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 24th, 2006 25


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


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


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 ) Aboriginal Legal 12 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 13 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 14 Julian Roy ) (np) 15 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 16 Linda Chen ) (np) 17 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 ) (np) Chiefs of Ontario 23 Matthew Horner ) 24 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Mark Fredrick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 3 Craig Mills ) (np) 4 Megan Mackey ) (np) 5 Peter Lauwers ) (np) 6 Erin Tully ) (np) 7 Michelle Fernando ) 8 9 David Roebuck ) (np) Debbie Hutton 10 Anna Perschy ) 11 Melissa Panjer ) (np) 12 Adam Goodman ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 Marcel Beaubien, Resumed 6 Cross-Examination by Mr. Mark Sandler 9 7 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jennifer McAleer 53 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Alice Mrozek 57 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jennifer Gleitman 60 10 Cross-Examination by Ms. Kim Twohig 70 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Mr. Vilko Zbogar 73 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 257 13 14 15 16 17 18 Certificate of Transcript 306 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-1041 Handwritten notes of Marcel Beaubien, 4 "Talked to John Duncan in BC", 5 September 05/'95. 175 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 10:04 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning, everybody. Good morning, Mr. Sandler. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: Good morning, Mr. 9 Commissioner. Mr. Commissioner, with the permission of 10 My Friends ahead of me, I'm going to be going first this 11 morning so that I can get back to some of the logistics 12 on our Part 2 presentation later in the week. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: I should just report 15 to you that for our evening dinner on the Wednesday night 16 there are going to be over a hundred and fifty-five (155) 17 people attending. So I'm very grateful to counsel and 18 the parties for the spirit of -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's good. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- of co-operation and 21 letting me know that and I'm looking forward to the 22 evening. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I am too. 24 Okay. Let's go. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right.


1 2 MARCEL BEAUBIEN, Resumed 3 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 5 Q: Good morning, Mr. Beaubien. 6 A: Good morning. 7 Q: My name's Mark Sandler and I'm 8 counsel for the OPP and I have a few questions for you if 9 I may. All right? 10 I'm just going to talk to you in essence 11 about -- about two (2) aspects of your evidence. And the 12 first has to do with this August 11th, 1995 meeting that 13 was held at your Petrolia office with several OPP 14 officers. 15 And you remember you were asked some 16 questions by Ms. Vella about that meeting? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And John Carson testified about that 19 meeting on May the 12th of 2005 at page 146. And I'm 20 just going to read you something that he had to say about 21 it and ask you whether it's consistent with your 22 recollection. 23 He said this: 24 "We had a number of issues we were 25 dealing with at Walpole Island. We had


1 a number of officers working there, 2 working with the Chief and Council. 3 There were the issues of the cottagers 4 in the West Ipperwash area then of 5 course there was the Military Base 6 issues." 7 So, all of those issues were discussed and 8 this is the portion I want to ask you about if I may. 9 "But we were trying to reassure Mr. 10 Beaubien that we were well aware of the 11 issues. 12 We were concerned about the perceptions 13 in the community, understood the 14 concerns and we believed we were 15 providing the policing services that 16 were required and appropriate for us to 17 do in regards to each of those 18 incidents." 19 And -- and is that a fair summary of the 20 sentiments that were being communicated to you on August 21 the 11th, 1995 by the officers assembled? 22 A: I certainly would agree with that, 23 yes. 24 Q: Okay. And because you'll recall that 25 one of the things that -- that prompted the meeting was


1 an earlier letter that you described that -- that 2 expressed concerns as you say on the part of your 3 constituents about the lack of -- of policing; do you 4 remember that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Okay. Now, the other issue in 7 connection with that August 11th, 1995, meeting that's 8 been raised with you is -- is the letter that you wrote 9 to the Attorney General afterwards that, in effect, 10 captured some of the content of the meeting that you had 11 with the OPP. 12 And -- and you'll recall that that's a 13 meeting -- that's a letter dated August the 14th of 1995. 14 It's Exhibit 418 and you actually have it in -- in your 15 materials at Tab 8. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: And again what I would like to do is 20 read to you -- 21 A: Excuse me, did you say Tab 8? 22 Q: Tab 8. Tab -- I'm sorry. 23 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 10. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: Tab 10. Thank you. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 2 Q: And I'm going to read to you again 3 from John Carson's evidence, this time dated June the 9th 4 of 2005 commencing at page 248. And -- and I'm going to 5 ask you about a few things arising out of his testimony, 6 okay? 7 So, first he's -- he's being asked about 8 point 1 on -- on your letter and he says: 9 "I don't recall from memory but I spoke 10 to the MNR at length right from the 11 outset around the process in regards to 12 establishing ownership and all of that. 13 So I suspected that's the context he 14 would have understood; the need to be 15 clear on clear title." 16 And then turning over to page 251: 17 "The number 3 [and this is the 18 questioner] says that the Ministry is 19 involved to help to give the OPP clear 20 guidelines for law enforcement; that 21 was part of the consensus sir? 22 A: I don't believe that's accurate, 23 quite frankly. The OPP doesn't take 24 guidelines from the Ministries in order 25 to do law enforcement.


1 Q: Well, what aspect of the consensus 2 that was reached in your view could 3 have led Mr. Beaubien to conclude that 4 part of the consensus was that the 5 Ministries involved have to give the 6 OPP clear guidelines for law 7 enforcement? 8 A: Well, I think the only issue would 9 have been the whole issue of the 10 injunction and that they would do, if 11 there was an occupation, that they 12 would take the steps necessary to 13 secure the injunction." 14 Now, I also want to point up to you and -- 15 and I'm trying to give you the benefit of -- of what we 16 have in writing that -- that -- that deals with -- with 17 what was discussed as between you and the OPP. And the 18 next document that I want to... 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 20 I very inadvertently -- good morning. Very inadvertently 21 I think My Friend just wrongly conveyed to the Witness 22 that we have impressions in writing and no we have Mr. 23 Carson's evidence from a number of months ago. And now 24 he's going to something else. 25 But I just don't want him to confuse the


1 Witness that what he gave him was in writing from a 2 period back then. What he gave him -- 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- was the Witness' 5 impression now as -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- as Mr. Beaubien 8 is giving his impression. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Falconer. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 13 Q: I's just like to, Mr. -- 14 A: Now I'm confused. 15 Q: Did you understand -- 16 A: No. 17 Q: -- what's being said here? What I 18 just read to you -- 19 A: I'll follow -- I'll follow your 20 questions. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: So you keep going. 23 Q: What I read to you -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, when 25 you say it's --


1 MR. MARK SANDLER: Mr. Falconer, if I 2 could just ask the question first and if you have a 3 difficulty with it -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 5 fine. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 8 Q: What I just read to you was John 9 Carson's recollection of the discussion. 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: I'm now going to turn to a written 12 document or two (2) and also -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- give you the 15 benefit of those and then ask a question arising out of 16 that, okay? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 THE WITNESS: Fair enough. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: I want you to have the 20 benefit of all of that. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 23 Q: And Tony Parkin who was one of the 24 officers who attended at this meeting on August the 11th 25 did an e-mail on August the 14th to Nancy Mansell who's


1 someone within the OPP circles and needn't concern you 2 who that is, and this is Exhibit P-591, and what he says 3 in that e-mail is: 4 "On Friday, August the 11th I met with 5 the local MPP Marcel Beaubien who was 6 satisfied with the actions of the OPP 7 and what we were doing. 8 His concern was more about the 9 frustration of the cottagers and what 10 they might do. He was going to be 11 talking with the Solicitor and Attorney 12 General as well as MNR officials 13 because he wants them to understand the 14 seriousness of the situation and 15 provide him with some direction." 16 Okay. So, that's what Tony Parkin 17 recorded in an e-mail shortly after the meeting that took 18 place with you. 19 And we also have Tony Parkin's notes which 20 are contained in Exhibit P-499. And again, I don't have 21 to take you to the document, because it's a very short 22 excerpt and -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Could we have the 24 document numbers, the assistance of document numbers, so 25 we could keep up?


1 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes, of course. It's 2 Exhibit 499, 2003790. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 6 Q: And the entry from Tony Parkin is: 7 "Met with Staff Sergeant Lacroix, 8 Inspector Carson and Linton re. 9 Ipperwash. Met with Lambton area MPP, 10 Marcel Beaubien. He understood OPP 11 position relating to Ipperwash Base. 12 Concerned about the Park and cottage 13 owners. Very frustrated, may do 14 something. He will be pushing Runciman 15 and Harnick and MNR for direction and a 16 position. No complaints about policing 17 or OPP." 18 And that may sound -- the last line may 19 sound familiar, because Ms. Vella read you that last line 20 when she was going through your evidence in examination 21 in-chief, okay? 22 A: That's correct, yes. 23 Q: So with the benefit of both John 24 Carson's recollection and the written materials prepared 25 by Tony Parkin at, or shortly after the meeting that was


1 held with you, I want to ask you several questions. 2 The first is that, you've already 3 acknowledged that you have an understanding and had an 4 understanding back then that politicians don't direct or 5 instruct or suggest how the police enforce the laws; do I 6 have that right? 7 A: That's correct. And I think I made 8 that very clear last week. 9 Q: And -- and you did. And similarly, 10 you don't direct or instruct or suggest the means by 11 which the police enforce the law, right? 12 A: That's absolutely correct. 13 Q: So, as you'll gather, we're -- we're 14 looking at that portion of the letter that you wrote, and 15 particularly item 3 in there, and we're trying to 16 reconcile what was meant when you said: 17 "Ministries involved have to give the 18 OPP clear guidelines for law 19 enforcement." 20 So, the first thing that we know is that 21 whatever you meant by it, you didn't mean that the 22 Ministries had to tell the OPP how to enforce the law; do 23 I have that right so far? 24 A: I would totally agree with your 25 assumption.


1 Q: Okay. And what I'm going to suggest 2 to you is that there was no consensus reached; again, 3 whatever that means for a moment. And I'm going to 4 suggest to you what it means. 5 But whatever that means, there was no 6 consensus reached with the officers attending the meeting 7 that these officers needed guidelines from the Ministries 8 on how to enforce the law. They never told you that, did 9 they? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: And again, as I've pointed out last 13 week, English be my second language, maybe I did not use 14 the proper word or the proper formulation of the sentence 15 and you can rap me on the fingers for that. 16 But certainly the intent was not to try to 17 get direction on how the policing should be -- or the 18 police should be doing their work. I was -- 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: -- well aware that that was outside 21 the realm of the Government. 22 Q: So, knowing what was not intended and 23 knowing what was not the consensus, I'm going to suggest 24 to you with the benefit of everything that I've read to 25 you, what you may have been interested in in the letter.


1 And if I'm right, then great, and if I'm 2 not, you'll tell me so. 3 What I'm going to suggest is that the 4 discussion took place about the need for the Ministries 5 that were affected to make clear whether they were 6 asserting ownership over the property, because that was 7 an issue relevant to law enforcement -- 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: -- am I right? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And -- and so, for the kinds of 12 things that you'd expect the Government would provide the 13 OPP is it's position on title to property, right? 14 A: I would hope so, yes. 15 Q: You'd hope so. Whether an injunction 16 would be sought, right? 17 A: And what that meant. 18 Q: And what that meant. But not 19 guidelines on whether or not to arrest or when to arrest 20 or what officers should be deployed or how many should be 21 deployed? 22 Again, whatever this letter means, and I 23 think we've got a better insight into it, that's not what 24 you were directing your attention to? 25 A: Absolutely not. And you know, maybe


1 like I said, maybe the word guidelines is not the word 2 that should have been used, but I used it. I'll take -- 3 I'll claim ownership of it for the time being. 4 Q: Okay. And -- and we actually see 5 that there's some support for what I suggested to you 6 because if you look in -- in the letter, in the contents 7 of the letter, you also do say that: 8 "We need to see a clear stand on what 9 Provincial ownership of land means." 10 And -- and you repeat that concept several 11 times in the letter, don't you? 12 A: Hmm hmm. Yes, I do. 13 Q: Okay. And -- and you understood that 14 in order for the police to determine in their discretion 15 how to enforce the law, it's helpful to know what the 16 Government's position is on ownership, right? 17 A: I think that would help, yes. 18 Q: Okay. Now, I want to move to another 19 topic and that is your attendance at the Forest 20 Detachment, or the command centre as it's come to be 21 know, on September the 6th of 1995. 22 Some of these questions were dealt with by 23 Ms. Vella and if there's some overlap I apologize but 24 they're going to lead into a short area of questioning. 25 Did you ever advocate to the OPP, either


1 at the command centre or anywhere else, that the OPP was 2 to use force to remove the occupiers from the Park later 3 that evening? 4 A: Never. 5 Q: Did you ever tell the OPP that you 6 were passing on instructions from the Premier of Ontario 7 or anyone else on how to conduct police operations at 8 Ipperwash Provincial Park? 9 A: Never. 10 Q: Now, there's no doubt, I'm going to 11 suggest to you, that you articulated or expressed your 12 constituents' views, and whether or not they were your 13 own I'm less interested in that right now, that the 14 occupation was illegal and that the law should be 15 enforced. 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And there's no doubt that you 18 expressed your constituents' views that they wanted the 19 illegal occupation to be ended and the occupiers out of 20 the Park, right? 21 A: I did. 22 Q: Am I right? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Now, what I want to ask you about 25 because we talk about this sometimes at -- at a certain


1 esoteric level, but -- but were those strongly held views 2 of the public a secret in the community generally? 3 A: Absolutely not. I think it was in 4 the newspaper, on the med -- radio, television, it was in 5 the coffee shop, if you live in this area, so I was not 6 certainly passing any top secret to anybody. 7 It was a general feeling in the community 8 that people shared -- a lot of people shared those 9 concerns. 10 Q: I mean to ask you bluntly, did -- did 11 you think in this respect, that you were telling the 12 police something that -- that they couldn't figure out, 13 just from what was out there? 14 A: I -- I would hope that the police had 15 a heck of a lot more information than I had. I'm sure 16 they were well aware of that information at any time. 17 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, I 18 object to the last question and I object to the previous 19 question. 20 The last question asked this Witness to 21 testify as to his knowledge as to what the police knew. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: No, that's not what I 23 asked. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The -- the question 25 before that suggested to this Witness that members of the


1 Aboriginal communities that may not agree with some of 2 this gentleman's constituents' views aren't members of 3 the public. 4 And -- and as I rose to deal with that 5 premise to that question, My Friend moved on to his 6 second question. 7 I'd simply ask My Friend to be careful. 8 When he talks about "the public", quote/unquote, it of 9 course must include members of the Aboriginal communities 10 that may not agree with the constituents that Mr. 11 Beaubien is serving. 12 And I think when he says "the public" that 13 way it -- it creates an exclusion that I don't think our 14 process is meant to create, with respect. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, with great 16 respect, first of all I'm asking Mr. Beaubien what his 17 expectations were because it's relevant to the 18 relationship. I didn't ask him what the police knew or 19 didn't know, just what he expected when he spoke to them. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 21 think that's right. But -- 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: And the second point 23 as to the members of the public, I'm talking about these 24 views that he is communicating from some of his 25 constituents and My Friend's point is of course that's


1 not the uniform views expressed. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Some members 3 of the public. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Some members 6 of the public; put it that way. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: I agree. 8 THE WITNESS: And if I may add, I, and 9 the record will show if you have it, you have the 10 documentation that those views were coming from both 11 sides, from the Native community and the non-Native 12 community. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough. 14 THE WITNESS: But some members on both 15 sides. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, some 17 members of the non-Native community. 18 THE WITNESS: That's right. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER. 21 Q: Fair enough. And I didn't want to 22 distinguish between the Aboriginal and the -- and the 23 non- Aboriginal community, but this represented a 24 significant input that you were getting from 25 constituents.


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: It may not of been every constituent 3 and it may not of course expressed the views of every 4 constituent, so we're -- we're in agreement here. 5 So -- so, coming back to the -- to the 6 point of my questions that -- that your expectation was 7 that -- that much or all of -- of these views were out 8 there, so to speak, and -- and -- and your expectation is 9 that they would have been known to the police. 10 But the question that I have for you is 11 that in that context the reason why you're communicating 12 those views to the police I'm going to suggest to you, is 13 because they, in turn, could provide you in their 14 discretion with information to calm down some of those 15 constituents, right? 16 A: I think I testified to that fact last 17 week. 18 Q: Right. 19 A: That we were trying to diffuse and 20 trying to calm down people as much as we possibly could. 21 Q: And so part of the motivation that 22 you saw for communicating that information is to prevent 23 some of your constituents from taking the law into your 24 own hands, right? 25 A: Yes, absolutely correct.


1 Q: And from engaging in vigilantism; and 2 you didn't want to see that did you? 3 A: No. 4 Q: And it was a real concern based upon 5 some of the letters that were coming in and the volume of 6 letters that were coming in wasn't it? 7 A: It's on the record. 8 Q: Okay. So, I guess the answer to my 9 question is yes? 10 A: Is yes. 11 Q: Fair enough. Now, whether you were 12 effective in doing that or not, in other words sending 13 the message to the police so that they, in turn, in their 14 discretion would give you information to calm down the 15 constituents, I'm going to suggest to you that if you 16 think back at the language that John Carson and Staff 17 Sergeant Lacroix were using in communicating with you, 18 they were using the kind of language that, in your mind, 19 was designed to reduce tension, in other words, 20 information that could be passed on that hopefully would 21 have the effect of reducing tension. 22 Am I right? 23 A: Yes, you're right. 24 Q: So, if I can take you in that regard 25 to -- to the evidence of John Carson June the 29th of


1 2005 at page 249 and it's... 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And this is what John Carson had -- 6 had to say. And -- and he's being shown the scribe notes 7 which are the -- the notes -- you remember you were shown 8 the handwritten notes -- 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: -- the typewritten notes about the 11 meeting that you had at the command centre? And here's a 12 little bit of what John Carson had to say: 13 "Q: So what's the message that you're 14 communicating to Mr. Beaubien as 15 reflected in these scribe notes? 16 A: Well, I'm trying to inform him of 17 the process that was underway and the 18 steps we were taking to try to 19 alleviate the concerns on everyone's 20 part, so that he could allay concerns 21 with his constituents to the degree he 22 could, and so that he understood what 23 the process was, that we're moving 24 forward towards an injunction. 25 Q: I mean, he's obviously excited.


1 Exited is not the current term but he's 2 obviously deeply concerned and 3 frustrated by the process on behalf of 4 his constituents, right? 5 Oh, very much so. 6 And look at the kinds of things you say 7 to him in the scribe notes: 8 'Safety of citizens is being addressed 9 through visible police presence, 10 through the number of police officers.' 11 Yes. 12 'They're doing a great job.' 13 Right. 14 'We want it resolved but we don't want 15 to get anybody hurt.' 16 Correct. 17 'I want to stress nobody is to get 18 hurt.' 19 A: Yes. 20 'Even after the Park's cleared what 21 happens', right? I'm going to suggest 22 to you that you're marshalling every 23 argument that could be made against 24 precipitous action on the occupiers. 25 A: I would agree.


1 I mean Mr. Beaubien has his opinion and 2 you have to deal with him? 3 correct. 4 And you did? 5 Yes, I believe so. 6 Now, Inspector Linton is present for 7 all of this isn't he? 8 Yes, he -- yes, he is. 9 So he hears not just what Mr. Beaubien 10 says as has been read out previously in 11 cross-examination, he hears your 12 responses, your attitude, right? 13 Oh, yes." 14 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Excuse me, Mr. 15 Commissioner. This is -- I'm objecting to the question 16 because I think it's being posed in a fashion that is not 17 communicating to the Witness what is Mr. Sandler's words 18 and what are the Witness' words. 19 Nine-tenths of what Mr. Sandler just read 20 to the Witness were not Mr. Carson's words, they were Mr. 21 Sandler's words. Now -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's reading 23 a transcript, Mr. Falconer. He's reading a transcript. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That he's reading - 25 - the fact that it's a transcript, I could pick up a


1 transcript of an argument -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and I could read 4 the argument to the Witness. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But that's 6 not the same thing. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, it isn't. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's a 9 reading a transcript of questions and answers. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right, but 11 he doesn't identify which is a question and which is an 12 answer; that's my objection. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it 14 would be helpful if he did. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, because he's - 16 - most of that is his words. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 18 that -- 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: No, that's absolute 20 nonsense with great respect. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, it's -- 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: Most of that is right 23 out of the scribe notes -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- that I'm reading


1 that John Carson -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, no, that's -- 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and using the 4 language. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 6 minute. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: First of all I 8 didn't -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please, Mr. 10 Fal -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I didn't -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please, Mr. 13 Falconer, let's move on. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I didn't get 15 colourful in my objection -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and suggest that 18 the question was absolutely nonsense. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I'm going to 21 stick to the technical objection which is when Counsel 22 reads question and answers -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm asking 24 him to carry on. Please sit down, Mr. Falconer. Thank 25 you.


1 Carry on. It would be helpful, if there's 2 a long excerpt, that you made it clear when you were 3 reading when you were questioning, and when the Witness 4 was answering. It would be helpful, that's all. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: Were you confused -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If he has 7 any -- 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- at all when I read 9 the passage Mr -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- questions? 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well -- 12 THE WITNESS: No, I understood. I'm not 13 a lawyer, but I understood. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My Friend is going 15 to argue the objection, now, through questioning of the 16 Witness. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, 18 he's -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He's going to ask 20 him, "were you confused", and now I'm going to be back -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 22 Falconer, -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- on my feet. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 25 Falconer, I'm going to ask you politely, please let the


1 questioner question, unless there's something improper or 2 unfair. I don't think there's anything improper or 3 unfair. 4 This isn't a Court and you don't have to 5 object as much as you are. If you have an observation, 6 I'm willing to hear it, but let's move on. Thank you. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you, Mr. 8 Commissioner. And that's, with great respect, what I was 9 doing. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My Friend, instead 12 of moving on as you'd indicated, sought to make argument 13 through a next question of the Witness and -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please Mr. 15 Falconer -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I'm stuck. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please sit 18 down, let's carry on. Let's carry on. Please -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 21 Sandler, carry on. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: Thank you. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 25 Q: The words that were being used by


1 John Carson, in communicating to you, were words that you 2 took as designed to communicate calmness, things are 3 under control, that adequate resources are in place and 4 no precipitous action should be taken; am I right? 5 A: You're correct and I think I 6 testified t that last week. 7 Q: And as well, the center piece, if you 8 know what I mean by that, the center piece of what John 9 Carson was communicating to you, I'm going to suggest, is 10 that no action would be taken absent -- absent special 11 circumstances, or what have you, unless a Court Order or 12 objection were first -- Court Order or Injunction were 13 first obtained; am I right? 14 A: I think you're right, yes. 15 Q: Okay. Now, did you expect that the 16 OPP would take any action on the evening of September the 17 6th as a result of meeting with you? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Did you expect that anything you said 20 or did at the meeting would cause the OPP to call out the 21 TRU team or the crowd management team that evening? 22 A: Absolutely not. 23 Q: Did you say or do anything at that 24 meeting that encouraged the OPP to engage in a 25 confrontation with the occupiers that evening?


1 A: Absolutely not. 2 Q: Now, without being disrespectful to 3 you, sir, and I say this -- I ask this with great 4 respect, did you get any sense that the OPP officers that 5 you were dealing with were intimidated by you or 6 concerned about what you or the Premier or any other 7 politician thought they should do? 8 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm objecting, Mr. 9 Commissioner. My Friend is asking this Witness to get 10 into the heads of the police officers as to what -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's asking 12 him for his impression. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- they felt. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's asking 15 him, did you -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, there has to 17 be a basis on it. You can't simply say: Did you think 18 they were intimidated, and use the word 'impression' in 19 order to put that in; that's not the proper way to ask 20 the question, with respect. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He's not allowed to 23 simply elicit from this Witness; that's the objection. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 25 Vella...?


1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: With all respect, the 2 objection is ill-founded. This Witness is quite able to 3 speak to his impressions. It's important that we 4 understand this Witness' impressions, given his 5 position -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 7 believe -- 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- at the command post. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so. 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And I think that with 11 all respect to My Friend Mr. Falconer, the cross-examine 12 should be allowed to proceed as a cross-examination -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 14 what I'm trying to convey to him and I would like to 15 carry on. 16 I can't say it often enough, Mr. Falconer, 17 the rules in a Court are a little different than the 18 rules in a Public Inquiry and unless they are being 19 unfair to the Witness or giving me a misleading 20 impression, I would want the examiner to carry on with 21 his examination. 22 You'll have your opportunity to ask your 23 questions. 24 Yes, Mr. Sandler, carry on. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 2 Q: So, the question that I had is, and 3 again, this isn't -- wasn't intended to be disrespectful 4 to you at all, but did you get any sense, and I'm 5 interested in your sense, that the OPP officers that you 6 were dealing with were intimidated by you or concerned 7 about what you or the Premier or any other politician 8 thought that they should be doing? 9 A: No. I think Mr. Carson was an 10 Inspector at the time and I think the record will show 11 that Mr. Carson is now a deputy Commissioner of the 12 Ontario Provincial Police. 13 I found Mr. Carson very knowledgeable, 14 very professional. I don't think he's a person that 15 intimidates very well and I think Mr. Carson understood 16 the polit -- political process and the administrative 17 process that Marcel Beaubien or Mike Harris, or anybody 18 else, was not going to promote Mr. Carson. 19 He knew what his duty was and he knows 20 that politicians come and go, but that the people in the 21 OPP ranks, the ones that do the promoting, will be there 22 for much longer time than any politician. 23 So, I don't think Mr. Carson would 24 intimidate very easily. 25 Q: And I guess the best evidence of


1 that, apart from your impression is that -- that 2 notwithstanding what you were telling him about the 3 strong views of some of your constituents, he stayed on 4 message, didn't he; injunction, move slowly, no 5 precipitous action, right? 6 A: He did. 7 Q: Now, there's a lot of talk at this 8 Inquiry about the OPP sharing operational information 9 with -- with politicians, and -- and in your absence 10 we've had some spirited discussions about what is 11 operational and what isn't operational and so on. 12 So -- but what I -- what I want to ask you 13 is this: That -- we heard that Staff Sergeant Lacroix 14 after speaking with John Carson, shared with you that 15 there were sixty (60) officers in place and that there 16 were two (2) teams and so on. 17 Do you remember that discussion? 18 A: Yes, I do. 19 Q: All right. And you may recall that 20 Ms. Vella tried to give you a little bit of an insight as 21 to the process that was followed by -- by reading to you 22 part of the conversation between John Carson and Staff 23 Sergeant Lacroix where John Carson says: "You want to be 24 briefed." 25 I'm sorry, Lacroix says, "you want to be


1 briefed.", John Carson provides him the information, and 2 the it's suggested that Staff Sergeant Lacroix 3 communicated that kind of information to you. 4 Do you remember all that? 5 A: Yes, I do. 6 Q: Okay. Now, what I'm going to suggest 7 to you is that the argument can be made that telling you 8 that sixty (60) men are in place in two (2) shifts -- or 9 sixty (60) people, men and women, are in place in two (2) 10 shifts could by some be regarded as -- as operational. 11 What I'm going to suggest, that you took 12 this as information that was being communicated to you so 13 that you could reassure your constituents, not 14 necessarily that there are sixty (60) officers as opposed 15 to forty-five (45) or as opposed to seventy-five (75), 16 but that adequate policing was in place, their safety was 17 not a concern and that there was no need for panic or 18 taking the law into their own hands. 19 Is that -- is that a fair summary? 20 A: That's -- that's a very fair 21 assumption. 22 Q: Okay. Now -- and the reasons why, 23 and we talked about a few of them, but the reasons why 24 you had a legitimate concern in that regard was, about 25 some of your constituents, was that there had been talk


1 about people arming themselves; am I right? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: There was a recognition on your part 4 and on the part of other constituents that the Provincial 5 Park was close to private property. You remember that as 6 a concern? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 Q: And that there had been at least one 9 (1) large meeting of residents that held strong views 10 about the situation? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: Okay. Now, I say at least one (1) 13 meeting because we've heard some evidence that apart from 14 the meeting that -- that you've described on the -- on 15 the Saturday that you heard about, that some of the 16 residents gathered at the MNR parking lot on East 17 Ipperwash Drive on September the 6th in the evening 18 shortly before a confrontation with the occupiers and the 19 OPP and had to be dissuaded from marching down the road. 20 Were you at that gathering? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Okay. Did you ever advocate that 23 residents near the Park march down the road towards the 24 occupation? 25 A: Never.


1 Q: Is that something that you wanted to 2 see? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Now, the point has been made here and 5 indeed I have to tell you the OPP witnesses have agreed 6 with this point, that it would be better in the future if 7 local politicians, and not just you, so you weren't just 8 being centred in this discussion, did not meet with the 9 Incident Commander in the command centre itself given the 10 concern that it should not appear to the outside world, 11 if that became known, that politicians are interfering in 12 operational matters. 13 And -- and do you understand that concern? 14 A: Well I can see yeah, how you could 15 make political heyday or you can turn it around but it 16 was not a top secret meeting. I was invited by the -- 17 somebody -- like I say, I can't remember who, you know, 18 where the call came from or who made the call. 19 The Mayor of the community was being 20 briefed, the Chief of the local Band was being briefed, 21 the manager or the superintendent at the Pinery was being 22 briefed, so it's not as if I was the only one that was 23 being briefed. A number of people that were in some 24 responsible positions were being briefed as to what was 25 going on.


1 Q: Fair enough. 2 A: Personally, I -- I didn't have any 3 problem with it. But I can see where some people may 4 have some concerns with it, but I did not. 5 Q: Now -- now, in fairness, you came to 6 the Forest Detachment; the command centre happened to be 7 attached to it. 8 But that's where you came at first 9 instance, did you not? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Right. And you were never invited 12 nor did you come to the MNR parking lot where the mobile 13 command was later established, did you? 14 A: No. I didn't even know there was one 15 there until after the incident. 16 Q: Okay. Now, one of the things that I 17 want to talk to you about is not throwing out the baby 18 with the bathwater, in the sense that if one can 19 structure an approach when an incident command -- 20 commander can get feedback from someone like yourself and 21 communicate information to someone like yourself, that's 22 always going to be helpful, isn't it? 23 A: Well, I think that it -- 24 Q: You'd hope so? 25 A: I -- it certainly would help because


1 without any information what would I do with my 2 constituents; let them run wild? And I think basically 3 the information that was passed on to me as you pointed 4 out was to help to diffuse the situation. 5 Q: So -- so, just summarizing where 6 we're at here, you can communicate concerns of the -- of 7 some of the constituents and what they're actually doing 8 to the extent to which that's not known to the police, 9 right; that's number 1? 10 A: Well, I would imagine the police are 11 probably aware but I didn't mind passing on the 12 information -- 13 Q: Right. 14 A: -- that I had, yes. 15 Q: Secondly and -- and very importantly 16 you can tell the constituents that you've done that and - 17 - and just telling them that -- that contact takes place 18 can alleviate some of their concerns; am I right? 19 A: I think -- I think you're right. And 20 if nothing else the perception that I'm trying to do 21 something is there. 22 Q: And -- and another point that really 23 perhaps has been lost sight of in the course of our 24 Inquiry and perhaps not is that -- that by telling the 25 constituents, with you as the vehicle, to tell the


1 constituents that, then it makes it in your mind less 2 likely that the hundred (100) -- a hundred and fifty 3 (150) constituents who are calling and writing you won't 4 be calling and writing the police on a daily basis; am I 5 right? 6 A: Well, at least they're voicing their 7 concerns to somebody and yeah, that might have alleviated 8 that. I don't know, I can't speak for them but I'm sure, 9 you know, I -- it's a fair assumption. 10 Q: Okay. So, the police have a vehicle, 11 namely you, to communicate to some of the constituents 12 what might be needed to reduce tensions? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Now, of course that's dependent upon 15 -- upon you acting in a way to diffuse intent -- tensions 16 rather than exacerbating them, right? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: And you said that's what you intended 19 to do, right? 20 A: That's right, I -- I tried to do, 21 yes. 22 Q: Now, I'm just going to ask you about 23 one (1) other area if I may and that's -- and that's your 24 conversation with Wade Lacroix on September the 5th, 25 1995. And Inspector -- Staff Sergeant Lacroix tells John


1 Carson that the MPP is quite irate but not at us. 2 And Ms. Vella asked you whether 'irate' is 3 the proper description or 'frustrated' or -- or what have 4 you; I'm less concerned about that for a moment. 5 Was it an accurate statement for Staff 6 Sergeant Lacroix to say to John Carson: 7 "Whatever he is, whether irate or 8 frustrated it's not directed to -- to 9 us?" 10 Was -- was that a fair summary -- 11 A: Well, I'm -- 12 Q: -- of what you would have 13 communicated to him? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And -- and he said that -- that you 16 indicated that you were going to be calling the Premier, 17 that this is ridiculous and want something done. 18 And you told Ms. Vella that you don't 19 recall whether you actually said that to Staff Sergeant 20 Lacroix, but -- but you may have communicated language 21 along the lines that -- that you'd be in contact with the 22 Premier about this and -- and your concerns about 23 something being done; is that fair? 24 A: I -- I do not deny this, not the 25 Premier himself --


1 Q: All right. 2 A: -- but the Premier's office. 3 Q: And as we've said and -- and I've 4 alluded to this a little bit, that the message that came 5 back through Staff Sergeant Lacroix was that we've got a 6 number of teams, right? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: That we've got teams that are on the 9 ground during the day and at night, right? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: That we're just trying to contain the 12 situation? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: That was a sentiment communicated to 15 you by Staff Sergeant Lacroix? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: That our objective here is to contain 18 and negotiate a peaceful resolution, correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: That we have adequate resources to 21 address all of the public concerns, right? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: That no one in the community is in 24 danger of anything and that we will maintain the level of 25 service as long as it is required?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And that we're going for an 3 injunction and that that's being addressed as we speak, 4 right? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: So, all of those sentiments were 7 communicated, passed on to you through Staff Sergeant 8 Lacroix in the course of your dialogue with him; am I 9 right? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And of course those were consistent 12 in your mind with the same themes that were developed by 13 John Carson when you met with him in the command centre 14 on September the 6th? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: Okay. Now, there's been some talk 17 here about the impression that was left in the minds of 18 the OPP by your comments and those of others, that the 19 OPP would likely end up evicting the occupiers. 20 Now, what I want to ask you is: Was it 21 ever suggested to you by anyone at the OPP that they were 22 prepared to evict the occupiers without obtaining a Court 23 direction through an injunction? 24 A: Not that I can recall and I, you 25 know, they certainly stressed the fact that they had to


1 have an injunction. 2 Q: So, what I'm going to suggest that -- 3 to the extent to which eviction was a topic of interest 4 that -- that the message that at least you took from what 5 the OPP was saying in your dealings with them is that if 6 we end up evicting the occupiers, it's only going to take 7 place after Court direction, right? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Otherwise, we'd be containing the 10 situation? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Let me just ask you this: Just apart 13 from what the OPP was saying, did you feel competent or 14 skilled to advise the OPP -- leaving aside whether it's 15 appropriate for politicians even to be doing it, but did 16 you feel skilled or competent to be advising the OPP as 17 to whether they should evict the occupiers without a 18 Court Order? 19 A: Absolutely not, because first of all, 20 you probably could skate circles around me when it -- you 21 know, you start discussing injunctions. I don't -- I 22 understand the word, but I'm sure there's different kinds 23 and different repercussions, so as I said, it was not my 24 subject of expertise. 25 Q: Okay. Two (2) other very brief


1 areas. You said that Julian Fantino, who was then the 2 Chief of Police of London; am I right? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Spoke to you at a dinner and he 5 shared information with you that the OPP had secured an 6 armoured vehicle for defensive purposes only; do you 7 remember that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And I just want to understand your 10 evidence, and I think it's clear, but just to be safe, 11 that you weren't being critical of the OPP for failing to 12 share that information with you, were you? 13 A: No. 14 Q: I mean, the reality is that you 15 understood that some operational information should not 16 be shared with you and that might, in their minds, fall 17 into that category; am I right? 18 A: I respected that point, yes. 19 Q: Okay. Now, we've heard from John 20 Carson that sometime after you left the command centre 21 and after he had left the command centre for the night, 22 with instructions to keep the situation quiet to his men 23 and women, he returned to deal with a situation that 24 arose in and around the parking lot, near the Provincial 25 Park.


1 Did you expect him to consult you before 2 sending OPP officers down the road to move occupiers back 3 into the Park? 4 A: Absolutely not. 5 Q: Did you expect him to consult you on 6 whether to deploy the TRU team? 7 A: Absolutely not. 8 Q: Or the crowd management unit? 9 A: Absolutely not. 10 Q: Or when these officers should go down 11 the road? 12 A: Absolutely not. 13 Q: Or what instructions should be given 14 to the officers going down the road? 15 A: Sorry for sounding like a broken 16 record, but absolutely not. 17 Q: I mean, even you understood and 18 you've been candid about -- about your levels of 19 understanding here, that those would truly be -- 20 A: Operational. 21 Q: -- black and white, no doubt about 22 it -- 23 A: No doubt -- 24 Q: -- operational decisions that should 25 not be the subject of advise or direction from you?


1 A: There was a definitely a fine -- a 2 very black or clear line as to what was, you know, what 3 their duty was there. 4 Q: And they weren't the subject of any 5 advice or direction from you? 6 A: Absolute -- no. 7 Q: Thank you very much. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 9 Mr. Sandler. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: Thank you, 11 Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where do we 13 go now, back to the beginning? 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: Back to the original 15 order. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Back up to 17 the top, okay. And that would bring up Ms. McAleer. 18 Thank you very much. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Good morning, Mr. 23 Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 25 morning.


1 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 3 Q: Good morning, Mr. Beaubien. 4 A: Good morning. 5 Q: My name is Jennifer McAleer and I'm 6 one of the lawyers who's acting for the former Premier, 7 Mike Harris. I have a couple of quick questions for you 8 this morning. 9 If you still have before you the log of 10 the transcripts from the phone conversations, it's 11 Exhibit 444A, Tab 22. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think we need to put 16 that sbefore the Witness, please. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which -- 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He doesn't have the 22 logs. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which 24 conversation is this, Ms. McAleer? Is this the one 25 with --


1 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: This is the 2 conversation -- this is the conversation on September 5th 3 at 16:24 between Inspector Carson and Sergeant Lacroix. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 5 THE WITNESS: In Tab 22 in this book? 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 8 Q: It is Tab 22. And if we could turn 9 to the -- the second page, the bottom of the second page. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: About three-quarters (3/4's) of the 14 way down, where it says: 15 "Okay. But Marcel got a brief half an 16 hour ago." 17 Do you see that, Mr. Beaubien? 18 A: That's correct. I got that, yeah. 19 Q: Now Ms. Vella asked you some 20 questions about this passage but I just want to go over 21 it briefly with you. 22 At the bottom of the page Mr. Lacroix 23 indicates that: 24 "Marcel got a brief a half an hour ago. 25 He's got -- he's going to get briefed


1 again in five (5). 2 This is not an Indian issue but an MNR 3 issue and a Provincial issue." 4 And you turn the page: 5 "Harris is involved himself and quite 6 uptight about it." 7 Do you see that, Mr. Beaubien? 8 A: Yes, I do. 9 Q: Now do you recall telling Mr. -- I'm 10 sorry, Sergeant Lacroix that Harris was involved himself 11 and quite uptight about it. 12 A: No, I don't recall that. And I think 13 probably that came out, I can't remember which tab, but 14 if you -- last week I testified to the fact that I did 15 get a call from Bill King and I wrote on the fax I had 16 sent to him about that the Premier was -- 17 Q: Following closely. 18 A: -- following closely. But those are 19 Mr. Lacroix's words so you would have to ask him, but I 20 don't recall saying that to him. 21 Q: Thank you, Mr. Beaubien. Now apart 22 from your conversation with Mr. King that you went over 23 with Ms. Vella in-chief regarding the press release that 24 you had sent to him on September 5th, did -- am I correct 25 in assuming that you had no other conversations with Mr.


1 King or anyone from the Premier's office about the 2 situation at Ipperwash? 3 A: That day? 4 Q: At any point in time prior to the 5 death of Dudley George. 6 A: The only person that any information 7 I would have passed on and, you know, and I don't have 8 the dates, would have been to Bill King to the -- in the 9 Premier's office. 10 Q: And do you have any recollection 11 today of any other conversation with Mr. King, except for 12 the one that you've already explained or told us about 13 regarding the press release that you had sent on 14 September the 5th? 15 A: Not that I recall. 16 Q: Thank you. And with respect to 17 correspondence, we saw at Tabs 17 and 23, two (2) letters 18 that you had sent to Mr. King. Apart from those letters, 19 do you recall sending any other correspondence to Mr. 20 King or to anyone in the Premier's office regarding the 21 situation at Ipperwash? 22 A: Not that I recall. 23 Q: And just to be clear, I'm talking 24 about the time frame between when you were elected and 25 the death of Dudley George.


1 A: I still stand by my statement, not 2 that I recall. 3 Q: Thank you very much, Mr. Beaubien. 4 A: You're welcome. 5 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 7 Ms. McAleer. 8 Ms. Horvat, no questions? 9 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: We don't have 10 any. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Mrozek, 12 on behalf of Mr. Runciman? 13 MS. ALICE MROZEK: Good morning, Mr. 14 Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 16 morning. 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ALICE MROZEK: 19 Q: Good morning. 20 A: Good morning. 21 Q: My name is Alice Mrozek and I'm here 22 on behalf of Robert Runciman who as you know was the 23 Solicitor General at the time. 24 And I just wanted to touch on a few points 25 in your evidence as it relates to Mr. Runciman and the


1 few communications that you had with the Ministry of the 2 Solicitor General. 3 And as I understand it, your evidence is 4 that you sent two (2) letters to Charles Harnick. One on 5 July 31st and one on August 14th, those are at Tab 6 and 6 9 of your document brief, if you want to look at them. 7 And that you sent these letters in order 8 to notify Queen's Park about the issues in your 9 constituency. And these letters were copied to Robert 10 Runciman. And as I understand it, you testified that you 11 don't recall getting or you did not recall getting any 12 response from Mr. Runciman. 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And I can tell you that Mr. 15 Runciman's evidence was that he did not recall seeing 16 these letters. So my question is just: Apart from these 17 letters you have no recollection of any other written 18 communications with Mr. Runciman? 19 A: Not that I'm aware of. 20 Q: Okay. And you had no conversations 21 with Mr. Runciman during the time period September 4th to 22 6th? 23 A: Absolutely not. 24 Q: Or, in fact, at any time in the 25 summer of 1995 and up to September 6th?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And other than the letters that I've 3 just pointed out to you, you had no telephone 4 conversations with Mr. Runiciman's Executive Assistant, 5 Kathryn Hunt? 6 A: I did talk to her but I can't recall 7 the date at this point, and I think I testified to the 8 fact that I did talk to Kathryn Hunt, but I can't 9 remember the, you know, the date. 10 Q: Oh, okay. Do you recall anything 11 else about your conversation with Kathryn Hunt? 12 A: No. 13 Q: You can't recall whether it occurred 14 before or after September 6th? 15 A: No, I can't. I'm sorry. 16 Q: Thank you. Those are all my 17 questions. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 19 very much. 20 Does Counsel for Mr. Hodgson have any 21 questions? 22 MS. MICHELLE FERNANDO: No, thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 24 Ms. Perschy, any questions? 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 2 OPPA, any questions? 3 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: Just a few 4 questions. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: Good morning -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 morning. 11 MR. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: -- Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: 15 Q: Good morning, Mr. Beaubien. 16 A: Good morning. 17 Q: My name is Jennifer Gleitman and I am 18 counsel, one of the counsel, for the Ontario Provincial 19 Police Association including former Staff Sergeant Wade 20 Lacroix. 21 Mr. Commissioner, you'll be very happy to 22 know that as a result of the questions that Mr. Sandler 23 has posed, I have severely edited the number of questions 24 I have for Mr. Beaubien. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: 3 Q: Mr. Beaubien, I understand from your 4 evidence that, prior to your election as an MPP in 1995, 5 you had a long history of involvement in dealing with 6 police departments, correct? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And in your experience it was not 9 unusual for the police to keep local government apprised 10 of what was going on in a given situation? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And I understand that you had 13 previous experiences prior to Ipperwash, I believe at 14 this time you were the mayor of Petrolia, where an issue 15 arose which was of interest to your constituents and you 16 made the local law enforcement aware of what was going 17 on, correct? 18 A: I don't know which one you're 19 referring to but I'm sure that was...I'm not going to 20 deny that. I, you know, I don't know what you're 21 referring to at this point in time, but... 22 Q: Okay. My understanding is that there 23 was a previous incident in your jurisdiction in which you 24 had sought the assistance of the OPP? 25 A: Well, I can't personally --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you give 2 us some timeline for that, Ms. Gleitman? 3 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: Sure, I certainly 4 can. It's -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 6 a timeframe for that? 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: 9 Q: This would have been in or about 10 1992? 11 A: Yes, I -- I -- okay now I recall what 12 you're talking about. I did not personally seek the 13 assistance of the poli -- of the OPP at that time, the 14 Chief of Police of the local detachment. 15 I was Chair of -- of the Police Commission 16 at that time, but he did inform me that he was going to 17 seek the assistance of the OPP to deal with that 18 particular incident because they felt that they were 19 better qualified to deal with it. 20 Q: Okay. And you have testified that 21 from the time that you were sworn in as an MPP you found, 22 from the get go, you were dealing with the issue of the 23 situation up at Ipperwatch -- Ipperwash, correct? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And I take it that, although we have,


1 in your Commission Counsel brief, certain phone logs and 2 certain letters from your constituents, that what we have 3 before us would only represent a fragment of the 4 communication that you were receiving at your office on 5 an ongoing basis? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And do I understand your evidence 8 correctly, that following the occupation of the -- or the 9 -- the event of the Provincial Park, the number of phone 10 calls to your office and the amount of correspondence to 11 you increased? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: And it's fair to say that these phone 14 calls and this correspondence was similar to the 15 correspondence and phone calls that you had received 16 before, correct? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Now, you have given evidence in 19 relation to your knowledge of and relationship with then 20 Staff Sergeant Lacroix, and am I correct that you had had 21 contact with then Staff Sergeant Lacroix on numerous 22 occasions relating to various issues over the years? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And you -- Ms. Vella had asked you 25 about a meeting with Staff Sergeant Lacroix which took


1 place on or about July 31st of 1995? Do you recall being 2 asked about that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And to be fair, your evidence, as I 5 understand it, was that at this point in time you have no 6 independent recollection of what took place at that 7 meeting? 8 A: No, I don't. 9 Q: Okay. You testified at the start of 10 your evidence and I'm not sure if you recall this, Mr. 11 Beaubien, that being in Petrolia you knew about 90 to 100 12 percent of the police officers in your area, right? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And you also testified that it was 15 not uncommon for you to run into them in local police 16 shops or eateries, correct? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And what I'm going to suggest to you 19 is that this is exactly what happened when you had 20 contact with Staff Sergeant Lacroix on July the 31st of 21 1995. 22 A: Well, like I said, I don't deny that 23 I talked to Staff Sergeant Lacroix on an ongoing basis. 24 Whether it was in a coffee shop, whether it was on the 25 street, whether in my office or his office, we were in


1 contact with each other. 2 Q: And I take it that in your dealings 3 with Staff Sergeant Lacroix, you were aware of the fact 4 that there was -- although he was able to provide you 5 with certain information, there was -- there was that 6 line, as you put it, of information which he wasn't going 7 to be able to provide you with, right? 8 A: That's correct, and I understood 9 that. 10 Q: And I take it that that applies in 11 your dealings with Staff Sergeant Lacroix, prior to 12 Ipperwash? 13 A: Definitely. 14 Q: And it would also apply to your 15 dealings with Staff Sergeant Lacroix during the events of 16 September of 1995? 17 A: That's -- that's correct. 18 Q: And do you recall, if we can go back, 19 please, to your discussions with Staff Sergeant Lacroix 20 on July 31st of 1995, that what Staff Sergeant Lacroix 21 told you was that an incident commander had been assigned 22 to the area to deal with the situation, that being John 23 Carson? 24 A: I don't recall that, but I would 25 imagine he prob -- you know, that certainly would be --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, 2 that's not helpful. He said he didn't recall, so that's 3 not -- 4 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- useful. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: 8 Q: What I'm going to suggest to the 9 Witness, then, Commissioner, is that it was as a result 10 of your discussions with Staff Sergeant Lacroix on July 11 the 31st that the meeting on August 11 took place? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Thank you. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: I take it from your evidence that 18 during the summer of 1995, after you were elected as the 19 Provincial MPP, and into September of 1995, the Ontario - 20 - the OPP and Staff Sergeant Lacroix were not the only 21 people that you were talking to about these events, 22 correct? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: You testified that you were speaking 25 with local officials?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: You were speaking with First Nations 3 and non First Nations constituents who were concerned 4 about what was going on? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: You had ongoing discussions with the 7 Mayor from the area? 8 A: I did. 9 Q: And you also had discussions with Mr. 10 Kobayashi from the MNR; is that correct? 11 A: I did. 12 Q: Now, Mr. Sandler has asked you, 13 briefly, about your -- the contents of some phone calls 14 which Ms. Vella took you to. These have to do with phone 15 calls between Staff Sergeant Lacroix and John Carson on 16 September the 5th. 17 And you have testified that at this point 18 in time you don't recall, specifically, your discussions 19 with Staff Sergeant Lacroix, correct? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: But what I'm going to suggest to you 22 is that the information that was relayed by Staff 23 Sergeant Lacroix to John Carson is consistent with your 24 actions that day? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: For example -- and Ms. McAleer you 2 jumped my -- you jumped to the point on this, you -- your 3 position is that the information that Staff Sergeant 4 Lacroix relayed to John Carson certainly reflects your 5 own notes of your discussions with Bill King, correct? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And similarly, in relation to the 8 second phone call in which Staff Sergeant Lacroix is 9 passing on -- is talking to John Carson, rather, your 10 notes relate -- your handwritten notes reflect what 11 information Staff Sergeant Lacroix was providing to you 12 from then Inspector Carson, correct? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And you would agree with me that the 15 information, which was provided to you by Staff Sergeant 16 Lacroix, consisted of information which was descriptive 17 of events that had already happened, correct? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: It was a fait accompli, the fact that 20 those -- that those police officers were already in 21 operation, right? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And I take it that during your 24 conversations with Staff Sergeant Lacroix, at no time did 25 you have any discussions of OPP strategy?


1 A: No. 2 Q: OPP tactics? 3 A: Never did. 4 Q: And you've already said to Mr. 5 Sandler, you never had any discussions as to whether the 6 TRU team or ERT would be deployed? 7 A: Absolutely not. 8 Q: And you obviously -- you also did not 9 express an opinion as to what the OPP should do, correct? 10 A: Could you repeat that one? I'm 11 sorry. 12 Q: Sorry, you never expressed an opinion 13 as to what the OPP should do when you were speaking with 14 Staff Sergeant Lacroix? 15 A: Absolutely not. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Thank you, Commissioner, those are 20 all my questions. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 22 very much. 23 Ms. Twohig...? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 3 Q: Hello, Mr. Beaubien. My name is Kim 4 Twohig and I represent the Province of Ontario, which at 5 this Inquiry is essentially the Crown and the Public 6 Service. 7 I have a few questions for you as well 8 regarding communications. In your evidence in-chief I 9 believe you said you were frustrated in August and 10 September of 1995 by the lack of communication from 11 people at Queen's Park, including civil servants. 12 Do you remember that? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: As I understand your evidence though, 15 all of your communications were with Ministers or 16 political staff, that is, you would write to them or 17 telephone them; is that correct? 18 A: I think -- I won't say all of it but, 19 to the best of my recollection, most of it would have 20 been with the political side, yes. 21 Q: Do you recall being in touch with any 22 civil servants at all? 23 A: I did talk to some of them, but as to 24 when, I can't remember. 25 Q: Do you remember who you would have


1 spoken to? 2 A: I remember, I think, once talking to 3 Peter Allen. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: And I think I did talk to Mr. 6 Vrancart. But again, as to when, I can't remember. 7 Q: Okay. Do you remember whether they 8 contacted you or whether you contacted them? 9 A: That I can't remem -- I can't 10 remember. 11 Q: Okay. In terms of your 12 correspondence though, and the calls that you have 13 testified about initiating, it was appropriate, you'll 14 agree, for MPP's to contact the appropriate ministers or 15 minister's staff about an issued that's of concern. 16 A: That was my understanding, that that 17 was the proper protocol to follow. 18 Q: Yes. And you did follow that 19 protocol? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And the appropriate protocol on the 22 Minister's side, you would agree, would be for the 23 Minister or members of the minister's political staff to 24 contact you in response? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: Okay. So consistent with this 2 protocol, you didn't actually expect to hear from any 3 civil servants in response to your communications with 4 Ministers? 5 A: No. I would expect that I would get 6 a reply after the information is flushed through the 7 proper Ministry from the Minister or the Ministry staff. 8 Q: Yes. And if the civil servants were 9 to contact you, that would be at the Minister's 10 direction? 11 A: I would think so. 12 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 14 very much. I think we're up to Mr. Zbogar. 15 I think we'll take a break now. Would 16 that be all right? We'll start with a break. We'll have 17 a morning break now. It's five after 11:00, we'll take 18 our morning break. 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 20 for fifteen (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 11:05 a.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 11:23 a.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now


1 resumed. Please be seated. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 3 morning, Mr. Zbogar. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Good morning, Mr. 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long do 7 you estimate you might be? I know -- 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I expect to be about 9 two (2) hours or so. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 11 Thank you. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 14 Q: Good morning, Mr. Beaubien. 15 A: Good morning. 16 Q: My name is Vilko Zbogar. I'm 17 representing the Estate of Dudley George and members of 18 Dudley's family. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Now, sir, as the MPP can you tell me 23 more specifically who your constituents were? 24 A: What do you mean "who my constituents 25 were"?


1 Q: You represented the -- the riding of 2 -- of the Ipperwash area. 3 A: Of -- 4 Q: Who were your constituents? 5 A: People that live in the riding of 6 Lambton. 7 Q: So, that includes a number of First 8 Nations communities? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: It includes members of the Kettle 11 Point and Stony Point First Nations? 12 A: I had two (2) First Nations. I had 13 Walpole Island and Kettle and Stony. 14 Q: Okay. And it includes the members of 15 the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation who occupied the 16 Provincial Park? 17 A: If they -- if they lived in the -- in 18 the riding, yes. 19 Q: Now, sir, do you agree -- I think 20 actually you've -- you've used or advocated a statement 21 that laws should be upheld no matter who was involved? 22 Do you agree with that statement? 23 A: Yes, I agree with that, yes. 24 Q: And that means no matter whether you 25 were Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And in other words, is it your 3 understanding that First Nations people have no special 4 rights and should always be treated the same as -- as 5 non-Aboriginals? 6 A: No. First Nations have special 7 rights when it comes to fishing and hunting and I'm, you 8 know, I'm sure probably others, but when it comes to the 9 laws of the land that there should be one (1) law. 10 Q: What do mean by "the laws of the 11 land"? 12 A: Well, if we're going to talk about 13 the Highway Traffic Act, whether you're Native or non- 14 Native, when you're speeding you should be treated the 15 same way. 16 Q: What are your exceptions to the laws 17 of the land that might -- 18 A: I said -- I mentioned to you -- 19 Q: -- apply to -- 20 A: -- that I'm aware that they have 21 special status with regards to fishing and -- and 22 hunting. I did have the opportunity a number of years 23 ago to hunt with a Native from Walpole Island. We moose 24 hunt up north and I had to have a tag. Willy (phonetic) 25 did not have to have a tag. You know I'm quite well


1 aware of that. 2 Q: All right. Okay. Do you know of any 3 other exceptions other than hunting and fishing issues? 4 A: Off the top of my head, not that I'm 5 aware of but... 6 Q: Okay. Now, did you understand it 7 also to be the philosophy of the Conservative Government 8 of which you are a member that laws would be upheld no 9 matter who was involved? 10 A: I think we campaigned in 1995 on a 11 law and order platform. 12 Q: You're familiar with that entailed, 13 that platform, the law and order platform? 14 A: What do you mean? 15 Q: You mentioned this law and order 16 platform that the Provincial Government campaigned on; do 17 you have some familiarity with that platform? 18 A: Well, you'll have to be more specific 19 as to what you're -- you're trying to ask me. 20 Q: Well, I'm just following up on your 21 comment that the Government campaigned on a law and order 22 platform. I'm actually wondering if you can maybe 23 describe for me what you understood to be the components 24 of the Provincial Government's law and order platform? 25 A: Well, I don't have the 1995 campaign


1 document, but I'm sure you could put your hands on it and 2 then whatever that stipulated I -- I certainly supported 3 that. 4 Q: Do you have any recollection of -- of 5 things -- 6 A: No. 7 Q: Sorry. Now, during your tenure as an 8 MPP and as a constituency man as you described it, and a 9 pipeline to Queen's Park, I think you also used that 10 word, you wrote a number of letters to Ministers in 11 support of constituents in relation to matters affecting 12 Ipperwash and we've seen those; that's correct? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And the letters that we've seen were 15 written on behalf of, or in support of cottage or 16 homeowners in the Ipperwash area? 17 A: Different people in the area, Native 18 and non-Native. 19 Q: I haven't seen a letter that was 20 written in -- to a Minister in support of a native 21 person. Am I missing something or is there something -- 22 A: Yes, I think you are missing 23 something, because I think we did provide you with an 24 awful lot of documentation from the calls that we 25 received in the office and letters that we received in


1 the constituency office. You have that on record, sir. 2 Q: Now, I asked you about letters to the 3 Min -- letters to various Ministers, for example Harnick, 4 Runciman, Premier Harris. You wrote a number of letters 5 to those people or people in those offices and I'm 6 wondering whether you wrote any such letters on behalf of 7 Native constituents? 8 A: I think my concern a far -- were 9 directed to the different Ministries, but they were 10 concerns from both Natives and non-Natives. 11 Q: Okay. Now, if I could confine my 12 questions to the period before September 6th, 1995. In 13 the materials that we've reviewed over the last few days 14 in your examination, there's a letter that we've seen 15 that you wrote to Charles Harnick on Jan -- on July 31st 16 of 1995. 17 There's another one that you wrote on 18 August 14th of 1995, then during the period of the 5th 19 and 6th you wrote -- you sent a couple of faxes to Bill 20 King at the Premier's office. 21 Were there any other letters that you sent 22 during that period before September 6th, 1995 regarding-- 23 A: Not -- 24 Q: -- Ipperwash issues? 25 A: I think you're going to have to


1 clarify your question, because you started with the 2 premise that you wanted to concentrate between the -- 3 prior to September the 5th and then all of a sudden you 4 start mentioning about August the 14th and other periods, 5 so could you pose that question again? 6 Q: Sure, I apologize if it wasn't clear. 7 I asked you, for the period prior to September 6th of 8 1995, in other words, from the time you were elected as 9 MPP until the shooting of Dudley George. 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: Now, we've seen and reviewed your 12 letter to Minister Harnick, Attorney General Harnick, of 13 July 31st, 1995 as well as your letter to Attorney 14 General Harnick of August 14th of 1995. We've also seen 15 and reviewed two (2) faxes that you sent to Bill King on 16 September 5th and 6th, 1995. 17 And my question is: Were there any other 18 letters that you sent to Ministers or the Premier's 19 office in relation to the Ipperwash matters in the period 20 before September 6th, 1995? 21 A: Not that I'm aware of. 22 Q: Okay. So, then it's fair to say that 23 all of the letters that you wrote, with respect to the 24 Ipperwash incident, prior to September 6th, 1995, to 25 members of the Government, Ministers of the Government or


1 the Premier's office, were on behalf of non -- were on 2 behalf of non-First Nations constituents? 3 A: No, that's not correct. 4 Q: Okay. Can you point me to something 5 that -- 6 A: Like I said, the comments and the 7 issues and the concerns that I raised in those letters 8 was in consequence to some of the calls and letters that 9 I had received from the constituents during that period 10 of time. 11 And the calls and the concerns that I 12 received were both from natives and Non-natives. 13 Q: Can you relay for me some of the 14 concerns that you heard from Natives during that period? 15 A: Well, for instance, I heard from the 16 Chief that he wanted the dissidents out of the -- out of 17 the Park. 18 I mean, I -- and plus the fact you have it 19 on the record as to who the people that call in the 20 office. You have that on record. I mean, unless you want 21 me to go through all that documentation. The names of 22 people are there and some of the people that are there 23 are Natives and some are not. 24 Q: Okay. I don't need to go to the list 25 of names that called in.


1 I want to know -- you obviously felt 2 important to correspond with the Ministers regarding the 3 West Ipperwash situation, regarding the Ipperwash Park 4 situation, in the period before September 6th, 1995, were 5 there any matters related to Ipperwash that you felt 6 important enough to correspond about with the Ministry or 7 various Ministries that were essentially representing the 8 interests of First Nations people? 9 A: Specifically? 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: Not that I recall. 12 Q: Thank you. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: All the comments were from -- it was 17 a general feeling of the people that live in the riding 18 of Lambton and that applies to Natives, non-Native, 19 French, coloured people and whatever. It applies to 20 anybody that live in the riding. 21 Q: Okay. Let's turn to -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me. 23 Mr. Ross, you have an objection? I know it's awkward 24 to -- 25 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I just want a


1 clarification -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you're on 3 your way up here, we'll wait for you. 4 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yes, yes please. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Perhaps I could get a 9 different -- just get him to clarify this point. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY VILKO ZBOGAR: 14 Q: Your previous answer you referred to 15 coloured people, I think. Will you let me know what that 16 means? 17 A: Well it could be Asian descent, it 18 could be African descent, it could be anybody. 19 Q: If I could refer you to Tab Number 6 20 please. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Are you there? 25 A: Yep, I'm there.


1 Q: This is your -- this is Exhibit P- 2 534, Inquiry Document 1000918 and it's your letter to 3 Charles Harnick of July 31st, 1995. 4 And I would like to take you to the third 5 paragraph and it starts with, "My concern", do you see 6 that? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: "My concern is with the residents of 9 Ipperwash Beach that I have met with." 10 So -- and then the following paragraph, it 11 says: 12 "Tensions have again escalated over 13 this past weekend and my constituents 14 have the following concerns." 15 Now, the reference to, quote, "my 16 constituents" I take that to refer back to the previous 17 paragraph where it says: 18 "The residents of Ipperwash Beach." 19 That's what's meant in this letter, right? 20 A: I think the -- to be specific about 21 the issue, I think it's quite clear, with the testimony 22 that I provided last week, that it dealt with the West 23 Ipperwash property owners for that paragraph. 24 Q: Right. 25 A: Yeah.


1 Q: Okay. So, you're writing this letter 2 expressing concerns on behalf of the West Ipperwash 3 property owners? 4 A: It certainly would appear like that, 5 yes. 6 Q: Okay. And this letter expresses what 7 those people are telling you, right? 8 A: What do you mean, what they're 9 telling me? 10 Q: This letter expresses the concerns 11 that the West Ipperwash property owners were 12 communicating to you? 13 A: That's probably a fair assumption. 14 Q: Right. Did you speak with the First 15 Nation members to get a perspective of their views on the 16 West Ipperwash situation? 17 A: At that particular point in time I 18 met with Charlie Shawkence in Forest, but I can't 19 remember whether it was prior to this or after this, I'm 20 sorry. 21 Q: Okay. But, it's to be obvious you 22 never wrote -- whatever you -- whenever you may have had 23 a discussion with Charlie Shawkence or whoever, you never 24 wrote a letter saying, I met with Members of the First 25 Nation, these are their concerns and we should be doing


1 something about it. 2 Is that fair? 3 A: Well, I think if we go to paragraph 4 2, it says: 5 "Before I proceed any further, let me 6 tell you that in Lambton riding we have 7 two (2) First Nation communities." 8 So, you know, I'm trying to lay down the 9 foundation. And whether I met with Native people prior 10 to July, I would say, you know, I would only be assuming 11 but I can't recall. But I did meet with them, but I 12 can't recall if it was before July 31st. 13 Q: Okay. Does anything in this letter 14 suggest to you that you met with Members of the First 15 Nation before July 31st or just the fact that there are 16 two (2) First Nations in your riding? 17 A: No, I'm talking about constituents 18 and I don't differentiate between constituents. 19 Q: Sorry, I'm confused. Can you repeat 20 that? 21 A: No, I'm not confused. 22 Q: I'm confused. 23 A: Well, that's your problem, that's not 24 mine. 25 Q: When your letter says that you have -


1 - the Lambton riding has two (2) First Nations contained 2 within its geographical boundaries -- 3 A: Right. 4 Q: -- that doesn't tell me that you met 5 with Members of those two (2) First Nations before, in 6 this letter, right? 7 A: No. But I'm telling you that I have 8 First Nations in my riding. 9 Q: Right. 10 A: And they are constituents and I met 11 with them. I can't tell you exactly what time -- 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: -- and when, but I met with them. 14 Q: And that's what I'm trying to 15 explore, sir, if you listen to my question. 16 A: So I think basically I'm laying the 17 ground to make sure that I, you know, I represent all the 18 constituents in the riding. 19 Maybe that's not clear to you, but it's 20 quite clear to me. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 22 minute, Mr. Beaubien. Just answer the questions as best 23 you can. 24 THE WITNESS: Okay. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 2 Q: That's fine -- I'll... 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 8 Q: Now, when you write these comments on 9 behalf of your constituents, the constituents you're 10 writing these comments on behalf of are not the members 11 of the Kettle Point First Nation or the Walpole Island 12 First Nation; isn't that correct? 13 A: I -- I disagree with you. I think if 14 you check the record again, that we do have some comments 15 and some calls from the Natives that are concerned with 16 the situation. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: Your assumption is incorrect. 19 Q: Can you give me some specifics on 20 that; what do you recall would be -- what do you recall 21 in this letter is supportive of a comment that you 22 received from a First Nations member? 23 A: I can't give you specifics right now. 24 I'd have to go through my records. 25 Q: I suggest to you there are none.


1 A: And I suggest to there are. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: And the record will show. All you 4 have to do is peruse the record and you'll find they -- 5 they are there. 6 And I strongly disagree for you to suggest 7 that there are none. I strongly disagree with that, 8 because the record will show that there are some. 9 Q: Okay. Sorry, you strongly disagree 10 with my point that I tried to suggest to you, but yet 11 you're not giving me any help with explaining what, in 12 this letter, is something that is supportive of a First 13 Nations constituent. 14 A: I don't see what your problem is. I 15 don't understand your question, I guess, then. 16 Q: Okay. Let me try to be clear. Let 17 me rephrase it. 18 Why don't you have a look at this document 19 at Tab 6, the letter to Charles Harnick -- 20 A: I do have it in front of me. 21 Q: Can you go through that and please 22 tell me what points in that letter are supportive or 23 advocating the concerns of First Nations constituents? 24 A: Well, I think if you look, the first 25 point, it says:


1 "As of May 1995, the Association has 2 spent two hundred and fourteen thousand 3 (214,000) the Town of Bosanquet sixty- 4 seven thousand dollars ($67,000) in 5 legal fees to defend the civil action 6 brought on by members of the Kettle and 7 Stony Point Band. 8 The residents are being sued 9 individually..." 10 And that again I would imagine a hundred 11 and fourteen (114) is probably the number: 12 "...for trespassing, et cetera, on 13 native land." 14 Well, that's an issue that deals 15 specifically with the residents that live -- from West 16 Ipperwash that live on this particular land claim. 17 Number 2 -- 18 Q: Okay, if I could interrupt you there 19 for a second. That point number 1, sir, you're 20 expressing a concern on behalf of the property owners who 21 are facing litigation brought by the First Nation, right? 22 A: For that point, for that -- 23 Q: Right. 24 A: -- particular point, you're 25 absolutely right.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: And you're not, in this letter, or at 4 any time after this letter, did you express a similar 5 sentiment, saying the First nation is undergoing this 6 litigation involving treaty lands that were taken from 7 them and they are spending this amount of money on 8 litigation and -- and that that's a concern. 9 Did you -- 10 A: 'Cause that's not the subject matter. 11 Q: Pardon me? 12 A: That's not a subject matter we're 13 talking about. 14 Q: Okay. If I could ask you to continue 15 with that letter and let me know which of those points, 2 16 through 8, are on behalf of First Nations constituents? 17 A: Well, we'll go to the previous 18 paragraph that starts: 19 "Tensions have again escalated over 20 this past weekend and my constituents 21 have the following concerns." 22 And when I'm talking about tensions have 23 escalated, those comments come from both Natives and non 24 Natives. 25 Q: Can you be more specific what is


1 referred to by "tensions." 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 3 we've been over this point two (2) or three (3) times. 4 You've asked him that question, he answered -- 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He hasn't 7 provided any more -- 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure, which -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 10 information. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 13 Q: Which tensions are being reported to 14 you by First Nations members, let's put it that way. 15 A: Well, to the best of my recollection, 16 I can't recall every call that I received, but like I 17 said, it's on the record. You have the documentation in 18 front of you. 19 You have the calls that came in the 20 constituency office. You've had the opportunity to look 21 at them. I can't recall -- unless you want to give me 22 some time for me to go through and then I can come back 23 to you. 24 Q: Okay. Well, as I recall it, the logs 25 sheets of the calls that went into your constituency


1 office, and for the record, I believe they were disclosed 2 in the litigation, but they aren't, as far as I know, 3 part of the record in -- in this proceeding because -- 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes, they are, they 5 most certainly are. 6 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, I -- I think -- 7 I did search for them. There was a letter from Mr. 8 Sulman when he disclosed productions and I think he asked 9 for one to be -- this is my recollection and I stand to 10 be corrected. 11 He asked, for one, to be excluded, which 12 included pretty much -- which is almost entirely composed 13 of a list of names of constituents and their phone 14 numbers, because of concerns about confidentiality and 15 that sort of thing. 16 I think that was withheld probably for, 17 you know, good reason and if that's not the case then -- 18 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well, that isn't the 19 case. 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right. 21 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And My Friend, 22 Commission Counsel's indicated that we provided -- we 23 provided volumes of documents. Names have been redacted, 24 which is common in all the documents, but they're in the 25 database.


1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yeah. I -- I am now 2 hearing two (2) things from Mr. Zbogar. The -- the 3 letters are certainly disclosed and were distributed, but 4 names were redacted from those documents so if the 5 question related to the identities of the constituents, 6 Mr. Zbogar's correct, if it relates to the content and 7 fact of letters, he's incorrect. 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: One moment of your 9 indulgence, Your Honour. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just to help My Friend, 14 they tend to be in the twelve thousand (12,000) document 15 series. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 18 Q: And the only reason I think it's 19 important because I think there were some comments on the 20 record that this was part of the Supertext database and I 21 just want to be clear that, well, I just want to be clear 22 what's -- what's in there. 23 And I'm referring to Document Number 24 12000002. And this is a letter regarding the Ipperwash 25 Inquiry from Mr. Sulman regarding disclosure of documents


1 and it says: 2 "Further to our letter of August 11th, 3 2004 in which you provided the 4 Commission a duplicate copy of the 5 documents produced in..." 6 Oh, sorry. This -- sorry, this is a 7 letter from the Commission to Mr. Sulman. 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I can't imagine that 9 there's any relevance to this. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 11 either. 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I have the document. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've got a 14 witness on the stand, you're asking him questions; I'm 15 not sure where you're going. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It's -- 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And I don't have a 18 copy of this letter. 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It's simply -- you can 20 look over my shoulder if you'd like. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It's simply about 23 what's on the record and what's not. And... 24 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: You -- you haven't 25 told us the date of the letter.


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Oh, sorry, it's 2 January 6th, 2005. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 5 Q: So okay. I understand that the -- Mr. 6 Sulman would have disclosed all of the documents in the 7 Harris litigation to the Commission and the Commission 8 writes back as I understand it: 9 "Further to our letter of August 11th 10 in which you provided the Commission 11 with a duplicate copy of the documents 12 produced in the George versus Harris 13 litigation." 14 So yes, it's correct that all the 15 documents were exposed to the Commission. 16 "I have now an opportunity to review 17 those productions in general and 18 propose to disclose the following 19 documents to all Part 1 counsel subject 20 to any comments that you have." 21 And then it identifies productions number 22 1 to 15, 17 to 72, 74 to 133, and 312 to 433. One (1) of 23 them that's excluded from that list, Mr. Commissioner, is 24 Document Number 73. 25 I understand that is the phone logs which


1 Mr. Beaubien referred to that, yes, have been exposed to 2 the Commission but aren't part of the super text 3 database. 4 I just want to be clear for the record 5 that when -- I -- I know it's come up several times that 6 that list is part of the super text database and I don't 7 believe that it is. I don't think it's a huge deal but I 8 think if we're going to be referring to documents that 9 the Commission has, it has to be clear that those aren't 10 documents that all Counsel have. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well... 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I don't think 13 there's -- 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just -- just -- I mean, 15 this is a letter that I wrote that all Counsel have. It 16 simply indicated that the documents I was excluding were 17 letters from constituents which post date September the 18 6th. 19 It also indicates that we redacted the 20 phone numbers. We did not redact -- we did not delete 21 the phone logs. There are phone logs with notes 22 contained like the one (1) I took Mr. Beaubien to last 23 week with Wade Lacroix and -- and Chief Superintendent 24 Coles' notes there. 25 This -- so My Friend, perhaps, is


1 misinterpreting my letter, but all that we redacted were 2 the phone numbers and personal identifying information. 3 I don't understand the basis of his concern. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I'm not 5 sure either. Mr. Sulman, do you have any observation? 6 Do you want to carry on -- 7 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Very brief. I -- I 8 totally agree with Commission Counsel. I just want to 9 make clear that it initially appeared that it was a 10 letter from me; it's not, it's a letter to me from 11 Commission Counsel. And I just want to make clear in the 12 record we provided -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- everything that 15 was in the civil litigation. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, this 17 isn't an issue. Do you want to keep asking questions 18 and -- 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No, just in response 20 to Ms. Vella. Yes, there -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- are a number of -- 23 and -- and I'll be -- I'll just finish this off and move 24 on. There were many documents which have been redacted, 25 quite appropriately. This one (1) document, number 73,


1 which was part of the George productions and consisted 2 almost entirely of names and phone numbers, and on that 3 basis was excluded entirely. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: That's my only 6 comment. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 8 carry on with your examination. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: So, I know it's come 10 up several times and that's why I think it's important to 11 just clarify what's on the record and what's not. In 12 any event... 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 15 Q: Now, Mr. Beaubien, we were reviewing 16 your letter of July 31st, 1995, Exhibit P-534, and I was 17 asking you to identify for me which of the comments in 18 that letter were comments that you made on behalf of 19 First Nations constituents. 20 And we've reviewed point number -- the 21 point which is numbered 1. And I want to ask you if you 22 can let me know, for points number 2 through 8, which of 23 those concerns you were expressing on behalf of your 24 First Nations constituents? 25 A: Well, you're forgetting, I don't know


1 if you do it on purpose or not, but you're forgetting the 2 paragraph before item 1 where it says: 3 "Tensions have again escalated over 4 this past weekend and my constituents 5 have the following concerns" 6 Q: Yes, we've covered that. 7 A: And you seem to want to not 8 acknowledge that is a fact. That is a fact. It's in the 9 letter and I pointed to you that my constituents are both 10 Natives and non Natives. 11 And the record shows that we did have 12 correspondence and calls from both Natives and non- 13 Natives. 14 Q: Was my question not clear to you, 15 sir? 16 A: No. 17 Q: I asked -- 18 A: Because I'm repeating what you, you 19 know, again, because -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're not 21 going to get anywhere if we just become argumentative 22 with each other -- 23 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean, we 25 need to just ask and answer questions.


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: If my question was not 2 clear, I'll try to rephrase it. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 6 Q: And I -- we've already covered the 7 point about the paragraph beginning with the word 8 'tensions', and I want to ask you, sir, moving on from 9 that point, we've covered that point, we've covered point 10 number 1 in your letter, we've covered some other issues 11 in the preamble part of your letter. 12 And I want to ask you, for your bullet 13 points numbered 2 through number 8, I'm being very 14 specific here, can you identify for me which of those 15 concerns of your constituents you are communicating on 16 behalf of your First Nations constituents? 17 A: Well, if we go to bullet 2, the 18 Province has apparently been put on notice that it -- 19 that it will also be sued. 20 So, if the Province is not aware already, 21 I'm making them aware that the suit is against the West 22 Ipperwash Property Owners, but it's brought on by the 23 Kettle Stony Band. 24 So, that's non -- that's Native. 25 Q: Okay. So, you're identifying that as


1 a fact -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- or an anticipation. 4 A: That's a fact, yeah. 5 Q: But you're not advocating a position 6 one way or the other on that? 7 A: That's right. I'm not advocating a 8 position. It's not my role to do that. 9 Number 3: 10 "Residents are faced with a situation 11 whereby they cannot sell their 12 properties because of the legal action 13 taken." 14 So that particular point would apply to 15 the residents of West Ipperwash. 16 Number 4: 17 "Residents have to pay property taxes 18 while the ownership of their property 19 is in the Band's -- is in the hands of 20 the Court system." 21 I think that would apply to the residents 22 of West Ipperwash. 23 "Apparently, this a unique situation in 24 Canada as it is the only case where a 25 third party action has been taken by


1 the First Nations." 2 So I would say that particular point 3 refers to First Nation. 4 Q: Now, when you expressed -- 5 A: Number 6, there is a lot -- 6 Q: If I could interrupt you, sir, for a 7 moment -- 8 A: Oh, I'm sorry. 9 Q: I'm sorry to interrupt you but -- 10 A: Oh. 11 Q: -- I want to address point number 5. 12 When you made that point were you stating it as a matter 13 of fact that it was something that the West Ipperwash 14 residents were saying to you, or is that something that 15 the First Nations people were saying to you? 16 A: That I can't recall. 17 Q: Okay. If you can move on to point 6 18 through 8. 19 A: "6. There's a lot of intimidation 20 going on at the moment and the 21 residents feel threatened." 22 And I think if you look again at the call 23 back book and the record that has been provided to you, 24 that applies to both Natives and non Natives. 25 Q: Okay. If I can interrupt you there


1 again. When you refer to 'residents' in paragraph number 2 6, and I note earlier in this letter you referred to 3 'residents of West Ipperwash', that -- that's who you're 4 referring to in paragraph 6, right? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: I'm talking -- I'm talking generally 8 of residents here. 9 Q: Okay, thank you. 10 A: Okay? Number 7: 11 "Law enforcement is basically non- 12 existent and the OPP does not seem to 13 be too keen in getting involved." 14 I think this is a comment that I heard 15 probably from the West Ipperwash property owners and the 16 people in the Ipperwash area. 17 Q: When you say, "people in the 18 Ipperwash area," who are you referring to? 19 A: I would imagine probably, mainly, in 20 this case, to the best of my recollection -- I'm not 21 going to guess here, because I can't recall. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: Okay. Number 8 is: 24 "Residents are stressed out and the 25 situation is becoming unbearable."


1 And that, I think, I heard that from both 2 sides of the equation. 3 Q: Now who, on the First Nations side, 4 did you hear that from? 5 A: Again, I -- like I said, I can't 6 remember when I met with Mr. Shawkence, the first time I 7 met with him, but I'm sure it was prior to this and I'm 8 sure I heard it from him. 9 And then if we go onto the last paragraph 10 it says: 11 "Charles, we need to meet as soon as 12 possible with the residents before this 13 situation becomes even more complex." 14 That -- I had heard that from both sides. 15 Q: And do you know who you heard that 16 from? 17 A: Again, in my discussion with Mr. 18 Shawkence, I certainly heard that from him -- 19 Q: And this letter -- 20 A: -- and I think with the Chief. 21 Q: Is this letter refreshing a 22 recollection that you had of a conversation with Charles 23 Shawkence? 24 A: I -- I can't recall when I had the 25 discussion but I, like I said, I did have a discussion


1 with him and it was early on in the mandate. 2 Q: Okay. Do you know whether that was 3 before or after the shooting? 4 A: It was before. 5 Q: But you don't know whether it was 6 before or after July 31st? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: If I could turn you to Tab Number 8 9 on August 14th of 1995. This is Exhibit -- sorry, 10 Document Number 12000055 and Exhibit Number -- 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 1026. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 14 Q: 1026. And in this letter you're 15 writing to a constituent who had written to you so you're 16 replying. And you're saying -- well I take it this 17 constituent who wrote to you was a bit frustrated to say 18 the least about the actions of the Stoney Point group. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just for clarification, 20 the Witness identified it as the response to the letter 21 at the proceeding tab. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes, and I intend to 23 get to that. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Exhibit P-1025. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. At Tab 7.


1 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 2 Q: What I want to ask you, sir, and -- 3 and Ms. Vella anticipated what I want to ask you. You 4 state in your letter in the second paragraph: 5 "Let me assure you that I agree with 6 some of the points that you have 7 raised." 8 Right? Do you see that? 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: Okay. And yeah, turning back to Tab 11 7, you've identified this as a letter to which you were 12 responding. 13 So having said that you agree with some 14 of the points that this constituent raises, can you tell 15 me which of the points that you agree with? 16 A: Well first of all, this particular 17 letter would probably be a standard -- a form letter that 18 we'd used to answer to all the mail that we're getting. 19 So if you're going to try to be specific 20 on one (1), that would apply to I don't know how many 21 times that letter would have been sent to different 22 individuals. It's the standard form letter that we would 23 use. 24 Q: Okay. If I can ask you on that. 25 Would your standard form letter say you


1 have met with the Attorney General, Solicitor General, 2 Minister of Natural Resources, representatives of the 3 OPP, the camp manager and other people and that a 4 proposal will be presented, are those things that are 5 normally put in your form letters? 6 A: That's right, yes. 7 Q: Okay. Are there any other letters 8 like this that contain similar statements that you know 9 of? 10 A: Not that I know of. But this is not 11 the first form letter that we would have used in the 12 eight (8) some -- eight (8) years that I was as a Member. 13 Q: When you say this is a form letter, 14 which statements in the letter are part of the form and 15 which are customized? Can you help me with that? 16 A: The entire letter would be a form 17 letter. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: It would be a standard reply to 20 numerous letters that we're getting from con -- from 21 constituents because I do believe at least giving them 22 some type of -- providing the constituents with some type 23 of reply. 24 Q: Okay. Now this particular letter it 25 had -- it refers specifically to a constituent's letter


1 dated August 2nd, 1995, right? 2 A: I don't know. It says August 2, 3 1995, I don't know if that's the date. It was received 4 in our office on August the 9th, 1995. 5 Q: Okay. Mr. Beaubien, I think this was 6 covered by Ms. Vella already that you received this 7 letter from a constituent which is at Tab 7 of your 8 documents. That letter was dated August 2nd, 1995 and 9 you responded with your letter at Tab 8. 10 Is that correct or do you say that's not 11 the case now? 12 A: No, I would say we probably responded 13 to that particular letter with the letter that's on Tab 8 14 along with many or should say, numerous other letters 15 that we received from constituents -- 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: -- with the same letter that is found 18 on Tab 9. 19 Q: Okay. Now since I don't have those 20 other letters before me, I do have this one at Tab 7, I'd 21 to ask you, since you say you agree with some of the 22 points in this letter at Tab 7 -- sorry, what's the 23 exhibit number? 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm sorry, 1025. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 2 Q: And when I refer to Tab 7 that's 3 Exhibit Number 1025 and Inquiry Document 12000049. 4 Now, you say you agree with some of the 5 points in this letter, Exhibit P-1025 and I'd like to ask 6 you if you can tell me which of those points you agree 7 with and which you disagree with -- 8 A: I can't recall because that was ten 9 (10) years ago. 10 Q: Okay. Let me ask you this. It says 11 the fifth line down: 12 "The police will not get involved." 13 Do you agree with that point or do you 14 disagree with that point? 15 A: I can't recall. It was ten (10) 16 years ago with, you know, with regards to that particular 17 letter. 18 Q: The next point says: 19 "The Army runs away at the first sign 20 of trouble." 21 Do you recall whether you disagreed or 22 agreed with that point in 1995? 23 A: I can't recall. 24 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Maybe I -- I know 25 there's an emphasis being put on but if you're going to


1 read the points then please read all the point. It -- it 2 says: 3 "Could you explain why? Could you 4 explain why..." 5 It -- it's -- he's stopping partway 6 through the sentence and then putting it to the Witness. 7 So, if you want to go through those points point by point 8 then it's proper to at least read the entire sentence of 9 the point. 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, this author has 11 a writing style which is -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In bullet 13 points. 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- unique. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They're all 16 bullet points and they're -- 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: There are a number of 18 bullet points and most of them say -- have a statement of 19 fact and then followed by, "Can you explain why?" 20 There's a statement and then there's a question. 21 What I want to ask about is the statements 22 and whether he agrees with the statement that are in this 23 -- in this document, not whether he agrees with the 24 question. I think we don't need to waste time on whether 25 he agrees with the author asking these questions.


1 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That -- that wasn't 2 -- it was more of a technical point. It's -- it's just 3 so that when we have the transcript that's being prepared 4 if you're asking a question of a bullet point, I just 5 simply want the entire point. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Entire 7 point. 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Yeah, that's -- 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm happy to 10 accommodate that. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: That's fair. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 14 Mr. Sulman. 15 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'm trying to keep 16 the -- I -- I know that we've got extensive transcripts 17 and we'll have to argue these at some point. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'd really like to 20 help by keeping -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- it clear. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 25 Q: So I'm looking at the sixth paragraph


1 if you will. It says: 2 "The Army runs away at the first sign 3 of trouble. Can -- could you explain 4 why?" 5 And Mr. Beaubien, did you in 1995 when you 6 wrote your letter of August 14th, 1995, agree or disagree 7 with this statement that the Army runs away at the first 8 sign of trouble? 9 A: I'll agree with the contents of the 10 letter that I wrote on August the 14th, 1995, in reply to 11 that letter. I'll agree to the contents of that letter. 12 Q: Okay. Now, in -- in the letter of 13 August 14, 1995, you say you agreed with some of the 14 points raised in this letter from a constituent dated 15 August 2nd, 1995. 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: So you agree that you at that time 18 agreed with some of these points --- 19 A: I can't remember which one I agreed 20 with. 21 Q: You don't remember any of the ones 22 you agreed with? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Is it reasonable to believe looking 25 back at this now, do you believe you would have in 1995


1 agreed that the Army runs away at the first sign of 2 trouble? 3 A: No, I'm not -- I'm not going to agree 4 with your assumption. 5 Q: You disagree with my assumption? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: It's the next line in the letter from 8 the constituent Exhibit P-1025 says: 9 "The natives have one (1) set of rules 10 and the rest of us have another. Could 11 you explain why" 12 And, Mr. Beaubien, did you agree on August 13 14th, 1995, with the statement: The natives have one (1) 14 set of rules and the rest of us have another? 15 A: I can't recall. 16 Q: Do you believe you would have -- do 17 you believe that would have been consistent with 18 something you agreed with on that date? 19 A: I don't agree with your assumption. 20 Q: You disagree that you would have 21 believed on August 14th, 1995, that the natives have one 22 (1) set of rules and the rest of us have another? 23 A: I can't recall. 24 Q: Okay. I'm skipping over the next 25 point which is a personal reference. The next point


1 after that says: 2 "The natives have been paid over and 3 over for their land, now they get it 4 back. Explain that." 5 Now, Mr. Beaubien, when you wrote your 6 letter of August 14th, 1995, did you agree or disagree 7 with the statement that the natives have been paid over 8 and over for the land, now they get it back? 9 A: I don't recall. That would be a 10 Federal issue so I -- I can't recall. 11 Q: Is it something -- you know yourself 12 better than any -- any of us do, so I want to ask you 13 whether the statement, "The natives have been paid over 14 and over for their land", is something you likely would 15 have agreed with in August of 1985 (sic). 16 A: I don't -- don't recall. 17 Q: You don't recall? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Do you believe you would have agreed 20 with that at that time? 21 A: I disagree with your assumption. 22 Q: Do you agree with that statement at 23 the present time, that the natives have been paid over 24 and over for their land? 25 A: I'm not familiar with the situation.


1 Like I said, it's a Federal issue. I don't know if they 2 have been paid over and over for the land. 3 Q: Is it your opinion that the natives 4 have been paid over and over for their land? 5 A: I'm not aware of it. 6 Q: And maybe I should go back and ask 7 the same question of the previous points you covered. 8 Is it your position today, do you agree 9 that the natives have one (1) set of rules and the rest 10 of us have another? 11 A: My position today is irrelevant. 12 Q: The Commissioner will determine 13 what's relevant and what's not. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You just 15 have to answer the questions if you can, and if you 16 can't, you have to say you can't answer them. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay, well, I can't answer 18 that question. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 21 Q: Do you -- you can't answer whether or 22 not you agree with that statement? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I didn't 24 mean you can't answer it, I mean you're not able to. 25 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not able to


1 answer that question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps I'm 3 not making myself clear. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Pardon me. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 6 have any recollection? 7 THE WITNESS: No. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 9 you're saying? 10 THE WITNESS: That's right. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 13 Q: You don't have a recollection in 14 1985,(sic) now let me be clear. And my question to you 15 now is, do you, sitting here today, Mr. Beaubien, agree 16 or disagree that the natives have one (1) set of rules 17 and the rest of us have another? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, he's -- 19 OBJ MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: If I might object. 20 He said, as I understand the question, he's -- Mr. 21 Beaubien, the Witness is being asked in 2006 whether he 22 agrees with that statement as of 2006 and as I understood 23 the purpose of the Inquiry -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- it's directed at


1 what occurred in 1995. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 3 what -- 4 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Not what someone -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- believes in 2006 7 or doesn't believe in 2006. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: There could be all 10 sorts of -- on the flip side, there could be all sorts of 11 self serving statements saying about 2006, 2005. 12 The only relevant -- I'm objecting on the 13 basis of relevance, because the only thing that's 14 relevant is what he believed in 1995. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I can 16 -- the object -- 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: August. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 19 object of the question. The object of the question is to 20 go to this point that is in this letter that he's now 21 agreed with. 22 You've agreed with what you've said in the 23 Exhibit 1026, namely that you agree with some of the 24 points you have raised. 25 THE WITNESS: But as I --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've said 2 that. 3 THE WITNESS: But, I said this letter was 4 a standard form letter -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 THE WITNESS: -- that was used to reply 7 to -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 THE WITNESS: -- hundreds of letters. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 THE WITNESS: So let's produce all the 12 other letters. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 14 THE WITNESS: I can't recall exactly on 15 one (1) letters what transpired -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 THE WITNESS: -- I'm sorry. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: With 19 respect, Mr. Beaubien, there's a letter here and it says 20 that you signed that you agree with some of the points 21 you've raised. 22 And what Counsel's trying to do is find 23 out now which of the points you agree with. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't recall 25 which one (1) I agreed to --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Any of them? 2 THE WITNESS: -- in 1995. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 4 recall any of the points -- 5 THE WITNESS: I don't. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in this 7 letter that you agree with? 8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 THE WITNESS: Does anybody recall what 11 they -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, I'm 13 not -- 14 THE WITNESS: Ten (10) years ago. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: --I'm not 16 judging your answer. I'm trying to determine what it is. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, and may I 18 respectfully suggest, Mr. Commissioner, that given that 19 answer that he doesn't recall what he thought ten (10) 20 years ago, it's entirely appropriate to follow as Mr. 21 Zbogar did, with the question as to what he thinks today 22 about those issues. 23 He might tell us that he's had a 24 transformation in the last ten (10) years and what he 25 thinks today has no relation to ten (10) years ago --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 2 that's helpful, Mr. Rosenthal. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why don't we 5 just let Mr. Zbogar carry on -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- with his 8 examination. I'm not sure that it's helpful to go into 9 that now. 10 We're trying to deal with this issue. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yeah, sir, perhaps 12 -- I'm sorry perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. 13 I was suggesting he should be allowed to 14 go on and ask him what do you think today about this 15 issue and that would undoubtedly shed light on what he 16 would have thought ten (10) years ago in spite of his not 17 recalling what he thought ten (10) years ago. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It might 19 just open up a whole new area. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, I respectfully 21 disagree with Mr. Rosenthal, and I think that perhaps 22 Counsel has forgotten that, under cross-examination a few 23 moments earlier, he indicated he understood that there 24 was one (1) law but special rights, and I think that that 25 was already pursued.


1 So I don't think asking him what he 2 believes today is relevant or assists with the mandate. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would you 4 carry on with your examination now? 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I will. And I agree 6 with your comments that you made a while ago, Mr. 7 Commissioner, so I'll proceed on that. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 12 Q: Now, my question was, and it still 13 hasn't been answered, the Natives -- this letter P-1025, 14 says: 15 "The Natives have one (1) set of rules 16 and the rest of us have another." 17 I suppose you can't recall whether that's 18 something you agreed with in 1995. 19 Can you tell me, is that something you 20 agree with today? 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, that's already 22 been objected to. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 24 we've decided that that's not a -- I think that's not 25 helpful to go into that right now.


1 Do you have something to say, Mr. Sulman? 2 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Maybe something 3 helpful. Much as I enjoy the exercise popping up, it -- 4 one of the ques -- what normally occurs in a civil 5 proceeding is a document is introduced through the 6 Witness, put to the Witness and said, Did you compose 7 this letter and did you sign this letter? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I -- I hate to skip 10 a step because I -- I hate to even do this because I 11 don't want to slow things down. But that has never been 12 established. Even the earlier questions from Commission 13 counsel were, 'Is it a fair assumption that this document 14 is in response to the tab before -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which one -- 16 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- but never has 17 been asked whether he composed it -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which 19 document -- are you referring to 1026 or 1025? 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 1026. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 26. 22 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: The letter has never 23 -- you see that it's not signed -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 25 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- and it has never


1 been -- he's never been asked -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- did you compose 4 this document and did you sign the document? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well he said 6 a few times, it's a form letter. 7 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That's right. And 8 so then -- now he's -- that's an essential element 9 normally that one would see in a civil proceeding and 10 then you ask questions arising out of that. But it's 11 never been established. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well-- 13 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And I'm -- I'm not - 14 - I turned up the transcript because I didn't want to do 15 this irrelevantly. What was asked was, "Was this letter 16 in response to the previous tab, 1025?" 17 And the answer was, "That's a fair 18 assumption." 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: But the other's 21 never been established. And I think if that question 22 were asked, maybe we could cut through some of this. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well you 24 might be right. I just assumed that this letter, that he 25 accepted this letter as being his letter, 1026.


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Mr. Commissioner -- 2 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Let me say -- but -- 3 but what I said clearly was whether he composed it and 4 whether he signed it. That's the usual way to introduce 5 that, Mr. Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well whether 7 he composed it is not as important as whether he signed 8 it. Whether it's his letter. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well I would submit, 10 Mr. Commissioner, what's important is what he has already 11 said which is he agrees with the contents of it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, he has 13 said that. 14 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Yes, I agree. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He said that 16 already. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: And that's all that 18 I'm concerned about. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: If other people want 21 to prove or make an argument based on whether or not it 22 was sent or received or what happened with this actual 23 letter, that's not my concern. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 25 Now let's go back to your questions.


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sir -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's see 3 where you are. It's this question about what his beliefs 4 are today. Do you have comment on that? 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well this question's 6 already been objected to. I -- I supported the 7 objection. It's not relevant to assisting in your 8 mandate for today particularly in light of his earlier 9 evidence that he understood that there was special rights 10 and Mr. Zbogar has already canvassed that. 11 I don't think it's a relevant question. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 13 Then would you -- let's move on and complete this letter. 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yeah. When you said 15 earlier, Mr. Commissioner, what I'm trying to get at -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- is what he agreed 18 to or disagreed with in 1995, that's absolutely correct 19 and that's what I'm trying to do. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He said 21 there isn't anything that he can recall so. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right. And given that 23 he's having difficulty recalling what he would have 24 agreed with or disagreed with in 1995 -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But --


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: --I think it's 2 completely appropriate to ask him what -- whether he 3 would agree with those statements today. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 5 sure. His views may have changed since 1995 and then 6 we're going to get into that and when did they change or 7 how did they change and why did they change, and we're 8 going to get into a whole area that's going to be 9 impossible for us to resolve. 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I think 12 it's important what he believed when he wrote this letter 13 and you established that and I think you should move on. 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. I will move on 15 instead of taking up time here, Mr. Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 19 Q: Towards the bottom third of the 20 letter, Exhibit P-1025, Mr. Beaubien. It's a statement: 21 "The Natives now want compensation for 22 lands they took by force. Figure that 23 out." 24 Mr. Beaubien, did you in 1995 agree or 25 disagree that the Natives now want compensation for the


1 land they took by force? 2 A: I can't remember. 3 Q: Do you agree that the land -- that 4 the Natives took land by force? 5 A: To the best of my recollection I 6 think it was an illegal occupation. 7 Q: And what are you referring to when 8 you say 'illegal occupation', the camp or the Park? 9 A: The Park. 10 Q: The Park? 11 A: Yeah, Provincial Park. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No, no, no. 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The -- 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well let's -- let's 15 not. I -- 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The -- the -- 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Can we be fair to the 18 Witness? The letter is dated August the 2nd -- 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No, it's -- 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- 1995. We did 21 canvass this in-chief. At that time he indicated that 22 this was in reference to the Camp Ipperwash situation. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And so to ask him now, 25 I mean, this is not a helpful line of cross-examination.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 2 confusing the issue, Mr. Zbogar. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I -- I was trying to 4 be fair and -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know but-- 6 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- I wanted to know 7 when he -- when he referred to 'illegal occupation' 8 whether he meant the Park or the Camp and his answer, 9 having said the Park, I know that's not correct because 10 the evidence had come before -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 12 right. 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- I was going to 14 clarify that, Mr. Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you're 16 questions are eliciting answers that are confusing issues 17 and aren't helpful. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm trying to -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- follow that up and 21 clear it up, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I didn't look at 24 the date and I mean if you're trying to confuse me -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, he's not


1 trying to confuse you -- 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm not trying to -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and it's 4 not a fair statement to make, Mr. Beaubien. Carry on. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 7 Q: When it says the Natives want 8 compensation for land it took by force, there's a -- was 9 it -- the insertion in that sentence is that the Natives 10 took land by force. And I would take it this couldn't 11 refer to the Park, it must refer to the Base or -- 12 A: To the Base. 13 Q: -- or something else, right? 14 A: Yeah. And to best of my 15 recollection, I don't think it was taken by force. I 16 think they just walked in, if I recall. 17 Q: Okay. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: I want to move onto a different area, 22 Mr. Beaubien, and that's the issue of the burial ground. 23 I understand, from your evidence, that you 24 became aware, after the shooting, of some correspondence 25 from 1937 about a burial ground in the Park when it was


1 released by the Minister of -- the Federal Minister of 2 Indian Affairs; is that fair or correct? 3 A: No, I think I was aware of it a 4 little bit, a few days before that. 5 Q: My question was a bad one. You 6 became aware of -- that people were claiming there was a 7 burial ground in the Park. 8 Prior to the shooting of Dudley George, 9 you became aware of that information being out there and 10 you followed up by calling MNR, I think, and asking the 11 about that, I think, was your evidence? 12 A: I -- I think that's correct and I -- 13 I don't recall the dates, but I think -- 14 Q: All right. 15 A: -- that's a fair assumption. 16 Q: Okay. And MNR told you they had no 17 information about a burial ground in the Park and you 18 relied on that and believed that information to be true, 19 that there was no burial ground in the Park, right? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Okay. Now, in -- a few days after 22 the shooting, the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs, 23 Minister Irwin, released some documents dating back to 24 1937 which indicated that there was a burial ground in 25 the Park.


1 You became aware of that documentation 2 some -- a few days after the shooting? 3 A: Well, I don't have -- I don't recall 4 exactly what the documents said but I think I was aware 5 of the information that Mr. Irwin was talking about. 6 Q: Okay. So you were aware -- 7 A: I think I had been briefed by that 8 time from MNR with regards to that documentation, so I 9 don't think it was any surprise to me. 10 Q: Okay. Did you see that documentation 11 at any time before today? 12 A: No. 13 Q: I think there was a copy of it in the 14 productions you provided for the lawsuit. Would that 15 suggest that you have seen it or...? 16 A: I probably would have received a 17 copy -- 18 Q: All right. 19 A: -- from MNR -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- at some point in time; as to when 22 I can't recall. 23 Q: Okay. In any event, you're aware of 24 that information now and I want to ask you this -- the 25 Inquiry has also seen documentation and I don't need to


1 put it before you but I can describe it for you. 2 And specifically, I'm referring to Exhibit 3 P-822. If you -- if you want and I'm happy -- actually - 4 - sorry, Mr. Commissioner, maybe, to be fair to the 5 Witness, he should have it before him, so if the 6 Registrar can provide Exhibit P-822, and 821 as well. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that in 8 the binder? Is this -- 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No, it's not in the 10 binder. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not? 12 Okay. 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I didn't intend to 14 refer to it, but now asking these questions I think it's 15 fair to probably refer to them. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What is 17 P-8 -- 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: For the record P-822 is 19 Inquiry Document Number 1009980. 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-821? 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: And 821. 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: P-821 is Inquiry 23 Document 3000725. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And what is 25 the document?


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: And this document -- 2 this is a fax from Daryl Smith of MNR, dated September 3 14th, 1995 which attaches some documentation including a 4 letter from 1975 which refers to research that Mr. Smith 5 did at that time, which uncovered these same documents 6 which indicated the presence of a burial ground in the 7 Park. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 10 I don't need you to specifically -- you 11 have two (2) documents before you, Mr. Beaubien, so I 12 want to make sure we're on the same page. 13 A: So you're talking about P-822? 14 Q: Yes. Do you want a minute to just 15 quickly review it? I don't intend to go in any detail on 16 this. I just want to ask you one question about -- 17 A: Yeah, because this is -- 18 Q: -- what you were -- 19 A: -- the first time I've seen this. 20 Q: Right, okay. That's my question. 21 And is it -- before today, before this moment did you 22 have any awareness that, in 1975, MNR staff had uncovered 23 evidence, documentary evidence of a burial ground in the 24 Park? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now just --


1 THE WITNESS: Well, I read the letter 2 first. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 4 minute -- 5 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Maybe Ms. Twohig has 6 the same objection. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 8 Twohig, do you still have an objection? 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Maybe Ms. Twohig has 10 the same objection, but it's simply the way it's referred 11 and I'm -- I have a concern that we -- as things are 12 repeated over an eighteen (18) month period, I don't -- 13 it's not one of the theories that I've heard from 14 witnesses on the stand, but we tend to say them over and 15 over again. 16 And what's more important is what is 17 established in the evidence, not what Counsel repeat and 18 then repeat to a witness who then buys into it. 19 And I have a concern with that, because 20 the documents from 1937 don't -- I mean, that's argument 21 to say whether they establish the presence of a burial 22 ground in the Park. 23 My recollection, and I have this clear 24 recollection, is that there was a Band Council resolution 25 that goes to the Indian Agent, that then goes to the


1 Federal Government, that then goes to the Provincial 2 Government. 3 And there's a response from the Provincial 4 Government that says, in essence, if -- I received your 5 correspondence and we need more detail and then there's 6 nothing after that. 7 It doesn't establish -- it's argumentative 8 to -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 10 understand. 11 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- say whether it 12 establishes that there's a burial ground. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But the way 14 you've just described that document, it would be very 15 difficult to describe it that way every time it's 16 referred to. 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Oh, no, no. I 18 under -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I 20 understand your -- 21 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I fully understand 22 that, but when it's put to a witness who hasn't -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- doesn't have the 25 recollection and then put to him that it establishes that


1 there's a burial ground in the Park -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps we 3 should have shown him the document and then -- 4 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I think there's a 5 better way of doing that, rather than repeating it -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tell him 7 what it is and conclude what it is. 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Exactly. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 10 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And repeating things 11 that are conclusion and argument rather than establishing 12 the evidence. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 14 Well, he's looked at the document now. 15 Is that your objection, Ms. Twohig, or do 16 you have a different one? 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I think it is the 18 same thing. 19 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I think it's the same 20 thing, essentially that the -- the documentation does not 21 -- is not evidence of a burial ground in and of itself. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh -- 23 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I think it's fair to say 24 that the correspondence indicates that there might be a 25 burial --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- ground and I think 3 that distinction is very, very important. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it may 5 -- that's a point that will be made in argument and the-- 6 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- documents 8 speak for themself. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- that will be made 10 in argument. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 12 Vella...? 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: So I don't think it 14 should be too far, one extreme or the other. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's evidence of a 17 request from the First Nation to protect a burial ground. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well I 19 don't want to get into arguing -- 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I mean -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it now, 22 so when you describe it, it has to be in a neutral enough 23 way -- 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so the


1 Witness knows what you're referring to, but without 2 drawing any conclusions -- 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that 5 others will not agree with. 6 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The documents will 7 speak for themselves, Mr. Commissioner -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 9 right. 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- and -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you've 12 shown it to him -- 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- I'll try not to 14 ruffle any feathers when I refer to that letter again. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. And 16 that goes for everybody all the time, obviously. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, you've 19 shown him the document and what question do you have? 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 22 Q: Yes, Mr. Beaubien, now you've never 23 seen this documentation before, but I want to know 24 whether you have ever been aware, before today, of the 25 fact that in 1975 an MNR researcher came across some


1 correspondence from 1937 which referred to an issue of a 2 possible burial site in the Park? 3 A: To the best of my recollection, the 4 only thing that I can recall is that in 1972 I think 5 there was an archeo -- archeological study conducted by 6 the University at Western and the results were negative. 7 So -- but I have no recollection of this. 8 Q: Okay. When did you learn of that '72 9 information? After or before the shooting? 10 A: I can't recall. 11 Q: Okay. Now the other document I've 12 asked to be put before you is Exhibit P-821 and these are 13 notes of a meeting between some of the department of 14 National Defence officials and members of the Stoney 15 Pointers. 16 And I want to refer you to page -- you'll 17 see there's handwritten pages on the top right corner of 18 those documents, and I want to ask you to turn to page 8. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just for the record, so 20 that counsel can follow along because we don't have the 21 document, it's an excerpt from the Department of National 22 Defence log sheet from 1993. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: From 24 1990...? 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 3.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 3. 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: December 8, 1993. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 5 Q: That's right, its -- what I want to 6 refer you to, sir, as Ms. Vella pointed out, it's 7 December 1993 that this document is dated. And the last 8 entry on page 8, well the last couple of items says: 9 "Following are the Stoney SPG, [that 10 refers to Stoney Point Group, as I 11 understand it] request for 12 investigations." 13 Do you see that point? 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: And then the bottom line -- the 16 bottom bullet point says: 17 "Want an investigation as to who is 18 responsible for safeguarding their 19 cemetery in the Provincial Park." 20 Now, before this moment, sir, were you 21 aware that members of the Stoney Point Group had been 22 making requests to any Government official or department 23 for an investigation about the burial ground in the Park? 24 A: In 1993 I certainly would not be -- 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: -- cognizant at that time. 2 Q: And the last thing I want to ask you 3 if you're aware of in respect of the burial ground 4 situation: Were -- were you aware of the fact that, in 5 1950, the wife of the Park Superintendent, he being an 6 MNR staff person employee, that the wife of the 7 Superintendent un -- discovered human remains, old human 8 remains which possibly are Aboriginal in origin, were you 9 aware of that fact before today? 10 A: Not that I can recall. 11 Q: Okay. Now would you agree, as a 12 principle of basic human decency, that burial sites 13 should be respected and preserved in tact, to the extent 14 possible? 15 A: Yes. And that's the information that 16 I received from MNR that if there was a burial site at 17 the -- located at the Provincial Park, that it would be 18 dealt with under the Cemeteries Act. 19 Q: Right. Now I can tell you, sir, the 20 evidence that -- and if I'm incorrect, I'm sure I'll be 21 corrected. 22 The evidence that we've heard so far in 23 this Inquiry is that -- well, let me put it this way: 24 We've heard no evidence that any steps were ever taken to 25 preserve or protect the burial ground in the Park either


1 after 1937 documents, after 1975 when Mr. Smith did this 2 research, after 1950 when the burial findings were 3 discovered, or after 1993 when this request was made by a 4 member of the Stoney Point Group. 5 Now, I would like to ask you, sir: Are 6 you troubled by that information at all, that there seems 7 to have been no steps taken to preserve and protect this 8 possible burial site in the Park? 9 A: Well, to the best of my recollection, 10 and according to the -- again, I think it was in 1972 11 when the University of Western Ontario conducted an 12 archaeological study, the results were negative. 13 So, if there was nothing there, I don't 14 know. I mean, you know, it's never been proven, to me at 15 least, that there was a burial ground. 16 Q: Okay. Okay, well -- 17 A: And I would expect if there were a 18 burial ground, I would certainly expect that it be dealt 19 with under the Cemeteries Act. 20 Q: Okay. I won't pursue this further 21 because I don't -- obviously there's a lot of factual 22 issues, so I'll move onto the next point. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 24 moving on from the burial ground issue? 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm moving on, yes,


1 sir. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Will this be 3 a good point to take a lunch break? 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Absolutely. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're about 6 half way through your time period? 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I am about half way 8 through. Some of the areas have taken a bit longer -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- than I anticipated, 11 Mr. Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 13 That's all right. We'll take a break now. 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 15 adjourned until 1:45 p.m. 16 17 --- Upon recessing at 12:28 p.m. 18 --- Upon resuming at 1:45 p.m. 19 20 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 21 resumed. Please be seated. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Good afternoon. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 24 afternoon. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Mr. Commissioner, I


1 spent the lunch break trying to streamline and reduce the 2 number of questions I was going to -- going to go into, 3 but I hate to say that given though the way things were 4 going this morning, I expect to be at least another 5 couple of hours, so. 6 I know it's a bit longer than I 7 anticipated, but I said originally two (2) to two and a 8 half (2 1/2) hours. I might be a bit more than that but 9 I'll do my best. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if 11 you're asking relevant questions then you don't do it 12 but -- 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. Just -- just to 14 let you know this, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That may 16 affect the length of time of other's estimates. We'll 17 see. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Hopefully it reduces 19 theirs but we'll see. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 22 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Beaubien. 23 A: Good afternoon. 24 Q: Were you aware in 1995 of something 25 called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: I don't want to ask you very many 3 questions but do you understand that the Charter includes 4 the right of all citizens to freedom of speech and 5 freedom of assembly and association? 6 A: Yeah I think I understand that, yeah. 7 Q: And is it your understanding or 8 awareness that those rights include the right to engage 9 in peaceful protest or civil disobedience? 10 A: Don't know. 11 Q: You don't know, okay. Now, last 12 Wednesday, I think you said you were -- considered 13 yourself as a shoot from the hip kind of guy. I think 14 you used that word. 15 A: Yeah, yeah. 16 Q: Yeah. I'm not sure exactly what you 17 meant by that so I would like to ask you, does that mean 18 that you're somebody who -- you think of yourself as 19 somebody who is blunt and direct? 20 A: Yeah, I guess you could say that, 21 yeah. 22 Q: I think I've also seen that term 23 described as or defined as somebody who speaks on a 24 matter without forethought. Does that describe you? 25 A: No, I would disagree with you there.


1 Q: Okay. And are you the kind of person 2 who is not in a habit of exaggerating things? 3 A: I think if you ask the people that 4 know me, they'd usually tell you that I'm pretty fair, 5 pretty reasonable, pretty firm individual. 6 Q: So, if I say, you were somebody who 7 tends to exaggerate, you would disagree? 8 A: Yes, I would disagree. 9 Q: Okay. When you communicate, do you 10 mean your words to be taken at face value? 11 A: Well, it depends on what you at face 12 value and what I communicate. Like I said, some words 13 sometimes I use maybe I shouldn't be using. But I don't 14 know exactly what you mean. You're going to have to be 15 more specific. 16 Q: You mean, when you speak to somebody 17 in your official capacity as a politician, when -- when 18 that was your job as a mayor or councillor or Member of 19 Provincial Parliament, when you said something to your 20 constituents or to members of the Government, you wanted 21 -- you expected them to take from your comments what you 22 meant them to mean. s that fair? 23 That's what I mean by face value. Is that 24 fair? 25 A: I don't -- you know, I don't know


1 what to tell you there. I don't know really -- at face 2 value. I mean, what are you telling me? I mean, I just 3 don't understand your question. 4 Q: Is that -- do you not understand that 5 expression or is my question unclear? 6 A: No, I understand face value, but, you 7 know, we've got some wide repercussions. I think you 8 have to be more specific as to what you're -- 9 Q: I'll get more specific. In this 10 conversation -- in this particular situation you had a 11 number of conversations with Wade Lacroix and a meeting 12 in the Command Post with John Carson and Dale Linton, and 13 you said some things to those individuals on those 14 occasions. 15 When you spoke to them on those occasions, 16 in September of 1995, did you expect them to take your 17 comments at face value? 18 A: Well, what do you mean at face value? 19 If I said something -- I don't know what -- what you're - 20 - I can't understand your question. 21 Q: Okay. When you spoke with Mr. 22 Lacroix -- or Wade Lacroix and with John Carson and Dale 23 Linton you certainly meant to be straight and upfront 24 with them, right? 25 A: Well, I believe in telling the truth,


1 yes -- 2 Q: All right. 3 A: -- if -- if that's what you're 4 leading to, yes. 5 Q: And you expected that they would 6 believe that you were telling the truth? 7 A: That's my -- yeah, I would hope so, 8 yeah. 9 Q: Okay. So, it's fair to say that you 10 would not have exaggerated or made -- made misleading or 11 incorrect statements when you spoke with those 12 individuals? 13 A: No. 14 Q: That's fair? You wouldn't -- 15 A: That's fair. That's a fair 16 assumption. 17 Q: All right. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Now, I understand you've made your 22 home in this area, southwestern Ontario, since about the 23 age of fifteen (15) or so; is that right? 24 A: That's about right, yes. 25 Q: 1950's or something?


1 A: Late '50's, yeah. 2 Q: yeah. And you lived in Quebec part 3 of that I understand? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And early on I guess, obviously you 6 would have grown up speaking French? 7 A: As I said, French was my first 8 language. 9 Q: Right. And did you go to university 10 in Quebec or in -- 11 A: No, I received my primary education 12 in French and a secondary education in both languages in 13 the university in Ontario. 14 Q: Okay. By the time you began your 15 political career in 1976 it would be fair to say that you 16 were fluently bilingual? 17 A: Well, it depends. Some people, you 18 know, think I speak funny sometimes, but I understand 19 both languages, yes. 20 Q: You understand and you can read and 21 you can communicate in both languages; that's fair? 22 A: Fairly well, yes. 23 Q: All right. And that, in fact, 24 communication -- 25 A: Not perfect, but fairly well.


1 Q: -- communication was a big part of 2 your job as a politician, as mayor, as Councillor, as 3 MPP? 4 A: Yeah. You -- you have to 5 communicate, yes. 6 Q: Now, between your election as 7 Councillor in 1976 and 1994 when you ceased to serve as 8 mayor did you ever engage or need to engage the services 9 of a French interpreter? 10 A: No, but I provided that services free 11 of charge to individuals. 12 Q: Okay. And similarly as -- during 13 your time as an MPP you wouldn't have engaged the 14 services of a French interpreter to assist you? 15 A: No. 16 Q: All right. 17 A: I could have, but I didn't. 18 Q: Okay. Did you feel the need to? 19 A: Probably not. 20 Q: All right. And English is the 21 language that you will have used every day on the job as 22 Councillor, mayor, and MPP, right? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: Okay. Now, I want to ask you -- a 25 couple of words that have come up in some of the


1 materials and -- and make sure we're -- make sure I know 2 that you understand them or not. 3 The first word -- well, what I want to ask 4 you is whether you were -- understood the following word 5 in 1995 and the word is 'totally'? 6 Do you know what that meant in 1995? 7 A: Well, 'totally', I -- I think I know 8 what it means but sometimes you may use it in a 9 quote/unquote "liberal way". 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 11 Which word was that? 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Totally. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Totally? 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 17 Q: And you know that the -- the French 18 word for totally is pretty similar, it's totalement, 19 right? 20 A: Totalement, yeah. 21 Q: All right. And that means 22 completely, wholly, entirely, right? 23 A: Well, you know, totally -- totally. 24 Is it 100 percent? Is it 99 percent? Is it 90 percent? 25 Totally -- I mean there used to be a gas company I think


1 called Total. Was it, you know, is it total gas they -- 2 I don't know. I mean it's -- it's used... 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I hope this 4 is getting somewhere. 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It is. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's pretty 7 hard for me to follow. 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It definitely is. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I -- I need to 11 establish -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'll bear 13 with you a little longer. 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. A little bit 15 longer. I just have two (2) more -- three (3) more 16 points on this and then I'll move on. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 19 Do you understand the word 'partially'? 20 A: Partially, yeah. 21 Q: Same as partiellement in French. 22 A: Partillement, yeah. 23 Q: Do you understand the word 24 'suggestion'? 25 A: What's that?


1 Q: Suggestion. 2 A: Suggestion, yeah, it's almost the 3 same in French. 4 Q: Right. Suggestion. 5 A: Yeah. 6 Q: Okay. Do you understand the word 7 'euphemism'? 8 A: I think I have some understanding. 9 What is it in French, I can't remember? 10 Q: Well, I -- we'll get back to that 11 later. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: But, the reason I'm asking these 14 questions is when I asked you in Discovery some questions 15 about some words that can be possibly be perceived as 16 being controversial, on a number of occasions you stated 17 that you misused words or -- or used opposites of words 18 that you intended to mean, because English was not your 19 first language? 20 A: Yeah, and I still maintain that. 21 Q: You still maintain that. And what I 22 would -- given the answers that you've given, I'd like to 23 put some of those to you, if I may. 24 And what I'd like to do is hand up some 25 excerpts from your examination-for-discovery, and I've


1 underlined some portions that I want to specifically take 2 you to. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 A: Thank you. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: If I can refer you, first of all, to 11 the second page in, which is at the top, 185. 12 Are you there? 13 A: Yeah, I'm there. 14 Q: The part I've underlined, I'm asking 15 you about your press release of September 1995 to Bill 16 King. You remember that one, right? 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: And I asked you, at lines 574 on page 19 185 of the Discovery transcript: 20 "Q: When you're talking about taking 21 back control, what specifically are you 22 referring to? 23 A: I'm not referring to anything 24 specific. We must abide by the law. 25 We must uphold the law, that's what I'm


1 talking about. I want you to know that 2 English is my second language and 3 sometimes I may have difficulties with 4 expressing myself properly, so if 5 you're going to hold that against me, 6 that's fine." 7 Okay? 8 A: And it's still fine, yes. 9 Q: The next -- the next page I don't 10 intend to refer you to, that's just a confusion about the 11 use of plurals, which is -- which is fine. 12 But if I could turn you again to page 190 13 of the transcript. And at line 24, I'm still asking you 14 about the take back control comment then you say: 15 "My meaning is it upholds the law. To 16 uphold the law because things are 17 running wild, I think, like I said, I'm 18 not very good at English, that's what 19 it meant to me." 20 And I just want to take you to two (2) 21 more entries and ask you a question. 22 If you can flip over to page 193. And 23 this is where I'm asking you about the -- your fax of 24 September 6th, 1995 to Bill King and your use of your 25 word -- the word 'totally' in the context of, 'I totally


1 agree'. 2 And that line 18, the question is: 3 "I'm asking you because it says in your 4 cover letter that you totally agree 5 with him. [and your answer is] 6 A: English is a second language for 7 me and maybe I should have used the 8 word 'partially'. Maybe 'totally' 9 wasn't the appropriate language. So 10 you'll have to forgive me for that." 11 And then over on the next page, 201 of the 12 transcript, line 3, I ask: 13 "You say in the letter you totally 14 agree with Mr. XXXXX and now you're 15 telling me you totally disagree with 16 the things he's saying? 17 A: I agree with him some of the thing 18 -- some of the things. English is my 19 second language, sir. If you have a 20 problem with the words 'totally' as 21 opposed to 'partially', that's fine." 22 Actually, this went on a little bit later, 23 maybe there's one (1) more entry I can take you to and 24 that's on page 223 at the top. 25 Are you there, sir?


1 A: I'm on page 223. 2 Q: And at line 9. And this is what I'm 3 asking you about the converse -- the comments you made in 4 the Sarnia Observer. At line 9 you say: 5 "Just don't dwell on one (1) thing 6 because I happen to put, you know, that 7 the Premier is following very closely. 8 Again, English is my second language. 9 Maybe I should have said the Premier is 10 not following. I don't know what I 11 should have put there. These are just 12 notes when I am having a conversation 13 with somebody to try to recapture what 14 we discussed." 15 So, having taken you to those passages, 16 Mr. Beaubien, first of all, is it fair to say when you 17 were answering those questions on discovery, you were 18 having some difficulty with the questions? 19 A: Yeah. If I, you know, was the 20 question was fairly confusing. 21 Q: Okay. Well -- 22 A: Or questions, I should say. 23 Q: -- let me ask you this. Now accept 24 that English is your second language but you also -- 25 you've also said you're perfectly -- you're fluent in


1 both languages and -- 2 A: I -- I said I was fluent, not 3 perfectly fluent. 4 Q: That's fine. I've heard your 5 evidence. And I was -- is it fair to say that the 6 difficulty you had in answering those questions that I've 7 taken you to, was not that your English was so poor that 8 you misused certain words or used the opposite of words 9 that you intended to use, but the fact that you are using 10 English as a second language as an excuse to avoid the 11 contentious implications of some of your words? 12 OBJ MS. SUSAN VELLA: I am objecting. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 14 Vella? 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's a totally 16 improper question. If this is intended to be an 17 impeachment -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I assumed 19 that. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- My Friend certainly 21 didn't lay the groundwork for an impeachment. He didn't 22 ask for reconfirmation of the evidence, whether it was 23 inconsistent. 24 It's an absolutely inappropriate way to 25 try to impeach and I object strongly.


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm not going to 2 attempt to impeach at this point, am I? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're not 4 trying to impeach him? 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No. I'm asking him, 6 these are -- it -- it may be that it will come to that 7 but I'm not trying to do that right now. I'm trying to 8 understand, when he was -- I'm giving him the opportunity 9 to explain, when he answered those questions, what was on 10 his mind. 11 Was it -- was it -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: To what end? 13 To what end? 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: To what end? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: So I can understand 17 and interpret those questions, because I have a number of 18 questions in the same areas that I want to ask in this 19 forum. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why? 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'll move on. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I gather -- I mean if 24 My Friend wants to ask the questions, that's fine. If 25 there is any consistent with prior testimony, then he can


1 go to the prior testimony. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: But, I don't understand 4 the process that he's -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I'm 6 having difficulty understanding the process -- 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I -- I will move on, 8 sir. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I don't intend to take 11 up more time. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 14 Q: If I could take you to -- actually, I 15 don't think it's part of a document binder. I think it 16 was -- you were provided yesterday or the last day of 17 examination with a copy of a transcript of a conversation 18 you had with -- or sorry, transcript of a conversation 19 between Wade Lacroix and John Carson on the morning of 20 September 5th, 1995. And that was Tab 4 of Exhibit P- 21 444A. 22 Do you still have that in front of you? 23 A: Which tab would that be? 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No, he won't. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No, he won't?


1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Has he put -- do you 2 still have it there? It's this binder. The long binder. 3 THE WITNESS: This one, okay. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which binder 5 are you referring to? 6 THE WITNESS: Tab 4, did you say. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 9 Q: Tab 4, yes, I believe. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just have 11 excerpts. 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Commissioner? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have 14 excerpts of that conversation. 15 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 17 what parts you're referring to. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I may only need to 19 refer to those excerpts. So -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- if there's an issue 22 we can address that, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's see if 24 we could proceed. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 2 Q: Now, before I ask you some specifics 3 about the contents of this, your evidence, as I 4 understand it, was that you first heard of the occupation 5 on the morning of September 5th, the morning after the 6 occupation happened. 7 Is that your recollection? 8 A: I can't recall. I think if I -- if I 9 said, thereabouts, but I can't recall it. I think it was 10 after, yeah, the morning after. 11 Q: Okay. So you -- okay. And you 12 recall the first time you spoke with Mr. -- Sergeant Wade 13 Lacroix, after the commencement of the occupation, would 14 have been the morning of September 5th, some time shortly 15 before 8:20, probably given what you have before you? Is 16 that what you understand? 17 A: That probably would be a fair 18 assumption, yeah. 19 Q: And this would have been shor -- very 20 shortly after you became aware of the occupation, most 21 likely? 22 A: I can't recall exactly what time I 23 learned of the occupation. But I was in the office 24 usually quarter after 7:00 in the morning, pretty well 25 every morning.


1 So it would not surprise that I would have 2 received or made a call at 8:20. But as to when I 3 received notification of the occupation, I can't recall. 4 Q: Okay. Do you recall whether or not 5 it would have been when you were in the office or 6 would've it been at home? You just -- or you just don't 7 know? 8 A: I can't recall. 9 Q: Okay. Before speaking with Ms. -- 10 Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix that morning, had you 11 received any constituent phone calls on this matter or 12 was it just stuff that you were hearing in the media? 13 A: With regards to the occupation? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: Well, if it wasn't the morning, I 16 would have receive again, all we have to do is look at 17 the call back book and see when the calls started coming 18 on this. It's on the record. 19 I -- you know, I can't recall when exactly 20 the phone calls started coming, but we provided you an 21 awful lot of evidence as to when the calls came in, so 22 I'm sure we could go back there and find out. 23 Q: I can tell you that the records don't 24 indicate times of calls coming in, but if I can ask you, 25 if you can recall whether -- and you may not be able to


1 recall, that's fair, do -- do you remember whether, when 2 you spoke with Wade Lacroix, if before that call you had 3 received calls from concerned constituents? 4 A: Well, you know, one thing that we got 5 to keep in mind, we did have an answering machine and we 6 had voicemail on the -- on the telephone. 7 So just because the office might have been 8 closed during the night, that doesn't mean some calls 9 would not come in during the night. 10 So -- and I usually -- one of the first 11 thing I did in the office and then -- in the morning, is 12 usually listen to the messages on the phone, so it's 13 possible that I might have heard it from there. I can't 14 recall. 15 Q: Well let me ask you this: When you 16 spoke with Wade Lacroix that morning, do you remember 17 whether you had on your mind things that you had heard 18 from constituents or just things that were in the media; 19 do you know? 20 A: Can't recall that. 21 Q: Okay. Now, when -- when you did hear 22 of it, through whatever means -- now you did hear of it 23 through the media; is that right? 24 You did read the papers that morning and 25 heard of it that way or --


1 A: Whether I'd have -- you know, heard 2 it through the media or constituents first, I don't know. 3 Q: Okay. When you did hear of it, you 4 would have been -- and do you recall, you would have been 5 quite upset and frustrated about the turn of events? 6 A: Maybe not upset, but maybe 7 frustrated. 8 Q: Okay. Well I know Wade Lacroix, in 9 that transcript that you have before you, says that you 10 were quite irate when you spoke with him. 11 Now, I know that's not the word you said 12 you would use. You said you would use the word 13 'frustrated' but would you disagree with Inspector -- or 14 Staff Sergeant Lacroix's characterization of your 15 demeanour as quite irate? 16 Or you just don't recall? 17 A: What's your definition of 'irate'? 18 Q: I guess you'd have to ask him. 19 A: Well, I guess that's -- I guess 20 that's a perfect answer. You're going to have to ask 21 him, I don't know. 22 Q: So you wouldn't disagree with it, you 23 don't know? 24 A: Like I said, you know, frustrated. 25 But irate, I don't know if I was, you know, I, you know,


1 I can't tell you that. I don't -- I don't recall. 2 Q: And is it correct that what you were, 3 I guess in Lacroix's words, irate and what you describe 4 as frustrated, by, is the fact that the Park had been 5 occupied; is that right? 6 A: I -- I don't recall. 7 Q: Okay. What you were -- I don't want 8 to use the both word, because they both appear irate in 9 somebody's characterization, or frustrated in your 10 characterization. 11 What you were irate or frustrated about 12 was the fact that the Park was occupied by people you 13 considered to be thugs? 14 A: Well, it would give me concerns, 15 yeah. It would create some concerns, yeah. 16 Q: And in your conversation with Mr. 17 Lacroix, you did tell him that you wanted something done 18 about it; isn't that right? 19 A: No, I don't recall that. I can't 20 recall that. 21 Q: Okay. Sorry, you told him that you 22 were going to call the Premier's office and say you 23 wanted something done about it, right? 24 A: No, I said that I probably would be 25 faxing the Premier's office with a report of what was


1 happening with the occurrences in the area, because I 2 believe, as I said last week, in trying to apprise or 3 keep the Queen's Park informed as much as I possibly 4 could. 5 So, I would imagine, if that -- if there 6 was a takeover of a Provincial Park, that I felt that it 7 was serious enough for me to -- even though they were 8 probably aware by -- by that time, but I felt I should 9 pass on that information. 10 Q: Okay. Let me take you specifically 11 to the references in the transcript and then I can ask 12 you questions -- 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: -- based on that. On the second page 15 of that tab, I think it's numbered 9 at the bottom, the 16 first line is: 17 "CARSON: Okay." 18 Do you see that? 19 A: Which line is that? 20 Q: The first line of that page says: 21 "CARSON: Okay." 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Then it says "Male" and this is, as 24 we know now, Wade Lacroix. 25 "He wants me to brief him. He's going


1 to call the Premier and say this is 2 ridiculous. 3 CARSON: Yes. 4 LACROIX: And I want something done." 5 And if I can also turn you to the second 6 last page and that's number 12 at the bottom. And the 7 fourth entry from the bottom says, "Male," and we know 8 that, again, it's -- that's, again, Lacroix. It says: 9 "I guess he was up all night and he's 10 going to -- he's already got several 11 phone calls. He called me and he just 12 let me know that he's calling the 13 Premier and -- 14 CARSON: Yup. 15 LACROIX: I guess he's met with Wesser 16 Bush again on Saturday. 17 CARSON: Oh, okay. 18 LACROIX: So he wants to call and say, 19 Look what -- we've got to do something. 20 [and] CARSON: Yeah. 21 LACROIX: It's now provincial and so 22 anyway I'll call him back." 23 So there's at least a couple of occasions, 24 or there are two (2) occasions where Lacroix mentions to 25 Carson that you were going to be calling the Premier and


1 he wants something done. And do you agree, or disagree, 2 or can't recall, that you told Lacroix, on that occasion, 3 on that morning, that you would be calling the Premier's 4 office and saying you wanted something done? 5 A: Well, I guess, you know, if you 6 really want a direct answer you should have asked Mr. 7 Carson and I guess Mr. Lacroix as to -- 8 Q: We want you -- 9 A: -- the content of this. It's their 10 conversation, it's not mine. First of all, if we go back 11 on page 12, it says: 12 "I guess he was up all night last 13 night." 14 I don't recall being up all night last 15 night. I might have been up late, but I don't recall -- 16 if we're going to be specific I don't recall being up all 17 night. To me all night meant that I didn't have any 18 sleep. 19 If I recall, specifically, I did have my 20 sleep that night. I might have been up late but not all 21 night. And he got -- and, "he's already got 22 several phone calls." As I mentioned, maybe I didn't get 23 the phone calls directly to myself in the morning, but we 24 did have an answering service whereby the calls could 25 have come in on the answering machine and people left a


1 message. So that's a possibility. 2 And, "he called me and he just let me know 3 that he's calling the Premier." Well, I sent a fax to 4 the Premier; that's his words. 5 Q: Okay, sir -- 6 A: And I think the record shows that I - 7 - that I did say that last week; that I would send a fax 8 to the Premier's office. I might have said, "The 9 Premier," and I apologize for that. 10 I should have said the Premier's office, 11 but I think you know and I know how the system works; 12 that I -- when I call the Premier's office that I don't 13 necessarily -- I don't get the Premier answering the 14 phone, that I usually have to go through protocol. 15 There's different individuals, different layers that you 16 have to go through. 17 Q: Okay. Sir, I'm -- just so you know 18 I'm doing my best to move through these questions 19 expeditiously. 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: I asked you a question about whether 22 you agreed or disagreed with what Lacroix said he heard 23 or interpreted you to say, that you said you were going 24 to call the Premier and say you wanted something done. I 25 don't think the question answered that. Now, do you


1 agree, disagree, or can't recall whether you, in fact, 2 said words to that effect to Lacroix? 3 A: I can't -- I can't recall. 4 Q: Can't recall? 5 A: And I would, you know, probably 6 disagree, but I can't recall. 7 Q: You don't dispute it? 8 A: No. 9 Q: I would suggest to you that you did 10 in fact want something done because you believed laws 11 were being broken by the occupiers; isn't that fair? 12 A: That's your suggestion, it's not 13 mine. 14 Q: Is that fair or is it an unfair 15 suggestion? 16 A: No, it's an unfair statement. 17 Q: Let me ask you this: You believed 18 that the occupation of the Park was a violation of the 19 law? 20 A: It was illegal, yes. 21 Q: All right. Okay. And you were 22 frustrated by that, weren't you? 23 A: Well, there was frustration on the 24 part of everybody I think, yeah. 25 Q: You were personally frustrated by


1 that? 2 A: Oh, there was some frustration, 3 personal frustration, yeah. 4 Q: Even -- 5 A: I think I said that. 6 Q: -- perhaps angry or irate about that, 7 weren't you? 8 A: Pardon? No, I didn't -- didn't use 9 the word "irate," I said frustrated. 10 Q: And this comment about saying you 11 wanted something done; that's, in fact, something you did 12 communicate to the Premier's office later that day, isn't 13 it? 14 A: Where's the fax for the Premier's 15 office? 16 Q: I'm asking you if you said that -- 17 A: I'd like to read the fax. 18 Q: -- in your phone conversation with 19 Mr. King or from your recollection if that came up during 20 your phone conversation? 21 A: I'm not going to -- I can't recall 22 unless if you provide the fax then we can go through the 23 fax, but I can't -- I don't recall that, no. 24 Q: I'm not asking you about the fax, 25 sir, I'm asking you about your phone conversation which


1 was not transcribed. 2 A: I don't recall that, sir. 3 Q: Do you dispute that you would have 4 said that to the Premier's office? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: I showed you earlier a reference to 7 the name Wesser Bush. I don't know who that is, do you 8 know? 9 A: Nope, that's news to me. 10 Q: Okay. Some time later -- 11 A: Wesser Bush? 12 Q: I'm -- I'm going to move away from 13 this document, sir. Some time later on September 5th, 14 you had a conversation with a John Duncan. You testified 15 to that on -- the other day. 16 A: Yes. I think it was -- if you say 17 September the 5th, I'll -- I'll assume that's right. 18 Q: Do you know if you had more than one 19 (1) conversation with him during the period of September 20 5th and 6th, 1995? 21 A: I recall talking to him a couple of 22 times, but I can't recall the dates. 23 Q: Okay. And when you spoke with him on 24 September 5th, 1995, do you recall if that was the first 25 time you'd ever spoken with him or whether you had spoken


1 with him in the past? 2 A: I would think it was probably the 3 first time I had spoken to him. 4 Q: Do you -- 5 A: To the best of my recollection 6 anyway. 7 Q: Do you recall whether that phone call 8 with Mr. Duncan would have been, let's say, before or 9 after you sent your press release to Bill King? 10 A: Can't recall. 11 Q: I'd like to provide you with a copy 12 of some notes to -- I'd like to ask you to identify. And 13 these are not, as far as far as I can tell, part of the 14 Inquiry's -- the Supertext database. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Do you recognize that document, sir? 19 A: Well, that's my writing. 20 Q: That's your writing. And it's dated 21 September 5th, 1995? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And it's entitled, Talked to John 24 Duncan in BC. 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: I guess John Duncan was in BC at the 2 time? 3 A: I would imagine that's why it says 4 that, yeah. 5 Q: Okay. And you said that it's your 6 writing that appears on that page? 7 A: That's -- I said it was my writing, 8 yes. 9 Q: Okay. I wonder, Commissioner, if we 10 can make this the next exhibit. 11 THE REGISTRAR: P-1041, Your Honour. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-1041. 13 14 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1041: Handwritten notes of Marcel 15 Beaubien, "Talked to John 16 Duncan in BC", September 17 05/'95. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 20 Q: And the first -- at the top half of 21 that page, I take it those are notes of the phone call 22 that you had with -- 23 A: I would imagine I'm jotting down 24 those as I'm speaking to him, yeah. 25 Q: All right. Are you jotting down


1 notes of things he's saying to you or things you're 2 saying to him or both? 3 A: Probably things that he's saying to 4 me. 5 Q: Okay. Now, having seen -- well the 6 notes that you have of the conversation say: 7 "New Government, he feels the Natives 8 are really challenging our authority. 9 The enforcement people have to be given 10 the tools to do the job but cannot be 11 stupid about it." 12 Then capital letters and a quotation marks 13 it says: 14 "NO TIME FOR NEGOTIATION?" 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: Do you recall -- having seen this 17 document now, do you recall John Duncan passing along 18 those comments to you? 19 A: I don't recall that. But if I wrote 20 them down at that particular point in time, I would 21 imagine that he probably passed that onto me, yes. But I 22 don't recall it. 23 Q: And you wouldn't dispute then that 24 your notes -- 25 A: No. As I told you --


1 Q: -- the accuracy of your notes? 2 A: -- that's my writing. 3 Q: Okay. Well, let me ask you about the 4 last sentence or the last point in the -- the quote, "No 5 time for negotiation." Again, that's something that he 6 said to you; is that right? 7 A: I would think that's what he said to 8 me, yeah. 9 Q: Did you have a discussion about that 10 topic? 11 A: I don't recall. 12 Q: Do you recall expressing agreement or 13 disagreement with that statement? 14 A: Don't -- don't recall. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Did -- now, do you recall -- now, I 19 don't -- I know you're not going to be able to recall 20 specifically, but I want to ask your general impression, 21 maybe you have a vague recollection, the -- the term 'no 22 time of negotiation'. 23 Did that strike you as -- do you remember 24 that striking you as something that was incompatible with 25 your beliefs at the time?


1 A: Yeah, I think -- basically, I think 2 the record will show that I believed in negotiation. 3 Q: Right. Now, let me ask you -- let me 4 rephrase -- let me ask the question again. 5 Do you remember when Mr. Duncan said 6 comments on those lines, 'no time for negotiation', that 7 during your conversation with him that striking you as 8 going against something that you believed in? 9 A: I don't recall that. 10 Q: Okay. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Let me turn you, please, to Tab 19. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And this is Exhibit P-961 and you'll 19 remember Ms. Vella took you through this in some detail. 20 A: We're going back to the -- this book 21 here? 22 Q: That's right. 23 A: Okay. Because I was on nineteen (19) 24 on the other one. 25 Q: That's right.


1 A: You didn't tell me we're changing. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Are you there now? 6 A: Yeah. 7 Q: Okay, great. I think you told Ms. 8 Vella that this document was approved or was prepared 9 pursuant to your direction and approved by you. 10 Now, leaving aside the part of that 11 document that isn't in quotation marks, I take it that 12 this document expresses your views and opinions at that 13 time? 14 A: Well, in general terms I would 15 imagine that I would -- I'll have to read that again, 16 okay? If you give me a second here. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: Yeah, when you look at this press 21 release in conjunction with what I was receiving, the 22 comments I was receiving, from my comments would 23 basically show the state of mind or the position what I 24 was -- you know, where I -- where I was at that time. 25 Q: So, you agree, then, that it


1 expresses your general opinions and beliefs at this time? 2 A: What's that? 3 Q: You'd agree, then, that this press 4 release expresses your beliefs and opinions at that time? 5 A: My belief and my constituents', both. 6 Q: Okay, yours and your constituents' 7 beliefs and -- 8 A: This is a combination. I am speaking 9 also on behalf of my constituents here. 10 Q: So in writing this press release, 11 you're not distinguishing between the two (2) as -- in 12 other words, you're not saying, these people believe 13 this, but I believe otherwise, you -- you're sharing 14 their opinions? 15 A: No, this is a press release and 16 usually it has to be fairly condensed, so that would, you 17 know, basically reflect what my constituents were telling 18 me. And I don't know if there's any personal feelings 19 there, but whatever the -- the facts or the press 20 release, which I think it's the one that was never 21 released, exemplified, I guess at that particular point 22 in time. 23 Q: Now, you wouldn't have put something 24 in this press release which you didn't agree with; isn't 25 that fair?


1 A: Well, like I said, sometimes I use 2 words that are probably could have a better use of the 3 word. 4 Q: But, generally speaking -- 5 A: But generally speaking, you know, I 6 would have to live with it, yeah. 7 Q: Yes, okay. And what precipitated 8 your preparation of this press release which you intended 9 to release to the press, although you never did, was the 10 occupation of the Park, of course; isn't that right? 11 A: Well, I think it was a little more 12 than that. I think if you recall last week, I testified 13 that I was not getting an awful lot of information from 14 Queen's Park. Do you recall that? 15 Q: Now, do you -- did you prepare a 16 press release prior to the occupation of the Park, a 17 draft press release? 18 A: Not that I recall, no. 19 Q: Okay. So, this press release was 20 brought on by the occupation of the Park and it may have 21 been an addition to things that had been brewing on your 22 mind for some time, but it was really the occupation that 23 triggered this, isn't it? 24 A: No, I don't think so. I think some 25 of the incidents that are mentioned or one (1) incident


1 that's mentioned, I think it occurred prior to the 2 occupation of the Park. 3 Q: Which incident is that? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: I think when we look at the Army Camp 8 Indians have strained relations between Kettle and Stony 9 Point and the surrounding communities. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: That was prior to the occupation of 12 the Park. 13 Q: And can I ask you this: would you 14 have prepared this press release with the intention of 15 releasing it to the press if the Park had not been 16 occupied? 17 A: That's an assumption and I can't -- I 18 can't -- 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: -- I can't make a comment on that. 21 Q: Now, what was the purpose of this 22 press release, assuming you had -- you prepared it for 23 the purpose of releasing it to the press. 24 Now, what was your purpose in doing that 25 and in making these comments to the press?


1 A: Trying to get some attention or be -- 2 you know, trying to be noticed at Queen's Park. 3 Q: Did you have any other purposes or 4 intentions? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Now, I'd like to refer -- review some 7 of the contents of this press release with you if I may. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Ms. Vella asked you about the -- your 12 use of the word 'thugs' and you said you agreed with that 13 characterization of that; that was your word. Other 14 people used different words like 'terrorist' or 'animal' 15 or 'hooligan'. You recall that evidence? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Well, I want to ask you a couple 18 questions on that evidence. Now, when other people use 19 the word 'hooligan' do you -- well, first of all do you 20 know what that term means? 21 A: Well, I have a general feeling for 22 what it means. As to the specific meaning of 'hooligans' 23 and -- you know. 24 Q: Yeah, I don't need to -- you -- you 25 to define it right now, but would you agree or disagree


1 with the use of that word as applying to the occupiers in 2 September 5th of 1995? 3 A: Well, I've never used the word myself 4 so you'd have to ask the person that used it. 5 Q: Okay. Some people called them 6 terrorists. 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: Would you agree or disagree that 9 these people were terrorists on that -- 10 A: You'd have to ask the person that 11 used that word. 12 Q: I know there was a press release by I 13 think somebody on behalf of the Municipality calling this 14 issue a reign of terror. 15 I don't know what other references of 16 terrorists you're referring, but if somebody used the 17 word terrorist in reference to the occupiers on the date 18 in question would you have agreed with that or disagreed 19 with that? 20 A: Well, I think the word 'terrorist' 21 was used by the Federal Member so you could ask the 22 Federal Member what she meant by that. 23 Q: I'm asking you. Is that something 24 that you think would be inappropriate or appropriate in 25 this --


1 A: It's not the word that I used. 2 Q: Is it a word you would have thought 3 would be appropriate or inappropriate in this situation? 4 A: I did not use that word. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's not 6 asking whether you used it, whether you think it's 7 appropriate. 8 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether it's 9 appropriate or not. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if you 11 don't know then you don't know, but... 12 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 15 Q: Okay. You don't have an opinion one 16 way or the -- or the other? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Okay. Similarly the word 'animals', 19 is that -- is it your view that that would have been an 20 appropriate or inappropriate description of the occupiers 21 on September 5th, 1995? 22 A: It's not a word that I used and I 23 don't -- don't have an opinion on it. 24 Q: You don't have an opinion whether 25 that would have been an appropriate or inappropriate


1 characterization. 2 A: That's correct. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Okay. If I could ask of you to -- 7 well, I'm going to ask you some questions about the 8 second paragraph of that press release and 9 specifically the latter portion of it. You say: 10 "Are we to assume as law abiding and 11 tax paying citizens that we have a 12 legal system in this province and in 13 this country that is two-tiered? Do we 14 have a double standard with enforcement 15 of the law?" 16 I want to ask you some questions about 17 that. And when you're asking the question, Do we have a 18 double standard with enforcement of the law, I take that 19 as a rhetorical question meaning there seems to be a 20 double standard with the enforcement of the law. 21 Isn't that what is meant by this? 22 A: No, I think if you recall the 23 evidence that I gave last week, a lot of constituents 24 were asking me the questions about the double standard 25 and I'm relaying that.


1 Q: And -- and you were having the same 2 questions in your mind? 3 A: No, I'm just relaying what I hear 4 from my constituents. 5 Q: Does anything in this press release 6 say my constituents are asking me, Do we have a double 7 standard with enforcement of the law? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Is -- where in this press release 10 does it say your constituents are asking you these 11 questions? 12 A: It says, Are we to assume. 13 Q: And who do you mean by 'we'? 14 A: The constituents. 15 Q: The constituents have a double 16 standard with enforcement of the law? Is that what -- 17 A: No, you're asking me that question. 18 Q: Is what you mean -- when you say, "Do 19 we have a double standard with enforcement of the law", 20 are you saying -- given what you've said, Do constituents 21 have a double standard with enforcement of the law; is 22 that what you're saying? 23 A: Do constituents have a double -- 24 Q: Okay. I asked you -- 25 A: I -- I -- I'm sorry, but I don't


1 understand your question. 2 Q: Your word -- your words are, in this 3 press release, "Do we have a double standard?" You said 4 the word 'we' meant constituents. 5 So, let me ask you, is another way to say 6 what you said in this press release the following, would 7 you have replaced what you said with, Do constituents 8 have a double standard with enforcement of the law? 9 A: I don't know. I -- I'm -- English 10 was not my best subject at school. I don't know. 11 Q: Okay. Do you -- do you disagree -- 12 or would you disagree with the position, in September of 13 1995, that there was a double standard or appeared to be 14 a double standard with enforcement of the law? 15 A: The perception was there with a lot 16 of people, that there was a double standard. That's what 17 I was hearing from my constituents on a daily basis. 18 Q: Okay. And -- and you didn't disagree 19 with that perception? 20 A: I don't recall, you know, what 21 position I had in 1995, no. 22 Q: Now, when it refers to a double 23 standard would double standard with enforcement of the 24 law, what specifically are you referring to there? 25 A: I think I mentioned some cases


1 whereby a chase would be ongoing and assume somebody 2 comes to the gate at the Army Base that the chase stops 3 and nothing happens. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: That's one example and there are 6 others. But, you know, that's certainly one that I heard 7 on a regular basis. 8 Q: So, when you talk about a double 9 standard with enforcement of the law, are you talking 10 about something that happened prior to the occupation or 11 are you referring to the occupation itself or are you 12 referring to both? 13 A: I would say prior, during and after. 14 Q: Okay. In this press release you're 15 referring to things that happened after? 16 A: Pardon? 17 Q: I don't understand your answer. 18 You're saying, when you talked about double standard, you 19 were referring to things that happened before, during and 20 after this press release. I don't know how that's 21 possible -- 22 A: No, no. After -- after the 23 occupation. I think -- I think you used the word, I 24 stand to be corrected, but I thought you mentioned 25 occupation.


1 Q: Okay. So, when you use the word -- 2 words 'double standard' what you're saying is, among 3 other things, that there was a double standard in terms 4 of the occupation of the Park and how the laws are being 5 enforced in relation to the occupation of the Park, 6 right? 7 A: Could you pose -- pose that question 8 again? 9 Q: You're saying -- is -- is it fair 10 that what you're saying is that there's a double standard 11 with the enforcement of the law as applied to the 12 occupation of the Park? 13 A: My constituents are telling me that. 14 Q: Right. And you don't -- and you're 15 sympathetic to that? 16 A: Like I said, I don't recall. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Zbogar, 18 I'm sorry to have to take a short break right now. 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Absolutely, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a short 21 break. I don't mean to interrupt your cross. 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 23 for five (5) minutes. 24 25 --- Upon recessing at 2:32 p.m.


1 --- Upon resuming at 2:36 p.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 4 resumed. Please be seated. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 Sometimes you can't help when you have to take a break. 7 Carry on. 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The immortal words of 9 Runciman, I guess you were feeling a little pressure. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I was 11 feeling a little pressure. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 16 Q: Mr. -- I was asking about your press 17 -- draft press release, Exhibit P-961... 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 22 Q: And I was asking you about the -- 23 your use of the word 'double standard'... 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: Now, aside from the incidents that 2 happened before the occupation of -- you used the example 3 of people being chased on to the Army Camp and the 4 chasers having been terminated, that sort of thing, did 5 you have anything else in mind, specifically, when you 6 used the word 'double standard'? 7 A: Well, like I said, I'm sure you're 8 going to have the -- the opportunity to -- to query 9 people, but, yeah, as to what they meant by that, but I'm 10 just only relaying what they were passing on to me. 11 Q: When you used the word 'double 12 standard', you -- these are your words, right? You 13 approved these words? 14 A: Well, I heard that from my -- from my 15 constituents, but I'm not going to disagree that I would 16 use double standard. 17 Q: Okay. And when you used this word, 18 which you had heard from your constituents, in order to 19 be able to use it you would have had to have some 20 understanding of what it meant or what they meant, right? 21 A: Yeah. 22 Q: Okay. Now what did you understand 23 that to mean? 24 A: That there was one law for one group, 25 and one law for the other.


1 Q: One law for whites, one law for 2 Indians? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And what did you base that opinion 5 on, other than if there was anything other than those 6 police chases that you talked about? 7 A: Well, from what they were relating to 8 me. 9 Q: Is there any other examples, other 10 than the police chases you talked about? 11 A: Not that I can recall right now. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Now, when you talk about double 16 standard, one law for whites, one law for Indians, I 17 would suggest to you that one of the things that you 18 understood that to mean, when you used that word, was 19 that the people in the Park were illegally there or 20 trespassing or what have you, and that they should be 21 evicted like anybody else, right? 22 A: That was certainly the generally 23 feeling in the area at that time, yes. 24 Q: And that was your feeling? 25 A: No, it did not, you know, like I said


1 last week, it did not impact on me personally. I did not 2 live in the area. 3 Q: It didn't effect you -- 4 A: I lived in Toronto and in Petrolia at 5 that time so, from a personal point of view, it did not 6 impact on me. 7 Q: But it -- 8 A: It certainly impacted on my 9 constituents. 10 Q: And it impacted you maybe indirectly, 11 as the MPP and somebody who sympathized with these people 12 that were raising these issues -- 13 A: What do you mean, indirectly? 14 Q: It impacted you. You had an 15 emotional reaction. You had certain opinions and you 16 sympathized with the people who were raising these 17 concerns? 18 A: Well, I shared my constituents' 19 concerns, there's no doubt about that -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: When their safety is jeopardized and 22 when they cannot do, you know, enjoy the use of their 23 personal property. I had, you know, that gives me some 24 concerns. Certainly I would have some concerns. 25 But did it, you know, did it impact on me


1 personally? No. 2 Q: Okay. So you were hearing that these 3 people who occupied the Park should be treated like 4 trespassers and evicted, and you agreed with that 5 sentiment, right? 6 A: I was -- I did not have a position on 7 it. I was hearing it, but I did not have a position, 8 because it was up to the police to deal with it as they 9 saw fit. 10 And they told me that they were 11 controlling or confining them to within the boundaries of 12 the Park. That was their position and it was, you know, 13 that's the position that I maintained. 14 Q: Well you -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He said 16 earlier that he shared his constituents' concerns. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes, yes, and I'm 18 hearing a number of different things -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't know 20 how much more you need to go over that. 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 24 Q: And when it talks about double 25 standard with enforcement to the law, what's going on


1 there, from your constituents' perspective as you 2 understand it, is that there are people in the Park and 3 they should be out of the Park, right? 4 A: No, that's not my position. 5 Q: Is that your constituents' position 6 as you understood it? 7 A: That's my constituents' position -- 8 well, some of my constituents' position. 9 Q: Can you describe which group of 10 constituents, if that's possible, that would be the 11 position of? 12 A: Again, for the record, you have it on 13 the record as to where I got the calls, from whom and 14 from where they were from. 15 That's on the record; you have that 16 information. From the general vicinity, you know, 17 Lambton Shores area. 18 Q: Right. 19 A: These would be -- 20 Q: The property owners and residents of 21 the Ipperwash area? 22 A: I'd say Lambton Shores. 23 Q: Okay. On the -- on the non Native 24 side, right? 25 A: On both sides.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: I think I've alluded to the fact that 3 even the Chief told me that he wanted them out of the 4 Park. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Do you have a specific recollection 9 of a conversation with the Chief about that? 10 A: Yeah, I think it was on the phone, 11 but I don't recollect one day, you know, where and what 12 time and what day. 13 Q: Do you know whether that was before 14 or after the shooting? 15 A: I can't remember. 16 Q: Okay. Do you remember the specifics 17 of that call, the contents of it? 18 A: I remember having a conversation, 19 what amounts to the exact content of the conversation, 20 no, I don't recall. 21 Q: When you say -- when you use the 22 word, "two (2) tiered" and the sentence is: 23 "Are we as law abiding citizens..." 24 Let me just paraphrase it here: Are we to 25 assume as law abiding citizens in this Province that we


1 have a legal system that is two-tiered? 2 Now, what do you mean by the word 'two- 3 tiered'? Do you mean that the law is slanted in favour 4 of Indians? 5 A: No, I would say double standard, more 6 or less. Maybe I should not have been using that but 7 that's basically what I was probably alluding to. 8 Q: And we're back to the one (1) law for 9 whites, one (1) law for Indians? 10 A: That's right, yeah. 11 Q: The next paragraph talks about 12 leadership: 13 "Enough is enough. Where is the 14 leadership from not only the provincial 15 officials but the federal officials and 16 from the First Nations themselves?" 17 Now, when you refer to provincial 18 officials does that include yourself? 19 A: Well, you know, I'm pretty powerless 20 to do anything so, you know, somebody I said has got to 21 grab ownership of the situation and, you know, because 22 one (1) person cannot make the decision and I -- I, you 23 know I -- I realize that. 24 Q: Somebody higher than you has to deal 25 with the situation and take control --


1 A: That's right. I'm saying as opposed 2 -- you know we have to show leadership as opposed to 3 hiding. 4 Q: Right. And you thought that should 5 be the Premier or certain ministers or who? 6 A: The Government as a whole, 7 governments as a whole, leadership of First Nations as a 8 whole. If somebody can, you know, lead the charge and -- 9 and find a result to this thing, whoever that person may 10 be, I would go along with it. 11 Q: Okay. Now, I understand, from what 12 you say in that paragraph, those sentences that I read to 13 you, that your impression was that the Province wasn't 14 doing enough in the situation, it should be doing more, 15 as well as other governments; is that right? 16 A: Yeah. I think there was a sense that 17 I was not getting enough information with regards to how 18 the -- the situation, you know, was being handled; 19 certainly a lack of communication. 20 Q: Were you just referring to the 21 information flow by saying there's not enough leadership 22 or were you referring to something else about the 23 situation more broadly? 24 A: I would strongly suggest to you, sir, 25 that I was talking about communication.


1 Q: And so the Province needs to do more 2 in terms of communicating with you what its intentions 3 are; is that right? 4 A: What -- you know, exactly how they're 5 going to deal with, you know, I know I shouldn't say 6 specifically how they're going to deal, but how are we 7 going to try to resolve this situation. It's not going 8 to go away by itself. 9 Q: Can I take from this sentence, "Where 10 is the leadership," that sentence, that you thought the 11 Province should show some leadership in terms of 12 responding to the occupation and taking steps to 13 eventually bring it to an end? 14 A: No, I think that's your own words, 15 sir. I -- I've played an awful lot of sports and on any 16 successful team that I played, usually you have a leader. 17 Usually your captain is a person that can 18 talk to the members on the ice, in the dressing room, and 19 I believe that in order to have something effective -- 20 effectively done that you have to have leadership, that 21 it just -- things do not happen. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: You know, somebody has to lead. 24 Q: And what I'm asking you is what you 25 want something to be done about? And what you want


1 something to be done about is the occupation and the 2 desire for its termination, right? 3 A: No, you're shortsighted on that one. 4 I think I want the situation, not only with the Park, but 5 I'm talking about federal leadership, I'm talking about 6 provincial leadership, I'm talking about native 7 leadership. 8 We have a situation at West Ipperwash, we 9 have a situation with the Provincial Park, we have a 10 situation with the Army Base, it's a very complex issue 11 to say -- with just one (1) issue, you're absolutely 12 wrong. 13 Q: Okay. Now, we understand the Army 14 Camp issue and that's essentially a federal 15 responsibility. 16 A: That's what I say in my letter. 17 Q: I understand that. And the Park is 18 provincial -- provincially operated. 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And -- and largely a -- essentially a 21 provincial issue, right? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: So in reference to the provincial 24 issue, which is the Park, I'm not leaving aside the Camp 25 because that's outside the Province's jurisdiction, the


1 leadership that you want, and with respect to the Park 2 side of the equation, was a response to the occupation 3 which would lead to its termination, ultimately? 4 A: No, I think you're trying to put 5 words in my mouth, sir. I mention about the entire 6 situation in the area at the time. The West Ipperwash, 7 the Provincial Park and the army base, and that's why I'm 8 refer -- referring to the three (3) levels of leadership 9 here in the -- in this fax. 10 Q: Okay. I can take it -- let me ask 11 you a different question. 12 I can take it, from your statements here, 13 that you were not satisfied, personally, with the 14 leadership from the Provincial officials in this 15 situation, at the time that you wrote this press release? 16 A: I was not satisfied with the 17 leadership of the three (3) groups. 18 Q: Okay. What -- and you talked about 19 wanting more communication. I take it, among other -- 20 well, you wanted more communication from the Province to 21 you, I think that's on the record. 22 Is there anything else that you envisioned 23 or were contemplating when you were expressing the 24 sentiment that there was an absence of leadership from 25 the Provincial Government?


1 A: Well, you know, we're -- you seem to 2 dwell on the Provincial and I take exception to that, 3 because I'm talking about the three (3) level, and I'm 4 not going to dwell just on the one. 5 I'm going to come back and dwell on the 6 three (3) levels. 7 Q: Okay. You mentioned three (3) 8 different groups -- 9 A: Because we talked about the army base 10 being an issue, been going on for fifty (50) some odd 11 years. It's still going on. 12 Q: Sure. Now, you were a Member of 13 Provincial Parliament. 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: You were not a member of Federal 16 Parliament. 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: You were not a member of the First 19 Nation. 20 A: No. 21 Q: So when I ask you about the group of 22 which you were a member and the leadership of that group, 23 and that's Provincial Parliament -- Provincial 24 Government. 25 And I asked you again: What leadership


1 did you contemplate was necessary or needed from the fed 2 -- from the Provincial Government in relation to this 3 issue? 4 A: Well, first of all, it would be nice, 5 when I send a letter or a fax, maybe to have 6 acknowledgement of -- of the letter. That would be a 7 nice start. 8 Q: And then what would be the next step? 9 A: Well, then I don't know, I'd have to 10 have a reply to the -- to my letter and my fax before it 11 would go to the next step. I believe in one step at a 12 time. 13 Q: Now, you expressed a number of 14 concerns in this press release. You said enough was 15 enough, where's the leadership? We need to take control. 16 A number of other comments in this press release. 17 Would you have been satisfied if, in 18 response to this press release, you got a letter from the 19 Provincial Government explaining what they were doing? 20 Would that have been sufficient to address 21 all of your concerns? 22 A: That's an assumption. I did get a 23 call from Mr. King the following day or later on that -- 24 later on that day, I should say. 25 Q: Okay. And did that address your


1 concerns? 2 A: It didn't address my total concern, 3 but certainly gave me a little bit to -- to go on. 4 Q: Okay. And after that conversation 5 with Bill King, were you still of the view that, quote, 6 "We are dealing with thugs?" 7 A: Yeah, we were dealing with people 8 that were beating, intimidating, breaking into people's 9 house, and that's the word I used. 10 Q: After speaking with Bill King, were 11 you still of the opinion that there seems to be a law 12 that is two-tiered? 13 A: My constituents were certainly of 14 that opinion, yes. 15 Q: Okay. Did you tell them they 16 shouldn't be of that opinion, given what Bill King told 17 you? 18 A: I don't recall that. 19 Q: After speaking with Bill King, were 20 you still of the opinion that there seemed to be a double 21 standard with enforcement of the law? 22 A: I kept hearing that the law, yes, 23 that the chase would, you know, still end up at the gate 24 after that, yes. 25 Q: You're talking about chases and stuff


1 that happened during the 5th and the 6th of September 2 1995? 3 A: Prior and after. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: Anywhere from June on; when I was 6 elected, until the time I left as a member. 7 Q: Okay. Did you -- after speaking with 8 Bill King, did you feel that the Province was -- was 9 providing appropriate leadership or did you still feel 10 that something else should be done by the Province? 11 A: No, I felt that she -- the police 12 were dealing with the situation as best as they could. 13 Q: Okay. Now, in your press release you 14 asked, Where is the leadership from, among other things, 15 Provincial officials. 16 After speaking with Bill King, did you 17 feel that the Provincial officials were providing the 18 leadership that you were asking for? 19 A: Well, I certainly had some concern 20 with regards to the lack of communication. I had that 21 concern throughout the entire situation. 22 Q: All right. I'll let you move on to 23 the next sentence in your draft press release and it 24 reads: 25 "How can we negotiate with


1 irresponsible law-breaking dissidents?" 2 Again, I would take it that's a rhetorical 3 statement which essentially means and -- and you can tell 4 me if I'm out to lunch on this, what it means is that we 5 can't negotiate with irresponsible lawbreaking 6 dissidents, right? 7 A: No. I think it says, you know, 8 again, my cont -- constituents are voicing many, many, 9 many , many concerns with regards to what's happening at 10 the camp. 11 And -- and how do we negotiate with -- I 12 asked the question, how do you negotiate? Who do you 13 talk to? There was no spokesperson for -- or 14 spokesperson for -- for the group. 15 How do you, you know, how do you approach 16 it? 17 Q: So you were -- 18 A: I'm not an expert in negotiation; 19 that's why I pushed to have a negotiator appointed. 20 That's why I was, you know, pushing for negotiation 21 throughout this whole process. I'm not an expert in 22 that. 23 Q: What steps did you take during 24 September 5th and 6th to appoint a negotiator? 25 A: Well I -- I can't remember. I would


1 have to go back on the record, but I -- I suggested that 2 at different -- different times during, I don't know, if 3 it was before, during and after. 4 Q: Do you remember expressing that 5 sentiment specifically, on the 5th or 6th of September? 6 A: No, I don't recall that. 7 Q: Because you didn't. 8 A: I didn't? 9 Q: You didn't express that view on those 10 dates. 11 A: Well, if you say I didn't, I -- I 12 guess I didn't. But I don't recall. 13 Q: So, you were hearing a number of 14 concerns from your constituents and what you did among 15 other things is prepare a press release which stated that 16 "How can we negotiate with irresponsible lawbreaking 17 dissidents?" 18 Now again, was that statement about 19 negotiating with irresponsible lawbreaking dissidents, 20 something directly from constituents or something that 21 you were asking based on the concerns of your 22 constituents? 23 A: I can't recall, but I would imagine 24 it's probably a combination. 25 Q: All right. So, your concern was --


1 there's all these concerns in the area, the residents are 2 -- are angry about it, they're threatening to take up 3 arms and that sort of thing and your question is how do 4 we negotiate with these guys, right? 5 A: How do we -- no. How do find a 6 resolve for this situation? 7 Q: Right. 8 A: That's what I'm concerned about. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: Finding a solution to it. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: How do we go about it? It's not my 13 problem, but trying to find a resolve to it is important. 14 Q: Did you see it as your role to be 15 involved in a negotiation with the irresponsible 16 lawbreaking dissidents? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Were you asking somebody for advice 19 as to how to negotiate with lawbreaking dissidents? 20 A: No. I'm just asking for somebody to 21 take charge and to take control of the situation. 22 Q: Did you think the Province should be 23 negotiating with the lawbreaking dissidents in relation 24 to the Provincial Park occupation? 25 A: That I don't know. I'm not an expert


1 on that. 2 Q: Is that you wanted to see happen when 3 you wrote these words? 4 A: Well, I think if -- last week 5 somebody provided the documentation that -- and I think 6 it's after, you know, later on, but I suggest that 7 everybody be at the table. So, I don't know what you're 8 insinuating with your question. 9 But I believe that the First Nation 10 including people that were at the Army Base, local 11 leadership, Provincial, Federal, should be at the table 12 trying to find a resolve to this situation. 13 Q: I'm asking you about a press release 14 dated and prepared on September 5th, 1995 which had 15 nothing -- could not have had anything to do with events 16 that happened after the shooting of Dudley George, or 17 what position you took after the shooting of Dudley 18 George. 19 So, what I'm asking you is when you wrote 20 on September 5th, how can we negotiate with irresponsible 21 lawbreaking dissidents, what you were saying is that the 22 Province should be negotiating with these occupiers. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 24 to cut you off, Mr. Zbogar, but I think we've heard quite 25 enough on this point.


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 3 we'll be -- you've laboured this -- I think you've asked 4 enough questions about this and you've made some points. 5 I think you should try to move on. 6 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I hate to leave 7 ambiguous answers on the record, but if you're satisfied 8 then -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 10 think you've squeezed it, and you've got, you know, quite 11 a bit of information so far. 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: You have to listen to 13 me I don't, so I'll take your for it. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'm 15 not hearing anything new in the last few minutes. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 18 just -- 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 21 Q: Well, let me ask something new then, 22 sir. When you say, "How can we negotiate", who do you 23 mean by 'we'? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're just 25 -- you're asking exactly what I'm suggesting you don't.


1 You've gone over that. 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 4 that question before. 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I didn't ask that 6 question before. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, well I 8 may be wrong about that specific one, but you've gone 9 over this and I don't see anything new coming out of 10 this -- 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: All right. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- anymore. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How can 17 we...? 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay, I'll -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You asked 20 the question "we", with respect to another -- 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure. I think it can 22 inferred from some of the previous questions. I'll ask 23 something different. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He really -- 25 well, I'm not hearing any new information from the


1 Witness for a long time. 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 7 Q: The next sentence says: 8 "We must come to our senses and take 9 back control before something 10 irreparable happens." 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 12 Mr. Zbogar. I thought we understood that you're going to 13 move on from this. Are you finished with this? 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, I had asked the 15 question about a previous sentence. I want to ask 16 about -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're going 18 to go over each sentence in the same level as -- 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: This is the last one. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Pardon me? 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: This is the last one 22 of this page. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is the 24 last one? 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'll do my best. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'd 4 let you go on as long as you need to, but I don't think 5 we're getting anything from the Witness -- 6 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that's in 8 any way helpful any more. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: If I can -- if you can 10 afford me just a little bit of leeway, I'll hopefully -- 11 I just ask maybe three (3) or four (4) questions and -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 13 a lot -- 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- if they get 15 somewhere they do, if they don't then you can cut me off. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it'll 17 probably save time to let you ask it -- 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and let 20 him answer it then to argue with you why you shouldn't 21 ask it. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Thank you. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 2 Q: Okay. So, I'm referring to your 3 statement that says: 4 "We must come to our senses and take 5 back control before something 6 irreparable happens." 7 I guess I should ask, first of all, as a 8 preliminary point, when you use the word in that sentence 9 "we", who are you referring to in that sentence? 10 A: The people that I referred in -- in 11 the first sentence, the Federal, the Provincial, the 12 Native leadership. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Everybody. 15 Q: Did you feel that the situation was 16 out of control, such that there needed to be control 17 taken back? 18 A: I don't know if it was out of 19 control, like I said, I'm not a professional but 20 certainly it wasn't getting any better. 21 Q: When you said it was out of control 22 or you said you needed to take back control, what did 23 that refer to? The occupation? 24 A: No, no. I'm talking of the situation 25 as a whole.


1 Q: Okay. And the situation involved the 2 occupation? 3 A: No, no. 4 Q: No. Okay. 5 A: No, no. I talked about West 6 Ipperwash, I talk about the Army Base and I talk about 7 the Provincial Park and the situation in the general 8 area; that's what I'm referring to. 9 Q: Okay. What about that situation did 10 you think needed that there needed to be a control taken 11 of? 12 A: You're going to have to be more 13 specific. 14 Q: Well, let me ask you about the Park 15 occupation, which is one of the things you mentioned. 16 What was it about the Park occupation that you thought 17 was either out of control or there needed to be control 18 taken of? 19 A: I don't know. I'm making it -- I 20 made a general statement on a press release ten and a 21 half (10 1/2) years ago. I don't recall the specifics 22 that I, you know, that I -- the intention at that 23 particular point in time. 24 It's a press release that was never 25 released.


1 Q: Let me suggest to you your intention 2 was this: You wanted somebody to take back control, 3 Government officials, and you wanted that to happen by 4 taking back the Park; isn't that fair? 5 A: No, you're absolutely wrong, because 6 as I said, the Park was not the only issue that we were 7 dealing with. 8 We were dealing with the West Ipperwash 9 issue and the Army Base issue. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: Just to single out the Provincial 12 Park issue, I totally and strongly object to that. 13 Q: That may be so, but that's, you know, 14 if I ask you questions about all the areas we could be 15 here for a while. 16 I'm only interested in one (1) issue and 17 if you can help me out with that; and that is one of the 18 things you wanted control to be taken back of is the 19 occupation of the Park, right? 20 A: I'm talking about the three (3) 21 issues. 22 Q: Including the occupation of the Park. 23 A: Including the occupation of the Park. 24 Q: And with respect to that issue, the 25 occupation of the Park, what you wanted in terms of


1 taking back control was the Government to take back 2 ownership and possession of the Park. 3 A: No, you're wrong. 4 Q: Did you want the occupation to 5 continue? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: Looking for solution. 9 Q: If -- there's some handwritten 10 comments on -- on Exhibit P-961, the press release that 11 you have before you. And Ms. Vella reviewed those with 12 you as -- as well. 13 I -- I don't think you told us how long 14 you recalled your conversation was with Mr. King, 15 approximately? 16 A: I don't recall. 17 Q: You don't recall. 18 A: But we could check the -- the phone 19 record and we could find out exactly how long it was. 20 It's just a matter of accessing the archives. 21 Q: Do you recall whether it was, like a 22 two (2) minute thing or a very long, half hour, hour -- 23 A: I would say maybe -- you know 24 I'd hate to guess but I would say, you know, five (5) 25 minutes maybe.


1 Q: Sure. Okay. 2 A: But we can check the record. You 3 know, that's -- that's accessible. 4 Q: Now, you just gave your 5 interpretation of what those handwritten notes are, the - 6 - the ones that you handwrote at the top of that letter. 7 There were some words missing on the right-hand side of 8 the page and I'm going to suggest to you what those might 9 be. Okay? 10 First of all it says: 11 "MNR issue, not an Indian issue." 12 This is what you've already told us. 13 "It is a Provincial Park issue. 14 Premier is following closely." 15 And then this part is cut off, and I would 16 suggest to you it says: 17 "Police is there to assist MNR." 18 A: I think that's probably accurate, 19 yeah. 20 Q: Okay. And the next part I would 21 suggest is: 22 "Uphold the law no matter who was 23 involved?" 24 A: I would think that's probably right, 25 yeah.


1 Q: And those are things told to you by 2 Mr. King, right? 3 A: I would imagine, in our conversation, 4 that's why I probably jotted them down, yeah. 5 Q: Those aren't comments that you wrote 6 down for example after your conversation, after 7 reflecting on things, or those would have been things 8 that would have been communicated during that phone call? 9 A: No, it's usually -- it's my style 10 when I would speak to somebody that, you know, on the -- 11 on the document that I would jot down some notes. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: Because at my age I tend to forget 14 things. 15 Q: Now, is there anything stated by Mr. 16 King which you did not take notes of that you recall? 17 A: I don't know. I mean if we had a 18 five (5) minute conversation or two (2) minute 19 conversation I don't know if I jotted down everything. I 20 don't recall. 21 Q: Do you remember what you told Mr. 22 King? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Do you remember what your response 25 was when he told you this information?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Did you have any reaction or thoughts 3 about his comment to uphold the law no matter who was 4 involved? 5 A: No, there was nothing shocking to me 6 there, no. 7 Q: Do you remember having a discussion 8 about that even if you can't recall the contents of it? 9 A: No, I don't. 10 Q: In addition to the things stated in 11 that document Mr. King in his evidence before this 12 Inquiry said that he stated it wouldn't be a good idea to 13 send out this press release. 14 Do you recall him saying that? 15 A: That's correct, yeah. 16 Q: Okay. And part of what he was doing 17 and what you understood him to be doing -- let me ask it 18 that way, what you understood Mr. King to be 19 communicating to you is giving you a script that you can 20 use in your comments to the media or constituents, for 21 example? 22 A: That would be a fair assumption. 23 Q: Okay. And -- and we note that in the 24 Sarnia Observer the next day, pretty much the comments 25 that you've written down are -- are repeated in the


1 Observer. 2 A: I don't have the article in front of 3 me. 4 Q: Okay. Let me turn you that; that's 5 Tab 26. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: And you don't dispute the accuracy of 10 the words that are attributed to you in quotes, correct? 11 A: You mean: 12 "We will uphold the law no matter who's 13 involved?" 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: No, I wouldn't be shocked if I would 16 have said that, yes. 17 Q: Sure. 18 A: I don't recall but -- 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: -- I'm not going to dispute that I 21 didn't say that. 22 Q: And then it says: 23 "If you are there illegally you'll be 24 asked to leave." 25 I think Ms. Vella already took you to that


1 the other day and the next column says: 2 "This is an MNR issue, not a..." 3 A: Native issue. 4 Q: "...police issue." 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Native issue. 6 THE WITNESS: Native issue. 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Native. Sorry. 8 "This is an MNR issue, not a Native 9 issue." 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 12 Q: And that's something you would have 13 said. Actually, that's not something you dispute the 14 accuracy of? 15 A: No, I would not dispute that, no. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he 17 admitted that when -- 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Ms. Vella 20 asked him these questions so I don't see how your 21 questions ae moving us forward. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I checked the 23 transcript, sir, and that exact question -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I heard -- 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- was left a little


1 bit ambiguous so that's why I'm asking it again. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I -- 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: If it wasn't left 4 ambiguous I wouldn't be asking it again. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's pretty 6 clear. Yes, I mean, you know, it's pretty clear, Mr. 7 Zbogar, on that point. 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 10 to rush you but neither do I want to spend a lot of time 11 doing stuff that we've already done -- 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- or going 14 over evidence that we've already heard. 15 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I appreciate that, 16 Commissioner. That's why I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- checked the 19 transcript before -- before I asked that question to make 20 sure it wasn't covering the same ground. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 23 Q: Now your comment about, If you are 24 there illegally, you will be asked to leave, it was... 25 Actually I'm not going to ask a


1 repetitive situation. 2 But let me ask you this: Did you give any 3 consideration to the occupiers, Aboriginal Rights or 4 Charter Rights, when you made the statement that they are 5 there illegally or made the statement there that -- let 6 me back up because, I'm sorry, I'm confusing myself. 7 I think your evidence was that you 8 believed the occupiers were there in the Park illegally, 9 right? 10 A: Yeah. That's the information that I 11 received from the MNR. I think, the record will show 12 that. 13 Q: And you say to the Observer that if 14 they're there illegally, they'll be asked to leave. 15 A: I don't dispute saying that. 16 Q: Okay. And when you said that to the 17 Observer, you believed that they were there illegally? 18 A: That's the information that I had. 19 Q: And when you said those statements, 20 did you give any consideration to the occupiers possible 21 Aboriginal Rights or Charter Rights to be in the Park? 22 A: I don't know what you mean there? 23 Q: Did you consider their -- the 24 Constitutional Right to freedom of expression when you 25 formed the view that they were there illegally?


1 A: That's too legal for me. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He didn't 3 form that view. He was informed about that. He got the 4 legal advice, he got it from somebody else and except 5 that -- 6 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. Okay let me -- 7 I want to ask -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 9 point asking him. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 12 Q: I want to ask a fair question I don't 13 want to -- I know you're not a lawyer and I'm not 14 asking -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 18 Q: -- for your legal opinion, but you 19 were a Member of Parliament and -- and should be familiar 20 with the Charter to some degree so let me ask you this: 21 During the period of the 5th and 6th of 22 September 1995, were you ever of the view or did you ever 23 consider the possibility that these people might have a 24 Charter Right to express themselves by being in the Park? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr.


1 Sulman...? 2 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'm not sure it's 3 helpful to ask that again. But -- this was asked and he 4 answered earlier that he didn't -- he was asked about 5 freedom of expression and he answered the question. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 7 think -- 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I believe the answer 9 was he didn't -- didn't understand it. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 11 how he can help us there. 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: That's fine. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 17 Q: I want to ask you a few quick 18 questions and I want to turn you back to the other volume 19 of the transcripts of phone conversations. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like to 21 stay with you, Mr. Zbogar, until we finish, so I'd just 22 like to know if you're close. 23 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. I -- I'm doing 24 what I can. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 2 Q: If you could turn to Tab -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like to 4 know how long you think you might be now. You've been 5 two and a half (2 1/2) hours. I would like to know how 6 long you think you -- 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I would hope -- I 8 would hope a half hour. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You still 10 have a half hour to go? 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I hope so. I have -- 12 I expect so. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right, carry 14 on. 15 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Thank you. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As long as 20 you're asking relevant questions you're entitled to take 21 as long as you need. But, when you're repeating and 22 going over stuff and not bringing anything useful or new 23 then I hope you cut back. 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm mindful of that 25 and I'm doing by best, sir.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 4 Q: Now if I can ask you to turn to Tab 5 22 of Exhibit P-444A please. Not much -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, I 7 missed that reference. 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 22 of -- of the 9 Exhibit P-444A, the transcribed phone calls. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is the 11 one between Carson and Wade Lacroix? 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: That's right. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 15 Q: So again, this is John Carson and 16 Wade Lacroix, 16:24 hours on September 5th, 1995. 17 A: I'm sorry but I have Carson, a 18 female. 19 Q: Oh, yeah -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it's an 21 unknown male who we now know to be Wade Lacroix. 22 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 25 Q: If you could turn to page 182. It


1 was a female the -- outside of the conversation but it 2 was transferred later on to Wade Lacroix who was the male 3 identified in that -- that transcript. 4 And the fourth line down says: 5 "And the Ministry -- I -- I guess the 6 Solicitor General, I imagine, is to do 7 a press release momentarily or soon 8 saying law will be upheld no matter who 9 is involved." 10 Now, I guess the reference to the 11 Solicitor General by Lacroix is an inference on his part 12 that may or not be accurate, but I don't -- I don't care 13 about that for the purposes of my question. 14 What I want to ask you is whether you 15 recall telling Wade Lacroix that somebody will be doing a 16 press release or somebody will be making a statement soon 17 saying that the law will be upheld no matter who it 18 involved. 19 A: I don't recall saying that, but I 20 might have said that because -- subsequent to the 21 discussion I had with Mr. King. 22 Q: Okay. If you could drop down another 23 four (4) lines. It says: 24 "Male." 25 And the entry says:


1 "Ah, he's going to call --" 2 Sorry, it says: 3 "Ah, he's going to call me in the 4 morning." 5 Do you see that? 6 A: Yeah. 7 "And he's going to call me in the 8 morning." 9 Yeah. 10 Q: Did -- I take it that he was stating 11 that you would be calling Lacroix in the morning. Do you 12 remember doing that on the 6th? 13 A: We're assuming that that is the case 14 and I don't recall. You know, again, we have a lot of 15 documentation showing exactly when the calls were 16 arriving. I don't know what -- about that one. 17 Q: It doesn't refresh your memory -- 18 A: No. 19 Q: Okay. And the very bottom of that 20 page, there's a statement, and this is Lacroix again, the 21 second last entry on that page: 22 "I guess they had a confidential talk 23 which he didn't want to share with me 24 'cause he told the Chief he was being - 25 - that he would -- you know, I guess


1 the Chief told him some things about 2 his concerns." 3 Now I want to ask you about the last part, 4 "the Chief told him some things about his concerns." 5 Now, I know these are Wade Lacroix's 6 words, but I'm wondering if it refreshes your memory now 7 to recall whether Chief Coles expressed concerns to you 8 and what those might have been? 9 A: I don't recall. 10 Q: Okay. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: The last document I want to refer you 15 to is Tab 22 of the Commission's documents. If you can 16 put that -- the transcripts away. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: I'm referring to Exhibit P-952, 21 Inquiry document 1006196, and this is your fax of 22 September 6th, 1995 to Bill King, attaching a letter from 23 a constituent. 24 A: That's correct. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And you'll recall, way back at the 4 beginning of my questions, I took you to a letter to a 5 constituent which said: 6 "I agree with some of your concerns." 7 Do you recall when I asked you about those 8 questions? 9 A: Hmm hmm. I do. 10 Q: And in this letter, in the second 11 paragraph, it says: 12 "He puts the message across better than 13 I could. Further to our telephone 14 conversation and faxes of September 15 5th, 1995 I totally agree with this 16 constituent, XXXXX. 17 It could be said that he agrees with my 18 suggestions of yesterday." 19 And when you talk about agreement with the 20 points that is -- are made by this constituent, I take it 21 you're agreeing with -- you're saying you agree with his 22 views and his opinions? 23 A: Well, again, you know, totally, we -- 24 you know, we belaboured that one an hour ago. Maybe I 25 didn't use it -- maybe I shouldn't be using, "totally."


1 I agree with that letter, the general 2 contents of that particular letter. 3 Now there's some words in this and it 4 might be the odd sentence that I don't agree with, but 5 the law and order aspect of the letter, I certainly agree 6 with. 7 Q: Okay. And you've given that 8 evidence; I don't want to repeat that. 9 And I'm going to take you to some 10 specifics but, first of all, in order to say you agreed, 11 generally or otherwise, you obviously had to have some 12 understanding of what this constituent was saying, right? 13 A: Generally speaking, yes. 14 Q: And you can see on the last page of 15 the constituent's letter that it had been sent to the 16 Premier's office, right? 17 The cc -- 18 A: I think I was carbon copied, or, no, 19 I wasn't carbon copied, according to this letter it was 20 faxed to me. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: But it had been sent to the Premier, 23 to the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the 24 office of the Minister of Natural Resources. 25 Q: So when you got this letter from the


1 constituent, you knew that a copy had already been sent 2 or was being sent to the Premier's office? 3 A: According to the carbon copy, yeah. 4 Q: And, nevertheless, you made a point 5 of sending an additional copy to the Premier's office, 6 right? 7 A: I would send any information that I 8 felt might be pertinent for -- to keep Queen's Park 9 informed. 10 Q: Why did you feel it was necessary to 11 send this letter to Queen's Park, given that this letter 12 had already been sent to Queen's Park? 13 A: Just a personal decision at that 14 time. 15 Q: Okay. And what was it about this 16 particular letter that thought -- you thought was 17 pertinent information that Queen's Park needed to know? 18 A: Well, I think in my cover letter it 19 says -- it says it's a letter from a respectable, 20 responsible, tax paying, law abiding lawyer in my riding 21 and he says -- I -- I mention that he puts the message 22 across better than I could. He's a better letter writer 23 than I am. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: So this particular letter and you


1 have records of other letters, I think even in this 2 binder, basically saying of -- we kept, or, you know, 3 giving you a general overview of what's going -- going on 4 in the area at that particular point in time. 5 Q: Okay. Now, I -- I do not want to 6 repeat the ground that Ms. Vella already covered, but I 7 do want to pursue that a little bit and moving on, 8 hopefully building on the questions that are already on 9 the record. 10 Now, you, personally, thought it would be 11 useful for the Premier's office to see this constituent's 12 letter right away; that's why you sent it right away? 13 A: Oh, I thought there was some merit 14 and probably, you know, to the best of my recollection, 15 again, in -- in seeing what the situation was at that 16 time, like I alluded last week. It was not a Sunday 17 afternoon beach party in that area. 18 Q: Okay. So this constituent's words, 19 as expressed in his letter, would have resonated with 20 you. You would have agreed to adopt them, and they 21 reflected something that you, yourself, wanted to pass on 22 to the Premier, but which you thought he could do in 23 words that were better than the ones you could use; is 24 that -- 25 A: Well, I passed on this -- this letter


1 and the record will show that, not only this particular 2 letter but other letters and correspondence from 3 constituents on an ongoing basis. It's not only this 4 letter that I passed on. 5 Q: I understand, but this is the only 6 letter that you passed on in respect of the Ipperwash 7 situation, prior to the shooting, right? 8 A: I don't recall. I think there were 9 more. 10 Q: Prior to the shooting? 11 A: Yes, I think so, but I -- 12 Q: Do you have -- 13 A: -- you know, I don't -- I can't 14 recall. 15 Q: Now, we have the two (2) -- we've 16 seen the two (2) that were sent to the Attorney General's 17 office. Do you recall any other letters being sent to 18 the Premier's office, prior to September 6th, 1995? 19 A: Can't recall. Can't recall. 20 Q: Okay. Now, let me ask you if this is 21 a fair reflection of what your thought process was when 22 you decided to send it to the Premier's office. You -- 23 A: Well -- 24 Q: -- thought that this guy was bang on 25 point; that he said what you wanted to say in words


1 better than you could express and that you wanted to give 2 this letter special treatment because you thought it was 3 so important? 4 A: No, I think you're putting too much 5 importance in the one (1) letter. I think, basically, 6 this one (1) particular letter, as my cover letter 7 states, it reflected the type of correspondence and calls 8 and concerns that were expressed to me, personally, by 9 many residents in the area. 10 And this letter pretty well, along with 11 other letters, but this pretty well reflected what was 12 going on in the area at the time. 13 Q: Okay. And you would not have sent 14 this letter to the Premier's office if you didn't agree 15 with its contents, right? 16 A: Like I said, and generally speaking, 17 I agree with the contents, generally speaking. 18 Q: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 20 said you totally agreed with it, in your covering letter. 21 THE WITNESS: I said I totally agree, but 22 I -- you can rap me on the knuckles -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, nobody's 24 rapping -- 25 THE WITNESS: -- for using the wrong,


1 maybe. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, but 3 in the letter -- 4 THE WITNESS: I used -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and no 6 one's rapping you, you said you totally agree with it. 7 THE WITNESS: And then again, I'll hide 8 under the sink. English is my second language; maybe 9 sometimes I don't have a good grasp of what word should 10 be used. I'm sorry about that. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, you 12 don't have to apologize. 13 THE WITNESS: But that's the way it is. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 16 Q: Did you call this constituent before 17 sending out this letter? 18 A: Don't recall. I did talk to him, 19 when I don't know. I don't -- I don't think so. I -- I 20 might have, I can't recall. 21 Q: All right. Now, your cover letter 22 says that it can be said -- it can also be said that: 23 "He agrees with my suggestions of 24 yesterday." 25 And this is your letter to Bill King


1 saying: 2 "This guy agrees -- seems to agree with 3 what I told you on the phone 4 yesterday." 5 Is that a fair way of reading that 6 sentence? 7 A: But what we talked about yesterday, I 8 can't recall. 9 Q: Okay. Now it says you had made some 10 suggestions yesterday, in other words, when you spoke 11 with Bill King you had made some suggestions to him; 12 isn't that right? 13 A: That's what it says in the letter and 14 I'll stand by that. 15 Q: And is -- does that refresh your 16 memory as to whether you had made any suggestions to Mr. 17 King? 18 A: I can't recall what suggestions I 19 made to Mr. King. That's ten and a half (10 1/2) years 20 ago. 21 Q: Did you suggest to Mr. King that 22 something should be done to remove the occupiers from the 23 Park? 24 A: I can't recall. 25 Q: It's possible?


1 A: I can't recall. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Now the constituent says in his 6 letter at paragraph 3, let me make sure you're there. In 7 the third paragraph, the second line, near the end, it 8 says: 9 "The occupiers can be arrested. This 10 should be done immediately." 11 Does that refresh your memory as to -- 12 well -- and I'm tying this back to your cover letter 13 which says: 14 "This person seems to agree with my 15 suggestions." 16 And could I take it that one of the 17 suggestions you made to Bill King, on the 5th, was that 18 the occupiers should be arrested immediately? 19 A: No. I strongly disagree with that 20 because that was a policing matter and they would be much 21 much much better equipped than yours truly to decide when 22 people should be arrested or not arrested. 23 Q: That wasn't my question, sir. My 24 question was: Is it fair that one of your suggestions to 25 Mr. King, when you spoke with him on the 4th -- or sorry,


1 on the 5th, was that the occupiers should be arrested? 2 A: No. I would not make that 3 suggestion. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: Because that would be crossing the 6 line. 7 Q: Did you suggest to Mr. King that the 8 people responsible for mischief should be arrested and 9 charged with mischief? 10 A: No, I don't recall that. 11 Q: Did you suggest to Mr. King that it's 12 time to act decisively, now? 13 A: No, I don't recall that. 14 Q: You don't recall that or do you deny 15 that? 16 A: I would deny saying it, but I don't 17 recall it. 18 Q: Now the constituent says in his 19 letter, at the fourth paragraph, that: 20 "It appears that over the last few 21 years, all levels of governments have 22 adopted a non-confrontational approach 23 when faced with Natives undertaking a 24 illegal acts to enforce claims or air 25 grievances. This must stop."


1 Did you suggest to Mr. King that the 2 Government should stop taking a non-confrontational 3 approach with respect to First Nations? 4 A: No, I don't recall that. 5 Q: Pardon me? 6 A: I don't recall that. 7 Q: Do you deny saying that? 8 A: I would deny saying it because, if I 9 recall, at that particular point in time, or around that 10 time, the former Minister of Natural Resources from, oh 11 God, Bud Wilderman -- Wideman, no, Bud Wildman had 12 provided me with a documentation that the NDP Government 13 come out with -- with regards to negotiating with 14 Natives. 15 And I can't remember the title. It was a 16 small booklet. I think it was -- the process was 17 initiated by the NDP at that particular point in time and 18 it was -- I think it had been in print for a short period 19 of time. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: So, no, I -- I would not -- when it 22 came to Aboriginal issues, sir, I will emphatically deny 23 ever suggesting to anybody with what to do. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: I'm very firm on that one.


1 Q: Okay. When I'm asking you these 2 questions, I'm not saying that you were speaking with the 3 police about this. This is a conversation you had with 4 Mr. King. 5 A: With anybody. 6 Q: Okay. Now, sir, what I've just done 7 is taken you through a number of suggestions which I take 8 the letter writer, this constituent, to have made in his 9 letter, and you're saying that you wouldn't have made 10 those particular suggestions to Mr. King when you spoke 11 with him on the 5th, even though your cover letter at 12 Exhibit -- at this tab, says that he could be said to 13 agree with your suggestions. 14 So what I'd like to ask you is: If you're 15 saying in your cover letter it could be said that this 16 person agrees with the suggestions I made to you, Mr. 17 King, of yesterday, what do you base that on? 18 What did you base that on? 19 A: I can't recall. 20 Q: Okay. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: You can't recall that whatever it was 25 there must be some hint of it in that letter, right?


1 A: I don't know. 2 Q: Otherwise how can you say that this 3 person agrees with what you suggest ? 4 A: I can't recall, sir. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: Sorry. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: And I just asked you a series of 11 questions about whether you had made certain suggestions 12 based on that letter. 13 Now I want to ask you something else, and 14 that is whether you agree with certain things stated by 15 this constituent, given that you said that you totally 16 agree with this constituent, you've qualified that by 17 saying maybe some words here or there, and given that 18 you've also said that this person puts the message across 19 much better than you, yourself, could. 20 So I don't want to take you to the whole 21 para -- the whole document, but there's an -- there's a 22 few points which I want to ask you, the simple question, 23 do you agree or disagree with the statement? 24 And let me start with paragraph 2. It 25 says:


1 "Now the Park is occupied by natives, 2 hooligans is a better word." 3 First of all, do you agree that the 4 occupiers were hooligans? 5 A: No, I used -- 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm sorry, I -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm just -- 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Excuse me, I -- 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay, I -- 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I have -- I have sat, 11 patiently, for quite some time -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, so have 13 I. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I haven't heard any 15 questions on this letter that are particularly new or 16 bringing out new information -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 18 haven't heard anything. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The purpose of cross- 20 examination is to be focussed -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 22 minute -- 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- to bring out new 24 information, not to repeat, regurgitate or -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or to test


1 credibility -- 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- examination. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I don't 4 see either happening. I don't see any useful purpose 5 being served any more, Mr. Zbogar. 6 So, you know, he's said in his letter that 7 he totally agrees. Now he quarrels with the word "total" 8 now, but he agrees with the letter. 9 Now are you going to take him through it 10 clause by clause and see what he doesn't agree with? 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Hmm hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can't see 13 how that helps -- 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I disagree with -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- your 16 client. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: If I can -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can't see 19 how that helps your interest -- 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When he's 22 already said that he totally agrees with what's in the 23 letter. 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Even though


1 he quarrels with the word "total" -- 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- he's said 4 that. 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At the time. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: The reason I'm asking 11 this, Mr. Commissioner, it is largely an issue of 12 credibility. When I ask him questions about this 13 document in discovery, it's -- it appeared that a good 14 portion, perhaps even the majority, of the statements in 15 this letter weren't agreed with. 16 If that's not useful -- a useful line of 17 questioning for you then I won't pursue it. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well the -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you had 20 that already under Oath -- 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The discovery isn't 22 before the -- 23 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No, it's not, but -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: His testimony is.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: That's right. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 4 how that's going to advance our case now. 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: That's fine. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 7 Ross...? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Commissioner, this 12 would be very helpful to me and can perhaps save me 13 twenty (20) minutes in my examination. 14 As between the position taken by Counsel 15 and Ms. Vella, I am a bit confused. 16 My understanding was that he adopted the 17 wording of the letter as if it was his own. Am I 18 incorrect with that? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's-- 20 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: When he says, I 21 totally agree. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 23 quarrelling a little bit with his command of English 24 language, with respect to the word 'totally', so I mean 25 I'm not sure exactly what he does or -- but I take that


1 seriously, when he says I totally agree with the letter. 2 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I mean, I 4 don't know what else to say. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 9 Q: One last area, sir, and it's about 10 the phrase 'uphold the law'. 11 You've used that on a number of occasions 12 yourself? 13 A: Yeah, I think my conversation with 14 Mr. King, I think I've -- 15 Q: I think you told -- 16 A: -- think it's mentioned there and I 17 think I've held that. 18 Q: You told that to the Observer and I 19 think I've already questioned you a couple of hours ago 20 that it's a term you agree with that law should be 21 upheld, no matter who is involved, and I want to ask you 22 some questions on that. 23 And I understand that you may not be able 24 to answer all these questions because of -- you're not a 25 lawyer, but I just -- I'm not interested in your legal


1 opinion, I just want to know your understanding, whether 2 you have one or not. 3 Now, first of all, when you say that law 4 should be upheld, does -- to you does that mean that 5 constitutional rights should be upheld, including the 6 right to protest? 7 A: No, I'm -- I'm not going to comment 8 on that. I'm -- I'm not a lawyer. 9 Q: Does that term mean to you, upholding 10 Aboriginal and treaty rights? 11 A: Yeah. I mean if you have treaty 12 rights, like I said, if you've got special rights with 13 regards to fishing and -- and hunting. You know, we 14 talked about that this morning, I mentioned, you know, in 15 hunting with Willy for years in northern Ontario I had to 16 have a tag, he didn't have one. 17 Q: Hmm hmm. 18 A: That's the way it was. 19 Q: Now, does the term 'uphold the law' 20 include, to you, as you understand it, upholding trespass 21 laws or those kinds of laws which would allow police to 22 evict occupiers from a piece of land? 23 A: That's too legal for me. 24 Q: Okay. In this particular context 25 would you understand 'uphold the law' to mean treating


1 the occupiers like criminals? 2 A: No, I think, you know, if you have a 3 set of laws, whatever the law is and if it applies to a 4 certain individual then, you know, my understanding was 5 the law would be upheld. 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: Whatever that means. 8 Q: All right. I asked you way back a 9 while ago about the word 'euphemisms'. Do you remember 10 that? 11 A: Yeah. 12 Q: And to make sure we're on the same 13 wavelength, what I understand that to -- to mean is: An 14 expression intended by its speaker to be less troubling 15 to its listener than the expression its supposed to 16 replace; often used to hide some unpleasant or disturbing 17 ideas. 18 Is that an operating definition we can 19 work on? 20 A: Yeah. We could probably work on 21 that. 22 Q: I think it's also in the -- sometimes 23 also called double speak when referred in the context of 24 constitutions or governments? 25 A: Yeah. I'm not very good at that


1 though. 2 Q: Okay. That's fine. What I'm going 3 to suggest to you, sir, is that the term 'uphold the 4 law', as it has been used in relation to the Ipperwash 5 situation, is an example of a euphemism, and let me put 6 it to you this way -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Isn't this 8 pure argument? Isn't this something you would say in 9 your argument? I don't understand what you're -- 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It -- it is, but I 11 want -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- trying to 13 get from this Witness. 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: But this Witness has 15 used that word on a number of occasions and I want -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He has? 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- to know what was 18 meant by it and whether there's another meaning behind 19 it, in his understanding. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, the way the 21 question has been framed is not fair to the Witness. To 22 say in the abstract, uphold the law means this and 23 therefore it means that and therefore when you said you 24 meant this, doesn't help anyone, because we don't -- we 25 don't know what the starting proposition is. It has to


1 be applied to a specific context; uphold the law with 2 respect to what situation? Then maybe there would be 3 some -- some usefulness to that -- to the question. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: That's fair, 5 Commissioner. That's fair. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 9 Q: In the Sarnia Observer at Tab 26 you 10 state: 11 "We will uphold the law no matter who 12 is involved." 13 And -- and you had an understanding of 14 what you were referring to or the context in which you 15 used those words, right? 16 A: Pardon? 17 Q: You understood the context in which 18 you used those words? You stated them, so you would have 19 understood what they were referring to because you -- you 20 uttered them? 21 A: I don't know. I mean, you know, the 22 first paragraph starts: 23 "The Provincial Government is taking a 24 hard line on the Native occupiers at a 25 Provincial -- Provincial Park."


1 Now, this is written by Paul Morden of the 2 Sarnia Observer. I don't know if there's anything else 3 and then he comes in with, "We will uphold the law." I 4 don't know in what context that he's talking about. 5 Q: It -- it may be that Mr. Morden 6 understands your comments to mean that Queen's Park is 7 going to take a hard line, that upholding the law means 8 taking a hard line. That -- that may be his 9 interpretation. I'm not going to ask you that question 10 but I -- I didn't ask you about it, you brought it up. 11 But I do want to ask you, sir: When you 12 used the word, "up -- the laws -- we will uphold the law 13 no matter who is involved," in this context to the -- to 14 Mr. Morden of the Observer, what you meant was that the 15 Government was taking -- was coming down hard against 16 people who were occupying the Provincial Park, to take a 17 stand? 18 Isn't that what you were saying? 19 A: No, I think you're wrong there. I 20 think if you recall in the testimony last week, was that 21 the police were in control of the situation; they were 22 containing the occupiers within the fence -- fenced area 23 of the Park. 24 And with regards to, "we'll uphold the 25 law," I have no idea in what context that was taken. I


1 mean it's kind of -- you know, I'm not a journalist, but 2 to go from that paragraph to this paragraph, you know, 3 what we were talking about at that particular -- I don't 4 know. 5 Q: Thank you. That's my questions, Mr. 6 Beaubien. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 8 very much, Mr. Zbogar. We'll take a short break now. 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 10 for fifteen (15) minutes. 11 12 --- Upon recessing at 3:38 p.m. 13 --- Upon resuming at 3:56 p.m. 14 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 16 resumed, please be seated. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 18 afternoon, Mr. Rosenthal. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good afternoon, Mr. 20 Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Could you 22 give me some indication of what your current -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I had said three 24 (3) to three and a half (3 1/2) hours -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, you


1 did. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and I think 3 that's still accurate. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You do? 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: As you know it's 6 hard to judge these things but I -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you 8 still -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I will be -- I 10 will try to be expeditious, that I can assure you. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I know 12 you try. Let's see. As long as you're asking relevant 13 questions and moving forward then you can take what time 14 you need. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I certainly intend 16 to do that, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's carry 18 on. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Beaubien. 23 A: Good afternoon. 24 Q: My name is Peter Rosenthal. I'm one 25 (1) of the counsel on behalf of a group of people called


1 Aazhoodena and George Family Group. They're a group of 2 people from Stoney Point. 3 First, sort of a housekeeping matter. You 4 told Mr. Zbogar, the previous examiner, that it would be 5 easy to, from your log books, find out how long your 6 conversation with Bill King was on September 5th, 1995. 7 Do you recall that, sir? 8 A: Not, my log books -- 9 Q: Oh. 10 A: -- my telephone bills. 11 Q: Your telephone bills? I see. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And would you be able to, overnight, 14 I'm not going to finish examining you today, 15 unfortunately, for both of us perhaps, but would you be 16 able to, overnight, check -- check that and get us that 17 information tomorrow? 18 A: No, I would not, because the -- my 19 records have all been destroyed so we'd have to access 20 either Queen's Park's records or Bell Telephone records. 21 Q: I see. So it's not so easy to find 22 then. 23 A: No, it's not so easy. 24 Q: Perhaps I misunderstood you. Now, 25 let me ask you about something else then, sir, as a sort


1 of preliminary matter. 2 You've told us that you had a longstanding 3 acquaintance with Wade Lacroix at the time of these 4 events, right? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And if I understood correctly, at 7 this time you had known him for approximately twenty (20) 8 years previous; is that correct? 9 A: Yeah, fifteen (15), twenty (20) 10 years. Yes. 11 Q: So by now you've known him about 12 thirty (30) years? 13 A: Yeah. Since the early '70's; that's 14 correct, yeah. 15 Q: And you began -- was it -- did you 16 begin your relationship with him by you selling him 17 insurance or did you -- was he a friend first and then a 18 client? 19 A: No, he became a client first. 20 Q: A client first? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: So you sold him some insurance. 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And then you became friends as well 25 as --


1 A: Well, you know, acquaintance. You 2 know, a good acquaintance, yeah. 3 Q: A good acquaintance? 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: And you would socialize from time to 6 time? 7 A: Not, I would say, socialize, but we 8 attended functions that -- he might be at a function and 9 I would be at the -- at the same function, yes. 10 Q: And he remained your client for many 11 years, in the insurance business? 12 A: Until I retired from the business, 13 yes. 14 Q: And when was that? 15 A: 1993, I think. 16 Q: I see. So just roughly over that, 17 say the twenty (20) or fifteen (15) to twenty (20) year 18 period prior to the events of September 1995, you would 19 see him once a month, once a week, once a year? Could 20 you give us a rough idea -- 21 A: Oh. 22 Q: -- as to how often you'd bump into 23 each other? 24 A: Well, first of all, you -- if you 25 look at the demographics of the town of Petrolia, it's a


1 town of approximately five (5) -- six thousand (6,000) 2 people. 3 Q: Right. 4 A: He lived around the corner from -- 5 from where my office was located on Main Street. I would 6 see him walk by and not necessarily talk to him every 7 day, but I would see him go by on a weekly basis. 8 Q: And he'd stop in your office from 9 time to time? 10 A: He did at times, yeah. 11 Q: And would you visit his home from 12 time to time? 13 A: I don't recall ever being to his 14 home. 15 Q: Okay, thank you. Now, your 16 friendship with him, not business relationship, because 17 that ended in 1993, but your friendship continued up to 18 this day; is that fair? 19 A: Well, he's been -- he's been living - 20 - he doesn't -- does not live in Petrolia any more, so I 21 haven't seen him probably -- probably for a year. Last 22 time I saw him it was in a restaurant in Petrolia. 23 Q: Sorry, and for how -- you said for a 24 year, did you say? 25 A: For about a year.


1 Q: About a year ago, the last time -- 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: -- you saw him. So he moved from 4 Petrolia about a year ago -- 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: -- is your understanding? 7 A: Well, no, more than a year ago. 8 Q: What -- 9 A: The last time I saw him was about -- 10 Q: I see. 11 A: -- a year ago. 12 Q: But he certainly lived in Petrolia 13 for some time after September of 1995? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And you learned from him, and perhaps 16 from other places, that he was the person who led the OPP 17 down the road on that fateful night, didn't you? 18 A: He told me that, yes. 19 Q: He told you that? 20 A: Yeah. 21 Q: And he told you what his 22 understanding was as to why they went down the road; is 23 that correct? 24 A: No. 25 Q: So what did he say? I led them down


1 the road and what else did he tell you about it. 2 A: The only -- you know, I knew that he 3 was the head of one of the teams, but that's it. He 4 never discussed what his role was or what he did, with 5 me. 6 Q: But you knew not only was he the head 7 of one of the teams, but he was the person in charge as 8 they marched down the road. 9 That's what he told you, right? 10 A: That's right. He was the leader of 11 one of the teams, yes. 12 Q: And now did you speak to him right 13 after September 6th, then? In other words, did he tell 14 you that on the 7th, for example? 15 A: I stand by what I said on the 16 records. With regards to the dates, you'll have to josh 17 (sic) my memory. 18 Q: I -- sorry, sir, I wasn't there. I 19 can't jog your memory. 20 A: Well, with regards to -- you 21 mentioned September 6th or 7th; I can't recall the date. 22 Q: Oh, sorry. I can perhaps assist. 23 Dudley George was killed on the evening of September 6th. 24 A: That's right. 25 Q: So would you have learned from Staff


1 Sergeant Lacroix that he had led one of the teams down 2 the road on the 7th, then, sir? The day afterward? 3 A: That's probably fair to assume that, 4 yeah, the following day I would say that's probably fair 5 to assume that. 6 Q: And he would have told you that he 7 played, at least, that role of leading one of the teams 8 down the road. 9 A: Yeah, he mentioned -- I'm sure he 10 mentioned that to me, yes. 11 Q: And did he indicate that there was 12 any particular reason that they marched down the road 13 that night? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Wouldn't it be -- did you ask him? 16 A: No. 17 Q: So he just said, We marched down the 18 road that night, I was the leader of one of the teams and 19 you just said, Oh? 20 A: That's basically it. 21 Q: You wouldn't be curious as to why? 22 A: No. 23 Q: You weren't curious as to why? 24 A: No. 25 Q: I see. Okay. Now, would you agree


1 with me, sir, that in September, say, of 1995 nobody 2 criticized you for doing what you considered to be 3 appropriate in facilitating information back and forth 4 and so on? 5 There was no criticism of what you were 6 doing, right? 7 A: I don't think so. 8 Q: That you became aware of? 9 A: That I became aware of, yeah. You're 10 -- I think that's a fair assumption. 11 Q: And in particular, the various 12 government officials that you interacted with, Bill King 13 and perhaps others from the other Ministries, in 14 discussing information back and forth, nobody ever said 15 to you, I'd better caution you, Mr. Beaubien, there's a 16 danger of crossing a line with respect to policing or 17 anything like that, right? 18 A: No, nobody did. 19 Q: Nobody did anything like that. And 20 similarly, the police officers, when you were speaking 21 with them, none of them said to you, Mr. Beaubien, we 22 don't want to talk to you, it's inappropriate, or 23 anything to that effect? 24 A: Not that I recall. 25 Q: And no -- none of the officers


1 suggested that anything you said to them or asked of them 2 was inappropriate, right? 3 A: No. 4 Q: And presumably, if somebody had 5 suggested some of your behaviour was inappropriate, you 6 might have rethought it, correct? 7 A: Well, that's probably a fair 8 assumption. 9 Q: But nobody did. 10 A: Nobody did. 11 Q: Now, all right, could you please turn 12 to Tab 53 of the document brief. Because I don't want to 13 -- I'm going to start at the -- the end and work my way 14 back a bit. 15 At Tab 53, there is an article from the 16 Toronto Star of November 6, 1996. It's Exhibit P-906 to 17 these proceedings and it's Inquiry document number 18 3000370. 19 Do you have that in front of you, sir? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Now, you told Ms. Vella, just 22 generally, that you wouldn't dispute what was in this 23 article, I think, or words to that effect. 24 Do you recall that, sir? 25 A: I think that's fairly accurate.


1 Q: But I -- I wanted to look at some of 2 the details a bit. It sort of gives an overview, it 3 would seem, as to what you did in September of 1995 and 4 also indicates a difference of opinion between you and 5 Premier Harris, on one aspect; you recall that, sir, 6 right? 7 A: I wouldn't call that a -- I mean 8 maybe in the media but between the -- the Premier and I - 9 - I wouldn't call that -- I -- I didn't -- I didn't look 10 at it from that point of view. Maybe from Gerry 11 Phillip's point of view, but certainly not from my point 12 of view. 13 Q: Okay. Well let's just quickly look 14 at it, if we could. Now the first paragraph says, not in 15 quotation marks, but describing what allegedly came from 16 you. 17 A Conservative MPP says he passed on high 18 level Government concerns about the Indian occupation of 19 Ipperwash Provincial Park to police working at the scene. 20 That was generally true. You did pass on 21 concerns and you told the reporter that you had done so; 22 is that not fair? 23 A: That's a fair assumption. 24 Q: And then skipping to the next 25 paragraph. Well, I should, in fairness to you, indicate


1 that you, in the second paragraph, you denied that the 2 Government was interfering with the police handling of 3 the case and that was undoubtedly something you did too, 4 right? 5 A: That would -- that's a fair 6 assumption. 7 Q: And then the third paragraph, you 8 reported back with phone calls and faxes to Premier Mike 9 Harris and other Ministers after regular visits to the 10 Ontario Provincial Police command post. 11 Now you -- you explained to us, I believe, 12 that while that might be essentially correct, it's wrong 13 in -- in thinking that it's directly to Premier Mike 14 Harris, it would have been to his office, correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: But with that understanding that it 17 was to the Office of Mike Harris and other Ministers, 18 that paragraph is also correct? 19 A: That would be correct. 20 Q: And then the third paragraph is 21 attributed to you in direct quotes: 22 "I think the Government was concerned 23 with the situation. Let's face it, we 24 had a very sensitive issue, he said." 25 And that's likely something that you did


1 say; is that correct? 2 A: That's a fair assumption. 3 Q: And then the fourth paragraph is also 4 in quotation marks, attributed to you: 5 "I was in constant contact with the 6 police on a daily basis." 7 And that again is something you 8 undoubtedly would have said; is that correct? 9 A: I think the record will show that for 10 the past couple of days, yes. 11 Q: So then there's discussion of 12 opposition charges and so on, but then I should like to 13 move, if I could, to the middle column and there's a 14 paragraph that begins: 15 "Beaubien also seemed to contradict 16 Harris' statements in the Legislature 17 that he was unaware of any police 18 build-up at the Park before the 19 shooting." 20 And then it continues in quotation marks: 21 "It was quite obvious to anyone in the 22 area that there was an OPP build-up 23 because there were more cruisers, he 24 said." 25 And then continuing in quotation marks:


1 "Sure, this is something I would pass 2 on to senior Harris aide, Bill King." 3 Now again, that's quite accurate, is that 4 correct, sir? 5 A: I would say that's fairly accurate. 6 Q: And, in particular, you would have 7 informed the Star, in November of 1996, what -- what 8 we've seen already at this Inquiry, that you did pass on 9 that kind of information to Bill King, right? 10 A: That's correct. And I go back to the 11 quote that says: 12 "It was quite obvious to anyone in the 13 area --" 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: "-- that there was an OPP build-up." 16 Now I don't think Mike Harris was in the 17 area at the time. 18 Q: No. 19 A: So I'm speaking about the people 20 living in this area. 21 Q: Right. It was obvious to the people 22 in the area, and you were one of the people in the area 23 to whom it was obvious, and you communicated that to Mike 24 Harris via the person who you are supposed communicate to 25 him through, Bill King, right?


1 A: Through the fax that I sent. 2 Whatever the fax contents, I stand by the fax that I sent 3 to the Premier's office. 4 Q: But that was something that you did 5 pass onto Bill King, as you are recorded as saying, 6 right? 7 A: As the record will show. 8 Q: I'm sorry, sir? 9 A: As the record will show. 10 Q: Right. And then it continues: 11 "Beaubien, the Member for Lambton 12 riding, said he assumed that King would 13 have passed on his observations to the 14 Premier." 15 And again, that's correct, is it not, sir? 16 A: I assumed. 17 Q: And, in fact, in the course of your 18 discussions with Bill King, he gave you that 19 understanding that he was passing on, at least most of 20 the information you gave him, to the Premier, right? 21 A: Well, I think he was passing onto me, 22 I think he relayed it on the fax that we spent a couple 23 of hours, just after lunch, that the Premier was -- I 24 don't remember the exact words but, on top of the 25 situation, I think, if I recall.


1 Q: Yes. Yes he -- he assured you that 2 the Premier was on top of the situation and gave you the 3 understanding that you're conveying this information was 4 helping the Premier to stay on top of the situation; 5 isn't that fair? 6 A: Well I don't know if it was helping, 7 but I was conveying -- 8 Q: You were conveying information. 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: And, well, at least you viewed it as 11 helping the Premier to stay on top of the situation 12 because you were a local person who could make 13 observations and he couldn't, right? 14 A: I viewed it as a, as I eluded to last 15 week, as the pipeline between Queen's Park and my 16 constituents here. 17 Q: Exactly. But then the article 18 continues and this is why I suggested there was apparent 19 -- an apparent disagreement between you and the Premier 20 reflected in the article. It continues: 21 "But in May, Harris told the 22 Legislature, We knew nothing of any OPP 23 build-up. My staff heard nothing of 24 any build-up." 25 And then attributed to you, it says:


1 "Beaubien said he didn't know why 2 Harris would have said that." 3 And I agree -- I would suggest that you 4 would even now agree with that, that that would have been 5 a false statement by Mr. Harris. 6 A: I don't know if it's false. I mean, 7 again, I think it's a perfect example of maybe that we 8 have lack of communications. 9 Q: Yes. Well, it was certainly, though, 10 false, you knew it to be false at least in the last part 11 of -- 12 A: No I oppose to that. I strongly 13 oppose that a false statement -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you hold 15 it for one second. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's an 18 objection. That's fine. 19 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Sorry. I -- I 20 don't know how this Witness can be asked whether or not 21 Premier Harris' comments in the Legislature were false, 22 when those comments haven't actually been put to this 23 Witness. 24 If Mr. Rosenthal is attempting to have 25 this Witness comment on the truth or the veracity of what


1 the Premier said in the Legislature, I think, at least, 2 the full excerpt of those comments in the Legislature 3 should be put to this Witness. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- I was 5 going to fasten on just one sentence that I -- I would 6 propose he -- he would know was false. Namely, this 7 phrase -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The sentence 9 that you just -- 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- "My staff heard 11 nothing of any build-up." 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that a 13 quote from the Legislative Assembly? 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Allegedly quoted from the Legislature 17 and Mike Harris. We can check that later but I would 18 just ask him if he knew for sure that the statement, "My 19 staff heard nothing of any build-up," would be incorrect 20 because, in fact, you had personally told Bill King about 21 it, right? 22 A: Well, again, if we're going -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 24 you answer. 25 Yes, Ms. McAleer...?


1 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Mr. Commissioner, 2 I have no problem with Mr. Rosenthal asking Mr. Beaubien 3 what he said to Mr. King and anything that Mr. King may 4 have said in response. 5 What I do have a problem with, though, is 6 putting an -- what is suppose to be an extract of a very 7 long interaction of legislature to this Witness and 8 asking him to comment on the Premier's credibility based 9 on that excerpt. 10 I don't think that's proper for cross- 11 examination. If Mr. Rosenthal wants to go back to the 12 transcript from the Legislature and put to this Witness 13 the context in which build-up was used in the 14 Legislature, then I have no opposition to that. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 16 understand. I'm not sure that that's important for the 17 purpose. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't want to 19 take the time to do that now, but perhaps I could just do 20 the following, and I don't see any objection to the 21 following: This witness is quoted -- or not quoted, but 22 he said in the next paragraph, he didn't know why Harris 23 would have said that. 24 So may I just -- we'll have Premier 25 Harris' evidence and we'll also look at the Hansard at


1 some point. But may I ask this Witness the question that 2 I asked him, namely: You knew that any statement that 3 Premier Harris' staff heard nothing of any build-up would 4 have been false, because you, personally, informed Bill 5 King. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Without 7 referring to it having been said in the Legislature. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Whether it was 9 said -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well without 11 referring -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Whether it was said 13 or not, you knew that that kind of a statement would be 14 false? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So you don't 16 -- he doesn't have to refer -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to the 19 statement in the Legislature to ask the question. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would that 22 answer your objection or are we still in... 23 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: No, Mr. 24 Commissioner. I -- I still have the same concerns. Like 25 I said, I have no objection if Mr. Rosenthal simply wants


1 to ask the Witness what he said to Mr. King and what Mr. 2 King's response was. 3 And then Mr. Rosenthal can make any 4 argument he so chooses in his closing argument based on 5 Mr. Beaubien's response and whatever evidence we get from 6 Mr. Harris. 7 But I really don't think it's proper to be 8 asking Mr. Beaubien to comment on the Premier's comment 9 in the Legislature. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I think 11 you're right, Ms. McAleer, so I'm not sure -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well with respect, 13 Mr. Commissioner -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 15 agree. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: May My Friend 17 please provide me with that portion of the Han -- of the 18 Hansard and I shall put as much to him as she -- as she 19 wishes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Have you got 21 it handy or do we -- 22 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: I -- I don't have 23 it handy but I've been told by Mr. Sulman that he has it, 24 so if we could -- just perhaps give us two (2) minutes 25 indulgence, we could take a look.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Certainly. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just while they're 6 doing that, the other concern that I have is: It's one 7 thing to ask Mr. Beaubien whether, in fact, Mr. King knew 8 or didn't know something because he told him, but that 9 doesn't speak the state of Mr. Harris' -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 11 under -- 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- knowledge as to 13 whether his staff was told or wasn't told something. 14 So that may not get us to the point that 15 Mr. Rosenthal's trying to establish. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're a 17 couple of points removed and I don't think it's -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: As to how far it 19 gets us, that we'll see in the end, in final submissions, 20 Mr. Commissioner, after we hear from Mr. Harris, and so 21 on. 22 But I do have the right to adduce this 23 evidence at this -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- point


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- at this 2 point, at this point it's not Mr. Harris' credibility 3 that you're challenging. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, I appreciate 5 that and we'll -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At this 7 point. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Which portions 12 would you like me to read? 13 OBJ MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: This is an excerpt 14 from the Legislation, it's -- sorry I don't have the 15 date, perhaps Mr. Sulman can assist me with that. 16 But, the -- the question is a question by 17 Mr. Phillips: 18 "I'll take from that, Premier, that 19 your staff was told that the build up 20 was taking place. If they weren't, you 21 can deny that, but I've given you two 22 (2) opportunities to come clean with 23 the people as so far we're getting no 24 answer from you. 25 It is clear that at the time that the


1 meeting was taking place, the OPP were 2 rounding up sharp shooters or bringing 3 in extraordinary measures without 4 question." 5 Now, that's the context of the build-up 6 that's being put to Mr. Harris with respect to 7 sharpshooters. And Mr. Harris' response: 8 "We knew nothing of any OPP build-up. 9 It was not our business. It is the 10 business of the OPP to deal with it." 11 So my objection is: If you're simply 12 going to take, from the newspaper article, the comment -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: One (1) 14 line. 15 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: -- build-up. 16 Exactly, and put that to Mr. Beaubien -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you've 18 read the whole thing to him now, right? 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, 20 there's a lot else in between as well. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's 22 going to get more complicated. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, there are 2 several references here. Counsel for -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Mr. Harris has 5 shown me one reference and Mr. Falconer shown me another 6 one speaking to build-up. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is it on the 8 same -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But, perhaps if I 10 could just ask the following question: Do you agree that 11 you know, from your own personal knowledge, that any 12 statement that Mr. Harris' staff heard nothing of any 13 build-up, would be a false statement? 14 Whether it was made or not, if it were 15 made it would be a false statement? 16 And that -- that, I would suggest, I can 17 ask this Witness, independent of the rest and we'll see 18 what Mr. Harris says and we'll see what the Hansard's say 19 in due course. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're not-- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So with your 22 permission, may I ask that question? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think so. 24 You're not confronting him with specific testimony in the 25 Legislature.


1 You're asking him a question. Let's see 2 the question again. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 5 Q: Would you agree, sir, that you know, 6 from your own, direct knowledge about your interaction 7 with Bill King, that any statement that Mr. Harris' staff 8 heard nothing of any build-up, would be incorrect? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that 10 depends on what the build-up is with respect to. See, 11 that's the point here. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The context 14 becomes important. Any build-up -- 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Okay. Well, perhaps I could go on to 18 the next and ask Mr. Beaubien. The next paragraph, sir, 19 it says: 20 "Beaubien said he didn't know why 21 Harris would have said that." 22 Now, why did you say you didn't know why 23 Harris would have said that? I put it to you, you didn't 24 know why he would have said that because you thought it 25 was false.


1 A: No, I object to the word false. What 2 I passed on -- 3 Q: Incorrect. 4 A: I object to the word false. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: I -- what I passed on was the 7 information that I was receiving from my constituents to 8 the Premier's office, to the different Ministries. 9 As to what happened to that information 10 after it went there, I had no control over that. 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: So I assume that once I sent 13 something to those Ministries and the Premier's office, 14 that the people that were responsible for the issue would 15 be made aware of the situation. 16 Q: Yes. And you didn't know, of course, 17 the extent to which that was done? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: But you did know that you informed 20 Bill King and you don't know what happened after that; is 21 that fair? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Thank you. I'll move on, if I may, 24 Mr. Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Now, you've told me that the 5 Government officials and the police officers that you 6 interacted with during this period, didn't -- during this 7 period, at least, indicate that there was anything wrong 8 about your interaction? 9 A: That's absolutely correct. 10 Q: And would you agree with me that even 11 beyond that, in fact, they seemed, as far as you could 12 understand, to appreciate your interaction, to appreciate 13 the information and questions you were bringing to them, 14 all those people, government and police; isn't that fair? 15 A: I think there is some evidence to 16 that, yes. 17 Q: Thank you. Now, if we could please 18 turn to your Tab 6 in the Commission documents... 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Your Tab 6 if it's the same as my Tab 23 6 which I hope it is has Exhibit P-534 which is Inquiry 24 Document 1000918, a letter from you to Mr. Harnick dated 25 July 31st, 1995.


1 Do you have that in front of you, sir? 2 A: Yes, I do. 3 Q: I should like to turn to the second 4 page of that if I may. 5 On the second page one sees some numbered 6 paragraphs and there's a number 7. Now, next to the 7 number 7 is NB in caps. 8 Is that your handwriting, sir? 9 A: That's my handwriting, yes. 10 Q: And that's an abbreviation of a Latin 11 phrase I gather. 12 A: Well, it -- just a minute. You know 13 on second -- I don't know if that's mine. I -- I'm going 14 to retract that. I'm not sure. 15 Q: It could be yours or it could not be? 16 A: It could be -- it could be yours, it 17 could be -- but I -- it's -- that's not my "B's". I -- I 18 don't make "B's" like that. 19 Q: That's your "N" but not your "B"? 20 A: No, that's not my "B". I don't -- 21 I'm not going to lay owner -- ownership to this one. 22 Q: Do -- do you understand NB to mean 23 pay special attention to this or something to that 24 effect? 25 A: Yeah. Nota bene I think is the


1 Latin. 2 Q: Nota bene, yeah. Which means 3 particularly note this. 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: Right? That's what you understand it 6 to mean? Is that right, sir? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: But you are quite sure this is not 9 your writing or you think it might be or what's your best 10 answer to that ,sir? 11 A: I would say it's not mine because I 12 don't make "B's" like that. 13 Q: Okay. Now, I believe you told us 14 that when you wrote letters during this time period you 15 had -- often had people in your office assisting you in 16 writing the letters, is that correct? 17 A: All my letters were written by my 18 staff. 19 Q: By you staff? 20 A: I would lay -- I would claim 21 ownership of my -- of the letters but I'm not a good 22 letter writer so consequently all the correspondence was 23 written by my staff. 24 Q: So you would tell someone on your 25 staff, I want to write a letter to for example Mr.


1 Harnick and I want to make the following points. Would 2 you please draft such? Right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Is that the way you'd do it? 5 A: That's a fair assumption. 6 Q: And then -- especially an important 7 letter like this. 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: You would read it carefully I 10 presume? Is that correct? 11 A: I would read them yes. 12 Q: And you would make any corrections 13 that were necessary? 14 A: I would -- I'm sure there were 15 changes made at -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- during -- yeah. 18 Q: And in writing a letter of this type 19 you would recognize it would be very important to be 20 accurate, to be factually accurate. 21 Is that fair? 22 A: To the best of my abilities. 23 Q: Of course. We all are only human, 24 but you would try to be as accurate as you could if you 25 were writing to the Attorney General about an important


1 matter like this, right? 2 A: Well, you know I would try but I -- 3 you know I certainly -- sometimes my handwriting and 4 certainly my command of writing letters leaves an awful 5 lot to be desired. 6 Q: We're all fallible. 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: But you would make a serious effort 9 with respect to -- 10 A: I would give it my best shot, yes. 11 Q: Now, the -- at the bottom of this 12 page it says: 13 "I have been briefed by Staff Sergeant 14 Lacroix this morning." 15 And that was undoubtedly true if you wrote 16 it right? 17 A: I would imagine it was, yes. 18 Q: And you told us that you spoke to 19 Staff Sergeant Lacroix a number of times during this time 20 period. 21 Is that fair? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And you -- I guess it would be hard 24 for you to try to guess at how many times over the period 25 September 4, 5, 6?


1 A: Well, we could go through my log 2 book, telephone calls, and I'm sure -- I don't want to 3 say all of them are recorded but many would be recorded. 4 Q: And you might have just met him on 5 the street near your office during that time period as 6 you told Ms. Gleitman as well? 7 A: That is a possibility. 8 Q: Now, I notice that you carbon copied 9 this letter to several persons including the Honourable 10 Bob Runciman and you knew of course at the time that Mr. 11 Runciman was the Solicitor General, correct? 12 A: I was aware of that. 13 Q: And you knew that as Solicitor 14 General his -- he and his Ministry were in charge of the 15 OPP in some sense? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And that would be one (1) reason that 18 you would have -- 19 A: That -- 20 Q: -- copied him. Is that correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Now, your number 7 that somebody


1 indicated should be paid special attention, if not you, 2 someone else, reads: 3 "Law enforcement is basically non 4 existent and the OPP does not seem too 5 keen in getting involved." 6 So you reached that conclusion at that 7 point. This is of course July 31st, 1995, from what you 8 had observed yourself and what you'd been told by your 9 constituents. 10 Is that fair? 11 A: Mainly from what I'd been told from 12 my constituents. 13 Q: Mainly from what you'd been told 14 by your constituents. 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And at this time of course this was 17 before the Park was occupied so that would have been with 18 respect to the policing of the persons in Camp Ipperwash. 19 Is that -- 20 A: No, the -- the general area. 21 Q: The general area? I see. And when 22 you wrote this to the Honourable Charles Harnick and 23 copied it to the Honourable Bob Runciman you would have 24 hoped that they would have noted that and tried to 25 improve the situation.


1 Is that fair? 2 A: Well, I don't know what they would do 3 with it but basically I think we laid down the groundwork 4 yesterday that the government had been in power for 5 approximately a month, six (6) weeks at that particular 6 point in time. I'm sure many of the ministers were not 7 conversant with maybe all the files that were in their -- 8 on their desk. 9 Q: Right. 10 A: And I wanted to bring this situation 11 to their attention. 12 Q: Yes, with the hope that they would 13 become conversant with the situation as you've indicated, 14 right? 15 A: Well, you know they're the -- you 16 know they're the ministers so what they did with the 17 information after it was passed on to them, that's their 18 responsibility. 19 Q: Right. You don't know what they did 20 with this information but you passed it onto them because 21 you hoped that their responsibilities would include 22 helping to improve the situation that you saw as a -- as 23 a dangerous situation. Is that fair? 24 A: That would be a fair assumption. 25 Q: Now, if you can please turn to Tab 8


1 which is Exhibit P-1026, Inquiry Document Number 2 12000055. This is a letter dated August 14, 1995, and as 3 you know the addressee has been redacted. It's a private 4 person whose name is not relevant. 5 Now, I should like to draw your attention 6 in the second paragraph to the third sentence there. You 7 said: 8 "I have met with the Attorney General, 9 the Solicitor General, the Minister of 10 Natural Resources, representatives from 11 the Ontario Provincial Police, Camp 12 Manager at Ipperwash and Pinery Parks, 13 the West Ipperwash Property Owners' 14 Association, and many of the concerned 15 residents." 16 Now, I gather that when you said, "I met 17 with the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the 18 Minister of Natural Resources you meant representatives 19 of those ministries rather than the actual ministers 20 themselves; is that correct? 21 A: That is correct. 22 Q: But with that correction then this is 23 true, right? 24 A: Yeah. I've passed on information to 25 the different ministries. I've met with representatives


1 of the Ontario Provincial Police. I met with the Camp 2 Manager at Ipperwash and Pinery Parks. I met with the 3 West Property Owners so maybe -- it may not be totally 4 accurate or proper English to say I have met with the 5 Attorney General, but I passed on information to those 6 ministries. 7 Q: Right. Well, as far as police we 8 know some of the police officers you met with. This is 9 August 14 and we know about a meeting of August 11 with 10 some high-ranking police officers and that would have 11 been in your mind undoubtedly when you wrote this, right? 12 A: That's probably fair to assume that. 13 Q: And -- and we know that you met 14 frequently with Wade Lacroix and so that would justify 15 that statement also that you met with representatives 16 from the Ontario Provincial Police. 17 Now, with respect to the representatives 18 of the three (3) ministries named can you assist us as to 19 which representatives they would have been? 20 We know they were not the ministers 21 themselves but who in those ministries would you have 22 either corresponded with or spoken to on the phone or met 23 with in order to justify this statement? 24 A: Well, again I would have to go back 25 through my records to find out exact dates but I can't


1 remember -- remember exactly when I spoke to Leslie 2 Shimmin. 3 Q: But I'm not asking you the dates, 4 sir, I'm asking you who, which representatives would you 5 have spoken to? 6 A: Well, and you know we -- being 7 generally speaking on the dates because I can't recall 8 but Leslie Shimmin would be a person that I spoke to at 9 the Minister of Natural Resources. 10 Q: Sorry, Leslie -- 11 A: Leslie Shimmin. It's S-H-I double N 12 -- double M, I-N. 13 Q: Right. At MNR as you indicated? 14 A: At MNR. 15 Q: Yes? And who at the Attorney 16 General? 17 A: By August 14th, I don't know whether 18 I ever spoken to Jeff Bangs, but there's a possibility I 19 might have spoken to him. 20 Q: Yes. And if you hadn't done so by 21 August 14, by shortly thereafter you would have spoken to 22 Jeff Bangs? 23 A: I would say that's probably a fair 24 assumption. 25 Q: Yes. And who else?


1 A: MNR or to Solicitor General, I -- and 2 again I'm vague on the date as to when we made -- but I 3 think it was after the incident that I talked to Kathryn 4 Hunt. 5 Q: Sorry -- 6 A: I think she was the executive 7 assistant to the Solicitor General. 8 Q: And sorry, you say after the 9 incident. 10 Do you mean after the killing of Dudley 11 George? 12 A: That's right, yes. 13 Q: I see. So you didn't speak to her 14 prior to that? 15 A: I don't recall. 16 Q: I see. 17 A: And then one individual who's name I 18 recall at the Attorney General was Dave Moran, I think. 19 Q: I see. And those persons, would you 20 have spoken to them in person or by telephone or -- 21 A: By telephone. 22 Q: -- by fax? By telephone. 23 A: Yeah. Keeping in mind, by -- by this 24 time, I've also raised the subject matter in Caucus, in 25 front of all my colleagues.


1 Q: I see, yes. That would have been 2 prior to August 14, 1995? 3 A: I'm trying to recall the date we had 4 the Caucus retreat in Cambridge, whenever that was. That 5 would have been the first opportunity to do it, whenever 6 that was. 7 Q: I see. In any event, whatever the 8 exact date, it would have been at least a couple of weeks 9 before September 4th, 1995? Is that fair? 10 A: That's fair, yeah. 11 Q: Or shortly -- shortly before 12 September 4th, 1995? 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: And when you raised it in Caucus, you 15 raised the same general concern that it didn't appear 16 that -- that the police were active enough, for example? 17 A: I raised the same concern that I laid 18 down the groundwork with last week that people were being 19 harassed, that the houses were being broken, the West 20 Ipperwash issue, that people were being threatened, 21 people were being chased on the beach. 22 Q: And with respect to houses being 23 broken into and so on, did you also indicate that at 24 least some of your constituents felt that there was not 25 adequate policing of that kind of break in?


1 A: That's something I would have 2 relayed, yes. 3 Q: Yes. And when you say "caucus 4 meeting" I think we've heard something about some of the 5 attendees at that Caucus. 6 Did that include Solicitor General 7 Runciman -- Runciman? 8 A: Yeah, well I -- everybody would be at 9 the Caucus meeting. Everybody is expected to be there. 10 Q: Every -- every member of the 11 Progressive Conservative Party? 12 A: That's right, of the elected 13 officials. 14 Q: The elected officials. And so as far 15 as you know, most or all of them were there? 16 A: To the best of my recollection, 17 everybody was there. 18 Q: And would that have included Premier 19 Harris, then? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you recall specifically that he 22 was there? 23 A: I think he was there, yes. 24 Q: Hmm hmm. And so he, in particular, 25 was among the persons in the Caucus who directly heard


1 your concerns on that occasion? 2 A: I'm sure everybody did. 3 Q: You spoke -- you don't speak quietly, 4 you speak loudly and you're sure that everyone heard, 5 right? 6 A: Well, it depends on the occasion. 7 Q: And so the concerns that you would 8 have expressed there would have included what you 9 perceived as a lack of adequate policing with respect to 10 cottage break ins and such matters, right? 11 A: What I was hearing from my 12 constituents, I would pass on, you know, I -- 13 Q: Which included what I've just said? 14 A: Yes, it would be, you know, that 15 there were some concerns with regard -- with regards to 16 law and order in the area. 17 Q: Yes. And would it have also included 18 your expressing concerns about a possible takeover of 19 Ipperwash Park? 20 A: I don't recall mentioning that at 21 that particular point in time. That might have come on 22 later on, but not at that particular point in time. 23 Q: I see. So can you recall and we do 24 appreciate it's ten (10) years later, but can you recall 25 any other specific concerns with respect to Ipperwash


1 that you might have mentioned at that Caucus meeting? 2 A: No, I don't. 3 Q: Now, Bill King, we understand, was 4 the person that an MPP was to contact if they wanted to 5 convey messages to the Premier; is that fair? 6 A: Yeah, his title I can't remember what 7 -- what was sort of caucus liaison between the Premier's 8 office and the caucus members. 9 Q: Yes. And so the proper procedure for 10 someone like you who wanted to communicate information or 11 views to the Premier was to do it through Bill King? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: And I gather that you had a number of 14 communications with Bill King about the Ipperwash matter 15 generally, in the summer of 1995; is that fair? 16 A: We did have some, yes. 17 Q: And that included some faxes as we 18 know? 19 A: Yes, that's correct. 20 Q: And some telephone calls? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And given the destruction of the 23 telephone records that you've told about and so on, it 24 would be hard to -- to precisely know how many at this 25 point, right?


1 A: At this point in time no but I mean 2 if you really wanted I'm sure we could access the 3 information at Queen's Park and get it. 4 Q: But it's fair to say there were a 5 fairly large number of phone calls and several faxes 6 between you and Mr. King. 7 Is that fair? 8 A: Some, yes. 9 Q: Would you be able to give an estimate 10 as to the first time that you would have made 11 representations to Mr. King about this, the earliest time 12 in the summer? 13 A: No, I -- you know I would have to go 14 by the facts I have on record here and -- and I'll take 15 ownership of -- of those dates. 16 Q: But perhaps if you turn your mind 17 back and think of August 11 as an important date in that 18 summer, that being the date that you met with the senior 19 officers and well, we know something about that from your 20 letter and so on. So -- so take that as the day, as the 21 pivotal date. 22 Would you be able to assist us as to 23 whether you first contacted Mr. King prior to that date 24 or after that date? 25 A: I can't recall.


1 Q: Would you agree that if you hadn't 2 contacted him prior to then, then given the information 3 that you learned on August 11 you undoubtedly would have 4 contacted him shortly thereafter. 5 Is that fair? 6 A: That's probably fair. 7 Q: Now, if we could turn please to Tab 8 10 of your documents which describes that meeting of 9 August 11. Tab 10 is Exhibit P-418 Inquiry Document 10 Number 1012239. 11 And this is a letter dated August 14, 12 1995, from you to Attorney General Harnick and it 13 describes a meeting that you had with four (4) 14 individuals from the Ontario Provincial Police on August 15 11th. 16 Now, there were several issues and I'm -- 17 I'm concerned with only part of what you discussed there. 18 Before we go into the content could you please look at 19 the end of the letter? There are some carbon copies 20 indicated and you -- you would have had your office send 21 carbon copies to those four (4) individuals I gather. 22 Is that correct? 23 A: I think that's a fair assumption, 24 yes. 25 Q: And one (1) of them is Solicitor


1 General Runciman even though it's misspelled. 2 A: That's - yeah. As I said I'm not 3 perfect. 4 Q: But -- and you told us why you would 5 copy the Solicitor General on such correspondence because 6 he's the person responsible for the OPP? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: But then there are -- and then we 9 know who Chris Hodgson is of course. The other two (2) 10 people, one (1) of them is identified as Ministry of the 11 Attorney General a Dan Newman. 12 Now, was he was the Parliamentary 13 Assistant to the Attorney General at the time, sir? 14 A: I think he was the -- I stand to be 15 corrected but I think he was the Parliamentary Assistant 16 to the Ontario Native Secretariat. I don't know if he 17 had -- 18 Q: I see. 19 A: -- both portfolios but it was because 20 the ONAS came under the purview of the Ministry of 21 Natural or -- 22 Q: I see. 23 A: -- Attorney General. 24 Q: And Parliamentary Assistant means 25 somebody who himself is an MPP and who serves as an


1 assistant to the Minister in -- in some ministries. 2 Is that fair? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: So in any event whether you're sure 5 exactly what his title was, he was an MPP himself? 6 A: He was. 7 Q: And would you have copied him because 8 he was somebody that you had been speaking to about -- 9 A: I might -- 10 Q: -- these issues? 11 A: -- I might have mentioned the issue 12 to him because since he was with the Native Secretariat 13 it's quite possible that I spoke -- 14 Q: Well, we looked earlier at -- at 15 correspondence that indicated you had spoken to 16 representatives of, including the Attorney General and I 17 would suggest to you that this suggests maybe he was the 18 representative of the Attorney General you'd been 19 speaking to and that's why you copied him. 20 Is that a fair conjecture? 21 A: It could be. I don't recall but it's 22 -- I'm not going to deny that. 23 Q: And then the other person listed here 24 is Terry Simzer, Ministry of the Solicitor General. 25 I believe you indicated in your direct


1 evidence that you don't recall who that person is? 2 A: I don't recall who he is, no. 3 Q: But is it possible that that person 4 was the Parliamentary Assistant to the Solicitor General 5 Runciman? 6 A: No. 7 Q: No? 8 A: Because he would have had to have 9 been -- to have been an elected official and like I said 10 Terry Simzer does not ring a bell with me -- 11 Q: I see. 12 A: -- at this point in time. 13 Q: So he was certainly not an MPP? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Because you would -- you would 16 remember the names of all those? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: So is it reasonable to conjecture 19 that he might have been somebody in the Ministry of the 20 Solicitor General that you had been in contact with and 21 that would be why you would copy him on this letter? 22 A: That could be. I -- I -- I don't 23 recall. 24 Q: Okay, thank you. Now -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I want to


1 adjourn for the day sometime pretty soon, Mr. Rosenthal. 2 So you pick a spot that's convenient when you're in -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm now about to 4 get into the content of this letter which is a little bit 5 more involved so this would be a convenient spot to take 6 it. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I was 8 going to say, do you want to wait til you finish that? 9 How long would that take? 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I'm not sure 11 off hand -- I'd -- I'd be happy to just stop now if 12 that's convenient to you, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 14 would be a good point to break then for the day. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll 17 reconvene tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. 18 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 19 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January the 25th at 20 9:00 a.m. 21 22 (WITNESS RETIRES) 23 24 --- Upon adjourning at 4:40 p.m. 25


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