11 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 July 12th, 2005 25
21 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) (np) 5 Katherine Hensel ) 6 7 Murray Klippenstein ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) (np) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) Student-at-Law 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) Family Group 14 15 Anthony Ross ) Residents of 16 Cameron Neil ) Aazhoodena (Army Camp) 17 Kevin Scullion ) (np) 18 William Henderson ) (np) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) (np) 21 22 Kim Twohig ) (np) Government of Ontario 23 Walter Myrka ) (np) 24 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 25 Michelle Pong )
31 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 5 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 6 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 7 Jennifer McAleer ) 8 9 Ian Smith ) Robert Runciman 10 Alice Mrozek ) (np) 11 Harvey Stosberg ) (np) Charles Harnick 12 Jacqueline Horvat ) 13 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) (np) Marcel Beaubien 14 Trevor Hinnegan ) 15 16 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 17 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 18 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 19 20 Ian Roland ) (np) Ontario Provincial 21 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 22 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 23 Ian McGilp ) 24 Annie Leeks ) (np) 25 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np)
41 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 3 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 4 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 5 Julian Roy ) (np) 6 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 7 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 8 9 Al J.C. O'Marra ) Office of the Chief 10 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 11 12 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 13 Matthew Horner ) (np) 14 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 15 16 Mark Frederick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 17 Craig Mills ) 18 Megan Mackey ) (np) 19 Erin Tully ) (np) 20 21 David Roebuck ) (np) Debbie Hutton 22 Anna Perschy ) 23 Melissa Panjer ) (np) 24 Danya Cohen-Nehemia ) 25
51 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 4 List of Exhibits 6 5 6 RONALD EVAN FOX, Resumed 7 Continued Examination-In-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 9 8 Cross-examination by Mr. Peter Downard 206 9 10 11 12 13 14 Certificate of Transcript 286 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
61 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page No 3 P-511 Document 1001101. E-mail from 4 Anthony Parkin to Nancy Mansell re: 5 Ipperwash Provincial Park, September 6 05/'95. 12:03. 14 7 P-512 Document 1011729. Minister's Briefing 8 re: occupation of Ipperwash Provincial 9 Park by the "Stoney Pointers" September 10 05/'95. 17 11 P-513 Document 1000911. E-mail from Ron Fox 12 to Elaine Todres, Kathryn Hunt re: 13 Ipperwash Provincial Park occupation, 14 September 06/'95, 07:55. 27 15 P-514 Mobile command unit notes and 16 transcriptions from OPP Logger tapes, 17 September 05/'95 and September 06/'95. 39 18 P-515 Document 3001088. Handwritten note 19 from Julie Jai, September 06/'95 re: 20 conversation with Ron Fox. 135 21 P-516 Document 1012542. Handwritten notes 22 from Julia Jai re: phone calls from 23 Ron Fox and others, Thursday, 24 September '95. 144 25
71 EXHIBITS (Cont'd) 2 No. Description Page No 3 P-517 Document 2003794 Scott Patrick's Will 4 Say, May 12/'97 Meeting with Ron Fox 5 and Scott Patrick's Handwritten Notes 6 September 06/'95 to September 07/'95 160 7 P-518 Document 1008858 Fax from Julie Jai 8 Containing Press Releases RE Ipperwash 9 Park. 164 10 P-519 Document 103550 Ipperwash Update From 11 Christine Beachey to Everyone Wednesday, 12 September 13/'95, 2:18 P.M. RE Irwin's 13 Press Conference 167 14 P-520 Document 1011910 Ipperwash Management 15 Plan September 13/'95. 170 16 P-521 Document 1011954 Project Management Plan 17 September 15/'95 3:00 P.M. 174 18 P-522 Document 1012439 Support Group Meeting 19 Minutes September 20/'95 175 20 P-523 Document 1012456 Support Group Meeting 21 Minutes October 03/'95 176 22 P-524 Document 1001046 Support Group Meeting 23 Minutes October 26/'95 180 24 P-525 Document 1012486 Support Group Meeting 25 Summary of Meeting November 29/'95 182
81 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-526 Document 1012483 Fax from Eileen 4 Hipfner to Andrew Macdonald, Ron 5 Fox, Barry Jones Re: Ipperwash 6 Provincial Park, November 29/'95 185 7 P-527 Document 1012180 Memorandum from Ron 8 Fox, Special Advisor, First Nations 9 to Elaine Todres, Solicitor General 10 and Deputy Minister, Correctional 11 Services RE Meeting with Rita Burak - 12 Ipperwash Discussion Points, January 13 24/'96 187 14 P-528 Volume 1, Cross-examination 15 Document Brief (Ron Fox) 16 Honourable M.D. Harris Counsel Peter 17 Downard 263 18 19 P-529 Volume 2, Cross-examination 20 Document Brief (Ron Fox) 21 Honourable M.D. Harris Counsel Peter 22 Downard 263 23 24 25
91 --- 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 7 RONALD EVAN FOX, Resumed 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 morning. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 13 morning, Superintendent. 14 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning, 16 Superintendent Fox. 17 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 18 19 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: Now, as a result of your telephone 21 conversation with Inspector Carson that we heard at the 22 end of the day yesterday that was held on September the 23 5th, did you have any sense as to the status of the Park 24 situation from a policing perspective? 25 A: Obviously, there had been changes
101 with respect to the Park in that it was now moving into 2 an occupation from what I would suggest to be a stable 3 situation prior to. 4 Q: From a what? 5 A: From a stable situation prior to. 6 Q: Okay. And, did you have any sense, 7 based on your conversation with Inspector Carson, that 8 the situation was escalating in any significant way? 9 A: Yes, it was escalating from what it 10 had been. 11 Q: All right. Did you form any 12 impressions as to whether it was escalating to the point 13 where more aggressive police action might be warranted? 14 A: No, I -- I didn't get that suggestion 15 from him, but I wasn't on the ground. 16 Q: Fair enough. Did you have a further 17 telephone conversation with Inspector Carson later on 18 September the 5th that you can recall? 19 A: Yes, I did. 20 Q: And, I wonder if you would kindly go 21 to Tab 25 of your materials, it's the scribe notes, 22 Inquiry Document 1002419 Exhibit P-246 (sic) and the 23 entry is 15:07 on September the 5th. It reads: 24 "Inspector Carson advised Ron Fox is 25 sitting on the Blockade Committee. It
111 sounds like they are going to get an 2 emergency order." 3 And then, later on, on page 38 in the same 4 entry: 5 "Inspector Ron Fox, Deputy Minister's 6 office updating Blockade Committee. 7 Called to update Inspector Carson." 8 And, is that consistent with your memory 9 of what transpired? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And so, can you provide us with a few 12 more details as to what it was you updated Inspector 13 Carson concerning -- we've called it here the, "Blockade 14 Committee"; that's also known as the Interministerial 15 Committee meeting? 16 A: That's correct. The Interministerial 17 Committee, as I'd indicated in testimony yesterday, had 18 discussed options, certainly option 3 was applying for an 19 injunction. 20 There was debate with respect to whether 21 it was to be an ex parte injunction or an injunction with 22 -- with notice. 23 The legal Counsel available did their work 24 on the preparatory things, and the indication was that 25 they were going to seek an injunction ex parte.
121 Q: All right. And this is what you 2 specifically relayed to Inspector Carson at about 15:07 3 that day? 4 A: That was the thinking of the 5 Committee at that time, yes. 6 Q: Thank you. Did you also have any 7 communications with Superintendent Tony Parkin that day? 8 A: Yes, I did. 9 Q: And can you remind us what role you 10 understood the Superintendent to be playing in relation 11 to this matter? 12 A: Superintendent Parkin at that time, 13 and as I indicated in testimony yesterday, the OPP was in 14 a transition from the divisional and the district system 15 into a regional system. 16 The Superintendent was a regional director 17 of operations. He would be there in a supporting role to 18 the incident commander. 19 The incident command fell to Inspector 20 Carson. 21 Q: All right. But, is it fair to 22 characterize the Superintendent as his direct, reporting 23 superior? 24 A: That is correct, yes. 25 Q: I wonder if you would kindly go to
131 Tab 20 of your materials. It's Inquiry Document 1001101, 2 and it appears to be an e-mail transmission from Anthony 3 Parkin to Nancy Mansell. You're shown as having received 4 a copy. 5 Do you recall receiving this particular 6 transmission? 7 A: I do. 8 Q: And what was the purpose, if you can 9 tell us, as to why Superintendent Parkin would be 10 providing you with a copy of this type of transmission? 11 A: This was general information for me 12 that may have been assistance during my sitting on the 13 Aboriginal -- or the Interministerial Committee. 14 If you look at the others who are 15 identified, the two (2) and the other cc, Nancy Mansell 16 is a civilian employee with the Ontario Provincial Police 17 who prepares issue notes and Phil Duffield was the 18 executive assistant to the Commissioner. 19 Q: Thank you. And, Commissioner, I'd 20 like to make this the next exhibit -- thank you. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: I'd like to kindly make this the next 25 exhibit, please.
141 THE REGISTRAR: P-511, your Honour. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Five one one 3 (511). 4 5 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-511: Document 1001101. E-mail 6 from Anthony Parkin to Nancy 7 Mansell re: Ipperwash 8 Provincial Park, September 9 05/'95. 12:03. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 12 Q: All right. I'd like you next to go 13 to Tab 21, which is Inquiry Document number 1011729. 14 This appears to be a minister briefing form dated 15 September the 5th, 1995, prepared by Yan Lazor as 16 assistant secretary, regarding the occupation of 17 Ipperwash Provincial Park. 18 Do you recall receiving a copy of this 19 form? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And this appears to have been 22 prepared after the IMC meeting of September the 5th? 23 A: I believe that to be correct. 24 Q: All right. And do you know which 25 minister this was prepared for?
151 A: This would have been prepared for the 2 Ministry of the Attorney General -- the Attorney General. 3 Q: And why would you receive a copy of 4 this? 5 A: This was something that was -- was 6 discussed at the Interministerial Committee, and I 7 believe from our examinations yesterday, it was the 8 responsibility of individual line Ministries to have 9 their Ministry briefed. 10 Q: All right. And the summary advice 11 reflects that a recommendation that a civil injunction be 12 sought to provide Court authority for removing the 13 occupiers of the Park. 14 It then goes on to explain that the 15 injunction can be brought either on an emergency ex 16 parte, or without notice basis, or an interim (less 17 urgent) basis. 18 It gives some details with respect to the 19 pros and cons of those injunctions; indicates that: 20 "A mischief to property charge under 21 the Criminal Code could also be laid 22 and that new information not available 23 to the Committee indicates that it 24 could be an effective means of removing 25 the occupier."
161 Now, pausing with respect to the first 2 part of the summary of the advice, did that accurately 3 reflect the advice of the IMC? 4 A: I believe that it did. 5 Q: With respect to the last item, that 6 new information not available to the Committee indicates 7 that it could be; that is, criminal charges could be an 8 effective means of removing the occupiers. 9 Do you have any knowledge about what that 10 is about? 11 A: I believe if we return to documents 12 reviewed yesterday, that was one (1) of the options and 13 it was either a Provincial Statute or Criminal Code 14 charges. The laying of charges in and unto itself does 15 not necessarily remedy the occupation. 16 Q: Yes, but this indicates that there 17 was new information not available to the Committee, which 18 indicated that this might be a more effective means of 19 removing the occupiers. 20 Do you have any knowledge now as to what 21 that new information was? 22 A: I do not, personally, no. 23 Q: Thank you. I'd like to make this the 24 next exhibit. 25 THE REGISTRAR: P-512, Your Honour.
171 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-512: Document 1011729. Minister's 4 Briefing re: occupation of 5 Ipperwash Provincial Park by 6 the "Stoney Pointers" 7 September 05/'95. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 10 Q: Now, I'll just pause to take you, 11 briefly, to the next page of this exhibit. It appears to 12 be handwritten notes by Julie Jai reflecting a 13 conversation with yourself. 14 Now, I know it's attached to the September 15 5th ministerial briefing note, but do you know whether 16 this conversation happened on the 5th or the 6th? 17 A: I -- I believe it happened on the -- 18 on the 5th. 19 Q: On the 5th? 20 A: Yes, that's correct. 21 Q: All right. So, you had a 22 conversation with Julie Jai on that day? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And, in this conversation did you 25 report that Bert Manning had been identified as a
181 spokesperson? 2 A: I'm reporting what I received from -- 3 from the site; that is from Inspector Carson and 4 Superintendent Parkin. But yes, I identified to her that 5 Bert Manning had been identified as a possible 6 spokesperson. 7 Q: All right. And, it appears -- have 8 you had an opportunity to read the balance of this note? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And, does it accurately reflect the 11 conversation that you had reporting on what information 12 you received from Inspector Carson. 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Now, at the bottom of this page is 15 the initials, "LT." I'm advised that -- that the 16 initials, "LT" likely refer to Larry Taman, is that 17 consistent with your understanding? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And, was Larry Taman discussed during 20 the course of this conversation? 21 A: I have no recollection of discussing 22 Larry Taman with Julie Jai. 23 Q: All right. Thank you. Did anything 24 else of significance to you, as special advisor, occur on 25 September the 5th that you can recall?
191 A: No. 2 Q: On September the 6th, 1995 did you 3 continue to devote a significant amount of time to the 4 Ipperwash occupation in your capacity as a special 5 advisor for First Nations? 6 A: Yes, I did. 7 Q: Did you continue to have contact with 8 Inspector Carson that day? 9 A: I did. 10 Q: I understand that you called John 11 Carson at about 7:18 a.m.; is that correct? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: I'd like you to go to Tab 27, and 14 this is a further excerpt from the scribe notes, Inquiry 15 Document Number 1002419 Exhibit P-2 -- sorry, P-426 and 16 I'm looking, specifically, at the entry 7:18: 17 "Received call from Inspector Ron Fox. 18 Advised of damage to cruisers, piled 19 tables outside of Park. Someone is 20 going to video. It's adjacent [I 21 believe that's, 'adjacent'] to private 22 property. Potential problems with 23 fires near adjacent houses if tables 24 were set on fire. Spoke to Bressette 25 yesterday and he wants something done.
201 John Carson to call mayor of Bosanquet 2 and to speak with him about this 3 incident. We are going to deal with 4 this incident. We are going to deal 5 with this table block as soon as 6 possible. We have to maintain officer 7 safety." 8 Now, does that refresh your memory at all 9 with respect to the contents of your conversation? 10 A: It does. 11 Q: And, does it accurately reflect the 12 conversation? 13 A: I believe that it does. 14 Q: And so, what was the purpose of you 15 calling Inspector Carson at 7:18? 16 A: To receive an update having regard to 17 what had occurred on the -- on the 4th and leading up 18 through the 5th and into the 6th. 19 Q: All right. And, at this time were 20 you aware that a further IMC meeting was to be scheduled? 21 A: I was. 22 Q: And so, were you doing this also in 23 part so that you would have what you considered to be the 24 necessary information for that meeting? 25 A: To provide the Solicitor General
211 update, yes. 2 Q: Now, as a result of this 3 conversation, did you form any impression with respect to 4 whether or not the situation was escalating on September 5 the 6th in the early morning? 6 A: Yes, the situation was escalating 7 from what I was told. 8 Q: And, what specifically, if anything, 9 caused you a concern with respect to the situation as 10 described by Inspector Carson? 11 A: The -- from the Incident Commander's 12 perspective, there were a number of things now occurring 13 simultaneously, and he's identified in this call officer 14 safety certainly being paramount as well as public 15 safety. 16 With fires that may have the opportunity 17 to -- to start adjacent buildings on fire, that's another 18 area that the Incident Commander would have to take into 19 consideration. Again, it all speaks to public safety. 20 Q: All right. So now, there's a matter 21 of possible public safety engaged involving the adjacent 22 cottages as you understood it? 23 A: That is correct. 24 Q: Now, at any time during the course of 25 your conversations with Inspector Carson between the 4th
221 and 6th of September, 1995, did you ever ask him whether 2 the OPP had been advised by any of the occupiers that 3 they felt an entitlement to possess the sandy parking 4 lot, which was immediately adjacent to the Ipperwash 5 Provincial Park? 6 A: I don't recall discussions with 7 respect to the sandy parking lot. I do recall, and I 8 believe that was a matter of our discussions yesterday, 9 of a sacred site within the Provincial Park that the 10 First Nations had access to over the years. 11 Q: Did you ever receive any advice from 12 Inspector Carson between that time period that the OPP 13 had communicated to the officer -- or to the occupiers -- 14 that -- that the sandy parking lot, if you will, was off 15 limits to the occupation from the policing perspective? 16 A: I don't recall having that discussion 17 with Inspector Carson. 18 Q: Now, from your perspective as an OPP 19 officer and special advisor, did you assume that that 20 message had been verbally or otherwise communicated to 21 the occupiers at some time prior to the evening of 22 September the 6th? 23 A: It would be my assumption and, as I 24 recall from -- from yesterday, there were a number of 25 occasions where officers had been dispatched to
231 communicate with the occupiers and I can only assume that 2 they would have been advised that by those officers. 3 Q: And, why would that -- why would you 4 have that assumption? 5 A: To me it would be a matter of course. 6 Q: Good policing practise? 7 A: I would say it's standard policing 8 practise, yes. 9 Q: Did the issue the communication of 10 the message that the sandy parking lot, and any property 11 outside of the Park, being off limits to the occupiers 12 come up during the course of either of the IMC meetings 13 on September the 5th or 6th? 14 A: I don't recall that it did. 15 Q: Now, did Inspector Carson place any 16 restrictions on how you were to use the information which 17 he had communicated to you at 7:18 with respect to 18 passing it along to government people? 19 Q: No, he did not. We didn't have a 20 direct discussion on that. As I indicated previously, 21 the discretion was mine. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: In terms of how I would provide that 24 information and what I would do in terms of 25 interpretation.
241 Q: So, fair to say that the advice to 2 you that there was an intention to remove the picnic 3 tables that morning, would be operational in nature? 4 A: Yes, it would. 5 Q: And accordingly, is that something 6 that you would feel at liberty to impart to the IMC or 7 any other government officials? 8 A: No, what I would impart is that the 9 situation had changed from what it had been and we'd give 10 what I would call a general overview with respect to what 11 the situation was then. 12 What the operations the police would enter 13 into to conduct their part of this, I wouldn't get into. 14 Q: Now, staying with this particular 15 scribe note, on the next page, page 49, there is a 7:30 16 entry: 17 "John Carson called Superintendent 18 Parkin to advise of damage to cruisers 19 and table piled at the roadway. 20 Helicopter is going to go up. The fear 21 if it was set on fire for the 22 neighbouring cottage. Peter Sturdy was 23 working on the affidavit over night. 24 Ron Fox has been advised." 25 Now, from that passage, can you tell me
251 what, if any, of that information you had been advised as 2 of 7:30? 3 A: I was advised -- what Inspector 4 Carson was referring to is the call that he and I had at 5 7:18 -- 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: -- and he's repeating that to 8 Superintendent Parkin. 9 Q: Thank you. Now, just as a matter of 10 record, I'd like you to go to Tab 77 of your Book of 11 Documents. It's Inquiry Document number 2002892 and I 12 believe it's Exhibit P-492. 13 These have been identified as the cell 14 phone records of Inspector Carson and if you would go to 15 the fourth page in, you will see a series of phone 16 numbers under "usage detail". 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And the top line or the top entry is 19 dated September the 6th, 7:17 incoming call, and the 20 number called is 519-671-6086. 21 Do you recognise that telephone number? 22 A: I believe it is Inspector Carson or 23 was Inspector Carson's cellular telephone. 24 Q: In other words, is it possible that 25 you called Inspector Carson on the cell phone?
261 A: Entirely possible, yes. 2 Q: And -- okay, thank you. Can I ask 3 you, when is it that you would call Inspector Carson on 4 the cell phone as opposed to the line into the mobile 5 command unit? 6 A: When I couldn't get through on the -- 7 on the line. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: There was limited lines in. 10 Q: Thank you. Now was an IMC meeting 11 scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on September the 6th? 12 A: That is correct. 13 Q: And was that to further review the 14 occupation of the Park? 15 A: Yes, it was an ongoing meeting. 16 Q: Did you attend in person? 17 A: I did. 18 Q: Did you have any other contact -- 19 significant contact, between 7:18 and 9:30 which was -- 20 which was relevant to your attendance at the INC meeting? 21 A: I don't recall. 22 Q: All right. I wonder if you would go 23 to Tab 26, please. It's Inquiry Document number 1000911; 24 it appears to be an e-mail from yourself to Elaine 25 Todres, Kathryn Hunt, Barbara Taylor, dated September
271 6th, 1995 at 7:55 a.m. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Do you recognize this document? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And did you, in fact, prepare it and 6 send it to the recipients? 7 A: I authored it and sent it, yes. 8 Q: I'd like to make this the next 9 exhibit, please. 10 THE REGISTRAR: P-513. 11 12 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-513: Document 1000911. E-mail 13 from Ron Fox to Elaine 14 Todres, Kathryn Hunt re: 15 Ipperwash Provincial Park 16 occupation, September 06/'95, 17 07:55. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: And what was the purpose of this e- 21 mail? 22 A: To brief the Deputy Minister, Elaine 23 Todres. And there was to be a meeting of the 24 Interministerial Committee and that meeting was to be 25 attended by Kathryn Hunt who was the Solicitor General's
281 executive assistant. 2 Q: All right. And, why was Barbara 3 Taylor copied? 4 A: To the best of my recollection, 5 Barbara Taylor was filling in for the Deputy Minister's 6 executive assistant who was either on holidays or 7 otherwise away. 8 Q: All right. Thank you. And, this was 9 part of your normal reporting duties? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: I'd like you to next go to Tab 19 in 12 your Book of Documents, previously entered as Exhibit 459 13 and, if you go towards the end of that, the last three 14 (3) pages of that production, it's Inquiry Document 15 number 1012252. It appears to be meeting notes of the 16 Interministerial Committee for September 6th, 1995. 17 A: Yes? 18 Q: And, did you receive these minutes? 19 A: I did. 20 Q: And, do they accurately reflect the 21 content and result of that meeting? 22 A: I believe they do. 23 Q: All right. Now, we have a list of 24 individuals in attendance. To the best of your 25 recollection, were all those people in -- in attendance
291 either in person or as noted by teleconference? 2 A: There was a large attendance, I -- I 3 do recall that and I believe this to be correct. 4 Q: All right. And, again, who were the 5 most vocal at this meeting? 6 A: I certainly took an active part in 7 it, and that I would suggest that Deb Hutton was very 8 much involved in the discussions as well from the 9 Premier's office. 10 Q: All right. And, anyone particularly 11 active from the -- representing the Ministry of Natural 12 Resources that you can recall? 13 A: The two (2) individuals in by 14 telephone -- teleconference, Mr. Sturdy and Mr. Baldwin. 15 Q: Thank you. I see also that someone 16 by the name of Scott Patrick was in attendance at this 17 meeting? 18 A: Yes, he was. 19 Q: And, did you advise yesterday that he 20 was your assistant in the Office of the Special Advisor? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: I understand he was also an OPP 23 officer? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Can you recall for us what main items
301 were discussed at this meeting? 2 A: Through the course of my briefing, I 3 had indicated that the OPP were to attempt a meeting with 4 the Stoney Pointers on the -- the 6th and again to ferret 5 out what their demands are. And I provided the briefing 6 with respect to there being a fire on the road and that 7 there were some picnic tables and that sort of thing. 8 I indicated the OPP had identified 9 individuals who were suspected to have been involved with 10 various acts of mischief and that charges have been laid 11 and warrants have been applied for. 12 And, I indicated that an aerial 13 surveillance of Ipperwash Provincial Park be conducted to 14 determine the extent of damage done to MNR equipment and 15 facilities. And that, I believe, was joint with myself 16 and MNR. 17 Q: Okay. Thank you. And -- all right. 18 I wonder if we could look at, again, number -- Item 1 of 19 this meeting, the minutes at least, re: next steps from 20 September 5, 1995 meeting. 21 "It was noted that there will be no 22 negotiations with the Stoney Pointers 23 regarding their claim to ownership of 24 the land and that the goal of any 25 discussions would be removal of the
311 occupiers from the Park." 2 Now, do you recall who conveyed that 3 message? 4 A: I believe that it was conveyed by the 5 Chair and, again, falling back to the mandate of the 6 Committee. 7 Q: All right. So, this was, in your 8 view, consistent with the mandate of this Committee? 9 A: It was consistent, yes. 10 Q: Thank you. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Now, Item 3, it's reported that under 15 Minister's directives that the MNR -- from the MNR -- the 16 Minister wants to act as quickly as possible to avoid 17 further damage and to curtail any escalation of the 18 situation. 19 Can your recall who communicated that 20 message and -- and what -- what the context of that was? 21 A: I believe that would have been 22 communicated by Peter Sturdy, or, I'm sorry, Peter Allen. 23 Q: Peter Allen? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Thank you. And, do you know what the
321 context of that was? 2 A: If you recall from the day's previous 3 testimony it was determined that each of the line 4 Ministries would determine what their Ministers' views on 5 the matter was, certainly as related to the injunction 6 and -- and other things. 7 My sense would be that Mr. Allen would be 8 reporting on what his Ministers' feelings were with 9 respect to this and he's indicated to avoid further 10 damage and curtail escalation of the situation. 11 Q: Now, in order for the Minister to 12 have reportedly made this determination, is it fair to 13 say that he must have had information -- relative 14 information -- prior to the IMC meeting? 15 A: I'm assuming that he was briefed, 16 yes. 17 Q: The second is -- refers to the 18 Ministry of the Attorney General. The Minister agrees 19 that application will be made for an injunction. 20 Do you recall that being reported at this 21 meeting? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And, in the context of this, do you 24 recall whether there was any further discussion 25 concerning what type of injunction should be sought?
331 A: I don't recall, specifically, that 2 there was any further discussion. The matter of the 3 injunction was discussed. There was different legal 4 opinions as to whether it should be with notice or ex 5 parte. 6 Q: All right. And, did you have any 7 perspective as special advisor or as an OPP officer about 8 which was the preferred method from -- from your 9 perspective? 10 A: No, I don't. I -- I can say that 11 certainly police officers would be relying on the advice 12 of legal counsel as to which may be the most effective in 13 terms of how a process might be served or the service 14 affected, that's something that the police would -- would 15 certainly have interest in. 16 Q: All right. Do you recall there being 17 any discussion at this meeting about the method of 18 service of any such injunction that might be obtained? 19 A: I don't recall that it was at this 20 meeting. I became aware at a later time -- of someone 21 made a suggestion with respect to how service might be 22 obtained. 23 Q: All right. And, perhaps, you can 24 enlighten us with your understanding there? 25 A: My understanding was the suggestion
341 that the service could be accomplished by dropping the 2 document from an aircraft -- or documents. 3 Q: Do you recall who made that 4 suggestion? 5 A: I don't. 6 Q: Did you make that suggestion? 7 A: No, I did not. 8 Q: Now, there's also a directive on 9 behalf of the Solicitor General. 10 As a matter of protocol, the Solicitor 11 General does not involve itself in the day-to-day 12 operations of the OPP. The OPP will exercise its 13 discretion regarding how to proceed in removing the 14 Stoney Pointers from the Park and laying out appropriate 15 charges. 16 Now firstly, do you recall that being 17 conveyed? 18 A: I do. 19 Q: And, who conveyed that? 20 A: Kathryn Hunt. 21 Q: Do you know what gave rise to that 22 comment? 23 A: During the course of discussions at 24 previous Interministerial Group meetings and as I 25 indicated yesterday, there was certainly a sense on the
351 part of some that this should be very quickly resolved by 2 the removal of the occupiers and that it was a fairly 3 simplistic and an easy thing to do. 4 There were those, myself included, who 5 took a different perspective on that and suggested it was 6 much more complex and ultimately that it would be up to 7 the police on ground as to when and how they may affect 8 removal of the occupiers if, in fact, they did at any 9 point in time. 10 Q: All right. Under Item 4, 11 Communications, was it agreed that the MNR would develop 12 a communication plan with certain main messages? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Now, the first message listed here is 15 that the Attorney General has been instructed to seek an 16 injunction as soon as possible. 17 Now, based on your participation in this 18 meeting, was that accurate? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: The second main message to be 21 delivered by the MNR was that police had been asked to 22 remove the occupiers from the Park. 23 Was that accurate, based on your 24 participation in the meeting? 25 A: Yes.
361 Q: And when had police been asked to 2 remove the occupiers? 3 A: I believe that that was very early 4 in, when MNR had indicated that it was their land and 5 they had deed and title to it. 6 I think it was one of those things that 7 may not have occurred precisely on a given date and time, 8 but rather one that the police on the ground, in their 9 discussions with MNR, it was an expectation that people 10 would be removed. 11 Q: All right. And the third message to 12 be delivered was public safety and removing the 13 trespassers from the Park are the key objectives. 14 Now, based on your participation in this 15 meeting, was that an accurate message? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And you had no difficulty with the 18 term being of -- 'trespasser' being used at this time? 19 A: I did. 20 Q: You did have difficulty with that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And for the reasons, I trust, that 23 you indicated yesterday? 24 A: That's correct. What this last 25 bullet, under communication, really does is fall right
371 within the context of the mandate of the Interministerial 2 Committee and that is that negotiations wouldn't be 3 undertaken with anybody until a blockade or an occupation 4 was ended. 5 The aspect of trespassers, as I indicated 6 yesterday, in my opinion, is mitigated somewhat by the 7 fact that people have espoused those who are in the Park, 8 that they have a colour of right. 9 Q: The next bullet on page 3 is -- it 10 says it was agreed that the OPP would continue to be the 11 spokesperson on site. 12 Does that accord with your understanding? 13 A: Yes, and that would reference from a 14 local perspective. 15 Q: And finally, it was agreed that the 16 goal is to remove the Stoney Pointers from the Park as 17 soon as possible; that public safety is paramount and 18 that the Crown law office, civil, will proceed 19 expeditiously to obtain the injunction. 20 Now, is that in accordance with your 21 understanding of the agreement? 22 A: That last bullet pretty much 23 summarizes it, yes. 24 Q: All right. And so the next steps, 25 there is one (1) listed:
381 "It was agreed that an injunction 2 should be brought as soon as possible." 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: "And that the Committee Chair will 5 keep members informed of any 6 developments and any new information 7 should be, in turn, communicated to the 8 Chair." 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: All right. Now, there's also a note 11 that appears to be an addition on page 3. It says: 12 "Following the meeting, Cabinet 13 directed Ministry of Attorney General 14 lawyers to apply immediately for an ex 15 parte injunction. 16 Tim McCabe, Elizabeth Christie and Lief 17 Hunter (phonetic) are preparing the 18 application and compiling the 19 supporting documentation." 20 Now, did that information come to your 21 attention? 22 A: It did. 23 Q: All right. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
391 Q: And in the meantime, during the 2 course of this meeting, did you receive a voicemail 3 message from Inspector Carson, asking you to call him 4 back? 5 A: I did. 6 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 18 7 and Tab 18, for the record is entitled, Fox Master 8 Complete Without Elapsed Document. And it's simply a 9 record of the taped telephone conversations relating to 10 Superintendent Fox. 11 It indicates the date and time of the 12 calls and the general substance of the calls. It's meant 13 to be a guide to the Commission. I wonder if we can make 14 that the next exhibit, please? 15 THE REGISTRAR: P-514, your Honour. 16 17 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-514: Mobile command unit notes and 18 transcriptions from OPP 19 Logger tapes, September 20 05/'95 and September 06/'95. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 23 Q: According to this, the call, or the 24 voice mail was left at approximately 11:02; does that 25 more or less accord with your recollection?
401 A: Yes. 2 Q: Perhaps if you went to Tab 27 next, 3 this is a further excerpt from the scribed notes, 4 Exhibit P-426, Inquiry Document 1002419. If you continue 5 to the entry at 11:05: 6 "John Carson calls and leaves message - 7 - a message on voice mail for Ron Fox 8 to call him back at 786-1262." 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And I just going to for -- just going 11 to for the record, play the voice mail message for your 12 identification. 13 A: Yes. 14 15 (VOICE MAIL TAPE PLAYED) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 18 Q: Is that a copy or a true recording of 19 the voice mail message you received? 20 A: I can confirm that it is, yes. 21 Q: And for the record, that transcript 22 is located at Exhibit 444(a), Tab 32. 23 Now, did you return that voice mail 24 message? 25 A: Yes, I did.
411 Q: And did you do -- do you recall 2 approximately when you returned that? 3 A: Referring to the Command Post Log, at 4 about 11:12 hours. 5 Q: All right. And we're looking at now, 6 the same scribed note for that 11:12: 7 "Ron Fox returned John Carson's call. 8 Advised him that he was not aware of 9 gunfire when he talked to him earlier 10 in the day. Updated reference, shots 11 fired overnight in bush." 12 Now, did you leave the IMC Meeting to make 13 this telephone call? 14 A: Yes, I did. 15 Q: I note that we do not have a 16 transcript of this call; you recall what phone number you 17 -- you dialled here? 18 A: I -- I do not. I may have tried the 19 Command Post and if it was busy I would have opted for 20 Inspector Carson's cellular telephone. 21 Q: I wonder if you would return to 22 Tab 77, Exhibit 492, and again go to the 4th page, 3rd 23 line entry: 24 "September 6, 1110. Incoming. The 25 phone number called (519) 671-6086,"
421 And I believe you have indicated that that 2 was Inspector Carson's cellphone number? 3 A: I have. 4 Q: Thank you. Does that assist in 5 refreshing your memory at all? 6 A: It does. 7 Q: And do you recall now which number 8 you used? 9 A: I called his cellular telephone. 10 Q: Thank you. All right. Now, can you 11 tell us, to the best of your recollection, what 12 transpired during this telephone call? 13 A: I do recall that the issue was raised 14 with respect to gunfire. 15 Q: By whom? 16 A: By MNR. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: And I was not aware that there had 19 been, and it was -- the purpose of my call was to speak 20 to the Inspector and determine if in fact there had been. 21 And he advised me, as I recall now, that he had not 22 mentioned that in the earlier call. 23 Q: And did he provide you with any 24 explanation for not having informed you previously? 25 A: No, he didn't.
431 Q: And is it fair to say, or, let me ask 2 you this: Were you returning his voice mail call or was 3 this a call made of your own initiative? 4 A: This one would have been of my own 5 initiative. I was out of my office and wouldn't have 6 checked my voicemail. 7 Q: All right. Thank you. Now in your 8 view as Special Advisor, had the lack of that piece of 9 information made you less effective at the IMC? 10 A: I think it -- it certainly didn't 11 allow me to provide or for the group to be aware, of 12 something that may have been important. 13 Q: All right. And this was something 14 that was raised during the course of the IMC Meeting. 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And was it -- was it raised at least, 17 did you consider that to be an important or significant 18 piece of information at the IMC? 19 A: I think that it is and was a 20 significant piece of information, yes. 21 Q: And particularly, what had the MNR 22 representative advised in relation to gunfire? 23 A: Had indicated that it was automatic 24 gunfire. 25 Q: And what was the reaction to that
441 information, generally? 2 A: Well I think the sense from the 3 people at the Committee was that that was a definite 4 indication that things had been, and were escalating. 5 I do recall suggesting that, you know, 6 without a real examination by those who would be more 7 expert in it, automatic gunfire could certainly be 8 confused to be automatic gunfire, from the report of 9 several semi-automatic weapons. 10 Q: And what did, if anything, did 11 Inspector Carson advise you with respect then to the -- 12 the nature of the report of the automatic gunfire? 13 A: I didn't get into where he had 14 received that from. 15 Q: All right. Did he advise you as to 16 whether or not that was accurate information? 17 A: Yes, he did. 18 Q: And, he indicated that automatic 19 gunfire was accurate? 20 A: That was what he had reported, yes. 21 Q: All right. Thank you. Now, did you 22 -- after the IMC meeting, and what time did that meeting 23 end? 24 A: I'd have to look at the minutes. 25 Q: Certainly. It would appear that
451 according to the minutes at least, it ended at 11:45, it 2 says p.m., but I take it that that might be a typo? 3 A: I would suggest it is. 4 Q: Yeah. 5 A: What tab is that? 6 Q: I'm sorry. It was at Tab 19, third 7 last page of the document, indicates the time of the 8 meeting was 9:30 a.m. to 11:45, and you're indicating 9 11:45 a.m. 10 A: It would be a typo. 11 Q: All right. And where did you go 12 immediately following this Meeting? 13 A: I was paged to attend Queen's Park. 14 Q: Prior to that event, did you attempt 15 to contact Inspector Carson after the IMC Meeting? 16 A: No, I did not. 17 Q: Do you recall having a conversation 18 with Sergeant Mark Wright? 19 A: Yes, I do. 20 Q: Did that conversation happen before 21 or after you were paged to Queen's Park? 22 A: I don't recall. 23 Q: All right. Perhaps I can reference - 24 - just hang on then. You might -- would you go to 25 Tab 28, please. It's part of Exhibit P-444(a), and it's
461 Tab 34 of that Exhibit. 2 Now, according to the log information, 3 this call occurred at approximately 12:05; do you have -- 4 does that refresh your memory? 5 A: It does. 6 Q: And it happened at or around 12:05; 7 was that before or after you received the page? 8 A: I believe it would have been before. 9 Q: Thank you. And had you left the ONAS 10 building prior to making this call? 11 A: I may have or I may have made it from 12 ONAS. 13 Q: All right. I'm going to play the 14 tape recording of this telephone call with Sergeant Mark 15 Wright, and then I'll ask you some questions. 16 For the record, the tape recording is part 17 of Exhibit P-428, and as I've indicated, the transcript 18 is found in Exhibit P-444(a). 19 20 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED TRANSCRIPT BELOW) 21 22 23 Ron FOX and Mark WRIGHT 24 25 September 6, 1995
471 TIME: 12:06:20 hours 2 Track 3.wav 3 4 ARCHIBALD: Command Post ARCHIBALD. 5 FOX: Yeah is John CARSON there please. 6 ARCHIBALD: Just one moment can I advise him who's 7 calling sir? 8 FOX: Yeah it's Inspector Ron FOX. 9 ARCHIBALD: Just a moment please. 10 FOX: Thanks. 11 WRIGHT: Inspector. 12 FOX: Yeah. 13 WRIGHT: Hello my name is ah Mark WRIGHT I'm a 14 Sergeant down here and ah the Inspector is 15 busy with the Chief and ah Tony PARKIN and 16 ah Inspector from the Mounty there. 17 FOX: Yeah, okay. 18 WRIGHT: They're having a confab. Can I help you? 19 FOX: Yeah sure just ah excuse me. 20 WRIGHT: Yeah go ahead answer the page. 21 FOX: Ah yeah if you could just pass onto John 22 that ah a chap from ah ah legal services 23 by the name of Tim EGAR, E G A R will 24 contact him and it will be reference to um 25 an affidavit.
481 WRIGHT: Yeah okay I know about it. 2 FOX: (U/I) important (u/i) the order. 3 WRIGHT: Reference. 4 FOX: So I mean I've talk to John about this 5 before as to who the best person would be 6 and he kind of knows that's coming but I 7 didn't have a name. 8 WRIGHT: Yeah what's his how do you spell his last 9 name again? 10 FOX: EAGER, E A G E R. 11 WRIGHT: Okay just like it sounds. 12 FOX: Yep. 13 WRIGHT: Okay. 14 FOX: Can you give me a confirmation on 15 something? 16 WRIGHT: Sure. 17 FOX: It came up in the middle of an aboriginal 18 issue meeting that I was at. 19 WRIGHT: Uhum. 20 FOX: Just recently that ah apparently the media 21 were approached by two (2) people from ah 22 the location and they had baseball bats 23 and ah our people were required to ah take 24 some action. 25 WRIGHT: Well we we heard that stuff too and ah
491 they said they had tape just apparently 2 and we just watched the news and that's 3 not ah what happened nor have we got any 4 any report like that at all from our 5 people on the ground. What we what 6 happened was I don't know if John told you 7 about the picnic table episode this 8 morning. 9 FOX: Yep. 10 WRIGHT: Okay so because we heard automatic fire 11 last night out there. 12 FOX: Uhum. 13 WRIGHT: Ah we had ah two (2) ERT Teams go down and 14 remove the tables and one (1) team 15 provided cover and they had ten (10) 16 officers with ah rugers um at shoulder 17 arms there or port arms I guess it's 18 called. 19 FOX: Okay. 20 WRIGHT: But ah we heard that to but we didn't ah 21 as far as we know we didn't see it on the 22 news that ah nobody drew down with rugers 23 on these people because the baseball bats 24 were there so I don't know where that is 25 coming from.
501 FOX: Okay. 2 WRIGHT: Now I don't know ah if ah the London 3 channel had it cause all we got was CKCO 4 but we certainly don't have it and we 5 checked with 6 the guys out in the field and they say no 7 that didn't happen 8 FOX: Yep well the information this individual 9 had is that ah it was coming by way of 10 CKCO. 11 WRIGHT: Yep. 12 FOX: And that's as I said to John that's my big 13 job is to keep the political folks out of 14 the hair of the operational people so. 15 (phone ringing) 16 WRIGHT: That's right. 17 FOX: That's great one-hundred (100) percent, 18 sir. 19 WRIGHT: Okay I'll ah pass on the message to him 20 sir. 21 FOX: Thanks 22 WRIGHT: Okay bye bye. 23 FOX: See you now. 24 25 End of conversation.
511 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 2 Q: Now, does that refresh your memory at 3 all? 4 A: Yes, it does. 5 Q: And are the parties to that telephone 6 -- well, perhaps you can identify the parties to that 7 telephone conversation? 8 A: It is my voice and I know that to be 9 Mark Wright's voice. 10 Q: Thank you. And why were you calling 11 John Carson at approximately noon on September the 6th? 12 A: That would have been after the 13 meeting and, obviously as I've -- as I've listened to 14 this, that would be to either confirm or refute 15 information that was provided at the Committee meeting 16 with respect to officers drawing firearms in the course 17 of removing the picnic tables. 18 Q: All right. And again, this is a 19 piece of information that had taken you off guard at the 20 IMC? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And based on your conversation with 23 Mark Wright, was that accurate or inaccurate information? 24 A: Well, the information that was 25 received at the IMC was, according to Mark Wright,
521 inaccurate information. 2 Q: Okay. Now, we've had some difficulty 3 under -- or translating the transcript and I'm wondering 4 whether you, in hearing that, can recall -- did you 5 understand Sergeant Wright to -- to say that Inspector 6 Carson, Chief Superintendent Coles and Superintendent 7 Parkin to be in a meeting with somebody? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And, did you -- do you recall who 10 Sergeant Wright said they were in a meeting with? 11 A: I don't know, from personal 12 knowledge, who it was, but I -- in hearing it, I think it 13 was probably an inspector from the Mounties. 14 Q: An inspector from the Royal Canadian 15 Mounted Police? 16 A: That would be correct, yes. 17 Q: And, to your knowledge, had they had 18 any involvement with the OPP at this point in time, 19 September the 6th? 20 A: Not to -- to my knowledge, no. 21 Q: I take it one (1) of the purposes for 22 calling Inspector Carson was also to update him with 23 respect to the requirement for an affidavit for an 24 injunction? 25 A: To provide a contact name to him and
531 that I do recall was one (1) of the items that came out 2 of the Interministerial Committee meeting. 3 What I can also say is that I was in error 4 when I told him Tim Eggar; it would have been Tim McCabe, 5 and I believe that that is corrected at a later time. 6 Q: All right. Thank you. 7 Now, just a little bit further on page 2 8 of this particular -- the document at your Tab 28, 9 Sergeant Wright is reported to say, We had two (2) ERT 10 teams; and, I believe that should be E-R-T, is that fair? 11 A: That's correct, Emergency Response 12 Team. 13 Q: Thank you. 14 "Go down and remove the tables and one 15 (1) team provided cover and they had 16 ten (10) officers with Rugers -- 17 Rugers?" 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: "At shoulder arms there or port 20 arms?" 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: All right. Is that information in 23 the nature of operational? 24 A: Yes, it is. 25 Q: And, if we go to the end of this
541 transcript, you are reported to have said or recorded to 2 have said that: 3 "Yeah, so, this is how the stories all 4 get passed there. And, I said to John, 5 that's my big job is to keep the 6 political bullshit from starting up 7 here. 8 And, the operational people: 9 "So, okay, that's great. Say hi to the 10 inspector." 11 And, do you recall saying words to that 12 affect? 13 A: I do. 14 Q: And, what were you referencing? 15 A: I found that I was consumed -- or a 16 great part of my time was consumed -- with running down 17 rumours. Information was coming in from a number of 18 different sources that related to police activity. 19 It was my -- certainly my understanding 20 that the report from the Solicitor General would be done 21 by me and I would obtain the necessary information from 22 the sources that would be in a position to know what it 23 was accurately and provide that to the Committee. 24 Q: Because you were really intended to 25 be the filter, if you will, of police information to the
551 IMC? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And, as you've indicated, that there 4 appeared to be other people with information on policing 5 operations reporting that -- 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: -- to the Committee. 8 And, is it fair to say that to the fact 9 that certain information was reported around automatic 10 gunfire and also the use of firearms by police officers, 11 allegedly, during the course of the picnic table removal, 12 that those factors contributed to the dynamics that 13 ensued at that meeting? 14 A: That's correct. It would increase 15 tension in the room, if you will and, I think, modify the 16 dynamic. The information if, in fact, sourced and proven 17 to be reliable would be valuable to be provided to a 18 court of competent jurisdiction to make a decision with 19 respect to the injunction, but that would be led by those 20 who were in a position to know that information. 21 Q: In other words, who had more direct 22 knowledge? 23 A: Absolutely. 24 Q: All right. And, what was the -- the 25 dynamics at that September the 6th, 1995 meeting?
561 A: I -- I would say it was a charged 2 environment. Positions, while I would be reticent to say 3 were polarized, people had strong feelings and views with 4 respect to how things should be done. 5 Clearly, looking to the mandate of the 6 committee, it was removal of the occupiers from the Park 7 before any negotiations were to start. And I do sense 8 there was confusion between negotiation and front-end 9 conversation and communication. 10 Q: And did those strong views that you 11 observed at the meeting, differ materially from the day 12 before? 13 A: I would say they built on them, from 14 the day before, but -- 15 Q: They were enhanced? 16 A: I would say that they are. From the 17 day before, there was certainly a decision that -- or in 18 the minds of some, not a decision, but rather in the 19 minds of some, that there was a particular way to 20 proceed. 21 I think there was not so much softening of 22 that position, but a belief that using the -- the process 23 known as injunction, was -- was the way to go. 24 Q: And you indicated in your answer that 25 you were speaking as to what was in the minds of some.
571 I'm wondering whether you had any other basis for the 2 formulation of your perception, as opposed to what you 3 thought were in people's minds. 4 A: The way people articulated their 5 positions, the body language that was present when they 6 did that. 7 Q: Can you give me some examples, some 8 tangible examples from September the 6th? 9 A: Yes. When people would make a point, 10 what they felt was -- was their point, they would say 11 that forcefully, they would talk over others who would 12 try to interject with perhaps an opposing point of view; 13 in that fashion. 14 Q: All right. And perhaps you can just 15 indicate who articulated strong views forcefully and what 16 those views were. 17 A: The representative of the Premier's 18 Office, Deb Hutton, indicated again, that it was the 19 position of -- of the Government that the occupiers were 20 to removed, there would be no negotiation; there was 21 concern that the police would enter into negotiations 22 with the occupiers. 23 And I recall explaining that that was two 24 (2) different things and that's why I had mentioned the 25 difference between negotiation and front-end
581 communication. 2 It was that type of -- of atmosphere, you 3 could tell from the body language that this was the 4 position that was to be taken -- 5 Q: And were you -- 6 A: -- in their view. 7 Q: I'm sorry. Were you also 8 articulating a view forcefully? 9 A: Yes, I believe that I was. 10 Q: And your view as communicated was 11 what? 12 A: My view again, as I've testified 13 yesterday, that it wasn't a simple trespass matter, there 14 was a greater complexity to it, that one had to move 15 slowly as we went through this, understanding that the 16 police were not to negotiate a land claim per se, or 17 burial site, but they needed to negotiate with the people 18 there to effect the purpose required, and that was to 19 ensure public safety. 20 Q: And did anyone on behalf of the 21 Ministry of Natural Resources articulate strong, forceful 22 views at the September 6th meeting? 23 A: Yes, they did. Again, it was 24 restated that the -- the Park was the property of the 25 Ministry of Natural Resources or at least they had
591 stewardship of it. They were concerned, and I believe 2 legitimately so, that the -- the Park would be damaged if 3 the occupation were to continue and be rendered 4 inoperable as a Park. 5 My view would probably contradict theirs 6 in -- in some fashion, in that mine was that public 7 safety was paramount, and that the things and -- and 8 property, whether it was picnic tables or it was 9 maintenance sheds, they were of lesser concern from a 10 policing perspective. 11 Q: And who at the MNR was articulating 12 that view most forcefully? 13 A: Again, the two (2) gentlemen who were 14 conferenced in, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Sturdy, and I do 15 recall Mr. Allen being there and -- and articulating as 16 well. 17 Q: Now you've indicated that the issue 18 of -- of public safety was still a paramount concern at 19 the Committee. 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And was the issue of the possible 22 threat to public safety a more prominent concern at the 23 September 6th Meeting than it was at the September 5th 24 meeting? 25 A: Yes, I believe that it was.
601 Q: And is that based on information 2 communicated at that meeting? 3 A: Information communicated and 4 obviously there had been certain changes overnight. 5 Q: And have you advised us of those 6 changes? 7 A: I'm sorry? 8 Q: Well, perhaps you can -- what -- what 9 changes are you referring to? 10 A: With -- with respect to the picnic 11 tables piled, the fires, the concern for the adjacent 12 property and certainly, the automatic weapon fire that I 13 wasn't, in the first instance, aware of. 14 Q: All right. Thank you. Now, 15 Commissioner, I wonder if we might take the morning break 16 at this time? It's a little early, but I'd like to break 17 at this time. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 20 for fifteen (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 10:05 a.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 10:23 a.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now
611 resumed, please be seated. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 6 Q: Superintendent, what was the next 7 significant event that occurred after your telephone 8 conversation with Sergeant Wright? 9 A: I was paged to attend the legislative 10 buildings at Queen's Park. 11 Q: All right. Where were you when you 12 received that page? 13 A: I was at or leaving ONAS on 595 Bay. 14 Q: Was anyone else with you when you 15 received the page? 16 A: Scott Patrick (phonetic). 17 Q: And call you recall approximately 18 what time it was that you received the page, perhaps in 19 relation to the Wright telephone call? 20 A: My sense is, having reviewed this 21 material, that the page would have come in when I was 22 talking to Mark Wright. 23 Q: So, during the course of that 24 conversation? 25 A: Yes.
621 Q: Right. And did you leave immediately 2 for the legislative building, then, at the conclusion of 3 your conversation with Sergeant Wright? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Hmm hmm. And approximately how far 6 away was the legislative building by -- did you go by 7 cab? 8 A: Yes, we went by cab. 9 Q: Okay, how long did that take you? 10 A: I believe about ten (10) minutes. 11 Q: About ten (10) minutes? 12 A: Five (5) to ten (10) minutes, yes. 13 Q: All right. All right. Thank you. 14 And where, specifically, did you go once 15 you arrived at the legislative building? 16 A: I'd received the page to attend at a 17 particular spot in the legislative building; it was a 18 dining room or at least it was referred to as a dining 19 room, off of a particular office. 20 Q: Do you know what particular office it 21 was off of -- 22 A: I can't recall -- 23 Q: -- or adjacent to? 24 A: I believe it was in the area occupied 25 by the Premier.
631 Q: Okay. And just -- was the -- where's 2 the legislative building located? 3 A: Queen's Park. 4 Q: Thank you. Now, did you have any 5 notice as to why you had been paged to go to this 6 building? 7 A: No, I did not. 8 Q: All right. And did you go to the 9 dining room? 10 A: That is correct. 11 Q: When you arrived in the dining room, 12 generally what was going on? 13 A: There appeared to be a meeting in 14 progress. 15 Q: Did you observe who was in attendance 16 at this meeting? 17 A: I did. 18 Q: And who was at it -- there? 19 A: The Premier, Mr. Harris, was in 20 attendance; the Solicitor General, Mr. Runciman; the 21 Attorney General, Mr. Harnick; the Minister of Natural 22 Resources responsible for natural resources, Mr. Hodgson; 23 executive assistants to those individuals. 24 In the case of the Solicitor -- I'm sorry, 25 in -- there were Deputy Ministers. Mr. Larry Taman was
641 the deputy Attorney General. 2 Elaine Todres was the Deputy Solicitor 3 General. Ron Barrancart (phonetic) was the deputy of 4 MNR. And there were executive assistants for a number of 5 these individuals present. 6 Q: You recall, specifically, whether or 7 not Ms. Hutton was there? 8 A: I don't believe that she was. 9 Q: Okay. Now, had you ever been at a 10 meeting with the Premier? 11 A: No, I had not. 12 Q: Or with the Attorney General? 13 A: No, I had not. 14 Q: How about the Minister of Natural 15 Resources? 16 A: No, I had not. 17 Q: How about the Solicitor General? 18 A: I worked in the same building -- 19 Q: Yeah. 20 A: -- and would have had occasion to 21 brief the Solicitor General, particularly with respect to 22 cost estimates for First Nations policing agreements. 23 Q: Thank you. And, what was your first 24 thought when you entered into this meeting and observed 25 who was in attendance?
651 A: I -- I guess my first thought was 2 wondering what my position and role would be to play 3 there. 4 Q: All right. Did -- were you 5 introduced when you arrived? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And, do you recall who introduced 8 you? 9 A: It was either the Solicitor General 10 or the Deputy Solicitor General. I'm unsure at this 11 point as to which one it was. 12 Q: All right. And, can you describe the 13 setup of this meeting? 14 A: As I recall, it was a -- a square 15 table in -- in the round, if -- if you will, and I and 16 Scott Patrick sat off to the side. 17 Q: Who sat at the -- the main table? 18 A: The individuals that I've identified. 19 Q: All right. All the other people? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Okay. Now, did the Premier stay for 22 the whole meeting, the balance of the meeting? 23 A: No, he did not. 24 Q: Do you recall approximately how long 25 he stayed?
661 A: Three (3), four (4), perhaps five (5) 2 minutes while I was there. 3 Q: And, did anyone else leave with the 4 Premier? 5 A: Not that I recall. 6 Q: So, the executive assistants, Deputy 7 Ministers and other Ministers stayed behind? 8 A: They did. 9 Q: Did you take notes of this meeting? 10 A: I did not. 11 Q: Can you please tell us, then, to the 12 best of your recollection what transpired from the point 13 of your entry into the meeting until its conclusion? 14 A: I was, as indicated, introduced as 15 was Scott Patrick and asked, again I believe, by either 16 the Solicitor General or the Deputy Solicitor General to 17 provide an update on what had transpired or was 18 transpiring at Ipperwash, which I did. 19 There was, once again, the issue of 20 automatic gunfire that was raised. As I recall, it was 21 raised by Mr. Hodgson. I spoke to that and I, again, 22 gave the analogy that I have previously testified to and 23 that is that automatic gunfire can sometimes be mistaken 24 by those who are not expert in that, with semi-automatic 25 weapons fired.
671 Q: All right. And, what else did you 2 report on, specifically? 3 A: Generally, just the situation as it 4 was on the ground from the best of my knowledge having 5 received that from Inspector Carson. 6 Q: And, what was the reaction, if any, 7 to your update? 8 A: The -- the Premier made comments with 9 respect to the police operations thus far. He indicated, 10 certainly, in my opinion that he was displeased that the 11 matter had gone on as long as it had and that actions 12 hadn't been taken and some other comments and left the 13 room. 14 Q: Some other comments? I'm sorry, I'm 15 not hearing you. 16 A: Other -- he made some other comments 17 that I -- I really couldn't put in context and he left 18 the room. 19 Q: All right. Now, can you recall more 20 particularly what comments the Premier reportedly made 21 which led you to the view that -- that he was concerned 22 that the police operation had gone on too long? 23 A: There was comments with respect to, 24 you know, why it had gone on so long and that it would 25 likely come out in an Inquiry of some form.
681 Q: How did you take that comment? 2 A: I took that as a criticism of the 3 police operations that had gone on thus far. 4 Q: Did you make any response to the 5 Premier? 6 A: I don't recall that I made any 7 response to the Premier. I don't believe that he was 8 there long enough for me to have done that. 9 Q: Were these comments directed at you, 10 particularly? 11 A: I don't believe they were directed at 12 me particularly. I think they were directed at the 13 police. 14 Q: I'm sorry, I didn't quite -- I -- I 15 asked that poorly. I meant to say: When he made the 16 comments, did you form the impression that he was 17 speaking to you, or addressing the meeting generally, or 18 someone else in the meeting? 19 A: I think it was a combination of both. 20 Q: All right. Now, you indicated that 21 there were other comments that the Premier made which you 22 can't put into context. Can you advise what those 23 comments were? 24 A: He made some comment about the 25 Holocaust, and it was at about that time he left.
691 Q: All right. And you can't recall 2 anything further than that? 3 A: I -- I can't recall anything further 4 in terms of comments and I can't put that comment into 5 context. 6 Q: You specifically recollect the word 7 'Holocaust' being used? 8 A: I do. 9 Q: Now, after, let me ask you this: 10 While the Premier was still in attendance at the meeting, 11 was there any discussion in your presence, concerning the 12 proposal or plan to have or obtain an injunction? 13 A: There was. 14 Q: Can you tell me what that 15 conversation -- 16 A: That discussion was led by the -- the 17 Deputy Attorney General, Larry Taman, who provided an 18 overview of the injunction process and the way that it 19 would be proceeded with, and in my view, provided his 20 advice as to how it should be done. 21 Q: And do you recall the substance of 22 his advice -- of Larry Taman's advice? 23 A: I do. 24 Q: Can you report that? 25 A: That he felt it was appropriate for
701 an injunction. He made not comment with respect to his 2 personal opinion as to whether it should be ex parte or 3 it should be by notice, but he indicated that it was 4 prudent to obtain an injunction. 5 Q: Was this discussed in the context of 6 the other options of trespass charges or charges under 7 the Criminal Code? 8 A: That's correct. There was a general 9 discussion about that. 10 Q: And so was it your impression that 11 Deputy Minister Taman favoured, or recommended I should 12 say, injunction option over the other two (2)? 13 A: Yes, he did. 14 Q: How was that received by the 15 Ministers and the Premier? 16 A: I believe that there had been pre- 17 discussions, certainly prior to my attending at -- at 18 that meeting, and it was my sense that people were 19 resigned, having heard the best advice, that that was the 20 appropriate way to proceed. 21 Q: All right. So, it was your 22 impression based on what the comments made by the 23 Ministers and the Premier or...? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: That they accepted Mr. Taman's
711 advice? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And then the Premier -- well did 4 anything else transpire of significance prior to the 5 Premier's departure from this meeting? 6 A: No. 7 Q: What happened next, after his 8 departure? 9 A: It was -- it was clear from -- to me, 10 that there had been discussions with respect to how the 11 police should manage situations and what the involvement 12 of Government should be with the police. 13 Q: And what's the basis of that 14 assumption? 15 A: That assumption comes from comments 16 that I received from Minister Hodgson, and again having 17 come in on the tail-end of what had been presented, I 18 believe, by Mr. Taman. 19 I know that there were -- I know now that 20 there were materials generated and provided through 21 Mr. Taman, that spoke to Government involvement with the 22 police. 23 Q: All right. Perhaps we can restrict 24 this part of your testimony to what you learned from that 25 meeting. And you've indicated that you received some
721 comments from Minister Hodgson that led you to the 2 impression that there had been discussion about the 3 inter-relationship between the Government -- 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: -- and the Ontario Provincial Police. 6 Perhaps you can be more specific as to 7 what those comments were. 8 A: In my capacity as an advisor, I 9 offered up a suggestion and the suggestion was that 10 perhaps in-roads could be made with the First Nation with 11 respect to Ipperwash Park in terms of co-management, and 12 I do recall exampling the Park at the -- that was managed 13 by the Cape Croaker First Nation and the Park managed at 14 Serpent Mound First Nation as well. 15 And it was at that point, and I believe 16 that's what would have driven me to believe, was the 17 comments of Minister Hodgson, who indicated to me that we 18 have just been told that we can't direct the police, so 19 you don't bother worrying yourselves or yourself or words 20 to that effect, with politics. 21 Q: All right. And that was in response 22 to your proposal that one -- that the Government 23 consider a co-management arrangement with the First 24 Nation in relation to the Ipperwash Park? 25 A: That's correct.
731 Q: Did -- was there any further 2 discussion in whether -- in relation to your co- 3 management proposal after that? 4 A: No, there was not. 5 Q: All right. Now, were there any 6 comments, any other comments, with respect to the merits 7 of validity of the occupation itself? 8 A: Not that I recall. 9 Q: Just to be clear, did the Premier 10 make any comment to you with respect to -- or meeting in 11 your presence with respect to the inter-relationship 12 between the Ontario Provincial Police and the government? 13 A: No, he did not. 14 Q: And did he make any comments in your 15 presence, with respect to the issue of aboriginal rights 16 and land rights? 17 A: He -- in making comments before he 18 left, I'm assuming there was some relation to the comment 19 with the Holocaust, but as I've indicated to you, I 20 cannot put it in context. 21 Q: All right. And -- and we shouldn't 22 speculate on matters of that, so, thank you. 23 Now did you have any other communication 24 or conversation with any of the other ministers? I 25 understand the Attorney General, who was also the
741 minister of Native Affairs, Charles Harnick was there. 2 Did you address him or he address you? 3 A: He did not. 4 Q: How about the Solicitor General, 5 other than introducing you, perhaps? 6 A: He did not. 7 Q: Did you have any conversations with, 8 or were you addressed by, any other participant of that 9 meeting? 10 A: I was not. 11 Q: Do you recall whether you had any 12 further conversation or comments directed at you by 13 Minister Hodgson? 14 A: Other than what I've indicated, no. 15 Q: All right. And approximately how 16 long did the meeting -- at least the meeting that you 17 were -- the portion that you were present at, how long 18 did that last? 19 A: Ten (10), fifteen (15) minutes at the 20 outside. 21 Q: All right. And the approximate time 22 then would have been? 23 A: My sense it would have been arriving 24 there somewhere around 12:20, 12:25 and leaving by 12:45 25 at the latest.
751 Q: And Scott Patrick was present at this 2 meeting as well? 3 A: He was. 4 Q: Was Barbara Taylor present at this 5 meeting? 6 A: Yes, she was. 7 Q: Was she present at the whole of the - 8 - the part that you were present for? 9 A: Yes, she was. 10 Q: And do you know whether she made any 11 comments herself? 12 A: She did not. 13 Q: Did Mr. Patrick make any comments at 14 this meeting? 15 A: He did not. 16 Q: All right. And do you recall any 17 other deputy minister or executive assistants making 18 comments in your presence at this meeting? 19 A: I do not. 20 Q: Now at the conclusion of this 21 meeting, did you have any significant concerns with 22 respect to the political branch of the government's 23 approach to the occupation of the Park? 24 A: I did personally, yes. 25 Q: What were those concerns?
761 A: Again, I saw the situation as viewed 2 in very, very simplistic terms. In my opinion, not 3 afforded the sense of complexity that it should have 4 been. 5 Q: And again, what was the basis of your 6 opinion? 7 A: My opinion is based on what I 8 observed and what I heard. 9 Q: At this meeting? 10 A: Not only at this meeting, but 11 previous meetings to that. 12 Q: And can you explain that to me then, 13 how the inter-relationship is between the earlier 14 meetings and your views developed at this meeting? 15 A: Yes. It -- it was my opinion based 16 on my observations that there was only one (1) way to 17 handle this particular matter and that was to remove the 18 occupiers from the Park. Ultimately, that fell into the 19 mandate of the IMC and I do understand that concept. 20 What I did not agree with then and I do 21 not agree with today, is doing it in a very simplistic 22 fashion without regard, in my opinion, for what may be 23 legitimate entitlements of the First Nations. It was a 24 different situation that, in my opinion, required a 25 different approach.
771 Q: Now, what did you do immediately 2 following this meeting? 3 A: I left the -- the legislative 4 building, acquired a taxicab and went back to my office 5 at 175 Bloor. 6 Q: All right. Did Mr. Patrick accompany 7 you back? 8 A: He did. 9 Q: What about Ms. Taylor? 10 A: She did not. 11 Q: All right. Thank you. And when you 12 got back to the office, what did you do? 13 A: I busied myself with -- with taking 14 in my voice mails and other administrative matters and I 15 made a call to Inspector Carson. 16 Q: All right. Now, in the course of 17 retrieving your voice mail, is that likely when you 18 retrieved the earlier voice mail message that we played 19 today? 20 A: It was. 21 Q: All right. And what was the purpose 22 of contacting Inspector Carson? 23 A: Two-fold. To return his original 24 call to me and, secondly, to provide him with my sense of 25 -- of where things were going with respect to the
781 injunction and the injunction process. 2 Q: And did you make this call from your 3 office? 4 A: I did. 5 Q: Now I'm going to play for you a 6 recording with respect to yourself and Inspector Carson. 7 For the record, it is part of Exhibit P-428 and the 8 transcript is part of Exhibit P-444, Tab 37, but 9 Superintendent, in your book of documents we have a 10 transcript at Tab 33 and I'd just might comment at this 11 point if during the course of the recording you hear 12 something that is significantly different from what has 13 been transcribed -- these are not perfect transcriptions 14 -- and I refer to it, please feel free to make that 15 correction as -- as you've had earlier. 16 A: Thank you. 17 18 (AUDIOTAPE PLAYED - TRANSCRIPT BELOW) 19 20 KOROSEC: Sergeant KOROSEC. 21 FOX: Hi, is Inspector CARSON there please? 22 KOROSEC: Yes, one (1) moment please. Take a 23 message -- can I take a message? Can I 24 ask who's calling please? 25 FOX: Yes, it's Inspector FOX.
791 KOROSEC: Just a minute. 2 FOX: Okay. 3 CARSON: Hi, Ron. 4 FOX: Hi, John, how are you doing? 5 CARSON: Not bad. 6 FOX: Good, listen I don't want to bug you. 7 CARSON: Okay, no problem. 8 FOX: Clearly. 9 CARSON: I understand. 10 FOX: In terms of injunctions -- 11 CARSON: Yeah. 12 FOX: -- I've just been speaking, and I gave you 13 the name, Tim EAGER. 14 CARSON: EAGER? 15 FOX: Yeah. 16 CARSON: Okay. 17 FOX: Cross that out, make it Tim MCCABE. 18 CARSON: Okay. 19 FOX: M-C-C-A-B-E. 20 CARSON: Uh huh. 21 FOX: He's the guy who's putting it together 22 from the AG's Department. 23 CARSON: Okay. 24 FOX: So they are making moves towards getting 25 an ex parte injunction, in other words,
801 one (1) that doesn't have to be served. 2 CARSON: Okay. 3 FOX: What they have to do is show emergent 4 circumstances. 5 CARSON: Right. 6 FOX: And the (inaudible) of the situation are 7 increasing exponentially. 8 CARSON: Okay. 9 FOX: And of course what comes up in this 10 meeting is about there's been machine gun 11 fire heard. 12 CARSON: Right. 13 FOX: Well -- but I'm not aware of it, but I'll 14 check into it -- 15 CARSON: Right. 16 FOX: -- but of course, you know, once I get it, 17 then I've got to go back and explain to 18 these people the difference between 19 machine gun fire and semi automatic. 20 CARSON: Right. 21 FOX: But you know, we can't tell -- 22 CARSON: Right. 23 FOX: -- there are weapons, you know, so after 24 you pull the trigger they'll go bang. 25 CARSON: Right.
811 FOX: If you had three (3) weapons doing that, 2 it might sound like a machine gun. 3 CARSON: That's right. 4 FOX: I said, be that as it may, I mean, that's 5 -- that's the problem. What's -- what 6 he's looking for is of course they have 7 the affiant all lined up at MNR who are 8 going to say it's their property and 9 here's the deed, and you know all the rest 10 of it. 11 CARSON: Sure. 12 FOX: But they need somebody from the police 13 perspective. 14 CARSON: Okay. 15 FOX: And I said, well, you know, I've talked to 16 John about it, I've talked to Chris COLES, 17 and they agreed John's probably the guy to 18 do that. 19 CARSON: Mm-hm. 20 FOX: Because he has knowledge of it. 21 CARSON: Now, what of course the political people 22 are really pushing, and that's another 23 story and I'll just fill you in so you 24 know about that. 25 CARSON: Okay.
821 FOX: But I mean they're pushing to get this 2 done quick. 3 CARSON: Yes. Okay, I hear you. 4 FOX: They're lining up a judge, he is from 5 Lambton County. 6 CARSON: Okay. 7 FOX: Okay. A fellow by the name of GARDNER -- 8 CARSON: (Inaudible). 9 FOX: (inaudible) you? 10 CARSON: No, he must be a different guy down here 11 than when I was (inaudible). But anyway-- 12 FOX: Yeah, didn't mean anything to me either. 13 CARSON: All right. 14 FOX: And what they're thinking of is they'll 15 either do their -- their presentation to 16 the judge tomorrow or tonight. 17 CARSON: Okay. 18 FOX: And what they're thinking in lieu of 19 having an affidavit from you. 20 CARSON: Yes. 21 FOX: If you'd be willing to give viva voce 22 evidence. 23 CARSON: Oh, appear with them? 24 FOX: Yeah. 25 CARSON: Oh, yeah, hmm hmm.
831 FOX: And I said, well, I said I -- you know, I 2 -- I'm sure that's okay for John. 3 CARSON: Yes. 4 FOX: But I said I've done it myself, and I 5 said, personally I'd like to do it. 6 CARSON: Yes, and I guess I don't have any problem 7 as long as the Chief and the Commissioner 8 don't have a problem with that. 9 FOX: Yeah. Yeah, well I think you know, we'd 10 want to check that out. 11 CARSON: Yeah, well the Chief's here. (Inaudible) 12 big guy. 13 FOX: Yeah, yeah, and go from there. 14 CARSON: Yeah. 15 FOX: When I'm done, can I talk to him or -- 16 CARSON: Absolutely. 17 FOX: Okay. Well let me just give you the -- I 18 went to this meeting, John, we're dealing 19 with a real redneck Government. 20 CARSON: Okay. 21 FOX: They are fucking (inaudible) suckers, they 22 just are in love with guns -- 23 CARSON: Okay. 24 FOX: -- there's no question, they don't give a 25 shit less about Indians.
841 CARSON: All right, they just want us to go kick 2 ass? 3 FOX: That's right. 4 CARSON: Yeah. We're not prepared to do that yet. 5 FOX: Well I'll tell you I was then -- when I 6 left that meeting I got a page, go to the 7 Legislative Building immediately. 8 CARSON: Oh. 9 FOX: Meet the Deputy. Well I went, and I 10 finally ferret my way through all this 11 Media scrum. 12 CARSON: Yeah. 13 FOX: And I meet with the Deputy all right, 14 yeah, our Deputy SolGen, he's the Deputy 15 (inaudible). Chris HODGSON. 16 CARSON: Oh, yeah. Yeah. 17 FOX: (inaudible) Natural Affairs. 18 CARSON: Yeah. 19 FOX: Uh huh, uh huh, and the fucking Premier. 20 CARSON: Oh boy. 21 FOX: Well, John, I'm here to tell you this guy 22 is a redneck from way back. And he came 23 right out and said -- I just walked in on 24 the tail end of this. The OPP in my 25 opinion made mistakes, they should have
851 done something right at the time. And he 2 said, that will I'm sure all come out in 3 an Inquiry sometime after the fact. 4 CARSON: Yeah, yeah. 5 FOX: He believes that he has the authority to 6 direct the OPP -- 7 CARSON: Oh, okay. 8 FOX: -- so -- 9 CARSON: I'll be talking to the -- to the 10 Commissioner about that. 11 FOX: Pardon me? 12 CARSON: I hope him and the Commissioner had that 13 discussion? 14 FOX: Oh, yeah. Yeah, well of course the 15 Commissioner's already brought into the 16 loop on this. 17 CARSON: Okay. 18 FOX: So in any event, he makes a couple wild 19 ass comments, gets up and leaves the room 20 and then SolGen asked me to bring them as 21 to you know, what changes in the status of 22 the situation are at. Well, I've been 23 talking to the Incident Commander, and I 24 am able to confirm that there were shots 25 overnight, I said somewhere between fifty
861 (50) and a hundred (100), and this is 2 automatic weapons is what -- machine 3 guns, what this Chris -- and I said, it's 4 possible it could be, I said, but there's 5 certainly no evidence to support that. I 6 said between fifty (50) and a hundred 7 (100) rounds, I said, it could have been a 8 semi automatic. 9 CARSON: Right. 10 FOX: And I said there's no evidence that they 11 were pointed at anybody. 12 CARSON: Yeah. 13 FOX: They were not used in an untoward fashion. 14 CARSON: Right. 15 FOX: So in any event, to make a long story 16 short, this guy went over me, and I -- I 17 finally said, well look, I said, with 18 respect, this is a property dispute. I 19 said, what we're going to see at the end 20 of the day is that this (inaudible) 21 Provincial Park closed for the season, 22 okay. 23 CARSON: Yeah. 24 FOX: And what we're also then going to see is 25 people who have been involved in mischief.
871 Yes, the police know what mischief is, and 2 certainly those folk in the AG, we know 3 about the criminal offence mischief. When 4 it's read in the newspaper it sounds like 5 stuff our kids get involved in. 6 CARSON: You got it. 7 FOX: You know what the prick says to me? Well, 8 I've just been told that I can have no 9 influence over the police doing their job, 10 so I'm suggesting you let me worry about 11 the political ramifications. 12 CARSON: Oh. 13 FOX: So I -- I can't hold my tongue. 14 CARSON: Okay. 15 FOX: And I said, you little prick, I've got 16 shoes older than you. And I said, with 17 all due respect, Minister, I said I'm not 18 -- 19 CARSON: Is that SolGen? 20 FOX: Hmm. 21 CARSON: SolGen? 22 FOX: No, no, no, this is the Minister of 23 Natural Resources. 24 CARSON: Oh, oh, okay, yeah, okay I got you. 25 FOX: You know, and I said, with all due
881 respect, Minister, I said, here's the 2 reality of it. That's the way it's 3 viewed, and I said, perhaps -- perhaps we 4 can survive the political backlash. I 5 said, it may be that John CARSON and those 6 people will be able to work magic, and 7 these people will simply walk away, and 8 abandon their position. 9 CARSON: Yeah. 10 FOX: And I said, I doubt it. 11 CARSON: That ain't going to happen. 12 FOX: And I said, my guess is, we're going to 13 get a bloody nose, or somebody is. And I 14 said, at the end of the day if you're 15 prepared, that's up to you. I'm not 16 making a political statement, I'm giving 17 you a bit of reality. 18 CARSON: Okay. 19 FOX: And he just looked at me and I thought, 20 you prick, fuck. 21 CARSON: Jesus Christ. I'm glad you're there, 22 Ronald. 23 FOX: I said, John (inaudible). I mean, I -- 24 you know, back away and let's just do the 25 bloody job right.
891 CARSON: Yeah, exactly. 2 FOX: Well even if we get this enjoining order, 3 like how long will the police sit on it; 4 two (2) weeks? He says, I was told that 5 the police knew about this before it 6 happened. And I said, that's not correct. 7 Well he says, that's my information. I 8 said, with respect, it's wrong. I said, 9 the police certainly had a supposition 10 that a logical next step for these 11 protestors was to take over the Park, and 12 I said, in fact, I've had discussions with 13 the Incident Commander about that. But I 14 said, did we have anything to base that on 15 other than the odd little threat and 16 innuendo that came up; no. What we did is 17 we based it on our knowledge of Native 18 people. 19 CARSON: All right. 20 FOX: And this was a likelihood. 21 CARSON: That's right. 22 FOX: And I said, there was a contingency plan 23 in place. Well then he got into, well why 24 didn't the police stop it. I understand 25 they were at the Park there at the time.
901 And I said, really. Well I said, let's 2 put that in perspective, shall we. I 3 said, how does one stop that from taking 4 place, given that at that time of night 5 there'd be limited police resources, and I 6 -- 7 CARSON: Well there -- there was eight (8) -- eight 8 (8) ERT guys, but they were just 9 overwhelmed. 10 FOX: John, if there was a hundred and eight 11 (108) or there was two hundred and ten 12 (210) they'd be overwhelmed. 13 CARSON: Well, you're right. 14 FOX: This is an exponential thing. 15 CARSON: That's right. 16 FOX: And these people have just absolutely 17 (inaudible). 18 CARSON: Sure, I appreciate that. 19 FOX: (inaudible) it's a tough (inaudible). 20 Anyway, but then I guess the upshot is -- 21 CARSON: Yes. 22 FOX: -- what Larry -- or Tim McCABE was asking 23 me is that in your opinion, can we say 24 with certainty to a Court, that there's a 25 need for an emergent order that makes it
911 an ex parte order? 2 CARSON: Well I think we can. 3 FOX: Yes. 4 CARSON: I think we can. 5 FOX: You're going to base that, John, on the 6 progression of events? 7 CARSON: That's right. 8 FOX: Yeah. 9 CARSON: And -- and you know, I'm prepared to -- to 10 appear and give that evidence if -- you 11 know, if the Chief and the Commissioner 12 feel that's the direction we should be 13 going then -- 14 FOX: Right. 15 CARSON: -- I don't see any reason why we can't 16 support that. 17 FOX: No, well I mean, I've done it before, put 18 injunctions on the (Inaudible). 19 CARSON: Right. 20 FOX: So I mean I -- I don't -- I'm sure they 21 wouldn't. 22 CARSON: Right. 23 FOX: But personally, I like to give the 24 evidence in person -- 25 CARSON: Yeah.
921 FOX: -- because of when -- you know, 2 (inaudible) would lead them -- 3 CARSON: All right. Okay. 4 FOX: So that's in a nutshell. 5 CARSON: Good. 6 FOX: I'll call him back -- well, I'll -- 7 CARSON: Well, yeah, the Chief's here if you want 8 to talk to him here? 9 FOX: Yeah. 10 CARSON: Okay. 11 FOX: Okay, John. 12 CARSON: Thanks, Ron, let me know. 13 FOX: Right. 14 CARSON: Okay. 15 FOX: Right. 16 CARSON: Take care. 17 FOX: Bye. 18 19 End of Conversation. 20 21 CHIEF: Hi, Ron. 22 FOX: Hi, Chief. 23 CHIEF: Yeah, I guess sitting here just listening, 24 and I haven't heard what John has got to 25 tell me now. I've got a concern that we
931 want to be careful what we're doing here, 2 that we don't give them, the people that 3 you're talking to, that we don't give them 4 the information too fast. The problem 5 with that, Ron, is that (inaudible) is if 6 you're not careful, you're going to run 7 the issue there, as opposed to myself and 8 the Commissioner running it here. And so 9 we better be careful. I have no objection 10 to it, because I know you have no 11 objection to you phoning John. But the 12 only trouble if not, you're going to be 13 the fastest source of information they've 14 got, and now then we're going to end up in 15 it -- we're going to end up running it 16 politically, and I don't want that. 17 FOX: Yeah. 18 CHIEF: It's dangerous, if you think about it. 19 FOX: Yeah, well -- 20 CHIEF: Because they're going to -- they're going 21 to ask you questions, you're going to try 22 to find the answer, and the quickest way 23 for you to do it is to come here to John. 24 John's going to give you an honest answer. 25 The trouble is now it's all our -- all
941 that we're doing here, sometimes too much 2 information is a dangerous thing. 3 FOX: Oh, well clearly it is, Chris. And you 4 know, I don't know if you've heard some -- 5 from somebody else, maybe you have. And 6 that's why you and I are having this 7 conversation. 8 CHIEF: No, no, this is just off my head. The 9 last time I talked to you I heard -- the 10 only thing I've talked -- the only person 11 I have talked to on this is Tony, and I 12 talked to John as far as Marcelle 13 (inaudible), and which got -- that's 14 really what I've got on this. 15 FOX: Okay, well where the majority of the 16 information comes, that's provided to the 17 political masters, is coming from MNR. 18 CHIEF: Yeah. 19 FOX: Okay, and I'll tell you, I'm not too 20 impressed with it and -- 21 CHIEF: Well and don't be -- don't be. I've dealt 22 with them three (3) times on three (3) 23 incidents and do not be impressed with 24 MNR. 25 FOX: Well, see, I mean that's -- (inaudible)
951 would be there. 2 CHIEF: Yeah. 3 FOX: I can say I don't know. 4 CHIEF: Yeah. 5 FOX: Well this guy here, Peter STURDY, was 6 getting fed by people there. 7 CHIEF: Yeah. 8 FOX: And of course it came up in the meeting 9 about the automatic weapon fire, and you 10 know, they're doing damage, there's heavy 11 equipment roaring around at night, and 12 they're -- 13 CHIEF: That's the trouble. And they're going to 14 react to that kind of stuff, and it's the 15 same thing I just told them here, it might 16 -- see my position is, and now I can't do 17 it, my position has just been here some 18 half an hour ago, is Mark, you downplay 19 all the heavy weaponry, because I'll have 20 a fucking safety and backup issue myself 21 here. And it was the same as I had at 22 Aquisosny (phonetic), everybody said, Oh, 23 there was automatic guns going off all 24 over the friggin' time and it wasn't, it 25 wasn't, it was just semi-automatic, and
961 they were just pulling regular triggers. 2 But if you have three (3) or four (4) guys 3 shooting, nobody knows the difference. 4 FOX: Well that's what I (inaudible). There's 5 evidence that there are automatic weapons 6 (inaudible). I said, certainly there was 7 the sound of gunfire, and I said, I mean, 8 that's -- that's a qualified observation, 9 but it could be semi automatic, we don't 10 know. There's no indication that the 11 weapons were pointed at anybody. Okay. 12 CHIEF: Yeah, but the -- you see, there's 13 conversation -- as far as I'm concerned, 14 there's conversation going there that's 15 operational. 16 FOX: Oh, yes. 17 CHIEF: That -- that really it's going to get 18 dangerous, because now, that's dangerous 19 to have that happen. 20 FOX: You're right. But you see then, what do I 21 do with it, Chris? (Inaudible) well I 22 don't know now. 23 You're best, you know, I mean, the best 24 is to give them then what little 25 information you can.
971 CHIEF: Well, stall them to the -- to the amount. 2 I mean, right now I know that the 3 Commissioner is resurrecting the old -- 4 what has always been our approach, because 5 he feels he's now going to start getting 6 some pressure, and these people saying, 7 well why aren't you acting, why aren't you 8 acting on this stuff. 9 FOX: They've already -- they already got it, 10 Chris. 11 CHIEF: Sure he has. And so he's trying to 12 resurrect the old days of why are we going 13 to injunction? And of course the reason 14 we go for injunction is because otherwise 15 we go under Provincial offences and we 16 give them a ticket and they don't give a 17 shit about the stuff. And we want some 18 kind of Court conditions on these people. 19 One (1) of them being that maybe, you 20 know, if we can, that we don't want them 21 to go back within a mile of the base, et 22 cetera. 23 FOX: Right. 24 CHIEF: You know, those kinds of things. 25 FOX: Right.
981 CHIEF: So, all I know, this just -- this just -- 2 and now I'm glad I've talked to you, 3 because this just went through my head. I 4 mean, I'm hearing you talk to John, I have 5 no problem with that, and John, I know, 6 will fill me in on what's going on. But 7 then my point is, we the OPP, it's like me 8 talking to Marcel BEAUBIEN, which I'm 9 supposed to do, because he is a 10 constituent and that. But however, now he 11 now goes and talks and this is where -- 12 this is a problem that we have. 13 So -- 14 FOX: Well -- 15 CHIEF: You know, I -- my comment is, I will call 16 the Commissioner, I don't know if he's 17 there, but I'll call -- I'll call 18 (inaudible) Office anyway, and say, hey, 19 you better get to the Commissioner, to say 20 be very careful here, because that's 21 what's going to happen, we're going to 22 lose control of it. 23 FOX: Hmm hmm. Well -- 24 CHIEF: Do the best you can, that's all you can 25 do, and I have no problem with you calling
991 John, because I know, and but that's it, 2 just make them step back. If -- you may 3 be the -- what they might do is bring up 4 every rumour for you to substantiate every 5 rumour, and then in fact what you do is 6 you (inaudible). 7 FOX: Oh, well, but I don't fall under that 8 crowd. 9 CHIEF: Well, that's what you've got to be careful 10 of though, that you don't. 11 FOX: Yeah. Yeah, well I guess -- 12 CHIEF: I think you know where I'm coming from? 13 FOX: No, I -- I do, Chris, but I guess you -- 14 what I want to do is just tell you some 15 more of what's gone on here -- 16 CHIEF: Okay. 17 FOX: -- so that you know. I was called to meet 18 with the Deputy Solicitor General over at 19 the Legislature. 20 CHIEF: Yeah. 21 FOX: And I walked in and there was the Deputy 22 Solicitor General and the SolGen and the 23 AG, and the Deputy AG, and HODGSON and the 24 Minister for MNR and the Premier. 25 CHIEF: Okay.
1001 FOX: Okay. The Premier is quite adamant that 2 this is not an issue of Native rights, and 3 in his words, I mean, we've tried to 4 pacify and pander to these people for too 5 long, it's now time for swift affirmative 6 action. 7 I walked in the tail end, Chris, of him 8 saying (inaudible), well I think the OPP 9 have made mistakes in this, they should 10 have just gone in. He views it as a 11 simple trespass to property, that's -- in 12 -- in his thinking. He's not getting the 13 right advice, or if -- if he is getting 14 right advice, he's certainly not listening 15 to it in any way, shape or form. 16 CHIEF: Okay. 17 FOX: The fellow who supported our position of 18 that was the Deputy Attorney General -- 19 CHIEF: Yeah. Ron, give me your phone number 20 there. 21 FOX: Yeah. 22 CHIEF: I'm going to give you a phone call, hang 23 on here. 24 Give me -- what's your phone number 25 there, I'm going to call you back from
1011 another line. 2 FOX: Yeah. It's four (4) one (1) six (6) -- 3 CHIEF: Yeah. 4 FOX: -- three (3) one (1) four (4) -- 5 CHIEF: Yeah. 6 FOX: -- three (3) three (3) seven (7) two (2). 7 CHIEF: Yeah. Don't get involved in anything 8 else, I'm going to give you a call back. 9 FOX: All right. 10 CHIEF: Okay, thanks, bye bye. 11 12 End of conversation. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: Superintendent Fox, do you recognize, 16 or did you recognize the voices on the recording? 17 A: I did. 18 Q: And can you tell us who was on the 19 recording? 20 A: I was on the recording, Inspector 21 John Carson and then-Chief Superintendent Chris Coles. 22 Q: All right. And that was the 23 individual at the end of the conversation? 24 A: That is correct. 25 Q: Now, when you made this telephone
1021 call to Inspector Carson, did you know that it was being 2 recorded? 3 A: I did not. 4 Q: Had you realized it was being 5 recorded, would that have altered the substance of 6 anything that you said? 7 A: As I indicated yesterday, my language 8 would have been chosen much more carefully, and certainly 9 I apologize to the Inquiry for having to suffer us 10 through that. 11 The substance of my message would not have 12 changed, my information with respect to the injunction 13 and who the contact person would be and my observations 14 of the meeting, would not have changed. 15 Q: When you say "the observation of the 16 Meeting," which meeting are you referring to? 17 A: The meeting that I was in attendance 18 at the Legislature. 19 Q: And when you made -- when you were 20 speaking with, first, Inspector Carson and then Chief 21 Superintendent Coles, were you being candid? 22 A: Yes I was. 23 Q: Were you being honest in what you 24 reported? 25 A: I was.
1031 Q: And did it reflect your recollection 2 as it stood then at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 3 the 6th, 1995, about an hour and a half after the 4 legislative building meeting? 5 A: It did. 6 Q: Now, having listened to this 7 recording, has it refreshed your memory with respect to 8 the events of the IMC meeting and the meeting at the 9 legislative building? 10 A: It has. 11 Q: Now, it appears that in the first 12 part of this conversation you are advising Inspector 13 Carson with respect to the requirements for an affidavit 14 for the Injunction Application; is that fair? 15 A: That is correct. 16 Q: And had you spoken to Inspector 17 Carson's superiors prior to this conversation with 18 respect to approaching Inspector Carson to give evidence? 19 A: Yes, I had had a discussion with 20 Chris Coles. 21 Q: Do you recall when you had that 22 discussion? 23 A: It would -- between the -- the period 24 of August, or I'm sorry, September 4th and the 6th. 25 Q: All right. Sometime in that period?
1041 A: That is correct. 2 Q: And you report to Inspector Carson 3 that there was, in turn, a report made at the IMC meeting 4 of that day, of machine-gun fire. 5 A: That is correct. 6 Q: And having heard this, does that 7 refresh your memory at all as to whether or not such a 8 report was made at the IMC meeting? 9 A: It does. 10 Q: Did it? Was -- 11 A: It was. 12 Q: Okay. And why did you raise this 13 with Inspector Carson? 14 A: I raised it to example to the 15 Inspector that there were other sources of information 16 with respect to the police activities, that he may not be 17 critically aware of at that point; that was certainly one 18 (1) reason to. 19 Then was to, as you can see in the 20 telephone conversation, to get his take, his perspective 21 on it, so that I might make a report back to the next IMC 22 meeting. 23 Q: And based on this conversation, what 24 was his perspective as you understood it, concerning the 25 veracity of there having been machine-gun fire?
1051 A: Knowing Inspector Carson as well as I 2 do, if he believed that there was machine-gun fire, he 3 would have said those words. But he assumed the position 4 that I offered, by not saying otherwise, that it could 5 have been automatic weapon fire -- or semi-automatic 6 weapon fire. 7 Q: All right. Thank you. And you might 8 recall earlier in your testimony, you indicated that you 9 thought that Inspector Carson had confirmed that there 10 had been automatic gunfire; are you changing that now in 11 light of this conversation? 12 A: In -- in reading a number of other 13 documents, it is reported in the incident -- or the 14 scribe notes, that it was automatic gunfire. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: If I said to the Inquiry, my 17 apologies, I didn't mean to infer that Inspector Carson 18 knew eminently that it was. And I think in reflection, 19 having re-heard this conversation today, that establishes 20 that. 21 Q: Thank you. Now, I wonder if you 22 would kindly go to page 4 of your documents, it's part of 23 the transcript. About half way through, when you make 24 comment and again, this is an imperfect transcription, 25 but something to the effect of:
1061 "Okay, well, then let me just give you 2 the -- I went through this meeting. 3 John, we're dealing with a real redneck 4 government. They are fucking barrel 5 suckers, they just are in love with 6 guns." 7 Now, does that reflect what you said at 8 that point in the conversation? 9 A: I believe it's an accurate 10 transcription, yes. 11 Q: And can you tell me what it was you 12 intended when you described the Government as "real 13 redneck"? 14 A: That the -- the position of the 15 government seemed to be, and this is my opinion, that 16 there is one justice for all, and that there is no 17 differential treatment for anybody. 18 Q: And can you apply that to what you 19 heard at the meeting? 20 A: Yes, I can, with respect to a comment 21 that I related to Inspector Carson, and it deals with 22 pandering to native communities and that they'll be 23 treated the same as everybody else. 24 Q: All right. And to whom did you 25 attribute that sentiment?
1071 A: The Premier. 2 Q: And is that based on anything you 3 heard at the meeting? 4 A: Yes, it was. 5 Q: What -- what was it that you heard? 6 A: I heard that. 7 Q: You then indicate that the 8 governments are, now I won't use all of the colourful 9 language, but basically, barrel suckers. 10 And what did you mean by that? What did 11 you mean to convey by that? 12 A: In the meetings of the IMC and 13 certainly in the most recent meeting that we were 14 addressing at this point in time in my testimony there, 15 in my opinion, was an -- was an over-emphasis placed on 16 weaponry, on firearms. 17 What I was saying there, what I was really 18 intending to say, is that this was an indication that 19 there was one way to solve problems and that was with 20 force. 21 Q: And that was -- was that also what 22 you intended to convey by the next sentence, "they are 23 just in love with guns?" 24 A: Correct. In hindsight, poor choice 25 of words; that was my message.
1081 Q: But you intended to convey that 2 message? 3 A: I did. 4 Q: And then the following -- you say 5 something to the effect that: 6 "There's no question. They don't give 7 a shit less about Indians." 8 Now, what did you mean to convey to 9 Inspector Carson by that observation? 10 A: Exactly what I've said, and that 11 wasn't based on just one (1) part of that conversation or 12 one (1) part of that meeting. It was the general sense 13 that I had. 14 A: As developed by the prior -- your 15 participation in the IMC meetings? 16 A: That is correct. 17 Q: Just to be more clear, are you 18 indicating that you -- you had a belief that the 19 Government did not have the same priority with respect to 20 First Nation issues that you would have liked to have 21 seen? 22 A: That's my opinion, yes. 23 Q: If you go on to the next page, then. 24 You then, in the next part of the conversation, address 25 your attendance at the legislative building?
1091 A: Correct. 2 Q: And after describing who was in 3 attendance, you say: 4 "Well, John, I'm here to tell you this 5 guy is a redneck from way back." 6 Did you say something like that to the 7 Inspector? 8 A: I did. 9 Q: And who were you referring to in that 10 context? 11 A: The Premier. 12 Q: What was the basis of your 13 characterization? 14 A: In the context that he responded with 15 respect to his opinion on differential treatment for 16 First Nations. 17 Q: And when you use the term 'red neck, 18 is that intended to be the same connotation as applied to 19 the Government earlier on? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: You next -- next passage, you're 22 reported to say: 23 "And he came right out and said, I just 24 walked in on the tail end of this, the 25 OPP, in my opinion, made mistakes.
1101 They should have done something right 2 at the time. And he said that, Well, 3 I'm sure all this will come out in an 4 Inquiry, something after the fact." 5 Did you say words to that effect? 6 A: Words to that effect, yes. 7 Q: And in this connection, I think you 8 said earlier that you thought that the Premier had made 9 no statement regarding the interrelationship of the OPP, 10 or at least -- oh, I'm sorry, I take that back. Excuse 11 me. 12 What did you take from his comments that 13 led you to believe that he thought the OPP had made 14 mistakes? 15 A: His belief was that something should 16 have been done immediately at the time and the situation 17 managed from a police perspective immediately at the 18 time. 19 Q: In other words, that the police 20 shouldn't have allowed the occupation to occur? 21 A: That's correct. 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Commissioner...? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 24 Downard? 25 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: I object to
1111 Commission Counsel suggesting to the Witness what his 2 answers are in this area. I very much want to hear this 3 Witness' authentic recollections. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 5 that's appropriate, Mr. Downard. That last answer, you 6 kind of made a suggestion what he meant when... 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 9 Q: Certainly. I can certainly be a 10 little more careful in the questioning. This is the 11 second time that we are reviewing the contents of this 12 meeting, but I take Mr. Downard's observations. 13 In the next comment you are reported to 14 say: 15 "He believes that he has the authority 16 to direct the OPP." 17 Did you say words to that effect? 18 A: I did. 19 Q: And, who were you referring to when 20 you say, "he?" 21 A: Obviously, it would refer to the 22 Premier, but I would suggest that it refers to the 23 Government-at-large, or it did. 24 Q: And, what was the basis of that 25 belief?
1121 A: As I'd indicated further there had -- 2 had been from -- I've extrapolated from conversations 3 that there had been a presentation presumably by the 4 Deputy Attorney General with respect to police and 5 government relations. 6 Q: And then, a little bit further on, a 7 few lines down, you're reported to say: 8 "Oh, yeah. Well, of course the 9 Commissioner's already brought into the 10 loop on this." 11 Did you say words to that effect? 12 A: I did. 13 Q: And, what -- what did you mean when 14 you said the Commissioner's been brought into the loop? 15 A: The Commissioner has been copied as - 16 - as we've reviewed previously on all the issue notes 17 that were available to this. I did know that at that 18 time, and I can't speak to it now, the Commissioner was a 19 member of a senior management committee within the 20 Government. I can only draw the assumption that he would 21 be aware of it. 22 Q: All right. So, this was an 23 assumption you -- had you had any direct conversations 24 with Commissioner O'Grady -- 25 A: I --
1131 Q: -- over this period of time? 2 A: I had not in that regard. 3 Q: Now, a little further on, you make -- 4 you're reported to have made the following comments, same 5 page at the bottom: 6 "So, in any event, he makes a couple of 7 wild-assed comments, gets up and leaves 8 the room and then the Sol. Gen. asks me 9 to brief them as to what changes in the 10 status of the situation." 11 First of all, did you say words to that 12 effect? 13 A: I did. 14 Q: And, what did you mean with respect 15 to the comments -- you're reference to, "comments?" 16 A: It's a combination in terms of his 17 view that the OPP made mistakes in the first throes and 18 I've already testified he used the -- some comment with 19 respect to the holocaust. 20 Q: All right. Now, it's indicated here 21 that -- that the Premier left the meeting and then you 22 were asked for a status report? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And, earlier on, I think you said 25 initially that you thought that the status report was
1141 made in the Premier's presence. 2 Does this refresh your memory at all 3 or...? 4 A: That's correct and I -- I said that 5 and I can't, at this point, tell you -- in time tell you 6 whether I made the report or not when he was there. 7 Q: I'm sorry, whether you made the 8 report? 9 A: I can't tell you whether I made the 10 report when he was there or not. 11 Q: Fair enough. Is it likely that your 12 memory would have been more clear when you made this 13 conversation, or had this conversation with Inspector 14 Carson than it is today? 15 A: I believe that it would be. 16 Q: Thank you. Now, was it the Solicitor 17 General who asked you to address the issue of the 18 reported machine gun fire? 19 Do you recall who raised that issue? 20 A: That -- the reported machine gunfire 21 was raised by Minister Hodgson and I responded to it. 22 Q: All right. And then, after you 23 provide your reported as reflected, these appear -- there 24 appears to be some discussion regarding what the next 25 steps should be on behalf of the -- the Government.
1151 A: Yes. 2 Q: And did you receive any suggestions 3 from any of the Ministers in that regard? 4 A: As to what the Government should do 5 next? 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: Or what the police should do next? 8 Q: What the Government should do next. 9 A: No I did not. 10 Q: How about with respect to what the 11 police should do next? 12 A: No, as I indicated earlier, I believe 13 that the Meeting had come to the conclusion that what the 14 police should do next was to remain in only in the prevue 15 of the police. 16 Q: All right. If you look on to page 6 17 of your document. 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Okay. 20 "So in any event, to make a long story 21 short, this guy went over and I finally 22 said, Well look, I said that, With 23 respect, this is a property dispute. I 24 said, What we're going to see at the 25 end of the day is a disused Provincial
1161 Park closed for the season, okay. 2 And we're also then going to see those 3 people who have been involved in 4 mischief. Yes, the police know what 5 mischief is, and certainly those folks 6 in the AG, we know about criminal 7 offence mischief. Once read in the 8 newspaper it sounds like the stuff our 9 kids get involved in." 10 Can you tell me what gave rise to your -- 11 first of all, did you say words to this effect to 12 Inspector Carson? 13 A: I did. 14 Q: And what gave rise to your giving 15 this response? 16 A: It û- to put it in context, I had had 17 the conversation with Minister Hodgson, where I was 18 questioned with respect to the automatic gunfire and 19 certain information that he had, in terms of police 20 operation. 21 I took the liberty of providing him my 22 opinion, rightly or wrongly, of what my view would be at 23 some future time. 24 Q: All right. And then following you 25 say words to the effect:
1171 "Well I've just been told that I can 2 have no influence over the police doing 3 their job, so I'm suggesting you let me 4 worry about the political 5 ramifications." 6 Do you recall saying words to that effect? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And who did you -- were you 9 attributing that -- that statement to or that message to? 10 A: Minister Hodgson. 11 Q: And what did you take from Minister's 12 -- Minister Hodgson's suggestion that you let him worry 13 about the political ramifications? 14 A: It's a two-parter: He indicated to 15 me that he was told that he was not in a position to 16 direct the police, and I believe he was telling me that I 17 shouldn't take on the mantle of concerning myself with 18 political ramifications. 19 I felt I was providing, in my capacity as 20 an Advisor, advice. Whether it was taken or not, it 21 seemed to me, prudent that I provide it. And that was 22 with respect to the -- the Park and co-management issues, 23 or as a possible solution. 24 Q: Thank you. And you indicated there 25 is a precedence in relation to a Cape Croaker and Serpent
1181 Mounds in that respect? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: The next part of the conversation you 4 indicate that following, and this is on page 7: 5 "And now I said, With all due respect, 6 Minister, I said, Here's the reality, 7 that's the way it's viewed, and I said, 8 Perhaps -- perhaps we can survive the 9 political backlash. I said, It may be 10 that John Carson and his people will be 11 able to work magic and these people 12 will simply walk away and abandon their 13 position. And I said, I doubt [this]. 14 And I said, My guess is we're going to 15 get a bloody nose. Or somebody is. 16 And I said, at the end of the day - if 17 you're prepared - that's up to you. 18 I'm not making a political statement. 19 I am giving you a bite of reality." 20 And did you say words to that effect? 21 A: I did. 22 Q: And what was the context of those 23 comments? 24 A: With respect to my comment in terms 25 of political and using the, "We can survive it," in my
1191 view I'm saying society, generally. In terms of somebody 2 getting a bloody nose, that's when there is an 3 application of force. 4 Q: Now the next part of your 5 conversation has to do with more particulars concerning 6 the Adjoining Order or the Injunction? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And you are asking -- are you asking 9 Inspector Carson whether or not he thinks there are 10 grounds for a Without Notice Injunction? 11 A: I am. 12 Q: And what was his response to that? 13 A: His view was he believes that there 14 were and believes that he could show circumstances that 15 would make an ex parte injunction appropriate. 16 Q: All right. And you indicate on page 17 8 of your document, as part of this conversation: 18 "Yes, base that, John, on the 19 progression of events." 20 What did you mean by that? 21 A: That the matter starts at a 22 particular point and that as the time progresses, the 23 number of events that would speak to the merits in that 24 injunction, increase. 25 In other words, if there is any increase
1201 in violent activity or criminal activity, that type of 2 thing. 3 Q: All right. And then you terminate, 4 essentially, the conversation with -- or at least, it's 5 terminated with Inspector Carson and Chief Superintendent 6 Chris Coles comes on to the phone? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And I take it he was a superior 9 officer to -- in relation to the ranking of Inspector 10 Carson? 11 A: Yes, and to myself. 12 Q: And also in respect to Superintendent 13 Parkin? 14 A: That is correct. 15 Q: And he makes the -- he's purported to 16 make the following comments, at the bottom of page 9 of 17 your document. 18 "Yeah, I guess sitting here, just 19 listening, and I haven't heard what 20 John has got to tell me now. I've got 21 a concern that we want to be careful 22 what we're doing here, that we don't 23 give them - the people that you're 24 talking to - that we don't give them 25 the information too fast.
1211 The problem with that, Ron, is that if 2 you're not careful, you're going to run 3 the issue there. As opposed to myself 4 and the Commissioner running it here. 5 So we've got to be careful. I have no 6 objections to it - I have no objections 7 to you phoning John, but the only 8 trouble, if not, you're going to be the 9 fastest source of information they've 10 got. 11 And now with them we're going to end up 12 with it, we're going to end up running 13 it politically. And I don't want that. 14 Because it's dangerous if you think 15 about it. 16 Because they're going to -- they're 17 going to ask you questions. You're 18 going to try to find the answers. And 19 the quickest way for you to do it is to 20 come here to John. 21 John's going to give you an honest 22 answer. The trouble is now is all our 23 -- all what we're doing here -- 24 sometimes too much information is a 25 dangerous thing."
1221 Do you remember receiving words to that 2 effect from Chief Superintendent Coles? 3 A: I do. 4 Q: And what did you take from those 5 observations? 6 A: I believe it was a cautionary -- a 7 caution that Chris Coles was providing me, that I wasn't 8 to be the conduit of the information. 9 Q: Can you be more specific? 10 A: Yes. In terms of operational 11 information being provided to either bureaucratic or 12 political arm of the government, he felt that was a 13 dangerous thing, and I agree with that. 14 Q: And agreeing with that comment, can 15 you tell me why that had the ability to be a dangerous 16 thing and in what specific context? 17 A: In a number of ways. A great deal of 18 energy is expended to try and run down rumours and as 19 I've testified earlier, that was -- a lot of my time was 20 consumed doing that. 21 To take it away and to make sure it could 22 be put in perspective, that the information that was 23 being provided was well sourced and it was accurate. 24 In looking it, there's a fine line between 25 information that's provided for the purposes of allowing
1231 somebody to make strategic decisions. The information 2 that should and ought not be provided is information that 3 would generally be afforded to the police to make 4 tactical decisions in other areas. 5 What I had indicated, and as we go through 6 the transcript, to Chris, is that I was not the primary 7 source of information or mis-information as the case 8 might be; that that was coming from other areas. 9 Q: All right. Are you finished? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. Thank you. And up to this 12 point in time had you, independently, had any concerns 13 that -- that there was a danger of the -- this operation, 14 this policing operation becoming run politically? 15 A: Being run politically, that's 16 certainly a concern that I -- I would share and I would 17 agree with Chief Superintendent Coles on it. 18 The primary reason that I have a concern 19 is, again, the police are charged with ensuring public 20 safety and we need to be very cognizant of officer 21 safety. Information with respect to what we're going to 22 do -- and I'm saying that as a police officer -- and when 23 we're going to do it, has to fall to us. 24 Q: All right. And then you do say a 25 little bit later on the page 10 of your document:
1241 "Okay. Well, when where the majority 2 of information comes that's provided to 3 the political masters is coming from 4 the MNR. 5 Okay? And I'll tell you I've not been 6 too impressed with it." 7 Now there, what are you communicating to 8 Chris Coles? 9 A: I'm suggesting to the Chief 10 Superintendent that the sources of information are within 11 an area that he commands; that that information was 12 coming from police briefings where MNR staff were in 13 attendance. 14 Q: All right. And so this is with 15 respect to the briefings that Inspector Carson or someone 16 on his behalf were providing to MNR personnel? 17 A: Well, they were to all the personnel 18 involved in the incident. I don't believe they were 19 directly to MNR -- 20 Q: Fair enough. 21 A: -- MNR were present. 22 Q: But it included them? 23 A: Yes, correct. 24 Q: Thank you. And particularly, a 25 little bit later on, you appear to identify Peter Sturdy
1251 as being the person who was fed by the people where 2 there. Is that something you said? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And is that -- 5 A: And it's -- it's in error. Peter 6 Sturdy was one (1) of the individuals in this area; Peter 7 Allen was the executive assistant to the Deputy Minister 8 of MNR. 9 Q: Was he also -- was it your impression 10 that he was also receiving such information? 11 A: He would be through his chain of 12 command. 13 Q: Okay. And then, Super -- Chief 14 Superintendent Coles says something to the effect, on 15 page 11 at the top: 16 "...Mark you downplay all the heavy 17 weaponry. Because I'll have the 18 fuckin' safety and backup issue here 19 myself here." 20 And then he refers to Akwasasne. Did -- 21 did he say words to that effect to you? 22 A: Yes, he did. 23 Q: And what did you take from his 24 comment concerning a safety and backup issue? What was 25 he talking about?
1261 A: He's talking about OPP members. 2 Regularly, we ask our members to go in harm's way and we 3 try to do it all with -- with due diligence on the -- on 4 the front end and make it as safe as possible; there's 5 never a guarantee. 6 He is very concerned, obviously, if I 7 remember his words to be of the view or the opinion that 8 there were automatic gunfire, a regularly equipped patrol 9 officer would not be the one who should be in that 10 position. 11 Q: All right. Did you interpret his 12 concern or understand his concern to be that if such 13 information is released and finds its way into the public 14 forum that -- that this could -- 15 A: Both. 16 Q: û- pose a problem? 17 A: If it finds its way in 18 organizationally and that's what he's identifying here in 19 terms of safety and backup. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: I'm certain he would have had the 22 same concerns with the public. 23 Q: Okay. And then, the next thing that 24 he's reported to say is: 25 "Yeah, but there you see - there's
1271 conversation - as far as I'm concerned 2 there's conversation going there that's 3 operational. 4 That - that really - its gonna get 5 dangerous cause now its -- that's 6 dangerous to have that happen." 7 And you are reported to say: 8 "You're right. But you see then, what 9 do I do with it, Chris? Sit there and 10 say, Well, I don't know. Ummm - you 11 know - I mean - the best is to give 12 them what little information you can." 13 Do you recall receiving comments to that 14 effect from Superintendent and making that response? 15 A: I do. 16 Q: And what was the dilemma that you 17 were trying to express to him there? 18 A: The information was already arriving 19 and that was exampled at the Interministerial Committee 20 meeting where I was not aware that there were gunshots. 21 I don't think for a minute that that information was 22 withheld from me by Inspector Carson. 23 I think it was a busy time for him and I 24 am certain that it was just one of those things that got 25 lost in the shuffle, even though it may have been
1281 important. 2 What I believe I'm trying to say to Chris 3 is here, and I believe did say, that I would have to make 4 a response to this, you can't leave that out in terms of 5 automatic gunfire. If it is unqualified, it will cause 6 other people to make decisions, perhaps within their own 7 Ministries, the decisions made may not be accurate. I 8 believe it was -- 9 Q: Or based on information that is 10 ultimately not accurate? 11 A: That is correct. 12 Q: Next, the Chief Superintendent says 13 something to the effect: 14 "Well, stall them to the amount. I 15 mean, right now I know that the 16 Commissioner is resurrecting the old - 17 what has always been our approach, 18 because he feels he's now going to 19 start getting some pressure with people 20 saying, 'Why aren't you acting? Why 21 aren't you acting on this now?' 22 And you respond: 23 "He's already - he's already got it, 24 Chris." 25 And the Chief Superintendent says:
1291 "Sure he has, and so he's trying to 2 resurrect the ??? [I think it's the 3 idea] of why we go in for 4 injunctions. And of course the reason 5 we go for injunctions is because 6 otherwise we go into Provincial 7 offences, and we give them a ticket and 8 they don't give a shit about the stuff. 9 And we want some kind of Court 10 conditions on these people. One of 11 them being that maybe - you know - if 12 we can, that we don't want them to go 13 back within a mile of the Base, et 14 cetera.ö 15 Do you recall the Chief Superintendent 16 saying words to that effect to you? 17 A: I do. 18 Q: And do you have -- did you know what 19 he was referring to when he indicated that the 20 Commissioner is resurrecting what has always been the 21 OPP's approach? 22 A: Yes. It's a policy within the 23 organization, a Standard Operating Procedure, if you 24 will. 25 Q: Now is this the policy that we
1301 reviewed early yesterday at Tab 1 of your Document, your 2 -- the Briefing Note for the Inter-Ministerial Policy 3 Forum, November 26th, 1991? 4 A: That is correct. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: And I believe that we made that 9 Exhibit P-498? All right. 10 Now over on page 13, you have started to 11 report to, or to advise at least, the Chief 12 Superintendent about the Meeting at the legislative 13 building; is that right? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And you appear to make the following 16 comment, at the top of page 13 of your Tab: 17 "Okay. The Premier was quite adamant 18 that this is not an issue of Native 19 rights, and in his words, I mean, we've 20 tried to pacify and pander to these 21 people for too long. It's now time for 22 swift, affirmative action. I walked in 23 the tail-end, Chris, of him saying 24 something like, Well, I think the OPP 25 made mistakes in this, they should have
1311 just gone in.' 2 He views it as a simple Trespass to 3 Property, that's in his thinking. He's 4 not getting the right advice or if he 5 is getting right advice, he sure is not 6 listening to it in any way, shape or 7 form." 8 Now, do you recall saying words to that 9 effect to the Chief Superintendent? 10 A: I do. 11 Q: All right. And I think I asked you 12 earlier in the evidence as to whether or not you recall 13 the Premier making any statement about Native rights; I 14 believe you indicated you did not recall any such 15 statement. 16 Does this refresh your memory in any way? 17 A: It does. But I could have been 18 saying this in context of things that I had heard in -- 19 at the Interministerial Committee Meetings. 20 Q: All right. Then do you have any 21 specific recollection today as to what the source of your 22 comment, that the Premier was quite adamant that this was 23 not a Native rights -- not an issue of Native rights, and 24 in his word: 25 "I mean we've tried to pacify and
1321 pander these people for too long." 2 Do you recall when that may have occurred -- 3 A: That was -- 4 Q: -- or if it did? 5 A: -- at the legislative building. 6 Q: All right. Thank you. And at that 7 point, effectively, the Chief Superintendent indicates 8 that he is going to call you back on a different line; is 9 that correct? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And did he, in fact, call you on a 12 different line? 13 A: I have no recollection that he did. 14 Q: One way or the other? 15 A: That's correct. He may have, and he 16 may not have. 17 Q: Do you know why, or did you have a 18 belief as to why he was going to call you back on a 19 different line at this particular stage in the 20 conversation? 21 A: I assumed that he was busy or was 22 engaged or was to be engaged in something else. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
1331 Q: Now, Superintendent Fox, I anticipate 2 that we will hear evidence from Peter Sturdy to the 3 effect that on either the 6th or more likely the 7th of 4 September, he had a meeting with Chief Superintendent 5 Coles, and that the Chief Superintendent expressed a 6 concern about the flow of information that was happening 7 through Peter Sturdy. 8 Now, I'm going to suggest to you that -- 9 let me ask you this. Is it possible that -- that Chief 10 Superintendent Coles called you back and -- to -- and 11 advised you with respect to his concerns or his plan to 12 try to stem the flow of information from the command post 13 to the government? 14 A: It's certainly possible, but I have 15 no recollection of whether he called me or not. 16 Q: Thank you. What did you do after 17 this telephone call? 18 A: I probably finished up other business 19 that I would have had and left for home. 20 Q: Do you recall, during the course of 21 this day, having a further conversation with Julie Jai? 22 A: Yes, yes I do. 23 Q: And perhaps you would go to Tab 34 of 24 your document brief. It's Inquiry Document number 25 3001088 and this appears to be the handwritten notes of
1341 Julie Jai, dated September 6th, 1995. It has her name on 2 top of it. 3 Have you looked at this document before? 4 A: Yes, I have. 5 Q: And does this reflect a conversation 6 which you had with Ms. Jai? 7 A: I believe that it does. 8 Q: Is it likely that -- do you recall 9 whether or not this meeting or this conversation occurred 10 before or after the meeting at the legislative building? 11 A: I believe it was after. 12 Q: Okay. And does the contents of this 13 note accurately reflect the -- the contents of your 14 conversation with her? 15 A: To a point. 16 Q: Are there any corrections here? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Can you tell us -- 19 A: Where she has a bullet in the second 20 -- it's a line bullet: 21 "Now OPP Commissioner is involved. 22 Decision will be made at his level." 23 I believe that would be the OPP field 24 commander who would have been Chris Coles. 25 Q: And then why is that you believe that
1351 you likely indicated it was the field commander? 2 A: Having an understanding of the way 3 the organization works, the Commissioner wouldn't 4 ordinarily be involved in that type of day to day work. 5 Q: All right. And did you have any 6 information or belief at that time, September the 6th, 7 1995 as to whether or not the Commissioner was playing 8 any direct role at the decision-making level of this 9 operation? 10 A: He would not be. 11 Q: I'd like to make this the next 12 exhibit, Commissioner. 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-515, your Honour. 14 15 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-515: Document 3001088. 16 Handwritten note from Julie 17 Jai, September 06/'95 re: 18 conversation with Ron Fox. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: And just going to the first bullet, 22 if you will, and it indicates: 23 "Tim has asked for [it looks like] S.O. 24 from OPP to give viva voce evidence 25 before Judge today in Sarnia."
1361 Do you recall telling her something like 2 that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And can you help me out, would -- do 5 you know what "S.O." might refer to? 6 A: I'm -- I'm thinking it probably means 7 someone. 8 Q: Thank you. And the third bullet 9 indicates: 10 "He was called into cabinet. Larry 11 Taman was also there and was eloquent. 12 He cautioned about rushing in with ex 13 parte injunction and can't interfere 14 with police discretion." 15 Does that -- did you communicate that 16 information to her? 17 A: It does. I -- I don't know that I 18 would use the word "eloquent," that's not normally a word 19 that I would use -- 20 Q: All right. 21 A: -- but I think it generally conveys. 22 Q: What was your impression of Mr. 23 Taman's presentation on the injunction issue then? 24 A: I -- I think he presented all the 25 options fairly and gave, certainly from -- from what I
1371 heard, what the positions were or could be, what was 2 required to proceed in either the interim manner or ex 3 parte. 4 Q: All right. And the last line, if you 5 will, the last bullet: 6 "Ron was there for part of discussion. 7 A decision to go ex parte appeared to 8 have already been made." 9 Did you advise Julie Jai that that was 10 your 11 impression of the meeting? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: All right. Did you have any further 14 telephone or other discussions with either Inspector 15 Carson or Chief Superintendent Coles on September the 16 6th? 17 A: I don't recall. 18 Q: All right. I wonder if you would go 19 to Tab 77. These are the cell phone records of Inspector 20 Carson, Exhibit 492, Inquiry Document 2002892. 21 And if you would go to the 4th page of 22 that Document, and the time entry, it's the 86th Item, 23 September the 6th, 23:30. 24 A: Yes? 25 Q: Excuse me. No, sorry. Go to the
1381 next page actually, excuse me. It's also September 6th, 2 Item 142, twenty -- it is 23:30 and the phone number is 3 (519) 671-6086 and I think -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- you've testified that that's his 6 cell number? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Do you recall whether or not that you 9 called Inspector Carson late that evening? 10 A: It's possible that I did. 11 Q: Do you have any recollection one way 12 or another? 13 A: No. 14 Q: All right. Do you recall having any 15 other significant meetings or discussions concerning the 16 Ipperwash situation on September the 6th? 17 A: No, I do not. 18 Q: Thank you. When did you first find 19 out that there had been an engagement involving the 20 police and the occupiers which resulted in gunfire that 21 evening? 22 A: I believe it was late on the 23 September the 6th. 24 Q: Do you recall how it was you first 25 found out?
1391 A: It would either be through a 2 conversation with the Command Post enforced, or it could 3 have been through the Duty Officer, in Orillia. 4 Q: I'm sorry, through...? 5 A: The Duty Officer in Orillia. 6 Q: In the -- I'm sorry, I'm not hearing 7 you. 8 A: Orillia. 9 Q: Oh, Orillia. Okay. Thank you. Do 10 you have any specific recollection as to who that 11 conversation was with? 12 A: I don't. 13 Q: Do you recall who initiated that 14 call? 15 A: I don't. 16 Q: Do you recall what transpired during 17 the conversation? 18 A: If I don't remember the call, no I 19 don't. 20 Q: That's fair enough. All right, I 21 guess I'm asking you when you first found about this 22 exchange, you indicated in the late evening. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. And what do you recall about - 25 - in terms of what information you received at that time?
1401 A: What -- what I do recall having 2 learned was that there had been a shooting, that one 3 person had been killed, other people had been injured, 4 and that was the general information I had at that time. 5 Q: All right. And what, if anything, 6 did you do as a result of receiving that information? 7 A: I would have provided that 8 information to the Interministerial Committee. 9 Q: Would that be through the Chair? 10 A: Julie Jai, yes. 11 Q: All right. And do you recall whether 12 you did that quickly or within a few hours? 13 A: Within a few hours. 14 Q: Thank you. I wonder if you would go 15 to Tab 35, please, it's Inquiry Document number 1012542. 16 These appear to be the handwritten notes of Julie Jai: 17 "Thursday, September 1995. I'm advised 18 September 7th, 1995." 19 Now, on the left-hand column there's a 20 notation, "4:50 a.m. Ron Fox called." 21 Now, does that refresh your memory at all 22 as to when you -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- likely called her? And do you 25 think it would have been around that time?
1411 A: Correct. 2 Q: And do you recall what you told her 3 during this conversation? 4 A: I would have probably repeated 5 exactly what I knew and that would be that one (1) person 6 had been killed, and that there were others injured. 7 Q: Now I just ask you to consider the 8 next entry, which is, "6:20 a.m." It's both on the left- 9 hand column and then over to the right there is a more 10 substantive note. 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: Indicates: 13 "Officers were on county road, 14 encountered some First Nations people. 15 Shots were fired at officers by the 16 individuals. Shots returned. One (1) 17 First Nation person dead, two (2) 18 injured. These were people who were 19 occupying the Park. Highway 21 is 20 being blocked, apparently (allegedly as 21 a form of protest for the Base not 22 being turned over)." 23 And I will just leave it at there for -- 24 for the moment. I'll stop there. 25 Does that refresh your memory as to when
1421 you might have communicated that information to her? 2 A: I would have probably gave her a 3 heads-up at the 4:50 a.m. call and I would have spoke to 4 her at 6:20, I would either be in my office in Toronto or 5 travelling to. 6 Q: And do you recall giving her this 7 particular information at or around 6:20 a.m.? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: What was the source of your 10 information? 11 A: I would have got that from the 12 Command Post. 13 Q: The Command Post? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And do you recall who at the Command 16 Post? 17 A: I don't. 18 Q: All right. And then there's a 19 further notation: 20 "Deb Hutton doesn't think much of the 21 IM Group." 22 Did you take that to be the IMC Group? 23 A: I don't know. 24 Q: You don't know? Okay. Did you -- 25 was this comment communicated to you?
1431 A: Not that I recall. 2 Q: Thank you. The next comment is, and 3 these are Julie Jai's notes: 4 "Deputy Solicitor General Elaine [I 5 take it Elaine Todres] an OPP 6 Commissioner coming in. Will be 7 involved in Meeting at 7:00 a.m. with 8 PO staff." 9 Do you know anything about that? 10 A: I'm not aware of a meeting with PO 11 staff. I do recall that the Commissioner met with the 12 Deputy Solicitor General. 13 Q: All right. Were you present at that 14 Meeting? 15 A: Yes, I was. 16 Q: And when did that Meeting occur? 17 A: On the morning of the 6th. 18 Q: The 6th? 19 A: I'm sorry, the 7th. 20 Q: Sorry. 21 A: Early morning. 22 Q: Thank you. I'd like to make this the 23 next exhibit, please. 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-516, Your Honour. 25
1441 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-516: Document 1012542. 2 Handwritten notes from Julia 3 Jai re: phone calls from Ron 4 Fox and others, Thursday, 5 September '95. 6 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Now, Commissioner, I'm 8 wondering if we might break five (5) minutes early for 9 lunch, we've had a long morning session, and it would be 10 a convenient time to break. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If this is a 12 good time for you. If this is a good time, we will break 13 now for lunch. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 15 THE REGISTRAR: All rise please. This 16 Inquiry stands adjourned until 1:05. 17 18 --- Upon recessing at 11:50 p.m. 19 --- Upon resuming at 1:07 p.m. 20 21 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 22 resumed. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good afternoon. 24 THE COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon, 25 Superintendent.
1451 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 4 Q: Just prior to the lunch break we were 5 reviewing your conversation with Julie Jai of September 6 the 7th at 6:20 a.m. at Tab 35, it's Exhibit 5 -- P-516 7 and I asked you whether or not you'd been in attendance 8 with a meeting -- at a meeting and you indicated that you 9 had. 10 Perhaps you can tell us when that meeting 11 occurred and -- and who was involved? 12 A: It occurred on the 7th of September 13 as I recall. It involved the Deputy Solicitor General, 14 and the Deputy Attorney General, myself, Scott Patrick, 15 and I believe the Deputy Solicitor General's EA I don't 16 recall that Julie Jai was at that meeting. 17 Q: All right. Do you recall 18 approximately what time of the day that meeting occurred? 19 A: I believe it was at eight o'clock in 20 the morning -- 7:30 or 8:00. 21 Q: And what was the purpose of this 22 meeting? 23 A: My understanding of the meeting was 24 to certainly get up to speed for all parties with respect 25 to what had occurred, and then to determine where to go
1461 next. An injunction was in the process of being sought, 2 those types of things. 3 Q: All right. And did you provide the 4 update to those individuals? 5 A: Yes, I did. 6 Q: And did they, or any of them raise 7 any particular concerns with you during the course of 8 that meeting? 9 A: Not that I recall. 10 Q: All right. So, it was strictly a 11 reporting function? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: All right. And was there also an 14 Interministerial Committee meeting held on September the 15 7th? 16 A: Yes, there was. 17 Q: Were you in attendance of that 18 meeting? 19 A: Yes, I was. 20 Q: And approximately what time did that 21 meeting occur? 22 A: I believe it was late morning or 23 early afternoon. 24 Q: And to your knowledge, were minutes 25 generated of that meeting?
1471 A: To the best of my knowledge they 2 were. 3 Q: All right. I've not been able to 4 locate those, which is the reason why I've asked you. 5 Perhaps we can go -- perhaps you can advise me who, if 6 you can recall, was in attendance at the meeting? 7 A: The attendees would have been the -- 8 the -- the usual attendees, which was ONAS staff, a 9 representative from the Solicitor General, myself, and 10 MNR. 11 Q: All right. And just more 12 particularly, was Ms. Hutton at this meeting to the best 13 of your recollection? 14 A: Not that I'm aware of. 15 Q: To your -- the best of your 16 recollection, was she in attendance at any of the 17 subsequent -- any subsequent IMC meetings held in 18 relation to Ipperwash? 19 A: I don't believe that she was. 20 Q: At least not the ones that you were 21 in attendance at? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Now, perhaps I can take you to Tab 36 24 of your document brief, Inquiry Document 1011834. These 25 appear to be the handwritten notes of Julie Jai of the
1481 Interministerial Committee meeting for September 7, 1995, 2 and did you have an opportunity to review these in 3 advance of today? 4 A: Yes, I have. 5 Q: And to the best of your recollection, 6 do they accurately reflect the discussions and decisions 7 reached at that meeting? 8 A: I'm not certain that these are 9 reflective of an Interministerial Committee meeting, or 10 at least the -- the first part isn't. And the reason I 11 say that is I'm looking at kind of the -- the third 12 paragraph down, which really amounts to a name, Ron 13 Vancourt, LT. And it would seem to me that this may have 14 reflected something Ms. Jai. 15 Then, as you proceed through it, it goes 16 on to talk about -- about myself and the Deputy Solicitor 17 General, but it's in -- in a passive voice. There's a 18 reference to Ron on that page, but I think, in reading 19 this, that that would be to Mr. Ron Vancourt. 20 Q: All right. I was going to ask you 21 that. That's at -- on the first page where it's 22 referenced "Ron" towards the bottom of it? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And you believe that that's Ron 25 Vancourt?
1491 A: Yes, that's correct. The indication 2 is: "Has people at MNR -- it's either tuning up their 3 intelligence network, and we'll feed it to Ron?" And I'm 4 assuming that Ron would be me. 5 Q: All right. Okay. Do you recall then 6 what of significance was discussed at the 7 Interministerial Committee meeting of September the 7th? 8 A: The Interministerial Committee then 9 shifted gears, if you will, and construction of the 10 committee, and became really an advisory group to provide 11 for next steps in -- in the terms of how the government 12 would manage the matter. 13 Q: All right. Did it come to be known 14 as the Interministerial Support Group? 15 A: That is correct. 16 Q: And where there any other differences 17 that were significant in terms of the -- what we knew as 18 the Interministerial Committee prior to the 7th, and the 19 Support Group subsequent to the 7th? 20 A: My take on the Interministerial 21 Committee would be one that would be more proactive in 22 nature. The Interministerial Support Group would be 23 reactive after the fact in providing support and managing 24 the issue. 25 Q: Okay. And aside from the -- what
1501 you've alluded to in terms of the composition of the 2 Interministerial Support Group, can you advise as to 3 whether there were more, or fewer members of that 4 particular group? 5 A: I would say that the membership was 6 likely the same, but it changed somewhat in terms of 7 having communication personnel, both from MNR and from 8 the Solicitor General present for purposes of messaging, 9 and that sort of thing. 10 Q: All right. How frequent, then, did 11 the Support Group meet for the balance of '95 and up to 12 your term of February '96? 13 A: I would say in -- in the first days, 14 and up until November of 1995, there were fairly frequent 15 meetings, and then it -- the frequency decreased, and 16 again was at the call of the Chair. 17 Q: All right. Now, if you would look at 18 page 4 of Julie Jai's notes, Inquiry Document 1011834, 19 there's a "To Do By 5:00 p.m." heading? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And do you recollect whether or not 22 these five (5) items were discussed during the course of 23 the Interministerial Support Group meeting? 24 A: My sense in reading Ms. Jai's notes, 25 these would be a to-do for herself --
1511 Q: All right. 2 A: -- within the Ministry; that being 3 ONAS. 4 Q: Okay. Thank you. All right. Did 5 you have a further meeting at about 17:30, or 5:30 p.m., 6 on September the 7th in the Minister's Boardroom? 7 A: In the Deputy Minister's Boardroom, 8 yes. 9 Q: Okay. And perhaps I can take you to 10 Tab 31, and these -- I'm sorry, perhaps we'll just pause 11 for a moment. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just pause 13 for a minute. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 18 Q: And I was just asking you about your 19 meeting in the Deputy Minister's Boardroom on September 20 the 7th at about 5:30 p.m.; which Deputy Minister? 21 A: Solicitor General. 22 Q: All right. And I'd like to refer you 23 -- let me ask you this, were -- who else was in 24 attendance at this meeting? 25 A: Scott Patrick.
1521 Q: Yes, and anyone else? 2 A: The Deputy Solicitor General, and her 3 EA, who I believe at that time was Tony Van der Peet. 4 Q: What was the purpose of this meeting? 5 A: The meeting was to determine what 6 next steps that the Solicitor General's Ministry would 7 need to -- to take; what we were required to do. 8 Q: All right. And what was the -- the 9 conclusion or any decision made -- reached that -- at 10 that meeting? 11 A: The work with respect to the 12 injunction was -- was ongoing, and it was to -- to move 13 ahead. There was sort of two (2) facets, again 14 reiterating that MNR, as the landowner -- the property 15 owner, would manage that aspect of -- of the matter, and 16 that it would fall in to the police with respect to 17 ongoing issues on the ground, but bearing in mind at this 18 point in time, an SIU investigation was -- was also 19 entered into, and any of the -- either releases of 20 information would come in from SIU. 21 Q: All right. Now, was Scott Patrick at 22 that meeting? 23 A: Yes, he was. 24 Q: Would you look at Tab 31, please? 25 It's Inquiry Document 2003794, a series of documents that
1531 appear to be attributed to -- to Scott Patrick, and I'd 2 like to take you to the document entitled "September 7, 3 1995: Ipperwash Contentious Issues Meeting". 4 It follows the September 6th notes. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: Yes, I have it. 9 Q: All right. Now, was he also in 10 attendance at the -- the support group meeting of that 11 day -- earlier that day? 12 A: I believe that he was, yes. 13 Q: All right. And have you had a chance 14 -- an opportunity to review this document? 15 A: I have seen it before, yes. 16 Q: And it indicates that -- I know that 17 number 2 on the first pace -- page, I think it says 18 Toronto. "Each minister ensuring information 19 flow with intention to minimizing media 20 comment." 21 Do you recall that being discussed during 22 the -- the support group meeting? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: There's another bullet that states: 25 "The theme is law and order."
1541 I'm not sure what the other word says, can 2 you help me with that? 3 A: Theme is law and order. Issue -- 4 Q: Issue -- 5 A: -- dash, not a native issue. 6 Q: All right. Do you recall any 7 discussion around that topic at this meeting? 8 A: There was some discussion, yes. 9 Q: And what was the nature of that 10 discussion? 11 A: The -- the view was that it was an 12 issue that was specifically relating to law and order, 13 and that it wasn't an issue of native rights or land 14 claims. 15 Q: And on page 2 of these notes, there's 16 notes with respect to injunction? 17 A: Yes, I have it before me. 18 Q: And there's a comment four (4) lines 19 down: 20 "No enforcement until then. 21 Publication ban on -- on evidence and 22 affidavit." 23 And also notation to the side: 24 "Suspended enforcement measure." 25 Do you recall discussions around the --
1551 the status of the injunction at this meeting? 2 A: Yes I do, and the discussion centred 3 around when should it be served. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: Or when should it be enforced. 6 Q: And what was the -- the discussion in 7 that respect? 8 A: My sense and recollection was that as 9 there had been the tragedy, there were other ongoing 10 pieces to an investigation, that being SIU. It was felt 11 that it was prudent to wait before moving with either 12 enforcement of the injunction, or service. 13 Q: All right. And had -- had, in fact, 14 the injunction been obtained by the time of this meeting? 15 A: I believe that it had, but I'm not 16 certain. 17 Q: The following pages dated September 18 7, 1995, 15:30 p.m., and again, these purport to be the 19 notes of Scott Patrick, and from reviewing this does this 20 appear to be notes relating to the content of the meeting 21 in the Deputy Minister's boardroom that you've described? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: All right. And I see in the first 24 line it says, "Provincial Federal Interface Update." Is 25 that fair?
1561 A: I can't make out the word, but yes, I 2 would say it was Federal and Provincial probably 3 Interests and then Update. 4 Q: In any event, was there discussion at 5 this meeting concerning the involvement of the Federal 6 Government into this matter? 7 A: Yes, there was. 8 Q: Can you tell us, from the best of 9 your recollection, what the nature of that discussion 10 was? 11 A: The -- the Federal Government, of 12 course, had control and carriage of Canadian Forces Base 13 Ipperwash; it was in the throes of return process. There 14 were issues, then, around the environment assessment, or 15 cleanup, and how the surrender might ultimately be. 16 As well, with the Federal Government, they 17 had information with respect to the original surrender of 18 the land for the Provincial Park, and there was some 19 sense, I believe at this point in time, there was 20 information within the Federal Government that there -- 21 there had been some concern there may have been a burial 22 site at the former -- or at Ipperwash Provincial Park. 23 Q: All right. Based on your 24 participation in the Interministerial Committee meetings 25 to-date, and your participation on September the 7th in
1571 this meeting, is this the first time that the Federal 2 Government is actually being engaged, or at least 3 attempted to be engaged? 4 A: To the best of my knowledge. Now, I 5 can't speak to what ONAS may have been doing as a matter 6 of course. 7 Q: Yes. No, just based on your 8 participation in those meetings. And -- all right. 9 And it would appear, on page 2, under 10 "Tasks" that item 3 reads: "Federal provincial - ONAS 11 representative." 12 Is it your recollection that the ONAS -- 13 that ONAS was going to facilitate or initiate 14 communications with the Federal Government in this 15 respect? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Now, on the next page -- actually, we 18 won't review... 19 Two (2) pages hence, there's a further 20 entry, 17:30 September 7, 1995, Minister's Boardroom; 21 also appear to be the notes of Scott Patrick? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: The first line that reads: "Ron's 24 Update." 25 A: That's correct.
1581 Q: Is this an update that you provided? 2 A: Yes, it would be. 3 Q: And it indicates that you've provided 4 information on the TRU incident, what was that? 5 A: The TRU incident was the -- the 6 shooting of Mr. George. 7 Q: All right. A Kettle Point march you 8 provided information on? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And what did you -- what was that 11 about? 12 A: That was a march either in protest, 13 or in support that was undertaken by people of the Kettle 14 Point First Nation. 15 Q: All right. And the third bullet 16 reads: 17 "Mercredi, Peters, Miracle et al. At 18 Sarnia now, six o'clock meeting." 19 What was that about? 20 A: The individuals that you have named 21 and are identified in -- in Scott Patrick's notes, it's 22 my understanding that they were in the area, called to 23 the scene if you will, and would either take some -- some 24 action with respect to becoming involved in a de- 25 escalation of -- of tensions in the area, that type of
1591 thing. 2 Q: And did you know who these persons 3 were? 4 A: The only one that I had met 5 personally before was Mr. Gord Peters. 6 Q: And who did you understand him to be? 7 A: At that point in time Mr. Peters, I 8 believe, was the Chief of one of the Ontario 9 associations. 10 Q: And then it appears that Mr. Taman 11 provided an update? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: And was this with respect to the -- 14 the legal processes undertaken? 15 A: Yes, that's correct, with respect to 16 the injunction. 17 Q: And then under the heading 18 "Communications" there is the line "Premier - OPP 19 Matter", do you recall anything about that? About two 20 thirds (2/3) down, under "Communications?" 21 A: Yes, I see it. I'm just -- 22 Q: Sorry. 23 A: -- I'm just trying to read it. 24 Q: It continues on: "Not prepared to 25 meet on issue until resolved" I think it says?
1601 A: That's correct. And -- and I believe 2 that to be a re-articulation of what was in -- in the 3 mandate or charter of the Interministerial Committee. 4 Q: All right. On the next page, I just 5 have one (1) matter I want to review with you. Under -- 6 at the bottom, under "JJ", item 4, "march on blue water", 7 it's the very last line on the document. 8 Do you have any recollection as to what 9 that was about? 10 A: No, I don't. 11 Q: All right. Thank you. I would like 12 to make this document the next exhibit, please. 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-517. Is that just the 14 handwritten notes? 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The entire document. 16 We've gone through -- 17 THE REGISTRAR: The entire document. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- them now, so. 19 Thank you. 20 21 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-517: Document 2003794 Scott 22 Patrick's Will Say, May 23 12/'97 Meeting with Ron Fox 24 and Scott Patrick's 25 Handwritten Notes September
1611 06/'95 to September 07/'95 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 4 Q: Now, after September the 6th, 1995, 5 did you have any further meetings in relation to 6 Ipperwash with any of the other -- with any minister or 7 the Premier, with this -- with the exception of the 8 Solicitor General? 9 A: No, I did not. 10 Q: Did you continue to have contact with 11 Inspector Carson during the course of September 1995? 12 A: I did, and with Superintendent 13 Parkin. 14 Q: And what was the purpose of those 15 contacts? 16 A: Again, to get from the OPP, on -- on 17 site, a sense of what the issue was at the time, whether 18 it was stable, or whether there had been increases or 19 decreases. 20 Q: All right. And was it your 21 understanding that Inspector Carson was eventually 22 relieved as Incident Commander? 23 A: Yes, it is. 24 Q: And did you have contact with his 25 successor?
1621 A: No, I did not. 2 Q: All right. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Who was the -- who was the successor; 7 do you recall? 8 A: No, I do not. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: All right. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: I'll take you to Tab 37, please. 17 This is an entry from the scribe notes, Inquiry Document 18 1002419. 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And at 6:58 hours, this is a 21 September 8th entry, is a reference that Inspector Ron 22 Fox called Jerry Thompson, that Jerry Thompson updated 23 regarding lessened checkpoints, observation points, and 24 other points suggested to. 25 Do you recall who Jerry Thompson was?
1631 A: Jerry Thompson was an inspector out 2 of then former 7 district, now retired from the OPP. And 3 to be clear on who the Incident Commander was, Inspector 4 Carson had been assigned as the overall Incident 5 Commander, or the primary Incident Commander, owing to 6 his involvement in this area for some number of years. 7 It's certainly not practical, an Incident 8 Commander can be there twenty-four (24) hours a day, 9 seven (7) days a week; it rotated through. 10 Inspector Thompson wouldn't be the 11 primary, he would be one (1) of a number of Incident 12 Commanders who were there. 13 Q: Fair enough. In any event, you 14 continued to have these types of communications from time 15 to time in September, to receive an update on the status 16 of the situation? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And that was so that you could be 19 informed when you attended at the support group meetings 20 and in your reporting obligations to the Deputy Solicitor 21 General. 22 A: That's correct. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
1641 Q: And did you continue to receive 2 briefing materials from Julie Jai in relation to the 3 Ipperwash situation, subsequent to September the 7th? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And if you would go to Tab 39, 6 please? This is Inquiry Document number 1008858. This 7 is a fax from Julie Jai containing a series of documents 8 including news releases, backgrounders, and the such; did 9 you receive this package of materials? 10 A: Yes, I did. 11 Q: And it would appear that -- okay, I'd 12 like to make this the next exhibit, please. 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-518, your Honour. 14 15 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-518: Document 1008858 Fax from 16 Julie Jai Containing Press 17 Releases RE Ipperwash Park. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: If you'd go next to Tab 42 please, 21 Inquiry document number 1003550. This appears to be a -- 22 an e-mail from a Christine Beachley to a general e-mail - 23 - Beachy, sorry, to a general distribution list, dated 24 September 13, 1995. 25 And I'm interested in the notation at the
1651 bottom in handwriting that reads: 2 "Ron Fox met with local officials 3 yesterday. Heard their concerns which 4 are legitimate. There are brief 5 contacts with dissidents on base. 6 Imply they will move north to cottages, 7 and then to Pinery." 8 Now, did you have a meeting with local 9 officials on or about September the 12th? 10 A: I did. 11 Q: And do you recall who those local 12 officials were? 13 A: The -- the meeting was convened at 14 Mr. Beaubien's office in Petrolia. There were cottage 15 owners and residents from the local area who had concerns 16 that I think they wanted to -- to vet, yes. 17 Q: And what was your role at the 18 meeting? 19 A: I was simply there to -- to hear the 20 concerns along with Minister Runciman and if there was 21 something that the Solicitor General's ministry, on the 22 bureaucratic side, could do, it would be done. 23 Q: All right. And do you recall what 24 the specific concerns that were voiced were? 25 A: In general terms, citizens were --
1661 were concerned for their safety in terms of what 2 happened, what might happen next. I believe that they 3 were concerned also with the relationships between 4 themselves, and the broader First Nations community in -- 5 in this area. 6 Q: All right. And was -- was -- did you 7 make any response to these concerns? 8 A: I made no direct response to the 9 concerns, other than acknowledging they were there. I 10 recall one of the issues involved policing and policing 11 patrols. 12 There was a concern from some of the 13 citizens about the Anishnaabic Police Service who had 14 been assisting in patrolling the area to stand down from 15 that, and it was certainly explained that -- and I think 16 there was a lack of understanding on the part of some, 17 that the Anishnaabic police service were full functioning 18 police officers, able and entitled to carry out their 19 full duties under the law. 20 Q: All right. Anything else of 21 significance -- significance that you can recall 22 occurring at that meeting? 23 A: Not that I can recall. 24 Q: I'd like to make this the next 25 exhibit.
1671 THE REGISTRAR: What Tab number is that, 2 Ms. Vella? 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Tab 42, Inquiry 4 Document 1003550. 5 THE REGISTRAR: That's P-519, Your 6 Honour. 7 8 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-519: Document 103550 Ipperwash 9 Update From Christine Beachey 10 to Everyone Wednesday, 11 September 13/'95, 2:18 P.M. 12 RE Irwin's Press Conference 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: Now, was one (1) of the tasks taken 16 by the Interministerial Support Group the development of 17 -- of management -- a management plan? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: Would you go next to Tab 44, Inquiry 20 Document 1011910? 21 It's entitled, "Ipperwash Management Plan" 22 and also it is noted to be draft. 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Were -- were you involved in the 25 creation of this plan?
1681 A: Yes. 2 Q: And what was the -- the purpose of 3 creating it? 4 A: This was to put together an overview, 5 or a general management plan that specified, to the 6 degree possible, what the actions would be of the 7 individual line ministries that would have had interest 8 in this plan. 9 Q: All right. And were you assigned 10 specific tasks? 11 A: As I recall, there were some tasks 12 that fell to the Solicitor General, yes. 13 Q: If you look at page 2 under the 14 "Task/Issue Injunction": 15 "OPP to give instructions as to when to 16 initiate AG to prepare material." 17 No timing is slotted here, and the persons 18 responsible appear to be yourself and Andrew Macdonald. 19 Now, which task were you responsible for? 20 A: For the -- the top one, OPP to give 21 instructions as to when to initiate. Andrew Macdonald 22 was legal counsel either with ONAS, or with MNR, and I'm 23 -- I'm sorry I can't recall. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: He was tasked along -- I believe with
1691 Tim McCabe in developing the application for the 2 injunction. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: So, his would be preparation of that 5 material. 6 Q: And I note this is prepared -- or at 7 least dated -- September the 13th, 1995. Do you have any 8 knowledge as to what had happened with respect to the 9 injunction proceedings that had been commenced on 10 September the 7th? 11 A: I can't recall. 12 Q: All right. I'd like to make this the 13 -- I'm sorry. And if we would go to page 3, under the 14 task or issue "Identifying and Monitoring other Potential 15 Emergencies" under "Commitment": 16 "Ministries to bring items to Julie 17 Jai. Julie Jai to alert Ron Fox. 18 Persons responsible, Julie Jai and Ron 19 Fox." 20 Is that accurate? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And when it's referencing other 23 potential emergencies, can you give us a sense as to what 24 that means? 25 A: In aboriginal communities.
1701 Q: All right. So, beyond Ipperwash? 2 A: Beyond Ipperwash in those communities 3 where the incident at Ipperwash may have some effect or 4 impact. 5 Q: Thank you. I'd like to make this the 6 next exhibit, please? 7 THE REGISTRAR: P-520, Your Honour. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-520: Document 1011910 Ipperwash 10 Management Plan September 11 13/'95. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 14 Q: And go next to Tab 45 please. This 15 is a further scribe entry note, Inquiry Document 1002419. 16 It's an entry from September the 13th, 1995, and looking 17 at the entry of 13:10. 18 A: Yes? 19 Q: And you are -- did you report to 20 Superintendent Pielin (phonetic) with respect to the 21 meeting with the local residents that you have described 22 attending on September the 13th? 23 A: Yes, I -- it wasn't so much a report, 24 it was an information item that the Minister had been in 25 the area, and that there was a meeting.
1711 Q: All right. Thank you. And of 2 course, this is all part of Exhibit P-426, the scribe 3 notes. 4 And the next tab is a further scribe note 5 entry September 15, 1995, a part of Exhibit P-426, entry 6 at 13:20: 7 "Inspector Thompson receives a phone 8 call from Inspector Duffield. 9 Commissioner's office informed him 10 reference contingency plans for Pinery 11 Park. 12 Inspector Duffield will call Barb 13 Taylor and Ron Fox, Solicitor General's 14 office." 15 Now, were you in turn contacted with 16 respect to a contingency plan for the Pinery Park? 17 A: It was a -- it was a contact, and I'm 18 going to suggest it was likely by e-mail, and the 19 information would be that the OPP had contingency plans 20 for the Pinery Park. 21 Q: Now, was the Pinery Park an issue 22 that was being actively considered by the Inter- 23 Ministerial Support Group at this time? 24 A: No, it was not. 25 Q: Or by an Inter-Ministerial Committee?
1721 A: No, it was not. 2 Q: All right. And do you know why not? 3 A: I don't believe that there had been, 4 at that point in time, any indication that the Pinery 5 might be an area that would have greater interest to 6 First Nation. 7 Q: And was a project management plan 8 then developed by the Support Group in relation to a 9 specific management plan while the occupation of 10 Ipperwash Park was ongoing? 11 A: That's correct. As I'd indicated 12 previously, an overview of how the various line 13 ministries would interact. 14 Q: All right. I wonder if you would go 15 next to Tab 47 please, Inquiry Document 1011954, and this 16 appears to be a confidential draft project management 17 plan; have you seen this document before? 18 A: I have. 19 Q: It's dated September the 15th, 1995. 20 Can you tell us what gave rise to this? 21 A: This was one of, if not the primary 22 mandate of the Interministerial Support Group after the 23 matter at Ipperwash. And as I indicated, the project 24 management plan was to determine what action and 25 interaction there should be with -- between my ministries
1731 who had an interest in the matter, and to position the 2 various responses that might be required by the 3 government to-date. 4 Q: And does this document set out 5 essentially what the composition of the support group 6 will -- will be? 7 A: Yes, it does. 8 Q: And under Item 1 particularly, the 9 Chair is Yan Lazor from ONAS? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: The representative from the Attorney 12 General is Andrew MacDonald? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Julie Jai continued to be on this -- 15 this group but as -- now as a -- a member from ONAS? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Who is Merike Por? 18 A: As I -- excuse me, as I recall, Ms. 19 Por was working with ONAS, and I believe in the 20 communications area. 21 Q: You are there as the primary contact 22 for the Solicitor General? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And Kirk Smith as well, who was he? 25 A: Kirk Smith was the individual who was
1741 the -- the Manager of Communications with the Solicitor 2 General. His 2i/c or assistant was Ken Tufts. 3 Q: And then the primary representative 4 for the MNR was to be Peter Allen, and also Barry Jones 5 as an alternate? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And does this line -- this plan also 8 accurately set out what your mandate, if you will, the 9 mandate of the new support group was? 10 A: Yes. It's identified on page 2 of 11 that document. 12 Q: I would like to make this the next 13 exhibit, please. 14 THE REGISTRAR: P-521. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-521: Document 1011954 Project 17 Management Plan September 18 15/'95 3:00 P.M. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: Now, I note that this is a draft, was 22 it finalized? 23 A: I believe that it was. And I -- as I 24 recall, there were no particular changes to it. 25 Q: Thank you. And you've indicated that
1751 there were then some further Support Group meetings from 2 the Interministerial Group, and were minutes generated 3 from those meetings? 4 A: Yes, there were. 5 Q: And if you would go next to Tab 49, 6 please, it appears to be a document entitled "Support 7 Group Meeting of September 20, 1995", Inquiry Document 8 1012439; can -- can you identify this document? 9 A: Yes. This is a sampling of minutes 10 from the Interministerial Support Group meeting, and it's 11 dated the 20th of September 1995. 12 Q: Were you in attendance at this 13 meeting? 14 A: I was. 15 Q: And do these minutes accurately 16 reflect the -- the overall content of this meeting? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: I'd like to make that the next 19 exhibit, please. 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-522. 21 22 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-522: Document 1012439 Support 23 Group Meeting Minutes 24 September 20/'95 25
1761 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 4 Q: And we go next to Tab 53, please. 5 These appear to be minutes of the support group meeting 6 for October 3rd, 1995. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Can you identify those -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- and did you receive those? 11 A: I did. 12 Q: And do they accurately reflect the 13 general contents of that meeting? 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: They do. 18 Q: I'd like to make that the next 19 exhibit, please. 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-523, your Honour. 21 22 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-523: Document 1012456 Support 23 Group Meeting Minutes October 24 03/'95 25
1771 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 2 Q: Now at this time, in October of 1995, 3 what were the main issues that you were considering, at 4 both as Special Advisor, and as a member of the support 5 group, in relation to Ipperwash Park? 6 A: There was a number of areas that were 7 of concern, not only to myself but to the group at large. 8 It was a change in season, moving from 9 fall towards winter. The Park had to be winterized for - 10 - for the season, to deal with water lines and that sort 11 of thing; that was an issue. 12 There were still concerns from cottagers 13 in the local area with respect to what the future may -- 14 may hold for them. 15 There was certainly indications -- there 16 was an anti-native sentiment growing with -- within the 17 community, I think largely because of a lack of -- of 18 appropriate communication. 19 Q: Communication from whom? 20 A: I think communication generally about 21 the incident, what the next steps were. I don't think 22 you can put it down to any one source, it was just -- the 23 local residents were not that well informed on it. 24 And at that point, if you'll go to page 2, 25 the top of, under sub-bullet (b), a rumour is circulating
1781 regarding the possible occupation of Pinery Park for 2 either Thanksgiving weekend, or 6th or 9th -- or the -- 3 October 29th. 4 So those were areas and issues that were 5 of concern to the Interministerial Committee. 6 Q: I note on page 1, under "updates", 7 sub (a) there's an indication as follows: 8 "Concerns were also raised as to the 9 effectiveness of an injunction. Chris 10 Coles felt that an injunction would be 11 of no value." 12 Was that sentiment expressed? 13 A: Yes, it was. 14 Q: And do you have any understanding as 15 to why it was, that Superintendent Coles felt -- sorry, 16 Chief Superintendent Coles felt that an injunction would 17 be of no value? 18 A: That question may be best put to 19 Chief Superintendent Coles. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: If you're asking for my opinion -- 22 Q: Well, let -- let me ask you this. 23 Who -- who communicated this sentiment at the meeting? 24 A: I communicated it. 25 Q: And based on what?
1791 A: A conversation with Chief 2 Superintendent Coles. 3 Q: All right, and based on that 4 conversation, then, what was your impression as to his 5 view? 6 A: That things had moved along, and had 7 stabilized since the death of Mr. George, and that the -- 8 the use then of an injunction, it was the view of the 9 police that it may tend to inflame the situation, and I 10 don't believe for a moment that it was being dismissed 11 out of hand by Chief Superintendent Coles. I think it 12 was more of a cautionary, and I was bringing that to the 13 attention of the committee. 14 Q: Fair enough. And on page 2, under 15 (3): 16 "Federal Provincial Strategy". 17 What did you learn from the meeting about 18 the Federal Provincial Strategy Draft that was apparently 19 circulated at this meeting? 20 A: There had been, obviously, contact 21 with DIAND at the Federal Government Department of Indian 22 Affairs and Northern Development by ONAS, an attempt to 23 set up a meeting between the deputy Attorney General, and 24 someone in the -- in the -- in the Department of Indian 25 Affairs and Northern Development to determine what
1801 commonality of interest there might be, and again, what 2 there might be in terms of responsibilities, either 3 shared or individual to either government. 4 Q: Okay. Thank you. And if you'd go, 5 next please to Tab 54, this appears to be further meeting 6 notes concerning the Support Group meeting of October 7 26th, 1995, and do you recognize those minutes? 8 A: I do. 9 Q: I'd like to make those the next 10 exhibit, please. 11 THE REGISTRAR: P-524, Your Honour. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-524: Document 1001046 Support 14 Group Meeting Minutes October 15 26/'95 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 18 Q: And again, what are the key issues 19 that are -- are a concern at this Interministerial 20 Support Group meeting? 21 A: Once again, there was the -- from an 22 MNR perspective -- was winterizing of -- of the 23 Provincial Park. There -- there were, at one (1) point 24 in time, members of the Warrior Society in the area. I 25 do recall as I read these minutes reporting that I -- I
1811 had spoken with Chief Glen Bannon (phonetic) of the 2 Anishnaabic Police Service and it was certainly his 3 understanding in talking to people at both the Base, and 4 who may have been at the Park, that it was the desire of 5 the warriors to leave at that point in time. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: The other major issue that we were 8 faced with is that a letter had been received from the 9 United Nations speaking about an execution, if you will. 10 Q: Fair enough. And if you would go to 11 Tab 65 next, please? 12 And these are a summary of the meeting of 13 the Support Group of November 29th, 1995, and again, have 14 you -- did you receive this document? 15 A: I did. 16 Q: And does the contents accurately 17 reflect what transpired at that meeting? 18 A: I believe that it does. 19 Q: We'll make that the next exhibit, 20 please? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 22 which tab was that? 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm sorry, Tab 65. 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-525, Your Honour. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 525.
1821 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And it was Inquiry 2 Document 1012486. 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-525: Document 1012486 Support 5 Group Meeting Summary of 6 Meeting November 29/'95 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 9 Q: Now, at any point in time was there a 10 discussion at the Support Group of the option or 11 possibility that the Park would be reopened that 12 following spring in '96? 13 A: Yes. As I recall, whether it came up 14 first at the Support Group, or at the Interministerial 15 Committee, it was the intention of MNR to reopen the Park 16 for the season 1996. 17 Q: Did you express any views with 18 respect to the advisability or practicality of that 19 suggestion? 20 A: My -- my concern I related was this, 21 that until we could bring resolution to those things that 22 caused the occupation to occur, that it would be 23 problematic for the Park to be open, particularly from a 24 public safety standpoint. 25 Q: And how was your suggestion received,
1831 if you can tell us? 2 A: I believe that it was understood, and 3 I think my concerns in that regard were understood. I 4 believe that I -- I said it may be prudent not to open 5 the Park; that seemed to be a decision that had already 6 been taken by MNR for the -- for the next year. 7 Q: All right. And I'm sorry, I think I 8 missed one (1) document, Tab 64, confidential minutes 9 with respect to occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park 10 options; it's dated November 29th, 1995. 11 And did you receive a copy of this 12 document? 13 A: Yes, I did. 14 Q: And can you tell us what gave rise to 15 this document? 16 A: This one was certainly providing the 17 -- the front-end information of what was occurring right 18 now, what the situation was, and identifying the issues 19 that we saw at least for the short-term, and perhaps for 20 the longer term, and then identified a series of options. 21 Q: And at the end of the -- the document 22 I see that the options that appear to be recommended was 23 Option 1 as a short-term solution, that is the OPP 24 continue informal low-key discussions with occupiers 25 aimed at ending occupation?
1841 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And is that your recollection? 3 A: My recollection? Yes. 4 Q: Option 3 should be adopted if no 5 progress is made, and that is Government appoints a facts 6 finder to have discussions with the occupiers, aimed at 7 peacefully and definitely concluding the occupation? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And I see that -- did you put forward 10 some recommendations at this point? 11 A: I did. I put forward the name of 12 Inspector Jim Potts. 13 Q: And what was the basis of your 14 recommendation? 15 A: Jim Potts I'd known for a 16 considerable period of time, he is a member of the 17 Ontario Provincial Police, former member of the RCMP, he 18 is a First Nations person. And having worked with Jim, I 19 know that he is able to very quickly develop a rapport 20 with people, I think particularly with First Nations, but 21 with that said, with all others as well. 22 And I thought if there was anyone who 23 might be able to -- to be of -- of particular assistance, 24 it would be Jim. 25 Q: And then if there's still not
1851 sufficient progress after Option 1 and Option 3 are 2 tried, then litigation should be recommended. Now, what 3 was the litigation in relation to; did you have an 4 understanding of that? 5 A: To be quite frank with you, I'm not 6 as familiar with what the litigation might be. 7 Q: I see that under Item 5, for example, 8 there was a discussion of seeking an injunction; does 9 that refresh your memory at all? 10 A: If that's part of the litigation 11 process, yes. 12 Q: Fair enough. Thank you. I would 13 like to make this the next exhibit, please. 14 THE REGISTRAR: P-526, Your Honour. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-526: Document 1012483 Fax from 17 Eileen Hipfner to Andrew 18 Macdonald, Ron Fox, Barry 19 Jones Re: Ipperwash 20 Provincial Park, November 21 29/'95 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 24 Q: I would like you to go next to Tab 25 67, please, Inquiry Document Number 1012180, it's a
1861 memorandum to Elaine Todres, Deputy Solicitor General, 2 and Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, from Ronald 3 E. Fox, Special Advisor, dated January 24, 1996. Subject: 4 "Meeting with Rita Burak, Ipperwash Discussion Points." 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: Did you prepare and send this 7 memorandum? 8 A: I did. 9 Q: And what was -- what were you 10 conveying to the Deputy Minister here? 11 A: It was on the request of the Deputy 12 Solicitor General to prepare herself for a meeting with 13 Rita Burak, who was the Chair of Management for the 14 Cabinet. 15 Q: All right. And at this point in time 16 who is the primary person, if you can tell us, who the 17 Support Group was reporting to in relation to the 18 political branch of the Government? 19 A: I'm going to assume that it was 20 probably Cabinet Office that it would have been, but as 21 individuals, we reported to our own ministries. 22 Q: I would like to make this the next 23 exhibit, please. 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-527, Your Honour. 25
1871 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-527: Document 1012180 Memorandum 2 from Ron Fox, Special 3 Advisor, First Nations to 4 Elaine Todres, Solicitor 5 General and Deputy Minister, 6 Correctional Services RE 7 Meeting with Rita Burak - 8 Ipperwash Discussion Points, 9 January 24/'96 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 12 Q: I would like to return to Tab 31 for 13 a moment, it's Exhibit P-517, and go to the second page, 14 second and third pages of that document entitled "Meeting 15 May 12, 1997, Ron Fox, Scott Patrick, Aurora." 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And it indicates that this is notes 18 of an interview with respect to going over the files that 19 were in the office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy 20 Minister First Nation Issues. 21 Do you recall attending at any such 22 meeting or interview? 23 A: Yes, I do. 24 Q: Who conducted the interview? 25 A: Now retired Inspector Greg Connolly.
1881 Q: And what was the context of this 2 interview? 3 A: His tasking was to put together all 4 the information that the Ontario Provincial Police had 5 with respect to Ipperwash. 6 Q: All right. And by this time, you had 7 left the post of Special Advisor? 8 A: I had. 9 Q: And returned to active police duties? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: Okay. Was Scott Patrick now the 12 special advisor? 13 A: He was. 14 Q: I'd like to draw your attention to 15 the second paragraph and the following statement, with 16 respect to the Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal 17 Emergencies. It reads: 18 "The Committee was in place before 19 Ipperwash. As Ipperwash played out, 20 structure of committee changed. 21 Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat 22 chaired Committee. Mandate clearing 23 house for information that was relevant 24 to a number of ministries. In 25 Ipperwash, owner MNR, injunction.
1891 Ministry of the Attorney General. 2 Trespass. MNR enforcement OPP." 3 Now, do you recall being asked about the 4 Interministerial Committee? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And does that reflect the -- the 7 discussion that you had at the meeting? 8 A: It does, with some exceptions. 9 Q: And what exception would that be? 10 A: There is an indication in Greg 11 Connolly's note, the Chair would brief the deputy 12 ministers. As I indicated earlier, that's not correct; 13 that fell from the representative of the particular line 14 ministry to do that. 15 Q: Yes. And did you make a 16 recommendation that you strongly opposed having an 17 operational OPP Member sit on the Committee, which would, 18 or could inadvertently release to committee? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: What was that about? 21 A: That was based on my experience as 22 the special advisor. While it is a position where police 23 knowledge and skills may be of certain benefit, I think 24 it's far more prudent, practically and optically, not to 25 have a police officer there.
1901 It's not alone, and it wasn't my 2 observation alone with respect to Ipperwash or any future 3 incident on a First Nations territory; that extended, as 4 well, through the negotiation of policing contracts. 5 While police experience was of value to a 6 negotiator in putting together those contracts, my view 7 is it would likely have been best served by someone who 8 was non -- a non-police officer, and in all probability, 9 a First Nations person. 10 Q: Okay. Now the -- the next paragraph 11 reads as follows: 12 "Reporting to Premier's office? Up to 13 Ipperwash, only Cabinet Representative 14 would report to Rita Burak. No 15 political representation 'til 16 Ipperwash, and then political aides for 17 all ministries. Revise mandate in 18 February 1996. No more political 19 involvement in committee." 20 Can you explain what those comments 21 reflect? 22 A: Yes, the reporting to the Premier's 23 office, obviously -- well, it's identified with a 24 question mark after that, I think the author of the 25 document is making that a question in his own mind,
1911 perhaps, to jog his memory. 2 As I have testified to before, up to 3 Ipperwash, there was very little, if any, representation, 4 as I understand it, on the Interministerial Committee by 5 political staffers. 6 And with respect to the revision in the 7 mandate in February of '96, I'm afraid I can't speak to 8 that; that may be better answered by Scott Patrick. 9 Q: All right, that's about when you left 10 the position? 11 A: That is correct. 12 Q: Thank you. Now, on page 2, the 13 second last paragraph reads as follows: 14 "Ron Fox called Command Post and Coles 15 night of the shooting. Barbara Taylor 16 called me. Only calling for updates, 17 RE: occurrence." 18 I'm more interested in the first part of 19 that. Does that refresh your memory with respect to 20 where you found out about the shooting incident? 21 A: I believe that I testified that it 22 would have likely have been from the Command Post. I am 23 -- I'm not certain at all that I spoke with Chief 24 Superintendent Coles that evening. 25 Q: All right. And the last point reads
1921 as follows: 2 "All e-mails lost when transferring 3 computers from Ron Fox to Scott 4 Patrick." 5 Can you tell us what that is in reference 6 to? 7 A: That's with respect to the computer 8 that I was using in the office of the Deputy Solicitor 9 General when I was there as a special advisor. There was 10 a procedure where one (1) of the staff members who is 11 literate in computer technology would transfer that files 12 that existed on the computer I was using to Scott 13 Patrick's; that didn't occur. Files were lost as I 14 understand it. 15 Q: And when did you discover that your 16 files with the e-mails had been lost? 17 A: I -- I didn't discover that. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: It was discovered when there were 20 inquiries made, and I believe the first were freedom of 21 information inquiries, and the research was done, and 22 found that there was no files there. 23 Q: Were you consulted at all in relation 24 to the search for the -- the e-mail -- missing e-mails? 25 A: I was.
1931 Q: And what information, if any, were 2 you able to provide on that respect? 3 A: I -- at one (1) point in time, I 4 provided an affidavit, and the substance of that 5 affidavit was that I was a special advisor, I left that 6 position on a particular date, and on leaving the 7 computer remained there with whatever material I had 8 generated on it there, and if it went missing, it was 9 done when the files were transferred. 10 I also qualified in that affidavit that if 11 there were any e-mails that were of particular note, they 12 were printed out by myself and put in the four (4) 13 volumes of Ipperwash files that I believe I spoke to 14 yesterday. 15 Q: And did you have an opportunity at 16 that time to review your files to determine whether, in 17 fact, those -- the hard copies, if you will, of the 18 important e-mails had been maintained? 19 A: I did. 20 Q: What was your conclusion? 21 A: To the best of my knowledge they were 22 there, in -- in the form and fashion that I had filed 23 them. 24 Q: Thank you. Now, you left the Office 25 of the Special Advisor in February of 1996?
1941 A: That is correct. 2 Q: And what was the status of the 3 Ipperwash file when you left it? 4 A: The matter was still ongoing. By the 5 time I had left the Office of the Special Advisor, 6 winterizing of the Park had occurred under the auspices 7 of -- of the OPP, and the Anishnaabic Police Service 8 providing an oversight, if you will, as MNR members went 9 in to -- to do that. 10 There had been, at that point in time, a 11 fact finder appointed by the Federal Government with 12 respect to CFB Ipperwash -- the former CFB Ipperwash. 13 The matter was ongoing, but I would say stable from a 14 policing perspective at that time. 15 Q: Thank you. Did you have any further 16 involvement with the Ipperwash situation as an active 17 police officer after February of 1996? 18 A: Yes, I did, and continue to have up 19 until this day. 20 Q: What is the general nature of that 21 ongoing involvement as an active police officer? 22 A: My responsibilities in my current 23 position are that of Regional Director of Operations, and 24 as such, I have a responsibility to ensure that 25 operations in -- in and throughout the region are carried
1951 out appropriately. The necessary supports and assistance 2 to our members in conducting those operations are there. 3 One (1) of the things that I was 4 personally involved in, in terms of identifying an 5 individual to do it, and providing him the supports, was 6 entering into a protocol for response with the budding 7 community that was part of the former CFB Ipperwash. 8 Q: Now, Superintendent, from your unique 9 vantage point as -- as an OPP officer, and also at the 10 material time as a Special Advisor of First Nations, do 11 you have any suggestions for the Commissioner's 12 consideration as to how to, hopefully, reduce, or prevent 13 a similar situation from developing in the future as 14 developed in the evening of September the 6th, 1995? 15 A: I -- I guess I'll fall back on what 16 I've testified to before. 17 Dealing with First Nations, and First 18 Nations People, and issues that may present, is unique. 19 I do support the concept, wholeheartedly, that we're all 20 one as citizens under the law, and that should be 21 applicable. 22 But there are some very special areas that 23 need to be addressed when dealing with First Nations 24 People, particularly when it is ofttimes times their 25 reasonable belief that they have certain rights and
1961 entitlements either enshrined in treaty, or at least 2 articulated orally by their forefathers. 3 I think one of the things that we all have 4 to be cognisant of is that when we approach any of these 5 situations, we can't view it as overly simplistic. We 6 have to identify that there are some unique complexities 7 to it, try to break it down into its simplest integers, 8 and then move forward. 9 I do appreciate the concept of not 10 negotiating when there are blockades in place, or when 11 there are occupations in place, I understand that 12 concept. But there are times when I think one must and 13 should pro-act. 14 And I example with respect to either 15 burial grounds or land claims; there is a formalized 16 process. And I'm certain that many of those in the room 17 learned in the law would understand that process. I 18 would suggest that it's not easily understood by many of 19 us who are laypersons. 20 If we approach these things, and we find 21 that there has been some identification, it would be my 22 humble opinion that we should pro-act at that time, to do 23 the due diligence, to determine to the extent that we can 24 whether there is a burial site, whether there is some 25 unwritten treaty in place that would have that -- that
1971 impact. 2 So, from my perspective and a policing 3 perspective, I don't know that we would want to change, 4 and I don't know that it's just the OPP, but other police 5 services, but based on containing the situation, open the 6 lines of communication, hear what's being said, and then 7 move ahead in a reasoned manner. 8 Q: Thank you, Superintendent Fox. 9 Commissioner, that completes my 10 examination. Would you like to canvass Counsel with 11 respect to cross-examination? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We haven't 13 done this for a while. I think we should do that, yes. 14 I think we should canvass Counsel regarding anticipated 15 time, and intention to cross-examine, and then see where 16 we are from there. 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll do it 19 in the order that we have it and then we'll see what -- 20 what happens. 21 The OPPA, do you have any cross- 22 examination and, if so, how long? 23 MR. IAN MCGLIP: No questions, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No 25 questions. The Province of Ontario...?
1981 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes. I'm sorry, 2 you'll have to come up -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have to 4 speak into the microphone. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- into the 6 microphone. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Otherwise, 8 we can't hear you. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Counsel did approach 10 me to assure -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- with respect to 13 their requests that -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Do you 15 want to just tell what the situation -- you have to speak 16 into that mike -- mike over there. 17 MS. MICHELLE PONG: We are requesting 18 that we cross-examine before the -- just before the OPP 19 cross-examines because we -- we expect that our cross- 20 examination might actually be reduced in time after the 21 other cross-examinations, or we might not even have to 22 cross-examine. 23 And also, we consider that Mr. Fox was, in 24 his role as a special advisor, somewhat of a civil 25 servant.
1991 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Perhaps -- perhaps I 2 may make a submission in this respect. 3 Commissioner, it's my respectful 4 submission that Superintendent Fox is represented by the 5 OPP at this Inquiry, and therefore they are appropriately 6 examining at the end. My understanding with respect to 7 the government is that the lawyer who will be conducting 8 the cross-examination will not be able to attend until 9 tomorrow. 10 Now, perhaps it would be acceptable if 11 Counsel for the -- the various politicians may proceed, 12 or at least one (1) of those individuals proceed today 13 and then Ms. Twohig will be here in the morning and could 14 be, perhaps -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- cross-examine at 17 that time, subject to what Counsel say -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But it would 19 be before the aboriginal parties -- 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yeah. I think that 21 that's -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- cross- 23 examine -- 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- appropriate. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That's
2001 fine. That's fine. 2 MS. MICHELLE PONG: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll hold 4 that down then. The next potential cross-examiner is Mr. 5 Downard. 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Sir, I anticipate 7 currently about a day to a day and a half. I generally 8 try to be shorter rather than longer, and I'll try to be 9 shorter if I can. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would you be 11 prepared to start if the OPPA has no questions and the 12 Province of Ontario wants to be held down? Would you 13 be -- 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Sure, that's -- 15 that's fine. My preference -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- would 17 that -- MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- would be that we 18 have a break first. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We will have 20 a break and then you'd start? Mr. Harnick, anybody here 21 on behalf the -- yes? 22 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: I may be fifteen 23 (15) minutes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Runc -- 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'll just repeat this
2011 for the record. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, you'll 3 have to repeat it, because we can't -- 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Fifteen (15) minutes 5 for Counsel for Mr. -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ten (10) 7 minutes. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- Harnick. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 10 Runciman, anybody here? 11 MR. IAN SMITH: An hour or less. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: An hour or 13 less? Counsel on behalf of Mr. Hodgson? 14 MR. CRAIG MILLS: Commissioner, I would 15 say about an hour. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: One (1) hour. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Counsel on 18 behalf of Mr. Beaubien...? 19 MR. TREVOR HINNEGAN: No questions at 20 this time. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Counsel on 22 behalf of Ms. Hutton? 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: A couple of hours, 24 sir. 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: About two (2) hours?
2021 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 2 Municipality of Lambton Shores? 3 MS. JANET CLERMONT: No questions. 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No questions? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The Chief 6 Coroner? 7 MR. AL O'MARRA: No questions, your 8 Honour. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No questions. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The estate 11 of Dudley George? 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Two (2) or 13 three (3) hours, but we may be suggesting a change in 14 order and this may reduce that. We can address that 15 later. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Two (2) to three (3) 17 hours. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 19 Aazhoodena and George Family Group? 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Less than two (2) 21 hours. 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Less than two (2) 23 hours. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 25 Residents of Aazhoodena?
2031 MR. CAMERON NEIL: In light of the 2 absence of Mr. Ross, I'll estimate one (1) hour or less. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: One (1) hour or less? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Chippewas of 5 Kettle and Stony Point? 6 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: Half hour. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Half hour. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Half hour. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Chiefs of 10 Ontario, Mr. Horton...? 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: About an hour. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: One (1) hour. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Aboriginal 14 Legal Services of Toronto? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Between -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, I 17 can't hear you, Mr. Falconer. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: We anticipate 19 between a half day and a day, and the order's change that 20 Mr. Klippenstein referred to is a matter that I would be 21 seeking to address you on. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you go 23 first, among the aboriginal group, that may shorten the 24 time of some of the others. Is that fair? 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Klippenstein
2041 spoke to that, and that's the only thing I can speak to. 2 The idea is that Mr. Klippenstein, for the George family, 3 and ALST are respectfully suggesting we change positions 4 and in the beginning I expect I'll take between a half 5 day and a day, and I think that's what Mr. Klippenstein 6 was speaking to in terms of his time. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that in 8 accord or in agreement with all of the aboriginal group 9 of parties? That's fine. 10 And finally, the Ontario Provincial 11 Police? 12 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Good afternoon, 13 Commissioner. I can indicate, sir, it was asked of me 14 earlier today whether or not the OPP would be canvassing 15 any new areas that had not already been canvassed by My 16 Friend, Ms. Vella, and I can indicate that we will not. 17 And at this point, obviously, it's 18 premature for me to give you any accurate indication of 19 the length of time, because that's a function of what 20 comes up in the cross-examinations that precede us. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 22 but there are no new areas, so you'll come at the end. 23 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You'll 25 cross-examine at the end. I haven't added that all up,
2051 but we'll take a break now and we'll add it up and see 2 what it amounts to and go from there. Thank you very 3 much. 4 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 5 for fifteen (15) minutes. 6 7 --- Upon recessing at 2:20 p.m. 8 --- Upon resuming at 2:39 p.m. 9 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 11 resumed, please be seated. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 16 you start, Mr. Downard, if everybody takes the maximum 17 amount of time that they estimated, we could be three and 18 a half (3 1/2) to four (4) days. That doesn't usually 19 happen; everybody doesn't usually take the maximum amount 20 of time and, of course, depending on earlier examiners, 21 could be less or more. 22 We were hoping that we might complete with 23 Superintendent Fox by the end of the week, which is two 24 (2) days and a bit. If we don't then we have to go into 25 Monday. It's not the end of the world, but we will do
2061 our best. We'll just start and see if these estimates 2 are reasonable and we'll just go as far as we can. Mr. 3 Downard, start. 4 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 6 Q: Thank you, sir. Superintendent Fox, 7 my name is Peter Downard and I act for the former Ontario 8 premier Mike Harris and I just have a few questions; 9 well, a little more than a few to ask you about your 10 evidence here. 11 Now, as I understood your evidence, you 12 worked at Queen's Park or at least in -- in Toronto as 13 the Special Advisor on First Nations matters to the 14 Solicitor General's ministry commencing in February of 15 1995, right? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And I take it you had not worked in 18 the Provincial Government before? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And I -- I take it you had not worked 21 in any other government job before, setting aside your 22 police experience? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And had you ever worked in any job of 25 a political nature?
2071 A: No, I had not. 2 Q: And, sir, if I can just refer you to 3 your CV for a moment... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Exhibit 496, 8 I think. 9 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just bear with me for 10 a moment, sir. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 15 Q: Now, sir, it's at Tab 76 of the 16 Commission brief. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Do you have it there? 21 A: I have it before me, sir. 22 Q: Thank you. Now, you spoke in your 23 evidence-in-chief about your past professional 24 involvement in policing matters that involved you in work 25 with the First Nations people; do you recall that?
2081 A: I do. 2 Q: And as I understand it, looking at 3 your CV, in 1989 you were assigned to Number 3 District 4 Headquarters Burlington as Acting Inspector overseeing 5 operations and performing general duty to Detachments and 6 the Criminal Investigations Unit. Do I have that right? 7 A: That is correct. 8 Q: And did that involve direct work or 9 involvement with First Nations people while you were at 10 the district headquarters Burlington? 11 A: It did. 12 Q: What was the nature of that? 13 A: The general duties detachments 14 referred to two (2) of them; one (1) would have been the 15 former Brantford Detachment and the former Cayuga 16 Detachment. I had responsibilities for policing of the - 17 - both the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory and 18 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. 19 Q: And you remained in that position 20 until 1992? 21 A: That's correct, sir. 22 Q: And at that time you were assigned to 23 the OPP training branch at the Provincial Police Academy 24 in Brampton, right? 25 A: That is correct.
2091 Q: And when did you start the -- your 2 work at the police academy in Brampton in 1992? 3 A: It would have been in the spring of 4 1992 on a temporary assignment assigned as an Acting 5 Inspector. 6 Q: All right. And so then your next 7 position was as the Special Advisor on First Nations 8 Issues to the Solicitor General's office, correct? 9 A: Correct, sir. 10 Q: And while you were the Director -- or 11 Acting Director, pardon me, of field training at the 12 provincial police academy, did you have direct 13 involvement with First Nations matters? 14 A: I did. 15 Q: What was the nature of that? 16 A: The Ontario Provincial Police Academy 17 in Brampton not only provides training services for OPP 18 members, we did as well for First Nations constables in 19 either standalone policing arrangements or within program 20 communities. 21 So my interaction with First Nations 22 police officers, First Nations persons who were police 23 officers assigned to various territories continued. 24 Q: Now, from February of 1995 to 25 September of 1995, did you ever attend in the Ipperwash
2101 area? 2 A: Yes, sir, I did. 3 Q: What was the nature of that 4 attendance? 5 A: Vacation. 6 Q: And so what was the duration of that? 7 A: Approximately a week. 8 Q: And did that involve any contact 9 directly with First Nations people in the area? 10 A: Casual contact, yes, nothing 11 official. 12 Q: And in carrying out your work over 13 the years as a police officer, had you had any direct 14 involvement with the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation? 15 A: Not as a police officer, sir. 16 Q: Or with the people who identified 17 themselves as a -- a separate Stoney Point people? 18 A: Not as a police officer, sir. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: And would you agree with me that 23 different communities of First Nations people in 24 different areas, just like different communities of other 25 sorts of people in different areas, might have different
2111 views with respect to political matters or policing 2 matters? 3 A: I believe that to be correct. 4 Q: One certainly shouldn't generalize 5 about the views that First Nations people in any 6 particular case may have on such matters just because 7 they're First Nations people; right? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And there may be different 10 personalities involved? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: In leadership positions or otherwise? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Now, from February of 1995 to the end 15 of July of 1995, on how many occasions were you called 16 upon to act as a special advisor on First Nations issues 17 regarding a First Nations blockade or occupation? 18 A: With respect to a blockade or an 19 occupation, I can't recall that I was. I was asked to 20 provide advice and information on other matters within 21 First Nations communities. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: And, sir, I take it that when you
2121 performed your duties as a special advisor on First 2 Nations for the Solicitor General's office, you never 3 wore a -- a police uniform of any sort; right? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: You wore the Bay Street uniform, a 6 business suit? 7 A: Yes, or casual clothes if I was 8 travelling into territories. 9 Q: And I -- I'd like to ask you about 10 some of the issues which I'm going to suggest to you are 11 issues of public importance that are in play in a 12 blockade or occupation situation. 13 And I suggest to you, sir, that, clearly, 14 the Provincial Government has a legitimate interest in 15 the blockade or occupation, where it is a -- a blockade 16 or occupation of lands to which the Province holds title; 17 fair? 18 A: I would say that's correct, yes. 19 Q: And would you agree that there is a 20 legitimate provincial interest, not only because the 21 province is the registered landowner in the legal sense, 22 but because the Provincial Government holds those lands 23 for the benefit of the public as a whole? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: And would you agree there's a
2131 provincial interest in a blockade or occupation of such 2 lands, because the Provincial Government has a 3 responsibility to protect the public interest in those 4 lands? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: And that is so whether the land 7 that's blockaded or occupied is ordinarily used for 8 practical purposes such as utilities or if it's used for 9 recreational purposes, in the case of a Park, or -- or 10 any public purpose; fair? 11 A: Fair. 12 Q: And I take it, sir, that you would 13 agree that the Provincial Government has an interest in 14 upholding the laws of the land? 15 A: I believe they have a duty, yes. 16 Q: And that's so, whether we're talking 17 about criminal laws, such as criminal code prohibitions, 18 or provincial statutes that have certain requirements, or 19 civil laws enforced in the ordinary civil courts; is that 20 fair? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And, sir, would you agree that the 23 Provincial Government has a -- a general interest in 24 maintaining civil order in the community? 25 A: Yes.
2141 Q: Now, are you familiar, sir, with the 2 notion or the term of direct action in terms of protests 3 or occupations or blockades? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Fine then. Well I'll just talk about 6 occupations or blockades. 7 Would you agree, sir, that in cases of 8 occupations or blockades, the -- or pardon me, that it's 9 appropriate for government to consider whether there's 10 been an attempt to utilize legitimate processes or let me 11 -- let me say -- let me take a little bit of the load off 12 that. 13 That is's appropriate for government to 14 consider whether there's been attempt to use legal 15 processes to obtain whatever goal the people carrying out 16 the occupation or blockade may have in mind? 17 A: If your question was should or does 18 the government have interest in whether legal processes 19 are undertaken? 20 Q: Would you agree that that's an 21 appropriate consideration for the government? 22 A: Certainly. 23 Q: And that would be the case for a 24 situation where someone is claiming a right to land; 25 right?
2151 A: Correct. 2 Q: Or if someone is claiming that there 3 is a burial site somewhere on government owned land? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And would you agree that it would be 6 appropriate to consider whether, when one is faced with 7 an occupation or a blockade, whether the people carrying 8 that out have perhaps not gone so far as to commence 9 formal legal proceedings in one shape or another, but 10 have made good faith attempts to bring the issue to the 11 attention of authorities and tried to obtain what they 12 want that way? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And would you agree that it's -- it's 15 appropriate in these circumstances for the government to 16 -- I meant that you would agree to enquire as to whether 17 there's some explanation for the conduct in question of 18 the occupation or blockade, forthcoming from the 19 community, of people who are carrying out the occupation? 20 A: I believe that to be reasonable, yes. 21 Q: And I take it you'd also agree that 22 it would be appropriate for the government to be looking 23 into whether there is a support from, perhaps, outside 24 the occupying or blockading group in the community? 25 A: That's an area of consideration I
2161 believe they would enter into, yes. 2 Q: An area of appropriate consideration? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Certainly, you'd -- you'd agree that 5 the government has an interest in whether existing 6 legitimate processes, be it former legal proceedings or 7 something less formal in the form of speaking to elected 8 representatives or -- or authorities are being 9 disregarded? 10 A: That they would have an interest if 11 they're being disregarded? 12 Q: I'm -- I'm asking -- asking whether 13 you agree that the government has a legitimate interest 14 in -- in a situation where legitimate processes for 15 bringing forward a claim or a grievance are being 16 disregarded? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And I would like to ask you a little 19 bit about something you -- you touched on at the -- the 20 end of your evidence-in-chief and that's the general 21 notion of equality of people before the law. 22 And I'm not asking about that in any 23 technical legal sense, but just the general notion of the 24 -- the equality of citizens before the law. I take it 25 you're comfortable with that general concept; you're
2171 aware of that concept? 2 A: I believe in that concept, sir. 3 Q: That's what I understood, sir. And 4 would you agree that, therefore, where any group is 5 carrying out a blockade or occupation, the government has 6 to be concerned whether that group is claiming rights 7 that are greater than those of other citizens? 8 A: I think they have to be aware of what 9 the claim is. 10 Q: I take it, though, that if there is a 11 situation where citizens may be claiming rights that are 12 greater than those of other citizens, it's appropriate 13 for the government to consider whether or not those 14 greater rights may be appropriate or are justified in the 15 circumstances of the case; fair? 16 A: Correct. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And would you agree, sir, that in a 21 blockade or occupation situation there's also the notion 22 at play, perhaps, of freedom of speech? 23 A: Yes, to a degree. 24 Q: So -- and that's going to depend 25 upon the particular circumstances, right, the -- the
2181 degree? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: So for example, you may -- at one (1) 4 end of the spectrum, you may have a situation where 5 people are occupying land or blockading a road for 6 informational purposes with -- with signs, literature and 7 -- and so on in which they're plainly engaged and -- and 8 communicating a speech to the public? You can see that 9 at one (1) end of the spectrum? 10 A: Yes, I would agree with that. 11 Q: Right. But at the other end of the 12 spectrum, sir, in terms of a blockade and -- or 13 occupation, you could well have something û- all right, 14 let's just talk about occupation for a minute, you could 15 have, at the other end of the spectrum, a situation which 16 is really more of a -- a simple taking of land rather 17 than an exercise in speech where, for example, there is 18 no effort being made to communicate any message 19 whatsoever; is that fair? 20 A: I -- I think that's a, "could be." 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: With respect to the situation at 23 hand, I'm not so sure and we are discussing Ipperwash, 24 that that would be the case. 25 Q: Well, I'm just asking you about it
2191 generally right now. I'm going to come to the situation 2 at hand in due course. 3 A: Certainly, sir. 4 Q: But I think that you'd -- you'd 5 accept that, talking generally. 6 A: It's possible. 7 Q: Right. It's possible that there can 8 be an occupation that is -- that is purely for the 9 purpose of taking land; right? 10 A: Ill-conceived, ill-spirited? 11 Q: I -- well, I supposed that's the 12 extreme, but I'm just asking you, would you agree that at 13 one (1) end of the spectrum it's possible you could have 14 an occupation that's solely for the purpose of taking 15 land? 16 A: It's possible. 17 Q: Or you could have an occupation 18 that's predominantly for the purpose of taking land; 19 right? 20 A: Possible. 21 Q: And I take it you'd -- you'd agree 22 that if the occupation's for the sole purpose of taking 23 land, then freedom of speech isn't really involved in the 24 matter, is it? 25 A: If that were the case, yes.
2201 Q: And freedom of speech doesn't have 2 much of a part if the occupation is for the predominant 3 purpose of taking land; right? 4 A: That's reasonable. 5 Q: In any event, I -- I'm going to move 6 on from our philosophical discussion but I take it you -- 7 you would agree that where there are blockades or 8 occupation of lands, there are a number of fundamental 9 principles of our society at play; is that fair? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And for that reason the provincial 12 government has a legitimate interest in an occupation or 13 blockade of public lands? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And a legitimate interest and a duty 16 to decide whether it should respond to that and if so, 17 what its response should be? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Okay. Now, I would like to ask you a 20 little bit about the Interministerial Committee. 21 Now, as I understand it, it was 22 established well prior to the election of the Harris 23 government at the end of June 1995; is that your 24 understanding? 25 A: That's my understanding, sir.
2211 Q: And do you know whether it had been 2 in place throughout the previous New Democratic Party 3 Government? 4 A: I believe that it had, but I stand to 5 be corrected on that. 6 Q: Okay. Do you believe that it had 7 been in place prior to the election of the New Democratic 8 Party government? 9 A: I think that it had, sir. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: Now, sir, if you can have a look at 14 Tab 12 of the Commission's material and in particular 15 this is about the fifth page in. These are the -- the 16 guidelines for responding to aboriginal emergencies that 17 are set out in the appendix, those reviewed with you by 18 Ms. Vella. 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 21 is Exhibit number 504? 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 498. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 24 498. 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I made -- I made these
2221 separate exhibits. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 498. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 5 Q: And you were very clear with Ms. 6 Vella, I -- I believe, several times that you understood 7 that the guidelines of the Inter-Ministerial Committee 8 were that as -- as stated at the bottom of the -- the 9 second page, that the Committee was not to be engaged in 10 substantive negotiations; right? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And if we look, just back a couple 13 pages, at the July 10, 1995 brief note of Mr. Harnick, I 14 would just like to touch on that with you as well. And I 15 -- I believe it's -- it's well known that the Harris 16 Government was first elected with itÆs first majority at 17 the end of June 1995. 18 This note that Ms. Vella referred you to, 19 it's the second page under Tab 12. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I believe 504. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 22 is part of Exhibit 504 now. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Oh yes. Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That's 25 fine.
2231 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 3 Q: And again, that made clear that the - 4 - the established rule, and it's on the second page of 5 the briefing note, the established rule was that there 6 was no substantive negotiations to occur until after a 7 blockade was lifted; right? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And I'd like to turn you back to the 10 appendix for a moment. And Item 14, which is on the 11 third page of the appendix; do you see that? I'll wait 12 until you're with me. 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: You'll see that Item 14 reads, and I 15 quote: 16 "It is preferred that the negotiators 17 be local ministry representatives." 18 Unquote. Now again, that's not referring 19 to substantive negotiation, that's negotiation of ending 20 the blockage; right? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Or occupation, as the case may be? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And I take it, it was your 25 understanding in the summer of 1995, on the basis of your
2241 knowledge of these guidelines that you told us about, 2 that that was the -- the preference of the Committee? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And I take it you were also aware of 5 item 16, which states, and I quote: 6 "Efforts will be directed away from 7 agreeing to send cabinet ministers or 8 the Premier to the site to negotiate 9 matters directly." 10 You were aware of that? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay. And I take it you were also 13 aware of item 17, being that, quote: 14 "The activities and actions of the OPP 15 are subject to their own operational 16 guidelines." 17 Unquote. I believe you said you were 18 aware of that in chief; right? 19 A: I was. 20 Q: So that's -- that's clearly the 21 settled guideline that's in place when the Harris 22 Government assumes office? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Now, I just have to go to a brief 25 right now. Commissioner, I would have had this brief at
2251 the beginning, but it was locked in our car. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 Are there only two (2) volumes, Mr. Downard? 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: There are only two 8 (2). 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I just put a lot of 11 extra paper in there to make them look important. 12 But actually, for the moment, sir, we can 13 stick with Tab 12. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now your 15 tabs you're going to be referring to from hereon are tabs 16 in this brief, unless you specifically mention otherwise? 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I'm going to specify 18 which brief I'm at. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, that's 20 fine. 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: But right now, I'm 22 actually going to stay back at the Commission's brief for 23 the moment. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD:
2261 Q: And in particular, at Tab 12, the 2 first page of the -- the briefing note for Minister 3 Harnick of July 10th. 4 And I take it you -- you readily 5 acknowledge that this briefing note clearly contemplates 6 representation on the Interministerial Committee from the 7 Premier's office; right? 8 A: In the first paragraph it indicates 9 Cabinet Office and PO. I'm assuming that's Premier's 10 Office, yes. 11 Q: Right. And your understanding would 12 be that that was the rule that was in place when the 13 Harris government was elected? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And you understood from your reading 16 of the guidelines that the Premier's office was entitled 17 to representation on the Committee as well; right? 18 A: It's articulated in the guidelines. 19 Q: Okay. Now, you told the Inquiry that 20 it was your understanding that in the past it had been 21 unusual for political staffers to attend at 22 Interministerial Committee meetings; do you recall that? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: Okay. And as I understand it, 25 because you had not been present at any Interministerial
2271 Committee meetings prior to the Ipperwash matter, that 2 your understanding in that regard was based on what other 3 people had told you? 4 A: That is correct. 5 Q: So it's fair to say, without meaning 6 any pejorative sense, that it's second-hand information? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: And I understand it that at least in 9 the fall of 1995, you knew a gentleman named Yan Lazor? 10 A: That is correct. 11 Q: Had you known him prior to the fall 12 of 1995? 13 A: Yes, I had met him prior to that. 14 Q: And when had you met him? 15 A: It would have been when -- when I 16 went into the Special Advisor position. So, I would have 17 been introduced to him by my predecessor. 18 Q: So, right from the outset of -- of 19 your work with the government? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And I take it, then, you -- you 22 understood that in 1995, and in particular in the summer, 23 and in September 1995, he was the Acting Assistant 24 Secretary of Land Claims and Self-Government 25 Negotiations?
2281 A: That is correct. 2 Q: And he gave evidence for quite a long 3 time in examinations for discovery arising from the 4 Ipperwash matter as the Provincial Government's -- 5 Provincial Crown's representative, and in that evidence 6 he testified that he had started up the Legal Services 7 Branch of ONAS in 1991, and was its legal director until 8 1994; were you aware of that? 9 A: No, sir. 10 Q: Well, we'll -- I anticipate that 11 evidence will be led. However, on the discovery, and I - 12 - and I'm fairly surreal in basing this evidence that -- 13 actually, let -- let me step back. 14 I -- I take it that you would acknowledge 15 that Mr. Lazor clearly proceeded in -- in -- pardon me. 16 Mr. Lazor's activity in government clearly proceeded your 17 own, right? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And in -- in the field of First 20 Nations matters? 21 A: In government, yes, sir. 22 Q: And I anticipate that what Mr. Lazor 23 will testify to, I'm presuming that he will be a witness 24 at some point, is that the -- the guidelines for the 25 Interministerial Committee contemplated a -- a balance of
2291 political staff, and civil service -- service staff at 2 the meeting to ensure that both civil service staff 3 members and political staff members are at one (1) 4 meeting, all hearing the same information, so that the 5 government can proceed to take a coordinated approach, 6 and so that everyone will know the basis upon which those 7 recommendations are being made. 8 Do you have any reason to disagree with 9 that? 10 A: I can't agree or disagree with it. 11 Q: And if Mr. Lazor comes and testifies 12 and says the reason for this integrated balance is that 13 it's an emergency plan for Aboriginal -- Aboriginal 14 Issues Interministerial Committee, we're dealing with 15 emergency situations, and it's quite important to ensure 16 that everyone is working off the same information in 17 carrying out their duties. 18 If he comes and says that, do you have any 19 reason to -- to doubt that that was the -- the practise 20 prior to your joining government? 21 A: No, I do not. 22 Q: And would -- would you acknowledge 23 that Mr. Lazor would probably be in a better position -- 24 and I don't mean any disrespect -- that Mr. Lazor would 25 probably be in a better position, because of his
2301 experience, than you are to state whether it was ordinary 2 or not to have political staff at Interministerial 3 Committee meetings? 4 A: He certainly would be able to do 5 that, yes. 6 Q: And I anticipate that Mr. Lazor will 7 testify that -- well, first of all, let me step back a 8 little bit. 9 Again, were you aware of a -- a situation 10 in the early '90's involving a blockade, at a place 11 called Beardmore, involving First Nations persons? 12 A: Is that the High River hydroelectric? 13 Q: I believe that's right. 14 A: I have a general awareness of it. 15 Q: Only a general awareness? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: But if Mr. Lazor testifies that at 18 that time they were in Interministerial Committee 19 meetings, and at that time a representative of then- 20 Premier Rae's office was at the Interministerial 21 Committee meetings, you wouldn't have any reason to 22 dispute that, right? 23 A: If he testifies to that, no, I 24 wouldn't. 25 Q: And if you can look at the cross-
2311 examination brief that I handed up, Volume 1, I want to 2 refer you to Tab 4. And you'll see, at the -- at the 3 eighth page, you see, at -- at the front of the tab we 4 have these cheat sheets they gave us on the computer, but 5 at the eighth page under the tab -- pardon me. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: For those of us 7 that didn't have the favour of the book, could you be as 8 precise as possible on what the document is, and how to 9 locate it before you -- 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I only didn't give 11 you one because I'm trying to be expeditious and bring 12 the Inquiry to a conclusion quickly. It's document 13 number 1007625. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 16 Q: And sir, if I can refer you to the 17 eighth page -- actually, it might be the ninth page but, 18 in any event, it's: "Confidential Meeting Notes of the 19 Interministerial Officials Committee of May 19 -- May 21, 20 1993", have you got that? 21 A: I'm not finding it quickly, sir. 22 Q: I'm sorry. 23 A: At Tab 4? 24 Q: Yes, of Volume 1. 25 A: I have: "Minutes from the
2321 Interministerial Officials Committee on Aboriginal 2 Emergencies" -- 3 Q: Right. 4 A: -- "Working Group Meeting, Dunville, 5 and Ipperwash Provincial Park." 6 Q: Right. If you turn that page -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- and six (6) more, you'll come to 9 where I'm directing you. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 A: I -- I have something in front of me 14 that's -- indicates it's confidential meeting notes, and 15 the date is Friday, May 21st, 1993. 16 Q: Right. Now -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The one 18 you've got on the screen is May 27th. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is the 23 right one. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD:
2331 Q: Now then, sir, if you keep turning 2 pages you'll see there -- there are pages numbered at the 3 top, and the page numbered 8 at the top. 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: And you'll see that there there's a - 6 - a list of meeting participants. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And that list includes a person named 9 Hilarie McMurray; this is the fourth name from the bottom 10 of the first column. 11 A: I see that. 12 Q: And you'll see the initials "P.O." 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And I anticipate we'll hear evidence 15 that Hilarie McMurray was in then-Premier Rae's office. 16 And sir, if you turn back to the -- the beginning of 17 these May 21st notes, you'll see that this was a -- a 18 matter -- this is a meeting rather of the Committee 19 regarding the Ipperwash matter itself; see that? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: So I take it that if the Committee 22 hears -- hears evidence that, as indicated by this 23 document, Hilarie McMurray of Premier Rae's office was 24 attending a -- an Interministerial Committee meeting on 25 Ipperwash in May of 1993, you would have no reason to
2341 dispute that? 2 A: No, sir. 3 Q: And -- and indeed, this -- this 4 document would be a -- practically speaking, a -- a 5 better indication of whether that was so than what you 6 may have heard after you came in, in February of 1995? 7 A: For one (1) particular Incident, yes. 8 Q: Okay. Beardmore makes two (2), 9 right? 10 A: I'm sorry? 11 Q: Beardmore makes two (2). 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And I suppose we'll hear from other 14 witnesses as to the practice. 15 Now -- now I believe you said, regarding 16 the August 2nd, 1995 Interministerial Committee meeting 17 regarding Ipperwash, that the only political staffer that 18 the August 2nd meeting was Brett Laschinger from the 19 Premier's office; is that your evidence? 20 A: I'd have to refer to the document, 21 but it may well have been. 22 Q: Well, can you bear with me for a 23 moment please, sir. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
2351 Q: If you can look at Tab 14 of the 2 Commission's brief... 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It is Exhibit P-506. 8 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Thank you very much. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 11 Q: And if you look at the first page of 12 the meeting notes proper, which comes after the fax cover 13 page; do you have that? 14 A: I do. 15 Q: All right. Now, Mr. Lazor said on -- 16 on examination for discovery under Oath, and I anticipate 17 he would say again here, that David Moran who is listed 18 as an attendee at the August 2nd, 1995 meeting, was a 19 political staffer; do have any reason to disagree with 20 that? 21 A: I can't comment either way. 22 Q: Okay. And you'll see there's also a 23 reference to Jeff Bangs, MNR, among the persons in 24 attendance? It's towards the bottom of the -- 25 A: Correct.
2361 Q: Pardon me? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Thank you, sir. And Mr. Lazor also 4 said and I -- on discovery and I anticipate he will say 5 here, that Jeff Bangs was a political staffer, and the 6 Ministers of Natural Resources' executive assistant. 7 Did you have any reason to disagree with 8 that? 9 A: No, sir, that's possible. 10 Q: Now, sir, I would like to ask you a 11 little bit about the Interministerial Committee process 12 in a -- a general way. 13 And is it fair to say that the 14 Interministerial Committee is where the Committee members 15 would meet to discuss an issue facing the government, and 16 come to a conclusion as to what recommendation that -- 17 should be made? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And if we look back at Tab 12 of the 20 Commission's brief, and the July 10th briefing note to 21 Minister Harnick... 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Exhibit P-504. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Thank you. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
2371 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 2 Q: And if we look at the -- the second 3 bulleted paragraph on the first page of that briefing 4 note, it starts with the words "if there is an emergency 5 situation". 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: And that refers to -- that refers and 8 confirms that the role of the Interministerial Committee 9 is to develop recommendations, right? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: So the Interministerial Committee has 12 no power to make a final decision as to, for example, as 13 to legal steps to be taken. It just has a -- a role of 14 deciding what action should be recommended to the next 15 level up, right? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And am I correct, that once the 18 Committee settled on a recommendation, that would go up 19 to the next level, a second level, if you will, which 20 would be deputy ministers? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And then assuming that the deputy 23 ministers decided the recommendation was appropriate and 24 it was -- and it was something that required ministerial 25 approval, they would take it up to a next third level,
2381 being the relevant ministers; right? 2 A: I would expect the deputy would brief 3 the minister, yes. 4 Q: And -- and you may well be doing it 5 with a recommendation that is not within the power of the 6 Deputy Minister to make a final decision on; right? 7 A: That's possible, yes. 8 Q: And in -- in that case, the Deputy 9 Minister would not -- would make his or her own 10 recommendations for the next level up, being the relevant 11 minister or ministers of cabinet; right? 12 A: I would assume so. 13 Q: And they would decide? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: So there you have a -- a layered 16 decision making process; fair? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: So then come back to the 19 Interministerial Committee level, what we have there is 20 the initial stage of discussion and review; right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And I take it that you would agree, 23 sir, that in the context of that initial stage of 24 discussion review, it was appropriate that different 25 points of view and different approaches to the issue be
2391 raised, discussed, considered; is that fair? 2 A: Certainly. 3 Q: And wouldn't you agree, sir, that 4 that is vital if the Committee is to thoroughly review 5 the issues? 6 A: Thoroughly review and make an 7 informed decision, yes. 8 Q: And from where -- from where you sit, 9 with your particular experience, your particular views 10 based on your experience or philosophy or whatever, you 11 may hear views in that discussion that you may or may not 12 agree with; right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And you're not suggesting for one (1) 15 minute are you, sir, that -- that people should not 16 express views or opinions different from your own; right? 17 A: No, I'm not. 18 Q: But it's certainly appropriate and 19 beneficial that if someone does express an opinion that's 20 different from your own that, as -- as you say you did in 21 the case of Ipperwash, you speak up with -- with your 22 view so that there's a dialogue and a debate; right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And it's through that process of 25 discussion and debate that a recommendation is -- is
2401 arrived at; right? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: And you're more likely to have a 4 sensible recommendation through discussion and debate 5 than if there isn't any; right? 6 A: Correct. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Now, sir, if I can turn you to Tab 5 11 of the Commission's brief. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's P-500. 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yes, and -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Did you get 18 that on the record? 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's Exhibit P-500 20 and Commission document -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-500. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 24 Q: -- 3001085. 25 And, sir, I -- I believe you've identified
2411 this as being a note of Julie Jai regarding a 2 conversation that you had with her; right? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And I believe that you confirmed that 5 it was a substantially accurate record of the 6 conversation? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Just bear with me for a moment, sir, 12 please? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now if you look at the second page, 17 I'm going to refer you to a note at the top of that page 18 but, just to set the context, this is within two (2) or 19 three (3) days of the -- the takeover of the built-up 20 area by the Stoney Point People; right? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: And you'll see there's a note at the 23 top of the second page which reads, and I quote: 24 "It is only a dissident group that is 25 doing this, not the Band. Band [and
2421 the word Band is underlined] does not 2 plan to take over Ipperwash Park." 3 Now, I take it that records the substance 4 of the communication that you made to Ms. Jai on this 5 occasion; right? 6 A: More or less, yes, sir. 7 Q: Okay. And when you refer to, "the 8 Band," I take it you're referring to the established 9 Indian Act Band being the Kettle and Stony Point First 10 Nation; right? 11 A: That is correct. 12 Q: And so this clearly and accurately 13 reflected your understanding at the time? 14 A: Correct. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And then you'll see further down the 19 page there's a note, and this is just before the -- the 20 white gap about two thirds (2/3) of the way down the 21 page, there's a note that reads, and I quote: 22 "The fact that this dissident group 23 succeeded in getting the Base has given 24 them confidence." 25 Do you see that?
2431 A: Correct. 2 Q: And I take it you conveyed 3 substantially that message to Ms. Jai on this occasion? 4 A: Substantially, yes. 5 Q: So I take it -- well, let me ask you 6 this, were you concerned -- or let me ask you this, why - 7 - why were you raising this matter of the so-called 8 dissident group, had it been given more confidence? 9 A: For the matter of fact that they had 10 entered on to the former CFB Ipperwash and had made a 11 home on CFB Ipperwash, and given the proximity of the 12 Base to the Park and the contiguous land mass, it was an 13 assumption, I think, that was easily made, that it would 14 give people some confidence if it was in their desire to 15 enter into Ipperwash Provincial Park. 16 Q: So the confidence referred to could 17 be further confidence to proceed to annex the Park to the 18 land they had already taken over, being the Army Base? 19 A: It's possible, yes. 20 Q: And then on the next page, if you'll 21 just read the -- the top note. In fact, I'll read it for 22 the record. It's, quote: 23 "There's a meeting of the Stoney Point 24 FN [I take it First Nation] on this 25 tonight re progress in land claim
2441 dispute but Band doesn't sanction 2 takeover." 3 I take it you conveyed those words to Ms. 4 Jai? 5 A: That there was to be a meeting, yes, 6 that's correct. 7 Q: And -- and, again, that this meeting 8 was to convey the message that the -- the Kettle and 9 Stony Point Band didn't sanction the takeover? 10 A: I don't know what the purpose of the 11 meeting would be but it was, I think, not noted down by 12 Ms. Jai. It should be the Kettle and Stony Point First 13 Nation. 14 Q: Sure. 15 A: As I recall, that was the meeting. 16 And my sense is it was a regularly scheduled Council 17 meeting or perhaps a -- an ad hoc Council meeting called 18 by the Chief. 19 Q: Okay. But you'll see that the words 20 are there, reading, quote -- it says, quote: 21 "Re progress in land claim dispute and 22 that Band doesn't sanction takeover." 23 Unquote. You see those words; right? 24 A: Absolutely. 25 Q: Do you know where those words came
2451 from or do you have any belief? 2 A: With respect to progress in the land 3 claim dispute, that was relating to CFB, the former CFB 4 Ipperwash. And the Band doesn't sanction the takeover, 5 that was certainly something passed on to me by Inspector 6 Carson, and it was a matter of public record having been 7 broadcast in the media. 8 Q: And it -- and it's likely that you 9 were conveying that, again, to Ms. Jai at this point in 10 the conversation, right? 11 A: That's right. 12 Q: Now... 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And if we turn back to the first page 17 of this note, you'll see there's the reference to a 18 sacred site being the Kettle Point in quotes, do you see 19 that? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Okay. So, in this conversation, did 22 you refer Ms. Jai to a sacred site existing in the Park 23 called -- called the Kettle Point? 24 A: Kettle Point or Kettle Rocks, yes. 25 Q: So you may have said Kettle Rocks?
2461 A: It's entirely possible. 2 Q: And do you know anything more, 3 because this is fairly new, at least to me, in what 4 respect that was a sacred site? 5 A: I -- I can tell you that it was a 6 sacred site. It was part of the beliefs of the Stoney 7 Point people and it was respect to their interactions 8 with the lake. 9 In terms of it being identified as a 10 sacred site, that was acknowledged and it's my 11 understanding that the Ministry of Natural Resources 12 afforded First Nations people unencumbered access to the 13 Park to visit that site for a period of years. 14 Q: So, to your knowledge, where Stoney 15 Point First Nations people had come to the government and 16 wanted access to a sacred site, the government had 17 allowed the people that access, right? 18 A: I would believe that to be true, yes. 19 Q: And this note goes on to say, about 20 three (3) lines down, quote: 21 "FN people saying, quote, 'Pretty soon 22 you'll be paying us for the use of the 23 park', unquote." 24 So you were conveying that to Ms. Jai that 25 that was a report that you had heard, right?
2471 A: Correct. 2 Q: Okay. And if you could look at Tab 8 3 of the Commission's brief... 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit P-414. 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yes, and Document 6 1000935, thanks. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 9 Q: In the e-mail at the bottom of that 10 page, it's an e-mail from Anthony Parkin to Nancy Mansell 11 with copies to yourself. That contains the report of the 12 campers having to -- that allegation the campers would 13 have to pay the natives next year to camp on the -- on 14 the land? 15 A: It does. 16 Q: Okay. Is that likely where you got 17 the information you passed on to Julie Jai? 18 A: It is. 19 Q: Then, on the same page there's an e- 20 mail that you sent to Mr. Parkin, right? Was it Deputy 21 Superintendent Parkin at the time? 22 A: Superintendent Parkin. 23 Q: Superintendent Parkin, I beg your 24 pardon. And in the -- well, towards the bottom of that 25 e-mail, you expressed your opinion that MNR is concerned,
2481 quote: 2 "to a greater degree than is probably 3 warranted." 4 Unquote, right? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And in retrospect that -- that 7 opinion was -- was incorrect, right? Although 8 hindsight's 20/20, right? 9 In hindsight, your opinion that MNR was 10 more concerned than was warranted, is incorrect. His 11 concerned was warranted because there was an occupation, 12 right? 13 A: I'm referring to the water pumping 14 issue. 15 Q: Well, sir, let's go back up to the 16 top. You'll see that the -- now, let me just try to 17 simplify this for a moment. 18 You'll see that in the paragraph after the 19 number "2," the line with number "2," there's a reference 20 to John Carson confirming there's a water problem; right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Okay. And then, in the next 23 paragraph you say as for the possible occupation, John 24 indicated as you have, the comments of the -- the, quote, 25 "militants," unquote, as directed to campers; do you see
2491 that? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: All right. And then you go on to 4 write, quote: 5 "Julie tells me that MNR concerned 6 about both issues [ellipsis]...in my 7 view, [quote] to a greater degree than 8 is probably warranted [unquote]." 9 Now, is that -- the -- the quotation, is - 10 - is that a quotation of Jai or is that -- are those your 11 words? 12 A: "To a greater degree than is 13 warranted," those are my words. 14 Q: Those are your words? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Right. And when you were referring 17 to a concern about both issues, the two (2) issues are 18 the water issue and the possible occupation issue; right? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Okay. And in retrospect, your -- 21 your judgment that MNR was more concerned about the 22 occupation than is probably warranted was incorrect; 23 right? 24 A: No, sir. 25 Q: All right. Okay. I --
2501 A: It's a -- it's a matter of fact, sir, 2 that an occupation occurred and insofar as that concerns, 3 bullet point 2, obviously happened. If one reads on in 4 that e-mail, my last line before closing was: 5 "My sense is that MNR may wish to push 6 the issue of water supply and 7 difficulties irrespective of the in- 8 place solution and the planned longer 9 term remedy." 10 So when I say, "with a greater degree than 11 is warranted," I concur with you that there was an 12 occupation and, in that matter, or in that respect, I was 13 wrong. 14 With dealing with the water and then 15 saying to a greater degree than is probably warranted, 16 there was a work-around in place, albeit a temporary -- 17 not a longer term solution -- for the water difficulties. 18 My concern was and in writing this e-mail 19 was to identify that there was no need to exacerbate a 20 situation if there was something that was reasonably 21 simple in place that would work. 22 Q: Okay. But -- and I -- and I don't 23 want to belabour this, but as I read the first line of 24 that paragraph, you're saying that Ms. Jai has told you 25 that MNR is concerned about both the water issue and the
2511 occupation issue. And you are saying that in your view 2 MNR is more concerned -- is concerned to a greater degree 3 than is probably warranted about both the water issue and 4 the occupation issue. 5 A: And I qualify the water issue in my 6 second-last line. I acknowledged, sir, your question 7 that was I wrong in terms of whether there would or would 8 not be an occupation. Yes, there was an occupation. 9 Q: But -- but, sir, weren't you saying 10 here that in your judgment, MNR was more concerned about 11 a Park occupation than was probably warranted? You were 12 saying that; right? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And what I'm suggesting to you -- I 15 won't do it again -- what I'm suggesting to you is that 16 you were incorrect in that judgment. 17 A: I was incorrect, certainly, in bullet 18 point one (1) and I -- and I believe I've testified to 19 that. 20 Q: All right. And your judgment was 21 incorrect on the point; right? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Thank you. Now I take it from your 24 evidence, generally, that you consider it to be 25 appropriate that functions of government such as those of
2521 the Interministerial Committee and functions of police, 2 engaged in operational matters, be kept separate; right? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: So I guess what concerns me is that 5 in this e-mail and, again, this is the last sentence in 6 the same paragraph, you wrote to Mr. Parkin and you said 7 about a meeting of the Aboriginal Issues Committee that 8 was going to be held on Ipperwash and I quote: 9 "If you or John [and I understand that 10 means John Carson] are available by 11 telephone at this time, it may be of 12 assistance should any points arise in 13 the discussion that may need further 14 explanation or interpretation." 15 Unquote. Now would you agree with me that 16 it's not consistent with a desire to maintain distance 17 between the functioning of the operational OPP and the 18 functioning of the Interministerial Committee to be 19 inviting operational police to be on the line, and 20 participating by conference call in the international -- 21 Interministerial Committee meeting? 22 A: Not necessarily, sir. 23 Q: Okay. Do you think it's a good idea 24 that operational police officers be participating in 25 meetings of the Interministerial Committee by way of
2531 conference call? 2 A: No, I don't as a matter of course, 3 but on occasions I believe that it would have been 4 beneficial. 5 Q: Did Mr. Parkin provide you with any 6 response to the suggestion? 7 A: They did not participate. 8 Q: Did he speak to you about that? 9 A: Yes. He said they would not be 10 participating. 11 Q: Did he say why? 12 A: They were consumed with other things 13 that needed to be done at that time. 14 Q: Did he indicate to you that he did 15 not think it was appropriate for the operational police 16 to be -- 17 A: He did not. 18 Q: Well, let me finish my question. 19 A: Oh, I'm sorry. 20 Q: It's just for the record, sir. I 21 take it you're saying he didn't give you any indication 22 that he did not think it was appropriate for operational 23 police to be engaged in this Interministerial Committee 24 meeting by conference call? 25 A: Not -- not in this circumstance.
2541 Q: And so when we look at Tab 14 of the 2 Commission's brief, which is Commission Document 3001086 3 -- and for once I forgot to note the exhibit number. 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 505. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- P-505. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Thank you very much. 8 Duly noted. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 11 Q: I believe you spoke to this note 12 being a record made by Ms. Jai of your -- pardon me, of - 13 - of a conversation I think you had with her; is that 14 right? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: Okay. And in this conversation -- 17 well, the note reads, a little bit up from the middle of 18 the page, quote: 19 "Doesn't want them [and there's an 20 arrow] OPP to be on the conference 21 call." 22 Can you tell me what that referred to in 23 terms of what you were saying to Ms. Jai at the time? 24 A: Can you bear with me while I find it? 25 Q: Oh, sure. Absolutely. I'm sorry.
2551 A: Okay. The first bullet in the second 2 bullet: 3 "Doesn't want them to be on the 4 conference call." 5 Q: Right. 6 A: That's from Tony Parkin. 7 Q: Tony Parkin had said that to you, and 8 you were conveying that to Ms. Jai? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Thank you, sir. And I would like to 11 turn you now to the Commission's brief Tab 9, Exhibit 502 12 -- P-502, Commission Document 1000934, and this is an 13 August 2nd, 1995 e-mail that, as I understand it, you 14 wrote to Deputy Solicitor General Todres, and -- and 15 others you described in your evidence in-chief; right? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And in this e-mail you made very 18 clear, and I'm looking at the third paragraph -- it's 19 actually the -- the fourth paragraph, I quote: 20 "The actions of the Stoney Pointers is 21 not sanctioned by the Kettle Point 22 Band." 23 Do you -- you see that? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: And I take it, it was your
2561 understanding that people in government at Queen's Park 2 would be concerned when there is an -- a First Nations' 3 issue in the area, as to what the position of the -- the 4 formal Indian Act Band was; right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: Because that would at least give 7 them, hopefully, a -- a sense of the sentiment, or 8 thoughts in the First Nation community? 9 A: It would give them a sense of what 10 the elected officials in the first community -- First 11 Nations community were feeling. 12 Q: Sure, or -- or what they were able to 13 convey about the views of the First Nations community 14 generally, right? 15 A: Possibly, yes. 16 Q: Possibly, right. 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: Okay. And in this paragraph, you 19 also stated that there'd been a Kettle Point community 20 meeting held last evening, August 1st, to attempt a 21 resolution to the band of the Stoney Pointers, which was 22 unsuccessful, and that the Stoney Pointers didn't attend, 23 right? 24 You recall -- 25 A: Correct.
2571 Q: -- attending that? Right. All 2 right, and so I take it you understood that at least the 3 Kettle and Stony Point First Nation was having difficulty 4 communicating with the Stoney Point group, right? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And you go on to say that, and I 7 quote: 8 "that the MNR have received information 9 that a takeover of Ipperwash park by 10 the militant faction, quote, is 11 imminent." 12 Do you see that? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And you go on to say that you've 15 learned the source of the information is some comments 16 made by militants to non-native campers at the Park, 17 right? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Okay. And you say that an occupation 20 -- it's at the end of the paragraph, an occupation 21 cannot, at the time, be discounted as a possibility, 22 right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And you go on to specify what you 25 consider to be four (4) scenarios, all of which you
2581 thought were more likely to occur than an occupation of 2 the Park, right? 3 A: Or more probable, yes. 4 Q: Right. And in -- in retrospect, your 5 -- your judgment was in error on that, right? 6 A: Yes. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Now, as I recall your evidence in- 11 chief, you said that as at August 1995, the approach of 12 the Ministry of the Solicitor General to a First Nation 13 issue such as Ipperwash was that if it involved policing 14 matters, those matters would be left to police. 15 Do you recall that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And as I understand it, you were 18 sending this e-mail to the deputy Solicitor General, and 19 to Mr. McCarroll who was also in the Solicitor General's 20 office? 21 A: He was the ADM. 22 Q: He was the Assistant Deputy Minister? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Yes, thank you. And to Tony Van der 25 Peet who I believe was also in the Solicitor General's
2591 ministry? 2 A: He was the deputy Solicitor General's 3 EA. 4 Q: Right, thank you. You did say that 5 in-chief, I'd just forgotten. 6 And what I'm just wondering about is that 7 you say that -- at the bottom of this page, you -- you 8 say to these civil servants that, quote: 9 "I caution against heightened -- any 10 heightened overt action by the police." 11 Right? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: So given the policy as -- as you say 14 you understood it, these people wouldn't be directing 15 heightened overt action by police in any event, would 16 they? 17 A: No, they would not. 18 Q: Is it -- is it possible that at this 19 point in your time in government, since you had not been 20 in government for that long, you didn't have the clearest 21 understanding of the role of Deputy Ministers as far as 22 police operations were concerned? 23 A: I think I had a good understanding of 24 the Deputy Minister's role and function. 25 Q: And was it your role as the Special
2601 Advisor of First Nations matters to give political 2 advice? 3 A: I wouldn't say political advice, no. 4 It was to provide advice. 5 Q: And the -- the last sentence of this 6 -- this e-mail is that -- you write is, quote: 7 "Clearly the situation is being closely 8 monitored by both the native and non- 9 native communities." 10 Wouldn't you agree, sir, that that's a 11 statement that's more in the nature of political advice? 12 A: No, I do not. 13 Q: All right. Is there any -- any 14 prospect that there may have some uncertainty in your 15 mind as to the extent to which you should be giving 16 political advice? 17 A: No, I don't believe so. 18 Q: Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Just bear with me for a moment, sir. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
2611 Q: Now, if we could look at Tab 13 of 2 the Commission's brief again... 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's back 7 to Exhibit 505. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 10 Q: Yes, and Document Number 3001086. 11 You'll see at the bottom of the -- the 12 page of this note -- recording -- it's a conversation 13 that you had with Ms. Jai. It reads, quote: 14 "Ovide Mercredi has offered to mediate 15 this. He has come out with a middle- 16 of-the road view." [Unquote] 17 Now, I take it that this records the 18 substance of words that you were conveying to Ms. Jai on 19 this occasion, right? 20 A: Information I had received, yes. 21 Q: And where did you get that 22 information from? 23 A: From Tony Parkin. 24 Q: Right. And just for the record, that 25 would be a -- actually, it may -- it may not be, it may
2621 not be. Let me just leave it alone. 2 So, as I understand your evidence, you -- 3 you were closely monitoring developments in the Ipperwash 4 area regarding First Nations issues during this period? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And do you recall what happened with 7 this reported prospect of Ovide Mercredi becoming 8 involved to mediate? 9 A: I understand that Mr. Mercredi did, 10 in fact, come to the area. 11 Q: But that was after the incident on 12 the night of the 6th, wasn't it? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And what I'd like to do is refer you 15 to Tab 16 of the cross-examination brief, which is 16 Inquiry Document Number 9000613. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just as a matter of 21 housekeeping, Commissioner, could I mark Volumes 1 and 2 22 of my brief as -- as exhibits and then, obviously, the -- 23 the value of -- of proof of any of the particular 24 documents would depend on what the Witness says, but 25 would it be convenient to simply mark the briefs as
2631 exhibits? I've done this before when I've used this 2 method. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 Volume 1 is... 5 THE REGISTRAR: Volume 1 will be P-528. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-528. 7 THE REGISTRAR: Volume 2, P-529. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-528: Volume 1, Cross-examination 10 Document Brief (Ron Fox) 11 Honourable M.D. Harris 12 Counsel Peter Downard 13 14 15 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-529: Volume 2, Cross-examination 16 Document Brief (Ron Fox) 17 Honourable M.D. Harris 18 Counsel Peter Downard 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 21 Q: Now, sir, perhaps you can take a 22 moment to read this article. 23 A: I'll attempt to do that. The -- 24 Q: It's not so -- 25 A: Not --
2641 Q: -- not, yeah -- 2 A: -- not well copied. 3 Q: -- I understand. This is what we get 4 when we press the button. 5 Well, then let me, if -- if I may, just 6 let me direct you to the particular paragraphs to which I 7 want to draw your attention. 8 You'll see -- and this is a -- a newspaper 9 article dated August 4, 1995, and you'll see the headline 10 reads, quote: 11 "Mercredi mediation in doubt." Unquote. 12 Then there's a sub-heading saying, quote: 13 "Chief Tom Bressette says he has been 14 told Natives occupying the Base don't 15 want the National Chief involved." 16 Unquote. 17 Do you see that? 18 A: I do. 19 Q: Okay. And then the lead paragraph 20 is, after the date line, quote: 21 "An offer to mediate by Ovide Mercredi 22 appears to have been turned down by 23 Stoney Point Natives who have taken 24 possession of the Army Base here." 25 And then going down the page to the
2651 paragraph that starts just above the small portrait of 2 Mr. Mercredi, it reads, quote: 3 "Kettle and Stony Point First Nation 4 Chief Tom Bressette and Mercredi, 5 National Chief of the Assembly of First 6 Nations, had offered to act [said -- 7 pardon me] had offered to act as a 8 mediator." 9 Pardon me. It goes on, quote: 10 "No. But Bressette, who has not 11 communicated directly with the Natives 12 at the Camp, said he was given the 13 message they do not want Mercredi to 14 mediate." Unquote. 15 Do -- do you see that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Okay. Now, do you recall it coming 18 to your attention, again, just to refresh your memory 19 essentially -- do you recall it coming to your attention 20 in early August of 1995 that there was information 21 circulating to the effect that Stoney Point People did 22 not want Mr. Mercredi to mediate their issues? 23 A: When I read today, I -- I now see it. 24 Q: Yes. But do you -- does it refresh 25 your memory? Do you recall being aware of that in August
2661 of 1995? 2 A: No, I do not. 3 Q: Thank you, sir. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: If we can come back to Tab 13 of the 8 Commission's brief, Exhibit P-505, and note, just after 9 the reference of Ovide Mercredi, it reads, quote: 10 "Bob Antone (Oneida), has been 11 involved." Unquote. 12 I take it that that's information that you 13 conveyed to Ms. Jai? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And where did you get that 16 information from? 17 A: I would have received that -- from 18 either Superintendent Parkin or Inspector Carson. 19 Q: And if I can refer you again to the 20 Volume 1 of the cross-examine brief -- cross-examination 21 brief, Tab 8 -- in fact, let -- actually, I -- we'll 22 leave the document alone for a minute. I -- I think I 23 can simplify. 24 The -- the Commission has heard evidence 25 that Mr. Antone and a gentleman named Bruce Elijah were
2671 involved at the request of the Federal Government in 2 seeking to -- let me put it this way -- mediate a 3 resolution of issues between the Stoney Pointer Group -- 4 the Stoney Point Group and the Army in or around July of 5 1995 -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 7 exactly -- yes, Ms. Tuck-Jackson? 8 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Just to rise 9 out of abundance of caution, sir, my recollection was 10 that they were in effect retained to provide cross- 11 cultural awareness training, not to serve as mediators. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That 13 was my recollection. 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think they 16 did a cross-cultural training session, they said. 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, they did that-- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They did 19 that. 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- but it was a 21 little more than that. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And the document -- 24 and I may be putting it too highly by saying "mediation." 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right,
2681 well... 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 4 Q: I want to be exactly correct. 5 But, for example, on Tab 8 of the cross- 6 examination brief, which is Exhibit P-271, Commission 7 Document 7000321, there is an armed forces situation 8 report from July of 1995. And you'll see, if I can refer 9 you to the -- the top of the second page of text, which 10 has a heading "Confidential". 11 Are you with me? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay, thank you, sir. And you'll see 14 it reads, quote: 15 "During the process of a CCAT, a plan 16 of action was developed that would 17 enable the Military to mediate its way 18 out of this situation." 19 Unquote. And then it goes on to say, 20 beside the sub-paragraph (a) that part of that is a 21 meeting, a native circle and it's going to be attended by 22 the following, and there's a number 1, it's Bob Antone 23 and Bruce Elijah. 24 Do you see that? 25 A: Yes.
2691 Q: And if you turn over the page, you 2 will -- you will see that at paragraph number 4(c) about 3 halfway down the page, beside the heading "comment", do 4 you see that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: It reads, quote: 7 "The immediate benefit of this plan is 8 that the two (2) senior native 9 negotiators have agreed to approach 10 Glenn George within the next forty- 11 eight (48) hours. 12 They will advise him of this plan and 13 impress upon him the need to 14 immediately cease aggressive action 15 against members of Camp Ipperwash until 16 the meeting of 26 August '95 has had a 17 chance to establish a working plan." 18 Unquote. Do you see that? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. Now, in August of 1995, did 21 you know who Glenn George was? 22 A: Personally, no, I did not. 23 Q: No, I'm not asking if you knew him 24 personally. But did you know of Glenn George -- 25 A: Yes, I had heard the name.
2701 Q: All right, and what did you know 2 about Glenn George from what you had heard about him? 3 A: That he was one (1) of the Stoney 4 Point people. 5 Q: Did you understand that he was a 6 relatively prominent person within the Stoney Point 7 group? 8 A: I believe he was identified as the 9 spokesperson from time to time. 10 Q: Okay. In July or August of 1995, did 11 it come to your attention or, pardon me, did this 12 information that I've just referred you to on this page 13 about the immediate benefit of the plan and the senior 14 native negotiators, come to your attention? 15 A: Not that I recall. 16 Q: So you didn't -- you don't recall 17 having any knowledge that Mr. Antone and Mr. Elijah had 18 been involved on the scene at Camp Ipperwash before the 19 takeover of the built-up area? 20 A: I wasn't aware of that, no. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And I take it that after the takeover 25 of the built-up area at the end of July of 1995, you were
2711 informed by police on the scene as to what had occurred? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And you were given the information 4 that a bus had been driven into a drill hole of the Army 5 Base? 6 A: I had that general information, yes. 7 Q: And that there had been a -- an 8 incident with a -- an army jeep being pushed by Stoney 9 Point people? 10 A: By -- yes, by a vehicle, yes. 11 Q: And when Deputy Commissioner Carson 12 was here, he testified that with respect to that, it had 13 been a significant incident with the bus and the jeep. 14 And it was only by good fortune that someone serious -- 15 wasn't seriously injured in that altercation, I take it 16 you'd agree with that? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And he stated that the police 19 regarded that as an overt criminal act. I take it you'd 20 agree with that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And in fact, he said that is was, 23 quote: 24 "It was more good luck than good -- 25 good fortune that no one was injured."
2721 Oh, pardon me: 2 "It was more good luck and good fortune 3 that -- that no one was injured in this 4 incident with the bus in the drill 5 hall." 6 I take it you'd agree with that, right? 7 A: Correct. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Now, sir, if we can go to the meeting 12 notes of the -- or -- or pardon me, the -- the material 13 for the August 2nd, 1995 Interministerial Committee 14 meeting at Tab 11 of the Commission brief, Exhibit P-503 15 Inquiry Document 1011681? Yeah. It's Inquiry Document 16 1011681. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And as I understood your -- your 21 evidence-in-chief, sir, and I'm going to refer you, 22 particularly, to the information note that is the -- the 23 third page of the document proper, your evidence-in-chief 24 as I recall it was that you had no input into the 25 creation of this information note, right?
2731 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And as I recall your evidence, you 3 said that this document did not speak to any informal 4 claim by First Nations regarding a belief in entitlement 5 to Park lands or CFB Ipperwash; is that right? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: But wouldn't you agree with me, sir, 8 that there is a reference to -- at the bottom of the 9 first page, to a bailiff's order being served on the MNR? 10 A: I see the reference, yes. 11 Q: Right. And did you ever see what was 12 served on the MNR? 13 A: I don't believe that I did. 14 Q: And if you look at Tab 1 of the 15 cross-examination brief, this is Inquiry Exhibit P-214 16 and Inquiry Document Number 1008310. 17 This, sir, is what was served on -- your 18 evidence is what was served on the Honourable Howard 19 Hampton in March of 1993, do you see that? It's a hand - 20 - two (2) page handwritten document? 21 A: I do. 22 Q: And would you agree with me that 23 having a -- a bailiff serve a two (2) page handwritten 24 document is a relatively informal type of land claim, 25 right?
2741 A: I'll have to read this, sir. 2 Q: Okay. Sure. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Oh, I'm -- I'm sorry, I may be 7 incorrect on one (1) point sir, but this -- this may not 8 be the actual formal notice to vacate. This is a 9 handwritten letter that is being sent to Mr. Hampton 10 about Maynard T. George advancing a -- a claim to lands. 11 But I take it you would agree with me that 12 a handwritten letter like this is a relatively informal 13 way of communicating; right? 14 A: Yes, it would be. 15 Q: Okay. Sure. And you'll see that in 16 the document at Tab 11 of the Commission brief there's a 17 reference to -- in June of 1993, it's at the bottom of 18 the page, quote: 19 "MNR sent letters to the Chief of the 20 First Nation and a representative of 21 the group stating that Ontario's 22 unlawful possession of the Park lands 23 which were lawfully purchased from 24 private individuals in 1938." 25 You see that?
2751 A: I do. 2 Q: And when you were reviewing files 3 when you took over this position of Special Advisor to 4 First Nations, do you recall seeing those letters? 5 A: Letters authored by...? 6 Q: Well, I'm going to refer you -- I'll 7 refer you to a letter in particular, it's at Tab 2 of the 8 cross-examination brief, it's Exhibit P-215 and Inquiry 9 Document 1007820. You'll see that there's a letter there 10 dated June 14th, 1993 to Maynard Travis George from Ron 11 G. Baldwin, District Manager of the MNR. 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: Have you seen this letter before? 14 A: No, I have not. 15 Q: Perhaps you can take a moment to read 16 it. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: I've read it, sir. 21 Q: Thank you, sir. And you'll see that 22 the letter opens with Mr. Baldwin saying to Mr. Maynard 23 T. George that, and I quote: 24 "The Minister of Natural Resources 25 Howard Hampton has asked me to respond
2761 to your letter of March 9, 1993 2 concerning Ipperwash Provincial Park." 3 Unquote. And the handwritten document I 4 referred to was -- 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: -- March 9th; right? And you'll see 7 there's a discussion of the matter in the letter and then 8 at the bottom of the page it's stated, quote: 9 "Accordingly, through third party 10 purchase the Ontario Crown is in lawful 11 possession of those lands comprising 12 Ipperwash Provincial Park. The bailiff 13 process and documentation served on 14 Park staff cannot therefore be 15 considered valid." 16 Unquote. Now, do you recall ever having 17 seen this letter before? 18 A: No. And I'm -- I'm looking at the cc 19 and the bcc's and I don't see that the Solicitor General 20 was copied. And even if the Solicitor General was 21 copied, I don't recall seeing it. 22 Q: Okay. But I take it you understood 23 at least on the basis of the information note that you 24 received for the August 2nd meeting at Tab 11 of the 25 brief, that in 1993 the Ministry of Natural Resources had
2771 sent letters saying that the Province was in lawful 2 possession of Ipperwash Provincial Park; right? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And I -- I take it you'll agree with 5 me that the -- the tenure of the Baldwin letter at its 6 very outset is that that was the position communicated 7 with the knowledge and approval of Minister Howard 8 Hampton at the time? 9 A: It would certainly appear to be, yes. 10 Q: And he was the minister in the NDP 11 government at the time; right? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: Thank you. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: So if I could ask you, sir, to turn 18 to the meeting notes of the August 2nd Interministerial 19 Committee meeting at Tab 14 of the Commission's brief, 20 Exhibit P-506, and in particular page 4 of that document. 21 You'll see in the last paragraph on the page there's a -- 22 a sentence, it's the third sentence in the past 23 paragraph, which appears to record a conclusion of the 24 meeting, that, quote: 25 "It was agreed that MNR and OPP staff
2781 on site at Ipperwash are in the best 2 position to assess the risk." 3 Do you see that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And am I correct that that was agreed 6 to at the meeting? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And that makes good sense, doesn't 9 it? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: It's page 4. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Now, if I can refer you to Commission 16 Tab 15, Exhibit P-507, Inquiry Document 1011695. These 17 are Julie Jai's notes of the Ipperwash -- pardon me, of 18 Interministerial Committee meeting regarding Ipperwash on 19 August 2nd. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Just bear with me for a minute, sir, 24 please. 25
2791 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: If you look, sir, on page 2 of the 4 handwritten notes at the bottom, there's a -- a passage 5 under the handwritten name, Peter Sturdy. Do you see 6 that? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: Okay. And you'll see that these 9 notes record the report of the statement, quote: 10 "Soon you'll be paying us for the 11 Park." 12 Unquote. 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And it goes on to say, quote: 15 "You can tell your friends at the Park 16 that they're next." 17 Unquote. And it says: 18 "(your Army commander)." 19 Do you recall at -- at this meeting Mr. 20 Sturdy reported that the army commander had been told by 21 Stoney Point people that he could tell his friends at the 22 Park that they're next? 23 A: Generally I recall that, yes. 24 Q: And I take it you understood that to 25 mean that the friends at the Park were next in the sense
2801 that they were going to be the next ones to have a land 2 reclaimed from them. 3 A: It could certainly be taken that way, 4 yes. 5 Q: And it goes on to say, and I quote: 6 "Glenn George, Rose Manning. Spoke 7 with Dave Carson." 8 Unquote. Now, do you have a -- well, I'll 9 read on for the full context and then I'll ask you. 10 "Road separating Park and Military 11 Base. Gate has been locked. MNR asked 12 if they could have keys in case there 13 was an emergency. They told Carson 14 they are interested in taking over 15 Matheson Drive and in taking over the 16 Park." 17 Unquote. Do you recall that -- the 18 substance of that information being conveyed? 19 A: Generally, yes. 20 Q: Do you recall whether this was 21 information that was attributed to John Carson, so this 22 reference to Dave Carson might be an error? 23 It's minutia, I know. 24 A: I really don't know, I... 25 Q: Fair enough, that's fair. But do you
2811 recall learning at this August 2nd meeting, that Glenn 2 George who you knew was sometimes a spokesman for the 3 Stoney Point people, and this person named Rose Manning 4 had said that they were interested in taking over the 5 Park. 6 Do you recall receiving that information 7 in substance? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: I'm not sure, in reading the notes 12 Ms. Jai made of Peter Sturdy's report, that I can source 13 it to Glenn George or Rose Manning saying they intend to 14 take over the Park. 15 Q: And you don't have a rec -- it 16 doesn't refresh your memory in that regard? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Fine. Had you heard the name Rose 19 Manning before? 20 A: I had, yes. 21 Q: And did you have any understanding as 22 to who Rose Manning was? 23 A: Yes, she was a descendant of the 24 original family of Stoney Point people. 25 Q: Hmm hmm. Did you understand whether
2821 she had any particular status in the community of Stoney 2 Point people at the -- the lands that had been 3 appropriated by the Federal Government? 4 A: I understand as an Elder. 5 Q: At the bottom of page 3 there's the 6 note that refers -- reads and I -- and I quote. Quote: 7 "Ron, there are risks in many Parks, 8 ie, falling off cliffs, bears, fights 9 with the campers, motorcycles gangs at 10 parks. It seems illogical they would 11 invade Park, more likely they would 12 block road." [Unquote] 13 Now, that note is reporting, as I 14 understand it, the substance of your communications at 15 the meeting at this point? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: So, you -- you continue to be 18 sceptical that an occupation of the Park was going to 19 happen? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And in retrospect, that was an error 22 in judgment, right? 23 A: Yes, I responded that way, sir. 24 Q: Thank you. And in this note over on 25 the next page, you'll see there's a note that says, and I
2831 quote: 2 "Chief Bressette and band are 3 supportive and view occupation are 4 illegal." [Unquote] 5 Questionable grammar, but you should see 6 my notes. 7 Do you recall that being the substance of 8 that information being conveyed at this meeting? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And at the bottom of the page it 11 says, quote: 12 "Ron, two (2) years ago the dissident 13 group did occupy Park in a ceremonial 14 way and eventually lost interest and 15 left." [Unquote] 16 Now, are -- is that the substance of -- of 17 words that you were conveying to the meeting? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Who do you think, "Ron" is there? 20 A: I would expect Ron Baldwin. 21 Q: Thank you. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Okay. And over the next page, with
2841 the Number 5 at the top about halfway down -- a third of 2 the way down -- you'll see there's a note, quote: 3 "Jonathan Batty, is there a risk of an 4 altercation between dissidents and the 5 band? 6 Ron Fox: Yes, it's possible or they 7 could seek an injunction." [Unquote] 8 Does that accurately convey the substance 9 of words that you spoke at the meeting? 10 A: It does. 11 Q: And so, you saw there was a risk of - 12 - am I right, of violence between the Kettle and Stony 13 Point First Nation people or -- or members of the Indian 14 Act Band and the Stoney Point people on the traditional 15 lands on which the Army Camp had been located? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And you were still referring -- when 18 you refer to "an injunction" were -- were you referring 19 to -- oh, sorry, why don't you tell me? 20 What -- do you recall what sort of 21 injunctive relief you were referring to at this stage? 22 A: The Kettle Stony Point band could 23 seek an injunction, in fact, that was a matter of record. 24 It was identified, I believe by Chief Bressette in a 25 newspaper interview.
2851 Q: An injunction for what purpose? 2 A: With -- with respect to the CFB 3 Ipperwash? 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: Who would have it returned to who. 6 Q: And it's your recollection that 7 that's something you saw in a newspaper? 8 A: Correct. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Commissioner, I have 13 4:30 if that would be a convenient time? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. When 15 we start at nine o'clock in the morning, when you get to 16 4:30 it seems like a long day, but I don't want to 17 interrupt you if you're in the middle of something -- 18 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No. I'm -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if this 20 is a good time to break, then -- 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we'll 23 break now. We'll break now until nine o'clock tomorrow 24 morning. 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is
2861 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 13th, at 9:00 2 a.m. 3 4 (WITNESS RETIRES) 5 6 --- Upon adjourning at 4:30 p.m. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Certified Correct 13 14 15 16 17 ____________________ 18 Wendy Warnock 19 20 21 22 23 24 25