24 assumed that ONAS was. 25 Q: Right. OPP was helping with the

32

1 safety of the campers, which is an MNR issue. 2 A: Specifically, that's what I was told, 3 yes. 4 Q: All right. So, by September 4th, 5 when they occupied your Park, and I mean it from an MNR 6 perspective, we now had the occupiers involved, we had 7 the Province involved but we didn't have the Feds with 8 what you saw as a Fed issue -- 9 A: Exactly. 10 Q: -- correct? I'm going to suggest to 11 you that at that point in time, if you'd followed your 12 previous experience, then it would have been open to you 13 to simply leave the occupiers alone; let the public know 14 it was a peaceful situation, they're protesting the Feds, 15 the Federal situation; and the Province was going to 16 speak with the Feds about trying to resolve this issue, 17 this festering issue for the last fifty (50) years. 18 That was open to you at that point in 19 time, wasn't it? 20 A: In my opinion was, that was really 21 open in August before, what I considered to be an illegal 22 occupation, and it was still potentially open that day as 23 well, but it would have been easier prior to the 24 occupation. 25 Q: All right. I understand that you saw

33

1 it from August and let's leave aside the question whether 2 it's legal or illegal for the moment, because -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- and I suggest to you that you 5 didn't really worry about that issue at the time. You 6 saw it as simply a protest to bring attention to the 7 issue, correct? 8 A: That's fair, but -- 9 Q: Yeah. 10 A: -- I felt there was -- yeah, that's 11 fair. 12 Q: Okay. And consistent with your 13 previous dealings with Serpent Mounds and Cape Croker -- 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: -- at that point in time, it was 16 open, if you were the one taking the lead, to do exactly 17 what I just said, leave them alone and get the Feds 18 involved, correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And that's the approach you took when 21 you started writing to Ron Irwin after Dudley George had 22 been shot, right? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: All right. And the only difference 25 between the occupation, when they moved in September 4

34

1 and when you started doing that and pursuing Ron Irwin of 2 the Feds, was that Dudley had been shot, right? 3 A: I'm sorry, can you repeat the 4 question? 5 Q: The only thing that had changed was 6 that Dudley George had been shot between the September 7 4th date of occupation and the time in September that 8 you've referred in your examination-in-chief, that you 9 started pursuing the Feds to deal with this issue. 10 A: No, there was some other things that 11 had changed. I had met with Chief Bressette. He had 12 asked me to help where I could. He had some real 13 concerns. And we weren't dealing with the -- the 14 occupation, we were dealing with some of the underlying 15 issues. 16 Q: The occupation was continuing, 17 correct? 18 A: It was continuing but it -- I didn't 19 -- that wasn't my focus. My focus was on trying to 20 resolve some of the underlying issues and that may end 21 the occupation. 22 Q: I appreciate that. 23 A: That was in '96. 24 Q: But the occupation was continuing and 25 they were still illegally occupying, at least in your

35

1 mind, Crown land. 2 A: Yeah. The change was that there 3 wasn't a threat or perceived threat that the situation 4 would escalate. In '96 my perception was the situation 5 on the ground was very stable. It was contained to the 6 Military Base and the Park and there was, you know, 7 rumours floating around that it was expand to roads and 8 nearby highways. 9 Q: Right. But the people that were 10 reporting back, the people that were in charge of 11 determining whether it's a stable situation or not, are 12 the OPP, correct? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Right. And we've heard from the OPP 15 that as of September 6th, they were still of the 16 impression that it was a stable situation. 17 A: So was I, on the ground. 18 Q: I appreciate that. And I'm 19 suggesting to you that there's no real change between 20 that timeframe and the timeframe that you pursue the 21 Feds, other than Dudley George was shot. 22 And you've said to me, No, one other 23 aspect changed is that the Chief -- Chief Bressette has 24 stepped in and asked you to help out. 25 A: Personally, that changed for me and

36

1 that's why I got involved with it, yes. 2 Q: Right. So, that was a big change 3 from your perspective that the Chief of the local First 4 Nation was now asking for assistance as opposed to 5 opposing the occupation that was occurring? 6 A: Yes. I would say that in my mind 7 that was change, yes. 8 Q: Okay. The other change was the 9 Premier's office was no longer involved in the situation, 10 correct? 11 A: I don't know. I'm sure we followed 12 proper protocols around that. 13 Q: You're not prepared to go that far -- 14 A: I was -- 15 Q: -- is what you're saying. 16 A: Well, I don't know that they could 17 have been aware of the situation. 18 Q: But, they weren't actively involved. 19 Ms. Hutton wasn't sitting on IMC meetings and the Premier 20 wasn't holding dining room meetings, was he? 21 A: I didn't call an IMC meeting and I 22 don't think I could have. I think that's ONAS' lead. 23 Q: So, you would agree with me that Ms. 24 Hutton was not sitting on IMC meetings? 25 A: I don't believe there was IMC

37

1 meetings at that time. 2 Q: Right. And she wasn't providing the 3 Premier's opinion in IMC meetings as to what should be 4 done? 5 A: There was no IMC meeting. 6 Q: So, you're agreeing with me that that 7 didn't occur? 8 A: Yes, because there was no IMC 9 meeting. 10 Q: You've talked a little bit in your 11 examination-in-chief about demands of the occupiers and 12 the fact that you didn't know what their demands were. 13 Do you recall testifying to that effect? 14 A: Yes, I do. 15 Q: All right. And we've heard other 16 people testify that one of the issues was, you didn't 17 know what their demands were and therefore you weren't 18 able to address those specific demands; is that fair? 19 A: That's fair. 20 Q: All right. But I suggest to you that 21 the fact that they were occupying this land, this Crown 22 land, on its face, should have suggested to you that 23 ownership of the land was one of the issues. 24 A: Yes, it did. 25 Q: All right. It -- it not only

38

1 suggested it to you, but common sense indicates that 2 that's one of the possible issues, right? 3 A: Exactly. 4 Q: And in -- in fact that was back as 5 one of your issues that you referred to as common sense 6 with a Deputy Minister's briefing -- 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: -- on possible blockades and 9 occupations. And in fact if we go to the document, it 10 indicates that that is one of the reasons for many of 11 these possible occupations, correct? 12 A: That's right. 13 Q: All right. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: So ownership, from a common sense 18 viewpoint, was one of the issues and from your viewpoint 19 it was also a protest of what was going on next door at 20 the Army Camp with the Feds? 21 A: That's correct. The -- I'd ask the 22 question about demands, about ownership; I was assured by 23 my Deputy Minister and our staff that it had advice from 24 ONAS and Legal Department that the title was good, that 25 there had been no claims filed. And my impression was

39

1 that if there was a grievance against land that they 2 would file a land claim. 3 Q: Right. 4 A: And -- 5 Q: Well, you checked the ownership of 6 the land because -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 8 think he had a chance to finish his answer -- 9 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Sorry. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 11 Scullion. I think he was still -- going to going to 12 finish your answer, were you? 13 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I don't mean to cut 14 you off. If there's more -- 15 THE WITNESS: Well -- 16 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: -- let me know. 17 THE WITNESS: -- I was just concluding 18 that that was based on the legal advice that we received 19 it -- that's what my opinion was based on. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 22 Q: I appreciate that and I'm not getting 23 into the legal advice. I'm not going to challenge it 24 from the back door. 25 What I'm saying to you is, you checked the

40

1 ownership of the land because that was an issue you saw 2 arising from this occupation? 3 A: Well, we were trying to figure out 4 why there was an occupation. And you know it was a 5 widely shared idea that it was a protest against the 6 Federal inaction, but also just be sure I said, Is there 7 any claim. And the title, I was assured was -- was 8 proper for the Ontario Government and there had been no 9 claims files. 10 And I would have assumed that if somebody 11 had a claim to property they would use the proper 12 channels and file a claim in Court. 13 Q: All right. They weren't asking -- 14 A: Or the process through the Federal 15 Government. 16 Q: They weren't asking for money. They 17 weren't asking for any type of demand like that. They 18 were simply occupying the Park, correct? 19 A: I was told there were no demands, 20 yes. 21 Q: I understand that. And you focussed 22 on no formal demands. 23 Now, as a layperson as opposed to a lawyer 24 with ONAS, are you aware that only the First Nation can 25 make such a formal demand of the Ontario Government in

41

1 respect of land? 2 A: No, but I would assume that the 3 people that were giving me advice had checked with the 4 Federal Government to see if there had been a land claim 5 filed. 6 Q: I appreciate that, but the First 7 Nation hadn't made a formal claim to that land, correct? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: That's what you were told by the 10 Legal Department? 11 A: There had been no formal claims made. 12 Q: Right. And you were also told that 13 the First Nation wasn't supporting, and in fact was 14 opposing the occupation that was occurring? 15 A: Yes, I was. 16 Q: All right. So, it really didn't help 17 to look to see if the First Nation had a claim on that 18 land if in fact they were opposing the occupation that 19 was occurring? 20 A: That's -- that was probably built 21 into the briefings, yes. 22 Q: Right. It didn't really help because 23 you already knew that they were opposing the occupation 24 that was occurring? 25 A: But I'm -- there was briefing notes

42

1 and there was -- and I do specifically recall asking and 2 being told there was -- there was no claims made by 3 anybody on that land and that the First Nation opposed 4 it. 5 Q: Okay. Let's just back up a step. 6 Are you saying that you were told that there were no 7 claims of any kind, formal or informal, with respect to 8 that land? 9 A: No, just formal. 10 Q: Right. All right. So, we stick with 11 the formal claims. And those formal claims, you're 12 understanding, would have been done through ONAS, 13 correct? 14 A: Well, they would have been aware of 15 it. 16 Q: Right. It's a submission or an 17 application -- 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: -- through ONAS -- 20 A: Right. 21 Q: -- with respect to a challenge -- 22 A: The Federal Government. 23 Q: All right. And you're also aware 24 that many of these challenges to land or with respect to 25 the land go right back to the heart of it which is the

43

1 surrender that occurs, correct? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: All right. And you were aware of 4 that from your role or your position as Minister of 5 Natural Resources? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: Right. And you may have had some 8 background before that but you were aware that many of 9 the land claims go back to the heart of it which is the 10 surrender? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And many of the times ONAS looks to 13 see whether or not that surrender is valid, and if it's 14 not valid or if there's some sort of question relating to 15 that surrender they look further into the issue, correct? 16 A: That's my assumption, yes. I'm not 17 an expert on ONAS, but that was my assumption at the 18 time. 19 Q: Right. And in fact if there's a 20 problem with the surrender, if we go so far as to say 21 it's invalid, then that can affect Ontario's ownership of 22 that land in current day, correct? 23 A: I would assume that. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: I would think the Courts may have to

44

1 sort that out. 2 Q: The fact there hadn't been formal 3 demands made of Ontario and nothing in writing given to 4 Ontario, are you suggesting to the Commissioner that if 5 that had been done, if a piece of paper had been 6 presented saying here's what we are claiming, things 7 would have been different? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And how would things have changed 10 from your perspective -- 11 A: Well -- 12 Q: -- if a piece of paper had been 13 presented saying, here's -- 14 A: Well -- 15 Q: -- why we're in the Park? 16 A: It would have changed my perspective 17 totally. 18 Q: All right. And if they said they 19 were in the Park because they're challenging the 20 surrender or they claim ownership of the property and 21 they think burial grounds are there, how would that have 22 changed what we've just referred to as the steps you 23 took? 24 A: Well, I think we would have had a 25 basis to sit down and to say, Well let's address those,

45

1 let's address those in the proper fashion. If they need 2 to be addressed through this process, here's what the 3 rules state should be followed. 4 My opinion is, you just don't go in and 5 have an occupation when you have a grievance -- 6 Q: I appreciate that. 7 A: -- that you would follow the proper 8 rules; that would have changed the whole approach, I 9 believe. 10 Q: And your view is that that wouldn't 11 have mattered that they were still in occupation. You 12 would have looked at those issues that they've been 13 formerly presented like that? 14 A: I don't know if you'd even need an 15 occupation if you could sit down after they -- you knew 16 what the demands were and say, Well, how do we resolve 17 that, here's the process you go through. 18 Q: Right. Well, they're already in 19 occupation, so let's skip to that next step and say, in 20 your view, if they presented something formally to you, 21 you would have dealt with that and looked at the 22 underlying issues, notwithstanding the occupation going 23 on in the background? 24 A: That would have been my opinion, yes. 25 Q: Right. And your opinion, your view,

46

1 would be the occupation's going to come to an end at some 2 point if we address these issues that they've raised? 3 A: I would assume that, yes. 4 Q: Right. And that's the approach you 5 took at Serpent Mounds, that's the approach you would 6 have taken at Ipperwash if you were the lead Ministry? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: All right. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Now, let's go to your press scrum. 13 You testified that you had about twenty (20) minutes lead 14 time when you were told you're going to be the lead 15 spokesperson and here's the script you need to present to 16 the press, correct? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: All right. And that script we looked 19 at, I may need some help with the tab, in your -- 20 A: My briefing note's in Tab 13. I 21 believe it's -- 22 Q: I'm told by your Counsel it's Tab 14. 23 A: It's Tab 14. 24 Q: Right. You have that before you? 25 A: Yes, I do.

47

1 Q: And Mr. Klippenstein took you through 2 that in some detail with respect to the number of times 3 the occupiers were referred to as illegal trespassers. 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Do you recall that -- 6 A: Yes, I do. 7 Q: -- testimony yesterday? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Are you telling the Commissioner that 12 you were uncomfortable with the message that was being 13 presented in this press scrum, or simply that you didn't 14 have enough time to digest it and to express it in your 15 terms? 16 A: No, and I think I've testified 17 earlier, I wasn't uncomfortable with the message. What 18 I was uncomfortable with was that I had not been the lead 19 on this issue, I didn't feel I knew enough about the 20 issue, and I think at one point I referred to, you'll 21 have to talk to the Attorney General for more specifics. 22 I felt that this was an ONAS issue; they 23 had a Minister. And there's also an Attorney General 24 aspect to it, just happened to be the same Minister as 25 ONAS, that was much more familiar with the file; had had

48

1 lead carriage of the file all summer. 2 And now the day of an occupation, with 3 twenty (20) minutes time, I'm supposed to come up to 4 speed and to be able to answer questions about 5 injunctions that, quite frankly -- today I don't 6 understand injunctions and I don't profess to be an 7 expert on that. 8 Q: All right. But the issue landed in 9 your lap -- 10 A: That was my concern about being the 11 spokesperson on this. 12 Q: Right. But the issue had landed in 13 your lap. You were made spokesperson and it was up to 14 you to address this by way of the press. 15 A: Yeah, for one (1) press conference. 16 Q: One (1) moment in time? 17 A: One (1) moment in time. 18 Q: Right. Following that press junket 19 you kept your head down, your legs moving and stepped -- 20 stepped away from all press, correct? 21 A: Well, I kept my head down to avoid 22 any further -- nobody was phoning the office asking 23 questions on it. 24 Q: You didn't answer any calls. 25 A: I wasn't -- I didn't need to make

49

1 that decision. I didn't receive any that I'm aware of 2 and -- 3 Q: Right. You didn't hold any further 4 press conferences -- 5 A: No, I did not. 6 Q: -- you dodged the Cabinet meeting, 7 correct? 8 A: I -- I was going to be late for that 9 to miss the scrum. I didn't want to have two (2) or 10 three (3) press interviews and then have somebody say, 11 Well you're doing a really good job, keep -- keep on 12 being the spokesperson. 13 Q: I appreciate that, but it was a three 14 (3) hour Cabinet meeting, correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And you've testified you to about a 17 fifteen (15) meeting that delayed you getting to the 18 Cabinet meeting, right? 19 A: No. I was intending on going to the 20 Cabinet meeting after ten o'clock. It starts at 10:00 21 and if you're there a few minutes late, that's fine. But 22 then I got summonsed to another meeting that was going to 23 take place at 11:00/11:30-ish. 24 And I decided that I'd been asked to go to 25 that meeting, so I understood I wouldn't be at Cabinet.

50

1 Q: So, at that point in time you decided 2 you're going to that meeting, not Cabinet, correct? 3 A: Well, I'd been summonsed to that 4 meeting. Jeff Bangs had phoned me and told me that we're 5 going to have a meeting with the Ministers. 6 Q: All right. I'd suggest to you that 7 you had lots of time on September 5th to get up to speed 8 on the issue that has landed in your lap and to deal with 9 the press on the issue. 10 A: September 5th? 11 Q: September 5th. 12 A: No, I didn't even find out about it, 13 that I was going to the spokesperson, until I arrived in 14 Toronto. 15 Q: On September 5th? 16 A: I believe it was the 5th, yes. 17 That's the day I did the interview right? 18 Q: That's right. 19 A: No, I'd left Haliburton and I arrived 20 in Toronto about two o'clock. I walked into the office. 21 Jeff and Ron had just come back from the IMC meeting and 22 informed that I was going to be the spokesperson. 23 Q: Right. And you gave your press 24 interview that afternoon. 25 A: About twenty (20) minutes later.

51

1 Q: Right, that afternoon? Right? 2 A: Yeah, twenty (20) minutes later. 3 Q: Right. So, you had the rest of the 4 day to become familiar with the issue if you so chose, 5 correct? 6 A: Well, the issue really was all of 7 August. I don't think I presumed that I could have been 8 brought to speed on the nuances of an injunction or all 9 the nuances of First Nation issues in the Ipperwash area 10 in three (3) or four (4) or five (5) hours. 11 I had assumed that the Minister 12 responsible for this file had had all summer to be 13 brought up to speed on it, understood the nuances of 14 First Nation issues, understood injunctions. 15 Q: Whoever that Minister is that you're 16 referring to, it's clear that the issue landed in your 17 lap and you were expected, on behalf of the Government, 18 to deal with the issue, correct? 19 A: No. They'd asked me to be the 20 spokesperson and I was going to address that issue. I 21 disagreed with it. 22 Q: So, your vision was that you're a 23 spokesperson but you weren't lead Ministry on the issue? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: All right. I suggest to you that you

52

1 were uncomfortable with delivering the message because 2 you're uncomfortable with the message being delivered, 3 that we were going to be getting an injunction and acting 4 quickly on these people that are occupying the Park. 5 You disagree with that? 6 A: I disagree with that. I didn't, at 7 the time -- and I think I've stated this, I had 8 confidence in the Attorney General and their staff in 9 ONAS -- and their staff and the OPP; that's what they 10 were recommending. 11 They had been looking at this file all 12 summer. I had confidence in their judgment. 13 Q: Right. But it was a very different 14 approach than the one that you'd used previously and the 15 one that you've just testified that you would have used 16 if you were the lead Ministry on the issue. 17 A: Yes, it was. 18 Q: All right. In your press scrum, you 19 didn't mention a number of things that I would suggest 20 could have been helpful in what you've termed reducing 21 tension and anxiety relating to this issue. 22 You didn't refer to the peaceful 23 resolution of Serpent Mounds that ended the day before, 24 right? 25 A: That's correct.

53

1 Q: You didn't mention your view that you 2 saw this as simply a spillover, a protest of what was 3 happening next door at the Army Camp, correct? 4 A: I thought I mentioned something about 5 the Federal Government. And I did reference Serpent 6 Mounds, as well. I stated that they were different 7 situations. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: It's on the bottom of page 2. I 12 think this came about because of the Military occupation 13 of the Military Base. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: All right. That's what you're 18 referring to? 19 A: Yes, I -- I'll read it. 20 "I think this came about because of the 21 Military occupation of the Military 22 Base. So, I think this is an isolated 23 case." 24 Q: All right. And that's the reference 25 that you're referring me to?

54

1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: Your counsel's assisted me and -- and 3 I want to be fair to you if I ask you a question that's 4 not correct. He's referred me to page 3 with the 5 reference to Serpent Mounds so for your -- support of 6 your answer to me. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where is 8 that reference, Mr. Scullion? 9 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It's just -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It is on 11 page 2? Whereabouts? 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: And I -- page 3. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Page 3? 14 Whereabouts? 15 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Second last answer 16 there's a reference to Serpent Mounds. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Second last 18 answer. Yes, I see it. That's fine. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 21 Q: And just to follow that reference 22 from your counsel up, your statement was that you thought 23 it was generally acknowledged that the First Nation there 24 owned the land? 25 A: Yes.

55

1 Q: And that goes back to the mistake 2 that we talked about yesterday that they didn't in fact 3 own the land but your impression at the time was that 4 they did, correct? 5 A: No, I knew precisely what part of the 6 land they owned, 27 percent, which was, functionally 7 speaking, for the Park, the important part of the Park in 8 my opinion. 9 Q: All right. So, you did understand 10 that they didn't own the land at Serpent Mounds? 11 A: I understood they owned 27 percent of 12 the -- the best part of the Park. 13 Q: Right. 14 A: That's a subjective opinion, but I 15 understood that. 16 Q: At the time? 17 A: At the time. 18 Q: All right. You didn't indicate in 19 your press conference when you were being asked 20 questions, that one of the possible ways of dealing with 21 this would be to leave them alone and go speak with the 22 Feds, correct? 23 A: I wasn't the lead person -- that's 24 correct. 25 Q: Okay. I suggest to you that part of

56

1 the reason why you didn't do it was it wasn't part of the 2 script you'd been provided with to speak with the press 3 about; is that fair? 4 A: That's -- that's correct. 5 Q: All right. You didn't write the 6 script. It was written by somebody else and it didn't 7 include your views? 8 A: That's... 9 Q: Is that fair? 10 A: I didn't disagree with it, but I 11 didn't write it, no. 12 Q: All right. And it didn't include 13 all -- 14 A: It came out of the Interministerial 15 Committee. 16 Q: Right. And it didn't include all the 17 views we've talked about that you held about the 18 situation? 19 A: I don't know if I had firm opinions. 20 I had confidence that the people that were leading this; 21 they knew all of the factors and all the background and 22 all the intricacies that go into a complicated file. I 23 had confidence in their judgment. 24 Q: Would you agree with me that 25 referring to the occupiers as illegal trespassers is not

57

1 very likely to reduce tension or anxiety for the 2 occupiers? 3 A: No, I wouldn't. I believe that in 4 some cases stating clearly your view doesn't allow for 5 any misperception that the situation could escalate. 6 Q: Right. I suggest to you that the 7 press -- the message that you were delivering was for 8 the greater general public and not for the occupiers. 9 You were looking to reduce tension and anxiety in the 10 public as a whole? 11 A: No, actually I wasn't. I viewed this 12 as message that came out of the IMC as the Government's 13 position. They had studied the issue. This was their 14 considered opinion that should be delivered. I would 15 assume it was to find a -- the message was try to get a 16 resolution to the issue. 17 Q: All right. Was it your view that the 18 longer they were in the Park it was an embarrassment to 19 the Government? 20 A: No. 21 Q: In fact you couldn't hold that view 22 because Serpent Mounds had already occurred and they'd 23 occupied the Park for three (3) days, correct? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: All right. So, I take it it was also

58

1 -- it wasn't your view that this was the first 2 opportunity for your Government to deal with these 3 issues? 4 A: I never even thought about that. 5 Q: But I take it when you look at it 6 today you would not agree that this was the first 7 opportunity for the -- the Government of the day? 8 A: No, it wasn't. 9 Q: In fact it was at least the second if 10 you take -- 11 MR. PETER LAUWERS: With respect, My 12 Friend is -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Well, 14 once again he's not quite finished his answer and you're 15 speaking over him. So, just pause for a minute and give 16 him a chance to finish his answer. 17 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: All right. I may be 18 more concerned about my time limits so let me just -- 19 THE WITNESS: So am I. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I wouldn't 21 worry about that. I mean, I think you've got to give the 22 Witness a chance. 23 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Understood. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 25 MR. PETER LAUWERS: I -- I think he

59

1 should -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, do you 3 want to finish that answer now, Mr. Hodgson? 4 THE WITNESS: Do you want to just repeat 5 the question? I'm sorry. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 8 Q: No, no. And I don't want to cut you 9 off, again. 10 A: Fine. It's -- 11 Q: It's not my goal to cut you off. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm clear 13 that it's not intentional. I think we all are. 14 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: All right. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 17 Q: My original question was: It wasn't 18 your view that this was the first opportunity for the 19 Government to deal with this type of issue, and you'd 20 agreed with me? 21 A: That's correct, and it wasn't the 22 first -- 23 Q: Right. And I'd suggest -- my 24 suggestion was, it was at least the second, given Serpent 25 Mounds, and if you take a broader view, it could have

60

1 been the third or fourth if you take into consideration 2 Cape Croker and Algonquin issues? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: All right. I suggest to you that you 5 were uncomfortable as well, with this message, with the 6 script that was being delivered but -- because you felt 7 the Government of the day was using this occupation to 8 make an example? 9 A: No, I never thought about it. I was 10 uncomfortable for the reasons I've already stated; that 11 there had been a lead Minister that had been actively 12 involved, his department, in this file, that knew all the 13 nuances, knew all the background, had the legal expertise 14 to talk about injunctions and other matters that were of 15 concern. 16 I felt that if that was to be my issue, to 17 be the leader or the spokesperson, I should at least be 18 knowledgeable about all the background and have been the 19 lead in August. 20 Q: All right. So if I summarise that; 21 you saw it as a complicated issue that others could deal 22 with better than you? 23 A: Yes, be -- yes. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: Because they'd been in charge of it

61

1 and knew all the background. 2 Q: All right. I was suggesting to you 3 that the feel that you got from your government was that 4 they were going to be taking this issue and make an 5 example out of the occupiers for other First Nations? 6 A: Absolutely not. 7 Q: And I was suggesting to you that it 8 was pretty easy to use these people to make your example, 9 because they weren't supported by the local Chief and 10 Council and they weren't recognized as a First Nation. 11 You disagree with that as well? 12 A: I disagree with that. I've -- I 13 never was even involved in discussions like that. 14 Q: All right. Did you see this as an 15 opportunity for the Province to assert itself? 16 A: No, I did not. 17 Q: To show the First Nations how the 18 Government would deal with issues like this? 19 A: Absolutely not. 20 Q: That's not how you saw this issue? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: All right. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

62

1 Q: Did you see the approach that was 2 coming from this script as a confrontational approach by 3 the Government to the issue? 4 A: No, I did not. I saw it as an 5 approach that would draw a clear lines to communicate our 6 position. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: That's how I viewed it. 9 Q: Right. Did you see it as the 10 government trying to reduce anxiety and tensions 11 surrounding the situation? 12 A: Yes, I did. I thought it was an 13 attempt to try to communicate that we didn't want to see 14 this situation escalate and we felt the longer that it 15 continued, the more probability that it could escalate. 16 Q: All right. I suggest to you that the 17 message coming from the Government is, We have rules as 18 to how do we deal with this and the occupiers weren't 19 following the rules. 20 A: That may be a fair assessment, yes. 21 Q: All right. And we were going, as a 22 government, to do something about it quickly. 23 A: That's conveyed in the messaging, 24 yes. 25 Q: All right. And that's the feel you

63

1 got from the message you were asked to deliver by this 2 script, right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And in fact, later on, in September 5 6th, you and your Deputy Minister reassigned staff from 6 the Ipperwash area, because you saw it as becoming a bit 7 of a safety issue, correct? 8 A: That's correct. I don't recall that 9 specifically, but I've seen in preparation that we had 10 talked about that, and I assume that to be correct. 11 Q: Right. And you've seen documents 12 that indicate that on the afternoon of September 6th, 13 your Deputy Minister asked for staff to be relocated? 14 A: That's correct. I don't recall it 15 specifically, but I assume that I saw it. 16 Q: Okay. You were aware from the 17 material distributed by Cabinet, for this Cabinet meeting 18 on September 6th, that it wasn't a big issue for Cabinet, 19 correct? 20 A: I don't recall it even being in the 21 binder to go to Cabinet, no. 22 Q: That was my next question. In fact, 23 it wasn't even in the binder for the Cabinet meeting? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: All right. But you knew it was an

64

1 issue for the Premier or the Premier's office, at least, 2 from the briefings you were getting back from the IMC 3 meeting and the fact that there was going to be a meeting 4 in the dining room, correct? 5 A: No, I didn't realize that the Premier 6 was going to be at the meeting. 7 Q: At the dining room meeting? 8 A: No, the -- I assumed that was a 9 follow-up meeting that had been cancelled, the one I'd 10 gone to, that the other ministers weren't there. I 11 didn't have any impression on that. 12 Q: All right. Let's separate those two 13 (2) issues then. 14 Following the IMC meetings, you became 15 aware, from Mr. Bangs or Mr. Allen or Mr. Vrancart or all 16 three (3) together, that the Premier's office was taking 17 an active interest in this issue? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: All right. It was a priority, 20 however high a priority, for the Premier's office, even 21 though it wasn't a priority for Cabinet, correct? 22 A: I wouldn't go that far. I -- I know 23 it was a priority for Deb Hutton, who attended the 24 meetings. 25 Q: We've certainly heard that from a

65

1 number of witnesses, but that was your impression that it 2 was a priority for Ms. Hutton, correct? 3 A: Well, she was at the meetings. 4 Q: And that was the message she was 5 conveying, was that it was a high priority, at least for 6 her, correct? 7 A: Yeah. I don't recall being briefed 8 specifically on what she was chipping into the 9 conversation. I recall being briefed on the general 10 contents of the meeting. 11 Q: All right. You referred earlier this 12 morning to Mr. Bangs taking flak -- 13 A: That wasn't -- 14 Q: -- for not following protocol with 15 respect to Serpent Mounds, correct? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: That flak came from Ms. Hutton, 18 didn't it? 19 A: Yes, it did. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: But, I just want to clarify, I don't 22 believe that took place at the Interministerial 23 Committee. 24 Q: It took place after the 25 Interministerial Meeting --

66

1 A: That was my understanding. 2 Q: -- according to Mr. Bangs and that 3 was your understanding as well? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: She took him aside after the IMC 6 meeting and gave him the flak you're referring to? 7 A: That's my recollection and he was 8 quite concerned about it. 9 Q: Did you share that concern that you 10 didn't follow protocol with Serpent Mounds for the 11 Premier's office? 12 A: No, I did not. I told them if that's 13 the rules I can understand why they want to be informed. 14 I said I take responsibility. I didn't know I had to. 15 If there had been something that I felt that I couldn't 16 handle, that was in my responsibility, I usually phoned 17 the Premier. 18 Earlier that summer there had been a 19 serious situation up north around Deuberville (phonetic) 20 with the fire almost consuming the town. We had to 21 evacuate everyone to Wawa. 22 I'd gone and met with the residents in 23 Wawa. I'd phoned the Premier ahead of time and told him 24 what I was doing and so I said to Jeff, Don't worry about 25 I, just in the future give them head's up.

67

1 Q: Right. That's when he reported back 2 to you that this flak had come to him after the IMC 3 meeting? 4 A: That's correct, yes. 5 Q: And -- 6 A: That was -- so I wasn't -- to answer 7 your question I was not concerned but I said, you know, 8 just make sure that you give them a head's up if there's 9 issues brewing there. 10 Q: All right. Your response was, That's 11 interesting, as opposed to, You've got to be kidding, why 12 would we follow that? 13 A: That's true. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: Yeah. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Did you have any discussions with any 20 of the other ministers, the Attorney General, the Sol 21 Gen, about your view that this was simply a spill over 22 from the Army Camp? 23 A: I didn't talk specifically with them 24 other than that -- I don't remember ever talking to them, 25 but I remember that that was a widely shared view.

68

1 Q: Why do you say that? 2 A: Because it was brought up at any 3 discussion that I was ever around, around this issue 4 during those days. 5 Q: All right. Well, stick to before the 6 shooting occurred the night of September 6th. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Did you discuss that with anybody 9 before that timeframe? 10 A: No, I don't believe I did. 11 Q: These were Ministers? 12 A: No. 13 Q: All right. So you didn't have that 14 impression that it was everybody's view, at least up 15 until the end of the -- 16 A: Yes, I did. I'd been at a dining 17 room meeting. I'd also been at this other meeting before 18 the dining room meeting with my Deputy. We had talked 19 about the issue with Peter Allen. It was a widely held 20 view that this was a protest against the Federal inaction 21 on the Military Base. 22 Q: All right. Let me turn to the dining 23 room meeting. Under cross-examination from Mr. Sandler, 24 you maintained your position that you said nothing at the 25 dining room meeting, correct?

69

1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: All right. Leading up to this dining 3 room meeting which dealt with the issue of Ipperwash, you 4 had the experience of Serpent Mounds under your belt, the 5 experience of Cape Croker, which were both peaceful, and 6 you were the lead spokesperson for Ipperwash, correct? 7 A: No. Everything up until the lead 8 spokesperson. Before the meeting -- I had already 9 mentioned at the earlier meeting that I wasn't going to 10 be that. 11 And during that meeting Larry Taman in his 12 presentation pointed out that Charlie Harnick was the 13 lead on this issue and would be the spokesperson. 14 Q: Right. I'm just working on what was 15 known before you walked through the doors into the dining 16 room meeting. And you would agree with me that by that 17 point in time you were still the lead spokesperson? 18 A: Not in my mind. 19 Q: In fact you didn't want to be the 20 lead spokesperson all the way from September 5th, 21 correct? 22 A: I wasn't going to be the lead 23 spokesperson. 24 Q: Right. But it hadn't officially 25 changed to somebody else as of the moment you walked

70

1 through the door of the dining room meeting? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Right. Up until that point in time, 4 other than your one (1) press junket, you dodged the 5 press, you hadn't been a spokesperson of any kind, and 6 you'd missed the Cabinet meeting that just occurred prior 7 to this dining room meeting, correct? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Nobody mentioned to you or asked you 10 where you were for the Cabinet meeting? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Nobody asked you why you weren't 13 meeting with the press to talk about the issues that were 14 happening at Ipperwash? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Nobody asked you how it was going as 17 lead spokesperson on this issue? 18 A: No. 19 Q: No questions were directed to you of 20 any kind relating to Ipperwash at the dining room 21 meeting? 22 A: No. 23 Q: The Premier didn't ask you where you 24 were during the Cabinet meeting? 25 A: No.

71

1 Q: He didn't ask you why you missed it? 2 A: It wasn't that kind of setting. This 3 is a business meeting that had a specific agenda and 4 that's all that was discussed. 5 Q: Right. Well, you've testified that 6 the Premier, in your words, was somewhat frustrated at 7 where the issue had led in the two (2) days. 8 A: No I -- 9 Q: It deteriorated. 10 A: Well that's -- there's a nuance 11 there. My impression was that it was before the two (2) 12 days. It's easier to avoid these situations and my 13 assumption was that he was talking about it in August, 14 yeah, or even before. 15 Q: I appreciate that. So, in your view 16 when he mentioned that, he wasn't criticizing the police 17 for not putting a thousand (1000) officers arm by arm to 18 prevent somebody going into the Park. 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: He was criticizing the Attorney 21 General who was head of ONAS for not taking this issue to 22 heart in August. 23 A: That was my assumption. 24 Q: So, he was being critical of the 25 Attorney General from the outset in this meeting --

72

1 A: No. 2 Q: -- at what he hadn't done leading up 3 to the occupation? 4 A: That was my assumption and he didn't 5 get into details. He just said, if there's been mistakes 6 made, that will all come out in an inquiry and he left it 7 at that. And we stuck to the agenda. 8 Q: All right. You didn't feel any 9 criticism as to how you'd handled the press for the past 10 day and a half? 11 A: No, I didn't. And if the Premier 12 thought it was my issue, he would have talked to me about 13 it. 14 Q: When he was criticizing or at least 15 expressing his frustrations regarding how the issue had 16 deteriorated, you didn't feel any pressure at all? 17 A: None at all. 18 Q: No pressure as to how you'd handled 19 or not handled the press? 20 A: No. My assumption was he was talking 21 about it before the occupation. 22 Q: Right. You never spoke up at the 23 dining room meeting to the Premier and said, Take a look 24 at Serpent Mounds, we handled it peacefully, why don't we 25 do the same thing here?

73

1 A: No, I didn't. We were talking at 2 that meeting, it was an information meeting, and the 3 agenda was the Attorney General's department was 4 outlining the next steps on the injunction. 5 I didn't disagree with the request, so I 6 didn't feel a need to speak. If I'd disagreed with it, I 7 would have spoken. 8 Q: But your view was different from what 9 everybody else, in your words, was suggesting should 10 occur with this injunction? 11 A: I wasn't as knowledgeable as I 12 assumed the people that I had confidence in, that had 13 dealt with the issue all summer, including the experts in 14 ONAS and the Attorney General's office and the -- the 15 police that had asked for an injunction. 16 Q: Right. But the Attorney General 17 wasn't involved in Serpent Mounds at all, was he? 18 A: No. 19 Q: And the Solicitor General wasn't 20 involved in Serpent Mounds at all, was he? 21 A: Not that I'm aware of, no. 22 Q: Right. He didn't step in and offer 23 your -- you an opinion on how it should be handled? You 24 handled it. 25 A: That's right.

74

1 Q: I'm suggesting to you, as Minister of 2 Natural Resources you had the unique position as being 3 the lead on Serpent Mounds which resolved peacefully, and 4 you should have stepped up and said something in that 5 meeting on that issue. 6 A: No. I had full confidence that ONAS 7 and the Attorney General's office were going to resolve 8 this issue peacefully. This was a different situation in 9 my mind than Serpent Mounds and they knew the nuances to 10 that better that I would. 11 Q: Right. And in fact, if you got these 12 people out of the Park, it would no longer be a 13 Provincial issue, it's back in the Fed's court, right? 14 A: That would be true, yes. 15 Q: Right. And you appreciated that at 16 the meeting, that if you could get these people out of 17 the Park it's no longer an issue that the Province has to 18 deal with, correct? 19 A: No, I didn't think of it in those 20 terms, I -- at the time, or even now. 21 Q: Did you know or think about the fact 22 that removal of the people was an issue at the dining 23 room meeting? 24 A: No, I wasn't thinking about that. 25 Q: Never occurred to you that the

75

1 logical extension of what people were talking about in 2 the dining room meeting was the removal of these people 3 from the land? 4 A: No, that's the elephant in the room 5 that Mr. Klippenstein was referring to. My perception at 6 the time was we were looking at ways to handle the 7 situation in a timely fashion; that it wouldn't lead to a 8 further escalation is what the concern was at that time. 9 Q: Right. 10 A: And that was what was being talked 11 about. 12 Q: Well we've heard from Mr. Harnick 13 that he spoke very little at this meeting; would you 14 agree with that? 15 A: I agree with that. 16 Q: And we've heard from Mr. Runciman 17 that he didn't say a word at this meeting; do you agree 18 with that? 19 A: I agree with that. 20 Q: And you're testifying that you didn't 21 say a word at this meeting? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: So we have a meeting of the Ministers 24 of which there's the three (3) I've just referred to -- 25 A: Hmm hmm.

76

1 Q: -- and the Premier, and the staff, 2 correct? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: So, when you say, "we were taking 5 about all of these issues", who was talking about these 6 issues? 7 A: This was, in my opinion, and I've 8 testified to this, an information meeting to bring the 9 Ministers up to speed on -- all in one (1) forum on what 10 the next steps that ONAS and the Attorney General were 11 taking. And it was presented, in my opinion, as an 12 information meeting, that the decision had already been 13 made. 14 Q: You'd just had an IMC meeting which 15 the goal of that meeting was to bring everybody up to 16 speed on what was occurring in those Ministries, correct? 17 A: No, no the Ministers didn't attend 18 that meeting that I attended. 19 Q: No, I -- 20 A: I thought they were going to be 21 there, but they weren't. 22 Q: Leave out the meeting that you've 23 talked about in your testimony. I'm talking about the 24 IMC meeting for September the 6th. 25 The purpose of that meeting was to

77

1 continue to provide information from the Ministries to 2 keep everybody up to date, correct? 3 A: I'm not sure what they did. You 4 know, that's an assumption that probably is correct. 5 Q: You had a lot of people from MNR at 6 the IMC meeting, correct? 7 A: I'm not sure. On the civil service 8 side, yeah, I would assume there would be a lot, yeah. 9 Q: Do you want to go to the numbers of-- 10 A: I'm going to take -- 11 Q: -- MNR people that were there? 12 A: -- your word for it. I vaguely 13 recall there were quite a few, yeah. 14 Q: All right. Well, let's start with -- 15 your Deputy Minister is there, Peter Allen is there, and 16 Jeff Bangs is there from your Ministry, all of whom are 17 providing you with updates on this issue, correct? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: I'm suggesting to you that you were 20 aware that the IMC meeting was held in order to provide 21 updates as to what was happening with the Ministries? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: All right. So, you knew that 24 following the IMC, you were going to be up to speed on 25 what was happening with the Ministries?

78

1 A: I knew that, yes. 2 Q: Right. There's no need for a dining 3 room meeting, is there, if that follows the IMC meetings? 4 A: I didn't call it. 5 Q: I appreciate that, but in -- 6 A: Yeah. 7 Q: -- your view there was no need for a 8 further meeting to update everybody on what was happening 9 at the IMC meeting? 10 A: That was probably my impression but-- 11 Q: Right. You had people from your 12 office at the IMC meeting that you had there to update 13 you on what was going on. 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And you appreciated that the Attorney 16 General and the Solicitor General had staff at those 17 meetings for the same purpose? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: Right. That's why the IMC existed, 20 correct? 21 A: I'm not sure why it existed, but... 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: When did you become aware that Mr.

79

1 Fox was seconded to the Solicitor General's office? 2 A: It would have been some time around 3 the dining room meeting. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: I was aware that he was seconded and 6 I thought it was from ONAS. 7 Q: Well, I appreciate that, but Mr. 8 Bangs has testified that he knew from the IMC meetings 9 that Mr. Fox was an OPP officer seconded to the Solicitor 10 General's office. 11 A: He never told me that. He told me he 12 was seconded to the Solicitor General's office around the 13 time of the dining room meeting. 14 Q: When he relayed what was happening at 15 the IMC meetings and the discussions that were occurring 16 at the IMC meeting, you're telling us that at no point in 17 time did he indicate Mr. Fox as an OPP officer seconded 18 to the Solicitor General's office? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: He didn't indicate that there were 21 discussions back and forth between Mr. Fox and Ms. Hutton 22 at the IMC meetings? 23 A: No, my briefing didn't involve any 24 names as I recollect. 25 Q: All right. He didn't indicate, and

80

1 Mr. Vrancart didn't indicate, Mr. Allen didn't indicate, 2 that there was a difference of opinion between Ms. Hutton 3 and Mr. Fox at those meetings? 4 A: No, they did not. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 6 you answer, Ms. Perschy's -- 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My concern, of course, 8 is that Mr. Scullion has made reference to Mr. Bangs. 9 And Mr. Bangs' testimony, with respect to any 10 communications at the IMC, was that he in fact didn't 11 notice any particular discussions between Ms. Hutton and 12 -- and Mr. Fox and of course this witness wasn't present. 13 So, if My Friend is going to make 14 reference to the views of various people such as Mr. 15 Bangs, I think he should be careful in doing so because 16 this Witness wasn't there and it's frankly not fair. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 18 recall -- 19 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Sir, I'm -- I'm 20 moving on. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 22 moving on. 23 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: So, that's fine. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 25

81

1 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 2 Q: I'm almost moving on. But I'm not 3 dealing with Ms. Hutton. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, just 5 be precise then if you're dealing with miss Hutton. 6 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I will. I will. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 9 Q: It's simply a suggestion that at that 10 dining room there was an opportunity for you to put your 11 input into what was happening with this Ipperwash 12 situation and you chose not to do that. 13 Is that accurate? 14 A: No, I don't believe that is accurate. 15 I didn't disagree with the direction that the -- was 16 recommended. If I had, I would have spoken. 17 Q: Did you disagree with the 18 frustrations expressed by the Premier at that meeting or 19 did you share the same frustrations? 20 A: I shared those same frustrations. 21 They were very similar to the frustrations I'd expressed 22 earlier that day, that I felt the situations were easier 23 avoided than they are to, you know, remove people from a 24 park. 25 Q: Right. But at that point in time it

82

1 hadn't been prevented, hadn't been avoided, there was an 2 occupation that was occurring. 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: So, now you're faced with the issue 5 of how to deal with the occupation as opposed to prevent 6 it, Correct? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And I'd suggest to you that there was 9 two (2) ways of dealing with it; one is to try to remove 10 the people, the other is to try to deal with the 11 underlying issues for the occupation. 12 Do you agree with that? 13 A: I understand, yes. 14 Q: All right. In your view in your 15 previous dealings, you would done the latter. You would 16 have -- 17 A: Probably. 18 Q: -- dealt -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: But the meeting was going towards the 21 former, the removal of these people from the Park. 22 A: It was a meeting run by the Attorney 23 General and ONAS recommending an injunction. And that's 24 what the specific item that was talked about and I didn't 25 disagree with that. If that's what their advice was I

83

1 relied on it. 2 Q: All right. And let me go to one of 3 your recommendations. You indicated very quickly in your 4 recommendation to Ms. Vella that you thought it would be 5 more effective if one (1) Ministry took the lead on 6 issues like this and you'd suggested ONAS; is that 7 correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. Would you agree with me 10 that in fact after Dudley George was shot, there was a 11 reorganization within the Government of how this issue 12 was being dealt with? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: All right. And, in fact, the Deputy 15 Ministers were taking a far more active role in the 16 management of the issue? 17 A: I'm aware of that, yes. 18 Q: Are you suggesting that that wasn't 19 the most effective way of dealing with it, for you would 20 have suggested having a different method? 21 A: No, I think that's -- was a good 22 improvement. My own belief is that ONAS should have a 23 Deputy Minister to give it the full support of the civil 24 service that -- the clout, so to speak, to manage these 25 issues.

84

1 Q: Right. To have one (1) person 2 responsible for the issues and the decisions that are 3 being made? 4 A: That's my opinion, yes. 5 Q: Right. In your view, it would have 6 been far more preferable to have somebody take the reins 7 of this Ipperwash issue, make the decisions and be 8 responsible for the decisions? 9 A: From start to finish. 10 Q: Right. 11 A: So -- and if it's an issue in August, 12 you call a meeting and you appoint a lead that's ONAS, or 13 even if it had been MNR, I would have been -- that would 14 have been fine. 15 You've got lots of lead time to manage the 16 issue -- 17 Q: Right. 18 A: -- and try to avoid situations that 19 could develop. And my opinion is that if you have one 20 person in charge, you know who's accountable, you know 21 they're focussed on it. 22 If you have a committee, nobody's focussed 23 on it. 24 Q: Right. 25 A: That's my opinion.

85

1 Q: And the use of IMC meetings to make 2 recommendations was, in your view, useless? 3 A: And maybe worse. 4 Q: What's that? 5 A: And maybe worse. 6 Q: Maybe worse. Thank you, those are 7 all my questions. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 9 very much. 10 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thank you, Mr. 11 Hodgson. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 13 very much. 14 Well, Mr. George, how long do you think 15 you might be? Should we take a break now or wait until 16 your finished? 17 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: I think I'd prefer 18 to take the break now -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. We'll 20 take our morning break now. 21 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 22 for fifteen (15) minutes. 23 24 --- Upon recessing at 10:21 a.m. 25 --- Upon resuming at 10:44 a.m.

86

1 2 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 3 resumed. Please be seated. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 8 George? 9 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: Good morning, 10 Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 12 morning. 13 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: Many of those areas 14 I would have otherwise canvassed with this witness have 15 already been addressed fully by other Counsel, so that's 16 significantly cut down on my estimate which I think 17 originally was a half hour to forty-five (45) minutes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, it'll be 19 a little bit less than that? 20 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: Yes, I won't take 21 that long. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: I would also like 24 to, Your Honour, acknowledge a caution to Mr. Scullion 25 yesterday when -- with respect to him cross-examining on

87

1 matters not specifically related to Ipperwash. 2 I will be doing that also and -- but I'm 3 cognizant of the fact we won't be calling evidence on 4 those issues. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We don't 6 want to get too deep into it but -- 7 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- obviously 9 some evidence regarding those matters is relevant. 10 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: My intention in 11 doing it is simply to expand on what Ms. Vella did last 12 Wednesday and for no other purpose than that. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: 16 Q: Good morning, Mr. Hodgson. 17 A: Good morning. 18 Q: My name is JONATHAN George, and I 19 represent the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation and I 20 appeared previously for several individuals who testified 21 at this Inquiry, including Chief Tom Bressette. 22 Now, there's only two (2) issues I'm going 23 to be dealing with you. First, as I just indicated to 24 His Honour, I want to expand on what Ms. Vella talked to 25 you about last Wednesday, in terms of your government's

88

1 policies and approach and how those were developed. 2 And further to that, I'm going to turn 3 your mind, specifically, to the Golden Lake example you 4 talked about. 5 And I won't be covering any area with 6 respect to Serpent Mounds or Nawash, but strictly on the 7 Golden Lake issue. And specific to the Ipperwash 8 incidents, I'm going to be asking you a few questions 9 about your interaction with Chief Bressette, okay? So 10 that's where I'm headed. 11 As I said, I don't want to spend a great 12 deal of time in this area, but I want to briefly further 13 explore your testimony of last Wednesday. 14 You'll recall Ms. Vella canvassing with 15 you, extensively, the policies of your party before and 16 at the time of the 1995 election. 17 Do you recall discussing that, generally, 18 with Ms. Vella? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. And you also spoke to Ms. 21 Vella about your government subsequent -- and your 22 subsequent implementation of those policies and Ms. Vella 23 turned your mind to the Common Sense Revolution. And you 24 spoke of the examples of Nawash, Serpent Mounds and -- 25 and Golden Lake.

89

1 And I take it you recall that also? 2 A: Yes, I do. 3 Q: Okay. Now, I'm not going to take you 4 through the finer points of The Common Sense Revolution 5 and it's subsequently prepared companion document; Ms. 6 Vella's already done that. But, I would ask that you and 7 everyone else bear with me for a moment as this may 8 require that I, sort of, turn your mind to your previous 9 testimony on those points. And I hope to do that 10 quickly. 11 Firstly, is it fair to me to -- to say 12 that in developing your party's campaign platform, and 13 when it ultimately came to your implementation of those 14 policies post election, and obviously given your area of 15 responsibility, I'm referring to the natural resource 16 area, that there was, in your mind, as was evidenced in 17 your party's positions and documents, a clear nexus 18 connection between Aboriginal treaty rights on the one 19 hand, and conservation and preservation of certain 20 species on the other hand? 21 Is that fair of me to say? 22 A: My understanding was that treaty law 23 came first -- 24 Q: Yeah. 25 A: -- Aboriginal rights, then federal

90

1 and provincial law. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: Game and fish laws are under 4 provincial law, so treaty and Aboriginal rights came 5 ahead of that. The courts had given some direction and 6 clarification around Aboriginal rights in respect to 7 hunting and fishing. The caveat that the courts had put 8 in place was that conservation of the species was 9 paramount. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: That the priority was that if a 12 treaty or an Aboriginal right allowed for the harvesting 13 of a species, that's fine, as long as it didn't endanger 14 the sustainability of that species. 15 Q: And -- and I think I have a good 16 grasp of your understanding of the hierarchy of -- of the 17 law as it was at the time, but I guess I -- I was just 18 trying to make a single point in that, in terms of the 19 discussion, those were always discussed together? 20 There was a nexus between exercising of 21 Aboriginal and treaty rights and conservation? 22 You couldn't talk about one without 23 talking about the other, in your view? 24 A: That's -- that's correct. 25 Q: Okay. And -- and I say that because,

91

1 without exception, those things Ms. Vella referred you to 2 and the answers -- your answers to her questions was 3 consistent with that, and -- and that's the only reason I 4 point that out. 5 Now, Ms. Vella referred you to a document 6 entitled, Bringing Common Sense to Community Development, 7 and -- I'm -- I'm not proposing that we bring that out. 8 I'm not -- I'm not going to refer you to any specific 9 portions of that because it's already been done. 10 But, generally, Ms. Vella recited to you 11 certain portions of that document and it talked about 12 striking a balance between Native hunting, fishing rights 13 and conservation. 14 That document talked about conservation 15 being at the forefront. It talked about Natives and non 16 Natives and their fishing and hunting and how those were 17 competing interests. So I mean that -- you'll agree with 18 me that that was a common theme through those documents 19 and through those portions Ms. Vella took you through? 20 A: Yes, it was, as well as economic 21 develop -- 22 Q: Sure. 23 A: -- for Aboriginal peoples. 24 Q: Okay. And in terms of those things I 25 just drew your attention to, conservation, balancing

92

1 competing interests, Ms. Vella asked you the question and 2 -- and I'm paraphrasing and I won't take that liberty if 3 someone doesn't wish me to. 4 But I think the question was whether or 5 not those ideas, sentiments, that recording of public 6 concerns, whatever you want to call them, informed you 7 policies. And you indicated that they did. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Do you recall having that discussion. 10 A: Those -- those policies came about 11 from five (5) years of consultation or four (4) years, 12 starting with the new directions and then a further 13 series of town hall meetings and consultations to the 14 appendixes for the Common Sense Revolution, yes. 15 Q: So your answer is those things that 16 you talked about with Ms. Vella -- 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: -- you stand by the proposition that 19 those things informed your policies -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- and how you implemented those 22 policies? Okay. 23 Now, Ms. Vella also referred you to a 24 document entitled, Voice for the North, a report of 25 northern -- the Northern Focus Tour. And that exhibit's

93

1 925 and I'm not going to -- unless you need to refer you 2 directly to that document. 3 But she read to you a small excerpt 4 respecting that Focus Tour and the finding in that tour 5 that people believed Queen's Park was alienating non 6 Natives, and people believed that two (2) systems of 7 conservation law are being created, one for Natives, one 8 for -- another one for Natives [sic]. 9 And I take it you -- and -- and I want to 10 move to -- to this quickly, but I take it you recall that 11 exchange with Ms. Vella as well? 12 A: Yes, I do. 13 Q: Okay. And in terms of describing 14 that sentiment, is that something also which informed 15 your policies, that public concern? 16 A: I think that's recorded that those 17 are things we heard, yes. 18 Q: Okay. But, the reason I'm asking you 19 is your -- your answer to Ms. Vella was that was simply a 20 documentation of public sentiment within the material, in 21 -- in the campaign material? 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: But I'm suggesting to you it's more 24 than that. That sentiment actually did, in fact, inform 25 your policy. It wasn't simply a documentation of it

94

1 within the literature. 2 Do you agree with that? 3 A: It led to a recognition that you 4 needed a balance, yes. 5 Q: Okay. Now, again, trying to move 6 quickly through this, you testified about the harvesting 7 agreement with Chief White Duck of the -- the Algonquins 8 up in Golden Lake and you recall speaking -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- extensively about that. And I 11 believe your testimony was that, in your view, that was 12 an exercise of balancing there, the First Nations rights 13 -- legal rights, with the concerns respecting 14 conservation of species. 15 And I take it you still agree with that 16 characterization you gave us? 17 A: Yes, I do. 18 Q: Okay. And I take it you stand by the 19 idea that your conduct and chosen course of action, 20 respecting the Golden Lake situation, was appropriate? 21 You don't second guess what you did in 22 that situation? 23 A: No, I think that was accepted by all 24 parties after it was announced that conservation would be 25 equal, the principle that guided the moose tag allocation

95

1 outside of the Park as well as inside, the angst went out 2 of the -- the situation. 3 Q: Now, Mr. Hodgson, I want to move 4 beyond, sort of, the general proposition that 5 conversation is an issue and conservation as related to 6 the Aboriginal -- Aboriginal rights. 7 Because, just generally speaking, and I'll 8 move to the specific in a moment, generally and primarily 9 referring to the pre-election period in 1995, the 10 information you were receiving and the concerns you were 11 hearing from special interest groups like the Ontario 12 Federation of Anglers and Hunters and individuals during 13 your consultations in town hall like meetings, was that 14 Native harvesting of fish and game was, in fact, 15 depleting resources more quickly than that of non 16 Natives. 17 So, that takes it a step further, but 18 that's something you were hearing as well, right? 19 A: That's not -- that's part of it, but 20 just to characterize it as Aboriginal versus non- 21 Aboriginal isn't entirely correct. 22 In my own riding, the major concern was 23 around lake trout and it had nothing to do with 24 Aboriginals, so I had to bring in slot limits which 25 weren't popular but the concern was around the

96

1 conservation of the species. 2 Q: And -- 3 A: And banning, in some cases, of any 4 ice fishing at all. 5 Q: And it's not my intention to 6 challenge you on this point, Mr. Hodgson. The only 7 reason I -- I -- 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: -- want to explore this further is 10 that Ms. Vella turned you -- turned you to a portion of, 11 Voices for the North, where it's actually documented in 12 your campaign literature that the Ontario Federation of 13 Angler and Hunters told Northern Focus in Thunder Bay 14 that the rate of Native harvesting of fish and game was 15 deleting resources more quickly than that of non Natives. 16 So that actually found its way into your 17 party's campaign documents. 18 You recall having that discussion with Ms. 19 Vella? 20 A: I do and I recall telling her that I 21 didn't have input on Voice for the North, but I did on 22 the rural policies. 23 Q: Okay. So that's not some -- that's 24 not a belief or view you shared, that that was -- 25 A: No, that -- that would have been

97

1 accurately reflecting what we heard in those 2 consultations. 3 Q: Okay. And that's my only point. 4 That's a concern you're consistently hearing, right, from 5 non Native people you are consulting, that there was an 6 imbalance. 7 I mean, you mentioned that more than twice 8 -- more than once to Ms. Vella, that there was, in fact, 9 an imbalance. 10 A: That might be too strong a word, but 11 I get your point. 12 Q: Okay. And what -- that leads me to 13 my ultimate question, sort of. With all of that 14 backdrop, in your mind, and if you don't know, just tell 15 me, but in terms of developing, initially in the 16 campaign, and ultimately in the implementation stage of 17 your policies, post-election, did you, yourself, or I 18 suppose better part -- better put, are you aware of 19 anyone within your party seeking out studies, or 20 conducting research, or otherwise consulting expert or 21 scholarly opinion, to determine whether or not that was, 22 in fact, the case, that the -- sorry, that the rate that 23 Native harvesting and fishing was, in fact, depleting 24 resources more quickly that non Natives? 25 A: I didn't view the issue that way.

98

1 Q: Okay. 2 A: I viewed the issue the same way I 3 viewed it locally; that you had to have good science on 4 the conversation as a base line, and then the job of the 5 Minister was managing people. 6 If I could give more people ownership of 7 our natural resources, they would treat it like their own 8 and treat it with respect. And that's why we went into 9 the hatchery program with volunteers, tried to make 10 people aware of the information. 11 When it came to the issue between Native 12 and non Native, a lot of my role was education in terms 13 of what the treaty rights were, what the law said, where 14 the Courts had given guidance. 15 When dealing with First Nations, lots of 16 my discussion had to revolve around the idea that you 17 have the right, but there's also the check of 18 conservation. 19 Both those discussions, with both 20 Aboriginal community and non-Aboriginal community, I 21 wouldn't say were a pleasant experience. But I think, 22 through my tenure as Minister, I wasn't hearing those 23 concerns at the end of two (2) years, that we had prior 24 to that. 25 Q: And -- and just so you know, Mr.

99

1 Hodgson, I'm not disputing or challenging you on the fact 2 that you and others may have apprised yourself of 3 research or science to suggest that -- 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: -- two (2) regimes of conservation 6 couldn't exist or that the totality of situ -- of the 7 situation taking into account all anglers and -- and 8 hunters. But that was having a negative impact on 9 conservation and resources. 10 But what I'm asking you, specifically, is: 11 Did you or your party, in your view, were you informed by 12 science that Native fishing and hunting was having a 13 disproportionate impact compared to non-Natives on 14 resources? 15 A: That wasn't how we framed the issue. 16 The issue we framed was: Whatever the science may be, it 17 should be based on the science. 18 Q: Right. 19 A: The sustainability of the species was 20 paramount. So if we had a specific document based on the 21 science of a particular species or area, we relied on 22 that. 23 But our principle and are guiding -- what 24 would guide our decision making, when we became 25 government, was going to be factually based.

100

1 Q: Right. And -- and I appreciate that 2 and understand that and recognizing what you just said, 3 recognizing that that's not how you framed the issue, I - 4 - I take it your answer to my question is: No, you 5 weren't informed by science that Native fishing -- 6 A: I can't speak to that. I wasn't 7 involved in that conversation. 8 Q: Thank you. Now I want to move to the 9 specific and subsequent to your appointment as Minister 10 of Natural Resources. You had an exchange with Ms. Vella 11 which, if anyone cares, is found at page 323 of the 12 transcript of January 11th, wherein you indicate that 13 your vision of natural resources and how you would like 14 to influence natural resource programs was based on the 15 views and ideas contained in your campaign message and 16 documents. 17 Do you recall saying that to Ms. Vella? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: Okay. And in terms of applying that, 20 again I've already made reference to it, but you spoke to 21 us about the specific example of Algonquin Park. 22 And you quite candidly told us that the 23 concern was over First Nations people hunting on the 24 eastside of Algonquin Park with permission from the 25 previous Provincial Government, the NDP I take it.

101

1 A: Well you're leaving out the main -- 2 the concern was over -- there was no check on 3 conservation. 4 Q: Right. 5 A: There was just ability to go in and 6 hunt. 7 Q: Okay. So I'll -- I'll ask you the 8 same question with respect to this specific issue, as I 9 did generally, and I'm not suggesting you did or should 10 have had or should have framed it a certain way. 11 But, in terms of a specific incident of 12 Algonquin Park, you or others within your government did 13 not take steps to inform yourself scientifically that 14 that was, in fact, taking place. 15 That with respect to the eastside of 16 Algonquin -- 17 A: The concern was that they wouldn't do 18 the science. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: That they wouldn't do the aerial 21 surveys for moose to determine what the conservation 22 level should be. 23 Q: The concern was who wouldn't? 24 A: The whole public. There was a 25 concern from the environmentalist that there shouldn't be

102

1 hunting inside the Park at all. 2 I wasn't one of those that shared that, 3 but that was a concern from the environmental community. 4 The concern from people around the area was that their 5 tags would be reduced if -- if moose were eliminated. 6 My concern was the sustainability of the 7 moose population and the objection to the previous 8 government's decision was that there was no science 9 behind it. 10 Q: What -- wouldn't it have been more 11 prudent to inform yourself, scientifically, prior to 12 taking the steps of unilaterally informing the First 13 Nation that this is no longer acceptable? 14 Wouldn't that have been a preferable 15 approach? 16 A: That's what we did. We said we're 17 going to institute aerial surveys, and that's how you 18 survey for moose -- 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: -- to draw a baseline on what the 21 sustainable harvest limit could be. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: You have a -- a right under the law 24 to hunt for moose in this area, but the check is, you 25 can't eliminate the moose from existence.

103

1 Q: Thank you, Mr. Hodgson. 2 A: And that's the same as how we 3 allocate the tags to non Natives. 4 Q: Sure. Now, moving on, you -- you 5 testified that you met with Chief Bressette after the -- 6 the shooting at some point. 7 And I still have some confusion over that 8 part of the testimony because when I looked at the 9 transcript of last Wednesday you indicated that it was 10 the fall of '95 and corrected yourself that it was the 11 fall of '96. 12 And when Mr. Rosenthal was asking you 13 questions today and Mr. -- yesterday and Mr. Scullion 14 today, you thought it could have been '96, '97, or 15 perhaps even '98. 16 So, I just want to know if you had a 17 chance to reflect on that and what -- what is your best 18 recollection -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- as to when you met with Chief 21 Bressette? 22 A: I'm not bad up here, eh? I thought 23 it -- it was definitely after September 6th. It was my 24 recollection, either late fall of '95 or early in '96. 25 Q: Okay.

104

1 A: And by refreshing my memory from the 2 documents I'm assuming that it was in the spring of '96. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: That could be February or March. But 5 my understanding, I know it was after the incident of 6 September 6th and it was before we had the correspondence 7 with the Federal Minister. 8 Q: Okay. And the reason I want to 9 clarify this with you, because it's an important issue 10 from My Client's perspective, is I heard your testimony 11 and up until this point you had indicated that you didn't 12 think, even as of today, that the First Nation had filed 13 a claim with respect to the Ipperwash Provincial Park. 14 That's the testimony you gave previously -- 15 A: That's -- 16 Q: -- in your testimony. 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Now, I -- Your Honour, I -- I 19 apologize to Mr. Hodgson's counsel. But I did bring to 20 his -- his attention Exhibit 253 I believe, and the 21 Witness has a copy of it and I believe one (1) was 22 provided to Commission Counsel, as well. It's a letter 23 dated April 9, 1996, to Michael Harris from Chief Tom 24 Bressette and that's already been made an exhibit. 25 Now, Mr. Hodgson, you've had an

105

1 opportunity to review that document? 2 A: Just right now, yes. 3 Q: Okay. And the reason I wanted to 4 bring it to your attention -- I don't want to spend a lot 5 of time on that document because I -- I simply want to 6 clarify the point at which you met with Chief Bressette, 7 because when you said possibly you could have met with 8 him in the fall of '96 that gave me concern -- 9 A: No, it -- 10 Q: -- that this letter would have been 11 received prior to that meeting which Chief Bressette. 12 A: No, it was definitely before that. 13 Q: Okay. Having reviewed that letter 14 does that refresh your memory about whether or not you 15 would have heard about the filing of a claim with respect 16 to the Park lands? 17 A: I know we hadn't -- when we met with 18 Chief Bressette they hadn't filed a claim. I don't 19 recall seeing this letter but I do recall the contents -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- from -- and it was totally 22 consistent with my thinking -- 23 Q: Okay. So, your memory is refreshed? 24 A: -- in another matter. Well, I've 25 testified here on numerous occasions. You might want to,

106

1 for the Commissioner, highlight what's in the -- in the 2 letter and then I can comment on that. 3 Q: Sure. Sure. I'll do that. Chief 4 Bressette indicates to Michael Harris in the letter that 5 Band Council had passed a resolution indicating that it 6 was their intent to file a land claim on the Park lands, 7 right, and you were aware of that at the time? 8 A: Well, I was aware that I thought 9 there should be, if there was a dispute about the land -- 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: -- a land claim filed. And the 12 second part is around the -- the burial site and that 13 that be explored and identified and all the proper steps 14 be followed. 15 Q: That -- that actually very nicely 16 brings me to my next question because when you spoke 17 about it previously in your testimony you simply said 18 things to the effect of, Chief Bressette had concerns. 19 And I said, I probably could help you in some and not in 20 others. 21 You actually haven't yet elaborated on 22 what those concerns were, but I take it some of those are 23 actually contained in this letter; that being the burial 24 grounds, the surrender, and issues with respect to filing 25 a land claim.

107

1 Does that refresh your memory as to the 2 concerns he expressed to you? 3 A: I remember the meeting very well. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: Peter Allen had set it up. Chief 6 Bressette came to my office. He stated the reason he was 7 seeing me that I was accessible. I thought that he was 8 very polite -- or is a very polite man, and it was 9 probably because he knew Peter Allen and I think they'd 10 had a relationship going back a number of years. 11 Nevertheless, he expressed a very, very 12 serious concern that he had for safety of his community. 13 I told him I didn't see that I could help him there. 14 I -- he also expressed concern around some 15 of the underlying factors that were causing angst in the 16 community. And in particular I think we talked about the 17 burial site and if there was any other issues that I 18 could help him with I would, but on the security part I 19 couldn't. 20 Q: Is it fair to say that -- obviously 21 I'm simply asking you of your impression and based on 22 what you heard him say, that his primary concern was the 23 well being of his community members; is that fair to say? 24 A: Exactly. 25 Q: Okay. Appreciating that it was a

108

1 cordial meeting is it -- is it fair to say that Chief 2 Bressette was in many ways critical? Maybe that's a 3 little too strong. 4 Is it fair to say that he showed a level 5 of frustration towards you about your government's 6 approach to the Ipperwash situation? 7 He -- he in a very nice way, showed you 8 that frustration was critical in some ways, he took that 9 forum to do that, fair? 10 A: I didn't interpret it that way. I 11 interpreted it as a -- an effort to try to work together 12 to resolve some of the underlying issues in the area. 13 Q: Sure, and I don't dispute that at 14 all. But what I'm suggesting to you is, in that context 15 he had criticism over the way your government handled it 16 and expressed that frustration in whatever way he did. 17 A: We didn't dwell on the past. 18 Q: Okay. Would you agree with my 19 suggestion that Chief Bressette, during this meeting, 20 didn't seem hostile to those occupying the Park and was 21 generally concerned, in your view, with working with them 22 and resolving the issues? 23 Is that fair to say? 24 A: He was concerned about what he felt 25 were outside influences that --

109

1 Q: Sure. 2 A: -- may affect the safety of his 3 community. 4 Q: Sure. 5 A: But, he was eager, I would say, to 6 work together to resolve the issues though. 7 Q: He didn't seem to be hostile or hold 8 any animosity toward anyone, fair? 9 A: Those aren't characteristics I would 10 ascribe to Chief Bressette. 11 Q: Sure. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Now you indicated also that one of 16 the results of it -- and I just want to clarify this 17 quickly, one of the results of that meeting was the 18 hiring of Lloyd Girman. Now, that's something that 19 wasn't known to me prior to your testimony, I can tell 20 you that much. 21 But just to be clear, the -- the retaining 22 the services of Lloyd Girman, that was not a joint 23 venture between yourself and the First Nation, that was 24 simply a step you and your government took as a result of 25 that process?

110

1 A: Yes. Mr. Bressette had asked me if - 2 - Chief Bressette had asked me if I could help and I said 3 I would where I thought I could, and that was one area 4 where I thought I could. 5 Q: And I believe you also mentioned in 6 your testimony, and I stand to be corrected, that Chief 7 Gordon Peters might have been involved in these talks as 8 well? 9 Is that accurate or not? 10 A: That's -- I don't recall the 11 specifics. I know that -- I can't recall the specifics, 12 but essentially that's correct. 13 Q: Okay. So, the Chiefs of Ontario was 14 involved in these discussions to some degree; is that 15 your recollection? 16 A: Well, my recollection is I know I had 17 a conversation with Chief Peters. I can't recall the 18 time or the specifics, but I know that we were pleased to 19 see that he was involved. 20 Q: Chief Peters and the Chiefs of 21 Ontario seemed to working hand in hand with the First 22 Nation and Chief Bressette; is that fair? 23 A: That was my understanding, yes. 24 Q: Okay. And instead of beating around 25 a bush, I'll just ask you: Is it your recollection that

111

1 Chief Peters was at this meeting you had with Chief 2 Bressette? 3 A: No, he wasn't. 4 Q: Okay. Was anyone else at that 5 meeting? 6 A: No. I believe it was Chief 7 Bressette, Peter Allen, myself, and there may -- may have 8 been Jeff Bangs. 9 Q: And your testimony is that you did, 10 at some point, have similar discussions with Chief 11 Peters? 12 A: I -- 13 Q: Those same issues you discussed with 14 Chief Bressette you had with Chief Peters? 15 A: I -- that's my assumption. I know I 16 talked to him, I can't recall the specifics. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Now, Mr. Scullion drew your attention 21 to the Serpent Mounds, spent a lot of time talking about 22 the Serpent Mounds example. I take -- that just 23 happened, so I take it you recall that and it's fresh in 24 your mind. 25 And what he did was sort of draw your

112

1 attention to and compare Serpent Mounds with Ipperwash, 2 right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And he drew to your attention the 5 fact that in Ipperwash, as at and before the occupation 6 in September of '95 there was no support from Chief and 7 Council, right? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: You recall that -- him bringing that 10 to your attention and you agreeing with it; that was your 11 understanding at the time? 12 A: And that was a significant issue. 13 Q: Sure. Now, with respect to Serpent 14 Mounds, was it ever the case that those occupying the 15 Provincial Park were disavowing themselves or being 16 critical of their leadership? 17 A: Not that I recall, no. 18 Q: Okay. Those are my questions. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 20 very much, Mr. George. 21 Mr. Horton...? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of

113

1 the Chiefs of Ontario. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Thank you, 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 8 morning. 9 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Good morning. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 12 Q: Mr. Hodgson, my name is Bill Horton. 13 I represent Chiefs of Ontario which as you know, is the 14 coordinating body for First Nations in Ontario and you'll 15 be happy to know that, based on the questioning of my 16 colleagues, I have really only one (1) remaining area 17 that I want to cover. 18 And unfortunately, it is an area that has 19 already been covered, so I will look for some indulgence 20 in perhaps repeating a little bit of what's happened in 21 that -- on that subject. 22 But, Mr. Hodgson, what I want to cover in 23 my questions is just a bit of a lead up to the dining 24 room meeting and then the dining room meeting itself. 25 And I'll -- I'll just say that the Commission has heard

114

1 other evidence that differs from yours on certain aspects 2 of that. 3 And of course you appreciate that the 4 Commissioner will have to make decisions where there's 5 different evidence about which evidence to accept and 6 which evidence to reject. 7 Because of the importance of these areas, 8 I want to make sure that you had drawn to your attention 9 other evidence that has been given and make sure that you 10 understand that what you're saying is different to that 11 evidence, all right? So that -- 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: -- that's the exercise that I'm going 14 to go through. And what I want to focus on, just in the 15 first instance on that, is that I understand your 16 evidence to be very clear, that you understood that it 17 was the IMC meeting that decided that you should be the 18 spokesperson; is that right? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And I think at one point you said 21 that you thought that Ron Fox was the person who had been 22 putting forward the idea that you should be the 23 spokesperson. 24 Did I get that right? 25 A: That's correct. I assumed that he

115

1 was the Chair of the IMC meeting -- 2 Q: Right. 3 A: -- working for ONAS. 4 Q: Right. Now, let me just trace some 5 of the evidence that we have with respect to this -- the 6 theme of your being the spokesperson. And I would like 7 to start with something that I think you might agree with 8 and that is the evidence of Ron Vrancart. 9 I believe Mr. Millar is going to assist. 10 We'll take a little time with this. The evidence of Ron 11 Vrancart from October 27, and it's at page 32. 12 And this predates September 4. So, Mr. 13 Vrancart in this part of his evidence is talking about 14 advice that he gave you prior to September 4, all right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: That's the timeframe we're in. And 17 at line 25 he says -- rather the question he's asked: 18 "And you've indicated that you advised 19 your Minister that you didn't think 20 this was your issue. Why was that so?" 21 And the answer that he gave was: 22 "I was of the opinion that because the 23 OPP had become involved in this case 24 and it appeared that this issue was 25 going to linger, my intuition told me

116

1 that, as a Deputy Minister, sometimes 2 you have the instinct to what to 3 protect your Minister from getting into 4 situations that may not reflect 5 positively either on him or on his 6 Ministry. 7 And my intuition told me that this was 8 a situation where perhaps it would be 9 best for the Minister to duck this one 10 and have one of his colleagues either 11 the Attorney General or the Solicitor 12 General take the lead on this. 13 Q: And did he follow that advice? 14 A: He did take that advice." 15 And then the question: 16 "Is there anything else of significance 17 that you recall, sir, from the 18 September 4th of 1995, aside from 19 receiving this information and passing 20 that along the line?" 21 So, it's -- that's marks as September 4 of 22 earlier. 23 Do you agree with Mr. Vrancart that he 24 gave you the advice on September 4 or earlier, that you 25 should advise -- avoid being the spokesperson because it

117

1 might not reflect positively on you or your Ministry? 2 Do you agree with that -- that much? 3 A: No, I don't. He gave me the advice 4 all summer, or all of August, that it wasn't our issue; 5 that the IMC was headed by ONAS and the police were on 6 the ground. And that's -- I recall that very 7 specifically, all summer. 8 Q: So -- so that's something you 9 disagree with? 10 A: I agree with his conclusion that it 11 wasn't our issue, but he didn't give me that explanation 12 of why it wasn't. 13 Q: All right. Well, then let me take 14 you to another portion of Mr. Vrancart's evidence where 15 he says exactly the same thing in another way, and that's 16 his evidence of October 31st, 2005, page 47. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And this was while he was being 21 cross-examined by Mr. Horner, at line 21: 22 "Q: And I took from your evidence 23 that this was a political calculation 24 on your part, that this would not be a 25 good issue for the Minister to be seen

118

1 as leading. At the small..." 2 And the answer: 3 "At the small "p" political, yes, a 4 small "p" political, yes. 5 Q: Small "p" political?" 6 And then he goes on to say: 7 "Correct. 8 Q: It would -- it could affect his 9 ability to work in other areas? 10 Correct [was the answer]. 11 And when you say, "small "p" political, 12 these decisions on communication, on 13 whether to take the lead on an issue or 14 not are generally political decisions, 15 correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: They're about messaging? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And did you foresee that the 20 Minister's involvement in this 21 situation could potentially highlight 22 tensions between the Ministry and First 23 Nations people? 24 A: It possibly could, yes. 25 Q: It could upset that delicate

119

1 balance that you spoke of with the 2 Minister? 3 A: Yes." 4 Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Vrancart 5 that part of the thinking as to why you should not be 6 spokesman on this issue was that it was -- it could 7 interfere with the work of your ministry and -- and your 8 relations with First Nations people? 9 A: It was never communicated to me that 10 way. 11 Q: All right. And I think you had 12 mentioned, in your evidence, that you did have a good 13 working relationship with Mr. Vrancart? 14 A: Yes, I did. 15 Q: And you had good communications with 16 Mr. Vrancart? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And I assume, therefore, that you 19 discussed this type of issue with Mr. Vrancart? 20 A: As I mentioned, it was his advice all 21 summer -- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- that it wasn't our issue. 24 Q: Right. And you can't think of any 25 reason why Mr. Vrancart would want to misrepresent the

120

1 discussions that -- that you had on that -- on that 2 subject? 3 A: No, he may very well have felt that. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 5 Lauwers? 6 MR. PETER LAUWERS: With the greatest of 7 respect, this is Mr. Vrancart speaking to his opinion -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it is. 9 MR. PETER LAUWERS: -- not to the -- the 10 discussion that he had with his Minister. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I -- 12 MR. PETER LAUWERS: The Witness has said 13 he didn't have that discussion. That's the end of it, 14 but to suggest that there's a misrepresentation going on 15 is unfair. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 17 may be right, Mr. Lauwers, there's nothing to suggest 18 that here. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 21 Q: Mr. -- Mr. Hodgson, the types of 22 discussions that you had with Mr. Vrancart, did they 23 cover the question of what was politically astute for you 24 to do as a Minister and not politically astute to do as a 25 Minister?

121

1 A: No. 2 Q: So you are suggesting, then, that if 3 Mr. Vrancart had the thought that this was not something 4 that you should do as a Minister for those reasons, that 5 he did not share those -- those thoughts with you; is 6 that what you're saying? 7 A: He did not. He was very 8 professional. We -- I can't -- can't recall one (1) 9 instance where we talked about politics or political 10 perceptions, it was all business. 11 Q: Well, let -- let me go on, then, to 12 the evidence that Mr. Vrancart gave on October 27, page 13 41. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: And this had to do with the reason 18 why you agreed to be spokesperson on September 5. 19 A: All right. 20 Q: And he was being questioned by Mr. 21 Worme and at line 42 he was asked whether his advice 22 changed -- line 42. Sorry, sorry. It should be page 42 23 line 1. Sorry about that, page 42, line 1. 24 Actually, the pagination here seems to be 25 different. The -- the lead-in question was:

122

1 "And I take it then, Mr. Vrancart, that 2 your advice to your Minister would have 3 changed as a result of receiving these 4 minutes [and he's talking about the 5 minutes of September 5 meeting] from 6 [and then he says] pardon me, this 7 information through your executive 8 assistant from the Interministerial 9 Committee?' 10 And the answer is, that Mr. Vrancart 11 gives: 12 "Actually, my advice didn't change. 13 However, it had been agreed at the 14 Interministerial Committee that the 15 Ministry of Natural Resources would, 16 because we were the owner of the Park 17 so to speak, that we would be the 18 spokesperson for this issue." 19 And then he goes on to say: 20 "And particularly since the Premier's 21 office had been involved in those 22 discussions, I felt that it was 23 appropriate that our Minister take the 24 lead in terms of this particular 25 communication with the media, but my

123

1 continuing advice was that we should 2 not be in front of this issue." 3 And although he does not reference a 4 discussion with you at this particular point, do you 5 agree or disagree that you understood that one of the 6 reasons why Mr. Vrancart was suggesting that you do take 7 the lead on this particular communication was because the 8 Premier's office had been involved in the IMC 9 discussions? 10 A: Not on September the 5th, prior to 11 the press scrum. My information from Mr. Vrancart was 12 quite clear, it was very factual. It was that this is a 13 recommendation from the Interministerial Committee. 14 Q: And so even though Mr. Vrancart says 15 that it was in his mind that because it was the Premier - 16 - because the Premier's office had been involved in those 17 discussions, you deny having heard from Mr. Vrancart on 18 September the 5th that that was a reason why he was rec - 19 - making the recommendation he was, is that right? 20 A: Before the press interview, yes. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: I found out about it after. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: I'm not sure which day after, but I 25 found out about that Deb Hutton was involved after.

124

1 Q: All right. And if I can then take 2 you to his evidence -- sorry, there's a problem with not 3 having... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Can I go to page 144 on the same day, 8 please. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Again, Mr. Vrancart repeats the same 13 point. Apparently it was an important point, at line 17. 14 Start at 15: 15 "Now, was there any discussion about 16 who would speak on this matter to the 17 public? 18 A: My advice to the Minister was not 19 to get in front of this issue and not 20 to be the spokesperson for it. 21 However, subsequently the blockade 22 committee had an alternate view and 23 since the Premier's office was involved 24 in that discussion, Mr. Hodgson ended 25 up initially being the spokesman for

125

1 that issue." 2 And again he highlights the fact that it 3 was the Premier's involvement and the Premier's office 4 involvement in that discussion that was a key factor, in 5 his mind. 6 And you're saying that whether it was a 7 key factor in his mind or not, he did not communicate 8 that to you, is that what you're saying? 9 A: Not prior to the press scrum. 10 Q: Are you -- are you saying that he did 11 communicate that to you prior to, say, the dining room 12 meeting? 13 A: Yes, I was aware of that. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: I'm assuming I was aware of that 16 before that. I know for sure I was aware of it after the 17 7th or after the events. 18 Q: All right. And I want to go to Mr. 19 Bangs' evidence on November 3, 2005, at page 63. 20 Now, Mr. Bangs was the one who was 21 directly reporting to you on the IMC meetings? 22 A: Prior to the scrum, I arrived at the 23 offices of Jeff and Peter Allen and Ron Vrancart. 24 Q: Right. I'm not -- I'm not 25 referencing this to the scrum at this point, Mr. Hodgson,

126

1 but I don't mind separating it between the two (2) if you 2 want to. 3 You're saying Jeff Bangs did not report to 4 you before the scrum, is that what you're saying? 5 A: No, he gave a briefing on the -- on 6 the IMC -- 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: And here's the messages for the 9 scrum. 10 Q: Right. 11 A: It was Ron Vrancart that led that 12 discussion, did the talking, as I recall. 13 Q: All right. So -- so Jeff Bangs did 14 advise you on the -- on the IMC before the scrum? 15 A: Not before the scrum. I think Ron 16 Vrancart -- 17 Q: Not before the -- 18 A: -- did the talking. 19 Q: Ron Vrancart. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: All right. And so can we assume that 22 Mr. Vrancart heard about it from Mr. Bangs? 23 A: Heard about what? 24 Q: I'm -- I'm sorry. Let me -- let me 25 back up on that. Let me just go to the evidence of Mr.

127

1 Bangs at page 63. 2 You heard directly from Mr. Vrancart about 3 the IMC meeting, is that correct? 4 A: Prior to the scrum, yes. 5 Q: Prior to the scrum. And this is what 6 Mr. Bangs said about the IMC meeting of September 5 at 7 page 63: 8 "All right and you came away from that 9 meeting I take it well maybe just ask 10 what was your impression then when you 11 came away from that meeting? 12 A: The main issue that affected me 13 coming out of that meeting was the 14 notion that my Minister was being asked 15 or directed to be the main spokesman on 16 this matter. 17 Q: And who provided that direction? 18 A: That came from the Premier's 19 office from Deb Hutton, okay? 20 Q: Okay." 21 And then dropping down to line 17 on page 22 64: 23 "Q: As a result of receiving these 24 directions from the Premier's office, 25 what did you do?

128

1 A: Return to the Ministry and 2 notified my Minister that this 3 discussion had occurred and that this 4 was the role he was being asked to 5 play. 6 He did not agree but having been given 7 the direction, he then carried it out 8 but was not -- certainly not entirely 9 comfortable in doing so." 10 So Mr. Bangs seems to be testifying number 11 1, that the most important thing he took from that 12 meeting was a direction from the Premier's office that 13 you were to be the spokesman. 14 Do you agree or disagree that -- that Mr. 15 Bangs told you that at any time? 16 A: Oh I agree he told me that. 17 Q: All right. And do you agree or 18 disagree that he told you that before you carried it out? 19 A: My recollection is that Ron Vrancart 20 did the talking on the twenty (20) minutes that I was 21 given and that it was the direction of the IMC that I be 22 the spokesperson. 23 Q: All right. Well Mr. Bangs -- the -- 24 the only occasion on which you carried it out was the 25 scrum, correct?

129

1 A: That's right. 2 Q: All right. Mr. Bangs' evidence and 3 it seems to be -- have been the most important thing in 4 his mind out of that IMC meeting was that the Premier's 5 office had directed that you should be the spokesperson, 6 that he communicated that to you and that you carried it 7 out? 8 And -- and so do I understand you to say 9 that you disagree that he told you that before you 10 carried it out? 11 A: No. It came -- came from the IMC 12 meeting and they told me that. 13 Q: That you were given the direction and 14 that you were given the direction by the Premier's -- by 15 the Premier's representative or the Premier's office at 16 the IMC meeting? 17 A: Not prior to the scrum but even if 18 they had it wouldn't have made a difference. I mean it 19 was Deb Hutton's opinion. And I'm sure there was good 20 thinking behind it but I disagreed with it. 21 Q: Well let me find out from you, Mr. 22 Hodgson, whether you agree or disagree that you 23 understood that Deb Hutton had the authority on behalf of 24 the Premier to direct you to be a spokesperson? 25 A: No. I wouldn't have assumed that.

130

1 Q: All right. 2 A: I would have assumed at the IMC 3 meeting she would have had her influence or input at an 4 IMC meeting but my understanding was that this 5 recommendation came out of that meeting. 6 And that's what was communicated to me 7 prior to the scrum. After the scrum I probably knew Deb 8 Hutton had been in the meeting and chipped in her advice 9 and that came out of the IMC meeting's recommendations. 10 Q: I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Hodgson, 11 that both Mr. Vrancart and Mr. Bangs placed particular 12 importance on that direction because of the involvement 13 of the Premier's office in initiating it. 14 Are you saying that that was not 15 communicated to you? That you didn't understand that 16 that -- that that was what they placed importance on? 17 A: No. My understanding prior to that 18 scrum was we were focussed on a very specific briefing 19 and that this recommendation come out of that committee 20 and I'd said no, I wasn't going to do it. 21 And I instructed Jeff to go back and relay 22 that message back. And then about -- we were still 23 discussing the issue. I was informed that the press were 24 arriving at my office. 25 Q: Right. Let -- let me go to the

131

1 meeting of September 6th and that would be the meeting at 2 which Mr. Bangs had your instruction to go back and say 3 you wouldn't do it; is that right? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: All right. And in fact even before 6 that meeting occurred on the 6th you had decided that you 7 would avoid the Cabinet meeting, correct? 8 A: I wasn't going to be the 9 spokesperson, that's correct. 10 Q: Right. And that you would be late 11 for the Cabinet meeting in order to avoid the scrum, 12 correct? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: All right. And the Cabinet meeting 15 started at what, about 10:00? 16 A: That's the normal time, yes. 17 Q: The normal time? So that the Cabinet 18 meeting would have been ongoing at about the same time 19 that the IMC meeting of September 6th was going on. 20 They overlapped, is that correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: All right. And I'd like to refer you 23 to the evidence of Julie Jai on July 31st, 2005, where 24 she refers to her handwritten notes. 25 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Would you check

132

1 that -- 2 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Sorry, July 31. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Could it be August? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is 8 August 31st is it? 9 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: We're just checking 10 that -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, okay. 12 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- Commissioner. We 13 just need to get to 87. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Forgive me, Mr. 18 Hodgson, it's my fault. I should have notified 19 Commission Counsel of these references beforehand. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I want to refer to 24 her testimony -- can we go to page 87? Are we at page 25 87? We're at page 88 right now.

133

1 Okay. We're fine at line 20. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 4 Q: Now, there was a discussion at the 5 IMC meeting about -- 6 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Where are we? 7 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: We're at line 20 on 8 page 87. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 11 Q: And there's a discussion about in 12 effect an exchange between Ms. Hutton and Jeff Bangs 13 about the spokesperson issue and in fact there's a 14 reference in Julie Jai's notes to this. I won't take you 15 to the notes unless we have to, but the answer she gives 16 to a question is: 17 "I don't recall anything beyond the 18 notes so then Deb Hutton says, But we 19 want to be seen as having control over 20 this so minister's can't duck if 21 they're scrummed, like by the press." 22 And then continuing with the quote: 23 "And the Premier is not averse to this 24 being a provincial action. 25 Q: And do you recall anything more

134

1 about this comment by Ms. Hutton? 2 A: Well, I'm -- yes, I mean now that 3 I see my notes, I mean this is a 4 refreshed recollection, but Deb is sort 5 of responding in a way to what Jeff has 6 said. Like, they're both political 7 staff, both Jeff and -- so while Jeff 8 Bangs is sort of saying that the MNR 9 Minister doesn't really want to wear 10 this and would rather kind of keep a 11 low profile on it and have someone else 12 take the lead, Deb is saying, Well, the 13 Premier is not averse to sort of being 14 visible on this issue." 15 So, in other words a different reaction 16 from her Minister than what Jeff had from his Minister. 17 And then if we continue on to page 89, actually the 18 bottom of page 88, line 24. 19 The question starts at line 22: 20 "So that notwithstanding the position 21 that Mr. Bangs may have taken on behalf 22 of his Minister, Ms. Hutton saying that 23 he -- you can't duck the issue of..." 24 My -- my -- no, I should be reading from 25 up there, because my note is not very clear -- 25.

135

1 "You can't duck the issue of by 2 scrummed, that means being involved 3 with members of the fifth estate, the 4 press? 5 A: Yes. If the media comes she is -- 6 she is indicating to Jeff that his 7 Minister should be prepared to speak." 8 And then on the next page, top of page 3: 9 "This is me speaking and I obviously 10 can't take -- don't take very detailed 11 notes when I'm talking myself." 12 And she moves to another point. 13 Now, what we have, from Julie Jai's note 14 and her evidence, is a reference to Deb Hutton talking 15 about the Premier's wishes -- 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: -- that Ministers should not duck if 18 scrummed on this issue, all right? 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: And I am suggesting to you that that 21 is exactly what you had done that very morning; isn't 22 that correct? 23 You had tried to -- 24 A: No. 25 Q: -- duck a scrum?

136

1 A: I avoided a scrum. It wasn't my 2 issue. 3 Q: Right. I'm not -- 4 A: So -- 5 Q: I'm not arguing with you -- 6 A: That's not ducking the issue. It 7 never had been my issue. 8 Q: Yeah, I'm not arguing your motivation 9 at this point, Mr. Hodgson. I'm saying to you that you 10 had made a deliberate decision to avoid a scrum that very 11 morning, correct? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Okay. And Mr. Bangs was aware of the 14 fact that you had made a deliberate decision to avoid a 15 scrum that very morning, correct? 16 A: Probably, yeah. 17 Q: And he was aware that you had ducked 18 that scrum by taking the extreme measure of -- of not 19 attending, or attending late, a Cabinet meeting, correct? 20 He was aware of that? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: All right. And he was in a meeting 23 where the Premier's executive assistant was commenting, 24 negatively, on Ministers ducking scrums on this issue, 25 correct?

137

1 A: I was never aware of that. I wasn't 2 at the meeting and I -- 3 Q: I'm suggesting -- 4 A: -- don't recall that -- 5 Q: All right. 6 A: -- discussion. 7 Q: I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Hodgson, 8 that Mr. Bangs must have told you that the executive 9 assistant of the Premier had commented, adversely, on 10 exactly the kind of behaviour that you were engaging in 11 that very morning. 12 A: I don't recall that. 13 Q: And I suggest to you that Mr. Bangs 14 was very clear in reporting on that meeting to you and, 15 in fact, on reporting on both meetings to you, that he 16 viewed the direction that you be the spokesperson as 17 coming directly from the Premier; isn't that correct? 18 A: That's correct, but the sequencing, 19 like I said, before the scrum; after the scrum, at some 20 point, I knew that. 21 Q: All right. And certainly before the 22 dining room meeting you knew that? 23 A: Yes. I would -- I knew for sure that 24 Deb Hutton had played a role with Jeff after the events. 25 Prior to the dining room meeting, I knew that she had

138

1 chipped in with the IMC -- 2 Q: All right. 3 A: And the recommendation from the IMC 4 had been that I be the spokesperson. 5 Q: All right. So let's be very clear. 6 You knew from Jeff Bangs that he viewed the direction as 7 having come from the Premier via Deb Hutton; is that 8 correct? 9 A: No, that's not. There's a nuance in 10 there that I knew that probably was aware that she had 11 contributed to that meeting, but I still was of the 12 opinion that the direction came officially through the 13 IMC committee. 14 Q: I'm not concerned about the nuance, 15 Mr. Hodgson, I'm concerned about the direct question that 16 I asked. 17 So let me -- let me take you to Jeff 18 Bangs' evidence on this point. 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: And see whether -- whether you agree 21 with it. And that's Jeff Bangs' evidence of November 21. 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: Page 38. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

139

1 Q: And I was questioning Mr. Bangs at 2 this point: 3 "Q: You were clear, I think, in your 4 evidence that you treated Ms. Hutton's 5 comments at the IMC meeting -- meetings 6 as a direction that the Minister of 7 Natural Resources, your Minister, was 8 to take the lead in terms of being the 9 Government representative on the 10 Ipperwash issue? 11 A: Yes. Both in the meetings and in 12 other discussions I had with her in 13 that time frame. 14 Q: Yes, and I was just going to 15 mention that. And you were clear in 16 your evidence that you took that as a 17 direction from the Premier via Ms. 18 Hutton, correct? 19 A: Yes." 20 And then going down further: 21 "Q:..." 22 Actually I'll continue: 23 "Q: You did mention also in your 24 evidence that I think over this 25 timeframe you had a number of

140

1 discussions, more than one (1) 2 discussion, in any event, with Ms. 3 Hutton in an attempt to try and change 4 that result; is that correct? 5 That's -- 6 A: That's correct. 7 All right. And I did not understand 8 from your evidence that you or your 9 Minister spoke to anyone other than Ms. 10 Hutton in an attempt to change that 11 direction; is that correct? 12 I don't believe I did." 13 And then he goes on to say that you 14 strongly disagreed. 15 Now, I want to come back to the point that 16 was very clearly made by Mr. Bangs, and there's no nuance 17 here, that he took that as a direction from the Premier 18 via Ms. Hutton. 19 Did you understand that Mr. Bangs took the 20 direction about your being a spokesman as being a 21 direction from the Premier via Ms. Hutton? 22 A: No. 23 Q: So it's your evidence, then, that, 24 although he took it as a direction from the Premier, he 25 failed to -- to pass that along to you as a direction

141

1 from the Premier. Is that -- 2 A: No, even if he had I would have 3 assumed it was from Deb Hutton. 4 Q: Yeah. I'm not questioning about what 5 you -- what you would have done if he'd done something 6 different. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Your evidence is that, although he 9 may have understood that this was a direction from the 10 Premier, you didn't understand that it was a direction 11 from the Premier; is that correct? 12 A: That's correct. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now, coming to the dining room 17 meeting, Mr. Hodgson, you, I think, have said that you 18 were in your office when you were told my Mr. Vrancart 19 and Mr. Bangs to go to that meeting; is that correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And other than having some general 22 sense that it was an information meeting, you didn't have 23 any -- any more specific idea what the meeting was to be 24 about? 25 A: I assumed it was a meeting that was

142

1 supposed to be held that I had attended, that the other 2 ministers hadn't attended, but other than that, no. 3 Q: And you've also told us that you -- 4 you didn't know the Premier was going to be there; is 5 that correct? 6 A: I wasn't aware of that, no. 7 Q: So it came as a surprise to you when 8 you saw the Premier there; is that what you're -- 9 A: No, it wouldn't be a surprise. I 10 probably assumed he'd be there but I wasn't told that. 11 Q: No. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: And -- but you had no firm knowledge 16 that he would be there; is that what you're saying? 17 A: I wasn't told that, yes. 18 Q: All right. Now, when you went to the 19 dining room meeting, Mr. Hodgson, I'm going to suggest to 20 you that you had in your mind certain things. You were 21 at the meeting and you knew that you had missed the 22 Cabinet meeting, correct? 23 A: Because I was requested to go to 24 another meeting; I assume that's from Deb Hutton. 25 Q: Right.

143

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Well, for some reason you thought 3 that a number of ministers would not be at the Cabinet 4 meeting but would be at this other meeting; is that 5 right? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: But the reason you missed the Cabinet 8 meeting was because you didn't want to do the scrum? 9 A: No, I was going to be late for the 10 Cabinet meeting. 11 Q: Right. You certainly -- you 12 certainly did duck the scrum, right? 13 A: I had never had any request from the 14 media to talk to them either -- 15 Q: Hmm hmm. 16 A: -- so. 17 Q: You anticipated that there would be 18 follow-up questions from the scrum you had the previous 19 day, right? 20 A: That was a potential. 21 Q: Right. And that's exactly the reason 22 why you were late for the Cabinet meeting. You told us 23 several times. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Right. Is there any reason why

144

1 you're now reluctant to -- to confirm that that's the 2 reason why you were late for the Cabinet meeting? 3 A: You said where I was going to miss 4 the whole Cabinet meeting -- 5 Q: But you had missed -- 6 A: -- I'm trying to clarify. 7 Q: -- the -- well you -- I said you had 8 missed the Cabinet meeting; is that correct? 9 A: Right. I just want to clarify that 10 the intent was just to be late, not to miss the whole 11 meeting, but then I got a request to go to another 12 meeting. 13 Q: Well, let's go back to my question. 14 You had -- at the moment you were in the dining room 15 meeting, right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: The Cabinet meeting was over? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And you had missed it? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Right. And the reason you hadn't 22 gone to it, in the first place, was because you didn't 23 want to do the scrum? 24 A: I wasn't going to be the 25 spokesperson, yes.

145

1 Q: Right. So that was the reason. And 2 I suggest to you, Mr. Hodgson, that at that point you 3 knew, that by avoiding the press on that occasion, by 4 ducking the scrum and by having Mr. Bangs go to the 5 meeting on the 6th and say that you were not going to be 6 the spokesperson, you knew that you were going against 7 something that was being directed by the Premier via Deb 8 Hutton; isn't that correct? 9 A: No, I knew it was directed, probably 10 by that time, I'm assuming, by Deb Hutton. But I didn't 11 assume it was from the Premier, no. 12 Q: And I'm suggesting to you, as well, 13 Mr. Hodgson, that at the meetings of September 5 and 14 September 6, Mr. Bangs had taken a rather contrary view 15 to the view that had been put forward by Ms. Hutton; 16 isn't that correct? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And, in fact, whereas Ms. Hutton had 19 taken, I'll use a general term, a -- a rather aggressive 20 stance and a stance to move quickly, Mr. Bangs, as your 21 representative, had taken a different view and questioned 22 the need for an injunction; isn't that right? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: Right. And I suggest to you that 25 when you were in that dining room meeting, you were

146

1 concerned about the fact that the Premier may not think 2 that you were on side with what he wanted to do with 3 Ipperwash; isn't that right? 4 A: No, it's not true. 5 Q: And I'm suggesting to you, Mr. 6 Hodgson, that you were concerned, at the dining room 7 meeting, to make sure that the Premier understood that 8 notwithstanding the fact that you had disobeyed his 9 direction to be spokesperson, notwithstanding the fact 10 that you had missed the Cabinet meeting, notwithstanding 11 the fact that your executive assistant had resisted the 12 suggestions of Deb Hutton as to how the matter should be 13 handled, that you were very concerned about making sure 14 that the Premier understood that you, personally, were 15 onside; isn't that right? 16 A: No. In fact, my concern at the time 17 was to clarify that I wasn't going to be the 18 spokesperson. Larry Taman mentioned it in his 19 presentation; if he had not, I would have discussed that 20 with the Premier. 21 Q: Well, Mr. Hodgson, let me -- let me 22 refer you to some other evidence to see -- just to make 23 sure I -- I think you disagree with it, but I want to 24 make sure that I have that from you. 25 We have Ms. Todres testifying, and I'll go

147

1 to it if you want me to, that she has a very clear 2 recollection of you being at that meeting; we're talking 3 about the dining room meeting. 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: And about you being very agitated and 6 very concerned. And that doesn't fit with what you've 7 testified here at this Inquiry, does it? 8 A: No, it doesn't. Not at all. 9 Q: And I suggest to you, Mr. Hodgson, 10 that the reason you were agitated and concerned was 11 because you felt exposed by the fact that, up to that 12 point in time, at the IMC meetings, your Executive 13 Assistant, with your approval, had really resisted the 14 approach that was being put forward by the Premier at the 15 IMC meetings; isn't that correct? 16 A: That's absolutely false. My only 17 concern was that the lead be with the Ministers who had 18 been in charge with the issue all of August; knew more 19 about the issue, knew about injunctions which I knew 20 nothing or had very limited knowledge about. 21 When that was stated by Larry Taman that 22 Charlie Harnick would be the spokesperson, that was the 23 end of the issue for me. 24 If it hadn't been addressed by Mr. Taman I 25 had full intention to talk to the Premier after the

148

1 meeting, like I normally did on most issues that I had a 2 concern with. 3 Q: Well, with respect, Mr. Hodgson, and 4 I won't take you to all of the evidence that suggests 5 otherwise, but may I take you to Tab 25 of the Counsel -- 6 of the Commission Counsel brief. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: And I'm just going to take you to 12 page -- you have to go kind of into it, because the 13 pagination is a little different on this, but it's page - 14 - the second page 3, if you will. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: So this is the 19 September 5th meeting? 20 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yes. September 5th 21 meeting. 22 THE WITNESS: Is this the handwritten 23 notes? 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON:

149

1 Q: The handwritten notes. 2 A: With the "3" at the top? 3 Q: Yes. So it's the second "3." 4 There's two (2) page 3's. 5 A: Oh. 6 Q: You're looking for the word "blocked" 7 at the top of the page I want. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: And at the bottom there's a 13 handwritten note which has been extensively examined on, 14 where Jeff Bangs appears to have said something like: 15 "Discussed with Minister this morning. 16 If we get injunction we'll be expected 17 to enforce it and will escalate things. 18 Could lead to confrontation." 19 And I suggest to you that Mr. Bangs did 20 much more at those IMC meetings than simply make sure 21 that the right professionals were looking at the issue; 22 that he communicated discussions that he had with you and 23 concerns that you had about the possibility that an 24 injunction will escalate things and could lead to a 25 confrontation.

150

1 A: That was a question that I had, yes. 2 Q: Right. And that was something that 3 he raised at the IMC meetings? 4 A: That's my understanding, yes. 5 Q: Right. And those were the -- those 6 were comments that were diametrically opposed to the 7 kinds of comments that were being made by Deb Hutton, and 8 you knew that, didn't you? 9 A: No, I didn't. 10 Q: And so your evidence is, then, that 11 Mr. Bangs went to these meetings. If -- let's put it 12 this way: If Mr. Bangs had a confrontation with Deb 13 Hutton, in effect of these meetings, where they had 14 diametrically different -- different views, and there was 15 a discussion about that, that wasn't communicated to you; 16 is that right? 17 A: The general nature of the discussion 18 would be discussed with me. Any outcomes from the 19 meeting, I would assume would have been discussed with 20 me, yes. 21 Q: All right. And in terms of other 22 evidence, then, about what you -- you did at the dining 23 room meeting, Mr. Hodgson, clearly you've -- you disagree 24 with Ms. Todres' evidence about the comment that's 25 attributed to you; isn't that correct?

151

1 A: Yes, I do. I did not -- 2 Q: All right. 3 A: -- say that. 4 Q: And also we have a note of a 5 discussion between Mr. Fox and Ms. Jai that would have 6 taken place shortly after the dining room meeting -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- in which Mr. Fox stated in -- to 9 Julie Jai, and then this is confirmed by subsequent 10 evidence, both by Mr. Fox and Mr. [sic] Jai -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: -- that at the dining room meeting, 13 you and the Premier came out strong. 14 And just to be clear, you disagree that 15 you came out strong at the dining room meeting; is that 16 right? 17 A: Yes, I do. I don't recall saying a 18 word at the dining room meeting. 19 Q: Right. So you'll agree with me that 20 your recollection of the dining room meeting is directly 21 at odds with what I've just summarized as the evidence of 22 Ms. Todres and Mr. Fox; is that correct? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: Okay. And Mr. Hodgson, what I'm 25 going to suggest to you, and I'd like you to comment on

152

1 this, is the fact -- is -- is the proposition that what 2 actually happened at the dining room meeting is that you 3 went in with a great deal of concern as to how you were 4 viewed by the Premier based on how your executive 5 assistant had performed at the IMC, and that your concern 6 at that meeting was to say what you needed to say to show 7 the Premier that you were onside with his approach; isn't 8 that correct? 9 A: That's absolutely false. My 10 relationship with the Premier was that if he had a 11 problem with something I was doing he would have phoned 12 me or told me. And the fact that he never phoned or 13 talked to me about this issue I understood, he understood 14 that it wasn't my issue; that it had been another 15 Ministry's issue all summer and the police were on the 16 ground. 17 If he had thought it was my issue he would 18 have said something to me. 19 Q: And I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. 20 Hodgson, that you were agitated at that meeting and that 21 you did come out strong in agreement with what the 22 Premier was saying, and do you disagree with that? 23 A: I do. I don't recall being -- 24 Q: Right. 25 A: -- mad or agitated at very many

153

1 meetings. 2 Q: And I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. 3 Hodgson, that for all the reasons that I've just 4 mentioned if the -- when the Premier said that he wanted 5 the, "fucking Indians of the Park", you wanted to show 6 that you wanted the 'fucking Indians out of the Park' too 7 and that's exactly what you said; isn't that right? 8 A: That's absolutely false. 9 Q: Thank you, Commissioner. Those are 10 all my questions. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 12 Mr. Horton. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 17 Roy? You're next up. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm not going to finish 19 in the next five (5) to ten (10) minutes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know but I 21 would like you to start if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Roy. 22 Could you give me some indication of how long you might 23 be now? 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: About an hour to an hour 25 and a half.

154

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You still 2 have that same estimate? 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's 5 nothing that's been covered that can -- 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: Not in the same -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- shorten 8 your time? 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: No, I -- I anticipated 10 that My Friends would cover a lot of other issues -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- so I... 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, you're 14 estimating an hour to an hour and a half? 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can we go 17 for a little while? Is it not convenient for you to 18 start and get some done before lunch? Is this the best 19 time for -- 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: There's -- there's one 21 (1) discreet issue that I could -- I could start for five 22 (5) -- or five (5) minutes or so. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 24 perhaps you could do that then. Let's just do that one 25 (1) discreet issue and then break for lunch.

155

1 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm happy to do that. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 7 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Hodgson. 8 A: Good afternoon. 9 Q: My name is Julian Roy and I'm one of 10 the lawyers for Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto. 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: And I want to start on -- on 13 Commission documents Tab 12, which is Exhibit P-418, and 14 it's Inquiry Document 1012239. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Do you have it front of you, sir? 19 A: It's Tab 12? 20 Q: Yes. It's a letter from Marcel 21 Beaubien to Charles Harnick which is copied to you. You 22 have been asked some questions about this but I want to 23 followup on a particular issue. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: You have it with you?

156

1 A: Yes, I do. 2 Q: Okay. And what I'd like to do is I'd 3 like to turn you to page 2 of that letter. 4 Do you recall this letter? Maybe you 5 could take a minute just to -- just to read it because I 6 -- I don't think anybody's asked you about it for a 7 couple of days now. So, if you want to take a -- to get 8 context, if you want to read this letter -- 9 A: No, I didn't see this until after the 10 6th. I know that for sure. 11 Q: I understand. 12 A: And I looked at it yesterday, this 13 letter. 14 Q: All right. So, you're -- you're 15 comfortable me asking you questions on this particular -- 16 A: Yeah, sure. 17 Q: All right. If you could look at the 18 last paragraph of the letter where it says: 19 "As detailed to Ministers Hodgson, 20 Harnick, and Runciman, we will take the 21 following position until further 22 instruction is received from the 23 Ministries." 24 Do you see that? 25 A: Yes, I do.

157

1 Q: Now, the -- the phrase, "as detailed 2 to Ministers Hodgson, Harnick, and Runciman", I'm going 3 to suggest to you that that -- what Mr. Beaubien seems to 4 be suggesting in this letter is that there was some type 5 of interchange or communication with you and these other 6 Ministers about the issues that he's raising in the 7 letters; is that fair? 8 A: Yeah. That's fair, but I don't know 9 what he's talking about. 10 Q: Okay. So, you don't have a memory, 11 as you sit here today, that you had any kind of 12 interchange with Mr. Beaubien, correct? 13 A: Absolutely not. I -- I did not. 14 Q: All right. How is it that your in a 15 position to deny that -- that you did have a -- given the 16 memory difficulties that you've had in some other areas, 17 how are you able to deny that you might have a 18 conversation with Mr. Beaubien? 19 A: I think I've been pretty clear where 20 I have difficulty with my memory and where I don't, and I 21 don't have a memory of that at all. 22 Q: All right. Now, you did get this 23 letter at some point, correct? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And you have a recollection of -- of

158

1 getting it subsequent to the shooting of Mr. George, 2 correct? 3 A: Yes, I do. 4 Q: All right. Now, if you look at -- 5 right after he says, "As detailed to Ministers Hodgson, 6 Harnick and Runciman", he says: 7 "We will take the following position 8 until further instruction is received 9 from the Ministries." 10 Who did you understand to be the 'we' that 11 Mr. Beaubien was referring to? 12 A: I have no idea what he's talking 13 about. 14 Q: All right. Did you -- when you say 15 you have no idea what he was talking about, do you mean 16 generally in -- in this paragraph, or just -- 17 A: In this paragraph or -- let's just 18 leave it to that paragraph. 19 Q: All right. And you would have had an 20 opportunity to bump into Mr. Beaubien from time to time 21 in caucus, et cetera? 22 A: When the House was in session, yes. 23 Q: Yes. Or you had his phone number 24 available to you, correct? 25 A: Not that I recall, but if we needed

159

1 to, we probably could have got a hold of -- 2 Q: Did you ever -- 3 A: Mr. Beaubien worked very hard on 4 behalf of his constituents. 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: That was my impression of him. 7 Q: Yes. And -- and did you take the 8 opportunity to contact him and ask him what he meant by 9 this letter and what he meant by this -- this suggestion 10 that he was in contact with you about the Ipperwash 11 incident? 12 A: No, I did not. 13 Q: All right. That -- that's -- I'm 14 going to suggest that we break, because I would -- I have 15 a bunch of books that I -- I'd have to transport up here. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 17 Mr. Roy. We'll break now, for lunch. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you very much, Mr. 19 Hodgson. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 21 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 22 adjourned until 1:20 p.m. 23 24 --- Upon recessing at 12:03 p.m. 25 --- Upon resuming at 1:21 p.m.

160

1 2 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 3 resumed. Please be seated. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 5 afternoon. 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: Good afternoon, Mr. 7 Commissioner. Good afternoon, Mr. Hodgson. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 10 Q: What I want to start by doing, I want 11 to followup a little bit on some of Mr. Scullion's 12 examination of you, which he started at the end of the 13 day yesterday and then he continued first thing this 14 morning. 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: And also your recommendation -- or 17 your sugges -- suggested recommendation about potentially 18 having more independence to ONAS, perhaps as its own 19 Ministry. I want to sort of explore that issue a little 20 bit with you, in terms of my start, all right? 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: Now, you told Mr. Scullion that one 23 of your frustrations that you felt, as the events were 24 unfolding in September, was that the -- the Civil Service 25 seemed to be taking a reactive approach to the issue; is

161

1 that correct? 2 A: I don't know. 3 Q: All right. Well, what I'm going to 4 suggest to you is one of your frustrations was, your view 5 was that things could have been headed off earlier and 6 that what -- the approach that the Civil Service was 7 doing is they were reacting to events after they'd 8 happened as opposed to trying to prevent them. 9 A: No, frustration's too strong a word. 10 I don't know if things had been done in August or not. 11 I'd asked the question. In my opinion it was easier to 12 prevent situations such as this, it's just my opinion -- 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: -- than to allow them to fester and 15 develop into a more serious situation. 16 Q: Yeah. And that led you to -- to ask 17 questions of Mr. Fox, as you've described in your 18 evidence, correct? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And were you satisfied with the 21 answers you got? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Okay. So, you remained concerned 24 that -- that perhaps the Civil Service was -- had not 25 done enough to perhaps head-off the situation and were

162

1 really reacting to events after they'd happened, correct? 2 A: I don't know if I was concerned or 3 not. I knew that he had answered the question and it was 4 a surprise to me. I was asking what ONAS had done in the 5 summer. 6 Q: Yes? 7 A: They may very well have gotten in 8 their car and driven down and talked to people, I don't 9 know. 10 Q: All right. Well, we haven't heard in 11 any -- any evidence that -- that Attorney General Harnick 12 or anybody at that type of level drove down the road like 13 you did, and went and talked to people and find out what 14 was happening. That -- that's the evidence that we've 15 heard thus far. 16 A: I'm not aware of any either. 17 Q: Okay. So, nobody told you that that 18 was done and now that you hear it you have some concern 19 that -- that type of approach wasn't taken in August 20 before the occupation happened, correct? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I'm not being critical of you, 23 sir. 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: All right. Because I appreciate your

163

1 evidence that you didn't feel that -- that you had 2 ownership of this issue, that is wasn't your Ministry's 3 responsibility, and I'm not going to challenge on that. 4 A: I was told that, yes. 5 Q: Yeah. And I'm not going to challenge 6 you or suggest to you that you ought to have, all right? 7 Just so you understand where I'm coming from. 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: Now, from what I've just told you 10 about, the fact that nobody drove down the road to go 11 speak to the people who were, for whom there were rumours 12 that there may be a Park occupation, would you agree with 13 me that in light of that it seems like there wasn't a 14 Ministry that had taken ownership of the issue? 15 A: At the time I assumed ONAS had. 16 Q: But, given what I've just told you, 17 in terms of the way you understand, the way you take 18 ownership of something -- 19 A: Right. 20 Q: -- you now appreciate that -- that 21 really there wasn't a Ministry that was taking ownership 22 of this issue, correct? 23 A: Well, I think it should be more 24 clearly defined and that's why I've recommended -- I 25 don't think it's anything unique but that there be a

164

1 Deputy Minister of ONAS, at least. 2 Q: Yes. We're going to get to that in a 3 little bit. But I've heard your evidence about why you 4 felt that MNR didn't have ownership; it was essentially 5 the Park hadn't been occupied yet, correct? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: So, it doesn't impinge on your 8 authority at that point, correct? 9 A: That's right and it had an 10 Interministerial Meeting on August 2nd that ONAS had led 11 and called and I was told throughout August by my Deputy 12 that it wasn't an MNR issue. 13 Q: Yes. And you quite logically 14 concluded that -- that ONAS, and under the aegis of the 15 Attorney General, had ownership of the issue, correct? 16 A: Yes, and... 17 Q: And you had plenty of other things on 18 your plate to deal with. You weren't -- once you were 19 advised of that you weren't going to make any further 20 inquiries, correct? 21 A: We had two (2) Ministries that I was 22 responsible for. We had a lot of tough issues that I 23 faced head-on and dealt with, the media and the 24 stakeholders involved, yes. 25 Q: Okay. Now, what if -- what if the

165

1 evidence was the Premier's office was determined to have 2 this issue characterized as a law and order issue as 3 opposed to an Aboriginal issue? 4 Would that explain to why perhaps ONAS did 5 not have ownership of the issue? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Okay. If it was -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, I 9 didn't see you, Ms. Perschy. Ms. Perschy has an 10 objection, I presume? 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes. I'm just 12 concerned with respect to the -- this line of questioning 13 that My Friend is putting forward. I don't believe 14 there's any evidence with respect to the -- the previous 15 suggestion that My Friend made and I have some concerns. 16 I mean, if he's -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- going to stay at a 19 hypothetical he should do so. I didn't catch the entire 20 question, but if he's going to state it as a matter of 21 fact then I think he should be very careful in terms of 22 referencing the evidence that we've heard. 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: I -- I think I did 24 characterize it as a hypothetical -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.

166

1 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- when I used the word, 2 'if'. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 4 the last -- 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: But, first of all 6 there's -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- question 8 you did. 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: The second submission I 10 would make is, there's plenty of evidence to suggest 11 that, and it's -- obviously it's up to you to determine 12 what -- where the evidence -- finally determine where the 13 evidence sits. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but 15 you -- 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: There is allegations to 17 that effect and -- and it's open, in my respectful 18 submission, to put it as a hypothetical. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 20 You did put it as a hypothetical, if I'm not mistaken, 21 right? You did say "if". In other words were posing it? 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 25 Q: Now, would you agree with me if -- if

167

1 the approach of the government was to have the matter 2 characterized as a law and order issue, it might be that 3 the appropriate Minister to have carriage would be the 4 Solicitor General, correct? 5 A: That would be a logical assumption. 6 Q: Yes. But, in any event, there's some 7 uncertainty or debate as to who is the right Ministry, 8 correct? 9 A: No, not -- 10 Q: Potentially. 11 A: -- in my mind. 12 Q: All right. But now on reflection, 13 you can understand that there may have been some debate 14 as to who was the appropriate Minister to have ownership, 15 correct? 16 A: No. I'm just telling you my 17 perspective. The Premier's office was on the same floor 18 as my office. I had a good relationship with the 19 Premier. He would drop by at night and he liked the 20 office, because he had been Minister there before. 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: There was lots of issues that he 23 would talk to me about or phone me if he thought I was in 24 charge of an issue. MNR and MNDM issues he was quite 25 interested in. And so lots of times if he'd -- my

168

1 assumption was, if he had thought it was my issue, he 2 would have talked to me about it. 3 Q: Sure. 4 A: He never did. 5 Q: And did he talk to you about who 6 other than you might have carriage of the issue? 7 A: No, we didn't talk about the issue. 8 So, my assumption was that he knew that it wasn't an MNR 9 issue. 10 Q: Now that you've raised the proximity 11 of the Premier's office -- 12 A: Regardless of how Deb Hutton felt 13 about the issue. 14 Q: Okay. Yes, so you had some sense 15 that perhaps Deb Hutton was not speaking on behalf of the 16 Premier? 17 A: Well, she speaks in terms of a 18 general sense is would have been my experience in those 19 early days. 20 As I mentioned earlier in testimony, David 21 Lindsay was the principle secretary -- 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: -- and from my experience, even until 24 when I quit politics, if Mike Harris had a concern about 25 a file that I was handling --

169

1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- he usually phoned me directly. 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: Or talked to me directly. 5 Q: Yeah. But you were handling this 6 file, so that wouldn't have happened. 7 A: And the proof that backed up my 8 assumption that it wasn't my file was the Premier never 9 talked to me about it. 10 Q: Okay. I understand you. 11 A: So, I knew -- I've always assumed 12 that it was clear in his mind. 13 Q: Okay. And what was your 14 understanding of -- of who the Premier thought had 15 carriage of the issue? 16 A: I've always assumed it was the same 17 as mine, that ONAS was in charge of the policy decision 18 along with the Attorney General, and the OPP were in 19 charge on the ground. 20 Q: Okay. And where do you get that -- 21 what do you base that assumption on? 22 A: From the fact that there was a 23 Interministerial Committee set up the 1st of August; his 24 staff attended. 25 ONAS is -- leads that committee.

170

1 Q: Yes. 2 A: They're in charge of that committee. 3 Q: Okay. What was your understanding in 4 terms of the decision making power of -- of the blockades 5 committee? Let's leave aside -- ONAS aside for a second. 6 In terms of the IMC, what was their 7 decision making authority; your understanding? 8 A: I understood, and I was asked about 9 this earlier, was that it was a committee that would have 10 received input from others, but that it was led by ONAS. 11 And if you understand voting around Queen's Park, it's by 12 consensus voting. 13 The chairs of the committees determines 14 the consensus and that -- it informs the recommendations 15 that come out of that committee. 16 Q: We've heard evidence that -- that the 17 blockades committee was a recommendation-type body and 18 that it was up to the individual Ministries to make their 19 own decisions on tasks or issues that flowed out of that 20 committees; is that not your understanding? 21 A: That could very well be. That wasn't 22 my understanding at the time. 23 Q: All right. So, you misunderstood, 24 potentially, what the role of the blockades committee 25 was?

171

1 A: I could have. 2 Q: All right. And you didn't receive 3 any briefing or education about that? And again, I'm not 4 being critical. 5 A: No. Our assumption, and when I asked 6 the question, you know, is there things that we should be 7 doing; it was -- it's not our issue, ONAS is in charge. 8 Q: Now -- 9 A: And the OPP are in charge on the 10 ground. 11 Q: Now, you've told us that you received 12 some briefings from Mr. Bangs and potentially others 13 about what was happening at the IMC meetings of February 14 -- of September 5th and 6th. 15 I'm right about that, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And one of the things that you were 18 surprised about in terms of what came out the September 19 5th meeting was the -- the suggestion that perhaps you 20 were going to be handling communications. You've already 21 given evidence about that. 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: All right. So, you understood from 24 that briefing that you received about September 5th, that 25 -- that one of the things that was being hashed out, as

172

1 late as September 5th and 6th, was what were the 2 respective roles of the various Ministries as it 3 pertained to the incident, correct? 4 A: No. I think they were pretty clear 5 that the AG's department was leading the request for an 6 injunction and that's the route they were -- they were 7 heading. The OPP were in charge on the ground. 8 The question that surprised me was that 9 they wanted me to be the spokesperson. 10 Q: Okay. So but doesn't that suggest to 11 you some -- some debate on that committee as to what 12 Ministry would be doing what in terms of how it addressed 13 the incident? 14 A: Well, I don't think there was a 15 debate whether we would be leading the Government's 16 response -- 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: -- they'd already decided that they 19 were going for an injunction. 20 Q: Okay. You felt that had already been 21 decided before September 5th? 22 A: I'm just telling you the flavour of 23 the IMC meeting. We had some questions about it. But 24 there's an opinion that that's what the police were 25 requesting and that's what the Attorney General's

173

1 department was moving towards. 2 Q: Okay. Would you agree with me that - 3 - that if there was uncertainty as to what Minister was 4 doing what, as pertaining to the Ipperwash incident, that 5 by September 5th or 6th it would have been too late to 6 get into a debate about that, that that would have had to 7 have been determined a month before, at least, correct? 8 A: Oh, exactly. And that -- that 9 decision was made. The only surprise was that I was 10 going to be asked to be a spokesperson at the last 11 minute. 12 Q: Now, your expectation and your 13 understanding of -- of how a Minister takes ownership of 14 -- of a potentially serious issue is they get tipped off 15 by their Deputy that an issue is in play and they get 16 personally involved, correct? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: And one of the things that they do by 19 getting personally involved is they may, like you did, 20 when it came to the -- the issue at -- in Owen Sound, is 21 that you actually get into your car and you drive down 22 there and find out what's going on, right? 23 A: That's my style, yes. 24 Q: Yeah. And one of the things that 25 that does, particularly when it's a Minister, as opposed

174

1 to some Assistant Deputy Minister or some other civil 2 servant, is it sends a signal to the people on the ground 3 there that the Government is taking the matter very 4 seriously, correct? 5 A: I'd just put a caveat on that, that 6 often times a Deputy Minister or an Assistant Deputy 7 Minister can convey that same meaning. 8 Q: Sure. But to people who are perhaps 9 not apprised of all the intricacies of how the 10 bureaucracy works, there's nothing like a Cabinet 11 Minister showing up to talk you about something? 12 A: In general, I would agree with that 13 but, like I said, Deputy Ministers carry a lot of weight, 14 too, in the public perception. 15 Q: Now, I want to ask you a little bit 16 about -- about your drive down to Owen Sound and -- and 17 what your intention was and see if we can glean any 18 lessons from that in terms of how it might have played 19 out here. 20 I'm going to be blunt with you in terms 21 that that's -- 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: -- what I'm going to be asking you 24 about. 25 Now, you didn't convene any conference of

175

1 various bureaucrats in order to decide that you were 2 going to be the one to take ownership of the issue when 3 you were tipped off about it, correct? 4 A: Just -- just to be clear, this is one 5 of the issues that the Ministry had flagged that could be 6 a potential. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: I had probably received issues, notes 9 and briefings at the start of the summer of '95. I was 10 fairly familiar with, in a general sense, the issues. 11 Q: Okay. So -- and -- and how would 12 those issue notes be brought to your attention? 13 A: We had a series of briefings that Ron 14 Vrancart had arranged with Ministry staff on -- on 15 different aspects of the Ministry. 16 Q: Okay. And given what you've told us, 17 Ipperwash wasn't at the top of the list in terms of the 18 issues that were being brought forward for your personal 19 attention, correct? 20 A: They weren't on the list. 21 Q: Okay. It was your expectation they 22 were on somebody else's list? 23 A: Well, they knew -- I knew that too. 24 They'd had an Interministerial Committee meeting that 25 ONAS was in charge of that.

176

1 Q: So the bottom line in terms of what 2 your intention was in getting in your car and driving 3 down the road, is that you didn't want to wait for things 4 to get worse, correct? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And you thought that your presence 7 there might serve to alleviate some of the tensions, 8 correct? 9 A: That might be a little presumptuous, 10 but that was my intent, yes. 11 Q: Yes. Well, you don't always succeed 12 but -- 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: -- that was your plan, correct? 15 A: That's true. 16 Q: And another function that you would 17 have had in -- or intention in going there, I'm going to 18 suggest, is that you want to be there on the ground to 19 actually gather information for yourself a little bit, 20 correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Now, one of the things that you did 23 in terms of gathering information and communicating the 24 Government's message is you met with the First Nation, 25 correct?

177

1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And I take it that members of the 3 First nest -- Nation didn't necessarily agree with the 4 things that you were telling them at the meeting, 5 correct? 6 A: That would be a fair assessment. 7 Q: In fact, many of them may have 8 strongly disagreed with what you were telling them? 9 A: And I had finished up the meeting 10 with some of the people in the local community and the 11 outdoors association that probably had a lot in common 12 with the consensus that -- 13 Q: Yeah. 14 A: -- you would have received from the 15 First Nation. 16 Q: Yeah. But, from your point of view, 17 whether or not the people you're talking to actually 18 agree with what the Government's position is, your 19 presence there does communicate to them that the 20 Government's taking their concerns seriously, correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And that's the importance of your 23 being there, right? 24 A: That was one of the reasons why I go, 25 yes.

178

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, the -- you made reference to a - 4 - a pretty ugly or unseemly incident that happened, that 5 really precipitated your involvement. 6 Do you remember giving evidence about 7 that? 8 A: Yes, I do. 9 Q: Yeah. And it was a situation where 10 there was a protest by a number of non Native fishermen 11 or townspeople and they confronted a Aboriginal elderly 12 woman who was selling fish in the market place. 13 A: I recall the -- there was a nine (9) 14 year old, as well, involved. 15 Q: Yeah. And the type of conduct that 16 you heard about when you were briefed on this, this isn't 17 something that you personally would want to encourage or 18 that the Government wanted to encourage, was it? 19 A: Absolutely not. 20 Q: When you -- you were talking about 21 proper channels of the way issues get raised. That 22 wasn't one of the proper channels you had in mind, right? 23 A: No, it wasn't. 24 Q: And when you drove down the road to 25 Owen Sound, in spite of the fact that those folks weren't

179

1 going through the proper channels, you talked to them 2 too, right? 3 A: I would have driven to Toronto. I 4 think I took the King Air, actually. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: MNR has the Air Force's -- 7 Q: All right. 8 A: -- you're probably aware. 9 Q: But when you went to Owen Sound, the 10 fact that -- that they weren't going through the proper 11 channels didn't stop you from meeting with them and 12 talking to them, correct? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And you didn't -- nobody in the 15 Government proclaimed them to be law breakers or thugs or 16 hooligans, correct? 17 A: Oh, I wouldn't go that far. 18 Q: Okay. Did the Government publicly 19 take the position in a press release or in comments -- 20 A: Oh, no, not -- 21 Q: -- to the media? 22 A: Not that way, no. But -- 23 Q: Internally they might. 24 A: Nobody approved of that kind of 25 action.

180

1 Q: Yes. But the bottom line is, the 2 Government officially and publicly didn't proclaim them 3 to be law breakers and thugs, correct? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And one of the reasons why you don't 6 do that is you don't necessarily want to inflame those 7 people, correct? 8 A: Well, it wasn't an occupation, but it 9 was something that I wanted to meet with both parties to 10 see if we could at least share information so that they 11 understood what our officials believe was the basis of 12 the law. 13 Q: Sure. Despite the fact that they 14 weren't following a course of behaviour that you approved 15 of, it was still important to find out what their 16 concerns were and talk to them, right? 17 A: I felt that, yes. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Now, how much notice did you have 22 before you took the trip down to Owen Sound? How much 23 notice of this being an issue for you did you have before 24 you took the step of going down there? 25 A: Oh, I would have been aware of the

181

1 general circumstances of the situation. The incident 2 that you referred to, my concern was that it would become 3 a larger issue. 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: Now that was basically like a -- a 6 one day event and then it was over. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: But, when I was at the cottage, the 9 phone calls and the briefings that I was receiving over 10 the phone, were, you know, potential problems that could 11 develop, not just because of that incident but because of 12 the history of this -- of the area and the complications 13 of the issue. 14 And after, I don't know, a day or a day 15 and a half of that, my wife suggested that I just drive 16 down and meet the people instead of spending my time on 17 the phone. And I thought it was pretty good advice and 18 so that's what I did. 19 Q: Okay. So in other words, it didn't 20 take you four (4) weeks or six (6) weeks to arrange a 21 trip like this, you could do this on pretty short notice, 22 right? 23 A: Yes, as long as we followed, you 24 know, the proper protocols. I'm assuming that Ron 25 Vrancart, through his chain of command, set up the proper

182

1 notice and protocols with the First Nation so I could 2 appear before their Council. 3 Q: Now, the -- the -- ultimately, the 4 non Native fisherman were compensated by the Government 5 to give up some licenses for fishing in that area, 6 correct? 7 A: Yes. And I corrected that yesterday, 8 yes. 9 Q: Yeah. 10 A: That's -- that's probably right. 11 Q: And I appreciate your candour in 12 that. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: But, the non Native fishermen didn't 15 have a legal right to have those licenses to engage in 16 that commercial fishing, did they? 17 A: No. The priority was that if there 18 was to be fishing at all it could be done by the First 19 Nation. And then if there was extra fish around that the 20 sustainability of the species would allow, then, others 21 could fish. 22 So the decision -- the option was the 23 First Nation had the right to fish. If they wanted to 24 get compensated financially for their commercial fishery, 25 that was an option that we were open to. If they didn't,

183

1 then the only other option was to make sure there was not 2 two (2) fisheries there. 3 Q: Sure. 4 A: And so when you close that down 5 there's an issue of fairness. People have worked their 6 whole lives, invested in their boats, spent the best of 7 their, in some cases, their working lives. And there was 8 a formula that was worked out by people more expert in 9 this area than I -- 10 Q: I -- I don't -- 11 A: -- to come up with that method. 12 Q: I don't want to get into all the 13 details, but the bottom line is, is the Government made a 14 policy decision to compensate these fishermen, even 15 though the didn't have a legal entitlement to 16 compensation? 17 A: It wasn't clear on that. There may 18 have been a legal requirement to compensate -- 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: -- for loss of business. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 22 I mean, Mr. Roy, I don't want to go into the details of 23 that of whether there is or isn't -- 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and so

184

1 we're going to be on another tangent. 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm done with that area 3 completely. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 Okay. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 8 Q: You told us a number of times in your 9 evidence about how you relied on your Deputy Minister on 10 a number of matters. I'm right about that, correct? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: And that's normal, there's nothing 13 abnormal in terms of your style and your reliance on a 14 Deputy Minister? 15 A: I always seek the best advice 16 possible and Deputy Ministers have risen up through the 17 chain of command. They have a lot of experience and a 18 wealth of knowledge. 19 Q: And the responsibility of a Minister 20 is pretty overwhelming, correct? 21 A: It's an important job, yes. 22 Q: Yeah. And -- and you couldn't do 23 your job without having a Deputy Minister to assist you, 24 right? 25 A: That's correct.

185

1 Q: And you actually had the benefit of 2 having two (2) Deputy Ministers when you had the joint 3 portfolio of the Ministry of Northern Affairs and Mining 4 and also the Ministry of Natural Resources, correct? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And your two (2) Deputy Ministers, 7 one (1) of the things that they would do is they would 8 flag important issues for you to get your personal 9 attention on that, correct? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: The issues that are the most 12 controversial or most important or possibly the most 13 dangerous in terms of how they could unfold. 14 Those are the kind of things that a -- you 15 would expect a Deputy Minister's job is to tug your 16 sleeve and get your attention on right? 17 A: Yeah. We sort of divided it, and if 18 you're familiar with Steven Covey (phonetic), into the 19 urgent and necessary, the urgent, the important but 20 urgent, sort of a -- a framework like that. 21 Q: And it's the Deputy Minister that 22 does that prioritizing, correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And I -- am I right in saying that -- 25 that your Deputy Minister had a role in getting you

186

1 personally involved in both Serpent Mounds and also in 2 the Owen Sound scenario? 3 A: He had a role in making sure I was 4 informed on what was the background, potential risks. 5 The decision whether I got involved or not was my own. 6 Q: Yes. The bottom line is he's 7 flagging things for you and then you make your choices 8 about what you want to deal with, right? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: Now, the -- the system of having two 11 (2) Deputy Ministers with the two (2) portfolios, did it 12 work well in your opinion? 13 A: I think it worked extremely well. 14 Q: And Mr. Vrancart, we've heard from 15 him and he's obviously a very experienced civil servant. 16 He had a lot of responsibilities just with the Ministry 17 of Natural Resources, right? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And it would have been very difficult 20 for him to try and carry the -- the mining portfolio as 21 well, correct? 22 A: I believe so, yes. 23 Q: And then he might have been impaired 24 in his function of getting your attention on the things 25 that have to be dealt with by the Minister?

187

1 A: I'm sorry? 2 Q: He might have -- if he had those 3 additional responsibilities he wouldn't have been able to 4 do his job as well, in terms of getting your attention on 5 things that the Minister had to be personally involved 6 in. 7 A: Or just in terms of the number of 8 issues and the number of stakeholders that had issues and 9 the number of staff. I -- I felt there was a great 10 advantage in having two (2) Deputy Ministers. And they 11 carry equal weight with other Deputy Ministers. 12 Q: There's a status that goes along with 13 the portfolio of having a Deputy Minister? 14 A: Exactly. 15 Q: Yeah. And when a portfolio doesn't 16 have a Deputy Minister, it may be viewed in other areas 17 of the Government of having sort of a diminished status 18 or less priority, correct? 19 A: It may have. That wasn't my 20 understanding at the time but, in reflection, that's why 21 I've made that recommendation. 22 Q: Okay. So you've made the suggestion 23 that ONAS ought to have its own Deputy Minister. What 24 about having its Minister; what are your views on that? 25 A: Well, I don't really have an opinion.

188

1 I've, you know, it would be kind of hypocritical for me 2 state that a Minister couldn't be more than one (1) 3 portfolio. I always had two (2) until right near the end 4 when I just had Municipal Affairs, and that was my 5 choice. 6 Q: Okay. I want to ask you -- I had 7 promised you, Mr. Commissioner, that I was moving from 8 Owen Sound and I just have one (1) -- just a small 9 digression into that area for five (5) minutes. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This area 11 has been pretty well covered by Mr. Scullion as well. 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Another five 14 (5) minutes -- 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think this is new. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think this is new. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 20 Q: On the Owen Sound, the ugly incident 21 that -- that I referred to earlier, the local MPP was a 22 Progressive Conservative member, was he not? 23 A: Yes, he was. 24 Q: And he was actually, in terms of what 25 you were briefed on, he was somehow involved in

189

1 organizing or leading this -- this protest? 2 A: My understand was he was involved. 3 Q: And he is -- the gentleman we're 4 talking about is Bill Murdoch, correct? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And Bill Murdoch, was he not also 7 your Parliamentary Assistant on Northern Affairs and 8 Mining? 9 A: Yes, he was. 10 Q: Did you know -- I take it you didn't 11 know ahead of time that he was going to be involved in 12 doing this? 13 A: Absolutely not. 14 Q: No. And you weren't too happy that 15 he did that, were you? 16 A: No, I wasn't. 17 Q: No. Were you concerned about a 18 perception about how it might undermine your credibility 19 that your Parliamentary Assistant was off on this 20 venture? 21 A: No, I wasn't worried about my 22 perception. I just thought it was the wrong thing for 23 him to be doing. 24 Q: Sure. Was he disciplined or -- or 25 dealt with, in any way, by the caucus?

190

1 A: If you can figure out a way to do 2 that, if you know Mr. Murdoch, share that with us. 3 Q: Well he could have been removed from 4 his post. 5 A: I think he was, but I'm not sure if 6 it was that week or which week it was, but. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: He's a strong constituency man, he's 9 an independent person. 10 Q: Yes. I want to move onto another 11 area and that's -- it relates to your discussions with 12 Ron Fox and also in the Premier's dining room. I have 13 some -- if you can believe it, I have some new things I 14 want to ask you about -- 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: -- in that area. And I know you're-- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've got a 18 creative imagination or mind, I should say, not 19 imagination. 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: I've been told that 21 before. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: But you may disagree 24 with my level of creativity, I understand that, Mr. 25 Commissioner.

191

1 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Maybe that's a 2 compliment. 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: I didn't take it as 4 such, but. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 8 Q: Now, you conceded to Mr. Sandler that 9 you may have discussed the issue of firearms with Ron Fox 10 in the first meeting you say you had with him. 11 Is that correct? 12 A: No, I don't think that is correct. 13 He may have mentioned it in his briefing in the dining 14 room meeting. My recollection is that I was briefed on 15 that by Jeff Bangs, who briefed both Ron Vrancart and I 16 of a discussion on the 6th at the IMC meeting. 17 Q: I see. So what you're saying is you 18 don't think you had a discussion with Ron Fox at your 19 morning meeting with him, if -- if he did -- if Ron Fox 20 did discuss guns in your presence, it would have been at 21 the dining room meeting, correct? 22 A: He may have referenced it, I can't 23 recall that. 24 Q: But you can't exclude that having 25 happened, correct?

192

1 A: That's right. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Am I right in saying that -- that 6 your position on whether or not Ron Fox may have 7 discussed guns in your presence has changed in the course 8 of these proceedings? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Okay. Am I not right in saying that 11 at one point in this proceeding you took the position 12 that you never discussed guns with Ron Fox? 13 A: I never discussed them. I never 14 chipped in or had any comments about it with Ron Fox. 15 Q: Okay. You never took the position 16 that Ron Fox did not mention guns in your presence? 17 A: No, I didn't take that position. He 18 may have, at the dining room meeting, briefed me on the 19 update on the ground; I can't recall that. 20 I think that was the question: Was it 21 possible that Mr. Fox talked about that in his update? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Okay. I've passed up a folder of

193

1 documents and what I want to refer to is Ron Fox's 2 evidence on July 13th. And I believe you have it also, 3 Mr. Commissioner. 4 And I've given Mr. Hodgson's Counsel and 5 your Counsel copies as well. It's on July 13th, 2005. 6 If you could look for the transcript -- 7 A: Is this in the blue folder that you 8 gave me? 9 Q: It is. July 13th, 2005. 10 A: Okay. Which page? 11 Q: 186. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: Okay. At page 186, this is your 17 Counsel questioning Ron Fox. And at line 10 -- my line 18 10 and I understand there may be differences in the 19 printout. 20 Mr. -- there's a question from your 21 Counsel: 22 "Mr. Hodgson will say that during his 23 meetings with you, there was no 24 discussion of gunfire and guns, so 25 obviously there's a dispute between

194

1 your -- your recollection and Mr. 2 Hodgson's recollection, correct?" 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: And Mr. Fox's answer: 5 "I -- I stand by what I've said here, 6 sir." 7 Do you see that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. So wasn't it not your position 10 in this proceeding that there was no discussion of guns 11 in your presence? 12 A: That's still my position. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: I was asked, specifically, if it was 15 possible, I believe, that he may have referenced that in 16 his presentation on the update on the ground in the 17 dining room meeting -- 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: -- in his brief presentation. I 20 can't recall that. I'm saying, you know, they asked if 21 it was possible. Anything's possible. 22 Q: Okay. But -- 23 A: But I can't recall the -- 24 Q: -- what I'm going to -- 25 A: -- specifics of his presentation.

195

1 Q: What I'm going to suggest to you is 2 that your position in this proceeding has changed from 3 never discussed guns to may have discussed guns? 4 A: No, I never discussed guns with him. 5 Q: Okay. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Now, your first meeting with Ron Fox, 10 there was a discussion in your evidence about service of 11 an injunction by helicopter; is that correct? 12 A: That's my recollection, yes. 13 Q: And your recollection is not that 14 what was be -- it was not being discussed serving notice 15 of an injunction proceeding. What was being discussed 16 was service of the actual injunction, correct? 17 A: I couldn't be specific on that. I'm 18 not sure if I'm even aware of the difference. 19 Q: Okay. Was it your understanding that 20 what Mr. Fox was proposing was dropping the actual 21 injunction Order out of the helicopter to the Park; was 22 that your understanding? 23 A: No, my understanding was it wasn't 24 his -- he wasn't proposing anything. He was, in the 25 response to a question, outlining potential options.

196

1 Q: Okay. And the potential option 2 related to the actual injunction order, did it not? 3 A: Well, I'm -- that was my assumption, 4 but if you're telling me there's another document that 5 has to be served as well, I don't know, but that was my 6 assumption. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: They were talking about serving 9 something around the injunction, so. 10 Q: Okay. And the discussion about the 11 helicopter as a mode of service, that came up in the 12 context of a discussion about the possibility of rifles 13 or gunfire emanating from the camp; did it not? 14 A: It may have; I wasn't there for that. 15 I'd walked in, in the middle of that discussion. 16 Q: So, it's -- is it not your position, 17 though, that what prompted your discussion, in your 18 presence with Ron Fox about the helicopter, was the 19 notion that there may be guns present? 20 A: I don't know that for sure. 21 Q: Okay. If you could turn up that 22 transcript again. Ron Fox, July 13th. 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: Page 161 and 162. 25 A: Yes.

197

1 Q: The last line of -- of page 161. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: This is your Counsel questioning Ron 4 Fox. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And the question of your -- by your 7 Counsel of Ron Fox is: 8 "Mr. Hodgson's evidence will be that 9 there was a discussion about how the 10 injunction would be served. And he 11 indicates that somebody in the room, 12 and he believes it was you, raised the 13 prospect that injunctions could be 14 served on occupiers by dropping them 15 from a helicopter so that the 16 helicopter would be out of rifle range. 17 Do you recall any discussion to that 18 effect." 19 And the answer: 20 "I recall no discussion to that effect. 21 I think if one reads the -- the 22 injunction order provided by the 23 presiding Judge, he suggested that. 24 That would have been on the 7th of 25 September, I believe."

198

1 Do you see that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: What's being suggested by your 4 Counsel is that your evidence is going to be that the 5 discussion about the helicopter related to the concern 6 about being in rifle range; do you see that? 7 A: I see that. 8 Q: Okay. Does that assist you in -- in 9 agreeing with me that you were discussing the notion of 10 guns with Ron Fox in relation to this helicopter 11 incident? 12 A: No. I don't believe that was my 13 understanding. I think Counsel has made an assumption, 14 because there was a discussion earlier about guns, that I 15 was aware of through Jeff Bangs, that it is his 16 assumption that's why they were talking about helicopter. 17 It's probably a logical assumption, but I 18 wasn't specifically in the room when they were talking 19 about guns. 20 Q: So this isn't something -- this isn't 21 evidence that -- that you were planning on giving? 22 A: No. It's probably a proper 23 assumption but -- 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: -- precisely I don't recall having

199

1 discussion with Mr. Fox about guns. 2 Q: Now, your first meeting with Ron Fox, 3 where was it? Because I'm a little confused in terms of 4 your evidence. 5 A: I can describe the boardroom and it 6 was always in my assumption that it was the tail end of 7 an Interministerial Committee meeting. 8 It's possible that it was a special 9 meeting that was arranged for the deputies and senior 10 staff, and the other Ministers didn't show up, and the 11 other deputies didn't show up. But it was my 12 understanding that it was at the tail end of the IMC 13 meeting. 14 Q: Okay. And did you understand the IMC 15 meeting was at the Solicitor General's office? 16 A: I didn't know if it was at the ONAS 17 or the Solicitor General. I've never been able to recall 18 the outside of the building, but I can recall the inside 19 of that room. 20 Q: So it's never been your -- your 21 recollection that the first meeting with Fox was at the 22 Solicitor General's office? 23 A: No. I've always been clear that I 24 wasn't sure, that it was an assumption. 25 Q: But I want to clear something up in -

200

1 - in the same transcript again then, please. 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: Ron Fox's transcript, July 13th, page 4 137. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Sorry, it's at 174, I got the page 10 wrong. It's at page 174. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: We don't have that. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: Oh, I'm sorry. It's not 16 Ron Fox's transcript. I'm sorry, Mr. Commissioner. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 19 Q: It's in Ron Vrancart's transcript, 20 October 27th, which is also in your folder. 21 A: Okay. 134? 22 Q: Yeah. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: You said 174. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: 174. 25 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, can you repeat

201

1 the page number. I don't have Ron Vrancart at page 134. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 4 Q: It's actually -- I'm sorry again. 5 It's at 179 for Ron Vrancart. October 27th, 2005. 6 MR. PETER LAUWERS: What is the first 7 group of pages? 8 THE WITNESS: 174? 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: Sorry, 179. I 10 apologize, Mr. Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. 16 MR. PETER LAUWERS: I'm sorry, I'm 17 completely confused. Where are we? 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: On Mr. Vrancart's 19 testimony, October 27th. 20 MR. PETER LAUWERS: What's the first 21 line? 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: On page 179 there's a 23 question: 24 "My understanding is that there was..." 25

202

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Can I have your indulgence for one 4 moment? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is Mr. 10 Fredrick, right, Mr. Roy? This is Mr. Fredrick 11 questioning Mr. Vrancart? 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: It is. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 14 Mr. Hodgson? 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: It is. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 18 Q: My under -- and then there's a 19 question for your counsel: 20 "My understanding is that there was 21 some -- Mr. Hodgson expressed that one 22 (1) of these meetings, some concern -- 23 actually at the 24 -- at the meeting at the Solicitor 25 General's office, some concern that the

203

1 OPP had allowed the occupiers to occupy 2 the Park in the first place, and that 3 maybe they should have prevented it 4 before it happened." 5 Do you see that? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Okay. Does that assist you in -- in 8 -- does that assist you in refreshing your memory that at 9 one point you thought that that meeting was at the 10 Solicitor General's office? 11 A: No. the -- I wasn't sure which 12 office it was at. I think -- and there's a couple of 13 other assumptions here that the lawyers assumed, they're 14 not actual fact either. 15 Q: Okay. So, you take issue with the 16 rest of your lawyer's question here? 17 A: Yes, I do. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: Part of it -- the general gist of 20 it's right, that I felt it should have been prevented. 21 Had to draw the conclusion that it was the OPP; I did 22 draw that. 23 Q: Okay. So, you take issue -- I was 24 going to ask you about that as well. 25 A: Yeah.

204

1 Q: But you take issue with you having 2 some concern that the OPP had allowed the occupiers to 3 occupy the Park in the first place? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Okay. So, that's wrong also. 6 A: And I've been asked about that in 7 this Inquiry. 8 Q: Okay. So, that question is -- that 9 suggestion about what your evidence is going to be is 10 inaccurate as well? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: Did you ever think that Ron Fox was a 13 Solicitor General employee as opposed to an ONAS 14 employee? 15 A: Oh yeah, by the dining room meeting I 16 was aware that he was seconded to the Ministry of the 17 Solicitor General. I assumed he was seconded from ONAS, 18 incorrectly. 19 Q: Okay. So, certainly by the time of 20 the dining room meeting, you were well aware that he was 21 a Solicitor General employee? 22 A: Yes. I knew that by that time. 23 Q: And you understood he was seconded, 24 correct? 25 A: Yes.

205

1 Q: And where did you understand he was 2 seconded from? 3 A: ONAS. 4 Q: So, you understood he was an ONAS 5 employee who was seconded to the Solicitor General? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Now, you -- you gave evidence about 8 Ron Fox. I want to go back to the first meeting that you 9 had with Ron Fox on September 6th. 10 You perceived him as being something like 11 the Chair of the meeting, correct? 12 A: Yes, I did. 13 Q: And you observed that he seemed to be 14 fielding questions from the rest of the people in the 15 room, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And he was giving information from 18 the ground at Ipperwash, correct? 19 A: I don't know if I'd do that 20 assumption. He was giving information, in general. 21 Q: Okay. And some of that information 22 included information from the ground at Ipperwash, 23 correct? 24 A: Well, when I was there it was more of 25 a general nature.

206

1 Q: Okay. And what did you understand 2 was the information he was giving when you were not 3 present? 4 A: Oh, precisely -- I came in the 5 middle. I think I've gone through exactly what he said, 6 but if you want me to -- 7 MR. PETER LAUWERS: That wasn't the 8 question. The question was: What was the information 9 you know he gave when you weren't there? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, I 11 can't hear you, Mr. Lauwers. 12 MR. PETER LAUWERS: The question was, can 13 you tell us what information he gave when you weren't 14 there. I find it a preposterous question quite frankly. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, he was briefed on 16 the meeting so he would have had an understanding of what 17 happened when he wasn't there. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 19 Mr. -- I'm sorry, do you want to back up and ask the 20 question again? I'm sorry. 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: Sure. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 24 Q: You -- you were briefed on the 25 September 6th meeting, correct?

207

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. So you would have had an 3 understanding of what Ron Fox was communicating to the 4 meeting when you weren't there, correct? 5 A: No. 6 Q: No. So -- 7 A: We didn't talk -- I don't recall any 8 names being discussed in my briefing on that. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, unless 10 you have a new spin on this, Mr. Roy -- some of this has 11 been gone over in great detail. I haven't seen anything 12 new so far from your questions. 13 So I'm saying that, with respect, if you 14 have something new, I'd be happy to hear it, but it's not 15 helpful to go over matters that we've already heard. 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: Okay. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 19 Q: In the dining room, the second 20 meeting that you had with Ron Fox on September 6th -- 21 A: Yes? 22 Q: -- you understood that Mr. Taman and 23 Mr. Fox were giving a presentation together, correct? 24 A: Yes, the actual order, as I recall 25 it, was Mr. Fox gave a presentation of the situation on

208

1 the ground and Mr. Taman did next steps around the 2 injunction. 3 Q: Okay. And the information on the 4 ground that -- that Ron Fox was imparting to the meeting, 5 what was your understanding as to where he was getting 6 that information from? 7 A: I assumed at that time probably from 8 the Solicitor General's department. 9 Q: Okay. When you say "on the ground" 10 what -- what was the area that you thought -- 11 A: Well, what was happening in Ipperwash 12 and the Park and the surrounding area; the roads in 13 particular. 14 Q: So, ultimately it would be 15 information that had come from the OPP, correct? 16 A: Yeah. That meeting I assumed that, 17 yes. 18 Q: And he was -- in other words he was 19 giving information from the OPP; he was presenting it at 20 the meeting, correct? 21 A: Through the Solicitor General's 22 department, yes. 23 Q: And you didn't think there was 24 anything untoward about that did you? 25 A: I didn't have an opinion on it. It

209

1 was just -- he was giving a presentation. 2 Q: Okay. And you didn't see Mr. Harnick 3 take -- try and stop Ron Fox and say, Ron you've got to 4 stop talking about what's going on at the ground at 5 Ipperwash did you? 6 A: No, it was more of a general 7 presentation as I recall. I didn't recall any new 8 information. 9 Q: Okay. And -- and Mr. Runciman didn't 10 stop Mr. Fox imparting any of this information either did 11 he? 12 A: No. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: I want to move onto another area and 17 that's about the internal communications within the 18 Ministry of Natural Resources -- 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: -- and how you were briefed on 21 certain matters. 22 I -- I understood your evidence 23 previously, that Mr. Bangs may have briefed you on the 24 issue of gunfire or guns in the Park, in and around 25 September 5th and September 6th. Am I right?

210

1 A: No, specifically he briefed me on the 2 discussion -- the flavour of it would have been, I would 3 have asked him, How was the meeting this morning, and he 4 would have commented, It was a waste of time, just went 5 around in circles. 6 And I would have said, What was the issue, 7 and he goes, Well, they had a long discussion about the 8 difference between an automatic gun and a semi-automatic 9 gun. 10 Q: Yes, so you -- 11 A: And that was about the extent of my 12 briefing on -- on the guns. 13 Q: Okay. So, you recall, specifically, 14 Mr. Bangs talking not only about guns but about the 15 difference between semi-automatic and automatic, right? 16 A: No, he didn't need to elaborate on 17 that with me. He just mentioned that's what they've been 18 talking about. 19 Q: And where did you understand the 20 information about semi-automatic versus automatic was 21 ultimately coming from? 22 A: I didn't. 23 Q: Did you turn your mind to the issue 24 of where that information was coming from? 25 A: No, I thought, to be candid, that

211

1 that was kind of a waste of time to be talking about 2 that. 3 Q: All right. Did you turn your mind to 4 the issue about the separation between politicians and 5 police and how -- and the propriety of discussing things 6 like semi-automatic and automatic at a meeting like that? 7 A: No, I would assume that was a 8 hypothetical discussion or a technical discussion. It 9 was common knowledge to anyone that can walk and chew 10 gum. 11 Q: Okay. And you understood that at the 12 IMC there were a number of political staffers who were 13 present, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And you didn't see any problem with a 16 debate about semi-automatic or automatic occurring in the 17 presence of political staffers, for Ministers? 18 A: No, I probably didn't give it that 19 deep an analysis. 20 Q: Now, you've -- you've given some 21 evidence about your understanding of the separation 22 between politicians and police, and one of the things 23 that flows from that is that it's improper for 24 politicians to be directing police officers in terms of 25 how they do their job; that's obvious, correct?

212

1 A: Absolutely, yeah. 2 Q: But I'm going to suggest to you that 3 there's another aspect of it is -- is that police 4 matters, police -- police operational matters should not 5 be the subject matter of discussion by politicians 6 either, correct? 7 A: Are you assuming that they were 8 talking about operational matters? 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: I wasn't -- I wasn't part of that. 11 Q: Okay. But let's just -- let's just 12 deal with it on the level of theory first, before we go 13 into -- 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: -- the facts. But you would agree 16 with me that it's not just a matter of a prohibition 17 against politicians telling police officers to do things, 18 there also is a prohibition against politicians 19 discussing police operational matters; is that correct? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 21 Vella...? 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I have -- yeah, I have 23 a -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 25 Vella...?

213

1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The concern I have, 2 actually, is with respect to the generality of that 3 question. 4 What -- what is meant by a discussion of 5 police operational matters. I mean, specific -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Some 7 theoretical -- 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- to an active 9 operation or in a -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, it's a 11 theoretical -- 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- hypothetical context 13 or -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 15 situation. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yeah. And I think that 17 without that clarification any answer will necessarily be 18 ambiguous. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think My Friend's 20 right. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, thank 22 you. 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think My Friend's 24 right. 25

214

1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 2 Q: I want to -- I want to relate my 3 question to an ongoing police operation. Would you agree 4 with me that politicians ought not to be discussing 5 police operational matters that relate to an ongoing 6 police operation? 7 A: Yes. And I would assume, in that 8 answer, that the police are only talking about things 9 that are -- fall within the proper protocol and the 10 proper procedures. 11 Q: Yeah, they are -- they shouldn't be 12 talking about politics and you shouldn't be talking about 13 police operational matters? 14 A: And they would only to share 15 information that was appropriate to be shared. 16 Q: Yes. And you had no sense, or it 17 didn't occur to you at the time, that a debate about 18 whether gunfire was semi-automatic or automatic was 19 something that was really properly kept within the police 20 as opposed to being discussed by political staffers? 21 A: No, I didn't have an opinion on that. 22 Q: On reflection -- 23 A: I had opinions about it, but not in 24 that regard. 25 Q: Okay. On reflection, do you think it

215

1 was appropriate for political staffers to be debating 2 with civil servants, semi-automatic versus automatic 3 gunfire in the course of an ongoing police operation. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Before you 5 answer the question. 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 8 Perschy...? 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My concern is with 10 reference to the use of the word 'debate'. This Witness 11 wasn't at these -- excuse me. This wasn't -- this 12 Witness wasn't at the Interministerial Committee 13 meetings. And I raised an objection previously. 14 And here we've got a question being framed 15 not as a hypothetical, but as a statement of fact, and I 16 have a concern with the accuracy of how this is being 17 characterized. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 Do you want to try again, Mr. Roy? 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, first of all, this 21 Witness' evidence was that he was at part of an 22 Interministerial Committee meeting; that's been his 23 evidence. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He -- 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: He attended --

216

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Pardon? 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- at the end of an IMC 3 meeting, so I'm -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know 5 that's what he's said. 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. So, I mean I'm 7 trying to take the facts as the Witness is -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 9 have to -- 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- discussing them. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: That's the first point. 13 The second point -- my second submission, Mr. 14 Commissioner, is that the Witness has already said that 15 he got a briefing from his executive assistant, Mr. 16 Bangs, about that issue being discussed -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- at the IMC meeting. 19 So, it is a fact in terms of this Witness' knowledge that 20 that issue was being discussed. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it 22 depends on how you put the question and I think it's just 23 the language that -- 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: I won't use the word 25 'debate', I'll use the word --

217

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- 'discuss'. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I think 4 that's the objection. But as far as attending an IMC 5 meeting, I'm still not clear about whether or not that's 6 an appropriate conclusion. 7 He came in at the tail end of it, he 8 indicated, so I'm not sure, on his evidence, whether he 9 was at any of the IMC meetings, even on his version. 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: It's unclear. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: I agree. It's 13 ambiguous. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, are you 15 going to ask the question again and see if we can -- 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: Without the word 17 'debate'. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: If I could only remember 20 what the question was, we'd be in business. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 23 Q: But my suggestion to you was, did 24 you, on reflection, do you now feel that it's appropriate 25 or inappropriate for political staffers and civil

218

1 servants to be discussing the issue of semi-automatic 2 versus automatic gunfire in a meeting such as that -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, I'm -- 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- during the course of 5 an ongoing police operation? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, we're 7 going to get some more objections. Let's hear from Ms. 8 Vella, and then, perhaps, Ms. Twohig. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Oh, no. The concern I 10 have is that the evidence has been that what was 11 discussed in relation to semi-automatic versus automatic 12 weaponry was -- was whether or not -- did the report, 13 that gunfire -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- had allegedly been 16 heard the night before -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- and the concern was 19 whether or not there was semi versus -- semi -- semi 20 versus automatic weaponry. And I think that has to be 21 clear as to not mislead the Witness with respect to 22 whether or not this was operational information. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: In other words, 25 relating to the police operations, as opposed to what

219

1 somebody heard. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 3 think you've made it clear in your objection. Do you 4 have anything more to add to that, Ms. Twohig? 5 MS. KIM TWOHIG: No, Mr. -- Mr. 6 Commissioner. I agree with Ms. Vella. The context is 7 very important. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MS. KIM TWOHIG: And we understand from 10 a number of witnesses that the purpose of the IMC meeting 11 was to gather information. And the question seems to 12 imply that in some way information gathering was 13 inappropriate and I'm not sure that My Friend actually 14 intends that, but that's the way it sounds to me. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: I -- I do intend that. 16 To be honest, I do intend to take the position, down the 17 road, that there are some types of information, in that 18 information gathering function, that are appropriate for 19 the IMC, and there are other types of information that 20 are inappropriate for a body like that. 21 That's why I do -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sure 23 you're going to make that argument -- 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and I'll

220

1 hear it at the appropriate time. 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: And I want to develop 3 evidence along those lines. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you'll 5 have to ask the questions with precision based on the 6 evidence. If you're going to read evidence or recite 7 evidence then it has to be accurate and in context. 8 That's all Ms. Vella is saying. 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, I agree with -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Twohig. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: I agree with Ms. Vella 12 to the extent that the question was unclear. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then let's 14 try to put the question appropriately -- 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: I -- I'd be happy to. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and see 17 if we can get an answer. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 20 Q: On reflection, do you agree that it 21 is inappropriate for political staffers to be discussing 22 the issue of whether or not gunfire is automatic or semi- 23 automatic in a forum such as the Interministerial 24 Committee? 25 A: I don't recall the -- the briefing

221

1 talking with the context of why they were talking about 2 it. My reflection of the conversation that Jeff briefed 3 me on the meeting was I asked him what are they talking 4 about, and he said they're going around and around in 5 circles, it's all over the place. 6 They seem to be talking about the 7 difference between a semi-automatic gun and an automatic 8 gun and we both thought it was kind of a waste of time. 9 I didn't reflect on it in terms of whether it even had 10 any connection to an operation that was happening -- 11 taking place or if it was a hypothetical discussion. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, I 13 don't think anything useful would be served by pursuing 14 this with this Witness any further. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: Your indulgence for one 16 moment? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 22 Q: I'm wondering if Exhibit 787, I have 23 that in the package for the Witness, but that's the next 24 document that I'd -- it's an e-mail from Peter Sturdy to 25 a number of officials from the Ministry of Natural

222

1 Resources. 2 A: 787 or what -- what is it? 3 Q: Yes, Exhibit 787. 4 A: Yes? 5 Q: Do you have that in front of you, 6 sir? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 Q: It's Inquiry Document 1009033, Mr. 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have it. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 13 Q: Let me ask you first, were you aware 14 of this e-mail? 15 A: Not that I'm aware of, no. 16 Q: Okay. Does it give you any concern 17 that a Ministry of Natural Resources official -- well 18 first of all let me show you -- let me direct you to the 19 part that I'm interested in. 20 It's the bullet point that says a hundred 21 (100) to a hundred and fifty (150) rounds of automatic 22 gunfire were reported from within Ipperwash Park; do you 23 see that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Does it give you any concern that a

223

1 Ministry of Natural Resources official is reporting on 2 information such as this? 3 A: I haven't seen this before. 4 Q: Yeah. 5 A: So I'm not sure if it, you know, if 6 it was somebody that lived near the Park or how they got 7 the information. I was aware that there was reports of 8 gunfire in the -- in the Park that night -- 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: -- but I hadn't seen this specific 11 report, no. 12 Q: And your point is, is if a Ministry 13 of Natural Resources person is just reporting things that 14 either they heard or a member of the community raised 15 with them, you wouldn't have a concern with it, correct? 16 A: That would be my assumption, too, on 17 -- on seeing this. 18 Q: But -- 19 A: But I didn't see it. 20 Q: -- if the facts were that that 21 information came from the Command Post of the OPP at 22 Ipperwash, would that give you some concerns? 23 A: Well, I would hope that they had 24 followed all the proper procedures that the OPP would 25 have in place.

224

1 Q: Okay. What about MNR procedures in 2 relation to the dissemination of that kind of 3 information? 4 A: You'd have to ask Ron Vrancart what, 5 specifically, they were. 6 Q: Okay. Well, I did and he didn't have 7 any -- he couldn't help me on whether or not there was 8 any protocols or -- 9 A: I'm not aware -- 10 Q: -- training on that issue. 11 A: I'm not aware of any, other than the 12 police would have them. 13 Q: Okay. So from the point of view of 14 MNR, there are no training or there's no protocols or 15 rules governing how information would flow from the OPP 16 and up the MNR chain of command? 17 A: Not that I'm aware of. 18 Q: And you didn't turn your mind to this 19 issue, correct? 20 A: No, I did not. I never knew that 21 there was even the allegations coming from the command 22 centre. Or from the OPP, for that matter. 23 Q: I take it that you never became aware 24 that the OPP raised this as a concern with one of your 25 officials, after the incident, about the flow of

225

1 information? 2 A: No, I wasn't. 3 Q: Is that something that you would have 4 hoped to be briefed on? 5 A: No, that wouldn't involve internal 6 staffing and policies; how members conduct themselves or 7 what information they pass on, those type of things. 8 Q: So you don't feel that that's 9 something that the Minister has to get involved in? 10 A: Well, if they're going to bring out a 11 new policy around it, I would have expected maybe to be 12 briefed on it. If there's collective agreement issues, 13 they may have brought it to my attention. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: I want to move onto another area and 18 it involves Exhibits 800 and 801. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How much 20 longer do you think you might be, Mr. Roy? It's been 21 just over an hour. 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes, I think I'll be -- 23 THE WITNESS: Which -- which number we 24 referring to? 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: If I could just address

226

1 you on the timing first. I would suspect another twenty 2 (20) minutes to a half an hour. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'd 4 like you to finish, if possible, before the break, so 5 let's keep going. Let's just see if we can -- 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you. I -- I think 7 I would finish before our ordinary break time. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 9 And which exhibit numbers -- 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: 800 and 801. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 800 and 801. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 14 Q: And I can give you the -- 15 A: I don't know if I have that. Can you 16 show me what it is? Is it this? Okay. 17 Q: I -- there's a fly in the ointment, 18 Your Honour. The -- the photocopies that I handed to the 19 witness don't have -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Don't have a 21 number on them. 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- the marking on them, 23 so. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 25 But that's what they are. That's fine.

227

1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Do you want the 2 exhibits handed to him? 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: Perhaps we could -- I 4 could ask the Registrar to pass up the original exhibits. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't know 6 if that's necessary. Are they the same? Just with the 7 numbers. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, or to describe 9 the document for the witness. There's no inquiry 10 document number or exhibit number. So the witness 11 doesn't know what document it is that's all. 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: I can -- I can describe 13 the document. The first one is October 25th, 1995, an e- 14 mail. And the Inquiry Document Number for Exhibit 800 is 15 1010139, Mr. Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 17 that I have those documents. 18 THE WITNESS: I apologize. I believe I 19 have the two (2), they were put together in the same file 20 as the first one, so. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh yes, I 22 have it. 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: Do you have that, Mr. 24 Commissioner? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I do

228

1 have them. 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: Okay. And the second 3 document I'll also be referring to is to Exhibit 801 4 which is Inquiry Document 1010135. 5 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Could we have the 6 dates on those, please? 7 MR. JULIAN ROY: The first, Exhibit 800 8 is -- is dated October 25th, 1995. 9 THE WITNESS: Okay. 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: And Exhibits for 11 counsel, Exhibit 801, is dated January 4th, 1996. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 14 Q: Now, Mr. Hodgson, I take it you would 15 have some pretty significant concern if you learned that 16 an MNR staff person was involved in generating racist 17 paraphernalia while on the job and on MNR premises, 18 correct? 19 A: Yes, I would. 20 Q: And you would have -- if you learned 21 that that happened, you would be concerned that the 22 people that were involved and actually creating that 23 material would be properly disciplined or re-educated 24 about issues, correct? 25 A: Yes.

229

1 Q: And it might, from a policy point of 2 view, even alert you to the need for further training, 3 generally, within the Ministry of Natural Resources, 4 correct? 5 A: It may, depending on the 6 circumstances. 7 Q: And what was your understanding in 8 terms of how incidents of that nature were to be 9 investigated within the Ministry of Natural Resources? 10 A: Just in a general sense, it's a 11 conduct of an employee and there's a lot of rules around 12 that that would have to be followed. 13 If it involves the unions, there was a 14 collective agreement that gives guidance on how a 15 discipline can be carried out. 16 Q: Okay. Let's leave aside the 17 discipline for a moment. 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: But you would have concerns about 20 this more than from the point of view of just discipline, 21 wouldn't you? 22 A: Well, in terms of routing out -- are 23 you talking about the investigation or are you talking 24 about the incident itself? 25 Q: Just addressing an incident of that

230

1 nature, there's -- one aspect of it could be disciplining 2 the employee, another aspect could be further education 3 or clarification of policies in the area, correct? 4 A: Well, that's what I just answered to 5 begin with. It -- it would depend on the circumstances 6 whether further education was needed for, was it a common 7 problem or was it isolated to this particular individual, 8 or this particular unit? 9 Q: And can you tell me how -- 10 A: In MNR operations. 11 Q: -- what the MNR would do to figure 12 out which one of those scenarios are actually occurring? 13 A: Well, this is an assumption, because 14 it's a hypothetical situation. Normally, there would be 15 a full vetting of the issues. There would be people in 16 the Ministry that have expertise on this and you would 17 listen to the options. 18 Q: Okay. So there would be somebody 19 whose job is specifically to deal with these types of 20 workplace issues, correct? 21 A: Well, it's through the Deputy 22 Minister's department. I wouldn't be privy to that 23 unless they came to me with policy change 24 recommendations. 25 Q: But your understanding would be that

231

1 it would be perhaps investigated or looked into by 2 somebody with some expertise on workplace issues, 3 correct? 4 A: I would assume that. You'd have to 5 ask Ron Vrancart or somebody in the civil service side 6 for the specifics. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: If you could look at Exhibit 801, the 11 second e-mail. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: If you can take -- I think you've had 16 an opportunity to read this, but I'm happy to give you a 17 second opportunity, if you like. 18 A: Yes, I just looked at it briefly. 19 I'm just taking another look, so. 20 Q: You want to take another look? 21 Please -- 22 A: No go ahead, and we'll see. 23 Q: Okay. It's the -- the e-mail dated 24 January 4th, 1996. Would it surprise you to know that 25 the Park Superintendent for Ipperwash was the one who was

232

1 responsible for investigating an allegation of racism on 2 the part of an MNR staff person, as opposed to somebody 3 with expertise, as you've described it? 4 A: I don't know. I would assume they 5 would follow the proper procedures inside the Ministry 6 for these type of incidents. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: And if you can look at the second 11 paragraph, it reads as follows: 12 "The incidents which occurred at the 13 meeting centre, pop can with feathers, 14 cartoons posted, mugs and t-shirts, and 15 bull's eye on OPP cruiser with feather, 16 have been investigated. 17 OPP involved in all incidents with the 18 exception of the cartoons; a meeting 19 centre staff member posted, with no 20 discriminatory intent, and was meant to 21 be a joke for the OPP." 22 Do you see that? 23 A: I see that. 24 Q: Does that give you any concerns about 25 the expertise or the quality of the investigation that

233

1 was done of this incident on behalf of your staff? 2 A: Well, was this an investigation of 3 the OPP officers? 4 Q: The aspect of the investigation that 5 related to the centre staff. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 7 Lauwers? 8 MR. PETER LAUWERS: This is the Minister 9 of Natural Resources, Mr. Commissioner. He's not the man 10 responsible on the ground or through the civil service 11 for the administration of anti-discrimination policies 12 within the Ministry. 13 It's completely inappropriate to ask Mr. 14 Hodgson questions about this. Mr. Vrancart was here, 15 others were here; they would have been the right people 16 to address these questions to. 17 With respect, I don't believe that these 18 questions are advancing the Inquiry one inch. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm inclined 20 to agree, but I think there's some questions that can be 21 asked, or at least establish what he does or doesn't know 22 or -- 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean, it's 25 not his responsibility, as Minister, to be involved in

234

1 these matters directly. 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: To be administering 3 discipline and conducting the investigation -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- I agree with that but 6 as a -- as a Minister he's ultimately responsible for the 7 policies that are in place in terms of how these issues 8 are dealt with. So -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, he said 10 that and that's why there's some questions that -- 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you can 13 probably ask him. 14 MR. JULIAN ROY: I just want you to 15 understand where I'm going. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But it's the 17 level of detail, it's the specifics that a Minister would 18 not ordinarily be involved in and you seem to be asking 19 questions that would be beyond the scope of the 20 minister's involvement or knowledge. 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If it's 23 policy matters then that's a different story. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Just -- just to tell you 25 where -- explicitly where I'm going --

235

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 2 don't have to tell me. 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: I want to. I want to 4 tell you what -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'd 6 rather you move on because I'm looking at the -- 7 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- clock and 9 I'd like for you to move on rather than tell me what 10 you're doing. Just do it. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: Okay. Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 14 Q: The -- the last sentence in that 15 paragraph: 16 "A meeting centre staff member posted 17 with no discriminatory intent, was 18 meant to be a joke for the OPP." 19 Do you see that? 20 A: I'm sorry. Can you read that again? 21 Q: The last sentence: 22 "A meeting centre staff member posted 23 with no discriminatory intent, was 24 meant to be a joke for the OPP." 25 Do you see that?

236

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Now, you would disagree with the 3 notion that whether or not something is intended as a 4 joke, or the suggestion that because it was intended as a 5 joke it's somehow not a serious matter, you would 6 disagree with that suggestion, wouldn't you? 7 A: No, I wouldn't. 8 Q: Okay. So in your view if a racist 9 paraphernalia is created and posted with the intention to 10 be a joke it's not something that -- that you would be 11 concerned about at the Minister? 12 A: I would assume that the proper 13 policies and procedures would be followed -- 14 Q: Okay. Well, I'm showing you -- 15 A: -- in the workplace environment. 16 Q: I'm showing you an aspect as to how 17 this investigation was pursued and I'm just asking for 18 your -- asking for your view as to whether or not, as 19 Minister, you would have felt that to be appropriate or 20 inappropriate. 21 A: Well, I don't know if the premise is 22 accurate or not. 23 Q: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I'm not 25 sure that he's in a position to make that judgment.

237

1 You're asking him to basically evaluate the procedures 2 that are in place and I'm not sure he's in a position to 3 do that. 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, he would be 5 empowered, in my respectful submission, to -- to or he 6 would be responsible for developing or instituting -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- the appropriate 9 policies -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That he's 11 ultimately responsible for all policy in the Ministry. 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: And I want -- I -- I 13 want to take him, to a limited extent, through how his 14 staff dealt with these allegations in this issue and have 15 his view on whether or not some new or better policies 16 are -- are called for, in my respectful submission. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 18 Vella? 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And I -- and I think 20 that that's fine, but it might be helpful to ensure that 21 the -- Mr. Hodgson understood what had been done and what 22 the result was so that he could then indicate the basis 23 for any policy issues perhaps. I think we went through 24 this in the examination-for-chief, mind you -- 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, we did.

238

1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: But the -- the memo 2 doesn't tell the whole story, in that respect, if you 3 will. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, carry 5 on. You started it, let's see where you're going. But 6 you gave me an estimate of time, which wasn't very long, 7 so I assume you don't have a great deal more time left. 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: I don't. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Let's 10 carry on. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: I don't. All I'm trying 12 to address is -- well, let me just ask the question. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, ask the 14 question. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 17 Q: I'm suggesting to you that the notion 18 that a racist -- the creation of racist paraphernalia and 19 its display on MNR property is a suggestion that it's 20 somehow ameliorated by the fact that it was intended as a 21 joke. 22 I'm asking you whether or not you're 23 satisfied with that approach to how these matters are 24 dealt with? 25 A: Well, without getting into your

239

1 conclusion -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: -- I don't know that to be true or 4 false. Any type of racist material and behaviour that 5 makes the workplace contaminated is unacceptable and my 6 belief is there are policies to prevent that from 7 happening. If -- if they weren't followed then the 8 proper rules -- the procedures are followed after that to 9 make sure it's corrected. 10 Q: So it would have been your 11 understanding that there would be written policies that 12 would address how an incident like this was to be 13 investigated and dealt with? 14 A: Well, there's huge collective 15 agreements for nine (9) bargaining units in the Ontario 16 Public Service. Large portions of those collective 17 agreements deal with issues around the workplace. 18 Q: Okay. Leaving aside the particular 19 individual who posted the items that are referred to in 20 the memo, would you not have concern also about the 21 impact that that might have on other staff members who 22 had access to that material? 23 A: I may have. And it's totally a 24 hypothetical discussion because I was not made aware of 25 this.

240

1 Q: Okay. Now, if you move onto the -- 2 to the -- the third paragraph in that memo. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Let me short circuit this a little 5 bit and take you to the second to the last where it 6 starts: 7 "When the threat of occupation of 8 Pinery was an issue..." 9 It's about half way down the page. 10 "When the threat of occupation of 11 Pinery was an issue..." 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: I want to read the paragraph to you. 14 "When the threat of occupation of 15 Pinery was an issue, a number of staff 16 and OPP officers had concerns of Stan 17 passing information to the radical 18 Stoney Pointers. The officers were 19 reluctant to provide much info to Stan. 20 I spoke with Inspector Carson re. this 21 situation and we both agreed that Stan 22 should be treated as any other staff 23 member unless it could be proven there 24 was a problem. We both passed this 25 onto our respective staff.

241

1 I believe Stan sensed this and 2 perceived it to be discriminatory." 3 Do you see that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Now you wouldn't regard that to be a 6 minor issue, would you? 7 A: I was not aware of this. 8 Q: Okay. But looking at it now, this -- 9 the -- the conduct being described here, Stan Cloud, an 10 Aboriginal MNR staff member, is under suspicion about 11 connections to the Stoney Pointers based on who he is. 12 That's not something of a minor nature, is 13 it? 14 A: Not in my opinion, no. 15 Q: Okay. And if you look earlier on in 16 the memo where the second indent: 17 "Also there was mention of Aboriginal 18 tech, Stan Cloud, feeling that he was 19 working in a poisoned work environment. 20 Due to the above noted and a couple of 21 other issues which he brought forward, 22 I have reviewed these issues with the 23 OPP and found them to be fairly minor 24 in nature with no discriminatory 25 intent."

242

1 Do you see that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: You wouldn't agree with the way this 4 issue was characterized in the memo, would you? 5 A: Well, for the individual involved, 6 Stan, I could -- this would be pretty traumatic for him, 7 I would imagine. 8 Q: Okay. And it's not something that -- 9 that you would view as fairly minor, correct? 10 A: Well, I would have -- I don't what 11 the definitions are of minor or major in the procedures 12 in the respective Ministries. 13 Q: You would expect that that would 14 require some pretty thorough and aggressive action on the 15 part of management to deal with this issue; would you 16 not? 17 A: I would have assumed that this issue 18 would have been dealt with in the proper manner. 19 Q: I want to ask you -- I want to move 20 on to another area. 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: I want to ask you whether or not, 23 prior to Mr. Vrancart testifying at the Inquiry, if you 24 ever had any discussion about the events at Ipperwash 25 with him after the Inquiry was announced but before he

243

1 testified? 2 A: I may have talked to him about the 3 Inquiry. I didn't talk about specifics or testimony or 4 any events or any recollections. But I have talked to 5 Mr. Vrancart, not often, but occasionally. 6 Q: And you think that happened after the 7 Inquiry was announced and before he testified? 8 A: Oh, I couldn't be sure on that. 9 Q: But you may have? 10 A: I may have seen him socially. 11 Q: Okay. What about Mr. Bangs? Have 12 you had any discussion with Mr. Bangs after the Inquiry 13 was announced but before he gave his evidence? 14 A: Oh yes. I'm friends with Mr. Bangs, 15 I see him quite often. 16 Q: Okay. And did the topic of the 17 Inquiry ever come up? 18 A: I would imagine the fact that he had 19 to appear, that I had to appear, that had to take time 20 away from work. The embarrassment of seeing stories in 21 the paper, yes. 22 Q: So, one of the things that you might 23 have discussed was things that were coming out in the 24 paper, right? 25 A: Only if it dealt with he or I.

244

1 Q: Okay. So if something in the paper, 2 something you read in the paper that related to you or 3 Mr. Bangs, that's the kind of thing you would have 4 discussed with him, correct? 5 A: If I ran into him, or talked to him, 6 yes. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Did you discuss with Mr. Bangs this - 11 - the notion of a meeting with Ron Fox prior to the 12 dining room meeting? 13 A: I didn't re -- talk to him specific 14 to his testimony. 15 We have talked about that for years, 16 since, well, probably a couple of years from when I first 17 saw the transcript. 18 Q: Okay. So when you saw the transcript 19 that came out and you're referring to the transcript of 20 the discussion between Ron Fox and John Caron and Chris 21 Coles -- 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: Once that became public, you may have 24 discussed with Mr. Bangs that transcript, correct? 25 A: Not the specifics, just the fact that

245

1 I thought it was wrong. 2 Q: I beg your pardon? 3 A: Not the specifics, just the fact that 4 I thought it was wrong. 5 Q: Okay. And what you thought was wrong 6 was how Ron Fox characterized your conduct at the dining 7 room meeting, correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And you asked Mr. Bangs about his 10 views, whether he agreed with you that Ron Fox was wrong, 11 right? 12 A: No, I think it was just a general 13 conversation. 14 Q: Okay. But, in any event, you would 15 have made clear to Mr. Bangs what your views were on Ron 16 Fox's -- 17 A: Or he made it clear -- 18 Q: -- account -- 19 A: -- to me, I can't recall but... 20 Q: Okay. So he may have made it clear 21 to you his views on Ron Fox's account, as reflected in 22 the tape? 23 A: Yeah, I can't be precise but -- you 24 know, I assume that took place, yeah. 25 Q: And in the course of that discussion,

246

1 a discussion about when you met with Ron Fox and when you 2 had the discussion with Ron Fox would have come up 3 naturally, right? 4 A: No, we were under the advice that we 5 shouldn't be talking specifics. I can't recall any -- 6 the details, but... 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: I may have over in -- time to time, 9 talked to him, specifically. And quite regularly I talk 10 to him. 11 Q: Yeah. What about Deb Hutton, have 12 you had any discussions with her after the Inquiry was 13 called and before she gave her evidence? 14 A: No. 15 Q: What about after she gave her 16 evidence, did you have any discussions with her? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Okay. And what about for Mr. Harris? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Did you have any discussions with him 21 at all about the Inquiry? 22 A: Well maybe just generally, that he 23 had to appear and I had to appear. 24 Q: So you may have had some general 25 discussions with Mr. Harris about the Inquiry process?

247

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Beg your pardon? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Thank you. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Just one last area of questioning, 9 Mr. Commissioner. Just -- 10 A: Yeah. Did you ask, specifically, if 11 I talked to Jeff Bangs after he testified? 12 Q: I didn't ask that. 13 A: No, I have talked to him since he 14 testified. 15 Q: Sure. 16 A: I just want to be clear on that. 17 Q: Thank you. I should have asked you 18 that, but I forgot. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: Thank you. 21 A: I didn't want to leave the impression 22 that I didn't talk to Mr. Bangs. 23 Q: Thank you. 24 A: All right. 25 Q: I want to go back to the -- just very

248

1 quickly, to the first meeting you had with Ron Fox which 2 is at the tail end of the IMC meeting that you've 3 described. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Did you expect that -- that Mr. 6 Harnick and Mr. Runciman were going to be attending that 7 meeting? 8 A: Yes, I did. 9 Q: Okay. And so you expected that they 10 were going to be missing the Cabinet meeting of Wednesday 11 morning also, right? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: And what -- what gave you that 14 impression? 15 A: Deb Hutton had said to Jeff, there's 16 going to be a Ministerial meeting, an update. It'll be 17 around 11:30-ish, with the Ministers and the Deputy 18 Ministers, to bring everyone up to speed. 19 Q: All right. And wasn't Mr. Runciman - 20 - wasn't he the Chair of the Cabinet meetings? 21 A: Yes, he was. 22 Q: Didn't it strike you as odd that -- 23 that Mr. Runciman would be skipping out of a Cabinet 24 meeting for a -- that he's chairing, for a meeting of 25 that nature?

249

1 A: Well, what happens is, if he has 2 other duties, there's an alternate that steps in, if this 3 has been arranged. 4 It's not that uncommon that there's other 5 meetings take place when Cabinet's underway. 6 Q: I see. If I could just have thirty 7 seconds, to just look at my notes, Mr. Commissioner -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, 9 certainly. 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: I see I've used up all 11 my time. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 13 fine. Certainly. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you very much, Mr. 18 Commissioner. Thank you very much, Mr. Hodgson. Those 19 are my questions. 20 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 22 Mr. Roy. 23 Mr. Lauwers, do you have any questions and 24 if you do how long do you think you might be? 25 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Three (3) minutes, I

250

1 hope. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Three (3) 3 minutes? 4 MR. PETER LAUWERS: That may be it. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's it? 6 Okay. Let's carry on. 7 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Thank you, sir. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 10 Q: I just want to bring your -- your 11 mind back to Mr. Horton's cross-examination, Mr. Hodgson, 12 when he referred to the directions from Deb Hutton as 13 being directions from the Premier. 14 Do you recall that line of questioning? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: What was your understanding of Deb 17 Hutton's authority, if any, in relation to you as a 18 Minister? 19 A: I assumed that she was a staff person 20 for the Minister -- for the Premier. She would represent 21 him in a general sense. 22 Specifically, my experience and -- you 23 know, being in government for ten (10) weeks was that if 24 the Premier had direct concerns with something I was 25 doing he would either come down the hall and talk to me

251

1 or phone me. 2 If I had problems or -- or a divergence of 3 opinion with the Premier I would talk to him. Deb Hutton 4 may have her opinions but I found the Premier to be open 5 to other suggestions, and if I had problems I would talk 6 them over with the Premier. 7 Q: Thank you. 8 A: Or if he had problems with my conduct 9 he would talk it over with me. 10 Q: I bring you back -- your mind back, 11 now, to Mr. Horton's questions concerning the dining room 12 meeting and about how Mr. Harris might view you with 13 respect to Ipperwash. 14 Do you recall that set of questions? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Can you describe for me, briefly, in 17 that context, whether you were worried about your job as 18 a Minister in the context of that dining room meeting? 19 A: Absolutely not. My experience in 20 working with Mike Harris was that if he had a concern he 21 was very direct. He would mention it and he would have 22 done it before. He wasn't one to sit around on issues; 23 if he was concerned he would have let me know. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: And he didn't -- didn't, so I always

252

1 assumed that he had the same understanding that I had, 2 that this was not my issue. 3 Q: Thank you. Those are all my 4 questions for re-examination, sir. 5 A: I have one (1) other point that I 6 would like to clarify on that. 7 Q: Go ahead. 8 A: My assumption was correct, as well, 9 that, normally, if I had a problem I'd try to deal with 10 it myself. If I couldn't resolve it I either went and 11 saw the Premier, David Lindsey, or Ernie Eves. 12 I had a concern about who they were 13 appointing as the spokesperson from this committee. I 14 dealt with the bureaucracy through the IMC before the 15 dining room meeting. I did not talk to Deb Hutton. I 16 did not talk to the Premier. 17 By the dining room meeting Larry Taman 18 announced that I was not the spokesperson, it was Charlie 19 Harnick. He'd seen the wisdom and -- or heard about it 20 through the IMC channels, I'm assuming, because it's 21 obvious by the evidence of Mr. Horton that Deb Hutton 22 didn't agree with that. But the final decision was one 23 that was made by the bureaucracy, that I was not the 24 spokesperson. 25 So my assumption was correct. I

253

1 appreciate that. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 3 very much, Mr. Hodgson. 4 Do you want to thank the Witness? 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Re-examination. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Re- 7 examination? 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: But not long. 9 10 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 11 Q: I just have a few questions, Mr. 12 Hodgson, arising from Mr. Scullion's cross-examination of 13 you. 14 Now, just -- I just want to ensure that we 15 understand what your evidence is before the Inquiry. Did 16 I hear you testify that, had you been the lead Minister 17 on the Ipperwash Park occupation, you would have entered 18 into negotiations regarding the issues underlining -- 19 underlying the Park occupation with the Stoney Point 20 occupiers, had you been told that the occupiers were 21 laying claim to the Park lands? 22 A: I may have said that would -- based 23 on my previous experience, how I would have approached 24 the issue. In reflection, I would have met with advisors 25 and we would have kicked around ideas, pros and cons. So

254

1 I can't say definitely. 2 I can't say that my answer, that my 3 approach would have been to drive out and meet the people 4 and find out more information would have changed anything 5 or any of the events that unfolded. I wouldn't presume 6 that. 7 Q: All right. So your evidence is that 8 that's an option you would have considered? 9 A: Yes. And that's the approach we took 10 in previous examples that summer. 11 Q: Okay. In retrospect, do you think 12 that you should have been appointed the lead Minister in 13 August of 1995 for this issue, once it came to the 14 attention of the Government? 15 A: No. I -- I don't know if it would 16 have made any difference. Charlie Harnick's a very 17 capable competent Minister. There's a lot of seasoned 18 and experienced staff in ONAS and in the Minister of 19 Attorney General. I'm not sure that the recommendations 20 would have been any different. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: That, of course, followed. 23 Q: Thank you. And you recall that you 24 were asked some questions concerning the August 14th, 25 1995 letter authored by Marcel Beaubien to the Attorney

255

1 General for which you received a copy? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And you were asked whether or not, 4 with respect to the sentence that read as, "Detailed to 5 Ministers Hodgson, Harnick and Runciman," you were asked 6 as to whether or not you could recall any interactions, 7 in or before August of 1995, which -- with Mr. Beaubien 8 about the Ipperwash Park issue? 9 A: No, I can't. 10 Q: Do you recall whether -- attending at 11 a -- whether or not there was a caucus meeting held in 12 August of 1995 in Cambridge, Ontario? 13 A: I can't recall that but I'm assuming 14 if there was one I would be there. 15 Q: All right. Does that refresh your 16 memory at all as to whether or not you may have had a 17 discussion with Mr. Beaubien about the Ipperwash Park 18 issue? 19 A: No, I -- no, it does not. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. Thank you. 21 That concludes the re-examination, Commissioner. 22 I wish, on behalf of the Inquiry, to thank 23 you very much for attending and giving your evidence at 24 the Inquiry, Mr. Hodgson. 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you very much.

256

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like to 2 thank you as well for coming and giving us the benefit of 3 your evidence and you'll be happy to know you're finished 4 now. Thank you very much. 5 THE WITNESS: I didn't know I had a 6 choice. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We can still 8 thank you. 9 THE WITNESS: Now you tell me I have a 10 choice. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we can 12 still thank you. 13 We're going to take a break now. And then 14 we'll start with our next witness. Thank you. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 16 17 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 18 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 20 for fifteen (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 2:54 p.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 3:13 p.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now

257

1 resumed. Please be seated. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 3 Vella? 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes. The Commission 5 calls, as its next witness, Marcel Beaubien, please. 6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Mr. 7 Beaubien. 8 MR. MARCEL BEAUBIEN: Good afternoon. 9 THE REGISTRAR: Sir, do you prefer to 10 swear on the Bible, affirm or use an alternate oath? 11 MR. MARCEL BEAUBIEN: I'll use the Bible. 12 I'm old fashion. 13 THE REGISTRAR: Would you state your name 14 in full for the record, please. 15 MR. MARCEL BEAUBIEN: Marcel Beaubien. 16 17 MARCEL BEAUBIEN, Sworn 18 19 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: Mr. Beaubien, you were elected the 21 Member of Provincial Parliament for Lambton from June the 22 8th, 1995 to May the 5th, 1999? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: As such the residents in and around 25 the Ipperwash Provincial Park, including Forest and the

258

1 residents of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, fell 2 within your riding at that time? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: I understand you started in the 5 insurance industry in 1971. 6 A: As a general insurance broker, yes. 7 But prior to that I was a medical technologist also at 8 the Sarnia General Hospital and the Strathroy Middlesex 9 Hospital. 10 Q: All right. For what period of time? 11 A: Now we're going back, 1964 to '66. 12 Q: All right. And I understand that you 13 entered into municipal politics and was a councillor in 14 Petrolia from 1976 until 1982? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: You then served as mayor of Petrolia 17 from 1985 until 1994? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: For seven (7) out of your nine (9) 20 years as mayor, you were a member of the Police 21 Commission in Petrolia and also the Chairman of the 22 Police Commission? 23 A: No, I was a member of the Police 24 Commission, now called Police Services Board, I think for 25 nine (9) years. I was Chairman for seven (7) years.

259

1 Q: Thank you. And what policing 2 authority patrolled Petrolia? 3 A: At that particular point in time was 4 a local Detachment that we had. 5 Q: And what jurisdiction did the Police 6 Commission have that you were Chair of? 7 A: Could you repeat that question? 8 Q: What -- what was the -- what policing 9 authorities did your Commission -- the Police Commission 10 have jurisdiction over? 11 A: The response -- the Police department 12 was responsible for providing policing within the 13 boundaries of the town of Petrolia, which comprised of 14 approximately fifty-two (5,200), fifty-five hundred 15 (5,500) people. 16 Q: Now, what was the main functions of 17 that Police Commission? 18 A: Basically, the Police Commission was 19 to set the -- the policies for the police department. 20 And certainly we did have complaints that we had to air 21 from residents of the town of Petrolia. 22 Q: What was your role as the Chairman of 23 that Commission? 24 A: My role was to, well certainly 25 conduct the meetings that we had on a monthly basis and

260

1 basically lead the other Commissioners into the goals -- 2 policy goals that we wanted to achieve as a town. 3 Q: As you've testified, you next turned 4 to Provincial politics and were elected as the Member of 5 Provincial Parliament for the riding of Lambton on June 6 the 8th, 1995. 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And you were elected as a member of 9 the Conservative Party? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: What motivated you to become a Member 12 of Provincial Parliament? 13 A: Well, in 1994 I announced, I think 14 during the summer, prior to the November election, 15 municipal election, that I was not going to seek another 16 -- a fourth term as mayor. 17 I also decided that on December the 1st 18 that I had sold my business and I thought I was ready for 19 retirement. 20 And six (6) weeks later I figured that 21 maybe I might have made a mistake by quitting everything. 22 So I had three (3) choices. 23 One was to go back into business; pursue 24 job offers that had been offered to me in the corporate 25 world, but I had never really worked in the corporate

261

1 world; and thirdly, had been approached to run 2 provincially. 3 So I thought the third option might be my 4 best choice. 5 Q: Now, during your first term as an 6 MPP, you were the parliamentary assistant to the Minister 7 of Agriculture, Foods and Rural Affairs from July 13, 8 1995 to April 21, 1997? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: You were also a member of various 11 standing committees over the course, from time to time, 12 of your first term and, in particular, of regulations and 13 private Bills, the standing committee on public accounts, 14 the standing committee on estimates and the standing 15 committee on the office of the Ombudsman? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: You then served a second term as the 18 Member of Provincial Parliament, this time for Lambton- 19 Kent-Middlesex. 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: From June 3, 1999 to September the 22 2nd, 2003? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And during your second term, you held 25 various positions over the course of that term and, in

262

1 particular, you were the parliamentary assistant to the 2 Minister of Finance? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And you served again on a number of 5 standing committees over the course of this term, 6 specifically the Justice and Social Policy Committee, and 7 Finance and Economic Affairs Standing Committee? 8 A: That's correct, and I would also add 9 that I was the Chairman of the standing committee before 10 -- responsible for the Ombudsman. 11 Q: Also during your second term? 12 A: That's right. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: There is -- there is an error, then, 17 on the Legislative Assembly website for the Member's 18 Parliamentary history. Perhaps with that one addition, 19 we could enter into evidence as the next exhibit, the 20 Member's Parliamentary history for Marcel Beaubien. 21 THE REGISTRAR: P-1022, Your Honour. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 1022. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1022: Parliamentary history of 25 Marcel Beaubien.

263

1 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 5 Q: Now, how did you see your role as the 6 Member of Provincial Parliament for Lambton? 7 A: Well, I was sitting in the audience 8 for the past hour, hour and a half and I was -- I found 9 it somewhat appropriate that Mr. Hodgson would refer to 10 Mr. Murdoch (phonetic) as a constituency man. 11 I would consider myself also a 12 constituency man, a representative of the people from 13 Sarnia -- or from Lambton or Lambton-Kent-Middlesex in 14 Toronto, as opposed to representing the Toronto interests 15 into my riding. And there's a big difference. 16 Q: Tell me what that difference was, 17 from your perspective? 18 A: Well, there's no doubt that if you 19 are construed or perceived to be a constituency man that 20 sometimes you don't fit in the mould when you're in 21 Toronto. But I always felt that the people -- people of 22 Lambton elected me to represent them in Toronto, not me 23 representing the Toronto interests in my riding. 24 Q: All right. And by "Toronto" you're 25 referring to Queen's Park?

264

1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And how did you approach your job, 3 then, as MPP? 4 A: Not any differently than I did as a 5 councillor or a mayor of a community. There's people 6 that have different difficulties or problems with certain 7 ministries; some are personal, some may business in 8 nature, some could be the social problems that they have. 9 My role -- I felt my role was to be the 10 pipeline between my constituency and Queen's Park. 11 Q: And as part of that, then, was it 12 part of your job, if you will, to ascertain what the main 13 issues affecting your constituents were? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And how did you go about ascertaining 16 what those issues were? 17 A: Well, in most cases people approach 18 you. They either approach you personally or they call 19 you on the phone in order to discuss their problem. 20 And once we agree that there's a problem 21 we follow through with the appropriate Ministry and 22 hopefully we get a reply. And in some cases we are 23 successful at times that we do get some positive answers 24 and some positive results. 25 Q: All right. So one (1) of your roles

265

1 was also to try to get the attention of the Provincial 2 Government to local issues which were relayed by your 3 constituents? 4 A: That's correct, because sometimes 5 it's difficult when you represent a rural riding to be 6 noticed, especially when you're from southwestern Ontario 7 because we seem to be at the end of the world here when 8 it comes to Queen's Park and I'm sure at other levels 9 also. 10 Q: All right. And what measures did you 11 have at your disposal, as an MPP, to attempt to draw 12 local concerns to the attention of Queen's Park? 13 A: Well, I'm -- I've always been known 14 as an individual that speaks his mind, that shoots from 15 the hip and consequently I was never shy about 16 approaching a Ministry or a Minister or anybody working 17 in the Ministry with regards to solving a problem or 18 getting an answer. 19 Q: All right. And so you would use -- 20 use the telephone, for example? 21 A: We'd use the telephone. We used the 22 fax and this modern technology called e-mails at times, 23 but I still like to use the phone. 24 Q: And would you also use the form of a 25 caucus meeting?

266

1 A: Oh, yes. 2 Q: Can you perhaps tell us a little bit 3 about what a caucus meeting...? 4 A: Well, a caucus meeting is a -- is a - 5 - and I'm sure whether you're Conservative, Liberal, NDP 6 or whatever, everybody has caucus meetings and we used -- 7 used to have caucus meetings once -- once a week. This 8 is after the Cabinet was sworn in, post June 26th, 1995, 9 if we go back, whereby we'd use a room of this nature. 10 Basically, it's set up like this where you 11 have a -- a caucus chair and whoever makes -- whoever's 12 on the agenda, if the Attorney General happens to be on 13 the agenda, the Attorney General sits beside the caucus 14 chair, makes his presentation, and then fields questions 15 from the different members. 16 And as a backbencher, if you have concerns 17 in your riding, I always felt that this is a proper 18 medium to bring your concerns because not only are you 19 informing the Minister or the Ministry involved, but 20 you're also informing the other -- at that time we had 21 eighty-two (82) -- eighty-two (82) caucus members, so 22 you're also making the other members aware of the 23 situation. 24 Q: All right. You indicated that the 25 caucus meetings were once a week, once Cabinet was sworn

267

1 in? 2 A: Except when the House is sitting. 3 When the House is not sitting, then you usually have what 4 you call -- what you call the caucus retreats and they're 5 usually once a month. 6 Q: Thank you. Now, were there any 7 protocols in place for MPPs who wished to contact the 8 Premier? 9 A: Well, I don't know if there's a 10 protocol, but we did have a briefing when the members 11 were elected and I -- I'm sure it was brought up at that 12 time. 13 But I -- it's understood that when you 14 call the Premier's office, that you don't -- you don't 15 usually get the Premier. I've never, you know, called 16 the Premier's office or any Minister's office and get the 17 Minister at the other end of the phone; that there's a 18 caucus liaison person that you go through and that person 19 passes on the message either to the Premier or the 20 Minister's executive secretary and it goes on from there. 21 I mean, I spent twenty-five (25) years or 22 twenty-four (24) years in the insurance business and I 23 always had -- not always, but most of the time the 24 secretaries answered the phone. 25 And basically it works the same thing at

268

1 the Ministry or the Premier's office. 2 Q: All right. And over the course of 3 the summer/fall of 1995, who was the caucus liaison? 4 A: Bill King, for the Premier's office. 5 Q: All right. Were there different 6 caucus liaisons for the other Ministers? 7 A: Oh yes. Each -- each Ministry had a 8 caucus liaison person. 9 Q: Now, do you recall who the caucus 10 liaison was for the Ministry of Natural Resources in the 11 summer and fall of -- 12 A: I think it -- 13 Q: -- 1995? 14 A: I think it was Jeff Bangs. 15 Q: Does the name Leslie Shimmin ring a 16 bell? 17 A: Leslie Shimmin was -- I don't know 18 whether she was Jeff's executive assistant but she 19 basically was our first -- first line of contact or of 20 the first -- the person we talked to when we called MNR. 21 Q: All right. And who was the first 22 person who would be your first line of contact for the 23 Solicitor General's office? 24 A: I think it was Kathryn Hunt, if I 25 recall. I could be wrong on this, but I think that's who

269

1 it was. 2 Q: And for the Attorney General's 3 office? 4 A: Oh, for the -- oh. Dave Moran, I 5 think. You're really taxing my brain here. 6 Q: And it's late in the day, too. All 7 right, prior to September of 1995, how well did you know 8 the former Premier, Michael Harris? 9 A: Well, I had met him at a photo op -- 10 well, first of all, I met him during the campaign. He 11 did attend our -- come into our riding once and I had met 12 him once prior to that at a photo op in Toronto whereby 13 it was a process line. You come in, you stand beside the 14 Premier, you take your picture and you go away. 15 You say hi, goodbye and that's about the 16 extent of the meeting I had with him. 17 Q: And you come away with a lovely 18 framed photograph -- 19 A: That's -- that's correct. 20 Q: -- for your office. 21 A: Which I've lost, for some reason I 22 don't -- misplaced somewhere. 23 Q: All right. And prior to September of 24 1995, how well did you know the Minister of Natural 25 Resources, Christopher Hodgson?

270

1 A: Well, except for a couple caucus 2 colleague most -- most of the people were strangers to 3 me because Mr. Hodgson was from the Haliburton area and I 4 was from south-western Ontario, so most of the people in 5 caucus would be new acquaintances. 6 Q: All right, and just to be specific, 7 was -- was Charles Harnick a new acquaintance? 8 A: Yes, he was. 9 Q: And what about Robert Runciman? 10 A: He was. 11 Q: All right. And where was your 12 constituency office located? 13 A: My constituency office was located on 14 Highway 21 which is now called Oil Heritage Road, and it 15 was located directly across from the OPP station in 16 Petrolia. 17 Q: In Petrolia? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right, and that's the OPP 20 Detachment? 21 A: That's correct. At that time, I only 22 had one (1) constituency office. In the second term I 23 had three (3). 24 Q: Okay. Let's stick with the first 25 term --

271

1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: Thank you. Now, describe your 3 relationship with the local OPP in Petrolia in and around 4 1995? 5 A: Well, at that particular point in 6 time, I knew probably 90 percent of -- maybe 100 percent 7 of the officers in the Detachment because we played ball 8 together, we played hockey together. Some of them were - 9 - well, quite a few of them were clients. 10 So some were personal friends and so we 11 ran into each other pretty well on a daily basis. 12 Petrolia is not a very large town so if you stop at a 13 coffee shop, chances are you might see somebody you know. 14 Q: Fair enough. And did you have any 15 particular police officers with whom you had a special 16 relationship with in terms of contact? 17 A: Well Wade Lacroix who was the -- I 18 think his -- the proper title was the Staff Sergeant, I 19 stand to be corrected but I think that -- that was his 20 title, of the Petrolia Detachment. 21 I'd known Wade probably for fifteen (15) 22 to twenty (20) years. He was a client of mine. I didn't 23 play hockey, I didn't play sports with him because I 24 don't think he played sports, but I certainly knew him on 25 a personal basis and a business basis.

272

1 Q: All right. And in the event that you 2 wanted to raise any local constituents policing matter 3 concerns? 4 A: Well, I felt very comfortable to talk 5 to Wade at any time because, first of all, let me take 6 you back, is in the last six (6) months, when I was mayor 7 or the town of Petrolia, small police departments in 8 Ontario were experiencing a lot of difficulties to meet 9 the new regulations set by the Province. 10 So we had a lot blank time. In other 11 words, where we had no police officers on duty but 12 strictly on call. So we were one of the first 13 communities in Ontario to look at contracting the OPP. 14 It was not a popular move with some of the 15 police officers initially, but I think in the long run 16 they certainly appreciated, you know, what ha -- what 17 occurred. 18 And the initial contact and discussion 19 took place with Wade because he was the local person 20 responsible for that and then we deal with people from -- 21 I think it was from Orillia, directly from the OPP 22 headquarters. 23 Q: Okay. Leaving aside the Ipperwash 24 Park and army camp issue for a moment, did you have any 25 occasion to raise local constituency concerns with Staff

273

1 Sergeant Lacroix, prior to September of '95? 2 A: Prior to September of '95? Well, 3 yes, there was the West Ipperwash issue which had been 4 an ongoing situation, I don't know for how long, but 5 probably a couple of years, I think, by the time we were 6 elected. 7 There were reports from some of my 8 constituents in the immediate area that they were being 9 harassed, threatened. So there was, you know, there were 10 some concerns and some of them were complaining that the 11 level of policing provided by the OPP was not adequate. 12 So, I certainly made contact with Mr. 13 Lacroix or Staff Sergeant Lacroix to get his side of the 14 -- of the story whether the, you know, the proper 15 policing was in place. 16 So, we did have some ongoing discussion 17 with that particular subject matter. 18 Q: All right. We'll return to that 19 subject matter in a little bit. Before we go there, I 20 would like to ask you some more questions about being a 21 new MPP. 22 Upon becoming an MPP, did you participate 23 in any orientation program at Queen's Park? 24 A: Yeah. There was a -- I think I 25 briefly alluded to the fact that there was a brief -- I

274

1 think it was a couple of hours one afternoon at Queen's 2 Park in the Legislative Assembly, but it certainly was 3 not an extensive briefing. 4 Q: All right. Do you recall whether or 5 not you received any written materials? 6 A: We probably received written -- 7 written material but, you know -- 8 Q: All right. 9 A: -- I -- I ca -- I can't recall. 10 Q: All right. Do you have any specific 11 recollection of what topics you were briefed on? 12 A: Nothing in particular. I think, if I 13 recall, to the best of my recollection, was that we had a 14 couple of presenters. One was a member that had been 15 sitting in -- in Toronto for, I think, two (2) terms, 16 talking about the role of the MPP, what they expect from 17 you, but nothing in any detail. 18 Q: Hmm hmm. Well, was -- how was the 19 role of the MPP described to you? 20 A: Do -- you know, you're asking me now? 21 I -- I guess I was not a very good student. I can't 22 recall. 23 Q: All right. Fair enough. Do you have 24 any recollection of being specifically briefed on the 25 concept of the division between police and government?

275

1 A: No. 2 Q: Did you have any understanding of 3 that concept when you became MPP in June of 1995? 4 A: Well personally I think I had a 5 fairly good concept of what the role of politician versus 6 the role of a -- in relationship to police officer or a 7 police department. 8 Like I said, I sat on a Police Commission 9 for nine (9) years, I attended meetings, I attended 10 different conventions whereby the role was certainly -- 11 was the topic of the subject matter. 12 My goal -- my goal or my view of it was 13 quite clear that, as a politician, you look after the 14 policy; when it comes to policing matter, you leave it to 15 the police to do it. 16 Q: Hmm hmm. 17 A: There should be no interference, 18 never there -- never interfere as a municipal politician 19 and never, and I emphasise the word never, did I 20 interfere with any police department. 21 Q: All right, and just so that we 22 understand what you mean by that -- that concept, what do 23 you mean by policing matters, non-interference with 24 policing matters? 25 A: Well, for instance, if you have a

276

1 policy, say, well, we'll use the speeding limit is a 2 hundred (100) kilometres, going between Petrolia and 3 Forest. 4 And if I'm doing a hundred and twenty 5 (120), I'm breaking the law. It's up to the officer to 6 decide, you know, whether he's going to give me or she's 7 going to give me a ticket, a warning, or what. 8 It's not up to me to -- to say, well, I 9 don't deserve a ticket or not. If I broke the law, it's 10 up to the officer to decide what he or she is going to 11 do. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: Very simplistic, but I think that's 14 as simple as I can put it. 15 Q: Thank you. And to your knowledge, 16 were there any formal protocols or rules in place which 17 set out, if you will, the do's and don't's of police/MPP 18 contact? 19 A: Not that I'm aware of. 20 Q: Okay. Were you aware of any specific 21 protocols or rules, written rules, which prevented any 22 and all communications between MPPs and local police with 23 respect to ongoing policing operations? 24 A: Not that I'm aware of. 25 Q: Do you have any understanding of any

277

1 limits or restrictions, if any, on the content of 2 communications which an MPP could have with police? 3 A: Not that I'm aware of. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, prior to your election as Member 8 of Provincial Parliament in June of 1995, did you have 9 any awareness or knowledge of the Aboriginal dispute 10 against the Federal Government with respect to Camp 11 Ipperwash? 12 A: And when you're talking about Camp 13 Ipperwash, I want to make sure that we're talking about 14 the Army Base? 15 Q: The Military Base. 16 A: Yes. I was aware, I mean I -- I've 17 lived in this area for a number of years. You know, I've 18 -- just because I was an insurance broker in Petrolia, I 19 wrote insurance across the Province, so I did have 20 clients in this area. 21 I certainly was aware of the situation 22 that -- maybe not all the details, but certainly aware 23 of, in a general tone, of what was going on. 24 Q: And what was your understanding of 25 what was going on as at, you know, June '95?

278

1 A: Well, in June -- I think in 1993, 2 that the Base was taken over and at that particular point 3 in time I think this was when I found out that the 4 Federal Government had promised after they had 5 expropriated the land, that they would turn it back to 6 the native after the War. 7 I don't think I was aware of that prior to 8 1995. I think I became aware of that around that time, 9 and I could certainly sense and feel and share their 10 frustration that, you know, if you're promised something 11 forty (40), fifty (50) years before, and as we speak 12 today, you still have not acted, I think I'd be somewhat 13 frustrated myself. 14 Q: All right. And you said that you 15 thought that the Base was taken over in 1993. 16 Was that the entire base? 17 A: No. That was just part of the Base. 18 I think there was co-existence between the army personnel 19 that were on the Base and the occupiers. 20 Q: All right. 21 Now as a municipal politician, did you 22 have any involvement in that matter? 23 A: No, no, because Petrolia's, well, 24 thirty-five (35) -- thirty (30) miles away and it's just 25 like being in Toronto, really. It doesn't really impact

279

1 on you directly. 2 Q: All right, and I was going to ask you 3 where -- where Petrolia was in relation to Forest and 4 it's about thirty (30) miles away? 5 A: That's correct, south -- I guess 6 south-west of here. 7 Q: How many kilometres would that be? 8 A: I thought you would ask me that, 9 because you're much younger than I am. So I would say 10 probably, what? Fifty (50), forty-five (45) to fifty 11 (50) I would think. 12 Q: Somewhere in that vicinity. 13 A: I'll -- I'll clock it tonight and 14 make sure. 15 Q: Okay. Fair enough. 16 Now, you -- you indicated that prior to 17 September of 1995 you -- one of the issues you became 18 involved in had to do with West Ipperwash? 19 A: That's correct. That's probably the 20 first issue that I dealt with after I was elected. 21 Q: And when you say, "first issue," do 22 you mean first constituency issue of significance? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: All right. And prior to your 25 election as an MPP how familiar were you with the West

280

1 Ipperwash issue? 2 A: Well, I was aware of the legal action 3 taken by the natives against the -- I can't remember how 4 many property owners, I think it's comprised of about 5 sixty (60) -- seventy (70) acres I think and maybe 6 eighty (80) people. I can't remember exactly the exact 7 numbers. 8 And the reason I was aware is because 9 again I had clients that lived there and I had 10 acquaintances, friends, that lived there also. 11 Q: And perhaps you could tell us if you 12 could, describe where the -- the piece of property or the 13 lands in question were located relative to the Park and 14 the Army Camp? 15 A: Well, it would be -- it's located 16 west of -- of the Army Camp but closer to the Kettle 17 Stony -- 18 Q: Point Reserve? 19 A: That's right, yeah. 20 Q: All right. And how did this matter 21 come to your attention as a member of Provincial 22 Parliament? 23 A: Well, like I said it was brought to 24 my attention by friends and they were very frustrated 25 also and -- and I shared their -- their concern and

281

1 their frustration because some of them, I don't know, 2 some of them lived there for a number of years. 3 They had -- they thought they had a clear 4 title to their land and I'm sure when they purchased the 5 property that they had paid the land transfer tax. And I 6 thought in Ontario that once you had a clear deed to your 7 property that you should be able to enjoy that property 8 and these people were not able to do that. 9 And I felt that the Provincial Government 10 had some type of responsibility to help these people in 11 defraying some of the costs. There were some tremendous 12 amount of legal costs involved with that which they 13 pocketed themselves. 14 And I think we all have to look at ourself 15 and ask each -- each one of us has to ask the question: 16 If I were in their boat or in their situation how would I 17 feel, especially when I have a piece of paper that tells 18 me that I've got a legal deed to my property? I paid all 19 the taxes and somebody comes along and says, No. And the 20 Province is sitting on the sideline doing nothing. 21 So, it was a -- you know I could -- I 22 could see why the people are frustrated with that 23 particular situation. 24 Q: All right. And just so that we're 25 all familiar with what you're speaking of do -- do -- can

282

1 you just tell us firstly who you understood the parties 2 to this dispute to be and what the dispute was about so 3 far as you understood it? 4 A: Well, as far as I understood it 5 apparently the -- you know again, you know I'm going back 6 and I haven't refreshed but I -- I think the -- the suit 7 was somewhat unique because as opposed to having a land 8 claim on that property each individual property owner was 9 being sued by the natives which -- 10 Q: By which organization? 11 A: Pardon? 12 Q: By -- by whom were they -- 13 A: By the natives. By the -- 14 Q: Can you be more specific? 15 A: The Kettle Stony. 16 Q: The First Nation? 17 A: That's right, yeah. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: And so it certainly presented an 20 interesting twist because it was not your typical land 21 claim and so consequently people were left to themselves 22 to -- and they had to fend for themself also, you know, 23 financially and legally and everything. 24 Q: And you indicated that you first 25 heard about the specific concerns through friends of

283

1 yours. Now, were these friends current property owners? 2 A: Well, some have passed away. 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: Yes, but some are still living -- 5 Q: At the time I mean. 6 A: Yes. Yes. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: And -- all right. How familiar were 10 you with the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation when you 11 became MPP? 12 A: Well, you know I -- I represented the 13 Kettle and Stony. I -- as a young teenager I lived in 14 Bluewater. Now that may not mean anything to you but it 15 -- that was in the south end of Sarnia. And whereby on 16 one side of the street we had the Sarnia Chippewas, 17 that's the Aamjiwnaang, I think it's called today, and on 18 the other side we had Bluewater. 19 So, I -- I've interactively Native people 20 since I was about fifteen (15) years old. Played hockey, 21 played sports, went to school and good friends with them. 22 So, I was aware of Walpole, I was aware of 23 Kettle Stony and other First Nations. 24 Q: All right. Now you became MPP for 25 the area, did you also receive concerns or any -- any

284

1 information from your constituents with respect to the 2 West Ipperwash issue? 3 A: Oh yes. 4 Q: And can you tell us in -- in general 5 what those concerns were that were being conveyed to you 6 as MPP? 7 A: Well aside from the -- the claim, 8 there was no doubt that there was some intimidation, some 9 harassment, some break-ins, people were being threatened 10 in some cases. 11 And these are the complaints that, you 12 know, that I was fielding from the constituents. 13 Q: All right. And did they tell you who 14 -- who they believed were causing the intimidation and 15 the other acts you -- you've indicated? 16 A: Yeah. In -- in this case the finger 17 was pointed at -- at the Natives. 18 Q: And any particular group? 19 A: Well that fluctuated because some of 20 them were familiar to the people that lived there but 21 others they weren't -- you know, they didn't know who 22 they were. They were new faces. 23 Q: All right. And did the constituents 24 draw a link between this activity and the West Ipperwash 25 litigation?

285

1 A: Well I think some people alluded to 2 the fact that, you know, maybe it was part and parcel but 3 I, you know, I'm only going by what the people were 4 telling me. I don't know. Like I said I don't live in 5 the area so it's something that I did not certainly 6 experience myself. 7 Q: I appreciate -- 8 A: But yes, they were alluding to that. 9 Q: All right. Yes and of course it's 10 good to -- to advise as you have that the basis of your 11 information essentially is what's being reported to you. 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: All right. And I wonder if you would 14 look at Tabs 1 to 5 of the Commission counsel brief in 15 front of you and I'll just identify the documents, 16 Commissioner, and then we'll ask some questions about 17 them. 18 The first is a handwritten letter dated 19 June 6, 1995, Inquiry Document 12000029. 20 The second Tab 2 is a handwritten document 21 addressed to Marcel Beaubien dated June 27, 1995, Inquiry 22 Document 12000036. 23 At Tab 3 is a typed letter addressed To 24 Whom It May Concern dated June 30, 1995, Inquiry Document 25 12000037.

286

1 At Tab 4 it's a typed letter addressed to 2 Marcel Beaubien dated July 10, 1995, Inquiry Document 3 12000039. 4 And Tab 5 is a handwritten letter to 5 Marcel Beaubien dated -- or at least, yes, dated July 21, 6 1995 and it's Inquiry Document Number 12000045. 7 And first of all, just in a general way, 8 Mr. Beaubien, can you identify these letters? 9 A: Well these are in -- I must admit 10 these are only a few of the letters we'd receive and 11 phone calls we'd receive. But basically these letters 12 are by individuals that are expressing their frustration 13 and their concerns with what was going on in the area. 14 These -- I would say they were typical 15 letters that we received. 16 Q: And it says: 17 "With respect to the West Ipperwash 18 situation..." 19 A: That's correct. At this point in 20 time, yes. 21 Q: And you've indicated that this is a 22 representation of the numbers that you -- the letters you 23 received? 24 A: Oh the numbers were larger but 25 certainly these five (5) letters would be a good

287

1 representation. 2 Q: And I wonder -- and first of all, did 3 you receive these letters in your capacity as a Member of 4 Provincial Parliament? 5 A: Yeah. Because June 27 I think we 6 were elected on June the 8th and my job started the next 7 morning so. 8 Q: All right. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Commissioner, I'd like 10 to make the group of letters the next exhibit please. 11 THE REGISTRAR: P-1023, Your Honour. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 13 14 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1023: Document Numbers 12000029, 15 12000036, 12000037, 12000039, 16 12000045. Letters to Marcel 17 Beaubien re. West Ipperwash 18 Beach Civil Action, June and 19 July/'95. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 22 Q: Now, what were the -- the -- the main 23 concerns that you had expressed to you by your -- by the 24 constituents, the property owning -- the owners with 25 respect to, you know, the concerns they wish you to

288

1 address on their behalf? 2 A: Well, there's no doubt probably the 3 number 1 issue to -- at least the first meeting that I 4 had with them was the -- the cost involved with the suit 5 and I remember meeting with a number of people, I can't 6 remember how many people, but if I recall we met at the 7 Forest Golf Club. 8 I think it was on a Saturday or a Sunday 9 morning and that was certainly one of their concerns, but 10 I think if you read the letters, I think the letters are 11 self-explanatory, that for instance, if we go to Tab 1, 12 second paragraph, it says: 13 "I retired from teaching in June of 14 1991, continued to work until she was 15 diagnosed with stomach cancer in June 16 of 1992. We made our house at West 17 Ipperwash beach our principle residence 18 during the summer of 1992. 19 We were served with a papers for the 20 land claim of the Chippewa of Kettle 21 and Stony in December of 1992." 22 So this is the type of thing -- not only 23 was the -- the frustration and the financial aspect, but 24 I think it was taking a toll on the health of the people 25 in the area.

289

1 Q: The uncertainty with respect to the 2 status of their ownership, you mean? 3 A: Sure, because we had realized that 4 for most people, home ownership is the largest investment 5 that they make. 6 And if you're like this person here, 7 basically retired, probably on a fixed income and all of 8 a sudden your largest investment that you work a whole 9 lifetime is being challenged, I would strongly suggest to 10 everyone in this audience here today, that it would 11 create some increase of stress level, I would think. 12 Q: All right. And did you attend at any 13 group meetings, if you will, related to the West 14 Ipperwash beach litigation? 15 A: You mean the -- from the West 16 Ipperwash property owners? 17 Q: For example. 18 A: Yeah, I -- I met with them on 19 different occasions, yes. I met once or twice, I think, 20 at -- and I stand to be corrected, but I think it was 21 twice at the residence of one of the property owner at 22 West Ipperwash, along with the executive of -- they had a 23 committee, I met with their committee. 24 Q: All right 25 A: A couple of times.

290

1 Q: And what time frame were these 2 meetings? 3 A: Well -- 4 Q: General. 5 A: I would say some -- some times after, 6 you know, mid June or early June. 7 Q: All right. And is it -- 8 A: I don't have -- 9 Q: -- generally in the summer of 1995? 10 A: That's correct, yes. 11 Q: All right. 12 A: And I would add, if I may interject 13 here, that George Hext who's no longer with us, but again 14 I don't know what -- I think, George was the secretary or 15 treasurer of the committee, but also was a resident of 16 the town of Petrolia. 17 And I had known -- George was a personal 18 friend, certainly he was a client of mine, and I had 19 known George for probably since 1970. 20 Q: Right. And what, if any, anything 21 did the West Ipperwash Association -- Properties 22 Association ask you to do on their behalf as their MPP? 23 A: Well, I can't recall exactly what 24 they wanted me to do, but I -- generally speaking, I 25 think basically is they were frustrated that there was no

291

1 financial help from the Province, in helping them to deal 2 with this particular legal situation. 3 And I brought their concerns to the 4 appropriate Ministry and, of course, really there was 5 really nothing that really happened later on, but at 6 least I felt it was my role to raise it at the 7 Ministerial level. 8 Q: All right. And what specifically did 9 you attempt to raise at the Ministerial level? 10 A: Well, first of all, it was my 11 understanding, as a property owner, that once I have a 12 legal deed to a piece of property that I should be 13 somewhat protected. And if not, then maybe the Province 14 has a role to play with regards to some type of financial 15 remuneration. 16 I realized that there's no way that I 17 could interfere because the -- I think at that time the - 18 - the suit was in front of a Court and like I said, you 19 know, I can't deal with that one because, you know, the 20 Courts have to deal with it. 21 But I also wanted to feel the Province or 22 the -- the proper Ministry, the appropriate Ministry to 23 find out whether there would be some financial -- and 24 what happens if the suit is -- is successful? What are 25 they going to do?

292

1 I mean, that's my investment. That's 2 their personal investment, their lifetime investment. 3 What are you going to do as a province? What are you 4 going to do as a Ministry? 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: And they wanted some answers. 7 Q: Your constituents did? 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: Through you? 10 A: Yes 11 Q: All right. Now, did you have any 12 meetings with the First Nation in relation to this 13 dispute over the -- the summer of 1995? 14 A: I did have some meetings with -- 15 informal meetings but I don't know if it was over the 16 West Ipperwash, whether the subject matter was brought up 17 at that particular point in time. 18 Q: All right. Do you have any 19 recollection of having any meetings with -- with the 20 Kettle and Stony Point First Nation at which West 21 Ipperwash was raised? 22 A: Not that I recall. 23 Q: All right. Did you know who the 24 chief of the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation was at 25 that time?

293

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Who was that? 3 A: Tom Bressette. 4 Q: And had you had any dealings with 5 him? 6 A: I had, yes. I had talked to Tom, 7 yes. 8 Q: All right. And what was your 9 impression of him as chief in the summer of 1995? 10 A: Well, I'm sure that there's different 11 impressions. I -- I thought he was -- I think I had the 12 opportunity to meet Tom I think prior to being elected 13 also so I knew who Tom was. I certainly didn't have any 14 opinion of Tom. I -- I found him a very pleasant 15 individual to deal with and certainly easy to deal with. 16 Q: All right. Did you ever have to 17 raise any -- any concerns with him on behalf of your 18 constituents that you can recall? 19 A: Directly with...Well, we did 20 certainly later on but at, you know, at that particular 21 point in time I don't think so. 22 Q: All right. Fair enough. Now, you 23 indicated that you attempted to bring the concerns of 24 your constituents with respect to the West Ipperwash 25 Beach situation to a ministerial level.

294

1 And do you recall how it is you attempted 2 to do that? 3 A: Well, usually either by phone or by 4 fax. 5 Q: All right. 6 A: And the fax or the phone call was 7 usually directed to the caucus liaison person or the 8 executive assistant, whoever, but usually a fax. We'd 9 just send it to the Ministry or the office of the -- the 10 Premier's office, and as to who handled it at the other 11 end I might direct it to Bill King, for instance, in the 12 Premier's office, but whether Mr. King handles that 13 himself I don't know. 14 Q: All right. Perhaps you would go to 15 Tab 6. It's Inquiry Document Number 1000918. It's 16 Exhibit P-534. It appears to be a letter from yourself 17 to the Honourable Charles Harnick with copies to Ralph 18 Dailey, Fred Thomas, and the Honourable Bob Runciman. 19 And first of all do you recognize this 20 letter? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And is that your signature? 23 A: That's...yes. 24 Q: All right. And did you send it to 25 the Attorney General?

295

1 A: Well, it looks like it was sent to 2 the Attorney General and a carbon copy to the President 3 of the West Ipperwash Property Owners' Association, the 4 mayor of the town of Bosanquet, and the Honourable Bob 5 Runciman who was the Solicitor General. 6 Q: All right. And what was the purpose 7 of sending this letter to those -- well, to -- to the 8 Attorney General? 9 A: Well, I think for -- for instance 10 like I mentioned previously it says if we go to the one 11 (1), two (2), three (3), fourth paragraph it says: 12 "Tensions have again escalated over 13 this past weekend and my constituents 14 have the following concerns." 15 And then we talk about the costs involved 16 with the civil action: 17 "Number 2. That the Province has 18 apparently been on notice that it will 19 also be sued. 20 3. That the residents are faced with a 21 situation whereby they cannot sell 22 their properties because of the legal 23 action taken. 24 4. That residents have to pay property 25 taxes while the ownership of their

296

1 property is in the hands of the Court 2 system." 3 Fine: 4 "5. Apparently this is a unique situation 5 in Canada. As it is the only case 6 where third party action has been taken 7 by a First -- by the First Nation." 8 And: 9 "6. There's a lot of intimidation going on 10 at the moment and the residents feel 11 threatened." 12 Again, this is what I'm passing on from 13 what I'm hearing from the residents. 14 According to the residents: 15 "Law enforcement is basically non 16 existent and the OPP does not seem too 17 keen in getting involved." 18 And lastly: 19 "Residents are stressed out and this 20 situation is becoming unbearable." 21 And it says: 22 "P.S. I have been briefed by Staff 23 Sergeant Wade Lacroix of the Petrolia 24 OPP Detachment this morning." 25 And I would only conclude that basically,

297

1 that briefing when I met with these people and they're 2 telling me that law enforcement is non-existent in the 3 area, that I would call Mr. Lacroix or Staff Sergeant 4 Lacroix and say, What's going on the in the area, is it 5 being properly policed, and then he would probably tell 6 me, Yes, we have a compliment of officers, you know, 7 patrolling. 8 And so I would relay that information back 9 to the -- to the residents of West Ipperwash. 10 Q: And did this letter arise as a result 11 of a meeting that you had on July the 30th with people 12 representing the West -- West Ipperwash Property Owners' 13 Association? 14 A: Well I'll stand by what I wrote. I 15 met on July 30th, 1995 with a number of people 16 representing the West Ipperwash so I'll -- I'll stick 17 with that letter. 18 Q: You have no specific -- in other 19 words you don't have any independent recollection today? 20 A: No. I can't remember who was at the 21 meeting. I -- I could tell you a couple of individuals 22 but as to who was there, I can't remember. 23 Q: All right. And you've indicted 24 already that Items 1 to 6 -- or to 8 are items that were 25 relayed to you as concerns by those constituents?

298

1 A: That's correct at that meeting. 2 Q: Now with respect to Item 6, can you 3 tell me what you were being told in relation to the 4 intimidation reportedly going on at the moment with the 5 residents? 6 A: Oh yeah, you know, it was general 7 harassment. I can't recall exactly but I remember, you 8 know, somebody telling me somebody breaking into their 9 house. In some cases where nothing is missing but the 10 tablecloth was moved over and the salt and pepper shakers 11 moved to another location. 12 And you know, a beer bottle sitting on -- 13 on the table but there's really no damage when they're 14 talking about intimidation I would probably agree with 15 that, you know. 16 So that type of thing was going on in the 17 area at that time. 18 Q: All right. And with respect to the 19 7th point, law enforcement being basically non existent. 20 What was your understanding or what were 21 you hearing about that from your constituents? 22 A: Well again, you know, perception 23 sometimes becomes a reality and its, you know, and I -- 24 the Forest Detachment has a large area to -- to patrol. 25 And I guess that they probably did not see too many

299

1 cruisers around or police officers and they felt they 2 were somewhat abandoned. 3 And so consequently I would follow up and 4 find out well are you patrolling the area? Is -- are 5 there officers in the area? 6 And I'm sure that I was probably told that 7 there were. That they were -- the area was being 8 policed. 9 Q: Well let's -- let's just be a little 10 more specific. You indicated that you were briefed by 11 Staff Sergeant Lacroix of the Petrolia OPP that morning 12 as the morning of July 31st. 13 Do you have any recollection as to what 14 that conversation was about? 15 A: No, I can't. 16 Q: Is it fair to say that it was likely 17 in relation to the matters raised in this letter? 18 A: I would say that's probably a fair 19 assumption. 20 Q: All right. And just for my 21 information, why would you be going to Staff Sergeant 22 Lacroix of the Petrolia Detachment if the constituents in 23 question were in the Forest area? 24 A: Well because Staff -- Staff Sergeant 25 Lacroix like I said is located right across the street

300

1 from my constituency office. I feel very comfortable 2 talking to him. I've known him for a number of years and 3 to the best of my recollection I don't remember who was 4 in charge at the Forest OPP Department at that particular 5 point in time. 6 So I just felt comfortable talking to Mr. 7 Lacroix. 8 Q: And what -- what is it you were 9 trying to accomplish by sending this letter to the 10 Attorney General and sending a copy of it to the 11 Solicitor General? 12 A: Well a couple -- certainly, you know, 13 the law enforcement and the -- the harassment that was 14 going on I think I want to make them aware of this. I 15 didn't know whether they -- I'm sure they were probably 16 apprised of the situation with the land cla -- or the 17 land claim against the property owners. 18 But as a newly elected official, I felt 19 that it was my responsibility to bring this to the 20 attention of the Government. 21 Q: Why? 22 A: Well, I represent -- at that time I 23 represented sixty/sixty-five thousand (60,000/65,000) 24 people and when somebody brings, you know, brings a 25 concern in front of me, and I think it's a legitimate

301

1 concern, I think it's my responsibility to follow 2 through, through the proper channels. 3 Q: All right. So it was your assessment 4 that the concerns raised, as expressed in this letter, 5 were legitimate? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And what was the basis of your 8 assessment? 9 A: Well, first of all, they showed me 10 bills and statements concerning legal costs. So I knew 11 that was somewhat -- certainly not fictional, but 12 certainly factual. 13 With regards to the policing, like I said, 14 I don't live in the area, so I didn't know whether their 15 law enforcement is non-existent, so I would follow up 16 with the police department and say, is this true? What's 17 happening? Is there a police -- you know, so -- and I'm 18 just passing on to -- to the Minister, in this case, or 19 Ministries, because it goes to two (2) Ministries, as to 20 what is going on in the area. 21 Plus the fact the level of intimidation in 22 the area, as I said, according to the people, it says: 23 "Tensions have again escalated over 24 this past weekend, and my constituents 25 have concerns."

302

1 So I can't remember what the escalation 2 was, but they're telling me that it's escalated, so I 3 have to take them at face value. 4 Q: All right. Now, on the second page, 5 you ask for a meeting with the Attorney General and with 6 the residents of the area as soon as possible, before 7 this situation becomes even more complex. 8 And do you recall whether or not any such 9 meeting occurred? 10 A: No, I don't think there was -- I -- 11 to the best of my recollection, there was no meeting. 12 Q: All right. Did you receive any 13 response from Mr. Harnick or anyone on his behalf to this 14 letter? 15 A: I don't recall. 16 Q: Do you recall having any 17 conversations with Mr. Harnick in relation to this 18 letter? 19 A: Not directly. 20 Q: Now, do you recall what the present - 21 - the manner of the presentation of this letter was? In 22 other words, did you mail it, fax it, or deliver it? Do 23 you have a recollection today? 24 A: I -- I'm sorry, I can't recall. 25 Q: Mr. -- we've heard evidence from Mr.

303

1 Dave Moran who you've indicated you -- 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: -- knew, at least in terms of his 4 position. He testified on November the 1st that he 5 thought you may have given the letter to Mr. Harnick at a 6 caucus meeting, is that -- 7 A: That's quite possible. 8 Q: Was there a caucus meeting in or 9 around this time? 10 A: What date was that again? 11 Q: This is August the 14th. 12 A: Yeah, I think -- I think that was the 13 first -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: July 31st. 15 THE WITNESS: -- caucus meeting we had, I 16 think, if I recall, in Cambridge, if I recall. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 19 Q: I'm sorry, and when was that? 20 A: I think the -- the meeting was in 21 Cambridge. I could -- I could be wrong, but I... 22 Q: What date? 23 A: August 14th, I think you said. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: I -- but I, you know, I can't recall

304

1 the date. 2 Q: Okay. Do you recall having any -- 3 any conversation with Mr. Harnick about this? 4 A: Well, if we can back track, 5 hopefully, if I wrote the letter on July the 31st, that-- 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: Usually it would be, you know, 8 usually I would not take two (2) weeks to deliver the 9 letter that either would be mailed or faxed. 10 Now, I might have given him a copy 11 personally, but I would not wait two (2) weeks; that's 12 just standard procedure in our office at that -- you 13 know. 14 Q: That's fair. And I do see that it 15 has a fax line -- 16 A: It's a fax? 17 Q: -- at the top dated July 31 -- 18 A: Oh, yes. 19 Q: -- 1995. 20 A: Okay. You're right. 21 Q: But, I don't know whose fax number 22 that is. 23 A: Well, it -- we could trace it back. 24 It's 416-326-5085, I think. So I guess, if we can go in 25 the archives, we probably could trace that back.

305

1 Q: All right. Fair enough. 2 A: It's definitely a Toronto number. 3 Q: In any event, you don't have any 4 recollection of speaking with Mr. Harnick about this? 5 A: No. 6 Q: At the caucus meeting or elsewhere? 7 A: I might have mentioned it, you know, 8 if I gave him the letter, I might have mentioned it in 9 passing. But you never had a -- you know, it was 10 difficult to get a couple of minutes of a Minister's time 11 at caucus meetings. 12 Q: All right. And we've heard some 13 evidence from -- from Mr. Harnick at this Inquiry and he 14 testified that he didn't believe -- he believed that he 15 never discussed the issues in this letter with you, but 16 rather directed the letter to the Ontario Native -- 17 Native Affairs Secretariat for a response. 18 Did you receive any response from the -- 19 from ONAS? 20 A: Well, like I said, there might have 21 been a response, but I don't recall. 22 Q: All right. And you weren't able to 23 find any such written response, at least, in your files? 24 A: No. 25 Q: From either Mr. Harnick, ONAS, or any

306

1 other government person? 2 A: Not that I can -- not that I recall. 3 Q: All right. Do you recall whether you 4 took any other steps to try to get the Government to 5 respond to your constituents' concerns with respect to 6 this matter aside from writing this letter? 7 A: Not to the best of my recollection. 8 Q: Now, you've indicated that -- that 9 you received information or at least you discussed the 10 matter with Staff Sergeant Lacroix. 11 Now, given the fact that you were a 12 sitting member of Provincial Government, did you see any 13 difficulty with having this type of meeting with a local 14 OPP? 15 A: Absolutely not. 16 Q: Why not? 17 A: Well, if -- you know, whether I'm a 18 municipal representative or a provincial representative, 19 at the municipal level, when there was a municipal -- or 20 a complaint from a taxpayer, I would ask for the 21 individual to put the complaint in writing. And it would 22 be taken in front of the Police Commission and then it 23 would be dealt with at that particular point in time. 24 And the Police Commission always had the 25 Chief of Police sitting on the Commission.

307

1 We don't have a Commission at the 2 provincial level, but for me to just play possum and 3 ignore the situation and not knowing what's going on -- I 4 want to know what's going on in my riding; if there's no 5 policing, I want to know. 6 How they enforce the police regulation and 7 legislation, that's not my responsibility, but I want to 8 know -- I want to make sure that there's a proper level 9 of policing in the area. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: So if I receive a complaint and tell 12 -- somebody tells me that there's no policing or things 13 there, you know, not enforced, I want to find out what's 14 going on. 15 Now, there's a big difference between 16 telling a police officer what to do or not to do as 17 opposed to asking him what's going on and having a 18 briefing. For instance, I can show you statistics that 19 the OPP provided me later on, what occurrences in the 20 area and I don't see anything wrong with that. It shows 21 so many break-ins, so many resolved, so many outstanding, 22 some that are not solved. 23 So, consequently, I think it's nice to 24 have that type of information so that you can pass it on 25 to your constituents to somewhat raise their level of

308

1 comfort. 2 Q: All right. So one (1) of the reasons 3 to have these types of meetings would be to receive 4 information which you could then pass along back to your 5 constituents? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: Any other reasons for raising such 8 concerns with the police? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Was it -- was it not -- all right. 11 Was it important to you that the police be aware of the 12 existence of concerns? 13 A: Well, I think they should be made 14 aware of it. It's the same thing, like I said, as a 15 municipal politician we had blank time in the town of 16 Petrolia. Well, as a Commissioner or the Chairman of 17 Police Commission, it was not my responsibility to go 18 tell the people in the town when the blank time was; 19 that's for us to know and the police to know. 20 But if there was an occurrence or 21 something happened in the community or at the provincial 22 level, and somebody lodges a complaint, I think it's my 23 role, as their representative, to at least delve into the 24 subject matter to find out whether there's some grounds 25 to it or not.

309

1 Q: All right. Now, just -- before we 2 leave the July 31st letter, it was also -- a copy was 3 provided to the Honourable Bob Runciman? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Do you recall whether or not you 6 received any response from him or anyone on his behalf to 7 the concerns you raised in this letter? 8 A: I don't recall. 9 Q: All right. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: I've been advised by Ms. McAleer that 14 the fax number on top of that sheet is the fax number for 15 the Solicitor General's office and you will note there is 16 a date receipt of August 1st from the Ministry of the 17 Solicitor General? 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: Just for your information. 20 A: Oh yes, and there's a stamp there 21 too, I'm sorry. 22 Q: Thank you. 23 A: I didn't see that. 24 Q: Now, do you recall how the West 25 Ipperwash matter was ultimately resolved?

310

1 A: Well, it wasn't resolved. It did 2 fall -- finally go, you know, go through the Courts and 3 the property owners were successful. I -- I'm not 4 totally aware of the situation with the beach but, if I 5 recall, to the best of my recollection, I think there was 6 some type of reserve of judgment with regards to the 7 beach as -- whether that's been resolved as we speak 8 today, I'm not aware of that. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: But the property owners, their 11 property, the situation was resolved by -- in the Court 12 system. 13 Q: And if you would go to Tab 12, this 14 is Inquiry document number 12000059. It's a handwritten 15 note to yourself dated August 18, 1995 re. native land 16 claim, Ipperwash beach. 17 And I see at the top are the initials 18 "WIPOA" and that -- would that be the West Ipperwash 19 Property Owners' Association? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And did you receive this document? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And what was the -- what did you 24 learn as a result of this document? 25 A: Well, what it says, it says we have

311

1 been verbally advised that Mr. Justice Killeen of London 2 has found that there is insufficient evidence to bring 3 this land claim to trial. 4 And then Mr. so-and-so's, because it's 5 black out, is reviewing this Decision and will report to 6 our general meeting on September. 7 I think this was probably the president of 8 the association, I think. 9 Q: And I should indicate that the 10 redactions are there with respect to the individual 11 persons whose identities are not -- don't need to be 12 revealed. 13 But the -- now, to the best of your 14 recollection, was this matter -- did you hear any further 15 concerns in relation to this matter, after August the 16 18th, 1995? 17 A: Oh, it was an ongoing -- you know, I 18 had ongoing discussion with -- with the people because, 19 you know, there was still the -- the cost of the legal 20 action and -- but I didn't get anywhere with that in 21 Toronto. 22 But I certainly did bring it up. 23 Q: All right. 24 A: Again, and... 25 Q: All right. And I'd like to make this

312

1 document, then, the next exhibit, please. 2 THE REGISTRAR: P-1024, Your Honour. 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1024: Document Number 12000059. 5 Letter to Marcel Beaubien re. 6 West Ipperwash Beach Land 7 Claim, August 18/'95. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 10 Q: Now, you indicated that prior to your 11 election as MPP, you were aware that there was a dispute 12 involving the local Aboriginal people concerning the Army 13 Base, the Military Base, Camp Ipperwash. 14 And I'm wondering how this -- how did this 15 matter come to your attention as an MPP? 16 A: Well, I was aware of it prior to 17 being an MPP. 18 Q: I appreciate that -- 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: -- but -- 21 A: As an MPP, well there was just -- it 22 was just there. It was -- the issue was there. 23 Q: All right. And did you receive any 24 inquiries or communications from your constituents 25 relative to Camp Ipperwash and this dispute?

313

1 A: I took -- what date are you talking 2 about now? 3 Q: Well, after you became MPP. 4 A: Well, yeah, I did -- the subject 5 matter was raised because, again, I think a lot of people 6 in the area felt that a lot of the harassment, the 7 intimidation, the break-ins, were people that live in the 8 Army Base area. 9 I mean, I'm just going by the information 10 that the people have given me. 11 Q: This was reports that you received -- 12 A: That's right, from constituents. 13 Q: Were you able to verify these 14 reports? 15 A: No. 16 Q: All right. And did you begin to 17 receive these concerns or reports in the summer of 1995? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And what was your perception of the 20 concerns? 21 A: Well, again, I think you have to tie 22 the, you know, the two (2) situations, West Ipperwash 23 beach and I think the army camp base, together. 24 And, you know, according to some of the 25 information that I had, and people were very, you know,

314

1 people were frustrated, people were being intimidated, 2 people were being threatened. 3 For instance, at night, along the Army 4 Camp Base, high powered flashlights would be flashed in 5 people's homes at night, not only for seconds but for 6 long periods of time where, you know, keep them from 7 sleeping. 8 So, you know, there were certainly some 9 illegal or not legal activities going on in the area. 10 Q: All right. And what, if anything, 11 did you do as a result of receiving these concerns from 12 your -- from certain constituents? 13 A: Well, in -- in most cases, I felt it 14 was a policing matter and I would contact the police 15 department to make sure that -- whether these things were 16 being monitored, whether the policing level was there. 17 But these issues were, you know, law enforcement issues 18 that I had no control over. 19 Q: All right. Prior to September the 20 4th of 1995, did you attend at any meetings with 21 constituents at which these types of concerns were raised 22 relative to the Army Camp? 23 A: I can't give you any specifics but I 24 know I met with a lot of people in the area, not only the 25 West Ipperwash but the Ipperwash area immediately

315

1 adjacent to the Army Camp Base throughout that area. 2 Whether they were -- I don't think they were formal 3 meetings, I think they were just a group of people that I 4 met with. 5 Q: All right. And -- and just for the 6 location is -- is on the west side of Army Camp Road -- 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: -- adjacent to the Army Camp? 9 A: Yes, that's correct. 10 Q: All right. And what were -- did you 11 receive any concerns with respect to the policing in the 12 area? 13 A: Well, the issue was always raised 14 that if, you know, a lot of people felt that the policing 15 level was inadequate but, you know, I can only go by what 16 my constituents were telling me. And then I would 17 followup by contacting Staff Sergeant Lacroix to see 18 whether there was proper policing level and I was assured 19 that the policing was existent. 20 Now, it might not, you know, maybe the 21 level was not adequate to satisfy the people in the area, 22 but I was, you know, informed by the OPP that there was a 23 -- a police presence in the area. 24 Q: All right. Do you recall whether or 25 not you met with any members from the -- the group that

316

1 was occupying, then, part of the Army Camp? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Do you recall whether you had any 4 meetings with representatives of the Stony and -- Kettle 5 and Stony Point First Nation? 6 A: Well, this is, again -- you know, 7 it's, you know, that's -- that's a tough one because who 8 speaks for whom? And, you know, and I'm sure you heard 9 that through the -- the Inquiry that even if you were to 10 turn up at the Army Base, and maybe that's one (1) of the 11 dilemmas that the Federal Government, and I'm not making 12 any excuses for them, that who do you turn it to? 13 So that there seems to be an awful lot of 14 confusion as to whom is in charge. I mean, I dealt with 15 the newly elected official at the Kettle and Stony; 16 that's who I dealt with. Because I felt that, as an 17 elected official, whether again municipally or 18 provincially, that usually when you have a municipal 19 problem or a provincial problem you go talk to your 20 member or to your mayor or to your councillor. 21 So, that's -- I used -- used that 22 reasoning in dealing with the First Nation. 23 Q: All right. 24 A: And I would talk to -- I talked to 25 many elders, I talked to the Chief; that's the avenue

317

1 that I used. 2 Q: Fair enough. Thank you. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Commissioner, I wonder 7 if we -- this would be a convenient place to break. I 8 wonder if we might adjourn for the day and then I can 9 start anew in the morning? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. We'll 11 adjourn now until tomorrow morning. It's almost 4:30. 12 Thank you very much. 13 14 (WITNESS RETIRES) 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 17 adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 19th at 9:00 18 a.m. 19 20 --- Upon adjourning at 4:24 p.m. 21 22 23 24 25

318

1 2 3 Certified Correct, 4 5 6 7 8 9 _________________ 10 Carol Geehan, Ms. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25