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 25th, 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 ) (np) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) (np) 21 Kim Twohig ) Government of Ontario 22 Walter Myrka ) (np) 23 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 24 Michelle Pong ) (np) 25 Lynette D'Souza ) (np)


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 ) (np) 12 13 Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.) (np) Charles Harnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) 15 16 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 17 Mary Jane Moynahan ) (np) 18 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 19 Trevor Hinnegan ) 20 21 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) (np) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) (np) 9 Caroline Swerdlyk ) 10 11 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 12 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 13 Kimberly Murray ) 14 Julian Roy ) (np) 15 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 16 Linda Chen ) (np) 17 Chris Darnay ) 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 Continued Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 9 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Anthony Ross 114 8 Continued Examination-in-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 192 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Matthew Horner 215 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 232 11 Re-Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 370 12 Re-Cross-Examination by Mr. Vilko Zbogar 377 13 Cross-Examination by Mr. Douglas Sulman 380 14 Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Susan Vella 384 15 16 17 Certificate of Transcript 388 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-1042 Letter to Grand Bend OPP Detachment, 4 September 07/'95. 152 5 P-1043 Document Number 1011251, page 01. 6 Sarnia Observer article "Premier 7 Defends Beaubien", November 06/'96. 182 8 P-1044 Fax cover sheet to Bill King from 9 Marcel Beaubien, July 24/'96. And letter 10 to Marcel Beaubien from Mayor Fred 11 Thomas, July 23/'96. 199 12 P-1045 Tape and transmission from Bill King 13 to Marcel Beaubien. 203 14 P-1046 Envelope from Marcel Beaubien containing 15 Bill King to Marcel Beaubien tape 16 (P-1045) with Marcel Beaubien handwritten 17 note "Bill King July 23/'96" on envelope 211 18 P-1047 The Sarnia Observer article, "The MP and 19 the PM", June 02/'66. 213 20 P-1048 Hansard May 26/'97, re. Mr. Marcel 21 Beaubien MPP bringing petition to the 22 Legislative Assembly of Ontario 367 23 24 25


1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-1049 Document Number 1012501. Letter 4 from Marcel Beaubien to Mike Harris 5 re. Lack of Progress on Ipperwash 6 Issue, January 31/'96. 384 7 P-1050 Document Number 1012213. Letter from 8 Michael Harris, MPP to Marcel Beaubien, 9 MPP re. Concerns about the Ipperwash 10 Provincial Park Issue, Feb. 20/'96 386 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:00 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, Mr. Rosenthal. Just before you start this 8 morning I would like to take a moment to welcome the 9 group of students who are here with us today from Lambton 10 College in Sarnia, the Police Foundation's second year 11 class. 12 Welcome here, and if you become interested 13 in the proceedings, you can follow them regularly on our 14 live web cast. All you have to do is go to 15 IpperwashInquiry.com and there's a live web cast. So 16 welcome here today and hope you find it useful. Thank 17 you. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 19 Commissioner, good morning. 20 21 MARCEL BEAUBIEN, Resumed 22 23 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Good morning, Mr. Beaubien. 25 A: Good morning.


1 Q: You recall that at the end of the day 2 yesterday, we were looking at Tab 10 of the Commission 3 brief. And this was the letter that you wrote on August 4 14, 1995 to the Attorney General Harnick, Exhibit P-418. 5 Now, you told us that generally, and I 6 suppose it would apply to this letter as well, you had 7 your aides write letters of this type for you after you 8 told them the content, right? 9 A: All my correspondence was written 10 by -- 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: -- by staff. 13 Q: Would you recall which aide would 14 have been the person who would have drafted this for you? 15 A: Which date? 16 Q: Which aide? Which person, on August 17 14th? 18 A: Is that -- beside my name or my 19 initials it's got "FM" so it would have been Florence 20 Moore (phonetic) at the time. 21 Q: I'm sorry, who was that? 22 A: Florence Moore. 23 Q: I see. And would she have also 24 attended the meeting on August 11 that is described in 25 this document?


1 A: I can't recall but it's possible 2 because it was in the constituency office. 3 Q: Yes, it was in your office. 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: And it would be reasonable to have 6 somebody else attend in addition to you to make notes and 7 keep track of what's going on. Right? 8 A: I would not disagree with that but I 9 can't recall. 10 Q: You can't recall for sure. Okay. 11 So, this describes meeting of August 11, 12 and you agree that you did meet with the four (4) 13 officers listed on that date and so on -- 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: -- in your office? Now, I gather it 16 was a friendly discussion in your view; is that correct? 17 A: It certainly was. 18 Q: And you -- you -- 19 A: There was no reason to be otherwise. 20 Q: No, and -- and you expressed to them 21 the concerns that you felt your constituents were having 22 with -- 23 A: That's -- 24 Q: -- with respect to these issues? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: And they told you that they are 2 dealing with the situation in various ways, right? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: But then you reached a consensus and 5 by consensus you understood to mean an agreement without 6 any -- you didn't have to fight it out, it was an 7 agreement that eventuated from you discussion; is that 8 fair? 9 A: Well, that's the word I used. 10 Q: Yes, and that's what you meant by it, 11 an agreement that resulted from your discussions, right? 12 A: It was my understanding. 13 Q: Yes, well, we want your 14 understanding, sir, because you're the author of the 15 letter so we want to know what you meant by it. So that 16 was -- 17 A: That was my understanding that I -- 18 and, you know, and that's the word I used. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: So, I -- I'm claiming ownership of 21 using that word. 22 Q: Right. And what you understood by it 23 was an agreement that you had come to with the officers 24 mentioned. 25 A: We're on the same wavelength.


1 Q: Yes. And the wavelength included 2 four (4) enumerated points in this letter, right? 3 A: But as you heard, I don't know if it 4 was yesterday or a couple of days ago, this letter was 5 not flush or circulated to the officers that attended. 6 Q: Yes, that's true but this was your 7 understanding as to what had happened? 8 A: That's my personal point of view, 9 yes. 10 Q: Yes. And, in particular, our number 11 3 reads: 12 "Ministries involved have to give the 13 OPP clear guidelines for law 14 enforcement." 15 Now, sir, we understand that prior to 16 August 11 you had had some concerns about law enforcement 17 by the OPP with respect to cottage break-ins and so on; 18 is that correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And that might have been one (1) of 21 the reasons that you thought there should be some clear 22 guidelines; is that fair? 23 A: No, I -- if you recall with my 24 testimony I don't recall. 25 Q: You don't recall?


1 A: Yes. And -- 2 Q: So, you don't recall what aspects of 3 the situation led you and the OPP to agree that there 4 should be clear guidelines? 5 A: I'm sorry, but I don't recall. 6 Q: Now, in the paragraph towards the end 7 it says: 8 "As detailed to Ministers Hodgson, 9 Harnick, and Runciman, we will take the 10 following position." 11 Now, the "we" I believe you told Ms. Vella 12 during your direct examination referred to the consensus, 13 in other words you and the officers, is your 14 understanding; is that correct? 15 A: You know, the letter was written on 16 August the 14, 1995, and to ask me if I recall what the 17 intent was I don't. 18 Q: But the "we" meant more than just 19 yourself obviously? 20 A: I would imagine. 21 Q: Because you didn't say "I"? 22 A: No. 23 Q: And I believe you indicated to Ms. 24 Vella that it probably meant that was part of the 25 consensus; is that not fair?


1 A: It's probably a fair assumption. 2 Q: So, there were the four (4) points of 3 consensus and then also it was agreed that you'd take the 4 following position until further instruction was received 5 from the Ministries. 6 And then the position that you would take 7 until that instruction is received is detailed in the -- 8 in the sentences following that, right? 9 A: It's my position. 10 Q: It is your understanding at the time? 11 A: It's -- yeah. 12 Q: And again you reiterate there: 13 "We need the Ministries to give clear 14 guidelines to the OPP for enforcement." 15 Right? 16 A: That's what it says on the letter. 17 Q: Yes. And there's no indication in 18 the letter that those guidelines are restricted merely to 19 the question of an injunction or something like that; 20 isn't that fair? 21 A: I just -- I'll take ownership on 22 what's on the letter. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: I'm not going to assume anything. 25 Q: Okay. Thank you. At this point, was


1 a question of an injunction being discussed, do you 2 recall? 3 A: I can't recall. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: I'd be -- you know, we can go back on 6 the record as to when the injunction, but as to the exact 7 date when I was first apprised of when an injunc -- an 8 injunction would be issued, off the top of my head I 9 can't give you that date. 10 Q: That's fine. Now, moving onto some 11 other matters. Did you ever meet with or speak to OPP 12 Commissioner O'Grady in the course of these events? 13 A: No, I did not. 14 Q: Have you ever spoken to him? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Or corresponded with him in any way? 17 A: Not that I recall. We maybe 18 correspondences, but I don't recall. It might have been 19 carbon copied to something but I certainly don't recall 20 that. I certainly did not speak to him. 21 Q: Okay. Now, you did however, as 22 you've told us, speak to a number of other high ranking 23 police officers? 24 A: Well I think the records for the past 25 few days has indicated that.


1 Q: Yes. And you viewed your role in 2 speaking to them as passing information from your 3 constituents to them and receiving information from them 4 to your constituents in part. 5 A: I think that's on the record. 6 Q: And also in passing information from 7 them to Government, as witnessed the letter that we just 8 looked at. 9 A: I think that's on the record. 10 Q: Yes. And in the other direction 11 information that may have come from Government to them, 12 right? 13 A: That's -- I think that's on the 14 record. 15 Q: You were sort of a communication 16 facilitator you might say. 17 A: I think I pointed that out, yes. I 18 used the word pipeline. 19 Q: Now, you indicated that you did have 20 several discussions with Bill King in the course of these 21 events. And in general, is it fair to say that you gave 22 him an indication of what you were doing to facilitate 23 communication, speaking with the police and speaking with 24 your constituents and speaking with government. 25 A: I don't recall the exact discussion


1 but it's quite possible that I might have mentioned that 2 to him. 3 Q: You would have indicated in the 4 context that you were speaking to him in and the context 5 was that role as facilitator. 6 A: You're asking me to recall what I -- 7 you know, what type of discussion I had ten (10) years 8 ago and I certainly don't recall the exact discussion or 9 the exact subject matter that we might have talked about. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Unfortunately, 11 Mr. Beaubien, these events occurred ten (10) years ago -- 12 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- this 14 Inquiry is occurring now. We have no option; we have to 15 ask the questions and -- 16 THE WITNESS: And that's -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- give your 18 best answer. 19 THE WITNESS: That's what I did. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 22 Commissioner. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL. 2 Q: Now if you could please turn to -- do 3 you still have Exhibit P-444A? If you do -- 4 A: No, I don't. I think I handed it -- 5 Q: I am sure -- 6 A: -- in yesterday. 7 Q: -- provide you with that. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: Thank you. 12 Q: And I should like to look at Tab 4 13 thereof, which you've been referred to briefly. And as 14 you recall, sir, this is a conversation between John 15 Carson and Wade Lacroix on September 5th, 1995 at 8:20 in 16 the morning. 17 And at the -- at the first page, page 8 of 18 that transcript, Mr. Lacroix is saying about the IPP 19 being -- the MPP being quite irate and you didn't think 20 that was necessarily the best word to describe your 21 feeling at the time. 22 But then I should like to go to the next 23 page and just -- Staff Sergeant Lacroix reports you 24 saying: 25 "He wants me to brief him. He's going


1 to call the Premier and say this is 2 ridiculous." 3 A: Now, which page are you on? Page 9? 4 Q: Page 9. Printed at the bottom of 5 page 9 towards to top, sir. The second entry says, 6 "Male". 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 8 has been gone over already, Mr. Rosenthal. I may be 9 wrong. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I'm going to 11 be bringing out some other points, Mr. Commissioner -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and I must go 14 over some of these crucial documents. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Do -- do you have that in front of 18 you, sir? 19 A: No, I don't. You said on page 9 and 20 whereabouts? 21 Q: Page 9, the very -- 22 A: Oh, at the top. Right at the top. 23 Q: Top entry says, "Carson, okay." and 24 then the next entry says "Male" -- 25 A: I got it.


1 Q: -- and I understand that's Mr. 2 Lacroix. "So he wants me to brief him. 3 He's going to call the Premier and say 4 this is ridiculous." 5 Now, you would have given Mr. Lacroix some 6 words to that effect, presumably? 7 A: No, you're going to have to ask Mr. 8 Lacroix what he meant by that. I'm not going to take 9 ownership of any words that Mr. Lacroix has put on the 10 record. 11 Q: Yes, but sir, you did converse with 12 Mr. Lacroix -- 13 A: I did -- 14 Q: -- right? 15 A: -- converse with him. 16 Q: And you don't dispute that he was 17 more or less accurately transmitting what you said, do 18 you, sir? 19 A: No, I'm not going to take ownership 20 of that, because I don't recall. 21 Q: But you dispute of it, sir? 22 A: I'm not going to take ownership of 23 the word 'ridiculous', because I don't recall. 24 Q: Okay. Well, if you didn't -- 25 whatever word you would have used, what I wanted to ask


1 you about that was the following. 2 The situation that you were concerned 3 about that you thought was ridiculous or whatever word 4 you would have used was the fact that people were in the 5 Park and the OPP was not doing anything about it; is that 6 correct? 7 A: I don't recall. 8 Q: Well, what else would -- could you 9 have been concerned about at that point, sir? 10 A: I don't recall. 11 Q: Well, then Mr. Lacroix goes on to 12 say, two (2) lines below: 13 "And I want something done." 14 Evidently attributing to you, that you're 15 going to call the Premier and say this is ridiculous and 16 that you want something done. 17 Now, sir, I would put it to you that the 18 only conceivable thing you could have wanted done at that 19 point was some action taken against the occupiers -- 20 A: I put it to you that I don't recall. 21 Q: But would you dispute that, sir? 22 A: I -- and I'm -- Mr. Lacroix's having 23 a conversation with Inspector Carson. 24 Q: Sir, he's reporting what you -- 25 A: And he -- well, you know --


1 Q: -- said. 2 A: -- if we -- you know, we can -- we 3 can go -- if we look at the written notes and we look at 4 the -- in some cases where the -- the notes are 5 transcribed, there's even a discrepancy between the 6 written notes and the -- and the typewritten notes. 7 I can't take ownership for the words that 8 are used between two (2) individuals ten (10) years ago. 9 Q: Sir, I'm not -- 10 A: I'm sorry, but I will not take 11 ownership of that. 12 Q: Sir, I'm not asking you for the 13 precise words. Would you agree that you communicated, in 14 one form or another -- or another, to Staff Sergeant 15 Lacroix the notion that you're going to call the Premier 16 and say that there's something wrong, perhaps not using 17 the word 'ridiculous', you agree to -- that far, sir, do 18 you? 19 A: That's quite possible. 20 Q: That's quite possible. And would you 21 agree that you communicated to Staff Sergeant Lacroix 22 that you wanted something done about the situation -- 23 A: I don't re -- 24 Q: -- in one word or another? 25 A: I do not recall that.


1 Q: Would you agree that's quite possible 2 as well. 3 A: I'm not going to say. I don't recall 4 that and I'm not going to assume. 5 Q: And you would not agree that it's 6 quite possible? 7 A: I'm not going to assume, sir. 8 Q: Would you agree it's possible, sir? 9 A: I'm not going to assume, sir. 10 Q: Would you deny that you could have 11 possibly said that, sir? 12 A: I'm not going to assume anything, 13 sir. 14 Q: Oh -- 15 A: One way or the other. 16 Q: Mr. Commissioner, I would request 17 that you direct him to answer this question. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: His answer 19 is he can't recall; that's as answer. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No but, no but, I - 21 - but then I'm asking a different question. He says he 22 can't recall, Mr. Commissioner, but I'm asking him, is it 23 possible he said that and he -- it has to be one way or 24 the other. 25 I know if I was asked, well, did I say


1 that, I would know I didn't. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But anything 3 is possible, and you know that, Mr. Rosenthal. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I'm not 6 sure that that's an important enough -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, perhaps 8 I'll -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to direct 10 the -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: May I -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Witness 13 to answer. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: Would you dispute -- may I ask this, 17 Mr. Commissioner, and may I ask that he answer this 18 question, would you dispute what appears to be on the 19 record here, that you indicated to Staff Sergeant Lacroix 20 that you wanted something done about this? 21 A: I do not recall. 22 Q: Would you dispute it, cannot be 23 answered I do not recall, Mr. Commissioner -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That is not an


1 answer to that question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 3 sure. Yes, Ms. Vella? 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think -- the 5 difficulty, I think, is that the question calls for 6 speculation. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And if it's calling for 9 speculation then the answer is -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can't 11 direct at that. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- not of any probative 13 value. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, he 15 doesn't have any recollection. It's hard to direct him. 16 I mean, it's a question that could be answered but he 17 doesn't have any recollection; he's not prepared to 18 speculate. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, 20 with great respect, the question, "Would you dispute 21 this?" has been asked, perhaps, a thousand (1,000) times 22 at this Inquiry. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And other 24 people have not been reluctant to answer that question, 25 but --


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's correct, 2 they've not been reluctant -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that 4 doesn't mean -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and it's not a 6 question of recalling, Mr. Commissioner -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- it's a -- he 9 could say, I do not have any grounds on which to dispute 10 it. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He could say, Yes I 13 do dispute it because I never was of a mind to say that, 14 I couldn't have possibly -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- or whatever. He 17 can't say I do not recall to the question, "Do you 18 dispute it?" 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 20 the Witness and that's his answer and you've got to live 21 with it. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 24 prepared -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- you do have --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to direct 2 the Witness to answer a question that doesn't call for an 3 answer that we're comfortable with the answer. 4 In other words, if he had a recollection 5 and he was refusing I would direct him to answer it, but 6 in these circumstances, I don't think anything useful 7 would be served -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- by giving 10 him that direction. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 12 Mr. Commissioner, may I just make one (1) more submission 13 and then I'll move on -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- if necessary. 16 But, of course if you had a recollection that would be of 17 most assistance, but we do have this written record that 18 seems to suggest this and knowing whether or not he 19 disputes it would also be of assistance at the end of the 20 end of the day in your trying to determine the facts in 21 this matter. 22 If he -- if he doesn't dispute it then we 23 have the written record and undoubtedly that would be 24 accepted. If he does dispute it -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well --


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- there would be a 2 question about accepting it. And, Mr. Commissioner, that 3 is a question that can be answered -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and he is 6 refusing to answer it. And as you know, sir, you have 7 the power to order a witness to answer a question and I 8 would respectfully suggest you might engage that power. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 10 prepared to direct him to answer that question under 11 these circumstances. So you've asked it and you've got 12 the answer -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and we're 15 going to have to deal with that. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 17 Commissioner, I'll move on. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: Now, sir, moving to page 12 of this 22 transcript there's a discussion as to who should be in 23 touch with you and Inspector Carson indicates to Mr. 24 Lacroix that he prefer that he do it. And then it talks 25 -- at the bottom of page 12, Staff Sergeant Lacroix is


1 quoted as saying: 2 "I guess he was up all last night and 3 he's already got several phone calls. 4 He called me and just to let me know 5 that he's calling the Premier's." 6 Now, sir, you did dispute that; is that 7 not correct? 8 A: I did not dispute it I said I was not 9 up all night. I was up -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: -- I might have been up late but I 12 don't recall being up all night. 13 Q: Yes. So you did get some sleep that 14 night is what you told us? 15 A: So, I dispute the -- what's -- what's 16 in the -- on -- on the record. 17 Q: So, Mr. Lacroix was in error in 18 saying you were up all night? 19 A: No, he's -- I don't know what he 20 meant by that. You're going to have to ask him that, but 21 I'm -- all I'm saying is that I was not -- you know, I 22 did have some sleep that night. 23 Q: Yes. But as far -- and as far as 24 calling the Premier's you told us what he would have been 25 referring to is that you sent a fax to the Premier's


1 office, right? 2 A: I think that's on the record if I 3 recall, more than once, yes. 4 Q: Yes. So, he was correct though in 5 giving the information that you were in touch with the 6 Premier's office at least, right? 7 A: Yes, I don't -- certainly don't 8 dispute that. 9 Q: You don't dispute that? 10 A: No. 11 Q: You agree with that, in fact? 12 A: I agree with that. 13 Q: Now, sir, when you mentioned the 14 Premier to somebody like Staff Sergeant Lacroix you 15 noticed that he took notice of that, right? 16 A: I don't think so. 17 Q: Well, he reacted differently when you 18 said -- 19 A: That's an opinion but I don't -- 20 you'd have to ask Mr. Lacroix that, I don't know. 21 Q: I'm asking you what you noticed, sir. 22 A: I didn't notice anything different. 23 Q: You didn't notice anything different 24 when -- 25 A: No.


1 Q: -- you said Premier Harris or a 2 constituent, no different reaction? 3 A: Absolutely not. 4 Q: I see. Could we please move to Tab 5 22 of the same volume? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: As you may recall, sir, this is a 10 transcript of a subsequent phone conversation between 11 John Carson and Wade Lacroix the same day, September 5th, 12 1995, but later in the afternoon at 16:24 hours. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And then I'd like to begin asking you 17 about page 181, sir, the second page of -- of this 18 transcript, two-thirds (2/3's) of the way down, male, and 19 again "male" refers to Wade Lacroix asks Mr. Carson: 20 "Did you get a call or anything from 21 the Minister -- Ministry side? 22 CARSON: No. 23 MALE: Okay. But Marcel -- Marcel got 24 briefed a half an hour ago. 25 CARSON: Okay.


1 MALE: And he's going to get briefed 2 again in five (5)." 3 Now, would you dispute, sir, the 4 information that Staff Sergeant Lacroix is imparting at 5 that point, that you got a briefing a half an hour, 6 approximately, before this call on the afternoon of 7 September 5th, 1995? 8 A: Well, I don't know if the word 9 'briefing' is the proper word but there's no doubt that 10 there was an awful lot of communications during that day 11 with -- 12 Q: And -- 13 A: -- the Premier's office -- 14 Q: -- and that -- 15 A: -- and other individuals. Whether 16 they were briefings or not, I don't know. 17 Q: So, whether or not it deserves the 18 title 'briefing' there were communications -- 19 A: That's -- 20 Q: -- that you did receive? 21 A: -- that's correct. 22 Q: So, he's correct in -- informing 23 Inspector Carson of that. 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And the question was: From the


1 Ministry's side, do you recall at that point which 2 Ministry you would have been in touch with, sir? 3 A: No, I don't recall. 4 Q: But it would have had to have been 5 one of the Premier's office, the Solicitor General's 6 office or the Attorney General's office; is that correct? 7 A: Or MNR. 8 Q: Or MNR. Okay. And then he was going 9 to get briefed again in five (5), so evidently you had 10 been speaking to Staff Sergeant Lacroix, told them about 11 what he characterized as a briefing, it might have been a 12 different kind of communication and then told them that 13 he's going -- you're going to be getting more information 14 five (5) minutes later; is that correct? 15 A: That's what it says on the record. 16 Q: And you don't dispute that, do you, 17 sir? 18 A: Well, I don't recall exactly whether 19 the briefing was at 5:00 or 4:00 or whether there was a 20 briefing, but I'm not going to dispute. If it says on 21 the record there must have been some indication that I 22 might have indicated somebody that we -- there would be 23 some communication or a briefing or something around five 24 o'clock, but I don't recall that. 25 Q: And then continuing on that page, you


1 don't dispute that you told Staff Sergeant Lacroix the 2 words to the effect that it was the Government position 3 that it's not an Indian issue but an MNR issue and a 4 Provincial issue? 5 You don't dispute that do you, sir? 6 A: No because I think it's on the record 7 that it's been acknowledged that that is a fact. 8 Q: And -- 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Commissioner, with all 10 respect, the last series of questions was covered in 11 examination for chief. The Witness already gave 12 testimony that it was the Premier's office, that he spoke 13 with Bill King, that this came from his note to the press 14 conference. 15 I don't -- I don't see -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 17 helpful. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- unless they're going 19 to a new point -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Because his 21 answers are -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But his 24 answers are, it's on the record, you know, and I think, 25 he by that saying, we've already covered that.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But with great 2 respect, Mr. Commissioner, I am bringing out some other 3 information in the course of this and I would feel that 4 it has to be allowed -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I'm 6 trying to give you some leeway -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This is central to 8 this Inquiry, Mr. Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm trying 10 to give you some leeway, Mr. Rosenthal. And -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I'm leading up 12 to the next point in particular, as well. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 14 Falconer, do you have a problem? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 16 on behalf of Aboriginal Legal Services, I've studiously 17 tried to stay on my chair. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I really 19 appreciate that, that's most helpful. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I know that. I 21 know that. I rise because of this -- your counsel has 22 said a number of times, she's referred to things being 23 covered in examination-in-chief. Now, on -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. It's 25 not an absolute bar to cross-examination.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's the opposite. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I need -- I need to 4 address it though to be fair, because I want to put this 5 on the record. 6 Your counsel, in their wisdom, have chosen 7 to take a fairly neutral approach through their 8 examinations-in-chief. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The exact opposite 11 is the case that it was covered -- may I finish please? 12 Please? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 14 all understand that. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well no, we don't, 16 Mr. Commissioner, because your counsel isn't saying that, 17 in fact, she did something different. 18 Today, she referred to it being covered in 19 examination-in-chief and yesterday, she for -- she didn't 20 include credibility as an issue to cross-examine on. 21 So, with great respect, it sounds like 22 cross-examination, not from you, Mr. Commissioner, but 23 from your counsel is changing. And -- and because it 24 obviously impacts all of us, I simply want to establish 25 that the -- the whole idea of our process is to examine


1 what this man says in examination-in-chief. 2 And because he keeps referring to things 3 being on the record, with great respect, it's the 4 opposite that we stop there; that's when we start to 5 critically look at what is it he put on the record. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. It 7 depends, Mr. Falconer. I don't care to argue that one -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm Rosenthal, he 9 is Falconer. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Pardon me? 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm Rosenthal, he's 12 Falconer. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. I 14 don't care to have this -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm Rosenthal, he's 16 Falconer. (sic) 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. I 18 don't care to have this argument at this point, but -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, but fair 20 enough. I just -- because I -- I stayed down but it 21 keeps coming up and I simply -- I raise it and I 22 appreciate your indulgence. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 24 Thank you, Mr. Falconer. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner,


1 just to summarize, I do think you will find that I'm 2 moving expeditiously through the -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You are. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- through this and 5 bringing out some new material in the process. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As long as 7 you're bringing out something new and helpful and useful 8 then I'm not going to interrupt you. But -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I thank you, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if you're 11 asking a question that's been asked in the same manner as 12 it was asked and get the same answer and then move on, 13 it's not helpful. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I appreciate that, 15 sir. I don't think -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's all 17 we're saying. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think the record 19 will show that that is not the case. But in any event -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- may I try to 22 quickly move on? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:


1 Q: Now, sir, if you'd look at the top of 2 page 182 please, Wade Lacroix is quoted and saying: 3 "Harris has involved himself and -- and 4 quite uptight about it." 5 And you told us with respect to that, I 6 believe, that you didn't recall whether or not you had 7 informed Mr. Lacroix of that. Do you -- do you recall 8 that answer, sir? 9 A: I'll stand by what's on the record 10 with regards to the notes that I have on the fax and in 11 my subsequent conversation with Mr. King where I think 12 Mr. King apprised me that the Premier is -- I don't 13 recall the exact words, but is aware of the situation. 14 Q: Yes. And -- but then the -- would 15 you agree that you do not dispute Lacroix imparting the 16 information as coming from you that not only is Harris 17 involved, but he's quite uptight about it, or words to 18 that effect? 19 A: I don't know. I don't know where he 20 would get the word 'quite uptight', so you -- you would 21 have to ask Mr. Lacroix that. 22 Q: And then it indicates, further on, 23 that you were going to call Wade Lacroix again in the 24 morning. And that would be consistent, that's about a 25 third of the way down the page; that's consistent with


1 your recollection, you were calling him quite frequently? 2 A: No, you're going to have to be clear 3 on your question because I don't know where you are on 4 this page. 5 Q: About one-third (1/3) of the way 6 down, page 182, sir. 7 A: And what's your question? 8 Q: Sorry? 9 A: What's your question? 10 Q: You -- you don't dispute that you -- 11 that he would have accurately reported that you were 12 going to call him back in the morning? 13 A: I -- you know, there's some 14 background noise here, you're going to have to -- 15 Q: I'm sorry, I'm very sympathetic. I 16 have a hearing problem myself, sir. 17 You do not dispute Staff Sergeant Lacroix 18 informing Inspector Carson that you were going to call 19 him back in the morning? Is that -- 20 A: No, I'm not going to dispute that, 21 no. 22 Q: Sorry. Now, at the bottom of page 23 183, Wade Lacroix concludes: 24 "So anyhow, it sounds like the 25 Government is onside."


1 You see that, sir? 2 A: Where are you, whereabouts on -- 3 Q: At the bottom of page 183. 4 A: I got page 183. 5 Q: The very bot -- the next to last 6 entry, sir. 7 A: Okay, at the bottom, yes. Okay. 8 Q: Now, he was, as we've seen, 9 communicating what he understood -- the information he 10 understood he had obtained from you. 11 Would you agree that Staff Sergeant Wade 12 Lacroix was giving an accurate message to John Carson as 13 coming from what he understood from you, that the 14 government was on side with that? 15 A: You know, like I said, I don't recall 16 the conversation, and again, Mr. -- you know, you'll have 17 to ask Mr. Lacroix what he meant by that. I don't know. 18 Q: Sir, I'm asking you, as the person 19 who gave the information to Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix, 20 would you agree that it would be appropriate to summarize 21 the information you gave as including the Government is 22 onside? 23 A: To the best of my recollection, I do 24 not recall and I will not speculate. 25 Q: Would you dispute that it would be an


1 accurate conclusion from what you transmitted to Wade 2 Lacroix that the Government is onside? 3 A: I will not speculate on that subject. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's not 5 prepared to answer that question. He can't recall and 6 he's not able to say. And his -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And he also will 8 not answer the question of dispute. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, his 10 refusal to -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'll save that for 12 argument. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 14 that -- 15 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well, maybe to short 16 circuit some of the issue, I don't want to object every 17 time, but once -- once someone's said they don't recall, 18 I don't think it's helpful to then go on and take the 19 Commission's time -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sometimes he 21 does take issue and is prepared to say, I'm not prepared 22 to dispute that, other times he says he is, so it's 23 difficult to know. 24 It's not a general answer. 25 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: No, absolutely, but


1 once there's an answer that says I don't recall -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 3 recall -- 4 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- than being asked 5 to speculate -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I think-- 7 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- is something that 8 isn't helpful to you at all. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I agree 10 with that. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, well, sir, as 12 you just said, sir, with respect, Mr. Commissioner, 13 sometimes he doesn't recall -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- but he agrees he 16 doesn't dispute. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 18 right. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sometimes he 20 doesn't recall and refuses to answer whether he disputes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 22 right. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Now -- so, I will 24 ask the latter question; sometimes he will refuse to 25 answer, and sometimes he may answer.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, the 2 questions you're asking are appropriate so far, so let's 3 keep going. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, sir. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: If you could please turn to Tab 25, a 8 document brief. These are -- this is the handwritten 9 version of the scribe notes. It's Exhibit P-472. It's 10 Inquiry Document 1000152. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 12 what Tab was that, Mr. Rosenthal? 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Tab 25, sir, of 14 the -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 25 of our -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- Commission -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- binder? 18 Yes, I've got them. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: Now, sir, towards the bottom of the 24 first page, you'll recall that, I should set the context, 25 sorry, sir, that this on September 6th, 1995?


1 A: Just a minute, now, because I don't 2 have the same documentation that's on the screen, so -- 3 Q: I'm sorry, it's at Tab 25 in the 4 Commissioner brief. 5 A: Oh. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: Okay, I'm on the same -- 10 Q: You have it now, sir? 11 A: Yes, I do. 12 Q: So, this describes the meeting that 13 you had with several high ranking -- well, with Dale 14 Linton and John Carson on September 6th, 1995 at 18:42, 15 approximately five (5) hours before Dudley George was 16 killed. And towards the beginning it says: 17 "Fax sent to Premier." 18 That would have been an accurate recording 19 of the fact that you informed them that you had faxed the 20 Premier; is that right? 21 A: The Premier's office, yeah. 22 Q: Sorry. The Premier's office. 23 A: The Premier's office, yes. 24 Q: Now, later -- towards the bottom of 25 the page it says, "MB", that evidently refers to you,


1 Marcel Beaubien. 2 "Concerned property owners frustrated. 3 Feel not being treated equally." 4 That would have been an accurate recording 5 of one (1) of the messages you would have imparted on 6 that occasion; is that correct, sir? 7 A: I think I testified to the fact that, 8 yes, that I was receiving -- 9 Q: Now, sir -- 10 A: -- comments from many of my 11 constituents. 12 Q: And in what respect did you feel that 13 they were not being -- did you indicate that they were 14 not being treated equally? 15 A: That I don't recall. 16 Q: Well, sir, am I correct in concluding 17 that what you meant was the only way the equal treatment 18 could be, would be if the persons in the Park were 19 arrested for either trespass or mischief to property? 20 A: No, I think you're speculating on 21 that, sir. 22 Q: I see. Well, I am, sir, I am 23 speculating. You know, I don't. I'm asking you, sir, 24 A: I don't recall, sir. 25 Q: You don't recall?


1 A: No, this is ten (10) years ago, sir. 2 Q: Can you give us any other possible 3 explanation as to what you would have wanted the OPP to 4 do to evidence equal treatment? 5 A: I stand by the record, with what I've 6 put on the record in the past couple of days, that my 7 constituents were concerned and there was a perception 8 that it was a two-tier legal system -- 9 Q: Yes? 10 A: -- in the Province of Ontario with 11 regards to this situation and I'll stand by what I put on 12 the record. 13 But to ask me exactly, when two (2) 14 officers or somebody's making notes, they're hand 15 scribed, and what they're writing, I don't recall, and 16 you'd have to ask those individuals what they meant by 17 that. 18 Q: Was the -- the two-tier system that 19 your constituents complained about related to their 20 opinion that the people in the Park should have arrested 21 by then? 22 A: Oh, I'm sure that comment was made. 23 I don't -- you know -- I don't -- you know we -- we have 24 an awful lot of documentation on the record that you've 25 been provided as to the exact content. I can't recall


1 that, but I'm not going to dispute that some -- some of 2 the constituents probably felt this way. 3 Q: And you're not going to dispute that 4 that's in part what you communicated to John Carson and 5 Dale Linton at the meeting at 18:42 on September 6th, 6 1995, are you, sir? 7 A: I'll take ownership of what Mr. 8 Carson says -- which page was that, 1....? 9 Q: It was the -- the first page in this 10 binder, sir, -- 11 A: It says: 12 "Concern --" 13 Q: -- It's Tab -- 14 "they're not being treated equally." 15 A: "Frustrated. Feel they're not being 16 treated equally." 17 So, I'm -- there probably was some 18 discussion; that's his notes. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: And I can't take ownership of his 21 notes. 22 Q: Sir, would you agree that you would 23 have had to say more than just, They're not being treated 24 equally, so the officers would know what you mean by 25 that?


1 Would you agree with that, sir? 2 A: I -- I don't recall the discussion, 3 sir. 4 Q: Well, would you dispute the statement 5 that, as part of your explanation as to what you meant, 6 not being treated equally, you indicated you meant that 7 the people in the Park were not being arrested even 8 thought it was evident in your view that they were 9 committing offences? 10 A: Sir, it's ten (10) years ago, I don't 11 recall, and I will not speculate on any interpretation 12 that you want to put on the record. 13 Q: I'm asking -- 14 A: You may want to speculate, but I will 15 not. 16 Q: I'm not asking you to speculate, I'm 17 asking you, would you dispute it, sir? 18 A: I'm not -- I don't -- I do not 19 recall, sir. 20 Q: You cannot answer the question, Mr. 21 Commissioner, would you dispute it? I don't recall. 22 That is not an answer to my question. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've gone 24 through this, Mr. Rosenthal. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I appreciate that.


1 I'm just pointing it again, Mr. Commissioner. I've made 2 my argument. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He made some 4 reference to something about constituents telling him 5 about a two-tiered legal system. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, about -- 7 THE WITNESS: Two-tiered -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: About a two 9 (2) tiered legal system. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I'm not 12 sure that you don't have some answer to this question. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, but then I was 14 trying to explore what he meant by that -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 16 not prepared to say anymore. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- in the context 18 of what he meant, but -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 20 that he's not answering. He's giving you some answers. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with respect, 22 Mr. Commissioner, I'll save that for argument, perhaps. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes -- 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:


1 Q: Now, turning to the next page then 2 about a third of the way down the page it says: 3 "DL [which evidently is Dale Linton]. 4 Anything from Sol Gen [and then] MB 5 [which is evidently Marcel Beaubien] 6 were meeting today." 7 Now, sir, we looked at an earlier document 8 where you wrote to Attorney General Harnick and copied 9 the Solicitor General about the need for the Ministries 10 to provide guidelines for law enforcement. You recall 11 that, sir? 12 Now, my question then in that context is: 13 Did you understand when this interchange was going on, 14 that what was being waited for were some indication of 15 guidelines from the Sol Gen? 16 A: No. I think you're totally wrong 17 there, sir. I think if you recall, and on the record 18 again, that the -- there was some meeting going on in 19 Toronto that Mr. King or somebody apprised me of the fact 20 that different Ministries were meeting. 21 Q: Yes. And evidently Dale Linton 22 wanted to know if there was some information from the Sol 23 Gen, right? 24 A: I -- it says, "anything from Sol 25 Gen"; that's all it says there. I don't know.


1 Q: Yes. And then you respond 2 apparently, according to the notes "were meeting today"; 3 that's in response, evidently, to his question, "Is there 4 anything from the Sol Gen?", right? 5 A: Well if I were to, you know, 6 basically insist or you know, pursue this subject matter, 7 when I look at this, it says, "we're meeting today" would 8 imply that I'm also meeting and I was not part of any of 9 that meeting. Again -- 10 Q: Sir, with -- 11 A: -- these are notes from different 12 individual and Mr. Linton is not longer here to -- to 13 query him on this but -- 14 Q: Sir, there's no apostrophe in the 15 'were'. I read that as 'were meeting today' in other 16 words, meaning -- meaning that you responded to the 17 question "anything from Sol Gen" with the answer that 18 there's a meeting going on, it's suppose to be going on 19 today, you don't -- you don't have the results yet. 20 Is that not a fair interpretation, sir? 21 A: I'm informed that there was a meeting 22 going on probably and I'm just probably relaying the fact 23 that there's some communication going on between the 24 different Ministries. 25 Q: Yes. And you were a person who was


1 facilitating that kind of communication between 2 Government and police and that's why I would suggest to 3 you Inspector Linton would have asked you, anything from 4 the Sol Gen; isn't that fair? 5 A: No, I think if you recall again, it's 6 on the record that we had some two-way conversations; 7 they would pass me some information and I would pass on 8 the information that I had, so it's probably a question. 9 I -- again, I would only be speculating as to what the 10 general tone of the discussion was at that particular 11 time. 12 I don't recall that. But I -- 13 Q: I'll move to the next page. 14 A: -- I do not deny that there was a 15 meeting going on in Toronto, or that day, or the day 16 before or whatever. 17 Q: Okay. So, there were meetings going 18 on? 19 A: There were meetings going on. 20 Q: And -- 21 A: We'll agree on that. 22 Q: And it's reasonable to conclude from 23 what we see in the notes here that you were responding to 24 Inspector Linton's question of "anything from Sol Gen" 25 that you don't have anything yet because there's a


1 meeting going on now and it is only at the end of the 2 meeting you might have something. 3 Isn't that a fair interpretation, sir? 4 A: Well, I don't know if the meeting was 5 going on right now as -- you know, as we spoke at that 6 time but there was a mee -- there were meetings going on. 7 Q: But that -- that you don't have 8 anything from Sol Gen yet because you don't know the 9 results of the meeting whenever it might be taking place; 10 is that fair, sir? 11 A: I think if you recall on the record, 12 I put it on the record for the past few days that I 13 didn't get an awful lot of information back from Queen's 14 Park. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, 16 I'm in your hands as to whether you should direct him to 17 answer the questions. But I'll move on. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I would just 19 carry on with your examination. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'll do my best, 21 Mr. Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have to 23 draw whatever inferences we can from the answers. We 24 have to do the best we can. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. But I would


1 remind you that you do have the authority to order him to 2 answer a question and it might be necessary -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, the 4 Witness is refusing to answer -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- at some point, I 6 just might suggest. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I'm 8 aware of that. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 10 Commissioner. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENHTHAL: 13 Q: Now, at page 470, about three- 14 quarters (3/4's) of the way down it says: 15 "MB [Marcel Beaubien] making comments 16 if police services can't do it, get 17 someone who can. Don't mind 18 controversy." 19 Now Inspector Carson told us that what he 20 understood -- what he took from that was something to the 21 following affect, that if it wasn't being appropriately 22 hand -- handled by the police, they would do something 23 like call in the Military to handle it. 24 Now, is that the proper interpretation by 25 Inspector Carson of what you said on that day, sir?


1 A: Well again, on the record, I put the 2 fact that constituents certainly were concerned and I 3 heard the comment that if the police can't do it, you 4 know, maybe somebody else should do it, and I would have 5 relayed that to the police. And -- 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: -- again, if that's what Inspector 8 Carson got from the discussion that we had, that's his 9 notes, I'm not going to deny or -- or agree with it, 10 but -- 11 Q: Yes, sir -- 12 A: -- you know. 13 Q: -- would you agree that this 14 'somebody else' had to be the Military, there was nobody 15 else -- 16 A: Well, yes -- 17 Q: -- would -- 18 A: -- I think I put that on the record. 19 I think, we -- I did say the Army. 20 Q: Right, thank you. Now, sir, had you 21 discussed that aspect with Bill King, the fact that if 22 the police can't handle it, perhaps it would be wise to 23 consider calling in the Military? 24 A: I do not recall that, sir. 25 Q: You don't recall?


1 A: No. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: If you turn to page 471, the next 6 page, there's a part -- the next to the last entry is 7 crossed out. We're not sure what that means, the 8 crossing out. 9 We -- we -- I should indicate, sir, the -- 10 we -- the information is these are not John Carson's 11 notes, these are the notes of someone, being the scribe, 12 who takes the notes, as John Carson is meeting. 13 But in any event, I wonder if you can 14 assist us as to whether you said something that would 15 have sparked, it says: 16 "MB states MNR took some fishing rights 17 away." 18 Do you recall what that might have been 19 about, sir? 20 A: Again, I, you know, I didn't take 21 those notes and they're crossed out. I mean, it's not 22 the only place where the notes are crossed out. 23 I mean, I can't speak for somebody else 24 taking those; I don't recall that. 25 Q: Sir, I'm not asking you to speak for


1 someone else taking notes. Someone else, evidently, 2 attributed that to you. I'm asking you to speak for you, 3 sir. 4 A: Sir, it's crossed out. I'm not even 5 going to try to speculate on this. I think it's 6 absolutely ridiculous that, you know, you would look at 7 notes that have been crossed out and you're asking me to 8 make a comment ten (10) year -- ten (10) years later on 9 that. 10 I don't know. You would have to ask the 11 person that scribed those notes what he or she meant; I 12 don't know. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you don't 14 know, if you don't know or if you can't recall that's an 15 answer and you say it. 16 There's no reason to say, whether it's a 17 ridiculous question or not. If you don't answer it, if 18 you can't answer it, that's fine. 19 THE WITNESS: With all due respect, Your 20 Honour, he keeps coming back at me. As soon as I say I 21 do not recall -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 THE WITNESS: -- he comes back -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- he -- 25 THE WITNESS: -- with another one.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's going 2 through the notes. You may recall some of this, you may 3 not recall some of this and that's your answer. But he's 4 got to ask you the questions; that's the way the process 5 works. 6 Carry on. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: So you don't recall anything about 12 fishing rights being a topic of discussion ten (10) years 13 ago? 14 A: No, sir. 15 Q: Thank you. Now, going on to the next 16 page, attributed to you, at the top of the next page: 17 "Premier is in constant touch, good 18 communications." 19 And I believe that your evidence on that, 20 sir, is that you would have said something to that effect 21 but perhaps with slightly different wording; is that 22 fair? 23 A: That's probably fair to assume. 24 Q: And at this meeting, sir, didn't you 25 notice that when you said, "Premier's in constant touch"


1 or words to that effect, that got the attention of the 2 officers there? 3 A: Those are not my words, sir. 4 Q: Well, whatever words you did say 5 about the Premier being on top of this or whatever, when 6 you said that to the police officers, they took note of 7 that, it was evident to you; is that not clear, sir? 8 A: No, I think that's sheer speculation. 9 Q: I see. You don't recall? 10 A: No, I don't recall. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Now, at that meeting, in some words 15 or other, you did inform Inspector Carson, or convey to 16 him, the idea that you thought the First Nations people 17 should be out of the Park; is that not correct, sir? 18 A: That was not my position, sir, it was 19 my constituents' positions. 20 Q: Well, you informed him that your 21 constituents felt that the people should be out of the 22 Park; is that correct? 23 A: Oh, I'm sure that the this -- that 24 the subject matter was raised, yes. 25 Q: Yes, and you're sure that you


1 informed that meeting of that fact? 2 A: I'm sure it was discussed, yeah. 3 Q: And you informed them of that, right? 4 A: Well, if we discussed it, they would 5 be aware of it. 6 Q: And you put to them that, My 7 constituents want these people out of the Park, right? 8 A: Oh, I don't know exactly how I put 9 it, but I -- you know, you're trying to very specific. I 10 -- I will take ownership that it -- I probably did inform 11 him; how, I don't recall. 12 Q: You don't recall the exact wording -- 13 A: No. 14 Q: -- but the idea, as I phrased it, is 15 correct, that you -- 16 A: Is -- 17 Q: -- did -- 18 A: I would -- I would agree with that. 19 Q: Now, if we could please turn to Tab 20 19 of the Commission brief. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: This is the press release with your 25 handwriting on it; and I'm not sure what your evidence


1 is, on what it says about the Premier. 2 Does it say, "Premier is following 3 closely"? 4 A: That's what it says. 5 Q: That's what it says. Thank you. And 6 that was what you had been told by Bill King on this 7 occasion and you recorded it as you were told then? 8 A: No, I don't know if those were 9 exactly Bill King's words, but that basically -- that's 10 how I would have probably paraphrased it. 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: Now, whether they're the, you know, 13 the exact words that Mr. King used I don't recall that. 14 Q: And that's what gave you the 15 confidence that you were correct in informing police 16 officers and others that the Premier was on top of this 17 and the Premier was watching it or whatever exact words 18 you used, right? 19 A: Well, the Premier was aware of the 20 situation, yes. 21 Q: Yes. You wouldn't have said that if 22 you hadn't been told that by Bill King and believed that 23 he was telling you the truth, right? 24 A: Fair assumption. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, sir, if we turn to the -- to the 4 next tab -- I'm sorry, the previous tab; it's the same 5 press release. But there is the -- the covering letter 6 that says you're going to: 7 "issue the attached memo to the press 8 at 3:00 p.m. today unless I hear from 9 Queen's Park." 10 And you told us that you did intend to do 11 that unless you had heard from Queen's Park; is that 12 correct? 13 A: That's on the record. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, that's 17 been established so I'm hoping -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you're 20 going somewhere else. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, I 22 have to set a stage to do something. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 24 understand. Carry on. But I mean, you know, that -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: The fact -- he --


1 he answers, It's on the record a lot, Mr. Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But the fact that 4 he does may I -- may I please -- I do have to set the 5 stage for my question. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 8 Q: And so you were going to do it and 9 you would have done it shortly after 3:00 p.m. if you had 10 not received an answer by 3:00 p.m., right? 11 A: I probably -- that's probably a fair 12 assumption. 13 Q: And I would suggest to you, you chose 14 the time 3:00 p.m. because that would be a good time to 15 reach the press for that evening's broadcast news and for 16 the next day's printed news, right? 17 A: Yeah, that's probably fair. 18 Q: So, the release that you intended to 19 release at that time included, "We're dealing with 20 thugs", as you've been reminded? 21 A: That's -- that's on the record, sir. 22 Q: And you evidently felt justified in 23 telling the world that the people occupying the Park were 24 thugs; is that fair? 25 A: That -- that's on the record, sir.


1 Q: Now, sir, did you not think that you, 2 the local MPP, identifying people in the Park as thugs -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner? 4 Mr. Commissioner? 5 Q: -- would tend to exacerbate a 6 difficult situation? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 8 Falconer, I'm not sure that it's necessary for you to 9 interrupt Mr. Rosenthal's cross-examination. He's right 10 in the middle of a question and I'm not sure -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to sit 12 down to let him finish his question. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 14 know, but you jumped up and I was going to notice you but 15 I didn't. Let him finish his question. 16 Yeah, have you finished your question? 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, I don't know 18 what this is about, Mr. Commissioner? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I know 20 that. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 23 either but perhaps we should hear Mr. Falconer now. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 25 the responses the Witness are -- is giving, quote,


1 "That's on the record", close quotes, is problematic for 2 the following reasons. 3 Counsel at the end of the day will be 4 making argument to you on different evidence. By the 5 Witness referring to things being on the record, that is 6 no indication he's agreeing with the suggestion being put 7 to him. It's a completely nebulous indication. 8 And I -- I've tried to think it through as 9 to the ramifications of it and all that has to happen is 10 that there are different answers in different places 11 quote/unquote "on the record", and then these answers 12 become virtually useless. 13 If the Witness is agreeing with the 14 suggestions that are being put to him he ought to simply 15 say so. The reference to, "that's on the record" -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- with great 18 respect is problematic. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I find it a 20 little frustrating too, Mr. Falconer, I have to confess. 21 I mean, Mr. Beaubien, what's on the record 22 we're aware of. We're going to be examining the record. 23 I'm going to have to write a report at the end of this 24 and look at the record very carefully. So, if you remind 25 me that it's on the record it's not helpful.


1 You're the Witness and when he asks you a 2 question you can either answer it or you can't, and 3 that's what you should try to do rather than reminding us 4 that something may or may not be on the record. 5 Can you try to answer the questions that 6 way? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, those are questions 8 that I've answered in the past two (2) to three (3) days 9 already. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, then 11 that's fine. Then it may be that you're credibility is 12 being tested, and that's a legitimate thing for counsel 13 to do. So, all you can do is answer the question and let 14 the lawyers object, let me make the rulings, and we'll 15 just to move forward. 16 THE WITNESS: I'll do my best. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, sir. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 19 Commissioner. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Now, Mr. Beaubien, the press release 23 says: 24 "We're dealing with thugs." 25 It also, perhaps to speed things up, says:


1 "Enough is enough." 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: "We must come to 4 our senses and take back control before 5 something irreparable happens." 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Now, 7 Mr. Rosenthal -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Now -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- just 10 before you ask this question -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want 13 to remind you, this press release has been gone into -- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in 16 extremely careful detail. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in-chief 19 and -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- by Mr. 22 Zbogar in cross-examination. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But nobody asked 24 the question I'm now going to ask, as far as I know, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well --


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: Did you not realize, Mr. Beaubien, 4 that your putting out a press release like this would 5 exacerbate an already very tense situation and create 6 great danger that people would, perhaps even attack, the 7 people you characterize as thugs in the Park? 8 A: You know, for once I do agree with 9 you, because that's a very -- 10 Q: You do agree -- 11 A: -- reasonable assumption, and that's 12 why the press release never went anywhere. And, if you 13 recall, again, the Federal member called them terrorists, 14 other people called them animals, other people called 15 them other words, I used the word thugs. 16 I claimed ownership of using that word. 17 The press release never went out, because I think what 18 you just said makes an awful lot of sense, and I realized 19 that. 20 Q: But had Bill King not told you not to 21 send it out, you would have sent it out? 22 A: I'm not going to speculate on that. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 24 THE WITNESS: Chances are I might have, 25 but I don't know whether I would have or not.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 2 THE WITNESS: The record is, the fax 3 never went out. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When that 5 question was asked in-chief, he said he would have sent 6 it out -- 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so I'm 9 not sure how you're helping the situation. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner, 11 with great respect, sometimes it has to be tied to an 12 answer he just gave. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he -- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He just 15 acknowledged that this press release would exacerbate 16 tension in a difficult situation. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But, he's -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's appropriate to 19 follow that with, But you would still send it out. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But -- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 22 Mr. Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that 24 question was asked and answered. And now we have, 25 perhaps, a different answer.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, I'm 2 about to move on. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 4 okay. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I just -- I do have 6 a right to close off an area though, too, sir. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: Now, I should like to move to Tab 22. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: Mr. Commissioner, I'm moving much 14 more quickly than I anticipated and I'm going to be done 15 quickly, but I do have to deal with certain issues, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm trying 17 not to interrupt you, Mr. Rosenthal. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you very 19 much, Mr. Commissioner. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Now, Tab 22 is Inquiry Document 23 1006196, Exhibit P-952 to these proceedings. It's a -- a 24 fax that you sent on September 6th, 1995 to Bill King and 25 it encloses a letter from a constituent, a lawyer, and


1 you recall that, sir? 2 Now, I want to ask you several questions, 3 first, about the cover letter that you sent. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, dealing with something less 8 controversial first, perhaps, in the third paragraph you 9 say: 10 "I am prepared to go along with 11 Minister Hodgson's proposal in dealing 12 with this situation." 13 Now, what proposal of Mr. Hodgson's were 14 you referring to, sir? 15 A: I don't recall that. 16 Q: Now, according to the fax cover sheet 17 here, this was sent at about 1:17 p.m. on September 6th, 18 1995. 19 A: Was -- 20 Q: Is that date in accordance with 21 your -- 22 A: That's what it says on the fax. 23 Q: Sorry? 24 A: That's what it says on the fax, at 25 the top.


1 Q: And would that be consistent with 2 your memory, sir? 3 A: I don't recall, but it says 1:17, so 4 I'll have to say that's probably fairly accurate. 5 Q: Now, you were asked by Mr. Zbogar 6 what you meant by, "It could also be said that he agrees 7 with my suggestions of yesterday", referring to the 8 attached letter. 9 And you indicated -- well, you didn't give 10 an answer that was very clear, in my submission, to that. 11 Let me suggest the following to you, sir. 12 Would you agree, reading the enclosed letter, that the 13 only concrete suggestion in that letter is to move 14 immediately against the people in the Park, either under 15 the trespass law or the criminal charge of mischief? 16 A: I think you have an opportunity to 17 ask that particular individual that wrote that letter. 18 We know who he is; you can ask him that question. 19 Q: I'm asking you, sir. You interpreted 20 this letter in sending it to Mr. King and said you 21 totally agree with it, and you could say that he agrees 22 with my suggestions of yesterday. 23 A: Well -- 24 Q: So, sir, I'm asking you: Do you 25 agree that the only concrete suggestion in that letter is


1 to move quickly against the occupiers, either by virtue 2 of trespass or mischief? 3 A: No, I totally disagree with you. I 4 used the -- 5 Q: I see. 6 A: -- word 'totally' and we spent an 7 awful lot of time yesterday -- 8 Q: Sir, I'm not asking about the word 9 'totally'. Will you please listen to the question, sir. 10 A: I know what the question -- I'll try 11 to give you an answer. 12 Q: The question is, is -- 13 A: I'm asking you -- 14 Q: -- there any other concrete 15 suggestion -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let the 17 Witness answer. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- when -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let the 20 Witness answer before you ask it again. He's trying to 21 answer the question. Try to answer the question. 22 THE WITNESS: I told you before, and I 23 said before, that this letter was one (1) of the many 24 letters we received from constituents, and it says in the 25 first paragraph:


1 "I am attaching a letter from a 2 respectable, responsible, taxpaying, 3 law abiding lawyer in my riding. He 4 puts the message across much better 5 than I could. 6 I'm passing a letter from the 7 constituent along with other letters or 8 correspondence that I'm receiving from 9 constituents to the Premier's office." 10 That's what I'm doing, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 12 not an answer to the question you were asked, so -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: May I remind you of 14 the question -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- ask the 16 question again. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: The question, sir, is the following. 20 Would you agree that the only concrete 21 suggestion contained in this letter that you passed 22 along, was to move quickly against the occupiers, either 23 by virtue of trespass or mischief to property? 24 A: I disagree. 25 Q: What other concrete suggestion do you


1 find in the letter, sir? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Take your 3 time, Mr. Beaubien, and read the letter. 4 THE WITNESS: Well we'll go to the letter 5 word by word. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 7 don't have to do that. Just read it and see if there are 8 any other suggestions in the letter other than the one 9 that counsel suggested. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: Of a concrete type. 13 A: Well Mr. -- so the -- 14 Q: Sir, perhaps, may I suggest that you 15 read it to yourself and -- and instead of reading us the 16 entire letter, just read it to yourself and determine if 17 there are any other suggestions in there, and if there 18 are, sir, please tell us. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 THE WITNESS: Well I'm going to go, take 21 it paragraph by paragraph, sir. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Well go paragraph by paragraph in 25 your own mind I would suggest, sir, and then if you come


1 to something that you think is a suggestion for concrete 2 action, tell us. 3 A: This individual talks about 4 hooligans; is better word. There is no respect for the 5 law. 6 Q: Sir, I'm asking you about concrete 7 suggestions; please answer the question. 8 A: He talks about an awful lot of things 9 in this letter, sir. 10 Q: What other sugges -- 11 A: He talks about burning of government 12 property. I agree with that; there was burning of 13 Government property. 14 Q: Sir, is that a suggestion as to what 15 to do? The statement that there was burning of 16 Government property? 17 A: Well, he talks about it there. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It maybe 19 that we're hung up on the word 'suggestion'. I don't 20 know. It's a possibility -- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 22 Mr. Commissioner, he, in his letter to Bill King, said 23 that he: "Agrees with my suggestions of yesterday." 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 2 Q: What possible suggestion of 3 yesterday could it be, sir, looking over this entire 4 letter other than move immediately with respect to either 5 trespass or mischief to property. 6 A: And I tell -- like I told you very 7 clearly, I do not recall what the suggestion of yesterday 8 -- ten (10) years ago was. 9 Q: I appreciate that. 10 A: I don't recall it. 11 Q: And that's not my question. My 12 question is: Is there any other concrete suggestion in 13 this letter that you could have been referring to, sir? 14 And you can read the letter now as well as 15 you could ten (10) years ago, I presume and would you 16 please do so. Take your time and do so. 17 A: Well, I certainly -- I think if we go 18 to the last paragraph, sir, it says: 19 "The Conservative Government had a 20 large law and order plank in it's 21 platform." 22 It's a fact. I think we campaigned on 23 that in 1995. 24 Q: And he wants the law enforced to see 25 that it does, right?


1 A: "I want to see -- I want to see it 2 live up to its election promises and my 3 expectations I want to see Ipperwash 4 Provincial Park remain in the public 5 domain and I want the law enforced to 6 see that it does." 7 That is a letter that he's sending me. 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: That is his feeling, that is his 10 sentiment. My position was that the police were 11 controlling the situation by keeping the occupier within 12 the confines of the Park and I was very personally 13 satisfied with that particular situation, sir. 14 Q: Sir, may I then turn then to the 15 second para -- the third paragraph, sorry, of this letter 16 that you in the covering letter said you totally agree 17 with, which reads: 18 "Under trespass law the occupiers can 19 be arrested. This should be done 20 immediately. Those responsible for 21 property damage should be charged with 22 mischief. Each hour of delay allows 23 them to commit more damage and become 24 better entrenched." 25 Now, sir, stopping there. Are you saying


1 that you disagreed with that sentiment at the time you 2 sent this letter to Bill King? 3 A: Like I said, I don't know. I'm not 4 very familiar with the trespass law as to what it 5 entails. He's a lawyer, he's more, you know, conversant 6 with it than I am. I have no idea. 7 Like, I said, my position -- 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: -- was the occupiers who were being 10 kept within the confine of the Park and I was quite 11 satisfied with what the police were doing. What one (1) 12 constituents -- 13 Q: Now, sir -- 14 A: -- and the concerns that he or she 15 may -- might have had, I may agree with some of it, I may 16 agree -- I said -- I used the word 'totally', maybe 17 'totally', the word' was not the proper word to use, but 18 I was satisfied with what the police was doing. 19 Q: Now, sir, you did not -- this lawyer, 20 presumably knew something about the law and you did not; 21 that's what you just told us in part, is that correct, 22 sir? 23 A: He knows the law and I don't know -- 24 Q: And that's one of the reasons that 25 you indicated to Bill King, in your view, he expressed


1 things better than you could have because of his legal 2 background; is that fair? 3 A: That's a fair assumption. 4 Q: And in particular though, you didn't 5 know the legal basis for it, but you were supporting his 6 notion that this should be dealt with immediately, that 7 every hour counts; isn't that right? 8 A: No, no. 9 Q: No? 10 A: Absolutely not. I was quite 11 satisfied with the way the police were controlling the 12 situation at this point. 13 Q: Well, don't you think, sir, it would 14 have been incumbent upon you, if you did not support 15 acting immediately, to saying in your covering letter to 16 Mr. King: 17 "While I agree with much of what's in 18 the enclosed letter I do not advocate 19 immediate action such as is indicated 20 there." 21 A: Well, like I told you yesterday, 22 English was not my best language at school. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 24 THE WITNESS: Furthermore, sir -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Commissioner --


1 THE WITNESS: -- there were hundreds of 2 letters that were received. You're taking one (1) 3 paragraph out of one (1) letter. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're going 5 right back over the same ground -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I'll -- I'll 7 go on, Mr. Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that Mr. 9 Zbogar went over. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I want to 11 emphasize -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 13 helpful anymore, Mr. Rosenthal. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I appreciate 15 that, Mr. Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: I -- I will emphasize one (1) other 20 aspect of this paragraph, the last sentence in the third 21 paragraph: 22 "If people are hurt, sobeit. Laws must 23 be enforced to be respected." 24 Now, you read that before you sent it to 25 Bill King, did you not, sir?


1 A: Oh, I probably read it, yeah. 2 Q: Yes, you did. And you agreed with 3 that or else you would not have sent it to Bill King? 4 A: No, I don't believe in violence, sir. 5 Q: You don't? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Well, but you were willing, as this 8 letter writer was, to see people hurt in order to support 9 the law and order platform of the Progressive 10 Conservative Party; is that not correct? 11 A: I -- I am offended by that statement, 12 sir, and I do not believe in violence and I'm very 13 offended by that statement. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's -- 15 THE WITNESS: And I take exception to 16 that, sir. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: Well, sir, this letter was written on 20 the eve of the killing of Dudley George, and it says: 21 "In order to support the law and order 22 platform of the Progressive Party it 23 might be necessary to see people hurt." 24 Do you disagree that that's what it says, 25 sir?


1 A: You can speculate all you want but I 2 will not take any part, any ownership of that, sir. You 3 can speculate and do whatever -- 4 Q: I'm not speculating, sir. 5 A: -- you want, sir, but I will not 6 accept that and I am offended by that, sir. 7 Q: Yes, you should well be, sir, and you 8 should have been offended by this letter rather than 9 sending it to Bill King in these dire circumstances. 10 A: I passed on the information that I 11 received from my constituents to the different ministries 12 in the Premier's office, all the information. 13 Q: Sir, do you agree that one (1) of the 14 messages of this letter is the Conservative Party 15 platform about law enforcement is so important, that it 16 might be necessary to hurt someone to emphasize that 17 platform? 18 A: That is a ridiculous statement, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Is it? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Well, sir, do you agree it says: 25 "If people are hurt, so be it. Laws


1 must be enforced to be respected." 2 A: That's what it says in the letter. 3 Q: And what do you -- what do you take 4 from that statement, sir? 5 A: Well, you're going to have to ask 6 this individual himself. 7 Q: No, sir, I'm asking you, because you 8 forwarded it to Government on the eve of the killing of 9 Dudley George. 10 A: I do not -- 11 Q: So I'm asking you, sir, what it 12 meant: "If people are hurt, so be it. 13 Laws must be enforced --" 14 A: I do not -- 15 Q: "-- to be respected." 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just calm 17 down. 18 THE WITNESS: I do not believe -- I do 19 not believe in violence. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Calm down. 21 Calm down. Calm down. We're in an Inquiry, we're not in 22 a criminal trial. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We ask 25 questions --


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- perhaps we 2 should be, Mr. Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 4 cross-examination can be difficult, I know, and rough, 5 but still needs to be civil. Ask the questions and 6 answer the questions and we'll move forward. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, I -- 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: Now, sir, do you agree that one (1) 12 of the messages of this letter and I would ask that he be 13 directed to answer this question -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- not a question 16 of what you recall, but read this letter and take as much 17 time as you need to, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: Would you agree one (1) of the 22 messages is, In order to show respect for the law, as we 23 the Progressive Conservative Party envisions it, it might 24 be necessary to hurt people in this situation? 25 A: This is one (1) --


1 Q: And so be it if that happens? 2 A: This is a letter from a constituent, 3 sir. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: But it's a letter that you forwarded 8 to the Premier's office on the eve of the killing of 9 Dudley George, sir, and I ask you to respond to that 10 question. 11 A: Along with many other letters that I 12 forwarded, sir. 13 Q: But please respond to the question 14 regardless of any other letters, sir, this letter? 15 A: I sent a letter that I received from 16 one (1) of my constituents to the Premier's office. I -- 17 I -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 THE WITNESS: -- I agree with that, that 20 I did send it. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He said he agreed 22 with the letter. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He agrees with it 24 and does he agree that one (1) of the messages of the 25 letter, sir --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it -- 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- is that in order 3 to support the platform, we must hurt people in 4 situations like this, if necessary? 5 THE WITNESS: I think that's a ridiculous 6 statement, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 8 think we need to go into -- 9 10 CONTINUED MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: Well, am I misunderstanding? Did you 12 have a different understanding, sir, of the sentence: 13 "If people are hurt, so be it. Laws 14 must be enforced to be respected." 15 What was your understanding of that 16 sentence as you forwarded it to the Premier's office on 17 the eve of the killing of Dudley George, sir? 18 A: Like I said, I don't believe in 19 violence. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: I'm sorry? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He doesn't 25 believe in violence. And I'd like to move on.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: You don't believe in violence, but 4 did you have a different understanding of that phrase 5 that I have suggested to you, sir? 6 A: Well, you know, like I said, even 7 though I did say I agreed totally with the letter, I 8 probably said -- should have said, partially, because I 9 certainly would not agree with that statement, sir. 10 Q: Whether you agree with it or not, 11 sir, is not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you, do you 12 understand it to mean what I say it means, namely in 13 order to support our ideology, we may have to hurt people 14 and that's too bad, but so be it. 15 A: You have an opportunity to get this 16 individual -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No -- 18 THE WITNESS: -- on the stand -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, excuse 20 me. Mr. Beaubien. You're being asked a question. You 21 can answer the question or you can't, and that's all you 22 need to do. 23 THE WITNESS: I can't answer a question 24 for -- from somebody that -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, you --


1 THE WITNESS: -- wrote a letter, what 2 that person -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- can 4 answer -- 5 THE WITNESS: -- meant. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can 7 answer this question, because the question is derived 8 directly from the letter and you're being asked what your 9 understanding of those words were, because you forwarded 10 the letter, that's all. 11 What was your understanding of those words 12 at the time? 13 THE WITNESS: And I said I do not believe 14 in violence. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 16 that's -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's not an 18 understanding of this let -- this sentence. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If that's 20 the best you can do, we may have to live with that, but I 21 think you could do better than that. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. May I 23 try to do better than that. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's carry 25 on.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: Would you agree that, apparently, the 4 letter writer does believe in violence? It certainly 5 would -- 6 A: Well, I don't know again. You're 7 going to have to ask him that. 8 Q: Well, I'm asking you, sir, for your 9 interpretation. And the reason that you're 10 interpretation is more important even than whatever he 11 might have meant, is because you are the person who 12 forwarded it to the Government, okay, sir? 13 So, I'm asking your interpretation? 14 A: Could I point out the fact, sir, that 15 this letter was carbon copied by the writer to the 16 Premier's office -- 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: To the Solicitor General, to the 19 Attorney General and to the Minister of Natural 20 Resources, directly. 21 Q: Yes, we'll deal with that in a moment 22 if you wish, sir, but I'm asking you now, and I'll ask 23 you one (1) more time, and I would ask that he be 24 directed to answer, Mr. Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I --


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: Would you agree, in your 4 understanding, the phrase, "If people are hurt, so be it. 5 Laws must be enforced to be respected," in the context of 6 this letter, means, in order to live up to our law and 7 order platform, you have to move in there? 8 It might hurt people, but that's too bad, 9 we have to do it; is that not a fair assumption? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You either 11 agree with that interpretation or you don't. 12 THE WITNESS: No, I do not agree with 13 that statement. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: You don't agree, 15 okay. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: So can you tell us what you think it 20 does mean, sir. 21 A: Well, first of all, you're tying a 22 letter from one constituents to the Common Sense 23 Revolution back in 1995. You're trying to finger joint 24 the whole situation and I totally disagree with you on 25 that.


1 Q: Sir, that's not my question. What is 2 your interpretation -- 3 A: Well that was your question. 4 Q: It's different from mine, sir. Would 5 you please tell me your interpretation as you sent it to 6 the Premier's office on that day? 7 A: I passed on a letter from a 8 constituent that had been sent directly by him to the 9 Premier's office and to three (3) other Ministers. 10 Q: And what was your interpretation of 11 that sentence in the context, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Read the 13 sentence again, Mr. Beaubien, and just answer the 14 question, if you can. 15 If you can't, then we'll move on. 16 THE WITNESS: Well, we're going to have 17 to move on because, like I said, I'm not going to 18 speculate on what a constituent writes and what he's 19 trying to convey. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 21 that's fine. Then let's move on. Let's move on. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 24 have enough on this point -- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I think we have,


1 Mr. Commissioner, but -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to move 3 on. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: Was there any other letter, from all 7 the ones that you received from your constituents, that 8 you passed on to the Premier's office with such accolades 9 as, I totally agree with him, He puts the message across 10 much better than I could, or any such accolade, sir? 11 A: Well, we have letters and a fax on 12 the record that I don't exact know, recall the exact 13 words, but similar in nature. 14 Q: But you didn't say, in a covering 15 letter to that, He puts it much better than I could, or 16 anything like that, did you, sir? 17 A: I think to the -- my recollection, I 18 think I did on different occasion -- other occasions, 19 yes. Maybe not in those words, but insinuating that. 20 Q: I see. Would you please -- you say, 21 in one of the other faxes. Would you please point us to 22 it, sir? 23 A: Well, we have, in this documentation 24 or in this booklet, a lot of documentation, 25 correspondence and letters and notes that were sent to


1 the Premier's office and different Ministries. 2 You have them in front of you. 3 Q: Sir, this one was sent on the eve of 4 the killing of Dudley George, or the day of the killing 5 of Dudley George, to the Premier's office with the 6 covering letter from you that includes that this is a 7 respectable, responsible tax paying, law abiding lawyer 8 in your riding, that he puts the message across much 9 better than I could, and you totally agree with him and 10 it could be said that he agrees with your suggestions of 11 yesterday. 12 Now, sir, would you go at least this far, 13 that on or about September 6th, 1995, the day of the 14 killing of Dudley George, you did not send any other 15 letters to the Premier's office from your constituents? 16 A: You know, you're asking me -- I would 17 have to go through the record whether there was any other 18 correspondence. I don't recall. 19 You know, we have an awful lot of 20 documentation in front of us and for you to ask me 21 whether any other correspondence was sent on that day, I 22 don't recall. There might have been, but I don't recall. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 24 I think we're going to take a break now. Are you 25 finished with this area?


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I was going to ask 2 a little bit more about this, but a break is okay, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 4 need a break now. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 7 very much, Mr. Rosenthal. 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 9 for fifteen (15) minutes. 10 11 --- Upon recessing at 10:12 a.m. 12 --- Upon resuming at 10:28 a.m. 13 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 15 resumed. Please be seated. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 17 Rosenthal, just before we continue, given the various 18 time estimates, we should be able to finish with Mr. 19 Beaubien today. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I hope we 22 do. As you know we're not sitting tomorrow and then 23 we've got a break. And so how long do you anticipate you 24 might be. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I expect to finish


1 within a half an hour which is -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Within a 3 half an hour. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- shorter than I 5 had expected so. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That would 7 be good. Thank you very much. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I am trying to move 9 as expeditiously as I can, sir, and I -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 14 Q: Now, sir, we've seen that you sent 15 this fax enclosing your constituent lawyer's letter to 16 Bill King, probably after noon of September 6, 1995 and 17 we know that you, later that day or early evening of that 18 day, met with Inspector Carson. 19 Now, I'm going to be making submissions to 20 the Commissioner at the end of the day and it's only fair 21 that I put it to you. 22 I would suggest to you, sir, that you, 23 undoubtedly, conveyed to Inspector Carson, when you met 24 him later that day, the notion that enforcing the law is 25 very important, so important that if people are hurt, so


1 be it. 2 What is your answer to that, sir? 3 A: I totally disagree with you. 4 Q: That -- you recall that, that you 5 didn't say that. Is that correct, sir? 6 A: I would never suggest to the police 7 on how to enforce the law. 8 Q: Oh, that -- that doesn't say how to 9 enforce it, sir, just that they must enforce it, even if 10 it requires people getting hurt. 11 A: I would not even go that far, sir. 12 Q: You would not even go that far? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: You forwarded a letter that said 15 that, but you, yourself, would not go that far? 16 A: No. That's correct. 17 Q: Thank you. Now with respect to the 18 carbon copy business that you've referred to here, it 19 says -- it does say on this letter, "carbon copy to the 20 Honourable Mike Harris," right? 21 A: That's what it says on the letter. 22 Q: But you knew that a letter just sent 23 from somebody in Ontario to the Premier's office would 24 just go in a big pile of letters and would hardly have 25 the possibility of being noticed by the Premier; isn't


1 that fair? 2 A: Well, there's a process, I'm sure, in 3 any office that, you know, the correspondence comes in 4 and there's a process that it has to go through before 5 it's processed. 6 Q: Yes. And you knew that it was very 7 unlikely that Mr. Harris would actually see this letter, 8 and if he did, it would be weeks later, probably, right? 9 A: Probably the same with any 10 correspondence that I would send. 11 Q: Well, that was not your understanding 12 of what would happen if you sent matters to Mr. Harris 13 through Bill King, right? 14 That was a special vehicle to Mr. Harris 15 for Members of the caucus, right? 16 A: But, if you recall, I also said in 17 evidence that I -- even though I was sending 18 correspondence, it was -- there was usually quite a delay 19 before -- if I received anything, there was quite a delay 20 before I received the reply. 21 Q: But, I put it to you, sir, that the 22 reason that you faxed this to Bill King, even though -- 23 to the attention of the Premier, even though it was 24 carbon copied to the Premier, was because you knew that 25 would increase the possibility that the Premier would see


1 it and would see it soon; is that not fair? 2 A: Well I -- I would hope that the 3 Premier would be apprised of the -- of the 4 correspondence. 5 Q: Yes. Thank you. 6 A: But the fax was sent at 1:15. I'm 7 sure the Premier would not be apprised of the situation 8 in the same day or the following day. I don't know what 9 the, you know, how long the time lines would be. 10 Q: You're not sure of that at all. 11 A: No, I'm not. 12 Q: You don't know what the time lines 13 were. 14 A: No, I have no idea what the time 15 lines would be. 16 Q: No, and if it was -- if it was not 17 until a day or two, then that would contradict your 18 assurances to people that the Premier was on top of it, 19 wouldn't it? 20 A: No. Because I think you got to go 21 back that I had the conversation with Mr. King, what, the 22 day before, assuring me that the Premier was on top of 23 the situation? 24 Q: Now, sir, if you'd look at Tab -- 25 A: I stand to be corrected on the date,


1 but it was prior to that. 2 Q: If you'd look at Tab 31, please, of 3 your documents. And I'm not going to necessarily require 4 this on the screen. 5 I just -- I'm interested in the fax cover 6 that you sent to Bill King. This was a -- you enclosed a 7 letter from a constituent and your comment on that 8 occasion to Bill King was: 9 "A letter of support for Premier Harris 10 which we were asked to forward to him. 11 Thanks." 12 Is that correct? 13 A: Yes, the fax is sent by one of my 14 staff. That's not my handwriting on the fax, but it's 15 probably the constituent requested that we passed on this 16 letter -- 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: -- and we did. 19 Q: And that's quite different from the 20 covering letter that you sent with respect to the 21 lawyer's letter that we looked at in some detail where 22 you expressed such admiration for the lawyer and for the 23 contents of the letter, right? 24 A: Well, it says, "A letter of support 25 for Premier Harris which we were asked"; it's -- it's the


1 same fax, the contents of the -- of the -- of the written 2 portion is different, yes. 3 Q: So -- 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just for the record, 5 the Tab 31 is Exhibit P-956. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, I'm sorry, 7 thank you. Thank you, Ms. Vella. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 10 Q: At Tab 37, please, sir. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Tab 37 is not an 15 Exhibit yet, I believe. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes, it's Exhibit P- 17 958. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 958. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 958. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: P-958. It's Inquiry Document Number 25 1006199. And this is evidently a fax from you to Bill


1 King on September 11, 1995; is that correct? 2 A: That's correct. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: And you indicate that: 7 "Constituents in the area are now 8 having -- or starting to change their 9 position from one which was very 10 supportive to one of lack of trust due 11 to the following: 12 A) Injunction not renewed. Police 13 decision not well perceived by public." 14 Now, I want to fasten separately on those 15 two (2) phrases. 16 The first one, 'Injunction not renewed'; I 17 gather that you were aware at this time that the request 18 for an Injunction had been withdrawn by the Government, 19 right? 20 A: I would tend to agree with that. 21 Yeah, that's what -- 22 Q: And as far as you knew, there was no 23 renewal of that request in progress and that's what you 24 were concerned about; is that correct? 25 A: I'm hearing from -- I said -- I think


1 you have to go back to point 1 where it says constituents 2 in the area -- 3 Q: Yes, that's what you -- 4 A: I'm passing the concerns of my 5 constituents on. 6 Q: Yes. Now, we understand that that 7 injunction was never renewed, in fact, up to the present 8 day. Is that your understanding, sir? 9 A: I'm not aware of that. I don't know 10 where the injunction stands. 11 Q: But did you, over the period of days 12 and weeks and so on after this, continue to express a 13 concern on behalf of your constituents that the 14 injunction was not being renewed? 15 A: Well, I guess it's quite obvious. I 16 sent the fax on September the 9th, or September 11th -- 17 Q: September 11, I believe this one is 18 dated. But I asked you, did you continue to express that 19 concern over the ensuing weeks and months? 20 A: I think there was some reference to 21 that in other correspondence. 22 Q: And did you achieve the understanding 23 at some point that one of the reasons that the Government 24 was not pursing an injunction was that they did not want 25 judicial scrutiny as to what happened in the killing of


1 Dudley George? 2 A: Oh, I think that's a -- 3 Q: Sorry? 4 A: I think that's a -- a speculation on 5 your part, sir. 6 Q: I asked: Did you receive that 7 understanding, sir? 8 A: No, absolutely not. 9 Q: Thank you. Now, dealing with the 10 other half of this -- 11 A: If I may interject here, for the 12 record, because I don't think we've ever talked about 13 that, but if you check the archives with the Forest 14 Standard, that on January -- I think it was on January of 15 1996, I supported a Public Inquiry, based on two (2) 16 caveats. 17 I think, you know, I'd like to put that on 18 the record. 19 Q: I'm happy to give you that 20 opportunity. I will ask you more about that, sir. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: And if I fail to, please remind me; I 23 shall do so. But let me continue with this document, if 24 I may. 25 Just making a note to keep my promise to


1 you, sir. 2 Now, the next phrase is: 3 "Police decision not well perceived by 4 public." 5 What police decision were you referring to 6 there, sir? 7 A: I would imagine probably, with 8 enforcing the injunction, or renewing the injunction, I 9 would think. I think -- 10 Q: That's -- 11 A: -- that's probably what it refers to. 12 Q: So, it was your understanding that 13 that was a decision of the police, then, to not renew the 14 injunction? 15 A: You know, again, I -- I can't recall, 16 but it would certainly in -- somewhat indicate that, I 17 think. 18 Q: Now, then you have number 2: 19 "I can take the heat but will not be 20 the fall guy." 21 Now, what heat were you taking, sir? 22 A: Well, there were an awful lot of 23 calls coming into the office. There was an awful lot of 24 frustration. There was an awful lot of fear. I think I 25 explained that to Ms. Vella a couple of days ago.


1 Q: But in what sense were you afraid of 2 being made the fall guy? 3 A: Well, I think I explained that to Ms. 4 Vella quite clearly, that I was afraid that I didn't want 5 Queen's Park to come back down the road and say you did 6 not keep us informed of the situation at Ipperwash. 7 So, consequently any time that I received 8 some pertinent information I felt it was my 9 responsibility to pass it on to the different channels. 10 Q: And were you not also concerned, sir, 11 that given the fact that there was a killing which had 12 resulted in much public outcry that people might blame 13 you because of your interaction with the police? 14 A: No, absolutely not. I totally 15 disagree with that, sir. 16 Q: Wouldn't it have been your feeling 17 that you shouldn't be the fall guy since you were totally 18 encouraged in everything you did by government officials 19 as well as police officials? 20 A: No, I stand by what I explained. I 21 just wanted to make sure that nobody pointed the finger 22 at me that I did not keep then informed of the -- or 23 apprised of the situation and that's why I passed on all 24 the information that I had. And I'll stand by that. 25 Q: Now, sir, you indicated that in


1 January of 1996 you proposed that there should be a 2 public inquiry; is that correct? 3 A: I did not propose, I was asked 4 whether I would support. 5 Q: So, by that time there was some 6 public outcry in the direction of there should be a 7 public inquiry and you responded to questions about that? 8 A: I was asked a question, I gave an 9 answer. 10 Q: And you indicated you told us that 11 you supported a public inquiry? 12 A: That I would, yes. 13 Q: And with two (2) caveats; is that 14 correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And what were the caveats, sir? 17 A: One (1) that the damage done at the 18 Provincial Park, the burning of the buildings and the 19 looting of the buildings be -- that the Province be 20 compensated and that the occupiers leave the Park. 21 Q: Before any inquiry were to be called? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: I see. And were you privy to any 24 discussions in Caucus about whether or not a public 25 inquiry should be called?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 2 you -- 3 THE WITNESS: No, I wasn't. I was -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. The 5 answer is no. Just before you answer the question... 6 OBJ MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Again, Mr. 7 Commissioner, we object to any of the witnesses being 8 asked about discussions in Caucus, about whether or not 9 an inquiry should be called. It's in our submission not 10 relevant to -- to this process. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: We've been over 13 this, Mr. Commissioner, and you've ruled that we could 14 explore that to some extent. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, like I 16 said I didn't want to have an inquiry into why there 17 wasn't an inquiry for nine (9) years, but you've asked a 18 question, he said no. I think -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But you did 20 indicate we could ask -- and I -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I intend -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- each 24 situation will have to be assessed. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. Well, with


1 respect, Mr. Commissioner -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 3 prepared to make a blanket ruling. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- the person that 5 I wish to ask questions about this certainly is Premier 6 Mike Harris -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- the client of 9 Ms. McAleer and she's trying I would think to get that 10 ruled against before that happens and I would hope not. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 12 going to attribute that at this point, Mr. Rosenthal. 13 I'm going to deal with each situation as it arises. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's move 16 on. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, it is important 18 for me to reserve that right, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Now, I shall move 21 on then -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- to a different 24 issue. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 2 Q: In the course of August 3 1995/September 1995 you heard some people use the 4 expression 'the fucking Indians' didn't you, sir? 5 A: I think the first time I heard that 6 was in the House. 7 Q: In the House? 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: After Dudley George had been killed, 10 you mean? 11 A: I think it was a question in the -- 12 during Question Period I think. 13 Q: Was that after Dudley George had been 14 killed, sir, is your evidence? 15 A: Yeah. It would have to because the 16 House was not sitting at that time. 17 Q: And you didn't hear it at all before 18 Dudley George was -- 19 A: No, sir. 20 Q: Now, your counsel made a suggestion 21 to a witness that saying, 'Get the fucking Indians out of 22 my Park' would be more appropriate to a barroom than to a 23 boardroom. 24 Do you agree with submission of your 25 counsel or do you agree it's inappropriate anywhere in


1 the world, sir? 2 A: Well, you know I'm sure the word's in 3 Webster's Dictionary. It's a word that's used commonly 4 by an awful lot of people on a daily basis. It certainly 5 doesn't -- doesn't have the proper implication at times 6 but it's a word that's commonly used. 7 Q: Well, sir, I'm not concerned with the 8 word 'fucking'. If somebody said, I want to get the 9 people out of the fucking Park, that would not be the 10 thrust of my question. I'm concerned, sir, with 11 attaching the word, 'fucking' to an ethnic group like 12 Indians. 13 And I would ask you, sir: Is that not 14 racist whether it's said in a barroom or a boardroom or 15 anywhere in the world? 16 A: Well again, you know, I'm a minority. 17 I've -- I've been called a 'frog' or 'gorf' which is -- 18 Q: A racist term, yes. 19 A: -- frog spelled backwards. I don't 20 really consider that racist. It all depends how it's 21 said. I know I have told a few people in my life that a 22 lot of people can call me a frog or a gorf but you may 23 not be able to call me that, sir. 24 So, consequently is I don't consider -- I 25 probably have the largest frog collection in -- in


1 Ontario because people bring me frogs when they travel 2 for some reason. 3 So, it -- it all depends to say that the - 4 - the word 'fucking' or the word 'frog' is racist, I 5 think that's stretching it. 6 Q: So, you don't agree that the phrase 7 'fucking Indian' is necessarily racist then? 8 A: No, I -- I don't sir, I disagree. 9 Q: What about the phrase 'fucking Jew'; 10 would you agree that's a racist term? 11 A: It's not appropriate. 12 Q: But is it racist? 13 A: Is it racist? I don't think it would 14 be racist, but I think it's not appropriate 15 Q: Thank you, sir. We have your 16 evidence. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 18 very much, Mr. Rosenthal. I think Mr. Ross is up next. 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 21 Q: Good day, Mr. Beaubien. 22 A: Good morning. 23 Q: My name is Anthony Ross and I 24 represent the persons who are resident at Aazhoodena. 25 I must first apologize to you because the


1 three (3) hours that I had planned has been substantially 2 whittled away, so you're not going to have me for three 3 (3) hours. 4 The other thing, sir, is that I believe 5 that most of the information has been beaten out of the 6 documents. I take the position that the documents speak 7 for themselves as supplemented by whatever different 8 evidence was given from time to time. 9 Now, I must ask you, sir, prior to being 10 elected in 1995, did you take an active interest in what 11 was happening as far as the First Nations in the Kettle 12 Point and Stony Point areas are concerned? 13 A: No, because I -- as I pointed out, I 14 lived in the Petrolia area which is -- was thirty-eight 15 (38) kilometres away so, you know, I interacted with some 16 of the people in the area, but basically I was involved 17 more in Central Lambton than in the north part of the 18 county. 19 Q: I see. So, that the occupation of 20 the range back in 1993 was not a big matter; I guess it 21 did not appear very, very strong on your radar screen. 22 Is that a fair way to put it? 23 A: No. Because like I said, I lived out 24 of the area and that certainly was not on my radar 25 screen, you are quite right.


1 Q: Yeah. And with respect to the 2 mandate of this Inquiry, and I have just got a little 3 excerpt which I'm -- I'm sure is correct, it says: 4 "It is the -- it's mandate [speaking of 5 the Inquiry] is to inquire and report 6 on events surrounding the death of 7 Dudley George, who was shot in 1995 8 during a protest by First Nations -- 9 First Nations representatives at 10 Ipperwash Provincial Park, and later 11 died." 12 That's what we're here about. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: Now, when you -- in 1995 you were 15 elected as the MPP for this area? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And I take it, sir, that your 18 constituency boundaries extended far beyond Kettle Point 19 Reserve, correct? 20 A: Correct. Roughly, it -- the boundary 21 was from Grand Bend to Walpole Island. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: Excluding part of the City of Sarnia. 24 Q: Okay. But, definitely inclusive of 25 the Kettle Point reserve, correct.


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: Yes. And inclusive of what was then 3 the -- the army camp? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Yeah. And my understanding is that 6 the -- the situation was ramped up, escalated a bit, in 7 July of 1995 when the people who occupied the range moved 8 and occupied the barracks? 9 A: I think that's a fair statement, yes, 10 yeah. 11 Q: And around that time, July, the 12 Conservative Government was already in power? 13 A: We had been in power approximately 14 one (1) month, yeah. 15 Q: Approximately one (1) month, yes, 16 sir. And the fact that the occupants moved from the 17 range to the barracks, did that create any concern for 18 you, as the MPP for the area? 19 A: Not at all, because the -- the entire 20 base was a Federal issue. I might have received a few 21 calls, but it certainly was not an issue for -- for the 22 Province at that particular point in time. 23 Q: I see. But at the same time, sir, 24 there was the litigation with respect to West Ipperwash 25 beach; am I correct?


1 A: Yes, that had been going on for a 2 period of time. 3 Q: And I take it, sir, that the 4 litigation, with respect to West Ipperwash Beach, was 5 something with which you concerned yourself? 6 A: As I pointed out to Ms. Vella, it was 7 one of the first issue that I -- confronted me or that I 8 faced when I was first elected. 9 Q: Yes. I appreciate that. I don't 10 like you answering my questions, specifically, and I can 11 tell you, sir, I don't have a lot of confrontational 12 stuff to deal with, with you. 13 So, if you could assist me by just being 14 crisp with your answers, I'll get a chance to cut my 15 three (3) hours down to maybe half an hour. 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: Okay. So, as far as the Ipperwash 18 litigation was concerned, this is something that you 19 concerned yourself about; am I correct? 20 A: Well, my constituents approached me. 21 They were concerned about the title on their property and 22 the cost or the money they were spending on -- on lawyers 23 to defend the suit. 24 Q: Yes. And it was resolved through the 25 Court system?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And I take it you were happy with the 3 result of the Court decision? 4 A: I have to be happy with the results 5 of the Court system, sir. 6 Q: I don't understand that. I'm asking 7 you, were you happy with the outcome as far as the Court 8 was concerned? 9 A: Well, it's the -- you know, the Court 10 ruled on it, and it did not impact on me personally, but 11 I think the constituents were happy with the results. 12 Q: And as a matter of fact, the Court 13 system is part of what keeps our civil society together; 14 do you agree with that? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: So you've got -- on one hand you've 17 got the executive, the Premier and his Cabinet, the other 18 one you've got the Legislature, all the people who are 19 elected, and you've got the Judiciary, the Court system, 20 all keeping everything together so we can move forward? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And as an MPP, you had full 23 confidence in the Court system with -- as a -- as a way 24 to resolve disputes? 25 A: Well, that's the way our system


1 works, so -- 2 Q: Precisely. 3 A: Yeah, exactly. 4 Q: Precisely. And in that regard, you 5 were personally satisfied with the outcome of the West 6 Ipperwash Beach litigation? 7 A: Yes. And I think it was in '96 or 8 '97. I can't recall what year, but yes. 9 Q: Yeah. Now, around the time of the 10 occupation of the barracks, in 1995, July, followed up by 11 the occupation of the Park, I take it, sir, that you and 12 a lot of your constituents had strong views about that? 13 A: As I pointed out, I personally did 14 not have an awful lot of views on the issue because I did 15 not live in the area. 16 I represented the constituents of the 17 area, and there's no doubt that the constituents have 18 some strong views and some concerns about the issue, yes. 19 Q: Yes, sir. And as far as the 20 constituents are concerned, is it fair to say that your 21 sympathies were more aligned with the non-Indians than 22 with the Indians within your constituency? 23 A: Well, I was receiving comments and 24 concerns from both sides, however, there is no doubt that 25 I was receiving more comments and concerns from the


1 people that lived in the immediate area. And I explained 2 that to Ms. Vella why they were concerned. 3 Q: Well, yes, and I don't want to go 4 down that road again. I just, as I said, I'm looking for 5 some short answers. 6 So then let's -- let's refer to them just 7 as those people with a property interest or the -- the 8 cottage -- the cottage owners. 9 I take it, sir, that as far as the cottage 10 owners were concerned, your views were more aligned with 11 them and the fact that they had deeds, than with the 12 First Nations who were claiming that there might have 13 been a problem with title? 14 A: Well, I was receiving more concerns 15 from the cottage owners than people on -- on the Base or 16 -- or in the -- in the Provincial Park, there's no doubt 17 about that. 18 Q: But it -- in the bottom line it 19 established that there was a conflict as far as the 20 beliefs of one (1) group and another group? 21 A: Oh, there's no doubt about that. 22 Q: And as -- and would you agree with me 23 that that was really the underlying problem, then, as far 24 as the Ipperwash -- West Ipperwash lands were concerned 25 and the same kind of problem exists as far as the Camp


1 and the Park is concerned? 2 A: Well, again, I think it's probably a 3 fair assumption, because I'm -- I'm sure there was an 4 awful lot of frustration with regards to the -- the Army 5 Base itself, and I'll refer to the Army Base as opposed 6 to breaking it down in two (2), that the Federal 7 Government had promised that it would return the land. 8 Q: Does it -- 9 A: But with regards to the Provincial 10 Park there has never been any land claim made on that 11 particular piece of property and, I do believe, in the 12 legal system. So there's a proper way of trying to 13 assess ownership like the people at West Ipperwash you 14 mention. 15 They had to go through the court system to 16 deal with the issue and if they had to go through that, 17 people were saying, Well, why can't the same process be 18 followed by the other people? 19 Q: So, your view was this was a matter 20 to be resolved through a court process or something other 21 than an occupation? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: If there was a claim, I'm not aware 25 that there's a -- if there was a problem with ownership


1 of the property I'm not aware of any claim that's ever 2 been laid on that piece of property. 3 Q: Well that might be true, sir, you 4 might not be aware of it. What I'm trying to get to is, 5 just so your agreement, you're the MPP for the area, that 6 there were two (2) different views as far as the same 7 piece of land was concerned? 8 A: Oh, yeah, there conflicting views or 9 opinions, yes. 10 Q: Yes. And the people who moved to 11 occupy the lands, they went down a route which you did 12 not particularly subscribe to? 13 A: No, because, again, it was construed 14 and the Government took the position that it was an 15 illegal occupation. 16 Q: You know, you see, sir, that's why I 17 asked you at the beginning about your view and how the 18 Court resolved the dispute as far as the West Ipperwash 19 lands were concerned, because here we've got a society, 20 we've got two (2) groups of people and there are some -- 21 some differences on view with respect to land. 22 The Court has made a ruling and that has 23 not been overturned. As far as the other piece of land 24 is concerned, there seems to have been some pre-judgment 25 that nobody wants to go and you'll see what the Court has


1 to say, but there's a general attitude to condemn the 2 people who have moved into the Park? 3 A: No, I disagree with you because, 4 basically, there was no -- the -- the land was owned by 5 the Province. It had been owned by the Province, I 6 think, since 19 -- and I stand to be corrected, but 1937. 7 There had been some archeological studies 8 done in 1972 or '76, I can't recall exactly the year, by 9 the University of Western Ontario. So the Province was 10 of the -- the position that they had legal ownership of 11 the land. 12 The other group felt that they owned it or 13 what, but when there's a disagreement or different point 14 of view, we usually use the court system to get the end 15 results. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: That was my position. 18 Q: Now, sir, I recognize, A) that you're 19 not a lawyer, and I also recognize from being here that 20 English is not your first language. 21 But there is just one (1) paragraph of a 22 Court decision that have circulated. And I would just 23 like to read it. If you don't understand it, I'm going 24 to ask you to comment on it. 25 A: Okay.


1 Q: There was a problem which went to the 2 Supreme Court of Canada, and I'm referring to the -- 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Is this the 4 Delgamuukw case? 5 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yes. 6 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I just want to 7 caution, Number 1, it's -- those of us who have practised 8 Aboriginal law and have argued this case, it's a rather 9 comp -- it goes to three (3) levels: From the trial 10 level, to the BC Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court of 11 Canada. 12 It's a very complicated case. It's a very 13 long case in all three (3) reported decisions. The last 14 time I argued it, my co-counsel was now Mr. Justice 15 Binnie and he -- he may have understood it in great 16 detail but his co-counsel struggled to understand all the 17 implications. 18 It goes everything from indigenous 19 Aboriginal Rights to Federal Provincial jurisdictional 20 matters. And all -- all I'm asking is that we tread 21 lightly on this because to select one paragraph out of a 22 very complicated case, that one of the most brilliant 23 legal minds in Canada, I suggest, had some difficulty 24 arguing, it's rather unfair to put one (1) paragraph to - 25 - to Mr. Beaubien and ask him to comment on it.


1 I'm not sure that that's where My Friend's 2 going but I'm not sure that it'll be real helpful to you 3 otherwise. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's your 5 objective in doing this, Mr. Ross? 6 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: The first thing, it's 7 just a plain language position of the Supreme Court of 8 Canada suggesting that these disputes, between First 9 Nations and the rest of Canada, should resolve through 10 negotiation. That's the point. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 12 So you -- 13 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Okay? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't -- 15 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yes, carry on. And I 16 wanted to use the language because -- in just one 17 sentence. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So you're 19 not talking about the decision or -- 20 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Oh, of course not. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- anything 22 like that. 23 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Of course not. And 24 I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You just


1 like the language. You like the language and you want 2 to -- 3 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I like the language 4 and I -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 6 That's fine. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 9 Q: Mr. Beaubien, with respect to 10 disputes between First Nations, a land dispute with First 11 Nations, the Supreme Court took the position that these 12 things should be resolved through negotiations. 13 There was a case that it went up, it was 14 sent back for a new trial, but the court suggested, Look, 15 because I've sent it back doesn't mean you have to go to 16 a new trial; try to negotiate it. And here are the words 17 he said, in paragraph 186: 18 "These negotiations should include 19 other Aboriginal Nations which have a 20 stake in the territory claimed." 21 It goes further to say: 22 "Moreover, the Crown is on a moral, if 23 not legal duty, to enter into an 24 conduct these negotiations in good 25 faith."


1 Would you agree with me that what was 2 lacking, and is still lacking, is a good faith attempt to 3 resolve whatever disputes led to the occupation of the 4 camp and that spilled over into the Park? 5 A: I totally agree with you. 6 Q: Yeah. And in writing the decision, 7 the judge went on to say: 8 "The reconciliation of the pre- 9 existence of Aboriginal societies with 10 the Sovereign Crown." 11 And then he goes onto say: 12 "Let's face it. We're all here to 13 stay." 14 Now, against that, would you agree with me 15 that there was ample opportunity, in 1995, to address 16 what was an escalating problem. 17 We started in 1993, where they occupied 18 the range, and then in July of 1995 where they occupied 19 the barracks, and with forewarning that the next thing 20 was going to be the Park. 21 Wouldn't you agree with me that there was 22 ample opportunity, if the Crown wanted to, to just take 23 these people seriously and be clear with its position? 24 A: I would agree with except -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a


1 minute. Before you answer the question, Mr. Beaubien, 2 the lawyer for the Province of Ontario has a comment. 3 Let's hear it. 4 Yes, Ms. Twohig...? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you, Mr. 9 Commissioner. My concern is that the question that's 10 being put to Mr. Beaubien, is being put in very 11 simplistic terms such that no one would disagree with the 12 benefits of negotiating. 13 But what we have here is a question of 14 with whom does one negotiate. The Supreme Court case to 15 which My Friend referred dealt with a particular Crown 16 involved with a dispute and with a recognized First 17 Nation under the Indian Act. 18 This is a completely different situation 19 and the most recent question that My Friend just asked 20 the witness was about the Crown's duty to negotiate, but 21 one of the fundamental questions, I submit, is which 22 Crown, if there's a land claim? 23 And I think it's important that he be very 24 specific about that. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, the


1 problem is, when you get very specific, then you're 2 getting into the case, and I'm not sure that anybody 3 wants that. 4 I'd prefer if you used language that 5 wasn't a direct quote from the case. I mean, you can ask 6 the questions without quoting the case. 7 I mean, as long as the questions are 8 clear, the witness can answer them. 9 I mean, when you say "Crown," you know, it 10 -- you can see why the Province of Ontario would think 11 that's ambiguous. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 14 Q: Oh, as a matter of fact, I -- I don't 15 propose to take it any further than that with this 16 witness. I've gone as far as I want to go with this. 17 But this whole idea that, we're here to 18 stay and we've got to find a way to resolve disputes, 19 agreed? 20 A: Again, I've pointed out that I have 21 always was of the opinion that the long term solution to 22 this problem was negotiation. 23 But, you mention, in your statement or a 24 part to you question, 1995; I would strongly suggest that 25 you should go way back.


1 Q: Absolutely. 2 A: I would agree with that. You 3 mentioned '95 but I think you should -- 4 Q: I -- 5 A: -- go way back. 6 Q: I agree with you, sir. So what 7 started to crystallize in 1995 -- 1993 and 1995, we must 8 go back to the root, understand what the problem is, and 9 come forward? 10 A: I agree, yeah. 11 Q: I see. Now, I take it, sir, that you 12 did not think that, as the MPP for this area, you had any 13 power to trigger such negotiations? 14 A: No. It's -- the only power that I 15 had was to pass the information and make suggestions. I 16 think, again, that I pointed to Ms. Vella on a couple -- 17 well, more than a couple of occasion, I suggested that 18 representative from different groups be -- should be 19 sitting at a table and trying to find some resolve to 20 this situation. 21 Q: And you'd agree with me, sir, that 22 between 1995, when the range was occupied, and October -- 23 around October of 1996 when the Court decided -- sent a 24 clear message that this concept of colour of right would 25 be a proper defence and the charges were dropped, that


1 that triggered a new thinking as to whether or not the 2 people who had moved into the camp were absolutely 3 illegal or now operating under colour of right? 4 A: Yeah, and that's pretty legal for me 5 when you're talking about colour of right. I have a 6 general understanding of that, but I'm certainly not -- I 7 would not consider my -- myself an expert in trying to 8 find a meaning to it or the implication of it. 9 Q: Well, then, perhaps you can just help 10 us, because, as I say, I mean I -- I'm looking to you for 11 help for the purpose of this Inquiry. 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: This concept of colour of right, you 14 -- you have a general understanding of it, am I correct? 15 A: Somewhat, yeah. 16 Q: Okay. And your understanding, if I 17 may be so -- so -- so intrusive, is that there is 18 something that could be supported in law, for your 19 presence in what would otherwise be a trespass? 20 A: That's correct, yeah. 21 Q: Fine. So then after the charges were 22 dropped in 1996, would you agree with me that there was 23 no discernable change in attitude toward the First Nation 24 members who occupied the Park? 25 A: There was -- could you repeat the --


1 Q: No discernable change in attitude, 2 local attitude, with respect to the people who occupied 3 the Park? 4 A: You know, when you're talking about 5 the Park itself, and I think I've referred to that in the 6 past few days, that I don't think -- if you're talking 7 about the Provincial Park, is -- you know, it's a 8 different situation than the base itself. 9 When it came to the base, I think people 10 were quite supportive, or, I don't know if supportive is 11 the right word, but certainly did not have an awful lot 12 of concern with the camp being occupied. 13 The Park itself became a different 14 situation, because the understanding was that there was 15 no claim on that particular piece of land. 16 And again if we're going to go along the 17 line that you're talking about that the first thing in 18 order to say, Well, we may have some interests on this, 19 the understanding was that a claim should probably be 20 initiated in order to ascertain whether there was any 21 substance to the ownership claim that the occupiers were 22 making. 23 Q: Mr. Beaubien, I agree with you, and 24 believe me I clearly understand the difference between 25 the Camp --


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: -- and the Park. My understanding is 3 the Camp is the upper section that the Feds promised to 4 return -- 5 A: Right. 6 Q: -- and would not have included the 7 Park. The Park is what was Ipperwash Provincial Park 8 down at the end of Army Camp Road and that is the piece 9 on which the judge said there's this question of colour 10 of right. 11 So, I'm saying to -- 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I think there's a 13 couple of problems here. First -- first is that if we're 14 going to talk about the judge referring to colour of 15 right then we should have the facts put before Mr. 16 Beaubien. 17 I mean, there's some -- number 1 he 18 doesn't -- what judge -- did a judge actually say that? 19 Did the Crown withdraw charges? 20 Is -- there are so many legal issues that 21 I don't think ought to be put to Mr. Beaubien in this -- 22 in this manner. 23 I -- I didn't get up earlier -- I don't 24 think My Friend laid the groundwork, number 1, on -- on 25 charges, when charges were withdrawn. Mr. Beaubien


1 doesn't have knowledge of that. There's been no 2 groundwork laid on that. 3 And I don't know as a fact whether charges 4 were dismissed by a judge, whether they were withdrawn by 5 the Crown, and I don't generally -- quite frankly, Your 6 Honour, I -- I don't want to argue colour of right. 7 But my suggestion is, it's not proper to 8 put it to this Witness in this manner, and then say 9 generally, Do you understand the concept of colour of 10 right? I don't even -- although I have eminent criminal 11 counsel asking questions I'm not even sure that the -- 12 the -- I agree with the statement of law that he's put to 13 My Friend on what colour of right is and whether it's 14 used -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 16 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- as a defence or 17 whether it's as -- an element of -- a mental element, 18 whether you've proven that mental element of mens rea. 19 So, I -- I don't really see how that can 20 advance anything being put to a person who the groundwork 21 hasn't been laid for, doesn't understand what's a rather 22 a rather complex legal issue of colour of right and mens 23 rea. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 25 sure, Mr. Ross, that these aren't issues that could be


1 dealt with in argument. I'm not sure that there's any 2 evidence that this Witness can give us that's going to 3 help us in any way regarding this issue. 4 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well, with respect, 5 Commissioner, I don't agree with you, but I will abide by 6 what you've got to say. 7 And as far as Mr. -- the counsel -- 8 counsel's position is concerned on the question -- on -- 9 on the specific thing about the -- the access, the entry 10 into the Camp I tried to -- to make it as simple as 11 possible. 12 Absent colour of right, there's arguments 13 of trespass. Colour of right, there is a possible 14 defence. 15 Now, the reason is when there is the Ipper 16 -- West Ipperwash Beach and there is an indication from 17 the judicial system that you have one (1) resolution, 18 that is fine. I am suggesting, and the record shows, 19 that the charges were withdrawn because the judge made it 20 clear that there is a colour of right defence. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 22 matter of argument. 23 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: No. Well, okay, fine 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I mean 25 that's --


1 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I'll walk away from 2 it. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You make -- 4 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I'll -- I'll walk away 5 from it. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you make 7 that argument. It's a legitimate argument. 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yes, but the point is, 9 Mr. Commissioner, here we've got the MPP, somebody who 10 has been dealing with a lot of the correspondence and 11 reflecting the attitude of the immediate community, and 12 here when the -- when the Court says, West Ipperwash 13 Property Owners you are right, it is acceptable and 14 that's fine. 15 When there's a defence of colour of right 16 I'm asking then, Is there a change in the general 17 attitude around? And the answer's either yes, no, or I 18 don't know, because I'm not going into mens rea or actus 19 reus or whatever My -- My Learned Friend is saying. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, like I 21 said we let you go down this road and I'd like you -- 22 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I'm not going very far 23 with this. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like you 25 to finish it but I don't want you to get into the


1 details. 2 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yes. Of course not. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm -- 4 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Of course not, 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm 7 concerned about some of the things that Mr. Sulman said, 8 so let's... 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 11 Q: I can put it another way, Mr. 12 Beaubien. Between the time of the occupation of the Park 13 in 1995 and now, has there been any, in your view, any 14 discernible change in attitude toward the people who are 15 in the Park? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 17 fair question. 18 THE WITNESS: Well, there's no doubt. I 19 mean, I'm not really, you know, really informed as to 20 what the situation is today, but there's no doubt that 21 the situation -- the tension was not decreased over a 22 period of time. 23 As to what the opinions of some of the 24 people, I'm sure it probably has not changed with some 25 people from today as it was back in 1995.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 3 Q: Yeah. And, Mr. Beaubien, there's -- 4 one of the documents is an Exhibit, 772, and I don't -- I 5 don't need to have you go to it. I just want to point 6 out to you, that is a letter from Les Kobayashi and the - 7 - it's dated May the 21st, 1993, two (2) years before 8 your government was elected. 9 And it says here, on May 18th: 10 "The Stoney Point people indicated to 11 the Ministry of Natural Resources their 12 intent to return to what they claim to 13 be their homelands, part of which, 14 claims includes the lands of Ipperwash 15 Provincial Park." 16 So, I'm suggesting to you that as far back 17 as 1993, the Province had notice that there was some 18 concern about Ipperwash Provincial Park. 19 A: I -- I was not aware of that. 20 Q: Okay, fine. Your government was not 21 in power. So, through two (2) different governments -- 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: -- nothing was done to address that 24 concern. 25 A: It certainly would appear.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, Mr. Beaubien, around the time, 4 around September the 5th, the time that there was this 5 exchange from -- a letter from a lawyer who was a member 6 of your constituency, which was sent to you and the 7 Premier and others, around that time when you were 8 crafting the press release Exhibit P-953; that's the one 9 in which you referred to some people as thugs? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Now, around that time, did you know 12 how many people occupied the -- the Park? 13 A: From the information that I had it 14 fluctuated, because there was, from the information that 15 I received, quite a lot of flux in and out -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- but up to two hundred (200) and 18 some odd people, at some times. 19 Q: Yeah. The -- the police records and 20 the numbers that we've been hearing was some place 21 between -- approximately thirty (30). 22 Your information is that it was 23 substantially more than thirty (30)? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Yeah. Now, of the -- of the people


1 who were occupying this -- this Park, whether it was 2 thirty (30) or two hundred (200), did you have any 3 information on any of them in an individual capacity? 4 A: I knew -- you know, I did not know -- 5 I don't think that I knew any personally. I had met some 6 after the situation. 7 I knew -- I recognized some names, because 8 one (1) individual used to live in the Petrolia area. 9 Q: Yeah. So, of all these individuals 10 that were occupying the Park, I take it that around the 11 time -- before the death of Dudley George, is it fair to 12 say that when you had prepared that draft press release, 13 and you sent it down, if Bill King had asked you, Who are 14 you talking about, you'd have had difficulty identifying 15 individuals? 16 A: Per -- on, no -- on a name basis? 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: Oh, oh yes. 19 Q: Yeah. Now, if it is that you didn't 20 know these people, won't you agree with me that's a 21 pretty broad and derogatory way to classify them just as 22 thugs? 23 A: No, I was basing my information -- 24 the use of the word, because, again, as I've pointed out 25 to Ms. Vella, that people were being beaten, people were


1 being intimidated, houses were being broke into, people 2 were being chased on the beach. 3 In other words, people were not able to 4 enjoy the use of their own property or public property 5 for that matter of fact, because I alluded to the fact 6 about an incident, again, a report that I received from a 7 -- from a constituent, an incident that happened on a 8 Sunday afternoon at the beach. 9 So, I was basing my opinion on -- on the 10 action of some of these people. 11 Q: Now, this is action reported to you? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Okay, fine. As far as being beaten 14 is concerned, I would think that that would be probably a 15 criminal matter with civil overtones. 16 If somebody strikes me, I report it to the 17 police and later on I might take civil action. 18 A: I think that's a fair assumption. 19 Q: Do we know anybody who -- as for that 20 -- who beat any of these complainants that you're talking 21 about? 22 A: I can't recall. I would have to go 23 through the records whether they were beaten personally. 24 But I do have a lot of incidents that were reported 25 whereby their house were broken into or people were being


1 intimidated; that I know of. About the beating, I'm not 2 sure but... 3 Q: Okay. But as far as the breaking in, 4 do we know the names of any of the individuals who did 5 the breaking in? 6 A: I don't know whether the police have 7 any names. I don't know, that's not my -- my 8 responsibility. All they were reporting to me is that 9 their cottage or their home was being broken in -- had 10 been broken into. 11 Q: I don't want to go through my entire 12 list of clients to ask about each of them. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: But I'll make the general 15 observation, sir, that it was just a broad brush that 16 anything that was Indian at the time and was at the Park, 17 you were prepared to classify as thugs. 18 A: I would say to, you know, that I 19 would classify every one, but some. 20 Q: But some like whom, sir? 21 A: Well, the ones that were committed 22 the acts and you know, and I don't know who they were. 23 Q: I see. So, you don't know who they 24 were and, as a matter of fact, is it true that many times 25 this would be sort of double hearsay; somebody tell you


1 that somebody else said something? 2 A: Oh, I'm sure sometimes it might have 3 been double hearsay. But sometimes it was firsthand 4 experience. 5 Q: And firsthand experience coming to 6 the MPP and if these people had dispersed that 7 information, you didn't tell them to tell it to the 8 police? 9 A: Oh, I think they reported the 10 incidents to the police, sir. 11 Q: I see. So these then became police 12 issues? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Okay. Now my apologies, sir, but I 15 must refer to Exhibit 952 and P-1030 which is the letter 16 which was sent to you on September the 5th. 17 A: This -- Tab what? 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Tab 22 and 23 19 respectively. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS. 22 Q: Tab 22, yes and 23. Now this letter 23 that was sent to you, I need to just crystalize 24 something. 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: During one (1) early examination, I 2 came up here to confirm that you had adopted the letter 3 as being reflective of your views. In other cross- 4 examination there seems to be some departure. 5 Now, we know what the letter says and I 6 recognize you're not the author. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Is it fair to say that there was just 9 such a high level of frustration at the time in September 10 1996 that you were prepared to buy in and use this letter 11 as if you were satisfied with the full and complete 12 truthfulness in the letter? 13 A: Well, you're -- you're quite right in 14 stating that there was an awful lot -- an awful high 15 level of frustration on everybody's part I think. 16 There's no doubt that in retrospect that - 17 - with regards to the cover letter and again, this is, 18 you know, a letter that was written by one of my staff 19 and here I signed it so consequently I have to take -- 20 take ownership. 21 In retrospect would I have used the word 22 "totally," probably not because I do -- like I said to 23 you, or I said previously, I do not agree in violence. I 24 think there's a better way of -- of solving issues. 25 And I think if you look in the evidence


1 that I've given before on numerous occasion, I've always 2 said that negotiations in the long term is the way to 3 solve the issue. 4 Q: But I take it, sir, that even as far 5 as the negotiations, you were up against a stumbling 6 block because the position at Queen's Park was as long 7 as they are in the Park, we are not in negotiations. Am 8 I correct? 9 A: We're still there today, aren't we? 10 Q: Yeah. Now when you bought in to the 11 text of this letter. First thing, the lawyer who wrote 12 to you on September 5, I take it that you knew him 13 personally? 14 A: No. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: So at that time, when you received 19 that letter, you did not know that lawyer personally? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And when you wrote back to him on 22 September -- when you wrote back -- to Bill King on 23 September 6th, you copied the letter to the lawyer? 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: In which he's seeing that your view


1 of him is that he's respectable, responsible, tax paying, 2 and law abiding. 3 Did he ever write back to you to tell you 4 that you might be wrong on any of those items? 5 A: No, but in -- in discussion with 6 people in the -- not to mention the community, but in 7 this area that knew this individual, is the message they 8 were conveying to me about this individual. 9 But he never wrote back to me, no. But I 10 did have the occasion, I think, to talk to him on the 11 phone after that. 12 Q: I see. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now, there is another letter which 17 has been introduced as an exhibit, and excuse me, please. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Mr. Beaubien, there is another letter 22 dated September the 7th that was sent to Grand Bend OPP-- 23 A: Which tab is that? 24 Q: Apparently it's not among the 25 documents, but what I would like to do is just to read


1 some sections to you. I want to go through the whole 2 thing, to be -- be absolutely clear, and just find out 3 whether or not the views as expressed in this letter are 4 consistent with the general views of your constituents as 5 you understood them. 6 A: Okay, now who's writing the letter 7 and -- 8 Q: It's XXXXX. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 10 it's -- I'm sorry, it's from -- who's the letter from and 11 to. 12 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: It's from XXXXX, it's 13 a letter that I had put to John Carson and I think it was 14 entered as an Exhibit, but somehow I don't have the 15 number. 16 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'm not -- I'm not 17 objecting to Mr. Ross asking Mr. Beaubien questions on 18 the letter, it's just that he should -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would you 20 like to know what the letter is and who -- 21 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'd like -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it's from 23 and so on. 24 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Yeah, rather than 25 reading a paragraph at a time, he should have letter


1 before him and that's -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are there 3 any copies -- 4 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- perhaps not Mr. 5 Ross' fault. And I should have a copy of it. 6 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well -- 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I can make a copy of 8 it. 9 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Pardon? 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I can make copies of it 11 now if you can go on to something else? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 16 Q: While copies are being made, sir, 17 there are one (1) or two (2) other things that I would 18 like to talk to you about. 19 Exhibit P-958 which appears under Tab 37; 20 that's a handwritten note to Bill King, and this is the 21 one I can -- I can take the heat, but not be the fall 22 guy -- 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: Remember that? Now, sir, my 25 understanding is that you had phone messaging systems in


1 your office? 2 A: For -- 3 Q: Phone -- telephone messaging system. 4 For instance, when you're not there, you had an answering 5 machine? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And these -- the -- the tapes could 8 have been removed and replayed? 9 A: No, it was a -- it's a Bell answering 10 system. 11 Q: I see. 12 A: There's no tapes. 13 Q: So did you ever have one (1) of the 14 phone calls or any phone calls that came in recorded from 15 the messaging system onto another recorder? 16 A: In the constituency office? 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: Not that I recall. 19 Q: I see. So that if there's a 20 suggestion that you've got a tape which could be used for 21 your own protection if it ever became necessary, that 22 would be wrong? 23 A: You know, I don't know what you're 24 alluding to -- the fact that... 25 Q: Sir, I'll make it very clear. I'm


1 saying to you that messages come into your tape 2 recordings, your Bell messaging system. 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: You can play it back and record it on 5 a handheld recorder or anything? 6 A: In the constituency office we never 7 tape any conversation. In the Toronto office I recorded, 8 personally, once, a message from Bill King, yes. 9 Q: And do you still have that recording? 10 A: I certainly do. 11 Q: And where is it? 12 A: I've got it here. 13 Q: I see. Perhaps Commission Counsel 14 might be willing to -- to listen to the recording and 15 determine whether or not it is something that -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do we know 17 about this tape? 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I don't know anything 19 about this tape. 20 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: He -- well, we know 21 about it now. 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yeah, I understand. 23 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: And -- 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, 2 apparently the letter was referred to in the examination 3 of Inspector Carson but was not marked as an exhibit, and 4 I would like to take that opportunity to now mark it. 5 THE REGISTRAR: P-1042, Your Honour. 6 7 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1042: Letter to Grand Bend OPP 8 Detachment, September 07/95. 9 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes? 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 13 Q: Mr. Beaubien, before you you've got a 14 letter dated September 7th, 1995, over the signature of 15 XXXXX. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I -- I just -- I'm 17 concerned that we -- we have been redacting the names of 18 people. I don't know that -- that the name of this 19 person should be put forward in the public record. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So the 21 exhibit can be made with the redaction of the personal 22 information, right? 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Right. 24 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I will refer to him 25 as, 'Mr. X'. The unfortunate thing, Mr. Commissioner, is


1 that it's already a part of the record -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 3 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: -- but we will redact 4 it. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a 6 constituent, is it? 7 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 9 fine. 10 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well, yes it is. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps you 12 could refer to him that way. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 15 Q: Now, I ask you to...excuse me, Mr. -- 16 it's pointed out here that this is from London, Ontario. 17 That would be outside your constituency 18 boundary, am I correct? 19 A: Yes, London would not be part of my 20 constituency. You're right. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So it's not 22 a constituent? 23 THE WITNESS: No. 24 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: He's not a 25 constituent. But, I would like you then just to read the


1 letter for me please? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 3 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: And I will indicate 4 that the scratchings on it are my own, it wasn't part of 5 the letter. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 10 I want to make an exhibit a letter that has your 11 scratchings on it, either. So have you got a clean copy? 12 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well, then we'll find 13 -- I'll -- I'll -- we'll find a clean copy. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: With the 15 name redacted. That's fine. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is a 20 letter from a member of the public who's expressing his 21 views; now that I've looked at it. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 24 Q: You've had a chance to read that 25 letter, Mr. Beaubien?


1 A: I did. It's the first time, to the 2 best of my recollection, that I've seen this letter. 3 Q: That does not surprise me. However, 4 as far as the content of the letter is concerned, the 5 thrust of the letter, would you say that this is not 6 inconsistent with the letters that you had received, with 7 the majority of the letters you have received from people 8 within your constituency? 9 A: Well, there's some comment -- comment 10 -- or common elements, yes. 11 Q: And if there's really -- there -- 12 that they didn't want any special groups as far as the 13 law was concerned? 14 A: Yeah, we talked about two (2) legal 15 systems. 16 Q: Yes. Talking about this two (2) 17 tiered legal system for a minute, was it your view that 18 you wanted the people from your constituency to be 19 treated the same way as Indians were treated? 20 A: I don't think there was -- I don't 21 recall ever saying that, but... 22 Q: No, you wanted them, the people in 23 your constituency, to be under the same legal regime as 24 the Indians? 25 A: No, I think I've -- I think I've


1 alluded to the fact that my impression or my 2 understanding of the law, except for certain special 3 rights that Natives do have, that there is one set of law 4 in the Province of Ontario and -- and in Canada as a 5 whole. 6 Q: Yeah. I take it, sir, that you were 7 aware that it was in 1960 was the first time that 8 Aboriginals were -- were granted the right to vote while 9 on Reserves. 10 A: In what year? 11 Q: 1960. 12 A: I -- I can't remember it but, yeah, I 13 know they -- they had the rights to -- yeah. 14 Q: Around 1960 -- 15 A: But I couldn't remember, you know, 16 what year. I don't know what year it was. 17 Q: I'm going to suggest to you it was 18 1960 as a matter of public record. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: And do you realize, sir, that up 21 until 1951 there was a section in the Indian Act which 22 says: 23 "Every person who, without the consent 24 of the Superintendent General, 25 expresses in writing, receives,


1 obtains, solicits or request from any 2 Indian, any payment or contribution or 3 promise of any payment or contribution 4 for the purpose of raising funds or 5 providing money for the prosecution of 6 any claim with the Tribe or Band of 7 Indians to which that Indian belongs, 8 or which he's a member, has or is 9 represented to help with the recovery 10 of any claim of money for the said 11 Tribe or Band, shall be guilty of an 12 offence liable upon summary conviction 13 for each such offense to a penalty not 14 exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) 15 and not less than fifty dollars ($50) 16 or to imprisonment for a term not 17 exceeding two (2) months." 18 Did you know that Indians couldn't even 19 get legal representation, without permission, up until 20 1961? 21 A: I don't think I was aware of that. 22 Q: Yeah. And do you know, sir, that 23 right now, with this two tier system that we want to talk 24 about, that currently, in the Indian Act of this country, 25 that it is forbidden for people in your constituency to


1 go to Manitoba and trade fish for hay? That they cannot 2 barter without permission from the Government? 3 Do you know that? 4 A: I'm not aware of that, sir. 5 Q: Wouldn't it be great, sir, to have 6 all your constituents subject to these kind of rules? 7 A: Well, sir, I didn't write the laws of 8 the country. 9 Q: I see, I see. So when we're talking 10 about the two tiered system, would you agree with me that 11 some of these two tiers does not operate in the best 12 interest at all times or provide an absolute benefit for 13 Indians under all circumstances? 14 A: Well, you're privileged to an awful 15 lot of information that the general public would not be 16 aware of, I would suggest. And so, consequently, I think 17 people in 1995 were living with the laws that apply in 18 1995. 19 And if the perception was that the law was 20 not being enforced, it was -- it gave them concern. I'm 21 sure there's been inequities in the past, there's 22 probably inequities today and there will always be 23 inequities in the world because that's the world we live 24 in. 25 But -- and, you know, and again to rectify


1 them we'd do it through negotiation. 2 Q: And would you agree with me, sir, 3 that it's also going to require a certain level of 4 education so that the general public understands that, as 5 far as the Indians are concerned, they were a special 6 case treated in special ways, many of which the general 7 public would find abhorrent. 8 A: I totally agree with you. And I 9 alluded to the fact that I grew up as a teenager across 10 the street from a First Nation in this county. 11 I have been aware of the situation since 12 the age of fourteen (14) fifteen (15) years old, sir. 13 Q: Yes. Now there are two (2) other 14 things that I want to address. One of the things, Mr. -- 15 Mr. Beaubien I am -- Inquiry Document Number 3001400 -- 16 A: Tab what? 17 Q: This is not among the tabs, but I 18 think this is one that I circulated that I would -- to 19 counsel that I would be referring to. 20 I'll tell you what it is. It is called, 21 "A History of Correspondence," and what I find striking 22 is that, according to the Government documents, when you 23 wrote to them there were never quick responses. 24 And I just wanted to run a couple of 25 things by you and find out if this consistent with your


1 recollection. 2 For instance, it says here on July -- July 3 the 31st, 1995, a letter from Mr. Beaubien to Minister 4 Harnick asking the Minister to meet with residents of the 5 West Ipperwash Property Owner's Association who are 6 affected by the land claim litigation involving Kettle 7 and Stony Point First Nation. Okay? 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: Now the month of August goes by. The 10 month of September goes by. 11 And the Minister's response on October the 12 3rd, declining the invitation to meet with Mr. Beaubien's 13 constituents, and advising Mr. Beaubien of the successful 14 outcome of the motion by the Federal Government in the 15 land claim litigation, that had the effect of removing 16 Mr. Beaubien's constituents as defendants in the legal 17 proceedings. 18 So they were all -- so this was the 19 situation where you wrote a positive letter, in your 20 view, in July. It was around the end -- around the 21 beginning of October before you got a response. 22 Is that consistent with your recollection? 23 A: Well, I don't recall, but I'll go 24 with the dates that you have. 25 Q: But you got nothing -- there's no


1 reason why you would refute this information? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Again, August the 30th, a letter from 4 Mr. Beaubien to Minister Harnick inquiring about the 5 property tax exempt status of land within municipal 6 boundaries that is purchased by First Nation. The 7 comment: 8 "Minister has not yet responded. A 9 draft reply was forwarded to his office 10 in September 1995." 11 Do you recall sending out that letter to - 12 - to Minister Harnick and not getting a response? 13 A: Well, I recall sending correspondence 14 and if you say I didn't get a re -- it doesn't surprise 15 me. 16 Q: Now, it's not because I say so, sir, 17 I'm just wanting to -- this is what -- 18 A: I'm not going to disagree with what 19 you have. 20 Q: Okay, fine. December the 18th, 1995, 21 a letter from Mr. Beaubien to Mr. Harnick inviting him to 22 meet -- inviting the Minister to meet with the Walpole 23 Island First Nation. 24 Do you recall an initiative of that 25 nature?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Minister replied on March the 29th -- 3 March the 25th, a little over three (3) months, March the 4 20th, 1996 offering to meet with the First Nation in the 5 near future when the opportunity arises. 6 Do you recall if that meeting ever took 7 place with you, Walpole Island, and the Minister? 8 A: I don't think it ever took place. 9 Q: January the 31st, 1996, letter from 10 Mr. Beaubien to the Premier expressing concern about the 11 lack of progress by Government in connection with the 12 occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park and asking the 13 Government to act on the matter. 14 Reply February the 20th thanking Mr. 15 Beaubien for his comments and advising that the letter 16 has been forwarded to Minister Harnick. And Minister 17 Harnick has not yet replied. 18 Is that consistent with your recollection? 19 A: Yeah. That would be consistent. 20 Q: January 31st, 1996, letter from Mr. 21 Beaubien to Michael Pengelly advising of the situation at 22 Ipperwash Provincial Park; that the situation at 23 Ipperwash Provincial Park must be addressed very quickly. 24 ONAS has no record of Mr. Pengelly's reply to Mr. 25 Beaubien.


1 Do you recall getting a reply? 2 A: I -- I don't recall getting a reply, 3 no. I... 4 Q: February the 5th, 1996, memorandum 5 from Mr. Beaubien to Ministers Harnick, Runciman, Hodgson 6 and Cunningham, suggesting a meeting of their ministries 7 to deal with Ipperwash issues. Minister has not yet 8 replied. MNR is coordinating a response. 9 Do you recall whether or not there was 10 ever a reply? 11 A: Not to the best of my recollection. 12 Q: Now, your counsel had an objection 13 when I was making reference to the charges that did not 14 proceed against the people who occupied the Park. 15 Reference is Document Number 3001774, page 11. 16 A: And which tab is that? 17 Q: It's not among your tabs. 18 A: Oh. 19 Q: It was a circulated document. Page 20 11. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: The top paragraph -- I must tell you, 25 sir, this is an attachment to a document entitled, House


1 Notebook Ipperwash, MPP Riding, Marcel Beaubien, Issue - 2 Occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park by members of 3 Kettle and Stony Point First Nation and other Aboriginal 4 people and... 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I just pointed out 9 to Mr. Ross, I was trying to find where we had document 10 notice of any of this and -- 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Apparently there was 12 no such notice, Mr. Commissioner, but I have an idea, 13 what I need it for is very, very -- is quite simple. It 14 is not -- I'm not going to create a big issue. 15 Here on page 11 -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have a 17 process, Mr. Ross. I know that -- 18 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: That's my -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- generally 20 speaking, you follow it, but -- 21 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: That -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- what's 23 the situation? You want to do what with this document? 24 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I just -- I just 25 wanted to -- to look at just one (1) paragraph.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And -- 2 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: And it deals with what 3 happened with the withdrawal of the charges. And it's 4 really to clear up the record because remember I 5 mentioned about colour of right to My Learned Friend -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 7 remember that. 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: So it's just for 9 clarification and it's a nice little capsule of what 10 happened. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 12 you need the document to make that statement. 13 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: The problem, Your -- 14 Mr. Commissioner, is that I did get notice of -- of a 15 document that was a memorandum which dealt with Ipperwash 16 prosecutions and dealt with colour of right, which was -- 17 is a document in these proceedings and it was a document 18 in the Plaintiff's affidavit of documents. And it was 19 one (1) that referred to withdrawal of charges. 20 My objection was that the groundwork 21 hadn't been laid for Mr. Beaubien to answer the 22 questions. That was the -- the -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 24 not sure that it's going to be answered with this 25 document either.


1 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That's my point. 2 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: It's not a question of 3 groundwork, Mr. Commissioner, it's a simple thing as I 4 said. I don't want to get into a confrontation with Mr. 5 Beaubien. It's a simple matter of fact and I would just 6 read the paragraph and you can tell me if I can continue. 7 The paragraph says on October 21, 1996: 8 "The criminal trials of the Aboriginal 9 persons occupying the Park commenced. 10 In a written statement filed by the 11 Court, the Crown Attorney announced 12 that he was withdrawing forty-three 13 (43) of the outstanding charges. All 14 twenty-three (23) charges of forcible 15 detainment were withdrawn because there 16 were no reasons, neither prospect of 17 obtaining convictions in light of the 18 availability of the defence of colour 19 of right. And twenty (20) of the 20 twenty-three (23) charges of forcible 21 entry were being withdrawn because the 22 -- the Crown could not establish 23 specifically whether [sorry] when or 24 where or how the accused made entry to 25 the Park."


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now that's 2 contained in a note for a minister to answer a question 3 in the House; is that the purpose of it? 4 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well, Commissioner, it 5 is one (1) of the -- the documents that I got from the 6 database, you see and one (1) of the things is that it's 7 well and good to staff and determine that there are 8 certain documents that you're going to use and you give 9 notice of. And then what happens is we come and there's 10 examinations which take us into another area. 11 And if you were to say to me, You didn't 12 give notice, don't use it I'd fold and move on but I 13 think for your Inquiry it just might be helpful. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you've 15 read it into the record now, now what are you going to do 16 now? 17 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well, I -- well the -- 18 the point is just to draw to -- to the attention of this 19 Witness that the charges were withdrawn. 20 And to go further, the people are still in 21 the Park and there's still the same general attitudes 22 with respect to the community and the -- the Province and 23 the Federal Government. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think it's a -- it's 25 a valid question to ask whether subsequent to October 21,


1 1996, Mr. Beaubien detected any change in the sentiments 2 that were expressed about the occupiers prior to that 3 date. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he 5 asked that question. If he hasn't then... 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think that -- I think 7 that he did as well, but not with the specificity -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- of the dates. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 13 Q: Mr. Beaubien, I believe that the 14 record will show that sometime in late October 1996 a 15 decision was taken that they would not proceed with 16 charges against the people who occupied the Park. 17 Did you discern any noticeable change in 18 attitude toward the occupiers after that date? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 20 coming up here, Ms. Twohig? Unfortunately because of the 21 way the room is configured we have to wait for counsel to 22 make their appearance. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Perhaps I've missed it, 2 Mr. Commissioner, but My Friend purported to quote from a 3 document number that I understood was 3001774. And the 4 copy of the document -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 44. I've 6 got two (2) fours (4's). 7 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Was it -- sorry? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 9 what the number was. 10 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- 744? 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I have 4. 12 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 1744. 14 MS. KIM TWOHIG: 774? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 4? 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: We have it on the 17 screen. 18 MS. KIM TWOHIG: 774. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: We've got it up on the 20 screen. 21 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Okay. I was having 22 difficulty -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, 774. 24 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- locating the -- the 25 passage to which My Friend referred. I do have it now.


1 Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I'm wondering, though, 4 given his characterization of the meaning of colour of 5 right, if it would be helpful for him to read into the 6 record the paragraph beginning on page 3 which defines 7 colour of right, because I am concerned that My Friend 8 has mis-characterized the defence. 9 He said -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if it 11 would make it more accurate, then I'm sure he would read 12 that in. 13 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 15 Go ahead, Mr. Ross, read in... 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: This is almost like 17 discovery wherein if you read in one (1) part you must 18 read in another. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: This is exactly what I 21 was trying to avoid because I didn't want to become too 22 technical. Now -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know, but, 24 unfortunately -- 25 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yes. Mr. Beaubien --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it can't 2 be -- 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 5 Q: -- Counsel for the Province have 6 directed that I read to you something on colour of right. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Suggested. 8 She suggested that you read -- 9 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: She might have 10 suggested to you, Mr. Commissioner, but when it's to me I 11 consider it a directive. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 13 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 16 Q: Mr. Beaubien, this document, the 17 operative portion reads as follows: 18 "Colour of right is defined as an 19 honest belief in the existence of a 20 state of facts which, if they actually 21 existed, would, at law, justify or 22 excuse the act done. 23 In his statement, the Crown Attorney 24 pointed out that whether there was, in 25 fact, a burial site located in the Park


1 and whether the accused had a valid 2 right of ownership, possession or 3 occupation of it, are not relevant 4 considerations in determining whether 5 the defence of colour of right is 6 valid. These issues have now been 7 resolved by the proceedings --" 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: "Have not been." 9 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: "Have not been." 10 Sorry. 11 "These issues have not been resolved by 12 the proceedings in the Criminal Court." 13 And it goes on to say -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't know 15 if you have to go on. I think -- 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: That's what I was 17 thinking so. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 19 sufficient, Ms. Twohig, to explain it? 20 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes, thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 24 Q: So as far as this -- so -- so, Mr. 25 Beaubien, the -- the bottom line is, without the -- the


1 legal technicalities, for a lot of good reasons -- for a 2 lot of, apparently, good reasons at law, a decision was 3 taken to -- not to proceed with the charges; that's the 4 fact. 5 And I am asking that after that, in 1996, 6 was there a -- a real difference in attitude towards the 7 occupiers, as far as your -- your -- as far as your 8 understanding of your constituency's mood was concerned? 9 A: I think the general feeling, the 10 situation might not have been as tense as what it was 11 back in 1995. There's no doubt that I think the 12 situation diffused and I think I pointed out that there 13 were peaks and valleys during the next number of years. 14 But I'm sure, with some constituents, that the same 15 feeling exists today as it did back in 1995. 16 But in the last line it also says that the 17 courts have not ruled on this particular position or 18 statement or wherever that comes from. 19 Q: Yes. Now, Mr. Beaubien, the other 20 thing is that the thrust of your evidence, as I heard it, 21 was that you were pretty much the man on the site, you 22 were here, you were fielding all the hard questions from 23 your -- from members of your constituency? 24 A: Well, I was -- when you say, "on the 25 site," I mean I'm looking at, you know, you're talking


1 about Lambton Shores? 2 Q: Yes. The -- the -- 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: -- yeah, Lambton, wherever that was. 5 A: Lambton Shores, which would 6 comprise -- 7 Q: Whichever was the -- the boundaries 8 of your constituency in 1995 and 1996. 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: Okay? 11 A: But basically, with this situation, 12 you'd be -- when refer -- you know, when I'm referring to 13 Lambton Shores, it would be the area from Grand Bend to 14 Forest. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: And including Thedford/Arkona, that 17 area. 18 Q: And those -- that was the -- the 19 quote, unquote "hot" area for the time; am I correct? 20 A: I would say, yes. 21 Q: And you were the person who was 22 fielding a lot of the -- the questions. Everybody, like 23 press, they'd call you, rather than call Queen's Park? 24 A: Yeah. Because I was their first line 25 of access.


1 Q: Sure. And you got as much 2 information as you could and you passed it down to 3 Queen's Park? 4 A: That's what I tried to do. 5 Q: And from some of the evidence it 6 appeared as though there were questions as to whether or 7 not you were passing on information. 8 And as I understand your evidence, you 9 were, in fact, passing information up to the Premier's 10 office, the Attorney General's office, MNR's office, and 11 Solicitor General, among others? 12 A: I did, yes. 13 Q: Yeah. Which brings me, sir, to -- I 14 trust no objections, but there's a Document Number 15 1011251 -- 16 A: Is that in the tab here? 17 Q: No, it's not tabbed, sir. But I 18 think you might like it. "Premier Defends Beaubien," 19 dated November 6, 1996. 20 Are you comfortable reading the document 21 there? I can perhaps pass up my own. 22 A: I'll read it, yes. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 A: Thank you. 2 Q: Now, Mr. Beaubien, perhaps you will 3 tell me if the information, as reported in this article, 4 the statements attributed to the Premier, were, in fact, 5 made? 6 Would you agree that this article supports 7 your view that information was into your offices and down 8 to Queen's Park? 9 A: Yeah, I think it would -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 11 minute before you answer. 12 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Sorry. 13 Commissioner, I'm just having a hard time reading this 14 from where I'm sitting and -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So am I. 16 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: If Mr. -- if we 17 can have a copy provided that would be great. If not, 18 perhaps if we could just have a couple of seconds to be 19 able to read this. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 21 having difficulty reading it even on the screen; it's not 22 that clear. Are there copies of it available? 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: We -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 25 to take a minute and read it? Are there copies


1 available? 2 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Perhaps we can take a 3 minute, yes, please. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, how 5 much longer do you expect to be. When you started I had 6 the impression you might be finished before lunch, but 7 we're just about at lunch. 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I can tell you, if you 9 didn't want to take a minute -- I -- I would not be 10 surprised that I'll be over within ten (10) minutes. 11 Probably within five (5) minutes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well then 13 let's carry on then. That's fine. Okay. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: We are going to make 15 some copies of this. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 18 Q: Have you had a chance to read the 19 article, Mr. Beaubien? 20 A: Yeah. It is -- I agree that it is 21 difficult to read even here. 22 Q: Hmm hmm. 23 A: But I've read it. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've been 25 able to read it?


1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 5 Q: And have you got any difficulty with 6 anything that is reported in that article? 7 A: No. I don't. 8 Q: Mr. Commissioner, subject only to 9 Commission counsel determining whether or not this is in 10 the interest of this Inquiry to listen to that tape which 11 Mr. Beaubien -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 13 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I said subject to. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I think-- 15 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I'd like to finish, 16 okay, Mr. Commissioner? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Go ahead. 18 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I'm saying subject to 19 Commission Counsel determining whether or not that tape 20 would assist you in getting to the truth, I will enter 21 that exhibit and that will be my examination. 22 But, I ask, Mr. Commissioner, in 23 considering whether or not you even want to hear the 24 tape, you must recognize, number 1, that something 25 happened down in Toronto back in 1995 or '96, it was of


1 sufficient importance that it was taped and still of 2 sufficient importance that it's brought here today. And 3 you can determine whether or not you want to know what it 4 contains. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 6 very much. 7 Yes, Ms. Vella? 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just before the -- 9 everyone lines up behind me, I have -- we will listen to 10 the tape -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- over the lunch hour 13 and make a determination. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, well, Mr. 16 Commissioner, I don't think that's sufficient. I do have 17 great respect for -- for Commission Counsel -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 19 way the process works, Mr. Rosenthal. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We review 22 the evidence and -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we 25 decide.


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr. 2 Commissioner, this tape is only being disclosed now; 3 that's a violation of your rules, as you well know. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And -- and 6 obviously it was retained by him for a special purpose. 7 Now, sometimes I see things in evidence 8 that Commission Counsel does not see. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: There's no possible 11 privilege attached to this tape, as I understand it, a 12 tape of a conversation. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have no 14 idea what's on the tape. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're going 17 to listen to it and then we'll talk about it. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with respect, 19 sir, I want to listen to as well and I think I should 20 have a right to listen to it as well before any 21 determination is made as to relevance. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 23 Rosenthal, tons of evidence is made available to us. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We review


1 that evidence and determine what's relevant to bring 2 before -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, but I'm -- I'm 4 making a request. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You can't 6 possibly review all the evidence that my Commission 7 Counsel -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, and I don't 9 want to do that task and I know that Mr. Millar and Ms. 10 Vella do a much better job than I, but given the 11 context -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And we are 13 trying to make sure that every document that is in any 14 way relevant or helpful, will see the light of day. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So please 17 give us an opportunity to listen to it and then we'll 18 talk about it. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I'm -- I'm 20 making a request that I be allowed to listen to it, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 22 And anything else, Mr. Rosenthal? 23 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Rosenthal? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 25 Mr. Ross?


1 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: No -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're on 3 your last document. 4 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Oh, yes, there is a 5 family resemblance. Mr. Commissioner, I'd just like to 6 have this last document entered, exhibit -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not an 8 exhibit now I presume, right? 9 THE REGISTRAR: P-1043, Your Honour. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 1043. 11 12 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1043: Document Number 1011251, page 13 01. Sarnia Observer article 14 "Premier Defends Beaubien", 15 November 06/'96. 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, what's 18 your question? 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Did we note that it's 20 page 1 of that, because it's a very lengthy production. 21 It's page 1 of that Inquiry Document number. 22 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Beaubien? 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: There's a hundred 24 documents in that page, in that production number. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So the only


1 one that's an exhibit is the one (1) page -- 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: We're only making the 3 one (1) page an exhibit from that Inquiry document 4 number. Thank you. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 7 Q: Thank you, Mr. Beaubien, those are my 8 questions. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 9 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 11 very much. We will take a lunch break now and we'll deal 12 with the question of the tape after the lunch break. 13 Thank you. 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry 15 stands adjourned until 1:15. 16 17 --- Upon recessing at 12:00 p.m. 18 --- Upon resuming at 1:26 p.m. 19 20 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 21 resumed. Please be seated. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 23 Yes, Ms. Vella...? 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes, Commissioner. 25 You'll recall that prior to the afternoon break or the


1 afternoon lunch, Mr. Beaubien made reference to a 2 particular taped phone call or conversation, and I 3 undertook to listen to the tape over the lunch hour and 4 we have done that. 5 Without expressing any views with respect 6 to relevance, it appears to us that it be appropriate, 7 given that the Witness referred to it during the course 8 of cross-examination, to play this tape and to ask some 9 questions about it. And if anyone has any cross- 10 examination as a result, then they can seek leave to do 11 that. 12 What we have done and what I have 13 distributed to all counsel over the course of the lunch 14 hour, is a transcript of the tape together with a fax and 15 letter which sets the context to the voice mail contained 16 on the tape. 17 And I have distributed that. Now, I'm 18 advised that -- it's my proposal to play it to introduce 19 the tape into evidence to ask some questions about it and 20 I understand that Mr. Falconer has something he wishes to 21 raise with you before I do that. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Yes, 23 Mr. Falconer... 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. I thank My 25 Friend for -- for the courtesy.


1 On behalf of Aboriginal Legal Services of 2 Toronto, I can indicate that I thank My Friend, by the 3 way they had a transcript created over the lunch hour, 4 obviously went to the trouble to that and I know that 5 Commission counsel didn't know about this tape before any 6 of us learned on the record. 7 So it's a reflection of their efforts to 8 get us the information as quickly as possible and I 9 appreciate that. 10 But I -- I simply indicate on the record 11 now, Mr. Commissioner, my client's concern that a party 12 to this proceeding would wait until Day 2 or Day 3 on the 13 stand to reveal contents of his briefcase that he feels 14 are relevant to these proceedings. 15 This isn't about somebody asking to open 16 his briefcase and then he has to produce something that 17 he didn't think was relevant. He injected it into this 18 process. 19 That's a concern from my client's point of 20 view because obviously members of the Progressive 21 Conservative Government and Caucus knew and know today, 22 what's relevant to this process that we may not know 23 about. 24 Now, having said that -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I


1 don't want to -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well no, this is 3 leading -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to 5 unnecessary -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, this is 7 leading to something because I -- I have a concern and 8 I'm putting it on the record. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 10 want us to play the tape? 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The concern is the 12 following. That first of all, prior to playing the tape, 13 we find out if there's anything more in Mr. Beaubien's 14 briefcase. Are there anymore surprises? 15 Because if there are, we should find out 16 now. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Before the tape 19 gets played. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That's 21 fine. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So, that's the 23 first thing that I'm putting on the records. Secondly, 24 from my client's perspective, with great respect, I want 25 to reserve my client's rights to move for sanctions with


1 respect to this party for, in essence, violating the 2 rules that you've created through your Commission. 3 And I talk about a serious violation. I 4 don't talk about missing a document from a document; no 5 this is serious violations. 6 So, I raise that now and I do that as a 7 courtesy to My Friend, Mr. Sulman, who tells me, of 8 course, and he'll put on the record whether he knew about 9 the tape or not but my impression is he did not. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So, the bottom -- 12 the bottom line is I put that -- but I'd ask first and 13 foremost, we please inquire of this Witness at this 14 stage, is there anything more in his briefcase, and more 15 importantly, is there any other information or materials 16 that he believes is relevant to these proceedings that he 17 has not given production and notice on. 18 Can we do that? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 20 perfectly legitimate, Mr. Falconer. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perfectly 23 legitimate. We expected that everything that was 24 relevant was produced in the normal course to us, this 25 wasn't, and you're absolutely right.


1 Ms. Vella, do you want to -- do you want 2 to ask that question before, do you want to play the 3 tape, or how do you want to do this? 4 Is there anything that we should know 5 about? Anything else that we should know about that 6 you're aware of? 7 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well, first I want 8 to put on the record I -- I was not aware of -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You were not 10 aware of it. 11 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- of the tape. 12 However you will recall on Thursday the tape has been 13 transcribed -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- and it is 16 attached to a facsimile sheet, with a letter attached to 17 it, which -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We 19 determined was irrelevant. 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That's right. We 21 determined it was irrelevant, and this -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So he might 23 have thought it was irrelevant. 24 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Exactly, and this 25 tape is -- is just a reply to the -- to the material that


1 he produced, that we -- was determined to be irrelevant. 2 Nonetheless, I -- I'm in total support of 3 Commission Counsel's position that we want to make full 4 and frank disclosure, which we've tried to do from the 5 beginning. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: But there are, as 8 you've pointed out many times, a myriad of documents, and 9 some of them -- this one is of course, just so it's on 10 the record, is over a year after the relevant time period 11 that we're looking at. 12 So, it's -- it's always -- it's -- it's 13 more of an art than a science in that sense, but it -- it 14 is a year and a half later, and I don't find any fault 15 with the Commission last Thursday, determining that it 16 wasn't relevant. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 18 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: But anyway, that's - 19 - that's our position. But I thought I should make it 20 clear to you, sir, as an officer of the Court, I -- I 21 haven't seen the tape before, hadn't -- didn't know of 22 the existence of the tape before. 23 But at the end of the day I think the tape 24 will speak for itself -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you --


1 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- as to its 2 relevance. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Two (2) or three (3) 5 quick comments, Mr. Commissioner, if I may. First of 6 all, we also were not aware of the tape, even though 7 we've through litigation for ten (10) years on this 8 matter. 9 On the question of relevance, which Mr. 10 Sulman raised, as I understood it, the parties all have 11 obligations to provide all possible relevant documents 12 and if not our individual response -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- was to determine 15 what -- what's relevant, it's for the Commission. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 17 right. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: So, I do take 19 exception to Mr. Sulman's point on that. And as -- as 20 Mr. Falconer said, I do also wish to reserve the right to 21 ask for sanctions. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 You don't have to repeat that, if that's what you're 24 going to say. You've got something else to say? 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm just going to


1 agree and make an additional comment. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 3 that's fine. Then let's hear your additional point. 4 Yes? 5 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Just so the record 6 is clear, I -- I'm sure Mr. Zbogar misspoke himself, I 7 didn't suggest it was irrelevant. I said that last 8 Thursday -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've 10 determined that this document was irrelevant. 11 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- the Commission 12 determined that it was irrelevant. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 14 fine. Do you want to make your additional submission? 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. With that 16 correction, I agree with Mr. Zbogar and Mr. Falconer. 17 And I should also point out that given the 18 transcript of the tape, that sheds other light on the 19 facts and makes it part of something else and I would 20 have wanted to use this in cross-examining Mr. King, as 21 well as in cross-examining this witness. 22 And I would urge, when you consider the 23 question of this Witness's behaviour with respect to 24 these documents, that this is perhaps related to his 25 refusal to answer questions. And we -- we should have


1 the right to make submissions about the appropriate 2 sanctions for this party, given the totality of what I 3 would suggest is his resisting in the proper 4 participation in this Inquiry. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 6 Mr. Rosenthal. Now, do you want to play the tape now? 7 Do we have the facility? Do we have the technology to 8 allow us to play the tape, because we weren't expecting 9 it before -- 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, yeah -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in this 12 format? 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: What I'm going to do is 14 ask a preliminary question of Mr. Beaubien. But I have a 15 dictaphone and I have a microphone, and that's what we'll 16 -- how we'll do it. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'd 18 like to see if it works. 19 20 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: Mr. Beaubien, first of all, do you 22 have any other documents, tapes, any other physical 23 evidence in your briefcase or with you in your 24 possession, that's relevant to the matters that are the 25 subject of this Inquiry, which have not been disclosed?


1 A: No, I don't think so. 2 Q: Then in that case, I'd like the -- to 3 hand up a document please, for the Witness. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, this is a copy of a fax from 8 yourself to -- addressed to Bill King, dated July 24, 9 1996, attaching a letter dated July 23rd, 1996, from 10 Mayor Fred Thomas, addressed to yourself; is that 11 correct? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: And did you receive the letter from 14 Mayor Thomas? 15 A: I don't know if I received it 16 directly from Mayor Thomas, but I received it from the -- 17 the Township of Bosanquet; probably from the Clerk 18 Administrator, I would think. 19 Q: Well, you received a copy of this 20 letter? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And did you then send a copy of this 23 letter to Mr. King on or about July 24th? 24 A: I did. 25 Q: And does the fax sheet contain your


1 handwriting? 2 A: That is my handwriting. And it -- I 3 may point out it's not only addressed to Bill King, but 4 the Solicitor General and the Native Affairs Secretariat. 5 Q: All right. It says to: 6 "Bill King - Solicitor General - Native 7 Affairs." 8 Is that -- 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: -- correct? All right. Now, you 11 appear to be transmitting to Mr. King, the Solicitor 12 General and Native affairs the contents of this letter 13 from Mayor Thomas which references an incident which 14 apparently occurred on July the 19th, 1996; is that -- 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: -- right? And can you tell the 17 Commission what you understood that incident to be about? 18 A: Well, on -- it says 11:30 at night 19 but on or about July the 19th, 1996, an American yacht 20 was beached in the Ipperwash area which is immediately in 21 front of the Army Base location. 22 And the -- I can't recall all the details, 23 because I haven't read the letter, but if I recall, the 24 occupants of the boat were not treated very well and they 25 had to escape to some of the neighbours, and the boat was


1 sub -- consequently vandalised. 2 Q: All right. And was this the subject 3 of some media attention at the time? 4 A: Very much so. 5 Q: Now, Mayor Thomas is writing to you 6 and do you under -- what did you understand the purpose 7 of writing you to be? 8 A: Well, I would imagine that he 9 probably wanted me to pass this issue, because again, 10 this is an issue a year -- almost a year and a half later 11 after the incident at Ipperwash and as I testified, the 12 tension kept going up and down. 13 And there was another situation which 14 raised the level of tension in the area, and I guess he 15 wanted me to convey that to -- to the proper channels at 16 Queen's Park. 17 Q: Well, indeed, if I may read from the 18 letter the last three (3) paragraphs, Mayor Thomas 19 writing to you, it states the following: 20 "In my opinion, government inaction is 21 leading us again down a path to violent 22 and quite possibly deadly 23 confrontation. Let me clearly state 24 the point, [quote] 'I fear someone is 25 going to get killed in the Town again'


1 [close quote]. 2 What are you doing to prevent this from 3 occurring? Bosanquet Municipal Council 4 meets on 6th August, 1996 and needs to 5 be advised of the actions of our 6 governments are taking to prevent a 7 reoccurrence of the tragedy of 8 September 1995. 9 I eagerly await your response in order 10 to discuss it at our August 6th Council 11 meeting." 12 Did I read that correctly? 13 A: Yeah, you did, certainly. 14 Q: And therefore is fair to -- is it 15 fair to suggest that the -- the Township was looking for 16 a response from you with respect to what the Government's 17 action would or would not be in this respect? 18 A: I think that's what the letter 19 states, yes. 20 Q: Is that how you took it? 21 A: Yes, that's the way I took it. 22 Q: All right. And then you, therefore, 23 faxed a copy of this letter to Bill King, the Solicitor 24 General and Native Affairs -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- according to your recollection? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And the -- can you read the -- the 4 comments there, please, that's in your handwriting? 5 A: On -- on the fax letter? 6 Q: Please. 7 A: Yeah. The -- at the top it says: 8 "No one else has reacted -- reacted 9 except Bill." 10 And then it's on the side, it says: 11 "Sent July 24th, 1996, 9:05 to 9:08" 12 Q: Yes, and I'm -- 13 A: At the bottom it says: 14 "PS. I thought this was supposed to be 15 a team effort?" 16 Q: All right, and I guess the passage I 17 was looking for -- that -- is -- beside the term 18 'comments', half way through. You see where it says, 19 "comments"? The typed. 20 Under, "number of pages"? 21 A: On the -- which page is that. 22 Q: Fax page. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: There's a typed word, "comments", and 25 then there's handwriting beside that, that starts --


1 A: Oh, I see. You want me to read -- 2 okay. The -- I'm sorry. 3 Q: It's all right. 4 A: The -- the letter is self- 5 explanatory. 6 "How about some type of support in 7 dealing with this issue, like having 8 some bloody information/the music has 9 stopped. The dance floor is getting 10 smaller. 11 I need a partner to continue dancing. 12 I am absolutely disgusted with the 13 support you folks have provided me on 14 this issue." 15 Q: Have provided on this issue? 16 A: That's right. 17 Q: Okay. And that's your handwriting? 18 A: That's my handwriting. 19 Q: And what were you conveying to the 20 Government with this message? 21 A: Well, I guess I'm conveying the 22 frustration of my constituents of the municipality and my 23 own personal frustration with the issue. 24 Q: All right. And the issue being 25 what's been disclosed in the letter of Mayor Thomas?


1 A: And prior to that. This is a -- you 2 know, this -- this is in 1996, but like I said, it goes 3 back to 1995 when we were first elected. 4 Q: All right. The Ipperwash Park 5 occupation -- 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: -- is part of the same continuum of-- 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: -- events? All right. 10 Now, I'd like to make the fax and the 11 attached letter from Mayor Thomas to Mr. Beaubien, the 12 next exhibit please? 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-1044, Your Honour. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1044: Fax cover sheet to Bill King 17 from Marcel Beaubien, July 18 24/96. And letter to Marcel 19 Beaubien from Mayor Fred 20 Thomas, July 23/'96. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 23 Q: Now, did you receive a response to 24 this fax? 25 A: Well, I -- I did, and that's the --


1 the tape that I had in -- in that briefcase, and I call 2 it my Ipperwash briefcase, and it's been sitting there 3 for ten (10) years. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: And we taped the -- I was asked a 6 question and I replied directly and -- 7 Q: Now -- 8 A: -- forthrightly. 9 Q: -- I'm going to play this tape for 10 you, but perhaps I could ask you a couple of preliminary 11 questions. The first is: Did you -- did you personally 12 make a copy of the voice mail message, which is recorded 13 on this tape? 14 A: No, I asked my staff in Toronto to do 15 that for me. 16 Q: All right. Do you recall when you 17 asked them to do that? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Was it on or about the -- the time 20 that the message was left? 21 A: I -- It would be, yes, yes. 22 Q: To your knowledge, has there been any 23 alterations, modifications, deletions or any type of 24 change made to this tape since it was -- 25 A: Not that I'm aware of.


1 Q: And did you -- does it accurately 2 reflect the original voice mail message that you 3 received? 4 A: I think it would, yes. 5 Q: All right. 6 I'd like at this time to play the tape 7 and, Commissioner, we did prepare a transcript to the 8 best of our ability, of the contents of the tape; all 9 counsel have it. Mr. Beaubien, you have it. 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: I hope everyone will bear with me, as 12 I have to use a Dictaphone and I'm going to play it 13 through the microphone. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Go ahead. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. Thank you. 16 17 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED - TRANSCRIPTION TO FOLLOW) 18 19 "Wayne, it's Bill King here from the 20 Premier's office. I would like to 21 track down Marcel. I received -- I've 22 been away for about a week. I received 23 a really ignorant fax from him today 24 making all kinds of accusations about 25 something I'm not doing for him. I


1 don't know what the fuck he's talking 2 about. I want to talk to him right 3 away. I am getting a little fed up 4 with temper tantrums. I want you to 5 tell him that and I would like to speak 6 with him as soon as possible please. 7 I've tried his riding office. I got -- 8 I don't know if I got a machine or 9 tape. I tried to leave a message. 10 I'll try again but I don't accept faxes 11 like the one he's just sent me...most 12 ignorant language I've ever heard from 13 a person. I've been away for a 14 week...I don't know what I've ever done 15 to him but he owes me an apology and I 16 want to hear from him. Okay. Thanks." 17 18 (AUDIOTAPE ENDS) 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: Now, the beginning of that tape, of 22 course appears to be -- were those the -- the automated 23 instructions from your voice mail message? 24 A: That's -- that's correct, yeah. 25 Q: And can you tell us who Wayne is?


1 A: Wayne was my executive assistant in 2 Toronto. 3 Q: Right. And do you believe this to be 4 the voice mail you received in response to the fax you 5 sent, Exhibit P-1044? 6 A: I believe it was, yes. 7 Q: All right. 8 I'd like to enter the tape and the 9 transcript into evidence. 10 THE REGISTRAR: P-1045, Your Honour. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And perhaps it'd be the 12 tape and the transcript as part of the same exhibit. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1045: Tape and transmission from 17 Bill King to Marcel Beaubien. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: Now, why did you cause a copy of the 21 tape -- a copy of this taped message to be made? 22 A: Well, I think during the -- this 23 exercise that I mention on numerous occasions, that I was 24 not getting any support from Queen's Park. I didn't 25 think they realized that the situation was as serious as


1 it was. 2 There's no doubt they were probably 3 getting fed up with me ramming fax and letters and calls. 4 And it's quite obvious, and I guess I probably would 5 react in the same way, that if a lowly backbencher kept 6 sending me some information that I would probably be 7 exasperated at the other end. 8 But I just wanted to keep that for myself 9 to -- to show that I was not dreaming in technicolour 10 with regards to the frustration level that everybody was 11 experiencing in dealing with this situation. 12 Q: And why did you keep a copy of this 13 tape for over ten (10) years? 14 A: Well, it's been sitting, like I said, 15 I have numerous documentation. I call it my Ipperwash 16 briefcase and it's been sitting in that case for -- ever 17 since I -- I taped it ten (10) years ago. 18 Q: Now the voice male, can you tell me 19 was that -- what -- what office was that recorded in or 20 left with? 21 A: At that particular point in time, I 22 was at the corner of College and Bay Street. I was the 23 Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture 24 and Rural Affairs. 25 Q: All right.


1 A: So it would have been received at 2 that location. 3 Q: All right. Did you maintain copies 4 of any other voice mail messages, at any time from June 5 of 1995 forward, to the end of your tenure as an MPP, 6 relating, in any way, to the Ipperwash occupation? 7 A: I did not. 8 Q: Or at the army camp occupation? 9 A: I did not. 10 Q: Or to West Ipperwash beach? 11 A: I did not. 12 Q: And did you, in fact, return Mr. 13 King's call? 14 A: Oh, I'm sure I did. 15 Q: Do you recall what transpired? 16 A: No, I don't recall. 17 Q: Well, was there any response 18 transmitted to you from the Government or on behalf of 19 the Government with respect to the concerns raised by 20 Mayor Thomas in Exhibit P-1044, regarding the tensions? 21 A: I don't recall getting any 22 information at this point in time. 23 Q: Commissioner, that concludes my brief 24 examination on this point. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's


1 mentioned he has a briefcase there. Has he shared the 2 contents of that briefcase with his counsel? Do we know 3 that? Are there -- 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I don't know that. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 7 Q: Have you apprised your counsel as to 8 the contents of your briefcase? 9 A: No. We never discussed that before. 10 But, if I -- if you want me to empty my briefcase, I 11 don't have any problem with it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 13 might like him to. I'd like his counsel to take a look. 14 We have to make sure there's nothing privileged in there 15 between solicitor -- 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No. I agree it would 17 be appropriate for counsel to have a moment with Mr. 18 Beaubien to review the contents of his briefcase just to 19 ensure -- this is a witness, relevance is a -- a legal 20 term. 21 Perhaps his counsel is better able to 22 determine what's relevant and what's not, what's 23 privileged and what's not, than he is. So do -- would 24 you like to break for a minute? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. We


1 can carry on and then if there's anything in there, Mr. 2 Sulman can advise us. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Perhaps in the 4 afternoon break -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- we could do that. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, now, I 8 suspect that, arising out of that examination, there may 9 be some questions that counsel have with respect to that 10 aspect. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: There may well be and - 12 - and there are two (2) ways to approach it. Either 13 counsel can immediately come up and conduct a minute for 14 cross-examination. But I'm thinking what might be more 15 practical -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is to finish 17 the examination. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- is to carry on with 19 the cross-examinations. If counsel are in the position 20 to commence their cross-examination on this point during 21 the afternoon, then they can advise. 22 Otherwise, we'll -- we'll have to see. 23 Perhaps at the end of the day we can canvass parties in 24 that respect. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: See where we


1 are. So it's up to, now, Mr. Horner to cross-examine. 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 3 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Mr. Commissioner, I 4 was wondering if maybe, given that this has just come 5 out, if we could have a five (5) minute break so I can 6 get some things organized and speak with some assurance. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure. And 8 who is left after you? Is there anybody here from the 9 First Nation? Or are you doing both? 10 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: I'm sorry, yes, I -- 11 I forgot to mention that counsel for the Band was unable 12 to be here today and I'm acting as agent for them as well 13 as -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And apart 15 from this incident that just came out, how long do you 16 anticipate your examination will be? 17 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: I anticipate being 18 approximately -- I had said an hour, I'd say forty-five 19 (45) minutes to an hour. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then the 21 only counsel after that is Mr. Falconer. And, Mr. 22 Falconer, apart from this issue, your time estimate is 23 still reasonable? 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, yes, it is. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So apart


1 from this issue? 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 So we're still in pretty good shape. We'll take a break 5 now. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 8 Q: Actually, just -- I forgot -- there's 9 one (1) thing. I apologize, one (1) more question. 10 I've also put before you a copy of an 11 envelope and there's handwriting, "Bill King, July 23 12 '96." This is obviously a photocopy, but this is the 13 physical envelope -- 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: -- I'm showing to you right now. Can 16 you identify the envelope, please? 17 A: Well, it's one (1) envelope from my 18 office and it's my handwriting. 19 Q: And did -- what was the purpose or 20 what was the utility of this envelope, do you recall? 21 A: I don't really recall. 22 Q: Well -- 23 A: Except it says "July 23rd 1996." 24 Q: Was the tape in here? 25 A: The tape was in there, but I, you


1 know, I -- why put July 23rd. It's probably the date 2 that I taped it, I don't know. 3 Q: Yes, and -- and the fax is dated July 4 24th -- 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: And you're quite certain, 7 notwithstanding the date on this envelope, that the voice 8 mail is in response to the July 24th fax? 9 A: That I don't know. I can't -- I know 10 that the -- the tape -- the tape that was in the 11 envelope, it says July the 23rd, and the fax was sent 12 July 24th. 13 Whether there's a previous fax to this, I 14 don't recall. 15 Q: Mr. Beaubien, are you suggesting now 16 that you're not sure whether or not the voice mail 17 message that we just played for you is a response to your 18 July 24th fax? 19 A: I'm saying that I -- I'm only going 20 to go by what I have on the envelope. It's a ten (10) 21 year old envelope; it says July 23rd. 22 Now, I don't know why it says that, 23 whether it's the date that the tape was recorded or -- I 24 don't know. 25 Q: Is it possible --


1 A: All I can say is that it says July 2 23rd on the envelope. 3 Q: I appreciate that. The voice mail 4 that I played for you -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: -- is that in response, to the best 7 of your recollection, to the letter that you sent to Bill 8 King? 9 A: That's -- to the best of my 10 recollection, but I do agree that the fax states that it 11 was sent on July 24th. 12 There's a -- something that's not -- 13 Q: A discrepancy in the date -- 14 A: That's right. 15 Q: -- taking. Thank you very much. I'd 16 like to make that envelope the next exhibit, please. 17 THE REGISTRAR: P-1046, Your Honour. 18 19 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1046: Envelope from Marcel Beaubien 20 containing Bill King to 21 Marcel Beaubien tape (P-1045) 22 with Marcel Beaubien 23 handwritten note "Bill King 24 July 23/'96" on envelope. 25


1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. And with 2 that perhaps we can take a five (5) minute break for 3 Counsel to organize. Thank you. 4 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 5 for five (5) minutes. 6 7 --- Upon recessing at 1:53 p.m. 8 --- Upon resuming at 2:20 p.m. 9 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 11 resumed. Please be seated. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 13 Vella...? 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Commissioner, over the 15 -- the break, I had -- was afforded the opportunity to 16 review the contents of the briefcase of Mr. Beaubien, and 17 am satisfied that the documents are either protected by 18 Solicitor/Client privilege or they are documents which we 19 have already received, with the exception of some 20 newspaper articles which are primarily about this 21 Inquiry, publicly available. 22 The one exception is the article, the 23 letter to the editor by Gerald George, which is already 24 an Exhibit. And there is also an article from the Sarnia 25 Gazette dated June the 2nd, 1966 which might be of some


1 interest to the parties. 2 I don't think of particular relevance to 3 this Witness, but just briefly indicates that there is a 4 meeting between Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and 5 Lambton West MP, Walter Foy (phonetic) with respect to 6 the, quote, "Fate of Camp Ipperwash," and promises made, 7 representations made and that's certainly an interesting 8 -- it concerns of the historical record. 9 Otherwise, there is nothing that I could 10 see that was relevant and not privileged. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you put 12 that newspaper article in as an exhibit so we can make it 13 available to the parties to look at it? 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: We could certainly do 15 that. It -- I could have the witness, I guess, identify 16 it and make -- or perhaps we can just make it an exhibit. 17 It's a copy -- a article from the Sarnia Gazette, June 18 2nd, 1966 entitled, "The MP and the PM." So we'll make 19 that the next exhibit. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 THE REGISTRAR: 1047, Your Honour. 22 23 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1047: The Sarnia Observer article, 24 "The MP and the PM", June 25 02/'66.


1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I also wish to 2 indicate, for the record, that -- that we have received 3 co-operation from Mr. Sulman's office. I have no reason 4 to believe that Mr. Sulman or any of his staff withheld 5 any relevant documents from us as far as we -- we're 6 content that we've been provided with full disclosure 7 from his office. 8 And I just want to state that for the 9 record. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Vella, I 13 understand that there is some material on that -- on the 14 tape that does not relate in any way to Ipperwash but 15 that you haven't had a chance yet to hear it all. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: To fully listen to. 17 That's right. The tape that we made an exhibit, it 18 appears that when the voice mail was recorded the 19 Dictaphone was left on. And I have listened to a good 20 part of it and it's a background internal discussion 21 within the constituency office about unrelated matters. 22 Nothing to do with Ipperwash, whatsoever. 23 I want to have an opportunity to listen to the entire 24 tape to ensure that I'm -- I'm correct. The only part of 25 the tape that I have asked to be made an exhibit for this


1 time, is the voice mail message from Bill King. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Will you get 3 an opportunity to listen to the rest of it. There's 4 about an hour, is that what you were saying? 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's about an hour. I 6 just -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Will you get 8 an opportunity to listen to it and if there's anything in 9 there that in any way relates to Ipperwash, you will 10 bring it to our attention. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Then I will be --I will 12 certainly make disclosure of that. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 14 very much. So, Mr. Horner, you're up. 15 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 17 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 18 Good afternoon, Mr. Beaubien. 19 A: Good afternoon. 20 Q: My name is Matthew Horner and I 21 represent the Chiefs of Ontario. And as I indicated 22 before, I'm also acting today as agent for the Chippewas 23 of Kettle and Stony Point. 24 Mr. Beaubien, I want to start off today by 25 talking -- looking at the nature of an MPP's job. You


1 emphasized in your examination-in-chief that you were a 2 constituency man; is that correct? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And in explaining what that meant, 5 you -- you've indicated that -- you emphasized you looked 6 at representing the interest of the people of Lambton, 7 Kent, Middlesex in Toronto as opposed to representing 8 Toronto interests in your riding; is that correct? 9 A: That's correct, except I would just 10 say Lambton at that particular point in time. The riding 11 was strictly Lambton. 12 Q: It was Lambton for the purpose of the 13 1995 election -- 14 A: That's right. 15 Q: -- then it became Lambton, Kent, 16 Middlesex for the 1999 election. 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And so in explaining that you're a 19 constituency man, you explained that your job as an MPP 20 was similar to that of being a city councillor or mayor. 21 Do you recall that? 22 A: Yeah, I probably alluded to that, 23 yes. 24 Q: And you were, at one point, the mayor 25 of Petrolia?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: But, I would like to do this 3 afternoon is I would like to look at those elements of 4 being an MPP that differ from being a mayor of -- of a 5 town. All right? 6 First, you'll agree that one difference in 7 running for a seat in the Legislative Assembly is that 8 people generally do so as a nominee of a political party; 9 is that correct? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And for the 1995 election, you were 12 nominee of the Conservative Party in the riding of 13 Lambton? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And so when you ran in -- in the 1995 16 election campaign for the Legislative Assembly, you ran 17 as the candidate representing the Conservative party? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And, in fact -- and I'm trying to 20 recall that election campaign. As I recall, the 21 materials for the Conservative party in that campaign 22 often referred to the Mike Harris team; is that correct? 23 A: Yes, it did, yeah. 24 Q: And so you ran under that banner of 25 the Mike Harris team; is that correct.


1 A: That's right. 2 Q: And there were party signs that you 3 put out during the campaign that would have indicated 4 that? 5 A: Our sign didn't say anything about 6 Team Harris, but it was the general tone across the 7 Province was -- my sign just said, "Marcel Beaubien, 8 Conservative" and "Riding of Lambton". 9 Q: And the colour would have been -- 10 A: Blue and white. 11 Q: -- blue and white and those are 12 colours normally -- 13 A: Of the Party. 14 Q: -- associated with the Party, 15 correct? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Yes. And you ran under the Tory 18 platform known as The Common Sense Revolution? 19 A: I did. 20 Q: As you mentioned a couple of days 21 ago, law and order was an important component of that? 22 A: It was. 23 Q: And you were assisted, in your 24 election campaign, by members of the Conservative Party? 25 A: I was...?


1 Q: You were assisted in the election 2 campaign by members of the Conservative Party? 3 A: I don't know exactly what you mean. 4 If you mean -- are you saying that -- during the 5 campaign, is that what you're talking about or...? 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: Yeah. Well, I had, well, people that 8 belonged to the association, the local riding association 9 and plus people that do -- did not belong to the 10 association. 11 And I had people that belonged to the 12 Liberal Party helping me in my campaign also. As a 13 matter of fact, the person that did door to door was a 14 member of the Liberal Party. 15 Q: All right. But the majority of your 16 volunteers who would have volunteered would have been 17 people who supported the Conservative Party in other 18 campaigns? 19 A: I would say the majority of the 20 people that worked in my campaign were supporting me. 21 Some were supporting the Party but most of them were 22 supporting me. 23 Q: Now, you'd been the mayor of 24 Petrolia? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: But the riding of Lambton was 2 considerably larger than Petrolia? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And so you would have required a 5 large number of volunteers to help you out? 6 A: I think I referred to the fact that I 7 represented all of Lambton County except part of the City 8 of Sarnia. 9 Q: Right. So that would extend all the 10 way down to Strathroy? 11 A: No, no. It would take from -- the 12 south end of the riding would be Walpole Island, Port 13 Lambton, Sombra and then down river up to the Chippewas, 14 because that was in the Sarnia riding in Sarnia. 15 And then you would take in the part just 16 immediately east of Lambton College all the way up to the 17 lake and then to Grand Bend. 18 Q: All right. And so -- so there was 19 people helping you on the campaign that you didn't even 20 know? 21 A: Oh, definitely. 22 Q: And they -- they weren't coming out 23 because they knew you, they were coming out because they 24 knew the Conservative Party? 25 A: Or they -- yeah. I would imagine


1 there was a multitude of reasons why people worked on the 2 campaign, yes. 3 Q: So you would agree that the whole 4 process of becoming an MPP, unlike becoming mayor, is -- 5 is more of a team effort; is that correct? 6 A: Yeah. You have to belong to a party 7 and you have to belong to an association. 8 Q: And you arrived after your election 9 at Queen's Park as -- under the umbrella of a broader 10 party? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And for the public watching this 13 campaign unfold it's clear to the public that you were 14 affiliated with the Mike Harris team? 15 A: Oh, I'm sure. I mean I ran under the 16 banner of the Conservatives, so there was no hidden 17 agenda, it was quite clear that I was running under that 18 particular agenda. 19 Q: And so when they would see Mike 20 Harris give a speech or they'd see a Mike Harris ad on 21 TV, if they wanted to support those policies and support 22 The Common Sense Revolution, they would vote for you? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And once you -- and you were 25 eventually elected to be the MPP for the riding of


1 Lambton? 2 A: That -- that's correct. 3 Q: And once you arrived at Queen's Park 4 you continued to be part of that same Mike Harris team? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: You sat on the same side of the House 7 with other members of the party? 8 A: Well, that's -- that's the political 9 process in -- in Canada. 10 Q: And Mike Harris, as leader of the 11 party he chose his Cabinet from a -- among the members of 12 Parliament who were affiliated with that party? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And the leader would also provide 15 other roles for MPP's who weren't members of -- of his 16 Cabinet. He would assign different members to be 17 parliamentary secretaries or -- or chairs of committees? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And those people were also always 20 members of the -- of his party? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And ultimately you would be expected 23 to -- to support legislation and policies put forth by 24 the Government of Mike Harris? 25 A: Ultimately, but there's always some


1 dissidence at time on -- on different occasions, on 2 different issues, and it's not everybody that drinks the 3 cocktail a 100 percent of the time. 4 Q: It would be something you'd have to 5 think long and hard about before you -- you chose to go 6 against what the party -- 7 A: Oh, there's no doubts, especially on 8 financial issues. I mean, I think we all know the, you 9 know, some of the repercussions that if you don't toe the 10 line that -- in Toronto sometimes it's not viewed in a, I 11 guess, as -- as control -- conforming to -- to party 12 policy. 13 Q: As part of your job as an MPP for the 14 governing party, you would also be expected to speak in 15 favour of government policy in the House? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And outside the House as well? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And you'd be expected to explain 20 government policies in your home riding? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And in order to facilitate to this -- 23 these explanations and -- and your speaking on behalf of 24 government policy, communications would be co-ordinated 25 through the party?


1 A: Usually you have briefing notes from 2 different Ministries on different subject matters. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: And when Bill King was -- testified 7 before this Inquiry, he testified about his role in that 8 process, it's November 16th, at page 163. 9 He explains that, in terms of his role, 10 he's a vehicle by which members of the Provincial 11 Parliament could deal directly with the Premier's office 12 and, conversely, the Premier's office could share 13 information back to the Members of Provincial Parliament 14 about what the Government was up to and what the Premier 15 was up to. 16 So you'd agree with that? 17 A: I would agree with that. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: And he explained that, in terms of 22 disseminating information, he would direct -- 23 disseminated that information through caucus meetings or 24 through direct communications, letters, briefing 25 packages, e-mails, faxes, that kind of thing.


1 A: I would agree with that, yeah. 2 Q: And when that information was 3 distributed to you, that was information that you were to 4 distribute to -- to the public, as a Member of the party? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And this process was organized so 7 that you, as a governing party, would be able to provide 8 a consistent message of government policy? 9 A: Yes, because there was eighty-two 10 (82) members at the time. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: And having been elected as a Member 15 of the Conservative Party to be the MPP for Lambton, you 16 understood that when you communicated with members of the 17 public, you would expect them to understand that you were 18 speaking for the Conservative Party? 19 A: Well, trying to convey the -- the 20 message from Toronto as best as I possibly could. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And, in fact -- I'd like to move now 25 to -- to the period in question, September 5th and 6th,


1 1995. 2 And would you agree that, in your 3 communications with the public at that time, you were 4 also conveying the -- the message and the policies of the 5 Government of Mike Harris? 6 A: I think I was conveying whatever I 7 was getting back from Queen's Park, yes. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: I'll take you to the Exhibit P-444(a) 12 that I think you have in front of you. 13 A: I do have it here. 14 Q: Tab 22. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: We've gone over this -- this 19 conversation before, but in light of your last answer I 20 just want to question. When Staff Sergeant Lacroix is 21 speaking with Inspector Carson and he's discussing a 22 conversation that he had with you; he's relating -- at 23 the bottom of page 181 he talks about he got -- spoke 24 with you and he says that: 25 "This is not an Indian issue, but an


1 MNR issue and Provincial issue. Harris 2 has involved himself and quite uptight 3 about it." 4 That was a message that you were conveying 5 directly from the Government to the OPP at that time? 6 A: Well, I think the message was -- and 7 once again I would agree with the bottom line. Whether I 8 said that Harris has involved himself and quite uptight I 9 don't recall that. 10 I think I would have said that the -- I'll 11 stand by what I wrote down on the fax that I received 12 from Bill King that I think the Premier is apprised or 13 aware of the situation. I'll stick by that. 14 Q: And you had taken those notes 15 directly from Bill King -- 16 A: In a conversation. 17 Q: -- in a conversation with Bill King? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And he, in his conversation with you, 20 was communicating that the Government -- the Government's 21 positions and views on -- on what was going on in that 22 situation? 23 A: Yeah. He was passing on information. 24 Where he obtained the information I don't know, but he 25 was passing that on to me and probably other members


1 also. 2 Q: And as part of his role as the 3 liaison he was passing that information on to you to be 4 disseminated to the community? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: Including the OPP? 7 A: No, I -- I took it upon myself when I 8 was discussing the -- but Bill King never gave me any 9 direction or anybody ever gave me any direction to pass 10 on that information to the OPP. I -- I took it upon -- 11 upon myself to relay the information that I was receiving 12 from Queen's Park in my conversation to Mr. Lacroix. 13 Q: Now, you had testified earlier that - 14 - that you had indicated to -- to Mr. King that you had 15 been speaking with the OPP? 16 A: I don't recall I -- discussing with 17 Mr. King whether I was relaying the information to the 18 OPP or not. 19 Q: All right. Can I take you to Tab 22 20 of Commission Counsel's binder; that's Exhibit P-952. I 21 know we've been here before but I'll try to address it 22 today. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Now, you state in your cover letter, 2 as we've discussed, that you totally agree with the -- 3 the submissions of the -- the person -- the letter being 4 attached? 5 A: I use the word 'totally' quite often 6 just like a lot of people use, 'you know', or 'eh'. You 7 know, I use 'totally' quite a bit apparently, and I think 8 you'll hear that on the tape I was told. 9 Q: When you say "totally" you mean a 10 large portion of -- of it you agree -- 11 A: Well, that's what it -- I guess the 12 connotation is that when you say totally you agree 13 totally with it I guess. It's a large portion, yes. I 14 would think you're right. That's my understanding of the 15 word 'total'. 16 Q: You might disagree with the turn of 17 phrase but you agree with the general thrust -- 18 A: That's right, yeah. 19 Q: -- thrust of the whole letter, at the 20 very least? 21 A: Yeah. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Now, I'll take you to the letter on


1 the next page. And I -- to the extent that you agreed 2 with the contents of this letter is it fair to assume 3 that you would have expressed that agreement with the OPP 4 when you met with them? 5 A: No, I don't think I ever discussed 6 any letters that I received from constituents with the 7 OPP, to the best of my recollection. I would share with 8 them the general sentiments that I would hear and receive 9 from my constituents but I never sat down with them with 10 -- discussing one (1) particular letter. 11 Q: And to the extent that you would 12 explain your -- your -- the concerns of your constituents 13 and your concerns, we might expect them to -- and to the 14 extent that you can't remember them, would it be fair to 15 -- to expect that you -- that they would be consistent 16 with this letter? 17 A: Generally speaking, yes. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: Because we talked about people being 20 afraid, to -- people harming themselves and things like 21 this. So that would be consistent with what -- the 22 contents of this letter. 23 Q: I'll take you to one (1) sentence in 24 particular to start. In the third paragraph, you say -- 25 it says -- you don't say, it says in the letter:


1 "Under Trespass Law the occupiers can 2 be arrested. This should be done 3 immediately." 4 Would you have expressed to the OPP that 5 that was a concern of yours? 6 A: No, because that's a legal 7 technicality and I'm sure they understood the law much, 8 much better than I did. 9 Q: That it should be done immediately, 10 that they -- 11 A: No. I, like I said, I would not 12 discuss this particular subject matter directly with the 13 OPP. I would discuss the general contents of the 14 correspondence that I would receive. 15 But when it came to specific legal issues, 16 because I, as I said, I'm not a lawyer, I don't 17 understand it as well, they understood much more -- or 18 much more thoroughly than I did, so I would leave that up 19 to them to deal with those type of matters. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Thank you, Mr. Beaubien. Those are 24 all my questions. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you


1 very much, Mr. Horner. 2 Mr. Falconer...? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sorry, Mr. 7 Falconer, I don't have your original time estimate in 8 front of me. Do you recall what it was? 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. My original 10 estimate was two (2) hours, not including the tape issue. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Beaubien. My 15 name is Julian Falconer and I'm counsel for Aboriginal 16 Legal Services of Toronto. 17 A: Good afternoon. 18 Q: Monsieur Beaubien, j'aimerais le 19 faire en francais mais -- 20 A: On peut parler en francais si vous 21 voulez parler en francais, en n'importe -- 22 Q: Personne va nous suivre. 23 A: -- n'importe quelle occasion. 24 Q: Totalement en francais? 25 A: Totalement en francais si vous


1 voulez, on va faire la discussion en frantais. 2 Q: Parfait. But when I say totally in 3 French, I'm not talking partially, I mean entirely. 4 A: Well, you can make fun of me with 5 regards to the word 'total', that's your prerogative, 6 sir. 7 Q: Now, I give you a little bit of a dig 8 and I do that -- 9 A: Well, you -- 10 Q: -- because -- 11 A: -- you know -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No -- 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 15 Q: -- I do that because, sir, I do that 16 because you've referred a number of times to the fact 17 that you use the word 'totally' routinely a lot; is that 18 right? 19 A: I do. 20 Q: And when you say you use the word 21 "totally" a lot, does that mean when you use it we 22 shouldn't assume you mean 'totally'; is that fair? 23 A: That's probably fair. 24 Q: So, when you told Mr. Sandler, as you 25 did -- I just want to pull up the reference for you


1 because we like to refer to evidence -- when you told Mr. 2 Sandler on January 24th, which was yesterday, 2006, at 3 page 18, quote: 4 "I would totally agree with your 5 assumption." 6 When you told him that yesterday, the 7 assumption being that police officers never told you that 8 they needed guidelines on how to enforce the law, when 9 you told him that you would, quote, "totally agree with 10 his assumption", we should actually take that as 11 something other than you agreeing with Mr. Sandler, is 12 that -- 13 A: Well, that's your interpretation -- 14 Q: Well, I'm asking you what you meant 15 when you -- 16 A: Oh -- 17 Q: -- answered Mr. Sandler, I would, 18 quote "totally" quote, agree with your assumption, at 19 page 18, January 24th, 2006. 20 What did you -- what did you mean by that? 21 A: Maybe I shouldn't have said totally, 22 but I'll agree with what the statement -- with the 23 statement that he made, I would agree with that. 24 Q: In its entirety? 25 A: Yes, in its entirety.


1 Q: Yes. Because you were being given a 2 question by the lawyer for the police, correct; Mr. 3 Sandler, for the OPP, correct? 4 A: If I recall, yes. 5 Q: You remember that Mr. Sandler had a 6 series of questions for you about what you would have 7 intended in the messages you were trying to convey on 8 September 6th, 1995 at the command post. 9 Do you remember he asked you about -- a 10 couple of questions about that? 11 A: No, you'll have to refresh my memory. 12 Q: Certainly. If the transcript of 13 September 6th, 1995 could be put on the screen. I didn't 14 give My Friend -- 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: What date? 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- fair notice of 17 it, but if you could assist me by putting up at this 18 stage, page 10, please. 19 I'm going to make a full transcript 20 available to the Witness just to be of assistance to him. 21 Now, I've cut out where Mr. Sandler and I had exchanges. 22 But if that could be put in front of the 23 Witness. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's going 25 to be on the screen, but that's fine.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, I just -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The Witness 3 can have a hard copy. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: This is the cross-examination by Mr. 7 Sandler of Mr. Beaubien on January 24th, 2006, being 8 yesterday. 9 You were asked a series of questions by 10 Mr. Sandler about your intentions, both at the August 11 11th 1995 meeting with the police and at the September 12 6th 1995 meeting with the police. 13 Do you remember that? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And just -- first of all, do you 16 recall -- you gave this testimony yesterday, right? 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: So it wasn't ten (10) years ago. 19 We're just asking you to remember what you said -- 20 A: And I will not -- 21 Q: -- yesterday. 22 A: -- recall every word that I said 23 yesterday. 24 Q: Fair enough. That's why there's a 25 transcript in front of you and -- and I'm not trying to


1 suggest you should, sir. 2 A: Could be my age, but I don't know. 3 Q: But in the process of providing 4 answers to Mr. Sandler, you were able to assist Mr. 5 Sandler about the fact that you had certain intentions in 6 meeting on August 11th, 1995, and you were able to assist 7 Mr. -- with the police, and you were able to assist Mr. 8 Sandler on your intentions on September 6th, 1995 in 9 meeting with the police. 10 Do you remember answering questions along 11 those lines? 12 A: Well, you're going to have to be more 13 specific. 14 Q: All right. Let me first suggest to 15 you, sir, that you made it crystal clear at the command 16 post on September 6th, 1995, that as far as your 17 constituents were concerned, the occupation at Ipperwash 18 Park was illegal and the occupiers were to be removed 19 from the Park. 20 You made that clear to the police at the 21 command post, didn't you? 22 A: Where was that? Is that in the 23 transcript here? 24 Q: Well, first let's deal with my 25 question. Did you make that clear to the police?


1 A: No. 2 Q: No. Could you turn to page 22 of the 3 transcript, please? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: At line 11, Mr. Sandler is asking you 8 questions. Mr. Sandler, the lawyer for the police. 9 "Q: Now, there's no doubt, I'm going 10 to suggest to you, that you articulated 11 or expressed your constituents' views, 12 and whether or not they were your own 13 I'm less interested in that right now, 14 that the occupation was illegal and the 15 law should be enforced. 16 That's correct. 17 And there's no doubt that you expressed 18 your constituents' views they wanted 19 the illegal occupation be ended and the 20 occupiers out of the Park, right? 21 A: I did. 22 Am I right? 23 A: Yes." 24 Now, when Mr. Sandler, for the police, 25 asked you that question, you agreed with him, correct?


1 A: Well, I'm sure we talked about it, 2 yes. 3 Q: Right, no, he -- I put to you, a 4 question ago, that the one thing you made clear to the 5 police at the command post on September 6th, 1995 is your 6 constituents' views that the occupation was illegal and 7 you wanted the occupiers out of the Park, and you said 8 no, didn't you? 9 A: You say -- no, no. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, just a 11 -- yes, Mr. Sulman? 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That isn't the same 13 question. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, it is. 15 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Just let me finish, 16 Mr. Falconer. 17 The question that you asked is not the 18 same. The question was, Did you make it crystal clear, 19 which is the adjective that he used, like the 'totally' 20 that we see thirty (30) times in these transcripts, 21 people use different adjectives. 22 Mr. Falconer said, "crystal clear". Did 23 you make it crystal clear that you wanted -- that your 24 constituents' views were that they -- the occupation was 25 illegal and that you wanted the occupiers out of the


1 Park. Okay? 2 The question that Mr. Sandler asked is 3 different than that; that they wanted illegal occupation 4 to be ended and the occupiers out of the Park. 5 I don't quarrel with -- with Mr. Falconer 6 asking the question, but what he's done is -- and I'm 7 sure it's inadvertent, that he's changed the words, That 8 you wanted them out of the Park. 9 That's the only -- that's the only I have 10 quarrel with. As long it's asked exactly the same, I 11 don't have quarrel with it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, I 14 am afraid I did not understand Mr. Sulman's objection. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, there 16 was some discussion about whether he was referring to his 17 own view or that of his constituents. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that's why I 19 said in my question, you -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- made crystal 22 clear your -- the views of your constituents that they 23 wanted it out and want -- I expressed that in my first 24 question. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was quite careful 2 to. I just want the record to reflect that and I'll move 3 on. 4 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: You did the first 5 time. You -- you just didn't when you put it to him 6 again and I just wanted to make sure -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, so -- okay 8 fine, let's back up. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: You recall the first time I put the 12 proposition to you, I'd asked you specifically that you 13 had made clear at the command post on September 6th, 14 1995, that you had made clear your constituents' views 15 that as far as they were concerned, the occupation was 16 illegal and they wanted the occupiers out. 17 Do you remember I asked you that question; 18 the first question I asked you in these series of 19 questions? Do you remember I asked you that? 20 A: Yeah, you probably did ask. 21 Q: Yeah. And do you remember you said 22 no? 23 A: I don't recall. 24 Q: You don't recall. 25 A: No.


1 Q: And the lack of recollection you're 2 presently experiencing is with respect to an answer you 3 gave me approximately six (6) minutes ago, true? 4 A: Well, you know, you asked a question, 5 let me be crystal clear, I'll use your word. You asked 6 me a question that Mr. Sandler had posed to me yesterday 7 and the second time you came around you were very coy 8 with the way you placed the words and it was not the same 9 question, sir. 10 Q: Is that your answer? 11 A: That's my answer. 12 Q: All right. So, that the first time I 13 asked you the question today, six (6) minutes ago, where 14 you don't recall the answer, I wasn't coy, true? 15 A: You -- you talked about Mr. Sandler 16 asking me a -- the question yesterday, if I recall. 17 Q: The record will speak for itself, 18 sir. 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: In terms of your lack of 21 recollection, it's important that I understand this, you 22 answered a whole series of questions by Mr. Sandler as 23 reflected in this transcript and you recalled certain 24 things; for example, I took you to an example just now. 25 You recalled exactly the message you


1 delivered on behalf of your constituents, it's cited at 2 page 22 of the transcript, right? 3 Secondly, I'm going to suggest to you, you 4 also recalled the kind of language that was used by the 5 police officers in the meeting of September 6th, 1995. 6 You remembered that too when the lawyer for the police 7 was asking you questions, didn't you? 8 A: Where's that. 9 Q: Well, first of all, do you recall 10 remembering that? 11 A: Well, you know, I think Mr. Sandler's 12 question, it says: 13 "Now, there's no doubt I'm going to 14 suggest to you that you articulated or 15 expressed your constituents' views and 16 whether or not they were your -- your 17 own, I'm less interested in that right 18 now, that the occupation was illegal 19 and that the law should be enforced." 20 And I sad, "That's correct." 21 That's a very clear question. It's very 22 concise so I can answer that. And if you give me, or ask 23 me a very concise question, I'd probably try to give you 24 a good answer if I can. 25 Q: Are you finished?


1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: Do you recall the answer I just asked 3 you? 4 A: No. 5 Q: I asked you, sir, that in answering 6 Mr. Sandler's questions yesterday, you were able to 7 recall for the lawyer for the police, the kind of 8 language that was used by the police officers at the 9 September 6th, 1995 meeting at the command post between 10 you and them, correct? 11 A: The kind of language? Where in the 12 documentation that I have in front of me? 13 Q: I am asking you if you, in fact, do 14 recall the officer's language on September 6th, 1995, ten 15 (10) years ago? Do you recall their language? 16 A: Generally speaking, not every word. 17 I mean, we had general discussion. I can't tell you 18 every word. 19 Q: All right. And you don't really 20 recall, if one were to suggest to you, for example, this 21 was the kind of language they used, it's not as if you're 22 going to tell us now, ten (10) years later, that you 23 remember that, correct? 24 A: That's correct, that's probably fair 25 to assume that.


1 Q: Right. Could you turn to page 27 of 2 the transcript, please. And could that be put on the 3 screen? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: At line 11, Mr. Sandler's asking you 8 questions: 9 "Fair enough. Now, whether you were 10 effective in doing that or not, in 11 other words, sending the message to the 12 police so that they, in turn, in their 13 discretion, would give you information 14 to calm down the constituents, I'm 15 going to suggest to you that, if you 16 think back at the language that John 17 Carson and Staff Sergeant Lacroix were 18 using in communicating with you, they 19 were using the kind of language that, 20 in your mind, was designed to reduce 21 tension. In other words, information 22 that could be passed on that hopefully 23 would have the effect of reducing 24 tension. Am I right? 25 A: Yes, you're right."


1 Now, for Mr. Sandler, you could remember 2 but for me you can't. Isn't that true? 3 A: No, I don't think so. I totally 4 disagree with you. 5 Q: For Mr. -- 6 A: I think my role, as I said on 7 previous occasion, was to try to diffuse and calm down 8 the situation. 9 Q: Would you agree with me that, as far 10 as your feelings at the time, you conveyed a person who 11 was obviously deeply concerned and frustrated by the 12 process that was going on? 13 You conveyed that to the police, didn't 14 you? 15 A: Oh, I -- certainly. There was many 16 people, many constituents were concerned about the 17 situation. 18 Q: And you testified yesterday you were 19 sympathetic to their views, correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: In fact, today, the revelation of 22 your tape and the accompanying letter suggests, quote, 23 unquote, in July 1996, that you were, quote, unquote, 24 "disgusted," right? 25 A: With what was going on, yes.


1 Q: And you told Ms. Vella, in answer to 2 her questions, that you weren't just disgusted that day, 3 you were disgusted with the process dating back to August 4 and September 1995, correct? 5 That's what you told her. 6 A: On an ongoing basis, yeah, I think. 7 Q: So, in addition to simply passing on 8 the concerns of your constituents, let's say the 9 objective pipeline, if you will, you were personally 10 disgusted, correct? 11 A: Well, I'm not very proud of the fact 12 that after fifty (50) years, you know, we're still 13 debating the issue of an army base. After ten (10) years 14 we're still debating the issue of a Provincial Park. 15 I don't think anybody would be proud of 16 that, including yours truly. 17 Q: Is that the same thing as being 18 personally disgusted? 19 A: Yeah, I think so. 20 Q: And so -- 21 A: I would put it in the same bag, yes. 22 Q: And so when you told Bill King, the 23 liaison between you and Premier Harris, that, quote, you 24 were: 25 "Absolutely disgusted with the support


1 you folks have provided." 2 Close quotes. 3 You were speaking to the problem with the 4 Federal Government? 5 A: I'm speaking about the whole -- 6 basically, I'm directing my comments as it relates to the 7 Provincial Government at that particular point in time, 8 but certainly that I was disgusted with the entire 9 situation. 10 Q: You're a man who's given to being 11 blunt. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: You're a man of passion? 14 A: I would think so. 15 Q: Bill King called it, quote: 16 "Fed up with temper tantrums." 17 Close quotes. 18 That would be you he's talking about? 19 A: That's probably me that he's talking 20 about. 21 Q: And you sort of have a bit of a 22 reflective smile about that. You have, on occasion, had 23 temper tantrums? 24 A: Don't we all have, at one time or 25 another, in our lives?


1 Q: Not all of us attract a voice mail, 2 sir, of the nature Mr. King left for you. 3 A: Oh. 4 Q: Did you apologize to Mr. King? 5 A: I don't recall I did. 6 Q: And it's fair to say that the temper 7 tantrums that you refer to or that Mr. King refers to is 8 in reference to your July 1996 correspondence -- 9 A: To the best of my -- 10 Q: -- as an example. 11 A: -- recollection, yes. 12 Q: Now you state that your role was to 13 try to calm matters, yes? 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: So one of the ways you calmed matters 16 was by appearing at the command post and making it clear 17 to the police, who were negotiating a very tender matter, 18 that your constituents were of the view the occupation 19 was illegal and they wanted the occupiers out. 20 That was a way to calm matters down? 21 A: Oh, that's a pretty way for you to 22 describe it. I think, if you recall, it's kind of nice, 23 now, you know, when you have the talent to deal with 24 words and the English vocabulary -- 25 Q: Are you talking about --


1 A: -- but I -- 2 Q: -- me, sir? 3 A: -- was at the command centre to be 4 briefed, along with other people, as to the situation. 5 And there's no doubt, subsequently, to the briefing, that 6 we -- the discussion ensued that with regards to some of 7 the concerns of the constituents. 8 Q: All right. So I've misunderstood, 9 then. And dealing with those August 11th -- we'll start 10 with August 11th, 1995. 11 What didn't happen -- what didn't happen 12 is that you were there to communicate concerns over a 13 lack of policing. You weren't taking that kind of 14 approach with them? 15 A: Which -- 16 Q: On August 11th, 1995. 17 A: Is that the meeting that you're 18 talking about with the different police officers? 19 Q: The Command officers that ultimately 20 ran Incident Command at Ipperwash Park. A number of 21 weeks earlier you met with them on August 11th, 1995. 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: They included Carson the Incident 24 Commander? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: They included Parkin, the gentleman 2 in charge of Carson? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: They included Lacroix? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: The man who ultimately led the CMU 7 team down the road against the occupiers? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Now, on August 11th, 1995, what 10 didn't happen, what didn't happen is that you expressed 11 your concern over their lack of policing? 12 A: Not my concern, my constituents' 13 concerns. 14 Q: So that didn't happen, did it? 15 A: What do you mean it didn't happen? 16 Q: Did you express your constituents' 17 concerns over their lack of policing? 18 A: Oh, I'm sure we talked about it. 19 Q: Did you express your constituents' 20 concerns over their, that is the officers', lack of 21 policing? 22 A: Well, I was hearing it, I was getting 23 correspondence, I was getting phone calls that people 24 felt they were not safe and secure in -- in their 25 residence.


1 Q: So -- 2 A: So I would convey that message. 3 Q: So I infer that the answer to my 4 question is yes, you -- you passed that on to them? 5 A: I would pass it on, I'm sure. 6 Q: On September 6th, 1995, you reappear 7 at Command Post and after having complained on behalf of 8 your constituents about the lack of policing, now you're 9 present in Command Post telling them that, as far as your 10 constituents are concerned, the occupation is illegal and 11 your constituents want these occupiers out, correct? 12 A: That's your theory. 13 Q: Well, is -- did that happen? 14 A: No, that's your theory. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: I was invited to attend for a 17 briefing at the Forest Detachment. 18 Q: Could we turn to page twenty-two (22) 19 of the transcript please? 20 We've looked at it, but it apparently has 21 been forgotten, page 22, line 10. Question, and this is 22 about the September 6th, 1995 Command Post meeting, hours 23 before Dudley George is shot. 24 Now, there's no doubt, I'm going to 25 suggest to you, and this is a question by Mr. Sandler.


1 Quote: 2 "Now, there is no doubt I'm going to 3 suggest to you that you articulated or 4 expressed your constituents' views on 5 whether or not they were known [I'm 6 less interested in that right now] that 7 the occupation was illegal and that the 8 law should be enforced? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And there's no doubt that you 11 expressed your constituents' views that 12 they wanted the illegal occupation to 13 be ended and the occupiers out of the 14 Park, right? 15 A: I -- I did. 16 Q: Am I right? 17 A: Yes." 18 So let's go back to it again. Isn't it 19 true that, on August 11th, you complained about a lack of 20 policing, and on September 6th, hours before Dudley 21 George is shot, you pass on your constituents' views, 22 that as far as they're concerned, this occupation is 23 illegal and you want the occupiers out? Isn't that true? 24 A: You're -- you're probably -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a


1 minute, Mr. Beaubien. 2 Yes, Mr. Sulman...? 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Again, it's the same 4 -- it's the same situation. It's -- you expressed a view 5 and you wanted the occupiers out. And that's not what's 6 been said. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, okay. 8 I'm not sure -- 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That they -- that 10 isn't what is in page 22. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This is cross- 12 examination. That was leading question -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but I 14 mean you have to be accurate. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- it's perfectly 16 proper, and I was accurate. 17 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: No, it was not. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you 19 weren't I missed it. I thought you were, but you 20 weren't -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was accurate. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 23 Sulman's right. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was accurate. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, what


1 you're asking him is whether he conveyed his 2 constituents' concerns -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that's 5 what you're asking him. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I keep repeating 7 it. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. You 9 don't have to repeat it again. I think we've made that-- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I do somewhat 11 because the problem is when Mr. Sulman interrupts me I -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's not 13 interrupting. Just as you do, Mr. Falconer, he's got a 14 perfect right to object when he thinks a question is 15 unfair and I've got to hear him just as I do you. So 16 let's carry on. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's very fair, 18 Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was hoping you'd 21 tell him to sit down like you tell me to. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, I'm 23 just trying to be fair. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- I am hopeful, 25 Mr. Commissioner, that I'll get through this but


1 obviously it's late in the day and if Mr. Sulman and I 2 have many, many disagreements we won't finish today, but 3 that's just life. Because -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we're 5 all going -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- this tape issue 7 -- this tape issue cost us an hour and a half today and, 8 frankly, it probably means I don't expect to be able to 9 finish with him, but I'll try. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we 11 might go a little later because I would very much like to 12 have you finish your examination today. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- I'm just 14 trying to flag for you my concern about it. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's go. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 Q: Going back to my question: Is the 19 evidence you gave to the lawyer for the police about the 20 expressions you conveyed to the police on September 6th, 21 1995, accurate or not? 22 A: I'm not going to play games with you. 23 I'll stand by the evidence that I gave yesterday, word 24 for word, by the questions that were posed to me by Mr. 25 Sandler.


1 Q: Now, did your views change between 2 September 1995 and October 1995 about what your 3 constituents' concerns were? 4 A: My personal views? 5 Q: No. Did the views you expressed to 6 the police change between September and October 1995 as 7 far as your constituents' views were concerned? 8 A: No. I think I probably heard the 9 same thing, maybe not as often, and -- but I think there 10 were some concerns between that particular period. 11 Q: And would you agree with me that this 12 remained an issue for your constituents through the fall 13 of 1995? 14 A: I would say that's a fair assumption. 15 Q: And your deeply-held concern, your 16 frustration or your disgust -- and these are all 17 personally attributed to you, deeply-held concern, 18 frustration or disgust, did not abate, it did not reduce, 19 between September 1995 and December 1995? 20 A: Oh, I think I testified to the fact 21 that there were a period where the tension and the 22 frustration level might not have been as high; there was 23 some relief. 24 Q: And there was relief, and does that 25 mean that matters improved or are you saying there were


1 ups and downs? 2 A: There were up and downs. 3 Q: And so as much as matters might have 4 improved on occasions, we went right back to the deep 5 concern, frustration or disgust at other times? 6 A: Yeah, I think that's a fair 7 statement. 8 Q: And whatever concerns you had with 9 the response of Queens Park, or the policing, would have 10 existed in December 1995, as they did earlier in the 11 fall? 12 A: Well, again, like I said, there were 13 -- there were ups and downs. 14 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir, 15 that the one (1) thing that is clear to all, is that you 16 would have had direct communications with Premier Mike 17 Harris about your frustrations, about your concerns and 18 about your disgust? 19 A: With the Premier himself? 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: You're totally, unequivocally, wrong. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: And I want that in big, big letters. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 25 Just leave it at totally utterly wrong, that's


1 sufficient. 2 THE WITNESS: I take exception to that. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 4 That's fine. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: Now, you used the word 'totally'. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Which -- 10 A: I did -- 11 Q: -- which meaning should we ascribe -- 12 A: Ah, well -- 13 Q: -- partially, entirely, totalement, 14 peut-etre un peu -- 15 A: You take -- 16 Q: -- qu'est-ce qu'on veut dire? 17 A: -- whichever one you want. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please. 19 Please. Please, please, please. I'm trying to pay 20 attention. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: Is it fair to say, sir, that it's 24 your evidence before this Commission that not only did 25 you not have direct communications with Mike Harris in


1 July 1995, August 1995, September 1995, but October and 2 November 1995 as well? 3 A: You're dreaming in technicolour. The 4 only time that I spoke directly to the Premier on the 5 Ipperwash issue when -- is when we had caucus meetings, 6 never, ever, one-on-one. 7 Q: And can you identify the date you 8 would have had direct discussions with the Premier about 9 Ipperwash? 10 A: I think the first time -- it's on the 11 record -- I think was August 14, 1995 in Cambridge. We 12 had a caucus retreat. I think it was the first caucus 13 retreat we had as a newly-elected government. And then I 14 raised it subsequently to that at Queens Park, in the 15 caucus room, on different occasions, but I can't recall 16 the dates. 17 Q: Would you agree with me that in 18 December 1995 you had direct discussions with then- 19 Premier Mike Harris about your frustration and your 20 disgust? 21 A: Absolutely not. I never sat on any 22 issue one-on-one with the Premier of the Province. 23 Q: Direct communications, as in direct 24 discussions, would you agree with me that that happened 25 in December 1995?


1 A: It did not happen. 2 Q: I'd ask you to turn to Tab 51 of your 3 Commission Counsel binder, please. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: This is a letter, it's got a 8 signature on the bottom of the page, could you identify 9 the signature, please? 10 A: That's my signature. 11 Q: This is document -- I'm -- I'm 12 looking for a document number on the face of it. 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 1012510. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: I'm grateful to My Friend. That's 17 your signature? 18 A: That's my signature. 19 Q: This is a letter dated January 31st, 20 1996 -- 21 A: It -- 22 Q: -- do you see that? 23 A: It is. 24 Q: Did you sign this letter? 25 A: I just said I did.


1 Q: It's to The Honourable Mike Harris, 2 Premier of Ontario: 3 "Dear Mike, I am very concerned about 4 the lack of progress by our government 5 on the Ipperwash Provincial Park issue. 6 As I discussed with you in mid- 7 December, this issue is causing 8 escalating emotional responses in my 9 riding, and as time goes on the 10 potential for conflict becomes greater. 11 Area residents are justifiably 12 frustrated with the OPP's refusal to 13 uphold the laws of the land and may 14 consider taking matters into their own 15 hands. 16 The Native band now contains outsiders 17 who specialize in looking for a fight. 18 There is talk of a thousand (1000) 19 warriors being imported for the spring 20 crisis. 21 My constituents expect and demand a 22 response from our Government. A 23 statement by the Attorney General was 24 promised for the end of December, 1995 25 by Dan Neumann. This month he promised


1 one by January 31 '96, no statement has 2 been forthcoming. 3 This situation cannot be permitted to 4 further deteriorate. 5 Please advise me on our Government's 6 action and how I may help in this 7 regard. 8 P.S. I'm enclosing four (4) pages of 9 minutes from Stoney Point negotiating 10 team." 11 Would you agree with me that in mid 12 December 1995 you had direct discussions with Premier 13 Michael Harris about Ipperwash? 14 A: At the caucus meeting. 15 Q: I put to you, sir, that you had 16 direct discussions with Mr. Harris and you told me you 17 didn't. 18 A: You're wrong. I discussed the issue 19 with Mr. Harris at caucus meeting. That's the only place 20 I discussed the issue with Mr. Harris. 21 Q: And as you discussed it with him, you 22 would have been speaking to him? 23 A: I would have been speaking to him in 24 front of eighty-two (82) other members plus staff members 25 including different Cabinet Ministers.


1 Q: And when you speak to a colleague, 2 even the Premier, you expect him to give you the same 3 courtesy and to speak to you in response. 4 A: Well, the -- if you do ask questions 5 and if you raise concerns in caucus meeting -- at caucus 6 meeting, it's the proper way to discuss issues that are 7 sensitive, that pertain to issues that are going to your 8 -- into your riding, I don't expect the Premier to give 9 me a direct answer on that particular subject matter. 10 Because most of the time the Premier will 11 not make the decision by snapping his finger or any 12 Minister -- any Minister will not make any decision by 13 snapping their fingers. They have to flush it through 14 their Ministry including the bureaucrats before a reply 15 comes. 16 Q: In mid-December, you didn't just make 17 a presentation, you had a discussion with the Premier, 18 correct? 19 A: At Caucus meeting, sir. 20 Q: Yes. And the discussion consisted of 21 you expressing your views and the Premier responding, 22 correct? 23 A: I -- I expressed my constituents' 24 concerns. 25 Q: And the Premier responding, correct?


1 A: Now I can't recall exactly what the 2 Premier said, but I would imagine that he probably said, 3 We'll get back to you. But I don't recall the exact 4 words. 5 Q: And at that time, you were of the 6 view that the OPP refused to uphold the law, weren't you? 7 A: No. You're -- I object to that, Your 8 Honour. You keep saying that I -- that I was -- 9 Q: Please wait a second. You're making 10 an objection. 11 A: -- that I was of the opinion. I 12 was -- 13 Q: Sir, you're making an objection, it's 14 my obligation to you, sir, to stop while you make your 15 objection. Please make your objection. 16 A: He keeps referring that, 'I was.' 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 18 to be a little more precise in your language because -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm just get 20 -- I'm getting confused on protocol, Mr. Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's been 22 objected to by Mr. Sulman. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm getting 24 confused on protocol. I didn't know the witness had an 25 entitlement to object.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He doesn't. 2 Carry on. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I think, with 4 respect, he should be told that. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, yes, 6 Mr. Beaubien, if something troubles you, you can say so 7 but you're not making an objection. You're not counsel 8 in these proceedings. 9 If something bothers him, he's entitled to 10 say so. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Absolutely. If you 12 don't understand the question -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's go on. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- or you're 15 confused, please let me know. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 17 he means, Mr. Falconer. That's what I'm taking. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I know but I can't 19 take anything. I simply have to go by his words. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You could. 21 You could. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I have to go by his 23 words. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's carry 25 on.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Mr. Beaubien, was there something 4 about my question you did not understand? 5 A: You keep trying to say 'I' was 6 expressing 'my' feelings. I was expressing my 7 constituent's feelings. That's a big difference. 8 Q: I agree. And you'd agree -- 9 A: You're being coy with those words. 10 And I -- I strongly disagree with that and I don't 11 appreciate it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 13 He's made his point. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, I 15 am attempting to exercise some restraint in commenting on 16 my views of this Witness' demeanor both in answering my 17 questions and in other counsel's questions. But if he 18 continues to classify me or my colleagues as coy or 19 anything else -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As what? 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Coy. He's referred 22 to me as coy two (2) or three (3) times. Now, I'm simply 23 asking for direction to the witness to answer the 24 questions rather than engaging in his views of me or -- 25 or my style.


1 I simply say that if -- if that's fair 2 ball then it's got to be fair ball going both ways. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. It 4 isn't fair ball for either. You ask the questions -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in a 7 proper manner and he'll answer them. And if you don't 8 ask them in a proper manner, he's got a right to object 9 if he doesn't see it that way -- not object, but to 10 express his displeasure. 11 Now, let's just carry on. Your questions 12 are difficult sometimes for him to answer so that's 13 expected; this is cross-examination. I don't want to 14 interrupt either of you. I'd like it to carry on. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I shall. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's see 17 how it goes. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: Sir, it's an important distinction, 21 isn't it, between the views of your constituents and your 22 personal views? 23 A: I think so, yes. 24 Q: And, for example, some of your 25 constituents belong to an organization called On Fire,


1 correct? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And they held, in some cases, 4 somewhat extreme views, correct? 5 A: Some people might have, yes. 6 Q: Yup. And they may be considered 7 extreme views in the context of the multi-cultural world 8 we live in, correct? 9 A: I don't know exactly what you're 10 referring to but that's a pretty vague question, pretty 11 general in nature so I'm not going to comment on that. 12 Q: But they wouldn't necessarily be your 13 views, correct? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: You wouldn't be saying that On Fire 16 is justified in saying what they're saying because that 17 would be your views, correct? 18 A: Well, we live in a free democratic 19 society and they can, you know, if they feel one (1) way 20 or another about an issue they can express their -- their 21 view. 22 Q: But if you put your seal of approval 23 by saying their view is justified that would be 24 different, right? That's your point? 25 A: Yeah. There would be a difference


1 there, yeah. 2 Q: Exactly. Similarly, if you simply 3 expressed your constituents' views that the OPP refused 4 to uphold the law, that would be expressing the 5 constituents' views, whether you agree with it or not, 6 correct? 7 A: That's what I was passing on. 8 Q: On the other hand, if you were to 9 say, quote, second paragraph of the letter dated January 10 31st, 1996: 11 "Area residents are justifiably 12 frustrated with the OPP's refusal to 13 uphold the laws of the land." 14 Now, that's passing on your view of what 15 they think, isn't it? 16 A: Well, I don't know if it's passing on 17 my view but I, you know, I see the lawlessness in the 18 area and I see the fear of the people and I see the 19 frustration of the people and, as I said before, some 20 people have got to see their doctors to get -- in order 21 to calm them down. 22 So I would imagine some of their concern 23 are just -- are justifiable. 24 Q: Sure. And so you passed on your -- 25 your view that these concerns were justifiable?


1 A: That's right. 2 Q: That's right. So we weren't just 3 talking about your constituents' views we were talking 4 about your opinion of their views, correct? 5 A: At -- at some point in time I'm sure 6 I probably expressed my opinion. There's, you know, in 7 passing, yeah. I'm not going to deny that my opinion was 8 not there sometimes. 9 Q: Hence the findings and the 10 descriptions of, for example, deeply concerned, yes? 11 A: Yeah. 12 Q: Hence the term 'disgusted', yes? 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: Hence the term 'justifiably 15 frustrated with the OPP's refusal to uphold the laws'. 16 Those are all your views, right? 17 A: No, they were my constituents' views. 18 Q: Was it your constituents that were 19 disgusted? 20 A: Oh, yes, they were. 21 Q: Were you disgusted? 22 A: I was, yes. 23 Q: Was it your constituents that were 24 deeply concerned? 25 A: They were.


1 Q: Were you deeply concerned? 2 A: I certainly was. 3 Q: Were your constituents frustrated? 4 A: Oh, my constituents? Certainly. 5 Q: Were you frustrated? 6 A: At times I was. 7 Q: It's fair to say that you were not 8 just a mouthpiece for your constituents, but you, in 9 fact, were an advocate for your constituents; isn't that 10 true? 11 A: Well that's part of my role, isn't it 12 to -- 13 Q: Sure. 14 A: -- advocate for my constituents? 15 Q: You were a champion for you 16 constituents; isn't that true? 17 A: I don't know if I was a champion. I 18 don't know whether they considered me a champion but I 19 would certainly advocate for -- for them, yes. 20 Q: And one (1) of the things about your 21 advocacy was that the people you believed had justifiable 22 concerns were the property owners who felt they were -- 23 cottages were under attack; isn't that true? 24 A: No, I think on both sides of the 25 issue, sir, I mentioned that I did have discussion with


1 Charlie Shawkence, Nobby George, other people that had 2 concerns with -- with what was going on. 3 Q: It's your evidence, is it, that in 4 the time period between September 7th, 1995 and December 5 31st, 1995 that Aboriginal leaders approached you and 6 asked you to raise with the Premier the failure of the 7 OPP to uphold the law and evict the occupiers; that 8 happened, did it? 9 A: With -- I had a discussion with the 10 Chief that he was concerned with what was going on at the 11 Army Base, yes, sir. 12 Q: Did the Chief ask you to approach the 13 Premier and express his concern that the OPP had refused 14 to uphold the law and evict the occupiers, post September 15 7th, 1995 -- 16 A: I don't -- 17 Q: -- after September 7th? 18 A: I don't recall his exact words but he 19 voiced that concern. 20 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir, 21 that the constituents that you refer to are an 22 identifiable class of non-Native people who felt 23 threatened by a Native presence in the Ipperwash area, 24 and that whether you were referring to West Ipperwash or 25 the September 1995 occupation of Ipperwash Provincial


1 Park, you had a designated group of people you 2 represented; true or false? 3 A: False. I think if I may add, also, 4 it was -- I think I alluded to the fact that I lived in 5 Toronto in Petrolia at that time, and I don't think you 6 and I would appreciate the situation if we had lived in 7 this area. 8 Q: And your point being that it would 9 take some experience of these people's frustrations, 10 whether they were financial, very legitimate financial 11 frustrations, or, in fact, frustrations for their 12 security. 13 It would take some direct appreciation of 14 it before any of us could really understand what they 15 were going through; correct? 16 A: I think it helps to understand the 17 situation, yeah. 18 Q: And the difference between you and I 19 is that in September 1995, you were there on the ground; 20 isn't that right? 21 A: Well, I help, I work, I represented 22 these people. 23 Q: That's right. And they expected you 24 to advocate their interests? 25 A: Well, you know, I -- I was a


1 Provincial representative for this area. 2 Q: And so as the Provincial 3 representative for this area, you advocated their 4 interests on August 11th, 1995 with the police command, 5 including Parkin, including Carson and including Lacroix, 6 correct? 7 A: I did not advocate their interests. 8 I advocated their concerns. 9 Q: I apologize. 10 A: I think there is a difference and 11 that's what I'm saying about the words that we're playing 12 with. 13 Q: You advocated their concerns to 14 ultimately incident commander Carson, to Superintendent 15 Parkin, to Staff Sergeant Lacroix. You advocated their 16 concerns; correct? 17 A: Yes. We had a meeting including Mr. 18 -- Inspector Linton, I think his title was at that time. 19 Q: And you advocated those same people's 20 concerns on September 6th, 1995 when you met at command 21 post; correct? 22 A: Oh, I would imagine we talked about 23 some of the situations or the occurrences that were 24 occurring in the area at that time, yes. 25 Q: But you wanted me to be precise, so


1 I'm being precise. You advocated their concerns on 2 September 6th, 1995 at the command post, didn't you? 3 A: I'm sure that we would have talked 4 about that. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: You have expressed a concern over use 9 of violence and you've made very clear that you don't 10 condone violence, correct? 11 A: No, I don't believe in it. I think 12 there's a better way to deal with issues. 13 Q: And it's fair to say from your 14 perspective, no matter what concerns you advocated to the 15 police, you didn't want them exercising their discretion, 16 other than based on the facts in front of them, in 17 dealing with the occupiers at the moment they encountered 18 them; correct? 19 A: No, you're going to have to pose that 20 question again. 21 Q: That's fair, it was an awkward 22 question, I apologize. 23 It's fair to say, with that concern about 24 use of violence, you wouldn't want the police doing 25 anything but making appropriate decisions based on the


1 facts they're presented with on a given interaction with 2 the occupiers? 3 That's the only thing you'd want them to 4 consider, correct? 5 A: No, no, the -- my only concern in my 6 discussion with the police, they were reassuring me that 7 they were containing the occupiers within the confines of 8 the Provincial Park and I was quite satisfied with that. 9 Q: And you remained satisfied with that 10 in the fall of 1995? 11 A: Yeah. 12 Q: Absolutely. And you remained 13 satisfied with that in December 1995? 14 A: I don't recall, but probably did. 15 I'm not going to disagree. 16 Q: Sure, because the occupiers were in 17 the Park? 18 A: Yeah. 19 Q: Right. So you had no concern over 20 the OPP's containment of the occupiers in the Park? 21 A: No, I -- I -- like I said, it's a 22 policing issue and I would expect them to deal with it as 23 they see fit. 24 Q: "Residents are justifiably frustrated 25 with the OPP's refusal to uphold the


1 laws of the land." 2 That doesn't sound like you're satisfied 3 with the actions of the OPP in containing the occupiers 4 to me. 5 A: Oh, I think it's very cute that you 6 would just concentrate on -- 7 Q: Very what, sir? 8 A: Very cute -- 9 Q: Cute? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Sir, if you -- 12 A: That you would -- 13 Q: If you could answer the question -- 14 A: I will. 15 Q: -- because I don't -- 16 A: If you give me a chance. 17 Q: -- think engaging in any kind of name 18 calling is useful. So, could you direct yourself to my 19 question? 20 A: I -- it's very nice that you would 21 take a low portion. There were break-ins, there were all 22 kinds of other incidents going on in the area, and the 23 perception, as I testified, was that the police were not 24 enforcing the laws. 25 And that's why I -- I don't know if you


1 have in your documentation, that's why they provided me 2 with statistics on the number of charges that were laid, 3 the convictions, the ones that were outstanding. 4 They kept providing me with, I think, on a 5 monthly basis with some, so that I could relay some of 6 that information. So, to say that it just dealt with the 7 Park, you're absolutely wrong. It dealt with the entire 8 area. It impacted on, I don't know, anywhere from the 9 Pinery onto West Ipperwash. 10 Q: So while you were satisfied with the 11 OPP's containment of occupiers at Ipperwash Park, you 12 were satisfied with their actions in that regard, you 13 were dissatisfied with the actions of the OPP outside of 14 Ipperwash Park, is that true? 15 A: Again, I object -- I -- I disagree 16 with your statement. I guess the word 'object' is not 17 the right word. 18 You say 'I', my constituents, were not 19 satisfied. 20 Q: Oh, I see. So, you didn't have a 21 view on whether the OPP -- 22 A: No. 23 Q: -- had failed to uphold the law, 24 correct? 25 A: That's why I asked for statistics.


1 Q: You didn't have a view, correct? 2 A: No. 3 Q: No. On January 31st, 1996, when you 4 decided to write, not only your party's leader but the 5 Premier of this province of Ontario at the time, Michael 6 Harris, when you decided to write him and say that 7 residents are, quote, "justifiably frustrated with the 8 OPP's refusal to uphold the laws", you weren't intending 9 on conveying your views, correct? 10 A: Well, I guess -- again, we can play 11 with words and it probably just, you know, shows my views 12 also that I keep hearing these things and so but I'm 13 trying to convey my constituents' concerns at Queen's 14 Park. 15 Q: Now, you would have had interactions 16 with Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix by my calculation, all 17 the way back to the early 1980's; correct? 18 A: Probably before that. 19 Q: And is it Mr. Lacroix or Lacroix) ? 20 A: Oh, depends how you want to say it. 21 Q: I just want to know. You're his 22 friend, sir, I want to know which one -- 23 A: I think -- I think everybody refers 24 to him as Wade Lacroix. 25 Q: Lacroix, thank you.


1 A: I call him Mr. Lacroix. 2 Q: Okay. Mr. -- Staff Sergeant Lacroix 3 would have been someone who ultimately purchased 4 insurance from you? 5 A: That's correct, yeah. 6 Q: And you would have had the standard 7 duties that anyone who is in a fiduciary relationship of 8 that kind, in selling insurance to a client, you would 9 have had certain duties to -- to Staff Sergeant Lacroix 10 right up until 1993, correct? 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I have -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 13 minute. Yes...? 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I have a concern with 15 the question and the use of the term 'fiduciary duties'. 16 I think that that's a legal term that the -- this Witness 17 can't possibly understand. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I have no difficult 19 rephrasing. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 22 Q: You would have had certain 23 professional obligations to Staff Sergeant Lacroix as the 24 person who sold him and managed his insurance; correct? 25 A: Well, I -- if I have an insurance


1 client, I have responsibilities to look after their 2 interests, whether it's Mr. Lacroix or you or anybody 3 else. 4 Q: Did you sell me insurance? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Did you sell Mr. Lacroix insurance? 7 A: I did. 8 Q: All right, so let's talk about Mr. 9 Lacroix. 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: And right up until 1993, you would 12 also have had interactions with him while you were the 13 Mayor of Petrolia, in your professional capacity; yes? 14 A: That is a fair assumption. 15 Q: And you would have had social contact 16 with him on the street or at a local pub or at a ball 17 game or whatever in a small community occurs in that -- 18 A: I don't know about the pub, but ball 19 games and on the street, yes. 20 Q: Sure. And -- and I did hear you when 21 you said Mr. Lacroix didn't play a lot of sports, because 22 you would have played sports with him, but he didn't 23 play, right? 24 A: That's right, yeah. 25 Q: Mr. Lacroix would have become very


1 familiar with your personality? 2 A: Well, I don't know if became very 3 familiar with my personality. I -- I don't know what 4 you're trying to imply. 5 Q: I asked you a question. 6 A: I don't know. 7 Q: The -- 8 A: You would have to ask Mr. Lacroix 9 that. 10 Q: Is Mr. Lacroix someone that was close 11 enough to you that would have been familiar with you, 12 sir? 13 A: I don't think we were that close to, 14 but I think we had an understanding of -- of what he was 15 about and of what I was about. 16 Q: Fair enough. 17 A: And in having an understanding of 18 what you were about and what he was about, there's no 19 doubt in your mind that he knew you as a person who said 20 it like it was, who was blunt; yes? 21 A: Oh, I think if you talk to anybody 22 that knows me they'll probably tell you that. You'll 23 probably get maybe not a 100 percent assurance on that, 24 but pretty close to that. 25 Q: He would know you as a person, if you


1 thought that the police had done something wrong, you 2 wouldn't be afraid to say that publicly, correct? 3 A: Oh, I'm going to have to disagree 4 with you there. 5 Q: He wouldn't know about that. 6 A: Pardon? 7 Q: He wouldn't know -- 8 A: Oh, I don't know. I don't think that 9 would be very professional. 10 Q: It wouldn't be professional for you 11 to publicly criticise the -- 12 A: Criticise, yeah. 13 Q: -- police? 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: Sir, I'm asking the clerk to place an 16 article in front of you from the Observer, dated February 17 17th, 1987. It's an article that came to my attention in 18 the last twenty-four (24) hours and I've passed on a copy 19 to My Friend earlier today when I found out it wasn't in 20 a document notice. 21 Do you have it in front of you, sir? 22 A: I certainly do. 23 Q: Would you put one (1) in front of the 24 Commissioner, please? 25 The headline on this article is --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 2 Sulman? 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'm up -- the 4 article is now before you, it's -- it's a question of 5 relevance to -- to this proceeding. This is a 1987 6 document, this is a -- this is not -- I know where My 7 Friend wants to lead with us because he's done a good 8 lead up -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 10 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- but -- I'm always 11 complimentary to you. I don't always agree with you but 12 I'm always complimentary. 13 The issue is one of -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It makes the blade 15 so much sharper, Mr. Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I haven't 17 seen this article. I'm looking at it for the first time. 18 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And -- and perhaps 19 you should -- maybe I should give you an opportunity to - 20 - to see it but the point is, it's a 1987 newspaper 21 article in which the Mayor, Marcel Beaubien, who is the 22 Chairman of the Police Commission, has had -- it's a 23 disagreement between the Mayor and the Police Chief with 24 regard to the final year of three (3) year eighty 25 thousand dollar ($80,000) buyout of sick time.


1 It's totally irrelevant to our proceedings 2 here. And that's the position I take on it, sir, and it 3 should end there. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm sorry. Mr. 5 Beaubien is speaking as well. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry? 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Beaubien is 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I'm 9 interested in hearing you because it's -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I just -- I didn't 11 want to interrupt him. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It doesn't 13 seem to me that this article -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, Mr. 15 Commissioner, this witness has just finished testifying 16 about his long standing relationship with Staff Sergeant 17 Lacroix. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Both professional 20 and personal -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- in a small town. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The headline of 25 this article is "Mayor accuses police chief of


1 undermining his authority". 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 3 very different -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And it is a very 5 public criticism -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- of the police. 8 In my respectful submission and -- and I want -- I want 9 to emphasize this, this is cross-examination and it's 10 about semblance of relevance. It's not about me having 11 to prove my case at this point. 12 I asked the Witness a series of questions 13 about publicly criticizing the police. And this witness 14 testified that that's not something he would do. 15 Now the opposite inference could be drawn 16 from this article and other portions of my cross- 17 examination that this is an intemperate gentleman who is 18 know to be intemperate and is known to be someone who if 19 you don't appease him, is going to be publicly critical. 20 Now I'm entitled to make that argument at 21 the end and I'm entitled to use his person experience 22 including the headline of Mayor which was Mr. Beaubien 23 at the time accuses Police Chief of undermining his 24 authority. 25 The fact that he would be prepared to go


1 public in his criticisms of the police and I want to 2 cross him on it. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 4 stop. 5 Ms. Vella, would you like to comment on 6 it. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The only comment I 8 would have is -- is Mr. Beaubien's answer may have been 9 in his position as an MPP as opposed to the position as 10 Mayor. But -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, not 12 only Mayor, he was Chairman of the Police Commission 13 which is a very different relationship -- 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's right. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- with the 16 Chief of Police than what he has with Lacroix. 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's correct. So I 18 don't know that the impeachment -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean it's 20 almost -- it's almost, not quite but almost an 21 employer/employee relationship the Mayor and the Chief 22 have a very different relationship than does -- 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: An MPP with -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- an MPP 25 with


1 -- that -- 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- police operations. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that 4 might be -- it might even be appropriate, it might even 5 be expected of a mayor to be critical, even publicly, of 6 a Chief. I don't know. It's a very different kind of 7 relationship so it's not obvious to me that it's relevant 8 but -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's not the 10 test, with great respect. It's not about being obvious. 11 It's about semblance of relevance. 12 The witness said it wouldn't be 13 professional, he has never given the explanation being 14 advanced now. I would like him to give that explanation 15 so I can question him about that distinction because I -- 16 it doesn't hold water. 17 In fact the employer has more of an 18 obligation to maintain these kinds of criticism as -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 20 don't want to get off on that. That's a whole different 21 area. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that's -- 23 well all I want to do is address his claim that it would 24 not be professional to be critical of police publicly. 25 If he defends himself on the basis of a different


1 position, then I'll deal with it. 2 But we're not there. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but I 4 mean it's a totally different relationship. You're 5 trying to undermine when -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Not his 7 relationship with Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix. The 8 relationship in 1987 was the same as it was in the 9 1990's. A buddy, a client and someone who knew him. 10 And if he knew him to be the person that 11 would be doing this on headlines, why wouldn't he known 12 to be the person that would be doing it again. 13 That's exactly why the press release 14 happens in 1995, I would submit. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 16 that I can see that connection at all. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, can I explain 18 this a little bit more? In 1995 this gentleman wrote 19 Bill King and said I'm about to issue a press release 20 that calls the occupiers "thugs", arguably threatening to 21 pour gas on the fire. And he did that because he felt 22 free to do that. And he answered Ms. Vella in-chief 23 about what he would have done if he hadn't heard back. 24 Now this is not a person given to calming 25 matters. This is a --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's that 2 got to do with this issue that we're dealing with here 3 now? 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Because if he's 5 known as intemperate individual capable of publicly 6 chastising the police, his presence at Incident Command 7 takes on a different flavour. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: On September 6th 10 when he's telling Incident Command these are my 11 constituents' concerns and this is what I'm advocating, 12 if he's seen as someone that's prepared to go public he 13 may well affect the dynamic. That's it, pure and simple. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 15 Sulman? 16 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Just -- just very 17 briefly, the -- the semblance of -- of relevance is the 18 test. The relevance -- the thing that's being left out 19 is one can criticize the publicly in a certain capacity 20 if it's not with regard to oper -- this newspaper article 21 has nothing to do with operational matters. It's -- it's 22 a financial issue between the Chairman of the Police 23 Commission and the police officer. 24 But that -- I just wanted to make clear 25 that it's not an operational matter, it's a financial


1 matter that is perfectly within that role at that time, 2 and I don't -- relevance to this proceeding I say is -- 3 just simply isn't there. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 5 Vella...? 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes, I think I said 7 that. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That whether you -- one 10 can draw that conclusion from this article I think is 11 questionable. However, the general answer that was given 12 by the Witness was that he would never publicly criticize 13 the police and I think that needs to be explored perhaps. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And then that may lead 16 to this article or it may not. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 18 not sure it has to lead to this article -- 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, I -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but the 21 area could certainly be -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's not the test 23 of a cross-examination -- 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I agree. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that I have to


1 go there. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The idea is whether 4 or not I'm in a line of proper questioning. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's right. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And it's just the 8 standards are so high for -- for counsel doing these 9 cross-examinations. I've clearly addressed what he said, 10 which is he'd never criticize -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the police 13 publicly. I'd just like to keep going. I'm not trying 14 to file it at this stage, I just want to keep going with 15 it. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Which is his claim. 18 If he wants to draw the distinctions that have been 19 given -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, you 21 don't have to produce an article that you've just found 22 in the last twenty-four (24) hours to do that -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I do because 24 I -- I'm doing my job. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just ask the


1 next question. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: You'd agree with me that in 1987 you 6 did publicize -- you did publicly criticize the police? 7 A: I have an article in front of me that 8 you provided me five (5) minutes ago and I don't write 9 the headlines. It says Mayor Accuses Police Chief. But 10 if you read the article where am I quoted as criticizing 11 the -- the police chief? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which, 13 incidently, I haven't read so you shouldn't comment until 14 I do. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. We'll 16 do this slowly. We'll do this slowly. Did you want to 17 review it first, Mr. Commissioner? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 19 how much more you're going to go into the actual article. 20 I think you made your -- 21 THE WITNESS: I -- I -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, the Witness -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 24 you've made your point. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, the Witness is


1 -- no, the Witness has asked me to direct him. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And -- and I think 4 in fairness -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- he shouldn't be 7 left with the ability to -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 9 fine. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- to cut me off. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: So, now looking at the article for a 15 moment could you please direct your attention, firstly, 16 to the second paragraph: 17 "Some of the tension blew over into 18 Monday's Police Commission meeting as 19 Mayor Marcel Beaubien accused Chief Bob 20 Brooker of [quote] "undermining" [close 21 quote] his authority as mayor and 22 Commission Chairman." 23 Do you see that? 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: Did you say that publicly?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's -- 2 THE WITNESS: It says, At a Police 3 Commission meeting. Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 7 Q: Going to the fourth to last paragraph 8 -- I'm sorry, third to last paragraph, quote: 9 "He accused Chief Brooker of 10 undermining his authority because the 11 Chief approached a member of Town 12 Council with his concerns about the 13 delay in his year's payment. Mayor 14 Beaubien said the Chief was hired to 15 administer police matters and not 16 financial matters. He added that if 17 the Association really wanted the 18 payment in January it should have asked 19 for it." 20 Now, it's fair to say that whether it was 21 at a public meeting or directly to the press you publicly 22 were critical of the Chief of Police, true? 23 A: I said at a Police Commission meeting 24 -- and I'll stand by the articles, by the words that are 25 quoted to me. Did we have a disagreement on the


1 procedure of the payment of this payout? We probably 2 did. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. I 4 don't find this useful any more, Mr. Falconer. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like you 7 to move on. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going on to 9 another area. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Now, in terms of Mr. Lacroix and your 13 relationship with him, he would have been in the same 14 place he was in 1987 that he was in 1990, in and around 15 the Petrolia area as a police officer? 16 A: I think you're probably right. I 17 don't know if he was allocated directly to the Petrolia 18 Detachment at the time but he lived in the area, yes. 19 Q: Similarly, he would have been your 20 insurance client? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And there's a headline where you're 23 accusing the police chief of undermining his authority, 24 right? 25 A: No, I'm not going to take ownership


1 of the -- the headline, sir. 2 Q: I'm just asking you. A headline 3 appears -- 4 A: I'm not taking ownership of it, sir. 5 Q: Fair enough. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I can 7 see it. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: You'd agree -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've shown 10 it to me so you don't have to -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- get him 13 to say it. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: You'd agree with me, sir, that one 17 (1) of the attributes one would be looking for in a 18 person, to quell very serious community unrest would be a 19 person capable of staying calm under fire. 20 Would you agree with that? 21 A: I think that helps. 22 Q: Well, in fact, if one is to quell 23 community unrest, it's an essential characteristic to be 24 able to stay calm under fire. 25 Would you agree with that?


1 A: Well, it helps. 2 Q: It's not essential? 3 A: It helps. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 5 asked, he's given an answer. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I simply 7 asked if it was essential -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You asked if 9 it quells, he said it helps. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: And would you also agree with me that 13 if a person were given to temper tantrums, for example, 14 that would be different than being able to stay calm 15 under fire; that would be different? 16 If a person were given to temper tantrums. 17 A: No, I've had kids. I raised three 18 (3) kids and, you know, we're pretty close and they -- 19 they did -- they did have temper tantrums once in a 20 while, and no, I'm not -- I'm not going to agree with you 21 on that. 22 Q: So, a person could have a childlike 23 tendency to have temper tantrums, but still be good at 24 keeping the community calm; that's your evidence? 25 A: No, I'm not going to agree with that


1 statement. 2 Q: Would you agree with me that one of 3 the things that you felt free to do was to share with 4 Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix your sense of disgust? 5 You felt free to share that with him. 6 A: I don't recall doing that. 7 Q: You weren't candid with Staff 8 Sergeant Lacroix about your sense of disgust with the 9 process? 10 A: I -- the process -- well, the process 11 -- with the lack of communication, I'm sure that I 12 conveyed to him that I was not happy with the level of 13 communications. 14 Q: So, you would have conveyed to him 15 your sense of frustration? 16 A: I disagree with you. 17 Q: So, you would have told him, instead 18 of conveying a sense of frustration, that you were happy 19 about the lack of communication? 20 A: I disagree with you. 21 Q: Now, let's back up. If you didn't 22 tell him you were happy with the lack of communication, 23 how did you describe that to him? 24 A: I probably conveyed to him that there 25 was a lot of frustration amongst the constituents and


1 amongst my self. 2 Q: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd like to 4 get to a break pretty soon, Mr. Falconer. You've been 5 going about an hour. I'd like to get to a break pretty 6 soon. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm just looking to 8 see -- I've got about five (5) minutes of this area -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 That's fine. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and then -- is 12 five (5) minutes all right? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, 14 absolutely. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. And I 16 also -- Mr. Rosenthal had a concern that left me 17 believing that, as an indulgence to him, and subject to 18 your approval, I should leave him fifteen (15) minutes at 19 the end of the day -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, no, 21 no, no, no. The issue that others may wish to question, 22 we may have to bring Mr. Beaubien back. 23 What I'd like to finish today is your 24 examination. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I know that --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: After -- 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr. 3 Commissioner, I was suggesting that because -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 5 Mr. Rosenthal, the mic doesn't pick up your comments if 6 you speak from over there. 7 What I'm trying to finish today is the 8 examination -- the cross-examinations. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I had 10 discussed with Mr. Falconer the possibility of me playing 11 through and putting ten (10), fifteen (15) minutes on 12 that one (1) issue, because on the Monday that we resume 13 after today, I will not be present and that would be the 14 natural time that Mr. Beaubien may come back. 15 So, I would respectfully request the right 16 to play through Mr. Falconer's -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 18 ordinarily I would be -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- for ten (10), 20 fifteen (15) minutes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ordinarily, 22 I'd be happy to accede to that request, but not if it 23 means that Mr. Falconer can't finish. 24 I'd like Mr. Falconer to complete his 25 cross-examination today and if there's time at the end of


1 the day, for you to have fifteen (15) minutes, we can sit 2 longer. Again I would be happy to have you do it then. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay, yes, thank 4 you. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll sit 6 longer if necessary. 7 Okay, Mr. Falconer, now it's a quarter to 8 4:00. You said you need another five (5) minutes before 9 we break, let's do that. 10 Let's take a bit of a shorter break and 11 sit longer and try to finish you. 12 Now, we have to go, all of us are going, I 13 presume, or most of us are going to the feast tonight and 14 I believe it begins at six o'clock, so we can't sit too 15 late, but I'm prepared to sit a little bit later. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 Q: You said in your testimony in-chief, 19 and you repeated it a number of times, that you believe 20 that people mistook your reference to either the Premier 21 or the Solicitor General or the Attorney General as 22 references to their offices, rather than them personally, 23 correct? 24 A: No, I think it's the other way round. 25 I think that some of the records shows that I was in


1 contact with the Premier and it should have read the 2 Premier's office, the Solicitor General's office. 3 Q: You testified to Mr. Rosenthal that 4 your constituents saw you as, quote, "the first line of 5 access", close quotes, to -- to Queen's Park; is that 6 true? 7 A: I think that's probably a fair 8 assumption. 9 Q: You also testified that, in your 10 mind, the sports analogy of the importance of taking 11 leadership, for example, on the ice applied to this kind 12 of situation. It requires leadership, correct? 13 A: I think it helps. 14 Q: You'd agree with me that part of true 15 credible leadership is access to other leaders? 16 A: That certainly helps communications. 17 Q: And access to other leaders in the 18 political forum is an important capital for one's 19 credibility, yes? 20 A: That's your view. 21 Q: I'm suggesting to you that access to 22 other leaders in the political forum is an important 23 piece of political capital for one's credibility, yes or 24 no? 25 A: I don't know about that.


1 Q: It's better to say I can't get a word 2 in edgewise with the Solicitor General when you're 3 talking to me about your concerns with the Solicitor 4 General? 5 It's better to tell your constituents 6 that? 7 A: Well, if -- you know, I think I've 8 communicated that over the past few days that there was a 9 tremendous lack of communication. 10 Q: You told Mr. Parkin in relation to 11 your August 11th, 1995, meeting the Superintendent, you 12 told him that you'd been speaking to the Solicitor and 13 Attorney General as well as MNR officials. 14 You told him that didn't you? 15 A: I -- in the letter it says that, yes. 16 Q: No, you told him that at the meeting 17 on August 11th, 1995, didn't you? 18 A: It -- it says that in the letter so 19 I'm sure we probably discussed it at the meeting. 20 Q: I didn't ask you if you'd discussed 21 it. 22 I asked if you told Parkin that you were 23 talking to the Solicitor and Attorney General? 24 A: I'm sure that I talked or that we 25 discussed the subject matter; that I was corresponding


1 with the Ministry of -- those three (3) Ministries, yes. 2 Q: Could you turn to page 16 of the 3 cross-examination by the lawyer for the police where you 4 agreed with this? Could you turn to page 16 please? 5 A: Which one's that? 6 Q: That's the package, the small sheath 7 I put in front of you? 8 A: This one? 9 Q: Yes, that's right, page 16. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 11 to put it on the screen if you can so I can follow it? 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 14 Q: Do you recall saying to Mr. Sandler 15 that -- that in essence not taking any issue with the 16 accuracy of what Mr. Parkin was saying? 17 Do you recall that? 18 A: Well, I'll have to read this first of 19 all -- 20 Q: Sure. 21 A: -- if you give me a chance. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: If I can direct your attention, I


1 don't want you to read on for nothing. It's line 4. 2 Quote, and this is an e-mail by Superintendent Parkin 3 three (3) days after you met with him. He's reporting on 4 your meeting. Quote: 5 "On Friday, August 11th, I met with the 6 local MPP Marcel Beaubien who is 7 satisfied with the actions of the OPP 8 and what we are doing. His concern was 9 more about the frustration of the 10 cottagers and what they might do. He 11 was going to be talking with the 12 Solicitor and Attorney General as well 13 as MNR officials because he wants them 14 to understand the seriousness of the 15 situation and provide him with some 16 direction." 17 You didn't take any issue with the lawyer 18 for the police when he read you that portion did you? 19 A: I don't recall. 20 Q: You don't recall? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Please read on and see if you take 23 any issue -- 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: -- with that recollection?


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: So what's your point? What's the 4 question? 5 Q: Did you read on as I'd asked you to? 6 A: Well, I read that page. 7 Q: Thank you. 8 A: Do you want me to go to the next 9 page? 10 Q: Next, at -- it was put to you at page 11 17, the next page. Mr. Parkin, that's Superintendent 12 Parkin again makes a note in addition to the e-mail. He 13 actually has a note of the meeting, same meeting. 14 A: Where -- where are we? At the -- 15 Q: At the top of page -- you see if you 16 flip to eighteen (18) -- it's not your fault, sir. If 17 you flip to eighteen (18) it's halfway down the page, 18 it's says, "18". Do you see that? 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: All right. Just above that is a 21 paragraph without a page number, line 6, so the top of 22 that page. Do you see that? It starts, "Question" and 23 the entry -- 24 A: Okay. Yes, I've got it. I've got 25 it.


1 Q: And the entry from Tony Parkin is: 2 "Met with Staff Sergeant Lacroix, 3 Inspector Carson and Linton re: 4 Ipperwash. Met with Lambton area MPP 5 Marcel Beaubien. He understands OPP 6 position relating to Ipperwash Base. 7 Concerned about the Park and cottage 8 owners. Very frustrated. May do 9 something. He will be pushing Runciman 10 and Harnick and MNR for direction." 11 Not Runciman's staff. Not Runciman's 12 colleagues. Not Harnick's staff. Not Harnick's 13 colleagues. You were promoting your political capital 14 that you had access to the big guys, -- 15 A: No, you -- no, I think -- 16 Q: -- Runciman and Harnick? Isn't that 17 true? 18 A: No, again -- again I -- I object to, 19 you know, the way you're turning things around. I think 20 this is an e-mail you said or a fax -- 21 Q: No, these are notes now. 22 A: -- from -- or notes that somebody's 23 taking notes and I'm not scribing those notes. This is 24 Mr. Parkin's notes. That question should have been posed 25 to Mr. Parkin, not me.


1 Q: When you testified today are you 2 saying that Superintendent Parkin misheard you when you 3 referred to either Runciman or Harnick? 4 A: You're going to -- 5 Q: Did he get it wrong, sir? I want to 6 hear your testimony. Did he get it wrong? 7 A: You would -- you would have to ask 8 Mr. Parkin that. 9 Q: We did. 10 A: And? 11 Q: He got it right. 12 A: He got it right? 13 Q: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. We 15 haven't asked Mr. Parkin -- 16 THE WITNESS: Oh, oh. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Wait a second. 18 Hold it. We haven't had Mr. Parkin as a witness yet. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I have these 20 productions of his notes and a production of his e-mail. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but we 22 don't have him as a witness yet. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, I understand I 24 did -- I did give him this impression. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's


1 fine. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I apologize. I was 3 trying to convey to the witness that these are valid 4 notes and e-mails that were produced to us. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Perhaps this is my 6 failing but I've been trying to follow the last couple of 7 quotations. I don't see that there was actually a 8 question or response to the accuracy of the contents of 9 the e-mail or the note here in this transcript passage. 10 So I'm -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well let me back up 12 and -- and help My Friend. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 15 Q: Sir, when Superintendent Parkin, 16 within days of you meeting, referred to Runciman and 17 Harnick, did he get it wrong? Did you not say that? 18 A: I'm not going to answer that. 19 Q: Oh, good idea. Is that the Fifth 20 you're taking, sir? Are you pleading the Fifth? 21 A: No, I'm not pleading the Fifth. 22 Q: All right. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well we're not -- 25 we're not Americans.


1 A: Basically, I think you're playing 2 games. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 4 necessary. 5 THE WITNESS: You're playing games. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well could you 7 answer the question, please? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 9 Falconer, just relax. You want to -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You want 12 to -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I asked him a 14 straight question -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, if he 16 can answer it, he's going to answer it. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well he's -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If he can't, 19 he's not. But ask the question again. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: Did Runciman and Harnick get 24 mentioned by you, as related in the notes of 25 Superintendent Parkin?


1 A: I probably mentioned -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Stop there. 3 It's a question you've asked and you can answer that 4 question. 5 THE WITNESS: I probably mentioned that I 6 would be contacting the Ministries. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 9 Q: So you didn't say, I'm going to be 10 contacting the Runciman and Harnick, as Superintendent 11 Parkin notes? 12 A: I don't recall that. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's take 14 our break now. I'm sorry, are you finished that part? I 15 assumed you were. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's fine. 17 That's fine. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's take 19 our break now. 20 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 3:53 p.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 4:04 p.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now


1 resumed. Please be seated. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 3 we start, I understand the purpose of cross-examination 4 and I understand that it's often not a tea party. 5 On the other hand, I think less editorial 6 comment from both questioner and witness would allow us 7 to get through to the end of this. So I'm going to ask 8 you to please try to keep the questions clean and the 9 answers clear. Let's move on. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm being silent as 11 a means of showing my compliance. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 13 right? 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm being silent so 15 I don't be taken to be arguing in any way with you. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'll 17 accept that then. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: You'd agree with me that your lack of 21 recollection for a conversation ten (10) years ago, such 22 as the one Superintendent Parkin has noted, both in an e- 23 mail and his notes, puts you at a disadvantage to a 24 person who has the notes. 25 In other words, you don't have notes of


1 what you said. 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Superintendent Parkin does have 4 notes, so you're not really in a position to dispute with 5 him his notes, are you? 6 A: No, like I said, I'm not going to 7 disagree with Inspector Parkin's notes. 8 Q: In terms of your constituents' 9 concerns about access, they came to you because they saw 10 you as a person who could access Queen's Park, yes? 11 A: That was my role. 12 Q: And it would have been important, for 13 example, to the young lawyer who's letter you forwarded 14 to Premier Harris, it would have been important to him, 15 in your mind, that you would actually forward something 16 like that directly to the Premier. 17 That would be important to him, as far as 18 you were concerned? 19 A: No, I disagree with you. I think he 20 forwarded the letter to the Premier and the three (3) 21 other Ministries himself. And I just took it off -- took 22 it upon myself to fax a copy of it to the Premier's 23 office also. 24 Q: Well, in fact, you made a point of 25 testifying before that you had an expectation that Bill


1 King, as the caucus liaison, would forward the 2 information to the Premier. 3 That's what you testified to before, 4 didn't you? 5 A: Yes, and that's just what I said. 6 Q: And in your mind, you were of the 7 view that it would be important to a constituent, such as 8 that young lawyer, to know that his MPP would be 9 forwarding matters directly to the Premier; that would be 10 part of your job. 11 A: I don't even recall whether I told 12 him I had forwarded a copy to the Premier's office. 13 Q: Your role as a pipeline would be 14 enhanced, I'm going to suggest to you, with your ability 15 to have communications with higher ranking officials 16 rather than lower ranking officials; would you agree with 17 that? 18 A: I don't know by what you mean by 19 higher ranking, but I would have access to the Minister's 20 EA's and liaison people, yes. 21 Q: Well, let me give you an example. If 22 the only person you had access to was a lowly cleric in 23 the Solicitor General's officer versus the Solicitor 24 General's executive assistant, there would be a 25 distinction in your level of access, the quality of


1 access you were enjoying with the Ministry, agreed? 2 A: Well, as a member I would hope that 3 you would be able to access people close to the Ministers 4 at different Ministries. 5 Q: And the reason you would hope that is 6 because the quality of your access permitted you to do 7 your job? 8 A: Well, it would help to do my job. 9 Q: And that's how you saw it back then. 10 A: It's the way I would see it today. 11 Q: The quality of access helps you do 12 your job, yes? 13 A: By quality, if you mean having 14 access, being able to communicate with people, if that 15 helps you to do your job, yeah, I would agree with that. 16 Q: And you, in attempting to be a 17 leader, would be concerned that your credibility was 18 solid in terms of the people you were working with in the 19 communities. You'd be concerned that your credibility 20 was solid, correct? 21 A: Well, at least you want to be 22 perceived, if nothing else, that you're trying to do 23 something. 24 Q: And that you're able to do something? 25 A: Well sometimes you're not able to do


1 something, but hopefully, you know, it would be a hit and 2 miss, on some situation you might be able to do 3 something, and in other situation you may not. It's just 4 like trying to help a constituency. 5 Q: Now I want to put a hypothetical to 6 you. Assume for a moment, Superintendent Parkin's -- 7 sorry about that. I want to put a hypothetical to you. 8 Assume for a moment Superintendent Parkin 9 is accurate in his notes and his e-mail in relation to 10 August 11th, 1995. 11 If, in fact you did communicate to the 12 police that you were planning on talking directly to the 13 Solicitor General and the Attorney General, would you 14 agree with me that at least on its face, that would 15 enhance your credibility with those officers? 16 A: No, I'm not going to take ownership 17 of your assumption. 18 Q: Sir, because of the language 19 difficulties you said you had before, I'm going say it 20 again. This is a hypothetical. 21 If, hypothetically Superintendent Parkin's 22 notes are accurate, and you told the officers that you 23 would be talking directly to the Attorney General and the 24 Solicitor General, you would agree with me that that 25 would enhance your credibility with those officers?


1 A: No, I don't agree with you. 2 Q: If you had suggested to those 3 officers that the only person you could access at the 4 Ministry of the Solicitor General was the lowly cleric, 5 do you think you'd have a lot of credibility with those 6 officers? 7 A: I think they were probably aware of 8 what the process is. 9 Q: So you had the sense that these 10 officers were people who understood the various levels of 11 the Ministries? You -- you felt that? 12 A: I think so. I think the -- the, you 13 know, there's probably an understanding on how you access 14 the Chief Superintendent, whatever the -- or -- of the 15 OPP that there's a process that you go through. 16 And I don't want to say it's similar to 17 what you would encounter at the political level, but I 18 would -- I would imagine there's some similarities. 19 Q: And so your feeling was these were 20 people who were -- I mean the police officers you were 21 meeting with on August 11th and September 6th, 1995, 22 these were people who you felt had, at least, a 23 reasonably sophisticated understanding of how Ministries 24 and access to Ministries worked? 25 A: I would think so.


1 Q: So when Superintendent Parkin didn't 2 say the Ministry of the Attorney General and didn't say 3 the Ministry of the Solicitor General and when he said 4 Runciman and he said Harnick, would you agree with me it 5 wasn't just the average person in the street talking 6 about access, it was someone with a sophisticated 7 knowledge, who had the impression, base on his notes and 8 e-mail, that you had direct access to the Cabinet 9 Ministers; isn't that true? 10 A: I would disagree with your statement. 11 You would have to ask Mr. Parkin what he meant by his 12 notes. 13 Q: At any time in your contacts with the 14 Premier's office, were you ever apprised of a viewpoint 15 that you were inappropriate to be calming the waters? 16 A: That I was what? 17 Q: Inappropriate to be calming the 18 waters in the community? Were you ever apprised that you 19 were not an appropriate person to diffuse tensions in the 20 community? 21 A: By the Premier's office? 22 Q: Or anyone at any of the Ministries? 23 A: Not that I recall. 24 Q: You'd agree with me that if someone 25 from the Ministries, whether it was the -- involved --


1 whether it was the Attorney General or the Solicitor 2 General or, in fact, the Premier's office, were of the 3 view that you weren't an appropriate person to diffuse 4 tensions in the community, that would be information that 5 was significant -- would be significant to you, wouldn't 6 it? 7 A: To me, yes, it would. 8 Q: It would mean that someone lacked 9 confidence in you being able to do that job, correct? 10 A: I don't know, you would have to ask 11 the person that made that statement. 12 Q: Could you direct your attention, 13 please, to Tab 21 of Commission Counsel documents? 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Now, at Tab 21 there are notes of two 18 (2) IMC meetings of September 5th and September 6th, 19 1995. You were familiar at the time with what the 20 InterMinisterial Committee did? 21 A: No, I was not. 22 Q: Did you ever become familiar with 23 what they did? 24 A: Later on. 25 Q: And you knew that they were an


1 InterMinisterial Committee that was actually designed, by 2 written policy, to address issues of occupations of this 3 nature and crises of this nature, involving Aboriginal 4 communities? 5 A: Later on in the process, yeah. 6 Q: Okay. I'm taking you to the notes of 7 the Chair of the IMC meeting, Julie Jai, dated September 8 6th, 1995. These notes work in reverse order, so if 9 you'll just bear with me. 10 If you turn to the second page you'll see 11 a handwritten agenda September 6th, 1995? Do you see 12 that? Second page of the tab. 13 A: Yes, it says... 14 Q: Second page? 15 A: Yeah, okay. Yes. 16 Q: September 6th? 17 A: With regards to updates re. the Park. 18 Okay. I've got that. 19 Q: All right. Now, if one keeps 20 flipping you'll see that the first thing on the next 21 page, "September 6th/'95 - Ipperwash Emergency Committee 22 Meeting." Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. Now, stopping there for a 25 moment, we have heard evidence that the InterMinisterial


1 Committee met in August, then met again September 5th, 2 and then met again September 6th to deal with Ipperwash, 3 all right? Did you know that? 4 A: No, I did not know that. 5 Q: We've also heard evidence that there 6 was active discussions, a form of brainstorming about the 7 various options to employ by the professionals, and in 8 particular the bureaucrats who give advice to the 9 Ministers, on what to do with the situation. Did you 10 know that? 11 A: No, the only information that I was - 12 - that was relayed to me is that they were meeting. 13 Q: As of the third meeting, that is the 14 September 6th, 1995 meeting, this is what a 15 representative of the Attorney General's office had to 16 say, it's page 5. Could you turn to that? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: You'll see, at the top of page 5, Ms. 21 Jai is reflecting a discussion around the injunction 22 process. Do you see that? 23 A: It's -- yeah. 24 Q: Three-quarters (3/4's) of the way 25 down the page it says:


1 "Marcel Beaubien, MPP in the area, 2 tried to diffuse tensions. Need 3 someone to work with local officials, 4 et cetera, to try to diffuse tensions. 5 Perhaps the local MPP, informal, behind 6 the scenes. 7 Consistency of message also important. 8 David Moran." 9 Do you know who David Moran is? 10 A: I think he was the Assistant to -- 11 Executive Assistant to the Attorney General, I think. 12 Q: That's right. 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: "Marcel not an appropriate person to 15 do this. Get a list of who needs to be 16 calmed down. Dave Moran's office to 17 communicate with key person on this." 18 Top of the next page: 19 "Local spokesperson to be OPP." 20 Were you ever apprised that the Executive 21 Assistant to the Attorney General viewed you as 22 inappropriate for calming tensions? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Would you have any idea why the 25 Executive Assistant to the Attorney General would view


1 you as inappropriate to calm tensions? 2 A: I have no idea. 3 Q: Could it be related to the temper 4 tantrums Mr. King refers to in his taped message? 5 A: Well, I think we're talking about the 6 temper tantrums in July of 1996. This is 1995. 7 Q: You testified that your concerns, 8 your deeply health concerns, your frustrations, your 9 disgust, dated back to August and September 1995 before 10 this Commissioner, earlier today, didn't you? 11 A: I did. 12 Q: And would you agree with me that, 13 certainly as far as the Attorney General's Executive 14 Assistant was concerned, you, as a person, were not the 15 appropriate person to be calming tensions? 16 A: I don't know. You would have to ask 17 him that. 18 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir, 19 that when you told people you had direct access to 20 Ministers, it was designed to enhance your credibility 21 with those you were talking to. True or false? 22 A: False. 23 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir, 24 that the failing in the system was that those police 25 officers didn't know you didn't have access to those


1 Minsters. 2 Do you agree or disagree with me? 3 A: I would disagree with you. 4 Q: Did the officers think you had access 5 to the Ministers? 6 A: Well, I could talk to the Ministers 7 at any point in time at caucus. 8 Q: Pardon me? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He doesn't 10 know. 11 I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Sulman...? 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Did the officers 13 think that you had access to the Ministers? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He doesn't 15 know what the officers -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'll rephrase. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: You said that you had access to the 20 Ministers in Caucus, yes? 21 A: Sure. I -- well, you would talk to 22 them. 23 Q: And so there is no doubt, in your 24 mind, that these sophisticated officers, who understood 25 the runnings of Ministries, would have known that you had


1 access to Ministers; yes? 2 A: Well, hopefully, that the general 3 public would understand that, in our system, that you 4 might be able to talk to the Premier, to the Ministers of 5 different Ministries on an ongoing basis at different 6 times. 7 Q: In order to fulfil and discharge your 8 obligations, correct? 9 A: It could be that. It could be other 10 things. It could be other concerns. But I would hope 11 that you would be -- as an elected official, that you 12 would have access to these people. 13 Q: So it wouldn't be a surprising 14 suggestion to those officers, especially Staff Sergeant 15 Lacroix, that you had a relationship with personal and 16 professional, it wouldn't be a surprising proposition to 17 him that you would have had access to Runciman, Harnick 18 and Harris? 19 A: Well, I don't think it'd be a big 20 surprise to any citizen, tax paying citizen that, as a 21 Member, that you would be able to talk to the different 22 Ministers. 23 Q: And there would be no reason to keep 24 that secret from Lacroix, Parkin or Carson? 25 A: No. Absolutely not.


1 Q: And so it would -- there would be no 2 reason, that you can think of, for you hiding or keeping 3 confidential the fact that you intended to talk to 4 Runciman, Harnick or Harris? 5 A: Well, like I said before, I've 6 contacted the Ministries, I've contacted the Premier's 7 office through the proper channel on an ongoing basis. 8 Q: Repeating my question. There would 9 be no reason to keep confidential from those officers 10 that you intended to speak to Harnick, Runciman or 11 Harris? 12 A: Or their Ministries. 13 Q: I didn't ask or their Ministries. 14 They are people. Mike Harris is a person, yes. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Robert Runciman is a person; yes? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And Charles Harnick is a person; yes? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now repeating my question: There 21 would be no reason to keep confidential, from those 22 officers, your intention to speak to Mr. Runciman, Mr. 23 Harnick or Mr. Harris? 24 A: Well, hopefully, I would be able to 25 speak to any Minister on any issues at any particular


1 point -- hopefully, at any particular point in time. 2 I also realize the fact that any Minister 3 cannot give you a decision or a solution to a problem by 4 snapping his or her fingers. 5 Q: You'd agree with me that, in addition 6 to the reality that it wasn't a secret that you had 7 access to these Ministers, in turn, these Ministers, 8 through their staff, had access to you on the kind of 9 message to be sent out, true? 10 A: Yes. That -- that's the procedure. 11 Q: Tab 27 of Commission counsel 12 documents, could you turn it up please. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now, Commission Counsel raised this 17 document and put it in front of you, so I don't want to 18 spend a lot of time on it. 19 Suffice to say, what happens is you 20 contact Bill King, in early September 1995, about the 21 prospect of having discussions with the Chief, in 22 particular, Kettle and Stony Point, Chief Bressette, and 23 Mr. King gives you a suggested response, correct? 24 A: I requested some response from Mr. 25 King, yes.


1 Q: And he gives you a, quote, "suggested 2 response," correct? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And I'm unclear whether this has been 5 made an exhibit. I think -- 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit P-954. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. And I 8 appreciate that, Ms. Vella. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: And, in fact, if one has regard to 12 Tab 29, if you simply flip to Tab 29, you encapsulate, 13 virtually, word for word, what Bill King recommends that 14 you say, correct? 15 A: I -- 16 Q: But it's not identical. I want to be 17 fair to you, but it's close. 18 A: It's not identical, but, basically, I 19 think it conveyed the message that Mr. King had sent me 20 in a fax, yeah. 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Oh, and that's Exhibit 22 P-1032, and it's addressed to a different person, of 23 course, than Chief Bressette. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:


1 Q: At the bottom of that exhibit, which 2 is Tab 29, could you read out the PS please? 3 A: "P.S. Dennis, I would hope that you 4 would convey this message to Chief Tom 5 Bressette." 6 Q: So the idea is you are writing in 7 order to make clear to Chief Bressette the very verbatim 8 message that Bill King has instructed you to send, a la 9 Tab 27, correct? 10 A: Well, this -- this fax was subsequent 11 to a call that I received from Mr. Martel inviting me to 12 attend at a meeting and I just wanted to make sure that 13 the Chief -- the call came from Mr. Martel, the fax went 14 back to Mr. Martel, but I wanted him to apprise the Chief 15 of my correspondence with him. 16 Q: Well, it's actually, to be fair, sir, 17 it's far more detailed than that. Chief Bressette seeks 18 a meeting and the response is, by Bill King, his 19 suggested words to you, the EA from Harris, his suggested 20 words to you are, quote: 21 "As your MPP, I would be more than 22 happy to meet with you following a 23 peaceful resolution of the current 24 situation now underway at Ipperwash 25 Provincial Park." Close quotes.


1 The record should reflect there's a typo 2 in "underway", it's actually spelled on the letter U-N-D- 3 E-W-A-Y and if you flip over to Tab 29, could you please 4 read the second paragraph that you write? 5 A: First of all, I think your premise is 6 wrong. The call came in from, not Chief Tom Bressette, 7 the call came in from Dennis Martel. 8 Q: Suggesting the meeting? 9 A: Inviting me to a meeting. 10 Q: Fair enough. Now, could you read out 11 the second paragraph? 12 A: "Dennis, I want you to know that I 13 really appreciate hearing from you on 14 this -- " 15 Q: No, the second paragraph, sir. 16 A: Oh, I'm sorry. 17 "As the MPP for Lambton, I would be 18 more than happy to meet with you and 19 Chief Bressette on any other -- or any 20 other representative of the Kettle and 21 Stony First Nation following a peaceful 22 resolution of the current situation at 23 Ipperwash Provincial Park." 24 Q: There would be no meeting until there 25 was a resolution of the current situation at Ipperwash


1 Provincial Park, correct? 2 A: That's what it says there. 3 Q: That's right. And that was the 4 position that Bill King told you to take, a la draft at 5 Tab 27? 6 A: I basically repeating what Mr. King 7 suggested on this fax. 8 Q: And that was your job? 9 A: Well, I can make personal decision, 10 but I thought it was a reasonable suggestion. 11 Q: And if one has regard to the press 12 clippings that you were taken through by Mr. Rosenthal 13 and, to some extent, Ms. Vella, so I don't want to go 14 into detail, it's fair to say that you were advised that 15 it was a law and order issue, a non-Native issue and that 16 they were illegally there and they were trespassing. 17 And you repeated that message in a 18 newspaper article the very next day, being September 6th, 19 1995, true? 20 A: I don't know if it was September 6th, 21 but I agree with your statement. 22 Q: So in terms of messaging, you were 23 the messenger for the message on the ground from the 24 Government in September 1995, yes? 25 A: Well, there's no doubt. I think I've


1 alluded to that, that I expected some -- some 2 communication going, you know, or some correspondence 3 going both ways. And so, hopefully, when I receive 4 anything from the Government, I would pass it on. 5 Q: And in being the messenger, you also 6 assured those who had messages to you from the ground 7 that you had access to Ministers, personally, true? 8 A: Well, I -- I'm sure that we talked 9 about that I could talk to Ministers at Caucus meetings, 10 I mean, they're there, we're in the same room. 11 Q: Furthermore, when we look at 12 Superintendent Parkin's e-mail or his notes, there's no 13 reference to talking to Runciman and Harnick at Caucus, 14 it just says, Going to be talking to Runciman and 15 Harnick, right? 16 A: That's what the note said. 17 Q: You also have been shown numerous 18 times, so we're not turning it up, Lacroix's reference to 19 the fact of the Premier's views, which you have 20 acknowledged candidly, were conveyed by you to Lacroix, 21 correct? 22 A: Again, I have some dispute as to how 23 the notes are or the, you know, the wording of the notes, 24 yeah. 25 Q: Lacroix got it wrong, he probably


1 meant Premier's office? 2 A: I don't...yeah, it probably should 3 have been Premier's -- 4 Q: Kind of like Superintendent Parkin 5 who kind of meant Runciman's office? 6 A: Yeah, probably should have. 7 Q: Kind of like Parkin who probably 8 meant Harnick's office? 9 A: Probably should. 10 Q: It's quite a coincidence, don't you 11 find, that everyone keeps getting the identity of the 12 Minister versus the office wrong? It's quite a 13 coincidence. 14 A: I did it myself. 15 Q: You did it yourself? 16 A: Yeah. I -- there was a 17 correspondence where I think I refer to the Premier as 18 opposed -- I should have -- probably should have said the 19 Premier's office and I should have said the Solicitor 20 General's office, but I referred to it. 21 I -- I think I alluded to the fact that I 22 may tell you that I called my lawyer but I might have not 23 have talked to him, I talked to somebody in the office. 24 Q: Is this the letter of January 31st, 25 1996, Tab 51 where you started with, "Dear Mike?" Is that


1 the one where you got the name wrong of the office versus 2 the person? 3 A: No, I don't think it's the -- 4 Q: "Dear Mike?" 5 A: "Dear Mike.' 6 Q: "Dear Mike --" 7 A: Do you have any objection to that? 8 Q: No, I'm asking. 9 A: Oh. 10 Q: Is that the one you're talking about? 11 A: No, no. That's not the one. 12 Q: So you got it right there? 13 A: I could have said, Dear Premier. 14 Q: Right. But you identified the person 15 you were accessing? 16 A: I sent the fax, yes. 17 Q: And you identified the person you 18 were accessing? 19 A: Oh, yes, yeah. The letter's -- the 20 letter is sent to the Honourable Mike Harris. 21 Q: You knew, certainly as of 1996, that 22 your contacts with the police and your claimed contacts 23 with the Ministers were becoming the subject of 24 controversy, and you knew that as of 1996, correct? 25 A: Well, you know, I'm a -- I was a


1 politician at that time and I can see if you're in the 2 House and making, you know, asking questions where you 3 can make political heyday out of that, but that's the way 4 I looked at it. 5 Q: Is -- do -- do you think this Inquiry 6 is simply political heyday? 7 A: I don't have an opinion on it. I'm 8 here to testify on, you know, what I went through and 9 that's it. I mean I don't have any opinion on it. 10 Q: You don't? 11 A: No. 12 Q: When you testified in answer to Ms. 13 Vella's questions, that you thought that the 14 representation was disproportionate at the Inquiry, do 15 you recall testifying about that? 16 A: I mentioned that there was only -- 17 somebody had told me that there was only a few of the 18 Ipperwash people testifying. 19 Q: Yes? 20 A: I think I mentioned that, yes? 21 Q: Yes. And what -- what did you mean 22 by that -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- when you told 25 that to Ms. Vella?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 2 Where was that? 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I don't think that that 4 was his answer. His answer was -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no. Slow down. 6 The Witness just said his views. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: May I finish my 8 response? 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. Sorry. 10 I apologize. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Go ahead. 12 State your -- 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I believe this came in 14 the context of the recommendations and Mr. Beaubien 15 testified that not having Canada here was, perhaps, 16 problematic. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I see. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I don't recall him -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 20 remember that in the questions. 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- talking about party 22 status for constituents -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Neither do 24 I. 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- or residents.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 2 remember that either, Mr. Falconer. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, first of all, 4 I -- I want to emphasize something. The Witness has just 5 testified on his view and I want to emphasize that while 6 different people in the room can take what he said 7 differently, with the greatest of respect, it sounds like 8 I got what he said right, because he's now explaining -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- what he said. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 12 put it to him as if that had been in the evidence, but it 13 wasn't. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's fine, and 15 I'm about to -- I'm about to clarify that. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you're 17 going to put in evidence, you have to put it accurately; 18 that's all. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I did put it 20 accurately. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 22 that you did. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm simply -- I'm 24 simply pointing out that different people took different 25 things from what he said, but I'd be happy --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but the 2 suggestion you made was it came from the questions of Ms. 3 Vella. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right, and - 5 - and, Mr. Commissioner, I -- I, with great respect, 6 stand by that. I'm not trying to suggest anything else. 7 I'll simply point out or read to you from page -- this is 8 his evidence on January 19th, 2006. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Was this 10 when he was asked to make recommendations and he went on 11 and made, basically, a long statement? Is that what 12 you're referring to? Because if that's what you're 13 referring to that's different than a question and answer. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm -- I'm sorry. 15 I'm -- first of all, I am referring to his answer to Ms. 16 Vella's question on January 19th, 2006. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which 18 question was it? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: At page 300, line 23 5, with regards to communication, there was no doubt that 24 we have to improve the level of communication between 25 local, provincial, federal and the native community --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 2 is that the question? 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm giving -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm asking-- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- his answer. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, I 7 asked you what response to which question? 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, I'm sorry, I 9 didn't realize it, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I thought you 12 wanted me to point out -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. I 14 asked you: In response to which question? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, I see, all 16 right. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If the 18 question is -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The question 20 related to -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Your 22 recommendations? 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, page -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 25 that's --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 296. "Now, we have 2 given witnesses the opportunity --" 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: "-- to advise if 5 they have any -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: "-- recommendations 8 aimed at --" 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 10 the same -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: "-- preventing 12 future situations." 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 14 the same thing, Mr. Falconer, as a specific question and 15 an answer. That was an open invitation to make a 16 statement, and he did -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm sorry? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want 19 to understand where it came from. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's fine. 21 I'm at line 9, page 300, quote: 22 "I believe it is important both -- that 23 both sides should be supported by this 24 Inquiry. I don't think there's too 25 many people that are -- I think there's


1 an imbalance at the Inquiry; that's a 2 personal feeling." 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: well -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And this witness 5 was actually explaining what he meant. Just a minute 6 ago, he was telling us what his view of the imbalance 7 was. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, that 9 was in response to a very specific question that you 10 asked him -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: A fair question. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 13 not sure if it was -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'll go back 15 to -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- given 17 where -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- what I asked 19 him. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Given where 21 you got it from. Now, if you put that to him and you ask 22 him to explain it, then I'll be happy to have -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Just to move us on, 24 I'll do that. But Mr. commissioner, to be fair to me, I 25 told him where I got it --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I quoted it 3 accurately -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Just so you know, 6 but I'll let the record speak for itself. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: So, sir, and you recall we were 11 discussing your views of the Inquiry. You said you 12 didn't have any opinions. 13 Do you remember we were talking about 14 that? 15 A: I don't think you mentioned about 16 that you extracted that statement from the 17 recommendations that I made or suggestions that I made. 18 Q: Could you just stick -- 19 A: I don't recall that, sir, and I'm 20 sorry. 21 Q: Just stick with my question, sir. Do 22 you remember we were just discussing the fact that you 23 don't have any opinions about this Inquiry. You're just 24 here to give your evidence, that's what you told the 25 Commissioner --


1 A: That's right. 2 Q: You remember that? 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: And I asked you a question and I'll 5 rephrase the question in the fashion the Commissioner and 6 I just described. 7 When you say, quote, at page 300, line 9: 8 "I believe it is important both -- that 9 both sides should be supported by this 10 Inquiry. I don't think there's too 11 many people that are -- I think there's 12 an imbalance at the Inquiry; that's a 13 personal feeling." 14 Close quotes. 15 Now, sir, would you agree with me that 16 when you addressed this a minute ago, you were referring 17 to the lack of representation to Ipperwash property 18 owners at this proceeding? 19 A: No, you asked me if I had a feeling 20 or a personal position on the Inquiry. 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: I said that I did not have. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: Now, you're talking about some of the 25 recommendations that I was given the opportunity to


1 recommend. Those are suggestions that I made. 2 Q: And you referred to it as a personal 3 feeling. 4 A: Yeah, the personal recommendation, 5 the personal -- 6 Q: Thank you. 7 A: -- feelings that I had. 8 Q: "I don't think there's too many 9 people that are, I think there's an 10 imbalance at the Inquiry." 11 What is the imbalance that you're 12 referring to? 13 A: Well, I think, if we look at the 14 number of witnesses from the Ipperwash area, it's 15 somewhat lacking. 16 Q: And the witnesses from the Ipperwash 17 area that are lacking, are not the aboriginal witnesses, 18 are they? 19 A: No, I'm not speaking on them, because 20 they've already testified. 21 Q: The witnesses that are lacking would 22 be the same witnesses, as you put it, who's concerns you 23 advocated in September 1995. 24 A: Some of them would be. 25 Q: Yes. So when you tell Mr.


1 Commissioner you don't have an opinion about this 2 Inquiry, it's actually not really true, is it? 3 A: No, I totally disagree with you. 4 With the Inquiry -- I did not call the Inquiry. 5 Q: Fair enough. 6 A: It's not my position to do that. But 7 if you're asking me for recommendation or suggestion I -- 8 and you as -- you know, I was asked, so I submitted 9 some -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You do 13 realize -- 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: Sir, I wasn't -- I wasn't in any way 17 suggesting you weren't entitled to say that. 18 You were asked, right? You were asked for 19 your views? 20 A: That's correct. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. All 22 right, carry on. 23 We're now at twenty-five (25) to 5:00, Mr. 24 Falconer, and I'd like you to try to bring it to a 25 conclusion.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I can't in the 2 twenty (20) minutes. I can't. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I'm 4 afraid, Mr. Falconer -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm doing my best, 6 Mr. Commissioner, but I -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're going 8 to have to try harder because I'd like you to finish 9 today. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I understand but I 11 tried to flag this before. I anticipate that based on 12 the information that has come out and the difficulties 13 over the issues that I've been canvassing, that I'm going 14 to be a certain amount of time longer than five o'clock. 15 I expect to be done certainly before 5:30, 16 but I don't expect to be done by 5:00. And I -- I -- 17 knowing you, Mr. Commissioner, I can guess that that's 18 what you're hoping for. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'd 20 like you to finish as soon as you can. I'd like you to 21 carry on. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm just trying to 23 be fair to you. I don't want people sitting here 24 thinking 5:00 it's going -- I expect it's around 5:30 and 25 I'm happy to keep going.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'd 2 like you to finish. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And -- and I 4 respect that and I'll -- I'll do that. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's go. 6 And depending on what time he finishes, Mr. Rosenthal, we 7 may get to you, depending on the time. We've got to be-- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My difficulty is 9 that I don't want to be letting Mr. Rosenthal down. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then you 11 conduct yourself the way you'd like to. I'm asking you 12 I'd like you to finish. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I -- no, I do 14 want to emphasize that -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please carry 16 on because we're wasting time. Just carry on. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right, fair 18 enough. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: When was the first time that you 24 directed your mind to the existence of the tape of the 25 voicemail from Bill King?


1 A: When? 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: Well I've had it for ten (10) years. 4 It's been sitting in my briefcase for ten (10) years. 5 Q: Did you forget about it? 6 A: No. 7 Q: So it's fair to say you've averted 8 your mind or been knowledgeable about it the whole ten 9 (10) years? 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: In the voicemail transcript, it's 12 clear that Mr. King is responding to your July, 1996 13 correspondence. 14 That's been your testimony, correct? 15 A: I think that's correct, yeah. 16 Q: And there's no doubt in your mind is 17 there that what you're raising with Mr. King in his 18 response to you is all around the management of the 19 Ipperwash issue by the Government of Ontario. 20 A: What the issue -- yeah, the entire 21 issue, yes. 22 Q: And you're not confused that the 23 management of the Ipperwash issue by the Government of 24 Ontario is at the heart of this Inquiry. 25 You know that, don't you?


1 A: No. I think I totally disagree with 2 you. I think the issue at the heart of this Inquiry is 3 the army base. It's the Federal Government, sir. 4 Q: So it's your position that the 5 actions or conduct of the Ontario Government as it 6 pertained to Ipperwash isn't an issue in this Inquiry? 7 A: Oh, it's an issue. But it's not the 8 primary issue. 9 Q: Fair enough. And in knowing that 10 it's an issue, you would know for example that the 11 Premier's Executive Assistant in his responses to your 12 state of concerns about their management, would be 13 relevant to these proceedings. 14 You would know that? 15 A: Well, yeah, I mean we discussed the 16 issue, yeah. 17 Q: Sure. And you'd also know that there 18 is a privilege in being allowed to participate in an 19 important proceeding like this including having your 20 counsel funded, including rights of cross-examination, 21 rights to make arguments, all those -- those are 22 privileges to be given standing in a proceeding like 23 this. 24 You know that? 25 A: Yeah, yeah.


1 Q: And you also know that with that 2 privilege comes responsibilities? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you knew and you know today, that 5 one of your responsibilities was to provide whatever 6 relevant information was in your possession to the 7 management of Ipperwash by the Province of Ontario, you 8 knew that that one of your responsibilities? 9 A: To provide the information as the 10 Ipperwash issue, yes. 11 Q: And you made a determination to keep 12 that tape in your briefcase, correct? 13 A: I don't really -- I didn't think -- I 14 didn't think it was pertinent to be honest with you. I 15 tried to introduce a fax two (2) days ago that everybody 16 thought it's not pertinent. 17 And all of a sudden because it's a tape, 18 it becomes pertinent. 19 Q: I see. 20 A: And the tape was in response to the 21 fax so I didn't think it was pertinent and it happened in 22 I think July or September of 1996. It's a year and a 23 half later. 24 Q: I'm sorry. Everybody keeps saying a 25 year and a half --


1 A: Or July. 2 Q: -- I'm having the greatest difficulty 3 with that math. It's not your fault, you're simply 4 taking the math your lawyer gave you. 5 July 1996 is by my count ten (10) months 6 after September 1995. 7 Would you agree with that? 8 A: I'll agree with that. 9 Q: So you're saying that whatever 10 actions the government -- 11 A: Ten (10) months, no no. Just a 12 minute. No, I -- I disagree with your math. 13 Q: All right. 14 A: If the occurrence...well, September. 15 Yeah, I guess you're right. 16 Q: Thank you. 17 A: Yeah, okay. 18 Q: All right. Totalement dix (10) mois, 19 hein? 20 A: Totalement. 21 Q: So, with the ten (10) months beyond 22 September 1995 you are saying to this Commissioner, you'd 23 have this Commission believe that you thought that what 24 the Government of Ontario did ten (10) months after the 25 shooting of Dudley George wasn't relevant to these


1 proceedings? 2 A: I don't think the tape relates to 3 what happened at Ipperwash, it relates to another 4 incident at Ipperwash. It's totally disconnected with 5 that one, sir. 6 Q: You testified that the reason you 7 didn't think it was relevant was because the previous 8 Thursday during questioning by Ms. Vella, July 19th, 9 1996, the July 1996 letter that you sought to introduce - 10 - you -- you sought to introduce it, right? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: Was deemed not relevant, right? 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: So you concluded in your mind that a 15 tape that was connected to it would also not be relevant, 16 correct? 17 A: I concluded that it was irrelevant a 18 long time ago. 19 Q: Well, that's what's confusing me 20 because the only time you heard from Commission Counsel 21 that the July 1996 correspondence wasn't relevant would 22 have been that day on July 19th, 2006. 23 What about the previous ten (10) years 24 when you kept the tape in your briefcase notwithstanding 25 the civil litigation? What about the rules of production


1 in these proceedings? Why didn't you disclose the tape? 2 A: Well, I think we have to look at the 3 setting. We have to go back. If you recall when I 4 pulled that document out somebody was questioning about 5 the fall guy. 6 Q: Hmm hmm. 7 A: And I just wanted to tell you and I 8 did testify that the fall guy reference was in regards to 9 my frustration, lack of communication. And the reason I 10 pulled that documentation was to show you that ten (10) 11 months later we still had a lack of communication going 12 on; that's all. 13 Q: But you agree with me and I'm closing 14 out this portion, Mr. Commissioner, you'd agree with me 15 that the one (1) thing that didn't inform your decision 16 not to disclose this tape, the one (1) thing that did not 17 inform your decision was the fact that Ms. Vella said on 18 July 19th, 1996, that it wasn't relevant. 19 That's not what made your decision? 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think you've got the 21 date wrong of our -- it's not July 19th -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 23 January. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- that week. January 25 19th, 2006.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I apologize. I 2 apologize. My apologies. January 19th, 2006. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 5 Q: It wasn't that statement that made 6 you think the tape wasn't relevant was it? 7 A: I didn't think it was relevant til -- 8 Q: All right. 9 A: -- til we started questioning my 10 integrity with regards to the fall guy and I just wanted 11 to show you that I was consistent with my concerns that I 12 was conveying to Queen's Park in September -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 14 THE WITNESS: -- and ten (10) months 15 later. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: Now, that issue is important to you 20 isn't it, that you were consistent in conveying your 21 concerns to Queen's Park from the get go; that's 22 important to you? 23 A: I think I testified to that, yeah. 24 Q: It's important to you that you 25 communicate to the local community around here that you


1 did the -- the job, you advocated their concerns? 2 A: That I did try to do my best. 3 Q: And so over time there's been a fair 4 amount of criticism about government indifference to that 5 particular community's concerns, correct? 6 A: Well, it's a concern that's been 7 going on for a number of years and there's no doubt that, 8 you know, what can I say? 9 Q: And you knew you had an answer to 10 that in the form of that tape, right? 11 A: No. 12 Q: You never thought of the tape as 13 something you could defend yourself with when called upon 14 at the Inquiry, sir? 15 A: No. 16 Q: You never considered the tape was 17 something you were going to pull out as an answer? 18 A: No. 19 Q: You never told that to anybody? 20 A: No, not that I recall. 21 Q: When you say, "not that I recall," is 22 that different than no? 23 A: Well, I can't recall. 24 Q: Would you agree with me, sir -- 25 A: I was asked a question whether I had


1 taped a conversation in my constituency office; I said 2 no. 3 Q: Do you recall being in a heated 4 argument with Premier Harris over your belief as to the 5 failings of his government on providing support at the 6 community level in Ipperwash? 7 Do you recall being in an argument with 8 Premier Harris? 9 A: I don't think I was ever in any 10 argument with Premier Harris. I raised concerns at 11 Caucus meetings with the Premier with what was going on, 12 but heated arguments? Not that I recall. 13 Q: Do you recall raising your concerns 14 in a heated fashion with the Premier? 15 A: I -- I don't know by what you mean by 16 heated fashion. I -- like I said if I wanted to discuss 17 an issue with a Minister or Premier I'm not shy to speak 18 my mind. 19 Q: Would you qualify it as heated, the 20 fashion you raised it with Mike Harris? 21 A: No, I don't think so. 22 Q: Following the conviction of Ken 23 Deane, do you recall your involvement in the House? 24 A: In the House? 25 Q: In the Legislative Assembly. Do you


1 recall presenting a petition of support for Ken Deane 2 following his conviction? 3 A: It's -- I can't recall, but it's 4 possible because if somebody brings me a petition, it's 5 my responsible -- responsibility whether I agree with the 6 petition or not, to present it in the House. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Would you agree with me that you 11 can't, as you sit here now, refer us to any petition you 12 presented by Aboriginal communities to have the lands 13 given back to the native communities in the Ipperwash 14 area. 15 Do you recall any such petition? 16 A: I, you know, it would be easy to 17 check with Hansard to find out the petitions that I 18 presented when I was a member. I -- I can't recall the 19 number -- 20 Q: I -- I did check. 21 A: Did you? 22 Q: Yeah. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: There's no petition -- 25 A: Well --


1 Q: -- on behalf of First -- 2 A: -- did I -- 3 Q: -- Nations persons -- 4 A: -- receive one? 5 Q: -- to give the land back. 6 A: Did I ever receive one? 7 Q: I asked you if you ever presented 8 such a petition? 9 A: I don't recall. 10 Q: All right. Secondly, I'm going to 11 ask you something else. I'm going to suggest to you that 12 you presented more than one (1) petition on behalf of 13 property owners in the Ipperwash area. 14 Do you agree with that? 15 A: I don't know. I -- like I said, we - 16 - we would have to check the record. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: In any event, your concern today with 21 the inquiry, I do get this right, is that there's an 22 imbalance in terms of representation of those property 23 owners, but you haven't said there's an imbalance in 24 terms of representation of Aboriginal interests, have 25 you?


1 A: No, no. This is a -- with regards to 2 the Inquiry, in my suggestion, in my recommendations -- 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: -- that's what I'm talking about, 5 yeah. 6 Q: But you didn't say there was a 7 concern about imbalance of representation of Aboriginal 8 interests, did you? 9 A: No, I -- what I -- what I was 10 insinuating there were less people making presentation 11 from the Ipperwash area than there were -- than -- than 12 the natives. 13 Q: Okay. Your constituents? 14 A: They're all my constituents. 15 Q: Could you please place in front of 16 this witness -- I'm concerned that the May 26, 1997 17 Hansard is not-- as part of the Exhibit. That's why I 18 kept flipping through to try to see if it made it into 19 the Index. 20 I'm going to ask that this be handed first 21 to Commission Counsel so he can confirm it's May -- or 22 she, I apologize, Ms. Vella, she can confirm it's May 23 30th, 1997 Hansard. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: May 26th. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's why I'm


1 handing to Commission Counsel, 'cause they can read and I 2 can't. 3 Could that be handed to Mr. Commissioner? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Could you hand that 8 to the witness, please? 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Could you read out that petition, 12 please? 13 A: Thank you. It says: 14 "Members statements, Ipperwash 15 Provincial Park. Mr. Marcel Beaubien 16 [bracket](Lambton). I have a petition 17 addressed to the Legislative Assembly 18 of Ontario. It reads as follows: 19 Whereas we, the undersigned, and I must 20 point out --" 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 22 minute, Mr. Beaubien. Your Counsel -- 23 THE WITNESS: Oh -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- is asking 25 that he be heard.


1 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well, yes, it's -- 2 it's a very simple thing. I -- could we just have an 3 opportunity either to get a copy of it -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Sure, it's four (4) 5 lines long, that's why I asked him to read it out and 6 then I was going to hand the copy back to My Friend. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or make a 8 copy. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's four (4) 10 lines. 11 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You should - 13 - you know, you talk about procedure -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I knew this was 15 going to be -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, but 17 you know it's coming -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- because 20 it's accurate. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, I mean, 23 you understand -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, I don't -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- have a problem. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, okay. 3 It's four (4) lines. 4 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That's fine. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's on the screen -- 6 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Okay. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- now. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Could you -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You 10 sometimes -- 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: --just start over-- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- don't 13 follow procedure -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- and read it. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, we all -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we 18 sometimes -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- documents -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We sometimes 21 overlook it. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right, document 23 notices happen. That's very different than a tape 24 sitting in your briefcase for ten (10) years. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I


1 don't want to compare this -- 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: With respect. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- except -- 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to remind 6 you that this isn't the first time that you have produced 7 a document that hasn't been disclosed in sufficient time. 8 Now, I don't want to get into a big deal 9 about this; is a fact. Carry on. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay it says: 11 "Whereas we, the undersigned and I must 12 point out there are five hundred (500) 13 names on this petition support our OPP 14 and especially Sergeant Dean in their 15 testimony and action taken at the 16 Ipperwash Park. 17 We believe all the OPP acted properly 18 in their line of duty." 19 And I would imagine there would have been 20 five hundred (500) names. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: Do you -- do you recall ever 24 submitting a petition that took issue with the actions of 25 Sergeant Deane and raised the fact that he was convicted


1 for negligence causing death? 2 Do you recall presenting a petition like 3 that? 4 A: Like I said, if I received a petition 5 and I was asked to present it in the House, it was my 6 duty to do it. And I don't recall getting one (1). 7 Q: On May 26th, 1997, an event would 8 have happened the previous month in April 1997 as you put 9 it, the record reflects it. 10 Sergeant Deane would have been convicted 11 of negligence causing death. 12 Do you recall that? 13 A: I would recall that, yes. 14 Q: And so your show of support would 15 have been a show of support following his conviction in 16 relation to the death of Dudley George, correct? 17 A: No I -- with regards to the petition? 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: Well I don't think -- I think you're 20 misunderstanding the process. A petition is somebody 21 that initiates gathering a number of names whereby the 22 people have to have their names, the address and the 23 petition must be signed. 24 And they turn it over to a Member and ask 25 the Member to present it in the House. With regards to


1 your last comment, I don't think anybody took it upon 2 themself to circulate a petition for me to present in the 3 House. 4 I don't initiate the petition, sir. The 5 petition is handed down to me so that I can read it in 6 the House to put it on the record. 7 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir, the 8 reason the Executive Assistant to the Attorney General 9 thought you weren't the person to quell problems in the 10 community is because you had aligned yourself with one 11 portion of the community. 12 Do you agree or disagree with that? 13 A: I disagree with you. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to 15 propose to file this Hansard as the next exhibit on the 16 proceedings. 17 THE REGISTRAR: P-1048, Your Honor. 18 19 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1048: Hansard May 26/'97, re. Mr. 20 Marcel Beaubien MPP bringing 21 petition to the Legislative 22 Assembly of Ontario. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir,


1 right up until today, January 26th -- no 25th, I knew I'd 2 blow it, right up until today January 25th, 2006, you 3 continue to align yourself with the same interests right 4 up to the point of pointing out to this Commissioner 5 about the disproportionate representation of those 6 people. 7 Isn't that true? 8 A: I disagree with you. 9 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir, 10 that when you met with the police in August and met with 11 them again in September, the interest you were conveying 12 was one (1) line of interest and you wanted to make it 13 clear to those officers you had access to the highest 14 levels of Government to advocate those concerns. 15 True? 16 A: I -- I disagree with you. 17 Q: When you sent a message on September 18 6th, 1995 and stated the following: 19 "My constituents take the position that 20 this occupation is illegal and my 21 constituents want them out." 22 And when you did that at the command post 23 on September 6th, 1995, it was absolutely no surprise to 24 you that your former client and friend led a team down 25 the street that night to get them.


1 Isn't that true? 2 A: I totally disagree with you, sir. 3 Q: You wanted action. True? 4 A: You're wrong. 5 Q: You wrote Mike Harris: 6 "Dear Mike: 7 The OPP have failed to uphold the law. 8 It's a justifiable concern." 9 You wrote him that, didn't you? 10 A: I wrote a letter to Mike Harris, yes. 11 Q: And you told him that the residents 12 were justifiably concerned that the OPP wasn't upholding 13 the law, you wrote him that, didn't you? 14 A: They were concerned, yes. 15 Q: And that concern went as you put it 16 before, from August right through to January 1996, didn't 17 it? 18 A: There was a concern that it's been an 19 ongoing concern, sir. 20 Q: Mr. Beaubien, no matter how you 21 interpret the word 'totally' or how you interpret an 22 individual versus an office, you had one (1) message to 23 give the police. And the message was to get them out. 24 Isn't that true? 25 A: You're wrong.


1 Q: And would you also agree with this, 2 sir, that at the end of the day, the one (1) thing we can 3 all agree on, is that Dudley George was gotten out the 4 night of September 6th, 1995. 5 Can we agree on that? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 7 think that's a fair way to put it. And I think that 8 you're repeating the evidence now that you've already -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Those are my 10 questions. Thank you, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 12 very much, Mr. Falconer. Thank you very much. You did 13 finish before 5:00 and I appreciate the effort you made 14 to do that. 15 Now I think we have time if you want to -- 16 if you would like to -- I would like to try to 17 accommodate you, Mr. Rosenthal. You said it wouldn't be 18 more that fifteen (15) minutes, right? 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, yes. And 20 thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner, I appreciate your 21 indulgence. 22 23 RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Good afternoon again, sir. 25 A: Good afternoon.


1 Q: Now, with respect to the fax and 2 accompanying tape I'm -- I'm confused. 3 Did you disclose the fax before you took 4 it out a couple of days ago? 5 A: No. 6 Q: No? So you didn't disclose either 7 the fax or the tape until in the course of these 8 proceedings -- 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: -- when you were testifying. Is that 11 correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Now, and you refused even to show 14 those documents even to your own lawyer. 15 Is that correct? 16 A: No, I didn't refuse. I never showed 17 them to my lawyer because I didn't think they were 18 pertinent. I'd never refuse to show any documents to my 19 lawyer. 20 Q: I see. Well, you were aware that it 21 was your responsibility to produce any documents related 22 to the Ipperwash matter. 23 Is that not fair? 24 A: Yeah, but this -- this was not 25 directly connected with the Inquiry.


1 Q: I see. Now, you told us that -- I'm 2 going rather quickly if I may, Mr. Commissioner. You 3 told us that on the fax cover sheet when it says, 'on 4 this issue' at the end, you meant you understood that as 5 referring to the Ipperwash issue generally, right? 6 A: Where's the fax? 7 Q: P-144, sir, 1044, sir, at the very -- 8 the very last -- about your disgust, you're disgusted 9 with the effort you folks have provided on this issue and 10 you told us that what -- what you meant then was the 11 Ipperwash generally from the beginning up until the time, 12 right? 13 A: You know I don't know if I recall. 14 It's probably a fair assumption. I -- I -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- but I can't recall. 17 Q: And then, sir, wouldn't you have 18 realized that that had to be relevant to this Inquiry if 19 you -- if it's the Ipperwash issue from the beginning up 20 to the time of July 1996? 21 A: No, and I apologize for that. 22 Q: Okay. Now, the envelope that you put 23 this tape in said July 23rd, right? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: 1996. Which -- and you kept this


1 tape very carefully from that time until the time you 2 produced it here, right? 3 A: No, I don't think very carefully, it 4 sat in my briefcase with an awful lot of other 5 information dealing with this situation for -- since that 6 time. 7 Q: And in your briefcase there were many 8 other documents related to Ipperwash? 9 A: Yes, documentation from my lawyer, 10 newspaper clippings... 11 Q: But there was more in that briefcase 12 earlier than there was when we -- when it was examined 13 today. Isn't that right? 14 There were other Ipperwash documents that 15 you did turn over to your lawyer that were stored in that 16 briefcase? 17 A: I think I turned -- well, all the 18 documents I turned over to my lawyer would not fit in 19 that briefcase, sir. 20 Q: But you turned over some from that 21 briefcase, did you not? 22 A: Today? 23 Q: No, in the preparation for this 24 Inquiry in the last year or two (2) did you turn over 25 some documents from that briefcase to your lawyer?


1 A: I don't recall. That briefcase has 2 been kicking around for seven/eight (7/8) years with 3 documentation from Ipperwash and so -- 4 Q: I see. 5 A: -- you know as to when the 6 documentation was -- I turned boxes over of information 7 to my lawyer on an ongoing basis so... 8 Q: Yes. Was this a special briefcase of 9 documents that you did not feel you had to turn over to 10 your lawyer? 11 A: No, it's -- it's a briefcase that I 12 kept for myself with transcript from the civil case and 13 other documentation. 14 Q: In any event, you do assume that your 15 marking the date July 23rd on the envelope was accurate 16 and this tape was recorded on July 23rd, 1996? 17 Is that not fair? 18 A: I can only go by what's on the -- on 19 the envelope, sir. 20 Q: And that would suggest that it was in 21 response to some other fax than the one (1) that you 22 produced. 23 Is that not right? 24 A: I don't know. I don't know. 25 Q: Now, sir, further in that direction


1 would you agree, sir, that it would be hard to understand 2 why Mr. King would characterize this fax that you 3 produced as the most ignorant language I've ever heard 4 from a person? 5 A: I don't know, you'd have to ask Mr. 6 King. I don't recall sending any other fax so I would 7 imagine that is -- 8 Q: You don't recall -- 9 A: -- the call-back was in response to 10 this fax. 11 Q: Didn't you tell us that you -- you 12 sent numerous faxes to Mr. King over the course of this? 13 A: Oh, yes. Yeah. 14 Q: So you recall sending many, many 15 other faxes? 16 A: Well, I don't know how many, but we 17 did send quite a few. 18 Q: Now, sir, I would put it to you that 19 your concern at the time of the fax that we have here as 20 Exhibit P-1044 July 24, 1996, was at least partially due 21 to the fact that the people were still in the Park in 22 July of 1996. 23 Is that not fair? 24 A: No, I think you're wrong. Again I 25 think it relates back. When I talk about the music has


1 stopped, the dance floor is getting smaller, I'm not 2 getting an awful lot of information from Queen's Park and 3 I can't really keep relaying the same information that 4 I'm getting in bits and pieces to -- to my constituents. 5 Nothing is happening; they're not giving 6 me anything. That's what I'm referring to, sir. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay, I'll stop 8 questioning this witness, Mr. Commissioner, but I would 9 suggest that we should have an opportunity to consider 10 whether or not some sanction should be made against this 11 witness, given his failure to disclose and given his lack 12 of response to questioning throughout this proceeding. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 14 Does anybody else have any questions to ask this witness, 15 because, with respect to the question of the tape? 16 Does anybody else have any questions? 17 You, Mr. Zbogar, that's it? 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Maybe just one (1) 19 question. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: One (1) 21 question? Then let' try and get it done, because then 22 we'll be finished. 23 We still have to hear from Mr. Sulman and 24 any re-examination, but if you just have one (1) 25 question, I think you should ask it, and then we're done


1 with Mr. Beaubien. 2 3 RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 4 Q: Sir, the phone -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Except for 6 the issue that has been raised. Yes, carry on. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 9 Q: The fax that you showed us earlier, 10 the fax that you sent to Mr. King was dated July 24th, 11 2006. My question to you is -- 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No, 1996, actually. 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sorry. I apologise. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 16 Q: July 24th, 1996. We've all reviewed 17 it now and my question is simply, do you recall that that 18 fax was sent the day after the SIU laid charges against 19 Kenneth Deane? 20 A: I don't recall that. 21 Q: Okay. The record has documentation 22 to that effect. 23 Do you recall that being on your mind when 24 you composed this fax? 25 A: No, because the SIU issue would be a


1 policing matter and, you know, that's beyond my purview. 2 Q: Do you recall residents being quite 3 upset and communicating to -- with you they're upset 4 about the charging of Kenneth Deane in relation to this 5 matter at the time that you wrote this fax? 6 A: I don't recall that. But I recall 7 getting comments that people were upset, but at that 8 particular point in time, I can't tell you. 9 Q: Okay. I can tell you I have seen 10 those, they're not part of the Inquiry's data base, but 11 they were produced in the litigation. I'll leave it at 12 that -- 13 A: Thank you, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 15 Mr. Zbogar. 16 Do you have any questions for Mr. 17 Beaubien, Mr. Sulman? 18 I mean, it is after 5:00, so I'd like to 19 know roughly how long you think you might be? 20 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well, just -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: To be fair to My 22 Friend, the issue that I raised and Mr. Rosenthal's 23 raised about the question of sanctions -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We can deal 25 with that another time.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, the only 2 problem I have is that one of the submissions I intend to 3 make, and I say this without the benefit of time, but is 4 the ability of Counsel for that party to re-examine on 5 that particular document. 6 That is, a sanction -- based under your 7 rules, there is a -- you have a -- 8 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I can save you a lot 9 of time -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- wide discretion. 11 All right -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 13 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'm not -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 15 appreciate that -- 16 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- examining on that 17 document. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Then that's fair, 19 then that's -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's carry 21 on. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- not an issue. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 24 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: And -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would you


1 please carry on with your examination. 2 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Yes, I'd like to do 3 that. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just asked 5 you roughly how long you think you might be? 6 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Oh, it'll -- I would 7 imagine three (3) minutes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, that's 9 fine. 10 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Despite the fact I 11 brought some hardware. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's go. 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 15 Q: I only intend to examine on one (1) 16 small area and that is, Mr. Beaubien, you recall Mr. 17 Falconer this afternoon, if, in fact, in the last half 18 hour, asking you questions with regard to presentation of 19 petitions to the House, that is to the Legislature. 20 And I believe he -- the date that he gave 21 was May 26th, and I believe it was 1996, if I have the -- 22 if I have the dates right. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: '97. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:


1 Q: '97, thank you. I don't -- I don't 2 have the documentation -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Have you got 4 it there? 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 7 Q: So what I tried to do was pull up -- 8 pull it up on -- on the -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Here, there 10 it is for you. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 13 Q: -- Hansard website. Thank you. May 14 26th, 1997. 15 And you will recall him asking question -- 16 asking you questions about a petition that you put 17 forward on behalf of Kenneth Deane and, if I recall 18 correctly, I now have it in front of me, it reads: 19 "Whereas, we, the [it's very short] we 20 are the undersigned -- we the 21 undersigned support the OPP and 22 especially Sergeant Deane in their 23 testimony in action taken at Ipperwash 24 Park. We believe all of the OPP acted 25 properly in the line of duty."


1 You recall that -- you recall being asked 2 that question, sir? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And do you -- were you aware -- do 5 you know David Boushey (phonetic)? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And what was his position, title if 8 you will, on May 26th or 27th, 1997? 9 A: He was the MPP for Sarnia. 10 Q: Okay. And do you -- were you in the 11 House on the day of the 27th? Do you recall that? 12 A: I -- I can't recall. 13 Q: Okay. Do you know whether Mr. 14 Boushey presented a similar petition, with the same 15 wording, in support of Kenneth Deane? 16 A: I don't recall. 17 Q: Okay. Mr. Falconer asked you whether 18 you ever presented a petition condemning the actions of 19 Sergeant Deane and the OPP? Do you recall him asking you 20 that? 21 A: Yes, I do recall that. 22 Q: Were you ever asked by any parties to 23 present a petition condemning the actions of Kenneth 24 Deane and the OPP? 25 A: It was my policy that, as I said,


1 that if I was presented with -- with a petition, whether 2 I agreed with it or not, that it was my duty to present 3 it to the House. 4 Q: Right. And I -- you've told us that, 5 and I asked you whether you were ever asked by any 6 parties to present a petition condemning the actions of 7 Kenneth Deane. 8 A: Not that I recall. 9 Q: Okay. Mr. Falconer was asking you 10 whether you ever presented a petition requesting that 11 Ipperwash Park be returned to the Natives. 12 Do you recall him asking you that? 13 A: I don't re -- yes, I do. 14 Q: And were you ever asked to present 15 such a petition to the Legislature? 16 A: I don't recall ever being presented 17 with one. 18 Q: And does that -- is that the same 19 answer that you don't recall ever presenting one? 20 A: That's right. 21 Q: Okay. Those are my questions, thank 22 you, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 24 Mr. Sulman. 25 Do you have any re-examination, Ms. Vella?


1 Again, may I ask roughly how long you think you might be? 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Even quicker. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Even 4 quicker. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Really a housekeeping 6 matter. 7 8 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 9 Q: Would you kindly look at Tab 51, 10 Commission counsel brief, Inquiry Document 1012510. This 11 is the letter that you wrote to the Honorable Mike 12 Harris, January 31, 1996. Is that correct? 13 A: That's correct, yes. 14 Q: I think, for the record, this should 15 be made an exhibit. 16 THE REGISTRAR: P-1049, Your Honor. 17 18 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1049: Document Number 1012501. 19 Letter from Marcel Beaubien 20 to Mike Harris re. Lack of 21 Progress on Ipperwash Issue, 22 January 31/'96. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. SUSAN VELLA: 25 Q: If you would go to Tab 52, Inquiry


1 Document Number 1012213. This appears to be a letter -- 2 response by Michael B. Harris to yourself, to your letter 3 of January 31. 4 Did you receive this? 5 A: We probably would have received that, 6 yes. 7 Q: And in the middle paragraph the 8 message that's being communicated is: 9 "Once the illegal occupation of 10 Ipperwash Provincial Park is definitely 11 over and the Park is returned to 12 Provincial control, we can begin 13 discussions with Canada and the First 14 Nation to address any legitimate 15 concerns the First Nations may have." 16 Now is that the same message as you were 17 provided with by Mr. King, back in September of 1995, in 18 response to Mr. Martel and Chief Bressette, then the 19 invitation to the meeting? 20 A: It certainly is consistent with that, 21 yes. 22 Q: I would like to make that the next 23 exhibit. 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-1050, Your Honor. 25


1 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-1050: Document Number 1012213. 2 Letter from Michael Harris, 3 MPP to Marcel Beaubien, MPP 4 re. Concerns about the 5 Ipperwash Provincial Park 6 Issue, Feb. 20/'96 7 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That concludes my 9 re-examination. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 11 very much. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. Thank you 13 very much, Mr. Beaubien. 14 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: On behalf of the 16 Commission for attending and giving your evidence at the 17 Inquiry. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 20 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 21 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 23 very much. Now if it becomes necessary to recall Mr. 24 Beaubien, we will. Right? 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I haven't heard that it


1 is. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I 3 haven't heard that either, but I'm saying, I'm leaving it 4 open to counsel to make an argument at some point in time 5 and if it becomes necessary to recall him, we will. 6 They've reserved the right to make a 7 motion and application of some sort -- 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and if 10 they do and if it's appropriate to bring back Mr. 11 Beaubien, we will. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's right. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right now, 14 we're done and we're done for the day and we're going to 15 adjourn until Monday -- 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: A week Monday. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: A week 18 Monday which is February the 6th at 10:30. Thank you 19 very much. 20 I'll see you all at the function tonight. 21 At the feast. 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 23 adjourned until Monday, February the 6th, at 10:30 a.m. 24 25 --- Upon adjourning at 5:10 p.m.


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