1

1 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 June 9th, 2005 25

2

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

3

1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 5 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 6 Bill Hourigan ) Harris 7 Jennifer McAleer ) (np) 8 9 Ian Smith ) (Np) Robert Runciman 10 Alice Mrozek ) (np) 11 Harvey Stosberg ) (np) Charles Harnick 12 Jacqueline Horvat ) 13 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 14 Trevor Hinnegan ) 15 16 Mark Sandler ) 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 ) K. Deane 23 Ian McGilp ) (np) 24 Annie Leeks ) (np) 25 Jennifer Gleitman )

4

1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 3 Brian Eyolfson ) Services of Toronto 4 Julian Roy ) (np) 5 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 6 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 7 8 Al J.C. O'Marra ) (np) Office of the Chief 9 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 10 11 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 12 Matthew Horner ) 13 Kathleen Lickers ) (Np) 14 15 Mark Frederick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 16 Craig Mills ) (np) 17 Megan Mackey ) (np) 18 Erin Tully ) 19 20 David Roebuck ) (Np) Debbie Hutton 21 Anna Perschy ) (np) 22 Melissa Panjer ) 23 Danya Cohen-Nehemia ) (np) 24 25

5

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Exhibits 6 4 5 JOHN FREDERICK CARSON, Resumed 6 Continued Cross-Examination by Mr. Murray Klippenstein 7 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 64 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Certificate of Transcript 255 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

6

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-473 DVD copy of Gatehouse tape No. 4, 15:20 4 -21:31, September 06/'95 14 5 P-474 Document No. 1000448 Statement of OPP 6 Constable Mark Zacher September 07/'95 22 7 P-475 Document 1000888 Handwritten notes of 8 Constable Mark Zacher September 06/'95 25 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

7

1 --- Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning, everybody. Just before we start I'd like to 8 thank the George family and Mr. Klippenstein for 9 organizing that little barbeque last night. It was very 10 enjoyable and very much appreciated and thank you very, 11 very much. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, sir? 16 17 JOHN FREDERICK CARSON, Resumed: 18 19 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 20 Q: Good morning, Commissioner. Good 21 morning, Deputy Commissioner Carson. 22 A: Good morning, sir. 23 Q: Late yesterday, Deputy Commissioner 24 Carson, I was asking you some questions about the period 25 on the evening of September 6th when you had arrived back

8

1 at the command post or just before that. And, in 2 particular, one (1) of the things we had discussed was 3 the reference to the command post and the person in the 4 command -- excuse me, in the kiosk at the Park. 5 Do you recall that? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And one (1) of the parts of that 8 discussion was the suggestion you made that when the 9 command -- command post notes refer to person being in 10 the kiosk and that's, for example, found in the command 11 post notes Exhibit P-476, Inquiry Document 1002419 at 12 20:14 hours on September 6. And on page 74 of the -- of 13 the command post notes there's a record that: 14 "Stan Korosec reports one (1) person in 15 kiosk and closed blinds." 16 And you mentioned that that probably 17 derived from video images from the camera in the kiosk; 18 is that right? 19 A: That's accurate, right. 20 Q: And then we discussed, with the help 21 of Mr. Millar, the possibility of reviewing some of those 22 images and I gather Mr. Millar has looked at that record 23 and would have some of those available. And, if that's 24 possible, hopefully without taking too much time, we 25 could review a sampling of those images and some around

9

1 20:14, if that's possible. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you see 7 all right from that angle? 8 THE WITNESS: It's all right. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 10 to move over? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, what you 15 see is -- is, from what I understand, is the camera is in 16 the gatehouse and you're looking out the front of the 17 gatehouse. There's a number of entries -- there are a 18 number of people coming in and out. And I'll just -- 19 I've discussed it with My Friend and he would like me to 20 play just some of them. 21 What I'll have to do is, move -- move the 22 player back -- move it forward because, for example, 23 there's -- someone comes in and out at 16:53 according to 24 this timer, then, at 17:26, then at 17:57, 18:56, and 25 19:01 and then a little later on. So, I'll just play

10

1 some of these. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 4 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 5 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I can't -- when I move 7 it back and forth it either goes -- the fine control 8 isn't perfect on this computer. 9 So, the first person that you will see in 10 the image is, at 16:53:02 there appears to be somebody 11 opening the door, at least, to the kiosk and the 12 gatehouse and coming in and that person is in there until 13 16:53:57 and another person comes in as well. 14 15 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 16 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And of the two (2) 18 people, the last of the two (2) people are out at 16:54, 19 approximately. 20 21 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 22 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And the next -- this 24 is now moved up to 17:26, and there's a -- two (2) people 25 come in at 17:26:56, on this counter.

11

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 2 counter real time? Is that what it is like 17:26 is 3 the -- 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I presume that it is, 5 that it's a counter that's on the video recorder. I -- 6 I've assumed that is, but we'll have to make -- double 7 check on that. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, okay. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'm -- I'm instructed 10 by Mr. Sandler that it is real time. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Real time. 12 13 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 14 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And the last person is 16 out there at approximately 17:29:48. So what I'm going 17 to do is I'm going to skip over this -- the person in and 18 out at 17:31, at 17:57, again a person is in and out at 19 approximately 18:03. At one (1) point, at 18:56, there 20 are people in the front of the kiosk, and at 18:57 to 21 18:59 there are people who are in and out. 22 And I -- I've skipped, there's a -- a 23 frame with the bus and a couple frames with cars, but 24 I'll skip down now to 18:56, I think it is. 25

12

1 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 2 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: At 18:56:16 someone is 4 coming in. 5 6 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 7 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: In this sequence there 9 are a number of people in and around the kiosk. 10 11 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 12 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Now, in this sequence, 14 the last person -- the person that you just saw, left the 15 store at about 15:05:40. I'm going to skip ahead. 16 At 19:45 on this, you can see it visibly 17 getting dark, and at 19:58 somebody comes in -- 19:57, 18 excuse me. And then you'll see what happens at 19:58. 19 20 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 21 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That frame at 19:06 23 you can see the bus. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

13

1 As this fast forwards, you can see, in 2 the background it's getting darker. 3 4 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 5 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The door opens at 7 19:57:57, approximately. 8 9 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 10 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And at 19:58:22 it 12 appears that some blinds are being pulled down, and the 13 screen goes black and stays black. 14 15 16 (VIDEOTAPE PLAYED) 17 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps, Commissioner, 19 we could mark this DVD. We cannot extract, or at least I 20 don't know how to extract the time frames we've played, 21 but it's a DVD, a copy of a gatehouse tape number 4. It 22 runs from 15:20 to 21:31 on September 6th, 1995. And I 23 suggest we mark that the next exhibit. It would be P -- 24 THE REGISTRAR: 473, Your Honour. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 473?

14

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 473. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-473: DVD copy of Gatehouse tape 4 No. 4, 15:20-21:31, September 5 06/'95 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, sir. 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you, 9 Commissioner and thank you, Mr. Millar. That's been very 10 helpful. I appreciate the effort that went into scanning 11 that. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN. 14 Q: Now, Deputy Commissioner Carson, as 15 we were reviewing yesterday on the Command Post minutes 16 for this time period, there's an entry at 19 -- sorry, at 17 20:14 hours that says: 18 "Stan Korosec reports one (1) person in 19 kiosk and closed blinds." 20 And if the times are right, that is about 21 fourteen (14) minutes after the closing of the blinds 22 appears to have happened on the video, right? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: But we can't be sure there's 25 correspondence or accuracy between the two (2) timing

15

1 devices on the video and on the command post notes? 2 A: That's fair. 3 Q: Do you happen to know whether there's 4 accuracy between those two (2)? 5 A: I've never seen the video before. 6 Q: Okay. Now, were you suggesting 7 yesterday that, and I believe you were, that the concern 8 about the closing of the blinds in the kiosk or gatehouse 9 that we've just seen was one (1) of the reasons for -- 10 for sending TRU in for observation; is that fair? 11 A: That's fair. 12 Q: Now, it was getting dark in the video 13 that we just saw at the gatehouse at the time; is that 14 right? 15 A: That's what it appears, yes. 16 Q: And, it's possible that one (1) of 17 the protesters, for example, wanted to sleep in the kiosk 18 or gatehouse as a shelter, is that possible? 19 A: I suppose that's possible. 20 Q: In which case they might want to 21 close the blinds for that reason; is that right? 22 A: I suppose that could be a reason. 23 Q: Are you -- were aware at that time on 24 the evening of the 6th or did you become subsequently 25 aware of any other evidence that relates to the activity

16

1 in the kiosk at approximately this time, being 20:14? 2 A: I wasn't in the command post at 3 20:14. 4 Q: Right. But have you become aware of 5 any evidence since then of any activity in the kiosk at 6 about that time other than what we've just seen on the 7 video? 8 A: Not that I'm aware of. 9 Q: So, in other words, you haven't seen 10 -- you're not aware of any evidence of any untoward 11 activity in the kiosk at that time? 12 A: Correct. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: If you could turn to page 73 of the 17 command post notes, which is now moving a little bit 18 farther back in time than the incident we've just looked 19 at. and so the command post notes are Exhibit P-476, 20 Inquiry Document 1002419; I'm sorry, Exhibit P-426 and 21 page 73 of those notes. 22 We've looked at this before, but do you 23 have that in front of you? 24 A: Yes, I do. 25 Q: If I could just go through a couple

17

1 of the entries in there. 2 At 19:55 hours Mark Wright reports via 3 police radio ten (10) natives with baseball bats near the 4 road who apparently have damaged a private vehicle. 5 And we listened to a tape earlier and I 6 won't play it again unless you wish in which we heard 7 Mark Wright call into -- radio into the command post and 8 talk about people with bats and suggest that people be 9 sent down to the Park area, do you recall that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And -- and I think we had agreed that 12 that radio call and this notation were probably talking 13 about the same thing? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: All right. Then, the next entry 16 says: 17 "Dale Linton to Rob Graham suggesting 18 moving four (4) from "B", two (2) from 19 "D" and one (1) canine to beach area, 20 await Mark Wright's report." 21 Now, you weren't there at the time, but 22 I'm wondering if it -- if it's fair, in your view, to 23 interpret that or -- or understand that to be that Dale 24 Linton is suggesting moving four (4) officers from 25 checkpoint "B", two (2) officers from checkpoint "D" and

18

1 one (1) canine unit to the beach area, is that a fair 2 interpretation of that? 3 A: That appears what it says, yes. 4 Q: Okay. And then, it says: 5 "Await Mark Wright's report." 6 And that could be the report that is 7 referred to in Mark Wright's radio call where he says, 8 I'll -- I'll make a full report when I get there. 9 A: That's fair. 10 Q: Then, the next entry at 20:02 hours 11 says: 12 "Dale Linton, Mark Wright, Rob Graham, 13 and Stan Korosec. 14 Mark Wright reports natives off Park 15 area with baseball bats. Constable 16 Zacher, a personal vehicle being 17 damaged." 18 Now, would I be correct in interpreting 19 that as recording a discussion between Dale Linton, Mark 20 Wright, Rob Graham and Stan Korosec in the command post; 21 is that what it appears to be? 22 A: That's fair. 23 Q: And this appears to be Mark Wright 24 reporting in person about the sandy parking lot encounter 25 he had with First Nations People; right?

19

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And then it also appears to mention 3 Constable Zacher's description of the stone-throwing 4 incident; is that fair? 5 A: I don't know what Zacher's role is, 6 I -- 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: -- I'm not sure if Zacher was in 9 that -- 10 Q: Just -- just to clarify, and I'm -- I 11 can provide the documentation if you wish, but I think 12 the evidence will show that Constable Zacher was one (1) 13 of the officers at the first checkpoint where Sam Poole 14 was. 15 And, in fact, it was Constable Zacher who 16 wrote in his notes that he estimated the damage -- the 17 dent to be about four hundred -- four hundred dollars 18 ($400). Perhaps I can show you that document. 19 A: I haven't -- I'm not aware of 20 Zacher's involvement in this. I'm assuming he's one (1) 21 of the officers on one (1) of the points. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: If you could retrieve Volume 1 of the

20

1 binders we provided to you. And, for your reference, 2 it's Tab 13, which is Inquiry Document 10004448, that's 3 1000448. 4 And this appears to be a statement of Mark 5 Zacher; do you see that? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And if I could just read the 8 paragraph at the bottom of that page, it says, quote: 9 "I believe the incident occurred after 10 10:00 p.m. I was assigned to 11 checkpoint "C", which is located on 12 Army Camp Road, east of Matheson Road. 13 A male Native name Gerald George 14 approached our checkpoint in a vehicle, 15 a blue Pontiac. He was alone in the 16 vehicle and he had just come from the 17 intersection of Parkside Drive and Army 18 Camp Road. He advised that his car was 19 struck by a thrown rock by a Native in 20 the overflow parking area. His 21 driver's side rear quarter panel was 22 damaged, I estimate about four hundred 23 dollars ($400) in damage." 24 And then it continues. Now, would you 25 agree with me, that considering the other aspects of --

21

1 of the information we've looked at, that that appears to 2 be the incident in which Gerald George's car, or the one 3 he was driving, was struck by a rock? 4 A: That -- that's fair. 5 Q: And Constable Zacher was at 6 checkpoint "C", which was on Army Camp Road, a little bit 7 south of the Park? 8 A: Right. 9 Q: And this is likely the incident where 10 Gerald George, after his car was struck by a stone, drove 11 south and stopped at checkpoint "C" and spoke with the 12 constables there. And, in fact, if we read the first two 13 (2) sentences on the next page, his report says: 14 "He recognizes [I think that's a 15 typographical error] He recognizes the 16 person who done it, it was Warren 17 George. From that point, Provincial 18 Constable Poole took a statement from 19 him." 20 Right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And at the beginning of that 23 paragraph Constable Zacher's report says: 24 "I believe the incident occurred after 25 10:00 p.m."

22

1 Would you agree with me that appears to be 2 a -- a typographical error and it's probably around 8:00 3 p.m.? 4 A: That's fair. 5 Q: I wonder, Commissioner, if that 6 statement could be marked as an exhibit? 7 THE REGISTRAR: P-474. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-474: Document No. 1000448 10 Statement of OPP Constable 11 Mark Zacher September 07/'95 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN 14 Q: And I have -- And just for 15 comparison, we've also included in that binder, at the 16 next tab, at Tab 14, the handwritten notes of Constable 17 Zacher. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: And at -- in those handwritten notes, 22 he appears to have a different time in the left margin, 23 it looks like it's 19:00 hours or 7:00 p.m. but I can see 24 how he might have mistaken that for ten o'clock, so -- is 25 that -- did you see the entry in his handwritten notes,

23

1 just to the left of his statement that he relieved 2 checkpoint "C"? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And so that appears to say 19:00 5 hours or 7:00 p.m.; is that right? 6 A: That's what it appears, yes. 7 Q: Which would make sense in terms of 8 the shift changes? 9 A: Sure. 10 Q: And that may account for the 10:00 11 p.m. statement because it's understandable that that 12 could be read, mistakenly; is that right? 13 A: I'm not sure I understand what would 14 be read mistakenly. 15 Q: Well, it's not a big deal, but the -- 16 the 19:00 hours one could mistakenly read that as ten 17 o'clock, 1-0-0-0 which is the time given on the 18 typewritten statement we just looked at. 19 A: They're two (2) different statements, 20 sir. 21 The statement that you -- you -- 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: -- referred to was taken by another 24 officer -- 25 Q: Yes.

24

1 A: -- from him. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: I don't -- I don't see the 4 relationship between the -- his -- his personal notes, 5 and the statement taken by the other officer. Obviously 6 somebody had made a -- an error -- 7 Q: All right. 8 A: -- when he gave his statement, but -- 9 Q: Okay. I don't -- it's not -- it's 10 not a significant point. 11 A: I -- I -- just to point out, I -- it 12 doesn't appear to be a transcript of his personal notes 13 as his statement, that's all. 14 Q: All right, fair enough. 15 A: Okay. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: I wonder if we could -- we might as 20 well make those handwritten notes of Constable Zacher an 21 exhibit, if that's all right? That's Inquiry Document 22 1000888 which appear to be the handwritten notes of 23 Constable Zacher for September 6th, 1995. 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-475. 25

25

1 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-475: Document 1000888 Handwritten 2 notes of Constable Mark 3 Zacher September 06/'95 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I presume 6 Constable Zacher is going to be called at some point, or 7 may be called at some point? 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I don't know. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We don't 13 know, at this point? 14 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: Good morning, 15 Commissioner. I was just going to raise that issue with 16 the Commission. Deputy Carson has not been able to 17 identify those notes -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes -- 19 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: -- so I'm not 20 sure about the propriety of having them entered as an 21 exhibit on that basis. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What we 23 usually do is reserve a number to be identified at some 24 subsequent time if he's called. But I assume that for -- 25 if we're going to do that, we pretty well have to call

26

1 him. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, you can look -- 3 you can look at these notes at -- the same notes are at 4 2005447, they're identified with a card of Constable 5 Zacher, and they include his notes from the September 5th 6 and 6th, including these notes. 7 But we'll call Constable Zacher. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: I was just going to 13 suggest that, I think, rather than get into an issue 14 every time the notes are produced as to whether it 15 necessarily compels the calling of the officer, we should 16 just mark them for the time being, and at the end of the 17 piece you can evaluate what weight should be placed upon 18 them. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's -- 20 that's helpful, thank you, Mr. Sandler. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm not sure it 22 inevitably follows that -- that every time a note will be 23 put -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- the officer will

27

1 necessarily have to be called -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 3 right. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: I think they could be 5 dealt with -- 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah, no, I -- I agree 7 with that -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I hadn't 9 thought that -- 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- I was just -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- either. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- responding to the 13 Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 18 Mr. Sandler, that's helpful. 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN So, I take it 20 where we're at is -- is this is being marked as an 21 exhibit -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN And we will wait 24 and see -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.

28

1 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN -- whether 2 Constable Zacher's presence is required? Is that -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN -- fair? Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 474 and 475. 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Exhibits. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 10 Q: Deputy Commissioner Carson, then, 11 returning to the -- to page 73 of the -- the typed 12 command post notes, we reviewed at 20:02 hours the first 13 paragraph. 14 And would you agree with me that what we 15 appear to have in that first paragraph now, is a 16 reference to Mark Wright's sandy parking lot encounter 17 with First Nations people; and then secondly, a reference 18 to Constable Zacher's observance of the car damaged by a 19 stone? 20 A: Sure. 21 Q: So that the information of those two 22 (2) incidents is now coming to the command post; is that 23 right? 24 A: That's what it appears, yes. 25 Q: And then the next --

29

1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, we're not 2 certain. We don't know, in fairness, what Zacher told 3 the command post. It's an assumption that's built into 4 My Friend's question about the stone. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN. 7 Q: That's a -- that's a fair comment. 8 And I didn't mean to go beyond the -- the statement here. 9 My point was that we now have some kind of report about 10 those two (2) incidents. And all that the notes record 11 is damage; right? 12 A: Yes, it what it says, yes. 13 Q: And then there's a sentence about 14 Dale Linton and then in the next paragraph at 20:02 or 15 shortly thereafter says: 16 "Trevor Richardson arrived in meeting 17 reporting Brian Byatt reports lots of 18 activity in kiosk area. They took the 19 gas to fill the bus. Mark Wright 20 briefing Inspector Carson on telephone. 21 Dale Linton: Let's wait and see what 22 Provincial Constable Poole's statement 23 reveals." 24 The reference to Mark Wright briefing 25 Inspector Carson on the telephone would appear to link to

30

1 the phone call exchange between you and Mr. Wright of 2 which we've heard a tape; is that right? 3 A: That's fair. 4 Q: Okay. And the next sentence says: 5 "Dale Linton: Let's wait and see what 6 Provincial -- Constable Poole's 7 statement reveals." 8 That appears to be recording that 9 Inspector Linton wished to review the statement that 10 Provincial Constable Poole was taking of the damaged car 11 incident; is that right? 12 A: That's what it appears, yes. 13 Q: My Friend Mr. Millar has just pointed 14 out an additional level of detail about Constable 15 Zacher's information. And if we turn to Exhibit P-475 16 again, which is the handwritten notes of Constable Zacher 17 which is in the -- Volume 1 of the binders. I see you 18 have it in front of you and Inquiry Document 1000888. 19 For the entry under 19:00 hours at the 20 very end, the last two (2) lines seem to say: 21 "Sergeant Wright notified of incident." 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And we've also heard, I believe, in 25 one or more of the tapes that we played of Sergeant

31

1 Wright's radio call, that Sergeant Wright will apparently 2 testify that he received a radio call from Constable 3 Zacher's checkpoint after he'd left the checkpoint and 4 moved south. I believe that's, in fact, what you and I 5 reviewed a little while ago. 6 So that it appears that Detective Sergeant 7 Wright left checkpoint "C", travelled south and received 8 a report by radio from Constable Zacher about the damaged 9 car by radio. 10 A: Yeah. I think that's what we agreed 11 to before, yes. 12 Q: Yes. And so when I look at the 13 command post notes as we just did, the statement at 20:02 14 hours that Constable Zacher -- a personal vehicle being 15 damaged could be Mark Wright reporting on the radio 16 message he had from Constable Zacher; is that a fair 17 interpretation? 18 A: As you indicate, it could be. 19 Q: Yeah. Then continuing at 20:08 hours 20 on the command post notes, they say: 21 "Dale Linton request comm. call out TRU 22 and report here." 23 And would you agree, that appears to be 24 indicating that Inspector Linton requested communications 25 to call out TRU right?

32

1 A: That would be, exactly. 2 Q: And then, the next statement says: 3 "Dale Linton to Mark Wright, can we 4 identify any of these guys doing any 5 offences? 6 MARK WRIGHT: Just drove through and 7 there are numerous criminal offences. 8 MARK WRIGHT: We have possession of 9 weapons dangerous with bats and 10 mischief. Anyone with a bat, they are 11 preventing people from passing 12 through." 13 Would you agree with me that appears to be 14 recording Mark Wright's comments about the incident that 15 he had at the sandy parking lot? 16 A: That's fair. 17 Q: Then, the next statement says: 18 "DALE LINTON: I want something in 19 writing in that statement from the 20 victim so we have something. then I'm 21 prepared to act on it. 22 Mark Wright using map to show what he 23 saw." 24 Would you agree with me that appears to 25 indicate that Inspector Linton, again, said he wanted to

33

1 look at something in writing, being the statement from -- 2 the statement that we now know Sam Poole was taking; is 3 that right? 4 A: You -- you use the term, "he wanted 5 to look at." It doesn't say he wanted to look at it -- 6 Q: Right. 7 A: -- he said he wanted a statement. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: So I -- I don't want to confuse the 10 two (2) potentials here. 11 Q: Right. 12 A: Obviously he wants a statement taken. 13 Q: Right. 14 A: I -- I'm not sure if I could draw 15 from this that he wanted to see it personally. 16 Q: Right. Fair enough. In that same 17 sentence he continues: 18 "So we have something, then I'm 19 prepared to act on it." 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And so he appears to be saying that 22 he wants a statement from the -- the car -- the damaged 23 car occupant, then he's prepared to act on it? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: If you go back to the first notation

34

1 under 20:02 in which Inspector Linton refers to that 2 statement in the middle of the page, the -- the notes 3 record? 4 "Let's wait and see what Provincial 5 Constable Poole's statement reveals." 6 Do you see that? 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: So that appears to suggest, and given 9 the unavailability of Inspector Linton, I -- I am going 10 to ask that it appears to suggest that Inspector Linton 11 was suggesting that they should actually see what the 12 statement from Poole reveals; right? 13 A: I think that's -- I -- I don't -- I 14 don't necessarily agree with that he's saying that he 15 wants a statement delivered to the command post. What 16 he's saying, he wants a statement that confirms that 17 damage has taken place and that somebody has, in fact, 18 complained. 19 When you say, "wait and see," I mean, we 20 use that term all the time, "wait and see." Well, let's 21 see what we've got. But that doesn't mean you have to 22 see it personally, it means you have to understand what's 23 taken place. So, I'm not sure that, "wait and see," 24 means physically delivered. 25 Q: Fair enough. But it does seem to

35

1 suggest when he says, Let's see what the statement 2 reveals, that he wanted to know what information was in 3 the statement? 4 A: Oh, that's fair. Sure, sure. 5 Q: And whether that was a radioed 6 communication of the details of the statement. 7 A: Right. And that's exactly my point. 8 Q: Okay. And do you know if any such 9 communication ever occurred? In other words, was the 10 content of Constable Poole's statement, the one he took 11 from Gerald George, ever delivered or communicated to the 12 command post in detail? 13 A: I don't know. 14 Q: Okay. And would you agree with me 15 that if the details of Constable Poole's statement had 16 been communicated or delivered to the command post at 17 that time, it would have been very valuable and important 18 in the decision-making process? 19 A: Well, it's certainly a part of it. I 20 mean one -- one (1) of the reasons they're going to ask 21 for a statement is, I mean, often times you get 22 complaints, and parties who do not want to follow up with 23 their complaint. 24 They make a complaint and -- and want it 25 to be anonymous, or whatever, and really want no action

36

1 taken as a result of it, so you -- I mean, it's pretty 2 normal to ask that a statement be taken and try to 3 determine what exactly took place. 4 And if you can identify the person 5 involved, and so I think, you know, these are pretty 6 natural steps. 7 As far as the activity, relative to the 8 damage, regardless of the statement, there would still be 9 a necessity to monitor the activity in the -- in the 10 parking lot to determine what may be continuing to occur 11 there. 12 Q: Well, exactly. You say, Monitor the 13 activity. And I would think that, if you're monitoring 14 the activity it would be useful to know some of the 15 details in Sam Poole's statement taken from Gerald 16 George. 17 Would you -- would you agree with that? 18 A: That's fair. 19 Q: For example, in Gerald George's 20 statement, which we went through before, it's clear that 21 Gerald George -- that -- that when Stewart George had a 22 discussion with Gerald George, it was based on a letter, 23 or article that Gerald George had published in a 24 newspaper, which was quite negative about some of the 25 occupiers; right?

37

1 A: Yes, it was. 2 Q: And that adds an important bit of 3 context to what happened with the damage to the car; is 4 that fair? 5 A: I don't think so. 6 Q: You don't think so. All right, and 7 the statement also reveals -- 8 A: I -- I don't think anyone who writes 9 a letter to the editor should be subject to their vehicle 10 is damaged because someone has a differing opinion. 11 Q: Yeah, we -- we might all agree with 12 what you've just said, my point is it gives a little 13 context and understanding about the -- the nature of the 14 incident. 15 It's a bit of a personal grudge, if you 16 will, and it is, for example, quite different from a non- 17 Native civilian woman driving past the Park; it's quite 18 different, is that right? 19 A: There's a different context to it, 20 sure. 21 Q: Right. The statement also explicitly 22 states that the -- that Stewart George was standing, I 23 think some thirty-five (35) feet away, from the other 24 individuals who were in the parking lot, so he was the 25 only person near the car, right?

38

1 A: I -- I believe that's accurate. 2 Q: And so it wasn't a group of people 3 who were near -- or near the car, it was one (1) person, 4 right? 5 A: That's what it appears. 6 Q: Right. And the statement makes it 7 clear that Stuart George had nothing in his hands, is 8 that right? 9 A: I believe that's correct. 10 Q: And the statement makes clear that 11 Gerald George says he saw only one (1) person with a bat, 12 and that was a member of the group that was thirty-five 13 (35) feet away from his car; is that right? 14 A: I'll take your word for it. 15 Q: So would you agree with me that when 16 you're monitoring, as -- as -- as you said, what's going 17 on there, those are all facts, in -- in Sam Poole's 18 statement, which give important context to -- to the -- 19 to the incident; is that fair? 20 A: To the incident that occurred with 21 the vehicle, right. 22 Q: Yes. And another part of Sam Poole's 23 written statement from Gerald George is that the damage 24 to the car was not by a stick or a baseball bat, it was 25 by one (1) single stone, is that right?

39

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And furthermore, that statement is 3 clear that that damage occurred only after Gerald George 4 began driving away, when Stuart George threw the stone at 5 the departing car, is that right? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And those, again, are facts which are 8 an important context in evaluating the significance of 9 that incident; is that right? 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: And all of those facts that I've 12 mentioned, or parts of the statement, would tend to 13 suggest that the incident was somewhat isolated, it was 14 between two (2) individuals, it was connected to a 15 previous dispute, it was not a Native/non-Native 16 interpersonal issue, and it wasn't damage caused by a 17 baseball bat; right? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: So when you -- when we looked at the 20 reference at 20:02 hours to Dale Linton apparently saying 21 in the command post, Let's wait and see what Provincial 22 Constable Poole's statement reveals, if Constable Poole's 23 statement had in fact been communicated to the command 24 post, whether in person, on paper, or by radio, it might 25 well have made quite an important contribution to the

40

1 decision-making process; is that fair? 2 A: It -- it would have been information 3 taken in consideration but it would not have precluded 4 the other issues surrounding the events or the 5 observations of the officers that were assigned to 6 observation duty. 7 Q: Well, that's -- you're correct in 8 saying it wouldn't have precluded consideration of those 9 other issues, but that statement in itself would have 10 been important because that incident was important in the 11 decision-making process; right? 12 In fact, you've agreed with me that this 13 car damage incident was one (1) of the two (2) incidents 14 that were the main incidents at the beginning of the -- 15 of the police deployment? 16 A: Sure. 17 Q: And if that statement taken by -- by 18 Constable Poole had been reviewed at this time, it would 19 have had a significant dampening effect because it allows 20 and suggests an explanation of what's going on that would 21 tend to alleviate concerns about major escalation at the 22 Park; is that fair? 23 A: I -- quite frankly, it's -- it's just 24 plainly not that simple. The information would have been 25 helpful, but I'm not so sure it would have changed

41

1 anything in the steps. I mean, it would -- it would have 2 helped with some understanding. 3 And, you know, with the benefit of all of 4 that information to dissect today, I mean, it adds 5 additional context to it but that wasn't the context of 6 the moment, as you know. 7 Q: All right. Would you agree with me 8 it -- it would have been very useful to have that report 9 information at the command post? 10 A: It -- it's always helpful, sir, to 11 have as much information as humanly possible. Every 12 scrap of information that can be provided is -- is always 13 going to be useful. So, from that perspective, of course 14 I would agree with you. 15 Q: Is it fair to say, for the materials 16 we've just reviewed on page 73, that what we have here, 17 apparently is a -- a report at 19:55 of Mark Wright 18 phoning in from Army -- radioing in from Army Camp Road, 19 reporting an incident with Natives and baseball bats; 20 then a meeting with Mark Wright, Dale Linton and others 21 in which there is discussion of the -- of Mark Wright's 22 incident at the parking lot, and discussion of the 23 vehicle damage that Constable Zacher reports. 24 And then there's the phone call between 25 you and Mark Wright; is that right?

42

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And a reference to Inspector Linton 3 saying, Let's wait and see Poole's statement. 4 Or what Poole's statement reveals; 5 correct? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And if I look for a moment into the 8 phone call that is referenced here between you and Mark 9 Wright, one (1) part of what Mark Wright is saying at 10 that point to you is -- he says something like: 11 "Don't you say we go get those f--ing 12 guys." 13 That was in that phone call; right? 14 A: Yes, it was. 15 Q: So that's something that Mark Wright 16 is saying at this point to you; right? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: And also in that phone call you ask 19 Detective Sergeant Wright: 20 "What does -- what does Linton think?" 21 And he says something like: 22 "Oh, he's waffling and daylight's a 23 wasting." 24 Right? 25 A: Correct.

43

1 Q: So it appears in this context and 2 from the phone call, that Mark Wright believes that -- 3 and what he's saying in the -- in the conversation with 4 you, that action should be taken of some sort; is that 5 fair? 6 A: That's fair. 7 Q: Now I'd like to go back in time for a 8 little bit and in terms of another bit of context. And 9 in Volume I of the materials at Tab 6 we have -- this is 10 Volume I of the materials that we provided earlier. 11 At Tab 6 we have an indication of some 12 evidence I anticipate will come from Christopher Coles 13 and that's an excerpt from the transcripts of the 14 examination for discovery, you have Christopher Coles. 15 A: Tab 6? 16 Q: At Tab 5, I beg your pardon, thank 17 you. And excerpts from the discovery of Christopher 18 Coles on July 26th, 2001 being page 1 and pages 63 to 65 19 and page - pages 73 to 77. And if you could turn to 20 page 64 of those transcript excerpts; do you have that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And in the middle of the page at -- 23 it's approximately line 10 is question 215. I would just 24 like to read to the end of the page. 25 "Q: Is it fair to say that the

44

1 Commissioner's office probably had an 2 issue sheet prepared by September 5th? 3 A: Yes, I think so. 4 Q: And probably would have had an 5 update issue sheet by September 6th; is 6 that likely? 7 A: By September 7th I would imagine. 8 Q: Even by September -- 9 A: Given the shooting. 10 Q: Even by September 6th? I mean an 11 update? 12 A: Not really because I guess my 13 answer to that is I was there on 14 September the 6th and all was quiet up 15 to four o'clock in the afternoon 16 anyway. But definitely once the CMU 17 and the situation involved the shooting 18 thing, an issue sheet would have been 19 prepared very soon after that." 20 Now I note that Christopher Coles I 21 anticipate will testify that as he says in the transcript 22 he was there on September the 6th and in his view: 23 "All was quiet up to four o'clock in 24 the afternoon anyway." 25 Right?

45

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And then the transcripts also 3 includes similar references which have been referred to 4 earlier. If you turn to page 76 of the transcripts, 5 question 239 says: 6 "It didn't seem like there was anything 7 particularly happening out there at the 8 Park; is that fair? 9 A: That's fair." 10 And it continues. And then, the next 11 question 240: 12 "Q: It didn't seem --" 13 This is on page 76 of the transcript, 14 question -- question 240: 15 "It didn't seem like an urgent 16 situation at that time. 17 A: No, not at that time." 18 Commissioner -- Deputy Commissioner 19 Carson, I'm just wondering when Christopher Coles said 20 that on September the 6th, when he was there up to four 21 o'clock in the afternoon, anyway, he said all was quiet. 22 Is that a -- is that a fair summary of the situation 23 there? 24 A: Yes. And... 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: Commissioner, we've

46

1 been through these passages. He had -- youll recall the 2 exchange about, Was it urgent? It was status quo. We 3 prefer the words, "status quo." We then came back to it 4 the following day, status quo versus urgent. I mean 5 there has to be some -- some sense of it. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, there 7 has to be, but I keep thinking that it's a different 8 context and he's coming at it from a different angle. So 9 I'm giving him a bit of leeway. I assume you're not just 10 repeating we've already heard. I assume there's another 11 purpose to these questions? 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes, indeed. 13 The words I've just referred to, I don't think I've -- 14 have been discussed, Deputy Commissioner, where 15 Christopher Coles says, All was quiet. I think adds 16 another tone to -- to what's -- what's been said before-- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- and I 19 appreciate and I don't intend to overlap but -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- the words, 22 "all was quiet," coming from Chief Coles do impart 23 something I -- I would imagine. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I may be 25 wrong, but I thought we had already --

47

1 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: We've gone 2 through some of the other comments, but not that one, as 3 I recall. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I thought we 5 went through that one, but in any event, carry on. 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: If I'm -- if 7 I'm mistaken, I'll -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know 9 you're trying not to overlap -- 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- or 12 duplicate so if you have to, I guess you do, but I know 13 you're trying not to, I gather. 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I assume you 16 are. 17 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 21 Q: Deputy Commissioner Carson, when 22 Chief Coles said or -- and apparently will say -- that 23 all was quiet it looked at four o'clock in the afternoon, 24 anyway, is that a fair characterization in your view? 25 A: Well, I -- I don't know what he meant

48

1 by, "all is quiet." As I indicated before, it's quiet if 2 you take into consideration that all the activity and 3 antics are occurring within the Park proper, then, 4 generally, it's quiet. 5 Q: All right. And then, after about the 6 time that Chief Coles refers to four o'clock in the 7 afternoon and so forth, as we've seen, you had your phone 8 call with Inspector Fox, you suggested to Inspector Fox 9 that you would agree to testify at an injunction hearing. 10 You then, at -- I believe it was 16:47 or 11 thereabouts, had a discussion with Detective Sergeant 12 Wright and advised him of the decision that he would be 13 testifying the next morning; correct? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And I see it's 16:44 hours on the -- 16 on the scribe notes rather than 16:47, but -- 17 A: I've lost you here. 18 Q: We discussed this yesterday and I 19 don't mean to repeat it. I don't think that's -- well, 20 just to be clear, on page 66 of the scribe notes, if you 21 wish to look at them. 22 A: What was -- what was your question, 23 sir? 24 Q: I hadn't got to a question yet. I was 25 just, again, for context, repeating what we had discussed

49

1 yesterday, which was that at 16:44 hours on the 6 -- 2 A: Yes? 3 Q: - you advised Mark Wright that he 4 would be testifying in court the next day. 5 A: Yes, I -- 6 Q: Right. 7 A: -- indicated that before, yes. 8 Q: Right. And then we -- and -- and you 9 knew that it would be an ex parte injunction, correct, at 10 that point? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And we don't know, I believe you said 13 you don't recall to what extent you discussed the details 14 of the injunction with Mark Wright at that point; is that 15 right? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sure 17 you've asked these questions, Mr. Klippenstein. I'm 18 absolutely certain that you have -- 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 21 Q: I'll -- I'll -- I'll move on. Thank 22 you, Commissioner. 23 But the next step is, if you look at page 24 68 of those notes, there's a briefing at the command post 25 at about twelve (12) minutes after 6:00 p.m.; is that

50

1 right? 2 A: Yes, there is. 3 Q: And at the bottom of the page, the 4 last paragraph: 5 "Les Kobayashi heading off to Sarnia 6 tomorrow at 8:15, Court at 9:00 a.m. 7 for an emergency injunction." 8 Do you see that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: So by that time, the injunction is 11 being referred to in the overall team meeting as an 12 emergency injunction; is that fair? 13 A: That's what it indicates, yes. 14 Q: Yeah. And that -- that was one (1) 15 of the ways in which the injunction was now known to 16 people, as an emergency injunction; is that right? 17 A: That's fair. 18 Q: And I guess the potential difficulty 19 I have is that, as we've seen, there's a fair bit of 20 assessment that in the afternoon of the 6th, to use Chief 21 Coles words, all was quiet, there didn't seem to be much 22 happening. 23 And then at the same time, the team is 24 realizing that there's an inunction the next morning, 25 which is an emergency injunction; right?

51

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And my concern is that on the one (1) 3 hand, nothing seems to be happening, and yet there's 4 supposed to be evidence given for an emergency 5 injunction. 6 Now -- and that evidence is going to be 7 given by Mark Wright; correct? 8 A: Yes, it is. 9 Q: And you instructed Mark Wright to go 10 out to the citizens' meeting later that afternoon or the 11 end of the afternoon on the 6th; is that right? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: And we've reviewed that. And after 14 that meeting, after he left that meeting, Mark Wright 15 travelled to the corner at the Park where he had an 16 encounter with Natives; right? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: Now, had you instructed Mark Wright 19 to go and have a look at the Park area? 20 A: Well, he was sent down to the 21 meeting, as -- as you indicated. I don't recall any 22 discussion with Mark Wright as to -- I don't know, where 23 he goes or what he does while he's down there. 24 Q: Right, yeah. 25 A: I can't believe I would have given

52

1 any specific direction like that. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: Because he had been down there 4 earlier with Sergeant Eve, I think, as I indicated in the 5 -- the minutes. 6 Q: Right. But just to be clear, you 7 don't recall saying to Mark Wright, go down to the -- to 8 the Park to investigate? 9 A: No. 10 Q: But from the evidence and anticipated 11 evidence we've seen he did go down there. He didn't go 12 there because of somebody complaining about activity in 13 the parking lot; is that fair? 14 A: I'm sorry? 15 Q: To the best of our knowledge. 16 A: I'm sorry? I -- I'm not sure I 17 understand -- 18 Q: He was not responding, in an official 19 way, to any complaint when he went to the parking lot, is 20 that fair? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 22 Sandler...? 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: We're not going to 24 hear from Mark Wright for a few months -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sure.

53

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: And I think there's a 2 certain unfairness at this point. He asked him two (2) 3 days ago, you know, was this the direct route going by 4 the Park and where did he go after the parking lot. 5 He's exhausted this witness' knowledge of 6 what Mark Wright did, intended to, and was intending to 7 do and I -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- I think it's unfair 10 to Mark Wright who won't be testifying -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- for some time, and 13 I think he's exhausted this witness' evidence on it. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm going to 15 ask that we have a morning recess now and ask you to 16 think about where we're going from here if you want -- if 17 you -- give some consideration to what you're going to 18 do. 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN I'm almost done. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, we'll 21 take a short recess then and continue after that. 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess. 23 24 --- Upon recessing at 10:16 a.m. 25 --- Upon resuming at 10:32 a.m.

54

1 2 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 3 resumed, please be seated. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 5 Klippenstein...? 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN Thank you, 7 Commissioner. There was some objection taken before the 8 break to my question and I believe my question was quite 9 specific and hadn't been asked before. 10 I'll withdraw it, but the purpose of 11 enquiring into this is because in -- in my and my 12 clients' view what happened there -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: With all -- 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN -- may have been 15 very important and I propose to put to the witness why it 16 is so he -- why we think it might be, so that he can 17 respond. 18 And Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner 19 Carson -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 21 think we need to do this, Mr. Klippenstein with -- 22 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- all due 24 respect, if you're withdrawing the question. 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes.

55

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: May I 2 suggest that you just go onto the next question. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I will get to 4 the point of my more detailed questions and so I'll move 5 ahead. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN. 9 Q: Deputy Commissioner Carson, I suggest 10 to you, based on various details which we've reviewed 11 including Detective Sergeant Mark Wright's notes, that in 12 -- in summary, we see that on the late afternoon of 13 September 6th, Detective Sergeant Mark Wright had been 14 instructed to testify in court the next morning and to do 15 so in support of the government's emergency injunction. 16 But there was a problem that, in fact, 17 there was no emergency so Detective Sergeant Wright went 18 to find one. And when he came to the corner, he stopped, 19 he saw a few Natives with sticks, as described in his 20 notes, and he described it as escalation. 21 And he then received a cryptic radio 22 report about a damaged car. He recommended a police 23 response and the result was very dramatic police 24 escalation. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry,

56

1 Mr. Klippenstein, is this a question? I'm just trying my 2 best to follow it. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm -- I'm 4 putting to the que -- to the Witness -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It sounds to 6 me like you're making a bit of an argument at this point. 7 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, it isn't 8 an argument but I think out of fairness to the Witness, I 9 do wish to put to him -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 11 summarizing events and putting them into -- into your 12 perspective. 13 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: That's right 14 and if -- if the Witness wishes to respond -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And your -- 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- in fairness 17 he should be given the opportunity. And out of fairness 18 to my client, if the Witness has a response I'd like to 19 hear it. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 Carry on then. Let's finish it. 22 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: So -- so 23 perhaps I should repeat the question or -- or not? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, can 25 you pick up where you left off?

57

1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, perhaps he 2 should re -- I think in fairness to Mr. Klippenstein and 3 the Witness, he should repeat the question. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 5 to be unfair to you. Carry on. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN. 8 Q: Deputy Commissioner Carson, as -- as 9 I asked before, I'm suggesting to you that on the late 10 afternoon of September 6th, Detective Sergeant Mark 11 Wright had been instructed to testify in court the next 12 morning in support of the government's emergency 13 injunction, but the problem was that there was no 14 emergency. 15 So Detective Sergeant Wright went to find 16 one. And when he came to the corner near the Park he 17 stopped, he saw a few Natives with sticks, as he 18 described in his notes, and he described it as 19 escalation. 20 He then received a cryptic radio report 21 about a damaged car. He recommended a police response 22 and the result was a rapid escalation and a major police 23 deployment; is that fair? 24 A: Absolutely not. 25 Q: Why not?

58

1 A: Because that is in no way, shape or 2 form -- I don't believe for one (1) moment any suggestion 3 whatsoever that Mark Wright had any intent to do anything 4 in regards to the outcome of this event. 5 Q: I'm suggesting to you that on that 6 afternoon Detective Sergeant Wright had been instructed 7 to testify in court the next morning in support of an 8 emergency injunction but, in fact, that afternoon there 9 was no emergency? 10 A: As I -- I have explained to many -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 12 think that that -- if that's a question, if that's a 13 question, you've asked that question several times. 14 MR MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I -- I don't 15 mean to be repetitive I just -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you are 17 being repetitive. I know you don't mean to be but you 18 are being. So I respectfully suggest that you do not ask 19 questions that you have already asked several times. 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: My only -- and 21 I withdraw the question, Commissioner. My only purpose 22 was to ensure the Witness had a -- had a completely fair 23 response -- an opportunity to respond and he has 24 responded. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Several

59

1 times, Mr. Klippenstein. 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And if that's 3 his response then I have his response. Thank you. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN. 8 Q: On another matter, Deputy 9 Commissioner Carson, we've heard evidence that Dudley 10 George was one (1) of the occupiers of the Military Base 11 over a period of several years and -- and was one (1) of 12 the occupiers in the Park; is that your understanding as 13 well? 14 A: I -- I believe he was one (10 of the 15 original occupants of the rifle ranges in the summer of 16 '93. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: And I think he -- so I think your 19 assessment is fair. 20 Q: And we've heard evidence that in the 21 summer of '95, he said to a friend that he would die for 22 this land, that he'd be willing to die for this land. 23 Would you agree with me, based on that 24 evidence, that that shows a very strong attachment to 25 that land, is that fair?

60

1 A: If that's what he said. 2 Q: Now, my question relates to your role 3 as a policing incident commander and how that affects it 4 -- would you agree with me that in a situation where 5 Dudley George, or people like him, have that degree of 6 attachment to the land that they're occupying, it 7 presents special difficulties, from a policing point of 8 view, when, as here, there is an assertion that they 9 should be removed from that land, is that fair? 10 A: I -- I would suggest to you, sir, 11 that we encounter, every day, people who are intimately 12 attached to their property or their land; that is not an 13 uncommon experience. 14 Q: And do you -- can you give some 15 examples? 16 A: Well, it's a simple term, most 17 people's home is their castle, and they will do anything 18 to protect it. 19 Q: I see. And would you agree with me 20 that for a native community which perceives a parcel of 21 land to be theirs, especially their ancestral lands, or 22 lands guaranteed to them by treaty, there is an analogy 23 to what you've just said that their home is their castle? 24 A: I -- I can appreciate the attachment 25 to land as you indicate.

61

1 Q: I see. And would you agree with me 2 that that means a special issue, from a policing point of 3 view, to attempt to understand that situation, when such 4 native people make those kinds of assertions, based on 5 ancestral or treaty rights, as they see them? 6 A: These are always difficult. 7 Q: Yes, thank you. Commissioner, I have 8 no further questions and -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 10 very much. 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN -- Deputy 12 Commissioner Carson -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I hope I 14 didn't cut you short, Mr. Klippenstein, because I really 15 didn't mean to cut you short. You're finished? 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN No, I am done. 17 And thank you, Commissioner, for your -- your indulgence, 18 and your -- your assistance. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN It's much 21 appreciated; we are very grateful for the opportunity to 22 -- to delve into these issues, and thank you Deputy 23 Commissioner Carson. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's been 25 difficult for Deputy Commissioner, but difficult for all

62

1 of us. 2 Thank you very much, Mr. Klippenstein. 3 We're now at 11:40, and Mr. Rosenthal is next, so... 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 10:40. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Are you ready for 6 me to start? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You think 8 you could start right now? 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 10:40. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 12 10:40, 10:40. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You do 17 anticipate that you'll be the balance of the day? 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'll be more than 19 the balance of the day, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Unless I -- I drop 22 in the course of it. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

63

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 2 going to cut you off, either, Mr. Rosenthal, or hope I 3 don't, but I do -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 6 going to try to interrupt you any more than I tried not 7 to interrupt Mr. Klippenstein. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I do 10 hope that you will try to keep your examination on 11 matters that are -- either haven't been covered in great 12 detail, or have been left unresolved, or there are 13 questions that you need answered, not the same territory 14 as Mr. Klippenstein's. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- I will 16 have to go over some of the same matters from a different 17 perspective. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you'll - 19 - you understand that you're not going to -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I do, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 22 duplicate? 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I should indicate 24 that Mr. Klippenstein didn't cover certain things in 25 certain ways, at least that I had anticipated he would --

64

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: yes. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- which perhaps 3 contradicts the maxim, great minds think alike, if we can 4 -- if I can flatter both of us, we had different views, 5 so -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I'm going to 8 have to cover issues that I hadn't anticipated covering. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 10 that. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: In any event, I 12 will try to be as expeditious as possible. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 14 very much, Mr. Rosenthal. 15 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 17 Q: Good morning, sir. 18 A: Good morning. 19 Q: I'm going to start right in on 20 something that you testified about this morning, so that 21 I don't have to put you back into the context. The 22 vehicle incident, shall we call it? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- the Gerald George incident, 25 whatever, there's one (1) vehicle incident that had

65

1 several descriptions in the course of this evening; 2 correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Now, would you agree, sir, that that 5 vehicle incident was central to the OPP being instructed 6 to march down East Parkway Drive that night? 7 A: Well, that's -- that was the incident 8 that basically brings it to our attention -- of -- of the 9 activities that were going on that afternoon. 10 Q: You wouldn't agree that it was 11 central? 12 A: It was -- it was one (1) of a number 13 of factors. 14 Q: Well, sir, I'm going to turn you to a 15 document, which is at Tab 29 of the materials that My 16 Friend, Mr. Millar, gave you, the first volume of -- or 17 second volume, I believe, of those materials. 18 And for everyone's benefit, this is 19 Inquiry Document Number 1004972. And this is the 20 testimony that you gave, sir, in the trial of Mr. Warren 21 George on September 29th, 1997. 22 A: Which -- which book will I find this 23 in, sir? 24 Q: I believe it's the second volume of 25 the two (2) volumes that Mr. Millar gave you at the

66

1 outset, and it's at Tab 29 thereof. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Now, I'm going to be asking you about 6 an answer that you gave on page 64 of that transcript, 7 sir, but in order to have you acknowledge that you are 8 talking about the vehicle incident, you may wish to look 9 at the previous page or two (2), until you satisfy 10 yourself that what is being discussed on page 64 is the 11 vehicle incident. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When did 16 this trial take place, Mr. Rosenthal? 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I understand that 18 this trial took place, according to the Commission's 19 document list, on September 29th, 1997, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: September 21 29th, '97. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Sir, would you agree that on page 64 25 you are talking about the vehicle incident?

67

1 A: Yes, sir. 2 Q: Now then if I could turn you please 3 to line 24 of that page: 4 "Q: But this incident was central to 5 your decision to employ the crowd 6 management unit; is that right? 7 A: Yes." 8 Now, sir, did you give that answer, to 9 that question, at -- at those Proceedings? 10 A: Yes, I did. 11 Q: You did. And you were under oath at 12 that time, were you, sir? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And at that time, in 1997, you said 15 this was central, you gave a different answer to me a few 16 minutes ago; is that correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: Yes. Now sir, if we could turn, 19 please, to page 19 of that transcript. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: This is your testimony in-chief on 24 that trial. And at about line 12, I'm going to begin in 25 the middle of the line:

68

1 "At that time we had discussions about 2 how we would deal with this now. We 3 had approximately, to my understanding, 4 in the area of fifteen (15) people who 5 were out in that parking lot who 6 allegedly baseball bats or those types 7 of equipment." 8 Did you give that testimony on that 9 occasion, sir? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: Where did you get the number fifteen 12 (15) from? 13 A: Probably from my memory. 14 Q: Yes. Well, we've heard -- the 15 largest number given by anybody else was eight (8) to ten 16 (10); isn't that correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: So would you agree that you were 19 exaggerating the incident at that point, in that trial 20 sir? 21 A: No, I wasn't exaggerating it. 22 Q: To say fifteen (15) people with 23 baseball bats was not exaggeration, sir? 24 A: That's the number I recalled at the 25 time, I may have been mistaken, but I certainly wasn't

69

1 exaggerating. 2 Q: And you were testifying at a criminal 3 trial of someone; isn't that correct? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And that made the incident look worse 6 than the worst estimate of the incident; didn't it? 7 A: It's more than -- that what has been 8 reported. 9 Q: Yes, sir. Now, sir, did you not 10 state earlier in time, that the crowd management unit was 11 deployed as a result of the vehicle incident, as a result 12 f that incident, period? 13 Is that not true, sir? 14 A: That was the -- the key incident, 15 yes. 16 Q: That was -- sir, did you -- did you 17 not state it was deployed as a result of that incident? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Yes, you did, sir. That's very 20 different from your testimony in these proceedings, is it 21 not, sir? 22 Is it not, sir? 23 A: That's the answer I gave at that 24 trial. 25 Q: Now, sir, if we could please look at

70

1 the press release on that, that you put out on that 2 occasion, and this is Inquiry Document Number 1009047. 3 And I would respectfully request Mr. Millar if you could 4 get that on the screen, I'd appreciate it. 5 I think it's 1009047. It's also Exhibit 6 P-440 to these proceedings. 7 A: Where do I find that, sir? 8 Q: Sorry? 9 A: Where do I find that? 10 Q: I'm not -- well, I -- I can ask the 11 Registrar to hand you a copy, sir. If you could please 12 hand the Witness P-440, please. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: Thank you. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: I'll give you a moment to review it, 21 sir. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Now, would you agree, sir, that you

71

1 said in that press release, as a result of this, meaning 2 the vehicle incident, the CMU was deployed on that 3 evening? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: You didn't mention any other 6 factors -- 7 A: No. 8 Q: -- isn't that right? 9 A: That's accurate. 10 Q: You said as a result of this? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And those were your words; right? 13 You suggested those words for the press release; right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: No one else suggested them, you did. 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And you also explained to Ms. Murray 18 in a phone call that we perhaps looked at and we can look 19 at again, if necessary, that that was the reason you went 20 to clear them away, because of that incident; right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Very different from your testimony in 23 these proceedings; right? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

72

1 Q: Is that correct, sir? Do you agree 2 it's very different from your testimony in the last two 3 (2) weeks. 4 A: I didn't get into all of the details 5 with Ms. Murray. 6 Q: You said it was as a result of that 7 incident -- 8 A: Yes, that's -- 9 Q: -- did you not, sir? 10 A: -- that's what started this incident, 11 yes. 12 Q: I'm suggesting -- I'm suggesting to 13 you, sir, that as you've looked at this over and over 14 again over the past ten (10) years, you've realized that 15 to say that this was a result of that incident, 16 especially given the fact that the incident was very 17 different from the way it was described, would not be a 18 rational statement to make and you've reformulated it in 19 your mind over those years, sir. 20 That's what I'm suggesting to you. And 21 the evidence is clear that -- that that's the case, is it 22 not, sir? 23 A: I don't agree. 24 Q: You don't agree? At the time, you 25 just said it was a consequence of that, period.

73

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: Right? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: And you told the world that in a 7 press release; right? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Now, sir, as far as the nature of the 10 incident itself, you were asked about that by Mr. 11 Klippenstein to some extent. And I would suggest to you, 12 you poo-pooed the differences, you say, Oh, that or a 13 rock, no big difference. 14 I would put the following to you, sir. On 15 the one (1) hand, you say that there was an incident or 16 there was a description of a possible incident of a non- 17 native woman going by that intersection, being attacked 18 by eight (8) First Nations people with baseball bats. 19 That would be a pretty horrific situation, 20 if that happened to an innocent person driving by; would 21 it not? 22 A: I'm not sure I would use the term 23 "horrific," but it would certainly be a significant 24 incident, yes. 25 Q: You wouldn't use the term "horrific"

74

1 for an innocent woman driving by in a car being attacked 2 by eight (8) people with baseball bats? 3 What do you require for horrific, sir? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, sir, would you agree that the 8 truth of the matter was quite different. As you 9 indicated earlier today, yes, it's still a criminal 10 offense. You're not allowed to throw a rock at someone 11 because they wrote something nasty about you in the 12 newspaper. 13 But it's an entirely different kind of 14 incident than the horrific incident that you postulated, 15 isn't that correct? 16 A: I think I've given evidence on a 17 number of occasions that for some period of time after, I 18 was of the opinion a) that it was a female and b) that 19 the vehicle had been struck with bats. 20 I -- I learned, certainly after this time 21 period of this press release, that in fact it was a male 22 operating the car and that there was a rock that actually 23 had caused the damage. 24 Q: Yes, well we'll come to when you 25 learned what, sir, in a few minutes. But I'm just asking

75

1 -- you do agree there's a difference in those 2 descriptions, do you not, sir? 3 A: Sure, sure. 4 Q: And sir, you knew these people. You 5 knew the Stoney people had been occupying their territory 6 as they viewed it for several years, you were incident 7 commander. You knew that they wouldn't do something as 8 irrational and horrific as just attack of a innocent 9 woman like that, didn't you, sir? 10 You knew that was unbelievable. Didn't 11 that cross your mind? 12 A: The damage was reported, sir. I 13 didn't report the damage. 14 Q: Now -- well the damage was reported. 15 There was some damages, we now know. But you couldn't 16 have honestly believed that account that these people 17 attacked an innocent woman driving by with baseball bats, 18 could you? 19 A: It's the same people that damaged 20 several cruisers over the last several days. 21 Q: Yes. You don't see the difference 22 there, sir? Between a cruiser that when they're saying, 23 Get out of our land, get off our land or we're going to 24 hit your car, and an innocent woman driving by? 25 A: I can appreciate there's a difference

76

1 but the damage -- there was damage reported. That's the 2 information as I had it. 3 Q: So you accepted that description, an 4 innocent female driving by was attacked by eight (8) to 5 ten (10) people with baseball bats, eh? 6 A: My understanding was a female driving 7 by and her vehicle was damaged by baseball bats. 8 Q: Okay. Let's turn to the record then 9 as to what you did have in front of you at the time, sir. 10 Not now, ten (10) years later, but at the time. 11 Well, first off if we could look at the 12 scribe notes which are Exhibit P-426 and I'm not sure if 13 that also has a document number. I believe they -- 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 10002419. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, sir, 16 10002419, the scribe notes. No, I don't think it's 17 necessary. I'm going to try to, in saving time, to not 18 put everything up on the screen but certain crucial 19 things I shall put up on the screen. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL. 22 Q: Now if we could look, please, at page 23 79 of the scribe notes at time 22:44. 22:44 in more 24 standard terminology for us, that would be 10:44 in the 25 evening, sir?

77

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And there it says: 3 "Mark Dew discussed the mischief 4 incident with Dale Linton to give 5 information to Superintendent. 6 Suspects Stewart Bradley George hit car 7 with rock." 8 Now I appreciate that there's no 9 indication whether you were made aware at that time at 10 this point of that information or not. But you agree 11 that according to the scribe notes, that information was 12 conveyed to your co-incident commander, Mr. Linton at 13 22:44? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now if you could turn to, please, to 16 page 85 of those scribe notes. At the top of page 85 we 17 see the time 01:28 hours, correct, sir? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: So this was after Dudley George has 20 been killed? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And the second entry under that time 23 reads: 24 "Mark Wright spoke about the incident 25 with Worm, damage of vehicle."

78

1 Right? 2 A: Right. 3 Q: And that -- you were at that meeting, 4 right? We can see it from the top of that page, John 5 Carson, and so on? 6 A: Yeah. We -- we met with Tom 7 Bressette. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Oh, I -- I'm sorry. My Friend Mr. 12 Millar reminds me that, unfortunately, Deputy 13 Commissioner Carson has a different format of the scribe 14 notes than I do. So if I say, top of the page, it may 15 not be correct. So I'm sorry, sir, I don't want to 16 mislead you. 17 I'll give you the times then -- 18 A: Thank you. 19 Q: -- which I did also do, but it's at 20 time 1:28, and the first entry at that time is: "John 21 Carson met Tom Bressette" and so on. And then it 22 continues with: 23 "Mark Wright spoke about incident with 24 Worm, damaged the vehicle." You were 25 at that meeting; right?

79

1 A: Right. 2 Q: And you heard him talk about the 3 incident with Worm damaging the vehicle; right? 4 A: Right. 5 Q: And you knew it was Worm who damaged 6 the vehicle then? 7 A: I couldn't tell you from memory 8 exactly what he said in regards to that. 9 Q: No. But you knew, in particular, you 10 knew who Worm was? 11 A: Oh, I know who Worm was, yes. 12 Q: Yes. And you knew that Mark Wright, 13 whatever else he communicated to you -- 14 A: Right. 15 Q: -- he communicated to you that the 16 damage to the vehicle was done by Worm -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- otherwise known as Stewart George; 19 right? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: So you knew that at 1:28 in the 22 morning of September 7; right? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: And as further -- well, as further 25 indication, if you could please look at Tab 21 of the

80

1 volume given to you by Mr. Millar, I believe it's the 2 second volume of those two (2) volumes. And I'm going to 3 be looking at Inquiry Document 1000445, which is a 4 statement of Mark Wright. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: And I should like to look, if we may, 9 at page 1862 of that statement. 10 THE REGISTRAR: P-462. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 12 THE REGISTRAR: P-462. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. Sorry, 14 sir, P -- 15 THE REGISTRAR: 462. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That page has been 17 -- that entry has been made an exhibit already. Thank 18 you very much, sir. Yeah, the tab -- so Tab 21, the 19 Registrar kindly informs me has been made an exhibit and 20 he told us the number. And I forget what it is but 21 everybody else probably heard better than I, so I'll move 22 on. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 25 Q: Now, sir, I'm looking at page 1862 of

81

1 that exhibit. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And this is an interview of Acting 4 Detective Staff Sergeant Wright that was conducted on the 5 12th of September 1995 by Detective Inspector Goodall. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And page 15 reads as follows: 8 "There was some conversation between 9 myself and Inspector Linton with 10 respect to exactly what had taken place 11 there and who was taking the statement 12 and what the statement said as far as 13 the civilian that was involved in the 14 wilful damage complaint. And there was 15 -- there was confirmation from 16 Constable Poole at the scene as to yes, 17 there was actual damage to this vehicle 18 and yes, we had a statement and yes, 19 this victim was able to positively 20 identify the individual who had done 21 the damage to his vehicle. 22 And our further information was that 23 the victim was a councillor for Kettle 24 Point Reserve whose name escapes me at 25 this moment. Shortly thereafter

82

1 Inspector -- Acting Superintendent 2 Carson called the command post on an 3 unrelated matter and I advised him of 4 the situation." 5 Now, sir, in fact, Mark Wright, as he said 6 in this interview, advised you of at least that much 7 detail about the vehicle incident; did he not, sir? 8 A: I'm not sure when he advised me, what 9 -- what time or what information -- 10 Q: Yes. Well, we can get -- 11 A: -- it is relative to. 12 Q: -- we get some information about that 13 from the next continuation I didn't read -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 15 Sandler...? 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: I think it's fair, if 17 you're going to put that allegation, we actually have 18 exactly what he advised about, it's on a transcript, with 19 great respect. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, we're not 21 sure which calls were recorded and which not, sir. I'm 22 going to get to that and the problem of unrecorded phone 23 calls. So that -- 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm not talking about 25 the unrecorded calls --

83

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- that's an 2 improper -- 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- with respect, we 4 have a recorded phone call where it has that conversation 5 and I just don't -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- think it's fair to 8 be putting a -- a statement from another witness when we 9 have it. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: We cannot be sure 11 what conversation was what, sir -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 Carry on, Mr. Rosenthal. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- with respect, 15 Mr. Commissioner, and I -- I think I should be allowed to 16 carry on. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Now, sir, you -- you inquired about 21 the timing that Mr. Wright was indicating this took 22 place, I'm suggesting -- I was going to suggest to you, 23 if we look at the next phrase we can get an idea of the 24 timing. 25 He says:

84

1 "At this time I was aware that 2 Inspector Linton had activated the TRU 3 team and I let the acting 4 superintendent know." 5 So we can get a rough idea of the timing 6 that he -- that Mark Wright was indicating here from 7 that, that it was after he was aware that Inspector 8 Linton had activated the TRU team, so some time probably 9 that evening, compared to the later events, I would 10 suggest. 11 A: Well, then if that's the case, this 12 appears to be the phone call that he called me at the 13 residence when I was -- before I returned to the command 14 post. 15 Q: Well, we're going to get into the 16 question of how many unrecorded phone calls there may 17 have been, sir, and your concern with having calls that 18 are unrecorded. We'll deal with that. 19 But in any event, would you agree, that 20 according to this statement, acting Detective Sergeant 21 Mark Wright told you the essence of the true facts as to 22 what had happened in respect to that vehicle some time 23 earlier in the evening? 24 A: He made me aware a vehicle had been 25 damaged, I certainly agree to that.

85

1 Q: And he told you the essence of it, 2 that it was by one (1) person, right, who did the damage; 3 right? 4 A: I would have to look at the 5 transcript of the discussion, sir. I -- I -- I do not 6 recall one (1) way or the other whether it was one (1) or 7 two (2) or three (3) people that damaged the vehicle. 8 Q: I see. Well, but in his statement 9 here he says: 10 This victim was able to positively 11 identity the individual. 12 Right, suggesting one (1); right? 13 A: That's what this suggests, yes. 14 Q: Yes, it does. And that it was a 15 counsellor. You knew that it was a councillor who's 16 vehicle had been damaged, didn't you, sir? 17 A: No, sir, I did not. 18 Q: You didn't know that? 19 A: No, I -- 20 Q: Okay. We'll look at the evidence, 21 sir, we'll look at it. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 23 Rosenthal...? Mr. Rosenthal...? 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: May I

86

1 respectfully remind you that I understand your need to 2 cross-examine this witness closely and -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and ask 5 any question you think is relevant -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 8 appropriate. I just want to remind you this is not a 9 criminal trial. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And no one 12 here is on trial. This is a public Inquiry -- 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I would 15 ask that you keep your questions on that level. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I simply said we'll 17 look at the evidence -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I mean, 19 in general, Mr. Rosenthal, as well. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sure, sir, if I 21 ask an inappropriate question you and -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- My Friends will 24 remind me of that. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want

87

1 to remind you, there isn't anybody who is -- has been 2 charged at this point. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 5 one on trial here. This is a Public Inquiry. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, but we are 7 trying to find the facts, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 9 very much. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And it's ten (10) 11 years later and there is a problem that people tend to, 12 naturally, not being dishonest people -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 14 understand -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: - to reconstruct 16 things as they rethink about it, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 18 entitled to cross-examine and I don't intend to interrupt 19 you. I'm just reminding you that perhaps the tone of 20 cross-examination in a criminal trial would be different. 21 I see that Mr. Falconer has got some 22 comment on this. I'm just making an observation, Mr. 23 Falconer. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I appreciate 25 that, and I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Commissioner.

88

1 But because this is somewhat of a 2 threshold -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 4 standing in for Mr. Rosenthal at this point? 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I'm standing in 6 for ALST, Mr. Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, when 8 your turn comes, you'll be able to make your -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, I understand, 10 but Mr. Commissioner, you've made an observation about 11 the nature of the Proceedings -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm speaking 13 to Mr. Rosenthal at the moment. It really doesn't have 14 anything to do, at the moment, with Aboriginal Legal 15 Services of Toronto. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, is -- my 17 concern is simply this and I wish to put it on the 18 record, Mr. Commissioner, that in terms of cross- 19 examination on credibility, whether it's a trial -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- or an Inquiry or 22 any other proceeding, my concern is, is that Counsel, 23 with great respect, not be unduly limited simply because 24 of -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I --

89

1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- the tone of 2 cross-examination -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 4 intend to unduly limit Counsel. I'm reminding Counsel 5 that this is a Public Inquiry and not a criminal trial, 6 that's it. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But cross- 8 examination on credibility, whether it's a criminal trial 9 or an Inquiry is, with great respect and I say this with 10 great -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll deal 12 with each -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- respect -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- issue as 15 it arises and -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- when your 18 turn is up -- 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- for 21 cross-examination -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I appreciate it. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- we'll 24 deal with you. Thank you very much. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr.

90

1 Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 5 Q: Now, where were we? So -- Im sorry. 6 Yes, we -- I'll look at those, I promise. 7 But I have to see which evidence at which 8 point. 9 Now, at 1:28 then, sir, you were, 10 according to the scribe notes, whether you'd been advised 11 earlier -- the extent to which you'd been advised earlier 12 by Mark Wright we were just looking at; right? 13 A: I -- I -- 14 Q: We'd looked -- 15 A: You -- I'm confused here, now. 16 Q: I'm sorry, sir. Let me take you back 17 to where we were before there was legal argument about my 18 cross-examination. 19 We had established that Mark Wright made a 20 statement, which I read to you, at some time earlier that 21 evening, suggesting that earlier that evening, suggesting 22 that earlier that evening he had given, what I 23 characterized as the essentials of the incident, to you; 24 right? 25 A: Right.

91

1 Q: That was a statement that we read 2 when he was interviewed by Inspector Goodall. 3 And then, I had also turned you to the 4 scribe notes at 1:28 in the morning of September 7, which 5 was several hours after the purported other exchange of 6 information. 7 And at that time, you agree that you were 8 present; right? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: With Mark Wright when he, as the 11 scribe notes say, spoke about the incident with Worm, 12 damaged vehicle, right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: So, you would agree that certainly by 15 at least 1:28 in the morning, you knew that the 16 allegation was that the vehicle had been damaged by Worm, 17 also known as Stewart George, right? 18 A: That appears to be the case, yes. 19 Q: Yes. So, you knew at least that 20 much, sir. 21 A: That's -- that's what the scribe 22 notes indicate, that that was said in my presence. 23 Q: Yes, at 1:28. 24 Now, sir, if we could please turn to the 25 logger tapes, Exhibit P-444B, which I don't think has an

92

1 Inquiry document number; do they sir? 2 THE REGISTRAR: No. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 5 Q: Exhibit P-444B at Tab 71, please. 6 So, according to the notation on -- at Tab 7 71 about this phone call, it was at 1:40 in the morning 8 of September 7th, is that correct; sir? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And if we could please turn to page 11 440 of the transcript, this is a call between Officer 12 Babbitt and you, where he is checking with you, a final 13 check on the press release; right? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And so, on page 440 he reads to you 16 the press release, as he has it at that point, towards 17 the bottom of the page, right? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And this is for your verification, 20 right? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: And the first sentence that he reads 23 to you is: 24 "A private citizen's vehicles was 25 damaged by a number of First Nations

93

1 people armed with baseball bats." 2 Right? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And this is at 1:40 in the morning, 5 right? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And at earlier, twelve (12) minutes 8 earlier, you knew that it was just one (1) person who did 9 the damage, right? 10 A: I wouldn't agree. 11 Q: You just agreed that you learned at 12 1:28 that Worm had done it. 13 A: I was -- I was -- obviously, I was 14 present when Worm's name was mentioned, but whether I -- 15 I cannot say with any certainty that I was aware that 16 Worm was the one and only person involved in the damage, 17 whether he was one (1) person that was identified, or 18 whatever. 19 I didn't have the information from the 20 statement, and obviously Mark Wright referred to Worm 21 being responsible for the damage, but I -- I'm not sure, 22 or I certainly am not able to verify, at this point in 23 time, whether there others involved. 24 Q: Yes. You weren't certain that it was 25 Worm, sir, but the best information available to you at

94

1 that time was that it was one (1) person, not a number of 2 people right? 3 A: I knew there was one (1) person 4 involved, by the name of, Worm. 5 Q: Yes. So, why did you allow sending 6 out a press release that begins: A number of First 7 Nations people armed with baseball bats, when you knew it 8 was only one? 9 A: Because it's what I believed. 10 Q: You believed it was one (1), right? 11 A: No. I knew there was one involved, 12 by the name of, Worm. 13 Q: And you thought there were others as 14 well? 15 A: That's my understanding. 16 Q: What could have possibly given you 17 that understanding after Mark Wright explained it to you, 18 twelve (12) minutes earlier, that Worm did it? 19 A: But I'm suggesting to you that he did 20 not give me a -- a copy of the statement, or said that 21 Worm was the only one involved. He obviously mentioned, 22 in Tom Bressette's presence, that Worm was involved in 23 the damage. I'm not -- I -- I can't, for the life of me, 24 suggest or agree that the information was that he was the 25 one and only one.

95

1 Q: Well, sir, would you -- you wouldn't 2 even agree that there was serious doubt, at least, in 3 your mind, by 1:40 in the morning, that it was a number 4 of people who did this? 5 A: Not to my recollection, no. 6 Q: Well, sir, I would suggest that the 7 evidence suggests that that's very unlikely, that you 8 could have possibly believed on a balance of 9 probabilities, if you like, that a number of people had 10 done it after you got the information from Mark Wright; 11 what's your response to that, sir? 12 A: You're mistaken. 13 Q: I see. Okay. Now, then it 14 continues: 15 "As a result of this, the OPP crowd 16 management team was deployed." 17 Right? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And that you approved; right? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 21 Sandler...? 22 OBJ MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm really trying to 23 save things for re-examination but when My Friend puts 24 one (1) passage from this tape, when later on in the same 25 conversation with Babbitt this officer indicates that

96

1 he's going to have to confirm the very details that we're 2 talking about, and later that we had evidence that was 3 led through -- through Commission Counsel that he makes 4 efforts to do that, I just think it's -- it's unfair. 5 You can actually hear him verifying 6 thumped with baseball bats, plural, in the very same call 7 near the end. So I think it's a very unfair suggestion 8 to be put, based on one (1) line in a conversation. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr. 10 Commissioner, that is a very unfair and entirely 11 inappropriate objection. Other people were in the 12 background saying, Verifying with baseball bats, but this 13 officer was the one who got the information directly from 14 Mark Wright that it was Worm. 15 And my question was entirely appropriate, 16 sir, and that that was an inappropriate objection. He 17 can try to rectify it on re-examination if he wishes but 18 that's his problem then. There was -- there was nothing 19 wrong with my question. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 21 got an objection, I'm going to listen to it. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: I don't -- I don't 23 have a problem that has to be rectified. My point is 24 that if he puts to a witness, saying, You knew, here's 25 the line that says, You knew. And in the very same

97

1 conversation you can actually hear this officer saying, 2 I'm going to have to verify, and you can hear him trying 3 to verify, that's contemporaneous, that's not ten (10) 4 years later in a transcript, with great respect. 5 In any event, I -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Your 7 objection is observed. Are you carrying on now? 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: His objection is 9 entirely misplaced, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 11 if it is or it isn't but it's on the record, and you 12 carry on. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: My allegation of 14 his knowledge was twelve (12) minutes early. I'm not 15 doing this -- he learned it twelve (12) minutes earlier. 16 In any event, I'll move on and save it for argument. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: Now, also, this indicates: 20 "A private citizen's vehicle." 21 Right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Now that was meant to suggest that it 24 was somebody who was totally uninvolved with anything, 25 just an innocent person walking by; right -- driving by I

98

1 should say? 2 A: Fair enough. 3 Q: Fair enough, right? But you knew, it 4 was a councillor who had been involved with these people 5 and there was some personal animosity involved rather 6 than a random attack on a private citizen; didn't you? 7 A: I didn't know it was Gerald George's 8 car. 9 Q: You didn't know it was Gerald George? 10 A: No. 11 Q: But you knew it was a councillor? 12 A: No, I did not. 13 Q: I see. Okay. Could we please look 14 at your handwritten notes, which is Exhibit P-410 to the 15 proceedings, and I'm not sure if -- if that has an 16 Inquiry Document Number or not, and I -- I'll have to go 17 get my copy of that, if I may, sir. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: These are your handwritten notes, 22 sir. And I should like to turn you please to page 61 of 23 those notes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, page 25 61, this is --

99

1 THE WITNESS: Which tab are we referring 2 to, sir, I'm not -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's -- 4 THE WITNESS: -- quite sure which 5 document -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-410. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: These are your 8 notes from 1995 to six (6). In my copy, and I'm not sure 9 if you have the same version of it, it's at Tab 4. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On page 61? 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 61? 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 14 THE WITNESS: Which page, sir? 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 16 THE WITNESS: Which page are you 17 referring to? 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 61. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Page 61, 20 sir. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 23 Q: If you look at the upper right-hand 24 corner, could you read what it says there, sir? 25 A: It says: "Gerald George."

100

1 Q: Yes. And that entry was made, 2 evidently, on September 6th, 1995, or early September 7, 3 1995? 4 A: It was made sometime through the 5 early morning of September the 7th. 6 Q: Yes. And the reason the word "Gerald 7 George" is there is because of this incident, right; 8 there was no other reason for his name being there; 9 right? 10 A: I don't know how his name came to me 11 and -- the reason I put it there, I have no idea what the 12 context of that name? 13 Q: But looking back now, there's no 14 other possible reason that you would have written it 15 there other than that you had been told of his 16 involvement in the vehicle incident; right? 17 A: I have no idea, quite frankly. 18 Q: There's no other possibility, is 19 there, sir? 20 A: I don't know. I -- I don't know who 21 gave me that name, sir. 22 Q: Yes. But in any event, you learned 23 it sometime in the early morning of September 7th; right? 24 A: Sometime that morning. 25 Q: Yes. And then if we could turn,

101

1 please to the logger tapes. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Thank you. My Friend, Mr. Horton, 6 points out, sir, if we could stay with page 61 and the 7 previous page that we can determine, to some extent, the 8 time that you would have written this because it appears, 9 does it not, sir, that in the middle of that page there's 10 an entry 00:59, Doug Babbitt; is that correct? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: So it would have been sometime prior 13 to 00:59 on September 7th; is that correct? 14 A: Not necessarily. I could have 15 written it when I was standing at the counter whether -- 16 I really doubt if it was a -- if you're insinuating this 17 is the first entry for the page, it doesn't appear to be 18 so, it appears the first entry is the list of officers 19 involved in discharging the firearms. 20 And I'm not sure the -- the relationship 21 of the note at the top right versus the list of names I 22 had made. So -- 23 Q: Yes, but you - I'm just concerned 24 about the time now. You would -- if you had learned that 25 later on, you would have put it later on; isn't that

102

1 right? 2 A: If somebody gave me a name and I had 3 a blank space, I'd have -- just written it down, period. 4 Q: When you make your notes and you put 5 times, you're telling us that you just put things in at 6 random times sometimes? 7 A: This is a scratchpad. I -- I -- 8 while we are referring to these as my personal notes -- 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: -- this pad was used as a scratchpad, 11 it was not used as my official notes. 12 Q: Yes. But sir, is it not most likely, 13 nothing's absolute in this world, but is it not most 14 likely that you made this entry prior to 00:59 on 15 September 7, 1995? 16 A: It's possible. 17 Q: It's most likely, is it not, sir? 18 A: I -- I can't verify that one way or 19 the other -- 20 Q: I see. 21 A: -- quite frankly. 22 Q: Okay. We have your evidence, thank 23 you. Now if we could turn then to the logger tapes, at 24 Tab 72 thereof - I'm sorry. Yes, thank you. 25 This is the second volume of logger tapes,

103

1 which is Exhibit P-444B, and as we can see from the first 2 page of that transcript, this call is made at 1:47 a.m. 3 on September 7, 1995; is that correct, sir? 4 A: Right. 5 Q: And are you speaking to Mr. Slack, of 6 the SIU? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And if we turn to the second page of 9 that transcript, page 444, and it says, attributed to 10 you, in the middle of the page: 11 "Tonight at around eight o'clock, we've 12 got a report from a Councillor from 13 Kettle Point that he'd be down in that 14 area going by and the First Nations 15 people, ah, at that time approached 16 him, and there was a confrontation of 17 sorts with a baseball bat." 18 Right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: So you certainly knew by one forty- 21 seven that the person driving that vehicle was a 22 councillor, at least at Kettle Point; right? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And would you agree with me, sir, 25 that that's very different from a private citizen walking

104

1 by -- driving by? 2 A: Well, I would suggest the councillor 3 is a private citizen. 4 Q: You would? 5 A: Well, he's certainly not -- what else 6 is he? 7 Q: Sir, did you not intend to convey by 8 the phrase "private citizen" who is somebody who had no 9 other involvement with these issues? Just an innocent 10 person driving by? 11 A: It was no intent to do anything 12 except to say someone driving by had their vehicle 13 damaged. It's simple. 14 Q: But would you agree that you would 15 have known at the time that there would be an entirely 16 different impact on the public of a statement that said 17 on the one (1) hand, A Kettle Point councillor who had 18 denounced these people in the past had his car hit by a 19 rock, versus the statement you did put out, A private 20 citizen driving by was attacked by a number of First 21 Nations people with baseball bats." 22 Did you understand at the time that would 23 have had an entirely different impact upon the public 24 perception as to what happened, sir? 25 A: I certainly didn't have any

105

1 indication in my mind of anything of that nature. 2 Q: That thought didn't occur to you at 3 all, sir? 4 A: I don't believe, at the time I 5 provided the information to Babbitt, that I knew it was 6 the councillor. 7 Q: Sir, you were very anxious to get out 8 a press release on this matter, were you not? 9 A: I was anxious to get one out before 10 SIU precluded us from being able to make any public 11 statement. 12 Q: Yes. You wanted to get this false 13 information, I would suggest to you, out to the public 14 before you were stopped from giving any information at 15 all, sir. What's your response to that? 16 A: You're inaccurate. 17 Q: You did want to get information out 18 before the SIU was involved, right? 19 A: Of course. 20 Q: And you knew that their regulations 21 were that police forces were not supposed to issue 22 statements; isn't that right? 23 A: Yes, sir, that's correct. 24 Q: And you knew that you weren't 25 supposed to issue a statement before they got involved or

106

1 after; isn't that right? 2 A: I knew that when they invoked their 3 mandate we would be precluded from making any public 4 releases. 5 Q: But you knew also that the general 6 rule was that if it is an SIU matter, you're not supposed 7 to make any statements before or after they invoke their 8 mandate. Isn't that correct, sir? Didn't you know that? 9 A: I knew that they would not allow us 10 to release a statement once they invoked their mandate. 11 Q: You knew that even before they issued 12 a mandate, you weren't allowed to make a statement. But 13 you thought you could get away with doing it as long as 14 you did it before they spoke to you, right? 15 A: There was a -- as I said before there 16 was a window of opportunity here before they invoked 17 their mandate so I took advantage of that. 18 Q: Yes. And I would suggest to you, 19 sir, you took the window of opportunity to put out a 20 statement that you knew would mislead the public as to 21 the nature of what the First Nations people had been 22 doing. Do you have any response to that, sir? 23 A: I disagree with you. 24 Q: You disagree, thank you. But you did 25 know that it was a councillor and nonetheless you had the

107

1 statement say "private citizen"; right? 2 A: It said "private citizen," as you -- 3 as you've indicated. 4 Q: And you knew at the time of the 5 statement it was a councillor? 6 A: I don't believe at the time I gave 7 information to Babbitt that I knew it was a councillor. 8 At some point, obviously, I did learn and I shared that 9 with the SIU person. But I'm not sure when or who I 10 learned that from, quite frankly. 11 Q: Well, certainly, sir, I -- I would 12 suggest you as I have that the evidence suggested that 13 you knew it well before then. But in any event, sir, you 14 agree certainly within a matter of hours you knew the 15 basic true facts that this was an attack by Worm on 16 Gerald George's car with a rock, right? 17 Within a matter of hours after this time 18 that we're talking about early morning September 7th, is 19 that correct? 20 A: And again I don't know if it was with 21 a rock -- I don't know what detail I had, sir. 22 Q: Well, when did you learn the essence 23 of it, as I just described to you, sir? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

108

1 Q: Sir, when did you learn the essence 2 of it? The answer, to the truth. 3 A: To tell you the truth I have no idea 4 when I learned the facts that are as in Sam Poole's 5 statement. I couldn't tell you when I actually learned 6 it. 7 There was so much information that came in 8 over this period of time of which I do not have 9 particular notes to when I received each piece of 10 information. And trying to think back ten (10) years 11 ago, I -- I cannot speculate which piece of information 12 arrived at what time through that night. 13 Q: Did you, sir, at any point ever 14 suggest that a correction press statement be issued by 15 the OPP saying; sorry, First Nations people, to have 16 maligned you by that suggestion that you had attacked an 17 innocent person with baseball bats. That was incorrect 18 information and we want to correct the record. 19 Did you ever suggest that that press 20 release go out, sir? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Why not? 23 A: There was so many things going on 24 that night, sir, I never had a time to turn my mind back 25 to the press release again.

109

1 Q: Why didn't you do that the next day, 2 sir? 3 A: I have no explanations. 4 Q: Why didn't you do it a week later, 5 sir? 6 A: The -- any release relative to this 7 event, after the invoke of the mandate of the SIU, is 8 their responsibility. We are not able to deal with that 9 and, as you know and see in this statement or this 10 transcript, I provided the -- the -- obviously that it 11 was a councillor, so I wasn't trying to hide the fact. 12 Q: Well, we'll deal with that some more, 13 sir. But I would put it to you, sir, that you knew that 14 for the last ten (10) years that false allegation 15 maligning these people has been out there as a result of 16 your statement, and you did nothing about it; is that 17 fair? 18 A: I don't think it's fair, but that's 19 your opinion. 20 Q: I see. But it is fair that you did 21 nothing about it. 22 A: I -- 23 Q: Is that not true? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 25 Sandler?

110

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: How does Mr. Rosenthal 2 say -- criticize the Witness for issuing a press release 3 before SIU invoked its mandate? That's a debate that we 4 can, but now criticize him for having told SIU that it's 5 a councillor, but not having issued a press release once 6 SIU has invoked its mandate? I mean, there's a real 7 unfairness there, with great respect. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with respect, 10 I -- perhaps I can deal with that, Mr. Commissioner. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 13 Q: Do you think, sir, that it would have 14 been prohibited for you to suggest to the SIU to say to 15 them, Gee, you know, we said something very maligning of 16 these people, which should be corrected. We can't send 17 out a press release to that effect, but could you please 18 correct the record? Would that have been precluded, sir? 19 A: I had never met with the -- the SIU 20 other than to give my statement. Could I have done that? 21 Sure, I could have done that. 22 Q: Now, sir, we just looked at two (2) 23 different phone calls, one (1) with the press release 24 where you identified the person as a private citizen and 25 then speaking to the SIU, you said, "councillor," right?

111

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Now, can you explain why you used the 3 different terminology in those two (2) different phone 4 calls made near in time to each other? 5 A: What -- what time was the call to 6 Babbitt? 7 Q: The last -- the last call to Babbitt, 8 the one where you verified the press release was at 1:40, 9 I believe and the one to Slack was at 1:47. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 A: I -- I have no explanation, sir. 14 Q: Well, I would suggest to you, and 15 explanation, sir, that you realized that the press 16 release would go out and there'd be no accounting for it. 17 But with the SIU, you knew that you might have to account 18 for your statement and that's why you told them a more 19 truthful statement. 20 A: I disagree with your statement. 21 Q: Thank you. Now, sir, let's look at 22 this statement with the SIU a little bit further. And 23 so, we're still at Tab 72. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

112

1 Q: Excuse me a second, Mr. Commissioner, 2 I seem to have lost my place. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Yeah, sorry. It's page 448 of this 7 document, sir. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: At the -- towards the top of that 12 page, Slack says: 13 "Yeah. 14 CARSON: So, ah, we've -- you know, 15 we've had Native -- members of the 16 Native -- I apologize for being slow 17 getting back to you. 18 SLACK: That's okay. 19 CARSON: I understand your message 20 came in a while ago, but I was tied up 21 with the Chief of the Kettle and Stony 22 Point Band. 23 SLACK: Yeah, that's fine." 24 That wasn't true, right? It wasn't that 25 you were tied up with the Chief of the Kettle Point Band,

113

1 it was because you wanted to first have the press release 2 go out before you got back to him, right? 3 A: I think the record shows I was 4 meeting with the Chief of Kettle Point. 5 Q: Yes, but you had a meeting with the 6 Chief, but that's not why you delayed calling the SIU, 7 it's because you wanted to get the press release okayed 8 first; isn't that right? 9 A: I may have been involved doing that 10 as well. 11 Q: But that's the reason you didn't 12 phone them back right away? 13 A: No, sir, I -- that was one (1) of 14 several things that were going on at that time. It was 15 kind of a very active time. 16 Q: Isn't -- 17 A: I think, in fact, you will see that I 18 called SIU and got a busy signal and had to return the 19 call. 20 Q: Didn't you know at the time, sir, 21 that it was your responsibility to speak to SIU as soon 22 as possible? 23 A: Sir, I made my notifications the very 24 first opportunity -- 25 Q: I see.

114

1 A: -- to notify SIU. My commanders, 2 through Chief Superintendent Parkin made the 3 notifications to SIU prior to this telephone call. 4 The SIU were very properly notified at the 5 very first opportunity that I am aware of. 6 Q: Well, let's look at the evidence to 7 that, sir. If we could please turn to page 6 -- to Tab 8 62 of this document. 9 This is the logger tapes, Exhibit P- 10 444(b). 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Now, sir, if we could turn to page 15 382 of that document, please. This is a call, by the 16 way, to Inspector Parkin or superintendent -- I'm sorry, 17 I'm not very good at ranks, sir. Please accept my 18 apology to all officers if I don't give them their 19 appropriate ranks. 20 But this is with, I believe, 21 Superintendent, at the time, Parkin? 22 I have some antipathy to hierarchy, sir, 23 and I can't remember ranks as a result of that, so I call 24 people "officer." That's not offensive, I presume, 25 right?

115

1 So, Officer Parkin, at page 382, the 2 bottom: 3 "Tony -- 4 If I call him, even less formally: 5 "Well, I guess there's nothing too much 6 we can do about that. We're going to 7 have to confirm that shots have been 8 fired. 9 CARSON: All right, I guess my only 10 concern is we probably have a window of 11 opportunity here to kind of set the 12 record as straight as we can before SIU 13 puts the gloves on us." 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: And then, on the next page, 383, 18 towards the bottom: 19 "TONY: So, um, [I believe there was a 20 correction to the typed version that 21 says] 22 What you should start doing is -- or 23 shouldn't start doing, having Babbit 24 prepare a press release. Well, 25 actually, no, actually we shouldn't

116

1 have any press release because once SIU 2 is involved, we can't give out a press 3 release; correct? 4 CARSON: Well, like I say, there's a 5 window of opportunity here." 6 Right? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: You listened to that phone call 9 during these proceedings, I believe? 10 A: Yes, I did. 11 Q: You agree that's an accurate 12 transcript more or less? 13 A: Yes, it is. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: So this is a -- at -- sorry, at 18 02:37, this is shortly after midnight; right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And then in the -- I don't know if we 21 have to turn to it again, but when you were speaking to 22 Babbit you were saying about the SIU, too; right. You 23 were concerned? 24 You have to return a call to the SIU; 25 right?

117

1 A: Right. 2 Q: What time did the SIU give you that 3 call and ask you to return it? 4 A: I don't know, I'd have to look in the 5 transcript to see if there's some indication, I'm not 6 sure. 7 Q: Well, I didn't notice any indication 8 in the transcript that might -- I don't know if -- if I 9 have that call, but could -- do you have notes in your 10 notebook, sir? 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: Page 152 in the scribe 12 notes. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: Page 152 in the scribe 15 notes. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: Scribe notes. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, sorry, which -- 19 which -- 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: The scribe notes. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, the scribe 22 notes? 23 My Friend's -- actually your friends tell 24 us that there is some information about this at page 86 25 of the transcript, of the scribe notes.

118

1 Which reads at -- at -- sorry, at 1:52 2 hours, 3 "I received note from com. unit that 4 John Carson to call Bob Slack of SIU. 5 John Carson calling same, busy at 6 1:52." 7 A: Correct. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: At 1:53 he got 9 through. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: At 1:53 he got 12 through. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 15 Q: And at 1:53 you got through. So... 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Okay. Thank you. I have a lot of 20 friendly assistance here. And -- which reveals, sir, if 21 we could look at Tab 69 of the Exhibit P-444B, the logger 22 tapes, we can see that there was a call requesting that 23 you call the SIU at 1:16 in the morning of September 7th; 24 do you see that, sir? 25 A: Correct.

119

1 Q: So let's see if we can put together 2 the times here. 1:16 they requested you call them back, 3 you finally call them back at 1:47, but before you do you 4 finalize that press release at 1:40; right? 5 A: The press release is out, yes. 6 Q: Yes. And you finalize it in the 7 conversation with Officer Babbitt at 1:40; right? 8 A: Correct. And when I got the note at 9 1:52, it says: 10 "I received a note from the comm. unit 11 to call Bob Slack. I called, the line 12 was busy." 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: So I don't know how long the comm. 15 unit had that note before it was passed to me. 16 Q: I see. So you're suggesting that the 17 first time you were made aware that the SIU wanted to 18 speak to you was at 1:52, sir, even though they called at 19 1:16? 20 A: Well, I'm telling you that's what the 21 -- the scribe note says. 22 Q: I see that in the scribe note, sir. 23 Are you suggesting that, in fact, you did not know until 24 1:52 that you had to call the SIU? 25 A: All I can go is by the scribe notes,

120

1 sir. I don't have any recollection of being requested 2 earlier. 3 Q: I see. But you were very concerned 4 to do other things before you returned that call, the 5 evidence is clear to that; right? 6 A: Sure. I -- I've made it clear that 7 we had an opportunity to get the press release out. I 8 make no challenge to that issue. 9 Q: Now, you knew the moment that Dudley 10 George was reported dead to you or even seriously 11 injured, it was your responsibility to notify the SIU; is 12 that correct? 13 A: Of course. 14 Q: Of course. And so that would have 15 been by shortly after midnight; is that not correct? 16 A: Yes, it was. 17 Q: And what steps did you take to ensure 18 that they'd be notified right away? 19 A: I've explained that. Superintendent 20 Parkin took responsibility for making the notifications. 21 Q: I see. 22 A: Its in the transcript, that he said 23 he would do that. 24 Q: And why, if you were just notified, 25 sir, at 1:52 and you returned the call at 1:53, why would

121

1 you possibly have been apologizing to Mr. Slack for 2 taking so long to get back to him if you got back to him 3 within a minute of notification? 4 A: Well, that's when the note was given 5 to me, sir. And if it said that they received the call 6 at whatever time you say it came in here, if the call 7 came in at 1:16 and they've given me the note at 1:52, 8 obviously I'm referring to the fact that it's taken me a 9 few minutes to get back to them. 10 Q: Did -- 11 A: Its -- obviously I've been busy, 12 perhaps -- well, I'm not going to argue with you. 13 Q: You didn't say -- but, sir, you're 14 under oath here, sir, and you didn't say in that phone 15 call -- 16 A: I'm sorry -- 17 Q: -- you didn't say in the phone call, 18 as an explanation, I was just given the note. In fact, 19 you said, I'm sorry, I was tied up speaking to Chief 20 Bressette. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: That was your explanation. So you 23 acknowledged at the time, sir, that you knew about it for 24 some period of time, prior to returning the call at 1:53. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr.

122

1 Sandler...? 2 OBJ MR. MARK SANDLER: There's nothing in the 3 scribe note to suggest that he knew about it. There's 4 lots in the scribe notes that reflects that he's in with 5 Chief Bressette. That's an unfair question. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, I didn't 7 suggest the scribe notes, and that's an improper 8 objection. I would ask Mr. Sandler to listen carefully 9 before he rises. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: I was suggesting the transcript of 13 the call itself to Mr. Slack includes your apology for 14 not calling back sooner and your explanation for that, 15 that you were tied up with Chief Bressette. And I'm 16 saying that shows that you must have known about it prior 17 to 1:52. 18 That's what I'm suggesting to you, sir, 19 and what's your response to that? 20 A: I would suggest to you when they 21 passed me a note, that the note likely indicated the time 22 the call came in. It's very simple. 23 Q: But why do you -- 24 A: It's not unusual that they would 25 indicate the time that the call was received.

123

1 Q: But why do you say to him, "The 2 reason was because I was busy with Chief Bressette?" 3 A: Because it obviously took them time 4 to get me the note, because I was busy. 5 Q: I'm sorry. 6 A: I was busy. 7 Q: So the reason you didn't call him 8 back was because you were busy; right? Not because you 9 didn't just get -- 10 A: I didn't -- 11 Q: -- because you just got the message? 12 A: The note indicates, in this scribe 13 notes, that I received the note at 1:52. I have no other 14 information to provide you of how I got the note, what 15 the note said. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sir. I 17 think you've gone over this -- 18 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: And then you said -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 20 Rosenthal, I think you've gone over this enough. I 21 think -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, with respect, 23 I'm not basing it on the note, I'm basing it on the 24 content of his explanation to Mr. Slack of the SIU. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

124

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And he has not 2 responded appropriately to that, sir, and I should like 3 to probe it a little bit further. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 5 think he's responded. I think he has given you an answer 6 to that question. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But with respect, 8 with respect, sir, okay, this is important and I should 9 like to pursue it. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 11 understand, I don't want to stop it. Okay. Carry on. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 14 Q: And I'm not talking about the note, 15 although, as somebody's kindly suggested to me, sir, 16 where is that note, do you know? 17 A: Actually, I have a copy of a note 18 here, a handwritten note, that gives me Bob Slack's phone 19 number, that is in my scribble -- 20 Q: I see. And is that in a document 21 that we have copies of, sir? 22 A: I would suspect. 23 Q: With your permission, Mr. 24 Commissioner, may I examine the document that he's 25 looking at? Thank you.

125

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: It's page 63. 2 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: It's page 63. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, fifty-three 4 (53)? 5 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Sixty-three 6 (63). 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Sixty-three (63). 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: I'm told by My Friends it's page 63 12 of what is now Exhibit P-410, Handwritten Notes. Sir, 13 what it says at 1:52 there is, "Bob Slack, SIU, briefed;" 14 doesn't it? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: So that's responding to the fact, 17 that's indicating that you had called him at that time to 18 brief him; right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: It doesn't give us any information as 21 to when you learned you were supposed to call him; right? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Thank you. Now, before I return to 24 the phone call with Mr. Slack, the note itself that -- 25 the scribed notes reports as a note, at 1:52, do you know

126

1 where that document is, sir, that note? 2 A: I'm sorry? 3 Q: According to the scribe notes at 4 1:52, as has been pointed out, it says, "I received note 5 from -- from comm. unit." Is that -- Ms. Edmund 6 suggests, sir, that that may be in fact the sticky that's 7 in your notes; is that correct? 8 A: I would suspect it is. That's what 9 I'm just trying to figure out here. 10 Q: Yes. So you -- you have, in fact, in 11 your notes, a sticky at this page; is that correct? 12 A: Yes, I do. 13 Q: And that is photocopied in the 14 version that we have of your notes as well, I believe? 15 A: Correct. That's the lower half of 16 page 63. 17 Q: And sir, could you read what that 18 sticky says, please. 19 A: It says, "Bob Slack," then a phone 20 number, "SIU" and my name. 21 Q: Yes. And that gives us no indication 22 then, as to when you would have received that sticky; 23 right? 24 A: Correct. Correct. 25 Q: But now I should like to turn to what

127

1 I would suggest to you sir, -- 2 A: But it -- 3 Q: -- is the internal evidence of your 4 discussion with Mr. Slack, which suggests, I would put it 5 to you, and I shall turn to the specifics that suggest 6 that, that you certainly were aware of your 7 responsibility to return his call prior, well prior, to 8 the time you did return the call? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: And that, I believe, was Tab 72, of 13 the Logger Tapes, Exhibit P-444B. Now if you turn to 14 page 448 of that, sir. And it says, the first entry 15 attributed to Carson on that page: 16 "So -- well, we've -- you know, we've 17 had Native -- members of the Native -- 18 I apologize for being slow getting back 19 to you. 20 SLACK: That's okay. 21 I understand your message came in a 22 while ago, but I was tied up with the 23 Chief of the Kettle and Stony Point 24 Band. 25 [And he says] That's fine."

128

1 So, you gave him, as the excuse for not 2 returning his call earlier, even though you had received 3 it or you understood it came in a while ago, you gave him 4 as the excuse not that you were just given it, but that 5 you were tied up with the Chief of the Kettle and Stony 6 Point Band; is that not correct, sir? 7 A: That's what I -- that's what I said, 8 yes. 9 Q: Yes. And, I'm suggesting to you sir, 10 now it's ten (10) years later, and I appreciate, 11 especially the number of times you've been over this one 12 (1) way or another, it would be very difficult for you to 13 reconstruct the actual facts. 14 But I'm suggesting to you that the 15 internal evidence from this phone call and your 16 explanation suggest that you were certainly aware of his 17 request that you phone him back prior to a minute before 18 you phoned him back. 19 Otherwise you would have said, Sorry, I 20 understand your message came in a while ago, but I just 21 got it and here I am; right? 22 A: I -- I don't know, I can't verify 23 that one (1) way or the other, sir. As -- as you -- 24 Q: Nothing is certain -- 25 A: -- pointed out, my memory of ten (10)

129

1 years ago, I'm trying to give you the best answers I 2 can -- 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: -- whether you want to accept them or 5 not. 6 Q: Yes, sure, but you would not disagree 7 with me that the evidence suggests that you likely knew 8 about the request to phone him back some period of time 9 more than a minute before you did; right? 10 A: Well, from the notes that doesn't 11 appear to be the case and I don't have memory to suggest 12 otherwise, that's my answer, sir. 13 Q: From your explanation does it appear 14 to be the case, though, sir, from the explanation to Mr. 15 Slack? 16 A: No. I mean it's very -- it was busy. 17 I was busy with Tom Bressette. I was busy with other 18 people at the command post. 19 And it very well may be Sergeant Korosec 20 took that phone call and this is Sergeant Korosec's 21 handwriting. He may have said to me certain things that 22 led me to believe that he was -- was aware of this for a 23 few minutes. 24 Q: But was the reason, that you were 25 tied up with the Chief?

130

1 A: What was the reason I was tied up 2 with the Chief? 3 Q: Was that the reason you didn't return 4 his phone call more promptly? 5 A: Well, if I knew that he called while 6 I was tied up with the Chief, or it appears at some point 7 I was able to -- to recognize that I was tied up with the 8 Chief, that he had called in and around that period of 9 time, I simply shared that information with him. 10 Q: Now, sir, we looked at the 11 transcript, which showed that, in fact, you were tied up 12 relatively shortly before you called the SIU with 13 finalizing the press release to be put out by the OPP, 14 right, at 1:40? 15 A: Correct. And I certainly was tied up 16 with that as well. 17 Q: That's what you were doing; right? 18 A: That was one (1) of the things. 19 Q: And you felt you had to do that 20 before you spoke to the SIU because you were afraid they 21 would shut you down and preclude you from doing that; 22 right? 23 A: Well, I knew that once they invoked a 24 mandate, there would be no press release. 25 Q: Yes. And that's why you didn't phone

131

1 him back earlier, the evidence suggests, sir. 2 A: Well, you're entitled to that 3 opinion. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: In any event, I shall move on, thank 8 you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This may be 10 a bit early to take a lunch break, Mr. Rosenthal, but 11 because we're adjourning today early at 3:30 it may not 12 be. Would that work for you? 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It would very much 14 so. Thank you, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 16 lunch break now, then. 17 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 18 adjourned until 1:10. 19 20 --- Upon recessing at 11:52 a.m. 21 --- Upon resuming at 1:10 p.m. 22 23 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 24 resumed. Please be seated. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good

132

1 afternoon, Mr. Rosenthal. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good afternoon, Mr. 3 Commissioner. Shall I continue? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on, 5 yes, sir. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, sir. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL. 9 Q: Good afternoon, sir. Possibly 10 because I don't think I asked the question very clearly. 11 I'm not sure that we got a clear answer to the following 12 questions about the SIU. 13 Was it your understanding that once it 14 became clear to you that it was an SIU incident, in other 15 words involving the serious injury or death at the hands 16 of a police officer, that once it became clear that that 17 was the case, you were not allowed to issue a press 18 release? 19 A: Once they invoked their mandate, they 20 will take responsibility for all the press releases. 21 Q: So it's your understanding that it's 22 only when they invoke their mandate that you're 23 prohibited from making a press release? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: Even if you knew for sure it was an

133

1 SIU matter until they come and say, we invoke our 2 mandate, you're allowed to make a press release? That 3 was your understanding at the time? 4 A: Technically, correct. 5 Q: Technically correct. I see. 6 Technically correct but in spirit are you suggesting not 7 correct? 8 A: That -- that -- that -- it was my 9 understanding at the time is that you -- once SIU invoked 10 their mandate, they will indicate that they will handle 11 all press releases from there on. 12 Q: I see. And would you agree then once 13 you were notified that the SIU had been -- had called 14 that you should then not issue press releases after that? 15 A: No. Normally what would happen and 16 I'm going back on memory, there was no specific policy 17 about that other than they would -- there would be some 18 usually discussion that they would handle all the press 19 from that point on. 20 So any references to the investigation we 21 refer to SIU. 22 Q: Well, would you agree with me at 23 least to the following, that once you got a call from the 24 SIU, it would be inappropriate to issue a press release 25 until you at least talk to them? That was your

134

1 understanding at the time? 2 A: I -- I'm sorry, I'm not sure I 3 understand your question. 4 Q: Was it not your understanding in 5 1995, that once you were aware that the SIU called, it 6 would be inappropriate to issue a press release until you 7 at least discussed the matter with them? 8 A: I -- I knew that at some point they 9 would tell me that they would handle the press. 10 Q: That was not my question, sir. My 11 question was, once you became aware that they had called, 12 they at least had that much interest to call -- 13 A: Right. 14 Q: -- would you agree that it would be 15 improper that you knew in 1995, it would be improper 16 after that point to issue a press release without at 17 least speaking to them first? 18 A: It wouldn't be improper. But I knew 19 full well that when I -- that they would at some point 20 say that they were going to handle that piece of it. 21 Q: So it wouldn't be improper to issue a 22 press release after you knew they called before speaking 23 to them? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: But not improper?

135

1 A: No. 2 Q: Okay. Now that is in fact what you 3 did. 4 A: Yes, I did that. 5 Q: And in fact, sir, before lunch there 6 was a question as to whether you knew that they had 7 called or not at the time you finalized the press 8 release. 9 Do you recall that discussion, sir? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: And you recall that your counsel 12 suggested looking at the scribe notes that maybe you were 13 given that note just a minute before you called the SIU. 14 Do you recall that, sir? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And I suggested that the internal 17 evidence of the call suggested, since you gave a 18 different excuse, that that was not true and you didn't 19 agree with me, right? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Okay. Well, let's look at some other 22 internal evidence from that call, sir, as to whether or 23 not you had the note. And let's look again then at Tab 24 71 of the logger tape number 2, P-444B exhibit number. 25 Your call with Mr. Babbitt finalizing the

136

1 press release. 2 And this was as we indicated before made 3 at 1:40 in the early hours of September 7, some seven (7) 4 minutes before you called the SIU; do you recall that, 5 sir? 6 A: I recall the call. 7 Q: Okay. I'm just setting the context. 8 A: Yes. Yes. 9 Q: Now if we could look at page 440 of 10 that call, sir. To look towards the top of page 440, the 11 first entry attributed to Carson reads as follows: 12 "Well, I -- I got a note here -- I've 13 got to call SIU. 14 So this is our one opportunity to 15 discuss this." 16 Do you see that, sir? 17 A: Yes, I do. 18 Q: And you did tell them at the time, 19 didn't you? 20 A: Yes, I must have. 21 Q: Yes. So in fact, sir, you did have 22 the note to call the SIU before you finalized the press 23 release, didn't you? 24 A: According to this, I must have, yes. 25 Q: Yes. And in fact, sir, in truth,

137

1 sir, you purposely made that call before making the other 2 call, right? 3 That's what this indicates, this is our 4 one opportunity, I got to call them back, right? 5 A: I indicated to Babbitt I had the note 6 to call him back, that's what it says. 7 Q: And you purposely did it in the other 8 order. Rather than call the SIU first, you phoned 9 Babbitt first, right? 10 A: I did it in that order, yes. 11 Q: Yes. And you did it because you 12 wanted to get in that press release before you were 13 prohibited from doing so, right? 14 A: I can't tell you that was the -- the 15 reason why I made that call first or not, but that's 16 possibly one of the reasons. 17 Q: And you misinformed the SIU officer 18 when you said the reason you didn't call them back was 19 because you were speaking to Chief Bressette? 20 A: And I was talking to Chief Bressette. 21 You see in the command post notes I did talk to Chief 22 Bressette. 23 Q: But that's not the reason you didn't 24 phone them back. The reason you didn't phone them back 25 was because you wanted to use this window of opportunity

138

1 with officer Babbitt first, isn't that true? 2 A: I -- I can't tell you that's the fact 3 or not. 4 Q: But the -- would you agree that the 5 evidence strongly suggests that that is the fact, sir? 6 A: The fact of the matter is I called 7 Babbitt first. 8 Q: Sir, would you agree now, looking at 9 this and knowing yourself and knowing what you said on 10 those occasions that, in fact, it's quite clear that on 11 that occasion you had a call waiting or a request to call 12 the SIU waiting, and you purposely, rather than dealing 13 with that call, wanted to finalize the press release 14 first; do you agree with that, sir? 15 A: I wanted the press release out, sure. 16 Q: And that's why you didn't call them 17 back right away, right? 18 A: I'm not sure if this was also the 19 time we'd held Babbitt's line open, so we could get the 20 calls through. So, I'm not sure if this was the only 21 opportunity I had to call Babbitt -- 22 Q: And you don't agree that that's the 23 conclusion from this phrase here? 24 A: Well, you can draw that conclusion. 25 Q: You agree that you misinformed the

139

1 SUI when you said the reason I didn't call you back was 2 because I was involved with Chief Bressette? 3 A: No, I was busy with a number of 4 things, sir. 5 Q: And you think that that was an honest 6 statement to the SIU? 7 The reason I didn't call you back was 8 because I was involved with Chief Bressette? 9 A: Sure. 10 Q: And thank you, we have your evidence, 11 sir. 12 Now, let me move to what I think will be 13 some less contentious areas, temporarily. I promise you 14 some more contention at some point as well. 15 Now -- 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: I should be grateful 17 if My Friend would just ask the questions without all the 18 editorial comments, please. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, that is an 20 editorial comment -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- we each have our 23 own style -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There lots-- 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: If he has an

140

1 objection, he should raise it. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's lots 3 of editorial comment. Let's carry on with the 4 questioning, thank you. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: Now, I gather from your evidence over 8 the last many days, sir, that you had acquired some 9 understanding of what had happened to the Stoney Point 10 people in 1942 when their reserve was seized under the 11 War Measures Act, and that it was retained for more than 12 fifty (50) years after that. 13 And you understood that they had some -- 14 the just complaints about the way they'd been treated as 15 a result of that; is that fair to say, sir? 16 A: Sure. 17 Q: And during the period when you first 18 became Incident Commander in 1993, and the period 1993 to 19 1995, there were -- there was various frictions, 20 sometimes, between some of the army personnel and some of 21 the Stoney Pointers who were on, what they considered, 22 their land; is that correct? 23 A: Fair enough. 24 Q: And you got some incident reports 25 from time to time about some of that friction?

141

1 A: Oh, yes. 2 Q: And I gather that at least to some 3 extent you -- you felt that perhaps some of the army 4 people were not as understanding as they should have been 5 of the Stoney Point people in their situation and tended 6 to exaggerate things a bit; is that fair to say? 7 A: I wouldn't say exaggerate. I think 8 the terms I've used is maybe -- how did I describe that? 9 Q: I think -- 10 A: Antagonize one another. 11 Q: I think in answer to a question of 12 Mr. Millar's at one (10 point, you said you -- you then 13 also fumbled for the right term, but you said something - 14 - I'm not sure if the term "overreaction" is the right 15 term but maybe overly sensitive or being overly dramatic 16 or something like that, sometimes. 17 Is that fair to say? 18 A: Yeah, sure. 19 Q: But in any event, as a result of that 20 or whatever, is it fair to say that your actions on 21 September 4, 5, 6, 1995 were not influenced by those 22 incident reports, particularly? 23 A: Which incident reports? 24 Q: From '93, '94. The whole -- the 25 previous history of altercations with army personnel in

142

1 the -- in the course of the reclamation of the land prior 2 to that time didn't prejudice you against the Stoney 3 Pointers? 4 A: No, no. 5 Q: And in fact -- and -- and you -- you 6 took those with something of a grain of salt. It didn't 7 -- it didn't influence the way you behaved on September 8 4, 5, 6; is that fair to say? 9 A: Well -- well, we always try to 10 maintain a -- a neutral position. If there was a -- 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: -- criminal act of any nature, we 13 attempted to investigate it and -- and follow through -- 14 Q: Sure. 15 A: -- with it. 16 Q: Right, but I -- I'm more interested 17 in -- it didn't -- you weren't thinking of those 18 particular instances as you acted on September 4, 5, 6, 19 1995? 20 A: No, no. 21 Q: Right. Now, I believe you told us 22 that you knew less about the history of Ipperwash Park 23 than you did about the Army Camp part of the Stoney Point 24 Reserve; is that fair? 25 A: I'm not sure if that's how I phrased

143

1 it. 2 Q: Well -- 3 A: I think I explained that I knew that 4 the hundred and nine (109) acres that made up the 5 Provincial Park were surrendered through a process from 6 the Stoney Point Reserve Proper -- 7 Q: Right -- 8 A: -- in -- in the early '20's. I 9 believe I indicated -- 10 Q: Yes, I believe the evidence is that a 11 larger portion than just the Park, but a portion that 12 included what became the Park, was surrendered as you had 13 testified in the 1920's -- 14 A: Right. 15 Q: -- and -- but we've had some evidence 16 at this Inquiry about the nature of that surrender, and 17 it was suggested that it was a ripoff surrender. 18 And the expert witness said, Well, I don't 19 want to use that word in a Court, but it was -- a 20 tremendous profit was made by the people who did it; were 21 you aware of that aspect of it, sir? 22 A: No, I wasn't but that's the same 23 argument -- or the same, I think, position that was taken 24 with the surrender of property around West Ipperwash was 25 -- which was also in contention at that time.

144

1 Q: Yes. So you weren't aware of that. 2 You -- you were aware that there was at least some 3 contention that there were burials of First Nation's 4 persons in the area of the park, is that correct? 5 A: I was aware of a cemetery in the 6 Military Base which I had seen -- 7 Q: Yes? 8 A: -- personally. I -- I'd actually 9 checked out where it was located. 10 Q: I see, but you weren't aware of the 11 allegation at least that there were burials in the Park 12 area itself? 13 A: No, I was of -- I was of the belief 14 there was no burial. 15 Q: I see. So we -- we've had some 16 evidence at this Inquiry that suggests that there might 17 have -- well have been some burials, but -- 18 A: I'm aware of that. 19 Q: -- you -- you were not really aware 20 of that? 21 A: I wasn't aware of that at the time, 22 no, sir. 23 Q: Now, in the course of your evidence 24 at several points, you used the expression "colour of 25 right"?

145

1 A: Right. 2 Q: And I don't believe that we ever got 3 an exact definition as to what you meant by it. I 4 believe there's one (1) definition that's current in 5 Ontario, and I'd like to put it to you and see if that's 6 what you meant when you used it. 7 Namely: 8 "By colour of right, one means an 9 honest belief in a factual situation, 10 which if it were true, would constitute 11 either a legal justification or an 12 excuse for whatever is being done." 13 Is that a fair description of the meaning? 14 A: I believe so. 15 Q: Yeah, and that -- that's what you 16 understood -- 17 A: Sure. 18 Q: -- roughly? 19 A: Yeah, sure. 20 Q: So, what it means is that you don't 21 necessarily have to have a right to it. Of course, you - 22 - if you have a right to something, it's not a colour of 23 right, it's an actual right, but this means that you have 24 an honest belief in such a right, right? 25 A: Right.

146

1 Q: And so, I mean it could well be the 2 case that, for example, a Court would determine, say, 3 that Ipperwash Park was an area that the Stoney Point 4 people did not have a right to, but nonetheless it's 5 possible that the occupiers there would have colour of 6 right as a defence if they had an honest belief in the 7 state of facts that -- that would have justified their 8 being there, right; that's -- that's the -- 9 A: That's -- 10 Q: -- that's the difference, right? 11 A: -- that's how it works, yes. 12 Q: I'm sorry? 13 A: That's how it works, yes. 14 Q: Yes? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Right, I -- I just wanted to make 17 sure we -- we're on the same page in that respect. So 18 given especially that concern, I gather from your earlier 19 evidence, you wanted to have a clear legal basis for any 20 action that you took against these people? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: Understanding that their -- in 23 addition to the ordinary concerns, there is this 24 complexity in this case of the possible colour of right 25 then in a relatively complex situation, is that fair to

147

1 say? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And so you wanted the comfort of a 4 Court examining the issue and giving you direction as to 5 what to do before you moved? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Now, you had been as you've told us, 8 Incident Commander with respect to the Stoney Pointers 9 entering the Army Base from 1993 until after the events 10 that brings you today? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And in the course of that, you met 13 many of these people and interacted with them in various 14 ways? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And got a number of reports about 17 them from military people, from your officers and so on, 18 right? 19 A: That's fair, yes. 20 Q: And I would suggest that the evidence 21 suggests, actually, that the -- that you've formed an 22 opinion of these people which included that they weren't 23 the kind of violent people who were likely to, for 24 example, threaten an officer with a gun, right? 25 A: I -- I didn't believe they would

148

1 threaten any of our officers. 2 Q: Yes. You, I would suggest, you would 3 have been not necessarily surprised if one of these 4 people would say, have thrown a rock at a police cruiser, 5 but you would have been very surprised if one would point 6 a gun at a police officer; is that fair to say? 7 A: That would be the experience. 8 Q: Yes. Now there's been some evidence 9 about the TRU team and we've listened to the tape of your 10 discussion with Inspector Linton on his calling in the 11 TRU team? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: And you, at that point, expressed 14 what appeared to be a reluctance about calling them in, 15 very strongly; is that fair to say? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I would suggest to you that you 18 knew, and the reason you were so reluctant was because 19 you knew that the TRU, when it's called in, is often 20 called in a -- to a situation where they are expected to 21 kill somebody, where that's a reasonable possibility; 22 that's the kind of situation that they get called into, 23 generally, right? 24 A: Is the possible outcome where they 25 may have to use lethal force?

149

1 Q: Yes. But it's a -- 2 A: Sure. Every call they get called out 3 to there is a potential of lethal force. 4 Q: Yes, but of course, shooting to kill 5 is a possible outcome of any interaction between a police 6 officer and someone in the theoretical sense, but -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- right -- but the TRU team is 9 reserved for situations where there's a much higher 10 possibility of that being required, in general; isn't 11 that correct to say? 12 A: Correct. That's why they have a 13 higher level of training. 14 Q: And they have a higher level of 15 training to deal with exactly that kind of situation, 16 right? 17 A: Sure, sure. 18 Q: And so, just the calling in of the 19 TRU team gives a signal to the members of the TRU team 20 and to all the other OPP officers and anyone else who 21 understands their function, that this is a situation 22 where it might be necessary -- not necessarily, but it's 23 -- there's a realistic possibility it might be necessary 24 to shoot and kill someone; correct? That's what it 25 signals?

150

1 A: I'm not sure I can agree with that. 2 Q: Well, isn't that a corollary of your 3 previous answer, sir? If -- if they're known to have 4 that capacity and to -- to be brought in in those 5 situations, doesn't it follow that people who understand 6 that would get that signal from the bringing in of the 7 TRU team? 8 A: You use the TRU team where there is a 9 risk of -- of violence or -- or there has been some 10 demonstrated threat to -- to life -- 11 Q: Not just any -- 12 A: -- in -- in the normal sense. 13 Q: Not any old risk of violence, right? 14 A: I'm sorry? 15 Q: Not just any risk of violence, 16 there's -- there are many risks of violence where you 17 don't call in the TRU team, right? 18 A: Oh, for sure. 19 Q: It's only a risk of violence that 20 reaches the level where you, as the person calling in the 21 TRU team, feels it might be necessary to have a sniper 22 kill someone, that you call in the TRU team. 23 A: Well, that's -- that's one (1) of the 24 reasons you call a TRU team in, yeah. 25 Q: That's -- that's the main reason,

151

1 isn't it? 2 A: But they're -- they're used in a -- 3 that's not their only use is my only point, there's -- 4 there's a number of uses for TRU teams. 5 Q: I see, but that's the essential use, 6 isn't it, sir? 7 A: No, they're used for high-risk 8 prisoner escorts between institutions -- 9 Q: Yeah. 10 A: -- of high-risk prisoners, they're 11 used -- 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: -- for special surveillance. There's 14 -- there's a number of -- of areas where you use a TRU 15 team. 16 Q: Yes. Okay. But in a situation like 17 this, I mean there were no prisoners being escorted, 18 there wasn't any surveillance. 19 A: There was -- there was surveillance. 20 Q: In a situation of this type -- well, 21 there was, yeah, but it wasn't unusual surveillance, but 22 in a situation like this of policing a gathering of 23 people, generally, calling in the TRU team would be done 24 when it is thought that there's a reasonable possibility, 25 not certainly a certainty, but a reasonable possibility

152

1 that it might be required that an officer shoot and kill 2 someone, right? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 4 minute, Mr. Rosenthal. 5 OBJ MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: Commissioner, 6 Jennifer Gleitman for the OPPA. I'm sorry, but as far as 7 I'm aware, there has been absolutely no evidence from 8 Deputy Carson or anyone else at this Inquiry that the 9 reason why the TRU team was called out on that day or at 10 any time was to kill someone. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 12 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: I object to that 13 question. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There 15 certainly hasn't been -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Those are my 17 questions, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 19 questions. I think that's where Counsel is going with 20 his questions. Ask some questions about that, there 21 isn't any evidence to that effect at the moment. 22 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: And I don't 23 recall Deputy Carson ever testifying that that was one 24 (1) of the purposes, when he was giving background when 25 Ms. Jones was cross-examining him.

153

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He didn't -- 2 he's cross-examining now; that's the purpose of his 3 cross-examination. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I didn't 5 suggest that was the purpose, I suggested that gives a 6 signal -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- that the TRU 9 team being known for that -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. But 11 I mean you're -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- is a signal that 13 it's possible. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you're 15 cross-examining on that point now. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 17 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: Perhaps the 18 question is just not clear then. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: So you understood my question, I 22 believe; is that correct? 23 A: I'm sorry. If you'd clarify the 24 question, I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want

154

1 to ask it again then. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: In any event, I was suggesting, sir, 5 that I acknowledge your point that there may be some 6 other special functions that the TRU team performs, a 7 high-risk prisoner being escorted from one (1) prison to 8 another and so on. 9 But when they're called on to an incident 10 that -- on the field, such as we had September 6th, 1995, 11 near this building, they're called out in that kind of 12 situation primarily because it's thought that there might 13 be a realistic possibility that they would have to shoot 14 and kill someone? 15 A: Well, the possibility might be a risk 16 to life, sure. 17 Q: Yeah. Now, sir, also, officers, as I 18 understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, are trained 19 that if they do shoot at someone, they aim for the 20 largest body mass that they can see; is that correct? 21 A: Every police officer is trained in 22 that. 23 Q: Every police officer is trained in 24 that. 25 A: Right.

155

1 Q: Yeah. And that some of us have a 2 notion that officers should shoot a gun out of someone's 3 hands or shoot a knife out of someone's hands, that's not 4 a very realistic notion, is it? 5 A: I suppose if you watch TV too much. 6 Q: Yes, on -- on TV and the movies. But 7 in real life, given the limitations of realistic aiming 8 in real life, officers are taught to fire for the -- at 9 the largest mass that they see; right? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: So if -- if they are firing a gun at 12 someone, there's a good chance they're going to very 13 seriously injure or kill that person? 14 A: If you pull -- 15 Q: If they're firing. 16 A: -- if you pull the trigger you have 17 to be prepared for the results. 18 Q: Yes. And you're aiming -- 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: -- to do maximum damage to that 21 person with your weapon, if -- if you pull the trigger? 22 A: Absolutely. 23 Q: Yes. I would suggest to you, sir, 24 that your understanding of that, of the message it gives 25 and the purpose of the TRU team in this situation, was

156

1 really in the back of your mind as you were saying to 2 Inspector Linton, Dale, don't do that, don't call the TRU 3 team now, because you realized it would up the ante and 4 the danger of something serious happening; isn't that 5 fair to say? 6 A: No, sir. 7 Q: Okay. So what do you say was the 8 reason that you didn't want the TRU called in? 9 A: The reason I didn't want the TRU 10 called in was he was going to use the TRU team as an 11 arrest team, to go in and make the arrest of the people 12 on the parking lot. We don't use TRU team for that 13 purpose. 14 And I pointed out to him that if we used 15 TRU team for that purpose, if they came under -- and if 16 they came under fire while they were effecting that 17 arrest, we would have no ability to provide any support 18 to them because he already had used that tool. 19 Q: Well, sir, wouldn't it -- with 20 respect to the last point, wouldn't it have been possible 21 and wasn't it in fact the case in -- when it eventuated, 22 that some TRU members would go in and some would be held 23 back and that the ones held back would be able to provide 24 any support for the ones who went in? 25 A: In that particular case but -- but

157

1 that is not the purpose of a tactical team to go in as an 2 arrest team, that -- 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: -- that is my point, for him -- for 5 him to use it in that purpose. 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: If he simply wanted to effect an 8 arrest, the TRU team isn't the tool you use. 9 Q: Yes. I appreciate that, sir. I was 10 dealing with the other part of your answer. You agree, 11 as far as providing support for any TRU members in there, 12 if there were TRU members who were not in there, they 13 could provide that support even to TRU members, they 14 don't have to just provide support to other police 15 officers; right? 16 A: That's true. 17 Q: So I'm just dealing with that second 18 part of your concern, that there won't be anybody left to 19 help the TRU people; if there are other TRU people they 20 can help them, right? 21 A: I -- I don't agree. From a tactical 22 point of view, that's a -- an unreasonable approach. 23 Q: Yes. Yes, sir, but I want to just 24 get that off the table and deal with the other part of 25 it.

158

1 So you say that it's not appropriate to 2 use a TRU team for an arrest, that's not their function? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Now, but to use them for a slightly 5 inappropriate function wouldn't be a terrible thing 6 necessarily; right? I mean, so suppose they're used to 7 do an arrest, what's the big problem? 8 A: There is no problem. My point was if 9 the team came under fire, what is the support mechanism 10 for them because now you have members of the team 11 involved in the -- in an incident where they are taking 12 fire. That -- that was my point. 13 Q: Yes. Well, that gets to the other 14 aspect of your concern that you said, which I thought we 15 had taken off the table, the ability to support the TRU 16 team people in there, the TRU people in the -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- back can support 19 them, no? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think, 21 with respect, you took it off the table but I'm not sure 22 that the Witness -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- I 24 thought we had, but -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't

159

1 think he did. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Did -- didn't you - 3 - it may not have been clear. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes -- 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: Didn't you -- didn't you agree, sir, 8 that if some TRU members were held back and some were in 9 there, the ones held back could support the ones in there 10 and then you -- 11 A: You would not employ that tactical 12 approach, sir. 13 Q: You may not do it but they could do 14 it; right? 15 A: There's lots of things you could do 16 but that's not what you would do. 17 Q: Okay. Well -- but I'm suggesting to 18 you, sir, that the mere fact that that's not what you 19 would do and that they don't normally make arrests, does 20 not explain the vigour with which you oppose, in that 21 telephone call, Inspector Linton's suggestion that he's 22 calling in the TRU team. 23 And I'm suggesting to you that you must 24 have had, in the back of your mind at least, the notion 25 that calling in the TRU team ups the ante here in a way

160

1 that's inappropriate; isn't that fair, sir? 2 A: Absolutely not. 3 Q: Okay. Kenneth Deane, you knew him 4 before this occasion, sir? 5 A: Yes, I did. 6 Q: How long did you know him, 7 approximately? 8 A: Well, he was at the London -- he was 9 a member of London TRU before I arrived in London in '93. 10 And I probably would have known him as an officer on the 11 TRU when I was a negotiator in my other roles earlier so, 12 I don't know, I'm guessing maybe five (5) years. 13 Q: And you knew him as "Tex" Deane; 14 right? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And he was called "Tex". That 17 suggests a cowboy type guy; right? 18 A: I would -- I would argue that point. 19 Q: Oh, that wasn't your understanding as 20 to why he was called "Tex"? 21 A: He was called "Tex" because he wore a 22 cowboy hat. 23 Q: Yes. And he was thought of as a 24 cowboy wasn't he? 25 A: He was thought -- he -- he picked up

161

1 a nickname because one (1) day he wears a cowboy hat and 2 somebody labelled him "Tex" and there it is, he has a 3 name called "Tex." 4 Q: And wasn't he thought of as a 5 particularly adventurous officer? 6 A: Adventurous? 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: I'm not sure I understand. 9 Q: Somebody who would take more risks 10 than other officers for example? 11 A: I don't believe that. 12 Q: He wasn't thought of that way at all? 13 A: Not that I'm aware of. 14 Q: I see. Now it is true that at 22:44, 15 I believe it was, but on the evening of September 6th, 16 the person who gave the report of a person with a gun, a 17 First Nations person with a gun was Kenneth Deane, is 18 your understanding; is that correct? 19 A: Can you just put some context to 20 that; which point are you speaking to? 21 Q: I'm talking about as -- I'm just 22 skipping ahead. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

162

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, Mr. 2 Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 No problem. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: My Friends have 6 been trying to help me clarify the situation. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL. 9 Q: Sir, I'm talking about a little bit 10 before eleven o'clock at night. I'm sorry I'm skipping 11 just to this one (1) point, from the evening of September 12 6th -- 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: -- at some time before eleven o'clock 15 that night, you recall that some officer reported there's 16 a person with a gun. And then the CMU who was -- just 17 let me set the context and -- and you might remember this 18 then. 19 The CMU was marching down the road and 20 then it was reported there was somebody with a gun. And 21 the order was given for them to halt, given that 22 information. 23 A: Oh, correct, correct, correct. Yes, 24 yes. 25 Q: And then a moment or two (2) later, a

163

1 couple of minutes later, It's not a gun, it's a stick. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: And so they proceeded. 4 A: Right. Right. 5 Q: So that person who gave the report 6 that the person had a gun was to your understanding -- 7 was it your understanding that it was Ken Deane, or no? 8 A: All I could tell you for sure it was 9 a TRU team member. I'm not sure which officer it was. 10 Q: Yes, okay, thank you. Now in respect 11 to the TRU team, you in the phone call that we were 12 talking about strongly resisted to call in the TRU team-- 13 A: Right. 14 Q: -- by Inspector Linton? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And shortly after that you appeared 17 on scene? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And then, I gather, you agreed to 20 call in the TRU team? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: What changed your mind? 23 A: Well, we were going to use the Crowd 24 Management Unit and provide the TRU team as a cover team 25 for the Crowd Management Unit.

164

1 Q: But why? They weren't needed, during 2 your phone call with Inspector Linton. What changed the 3 situation? 4 A: Because they would be performing a 5 function that they are required to do, and that is, 6 provide visual and cover for the Crowd Management team 7 when it's being deployed. 8 And they were also being asked, or going 9 to be asked, to have a look and see what the activity was 10 that was going on in the Kiosk but, in particular, the 11 site lines between the Kiosk and the parking lot. 12 Q: Now with respect to providing cover 13 for the Crowd Management team, shouldn't that have only 14 been in the case where there was a strong possibility, at 15 least, that they would have to shoot and kill someone? 16 A: You -- you provide cover for the 17 Crowd Management team because when they move with their 18 shields and their batons, both of their hands are 19 engaged, so they don't have ready access to their 20 firearms, in the event they do come under fire. 21 Q: So it's your evidence that the reason 22 that you wanted the TRU team called in, was to provide 23 cover for the Crowd Management team, sir? 24 A: To provide cover and observation. To 25 -- it's to --

165

1 Q: Cover and observation. 2 A: Right. Right. 3 Q: I see. 4 A: It's two -- it's two (2) parts. 5 Q: Well, let's look at the scribe notes 6 if we may, which are Exhibit P-426, and I always forget 7 the Inquiry Document Number of this one. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 1002419. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 2419, sorry. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: 1002419, Inquiry Document Number. If 13 we could please look at page 75 in our copy, and in your 14 copy, sir, it's -- in all copies, it's at 2036, is the 15 first entry I should like to look at. 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And it says there, at 20:36: 18 "John Carson called TRU down." 19 Is that right?? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: So at 8:00, approximately, I'm sorry, 22 8:30 approximately, that evening, you decided that you 23 did want the TRU team deployed; is that a fair reading of 24 that? 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: Actually in this

166

1 context it's actually clear, if My Friend will let me 2 assist him, that, "called the TRU down," in the scribed 3 notes is explained in the tape as meaning, hold them 4 down, not -- not call them down to the scene. It's the 5 exact reverse. But -- but -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I would like 7 the Witness's explanation, not his counsel's, sir. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fine. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where are 10 you now; what entry are you on? 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 13 which entry are you on now? 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: We were on 2036. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 16 THE WITNESS: Initially I asked for the 17 TRU team to be held back at the Pinery, but for the team 18 leader to come up to Forest. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: I see. And that is what was meant by 22 this entry, sir? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Okay. And what about at 20:37? 25 A: I have a discussion with Staff

167

1 Sergeant Skinner, who's a team -- 2 Q: Yes. So he arrived within one (1) 3 minute, apparently? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And you briefed him, and then you 6 asked for the sniper team, right? At the -- at the end 7 of the entry of 20:37. 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Sniper team. Sniper means what we 10 think it means; right? Shoot to kill; right? 11 A: A sniper team is an officer who is 12 trained to be a sniper. 13 Q: Yes. To shoot to kill; right? 14 A: If necessary, of course. 15 Q: And you asked for that particular 16 part of the TRU Team; is that correct?? 17 A: No, I didn't ask for that particular 18 part of the TRU team. 19 Q: What did you -- what did it mean, 20 "Can we get the sniper team?" 21 A: The sniper team does the -- they're 22 the observers. The snipers are put in position so they 23 can see what's going on and cover any other activities 24 that are going on. 25 The sniper team was asked to go in and

168

1 have a view of the kiosk and see if they could determine 2 the activities and the sight lines between the kiosk and 3 that parking lot. 4 Q: Yes, well, we'll come to what they're 5 asked to do, sir. 6 And, in fact -- well, let's -- let's deal 7 with that later. I want to deal with the operational 8 matters later, as a piece if I may. 9 Let me go to a different topic. I should 10 like to briefly explore your understanding of the famous 11 calls between you and officer Fox. 12 If we could turn then to -- to those 13 calls. The first one is at Tab 16 of Exhibit 444A. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 18 which Tab? I'm sorry. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's Tab 16, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sixteen 21 (16)? 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sixteen (16). One 23 six (16). 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: One six 25 (16).

169

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Now, sir, I should like to first ask 5 you about a passage on page 116 of that transcript. 6 Inspector Fox, in the second entry, is 7 transcribed as saying to you: 8 "And very much empowered and, ah, 9 basically, ah, the Premier's made it 10 clear to her his position is that there 11 be no different treatment of, ah, the 12 people in this situation. In other 13 words, ah, Native as opposed to non- 14 Native." 15 And your answer, "Okay." 16 And then Inspector Fox continuing: 17 "And, ah, the bottom line is wants them 18 out and, you know, has asked me, well, 19 what would the police do in a situation 20 where there wasn't Natives? 21 I said, well, you mean you can't 22 compare apples and oranges." 23 And you say "right" and the discussion 24 continues. 25 But, I wanted to ask you about what you

170

1 took from that passage, sir. And I would put it to you 2 that you understood from that passage among, perhaps, 3 other things that the Premier's position was that you 4 should not take into account any special rights or colour 5 of right that Native people may have, but treat them as 6 if they were trespassers who were not Native people. 7 Is that a fair description of the 8 understanding that you got when you heard Inspector Fox 9 tell you these words? 10 A: That's fair enough. 11 Q: And then when he says: 12 "And the bottom line is he wants them 13 out." 14 At this point, we're talking now September 15 5th. And I know that there was discussion of injunction 16 in the background and so on, but you would have 17 understood from -- from this, would you not, sir, that 18 the Premier wanted them out and would have wanted you to 19 just go and arrest them as ordinary criminal persons or 20 trespassers and get them out right then, right? 21 A: He wanted them out. 22 Q: And he would have wanted you to just 23 do it right then, not wait for an injunction, right? 24 A: Well, I don't know what he would have 25 wanted for me to do.

171

1 Q: But -- no, but you took from it he 2 wants them out now. 3 A: That's what he wants. 4 Q: Yeah, that's what he wants. I'm just 5 asking what you understood Inspector Fox was 6 communicating to you of the Premier's desires, right? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And that -- and that was what it was. 9 Get them out of there, arrest them like you would anybody 10 else. Don't take into account any of this colour of 11 right stuff, right? 12 A: Well, he is telling me what he heard 13 from the Premier. 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And I'm just asking you: Am I 17 correctly describing what you understood him to be 18 meaning the Premier said? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: Yes, thank you. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And then -- now sir, if I recall 25 exactly your evidence as to whether or not you understood

172

1 that there were burial grounds there, but if you could 2 look on page 119 of this transcript, about the middle of 3 the page, Inspector Fox asks you, 4 "Well, what are their demands?" 5 And you answer, "They have none." 6 And Fox repeats, "They have none?" 7 And then you say: 8 "No, no, it's -- their terminology; 9 burial grounds." 10 So, at that point you were aware at least 11 that the Stoney Point people regarded the Park as burial 12 grounds, or at least some of them did, right? 13 A: Some of them had -- had made that 14 comment for -- 15 Q: Yes? 16 A: -- some time. 17 Q: So -- yeah. So, you weren't aware of 18 what the evidence may or may not be in support of that 19 assertion, but you were aware there -- at least some of 20 them were making that allegation? 21 A: Some of them were making that 22 allegation. Any information that I was able to determine 23 at that point certainly show -- or indicated there was no 24 evidence to support that. 25 Q: So yeah, your -- your understanding

173

1 at the time then was that there was no hard evidence to 2 support the allegation that there were burial grounds, 3 but some of the Stoney Point people who were in the Park 4 were making that assertion, right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And so, given your understanding of 7 colour of right, you might have -- you would have 8 concluded then, I gather, that had you arrested them for 9 mischief for example by interfering with the use of 10 property, they might well have had defences of colour of 11 right, although ultimately it may well be determined that 12 the park was not theirs, right? 13 A: Yeah, and that's a consideration a 14 learned judge would make at that time. 15 Q: Yes? 16 A: But that -- that wouldn't preclude 17 the fact that we may effect an arrest and lay a charge 18 despite the potential colour of right. 19 Q: Yes. Now we turn to page 121 of that 20 transcript, towards the bottom of the page. Inspector 21 Fox is quoted as saying to you, and I'll be asking what 22 you took from this: 23 "Well, I'll tell you, this whole 24 fucking group is on some sort of 25 testosterone [or it's spelt

174

1 differently] high, and I finally had to 2 get right out and say, Look, I mean 3 here's the strategy. These folk were 4 putting -- the women and children will 5 be at the forefront. 6 And so on. What I want to ask you about 7 is what you understood by him saying they're on some sort 8 of testosterone high, and I would suggest that you would 9 have taken from that, that Inspector Fox was 10 communicating to you that these politicians he says the 11 whole group, so that means the Premier and a number of 12 his colleagues, presumably, were really -- 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, no. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I -- I'm 15 asking what he took from it -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 17 understand, but -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and I'm allowed 19 to put to him what I suggest he might have taken from it. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Counsel 21 have a right to object or -- is he -- you are sitting 22 down, that's fine. 23 You are asking him what he took from it. 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, My -- My Friend 25 can -- can ask the Witness what he took from it. Is it

175

1 appropriate for him to suggest that what he should have 2 taken from it are facts on which there is no evidence 3 whatsoever. 4 My Friend knows it's incorrect. This -- 5 this is a report on inter-ministerial committee meeting, 6 but there's -- the Premier's not there, politicians 7 aren't there. It's bureaucrats. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I am, with respect 9 sir, within my rights in asking what he took from it -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- because I'm 12 interested in how it affected his actions -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you-- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- and I am entitled 15 to put to him what I suggest he would have taken from it 16 by: 17 "The whole fucking group" 18 And I'm sorry for profanities sir, but I 19 think the big profanity was the killing of Dudley George, 20 and I want -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well I 22 understand. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- to tell it like 24 it is. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I

176

1 understand. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: And, I'm asking you, did you 5 understand, "the whole fucking group" to mean the 6 politicians including the Premier? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: To tell you the truth, at that point 11 of conversation it's impossible to tell one (1) way or 12 the other which people he was in fact referring to. 13 Q: But you would have taken it to mean 14 the whole group of politicians around Mike Harris, would 15 you not? You were told at the beginning that Deb Hutton 16 was there representing the Premier, and so on, right? 17 Perhaps -- if you want to take a minute to 18 read the entire transcript sir, it's not very long? 19 A: Well, he's talking about the meeting 20 that Deb Hutton attended. He wasn't talking about -- and 21 it was your words, the Premier specifically. 22 Q: In the -- let's look at some of 23 that -- 24 A: So -- so, I guess what I -- what my - 25 - my interpretation, if you would allow me to finish,

177

1 would be that this was the meeting that Deb Hutton was at 2 that he was referring to, sounds like. 3 Q: Yes sir, but -- well -- perhaps 4 you'll have to look at it all. Let -- let's -- let's 5 start at page 115, and at the bottom Inspector Fox -- 6 first of all, the Premier's office had representation 7 there in the form of one Deborah Hutton, right? 8 A: Right, but I -- 9 Q: You -- you understood that at the 10 time? 11 A: Correct. And if I could just bring 12 your attention to one (1) line before that, or two (2) 13 lines, it says -- he's talking about the inter- 14 ministerial meeting committee -- 15 Q: Yes, but -- 16 A: -- is what he's referring to here. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: So, I just -- I just want to make 19 sure the context was fair. 20 Q: Yes. No, I -- if you -- if you wish 21 to take -- do you wish to read the entire thing to 22 yourself, sir? 23 A: No, but if you're going to put words 24 in my mouth I want to make sure I'm accurate, that's all. 25 Q: Well, I -- I wanted to see what you

178

1 took from this and I want to look at the -- the next page 2 as well. 3 Now, 116, talking about Deb Hutton as 4 being very much empowered and basically, the Premier's 5 made it clear to her -- his position is that there be no 6 different treatment of the people in this situation. 7 In other words, Native as opposed to non- 8 Native, right? 9 So, you knew that was the Premier talking 10 through Deb Hutton and Ron Fox to you, right? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And, the bottom line is, he wants 13 them out; he's the Premier, right, as you -- as you 14 understood it? A: Sure. Sure. 15 Q: Of course, you don't know the true 16 facts there, but this is what you understood at the time, 17 right, as any -- 18 A: That's -- that's fair. 19 Q: -- any normally intelligent 20 person reading this would understand that you were being 21 told the Premier -- 22 A: That's his position. 23 Q: -- has these views, right? 24 A: That's his position, right. 25 Q: And you understood it at the time?

179

1 A: Right. 2 Q: And then when -- going into 1:21, 3 when Inspector Fox says, "this whole fucking group is on 4 some sort of testosterone high", you understood that 5 included the Premier and some of the, perhaps unnamed, 6 politicians around him and some people at that meeting. 7 You didn't know exactly who, but it 8 certainly included the Premier that he was talking about, 9 right? 10 A: Well, I -- I can't say that for any - 11 - in any definitive way, sir. I mean I -- 12 Q: Well -- 13 A: -- don't know what -- what he was 14 thinking. And I'm sure that he'd be glad to answer that 15 question for you a little better than I can. 16 Q: But you would have taken -- he means 17 a big group including the Premier, right? 18 A: Well, clearly he's talking about the 19 interaction that went on at the inter-ministerial 20 committee meeting. Now, did he mean the Premier too? I 21 don't know. 22 Q: Okay. But in any event, some 23 important people in the Government, at least, right -- 24 A: Sure. 25 Q: -- were on a "testosterone high" is

180

1 what was communicated to you, right? 2 A: That's what he communicated. 3 Q: And you understood that to mean that 4 these people were really vigorous in some way, really 5 upset in some way, really angry in some way; isn't that 6 fair? 7 A: That's various descriptions that 8 might apply. 9 Q: That's what you -- well, what 10 would you take from, "testosterone high" -- "they're on a 11 testosterone high"? Isn't that a fair description as to 12 what you would take? 13 A: Sure, that's fine. 14 Q: Thank you. Now, if we could turn to 15 the other tape between you and Inspector Fox. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where's that 17 tape? 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry, yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's in the 20 next volume. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry. I 22 started reading it, sorry. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 24 it's in a different volume? 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's Tab 37 of the

181

1 same volume, sir, logger 1, Exhibit 444A. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have a 3 number of copies of this at different places. All right. 4 You're right, it's at Tab Number 37. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 7 Q: Thank you. Sorry, sir, do you have 8 that transcript in front of you? 9 A: Yes, I do. 10 Q: I should like to start in the middle 11 of page 262. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 13 in the middle of which page? 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Two six two (262), 15 sir. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Two sixty- 17 two (262). 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 22 Q: Okay. So, in the middle of that page 23 Inspector Fox says to you: 24 "Okay. Well, let me just give the -- I 25 went through this meeting. John, we're

182

1 dealing with a real redneck 2 government." 3 Now, what did you take from that, sir; a 4 "redneck government", he was communicating to you? 5 A: What did I take from it? 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: I took that Ron Fox was venting some 8 frustration about some experience he's just had here and 9 he's not very happy with what's going on. 10 Q: But a -- but a "redneck government" 11 has a meaning to you, does it not, sir? 12 A: I guess you use the term, "cavalier." 13 Q: Use the term what? 14 A: Cavalier, maybe. 15 Q: Cavalier? Would it not include, 16 generally, in your view; "racist"? 17 Doesn't the word, "redneck" generally 18 connote racist to you, sir? 19 Isn't that a term that comes from the 20 American south and racists in the American south? 21 A: Well, I wouldn't have put racist to 22 it, personally, but -- 23 Q: You -- you didn't take from a redneck 24 government, racist government? 25 A: No, absolutely not.

183

1 Q: Okay. No, I -- I want to know what 2 you took from it, sir, so -- 3 A: Absolutely not. 4 Q: Okay. Did you take from it that they 5 were aggressive people? 6 A: I would -- I would accept that. 7 Q: Okay. And -- then you say, okay, and 8 Inspector Fox says: 9 "They're fucking barrel suckers, and 10 they are just in love with guns." 11 I don't -- I'm not familiar with the 12 expression, "barrel suckers" myself, sir; what did you 13 take from that? 14 A: I'm about as unfamiliar with that as 15 you are. 16 Q: So you didn't know what he meant by 17 that? 18 A: No. 19 Q: We'll have to ask him. But you knew 20 what they meant by -- he meant by "they're just in love 21 with guns"? 22 You knew -- you took something from that, 23 right? 24 A: Well, what do you want me to take 25 from it?

184

1 Q: Well, wouldn't you, and anyone else 2 hearing that, have taken from it that they want you to be 3 very aggressive? 4 A: They want me to be aggressive? 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: Well, I'm not sure I can draw that 7 conclusion, but... 8 Q: You wouldn't draw that conclusion? 9 A: I -- 10 Q: I mean, this is the context of what 11 should be done about the Stoney Point people in Ipperwash 12 Park; right? 13 A: Well, I certainly didn't take this 14 discussion as anything that Inspector Fox was telling me 15 that I should take in regards in how I handle this 16 situation, if that's what you're insinuating. 17 Q: Well, we'll deal with that, but I'm - 18 - I'm not dealing with that. I'm asking you what you 19 took from it, what you understood he was communicating to 20 you by saying "they are just in love with guns." 21 And I was suggesting to you, that suggests 22 to anyone, and it would have suggested to you, that they 23 like aggression, they want power to be used against 24 people in a context such as we're talking about. 25 Isn't that fair?

185

1 A: That -- that -- fair enough. 2 Q: That -- you would have understood 3 that at the time, right? 4 A: Fair enough. 5 Q: Thank you. And then, well -- in 6 fact, I think you make it clear later in the transcript 7 that that's what you took from it, because as we continue 8 you say, "okay" and Inspector Fox says, "there's no 9 question" and you say "so". 10 Inspector Fox says: 11 "They couldn't give a shit less about 12 Indians" 13 And you say: "All right, they just want 14 us to kick ass." 15 Right? 16 A: Right. 17 Q: So you did take from what he was 18 telling you, they want you to go in there and attack 19 these people somehow, right? 20 A: It's all about aggression, yes. 21 Q: That's what you took from it? 22 A: Yeah. 23 Q: And Fox agrees that you're 24 appropriately interpreting it, right? 25 A: Correct.

186

1 Q: And you say "yeah", and then you say: 2 "We're not prepared to do that yet." 3 Going to the next page, right? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: So I take it that you meant at some 6 point we may be prepared to be tough, but not at this 7 point, right? 8 Is that a fair reading of that? 9 A: At some point it may be necessary. 10 Q: And then, the transcript continues 11 now, we're now on page 263, Inspector Fox says: 12 "Well, I tell you, I was then -- when I 13 left that meeting, I got a page, go to 14 the Legislative Building, immediately." 15 You say: "Oh?" 16 Fox says: "Meet the Deputy. Well, I went 17 and finally my way through all this 18 media scrum." 19 You say: "Yeah." 20 And Fox says: "And I met the -- the 21 deputy all right." 22 You say: "Yeah." 23 And Fox says: "The Deputy Sol. Gen., the 24 AG, the Deputy AG, Chris Hodgson." 25 CARSON: Oh yeah.

187

1 FOX: Was there. 2 CARSON: Yeah. 3 FOX: From natural affairs. 4 CARSON: Yeah. 5 FOX: Uh huh, and the fucking Premier" 6 And you say, "Oh boy". 7 Now, several things about that. You 8 understood from the beginning of that passage, he got a 9 page to go to the building, he was called in specifically 10 to attend, right? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Now, these people wanted to give him 13 a message, they wanted him there, right? 14 A: I'm sorry? 15 Q: What you understood, you understood 16 they called him there because they wanted to tell him 17 something, right? 18 A: I -- I don't know -- I don't know the 19 context of what he was required to do. 20 Q: No, but -- 21 A: He was called -- 22 Q: Reading this transcript, and at the 23 time there's no other reasonable explanation, right; 24 that's what you took from this -- 25 A: He --

188

1 Q: -- they called him in to tell him 2 something, right? 3 A: No, he was called -- well, how do I 4 know that? I don't know what they wanted done there. 5 Q: Sir. 6 A: He -- he was providing services as a 7 policing advisor, so I suspect they may want to call on 8 his expertise which is why he was there. 9 Q: Well, in any event, he didn't just 10 happen to be at a meeting, he was specifically called to 11 this meeting, right? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: You understood that at the time? 14 A: Yeah. Oh, yes. 15 Q: You knew they called him in, right? 16 A: Yes, that's right. 17 Q: And what you understood was that the 18 page told him to go meet the deputy, would that have been 19 Deputy Solicitor General probably? 20 A: My assumption; that's who he reported 21 to. 22 Q: That's who he would have reported to, 23 and that's what he thought, apparently; or that was what 24 he was paged to do, according to what he told you, right? 25 A: Sure. That -- that's his working

189

1 relationship there. 2 Q: So he was paged to meet the Deputy 3 Solicitor General is what you took from it? 4 A: Right. 5 Q: Right? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And then he says: 8 "And I met the Deputy all right." 9 And then he lists a bunch of other people 10 including the Premier, right? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And other very high ranking people in 13 the government, right? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: And you understood that this was a 16 very serious meeting, and that's why said "oh, boy", 17 right? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And then Inspector Fox continues: 20 "Well, John, I'm here to tell you, this 21 guy is a redneck from way back." 22 Now you understood that by "this guy" he 23 meant the Premier, right? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And then Fox continues:

190

1 "And he came right out and said, 'I 2 just walked in on the tail end of this. 3 The OPP, in my opinion, made mistakes. 4 They should have done something right 5 at the time.'" 6 So you understand from that, that the 7 Premier was saying that the OPP, in his opinion, made 8 mistakes; right? 9 A: That's what he said. 10 Q: That's what he said. And -- but you 11 understood it; I'm asking if -- 12 A: Oh yes, sure 13 Q: -- it was your understanding? 14 A: Of -- of course. Of course. 15 Q: You understood that Inspector Fox was 16 communicating to you that the Premier's view was that the 17 OPP had made mistakes; right? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And as Incident Commander you knew 20 that that would mean that his view was you had made 21 mistakes, right? 22 A: You can draw that conclusion, sure. 23 Q: Yes. And that they should have done 24 something right at the time. Did you not understand from 25 that, that what the Premier's view, that he communicated

191

1 to Ron Fox, and Ron Fox was now communicating to you, was 2 that the OPP should have, right away, as soon as the 3 First Nations people entered the Park, arrested them, or 4 done something like that, right; that's what he meant? 5 A: That appears to be the impression, 6 yes. 7 Q: And that's what you understood at the 8 time? 9 A: Sure. 10 Q: And then he goes onto say: 11 "And he said, that will, I'm sure, all 12 come out in an inquiry some time after 13 the fact." 14 Right? 15 A: He's accurate about that. 16 Q: I'm sorry? 17 A: He's accurate about that. 18 Q: Yes. But it's a different kind of 19 inquiry that was anticipated isn't it, sir? And in fact, 20 did you not take from that, that the Premier was 21 conveying the message that he might conduct an inquiry, 22 or is causing an inquiry to be conducted, that would 23 inquire into why you had not acted more firmly against 24 the First Nations people. 25 And that's what you understood he was

192

1 saying, right? 2 A: Absolutely not. 3 Q: You didn't understand that? 4 A: No. 5 Q: What did you think was meant by "I'm 6 sure it will all come out in an inquiry, some time after 7 the fact"? 8 A: But the only inquiry that I can think 9 of would be a public inquiry. 10 Q: I'm sorry? 11 A: The only inquiry that I would think 12 of it would be as a public inquiry. 13 Q: Yes, but wasn't it going to be, as 14 you understood it at the time, an inquiry into why the 15 OPP did not act more quickly and more decisively when the 16 First Nations people occupied the Park; that's what they 17 was communicating right? 18 A: That -- that's possible, sure. 19 Q: It's not only possible, sir, it's the 20 only reading of these words, isn't it; that's what it 21 means 22 A: Well, I -- I don't know what the 23 Premier meant by what kind of an inquiry he had on his 24 mind. I'm telling you what I thought, as far as what an 25 inquiry might refer to.

193

1 Q: Yes, and I'm asking you what you took 2 from it sir, and I'm suggesting to you, that you must 3 have taken from it, that there was -- that the Premier 4 was thinking, at least, of the possibility of an inquiry 5 into the question: why did the OPP not act more 6 decisively, right at the time? Right; that's what he 7 was -- 8 A: Well, I certainly didn't take that an 9 inquiry be into the OPP's activities as opposed to the 10 whole issue of the land claim issue that was going on in 11 -- in the -- 12 Q: Really? You thought he was talking 13 about an inquiry into the land claims issues when you -- 14 A: Well, this whole issue with the Park, 15 we're talking about the Provincial Park. 16 Q: Yes, sir. Let's look at the sentence 17 again, sir, and please try to tell us what you could have 18 taken from this sentence that Inspector Fox told you ten 19 (10) years ago. And he came right out and said: 20 "I just walked in on the tail end of 21 this. 'The OPP in my opinion made 22 mistakes. They should have done 23 something right at the time,' and he 24 said 'that will, I'm sure, all come out 25 in an inquiry some time after the

194

1 fact.'" 2 And I'm putting it to you, sir, that it's 3 inconceivable that you did not understand him to be 4 communicating to you that the Premier was thinking of the 5 possibility of an inquiry into why the OPP did not do 6 something right at the time. 7 Isn't that fair, sir? 8 A: That's your view, sir. 9 Q: I'm asking what you could have 10 possibly taken from that other than what I just said? 11 A: Well, all I know is an inquiry is an 12 inquiry, and I didn't take it that he was going to be 13 having an investigation into the conduct of the Ontario 14 Provincial Police. 15 Q: I'm suggesting to you, sir, that an 16 Incident Commander, such as you were at the time, who's 17 being given the information that the Premier of Ontario 18 is considering an inquiry into the OPP should have done 19 something right at the time, would become quite concerned 20 about that; is that not fair, sir? 21 A: Well, I hate to -- to disagree with 22 you, but quite frankly, it makes no matter to me, one (1) 23 way or the other, whether he calls an inquiry into this 24 incident, into my decision making, or whatever. 25 As an Incident Commander on any incident,

195

1 I report to my region commander, at that time was Chris 2 Coles, thereby through to the Commissioner of the OPP. 3 And quite frankly, the opinion, 4 disagreement or agreement of any political person in this 5 province has no impact on the decision making of an 6 Incident Commander. 7 If the Premier is not happy with the 8 Ontario Provincial Police, he certainly is well within 9 his rights to take it up with the Commissioner. 10 But to think that a Field Incident 11 Commander is going to worry about everyone being happy or 12 not happy with their decisions, absolutely is erroneous. 13 Q: I see. Thank you. But sir, I would 14 suggest to you, you'd have to be a pretty superhuman 15 being to not at least implicitly be affected somehow by 16 the information that the Premier is watching this 17 incident very closely, and has already come to the 18 opinion that you did not act decisively enough, and is 19 considering an inquiry into that aspect. 20 And I would suggest to you sir, that 21 you'll have to if you take -- take your mind back, 22 acknowledge that it had to be in your mind, it's 23 inconceivable that it would not strongly affect you; do 24 you disagree with that, sir? 25 A: Well, I -- I disagreed with you

196

1 before, and I will continue to disagree with, and you 2 obviously have no concept of what we're working through 3 as an Incident Commander if you believe that. 4 Q: Well, what -- we -- we'll -- we'll 5 look at this in some other respect, sir. But do you 6 agree, that it might affect someone's judgement to be 7 told that -- some police officer's judgement even, that 8 the Premier of the province is looking at what we've done 9 so far, and has not -- and has concluded we haven't acted 10 decisively enough, and might call an inquiry into it; do 11 you agree that might affect the Police Officer's 12 judgement? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 14 you answer, yes Mr. Millar...? 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think that it's fair 16 to put to this witness the question that My Friend put 17 this way. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He did, he 19 put the question. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But the -- to put the 21 witness, "some police officer", is unfair; he cannot 22 answer for all police officers. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect Mr. 24 Millar, I hate to, on the record, say why I want to 25 pursue it because I don't want to flag the answer for

197

1 him. 2 So -- but it is, in my respectful 3 submission, reasonable to ask him if he thinks a police 4 officer might be influenced, in his judgment by that, in 5 some way. 6 He is a commander -- a senior commander of 7 police officers, and he knows hundreds of them, and I -- 8 I want to see the certainty of his previous answer. But 9 also I want to explore it for another purpose which I'd 10 prefer not to mention now, but that I -- I would like to 11 ask him the question. 12 Do you not think it's reasonable to assume 13 that some police officers, at least, would be very much 14 affected by the notion that the Premier is looking at 15 what they've done, has already concluded they haven't 16 been decisive enough, and is considering calling an 17 inquiry into it. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you -- 19 you have already asked him about what he -- 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I'm not -- if My Friend 21 has some purpose, to which I don't -- I'm not privy to, 22 and I'm not going to ask him to do that, then I -- 23 anyway, I -- I'm in your hands. I -- I think -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He has asked 25 him what he thought, and he made it very clear what he

198

1 thought. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And then he asked him 3 the next question -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The next 5 question is -- 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- and perhaps -- I'll 7 -- I'll withdraw my objection. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- some -- 9 some police officers, that's what you're saying. Is 10 there not a police officer that might have... 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 12 Millar. Thank you I hope that I can continue with the 13 question now as the objection has been withdrawn, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, some - 15 - you have to put the question again unfortunately. 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, yes, I shall, 17 sir. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Sir, I would put it to you, that you 21 know from your experience, and we all know from just 22 being human beings, that there's a reasonable possibility 23 that at least some police officers would have their 24 judgment affected, to some extent, by the information 25 that the Premier has been watching what they've been

199

1 doing, has already made a conclusion that they did 2 something wrong, and is considering an inquiry into what 3 they've done; would you agree with that statement, sir? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Stop there. 5 Stop there and let him answer the question. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Give 8 him a chance to answer that question. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I -- I -- 10 yes. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't think it's 12 appropriate for Counsel in -- in the room to -- to make 13 noises about witness's answers, I think that's wrong. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 15 agree, it could be taken as disrespectful. So I think 16 you better carry on. You've asked a question -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Do I have to say 18 the question again, sir, or -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I don't 20 think you have to ask it again. 21 THE WITNESS: Quite frankly, I don't 22 believe that the Incident Commander, any Incident 23 Commander, would be affected. Where they would be 24 affected by, is if their superiors had a concern for how 25 they were handling the issue, -- that's -- that's the --

200

1 the area they've got to be concerned about. I mean, 2 that's who they report to -- 3 Q: Sir, I -- 4 A: -- and -- and you must -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's -- 6 that's what you -- what your position was. He's asking 7 you -- 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 10 Q: Yes. But, sir, sir -- you maybe 11 forgot the question because of the interjections, but I 12 wasn't asking about Incident Commanders, I asked 13 generally, about police officers in general. 14 Wouldn't you agree that there's a 15 reasonable possibility that somebody would be somewhat 16 affected by that, in their -- in their judgment, with 17 respect to the issues. 18 A: Well -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If they knew 20 about it. I think -- 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If they knew 23 about it. 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: If they knew about 25 it of course, yes, no doubt, you'd be affected by it,

201

1 yes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 3 suggestion that anybody else knows about this, at the 4 moment. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But if -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If they knew 7 about it. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, would you not 9 agree though that -- I don't know if there's an obj -- 10 another objection to that question. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you've 12 already asked that question. I think he knows the 13 question now, but Mr. Sandler, do you object to that 14 question? 15 OBJ MR. MARK SANDLER: I do. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right 17 you better put it on. He's asking him if there's some 18 officers might be affected by that information, that 19 knowledge. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: How is that of 21 assistance to you, Mr. Commissioner, when there's some 22 officers out there, so if he's supposed to speculate 23 about some other -- other than him, might be affected, if 24 they knew all the things that he knew, in the absence of 25 evidence, that they knew all the things he knew.

202

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 2 that -- 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: If there are people 4 who are in a position of responsibility that's alleged 5 were influenced by a specific thing, they're going to be 6 here, they'll testify, they can be asked that question. 7 I think it's very unfair to -- to ask him to speculate it 8 that way about officers generically. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let me just 10 line up -- I really don't need the lineup. I think that 11 question, as asked, can be answered and I don't think 12 it's a difficult question. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, sir, with 14 respect -- 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He said it can be 16 answered. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It can? Oh it can 18 -- I'm sorry, sir, my hearing is very bad and I 19 apologize. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That 21 question can be answered. He -- he was using -- 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: So sir, the question's not about 25 Incident Commanders. You were the Incident Commander,

203

1 and you've told us your view of your response. 2 I'm asking you about, is it not reasonable 3 to conclude that some police officers hearing such 4 information might be affected? 5 A: My opinion is that most officers 6 would say that the Commissioner's going to have a problem 7 on his hands, because that's what the issues going to -- 8 going to rest with. 9 Q: Most officers may say that. But 10 wouldn't they at least implicitly, some of them be 11 affected by knowing that the Premier's watching them from 12 that point of view? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If they 14 knew. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If they knew 17 the Premier... 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL. 20 Q: If they knew, I'm saying if they 21 knew? 22 A: Quite frankly, I doubt it. 23 Q: You doubt it? 24 A: That's not my experience. 25 Q: You don't think it's a realistic

204

1 possibility at least? 2 A: I doubt it. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He doesn't 4 agree. I think you've asked the question, you've got an 5 answer, that's it. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I -- I do now 7 have an answer. Because -- and the reason I was pursuing 8 it, sir, of course was because he told Mr. Klippenstein 9 that he told a number of officers about this. And Mr. 10 Klippenstein asked you why you did that, and you said, 11 well maybe -- I believe you said -- 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Are you just asking a 13 question now, or is there explaining why he asked a 14 question that he hasn't answered to; I mean this is just 15 speech making. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm explaining 18 because of My Friend's interjections. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 20 need to -- 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: You were asked -- you 22 were allowed to ask the question. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 24 minute. Come on, gentlemen. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well --

205

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's please 2 try to be civil. You -- this is about asking questions-- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm trying and -- 4 and -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know you 6 are. Let's move on to the question. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: There are improper 8 objections taking place. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL. 11 Q: Now, sir, you -- you did tell Mr. 12 Klippenstein that you had told a number of officers the 13 essence of this information, isn't that fair? 14 A: Some of it yes. 15 Q: And as you told them, you didn't 16 realize the risk that they might be affected in their 17 judgment by this kind of information? 18 A: As I indicated, I don't believe so. 19 Q: You don't think so? Now, sir, when I 20 first pointed out the word, "inquiry" to you here, you 21 said, It turned out to be; right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And here we are ten (10) years later. 24 A: Yes. Unfortunately. 25 Q: But it's an inquiry of a quite

206

1 different nature than was suggested by the sentence; 2 isn't that fair to say? 3 A: Well, I don't know what was suggested 4 -- what -- what kind of an inquiry Fox was referring to, 5 quite frankly. 6 Q: I'm suggesting to you, sir, that at 7 least the following: You would have realized ten (10) 8 years ago when you heard this phone call, you would have 9 realized that, for example, if a First Nations person did 10 seriously injure a cottager with a baseball bat, you 11 would be very, very seriously scrutinized; isn't that 12 fair to say? 13 A: I would be scrutinized? 14 Q: Yes. You, as the Incident Commander 15 who was told this information that the Premier's already 16 looking at you. 17 A: A police officer's always 18 accountable, sir. I mean that's -- that's why I'm here 19 today. 20 Q: Sir, have you ever before been in a 21 situation where you were being observed by the Premier as 22 to your actions, directly? 23 A: I have no idea. 24 Q: Not that -- you were never aware of 25 such a situation before this, were you?

207

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And I'm suggesting to you that the 3 awareness of that, unusual as it is and high level as it 4 is, must have made some impact on you and you're denying 5 that entirely, are you sir? 6 A: Absolutely I am. 7 Q: And when you heard about an inquiry, 8 you didn't have thoughts to the effect of, Oh, if 9 something happens here, this is a real problem, sir? 10 A: No. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 12 already asked that. 13 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 15 already asked that and he said, "no" -- 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, I'm allowed -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: - he said 18 it had no effect on him. You've gone back now. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. Yes, sir, but 20 I'm allowed to pursue a bit, in my respectful submission. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 22 already answered that and I don't think you -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm going to 25 take an afternoon recess now unless this is a real

208

1 inopportune time for you, if it is, we'll wait a bit. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no. I'm -- I'm 3 in your hands, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I would 5 like you to finish if you're in the middle of something, 6 otherwise this is a point that I'd like to take a break 7 at. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I was going to 9 do some more with this transcript, but it -- but the 10 break is fine, too. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're going 12 to adjourn at 3:30. 13 I see Mr. Falconer's got something to say. 14 Yes, sir? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, I 16 just wanted to provide you my unreserved apology. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And -- and -- and I 19 -- and I want the Witness to know, I actually -- and I -- 20 and I apologize because I let a laughter come out, which 21 I really shouldn't have. 22 It wasn't at the Witness, it was actually 23 you trying to get Mr. Rosenthal to get his questions down 24 to an answerable chunk and you stopped him and said, Let 25 him answer that question.

209

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, you 2 weren't laughing at the Witness, you were laughing at me? 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. No. I'm 4 bailing. I'm bailing. I'm bailing. So, I haven't made 5 it any better? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 7 fine. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. And, what it 9 was, was My Good Friend Mr. Rosenthal, I was enjoying the 10 moment with him and so I apologize -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- because it 13 wasn't appropriate and I meant no disrespect. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 15 Mr. Falconer. 16 We'll take a break. 17 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 18 for fifteen (15) minutes. 19 20 --- Upon recessing at 2:23 p.m. 21 --- Upon resuming at 2:40 p.m. 22 23 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 24 resumed, please be seated. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr.

210

1 Rosenthal...? 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 5 Sir, I -- I'm in the middle of asking you 6 about the transcript at Tab 37 of the logger tapes, the 7 call with Inspector Fox and I want to continue on the 8 same page that we were at, which is 264. And lower on 9 that page about a third from the bottom there's a comment 10 attributed to Inspector Fox. And I want to ask you what 11 you took from that. 12 Inspector Fox says: 13 "So, in any event, he makes a couple of 14 wild-ass comments, gets up and leaves 15 the room." 16 Now, I take it that you understood that 17 by, "he," Inspector Fox meant the Premier at that point; 18 is that correct? 19 A: Probably, yes. 20 Q: That -- that's what you would have 21 taken at the time; right? 22 A: Sure. 23 Q: And then: 24 "The Sol. Gen. ..." 25 That's the Solicitor General, right?

211

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: "...asked me to brief them." 3 And so on. 4 And then, if you could look at page 266, 5 there's a passage attributed to Inspector Fox about a 6 third of the way down. Inspector Fox says: 7 "And I said my guess is, we're going to 8 get a bloody nose, or somebody is, and 9 I said at the end of the day, if you're 10 prepared, that's up to you." 11 And then continues on: 12 "I'm not making a political statement, 13 I'm giving you a bite of reality.". 14 Now, did you take from that, sir, that 15 Inspector Fox was saying that he had communicated that if 16 quick and decisive action such as these people were 17 urging, was taken, there would be some bad press that 18 would result from that? 19 That's what he meant by "bloody nose" is 20 that fair to say? That - that it would hurt the 21 reputation of the people involved; is that what he meant, 22 in your view? 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: Is that what you took -- I'd like -- 25 A: I --

212

1 Q: I'd like to know what you took from 2 it, sir. You're listening to Inspector Fox, he tells 3 you: 4 "My guess is we're going to get a 5 bloody nose or somebody is." 6 He meant, be damaged by it; right? 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: Is that a fair -- 9 A: Sure -- 10 Q: That's what you understood? 11 A: Sure. 12 Q: Okay. So -- so and what he meant 13 would be damaging in Inspector Fox's view, as he 14 communicated, was if precipitous action was taken against 15 these people; right? 16 That's the context that was being talked 17 about? 18 A: Okay. Fair enough. 19 Q: Is that what you took from it, sir? 20 A: I really can't tell you what I took 21 from it at the time. 22 Q: Well, you're in a better position 23 than any of the rest of us because you are you, and you - 24 - you know, you understand how you think and you can, to 25 some extent perhaps, take your mind back.

213

1 And also -- so you can read the -- 2 Inspector Fox's words again and -- and ask -- and 3 conclude whether or not I'm giving a fair, rough idea as 4 to what you would have taken from him? 5 A: Well, this is all a commentary by Fox 6 as he's venting about the frustrations he's having at 7 this meeting -- 8 Q: Yeah -- 9 A: I mean, quite frankly, I don't take 10 very much of anything from it, other than -- that he's 11 spewing this commentary -- 12 Q: But you -- 13 A: -- in regards to his meeting that he 14 attended. 15 Q: But you certainly listened to the 16 words at the time? 17 A: Oh, I -- I certainly heard them, 18 sure. 19 Q: And you -- you didn't want to miss 20 the words? You would have wanted to have listen to them 21 carefully; right? 22 A: Oh, I heard them. 23 Q: And I'm asking, whatever the truth of 24 them may have been and whatever the other impact may have 25 been, what you took from them.

214

1 So -- and I'm suggesting to you that what 2 you would have taken from the -- his saying to you, "My 3 guess is we're going to get a bloody nose or somebody 4 is," is that if precipitous action was taken, such as 5 these people were advocating, then there would be some 6 bad fallout from that for those people taking that 7 action; right? 8 Is that fair? 9 A: Fair enough. 10 Q: Thank you. And then Inspector Fox is 11 informing you that he told them, he says: 12 "I said at the end of the day, if 13 you're prepared, that's up to you." 14 So you took from that, did you not, that 15 he was telling these people, If you want to risk that 16 kind of bloody nose, that's up to you; right? 17 A: Sure. 18 Q: And then if we could turn to page 19 267. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Now, at the -- towards the bottom of 24 page 267, Inspector Fox asks you -- and I'll read what he 25 said,

215

1 "And tough sledding anyway. I guess 2 the upshot is what Larry McKeard 3 (phonetic), Tim McCabe is asking me. 4 He said is, in your opinion, can we 5 say with certainty to a Court that 6 there is a need for an emergent order 7 that makes it an ex parte order?" 8 And you say: 9 "Well, I think we can." 10 Right? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now the question that I should like 13 to ask you about, sir, is: how can you give that answer, 14 given your testimony when Mr. Klippenstein was examining 15 you at some length on the nature of the injunction and so 16 on, that you didn't know what an ex parte Order was and 17 you didn't know what the requirement for an emergency 18 injunction was. 19 So how could you have assured him that 20 you'll do it, without knowing what those even meant? 21 A: I think it was explained earlier what 22 an ex parte order was, that it was the emergent order, so 23 by this I knew that he was speaking about an emergent 24 order, if I'm -- if I've got the chain of events correct 25 here.

216

1 Q: So your evidence is by the time of 2 this phone call, you did know what an ex parte order was 3 and you knew what it -- what the requirements were for an 4 emergency injunction? 5 A: Well, I think there was some -- was 6 there not in this -- one (1) of these phone calls, an 7 explanation by either Fox or someone else, that he was 8 speaking about the emergent order? 9 Q: Well, can you tell us, sir, I -- I 10 don't know what you knew at that time and I don't recall 11 in detail your evidence to Mr. Klippenstein on this 12 point, but we will, of course, check the transcripts, 13 but... 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Well, My -- My Friend Mr. Millar 18 points out and this may be what you're thinking of, sir, 19 that on page 259 Inspector Fox informs you, about a third 20 of the way down: 21 "They're making moves towards getting 22 an ex parte injunction, in other words, 23 one that doesn't have to be served." 24 Is that what you're thinking of, sir? 25 A: Right.

217

1 Q: But -- and then -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They have to 3 show emergent -- 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: -- you say, okay, and then this -- My 7 Friend points out Inspector Fox continues: 8 "What they have to do is show emergent 9 circumstances." 10 Right? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And then he continues. Inspector Fox 13 says: 14 "And the exigencies of the situation 15 are kind of increasing exponentially." 16 Okay. So, is that the explanation you're 17 thinking of, sir? 18 A: Well, that's what come to mind when 19 you were talking about it. I mean -- 20 Q: So -- 21 A: -- some -- someone had referred to it 22 being an emergent order without notice. So, obviously 23 Ron Fox did. 24 Q: But you assured him that we can say 25 with certainty to a Court -- going back now to page 267.

218

1 Inspector Fox asked you: 2 "Can we say with certainty to a Court 3 that there is need for an emergent 4 order that makes it an ex parte order." 5 And you answer: 6 "Well, I think we can." 7 Is that correct? 8 A: Right. Because he's talking about -- 9 Q: And then he continues -- 10 A: -- the order coming up the next 11 morning. There's going to be a hearing the next morning 12 that I -- I was being asked to attend. 13 Q: I'm sorry, my hearing is very 14 terrible and I didn't -- 15 A: I was -- I had been asked earlier on 16 -- he was identifying that there's going to be a hearing 17 either tonight or tomorrow morning and -- and whether or 18 not I would give evidence. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Yes. But yes, but I'm exploring the 22 -- your answer that you certainly -- you can say with 23 certainty to a court that there is need for an emergent 24 order that makes an ex parte order. And I wanted to 25 continue that passage if I could, then.

219

1 You know, after that question and you say: 2 "Well, I think we can. 3 And then, Inspector Fox says, "Yes." 4 And, you continue: 5 "I think we can." 6 And then, Inspector Fox: 7 "Are you going to base that, John, on 8 the progression of events?" 9 And you say, "That's right." 10 So, I don't recall in detail your evidence 11 to -- in response to questions from Mr. Klippenstein, but 12 I believe that you indicated you didn't really understand 13 these notions of what's needed for an ex parte order or 14 what emergency circumstances would be and so on. 15 And I wonder if that was, indeed, your 16 evidence and I'll check the transcript to be sure, but 17 how you could then have said we can -- you can with 18 certainty provide such evidence. 19 A: I can, with certainty, provide what 20 evidence I know, sir, how the Judge will evaluate and use 21 that evidence will be up to the Court. 22 Q: Yes, sir, but the -- the question 23 Inspector Fox asked you, going back to page 267: 24 "Can we say with certainty to a 25 Court --"

220

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just one (1) 2 minute, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Sandler wants to say 3 something. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm asking for 5 fairness to -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- to this Witness. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Mr. Klippenstein very 10 fully explored these passages, how the Deputy 11 Commissioner could reconcile these passages -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- with the events 14 that were occurring that afternoon. My Friend may not 15 like the answers -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- My Friend may not 18 remember the answers, but they were dealt with several 19 times. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and I suggest 22 that -- that fairness would suggest that My Friend should 23 move to a point that hasn't been dealt with exhaustively. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'll 25 give you a chance to respond, Mr. Rosenthal.

221

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would you 3 respond to that? 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sure. My 5 party has the right to cross-examine on this issue as 6 well. We are not in a situation -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- sir, where 9 because one (1) Counsel cross-examined on an issue, 10 another party cannot. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Mr. Klippenstein 13 spent a -- a very large amount of time on the question of 14 the injunction. I am not going to spend very much time 15 on it. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I am, in fact, 18 it happens, although it's not required, asking a question 19 that was not asked specifically by Mr. Klippenstein. And 20 I'm concerned with how, given the answers he gave to Mr. 21 Klippenstein, he could answer "yes" to the, "Well, I 22 think we can." to the question: Can we say with 23 certainty to a court there's need for an emergent order 24 that makes an ex parte order. 25

222

1 And, in my respectful submission, I have 2 the right to continue that line of questioning. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 4 something you want to say, Mr. Klippenstein? 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Commissioner, 6 if it's helpful, I believe I didn't ask about the words 7 "with certainty" which I think are the ones that Mr. 8 Rosenthal is focussing on. And -- and in my submission-- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN -- it's not 11 because I didn't think they were -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 13 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN -- necessarily 14 not significant, but I didn't ask that question. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 16 agree, Mr. Rosenthal, because an area's been covered, it 17 doesn't mean you can't cover it. But it does mean that 18 it's been covered fully and I wouldn't want you to go 19 over it again, in the same detail. 20 But you say you have a different 21 objective -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I certainly have no 23 such intention. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then that's 25 fine, and I think you should go ahead and ask it. We're

223

1 trying to be fair -- 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to this 4 witness; all of us are. So, I think it's a question that 5 you can ask, go ahead. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, sir, and 7 that's what I should like to do and did like to do. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 10 Q: So now, sir, to get back to where we 11 were. 12 I am suggesting to you that given what you 13 said to Mr. Klippenstein about your very fragmentary, 14 shall we say, knowledge of what an ex parte injunction 15 may require and what an emergency injunction may require, 16 how could you assure Inspector Fox, how could you say, 17 well, I think we can, in response to his question: 18 "Can we say with certainty to a Court 19 that there is need for an emergent 20 order that makes it an ex parte 21 Order."? 22 That's my question, sir. How could you 23 give that answer given your relative -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You asked 25 about it.

224

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- knowledge about 2 this? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Give the 4 witness a chance to answer it. You asked a question, 5 give him a chance to answer -- 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I -- I waited 7 for a moment and he didn't answer and I -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, give 9 him a moment -- 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I didn't -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, give 12 him more than a moment. He's got to think. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'll give him a 14 week, but no more than that. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he 16 just needs a moment to think. 17 THE WITNESS: As my answer was then, I 18 thought there was sufficient information that would be 19 worthwhile for the Court to consider for a -- an 20 injunction. 21 How the Court evaluates that information 22 if it's not strong enough, can I guarantee a 100 percent? 23 Absolutely not. 24 I'm not that naive. But I thought the 25 circumstances, as I knew it, put before a Court would

225

1 give -- be given consideration. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 4 Q: Sir, I would suggest, given the 5 answers that you gave Mr. Klippenstein about your 6 knowledge about these matters, it would have been 7 incumbent upon you to respond to Mr. Fox's question: 8 "Can we say with certainty to a Court 9 there's a need for that?" 10 You could say -- say, Yeah, I don't have 11 enough knowledge of these things to know. I -- what I 12 can say is the following; is that enough? 13 Okay. Let's go to a different page. 14 Let's go to page 269 of the transcript. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 16 think the Witness' answer could be recorded on the 17 transcript -- 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: He gave -- he gave 19 a shrug. Let the transcript please show that he shrugged 20 and I'm willing to accept the shrug and go on. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Now -- now, this call is at 14:00 25 hours on September 6th; that's about two o'clock in the

226

1 afternoon? 2 A: Right. 3 Q: Before the vehicle incident? 4 A: Right. 5 Q: Which, according to the press 6 release, was the incident that led to the marching on the 7 campers and according to some other evidence of yours, it 8 was a central incident. 9 This is before that. What made it an 10 emergency at this point, in your view? 11 A: What, the circumstances for the -- 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: -- injunction; is that your question? 14 The circumstances regarding what I would give -- 15 Q: What were you thinking of when you 16 said: 17 "We can provide a progression of 18 circumstances"? 19 A: Oh. 20 Q: This was before the key circumstances 21 later that night, I'm pointing out. 22 A: Sure. Well, I think if you look at 23 the -- the confrontation when the occupiers first moved 24 into the Park, if you look at the issues overnight where 25 the three (3) cruisers were damaged and the confrontation

227

1 that occurred on -- near the camp entrance; if you look 2 at the -- the picnic tables in the parking lot; if you 3 look at the gunfire that had taken place; and if you look 4 at the -- I use the term "antics," the behaviours that 5 were going on with cars being driven in erratic manner 6 inside the Park that was videoed by the media, et cetera, 7 on the afternoon. 8 I mean, there was a number of events that 9 had gone on and as the aggregate and continuation of 10 that. And -- and, quite frankly, to hopefully as I said, 11 from the outset, for the Court to consider what direction 12 we need to take in regards to the property. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I hesitate to 14 interrupt the Witness, Mr. Commissioner, but as, I think 15 you intuit, I'm going to move on. I'm not going to 16 further explore this, this was explored -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Now, sir, you -- later on in this 21 phone call, as the transcript and the recording reveals, 22 turned the phone over to Superintendent Coles, correct? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And you were in the room as he spoke 25 to Inspector Fox?

228

1 A: Right. 2 Q: So, you heard his side of the call, 3 and including -- you heard Superintendent Coles say, as 4 recorded on page 274 of this transcript, at the very 5 bottom, the last entry for Coles: 6 "I'm going to give you a phone call. 7 Hang on there. Hang on here [sorry]. 8 Give me -- what's your phone number 9 there. I've got to call you back from 10 another line." 11 And Inspector Fox starts saying numbers, 12 and continuing the next page, more numbers and then Cole 13 says: 14 "Yeah. Don't get involved in anything 15 else. I'm going to give you a call 16 back." 17 And Inspector Fox says, "All right." 18 And Coles says: 19 "Okay, thanks. Bye bye." 20 So, it was clear to you sitting there 21 hearing Coles' side of the conversation, that Inspector 22 Coles wanted to speak to Inspector Fox on another line so 23 that it wouldn't be recorded, right? 24 A: I don't know what the reason was he 25 wanted to use another phone.

229

1 Q: Didn't -- he didn't explain that to 2 you at all at the time sir? 3 A: No, sir, he didn't. 4 Q: Was there any other possible reason 5 that occurred to you at the time, sir? 6 A: I'm sure there was. 7 Q: What was that? 8 A: That he probably wanted to have a 9 discussion with Fox without me present. 10 Q: Without you present? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: I see. So, you thought it was you 13 who was being excluded rather than the tape recorder. 14 A: That's -- that's exactly right. 15 Q: I see. Well, we'll see what 16 Superintendent Coles says on that point. 17 Now, MPP Marcel Beaubien was the local MPP 18 during these events? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And you knew him prior to September 21 4, 1995, is that correct? 22 A: Yes. I think the first time I 23 probably met him would probably be in early August, I 24 believe. 25 Q: Evidently, you may not recall, but I

230

1 believe he would have been elected in June of 1995, is 2 that correct? 3 A: I think that's right, yes. 4 Q: And you -- so you met him some time 5 in August, is your recollection? 6 A: Yes. I was at a meeting in -- in his 7 office in Petrolia. 8 Q: I see. And at that meeting did the 9 question of the Stoney Point people come up at all? 10 A: I -- I can refer -- check my notes 11 and see if I have anything specific to that. 12 Q: Thank you. I would appreciate it if 13 you would do so, sir. 14 A: Sure. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: You'll be looking at your handwritten 19 notes, then, sir? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Thank you. Just so that we can all 22 be on the same page. Thank you. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

231

1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I believe it's Exhibit 2 410, page 30, after Tab 3, August 11/95. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you very 4 much. Thank you, Mr. Millar. And I'm so impressed with 5 your knowledge and assistance that I forget what page you 6 said. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It was page 30. 8 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 9 Sir, do you have the same pagination? 10 THE WITNESS: Well, I was looking for the 11 original note, but if you can refer me to where it is in 12 the... 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: In the -- in the 14 bound volume of your handwritten notes, it's at Tab 3 and 15 the page stamp, in the upper right-hand corner, is page 16 30. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar's 21 command of -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm waiting, the 23 Witness is looking -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 25 understand. Just while he's looking I was saying Mr.

232

1 Millar's command of where these things are in the 2 material continues to astound me. It does, he really can 3 put his finger on it. This is-- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- exactly 6 where it is. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Page 30. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: Do you have the notes, sir? 12 A: Yes, I do. 13 Q: And it says, at the top, Friday, 14 August the 11/95 is that correct? 15 A: Yes, it is. 16 Q: And then it describes a meeting with 17 Marcel Beaubien, right? 18 A: Yes. I attended a meeting on Friday, 19 August the 11th with -- 10:00 a.m. and in Petrolia, 20 Marcel Beaubien's constituency office, with 21 Superintendent Parkin, Inspector Linton, and Staff 22 Sergeant Lacroix. 23 Any my note indicates that we discussed 24 the Ipperwash Base, West Ipperwash, and Walpole Island. 25 Q: Yes. So not only were you there, but

233

1 Superintendent Parkin was there, and so was Inspector 2 Linton, and Staff Sergeant Lacroix, right? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: How did that meeting come about, sir? 5 A: How did it come about? 6 Q: Yes. Did you ask to meet with Mr. 7 Beaubien or did he ask to meet with you? 8 A: To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. 9 Q: And can you tell where that meeting 10 took place from your notes? 11 A: I'm -- 12 Q: Well, from your recollection. 13 A: Well, I'm pretty sure we -- we went 14 to his constituency office in Petrolia, which is right 15 across the street from our Detachment on Highway 21 in 16 Petrolia. 17 Q: I see, yes. And in fact, on the 18 first line after Friday, August 11, it says "Petrolia," 19 right? 20 A: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It looks 22 like Mr. Sandler is trying to assist you, not object. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes, that's right. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:

234

1 Q: Well okay. Perhaps we can look at 2 that then, you can read it to us. Your counsel -- 3 helpfully points out that on August 8th there is an entry 4 that appears to involve the setting up of this meeting. 5 And that is in -- in our photocopies the 6 previous page, page 29, and it's dated Monday, August 7 8th, '95, several days before it, sir. 8 Do -- do you have that entry, sir? 9 A: Yes. I'm just reading it, if you'd 10 give me a moment here. 11 Q: Yes. Perhaps you -- you could read 12 it to us if you would, sir. 13 A: It says: 14 "Monday, August the 8th '95 at 0900, I 15 made a phone call to Superintendent 16 Parkin regarding a letter to the 17 Minister from MPP Beaubien re: concerns 18 policing West Ipperwash. Meeting 19 Friday, August 11th, point number 7, 20 law enforcement, non existent. OPP not 21 interested to get involved." 22 Q: So now, this -- there was a letter 23 from whom to whom there; I'm sorry I don't -- 24 A: I -- well from that I would take that 25 Mr. Beaubien likely wrote a letter to the Solicitor

235

1 General. I would assume that we probably would have had 2 a copy come back down the chain. 3 Q: I see. So -- and you -- you're the 4 person who made these notes, and you can best interpret 5 them I would think. 6 So you -- you're telling us that what you 7 would gather from that is that Mr. Beaubien wrote a 8 letter probably to the Solicitor General; is that 9 correct? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: Concerning these Ipperwash events? 12 A: Right. 13 Q: And including the allegation that law 14 enforcement was non-existent? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And that the OPP is not interested in 17 getting involved in it. 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And so your understanding is that 20 such a letter was written to the Solicitor General, and 21 then it was handed down to you somehow. 22 A: Right. That's -- that's normally the 23 way it works. 24 Q: Yes. And then in response -- 25 A: I mean it's basically a complaint

236

1 against service, so we would -- we would be provided a 2 copy to attempt to address it. 3 Q: Yes. And then in response to that, 4 this meeting was set up to deal with those issues, 5 presumably? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And but can we tell from this who 8 initiated the meeting? Did you -- you or persons on your 9 staff phoned Mr. Beaubien or conversely? 10 A: I have no idea. 11 Q: It -- it would suggest that probably 12 you phoned him, is that right; because you got the 13 letter -- 14 A: Well, it doesn't say -- 15 Q: "You," meaning the OPP. 16 A: Yes. Oh, okay. Because it could 17 have been Parkin, it could have been Lacroix, I -- I mean 18 I don't who sent it. But -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- obviously some -- somebody from 21 OPP would have contacted Mr. Beaubien -- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- referenced his concern, that's the 24 context. 25 Q: Yes. Yes.

237

1 A: Right. 2 Q: And then communicated from the OPP to 3 him, we have your letter, we'd like to discuss these 4 issues with you, can you meet with us? 5 A: Right. 6 Q: And that led then to the meeting of 7 several days later? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And why did so many officers attend 10 that meeting at Mr. Beaubien's office? 11 A: I really can't tell you why that 12 particular. 13 Q: Well, you -- 14 A: Well, first of all, I guess the long 15 and the short of it is, I mean if you look at who is 16 being represented -- Staff Lacroix is a Detachment 17 Commander in that area where Beaubien -- in his 18 constituent -- Inspector Linton, at this time, we -- we 19 talked about the structure of the OPP a couple of times 20 here -- Inspector Linton would represent Chatham 21 District Headquarters -- 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: And -- and he was from -- from 24 Chatham. I was from London, I was looking after the then 25 2 District before the restructuring of -- of the region,

238

1 but I had been the Incident Commander, and of course, I 2 had been the Detachment Commander here and I had some, 3 obviously the history -- 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: Superintendent Parkin is the -- he 6 had just taken the position of Superintendent In-Charge 7 of Operations for southwest Ontario. 8 So each one kind of had a different hat. 9 Q: I'm going to ask you a little bit 10 more about a couple of those entries. 11 A: Sure. 12 Q: Inspector Linton, at this point, did 13 he have any special duties with respect to Ipperwash? 14 A: Not particularly, other than being 15 command staff in the district at Chatham. It was within 16 his district area, so it would be standard procedure to 17 keep him apprised of what was going on. 18 Q: Yes, but you were the Incident 19 Commander of the Ipperwash situation? 20 A: Correct, but as -- as it notes here, 21 there's issues here at West Ipperwash and Walpole that 22 are outside of the Ipperwash incident itself -- 23 Q: I see, so -- so he might have been 24 there primarily for the Walpole situation? 25 A: Well, I would suggest --

239

1 Q: Walpole -- 2 A: -- he was there for all of it. 3 Q: I see. Now what about Staff Sergeant 4 Lacroix? 5 A: Well, he's the Detachment Commander 6 there in Petrolia. 7 Q: I see. And your notation continues: 8 "Review Ipperwash issues" 9 Is that correct? 10 A: Well, that's -- 11 Q: I'm at page -- 12 A: That's another note, not relative to 13 that meeting. 14 Q: Oh, I see. Oh -- 15 A: That's -- shows -- 16 Q: Oh that's -- yeah, I'm sorry, yes. 17 A: It shows I'm at Forest Detachment 18 at -- 19 Q: Right. 20 A: -- 12:30. That's a distinctly 21 different issue. 22 Q: Sorry, I misread that, sir. You're 23 absolutely correct. 24 So, what it says relevant to these 25 Proceedings is -- at the end of the short entry about

240

1 this meeting, it says: 2 "Discuss Ipperwash base" 3 A: Right. 4 Q: "West Ipperwash, and Walpole", right? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And there's no notation as to the 7 content of that discussion? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: But, presumably, it included 10 discussing Mr. Beaubien's concerns, as indicated on the 11 previous page, that the law enforcement of the OPP was 12 not -- non-existent, right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And what did you tell him to assure 15 him at that point? 16 A: Well, I -- you know, as -- as there 17 is no note in regards to it, I mean I just going to have 18 to hypothetically give you my best guess. 19 Q: You -- you don't have any 20 recollection of that meeting, sir? 21 A: If I didn't have the note I couldn't 22 have assured I attended the meeting, quite frankly. 23 Q: I'm sorry -- 24 A: I said -- 25 Q: Yeah, so you have no recollection and

241

1 there's no notes, so -- 2 A: Right, but -- but off of what I do 3 know, obviously there was -- there was a civil action 4 that had been going on with West Ipperwash, and -- and I 5 was well aware they were community concerns, in -- in 6 regards to that. 7 There were some issues in Walpole Island, 8 that were occurring at that time, that we were dealing 9 with -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: -- in regards -- in regards to the 12 policing at Walpole Island. 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: And -- and that was just after the 15 incident at the Military Base where the Military 16 withdrew. So, I mean, there's significant things that 17 have been happening at that time that would have been 18 likely topics of discussion. 19 Q: Well, this is a -- as far as the 20 issues we're concerned with, the Ipperwash Base would be 21 related to this Inquiry, and this is on August 11, 1995 22 so it's some -- approximately two (2) weeks after the 23 Stoney Point people moved into the built-up area, right? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: But you have no recollection as to

242

1 what was discussed? 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: There is a -- there 3 are two (2) documents that My Friend might wish to refer 4 to; one is Exhibit 418, that I doubt, but it's a letter 5 from Mr. Beaubien to Mr. Harnick dated August 14, 1995 6 that refers to this meeting. 7 And then there's Inquiry Document 3000820 8 which is a letter from Mr. Beaubien to Mr. Harnick dated 9 July 31, 1995. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 11 Millar, I have not nearly the command of these materials 12 that you do, sir, obviously. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The first 14 letter is an exhibit; is the second letter an exhibit? 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't -- 17 okay. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't think so, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I -- yeah, I 24 believe -- I'm sure Mr. Millar will correct me if I'm 25 wrong, it just indicates, as far as the meeting itself,

243

1 that Mr. Beaubien met with those individuals. It doesn't 2 describe what happened at the meeting at all and if we -- 3 if it did, I would put it to him and try and refresh his 4 memory, but -- 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It does talk about the 6 -- It does -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, I'm -- I'm 8 sorry. It does later on. I'm sorry. Thank you. 9 Sorry, Your indulgence Mr. Commissioner. 10 So, if the Witness could please be handed 11 Exhibit 418? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And for the benefit of 16 My Friends, it's Inquiry Document 1012239. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: Perhaps I should give you a moment to 20 look at that and take a moment to do it myself as well. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's getting 25 warm in here because I think we turned the air

244

1 conditioning off so the acoustics would be better; is 2 that right? Yes. If you are warm -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 4 Commissioner, I apologize. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but if 6 you feel warm, that's the reason. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: Sir, I don't want to interrupt you, 13 but I also don't want to be cross-examining you on the 14 tenth anniversary of this event. So, may -- may I ask 15 you, apparently beginning the last complete paragraph -- 16 incomplete paragraph on the first page of this letter and 17 it does discuss this meeting, evidently. 18 At the beginning of the letter it says 19 that you met with the following individuals, including 20 the ones you mentioned. And then it states the 21 following: 22 "The representatives from the OPP and 23 myself have reached the following 24 consensus." 25 And then, it lists several items under

245

1 that: 2 "1. As the Ipperwash campground is 3 provincially owned, we should be in a 4 position to legally uphold this 5 property. 6 2. Enforcement is only a short-term 7 solution. 8 3. Ministries involved have to give 9 the OPP clear guidelines for law 10 enforcement. 11 4. A long-term solution is a 12 negotiated settlement." 13 Now, I'll look at the rest of the letter, 14 perhaps, in a moment, but let me first ask you, seeing 15 that now does that assist your recollection, and would 16 you agree with Mr. Beaubien that, perhaps, among other 17 things, one (1) thing that happened at that meeting was 18 that you and the representatives of the OPP and Mr. 19 Beaubien reached the consensus that he describes? 20 A: I -- I wouldn't agree that that's 100 21 percent accurate in -- 22 Q: I see. 23 A: -- the consensus portion. 24 Q: I see, in what respect is it less 25 than 100 percent accurate, sir?

246

1 A: Well, I mean, the first one -- I 2 mean, it is provincially owned and should be in a 3 position to legally uphold as property. There -- there 4 is the insurance, and I guess -- because I think he gets 5 into -- I mean that -- that really goes to the whole 6 issue of title. 7 I know we would have discussed with him 8 the whole issue of injunctions and title to property and 9 that kind of thing, so -- 10 Q: But -- 11 A: -- I'm not sure what he means by that 12 sentence. 13 Q: You mean by the phrase, 14 "We should be in a position to legally 15 uphold this property?" 16 A: Right. 17 Q: And so you did -- you don't -- 18 A: I -- I don't know what context he 19 defines from that because -- 20 Q: He -- 21 A: -- I'm -- I'm sure we would have told 22 him things like... 23 Q: I -- I should, perhaps, have made it 24 clear. Sorry, sir, in looking at the third paragraph on 25 this letter above where we're talking:

247

1 "We are not concerned with the takeover 2 of the Camp Ipperwash Army Camp, as 3 this is a Federal matter. 4 What does concern us is, is Ipperwash 5 Provincial Park, the campground and so 6 on." 7 So, just to clarify for everyone and I'm 8 sorry, Mr. Commissioner, I should've done at the outset. 9 But although this letter is dated August 14, 1995, before 10 any Stoney Point people were in the Park -- 11 A: Right. 12 Q: -- and after your meeting of August 13 11, it nonetheless is talking about the potential 14 takeover of the Park rather than talking about the actual 15 takeover of the built-up area; right? 16 A: You're right. 17 Q: So -- so -- and -- I'm sorry, I 18 should have made that clear to you, sir, and then perhaps 19 you'd be more in a position to agree with Mr. Beaubien 20 then, because that's -- well consistent with your 21 evidence that as far as your understanding with respect 22 to the Park -- 23 A: Right. 24 Q: -- there weren't any legitimate 25 claims, right?

248

1 A: Right. Right. Because as -- as he 2 indicates at this point we do have additional patrols in 3 the Park. 4 Q: I see, yes. So -- so it's my fault 5 for not putting the whole context to you. But then you 6 do agree with Mr. Beaubien as far as point number 1 that 7 that was part of the consensus reached at the meeting of 8 the 11th; is that correct? 9 A: Right. I -- I believe we -- well, I 10 -- I don't recall from memory, but you know, I spoke with 11 the MNR at length right from the outset around the 12 process in regards to establishing ownership and all of 13 that. 14 So, I -- you know, I suspected that's the 15 context he would have understood; the need to be clear on 16 clear title. 17 Q: But as a summary, would you agree 18 that this is -- point number 1 is a correct summary then 19 of -- would that be -- 20 A: It's fair. It's fair. Sure -- sure, 21 you know, we will enforce the law on any property that, 22 you know -- 23 Q: And "we should be in a position to 24 legally uphold this property" was consistent with your 25 understanding that as opposed to the former Army Camp

249

1 grounds with respect to the Park, it was your 2 understanding there was clear title to the Province? 3 A: Fair enough. 4 Q: Right? 5 A: Right. 6 Q: And -- and that's what that reflects? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: And then point number 2 of what Mr. 9 Beaubien reports is the consensus is that enforcement is 10 only a short-term solution -- and first was that part of 11 the consensus that -- 12 A: Sure, sure. 13 Q: And by that, you would have 14 understood what is meant that you can use your officers 15 to enforce a situation, but that's not going to be the 16 entire answer and there have to be other things looked 17 at, right? 18 A: Yeah. It's not the resolution. 19 Q: It's not the resolution? 20 A: No, we -- we could have put patrols 21 in there with such numbers to prevent an occupation for-- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- extended periods of time but it's 24 not going to resolve the outstanding issue. 25 Q: Right. But -- but, it does suggest

250

1 that enforcement is a short-term solution. In other 2 words, is it not fair to say that it suggests that 3 enforcing the property right to the Park would, in the 4 short-term, be a solution? 5 A: I -- I wouldn't take that. 6 Q: Wouldn't take it? 7 A: No, that's not my take on it. I 8 think he's just pointing out enforcement is only a short- 9 term. There needs to be something more strategic than a 10 -- than a short-term enforcement issue. 11 Q: Yes, it -- it -- the short-term -- 12 isn't it fair to read this as saying that the short-term 13 solution of enforcement must be embedded in a longer term 14 solution that will solve the problem? 15 A: Well, I think what he's -- well my -- 16 my interpretation is, you've got to do something that's 17 strategic now and -- and not wait for enforcement to be 18 the way you deal with this. 19 Q: Yeah. You would have hoped that it 20 wouldn't even come to enforcement? 21 A: I guess that's my point. 22 Q: Right. But, should it come to 23 enforcement it seems that the consensus was that you 24 could do it in the short-term but not long-term perhaps, 25 right?

251

1 A: Fair enough. 2 Q: And then number 3 says that the 3 Ministry's involved to help to give the OPP clear 4 guidelines for law enforcement; that was part of the 5 consensus, sir? 6 A: I -- I don't believe that's accurate, 7 quite frankly. The OPP doesn't take guidelines from the 8 ministries in order to do law enforcement. 9 Q: Well, what -- what aspect of the 10 consensus that was reached in your view, could have led 11 Mr. Beaubien to conclude that part of the consensus was 12 that the ministries involved have to give the OPP clear 13 guidelines for law enforcement? 14 A: Well, I think the only issue would 15 have been was the whole issue of the injunction and that 16 they would do their -- if -- if there was an occupation, 17 that they would take the steps necessary to secure the 18 injunction. 19 Q: You agree it doesn't say injunction? 20 A: No. Oh no, no, it doesn't. 21 Q: And you don't have any memory of this 22 meeting, you told us; right? 23 A: No. But I can assure you there's no 24 way that any of the people at that meeting would have 25 suggested to Mr. Beaubien that we need some direction of

252

1 -- of how we conduct law enforcement. We're -- we're 2 quite capable of dealing with that within the agency 3 itself. 4 Q: So, you don't know what would have 5 led Mr. Beaubien to summarize as part of the consensus, 6 Ministries involved have to give the OPP clear guidelines 7 for law enforcement? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And then, number 4 is: the long-term 10 solution is a negotiated settlement. You do agree that 11 that was part of the consensus? 12 A: That makes sense. 13 Q: Yes. So, I would suggest that 14 reading two (2) and four (4) together suggest that the 15 consensus was that in the short-term you can do 16 enforcement, but the long-term solution is a negotiated 17 settlement? 18 A: Well, we've -- we've always been of 19 the position that we did not want to find ourselves in a 20 position where we had to have an extraordinary number of 21 officers guarding a Provincial Park that's empty. 22 Q: So, that's -- that's what Mr. 23 Beaubien describes as the consensus and you've given us 24 an indication that some parts of it are consistent with 25 what you would think probably was part of the consensus

253

1 and some parts not; is that fair? 2 A: Generally, yes. 3 Q: So, there was consensus on some 4 issues and there may be a difference of opinion as to the 5 exact nature of the consensus with respect others; is 6 that a fair summary? 7 A: Yes, that's fair. 8 Q: Thank you. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With your 13 indulgence, Mr. Commissioner, I'm actually trying to save 14 time by spending a little time -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, sir. 16 That's fine. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Excuse me, Mr. 21 Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

254

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 2 Commissioner. That two (2) minute discussion saved me 3 twenty (20) minutes of bumbling around, so thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 5 should do that more often. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 8 Q: So, you met with Mr. Beaubien on 9 August 11th, 1995? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: And as far as you recollect, sir, was 12 that the first time you'd ever met Mr. Beaubien? 13 A: To the best of my recollection it is. 14 He was the former mayor of the town of Petrolia, I 15 believe. 16 Q: I see, but you didn't know him in 17 that capacity as far as you recollect? 18 A: I -- I knew of him, but to say I had 19 met him, I don't believe I had met him. I -- I was 20 posted here in Forest. By that time these were two (2) 21 different Detachments, so it wasn't part of our patrol 22 area. 23 Q: Right. Thank you. Now, do you 24 recall then, sir, or can your notes or Mr. Millar or 25 someone assist us as to when you might have next met Mr.

255

1 Beaubien. And, in particular, did you meet him at any 2 other time prior to, say, September 4, 1995? 3 A: I believe the next time I met him 4 would have been at Forest at the command trailer. 5 Q: Yes. And on what occasion was that, 6 what date, sir? 7 A: I have to get into the command post 8 minutes to -- 9 Q: No. Please -- thank you. Is that -- 10 we're talking around the time September 4, 5, 6, then 11 or -- 12 A: Yes. Oh, yes. 13 Q: I see. So -- so, your recollection, 14 though, is that you didn't meet him at any point after 15 August 11 and before, say, September 4, 1995? 16 A: I don't -- 17 Q: As far as you recollect? 18 A: I -- I don't recall. 19 Q: Okay. Thank you. Now, My Friend Mr. 20 Millar has reminded me of many things in the course of 21 today, including the fact that we stop at 3:30. And I'm 22 going to move to some other documents related to Mr. 23 Beaubien, but it might be, since it's 3:25 -- 30, on my 24 watch, it might be appropriate. 25 I'm in your hands, Mr. Commissioner.

256

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And it's 2 getting warm and it's been a -- 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- a long 5 week. So, I think this would be an appropriate time to 6 adjourn for the day and unfortunately, we -- we're not 7 sitting next week. 8 We don't reconvene until I think it's 9 the -- 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: The 21st, I believe 11 it is, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 13 the 20th. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, 20th. Sorry, 15 Mr. Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: The 21st is the 18 holiday. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We reconvene 20 on June the 20th at -- at 10:30. I know it's been a long 21 time, but that's the way it is. We have continue to move 22 -- move forward on June the 20th at -- at 10:30. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So we're 25 adjourned from now until then.

257

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. 2 Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 4 5 (WITNESS RETIRES) 6 7 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 9 adjourned until Monday, June 20th, at 10:30 a.m. 10 11 --- Upon adjourning at 3:26 p.m. 12 13 14 Certified Correct 15 16 17 18 19 ________________________ 20 Dustin Warnock 21 22 23 24 25