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 28th, 2005 25


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


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 5 Peter Downard ) (np) The Honourable Michael 6 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 7 Jennifer McAleer ) 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 )(np) 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 )


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


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Exhibits 6 4 5 JOHN FREDERICK CARSON, Resumed 6 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Anthony Ross 7 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Henderson 120 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 210 10 11 12 Certificate of Transcript 311 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page No. 3 P-479 Aerial photo of county of 194 4 Lambton area showing cottages 5 north of Ipperwash Army Camp 6 on East Parkway Drive 7 8 P-480 Document Number 1000322 Sept. 07/95 199 9 Ms. Fran Hannahson statement. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:03 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session. The Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 7 Commissioner. Good morning, Deputy Commissioner. Mr. 8 Ross is cross-examining this morning. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 10 Good morning, Mr. Ross. 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Good morning, 12 Commissioner. 13 14 JOHN FREDERICK CARSON, Resumed: 15 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 17 Q: Deputy, for the record, my name is 18 Anthony Ross and I represent the residents of Aazhoodena, 19 the people who live at Aazhoodena which was once referred 20 to as the army camp. 21 Now, Deputy, as I look over the documents 22 on file, it appears that you have been involved with the 23 matter that brings us here on this Inquiry since 1993; am 24 I correct with that? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And I understand, sir, that along 2 with you was Mark Wright, he was also involved for a long 3 time? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And Stan Korosec? 6 A: Not so much but generally speaking. 7 Q: And Dale Linton? 8 A: Dale Linton came to Chatham, I 9 believe it was in 1994 maybe, in that general time 10 period, roughly. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I believe we may have 12 a technical -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. The 14 sound isn't as good as it usually is. You may hear it 15 but -- 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 18 Q: And then what about Staff Sergeant 19 Lacroix; was he involved also? 20 A: Yes. He was the Detachment Commander 21 of Petrolia prior to '93 he -- he'd been involved right 22 along. 23 Q: Yeah. So as -- so back in 1993 the 24 people who were primarily involved were yourself, 25 Lacroix, Korosec, and Wright; am I correct with that?


1 A: That's fair. 2 Q: Yeah. Now, I take it, sir, that you 3 were aware -- that you became aware of the occupation of 4 the range by certain members of the Kettle and Stony 5 Point in 1993? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Yeah. And when that happened, sir, I 8 take it that you put intelligence in place to identified 9 the people who were involved? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And as a result of that, you -- when 12 I say, "you" I mean your department, or under your 13 command, a list was compiled of all of the people who 14 were involved; you knew who they were? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And is it fair to say that you didn't 17 classify any one of these individuals as being dangerous? 18 A: That's fair. 19 Q: Yeah. And things went on through May 20 of 1993, and without incident until around August of 21 1993, am I correct with that? 22 A: That's fair. 23 Q: Yeah. And in August of 1993, as a 24 matter of fact, seven (7) days before the end of August, 25 there was the allegation of a helicopter -- of a shot at


1 a helicopter? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Yeah. Now, this helicopter, this was 4 a night -- a nighttime event involving the -- the 5 swooping around of the helicopter, am I correct with 6 that? 7 A: Yes, that's correct. 8 Q: Yes. And this had been happening for 9 some time prior to the 23rd of August, 1993? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And it was really -- do you 12 understand how this could be seen as a provocation by the 13 people on the ground, at night helicopters buzzing them 14 quite low? 15 A: Oh, I understand that, yes. 16 Q: Yes. And then, sir, I understand 17 that on the night of the 23rd of August, 1993, the 18 helicopter that was flying around had video capabilities, 19 did you understand that? 20 A: Yes, I -- I realized -- or found 21 about that after the fact, yes. 22 Q: Yeah. But I take it, sir, to be 23 clear, the OPP was not involved in any of this helicopter 24 surveillance at that time? 25 A: Not at all.


1 Q: Yeah. But when there was the -- when 2 -- when people occupied the range, it provoked a reaction 3 which led to discussion between the OPP and DND, am I 4 correct? 5 A: I'm sorry? I... 6 Q: Around the time when the occupation 7 took place -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- it provoked some kind of 10 discussion between the OPP and DND -- 11 A: Oh, yes, yes. Sure. 12 Q: Yes. And I take it, sir, that the 13 OPP took the position that this was a DND problem, and 14 that DND should either solve it itself, or get an 15 injunction if they want the OPP to become involved? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Yeah. Around that time I understand 18 that the DND had put together something called, 19 "Operation Maple". Have you ever heard those, "Operation 20 Maple" not "Project Maple"? 21 A: Well, I think the -- the general 22 approach to the Military's attempt to address the issues 23 with the occupation of the gun range was generally called 24 Operation Maple. 25 Q: Ah, yes. And as a result of


1 Operation Maple and discussions which the OPP was having 2 with DND, the OPP set in motion a project which was 3 loosely titled at that time, "Project Maple", a parallel 4 project; am I correct with that? 5 A: No. Not really. We put together a - 6 - a project plan, but it didn't have a project name of 7 any sort, it was just a plan regarding the occupation of 8 CFB Ipperwash. 9 Project Maple, as has been referred to 10 here, occurred in the latter days of August 1995. 11 Q: I'm going to get to that. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: I can promise you. I'm going to try 14 to work through this chronologically and I'm going to 15 tell you earlier on, I'm really looking for your help as 16 far as this is concerned. This Commission of inquiry 17 here is to determine the circumstances related to the 18 death of Dudley George, and to find out how we're going 19 to avoid it. 20 A: Sure. 21 Q: So, what I'm going to try to do, I'm 22 going to try to stick with facts -- 23 A: Yeah. 24 Q: -- and I'm going to try and stay away 25 from fault and blame; okay?


1 A: Appreciate that. 2 Q: So -- so, you can help me. So then, 3 Operation Maple is put together by DND, but they did not 4 go forward and get an injunction? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And as a result of that, the OPP did 7 not jump to act? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Yeah. And around -- around the end 10 of August 1993, after there was this allegation of a shot 11 at their helicopter, this triggered some involvement of 12 the OPP, am I correct? 13 A: Right. We responded to the shooting 14 of the helicopter. 15 Q: And because the -- the -- firing a 16 shot at a helicopter would be classified as a crime, and 17 your role is to investigate crime all across the province 18 of Ontario? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: Yeah. And when I say, "all across 21 the province of Ontario", that includes on reserve lands; 22 am I correct? 23 A: Absolutely. 24 Q: Yeah. So around the time of the 25 alleged helicopter shooting, I take it, sir, that there


1 was no actual evidence of where the shot came from; am I 2 correct with that? 3 A: Well, I really can't speak to the 4 forensic evidence. There was certainly evidence in the 5 helicopter that is available to you. 6 I'm not really in a position to have any 7 testimony as to where the determination of the origin of 8 the shot, other than that we had officers on patrol that 9 were parked on 21 Highway at that point in time. 10 Q: Okay, fine. But what I'm getting at 11 is I don't want to ask about the forensics, I want a -- 12 the feet on the ground type of evidence. 13 Is it fair to say that nobody can come 14 forward and stand and tell this Commissioner that I was 15 standing at point X and the shot was fired from point Y, 16 and I know that because I saw somebody fire that shot? 17 A: I can only speak to the two (2) 18 officers that were parked on the highway and what they 19 could tell you and -- and I can't tell you exactly what 20 they might say. 21 Q: Okay, fine. But as far as you're 22 concerned this happened on your watch, am I correct? 23 A: Well, I wasn't on duty that night but 24 I called in that night. 25 Q: Yeah but you were the Incident


1 Commander am -- 2 A: Oh yes. Yes, yes. 3 Q: -- I correct? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And as Incident Commander you might 6 not be there on the day, but you'll find out what 7 happened if you are going to lead people into something, 8 am I correct? 9 A: Oh, certainly. The -- the 10 information was that the shots -- they heard the shots 11 come from within the army camp. 12 Q: They heard the shots come from within 13 the army camp? I see. Now as far as the army camp is 14 concerned is it fair -- is it correct that at that time 15 there were a substantial number of people occupying the 16 army camp? 17 A: Oh, yes. 18 Q: There were military people? 19 A: Oh, yes. 20 Q: There were some cadets? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: There were some First Nations people? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And there was at that time conflict 25 between the First Nations people and the cadets?


1 A: Oh, yes. 2 Q: And conflict between the First 3 Nations people and the military? 4 A: Sure. 5 Q: Who did you then perhaps -- no -- is 6 it fair to say that no one can say with any specificity 7 that it was a First Nations person who fired that shot? 8 A: That's fair. 9 Q: So then we move on, and the shot is 10 at first, and you're mobilized, and the question was 11 whether or not you should go in at night or whether or 12 not you should wait until the next day. And I will 13 suggest quite wisely you waited until the next day to do 14 a search. 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And the search went through without 17 any serious incident? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Yeah. And then the status quo was 20 maintained through 1993 and into 1994? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And at that time were you aware that 23 there was a big conflict between the Bressettes and the 24 Georges as far as Kettle Point was concerned? 25 A: In -- in regards to this incident you


1 mean? 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: I knew -- I knew there was definitely 4 some political differences that's for sure. 5 Q: Yes. And at that time, did anybody 6 tell you that if an Indian was not resident on the 7 Reserve around the time of election, he did not have a 8 right to vote in that election? 9 A: I don't recall that specific. 10 Q: I see. Well I'm going to tell you 11 that as a matter of fact, and I'm going to go further and 12 say to you, and if that is correct -- if I'm correct with 13 that, I take it you'd agree with me that the people who 14 were residing on the camp in 1993, and did not vote in 15 1994, who were disenfranchised because they were not 16 resident on the Kettle Point Reserve. 17 A: I -- I really -- 18 Q: If you can't answer that's fine. 19 A: I'm not sure that I -- I know there 20 was tension between the two (2) -- between the elected 21 Band and the occupiers, and certainly some very much 22 differences of opinion. 23 But the specifics around issues of voting 24 and that, I can't say that I understood those specifics. 25 Q: I see. But in any event things are -


1 - and things continued at a very, very dull roar through 2 1993 and through 1994? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And that all this time this Operation 5 Maple program was still in place, but not put into 6 effect? 7 A: From the police perspective you mean? 8 Q: From the OPP -- DND perspective. 9 A: Oh yes, yes. Yeah they -- they had 10 extra military police on site, et cetera, monitoring and 11 -- yes. 12 Q: But -- and at the same time, DND 13 would have been in consultation with the OPP, am I 14 correct with that? 15 A: Yeah. We -- we maintained 16 communication right along. 17 Q: So it's fair to say then that the 18 situation after August 1993 continued, with OPP having a 19 fair understanding of what was happening within the camp, 20 DND having their own program, and the OPP being aware of 21 the comings and goings of the people resident on the 22 range? 23 A: Sure. 24 Q: Yeah. And this continued right down 25 until 1995?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Yes. And during this time it appears 3 from the evidence that we've heard so far, that the OPP 4 had sources of information from Kettle Point and from 5 within the Army Camp, am I correct with that? 6 A: Well, we tried, yes. 7 Q: Yes. And as a matter of fact that 8 would be proper policing. You've got a situation and 9 you're going to use as many sources as you can -- 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: -- for the purposes of gathering 12 intelligence? 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: Yes. So, you were -- your 15 intelligence sources were really the police officers 16 themselves, am I correct? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And some people who were inside the - 19 - in -- in -- in the range area, who would -- would keep 20 the police informed of what's happening? 21 A: Yes. There was discussions, yes. 22 Q: And people from Kettle Point will 23 keep the police informed of what's happening? 24 A: Sure. 25 Q: Yeah.


1 A: Sure. 2 Q: And I take it, sir, that the views 3 that the police were getting were, from time to time, in 4 conflict with the positions as taken by the -- the -- the 5 residents on the range? 6 A: Oh, yes. There was certainly varying 7 views. 8 Q: Yeah. Okay. And this situation 9 continued then until the latter -- until the second half 10 of 1995, and in particular, around the end of July 1995 11 when there was a move to occupy the -- the -- the built- 12 up area of the Camp? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Yes. And when that happened I take 15 it, sir, that this seemed like it was a ramping up, an 16 escalation of what started as a -- a peaceful occupation? 17 A: That's fair. 18 Q: And I take it, sir, that you will 19 agree to me that except for the -- the crashing in of a - 20 - the odd building and the -- the -- the crashing into 21 the odd vehicle, it still continued generally as a 22 peaceful approach? 23 A: For the most part. There was a lot 24 of interaction between the Military and the occupiers, 25 basically on a day-to-day basis. I think I kind of


1 categorized it as almost antagonism from both sides. 2 Q: From both sides? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Yeah. And I -- I -- there's been 5 evidence that the antagonism was such that at evening 6 time, spiked belts were placed by the Military where the 7 occupiers would be travelling, did you hear about things 8 like that? 9 A: I wasn't aware of any spike belts. 10 Q: Yeah. Okay, fine. We'll move on. 11 And then, after the occupation of the Camp by -- sorry. 12 Is it fair to say, that at or around the time of the 13 occupation of the Camp that the OPP got wind that the 14 range -- that the Park would be next? 15 A: Oh, yes, that -- that came up 16 immediately upon the occupation of the built-up area. 17 Q: Yes. And is it fair to say that 18 around that time, whatever plans the OPP had in place 19 were being ramped up to meet the occasion of what if they 20 occupied the Park? 21 A: Well, as a result of the information 22 that the Park was next, I certainly met with Chief 23 Superintendent Coles and informed them -- him -- and 24 Superintendent Parkin of that information, and we 25 certainly had a meeting discussing well, you know, how do


1 we approach this issue if that's to come to pass? 2 Q: Yeah. And I take it, sir, that it 3 was the -- the opinion or the considered opinion of -- of 4 -- of your superiors that the OPP would not step in and 5 be a peacekeeper as between the Park and the Military and 6 the occupiers, that if they had a problem, they should go 7 to court, get their rights ascertained, and then the OPP 8 would enforce those rights? 9 A: Yeah, correct. We -- we certainly 10 made a decision to discuss with the Ministry of Natural 11 Resources, you know, this potential, and the expectation 12 that they would seek an injunction if -- if an occupation 13 came to pass. 14 Q: And I take it, sir, that all the 15 planning as far as Project Maple was concerned, it was 16 predicated on the province getting an injunction? 17 A: That's fair. 18 Q: Yeah. Now, on September 4th, 1995, 19 when the occupation of the Park took place, is it fair to 20 say that on both sides there was a higher level of 21 anxiety as far as the OPP was concerned, and it was 22 apparent also from the occupiers? 23 A: A higher level of anxiety? 24 Q: Yes, on all sides. 25 A: I -- I'm not sure I'd categorize it


1 in that fashion. 2 Q: That's fine. That's fine. But by 3 that time is it fair to say that the -- the -- the 4 public, the general public around this township, 5 Bosanquet township, started being vocal with respect to 6 the Indians and the way they were moving first to the 7 range, second to the built-up area, and then to the Park? 8 A: Oh, oh yes. Sure. 9 Q: And is it fair to say that the most - 10 - the information source upon which the OPP relied, came 11 from Chief or Councillors at Kettle -- Kettle Point? 12 A: That was part of it. During the 13 month of August we had officers deployed in the Park, 14 either in uniform patrol or in undercover capacity. And 15 a lot of the information was as a result of personal 16 observations by the officers. 17 Q: Yeah. But as far as the personal 18 observations, I mean, there was nothing at all that would 19 provoke the OPP to really trigger a major night 20 operation. I mean there was no evidence of any guns, was 21 there, in August? 22 A: No. 23 Q: And no evidence of any high level 24 violence in August? 25 A: No.


1 Q: And by that time you continued to 2 monitor the comings and goings at the camp? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: So you knew the people who were 5 inside? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And you had no reason to fear at all 8 that there could be any problem as far as these people 9 are concerned, am I correct with that so far? 10 A: Right. The only -- the concern was 11 of the occupation extending into the Park, particularly 12 during the camping season in August. 13 Q: Yes. But that didn't happen? 14 A: No, no. 15 Q: They waited until after the camping 16 season was over. 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: So really the occupation would be of 19 an unused Provincial Park for a short period of time? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Yeah. And as a matter of fact this 22 was clearly -- this -- clearly the matter which was 23 discussed between yourself and Ron Fox on the 5th of 24 September? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Yeah. At which time the whole 2 question of colour of right was -- was raised? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: So that Ron Fox was letting you know 5 that it is not a clear situation of trespass, it's not a 6 clear situation as far as ownership, there's some legal 7 matters which has got to be figured out, and he raised it 8 in terms of colour of right. 9 Do you remember that discussion? 10 A: Yes, yes he did, yes. 11 Q: Yeah. So -- and what -- what did you 12 understand from this? 13 A: From? 14 Q: From that discussion with respect to 15 colour of right? 16 A: Well, that Ron Fox's commentary. My 17 -- my understanding from the work that had been done was 18 that there was no legitimate land claim against the Park. 19 We had had that researched, and we'd also had the title 20 researched. 21 So there didn't appear to be colour of 22 right issues as there would be, for example, with the 23 Military Base. 24 Q: And as for this title, you say that 25 you had the title researched, who did this title


1 research? 2 A: Ministry of Natural Resources. 3 Q: So the Ministry of Natural Resources, 4 one of the parties involved, they do a title research, 5 and they make one statement to you, and you accept that 6 fully? 7 A: At -- at some point in time they 8 provided us with a -- with the title search from the 9 County -- from the title search process. 10 Q: Yeah. But even with the title 11 search, did you go -- I mean let me ask you, who provides 12 legal advice to the OPP on -- on questions such as title? 13 A: If -- if we ask for legal advice 14 there's a couple of options, but usually it comes through 15 the legal department from the AG's office. 16 Q: Yes. You said a couple options. One 17 of them is AG's office, and the others? 18 A: Yes, well, we have a couple of 19 lawyers that work out of our headquarters, but 20 technically they work for the Attorney General's office. 21 Q: Okay. So really what you've got here 22 is on your side the legal office that you're going to use 23 work for the Attorney General, which is a part of the 24 government, on the other side, you've got MNR telling you 25 that they've got title, and they're part of the


1 government, so you've got two (2) aspects of government 2 telling you something. 3 A: Right. 4 Q: And you've got the First Nations 5 making a claim of something else and you're caught in the 6 middle. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Yeah. But I take it, sir, that 9 whether right or wrong, a decision was taken some place 10 that what -- what the occupiers were doing constituted a 11 trespass? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And there was no verification of 14 whether it was a trespass by the Court? 15 A: No. There was no charges laid in 16 that regard. 17 Q: No. No I'm not talking about 18 charges. I'm talking about a verification by the -- the 19 matter did not go to Court to be resolved as to whether 20 or not the First Nations people had any rights to be 21 there. 22 A: Oh. Correct. 23 Q: Okay. So this was a decision which 24 was really almost imposed on the OPP, through MNR; is 25 that a fair way to put it?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: Given -- given the -- the information 4 we had, I mean that was the approach that we told MNR we 5 would take, we felt that from -- from the documents that 6 -- that we had obtained, part of that being the turnover 7 of the property in the '20s and the resale of the 8 property through another individual, then the Ministry 9 of, I believe, Lands and Forests back in those days 10 determined it to be a park. 11 And all that documentation seemed to 12 support the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources 13 had clear title to the property. So, our discussion with 14 the MNR was that we would expect them to tell them they 15 were trespassing first, as the first step in the 16 occupation. 17 Q: Well, the thing, sir, is that between 18 September the 4th, 1995 and now, is it fair to say that 19 nothing has changed as far as title is concerned to the 20 best of your knowledge? 21 A: Oh, that's fair. Sure. 22 Q: And is also correct to say, then, 23 that if they were trespassing then, they're still 24 trespassing now? 25 A: Fair enough.


1 Q: No, but fair -- I understand it's 2 fair, but I want to know your view. You see, I 3 understand that this whole question of trespassing was a 4 important question in 1993? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And I want to know if you've got any 7 evidence that this trespass has been in any way abated? 8 A: The only thing I know is some 9 documents were brought out by the Federal Government 10 since that time that suggested there were some issues to 11 be resolved around of colour of right, that was not 12 available to us prior to 1995. 13 Q: I see. Prior to... 14 A: September the 6th. 15 Q: September 1995. So, what we've got 16 here, is on the 5th of September you're speaking with Ron 17 Fox, and there's this thing about colour of right? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And then something happens which is 20 tragic. 21 A: Right. 22 Q: And within a week after the Federal 23 Minister of Indian Affairs is waving a piece of paper 24 around and saying, Look -- about a burial ground? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And just the fact of a burial ground, 2 in your view, was enough to translate it from a trespass 3 to something which is allowable? 4 A: Well, it's something that was 5 certainly -- when you get into the issue of colour of 6 right you would certainly have to do some research and 7 determine what it really meant. 8 Q: I see. Well, I think that we've got 9 enough, and I mean, I can take -- take it a step further 10 in submission. 11 Now then, we've got something that 12 happened on the -- on -- on the 6th of September, 1955. 13 Now, sir, is it fair to say that as far as 14 your idea of how Project Maple was to be developed, that 15 everything went according to plan on the 4th of 16 September, 1995; that's the Monday? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And is it fair to say that it also 19 went according to plan on the 5th of September, 1995? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And is it fair to say that it went 22 according to plan down to around the time you left for 23 dinner on the 6th of September, 1995? 24 A: Sure. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And at that time, the only thing that 4 you were waiting on, was an injunction? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: Yeah. Now, is it fair to say that 7 the plan was that you would get your injunction, and it 8 would be a night manoeuver after the injunction to secure 9 the Park, and to eject the occupiers? 10 A: No, that's not correct at all. 11 Q: So then, when Mark Wright was 12 speaking to you, and telling you about -- about -- in -- 13 in that conversation when you were still out for dinner, 14 before you got back, and you speak about, "losing the 15 night", why didn't you correct him and tell him it's not 16 going to be a night operation? 17 A: I wasn't -- I wasn't prepared for any 18 operation at that point. 19 Q: Okay. Another situation, didn't -- 20 didn't you at some time have a discussion with Mark 21 Wright when he was speaking about whether it's going to 22 be tonight or tomorrow night? 23 A: I'm not sure what you're referring 24 to. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: So, as far as you were concerned, 4 after injunction, it was going to be a daylight operation 5 to secure the Park? 6 A: Quite frankly, I couldn't -- I -- I 7 really couldn't tell you what we would do once we secured 8 the injunction, what -- because I had no idea what the 9 injunction was going to direct us. So, I mean, that 10 would be, at very best, speculation of how we would be 11 best able to address it. 12 Q: I see. But... 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: On page 3 of the scribe notes you had 17 a discussion with Mark Wright and there's some discussion 18 about the possibility... 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 23 Q: Yes, it -- yes, sorry, Exhibit 426. 24 You say there is about the possibility of tonight versus 25 tomorrow night?


1 A: Correct 2 Q: Yeah. Perhaps then you can tell what 3 -- what that meant. 4 A: Yeah, it's tonight versus tomorrow, 5 as opposed to tonight versus -- 6 Q: Sorry. 7 A: -- tomorrow night. 8 Q: Sorry. Tonight versus tomorrow, 9 sorry. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Yeah. 12 A: The discussion at that point was we 13 thought there might be a possibility that the officers 14 would also be in the Park while the occupation took 15 place. Basically -- I think I've used the term cohabit a 16 number of times, and so that kind of discussion was 17 underway at that point whether we thought that was 18 possible, we could do that or not. 19 Q: I see. 20 A: I mean that was one of the options we 21 had talked about in the early stages. 22 Q: Now, the other things are without -- 23 and I -- I'm trying my best not to go to back to those 24 documents. I think you've been through them enough, and 25 I think they're almost hand worn by now.


1 So, I am just going to use as -- as broad 2 as I can. Is it fair to say that around the time, in -- 3 in -- before -- before the incident involving the death 4 of Dudley George, that there was a high level of 5 political involvement? 6 Rosemary Ur, she was involved, and 7 speaking with you, am I correct? 8 A: Oh, yes. 9 Q: Yes. As well as Beaubien? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Yes. Is it fair to say that there 12 were a -- I'm not suggesting for a minute they had 13 anything, would you agree with me that there was high 14 level political concern? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And would you agree further, that 17 this, to a large extent, translated into amount of 18 pressure that would be on you as -- as the Incident 19 Commander? 20 A: Well, quite frankly, I was -- I was 21 aware of their concerns, but -- but quite frankly, in the 22 policing business, this is not unusual that there is 23 various concerns from various interest groups, whether 24 it's political or other, and quite frankly, as an 25 Incident Commander, I -- I can't be -- well, I have to be


1 concerned about their point of view, but I certainly have 2 to deal with the policing issue itself as a -- as a 3 separate issue. 4 Q: I agree through all of that, Deputy, 5 and I'm not suggesting for a minute that it sort of 6 influenced you. What I'm saying is that that pressure 7 was there, just as a matter of fact. 8 A: I -- I didn't consider it pressure, 9 quite frankly. 10 Q: Okay, that's fine. Now, as I review 11 also -- as I review a lot of the documents, I find that 12 there was mention to somebody by the name of John McNair 13 who was legal Counsel at that time, for the occupiers; do 14 you recall that name? 15 A: Yes, I believe so. 16 Q: Yeah. So down at the Chippewa of 17 Kettle and Stony Point there's Chief Bressette? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Yes. And there was Councillor Gerald 20 George? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Councillor Cecil Bernard George? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: Did you have contact from time to 25 time with Tom Bressette?


1 A: Oh yes. 2 Q: Did you have contact from time to 3 time with Gerald George? 4 A: I believe I was at one meeting at 5 Bosanquet township I think he also attended. 6 Q: What about Cecil Bernard George, did 7 you have contact with him? 8 A: I don't recall speaking to him. 9 Q: I see. Now, prior to the takeover of 10 the Park, did you have contact with Bonnie Bressette? 11 A: No. 12 Q: And I take it you had contact then 13 with Carl Tolsma? 14 A: Oh, yes. 15 Q: Yeah. So that as far as the 16 occupants are concerned, the -- the occupants of the 17 camp, there was nobody that you had contact with that was 18 in a leadership role? 19 A: During which period are we...? 20 Q: At the latter part of July into 21 August and September of 1995. 22 A: Not necessarily me personally, but 23 some of -- some of my officers would, whether it'd be 24 Staff Sergeant Bouwman from Forest, or others may have 25 had discussion with various people at the Camp.


1 Q: But various people, I mean, do you -- 2 but what I'm trying to get at is that was there anybody 3 who you classified as the leader; anybody through whom 4 you can get a message through to the membership? 5 A: No. That was -- we were running into 6 some difficulty there. 7 Q: Yeah. But at that time you also knew 8 that John McNair was their lawyer? 9 A: I -- I was aware that he was around, 10 yes. 11 Q: Yeah. But he was around and okay, 12 fine, he was around; you knew him to be a lawyer? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And you knew him to be around? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And you knew him to be around in the 17 capacity as legal counsel to the occupants? 18 A: I believe that, yes. 19 Q: Yes. Is it fair to say that it just 20 really slipped your mind that if you wanted to contact 21 these people apart from trying to identify a leader 22 among them, you could have contacted John McNair. 23 A: I never turned my mind to that, quite 24 frankly. 25 Q: That -- that -- that's my -- I agree


1 with that. 2 Okay. So anyway, the situation was going 3 according to plan, right down until around the time you 4 leave for dinner on the 6th? 5 A: Right. 6 Q: Now, my understanding is that you 7 were Incident Commander on what would be called the day 8 shift, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And Inspector Linton was Incident 11 Commander from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.? 12 A: Right. 13 Q: Yeah. So, after you left, it would 14 be Linton who would be in charge? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And he would be the man who would be 17 -- I almost said, call all the shot, but that's not a 18 nice thing to say now. He'd be the man who'd be making 19 the decisions between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.? 20 A: Sure. 21 Q: Yeah. But in spite of that, you were 22 contacted, and it triggered your going back -- 23 A: Yeah. 24 Q: -- to decide. 25 A: Right.


1 Q: I take it, sir, that you were 2 uncomfortable with how things were developing? 3 A: Yes, that's fair. 4 Q: And I take it, sir, that Inspector 5 Linton, he was of the same rank as you? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: But for all intents and purposes on 8 this project you were his superior? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Yeah. And when you spoke to Mark 11 Wright, I take it you had a lot of confidence in Mark 12 Wright? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And when Mark Wright indicated to you 15 that, you know, that things seemed to be going sideways 16 with Linton, is that a fair way to put it; I don't want 17 to get into the language, I'm looking at the message that 18 I have. 19 A: I'm sorry, you're -- things were 20 starting to go...? 21 Q: Sideways. 22 A: Oh. Okay. 23 Q: That it was not going -- no longer 24 going according to plan. 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: You were concerned? 2 A: Oh, yes. 3 Q: As a matter of fact, when you spoke 4 to Dale Linton and he told you that he had brought out 5 the TRU team, your words in very chilling -- the words 6 come out very chilling: "Dale, don't" and you told him, 7 "If you do that, you're begging for trouble", right? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Yeah. So, you understood that, and I 10 take it that Mark Wright understood that? 11 A: Sure. 12 Q: And for that reason you went back to 13 the Command Post? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: And there -- am I to understand that 16 when you went back to the Command Post you took over 17 again as -- as Incident Commander? 18 A: Yes. Technically, yes. 19 Q: Well, it's a little more than 20 technically I wanted to know. Did you -- was it a -- a - 21 - both of you sharing the role as Incident Commander, you 22 and Dale Linton, or did you take over as Incident 23 Commander? 24 A: Well, I had a discussion with 25 Inspector Linton, and we discussed what was happening,


1 and how we should deal with it, and we came to the 2 conclusion that I would go forward with the Crowd 3 Management Team, and he would look after the -- the outer 4 perimeter area from the Command Post. 5 So, I was a senior inspector at the time, 6 and I took charge of that, but for all intents and 7 purposes we both had responsibilities. I -- I took 8 responsibility for moving forward, taking command of the 9 Crowd Management Unit and the tactical team. 10 Q: Now, on the day shift, was Inspector 11 Linton around? 12 A: No. 13 Q: So -- so, on the day shift of 14 September the 6th, you were in charge? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: You made all decisions, and all 17 responsibility rested on your shoulders? 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: Come the evening, Dale Linton is in 20 charge? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: And he's supposed to make decisions-- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- and they rest on his shoulders? 25 A: Right.


1 Q: And something happened which caused 2 you to be sufficiently concerned that you decided to go 3 back to the post? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And in -- what I will suggest to you 6 is an unusual situation, you had two (2) Incident 7 Commanders and you were splitting duties? 8 A: That's fair. 9 Q: Yeah. You were taking one (1) part, 10 and he was handling another? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And by this time he had mobilized the 13 TRU team and it really became a problem of how you're 14 going to stand down the TRU team and not cause Dale 15 Linton to be embarrassed as -- as an incident commander. 16 Is that a fair statement? 17 A: No, I wouldn't agree with that. 18 Q: So then -- okay, so you came back and 19 the situation had escalated but you felt you could manage 20 it? 21 A: I'm sorry? 22 Q: The situation had escalated, the TRU 23 team had been mobilized -- 24 A: Right. 25 Q: -- and you had the crowd management


1 unit already around? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And you felt that whatever the 4 situation was, you can move in and you can manage the 5 situation? 6 A: Well, try to determine exactly what 7 are we dealing with and what's the best way to deal with 8 it. 9 Q: I see. And as far as that is 10 concerned, by then you were operating on intelligence 11 with respect to the Park; am I correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: You -- the intelligence you had said 14 that there were guns of serious magnitude? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: Yeah. And the intelligence was that 17 the cottages were going to be next? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And by that, did you understand it 20 was going to be next meaning that night, the night of the 21 6th? 22 A: Not necessarily. 23 Q: I see. Now as far as this 24 information is concerned, was this information, this 25 intelligence, provided from what you would classify as


1 reliable sources? 2 A: For the most part, yes. 3 Q: Yes. Now tell me about these 4 reliable sources. Now who would have told you about the 5 guns? Or where would that come from, the guns? 6 A: The guns issues, particularly that 7 evening, there was -- there's an entry in the command 8 post minutes. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Perhaps you want to look at page 75. 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: The bottom of page 75? 15 A: Right. The information says: 16 "Rob Graham reports from Mark Dew that 17 they are evacuating women and children 18 preparing all night for Kettle and 19 Stony Point. If they have any problems 20 with the Kettle Point councillors they 21 will set buildings on fire. 22 Reports of numerous guns four (4) SS -- 23 OFF's, thirty (30) detachable clips, 24 ten (10) fixed round clips, two (2) 25 Ruger 14's, three (3) ordinary clips,


1 hunting rifles, gas bombs." 2 That information came through Mark Dew. 3 Q: No, but Mark Dew -- I mean he was 4 reporting that has been handed off to him, wasn't he? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And you know who handed it off to 7 him? 8 A: No, I don't. 9 Q: Was there any effort to check to 10 confirm whether or not this information was -- was real 11 or otherwise? 12 A: No. 13 Q: So somebody just made that statement 14 and you're acting on it? 15 A: Well, we're aware of it. I mean, 16 it's -- it's something that you just can't dismiss it as 17 erroneous. 18 Q: Well, I -- I hear you and that caused 19 me to turn to the Connolley report. Have you heard of 20 the Connolley report? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Yeah. Now my understanding is that 23 the Connolley report was an after the fact review of what 24 happened down at Ipperwash. 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Yes? And I understand also that it 2 required the involvement of just about everybody who had 3 been part of this Ipperwash exercise? 4 A: Yes. He was -- he was collecting the 5 -- the material that the various officers may have had. 6 Q: And one (1) of the issues that was 7 raised in the Connolley report which is Document Number 8 2000577, Issue Number 23. How reliable was the 9 intelligence information that was received? Was it 10 validated before it was acted upon? 11 So that brings me back -- and I'm going to 12 say -- to suggest to you, that the information, this 13 information about the guns was acted upon without anybody 14 checking to see if it was correct, as a matter of fact. 15 A: That's -- that's not really a fair 16 assessment of -- of the information. The information 17 came through to the command post and that's one (1) of 18 the reasons we put TRU team in as a cover team for the 19 crowd management team was as a result of the potential of 20 weapons that were readily accessible according to that 21 information. 22 Q: According to that information; that's 23 my point. I want you to tell me more about that 24 information because my view is that was very, very 25 serious allegations and we -- I -- I'm asking, do you


1 know where Mark Dew got his information from? 2 A: No, I can't tell you that. 3 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, sir, 4 that you know, and that it came from Cecil Bernard 5 George. 6 A: I know he interviewed somebody. It 7 may have been Cecil Bernard George. 8 Q: Sorry, sorry, Gerald George. 9 A: Oh, whatever. 10 Q: Sorry. 11 A: But I knew he had interviewed someone 12 down there and that information came from somebody who 13 had been in there. 14 Q: When you say "somebody down there", 15 what do you mean by that? 16 A: Had been down at the Park. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And that takes me to page 11 of the 21 Connolley report. Oh, you don't have a copy of it. 22 A: I have never read the Connolley 23 report, quite frankly. 24 Q: I see. Well, I'm going to just tell 25 you what it says without even putting it in.


1 Over on page 11, as far as your 2 recommendations is concerned, it says here six (6): 3 "The Ontario Provincial Police review 4 how intelligence information is 5 gathered, authenticated and analysed." 6 Do you agree with me that you should 7 authenticate information, you should analyse and 8 authenticate information before it's acted upon? 9 A: Sure. 10 Q: Yes. It goes on to say: 11 "One area that will surely be examined 12 in any statutory forum dealing with the 13 Ipperwash Provincial Park incident will 14 be the intelligence that the OPP 15 possessed during the incident. 16 How was the information obtained? How 17 was it authenticated? These will be 18 questions that will have to be 19 answered. See issues. One (1) concern 20 that was identified was that erroneous 21 information was provided by one (1) 22 faction involved in attempts to 23 discredit another faction." 24 Now, this is after the fact, but would you 25 agree with me, sir, that the whole mobilization and


1 deployment of the crowd management team and the TRU team 2 was based only on the information that the OPP got from 3 Gerald George? 4 A: No, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't agree 5 with that. 6 Q: Okay, fine, then you tell me what it 7 was based on and please just make sure, don't give me 8 broad statements because I'm going to follow them. 9 Tell me what it was based on? 10 A: Well, I think I've explained it 11 several times, there's a -- 12 Q: Sir, please. If you just answer my 13 question. I say, I want your help. I don't want to 14 confront you. Please just tell me what it was on and I 15 will follow you on every step. 16 A: As -- as I've indicated before, there 17 was damage to the vehicle, there was the comments from 18 Mark Wright's encounter, concerns in regards to what 19 might happen with the individuals on the road in regards 20 to the cottages that were nearby, the -- the meeting that 21 the cottagers had earlier. 22 There were -- and of course, this 23 information was part and parcel of that. But -- but to 24 your point, it was not -- it was just one -- one (1) 25 issue that we were aware of.


1 Q: Sir, I have tried to jot down notes 2 as you were speaking. Tell me if I've got it correct. 3 There was damage to a car; am I correct? 4 A: Correct 5 Q: Yes. And you saw about Wright's 6 encounter, what do you mean by that? 7 A: Well, as he -- he indicated, he came 8 to the -- to the curve of the road. There was several 9 people on the road with bats or axe handles, whatever you 10 want to call them, and he was told he'd better get out of 11 there. 12 So there was that encounter. They didn't 13 -- they didn't know he was a police officer; that's -- so 14 that's that encounter. 15 Q: You said that they didn't know he was 16 a police officer, but didn't he go down there the day 17 before with -- with... 18 A: Sergeant Eve. 19 Q: Sergeant Eve? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: So why would you say that they didn't 22 know he was a police -- they knew he was a police officer 23 the day before. 24 A: I don't know if they knew he was a -- 25 my impression was they didn't -- when he pulled up in


1 that vehicle, they didn't know who he was. 2 Q: Okay, fine. So, that's an 3 impression. So, number 1, we've got about four hundred 4 dollars ($400) damage to a car, right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And we've got an impression that you 7 have that they didn't know that Mark Wright was a police 8 officer; that's 2? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Yeah. And there was individuals on 11 the road or were they in the parking area? 12 A: Well, they were near the roadway in 13 the parking lot. 14 Q: Okay. People in a parking lot near a 15 road? 16 A: Right. 17 Q: That's 3. And proximity of cottages. 18 Right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: That's 4. And those cottages were 21 there a substantial time before the 6th of September, am 22 I correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: I see. And the cottagers are having 25 a meeting? And are you telling this Commission that if


1 these circumstances were to be replicated today, tomorrow 2 or any time in the near future and you're an incident 3 commander, you would call out the TRU team, you would 4 mobilize the TRU team and the crowd management unit; 5 that's -- that's your evidence, am I correct? 6 A: That's the circumstances I faced that 7 night and that's the circumstances I based the decision 8 on. 9 Q: Yeah. Okay, fine. At least we 10 understand that. 11 Now, I don't know that there is much to be 12 gained by going through step by step what happened after 13 8:30, except to ask you, was Dudley George singled out to 14 be shot? 15 A: That is a preposterous opinion that 16 that -- 17 Q: Sorry, sir, it's not an opinion, it's 18 just a question because it's going to lead to something 19 else. 20 A: I -- I don't believe that for one (1) 21 moment. 22 Q: Okay, fine. Perhaps neither do I. 23 So then, you had your people down in an area with guns 24 and a confrontation environment is brewing, am I correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: I see. And Dudley George was not 2 singled out? No, he wasn't. Right? 3 A: I don't believe so for a moment. 4 Q: So, it could have been just as much 5 any other person getting shot and killed as Dudley 6 George; am I correct? 7 A: That's fair. 8 Q: Yeah. So then, we have heard 9 evidence here from Glenn Bressette who was down in the 10 Park that night. Do you remember Glenn Bressette? 11 A: Glenn? 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: I don't know if I know -- I don't 14 think I know Glenn Bressette. 15 Q: Okay, fine. But if you don't know 16 him, would that suggest, then, that he was not really of 17 major interest to the OPP? 18 A: That's fair. 19 Q: That's fair, but is it also correct? 20 A: I don't know. I don't -- I don't 21 know if he was one (1) of the regular occupiers or not, 22 the name doesn't ring a bell off the top of my head. 23 Q: Okay, fine. So, would you agree with 24 me, sir, that as the incident commander and the one who 25 was gathering and analysing and reviewing intelligence


1 about these individuals that they were formed into two 2 (2) categories, those which you classify as passive and 3 those to which you would have some concern? 4 A: That's fair. There were -- there 5 were ones who were obviously more aggressive than others. 6 Q: Absolutely. So, I'm saying to you, 7 sir, that fair or otherwise, they're falling into two (2) 8 categories, some passive people and others that you've 9 got some concerns about? 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: Yeah. And Glenn Bressette, he was 12 not one (1) of these that you had concerns about, am I 13 correct? 14 A: No, not really. 15 Q: Now, what about Miles Bressette? Did 16 you have any concerns about him? 17 A: Miles? 18 Q: Miles, yes. 19 A: Miles was the First Nations constable 20 at -- 21 Q: He might -- he might have been. 22 Whatever he was, I'm just speaking about my Clients, you 23 see? So, Miles Bressette, you had no concerns about him? 24 A: No. 25 Q: No. What about Mike Cloud? Did you


1 have any concerns about him? 2 A: Who? 3 Q: Mike Cloud. The name doesn't even 4 ring a bell. 5 A: Well, I -- I know the name was in 6 there, but nothing out of the ordinary. 7 Q: Precisely. And Nicholus Cottrelle. 8 He was the -- the -- the teenager -- 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: -- who was driving the bus. 11 A: Yeah. 12 Q: You had no concerns about him prior? 13 A: No. 14 Q: None. And Gabe Doxtator, Gabriel 15 Doxtator, did you have any concerns about him? 16 A: Not particularly. 17 Q: No? And what about Isaac Charles 18 Doxtator, any concerns about him? 19 A: Not particularly. 20 Q: Layton Elijah, any concerns about 21 him? 22 A: No, not really. 23 Q: Larry French, any concerns about him? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Carolyn George, "Cully," the lady who


1 was Dudley's sister? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Charles "Chucky" George? 4 A: No. 5 Q: No? Clayton George? 6 A: No. 7 Q: David Abraham George? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Elwood George? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Gina George? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Glenn George? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Harley George? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Roderick Abraham George? 18 A: I -- I believe his name came up in 19 some of the incidents, if I'm not mistaken, at the 20 Military Base, I'm not sure. 21 Q: I'll help you, his nickname is Judas. 22 Does that -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- help you? 25 A: Yes, yes.


1 Q: But did you have any concerns about 2 him? 3 A: Well, he'd been involved in some 4 behaviours that were issues, I believe, earlier. 5 Q: So there was some issues, but 6 frankly, nothing serious? 7 A: That's fair. 8 Q: Stuart George? 9 A: Nothing -- 10 Q: Doesn't ring -- 11 A: Nothing in particular. 12 Q: No. Tina George? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Warren George? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Wesley George? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Dale Plain? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Ben Pouget? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Marlin Simon? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Leland White? 25 A: No.


1 Q: You see, officer, most of those 2 people were in the Park, and many of them down in the 3 area on the 6th of September. 4 Now, which individuals would you have had 5 concern about from your intelligence? 6 A: The -- the concern was this was 7 available to them, that's all. 8 Q: That what was available to them? 9 A: The firearms. 10 Q: I see. 11 A: And as I've indicated before, even 12 back in 1993 when we had the issue with the helicopter, 13 the -- I never felt that the aggression was -- well, 14 there was any aggression towards to the OPP. 15 We -- we certainly met with various -- I 16 guess you could term profanities and epithets when we 17 went on to the Military Base the night of the helicopter 18 shooting, but I certainly never felt a -- a personal 19 threat, and -- and in this particular point in time, 20 there was information that guns were in there. 21 The use of TRU team as a cover team is 22 used as a precaution because of the availability, or 23 potential availability of weapons. 24 It's not because we felt that any 25 individual was going to do something overt towards us.


1 Q: But you see, officer, I understand 2 that. But you see, what I'm saying here is, you've been 3 involved in this since 1993. 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: Here were are, two (2) years later, 6 as a matter of fact by coincidence, seven (7) days before 7 the end of September 1993 there's the helicopter 8 incident. 9 Within seven (7) days after the beginning 10 of -- at the end of August 1995, there's this incident 11 down at the Park. 12 Over that time, you're monitoring these 13 people who you know who they are, you've got access to 14 their criminal records, and I mean -- I don't mean you 15 personally because -- 16 A: Right. 17 Q: -- I don't want to set up a situation 18 that -- 19 A: No. 20 Q: -- is defensive. I want to try to 21 help the Commissioner. What we've got is a situation 22 where the police know these people, and would you agree 23 that it would have been totally out of character for any 24 of these people that I've spoken about to resort to 25 firearms?


1 A: That's fair. 2 Q: Yeah. And the other thing that 3 bothers me is that I've asked, but you haven't given me a 4 name yet, of anybody who you were concerned about who was 5 at the camp. 6 Anybody who was seen as a problem, anybody 7 who was seen as a potential source where you can really 8 run into difficulties. 9 A: I mean, are you talking about someone 10 who would turn a firearm on us? 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: I didn't believe that anyone would 13 turn a firearm on us. 14 Q: Okay, fine. Now, I -- I must ask you 15 -- I'm going to take it you -- you reviewed the evidence 16 from time to time from this Inquiry? 17 A: Of other witnesses? 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: I've seen some of it. 20 Q: Yeah. I'm going to tell you, one of 21 the things that I've found, as far as the helicopter 22 shooting was -- the -- the alleged helicopter shooting is 23 concerned, I take it that from a police perspective, 24 there was some level of disappointment that somebody 25 didn't come forward and acknowledge that they -- they


1 fired at that helicopter; am I correct? This is for 2 1992. 3 A: Some level of disappointment? 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: Well we didn't -- we didn't get 6 information to determine who did it. I mean that -- the 7 case is still open. 8 Q: Yeah. I understand that. But what 9 I'm asking you is that as far as the police was 10 concerned, is it fair to say that because there was some 11 more people there that you would have expected that 12 somebody would come forward and say well look, Mr. X 13 fired that shot? 14 A: I wouldn't have expect that 15 necessarily to happen. 16 Q: I see. Now the reason is that 17 Clayton Morris George was being examined by your Counsel 18 and without going to the details I will tell -- tell you, 19 Commissioner, you'll find it between pages 94 and 103, 20 evidence date number 31 which was November the 8th. 21 And the thrust of the examination was that 22 because there was a small group it would have been 23 correct for somebody to come forward and acknowledge that 24 shooting at the helicopter is not a good idea and they 25 should report that to the police.


1 That was the examination of your counsel. 2 And I take it that you think that as quite appropriate. 3 At least you can ask that question. 4 A: That's fair. 5 Q: Yeah. Now the people in the Camp, 6 would you agree that they are under no obligation to keep 7 notes and keep records? 8 A: Of course. 9 Q: Unlike police officers who would be 10 required to keep notes and keep records? 11 A: Sure. 12 Q: And to report fairly what they see 13 and what they hear? 14 A: Sure. 15 Q: So that as far as the beating of 16 Cecil George is concerned, does it surprise you that so 17 many officers were involved and not one can come forward 18 yet and say, that they struck Cecil Bernard George? 19 A: I think you'll find Staff Sergeant 20 Lacroix -- his evidence that is that he struck him -- 21 Q: Oh, yes. He hit him and put him 22 down. But after that, there was a serious beating as 23 reported by the hospital. Are you aware that the 24 hospital records show that this man was really seriously 25 beaten?


1 A: I understand that. 2 Q: And that he was seriously beaten and 3 as a matter of fact would you agree with me that he 4 didn't come out onto the sandy parking lot seriously 5 beaten? 6 A: Oh, fair enough, sure. 7 Q: Would you agree with me that the 8 serious beating took place from the incident with Lacroix 9 some time between then and when he arrived at the 10 hospital? 11 A: I -- I'm in no position to know 12 exactly the circumstances there. 13 Q: Sir, if you throw a hammer in the 14 air, have you got to see it fall to know it fell? 15 A: I'm sorry? 16 Q: If you throw a hammer in the air, I'm 17 suggesting you do not have to see it fall to know that it 18 fell. And I'm saying to you, Cecil Bernard George came 19 out and let us say for a minute he attacked Lacroix. 20 Okay? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: No evidence for that, but it would be 23 the worse case scenario. 24 A: Right. 25 Q: He is then --


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The evidence says -- 2 that that happened, that he admitted it. The evidence 3 says that Cecil Bernard George said that he came out, had 4 a steel bar, and he struck at a police officer. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I will be happy to 7 read Mr. Bernard George's evidence when it's my turn. 8 What My Friend has done is stated a hypothetical which is 9 perfectly proper. It is supported by the evidence and if 10 you want a flash preview, Commissioner, of what Mr. 11 Bernard George testified actually was "they attacked me." 12 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well, thank you, 13 Counsel. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You -- 15 you're -- 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I thank Counsel but 17 I'm not even going to turn on that because I can get my 18 question in another way. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 21 Q: Officer -- Deputy, when Cecil Bernard 22 -- Cecil Bernard George's brother gave testimony about 23 the last time he saw Cecil Bernard George and he was in 24 fine shape. There is evidence that he was part of the 25 group that was in the Park.


1 There's evidence that he came across to 2 the sandy parking lot on his own with some form of radio 3 scanner in one hand and some -- a metal bar or some other 4 weapon in another hand. 5 The next time that he is seen by any 6 members of the community is when he's in the hospital and 7 he's badly beaten. Is that consistent with your 8 understanding of what happened to Cecil Bernard George? 9 A: Yes, it is. 10 Q: Yes. So would you agree with me then 11 that if he is arrested, somebody should be able to say 12 what happened to him between the time of the arrest and 13 why he needed hospitalization? 14 A: Oh, that's fair. 15 Q: Okay, fine, good, thank you. And you 16 confirm that that -- that has not yet happened? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: Okay, fine. So we've agreed, sir, 19 that as far as Dudley George is concerned, he was not 20 singled out for anything at anytime? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And we agree now, that you -- you've 23 given us the basis on which the decision was made to 24 deploy the crowd management unit and to -- and -- and to 25 activate the TRU team?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: Now, after -- after the incident on 3 the 7th of -- on -- on the -- on the 6th of September, 4 the TRU team and the ERT crowd management unit remained 5 mobilized for some days later, am I correct? 6 A: In various capacities, yes. 7 Q: Yes. Is it fair to say that there 8 was an initial escalation and an initial build-up of 9 forces after the 6th of September? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Yeah. And all of this, sir, is 12 triggered on the information that you had to mobilize the 13 -- the -- the crowd management unit and the TRU team and 14 the shooting of Dudley George? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: Yeah. And as part of this 17 mobilization effort, a substantial amount of ammunition 18 including hollow point bullets were brought in? 19 A: I'm not sure what ammunition was 20 brought in, but certainly everybody would have been armed 21 as we always are. 22 Q: So you weren't aware that hollow 23 point bullets were brought in -- around ten thousand 24 (10,000) rounds? 25 A: No. I wasn't aware of ten thousand


1 (10,000) rounds. 2 Q: Okay. Were you aware of any amount, 3 any substantial amount? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Tell me something, is there a 6 difference between using a -- a copper-jacketed bullet 7 and a -- and a hollow point bullet? Do you know the 8 difference in -- in striking capacity? 9 A: I don't think we use -- I'm not sure 10 -- I'm not sure what the ammunition we used at that time 11 was as far as these particular type of ammunition. 12 Whatever we use is what's approved for police use. 13 Q: I see. And then, on the 7th -- on 14 the 7th of September -- I take it Mark Wright went to 15 court and he gave evidence before a judge in order to 16 secure an injunction? 17 A: Yes. He gave evidence, yes. 18 Q: Do you know whether or not there's 19 any transcript? Have you ever seen a transcript of the 20 evidence given by Mark Wright? 21 A: I understand there's a transcript. 22 Q: Okay. A transcript of the evidence, 23 I will keep that in mind, yes -- okay. 24 A: I thought there was. 25 Q: Yeah, okay, that's fine. I can


1 address that with him. 2 Now among the information that has been 3 passed out, there's a letter of September the 7th, 1995 4 from a guy by the name of Ian Service. 5 Do you know Ian Service? The letter was 6 addressed to the Grand Bend OPP? 7 A: Just -- I'm not -- I'm not sure I 8 know -- know the individual. 9 Q: This is the one that I asked you 10 about. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, could we 15 just, perhaps, take a few minutes. My Friend had asked 16 me some time ago to make some copies and we need to make 17 a copy of -- of this particular document. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's 19 almost time for the morning break so we'll do it now. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that all 22 right? 23 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will 24 recess for fifteen (15) minutes. 25


1 --- Upon recessing at 10:08 a.m. 2 --- Upon resuming at 10:29 a.m. 3 4 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 5 resumed. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 9 Q: My apologies -- my apologies, Deputy, 10 but I must revisit one thing with respect to the scribe 11 notes, that are Exhibit 426 and it's page 75, the bottom 12 of 75 and the top of 76. 13 20:43 hours, is a section which reads: 14 "Rob Graham reports from Mark Dew that 15 they are evacuating women and children. 16 Preparing all night for Kettle Point 17 and Stoney Point. If they have any 18 problems with Kettle Point councillors, 19 they will set building on fire. 20 Reports of numerous guns. Four (4) 21 SSFs, thirty (30) detach clips, ten 22 (10) fixed round clips, two (2) Ruger 23 14's, three (3) ordinary clips, hunting 24 rifles and gas bombs." 25 Now, that was the information that came in


1 around quarter to 9:00, correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Yes. And you were not at the command 4 post when this information came in, am I correct with 5 that? You were still out for dinner? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: I should put it another way and ask 10 you, were you back from dinner by this time? 11 A: That's what I'm just trying to figure 12 out here. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Could you turn over the page to 20 -- 17 for the hour 20:29, apparently you were back? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Yeah. So you were back when this 20 information came in. I take it, sir, that this 21 information did not come directly to you? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Okay. Now, I have to ask you 24 straight. Do you know whether this information was 25 attributed to Gerald George?


1 A: I don't recall who it was attributed 2 to. 3 Q: But your evidence was that this came 4 from somebody who was in the Park? 5 A: Right. 6 Q: Yeah. You see, the evidence of 7 Gerald George is that he was not in the Park and also the 8 evidence of my clients, most of them, is that the 9 relationship they were having with Gerald George he would 10 not have been in the Park. 11 He was the person who was on the outside, 12 who got his car struck. 13 A: I understand that, yes. 14 Q: So if, later on, you find out that 15 this information that Mark -- you were supposed to have 16 to reported from Gerald George or somebody who was in the 17 Park and he wasn't there, it would be a real serious 18 situation, wouldn't you agree with me? 19 A: Well, it certainly changes the 20 context of it, yes. 21 Q: And it, as a matter of fact, removes 22 the underpinning for the mobilization of force which 23 turned out to be deadly? 24 A: The issue here, in my view, is 25 particularly, you know, the availability of weaponry. I


1 would suggest that -- well, quite frankly, I don't know 2 how we would have evaluated it if it wasn't there at that 3 time. 4 I mean, it's -- it's -- it's hard to 5 speculate how it would have fit into the whole scheme of 6 things going back ten (10) years. 7 Q: Well, I appreciate that, but you see, 8 you used the word "speculate" because that's exactly the 9 note I had here, was asking whether this was either fact 10 or speculation. 11 It came through as fact, am I correct so 12 far? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: It was never verified? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And until today, there's nothing to 17 establish that it was correct? 18 A: That's fair. 19 Q: And it came, presumably from Gerald 20 George? 21 A: That's my understanding now, yes. 22 Q: And his evidence is that he was not 23 in the Park, so if it came to you from somebody who was 24 in the Park, there's some explanation which is necessary. 25 A: That's fair.


1 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Now, Mr. Commissioner, 2 there were two (2) volumes which were passed out, the -- 3 the tag is Deputy Commissioner John Carson Correspondence 4 Ipperwash Judicial Public Inquiry 2005 Volume 1. 5 I understand that these were passed out to 6 all members and under Tab 8 there's a letter from Ian 7 Service to the OPP at Grand Bend. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 10 Q: Deputy Carson, you've had a chance to 11 look at that letter? 12 A: Yes. I see it here, yes. Q: Yes. 13 It -- it came from what was supposed to be your 14 correspondence file. 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: Do you recognize the letter? 17 A: Yes. I see it, yes. 18 Q: And I take it that you had seen that 19 letter before this Inquiry process started? 20 A: Sure. It was obviously in my file 21 since '95. 22 Q: Yes. I want to walk through that 23 matter for a bit. I just to find out whether or not the 24 sentiments in this letter are consistent with the 25 positions taken by the OPP.


1 This -- the gentleman, W. Ian Service, 2 writes on September 7, 1995 to the Grand Bend OPP 3 Detachment: 4 "I just want to let you know that I 5 totally support the action your people 6 took Wednesday night at Ipperwash 7 Provincial Park. Both you and the 8 Ontario government may come in for some 9 criticism, but I believe the vast 10 majority of Ontarians and Canadians 11 support you for what you did. 12 It is unfortunate that a life was lost 13 and others sustained critical injuries, 14 however, those who illegally occupied 15 the Park and chose to attack the law 16 enforcement officers by running them 17 down and firing at them brought it on 18 themselves." 19 Let me stop there for a minute. Is it the 20 position of the OPP that the occupiers attacked them? 21 A: It's our position that they came out 22 of the Park and got into an altercation with the Crowd 23 Management team. 24 Q: Okay. Fine. When this Inquiry 25 commenced and a lot of my clients were on the stand,


1 reference was made to some of their nicknames. We knew 2 of Judas. We knew of Kokomo and a lot of them. 3 As far as the police officers were 4 concerned we heard of one as, "Tex." We heard of one as, 5 "Popcorn." Did you have a nickname? 6 A: Not that I'm aware of. 7 Q: So, "Choo Choo" does not ring a bell, 8 does it? 9 A: Well, some people have called me 10 that. 11 Q: And that is as a result of your 12 exercising a heroic effort and jumping on a train that 13 was moving? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And bring it to a stop. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Because you saw there was a dangerous 18 situation and you decided to do something about it? Fair 19 enough? 20 A: That's a fact. 21 Q: Yeah. So then, the evidence of 22 Nicholus Cottrelle and the evidence of Warren George was 23 that when the police officers were beating Cecil Bernard 24 George and beating him, somebody yelled, Get the bus; 25 that was their effort to rescue, the same way that you


1 decided to jump on a moving train to do something about 2 it, isn't that reasonable? 3 A: I -- I don't know how you can 4 categorize what happened at Ipperwash and me stopping a 5 moving train as something that's similar in nature. 6 Q: It was all in an effort to exercise a 7 rescue effort, wasn't it? As far -- on your part? 8 A: I did what I was expected to do as a 9 police officer. Nothing more, nothing less. 10 Q: I see. But these witnesses say that 11 the idea was because of how Cecil Bernard George was 12 being beaten, it was get the bus and it was an effort to 13 separate the police from beating him further. 14 A: That could be. 15 Q: So it is not a situation that they 16 just came out of the Park and attacked the police 17 officers? 18 A: When -- my understanding is when 19 Cecil Bernard was arrested, they had already come out of 20 the Park and the altercation had already taken place. 21 Q: I see. I see. But you weren't down 22 there so we can get that cleared up by people who were 23 actually there? 24 A: I'm sorry? 25 Q: So you -- but you weren't down at the


1 Park? 2 A: No I -- I wasn't -- 3 Q: I see. 4 A: -- there to see the events as they 5 unfolded, no. 6 Q: So if -- as the events unfolded it 7 was after Cecil Bernard George was taken by the police 8 and was being beaten, that the bus came out obviously in 9 an effort to separate the police. 10 It sort of puts it in a different 11 perspective if that's the fact; am I not correct? 12 A: That may be the perception. 13 Q: Yes. Spoke about running them down 14 and firing at them. 15 Any evidence at all that anybody fired at 16 any of the police? 17 A: Not that I'm aware of. 18 Q: I see. It goes on to say: 19 "We need to make it perfectly clear as 20 a province and as a nation that the law 21 applies equally to everyone. 22 No "special" group should be singled 23 out for either targeted enforcement or 24 lack of enforcement of the law. 25 Your forces were justified in returning


1 fire for fire." 2 It's not a situation of fire for fire, do 3 you agree with that, Deputy? 4 A: The use -- use of force is not used 5 in that context whatsoever. 6 Q: No, but -- 7 A: I mean this is -- this is -- 8 Q: -- it's about returning fire for 9 fire. And I would suggest to you, you mean gunfire for 10 gunfire. 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Okay. And as far as this gunfire is 13 concerned, are we in agreement that the firing didn't 14 start until police started shooting? 15 There was no gunfire until the police 16 started shooting? 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm a little concerned 18 here because we haven't heard any of the police evidence 19 that there was -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, we 21 haven't heard. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- on these issues. 23 And My Friend says when -- when Deputy Commissioner 24 Carson indicates his understanding of certain events, 25 well you weren't there. And I don't think one can have


1 it both ways with great respect. He wasn't there and 2 then the totality of evidence you'll have to make some 3 determinations. But I'm not sure this witness can really 4 assist here. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. Yes. 6 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: Commissioner, 7 good morning. I was going to echo My Friend's concerns 8 as well. I was not present when -- for earlier evidence 9 before Detective -- Deputy Commissioner Carson testified 10 but my understanding is that the evidence that you have 11 before you was actually that the gunfire did not commence 12 by the officers until the bus actually came out. 13 So I think the questions again have to be 14 a little bit more clear on reflective of the evidence to 15 date. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, carry 17 on, Mr. Ross. Carry on. 18 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: First, Mr. 19 Commissioner, I must tell My Friend, Mr. Sandler, that I 20 will have it both ways and I'm going to tell you why. It 21 was on his watch. He was the incident commander. 22 And if the incident commander is going to 23 sit here and tell us he does not know what happened, 24 there's something that just doesn't ring true. 25 It rings hollow when he as incident -- I'm


1 not asking him personally as John Carson what did you 2 see. I'm saying, sir, as incident commander and I will 3 rephrase it so that I can get it both ways. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: The difficulty that I 5 -- I have with that with great respect is that this is 6 why we're having a public inquiry. One of the things 7 that -- it is for you to determine is what the facts were 8 during the -- during the confrontation -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and -- and I'm 11 concerned that -- that with great respect, to ask Deputy 12 Commissioner Carson because he's the incident commander 13 what happened, how does that assist you, with great 14 respect? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 16 not asking him what -- he's not asking him what happened, 17 and part of this is because of a sequencing of witnesses, 18 perhaps we should have waited until we heard some of the 19 police evidence before calling the Deputy Commissioner, I 20 don't know. 21 But I think his questions so far have been 22 appropriate and we'll judge them one by one. I mean, you 23 can't have a -- you may not be able to have it both ways. 24 We'll just see how it goes. 25 You have to be a little more precise in


1 your questioning. 2 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, 3 okay, I'll move on. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 6 Q: Deputy Carson, as incident commander, 7 did -- were you privy to any information to confirm that 8 gunfire started other than when the police started 9 shooting, as incident commander? 10 A: Well, information was radioed back, I 11 know in the -- when I was sitting in the truck I made the 12 note of shots fired, but I can't tell you that the 13 information was who was firing the shots, so which one 14 started it first from -- from the information point of 15 view, I can't with any clarity, be sure that I can be 16 specific. 17 Q: That's good enough and that's your 18 position as incident commander, that's fine. 19 Now, isn't it also true that when the 20 Crowd Management Unit marched on the occupiers, there was 21 absolutely no intention to give them any form of warning 22 to get off the road, get out of the sandy parking lot, 23 get out of the Park, get out of the camp? Nothing at 24 all. 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Yeah. And it's also true that the 2 Crowd Management Unit, they had on all their equipment, 3 which was equipped with a communication systems? 4 A: They had portable radios. I'm not 5 sure if the radios hook into their helmets specifically 6 or not. 7 Q: I see, I see. 8 A: Some of the equipment has changed 9 over the years, so the exact equipment they were wearing 10 that night, I'd have to consult with some of the people 11 to understand exactly which -- which type of helmets we - 12 - we were using in 1995. 13 Q: Well, I'll tell you what I was 14 getting at. It is my view that the police did not want 15 to communicate with the protesters, but they wanted to be 16 able to communicate with their own people. 17 So had they had a system whereby Lacroix 18 could speak to his people, they could understand what's 19 going on with the TRU team but the occupiers would be 20 unaware of any such communication? 21 A: Well, that's fair. 22 Q: Yeah. So just returning to the 23 letter, it says that your forces were justified in 24 returning fire for fire, and I believe reinforces this 25 principle, unlike in other jurisdictions of our country.


1 Did you have any idea what jurisdiction he 2 was talking about? 3 I'm going to suggest to you it was British 4 Columbia. 5 A: Well there was certainly another 6 incident that was underway at that time. 7 Q: What other incident was that? 8 A: I don't know. 9 Q: Gustafson Lake, you're going to tell 10 me you don't know? 11 A: Well, I know Gustafson Lake, why 12 that's what I just referred to. 13 Q: I see. But I asked you what other 14 incident, you told me you don't know. 15 A: No, I know -- I don't know of any 16 other ones outside of Gustafson Lake. 17 Q: I see. 18 A: At that time. 19 Q: And what -- in your view was there 20 any connection between Gustafson Lake and Ipperwash? 21 A: We weren't sure. We were of the view 22 that it was probably being watched closely. 23 Q: It was again suspicion in my view, 24 correct? 25 A: Of course.


1 Q: And suspicion because you were 2 dealing with Indians on one side of the continent -- the 3 country and Indians on the east? 4 A: Sure. 5 Q: Yeah. 6 A: It's -- 7 Q: And do you realize that you can fly 8 from Ontario to Nova Scotia and back before you can fly 9 out west, but this was -- why were you concerned about 10 that connection? 11 A: We didn't know what communication 12 process was in place between the two (2). 13 Q: But you've just classified them 14 because they were Indians, am I correct? 15 A: No, they were both land claim issues. 16 Q: "It's unlike some other jurisdictions 17 in our country, where illegal 18 occupations and activities by Native 19 Indians are dragging on without 20 application of the law. I trust that 21 our provincial government will continue 22 to use common sense and lead the way in 23 this regard." 24 Did you see it as leading the way as far 25 as your forces were concerned, you were setting an


1 example for the people out west on how to deal with First 2 Nations problems? 3 A: No, not at all. 4 Q: I see. He says: 5 " Again, I want to stand behind you in 6 your actions at Ipperwash and encourage 7 you to enforce the law in a fair but 8 firm manner. Compromise, appeasement 9 and stalling it only encourage further 10 contempt of the law and the rights of 11 other citizens." 12 Now as a collective, taking this document 13 as a whole, is it -- would you agree with me that this is 14 really repugnant to the views of the OPP with respect to 15 what happened with Dudley George? 16 A: Sure. 17 Q: The OPP does not embrace that kind of 18 thinking? 19 A: Of course not. 20 Q: Yeah. And then we heard about some 21 mugs. Did you get a mug? 22 A: No, sir. 23 Q: But you got a t-shirt? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Where's the t-shirt now?


1 A: It was destroyed. 2 Q: Do you know how many mugs were -- 3 were purchased by your members? 4 A: I have no idea. 5 Q: Was anybody -- did anybody ever check 6 it? 7 A: Yes. There was an investigation into 8 it. 9 Q: I see. Was there any effort to 10 confirm that all of the mugs had been destroyed? 11 A: I don't know. 12 Q: And I take the same as far as the t- 13 shirts. You don't know if they were destroyed? 14 A: I don't know. 15 Q: Would you agree with me that it will 16 be a good thing to ensure that all those mugs and all 17 those t-shirts were destroyed? 18 A: That's fair. 19 Q: I know it's fair but would you agree 20 with me that it's -- that it is an appropriate thing for 21 the OPP to do? 22 A: Sure. 23 Q: Okay, thank you. Now there are two 24 (2) other documents, two (2) or three (3) other documents 25 I want to refer to. And I'll try to do it as quickly as


1 I can. 2 Now there was an Ipperwash Review document 3 that's among the list. The Document Number 2000556 and 4 this involved yourself, Chief Superintendent Coles and it 5 was really a review of what happened at -- 6 A: Can -- can you direct me to where I'd 7 find that? 8 Q: I do not know if it's among your 9 tabs. But I will just tell you some things about it and 10 perhaps we won't have -- we won't need to go to the 11 document. 12 THE REGISTRAR: P-457. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah, it's P-457. 14 Perhaps we could just give that to the witness. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this the 19 document that you're referring to, that's on the screen? 20 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: This is the document, 21 yes, Mr. Commissioner. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS:


1 Q: First page. Three (3) paragraphs 2 down the last sentence. Oh no, the cover page, sorry. 3 Back to the cover page. Yeah, three (3) paragraphs down 4 it is said here: 5 "Chief Coles stated his contentment 6 with the overall operation at 7 Ipperwash." 8 And this is in February of 1996. You were 9 there when Chief Coles made that utterance, am I correct? 10 A: Yes, I was at the meeting. 11 Q: Yes. And just above it, you said: 12 "The overall contingency plan was laid 13 out to contain peaceful resolution. It 14 was -- is -- was reported that almost 15 twelve hundred (1200) people were 16 involved at Ipperwash." 17 Twelve hundred (1200) people. 18 Was this twelve hundred (1200) police 19 officers? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Okay. And Chief Coles is stating 22 that he was quite contented with what happened. 23 A: With the overall operation it says. 24 Q: Yeah. Now, the overall operation, as 25 I understand it, was to remove the people from the Park,


1 am I -- am I correct with that? That was the idea behind 2 Project Maple? 3 A: Well, that's a part of it, yes. 4 Q: Yes. What else? 5 A: Well, part of it is to contain it for 6 the -- for the injunction and it's all the different 7 parts -- 8 Q: Absolutely. 9 A: -- of that process. 10 Q: Absolutely. All things had gone the 11 way Project Maple was intended to go, you'd get an 12 injunction, you'd evict the occupiers and it would remain 13 Ipperwash Provincial Park, that was the objective. 14 A: Well, if that's what the injunction 15 directed. 16 Q: But in any event, the situation today 17 is that twelve hundred (1,200) police officers were 18 involved, right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: An injunction was obtained after the 21 death of Dudley George; correct? 22 A: That's accurate. 23 Q: The injunction was never enforced, is 24 that correct? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: Cecil Bernard George was seriously 2 beaten; correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Three (3) people were arrested at the 5 hospital; correct? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And as far as the arrest at the 8 hospital is concerned, nobody knew who they were until 9 they arrived at the hospital; am I correct? 10 A: I believe that's accurate, yes. 11 Q: Yeah. So that if, when they stopped 12 at the house of Hank Veens (phonetic), he had gotten in 13 his car and driven Dudley George to the hospital, he 14 would have been arrested, probably? 15 A: Possible. 16 Q: Not possible, sir, I will suggest to 17 you that the instructions were to arrest the people who 18 brought Dudley George. So, it's not possible, it is very 19 probable and almost a certainty. Do you agree with that? 20 A: Fair enough, yes. 21 Q: So that Hank Veens, as a good 22 Samaritan, would have left there to cogitate over the old 23 saying that no good deed goes unpunished. 24 He drives, as a good Samaritan, somebody 25 to the hospital to face arrest because the police didn't


1 know who was driving? 2 A: That's fair. 3 Q: Yeah. And these three (3) who were 4 arrested, they were arrested on -- and -- and told they 5 were going to be charged with attempted murder; correct? 6 A: That's my understanding. 7 Q: And they were then released and not 8 charged with attempted murder; correct so far? 9 A: I believe so, yes. 10 Q: As a matter of fact, Carolyn George 11 was not charged with anything at all? 12 A: I believe that's accurate. 13 Q: Yeah. And Warren George, a guy with 14 no criminal record before this, he was convicted for the 15 use of his car; correct? Warren George? 16 A: Warren George? 17 Q: Yes, Waldo. 18 A: The driver of the car? 19 Q: The driver of the car. 20 A: Oh, yes. Yes, yes, yes. I'm sorry, 21 I'm getting some of the names confused there. 22 Q: A cottage or two (2) was broken into, 23 but was not torched? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: There's no police -- no OPP patrol of


1 the -- of the Park or the Camp? 2 A: Right. 3 Q: Sergeant Deane was convicted for 4 criminal negligence causing death? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: A St. John's ambulance equipment was 7 destroyed? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Police equipment was damaged? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Police equipment is missing? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: The SIU was involved? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And Chief -- Chief Coles is 16 contented? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: That's what he -- he said, he was 21 contented; am I correct? 22 A: That's what it says here. 23 Q: Yeah. Yeah. And as one continues to 24 read this document, down on page 1 further, down to the - 25 - near the bottom, it says here:


1 "Members had a mandate to prosecute 2 criminal acts and it was noted that all 3 charges that were investigated have 4 been laid. This was very successful." 5 All part of celebrating the success of the 6 Ipperwash project. 7 A: I -- I wouldn't categorize it as 8 that. 9 Q: Yes. Okay. 10 A: I think that's an unfair statement. 11 Q: I don't mean to be unfair, sir. I 12 take it, sir, that you will agree that this Document 457, 13 the Ipperwash review, correctly represents what was 14 discussed at that review meeting? 15 A: Sure. 16 Q: And over on page 3, down about four 17 (4) paragraphs, it reads: 18 "Inspector Carson -- sorry, Inspector 19 Carson, it was Inspector Carson's 20 decision to put the TRU team in the 21 bush to protect TOC." 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. Now, would you agree with me 24 that you need the cover of darkness to be able to stack 25 the TRU team in the bush and not have them seen by the


1 occupiers? 2 A: I'm sorry? 3 Q: Do you agree with me that for you to 4 be able to put the TRU team in the bush, there -- it was 5 intended to hide them, I -- am I correct? 6 A: They -- they were in a concealed 7 fashion, yes. 8 Q: Yes. And you would agree with me 9 it's easier to conceal them in the dark than in the day? 10 A: Of course. 11 Q: Sure. So the night time operation 12 had an advantage as far as the deployment of the TRU team 13 was concerned? 14 A: But I -- what they're talking about 15 here is the deployment of TRU around the TOC site after 16 the shooting. 17 Q: It goes on about the press release. 18 It says here: 19 "Press releases. No press releases are 20 given when SIU is involved." 21 It goes on to say: 22 "A press release stating our position 23 was released by Inspector Carson. This 24 was put out immediately and it stated 25 what happened."


1 Right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Is that a correct and true statement? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: That it was put out immediately? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Okay. Immediately. What kind of 8 timing are you talking about? 9 A: Within a few hours. 10 Q: Within a few hours. And that is 11 something that would take time to prepare; am I correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And time to review? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: It's not a -- it's not a snap thing? 16 For instance, you involved Babbit, you involved other 17 people and it was a matter of honing it to get it to what 18 you really want? 19 A: Yeah, that's their job, yes. 20 Q: And it was done as soon as possible 21 and that qualifies to this word "immediately"? 22 A: Sure. 23 Q: Yeah. And as far as the SIU is 24 concerned, when there was a phone call from the SIU for 25 you to return immediately, the SIU immediately was


1 trumped by your desire to get out your press conference 2 first. 3 Am I correct with this? 4 A: I returned the SIU call the first 5 opportunity. I called Babbit first as I've indicated 6 before. 7 Q: Yeah, first opportunity after you 8 finished and got your press release out? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Right? 11 A: Correct, yes. 12 Q: Okay. Over on page 4, please, down 13 at the bottom. Speak about Inspector Goodall -- It says 14 here, Inspector Goodall is speaking, I take it? 15 "Issues raised that there were 16 insufficient people to supply 17 information and that investigators 18 found a need to have better 19 understanding of what had taken place 20 at the shooting." 21 It goes on to say: 22 "Innocent people were placed in jail 23 due to the lack of proper information 24 being passed on." 25 Right?


1 A: That's what it says, yes. 2 Q: Would these innocent people be Pierre 3 George, Carolyn George, JT Cousins, and Nicholas 4 Cottrelle? 5 A: I suspect that's who he's referring 6 to. 7 Q: Thank you. Over on page 5, please. 8 Inspector Goodall again, three (3) paragraphs down. He's 9 questioning whether or not the -- the arrest's legal or 10 not legal at Strathroy Hospital. 11 That was another issue that was raised, 12 correct? 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: Yeah. This was part of your own 15 review, yeah. And then down two (2) paragraphs from the 16 bottom, Sergeant Wright. Sergeant Wright is saying, he 17 noted that when the plan was developed a case manager was 18 in place. 19 But the incident moved so quickly it 20 caused the case manager to move to the Strathroy 21 location. Who was the case manager? 22 A: Detective Sergeant Richardson, I 23 believe he's referring to here. 24 Q: Yeah. And when was he moved to the 25 Strathroy location?


1 A: Well, he -- he went to the hospital 2 that night. 3 Q: Oh, he was moved -- oh, I see, he was 4 taken over there. And what it then had "Situation 5 unfolded and it fell apart because the case manager had 6 to leave." Right? So is this really a failure of -- of 7 the system. 8 A: Well, it was a matter of not having 9 enough bodies at that particular point in time to address 10 the -- the multiple sites that they were trying to deal 11 with. 12 Q: Over on page 7, down at the bottom is 13 a statement. 14 "Chief Coles, Gustafson Lake definitely 15 connected." 16 Have you got any idea as incident 17 commander -- is there any information that you've seen as 18 incident commander to connect the Gustafson Lake problem 19 or issue with the Ipperwash issue? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Over on page 8 for a minute please. 22 Inspector Carson, two (2) para -- second paragraph. 23 "Responded once war room was opened to 24 then the TOC becomes a place of 25 information and passing it along."


1 Now there was some mention in -- in your 2 examination of the word "war" and I hear -- see this 3 reference to a war room. What was this war room? 4 A: That's referring to the incident 5 support centre at general headquarters. 6 Q: I see. And I take it, sir, that -- 7 that Tex Dean would have know it as the war room? 8 A: I don't know if he would have heard 9 it in that phrase or not. 10 Q: What about Popcorn Wright? He would 11 have known it as the war room? 12 A: Detective Sergeant Wright may have. 13 Q: But it was -- it was -- it was 14 nothing -- it was established a quote, unquote, "war 15 room" wasn't it? 16 A: Yes. It's an incident support 17 centre, a general headquarters. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: And I ask you to look, it's Document 22 Number 2002292 and this was remarks of T.B. O'Grady after 23 the SIU report had been filed. 24 A: Where would I find that, sir? 25 Q: I do not know that...


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Just take a quick look. Do you -- do 4 you recognize there -- that document. This was a 5 statement of T. B. O'Grady after the -- the SIU report 6 was -- was completed. And it says here on the first 7 page, page 1 and I'm looking at the third paragraph: 8 "Since the director of SIU announced 9 his decision yesterday, I am now able 10 to set the record straight in certain 11 areas, and I will do so." 12 Do you recall looking at that -- have you 13 ever seen that document? 14 A: No. I'm not sure where that was -- 15 where he spoke that at, if that's a press conference or - 16 - or a media release, I don't know. 17 Q: No difficulty, if you don't know, I 18 can move on. 19 There are two (2) quick areas. One (1) of 20 the things I want to refer to is your -- is a -- is a 21 part of your evidence-in-chief. When it came to the end, 22 Commission Counsel asked you about recommendations. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And you had a set of recommendations 25 which you read onto the record?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: Yeah. I'm going to tell you, as I 3 listened to those recommendations my reaction was here 4 again goes a white man saying what's good for Indians, 5 because nowhere in your recommendations do you have 6 consultation with Indians. 7 Do you agree with me that regardless of 8 the recommendations you should consult with the Indians? 9 A: I would disagree with your comment. 10 Q: Well, then, perhaps, the record will 11 speak for itself. You can look at it and you will see. 12 Now, as far as it -- it goes over and on 13 page 65 going into page 66 you -- pardon me? Okay, of 14 his testimony. 15 It says here you are speaking about -- 16 perhaps I should just read some sections here. You say: 17 "It has always been essential that 18 police be provided all information from 19 every source. When the OPP is 20 responding to First Nation communities 21 in regard to any major occurrences -- 22 occurrence, it is expected that the 23 commander will seek out the chief of 24 council or representative thereof to 25 ensure that there's an understanding of


1 the police operation." 2 Where it says, "chief of council," I think 3 it meant, "chief and council?" 4 A: I'm sorry? 5 Q: I think it meant, "chief and 6 council?" 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Okay. Fine. 9 A: Right. 10 Q: "The police commander must assess all 11 available information in order to 12 decide on the independent application 13 of the law. In general, such autonomy 14 can be achieved by the use of 15 operational liaison officers, as 16 suggested in previous recommendations. 17 This approach would preclude any 18 elected official needing direct access 19 to the incident commander, however, 20 I'll be cautious of any suggestion that 21 precludes absolutely that the incident 22 commander not be able to have face-to- 23 face meetings with elected officials." 24 So, you're of the view that as part of the 25 policing effort that elected officials could be involved?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: Yes. But would you also agree with 3 me that what is needed is that a process be in place that 4 is sufficiently transparent that when the -- when -- when 5 the elected officials have got their own agenda, they 6 don't leave the OPP stuck with carrying the bag? 7 A: Absolutely. 8 Q: Yeah. So, transparency would be of 9 great assistance, would you agree with that? 10 A: Of course. 11 Q: Absolutely. Now, as far as dealing-- 12 A: But I think if you look at the first 13 recommendation I talked about committees being set up 14 representative of the First Nations communities. 15 Q: I would suggest to you, sir, I'm not 16 going to become argumentative because the document's 17 going to speak for itself, but I'm going to suggest to 18 you that you were speaking about the land claims process. 19 Okay? 20 So anyway, now... 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now -- 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: I just want to say


1 this and it's -- and it's not an objection at all, but 2 just in the spirit of -- of the Inquiry we had 3 discussions with Commission Counsel that there would be a 4 time and a place for the OPP -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: For 6 recommendations. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- to put forward what 8 it is doing in dealing with consultation with the First 9 Nations community -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and on that basis, 12 it was decided not to elicit that through -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- Deputy Commissioner 15 Carson. Now, My Friend wouldn't know that, but -- 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well -- 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and -- and there 18 are actually days that are now going to be set aside to 19 address that very issue -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're 21 working on days in September -- 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if I'm 24 not mistaken, September 12th and 13th for this very 25 purpose.


1 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes. And I didn't say 2 it as a criticism of My Friend -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- but in fairness to 5 Deputy Commissioner Carson. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: That hasn't been 7 announced officially yet, so I just did it now, but we're 8 still working on those days; they haven't been completely 9 confirmed yet, but we're working on them. 10 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well, Mr. 11 Commissioner, my apologies for pre-empting, but you see 12 what happened. I do a lot of First Nations work and 13 that's a gap that I've always thought needed to be filled 14 and I'm -- Commissioner, I'm very, very happy that you're 15 moving in that direction. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We are. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I must, Commissioner, 21 refer to one -- a few things in the -- in what has been 22 termed the Connolley report, and this is document number 23 2000577. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 2 Q: And on to page 5, Commissioner, there 3 are a number of issues, and quite a few seem to point in 4 your direction, and I would just like to go through one 5 of these -- two (2) of these. 6 The first one is why didn't the Ontario 7 Provincial Police stop the occupation of Canadian Forces 8 Bases Ipperwash in 1993 and 1995 and the Ipperwash 9 Provincial Park in 1995? 10 I take it, sir, that the position of the 11 OPP was that as far as these occupations were concerned, 12 Federal Government is your responsibility in 1993 for the 13 Base, and in 1995, get an injunction and we will act; am 14 I correct with that? 15 A: Sure. 16 Q: And as far as the park is concerned, 17 is Provincial Government, go get an injunction and we 18 will act; am I correct with that? 19 A: Fair enough. 20 Q: Yeah. So then it goes on, it says 21 here, Number 2: 22 "Why are First Nations people -- why 23 are First Nations persons treated 24 differently than the remainder of 25 society?"


1 Did you ever consider that, and do you 2 have a response for it? 3 A: I -- I don't know the context of any 4 of this. 5 Q: Oh, no problem. 6 A: I -- I've never seen this document 7 before, so I -- I don't know how this is all raised, or 8 what -- what the basis of all this is. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What is the 10 document again? Could you explain it again, I'm not -- 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: This is the Connolley 12 report, and as I look at it, it says -- it appears as 13 though, he -- Inspector Carson, as he then was, had 14 input. 15 Now, if he doesn't know it, I will move 16 on. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN : I -- 18 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I'm not going to make a 19 big issue. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I asked about this in- 21 chief, and Deputy Carson said that he provided documents 22 to Mr. Connolley -- Inspector Connolley -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- but that he had 25 never seen the report, and so I moved on and he had --


1 and he explained why he hadn't seen the report. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 And you -- 4 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well there are two (2) 5 things, Mr. Commissioner. Number 1, if he hasn't seen 6 the report, that's fine, but the other thing is if he 7 provided information, I'd just like to quickly just go 8 through some of those areas. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, if we simply -- 10 I think we marked -- it was a letter that he sent in with 11 the scribe notes, and we can find that. 12 What he sent in was a letter with his 13 notes and the scribe notes, as I understand it. 14 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: That might very much 15 be so, but I mean there was still one or two (2) 16 questions with or without the letter. 17 I don't think the letter is going be 18 helpful -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 22 Q: I just ask the questions so that I 23 can get a chance to get some rest. 24 The third one here, why did the Provincial 25 -- Ontario Provincial Police Crowd Management Team charge


1 the Park occupiers? 2 And under it there, it says: 3 "This particular issue must be answered 4 as soon as possible so that any 5 recipient of the information can have a 6 complete picture of the facts involved, 7 to the immediate park history of this 8 particular location, and the problems 9 associated with policing land claims 10 dispute in general." 11 Now, that's one of the things. As far as 12 policing land claims disputes is concerned, is this 13 something that the Ontario Provincial Police is involved 14 in on a day-to-day basis? 15 A: No, not really. 16 Q: I see, okay. And you'd agree with me 17 that land claims is a matter that -- that you need some 18 proper guidelines from the Federal Government or 19 whichever Government before they can shunt it off and 20 make it a police matter? 21 A: That would certainly be the 22 preference, yes. 23 Q: Yes. That it is a political matter, 24 dealing with substantial Government policies, and for the 25 policy makers to walk away, and sort of leave it between


1 the police and the Courts, it goes nowhere in your view. 2 Am I correct with that? 3 A: That's absolutely correct. 4 Q: Then number 4: 5 "why did the Ontario Provincial Police 6 Crowd Management Team charge the Park 7 occupiers at night, rather than at 8 daylight?" 9 I take it, sir, that you've broadly 10 answered that as far as -- in this Inquiry? 11 A: I believe I'd answered it at some 12 depth. 13 Q: And I take it you wouldn't like to 14 just repeat your answers, sir? 15 Now this one, number 5: 16 "there was intelligence concerning 17 automatic weapons and other firearms in 18 the possession of the occupiers. There 19 was also information of women and 20 children leaving the Park, as something 21 was going to happen." 22 Did the -- did the Ontario Provincial 23 Police take any action -- sorry, why did the Ontario 24 Provincial Police take the action they did, with this 25 information known to them?


1 Now, this is something that happened on 2 your watch, so perhaps you can just give me a short 3 answer. There's a suspicion of all these firearms, why 4 would you march -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is -- I 6 believe this question has been asked by you, and by 7 others a number of times. 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I will step over it 9 and keep going. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean, this 11 is information we already have. 12 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I will step over it 13 and keep going. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 16 Q: On number 7, it said: 17 "What communications took place among 18 the various groups, the OPP and Stony 19 and Kettle Point Band Council, Stoney 20 Pointers and ONFIRE?" 21 Is it fair to say, that you met from time 22 to time, and had communications with chief and council 23 from Kettle Point? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Yes. And is it fair to say that you


1 met from time with the ONFIRE group -- or not you 2 personally, the OPP met with the ONFIRE group? 3 A: Some of our members may have met with 4 some representatives of ONFIRE, but I'm not sure of their 5 status prior to this event. 6 Q: I see. 7 A: I know they were certainly involved 8 post the event. 9 Q: And is it fair to say that as far as 10 the Stoney Pointers are concerned, from 1993 until around 11 July - August 1995, there was some level of communication 12 and it broke down after the occupation of the Park? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And the occupation of the Park was on 15 the 4th of September, and the incident with Dudley George 16 on the 6th, so it is shortly after the -- the occupation, 17 and the breakdown, so there was not much opportunity then 18 to speak? 19 A: Right. 20 Q: Yeah. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Number 8, why was the presence of a 25 gay -- grave site in Ipperwash Park not known until after


1 the Incident, and the response was: 2 "Reference to grave site by Federal 3 Minister Ron Irwin came as a surprise 4 to all." 5 Is it fair to say that if Ron Irwin had 6 delivered that piece of paper ahead of time to let you 7 know that there was a grave site involved, that you would 8 have had a totally different approach than mobilizing TRU 9 team, and -- and -- and your -- your Crowd Management 10 Unit? 11 A: That's -- that's such a difficult 12 question to be able to answer with any certainty. It 13 would certainly have been information we would have 14 hopefully been able to use to stimulate some discussion. 15 It would have -- it would involved 16 discussions with the MNR and so many others, and I mean 17 it -- it is a such a what if, I just don't really know 18 how -- how much weight I can put on it ten (10) years 19 later, because I just -- I just can't -- you know, I 20 never -- personally -- I don't know how valid this is. 21 There's so much that's unanswered about 22 it. So it's -- it's a very difficult question. 23 Q: You mean so much that's invalid about 24 the presence of the grave site? 25 A: Yeah, like I don't know what -- what


1 the basis of this letter is, personally, I mean today. 2 Q: No, no, just -- no, I think I'm -- I 3 didn't raise it properly then. 4 I'm suggesting to you, that shortly after 5 the death of Dudley George, within ten (10) days, the 6 Federal Minister of Indian Affairs at that time, Ron 7 Irwin, showed up in the area with a document strongly 8 suggesting there was an Indian burial ground some place 9 in the Park. 10 A: Right. 11 Q: Yeah. And I am suggesting to you, 12 I'm inviting you to confirm that if you had this 13 information prior to mobilizing your units, it would have 14 been something which would have gone into the mix, even 15 as far as the injunction was concerned. 16 A: Oh, absolutely. 17 Q: That you -- 18 A: Sure, of course. 19 Q: -- would not have taken the position 20 that it is an outright trespass. You'd say, okay, fine, 21 they're there, but there is some confusion. 22 A: Oh; that's fair, sure. 23 Q: Right. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: I was trying to get you to knock that


1 one out of the stadium, but you didn't see it. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 I believe I need to refer to no more than 6 three (3) pieces of paper. Could you flash up Exhibit 7 P-415 for me? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Document Number 2000364, it appears. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 415. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS. 15 Q: 415, Exhibit 415. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 This -- this is your -- this is your 20 document, Deputy Carson? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Yeah. Now Deputy, I want you to help 23 me on something. Would you agree with me that here, and 24 fact not fault, not blame, that here when reference was 25 made to the stakeholders in all honesty it did not


1 include the occupiers up at the range; look at the letter 2 for me please. 3 A: I -- I'm sorry, the question? 4 Q: I'm saying to you that in your letter 5 of August the 9th, 1995, under responsibility, as you 6 said, number 1: "keep the peace", which I accept. 7 Number 2: "Respond to all investigations 8 of criminal activity", which I accept. 9 Number 3: "Maintain ongoing liaison with 10 all stakeholders", and I'm going to suggest to you that 11 at that time the stakeholders, in your view, was MNR, 12 agreed so far? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Chief and Council of Kettle and 15 Stoney? 16 A: Sure. 17 Q: Agreed? Municipal officials, agreed? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Generally the Province of Ontario? 20 A: Sure. 21 Q: But, if the occupiers were to be 22 considered, there would be really a footnote in this 23 context. They were seen as lawless, as they've been 24 classified sometimes, and trespassers. 25 A: This -- this particular document was


1 at the time when there was a perceived, or a potential 2 action to be taken by the Kettle and Stoney Point band, 3 by -- by the people of Kettle Point that were in 4 disagreement with the occupation. 5 Q: I agree with that. I agree with 6 that. You see, but officer I'll tell you. My view is 7 that I want the Commissioner to really understand what 8 was happening on the ground. I would hate him to go away 9 and think that, look as far as this is concerned, 10 everybody was on equal footing. 11 I'm suggesting to you, that very little, 12 if any consideration, in this context, would have applied 13 to the occupiers? 14 A: I -- I can't agree with that. 15 Q: Well then that's fine; that's fine; 16 that's fine. Now finally, would you agree with me that 17 by and large, the scribe notes properly reflect what 18 happened at the time the notes were compiled? 19 A: That's fair. 20 Q: I know it's fair, but do you agree 21 with me that it's correct? 22 A: As -- as correct as possible. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And do you also agree with me that a


1 review of the scribe notes in handwritten form and 2 typewritten form should give the Commission a fair idea - 3 - a very good idea -- of what happened from the 4 representations in the scribe notes? 5 A: Sure. 6 Q: Yeah. And sir, as far as the -- the 7 logger tapes are concerned, my understanding is that it 8 was some time after September 7th, 1995 that you were 9 able to determine with any certainty that all of these 10 calls had been taped? 11 A: Oh, I certainly didn't know that they 12 were all taped at the time. 13 Q: Yeah. True. So then, is it fair to 14 say that these were unedited, unabridged conversations 15 and representative of your position wherever it makes 16 reference to you? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And apart from -- here I might differ 19 with other Counsel. Some of them refer to it as obscene 20 language, I call it merely colourful and definitive 21 verbiage and apart from that, it was the message that was 22 being sent rather than the language that was being used? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Yeah. But to the same extent that 25 one can go to court and one can rely on wire tap as being


1 representative of the real conversations that were going 2 on between the targets, one should be able to rely on the 3 logger tapes? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Commissioner, I thank you very much. 6 A: Thank you. 7 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, 8 that's mine, thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Ross. Mr. Henderson...? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I do want to re- 15 organize my papers a bit, Commissioner. I can do fifteen 16 (15) -- twenty (20) minutes and if we break for lunch 17 then I can... 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, may I 19 ask you again -- 20 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- some 21 shuffling. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know what 23 your original estimate was, a half a day, but may I ask 24 you if that's still an accurate estimate of how long you 25 expect you might be?


1 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I would think 2 it's a little longer than I'm going to be. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, you 4 should be able to finish your cross-examination -- 5 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I would -- I 6 would -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- this 8 afternoon some time? 9 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- fairly expect 10 to finish today, yes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 Well, it's 11:30. I think you should start and let's go 13 to -- 14 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: That's fine. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- at least 16 twelve o'clock. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 21 Q: Good morning, Deputy Commissioner 22 Carson. 23 A: Good morning. 24 Q: My name is Bill Henderson. Mr. John 25 George and I represent the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony


1 Point First Nation and I'm going to have several 2 questions for you in several areas and I hope not too 3 many of them will seem familiar. 4 But I want to go back, what must seem to 5 you a very long time ago and -- and look at your 6 curriculum vitae again or your resume. I don't know if 7 you still have a copy of it at hand. 8 A: I'm -- I'm not sure where it is in 9 the documents here. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's Tab 1 of the 11 black book. It's Exhibit... 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Exhibit 390 -- P- 16 390(sic). Oh, you've set the end; that's 17 really good. 18 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I believe someone 19 said Tab 38. 20 THE WITNESS: Tab 38? 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. It's at Volume 22 2. 23 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: And of course, 24 Commissioner, we're always indebted to Mr. Millar for his 25 encyclopaedic command of the materials and to any and all


1 volunteers who help out from time to time. 2 Do you have it there now, Deputy? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 6 Q: Do you want a moment to refresh 7 yourself when it's -- 8 A: No, I'm fairly familiar with it. 9 Q: I'm sure you're generally familiar 10 with it, it's your life. 11 The -- on your CV from July '94 to October 12 of '95 you were an acting superintendent? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And District Commander based in 15 London? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: What was the district of which you 18 were commander or is that the... 19 A: Yeah, it was the district of 20 Middlesex County, Elgin County, Oxford County. 21 Q: Hmm hmm. 22 A: And the Detachments that serve that 23 area. 24 Q: Okay. And prior to that, from May of 25 '93 to July of '94 you were an Inspector and District


1 Administrator and also an incident commander. Is that 2 correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And district administrator involved 5 what functions for what district, please? 6 A: It's again, the same district, number 7 2 district out of London for the same three (3) counties 8 and the operational responsibility across the -- the 9 district would be split up between two (2) inspectors at 10 that time. 11 Q: Hmm hmm. And where you've indicated 12 that you were also an incident commander, were there a 13 number of incidents other than the Ipperwash matters -- 14 A: Oh, yes. 15 Q: -- with respect to which you were an 16 incident commander during that period? 17 A: Oh, yes. 18 Q: And I notice on the last page of your 19 -- I'll call it a resume, since for one (1) thing it's 20 not Latin, on the last page you took two (2) incident 21 command course -- courses Levels I and II at the OPP 22 academy in 1994? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And also a commanders course for 25 barricaded persons, which I take it is a -- related type


1 of activity of the type of incident that does occur? 2 A: Well, a number of these courses are 3 building blocks in incident command training. 4 Q: Hmm hmm. And that one's taken at the 5 Canadian Police College which is, I believe, in Ottawa? 6 A: Correct. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Now, prior to -- oh, I notice one (1) 11 of the other training courses there I was just going to 12 ask you about. Exercise Square Deal, what is -- what is 13 that related to? 14 A: Oh, that's a seminar put on by the -- 15 the military. At that particular time it was done on an 16 annual basis at their staff college in Kingston. And 17 that was an exercise where senior commanders were brought 18 in from various police departments across Canada to run a 19 scenario that involved police and assistance to the civil 20 authority, by the military. 21 Q: Hmm hmm. Thank you, and just working 22 -- working down the list here; from September '89 to '93 23 you were a staff sergeant and Detachment commander at 24 Forest? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Now we've heard evidence that during 2 the winter, I believe, of '92 that there was an incident 3 on the Kettle Point reserve involving a gentleman named 4 Darryl George? 5 Does that ring a bell? 6 A: I'm not sure what incident you're 7 referring to. 8 Q: He was apparently barricaded in a 9 house. The TRU team, I believe, was called out. It 10 could have been an ERT team or some combination and it 11 was ultimately resolved with the assistance of one (1) of 12 the Band members who persuaded him to agree to surrender 13 to the First Nations police. And he was then taken into 14 custody. 15 A: I don't recall the incident off the 16 top of my head. 17 Q: At all? 18 A: No. 19 Q: It was 1994? 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Oh, okay. Mr. Millar advises me it 24 may have been as late as 1995 or 1994, and that the 25 incident commander was Dale Linton?


1 A: Oh, there was an incident that he was 2 involved with. I wasn't -- I wasn't familiar with who 3 the subject was. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: Right. But Linton was involved with 6 a call on Kettle Point. It would have been in the winter 7 period. I'm not sure what year that was, so it must have 8 been '94. 9 Q: Obviously, I'm not sure either. Do 10 you recall any of the details of the incident, the 11 intervention of the Band member? 12 A: I know that someone from the Band 13 assisted, but exactly the logistics of it, I -- I don't 14 know. 15 Q: The -- the Commissioner has heard 16 evidence that the individual who did intervene and assist 17 a peaceful resolution was Cecil Bernard George. 18 A: I -- I'm not sure of who the players 19 were. 20 Q: Okay. Do -- do you actually or did 21 you at the time know Cecil Bernard George at all? 22 A: I don't believe so. 23 Q: Okay. And that would be true as of 24 '95 as well when he was a Band councillor? 25 A: Correct. Like I may have -- I may


1 have been at a meeting where he was at but to be able to 2 identify him as to who he was by name, no. 3 Q: That would be quite a high standard 4 to -- to hold you to. Now you seem to have had a summer 5 job as acting staff sergeant and Detachment commander at 6 Grand Bend. 7 A: That was right previous to the 8 assignment at Forest. 9 Q: Right. So you were an acting staff 10 sergeant for that summer until September and then you 11 were the -- confirmed as a staff sergeant and took over 12 the Detachment in Forest? 13 A: Correct. I was transferred here to 14 Forest. 15 Q: I'm sure you have many interesting 16 stories about your summer in Grand Bend. But we won't 17 press for them. Prior to that from August of '85 to May 18 of '89, you were a corporal, a shift supervisor and you 19 worked out of Chatham which I believe was then a district 20 headquarters was it? 21 A: Yes. But it was the Detachment at 22 Chatham, not the headquarters portion. 23 Q: Oh, I see. 24 A: So it was the Detachment operations. 25 There's two (2) separate operations there. There's the


1 district headquarters as command for the three (3) 2 counties, Lambton, Essex, and Kent County at that time. 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: And then the Detachment was 5 responsible for approximately, for lack of a better term, 6 60 percent of Kent County for day-to-day policing. 7 So I was a shift corporal on that 8 Detachment. 9 Q: Thank you. And I also notice from 10 your training resume that in 1987 you took a crisis 11 negotiation course? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: The first of several, as nearly as I 14 can make out. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: During that period, were you actually 17 involved or assigned or connected to any incidents as a 18 crisis negotiator? 19 A: To several actually. 20 Q: Several? Was -- was one (1) of those 21 the incident involving Bernard Bastion (phonetic)? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: I'm sure you know the details better 24 than I do. I take it you were assigned as a negotiator? 25 Did you actually engage in any negotiations on that


1 occasion? 2 A: I was a secondary negotiator. The 3 way they -- at that time the way the teams worked, you -- 4 you worked in teams of two (2) as a negotiator. And I 5 was the secondary negotiator support to Corporal Smith 6 from Tecumseh Detachment. 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: And we did some negotiations with the 9 individual in the early mornings during that incident. 10 Q: During that incident. Now as I 11 understand it, was it a TRU team that was involved in 12 that? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And there was a report of a person 15 threatening suicide? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And as I understand it, unfortunately 18 this was a night time operation? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And the team turned up at the wrong 21 address? 22 A: Well, that's not exactly the facts. 23 Q: You're -- you're the one -- 24 A: Well the -- the team was being 25 deployed at a nearby address to move up to a particular


1 residence and they were confronted by an individual with 2 a -- with a gun. 3 Q: And that individual was not otherwise 4 connected to the investigation or the intent of the 5 operation at all? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And I believe he had a beagle that 8 raised an alarm? 9 A: There was a -- there was an animal, 10 yes. I'm not sure of the brand. 11 Q: Okay; that's fine I don't think 12 that's particular relevant. What happened to the beagle? 13 A: I believe it was shot. 14 Q: Okay. And Mr. Bastion came out on 15 his porch with a rifle in his hand? 16 A: He was out in his yard. 17 Q: In his yard. And he was shot? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Fatally? 20 A: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sure 22 this has some relevance. I just can't see it at the 23 moment. But I'm sure you'll explain it. 24 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Yes, I can 25 explain it, Commissioner. The -- Deputy Commissioner


1 Carson has had a -- a long and distinguished career. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: And like in any 4 other career, we acquire an information base as we go 5 along. Right? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: And on using that 8 information base we make judgements. Professionally, 9 personally et cetera. For example, if I had a swimming 10 pool and a three (3) year old child, I would not buy a 11 pit bull but I would probably buy a Labrador. 12 You know, that's a very simplistic 13 example. But this is part of Deputy Commissioner's 14 information base. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar-- 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Part of his 17 experience. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar 19 went over his resume in some detail but you're going over 20 it in other detail is that? 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Okay. Well I'll 22 -- I'll try to clean it up as quickly as possible. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 25 Q: Mr. Bastion of course unfortunately


1 died. The -- the incident did go to the actual address 2 and the actual young person who was -- was threatening 3 suicide? 4 A: Yes. He was at a residence with his 5 girlfriend. 6 Q: Hmm hmm. And was he taken into 7 custody? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And you were able to negotiate with 10 him or your team was able to negotiate with him? 11 A: He was actually shot. 12 Q: He was shot, but not fatally? 13 A: Yes. Not fatally. 14 Q: Okay. And again, this is -- I'll try 15 to make it a very quick question, again, part of the 16 information base and I don't think you were connected 17 with it at all, but there was also an incident in Sarnia? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And that was a gentleman whose son 20 was wanted for murder? 21 A: Yes. He was one (1) of three (3) 22 individuals who were wanted for a triple homicide. 23 Q: The son was? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And the son was eighteen (18) years


1 old? 2 A: That's about right. It was a 3 teenager or older teenager. 4 Q: And that gentleman was forty-three 5 (43) years old? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: He was sitting in a car by the river 8 with his wife eating french fries and he was shot twice? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: That was a TRU team? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And a night-time operation? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Thank you. Moving on to happier 15 subjects, I see that you actually joined the force in 16 1978? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And you were initially assigned as -- 19 was it 1978 after graduation from the police college? 20 A: Well, my initial posting was Manotick 21 just outside of Ottawa. 22 Q: Hmm hmm. And -- and from there you 23 had the -- the happy transfer to White River? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: Which is not quite so close to


1 anywhere. 2 A: That's fair. 3 Q: And quietly reputed to be the coldest 4 place in Ontario -- 5 A: It is; that's a fact, too. 6 Q: I take it you enjoy hunting and 7 fishing? 8 A: I did. 9 Q: You did? Perhaps we can stop there, 10 Commissioner, and if that's -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's 12 only quarter to 12:00. I mean, I think we could 13 continue. 14 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Well, an hour and 15 fifteen (15) minutes is an hour and fifteen (15) minutes. 16 I can carry on if you want. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 18 should carry on a bit, yes. 19 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: But it would -- 20 it would probably break it up, but I'm in your hands, of 21 course. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 23 think we should carry on. It's only a quarter to 12:00 24 unless there's some you would like to adjourn right now, 25 I think we should carry on.


1 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I certainly 2 wouldn't admit that, Commissioner, I'm ready to carry on. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 4 think we should carry on. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 7 Q: Okay. I'm going to ask a few 8 questions about Dudley George and I don't think I'm being 9 repetitive and I'm sure someone will draw it to my 10 attention very quickly if -- if they think I am. 11 You did give evidence on May the 18th and 12 I'm referring to pages 133-34; that was the morning that 13 the picnic tables were removed from the park -- from the 14 sandy parking lot? 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: And you indicated that a warrant had 17 been issued for Dudley George's arrest? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And that the purpose of issuing the 20 warrant would be to put his name on CPIC? 21 A: It would have gone to CPIC, sure. 22 Q: All right. Does that -- does a 23 warrant appear on CPIC very quickly or is that a process 24 that takes a day or two (2)? 25 A: It -- it could be within the day once


1 the warrant is obtained. You try to get it on as soon as 2 practical. 3 Q: Right. Do -- do you know roughly 4 what time the warrant was actually obtained? 5 A: No, I don't. 6 Q: Okay. Was anyone -- was your team 7 advised or briefed that a warrant had been issued for Mr. 8 George's arrest? 9 A: I would assume they were. Detective 10 Sergeant Wright would probably be in a better position to 11 -- to know the specifics of that. 12 Q: I will try and follow that up with 13 him when I have the opportunity. And the charge, I 14 believe was possession of stolen property with reference 15 to the picnic tables? 16 A: I believe that was it. 17 Q: And I don't believe you would have 18 heard this or had it brought to your attention, but we 19 did hear evidence on November the 9th from Mr. Glen 20 Bressette, who My Friend Mr. Ross invited you to -- to 21 recognize and you didn't. 22 He indicated in his evidence that on the 23 morning of September the 6th, presumably after the picnic 24 table incident, he drove Dudley George to Wyoming to pick 25 up his welfare check. And that in order to get there he


1 passed through a checkpoint by the gate of the Army Base, 2 travelled down to Wyoming, Mr. George did his business 3 there. They came back, they drove around Forest, 4 including Kimball Hall where we are now and the Legion, 5 which was a post for -- for your operation, I believe, it 6 was being used for that purpose, the Legion Hall? 7 A: Yeah, the media offices were working 8 out of there. 9 Q: Okay. And then, they drove back to 10 the Park, perhaps, two (2) hours, I think he said, after 11 they left and again went through a checkpoint. And on 12 this occasion an officer recognized Mr. George, stuck his 13 head in the car, they had a brief conversation and then 14 he and Dudley re-entered the Park. 15 It appears from that, that although Mr. 16 Dudley George was fairly well known in these parts, no 17 one was aware that there was a warrant out for him and 18 that he travelled quite freely about the area with a 19 warrant outstanding, according to that evidence. 20 And I know -- I know you probably have no 21 personal knowledge of that at all. 22 A: I -- I couldn't tell you if the 23 warrant would have been in effect by that point or not. 24 Q: Okay. Regrettably, and of course, 25 regardless of the merits of the charges, if that warrant


1 had been executed, Mr. George might still be alive today. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And I believe that, in fact, you were 4 talking to Superintendent Parkin or is it Chief 5 Superintendent Parkin? 6 A: He was superintendent at that time. 7 Q: Superintendent Parkin. This was just 8 a few minutes after midnight. It was during the course 9 of that conversation that you learned that -- that Dudley 10 George was, in fact, dead? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: If I can ask you to turn to the 13 scribe notes, Tab 2? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And I believe I'm looking for page 16 85. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: That can't be right, can it? How 21 about 35? 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: What page? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: This is September 2 the 5th and the time is 13:54 hours. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it's 4 page 35. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Page 35. 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Page 35, yes. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Exhibit 426. 8 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Exhibit 426 for 9 the record, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Millar. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 14 Q: It's just the entry at 13:54 that I'm 15 interested in and to summarize the first part, it 16 indicates that Detective Sergeant Wright had returned 17 from a meeting at the Park where he'd met with Bert 18 Manning and then he advised some things in the -- the 19 next paragraph, in which I'm not particularly interested 20 for this purpose. 21 The paragraph following that Detective 22 Sergeant Wright stated, and I take it that he was stated 23 these things to you and reporting to you? 24 Is that correct? 25 A: Sure, I believe that's right.


1 Q: Stated that he told Bert Manning 2 that: 3 "We aren't going away." 4 Which I understand to mean the OPP weren't 5 going away. 6 "Mr Manning stated he wanted the 7 barricades removed. Wright told him 8 definitely not. Mark Wright advised 9 that tactically, it is easy to get in 10 to the Park -- get in the Park at the 11 canteen area." 12 I don't think the Commissioner's attention 13 has been drawn to that particular sentence before. 14 But you were advised by Detective Sergeant 15 Wright that he had told Mr. Manning that particular fact, 16 or given -- or made that statement to Mr. Manning. 17 Is that correct? 18 A: I'm missing the question here. Are 19 you suggesting that Wright told Manning that it's 20 tactically easy to get into the Park? 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: No, I would disagree with your 23 comment there. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: I would suggest that was a discussion


1 about the -- the tactical possibilities of entering the 2 Park. I'm not sure the two (2) are related, it's just 3 part of an ongoing discussion. 4 Q: All right, so you didn't understand 5 that this information was conveyed to Mr. Manning at all. 6 A: I would doubt that. 7 Q: Okay. I may have to return to that, 8 Commissioner, because I believe there's another statement 9 somewhere with respect to this conversation, but I'll 10 pass on that for the moment, and that does take me to 11 another area, so that's -- if it's convenient for you 12 now, I -- I make it six (6) minutes to and I'm not going 13 to finish the next area in six (6) minutes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can see 15 you'd prefer to have a break. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Some of us 17 obviously had a larger breakfast than others. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 19 have a lunch break right now then. 20 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Thank you, 21 Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 23 Mr. Henderson. 24 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 25 adjourned until 1:10.


1 --- Upon recessing at 11:53 a.m. 2 --- Upon resuming at 1:10 p.m. 3 4 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 5 resumed. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 10 Henderson...? 11 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Good afternoon, 12 Commissioner. Good afternoon, Deputy Commissioner. 13 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 16 Q: I wonder if I can ask you to turn, 17 please to the audio logger selected tracks, Tab 67. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: The Exhibit number, Commissioner, is 22 444(b). And this is a telephone call between you and Ms. 23 Murray, on September 7th at five (5) minutes to 1:00 in 24 the morning, -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- give or take? If you'd turn, 2 please, to page 424, just below the middle of the page, 3 you're quoted there as saying: 4 "Well, I blame it on the Feds, that 5 they should have dealt with the 6 Military Base two (2) frigging years 7 ago." 8 And you -- do you recall conveying that 9 sentiment in -- in those terms? 10 A: I believe that's a fair assessment of 11 my comments. 12 Q: And this was a point at which things 13 were not going so well -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- in terms of your evening. You 16 were frustrated? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Even so, do you still persevere in 19 the view that if the Federal Government had taken some 20 action, or authorized some action much earlier in the 21 game, that the progression of events would not have 22 occurred? 23 A: I believe that. 24 Q: And I note, just a few lines about 25 that, Ms. Murray says:


1 "The RCMP didn't have what it took" 2 Was the RCMP ever involved? 3 A: No. 4 Q: And this is a very special Inquiry, 5 so if you want to add anything in terms of Federal 6 involvement, you're welcome to do so. But it -- it may 7 not turn up in the report. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 9 what the significance of that comment is, but we'll just 10 leave it go. 11 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: The first part or 12 the second part, Commissioner? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The whole 14 comment. 15 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Okay. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 18 Q: Now, part of the problem, as I 19 understand it, was in 1995 you had the difficulty of 20 devising a strategy, assuming you had your injunction, to 21 remove the occupiers from the Park, or persuade them to 22 leave? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And that was more difficult in the 25 circumstances, because two (2) sides of the Park were


1 surrounded by the Army Base which they occupied more or 2 less exclusively at that point? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And even if you achieved the 5 objective through negotiation or other strategies, you 6 would still be faced with the problem which you 7 described, I think, in terms of guarding trees? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Meaning that you would have a hundred 10 and eight (108) acres of parkland, with presumably, some 11 sort of force to defend it against a group which may come 12 or go virtually any time they pleased? 13 A: Correct. It was also my -- always my 14 opinion that the -- the whole issue of the Military Base 15 was subject of such frustration for many, many years, far 16 beyond the occupation in 1993, but even in many, many 17 years previous to that. 18 That -- had that been resolved, I just -- 19 was always of the belief that none of this would have 20 probably presented itself the way it has. 21 Q: It could indeed, could have been 22 quite fairly resolved before at least one of us was born. 23 The -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 25 going to guess which one you're referring to.


1 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: But there are 2 some limits to speculation. Even in a public inquiry, 3 Commissioner. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 6 Q: On May the 18th, and -- and I'm 7 referring to the transcript at page 104. I'm not asking 8 you to turn to it, but there was a discussion about the 9 potential involvement of Mr. Ron George. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: As a facilitator, a mediator or -- 12 A: Right. 13 Q: -- of some sort. 14 A: Right. 15 Q: And you indicated at that time that - 16 - that you did not ask him to assist. 17 A: No, that's right. 18 Q: And that you identified a -- a 19 possible conflict? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: On February 28th, and of course you 22 weren't here for that either, Mr. George testified, and 23 he said that he had met -- I'm sorry I forget the ranks 24 so I'll just say Officers Seltzer and Smith, whom you had 25 sent to Knobby George's place --


1 A: Right. 2 Q: -- and Knobby George is Ron George's 3 father. 4 A: Yeah, oh yes. 5 Q: He saw the car and I guess he went 6 over and became involved in a discussion with them. He 7 suggested that Mr. Roderick or Judas George might be a 8 useful person to talk to in terms of the goal -- of your 9 objectives. 10 And in fact he went to the camp himself to 11 try and establish that contact but he was unsuccessful, 12 he couldn't locate Mr. George. Did Officers Seltzer or 13 Smith report any of this to you at -- at the time? 14 A: I -- I wasn't aware of that. They -- 15 we didn't have a chance to debrief their -- their 16 meetings that day before this all took place that 17 evening. 18 Q: Hmm hmm. Now was -- was there a 19 complication at that point assuming that -- that the 20 intervention had been successful or the tip useful? 21 Did you have a warrant out for Mr. George 22 -- Roderick George at that point? 23 A: For Roderick George? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: I -- I'm not sure.


1 Q: Judas George? 2 A: I'm not -- I couldn't tell you if we 3 did or we didn't. It doesn't ring a bell. 4 Q: Okay. I believe there is something 5 on the record somewhere, Commissioner, but -- 6 A: He -- he may have been one of the 7 ones -- there could have been a warrant relative to the 8 evening of September the 4th. I don't have the -- the 9 names off the top of my head. But he may have been one 10 of those people. 11 Q: Yes. I think that's a possibility 12 but I don't have the actual prior evidence at my 13 fingertips. You've also testified that I think in 14 retrospect you said, it might have been very useful to 15 involve Bonnie Bressette more in the situation. 16 A: Correct. Correct. 17 Q: Do you know where she was on 18 September the 6th? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Bonnie Bressette gave her -- Yvonne 21 Bressette, known as Bonnie, gave evidence on September 22 the 22nd, 2004, that she was in fact down to the Park 23 twice that day. 24 Once in the morning for a fairly lengthy 25 period, and then went back in the late afternoon with her


1 husband, and at least one grandchild, and brought some 2 things along for a picnic in the Park down in the front 3 of the Park store. 4 Did anyone report to you that Bonnie 5 Bressette was in the Park with her children? 6 A: I wasn't aware of that. 7 Q: Were you getting any kinds of reports 8 on who was in the Park through that day? 9 A: The officers were attempting to 10 identify who was there. We had taken some aerial 11 photography and there was attempts to identify the 12 individuals who were in there. 13 Q: Hmm hmm. Okay. Now Bonnie Bressette 14 also testified that on both occasions there -- she 15 thought there was no more than a dozen people in that 16 area of the Park, and most of them were children. 17 And that they were down on the beach, and 18 playing, and having their picnic. And she also referred 19 to the fact that the helicopter was hovering very low 20 overhead. As I understand it, you -- you weren't 21 getting very productive intelligence from the helicopter 22 through the video surveillance, or photo surveillance, or 23 the eye witness surveillance because they weren't 24 identifying people for you; or were they? 25 A: Some of them, I'm not sure they were


1 able to get all the people involved. 2 Q: Okay. Now actually she -- and again 3 Bonnie Bressette testified that she had her own reasons 4 in relation to some allergies in her family, to go home. 5 But she left the Park the evening of 6 September the 6th, thinking it extremely unlikely, 7 improbable, or impossible that anything was going to 8 happen that evening, and I take it your evidence, which 9 you've repeated, I think, several times now, was at about 10 the same time, you were of the same mind? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: So, you went off -- I don't know if 13 the term is, booked off for the evening, but -- 14 A: That's fair. 15 Q: -- turned -- turned the -- turned the 16 command over to Inspector Linton. 17 A: Yes, I -- I left for the evening. 18 Q: And you went to a private home in 19 Forest for dinner? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Did you consume any alcohol on that 22 occasion? 23 A: None. 24 Q: I've always wanted to ask that 25 question of an OPP officer. During the period September


1 the 4th to the 6th did you have occasion to visit the 2 site of the Sandy Parking Lot? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: On how many occasions? 5 A: Once, I believe. When Inspector 6 Linton arrived the afternoon of September the 5th, I 7 believe it was, him and I drove through that area. 8 Q: Hmm hmm. And when you say, "through 9 that area" is that around the corner, or right down to 10 the lake? 11 A: No. It would just be around the 12 corner. 13 Q: Okay. And did -- did you stop to 14 take a good look at the -- the lay of the land, as it 15 were? 16 A: I -- today I couldn't tell you if I 17 did or I didn't. I'm certainly familiar with that area. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: I'd been there numerous times over 20 the summer. 21 Q: I'd like to ask a few questions about 22 Chief Tom Bressette. Obviously you -- you knew him 23 fairly well from your service as the Detachment Commander 24 in Forest -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- and you had frequent contact with 2 him, not only in the normal matters, but also in relation 3 to the Army Camp, and -- and the Park? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: I -- I noticed yesterday that -- that 6 you used the phrase, "the likes of Tom Bressette" and 7 that you were in contact with the likes of Tom Bressette. 8 It may -- it may just be a question of -- of usage, but 9 when -- when I learned that expression, I think it's 10 becoming arcane now, but it wasn't intended to flatter 11 the person you were referring to. 12 Could you explain what you -- what you 13 mean when you say that? 14 A: People from Kettle Point, generally, 15 whether it was Tom Bressette or some representative. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: I certainly didn't mean it in any 18 unflattering matter, I can assure you that. 19 Q: That's fine. I was frankly hoping 20 you didn't. I may have to give you my copy of this, but 21 Inquiry Document number 2000 -- that's 2000364 -- is a 22 letter that you wrote on August the 9th, 1995, to the 23 Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police? 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think he has it, 25 it's an exhibit.


1 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Is it an exhibit 2 already? 3 THE WITNESS: The number was, sir? 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: The exhibit 5 number is... 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's 415. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. 8 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: It's 415. 9 THE WITNESS: I have a copy of it here. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Exhibit 415? 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where could 16 we find it in the material, or are you going to put it on 17 the screen? 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's not in the 19 material. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not in 21 the material? 22 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Do you have it 23 there, sir? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't have 25 it in front of me, but depending on how much you go into


1 it, whether I'll want to -- 2 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Well, there's -- 3 there's two (2) paragraphs there at the -- at the bottom, 4 at the end of the letter on the second page. Perhaps if 5 I could ask you to read those two (2) paragraphs into the 6 record, I can provide this copy to the Commissioner. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's page -- it's Tab 8 10, Commissioner, of Volume 1 of your material. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have it. 13 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I think we have 14 it all flashed up there. If you wish, I'll read it, it's 15 just... 16 THE WITNESS: Whatever. 17 DERRY MILLER: What page are you on? 18 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm on the second 19 page; it's a two (2) page letter, and I'm reading the -- 20 the balance of the letter after the heading, "Strategy", 21 which is two (2) paragraphs. And it reads: 22 "All information to-date indicates that 23 Chief Tom Bressette does not intend to 24 confront the occupiers. This is 25 confirmed through personal discussion,


1 and through media information. 2 The local news is now indicating that 3 Ovide Mercredi has agreed to attend and 4 act as a mediator between the Native 5 groups. Should any confrontation 6 occur, there is sufficient ability to 7 respond and react to any violence. 8 Chief Bressette had never condoned any 9 violence or criminal acts, however, 10 there are sufficient resources 11 available to address that potential in 12 the worst case scenario situation is 13 being monitored very closely, and being 14 evaluated on a day-to-day basis. 15 Public safety in the Ipperwash Park and 16 surrounding area is considered 17 paramount, and all indications at this 18 time support the view that tensions 19 between the native groups are beginning 20 to ease." 21 That's the end of the quote, Commissioner. 22 Excuse me for coughing, thank you. 23 Now, is it correct to say that this letter 24 is dealing with tensions within the two (2) groups or 25 factions, if you will, in the First Nation?


1 A: Yes, between the kettle Point band, 2 per se, and the occupiers. 3 Q: And the occupiers. But what I'm 4 particularly interested in is your statement here that 5 Chief Bressette has never condoned any violence or 6 criminal acts; that's -- that was your report to the 7 Commissioner in 1995. 8 A: Right. 9 Q: Do you still stand by that statement? 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: Okay. Would it -- would it be fair to 12 say that Chief Bressette has never condoned any violence 13 if it was committed by the OPP, either? 14 A: Well, that's fair. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: In the tapes, the excerpts of the 19 tapes, Tab 3 is your well known, early morning 20 conversation with Chief Bressette on September the 5th. 21 And that's Exhibit 44(a) -- 444(a), 22 Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 2 Q: Now, I know you've gone through this 3 before, so at page 3 you're describing the strategy of 4 getting an injunction, and saying that this is how you're 5 going to deal with the MNR and the park land; is that -- 6 that fair, in the bottom half of the page, there? 7 A: Sure. 8 Q: And you ask the Chief, could he 9 "Call the Councillors together and kind 10 of brief them from basically what I've 11 told you, like, you know, 'cause what 12 we'd like to avoid, if I can, is some 13 sense that we are going to be heavy 14 handed and go out, and you know, and 15 jump to conclusions and that kind of 16 thing. 17 Like, we're going to control the access 18 to the Park in the short term." 19 And the Chief says: 20 "Well, and you know, and there are 21 going to have to be opportunity to 22 leave, but they're going to be dealt 23 with as trespassers." 24 And the Chief seems to reject the -- the 25 suggestion of -- of having -- calling the Council


1 together to deal with this, because he says immediately 2 following that: 3 "Well, to be honest with you, John, the 4 Council here is tired of those folks 5 there." 6 And in that conversation, there's no 7 further discussion of a meeting of Council to deal with 8 that. Is that your recollection of this conversation? 9 A: Sure. 10 Q: Can I ask what your purpose was in -- 11 in hoping to brief Council, rather than simply talk to 12 the Chief as you were doing? 13 A: It was simply a consultation with the 14 Chief, so he had an understanding what was going on, and 15 if he could pass the information on to the members of 16 Council, hopefully, so they would have an understanding 17 that -- is a -- heard information or whatever. 18 They would have some factual information 19 to deal with, and -- and understand what the 20 circumstances are and -- and have some sense of what -- 21 how we were going to go about trying to address it. 22 Q: Hmm hmm. It would be fair to say, I 23 think, and you may agree or not, that this was an 24 activity that you thought would be useful in terms of 25 your objectives, and Chief presumably didn't agree,


1 because he didn't pursue it? 2 A: Well, I -- I don't know what his 3 particular objectives were. I felt I had -- I thought it 4 was important to inform him, and keep the lines of 5 communication open with him, and I was looking for his 6 help to -- to deliver that message in his community, and 7 I felt he was the most appropriate individual to -- to 8 deal with on -- in that fashion. 9 Q: My -- my question, though, was 10 related to taking some initiative with respect to the 11 Council. I -- I don't think Chief Bressette indicated 12 any -- any reluctance at all not to -- not to have open 13 lines of communication with you. 14 A: Right. Well, I -- I didn't feel -- I 15 felt it was obligation to deal with his Council as 16 opposed to myself. 17 Q: Fair enough. Now, in terms of the 18 plan that you described, getting the injunction, and 19 hoping to find some solution, but being prepared to deal 20 with the occupiers as trespassers, you did not call him 21 back at any point subsequent to this and say there was 22 any different plan? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Or that any different action would be 25 taken?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Okay. Now, as I indicated earlier, 3 my -- my understanding from this entire conversation is 4 that the Chief was quite willing to be open and 5 cooperative, to provide you with information as it came 6 to him -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- to keep the channels of 9 communication open? 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: And I take it you never formed the 12 opinion at any time that he was being less than candid or 13 honest with you in -- 14 A: No, I -- 15 Q: -- those communications? 16 A: -- I thought he was being frank with 17 me. 18 Q: Thank you. Now, I hope I can do this 19 very quickly. There are several references through the 20 logger tape when you're meeting with others to -- to 21 indicate what the Chief's position was. 22 There's only one (1) that I'm particularly 23 interested in, and -- and perhaps you won't disagree if I 24 indicated that at 8:15, and this would be Tab 4 -- this 25 is September the 5th, the same day -- maybe it is easier


1 just to go through it. 2 It would be -- I'm sorry, the scribe 3 notes. 4 A: Oh. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: P-426. 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: That would be 7 Exhibit 426, Commissioner. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 12 Q: For people who have my version, I'm 13 looking at Tab 4, page 52, and the time is 08:15 hours, 14 0815. 15 A: Page -- page 52? 16 Q: It would be page 52 in mine, and that 17 has to be wrong, it can't be Tab 4. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Yes, that's -- that's on September 22 the 6th, and actually it's at 0817 hours. There's a 23 statement there, Mayor said they had a regular Council 24 meeting? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And then, there you say: 2 "John Carson states: Tom Bressette is 3 supportive of dealing with the people 4 there." 5 And that's how you say it, which is -- 6 A: Right. 7 Q: -- consistent with -- with your -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- conversation with him the previous 10 day. 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: At 8:42, and this would be back on 13 September the 5th, that would be Tab 2, the first page. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He doesn't have the 15 tabs. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: He doesn't have 17 the tabs? Okay. This would be the morning of September 18 the 5th, at 8:42 a.m. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 23 Q: Actually, it's just above 8:42 is the 24 -- the part that I'm looking for, which says: 25 "Inspector Carson advised that Tom


1 Bressette agrees with what we're 2 doing." 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And then, at 09:25, which I have here 5 as page 24, but that may not be of much assistance to 6 others, at 09:25 there's a meeting going on with yourself 7 and the various officers are Richardson, Mark Wright, 8 Bill Dennis, Brad Seltzer, Stan Korosec, and Don Bell? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Again, forgive me for omitting the 11 ranks. The second paragraph from the bottom you say: 12 "John Carson advises that Tom Bressette 13 is on board. Agrees, thinks they are 14 criminals." 15 Is that intended to reflect something that 16 Chief Bressette said to you? 17 A: Yeah. That's some of his commentary 18 from the day before. 19 Q: I -- I didn't see that in -- in the 20 telephone conversation. 21 A: Well, not in that conversation. In 22 some conversations I've had, he's referred to them in 23 that fashion. 24 Q: Thank you. I'm sure you don't have 25 that at your fingertips at the moment. You --


1 A: There was some point where he said 2 that they need to be -- need to be dealt with, I believe, 3 is how -- how he termed it, but I'm not sure which 4 conversation that was. 5 Q: Okay. Well, I -- I will just go 6 through this and indicate for September the 6th, I also 7 have -- I'm sorry, September the 5th at 17:08, Inspector 8 Linton reports that he had earlier had a conversation 9 with Chief Bressette. 10 On September the 6th, at 08:17, again 11 there's an indication that Chief Bressette is supportive 12 of dealing with people there. 13 And then as nearly as I can make out, 14 there are no further conversations that day with Chief 15 Bressette from the tapes, or from the scribe notes; is 16 that your recollection? 17 A: To the best that I can remember, that 18 sounds about right. 19 Q: I know you had your Chiefs in town 20 that day, so. 21 So there's really no other contact with 22 him until forty (40) minutes after midnight, when you 23 have -- when you have a telephone conversation with him? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: And that's Tab 5.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: At 1:28 in the morning? 4 Q: I'm sorry, it's Tab 65. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: The time is -- I think it's 0040, 9 isn't it? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where are we 13 at -- where are we looking? Are we looking at the logger 14 tape or are we looking at -- 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: We're looking at 16 Exhibit -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 18 scribe notes? 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- P-444(b) -- 20 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: That's the 21 telephone conversation, Commissioner. 22 If you don't -- I've got it at Tab 65. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 65. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 2 Q: And there's an early discussion there 3 about the use of one of the First Nation constables up on 4 Highway 21. 5 A: Right. 6 Q: And then in the middle of -- I've got 7 it as the second page, it's numbered 398, there is the 8 conversation which, again, we visited before. 9 "Why isn't this being done in daylight, 10 John?" 11 A: Right. 12 Q: "I don't think it's time to debate 13 this, Tom [being the Chief] I'm not, 14 you know, I understand somebody has 15 died over this thing." 16 And you say: 17 "Well it sounds like somebody is 18 seriously injured. I haven't got all 19 that information yet, but I just got 20 back and walked in the door here, 21 myself." 22 Now, in fact at that point, you had been 23 informed that Dudley George was dead? 24 A: I believe so. 25 Q: And that was at Tab 62 during the --


1 the conversation you were having with Superintendent 2 Parkin? 3 A: Correct. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, I apologize if this question has 8 been asked before, but I didn't catch it. Is there some 9 reason you didn't provide the -- the name and the fact of 10 the -- the death to Chief Bressette? 11 A: I -- I just didn't want to get into a 12 debate with him on the phone at that particular point in 13 time. There was so much happening that I didn't think it 14 was time to get into a lengthy discussion. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Okay. Now, if we go back to Tab 3, 19 page -- I'm sorry, Tab 3, page 2, that would be Exhibit 20 444(a), and this is again, Commissioner, the conversation 21 with Chief Bressette at 08:10 on September the 5th. 22 At the bottom of the second page, there's 23 a discussion there about land transactions related to 24 Stoney Point and to the Park. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And the fourth, fifth row of that you 2 say: 3 "That's right, that's right, it was. 4 Then it was sold to individuals and 5 back to the Province. I think 1936 if 6 I'm not mistaken. In '38 or was it 7 '36, '38 it was sold to the Province 8 and made to a provincial park at that 9 time." 10 And Chief says: 11 "Well that's my understanding. 12 Carson: Yeah. 13 Bressette: I haven't really checked 14 all the records." 15 And you say: 16 "Well Natural Resources have done that 17 and we have the documentation and it 18 seems to be pretty accurate." 19 And that I think is consistent with the 20 evidence you have given earlier that you had title 21 searches done. 22 A: Right. 23 Q: And you had seen the documents. And 24 in that connection, looking at the documentation in 25 relation to provincial ownership of the Park, did you --


1 did you notice that in 1978 the province had transferred 2 a section out of the Park? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Consisting of the sandy parking lot 5 on Matheson Drive? 6 A: No. No I wasn't aware of that part. 7 Q: And that's what had gone to the 8 Township? 9 A: I'm sorry? 10 Q: That's what had gone to the Township. 11 A: Apparently, yes. 12 Q: That's why it was Township property. 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: So originally -- actually it was part 15 of the Park but you weren't aware of that? 16 A: No, I wasn't. 17 Q: Okay. And I think some -- I think 18 it may have been My Friend, Mr. Klippenstein, may have 19 suggested to you that the Natives inside the Park were 20 aware of that. 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Now in terms of the Township, you did 23 have some discussions with the Township in terms of 24 whether or not they were going to seek an injunction. 25 A: Right. In the discussion over


1 Matheson Drive. 2 Q: Yes. And did they indicate to you 3 that they were pursuing the subject? 4 A: They were going to get their legal 5 counsel involved. 6 Q: Hmm hmm. And they had not taken any 7 positive steps to that end obviously before September the 8 6th? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Were they aware that you were -- were 11 they informed by you that MNR was proceeding with its 12 injunction application? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: All right. Now when you say they 15 were concerned particularly about Matheson Drive, 16 Matheson Drive had been closed off? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And your evidence consistently has 19 been that you understood the sandy parking lot or that 20 right of way also to belong to the Township? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: But the Township wasn't expressing 23 any concern over that? 24 A: No. It wasn't blocked at that 25 particular point in time. I think the discussion, if my


1 memory serves me correctly was, there was some trees 2 being felled across Matheson Drive and the -- 3 Q: Yeah. 4 A: -- issues of access to that road. 5 Q: Okay. Now at Tab 25, also in 444(a), 6 you have a conversation with Sergeant Babbitt? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And this conversation occurs after 9 the parking -- the picnic table incident where the tables 10 are removed earlier in the morning? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And this conversation takes place at 13 9:40 on September the 6th. If I can ask you to -- I've 14 got 09:40, I've got Tab 25. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 It is 9:40. I keep saying 9:40 because 19 that's what it says here. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: You are absolutely 21 right. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 24 Q: If I can ask you turn to page 211 and 25 Sergeant Babbitt is your press officer so you're


1 discussing how -- how this is going to be in terms of -- 2 set out in terms of public relations I assume. 3 A: Yes. He's doing a press release I 4 believe. 5 Q: Okay. At the bottom of page 211 you 6 say: 7 "If they say if anybody asks, say yeah 8 there was no picnic tables there. When 9 we went we took the picnic tables out 10 of the way there so there would -- 11 there was continued to be access on the 12 public property." 13 And Sergeant Babbitt says: 14 "Okay." 15 And you say: 16 "And that's what it is, it's public 17 property basically. It's county 18 property. So, all we did was remove 19 the obstruction on the county property, 20 it has nothing to do with the Park. It 21 -- you know -- it's not part of the 22 Park itself is what I mean. 23 Okay. 24 Carson: Okay. Does that make sense?" 25 And Babbit says:


1 "Yes, I will. [Sergeant Babbit says] 2 Yes, I'll just go jot something down, 3 and if they call, I'll rely -- I'll 4 relay that to them." 5 Now, there seems to be two (2) concerns 6 that you -- that you set out there, one (1) is that there 7 continue to be public access, on the public property, and 8 this -- in -- in this case the public property you're 9 referring to is the Sandy Parking Lot right-of-way? 10 A: Right. Right. 11 Q: And the reason I'm drawing your 12 attention to that, because it occurs to me that probably 13 the last thing in the world you wanted was the public 14 accessing that particular piece of land at that time? 15 A: That's fair. 16 Q: And when you say, "it's public 17 property, basically it's county property, so all we did 18 was remove the obstruction and it's -- has nothing to do 19 with the Park." 20 Now, in terms of clearing any obstruction, 21 or whatever in relation to that public property, how is 22 it different from the public property that was the Army 23 Base or the public property that was the Park in that you 24 wanted an injunction before you took any action? 25 A: We just removed the picnic tables, we


1 weren't -- I'm not -- I'm not sure I understand. 2 Q: Well, you -- you moved an armed force 3 in there, you took some action. There were at least two 4 (2) individuals in tents with their fire grate -- 5 A: Right. 6 Q: -- camped there. Clearly they fled. 7 You removed the picnic tables. 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: That was pretty much an armed 10 intervention, not -- not that force of arms was called -- 11 not that the arms had to be used, but there was, as I 12 understand it, a picket of -- of ERT individuals holing 9 13 millimetre Rugers at the fort while others removed the 14 tables and loaded them into trucks? 15 A: Yes. That's -- that's basically how 16 it was done. 17 Q: Okay. And what -- what I'm asking 18 is, why would you do an armed intervention for this 19 particular piece of public property, where you didn't 20 want the public anyway, without an injunction, which is 21 what you said you needed everywhere else? 22 A: Right. Well, what we were trying to 23 do was keep the access open there, not only for the 24 public, but -- in reality so that if we had to respond in 25 there, we were able to respond in there.


1 Q: Okay. Now, we mentioned before, 2 Cecil Bernard George, who is actually known as Bernard, 3 not Cecil and we talked about the Daryl George incident 4 where Inspector Linton was the -- the Incident Commander? 5 A: Oh, yes. 6 Q: The -- I mentioned that before lunch, 7 and I -- I know some of these things, it takes me a while 8 to fish them out, but after an hour, more comes to me. 9 So, I -- I thought I would just ask if 10 something came to you over lunch in relation to that 11 incident or any details that you now recall you didn't... 12 A: I -- I didn't attend that -- that 13 incident personally, so I -- I really don't have much 14 detail around that, quite frankly. 15 Q: No, I understand whatever you know 16 would have been what somebody told you at the time, or 17 what turned up in your occurrence reports at the 18 detachment. 19 A: And the difficulty there is the -- 20 even the occurrences themselves would have gone back to 21 the Forest detachment, which was in -- or in Chatham 22 District at that time, not in the district that I was 23 looking after. 24 Q: Hmm hmm. 25 A: So, I -- I wouldn't have seen the


1 occurrence report either at that particular point in 2 time. 3 Q: Okay. No, that's true. If -- if we 4 adjusted the -- adjusted the date you would have been 5 elsewhere. I'm not sure we got the dates on the other -- 6 the other incidents that I mentioned this morning, maybe 7 I can just patch that up. 8 The Bastien incident was 1988? 9 A: I believe that's correct, in August 10 of '88, I believe. 11 Q: And the Sarnia incident was, I 12 believe, '92. 13 A: It would have been '92-ish, yes. 14 Q: Sorry, Commissioner, I'm just 15 rectifying an omission there, I'm not pursuing it. 16 Back to -- back to Bernard George, his 17 evidence to the Commission was that he went down to the 18 Park just about when it was getting dark, and that he had 19 difficulty getting there by road, so he and two (2) 20 others walked down the beach from an area that would have 21 been a little northwest of your tactical operations 22 centre, and along the beach, and into the Park. 23 Were there any OPP observers stationed in 24 any way, shape, or form to see individuals walking along 25 the beach to the Park?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And did they see these individuals, 3 or report their passage to you? 4 A: I wasn't aware of any being reported. 5 Q: Were they instructed to interdict 6 anybody proceeding along the beach? 7 A: I don't believe there was any 8 instructions to that effect. 9 Q: Are you aware of any reports of 10 people who were seen moving back and forth, or any 11 attempts to identify them? 12 A: Not that I can think of. 13 Q: Okay. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Mr. -- Mr. Millar reminds me that 18 there are reports of people on the beach, and I suppose 19 the identification is variable, if -- if at all. 20 Now, Mr. George's evidence was also that - 21 - that after he had arrived at the park, and consulted 22 with some others, he was the individual who walked down 23 East Parkway Drive with the stick, until he saw the -- 24 the CMU formation, at which point he called out to them, 25 and you know, was -- was trying to communicate, but he


1 was moving backwards towards the Park. 2 And he -- that's the individual, of 3 course, the stick was confused with a gun, and everything 4 held off until that was cleared up. 5 So he went back to the Park, and after the 6 initial approach of the CMU to the fence, where there was 7 of course, an altercation. 8 After that, he came back out over the 9 fence and he was standing there, on his evidence, with a 10 pipe in his hand, that he was swinging, and I suppose to 11 keep people at bay, and he was yelling and saying this 12 isn't necessary, and words to that effect, and this is an 13 injustice, and you don't have to do this. 14 Are you -- are you aware of any of that 15 evidence or information? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Okay. Now, his evidence is further - 18 - well, let -- let me stop there for a second. The mere 19 fact that he had come back over the fence, regardless of 20 what he had been carrying, what he had been yelling, or 21 what he had been doing, under the orders you had given, 22 would have been sufficient for him to be arrested. 23 A: Potentially. The fact that he came 24 out swinging a -- some object. At the time that he would 25 have come over the fence, as I understand it, the


1 officers were in what I'll refer to as a defensive 2 position -- 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: So my understanding is that Staff 5 Sergeant Lacroix held them there until a number of people 6 actually came across the fence. 7 Q: That -- that doesn't seem to be the 8 consensus of evidence, but the Commissioner will have to 9 work that out at some point. 10 But at least your -- your understanding is 11 that the -- the CMU or CMUs, I'm not too sure how many 12 were there, were more or less static and so was Mr. 13 George? 14 A: I really don't have much information 15 or much knowledge of -- of his behaviour. 16 Q: Okay, that's fair enough. You were 17 sitting in the -- the control vehicle -- 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: -- not -- not the actual operations 20 centre, but in a vehicle listening to what was going on. 21 A: I was about seven hundred (700) 22 metres away. 23 Q: And you heard that there was a punch 24 out? 25 A: Right.


1 Q: And Mr. George's evidence, which he 2 gave on December the 7th, was that he was there and then 3 they charged, and that -- that's -- those are his exact 4 words. 5 Now that would be consistent with a punch 6 out to apprehend someone -- 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: -- who is at some distance? 9 A: Right. 10 Q: And that was the arrest that was 11 made, and that was your understanding that the punch out 12 resulted in an arrest? 13 A: Right. 14 Q: The medical evidence which we've 15 heard, and I won't take you to it, but it's essentially 16 that once Mr. George was assessed at the hospital, and 17 his injuries were determined, it appeared that he had 18 received about twenty-eight (28) blows from cylindrical 19 objects in the nature of clubs. 20 Does that strike you as an unusual number 21 of blows to address -- to arrest one person? 22 A: It would appear to be. 23 Q: And of course, this would not include 24 kicks or anything like that. We've also heard evidence 25 that he was dragged by the hair back to the arrest van.


1 Would you consider that to be an unusual 2 tactic? 3 A: I certainly wouldn't condone that. 4 Q: All right. Have you, in your years 5 of experience in policing, ever been involved in an 6 incident or arrest situation, where that number of blows 7 were struck, or an individual was dragged by the hair? 8 A: I've never seen that occur. 9 Q: Now, eventually, Mr. George was taken 10 to Strathroy Hospital as we now know. You got 11 information about this again, if we go back to Tab 62, 12 and that would be Exhibit 444(b). 13 A: Which tab, sir? 14 Q: Tab 62. Starting at page 384 you can 15 see a -- a bracketed statement, a little over half way 16 down the page. Background: "one of their -- Dudley's 17 dead, Dudley's dead." 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: You say: 20 "What? [again] 21 Background: Dudley he's dead, 22 Trevor's -- Trevor's at the hospital, 23 he's dead. The other guy, Nicholas 24 [and I think we managed to fill out 25 that it was Cottrelle and not quite


1 unintelligible]. 2 Trev thinks he's going to live. The 3 other guy we don't know who he is. 4 We're not sure whether he's going to 5 live or not." 6 And if we go over to 387 again at the 7 bottom of that page you have: 8 "Carson: One -- one (1) of the 9 unknown person, we don't know who he 10 is. 11 Tony: But one's dead." 12 And then again over the page. 13 "Who's the other guy? 14 Background: We don't know, we don't 15 know. 16 Carson: Well you had three (3) names. 17 Background: I had two (2). I've got 18 Nicholas Cattrelle. 19 Carson: Cottrelle. 20 Background: And Dudley. 21 Carson: Okay. 22 Background: And that's it. I don't 23 know this other guy, and I don't know 24 if he's still living. Trevor's going 25 to find out."


1 Now I think we can agree now that that 2 other guy was Cecil Bernard George; is that correct? 3 A: I believe so, yes. 4 Q: Now, I'm going to ask -- Deputy 5 Commissioner, do you find it a little grotesque that 6 there are three (3) individuals from Ipperwash Park in 7 the Emergency Ward of the Strathroy Hospital, and the 8 only one your people can't identify is the one that you 9 arrested? 10 A: I'm not sure I -- I understand. 11 Q: Now there -- there were three (3) 12 people there, you knew that. 13 A: Right. 14 Q: They were all from Ipperwash Park, 15 you knew that. 16 A: Right. 17 Q: They were all receiving medical 18 treatment. 19 A: Right. 20 Q: Up to the point of course where 21 Dudley George passed away. Now you knew Dudley George 22 was the victim who passed away? 23 A: That was provided to me, yes. 24 Q: And you knew from the expert we just 25 read, that Nicholas Cottrelle was there, and was expected


1 to live. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: The third individual was 4 unidentified, and nobody knew whether he was going to 5 live or die; that's what the statement says. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: That's the individual that was 8 arrested by the OPP, and that's the -- the only one (1) 9 of the three (3) you couldn't identify. 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And I suggested perhaps that's a 12 little grotesque, is that too strong a word? 13 A: I -- I don't know how the identifica 14 -- I don't know what information the officers at the 15 hospital were dealing with, if they had any idea of which 16 one was which. 17 Now, I know Sergeant Richardson went to 18 the hospital from the Command Trailer at Forest. But how 19 he would know, or if he would have even seen, or knew 20 which party was involved in which part of the incident. 21 I mean, I don't know how you could put 22 that all together for him to even know which one was 23 involved in what part of that altercation. 24 So I think -- I think there -- there was 25 so much happening there, I think it's a bit of a stretch


1 to expect that they would know which one was doing what. 2 Q: Well I -- I've asked the question. 3 It -- it strikes me as odd, maybe other would reach a 4 different conclusion. I'm sure the Commissioner will 5 have his opportunity. 6 A: Well I meant -- you know, it's a 7 matter of, you know, if the individual had identification 8 and the hospital knew who he was or he wasn't, if he was 9 being treated by medical staff I'm not sure that all that 10 information would have been a 100 percent forthcoming 11 because of their work. I've just -- a guess on my part. 12 Q: I -- I don't -- I don't want to get 13 into -- to a lengthy discussion of what happened at the 14 hospital because -- 15 A: No. 16 Q: -- we've been over that several 17 times, and of course you weren't physically present 18 yourself. Just moving to the question of cottages. I 19 did provide -- well let me say, Commissioner, I attempted 20 to provide everyone with an aerial photo. 21 Some of them got several pages of 22 intricate text rather than an actual photo because of the 23 formatting. Mr. Millar does have it, and we can flash it 24 up, and I can say if he -- at the outset, this is not a 25 1995 aerial photo. There's a Lambton County website


1 where they produce aerial -- they have aerial photos, and 2 you can pick your area and zoom in on them, and that's 3 what I've done. 4 The actual photo, I think, says 2004 on 5 it, and as soon as I can read the 2004 -- excellent, 6 thank you. Now, I believe you recognize the -- the area 7 that that -- that represents, the roads are marked. 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: You can see -- even better now -- you 10 can see the cottage buildings that are there. Now, I 11 understand the cottage building -- there's sort of, right 12 beside the parking lot, or right-of-way, if you will, 13 there's three cottages in a row up on the dune above the 14 lake? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And then there's one down the road 17 from the third one in. I understand there's been an 18 addition put onto that cottage since 1995, I don't know 19 that matters very much. 20 Now, when we talk about the right-of-way 21 and -- and I've previously referred to a conveyance, if 22 you look to the east side of Army Camp Road, you see a 23 red line that more -- more or less represents the 24 property line or the fence line. 25 A: Okay.


1 Q: And if you follow that line down and 2 extend it, you can see that it hits the property line on 3 the far side or the -- 4 A: Right. 5 Q: -- or the right-of-way. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And I think Mr. Klippenstein referred 8 -- referred you to that fact earlier, so I -- I won't 9 dwell on it. It certainly seems to confirm the -- the 10 occupants' belief that that was all part of the Park at 11 one time. 12 Now, you had expressed some concern that 13 occupants were out, and they would be out just, I 14 suppose, by a straight line across the intersection 15 there, close to the pavement, but back on the sand. In - 16 - on September the 6th there were occupiers out there. 17 I'm -- I'm going to suggest to you that 18 what they might have been doing there was just getting a 19 better vantage point to keep an eye up and down both 20 roads than they could from the area down in the parking 21 lot, or behind the turnstile. 22 Does that seem a reasonable explanation of 23 their presence there? 24 A: I guess that's a possibility. 25 Q: Okay. Now, under your ground rules,


1 if you look at the red line again on the east side, it 2 goes up and then it cuts off an angle to the east -- 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: -- and then it goes -- resumes again 5 back down to the lake? You'll see, I think you can get 6 almost the same vantage point looking up and down both 7 roads if they'd been inside the fence right at that 8 corner. Does that -- 9 A: I'm sorry? 10 Q: See right where the corner goes to 11 the east there, there's a fence there, and there was 12 then. I'm talking about the red line; it's the park 13 fence line, basically, on the east side of Army Camp 14 Road. Do you have your zapper? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Have we got 16 the laser? 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Right here. 18 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Just a moment 19 with my light saber here. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: See if it's 21 still working. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 24 Q: I'm -- I'm looking at this fence line 25 here, which is the fence line for the Park, right?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: I hope I've already sufficiently 3 described it. What I was suggesting to you is if the -- 4 was that if the occupants had been standing inside the 5 fence at that corner there, they would still be able to 6 see up and down both roads just as they would there? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: But, they would not have been 9 violating any of your rules because they would have been 10 inside the Park. 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Okay. So ultimately what a lot of 13 this conflict resulted from was the convenience of 14 walking out on the flat sand, rather than walking through 15 the bush and standing inside the fence? 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: That assumes the -- 17 the motivation that My Friend described to them, and I 18 think that's quite a leap when the Witness said he 19 doesn't know. 20 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Well, it's always 21 dangerous to leap with Ackham's razor in your hand, 22 Commissioner. If -- if you're watching for the police 23 coming down the road, taking a vantage point is the 24 simplest explanation for being there. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm


1 not sure if you're asking questions or -- 2 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: That's fine. 3 I'll -- I'll move on, Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 7 Q: Now, the -- the house on the corner 8 that we've spoken of, that would be this house right 9 here? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And I think we have another photo if 12 I could ask for Mr. Millar's assistance. This -- these 13 are part of the site photos that we received, I think, 14 from Mr. Thompson very early in the game, so long ago 15 that I can't remember the exhibit number. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: P-24. 17 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Number 24? 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: P-24. 19 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: P-24. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And it's photo 14. 24 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Yes. Thank you, 25 Mr. Millar.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 3 Q: Now, do you recognise the edge of the 4 pavement there in the sandy parking lot going off to the 5 right of the picture? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: And there's a driveway going right up 8 in the centre of the picture, more or less? 9 A: Right. 10 Q: And a white, two (2) storey building 11 there? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And would you understand that to be 14 the house on the corner that we were just talking about? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: Okay. I wonder if you also notice 17 that this area here, it actually -- there's quite a 18 height of -- of sand there. 19 Was -- did you ever consider using that as 20 an observation post since you could look right down into 21 the Park? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: We didn't --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When was the 2 picture taken? 3 THE WITNESS: Which -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When was 5 this picture taken? 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: When was -- this 7 picture was taken on September the 17th, 1995. 8 Am I right on that? Yes. 9 THE WITNESS: What time period are you 10 referring to? 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 13 Q: Well, any time prior to September the 14 4th, up to and including September the 6th, 1995. Had 15 you given any consideration to using that height of land 16 in that treed area there to observe what was going on in 17 the Park? 18 A: I think you'll find that in the later 19 afternoon of September 6th, there were ERT officers in 20 that general area. 21 Q: Hmm hmm, okay. And if we dig through 22 the records, we'll find some files of -- of their 23 observations? 24 A: I would suspect. 25 Q: All right. That's helpful. Now,


1 this is the cottage that you asked Inspector Linton to 2 find out whether or not there was anybody in it. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: You recall, I believe, Mr. Horton was 5 asking you some questions about that yesterday. 6 If you go to Tab 55, and this is Exhibit 7 444(b), there's the conversation between yourself and 8 Staff Sergeant Wright. And, I believe, Inspector Linton 9 can be heard in the background, at the bottom of the 10 page, saying: 11 "I found out who he is." 12 I'm sorry, Wright says: 13 "Yeah, I think Inspector Linton was 14 talking to the guy in the house." 15 And you say, "Yeah." 16 And background: 17 "No, I found out who -- who he is." 18 I think, rather than who is -- who is he. 19 And Wright conveys that, 20 "No, he found out who he is, but we 21 have... 22 [background] I got his name, but he's 23 not home." 24 And then, the top of the second half of 25 the page is the same, ending up with Wright:


1 "Yeah, we got his name, his number, and 2 he's not there. 3 Okay, okay, okay." 4 Now, that's the conversation that you were 5 referring to earlier and that led you to believe that -- 6 I'm sorry, that led you to believe that there was no one 7 in the -- the corner house there -- 8 A: Right. 9 Q: -- the two (2) storey cottage? 10 A: Right. Right. 11 Q: Now, what you probably have not seen, 12 before I get ahead of myself, Commissioner, the -- the 13 aerial photo that I introduced, perhaps that could become 14 the next exhibit. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P-479, your 17 Honour. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-479. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-479: Aerial photo of county of 21 Lambton area showing cottages 22 north of Ipperwash Army Camp 23 on East Parkway Drive 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON:


1 Q: And what I'm holding in my hand now, 2 Commissioner, is Inquiry Document number 1000322. 3 And this is a document dated the 7th of 4 September, 1995 and it's a -- purports to be an 5 audio/video statement of Fran Hannahson, H-A-N-N-A-H-S-O- 6 N. 7 Now, am I correct in -- in saying that 8 you've not seen this document, or have you? 9 A: I saw it last night. 10 Q: You saw it last night, okay. 11 Now, would you agree with me, then, since 12 you saw it last night, that Mrs. Hannahson was, in fact, 13 the occupant of that corner house, or the house on the 14 corner? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And that on the evening of September 17 the 6th, she was there with her grandson -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And was up at the -- according to her 20 report, was up on the second storey window watching the 21 events unfold below? 22 A: That's what it says, yes. 23 Q: Okay. So, that -- to the extent you 24 were concerned about people being there, your information 25 about the presence of individuals there was absolutely


1 wrong? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Okay. When you were testifying on 4 May the 18th, and I'm referring to pages 36 and 37 of the 5 transcript for that day, Mr. Millar was asking you some 6 questions about the Forest command centre? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: I have to resist temptation to give 9 Mr. Millar back his -- his light. 10 And he talked about a poster that was 11 there that stated the objectives of Operation Maple; do 12 you recall that? 13 A: Right. Right. 14 Q: And I understood you to say that you 15 directed the Ident people to prepare that poster and hang 16 it up so that everybody would see it during the briefing? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And the objective -- and I'm -- I'm 19 reading this from the transcript -- quote: 20 "Objective: To contain and negotiate 21 peaceful [and, "peaceful" was 22 underlined] resolution." 23 Is that the -- the message that you 24 directed to be posted there? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And did that accurately reflect the - 2 - the objectives as you understood them to be? 3 A: Correct. The very same as -- that 4 was in the project plan, Project Maple. 5 Q: It was in the project plan? 6 Now if we assess the actual performance on 7 the basis of containment or peaceful resolution, would 8 you not say that Project Maple was an abject failure? 9 A: We weren't able to negotiate a 10 peaceful resolution. A -- a project plan isn't -- is a 11 plan to -- to provide you some ability to deal with 12 situations, but no plan can provide you all the direction 13 for every scenario possible, because you just can't 14 determine what they might be. So you know, I -- I'm not 15 sure you can just arbitrarily say it was or not a success 16 or a failure. 17 Q: Fair enough. You -- you agree that 18 you were unable to negotiate a peaceful resolution? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: Now I suggest to you that you were 21 unable to contain the situation either, since you lost 22 your own TAC or TOC site? 23 A: That's fair. 24 Q: And a lot of your equipment? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: So you didn't attain either arm of 2 the -- of the double-barrelled objective? 3 A: I'm sorry? 4 Q: I say you -- you weren't able to 5 achieve either arm of the two (2) objectives, containment 6 and negotiation of a peaceful resolution. 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Okay. If we go to Tab 82... 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're still 13 in Exhibit 444(B)? You're in Exhibit 444(B)? 14 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tab 82, 16 right? I'm sorry, Mr. Henderson, I just want to make 17 sure I'm with you. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Tab 82 and I was 22 looking at page 496. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Page 496. 24 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Speaking of 25 exhibits, Commissioner, I believe Ms. Hannahson's


1 statement should be an exhibit too, if only for 2 identification. I don't know if Mrs. Hannahson's going 3 to be here later. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 That's fine. What number... 6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P-480, 7 Your Honour. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 480, the 9 statement of Ms. Hannahson. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-480: Document Number 1000322 Sept. 12 07/95 Ms. Fran Hannahson 13 statement. 14 15 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Just another bit 16 of housekeeping, Commissioner. Just before the lunch 17 break we were talking about the possible content of the 18 conversation between Staff Sergeant Mark Wright and Bert 19 Manning? I just note for the record that we don't yet 20 have any evidence from Bert Manning as to what that 21 conversation may have included or not included. 22 That -- that was the detail about -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- the tactical 25 advantage of attacking near the canteen?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That's 2 fine. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 5 Q: I'm sorry, Deputy Commissioner, I'm 6 at page 496. 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Now, this appears to be a 9 conversation between you and Staff Sergeant Wright after 10 he's been to court the morning of September 7th? 11 A: I believe so. 12 Q: And he's talking -- generally, this - 13 - this is the -- this is the phone call where he talked 14 about giving the evidence of his life in there and then 15 you were talking about what happened over night and I 16 think you may have gotten some sleep in there, but I 17 can't guarantee it. 18 A: Not very much. 19 Q: And then you get to page 496 and 20 you've got Wright, "we're going to sit down?" 21 And then he says: 22 "How's Coles taking this or can he 23 talk?" 24 And I take that to be a reference to Chief 25 Chris Coles?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: Who is your immediate supervisor? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: Or was at that time, of course. And 5 your response: 6 "Well, very good. He came in and he's 7 been very supportive and I explained 8 what happened and he's, you know, doing 9 the best we can. 10 And certainly, you know, I think he's, 11 you know, supported, you know, what we 12 did, is what we had to do. I mean..." 13 And Wright says: 14 "Yeah." 15 And you say: 16 "I mean if we would have went in with 17 the crowd management unit..." 18 Now, I believe what you're actually saying 19 there, is if we wouldn't have gone in or hadn't have gone 20 in? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: Does that -- that make more sense? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: "Like the next thing is people's 25 cottages there."


1 And Staff Sergeant Wright says: 2 "That's right." 3 And you say: 4 "Like where the hell do you stop?" 5 And Staff Sergeant Wright says: 6 "That's right, yeah." 7 And you say: 8 "You know, ah." 9 So, I won't carry on with that. You're 10 obviously agreeing with each other. 11 Now, the reason I draw your attention to 12 that is when I read it and I read the exchange and I read 13 the support that you're giving each other in what 14 happened, I wonder if there wasn't at least at that 15 moment of that morning, some self-doubt in your own mind 16 about whether you've done the right thing and whether the 17 Chief was supporting you and whether Staff Sergeant 18 Wright agreed with you? 19 A: Well, he wasn't aware of all the 20 circumstances because of his -- because he wasn't aware 21 that TOC had been overrun or any of that yet. 22 Q: Actually he was, you told him that -- 23 A: I just told him -- 24 Q: ū- on the previous page, yeah. 25 A: Yeah, I had just told him that.


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: So he didn't -- he didn't -- he was 3 just getting up to speed on some of the -- 4 Q: Right -- 5 A: -- other -- 6 Q: -- and he was saying -- 7 A: -- information. 8 Q: -- how's the Chief taking it? 9 A: Right. 10 Q: Yeah. 11 A: Quite frankly, I can't even recall 12 this discussion. Both of us at that time were, I would 13 suggest -- 14 Q: Very tired? 15 A: As you alluded to, sleep deprived. 16 Q: Hmm hmm. That's fair. 17 A: And if it wasn't in this document, I 18 couldn't have even told you we had the discussion. 19 Q: It's thoughts like the one that I was 20 suggesting that causes sleep deprivation, Deputy 21 Commissioner. 22 But it's fair enough if you don't -- if 23 you don't remember the details to that extent, we'll move 24 on. 25 And I think I would like to come back to


1 your resume again, which is where we started, so we can 2 come full circle, it's very traditional. 3 And when we started this morning, we -- we 4 left you as acting Superintendent and district commander? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And you described what that entailed 7 and you were an acting Superintendent until October of 8 1995, one month after this incident? 9 A: Right. 10 Q: And from December 1995, I'm not 11 concerned about the gap there, until January of 2000, you 12 were Inspector, manager of staff development and 13 training, manager of traffic marine and involved in 14 organizational development at general headquarters? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: So as I read this, I look from -- at 17 your original recruitment and advancement up to acting 18 Superintendent and yet after October of 1995, you're back 19 to Inspector which was effect the rank you had as -- as 20 an acting Superintendent? 21 A: It was my confirmed rank. 22 Q: Right. So you were inspector again, 23 and you don't actually make Superintendent until January 24 of 2000? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And your duties, which I don't 2 pretend to understand, in your own organization and I'm 3 sure you know them intimately, they seem to me to be more 4 of an administrative nature, rather than an operational 5 nature. 6 A: That's not fair. 7 Q: That's not fair? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Okay. Which -- which period is it 10 not fair? I'm sure information technologies is not an 11 operational role. 12 A: Oh, you're talking between '95 and 13 2000 are you not? 14 Q: Oh, I'm talking about right up the 15 line. 16 A: Well -- 17 Q: I'm sorry. 18 A: From 2000 on, clearly administrative. 19 Q: Okay. But the December 1995 to 2000 20 you're Inspector, Manager. This is all one position you 21 held at one place or...? 22 A: No it's actually it's two (2) 23 positions for approximately, I think it was in '98 24 roughly or early '99 I switched from traffic and marine 25 to the staff development training portfolio.


1 Q: I see. 2 A: So the traffic and marine was 3 responsible for traffic and marine operations within the 4 western region which had changed from the district 5 structure and we had talked some time earlier about we 6 have gone through a reorganization of the Force in 1995. 7 And I took over traffic and marine 8 responsibilities for the area basically from Tobermory to 9 Niagara Falls to Windsor. So it was a -- a change in our 10 -- our whole Force structure that changed the positions. 11 Q: And that was an evolution that also 12 occurred during this period? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: All right. So obviously I don't want 15 to be unfair to you but when -- when I looked at it at 16 first and I guess I was suggesting perhaps this incident 17 had an impact of some sort on your career advancement 18 because you were acting and then you weren't acting and 19 you were in a job for a total of seven (7) years and 20 you've never been in a job for seven (7) years before. 21 A: Oh. Well I'm not sure I would 22 categorize it that way for a couple of reasons. Number 23 1, the re -- restructuring -- I was acting Superintendent 24 because the Superintendent of the London area retired in, 25 I think, June '94 roughly.


1 Q: Hmm hmm. 2 A: So I was appointed acting 3 Superintendent in his position pending the restructuring 4 of the organization. So a -- a number of positions 5 changed in '95 as a result of the restructuring and I 6 simply went back to my regular function. 7 Q: Okay. So if I understand correctly, 8 it's just a coincidence that the month after the incident 9 the acting position vanished as part of the 10 restructuring? 11 A: Exactly. There -- there was a number 12 of people transferred. For example, Inspector Linton was 13 transferred to Eastern Ontario and there was a number of 14 transfers that took place in support of the 15 restructuring. And that just happened to occur in the 16 fall of '95. 17 Q: All right. Just -- just to satisfy 18 my own curiosity, after -- after this particular 19 incident, did -- did you ever -- were you ever the 20 Incident Commander with the TRU team again? 21 A: Oh, yes. 22 Q: Many times? 23 A: Several times. 24 Q: Okay. And that would be again during 25 the period up to 2000 then?


1 A: Oh, yes, many times. 2 Q: All right. Fine, thank you very 3 much. Those are my questions, Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 5 very much. 6 Yes, Mr. Faulkner. I think you're up now. 7 8 You're finished are you, Mr. Henderson? 9 I'm just waiting for Mr. Falconer. 10 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm just clearing 11 room for him, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 As you walk to the front, Mr. Falconer, I just want to 14 get some estimate of what you think you might be in terms 15 of time now. It's twenty after 2:00. Just give me a 16 rough idea. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: My estimate, Mr. 18 Commissioner would be a half day to a day. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 20 roughly what you estimated in the first instance. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Now that -- one of the 23 things we did was, we deferred the discipline issue 24 completely which I would have thought would have reduced, 25 but it didnĘt so.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well given the 2 estimates you've heard so far we can spend a lot of time 3 on this and I'm not -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 5 to talk about estimates, okay? 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- all I can tell 7 you is that instead of my estimate increasing as all of 8 them have, mine stayed the same. Meaning of course that 9 I picked up the slack with the fact that the discipline 10 files be dealt with later. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want 12 your best estimate. You've given it to me, you say it 13 will take you half a day to a day. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And we won't 16 finish today even if we sit late. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. No, we won't. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 19 So let's take a break now. Let's take an afternoon break 20 now and then we'll start and we'll go as long as you 21 feel, you feel comfortable. And then we'll come back 22 tomorrow and finish. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you, Mr. 24 Commissioner. 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess


1 for fifteen (15) minutes. 2 3 --- Upon recessing at 2:23 p.m. 4 --- Upon resuming at 2:41 p.m. 5 6 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 7 resumed. Please be seated. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes...? 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Good afternoon, Deputy Carson. 12 A: Good afternoon. 13 Q: Deputy Commissioner, I'm going to 14 refer to you as, "Deputy." That way, in my mind, I won't 15 be calling you or making submissions to you and cross- 16 examining the Commissioner, all right? I -- I have a 17 tendency to get confused easily. 18 As you know, I -- my name is Julian 19 Falconer, I act on behalf of Aboriginal Legal Services of 20 Toronto. 21 Every lawyer in the last five (5) of 22 twenty (20) lawyers has promised you they would try not 23 to be repetitive, so if I say that, then I'll just end up 24 being repetitive. So, you'll forgive me if I just get 25 right to the point. And if we touch on areas, it's meant


1 to go somewhere else; that -- that's the only thing I can 2 assure you. 3 As the Deputy Commissioner of the Ontario 4 Provincial Police, I take it you recognize that police 5 services are an important player in the justice system? 6 A: Of course. 7 Q: Now, you'll have to forgive me 8 because I'm going to have to read this quote to you. I 9 don't know it by heart, but a very, very smart judge in 10 1924, Chief Justice Hewart in a case called, Sussex 11 Justices, said the following, quote: 12 "It is not merely of some importance, 13 but is of fundamental importance that 14 justice should not only be done, but 15 should manifestly and undoubtedly be 16 seen to be done." 17 You've heard that before, haven't you? 18 A: Sure. 19 Q: And, as a Deputy Commissioner of a 20 key player in the justice system, you understand that not 21 only propriety, but the appearance of propriety is 22 crucial to the credibility of the Ontario Provincial 23 Police. 24 A: That's fair. 25 Q: For police officers, it's important


1 not only that their exercises of police discretion be 2 without undue influence, but it's equally important that 3 they appear to be without undue influence, agreed? 4 A: That's fair. 5 Q: Now -- and when you say, "that's 6 fair," that's because you agree with me, right? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Now, you'd also agree with me that 9 the role of public confidence in policing is an important 10 one? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: To do your job effectively, public 13 confidence in policing is essential, yes? 14 A: Sure. 15 Q: Public perceptions colour public 16 confidence, agreed? 17 A: Sure. 18 Q: In fact, if you're not conscious of 19 public perceptions, then you miss out on a key part of 20 the administration of a policing service. 21 Would you agree with that? 22 A: Sure. 23 Q: So, appearances matter? 24 A: Of course. 25 Q: In fact, maintaining appearances is


1 essential, yes? 2 A: Sure. 3 Q: I want to talk to you a little bit 4 about Ron Fox -- Inspector Fox. 5 He was the liaison basically in charge of 6 transmitting what the Government of the day was thinking 7 to the Ontario Provincial Police, correct? 8 A: No, that wasn't his function. 9 Q: No? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Oh, but you'd forgive me for thinking 12 that based on the review of the tapes, yes? 13 A: Well, you can take whatever 14 perception you want from the tapes, but his -- his role 15 was a First Nations advisor to the Deputy Minister. 16 Q: But his job appeared to include 17 telling you, John Carson, what the Premier and the 18 Solicitor General and the Minister of Natural Resources 19 were thinking? 20 A: No, that wasn't his job. He 21 certainly shared his thoughts with me, but that certainly 22 wasn't his job to do that. 23 Q: But, he did it anyway? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: And, it wasn't just my perception


1 that he did it. I don't need to play the tape again, no? 2 A: That's fair. 3 Q: He told you what the Premier was 4 thinking, yes? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: He told you what the Minister of 7 Natural Resources was thinking, yes? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And, he told you what the Cabinet was 10 thinking, yes -- 11 A: I'm not sure -- 12 Q: -- when he talked about the, quote, 13 "redneck group" close quotes? 14 A: Well, I'm not sure it was his Cabinet 15 in general. I'm not sure exactly who he's referring to 16 there, but it was obviously some government officials. 17 Q: And, the government officials he was 18 talking to you about in terms of their thought processes 19 included the Premier, yes? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: The Solicitor General? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: The Attorney General? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: The Minister of Natural Resources?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: As well as an assistant, Ms. Hutton? 3 A: Yes. Her name was brought up, yes. 4 Q: And, while it wasn't part of his job 5 to tell you what they were thinking, he did just that? 6 A: Yes, he did. 7 Q: All right. Is -- to your knowledge, 8 was there anything special about the relationship you 9 enjoyed with him such that he wouldn't have, for example, 10 told Chief Coles what the Premier or the Solicitor 11 General was thinking? 12 A: He may have told Coles the same 13 thing. 14 Q: All right. And, in fact, it's safe 15 to say that you know he had conversations with Coles? 16 A: Oh, yes. 17 Q: And, of course, you know or you tell 18 us now, there was no restriction on what Fox could tell 19 Coles? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Part of Fox's job was to have some 22 access to Chief Coles, yes? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And part of Fox's job was to have 25 some access to the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial


1 Police? 2 A: If he needed it, sure. 3 Q: All right. It was part of his job. 4 A: Yeah, that's not a problem. 5 Q: No one cautioned you, prior to 6 September 6th, 1995, no one cautioned you about 7 distancing yourself from Inspector Fox? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Essentially based on the phone calls 10 we've been privy to, Inspector Fox had access to the 11 Command Centre? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Your officers in the command team had 14 access to the Fox information through you? 15 A: Some of it. 16 Q: Well, you were quite adamant with Mr. 17 Klippenstein that you never cautioned any of the members 18 of your command team about not being unduly influenced by 19 the thoughts of the Premier, remember you told Mr. 20 Klippenstein that? 21 A: That's right. 22 Q: And you're not resiling from that, 23 are you? 24 A: No, no. 25 Q: So you shared the Fox information


1 with them about, for example, "political heat" right? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: You shared the Fox information with 4 the members of your Command Team about the Premier's 5 views on getting the Indians out? 6 A: Right. 7 Q: Mark Wright was one of the persons 8 you shared views with, yes? 9 A: I -- I don't understand your -- 10 Q: Mark Wright was one of the persons 11 that you shared the Fox information with? 12 A: Oh, yes, yes. He was present there 13 for some of those discussions. 14 Q: And a number of lawyers have asked 15 you about this, so I'm going to try to move very quickly 16 through it, but the bottom line is Mark Wright was your 17 right hand man in many ways including the name W-R-I-G-H- 18 T, right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And in terms of -- of the role of, 21 for example, Inspector Linton as an alternate Commander, 22 certainly Mark Wright held a lot more sway over you than 23 for example, Mr. Linton? 24 A: Linton had very limited involvement 25 in this issue leading up to it, and so he -- he wasn't a


1 part of the, for lack of a better term, the historical 2 development. 3 Q: So it must have been some comfort to 4 you when on September 6th, 1995, you went to dinner, that 5 Mark Wright was -- was minding the shop. 6 A: He wasn't minding the shop. 7 Q: He wasn't? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Okay. It must have been some comfort 10 to you that Mark Wright was on duty? 11 A: No. There was no -- he was finishing 12 up some work, but he wasn't expected to stay there. 13 Q: But he did stay there? 14 A: Well he was obviously involved in -- 15 in some work that kept him there. 16 Q: When Mark Wright used the words 17 "don't ya say we go get these fucking guys" in that taped 18 conversation of September 6th, 1995, was he just spewing? 19 A: I'm not sure I understand. 20 Q: Was he just spewing, or was he making 21 any sense? 22 A: Well he was saying, don't you think 23 we just go arrest them. 24 Q: All right. And when he said in 25 another taped conversation: "we're about to go to war",


1 was he just spewing? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Okay. And when he said "we're 4 bringing in the marines", was he just spewing? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Because when you described the words 7 of Inspector Fox in telling you about the Premier's 8 thoughts, and the Solicitor General's thoughts, the words 9 you used were "spewing". 10 Do you remember that word "spewing"; you 11 used it. 12 A: No I don't recall using it, but I may 13 have. 14 Q: Will you take my word as an officer 15 of the Court that's the exact word you used to describe 16 Inspector Fox's statements? 17 A: That's fair. 18 Q: You don't feel the same way about 19 Mark Wright's views, correct? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: You pick and choose your spewers; 22 yes? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Has Inspector Fox been disciplined? 25 A: Not that I know of.


1 Q: Well he was spewing to an Incident 2 Commander about what the Premier thought with a very 3 serious incident going on, he wasn't in any way called in 4 respect of -- of his conduct? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 6 Sandler...? 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Once you get into 8 discipline matters, and who was and who wasn't 9 disciplined, the same ground rules should apply, and we 10 can deal with that all at one time. Because I have 11 serious concerns about those kinds of questions about who 12 was and wasn't disciplined, all with great respect. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I was convinced 14 that Mr. Sandler could no longer surprise me, but I am 15 stunned. If Mr. Sandler's position is that any issue of 16 potential misconduct is now going to be the subject of a 17 motion by the OPP and OPPA to keep the information out, 18 then this Public Inquiry is going to lose the entire 19 point of it. 20 So, with great respect, this has nothing 21 to do with the Whitehead Dyke information or the informal 22 discipline handed out. If an officer is involved in this 23 incident and I ask a question such as: Was he subject to 24 censure or discipline, I expect an answer and not a 25 lengthy motion by the OPP.


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And the answer was, 2 not that I know of. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. That was not 4 the answer, the answer was an objection by Counsel for 5 the OPP. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No. He answered the - 7 - he answered the question. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 9 to read the record back. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, no, but I -- 11 I want to -- 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, perhaps, we can 13 read the record back. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No. It's not about 15 the record, it's about the objection by Mr. Sandler. We 16 -- we don't bypass Counsel's objections because it's not 17 convenient. 18 Mr. Sandler's saying that we can't get 19 into discipline. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, he's not 21 saying that. I -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm paying 24 attention to the question and his question's been 25 answered.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. So I 2 -- I can ask the question and get an answer. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we'll 4 see what your next question is. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no. The 6 question I asked, I -- I can get an answer to it. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe 8 you got an answer to it. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 11 to ask it again and... 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I -- I'll simply 13 take Mr. Sandler's objection as withdrawn and move on. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 15 not taking it as withdrawn and I don't think you should. 16 You've asked the question -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, then, I -- I 18 need to deal with it. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 20 a question, the question is being answered. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, have you 23 answered it? 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So -- well -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And then,


1 we'll deal with the next issue when it comes up. Carry 2 on, Mr. Falconer, please. You've asked the question, you 3 got an answer. 4 If you don't know the answer, ask the 5 question again and we'll carry on. If Mr. Sandler wants 6 to object to your next question, he will. And we'll just 7 see where we go from there. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 11 My question to you was, was Inspector Fox 12 disciplined for his conduct -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: -- in providing information -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 20 Q: -- to you at incident command and 21 spewing in the fashion that he did? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I've 23 got my own views on that, I'll wait to hear from Counsel. 24 Are you objecting to that question? 25 OBJ MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: I am,


1 Commissioner. Jennifer Gleitman for the OPPA. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MS. JENNIFER GLEITMAN: As the 4 Commissioner and Commission Counsel and everyone here is 5 well aware, the issues of access to disciplinary files 6 from the OPP is -- is very much live at this Inquiry. 7 Based on the events that have transpired 8 to-date and the request that was made by Aboriginal Legal 9 Services of Toronto, we're obviously in the process of 10 getting our materials together for that motion. 11 If there are going to be questions 12 regarding other discipline files, it's my respectful 13 submission that we need to be aware of that, so that that 14 issue can be dealt with at the same time. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The issue here -- the 16 issue isn't discipline files. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, of 18 course no. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The question is -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Was -- 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- was he disciplined, 22 do you know? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes or no? 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And -- and he gave an 25 answer and then Mr. Falconer asked the question again and


1 either he knows or he doesn't know. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's a 3 lot of information that the Witness may know or not know 4 without having recourse to the files. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Exactly. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And that's 7 what he's asking him about. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And that's what Mr. 9 Falconer was asking. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Those are 11 normal questions in the normal course as I understand it. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's correct. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: Just to be clear, this 14 is a slippery slope and I don't -- I don't want to appear 15 that we're creating more problems than we're solving 16 because Deputy Commissioner Carson apparently doesn't 17 know the answer to that question. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: The -- the concern is 20 that the discipline file argument, which has nothing to 21 do with people who are publicly disciplined in a public 22 hearing raises different issues. 23 Informal discipline or non-disciplinary 24 discussions raise issues including statutory bars on 25 individuals disclosing that information and the policy


1 reasons behind that. 2 And I -- and I'm going to suggest in my 3 submissions to you, ultimately, that this isn't simply a 4 question of what's in a file. It's also a question on 5 the ability of an individual to disclose under the Police 6 Services Act, matters that result in other than public 7 discipline unless they're the very officer who's -- who's 8 involved, and that raises other issues. 9 So, all I asked was, that that issue 10 should be addressed and if I'm wrong, ultimately, then 11 I'll be wrong, but it raises very serious issues about 12 statutory interpretation -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- on what a witness 15 can answer and what a witness can't. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and instead of 18 My Friend, you know, posturing about what -- what 19 positions the OPP takes, I don't think it's an 20 unreasonable position, simply to be articulating that for 21 you now, Commissioner, because I don't want to go down 22 this slippery slope where I'm standing up every ten (10) 23 minutes and addressing this issue. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But the -- the -- the 25 first question in my submission was, was he disciplined?


1 Either this Witness knows or he doesn't know. 2 Then, there's a question: If -- if -- 3 let's say a -- a person was disciplined and it was public 4 discipline. Then, what's -- it's public and if the -- if 5 the Witness knows, it's public. 6 If it's informal discipline and the 7 Witness says it's -- it's informal discipline then that's 8 a separate issue that I can understand the concern of Mr. 9 Sandler. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he may 11 not know if it's been a formal disciplinary matter or an 12 informal disciplinary matter; whether there's been a 13 public hearing or whether it's been resolved internally, 14 informally. 15 He may not know that, but I think the 16 first question is a legitimate question -- 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah, and -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If he says 19 he knows, then the next question might be one that we all 20 have some concerns with. But if he doesn't know, then 21 obviously we can move on. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And I'm -- you know, 23 the -- what we're dealing here with right now is a 24 commissioned officer. Inspector Fox, during the whole 25 period of time was a commissioned officer.


1 The OPPA is concerned about the non- 2 commissioned officers and -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, Mr. 4 Sandler's concerned about -- 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Sandler's got a -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 7 commissioned officers. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- broader -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So you asked 10 the question and the answer that he gave you was he 11 didn't know, I think. I think that was the answer, so 12 let's move on. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 15 Q: As then inspector and now Deputy 16 Commissioner of the OPP, in your view, did Inspector Fox 17 engage in any misconduct in communicating the views of 18 the Premier and the Solicitor General and the cabinet 19 ministers to you at incident command? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Okay. And there's no reason to doubt 22 that he was communicating the genuine views of the 23 Premier and some of his cabinet ministers as well as Ms. 24 Hutton to you? 25 There's no reason to doubt that?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Now, this is to address specifically 3 the issue of appearances that I'm asking you about and no 4 one put the quote from Chief Justice Hewart to you before 5 me, did they? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Good, all right. I just don't -- 8 there's a lot of ground tilled, Mr. Commissioner, and I 9 don't want to till where -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no one's 11 put that quote, Mr. Falconer. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 15 Q: There's no reason to doubt that the 16 following messages were being genuinely communicated to 17 you by Mr. Fox, quote: 18 "The political people are really 19 pushing." 20 Close quotes. No reason to doubt the 21 genuineness of that? 22 A: No. 23 Q: There's no reason to doubt the 24 genuineness of Mr. Fox's statement when he said to you, 25 quote:


1 "We're dealing with a real redneck 2 government." 3 Close quotes. No reason to doubt the 4 genuineness of that? 5 A: No. 6 Q: There was no reason to doubt the 7 genuineness of Mr. Fox's statement to you, quote: 8 "They are fucking barrel suckers, they 9 are just in love with guns." 10 Close quotes. No reason to doubt the 11 genuineness of that? 12 A: No. 13 Q: There's no reason to doubt the 14 genuineness of the statement, quote: 15 "They couldn't give a shit less about 16 Indians." 17 Close quote, correct? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: No reason to doubt the genuineness of 20 Mr. Fox's statement, quote: 21 "He believes that he has the authority 22 to direct the OPP." 23 Close quotes. No reason to doubt the 24 genuineness of that? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And the "he" that Mr. Fox was talking 2 about was the Premier of Ontario, Michael Harris? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: No reason to doubt the genuineness of 5 the quote: 6 "We're going to get a bloody nose or 7 somebody is." 8 Close quotes. 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: No reason to doubt the genuineness of 11 Chief Coles' comment, quote: 12 "There's conversation going there 13 that's operational." 14 In terms of Chief Coles' description of 15 what's going on at the cabinet level, is there? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Chief Coles observed, in addition to 18 the reality that operational matters were now being 19 discussed at cabinet level, Chief Coles observed that, 20 quote: 21 "The Commissioner's now going to start 22 getting some pressure." 23 Close quotes. He made that observation. 24 A: I'll take your word for that. 25 Q: That's a quote.


1 A: Fine. 2 Q: You weren't party to that part of the 3 conversation between Chief Coles and Mr. Fox, so forgive 4 me. It comes from the taped transcript. Will you take 5 my word for it? 6 A: I'll take your word for it. 7 Q: And having heard that, now as Deputy 8 Commissioner and then as Inspector, you'd agree with 9 Chief Coles that, in view of all this, it's likely that 10 the Commissioner's now going to start getting some 11 pressure, right? 12 A: Possibly. 13 Q: Inspector Fox responded, quote: 14 "He's already -- he's already got it." 15 Close quotes. Inspector Fox commented, 16 quote: 17 "Premier is quite adamant. We've tried 18 to pacify and pander to these people 19 for too long. It's now time for swift, 20 affirmative action. He's not getting 21 the right advice." 22 Close quotes. No reason to doubt the 23 genuineness of Inspector Fox's comment in that regard; 24 correct? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Inspector Fox was giving you and 2 Chief Coles the straight goods on the thought processes 3 of the Premier, his solicitor general, his attorney 4 general, his Minister of Natural Resources; correct? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: Who, in your experience, is the most 7 powerful politically elected figure in the Province of 8 Ontario? 9 A: The Premier of course. 10 Q: And that was your understanding back 11 then in 1995? 12 A: Of course. 13 Q: And it's your understanding now? 14 A: Sure. 15 Q: Who in your experience is the highest 16 ranking minister in charge of policing including the 17 Ontario Provincial Police in the Province of Ontario? 18 A: Well, at that time it was the 19 solicitor general. 20 Q: And at that time, that was Robert 21 Runciman? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: He was in the room, yes? With Fox? 24 A: I believe so, yes. 25 Q: So the views of these two (2)


1 powerful political figures become known to you, right? 2 A: Yes, it does. 3 Q: And they had absolutely no affect on 4 you? 5 A: Absolutely right. 6 Q: Policing is a tough job, yes. 7 A: Of course it is. 8 Q: Your job was to not allow any outside 9 influence including the Premier and the solicitor general 10 to affect the performance of your job. 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: You were expected and you tell us you 13 did, to wear blinders, completely ignorant of the most 14 powerful people in the province, yes? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Not as an easy job. 17 A: Not suggesting it was. 18 Q: Would you agree with me that it 19 wasn't an easy job? 20 A: Of course. 21 Q: Accepting hypothetically and I -- I 22 want to emphasize hypothetically, accepting 23 hypothetically that it had absolutely no influence on 24 you. It must have been a tad distracting. Yes? 25 A: Quite frankly, not. If the Premier


1 or anybody else of that level has any concerns then their 2 concern needed to be taken up with the commissioner of 3 the Ontario Provincial Police. 4 As an inspector, I clearly have a chain of 5 command that I have to satisfy and it may not always be 6 in keeping with other people's opinion including 7 political folks. 8 Q: And Chief Coles observed that that 9 very act of taking it up with the commissioner was going 10 to happen, yes? 11 A: Sure. 12 Q: And Inspector Fox observed as you put 13 it genuinely, that that pressure had already happened, 14 yes? 15 A: Apparently. 16 Q: So the commissioner is your boss? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: So your boss got pressure from the 19 most powerful people in the province and it didn't affect 20 you? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Now your extraordinary ability to 23 wear those blinders, you can vouch for your entire 24 command team on that same level, yes? 25 A: I believe they did their job as they


1 were directed to. 2 Q: Now if we can go back to my question. 3 Your extraordinary power to wear those blinders and not 4 be influenced by those powerful people, you can vouch for 5 your entirety of your command team in the same regard? 6 A: I feel they did the job exactly as 7 they were expected to. 8 Q: So they weren't influenced in any 9 way? 10 A: I didn't perceive they were. 11 Q: That includes, and forgive the rank 12 issues, but that includes Staff Sergeant Lacroix? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And Staff Sergeant's correct? 15 A: Yes. Yes. 16 Q: I apologize. I'm not going to do 17 this well, but I'll do my best. Staff Sergeant Lacroix, 18 he was actually assigned to have communications with 19 Marcel Beaubien? 20 A: Yeah he was sent over to speak to 21 him, yes. 22 Q: Pardon me? 23 A: Yes. He was assigned to speak to 24 him. 25 Q: And by speaking to him he was


1 assigned to have communications back and forth? He 2 speaks to him, Beaubien speaks back to him, right? 3 A: Sure. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: Yeah. Their offices are across the 6 street from one (1) another. 7 Q: Oh, are they? 8 A: Literally. 9 Q: That's coincidental because he's also 10 the same person who led the CMU team against the 11 occupiers at Ipperwash. That's Lacroix. It's the same 12 Lacroix? 13 A: Same person, sure. 14 Q: Yeah. Staff Sergeant Lacroix was not 15 cautioned about not allowing the influences of political 16 figures to affect his decision making, was he? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And when you say "correct," it's one 19 (1) of these negative experiences where you've answered a 20 negative and a positive and it's because of a bad 21 question by me. So let me start over again. 22 You did not caution Staff Sergeant 23 Lacroix -- 24 A: No, I did not. 25 Q: -- against being unduly influenced by


1 the views expressed to him by Marcel Beaubien either on 2 his own behalf or on behalf of the Premier; correct? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: And that same person who was un- 5 cautioned within days, was leading the CMU team some 6 thirty (30) to forty (40) police officers against those 7 occupiers; right? 8 A: Right. 9 Q: You have no reason to believe that 10 Staff Sergeant Lacroix didn't do his job properly; right? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: But you weren't on the ground, you've 13 already told My Friends that; right? 14 A: That's right. 15 Q: You weren't present to watch and 16 understand how Staff Sergeant Lacroix ran those thirty 17 (30) to forty (40) people, were you? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: When those individuals, those 20 officers, under the command of Lacroix, who was in charge 21 of talking to Beaubien, when they marched down that road 22 with those shields and those helmets, that's riot 23 regalia, isn't it? 24 A: Yes, it is. 25 Q: When they marched down in riot


1 regalia, pounding their shields, the man that led them 2 was the man who was in charge of communicating with the 3 Premier's man on the ground, in the township; correct? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Leaving aside your confidence that 6 there was no undue influence, would you agree with me, at 7 least from an appearances point of view, this reality of 8 the contact and communication with political figures is 9 unfortunate in this case? 10 A: It's unfortunate? 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: We certainly could do without the 13 debate, that's for sure. 14 Q: And would you agree with me that even 15 if one could accept, hypothetically, that it had no 16 effect, from an appearance point of view it may well have 17 some cast some concerns? 18 A: That's fair. 19 Q: And would you agree with me that 20 appearances can be the very thing that affects public 21 confidence in policing? 22 A: It's possible. 23 Q: So even if John Carson wasn't 24 influenced by Mike Harris to get the Indians out, even if 25 John Carson wasn't influenced that the Premier couldn't


1 give a shit less about the rights of Indians, the mere 2 risk that it could appear that you were so influenced 3 would denigrate the service, the Ontario Provincial 4 Police service; correct? 5 A: That's fair. 6 Q: Would you agree with me that to the 7 extent reasonable buffers can be placed between Incident 8 Commanders such as yourself and the Premier of the 9 province, we should work to do that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Now, I need to understand something, 12 because you're Deputy Commissioner right now. Off the 13 top of your head, can you point to any buffers that have 14 been created since 1995? 15 A: Not specifically, no. 16 Q: And when you say "not specifically,' 17 because I'm a lawyer and I have to be picky, now I have 18 to go to generally. What about generally? Have any 19 buffers been created generally? 20 A: Well, I guess -- it just -- when you 21 get into that discussion, it depends what -- there's a 22 zillion different contexts you can put to that kind of a 23 statement. 24 We interact with government on a regular 25 basis at the senior level and there are times we must


1 inform the government of certain things and that certain 2 investigations may be underway. 3 Q: So it's important for the Premier to 4 have access to incident command at a occupation by the 5 aboriginals, yes? 6 A: Well -- well access to some 7 information. 8 Q: No, no, access to incident command. 9 It's important that the Premier be able to pick up the 10 phone and call incident command and talk -- 11 A: No. 12 Q: -- to the Incident Commander. 13 A: No, absolutely not. 14 Q: It's important for operational 15 matters to be the subject of discussion in cabinet? 16 That's important. 17 A: I would not say -- I wouldn't agree. 18 Q: Right. So you and I can agree that 19 from an appearance point of view, because you were never 20 affected, from an appearance point of view, things didn't 21 go well in terms of the relationship between political 22 figures and the police in this case? 23 A: That may be the appearance. 24 Q: All right. And do you remember we 25 went all the way back to --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 2 minute. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- Chief Justice 4 Hewart do you remember. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You -- 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, Mr. 7 Falconer's read the quote. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He's read it twice. 10 You don't need three (3) times. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 12 have to be theatrical about it. You've just asked a 13 question -- 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, with 15 respect -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Don't be 17 respectful. 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's the first time 19 -- well, I -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I just got 22 objected to and I didn't do anything. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I didn't read the 25 quote.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 2 have to be theatrical. Just carry on. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's -- I'm 4 trying not to bore you, Mr. Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're not 6 boring. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Good. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Don't worry 9 about it. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. Having 11 said that, I wasn't going to read the quote, so Mr. -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Millar ought to 14 probably wait 'til I ask the question before he objects. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 16 Carry on. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 19 Q: If you can help me, Deputy, when we 20 discussed the notion of appearances, we agreed that 21 public confidence in policing meant that it is essential 22 to make sure that appearances of impropriety are avoided, 23 if at all possible. 24 A: If possible, yes, of course. 25 Q: All right. And of course, it would


1 have been possible to avoid these appearances of 2 impropriety and in this case, and let me back up. I'll 3 rephrase the question. 4 It would have been possible to avoid the 5 appearances of undue influence in this case, that is by 6 powerful political figures, by having buffers in place 7 between Incident Command and the politicians, yes? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: All right. Why was Mr. Beaubien 10 faxing the Premier? I -- I didn't -- I never understood 11 that. He's at incident command and then he's going to 12 send a fax to the Premier's office. 13 A: I don't know what his fax to the 14 Premier's office was about. 15 Q: He's in your office. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: The MLA, yes? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: The Premier's man on the ground in 20 that community, yes? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And he's faxing off to the Premier's 23 office, but you don't know what he's faxing from incident 24 command? 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I don't know if


1 that's the evidence. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, no. I asked 3 him. I -- I can ask him a question and he can tell me 4 his state of knowledge. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Wait a second. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Wait a second. Either 9 we're going to do it fairly or we're -- you know, what 10 we're here to do is to do this fairly, Mr. Falconer. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 12 right. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The evidence was that 14 Mr. Beaubien -- and it's in the scribe notes -- said that 15 he had -- he had faxed the Premier; that was the 16 evidence, not that he had faxed it from the command post. 17 You can ask that question, but the evidence was he had 18 faxed the Premier. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 20 don't remember that. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's most 22 unfortunate, Mr. Commissioner, because of course the 23 evidence isn't clear either way. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it 25 isn't.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right? But now 2 that Mr. Millar has said that, I have no -- I have no 3 doubt that the Witness will now -- it's not because Mr. 4 Millar did it on purpose, it is a vague area. 5 I was asking the Witness proper questions 6 on what he knew and his recollection on a vague area and 7 now we're into Counsel to some extent providing 8 submissions on what they think the evidence is. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, we're 10 not doing that at all, we're just trying to be fair. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 13 Klippenstein? 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I have some 15 concerns, Commissioner, because what My Friend Mr. Millar 16 did appears to have been, according to my memory at 17 least, slightly misread the proceedings in two (2) ways. 18 For one (1) I do recall the Witness 19 answering that -- a few moments ago that, indeed, Mr. 20 Beaubien was the Premier's man on the ground locally, and 21 secondly, I don't believe that Mr. Millar was correct in 22 characterizing Mr. Falconer's question as saying there 23 was a fax right from the office or something similar to 24 that. 25 So I do believe that Mr. Millar slightly


1 misinterpreted the -- the exact details and -- and my 2 concern is that it seems to be premature and interfering 3 with certainly something that is a tremendous concern to 4 -- to my Client in terms of legitimate cross-examination. 5 So, I do have that concern. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where are 7 we? Are you standing up, Mr. Sulman? Do you have some 8 ū- you act for Mr. Beaubien, so you've got -- 9 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I -- I'm -- I would 10 think it might be appropriate that I may comment on this 11 by way of objection. 12 My recollection of the evidence is that 13 Mr. -- Deputy Commissioner Carson already spoke to this 14 weeks ago and that the evidence is as Mr. Millar points 15 out, that Mr. Beaubien had already had faxed the Premier. 16 We can see that later when we -- when we - 17 - it will just be affirmed, but that's my recollection of 18 the evidence. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 20 know. 21 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: The other objection 22 that I have is -- is the use of some wording that 23 characterizes and probably maybe for dramatic effect 24 characterizes certain things. 25 To describe Mr Beaubien as Mr. Harris' man


1 on the ground is an unfair characterization. He's the -- 2 we should ought to have some respect for the institutions 3 not only of law, but of government in this province and 4 he's the elected member, elected by the people of this 5 area. He's not Mr. -- Mr. Harris' man on the ground. 6 He's not a member of the Cabinet, he simply is the 7 representative of the people who, in fact, who live in 8 this area. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: So, I -- I think 11 it's highly unfair to inflame things by those type of 12 characterizations. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 14 you're right. I think you should just call him the local 15 member, but in any event, does anybody have any exact 16 recollection of what that comment was, because you donĘt 17 want misstate it? 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, the scribe notes 19 are very clear. The scribe notes say at page 69, this is 20 Exhibit 4 -- P-426, 1842. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 22 to read it in because I don't have it. Just read it. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's exactly -- the 24 evidence is -- is clear of what the scribe notes say and 25 Marcel Beaubien advised that he -- he had sent a fax to


1 the Premier advising of his intentions and they want a 2 return phone call regarding his intentions. That was -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But he 4 didn't say where he faxed it from and -- 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 Carry on then, Mr. Falconer. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 10 Q: You've heard Counsel go over the 11 scribe notes in three (3) different ways to Sunday and 12 the bottom line is, I asked you a couple of questions 13 about your state of knowledge about Mr. Beaubien and the 14 issue of the facts. 15 Do you remember my asking you those 16 questions? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And I take it you don't resile from 19 any of the answers you've already given? 20 A: No. 21 Q: All right. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: What discussions did you have with


1 then Commissioner O'Grady about the political pressure he 2 was feeling at the time? 3 A: None whatsoever. 4 Q: Since the event, what discussions 5 have you had with Commissioner O'Grady about the 6 political pressure he was feeling at the time? 7 A: None whatsoever. 8 Q: So I take it you're not able to vouch 9 for how this political pressure might have affected your 10 boss? 11 A: Not at all. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: One of the things that I noted from 16 your answers to Mr. Rosenthal was that you pointed out to 17 Mr. Rosenthal that members of the OPP are called upon to 18 deal with politicians fairly routinely, and you included 19 Police Services Boards as an example? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And I take it that you can assist the 22 Commissioner, just by way of evidence, I don't anticipate 23 an expert being called in this area, but you can -- you 24 can advise Mr. Commissioner what Municipal Police 25 Services Boards' functions are, because you deal with


1 them routinely, correct? 2 A: Sure. 3 Q: What are they? 4 A: They're -- they're responsible -- 5 they're -- they're the body that the -- in our case, with 6 contract locations that they report to on a regular basis 7 in regards to the operations of that particular location. 8 So they have some governing authority 9 pursuant to the Police Services Act. 10 Q: It's fair to say that Police Services 11 Boards are actually constituted legislatively under the 12 Police Services Act as civilian oversight bodies over 13 police services, municipal ones? 14 A: Sure, absolutely. 15 Q: And these police services, while they 16 have municipal politicians as part of them, the body 17 itself is meant to be independent from the Provincial 18 Government, correct? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And the idea of civilian oversight of 21 that kind is to ensure that no paramilitary organization 22 goes without a form of civilian leadership, correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And the notion of a Police Services 25 Board is to ensure that there is some buffer between the


1 police on the one hand, and the political powerful 2 politicians on the other, correct? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: The OPP doesn't have that kind of 5 Police Services Board, do they? 6 A: Yes, we do. Oh, you mean the 7 organization -- across the organization? 8 Q: That's right. 9 A: No, we report through the -- the 10 ministry. We have Police Service Boards for our contract 11 locations where we have contract policing agreements with 12 various municipalities across the province. 13 Q: But the bottom line is, in terms of 14 oversight of the Ontario Provincial Police, there is a 15 direct line between the Solicitor General and the 16 Commissioner, correct? 17 A: Yeah, yes. 18 Q: In fact, when Robert Runciman agrees 19 with Premier Mike Harris, in that meeting that Fox was 20 party to, there is nothing to stop the Solicitor General 21 from simply sharing those sentiments with the 22 Commissioner, right? 23 A: Sure. 24 Q: In fact, it would be perfectly 25 proper?


1 A: Sure. 2 Q: The Commissioner, on the other hand, 3 is an operational man, yes? 4 A: yes, he's responsible for the 5 operation of the organization. 6 Q: And there'd be nothing wrong with 7 that operational man turning to you and giving you a 8 series of orders, right? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And in essence, what we've just shown 11 is, the only thing between the Solicitor General and you 12 is the Commissioner, yes? 13 A: Correct, that's who I report to. 14 Q: Would you agree with me that that's 15 somewhat less of a buffer than, for Example, a Police 16 Services Board? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And would you agree with me that in a 19 situation such as what happened on September 6th, 1995, 20 it's exactly the kind of appearances that a police 21 services board can generate in terms of confidence in 22 policing to have that form of civilian oversight? 23 It's useful, would you agree? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: In terms of your experiences with the


1 chain of command at the OPP, is there any form of 2 training on how to basically act like you, to be 3 completely uninfluenced by political events? 4 A: Well, I would suggest to you it 5 starts in recruit training. Right when any officer in 6 the province, regardless of the organization, goes to the 7 Ontario Police College, and you study the Police Services 8 Act, and the role of Police Service Boards, and the 9 management or the administration of the Ontario 10 Provincial Police, that the whole issue of police and 11 state is discussed at a very early time in your career. 12 Q: So you recall being prepped for this 13 moment when it was communicated to you that the Premier 14 was unhappy about you losing the Park, and the Premier 15 wants the Indians out; you recall being prepared for that 16 in training? 17 You follow me, right? I'm being a little 18 bit facetious, so I apologize. Basically, this notion of 19 political influence at this level, it's not something 20 officers are trained on? 21 A: Trained on? 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: Well it's certainly something you're 24 well aware of. But as far as -- 25 Q: Can we go back to the question?


1 A: -- have -- but as far as having a 2 course on political influence, no. But there's certainly 3 lots of -- or lots of -- there certainly is training 4 during recruit training, and some of the senior courses 5 where there would be discussion about the police and 6 state, and role of the police, and role of government et 7 cetera. 8 For instance, I can recall in our 9 executive development course I had taken at the Canadian 10 Police College in Ottawa, there was a significant amount 11 of time spent on that type of discussion. 12 Q: And we talked about your discussions 13 either during the event or after, to the extent they 14 didn't actually exist with the Commissioner about this, 15 but is it fair to say that you can't help us on any 16 discussions you had either with subordinates, or with 17 superiors about the concern around the appearance of 18 undue influence of politicians in this case? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: It just was never touched. 21 A: No, we didn't have a discussion on 22 that. 23 Q: Ever? 24 A: No. 25 Q: You referred, in answers to questions


1 by Mr. Klippenstein and Mr. Millar, that this was 2 extremely unusual to have a Premier take a direct 3 interest in something that you were involved in like 4 this, do you remember that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: So here you have a very unusual 7 component to what amounts to a tragedy, yes? 8 A: Yes, absolutely. 9 Q: And at no time in any of the 10 briefings the February 1996 meeting, or at any other 11 time, was the issue of the appearance of inappropriate 12 influence ever discussed? 13 A: You mean after the event? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: It certainly wasn't discussed in a 16 de-briefing. There was certainly some discussion I had 17 with Chief Coles about Ron Fox calling me, that type of 18 thing. 19 Q: Okay. Can you help me on what those 20 discussions were? 21 A: Well the day that the -- that Coles 22 and Parkin were at the Command Post, there was some 23 discussion from -- from then on that Ron Fox was going to 24 call Chief Coles and deal with him, as opposed to Ron Fox 25 contacting me at the Command Post.


1 Q: All right. Is that the full extent 2 of the discussions? 3 A: That was it. I -- I had to get 4 moving with a number of other issues at that point in 5 time. 6 Q: Fair enough. And subsequent to that, 7 did you and Chief Coles ever have any discussions about 8 the issue? 9 A: I don't recall any specific 10 discussions ever again about it. 11 Q: And that may explain why no 12 initiatives have been undertaken by the OPP in any way to 13 create any kinds of buffers to prevent against these 14 kinds of appearances in the future, fair? 15 And if you don't talk about it, you're not 16 going to be fixing it, correct? 17 A: Fair enough. 18 Q: Now, I listened intently when you 19 explained to Mr. Horton how you were quite confident that 20 the conversation you had with, and I apologize, I'm 21 probably going to get his rank wrong but it's 22 Superintendent Parkin? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: The conversations you had with 25 Superintendent Parkin in -- in your mind when he said the


1 Chief is going to want to know how we lost containment, 2 in your mind they weren't expressing any form of 3 disappointment by the Chief in you? 4 A: No. I -- I didn't sense that. 5 Q: When -- and you're a Deputy 6 Commissioner, how many employees report to you? 7 A: Probably in excess of four thousand 8 (4000). 9 Q: I don't admire your work -- your task 10 at all, sir. With four thousand (4000) employees you've 11 had a fair amount of management experience. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And when you sit down with an 14 employee, I take it you're always -- a subordinate I 15 mean, you're always conscious of the fact that what you 16 share with that employee about their work will either, to 17 them, give the appearance of happiness with their work, 18 or unhappiness, yes? 19 A: Sure. 20 Q: Because an employee wants to please 21 their superior? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And when Superintendent Parkin said 24 to you that the Chiefs don't want to know how we lost 25 containment of the Park, did you sense he was expressing


1 pleasure to you? 2 A: I didn't get the impression he was 3 doing anything but trying to find out the facts behind it 4 all. 5 Q: Now, going back to my question. Did 6 you get a sense that he was expressing pleasure to you? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It is an 8 answer to the question. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: He did answer the 10 question. My Friend may not like the answer but-- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But it is an 12 answer. I mean, I -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I know, and now I'm 14 going back to my question, since it was an answer. I'm 15 not accusing him of not answering the question -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm simply re- 18 asking the question to focus the witness. 19 Getting back to my question, I accept what 20 he said -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I see I 22 thought -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- about the -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you were 25 waiting for him to answer the question.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: No, getting back to my question, did 4 you take what he said as an expression of pleasure? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, is 6 that a question? 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That 9 question's been answered. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But he answered it 11 one way and now I'm seeking to find out more information; 12 it's cross-examination. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 14 it's cross-examination, you don't have to remind me. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, right. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But, you've 17 asked a question and he's answered it, I think -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, but -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 20 then -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But, with great 22 respect, Mr. Commissioner -- I'll move on, it's just -- 23 it's not worth a candle, but in my respectful submission, 24 if Counsel repeats a question, it doesn't necessarily 25 become improper because it's repeated, with great


1 respect. 2 But I'll move on. I'll -- I'll move on. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When you've 4 asked a question and you get an answer -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And then you 7 ask the question again, it's not necessarily repetition. 8 Well, we'll have to see when that happens again. 9 For now, the fact that you're moving on, 10 let's just move on. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: When you put it 12 like that, I sure sound wrong. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 14 know. It's an odd proposition, but -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It'll work, it's 16 just the wrong context, so I'd better get moving. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's keep 18 going. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 21 Q: Would you agree with me, at minimum, 22 that Superintendent Parkin and Chief Coles would have 23 been disappointed that the containment was lost in the 24 Park; they would have been disappointed? 25 A: No, I -- I don't agree with that.


1 Q: Oh, all right. 2 A: He would expect us to do the best we 3 could do with whatever the circumstances, and they would 4 certainly expect, at some point, an explanation as to 5 what took place. 6 But I certainly didn't get any sense that 7 there was disappointment because we couldn't do A or B. 8 I mean, he -- he is my superior, I was reporting to him, 9 and I -- and I was informing him of what had -- what 10 information I knew. 11 Q: So it's not as if he viewed you as 12 having gotten run out of the Park? 13 A: I certainly didn't sense that. 14 Q: Okay. And that's not what happened? 15 A: No. 16 Q: No. And it's not as if he viewed you 17 as not having assigned sufficient men to the Park? 18 A: No. 19 Q: And that's not what you thought? 20 A: No. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: You spoke to Superintendent Parkin at 25 9:43 in the morning of September 5th, 1995, when you had


1 that discussion with him where the Chief -- where he says 2 to you, basically, the Chief is going to want to know how 3 you lost containment. 4 It's set out in the transcripts, Exhibit 5 P-444(a), at Tab 6. 6 And I only take you there, not to go over 7 it again, because Mr. Horton went over it with you, it's 8 to take you to the next step, but it's to refresh your 9 memory. 10 So, at Tab 6, you see your conversation 11 with your direct superior, Superintendent Parkin? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Now this is a conversation where Mr. 14 Horton put to you that the Chief is going to want to know 15 how you lost containment, right; yes? 16 A: What -- what page are you referring 17 to, sir? 18 Q: If you go to page 35, at the bottom, 19 Parkin. And I'm doing this just to refresh your memory, 20 sir, 'cause I'm going on to something else, but I want to 21 be fair to him. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 25 Q: Bottom of page 35:


1 "Parkin: Ah, ah, I'm only going to 2 ask this question because I'm sure that 3 the Chief is probably going to ask it. 4 How did we, given the fact we have 5 people there when this all happened, 6 how'd we lose containment?" 7 Carson's answer: 8 "Oh, well, it was a matter of safety, 9 like, somebody's going to get their 10 head caved in if we'd stayed in there. 11 Parkin: Okay. 12 Carson: Because they were really 13 getting -- getting irate with our guys 14 and I would suggest the damage to the 15 cruiser was, you know, indicative what 16 more we were going to get into and on." 17 And you gave your answers to Mr. Horton 18 that when Superintendent Parkin said that, that the 19 Chief's going to want to know how you lost containment 20 and when he says, "how we lose containment," I'm 21 regularly criticized by my employees because whenever I 22 say the royal, "we", they know I'm talking about them and 23 -- and Superintendent Parkin wasn't the Incident 24 Commander. 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: You were? 2 A: Right. 3 Q: So, when he said, How did we lose 4 containment, he was -- he was encompassing you and him, 5 but he was talking about you, right? 6 A: Sure, sure. 7 Q: Okay. But you didn't take that as a 8 criticism? 9 A: No. 10 Q: And you didn't take that as 11 disappointment? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Okay. But interestingly enough, at 14 10:10, and it's the very next tab, it's the next 15 conversation you have. Twenty-seven (27) minutes 16 later -- 17 A: Which -- which tab are you referring 18 to now? 19 Q: The next tab, Tab 7? In -- in 20 stopping you there, you recall the context for these 21 questions, right? The context was that you felt you had 22 some egg on your face about losing control of the scene, 23 losing the Park. 24 Do you remember that was the context for 25 Mr. Horton's questions, right?


1 A: That was -- yes. 2 Q: Right. And you said, No. My -- my 3 boss didn't approve of me, right? 4 A: Right. 5 Q: And then, I asked you more questions 6 today and specifically I said you didn't get run out of 7 the Park, right? 8 A: Right. 9 Q: Right. All right. Could you turn 10 and -- and September 5th, 1995, twenty-seven (27) minutes 11 after you talked to Superintendent Parkin your next call 12 is to really your -- your -- your colleague of parallel 13 rank, right; that's Linton? 14 A: Right. 15 Q: Right. He's a guy that's -- he's not 16 a subordinate? 17 A: No. 18 Q: You can talk about tactics, et 19 cetera, not like you're talking to a subordinate? 20 A: Yes. He's equal rank. 21 Q: Right. And the conversation starts 22 at page 45, twenty-seven (27) minutes after the 23 Superintendent's talked to you and you say: 24 "Good morning, John." 25 This is page 45. Do you see that?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: Two-thirds (2/3) of the way down the 3 page. I'm going to put it to, sir, within seconds of the 4 pleasantries and telling him to have his bag packed, 5 what's the first thing you say to your colleague of equal 6 rank? Could you read it out, please, the full paragraph? 7 A: Which one are you referring to? 8 Q: After you tell him to have his bags 9 packed and tell him the shift hours, what's the first 10 thing you tell your colleague of equal rank? Could you 11 read it out, please? It starts with, "Yeah, and brief 12 you." 13 A: "Yeah, and brief you what's going on. 14 All I'm going to try to do is hold the 15 line. We lost the Park last night; 16 we're not in the Park at all. Yeah, we 17 got more or less a lack of better run 18 out -- run out before somebody got hurt 19 [better term, run out]." 20 A cruiser rear window smashed out of it 21 and there was no -- there was a nose- 22 to-nose and it wasn't good for a little 23 while and we didn't have enough ERT 24 guys. We only had eight (8) there so 25 we didn't have the horses to do it."


1 Q: All right. You told your colleague 2 of equal rank, quote, "We've got more or less, lack of a 3 better term, run out before somebody got hurt," right? 4 A: Yeah. I -- I ordered the officers 5 out. 6 Q: You told your colleague that you got 7 run out, right? 8 A: Yeah. That's what I said. 9 Q: You told your colleagues that you 10 didn't have enough ERT guys. 11 A: Right. 12 Q: You told your colleague, we just 13 didn't have the horses to do it. 14 A: Right. 15 Q: That was your expression of your 16 failure after Superintendent Parkin, twenty-seven (27) 17 minutes earlier said the Chief's going to want to know 18 how you lost containment; isn't that right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And isn't it fair to say that you're 21 human and that if your boss says to you, My boss is going 22 to want to know how this happened since we knew they were 23 coming, that that's going to impact you as a subordinate. 24 You're going to say to yourself, Well, you know, I've got 25 to reflect on how this happened; isn't that right?


1 You're going to reflect on how it happened. 2 A: Sure. 3 Q: Right. And in reflecting on how it 4 happened, you turned to your colleague of parallel rank 5 twenty-seven (27) minutes later; right? 6 A: I was talking to him later, yes. 7 Q: You confided in him? 8 A: Well, I called him because he had to 9 come and replace me. 10 Q: But you talked about more than the 11 replacement? 12 A: Yes. I was trying to brief him on 13 what had taken place. 14 Q: You confided in him. 15 A: I briefed him, simple as that. 16 Q: You confided in him that you more or 17 less got run out of the Park because you didn't have the 18 horses to hold the Park. 19 A: Right. 20 Q: Now, from the point of view of 21 Superintendent Parkin, that was something he needed to 22 explain to the Chief. 23 A: Sure. 24 Q: But in addition to that, you found 25 out through Ron Fox that that was exactly what the


1 Premier was concerned about, how you lost the Park; isn't 2 that right? 3 A: Eventually I heard that. 4 Q: Yes, so now you're getting these 5 expressions of concern from within management, yes? 6 A: There was not an expression of 7 concern. I -- I -- I take exception to your suggestion 8 there was a big exception to what I did, or did not do. 9 We had a certain number of people in the 10 park that weekend; we did not know when the entry into 11 the park was going to take place, whether it was going to 12 be in the evening of the fourth, the fifth, the sixth or 13 a month later for that matter. 14 So, I -- I take exception to the fact that 15 there was some expectation that we were going to have 16 enough people and that we were required to prevent anyone 17 from coming through that fence that night. 18 The Officers dealt with the information 19 they -- they were able to with the number of people they 20 had at that point in time, and then when I was contacted 21 I suggested they pull back before someone gets hurt, 22 simple as that. 23 And that's the information I reported up 24 the chain to Superintendent Parkin, and he will come here 25 and give evidence, and you can certainly question him on


1 that matter. 2 But I don't think you're going to find 3 that he has any -- to have any exception with the actions 4 that were taken that night in relation to this. 5 Q: It -- it's your evidence, is it, that 6 if Superintendent Parkin comes here and tells us that he 7 thought everything was done properly we should simply 8 accept that, that that's what happened, right? 9 A: Unless you want to call him a liar. 10 Q: Sir, I'm questioning you, and the 11 suggestion by you that ten (10) years later, Senior 12 ranking Officers are going to attend and say they had no 13 concerns, has some weight, but do you agree with me that 14 we have to look past that; would you agree with that? 15 A: I'm not sure what you're getting at. 16 Q: All right, let me back up. You were 17 in charge of assigning people to the park that weekend? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And you told an Officer of equal rank 20 that insufficient people had been assigned, yes? 21 A: No -- no, I didn't say that. I said 22 we had insufficient people there to deal with the 23 circumstances that they were facing. 24 Q: And you knew that that particular 25 weekend was the weekend they were expected to go into the


1 park, that is the occupiers? 2 A: There was a possibility. We didn't 3 know when. It could have happened anytime, it may not 4 have happened for a week after that. 5 We didn't have -- nobody come up to us and 6 said well, 8:00 on Monday night, that's the time you 7 better be ready, we didn't have that kind of information. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Would you give me a 9 brief indulgence Mr. Commissioner. There's a document I 10 need to retrieve from the table? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 THE COMMISSIONER: We are going to break 15 at 4:30 today. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I apologize. 17 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we are going to 18 break at 4:30, just for your information. And Deputy, we 19 are going to break at 4:30. 20 Ordinarily I would have stayed longer if 21 there was a chance to finish, but if there isn't then we 22 might as well -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right. 24 THE COMMISSIONER: -- break at the usual 25 time.


1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 2 Q: Are you familiar with the fact that 3 Chief Superintendent Coles did a report subsequent to the 4 incident, subsequent to September 6, 1995 -- in and 5 around late September 1995? 6 A: I'm not sure what report you're 7 referring to. 8 Q: All right. Mr. Eyolfson is 9 retrieving it. Going back to my questions to you 10 previously; is it fair to say that from your perspective, 11 that is the perspective of John Carson, that the only 12 person that could have put more people in the park that 13 weekend was you? 14 A: Oh sure, I could have. 15 Q: Right, and it's also fair to say, now 16 that you've had a chance to look at the transcript that 17 your perception of the situation was that you folks were 18 quote, "run out of the park"? 19 A: Yeah, there was -- there was more 20 issues there than our Officers could deal with. 21 Q: Was it a source of embarrassment to 22 you that your Officers were run out of the park? 23 A: Absolutely not. 24 Q: Now, can we just move briefly to a 25 hypothetical, if you'll indulge me.


1 If hypothetically it was a source of 2 embarrassment that you were run out of the park, and that 3 you hadn't assigned enough Officers to the weekend that 4 you expected the occupiers to come in; if hypothetically 5 that was a source of embarrassment, there is at least a 6 risk that that could influence your decision subsequently 7 in trying to take back the park. 8 Would you agree with that, if 9 hypothetically -- 10 A: No, I -- I wouldn't agree with you. 11 Q: All right, and if hypothetically you 12 felt that level of embarrassment, you'd agree that 13 there's at least a risk that you'd feel some level of 14 management pressure to get the park back? 15 A: No. 16 Q: No, all right. On the following day, 17 Chief Coles and Superintendent Parkin met with you, yes? 18 A: That was on the -- that wasn't -- 19 that was the 6th I believe. 20 Q: The following day, September 6th, 21 they met with you for several hours. 22 A: Yeah. They came -- they came in 23 around noonish on September the 6th I believe. 24 Q: And we can't find a record of the 25 meeting in your notes.


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: There -- the command structure 3 basically is such that two (2) people most responsible 4 for giving you orders in relation to this very serious 5 incident are Coles and Parkin. 6 A: Right. 7 Q: If there's an order to give you, it's 8 coming from them. 9 A: Sure. 10 Q: And there is a plethora of 11 information reflecting your orders to your subordinates, 12 yes? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: They spend two (2) hours with you. I 15 take it they just didn't discuss operational matters. 16 A: We had two (2) hours of discussion. 17 Q: But it wasn't around operational 18 matters? 19 A: I couldn't tell you exactly what -- 20 how the discussion went. 21 Q: Would you agree with me that it would 22 defy logic to suggest it wasn't around operational 23 matters? It would have been around managing the 24 incident; yes? 25 A: It -- it would have been around the


1 incident of course. 2 Q: It would have been around 3 operationally managing the incident. 4 A: Of course. The -- the situation 5 we're dealing with. 6 Q: And it was a sufficiently serious 7 incident to warrant some of the highest ranking police 8 officers to attend at the scene? 9 A: Well, I think you'll note in -- in 10 one of the transcripts with Superintendent Parkin that he 11 said they were coming down to show their support and they 12 didn't want to interfere and it was a very positive 13 appearance just to show some support to the officers who 14 were working there. 15 I think it's how the transcript speaks to 16 that. 17 Q: The two (2) hour meeting was behind 18 closed doors and it only involved you. 19 A: Sure. 20 Q: So the -- the show of good will to 21 the men and women probably happened but it didn't happen 22 in the two (2) hours you met, just the three (3) of you. 23 A: Sure. 24 Q: Brief indulgence. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: In terms of what occurred in that two 4 (2) hour meeting we can all agree that you and your 5 superiors would have discussed operationally how to 6 manage the incident. 7 A: Sure we were talking about all the 8 circumstances the best we knew it. 9 Q: And they would have given you their 10 best experience and direction on what you should do? 11 A: Sure. 12 Q: On September 5th, 1995 your 13 Superintendent told you the Chief is going to want to 14 know how you lost containment of that Park, right? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: On September 5th, 1995 you told a man 17 of equal rank, Linton, you told Inspector Linton we got 18 run out, right? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: On September 6th, 1995 a two (2) hour 21 meeting with your superiors takes place and I can't find 22 one page of information on what orders they gave you. 23 Am -- am I missing something? Is there 24 something somewhere? 25 A: No, there isn't.


1 Q: Is there an OPP policy, direction or 2 guideline that says when a Chief or a Superintendent is 3 giving orders to an inspector, there are to be no notes 4 taken? 5 A: No. 6 Q: When orders are given in respect of a 7 serious incident, would you agree with me the idea is to 8 chronicle those orders as best as you can in the context 9 of the situation? 10 A: That's fair. 11 Q: And in the two (2) hours that you 12 spent with Coles and Parkin, was there some urgency or 13 emergency going on in that room that made it impossible 14 to chronicle what you were being ordered? 15 A: I wasn't being ordered to do 16 anything. 17 Q: I thought you said you didn't 18 remember what you were told in the meeting? 19 A: We continued on with the plan the 20 same way it was before. We certainly had some discussion 21 around the circumstances we were dealing with. But to 22 suggest that there was some specific assignments that I 23 had to carry out, that simply wasn't -- I don't -- I 24 don't believe that to be all the case. 25 Q: Two (2) hours is a long time.


1 A: Sure it is. 2 Q: And you testified yesterday that you 3 didn't remember what you were told in that meeting. 4 A: I don't recall being directed to do 5 anything. 6 Q: Well let's back up, sir, with 7 respect. That wasn't what you were asked yesterday and 8 that was not your answer. Your answer yesterday was what 9 was discussed in the meeting and your answer very clearly 10 was, I don't recall. 11 A: Correct, and you challenged me today 12 that I was directed to do something as a result of the 13 meeting with Coles and Parkin. 14 Q: Yes? 15 A: And I'm telling you, I do not recall 16 being directed to do anything, and our plans did not 17 change as a result of that meeting is what I'm telling 18 you today. 19 Q: Right, and -- and you -- you're 20 committing a sin I do all the time; you're rolling up an 21 answer like I roll up questions. It's not your fault. 22 You said two things there; one, you said 23 that you don't recall being given any directions and then 24 you went on to say nothing changed, right? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Okay, those are two separate answers 2 so let's unpack it a bit, shall we; firstly, you do not 3 recall being given directions in the meeting? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: But to be fair, sir, and pure 6 syllogism, you actually don't recall anything about what 7 you were told in the meeting? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Right, so you could have been given 10 directions or you could have not been given directions, 11 we don't know today? 12 A: No, but I guess you will know that 13 when Coles and Parkin speak to these issues, I suspect. 14 Q: Where are their notes? 15 A: I don't know, you'd have to ask them. 16 Q: That's three (3) Senior Officers at a 17 Senior incident, and we don't have detailed notes of the 18 meeting. It's strange, isn't it? 19 A: Not to me it isn't, but... 20 Q: All right, can -- can we address that 21 for a minute because I think it's very important for me 22 to understand how it is if you were given directions, 23 that kind of thing wouldn't be the subject of notes. 24 If serious operational matters are 25 discussed, how could it be there is no note or record of


1 it? 2 A: What I'm telling you is if -- if 3 there had been some -- some specific things I had to do 4 in regards to some direction, there would have been tasks 5 that flowed from that, and in fact that was not the case. 6 Q: All right. We have your assistance 7 on that, and would you agree with me it's not only ten 8 (10) years later that you can't remember what was 9 discussed; in 2001 you were the subject of an examination 10 for discovery, were you not? 11 A: Yes, I was. 12 Q: And in 2001, six (6) years after the 13 event, you also couldn't remember what was discussed in 14 that meeting? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: How many meetings did you have with 17 Chief Coles prior to the shooting? 18 A: In what time period? 19 Q: In the time period of the occupation 20 of Ipperwash? 21 A: I believe that afternoon was the only 22 time Coles came to the command post. 23 Q: You had one meeting with the Chief, 24 and you can't remember what you were told? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: I'd like to pose an alternative 2 scenario as a matter of fairness to you and get your 3 response to it. 4 I'm going to suggest to you what you were 5 told was to get the Park back? 6 A: I totally disagree. 7 Q: I'm going to suggest to you, you were 8 told they shared and empathized with the difficult 9 situation you were in, but the OPP had some egg on their 10 face and it was time to get the Park back? 11 A: I totally disagree. 12 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that they 13 had no difficulties with you waiting for an injunction, 14 and you had no difficulty waiting for an injunction but 15 at the end of the day you were to get that Park back? 16 A: I disagree. 17 Q: I'm going to suggest to you that when 18 you told Officer Linton you got run out of the park, that 19 was a source of embarrassment for you and the next day 20 you spent two (2) hours with your Superiors going over 21 how it happened and how to fix it? 22 A: That's not a fact. 23 Q: But you're in no place to deny it, 24 you're in no position to deny it -- 25 A: I totally disagree with you.


1 Q: I'm going to finish my question 2 please; but you're in no position to deny it because you 3 don't remember what was discussed, correct? 4 A: I don't remember anything about the 5 meeting, and I disagree with your -- all of your 6 hypotheses. 7 Q: Fair enough. One of the most 8 difficult things in managing an incident like this is 9 communication with those who have the concerns, right, 10 the occupiers? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And the efforts of communication, I 13 take it, can really only be a function of the efforts of 14 both sides, yes? 15 A: Fair enough. 16 Q: And you'd agree with me that in this 17 instance it's been your position all along that you were 18 simply unable to get any stability in leadership amongst 19 the occupiers such that you would have someone you could 20 speak to? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: You made reference to Glenn George, 23 Maynard George and Carl George as individuals who played 24 different roles at different times, right? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: In particular, I recall and it was 2 really Mr. Millar who asked you about this but you agreed 3 with it, and he asked you that Glenn George seemed to 4 undergo somewhat of a transition from a more passive 5 approach to a more aggressive, I think the word militant 6 at one point, was used in terms of his frustration; is 7 that fair? 8 A: I believe so, yes. 9 Q: So whereas in 1993 Glenn George was 10 someone who was easier to deal with, more passive and 11 peaceable, by 1995 he was more militant? 12 A: Right. 13 Q: And you'd agree with me that was 14 likely, in part at least, due to the frustration of the 15 inaction of the situation? 16 A: It could have been. 17 Q: Now, you have some experience in 18 dealing with Aboriginal issues at large, correct? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And with that experience, you brought 21 your commonsense to the occupation in the period of 1993 22 and 1995, right? 23 A: Fair enough. 24 Q: And so I'd like to put a few 25 commonsensical propositions to you about efforts to


1 communicate with the aboriginal communities within the 2 Park and -- and get your assistance on it. 3 And I said "within the Park" but I also 4 refer to the -- the army lands, as well, if you'll bear 5 with me. 6 Now, what factors could trigger the 7 leadership to shift the way you saw from a more passive 8 leadership to a more militant leadership, in -- in your 9 experience? 10 A: What caused it to go more militant? 11 Q: Yeah, what -- what can cause that? 12 A: Well, sometimes it has to do with a 13 lack of action. 14 Q: Right. And that is -- mean -- a form 15 of stalemate? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Situation stays just static? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: Anything else? 20 A: Possibly individual influence. 21 Q: You mean the people around the 22 person? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: A person who's potentially pacifist 25 in nature might become more aggressive if the people who


1 are around him are that kind of influence, more 2 aggressive in nature, yes? 3 A: Fair enough. 4 Q: Anything else? 5 A: I don't know what more you're looking 6 for. 7 Q: Well, just your thoughts, your 8 experiences in dealing with situations like this. Would 9 you agree with me something else that might cause it 10 would be, in addition to pressure from people from 11 within, pressure from people from outside might also 12 cause a person to become more militant? 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: Would you agree with me another 15 factor that would cause someone or a leadership to become 16 more militant would be misinformation about what the 17 other side intends? 18 Misinformation, for example, about what 19 the police intended? 20 A: Sure, that's possible. 21 Q: And, in fact, it's consistent with 22 your experience? 23 A: Sure. 24 Q: Misinformation can distort the views 25 of leadership and actually affect their decision making,


1 fair? 2 A: Sure. 3 Q: Would you agree with me that one of 4 the problems that you see with that static kind of 5 situation, is there tends to be somewhat of an isolation 6 from the different perspectives that might be out there? 7 A: It's possible. 8 Q: Again, it's consistent with your 9 experience? 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: Would you also agree with me that a 12 person put in charge of that kind of situation in the 13 aboriginal community, might not necessarily have all of 14 the tools to manage all of the dynamics going on within 15 their community; yes? 16 A: It's possible. 17 Q: And again, it's consistent with your 18 experience? 19 A: Sure. 20 Q: All of these can affect how a person 21 in leadership might go from being more passive to more 22 militant, agreed? 23 A: Sure. 24 Q: And I take it that kind of change, I 25 mean, you're not suggesting that it's simply restricted


1 to Aboriginal people, it's a human reality? 2 A: Fair enough. 3 Q: To varying degrees, we're all 4 vulnerable to that kind of change and that kind of 5 influence? 6 A: Sure. 7 Q: What makes one person become more 8 aggressive, when they started out passive, might not make 9 another person, right? 10 A: Of course. 11 Q: Another way of describing it might be 12 looking at how a dove becomes a hawk in militaristic 13 terms, would you agree with that? 14 A: I'm not sure what you're getting at 15 there. 16 Q: Well, you've heard the military term 17 a dove? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And you've heard the military term a 20 hawk? 21 A: I'm not sure what the hawk refers to. 22 Q: A hawk tends to be a more aggressive 23 person. 24 A: Oh, okay. 25 Q: A hawk, you'd equate on the


1 aboriginal side, as militant, right. 2 A: Fair enough. 3 Q: Misinformation, we've already agreed, 4 can cause a dove to become a hawk, would you agree with 5 that? 6 A: Sure. 7 Q: So it's always important before 8 engaging in decision making, to ensure that the 9 information you are receiving is of high quality, yes? 10 A: That's the ideal, yes. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 12 because the document I'm looking for isn't yet in mind, 13 I'm going to have to respectfully ask for a five (5) 14 minute break and I don't expect a problem. I think Mr. 15 Millar can help me if I can't find it. I apologize. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 17 fine. We -- we've gone a long stretch. It's a good time 18 for a break. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 21 short break. 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I apologize. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 24 short break. 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess


1 for five (5) minutes. 2 3 --- Upon recessing at 3:56 p.m. 4 --- Upon resuming at 4:06 p.m. 5 6 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 7 resumed. Please be seated. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Always helpful your 9 counsel, Mr. Commissioner, kindly provided a copy of the 10 document we're looking for. And I'm ready to proceed. I 11 apologize for the break. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER. 15 Q: Deputy Commissioner, I have provided 16 to your counsel a copy of the document in issue. And 17 it's basically an executive summary of a report prepared 18 by Chief Coles. 19 And whereas the larger report is dated a 20 significant time later, I'm going to show you that this 21 document in front of you is actually a document dated 22 September 1995 in and around late September 1995. 23 Have you seen this document before? 24 A: No. 25 Q: All right.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So what I'm going 2 to do and again I think I'm not tilling over ground, Mr. 3 Commissioner, that's been touched before. I think this 4 is believe it or not fairly fresh. 5 There is a -- one (1) reference that your 6 counsel made to this document in-Chief I believe, one (1) 7 reference other than that -- not even. Well there you 8 go. So it's completely fresh. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: So I'm going to 11 take the witness carefully through it because he hasn't 12 seen it because I have some questions arising from it. 13 THE WITNESS: If I can be clear. I -- I 14 received a copy of this last night but haven't reviewed 15 it. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Oh, is that right? 17 Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: I believe it was in the 19 documents that were turned over to me last night. 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: All right. The first time I wanted 24 to take you to this document, Deputy Carson, was when you 25 said to me We didn't know when they were going to come


1 in the Park. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: And I said to you, Your superiors 4 felt that the intelligence was to be the affect that 5 there was a strong likelihood or a potential that it 6 was happening Labour Day weekend and you had that 7 information. 8 Could you look at the first paragraph of 9 this Executive Summary prepared by Chief Coles, quote -- 10 and it's on the screen. 11 "On Wednesday, August 16th, 1995 12 intelligence information leads us to 13 believe there is the potential for the 14 First Nations people occupying the 15 military base, to move into Ipperwash 16 Provincial Park. Information indicated 17 occupation would take place on Labour 18 Day weekend." 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: As far as Chief Coles was concerned, 21 his understanding of it was that the state of 22 intelligence was that the occupation would take place on 23 Labour Day weekend. 24 A: And -- and as it indicates on the 25 second line, "There is a potential."


1 Q: Fair enough. There's no certainty. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: You and I can agree on that. That 4 all events you predict in the future never have a 5 certainty, correct? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Your intelligence information at the 8 time in August 1995 told you it was going to happen and 9 told you when. 10 A: It said on Labour Day weekend. 11 Q: And you didn't have enough men 12 assigned on Labour Day weekend to hold the Park. That's 13 what you told Inspector Linton, correct? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Even though you knew that's what -- 16 when it was going to happen, right? 17 A: We knew there was potential. 18 Q: And this all goes to the -- not my 19 being critical of you for not holding the Park, sir, with 20 great respect it's not about that. I -- I'm not sure my 21 criticism would mean that much to you anyway. 22 The point is, with great respect, sir, 23 when Mr. Horton asked you if you had egg on your face or 24 that gist, I ask you again today, with that intelligence 25 and your bosses all asking you, how did we lose the Park,


1 the person who had the egg on their face was Inspector 2 John Carson, isn't that true? 3 A: I disagree. 4 Q: All right. Continuing, the fourth 5 paragraph: 6 "Attempts to start talks were 7 continually frustrated by the fact that 8 no one in the Park would talk. Retired 9 Staff Sergeant Lorne Smith, a respected 10 person and former detachment commander 11 at Kettle and Stony Point was utilized 12 and made attempts to have respected 13 people of Stoney -- I'm sorry -- of 14 Kettle and Stony Point begin 15 negotiations on our behalf, to no 16 avail." 17 Without making too fine a point of this, 18 was it not the case that -- wasn't it Lorne Smith who 19 said he didn't want to get involved? 20 A: He preferred not to. 21 Q: Right. So, Chief Coles was in error? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Sorry? 24 A: No, no. 25 Q: He preferred not to, but he


1 ultimately did get involved? 2 A: Yeah, he did help us out. 3 Q: All right. Fair enough. Sorry, it's 4 my mistake. 5 The report continues. At the top of page 6 2 is where I want to direct your attention to. It's the 7 three (3) paragraphs. I apologize for the lengthy 8 reading, but since we're taking you through it for the 9 first time, I'm going to do the three (3) paragraphs. 10 "On Wednesday, September 6th, 1995 at 11 approximately 07:00 hours, police 12 observed about twenty-two (22) picnic 13 tables that had been erected as a 14 barricade on Army Camp Road where it 15 intersects with East Parkway Drive. 16 Two (2) ERT's were dispatched to the 17 area and the barricade was dismantled 18 and the tables removed from the area by 19 the MNR. 20 At approximately 15:00 hours a 21 detective staff sergeant was assigned 22 to attend in the area of the Park by an 23 Incident Commander to attempt to open 24 negotiations with the occupiers." 25 I take it -- pausing there for a moment --


1 Deputy Carson, I take it we can agree that the detective 2 staff sergeant was Mark Wright? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And the Incident Commander was 5 yourself? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Continuing. Quote: 8 "He spoke with two (2) occupiers and 9 told them that he wished to discuss the 10 situation. He was advised that the 11 occupiers would do their talking with 12 guns. The detective staff sergeant 13 left the area. He returned there at 14 approximately 19:30 hours. He spoke 15 with a group of occupiers that were 16 standing in the intersection of Army 17 Camp Road and East Parkway Drive. A 18 group of four (4) to five (5) occupiers 19 had what appeared to be axe handles in 20 their hands. The occupiers mistook the 21 detective staff sergeant for a First 22 Nations person and told him that he 23 should get out of the area as this was 24 not his fight. The detective staff 25 sergeant left the area."


1 Is Chief Coles mistaken? The account that 2 Chief Coles gives in this report, is he mistaken? 3 A: I don't believe so. 4 Q: Okay. Continuing. 5 "At approximately 19:55 hours a private 6 citizen advised police officers 7 assigned to a checkpoint on Army Camp 8 Road that his vehicle had been damaged 9 by occupiers in the intersection of 10 Army Camp Road and East Parkway Drive." 11 Next paragraph. 12 "At 20:26, OPP officers in the vicinity 13 of the Ipperwash Army Camp reported 14 having conversations with First Nations 15 women from the Camp and who are 16 advising the officers that the women 17 and children are leaving the Camp 18 [quote] 'As something is about to 19 happen.' [close quotes]. Police 20 officers had also reported that there 21 were bonfires burning in the parking 22 lot and access road area to Ipperwash 23 Park." 24 Now, those -- you'll see the very next 25 paragraph reports the activities of the crowd management


1 unit that were formed along with the tactics and rescue 2 unit otherwise known as the Tactical Response Unit which 3 I'm still trying to sort out, but in any event, you'll 4 see the next paragraph is you folks marching; right? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: So, the sum total of the developments 7 as far as Chief Coles is concerned is to be caught in 8 these four (4) paragraphs, am I correct? 9 A: Yes, that's what -- that's what he's 10 wrote. 11 Q: Looking at these four (4) paragraphs 12 for a moment, would you agree with me that they stand in 13 very stark contrast to the information you received the 14 evening hours of September 6th, 1995? 15 A: It -- it doesn't have all the same 16 information, no. 17 Q: Again, it stands in stark contrast, 18 would you agree? 19 A: No. Essentially he has information 20 essentially correct. 21 Q: Natives with baseball bats against a 22 woman beating her car; that's what you put in the press 23 release after you shot -- or, I'm sorry, after Kenneth 24 Deane shot Dudley George you put in a press release that 25 natives with baseball bats were beating a woman's car,


1 right? Where -- where does it say that? 2 A: It says here a private citizen 3 advised police officers; it doesn't say, "a woman." 4 Q: Yes. That is completely consistent, 5 in fact, other than the reference to the plurality of it, 6 that somebody's car got damaged by a stone, right? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: Again, stark contrast, agreed? 9 A: I'm not sure of your point. Contrast 10 with which? 11 Q: Your press release that you issued. 12 You remember the window of opportunity you used after 13 Dudley George was shot? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: You called it a window of 16 opportunity. 17 A: Right. 18 Q: You wanted the OPP's story out there, 19 right? 20 A: We had one (1) opportunity to get a 21 press release of any sort out. 22 Q: Right. You wanted the OPP's story 23 out? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: That talked about baseball bats?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: Any discussion of that here? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: On the private citizen's car? Any 7 discussions of that? 8 A: It just said damage, it didn't say 9 how. 10 Q: Right. Somebody could have had a 11 fender bender with this car, based on Chief Coles' 12 recitation, right? 13 A: Well, you're asking the wrong person 14 about this report. I mean, I don't know, you know, what 15 context -- what Coles -- who he was -- this is for the 16 Commissioner or what -- or how much details. 17 It says this is an executive summary -- 18 Q: Sure. 19 A: An executive summary doesn't have 20 every finite detail. 21 Q: Understand. It's fair to say that my 22 only question to you was not for you to vouch for Chief 23 Coles' accuracy, but was just to ask you, does it stand 24 in stark contrast to the information you had the night of 25 September 6th?


1 A: No, I think essentially he's got the 2 information generally correct. 3 Q: Fair enough. Now, the Mark Wright 4 story. Mark Wright's not threatened by anybody in this 5 paragraph, is he? 6 A: No, it says -- it says here, "you 7 should get out of the area". 8 Q: Because it's not his fight? 9 A: Right. 10 Q: It's the opposite of a threat, isn't 11 it? He's told to leave, right. 12 A: Mark Wright will have to put the 13 context to that, I -- you know, I don't have the context 14 as -- 15 Q: Stands in stark contrast to the 16 information you had the night of September 6th, 1995, 17 yes? 18 A: Fair enough. 19 Q: Misinformation can turn a dove into a 20 hawk, can't it? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: People around you, feeding you 23 information, who may have a more aggressive disposition, 24 can turn a dove into a hawk, yes? 25 A: Sure.


1 Q: It's fair to say that anyone in your 2 position must be able to rely on their subordinates, 3 right? 4 A: Of course. 5 Q: They must be able to rely especially 6 on their right-hand man? 7 A: Sure. 8 Q: In your case, your right-hand man was 9 Mark Wright? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: In fact, he was so important to the 12 equation, that he was the one picked to commence 13 negotiations. You see that, at page 2? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: The second paragraph. 16 "At approximately 15:00 hours, a 17 detective staff sergeant was assigned 18 to attend in the area of the Park by an 19 Incident Commander to attempt to open 20 negotiations with the occupiers." 21 Right? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: That was Mark Wright? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: The guy that says, quote, "We're


1 going to war." 2 A: That's the same person. 3 Q: Right. The guy you nicknamed 4 "Popcorn"? 5 A: And it's the same -- and when this 6 information here does not include the fact that Sergeant 7 Eve went with him, there was two (2) of them. 8 Q: But your boss, reporting on this 9 incident, identified Mark Wright as the one assigned to 10 open negotiations with the occupiers, yes? 11 A: Yes, he was sent down there to see if 12 he could get some discussion going, sure. 13 Q: In fact, I asked you if the paragraph 14 was accurate, you told me it was. 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: Do you want to change that? 17 A: No. 18 Q: All right. Mark Wright, the guy that 19 was assigned to open negotiations with the occupiers, is 20 the same guy who said, quote, to you, a mere hours before 21 the shooting of Dudley George: 22 "Don't you say we go get those fucking 23 guys?" 24 That's the same guy, isn't it? 25 A: The same guy.


1 Q: If you were going to place Mark 2 Wright on a spectrum of docile to aggressive, just 3 general personality type, would the guy that says, "don't 4 you say we go get those fucking guys", would he be to the 5 docile side or the aggressive side? 6 A: Well, the Mark Wright I know would 7 probably be in the middle of the scale. 8 Q: Is it the Mark Wright that you know 9 that said, "don't you say we go get those fucking guys"? 10 A: That's what he said. I -- I've 11 confirmed that several times. 12 Q: That's not my question, with respect. 13 My question to you, is it the Mark Wright that you know 14 that said, "don't you say we go get those fucking guys?" 15 A: Yes, it is. 16 Q: All right. So, a person who speaks 17 like that, we're going to war, we're bringing in the 18 marines. That's a person in your mind who comes down the 19 middle between docile and aggressive? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Okay, and that's why you picked him 22 to open negotiations with the occupiers, yes? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Because if he was of an aggressive 25 personality type, he would be an inappropriate choice?


1 A: Sure. 2 Q: But in your mind, he is not that kind 3 of person? 4 A: No, he's not. 5 Q: Hypothetically if he were, if Mark 6 Wright tended to be more of the aggressive type of police 7 officer than the docile one, he'd be a bad choice for a 8 negotiator, wouldn't he? 9 A: I'm sorry? 10 Q: If Mark Wright tended, 11 hypothetically, to be a more aggressive type of police 12 officer than a docile type of Police Officer, he'd be a 13 bad choice for a negotiator, wouldn't he? 14 A: Sure. 15 Q: In respect of what Mr. Ross asked 16 you, and he's not here anymore but I asked his permission 17 because often counsel go into areas other counsel have 18 covered, explore it and ruin the good work they did. 19 So, I -- I want Mr. Commissioner to know 20 when I ruin this, it's -- it was with permission. 21 Mr. Ross asked you, "with what you know 22 today would you have marshalled the ERT and TRU teams 23 with the information that you have today about what 24 really happened on September 6, 1995"; do you remember 25 him asking you that?


1 A: Yeah, something to that effect, yes. 2 Q: And your answer was, "Well, those 3 weren't the circumstances back then"; remember you 4 answered that? 5 A: Right. 6 Q: With great respect, I'm now going to 7 ask you, having got permission from Mr. Ross for an 8 actual answer to the question. 9 The question was not whether those were 10 the circumstances back then. We know they weren't. The 11 circumstances were far closer to what Chief Coles 12 reported on. 13 But knowing what you know today, would you 14 have had ERT and TRU march on those people, knowing what 15 you know today? 16 A: Knowing what I know today, I could 17 have done a lot of things differently so I -- it's -- 18 it's simply an unfair question. 19 Q: I see. Now let's take a step back, 20 because I'm not as availing as other counsel; I'm going 21 to ask you to focus on the question. 22 This is an investigation, this is an 23 inquiry, it's not a trial, but a key component of this 24 Inquiry, with great respect I submit, I'm not the 25 Commissioner, is to get at the truth.


1 And analysing your actions as the Incident 2 Commander lies at the heart of the truth, do -- do you 3 accept that? 4 A: Of course. 5 Q: All right, and you accept that it's 6 an important function, the notion of accountability when 7 a death happens this way? 8 A: Of course. 9 Q: So, can we now return to the 10 question, leaving aside how difficult it is to answer the 11 question, would you agree with me that you wouldn't have 12 marshalled ERT and TRU team and had them march based on 13 this kind of information? 14 A: I can't tell you that with any 15 certainty. 16 Q: All right, and I take it the flip 17 side of that is you certainly couldn't say confidently 18 today you would have? 19 A: Fair enough. 20 Q: And by fair enough, that means you 21 agree with me? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And the reason you can't say with any 24 certainty that you would have marshalled ERT, right, and 25 ERT is -- we're talking thirty (30) to forty (40) police


1 officers? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And the -- the Tactical Response 4 Unit, or -- what's the other term for it? 5 A: It's TRU Team. 6 Q: Tactical and Rescue Unit; which one's 7 right because I've looked -- seen it described two (2) 8 ways? 9 A: It's Tactics and Rescue. 10 Q: It's Tactics and Rescue; I apologize 11 Mr. Commissioner but I've seen it two (2) ways. 12 Tactics and Rescue Unit, each one consists 13 of twelve (12) to fourteen (14) officers? 14 A: They're twelve (12) officer teams. 15 Q: Part of their function is snipers? 16 A: Of course. 17 Q: Twenty-four (24) snipers plus thirty 18 (30) to forty (40) officers marching -- 19 A: Twenty-four (24) snipers, where did 20 you find those? 21 Q: Two TRU teams? 22 A: There wasn't two -- two TRU teams 23 there that day. I -- 24 Q: How many TRU teams were there? 25 A: There was one (1) team. There --


1 there was certainly not two teams there that night. 2 Q: You didn't -- you didn't have two (2) 3 TRU teams -- 4 A: No. 5 Q: -- stand by? 6 A: No, there's no evidence to that 7 effect whatsoever. 8 Q: Did you have two TRU teams stand by? 9 A: There were -- there's three (3) TRU 10 teams in the -- in the province. There was only -- 11 Q: And how many -- 12 A: -- there was only one (1)TRU team in 13 the area. 14 Q: All right, my apologies. Let's back 15 up. Thirty (30) to forty (40) members of ERT, twelve 16 (12) snipers marching on occupiers who you, historically, 17 view as relatively peaceable. 18 That's a very serious decision, agreed? 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: If he's going to put it 20 to him, let's put the evidence right. 21 The evidence thus far is that there were I 22 think eight (8) -- six (6) to eight (8) TRU -- the 23 evidence of Inspector Deputy Carson was six (6) to eight 24 (8) members of the TRU team were deployed in -- down the 25 road, and I think that's the evidence that he gave.


1 I think it was six (6) -- the evidence may 2 be six (6) to eight (8), but not twelve (12). 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I apologize 4 because -- 5 THE COMMISSIONER: Twelve (12) is a member 6 of the full team. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right, and so 8 my apologies. 9 THE COMMISSIONER: But they were not all 10 available. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It's quite -- it's 12 quite fair. Mr. Millar's point is quite fair. 13 THE COMMISSIONER: That is fine. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: Deputy Carson, with that correction 17 that I appreciate, thirty (30) to forty (40) police 18 officers marching on these people with shields, riot 19 regalia plus six (6) to eight (8) snipers. That's a very 20 serious decision to make, isn't it? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: You'd want to know ten (10) years 23 later that you could be confident that you would do it 24 again, right? 25 A: Sure.


1 Q: But based on the evidence you've just 2 given us, you aren't confident are you? 3 A: I don't know if I would or not. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: This is a good 5 time, Mr. Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 We'll break for the day. It's almost 4:30 and we were 8 going to go to 4:30. We'll break now. Are you okay? 9 THE WITNESS: Fine. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll break 11 now until tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER. Thank you. 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 14 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 29 at 9:00 a.m. 15 16 (WITNESS RETIRES) 17 18 --- Upon adjourning at 4:26 P.M. 19 Certified Correct 20 21 22 23 _______________________ 24 Carol Geehan 25