11 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 March 1st, 2005 25
21 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) 4 Donald Worme, Q.C. ) 5 Katherine Hensel ) 6 Jodie-Lynn Waddilove) (np) 7 8 Murray Klippenstein ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 9 Vilko Zbogar ) (np) George and George 10 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 11 Basil Alexander ) (Student-at-law) 12 13 Peter Rosenthal ) (np) Aazhoodena and George 14 Jackie Esmonde ) Family Group 15 16 Anthony Ross ) Residents of 17 Kevin Scullion ) (np) Aazhoodena (Army Camp) 18 19 William Henderson ) Kettle Point & Stoney 20 Jonathon George ) Point First Nation 21 22 Kim Twohig ) (np) Government of Ontario 23 Walter Myrka ) (np) 24 Sue Freeborn ) 25 Michelle Pong ) (np)
31 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (Np) Lambton Shores 4 5 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 6 Bill Hourigan ) (Np) Harris 7 Jennifer McAleer ) 8 9 Nancy Spies ) (Np) Robert Runciman 10 Alice Mrozek ) (Np) 11 12 Harvey Stosberg ) (np) Charles Harnick 13 Jacqueline Horvat ) (np) 14 15 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 16 Trevor Hinnegan ) (np) 17 18 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 19 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 20 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 21 Peter West ) (np) 22 Nagai On Young ) (np) 23 24 25
41 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) (np) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) (np) 6 Annie Leeks ) 7 Julian Falconer ) (np) Aboriginal Legal 8 Brian Eyolfson ) Services of Toronto 9 Julian Roy ) (np) 10 Adriel Weaver ) 11 12 Al J.C. O'Marra ) Office of the Chief 13 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 14 15 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 16 Matthew Horner ) (np) 17 Kathleen Lickers ) (Np) 18 Mark Frederick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 19 Erin Tully ) (np) 20 Craig Mills ) 21 Megan Mackey ) (np) 22 David Roebuck ) (Np) Debbie Hutton 23 Anna Perschy ) 24 Melissa Panjer ) 25 Danya Cohen-Nehemia ) (np)
51 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 4 Exhibits 6 5 6 7 RONALD CRAIG GEORGE, Resumed 8 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jackie Esmonde 9 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Anthony Ross 57 11 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 119 12 Cross-Examination by Ms. Karen Jones 121 13 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Henderson 170 14 15 THOMAS MICHAEL BRESSETTE, Sworn 16 17 Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Derry Millar 178 18 19 20 21 Certificate of Transcript 291 22 23 24 25
61 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page No 3 P-232 Document No. 6000352. Letter to 4 Chief Tom Bressette from Hubert 5 J. Ryan, Department of Indian and 6 Northern Affairs Canada Re: 7 Documentation on Camp Ipperwash. 201 8 P-233 Document No. 1006505. Letter to 9 Chief Thomas Bressette from C.J. 10 (Bud) Wildman, Minister responsible 11 for Native Affairs Ontario, Nov 26/92. 209 12 P-234 Document No. 7000132 Kettle & Stony 13 Point Council Immediate Release May 14 07/95 Re: Occupation of Camp Ipperwash. 221 15 P-235 Document No. 1008106 E-mail to Ron 16 Baldwin from Terry Humberstone, MNR, 17 Native Liason Specialist Re: 18 Conversation with Tom Bressette May 19 18/93 01:07 P.M. 236 20 P-236 Document No. 3000598 E-mail to Ron 21 Baldwin from Terry Humberstone, MNR, 22 Native Liason Specialist Re: Conversation 23 with Tom Bressette May 20/93 01:27 P.m. 241 24 25
71 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-237 Document No. 1007612 E-mail to 4 Ron Baldwin from Terry Humberstone, 5 MNR, Native Liaison Specialist Re: 6 Meeting - Tom Bressette. Humberstone 7 May 26th, May 27/93 09:47 A.M. 249 8 P-238 Document No. 1002054 Letter to Hon. 9 Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario from 10 Chief Thomas Bressette Re: General 11 Welfare Assistance, June 09/93 256 12 P-239 Document No. 2000697 June 13/94 to 13 Allan Kirk, Manager, Program 14 Development and Support, Social 15 Assistance Programs Branch, Social 16 Assistance & Employment Opportunities 17 Division from Steve O'Brien, Social 18 Services Advisor, Intergovernmental 19 Relations, Southern District, Indian 20 and Northern Affairs, Canada, Re: 21 Social assistance delivery at Camp 22 Ipperwash 269 23 24 25
81 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-240 Document No. 1004218, April 4 15/'96 Letter to Elizabeth Thunder, 5 band administrator, Chippawas of 6 Kettle and Stony Point from Shari 7 Cunningham, area manager, Windsor 8 area office regarding general 9 welfare assistance. 270 10 P-241 Document No. 1011203 June 14/93 11 Letter to Chief Tom Bressette from 12 Ron G. Baldwin, District Manager, 13 Alymer District Re: Management of 14 Ipperwash Provincial Park 271 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
91 --- Upon commencing at 9:02 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. 8 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Good morning. 9 10 RONALD CRAIG GEORGE, Resumed 11 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 13 Q: Good morning, Mr. George. 14 A: Good morning. 15 Q: My name is Jackie Esmonde. I'm one 16 (1) of the lawyers representing the Aazhoodena and George 17 Family Group -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- which includes some of the 20 descendants of Dan and Melva George. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now, I was listening very carefully 23 yesterday when you went through your various professional 24 and academic experiences and I wanted to just pinpoint a 25 couple of the key moments in time with you if I could to
101 make sure I understand that chronology. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Now, starting in 1991, now, I 4 understand you were on special leave at that time from 5 the OPP; is that right? 6 A: For part of it. 7 Q: For part of that year? 8 A: I was -- I was articling from, I 9 think it was June of '90 until obviously a year later and 10 I only completed about nine (9) or ten (10) months of my 11 articles with the private firm -- 12 Q: Hmm hmm. 13 A: -- and then I was re-engaged with the 14 OPP, but assigned to my articles with David Spring. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: And after that, I would have 17 continued on with my employment, I think. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now we have the transcript from your 21 appearance before the Standing Committee -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And have you had a chance to review 24 that? 25 A: Yes, I have.
111 Q: I believe you say in that -- in that 2 transcript that you were in the midst of the Bar 3 admission course at that time; does that sound right? 4 A: I think that I had just finished it. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: And then I do recall there was kind 7 of a -- a flurry of activity, that is in my life, trying 8 to get that sorted out and at the same time, trying to 9 get ready for this presentation to the Standing 10 Committee. 11 Q: Okay. So, during that same time 12 period, you were involved with a group of Stoney Point 13 people, as you described to us yesterday, in organizing 14 for recognition as a -- as a separate nation and to get 15 the land back? 16 A: I think it would have been occurring 17 at that time, yes. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: And that would have been the people 20 that I spoke of earlier in my testimony yesterday. 21 Q: Yes. And you acted as a 22 representative for that group before the Standing 23 Committee? 24 A: I certainly was the primary 25 spokesperson at that time.
121 Q: No, of course -- but -- 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: -- you did act in that capacity -- 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: -- at the Standing Committee? 6 A: Yeah, and I don't -- I don't recall 7 trying to present myself or elevate myself above any 8 stature that the other two (2) men had. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: For sure, particularly my father. 11 Q: Right. 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: Okay, I'd like to jump ahead, then, 14 to the moment of May 6th, 1993 which, as we've heard, is 15 the date that a group of people went back on to the Army 16 Base land. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: And you were still -- were you still 19 a member of that group that you described to us yesterday 20 at that time? 21 A: I guess I'm having some problems with 22 the characterization in a very concrete way, as this sort 23 of group membership. There was no question that the 24 people were, you know, advancing a cause, and that they 25 were concerned about some specific issues.
131 But I -- I believe at that point in time, 2 yes, I was -- was with these people. 3 Q: And you were practising as a lawyer 4 at Kettle Point and various other places, I understand? 5 A: In '93, yes. 6 Q: In '93? And it's my understanding 7 that you were acting as a lawyer for the Stoney Point 8 First Nation. 9 Now, you were asked about that yesterday 10 and you said you couldn't recall -- you recall that you 11 acted for particular individuals but not for any -- but 12 not for a group. 13 I wanted to show you a letter to see if 14 that would assist you in refreshing your memory on that 15 point. 16 A: You'd like to show me a letter? 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: Sure. 19 Q: We have a letter that has already 20 been marked as an exhibit, it's P-206 which is at Volume 21 XXIV, Document Number 90000092. 22 I have a copy for the Commissioner as 23 well, if he'd like to -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25
141 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 2 Q: I'll just give you a moment to look 3 that over. 4 Now, I understand you did not write this 5 letter; it is a letter from Carl George, Chief and Glen 6 M. George, Councillor, to Rosemary Ur, MP, and it's a 7 letter of introduction stating that there are two (2) 8 legal advisors working on behalf of the Stoney Point 9 First Nation, and it names yourself and Mr. Anthony Ross. 10 A: Yes, I can read that. 11 Q: Yeah, okay. And had you seen that 12 letter before? 13 A: I think I've seen it and I can't 14 remember if I've seen it in the context of reviewing 15 material that I have or whether the Commission gave it to 16 me. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: But, I think I've seen this letter. 19 It's interesting, because it notes on -- as of May 1994-- 20 Q: Yes, it's May 3rd, 1994 -- 21 A: Yeah. 22 Q: That's right, so three (3) days 23 before people moved onto the Army base -- 24 A: Oh, okay. 25 Q: Oh, I'm sorry. Pardon me, that was -
151 - that was a year later. 2 A: Yeah, okay. 3 Q: So -- 4 A: Okay. I've seen this letter. 5 Q: So, this -- as of May 3rd, 1994, it 6 has you identified as a Counsel for the First Nation -- 7 the Stoney Point First Nation. 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: Now do you -- 10 A: I'm not speaking to the truth of it, 11 I'm saying that's what I read this saying -- 12 Q: Yes, does -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- this assist you? It certainly 15 seems to be the understanding of the people who wrote 16 this letter and I don't want to, in any way, go beyond 17 the solicitor/client privilege, but does this assist you 18 to -- 19 A: Well, let me go back -- can I go back 20 to your -- I guess I -- I need to follow you properly 21 here. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: If you could go back to your original 24 question I'd appreciate that. And the question had 25 something to do with me representing the Stoney Point
161 First Nation? 2 Q: That's right. I'm -- I'm just trying 3 to get an understanding. It -- it seems as though it was 4 the understanding of the individuals who wrote this 5 letter that at some point you were acting as Counsel for 6 the Stoney Point First Nation. 7 What I'd like to find out from you if 8 that's possible is if you were acting in that capacity on 9 May 6th of 1993, if that's something that you can answer 10 with violating the solicitor/client privilege or if this 11 letter assists you in refreshing your memory in that 12 regard. 13 A: I really can't say. I guess the 14 question that -- that I have in my mind is whether or not 15 my representation of this group was a continuous thing or 16 whether or not it was, sort of, situational specific. I 17 would probably say that -- and it would be very hard to 18 describe this with -- with any detail. 19 I -- I would probably say that my 20 representation of them might have not been continuous. I 21 know for a fact, and I guess if we're zeroing in on May 22 6th, 1994 -- 23 Q: Three (3). My question is -- 24 A: -- 1993, I was not at all involved in 25 having discussions with anybody about that, nor did I
171 give anybody any device -- advice with respect to that 2 occupation at all. 3 Q: Okay. Okay. Thank you. That 4 clarifies that -- 5 A: Yeah. 6 Q: -- point in time. But continuing on 7 with what you were doing on May 6th of 1993, you were 8 also at that time, from what I understood yesterday, you 9 were a councilor for the Kettle and Stony Point First 10 Nation? 11 A: No, I don't think I was. I don't 12 think I was. 13 Q: Okay. I thought I had understood 14 yesterday that you were first elected in 1992? 15 A: I was, yes. I'm happy to answer that 16 question if you have a question with respect to that. 17 Q: I'm -- I'm just interested in finding 18 out what you -- in what capacities you were acting on May 19 6th, 1993. I had understood yesterday that you were a 20 councilor at that time. 21 A: No, what I said -- 22 Q: And you said that that was appealed-- 23 A: No, what I was I was elected to 24 council in 1992. 25 Q: Okay. So -- but, in 1993 you were no
181 longer on Council? 2 A: I don't think I was councilor in '93. 3 Q: Were you acting in any capacity on a 4 retainer with the Kettle and Stony Point Band, if you can 5 answer that question, on May 6th of 1993? 6 A: I don't know. I don't -- I don't 7 know whether I was or not. 8 Q: Okay. Can I take from that answer 9 that there were various points at which you were acting 10 on a retainer for the Band? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay. And the final period that I 13 wanted to clarify if I could with you is the evening of 14 September 6th and morning of September 7th of 1995. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Now, were you on Band Council at that 17 time? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Okay. You were a lawyer with your 20 own practice at Kettle Point? 21 A: In 1995 on the 6th of September? 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Were you on retainer for the Kettle 25 and Stony Point Band on that date?
191 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: I'm not really sure. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: I know that I was on a, sort of, 6 general retainer with the Band at some point, but I don't 7 know if it went back that far. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: It might well have been. 10 Q: Okay. And I also understand from 11 your testimony yesterday that you acted as Counsel for a 12 number of the people who were arrested that evening? 13 A: On the 6th of September? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: I was consulted by a number of 16 people, yes. 17 Q: You were also a family member for 18 some of the people who were injured and arrested? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And -- 21 A: More specifically, all of the people, 22 I think, that consulted me that day, I would have been 23 first cousins with, yeah. 24 Q: Okay. And you also had -- you also 25 had connections to the OPP through friends, family, your
201 professional experience in the past? 2 A: Connections? How would you define 3 that for me? 4 Q: You had friends who were on the OPP? 5 A: Oh, yeah, I don't call that 6 connections though. I mean, I got friends in this room, 7 I don't call them my connections. 8 Q: Okay. Then I'll be -- 9 A: Yeah, I have friends -- 10 Q: -- specific. 11 A: -- lots of friends in the OPP. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: No question about that. 14 Q: And you -- you had some brothers, two 15 (2) brothers as I understood it? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Now, you told us yesterday about the 20 goals of some of the people that you were working with 21 who identified themselves as Stoney Pointers, were 22 recognition as a separate First Nation and return of the 23 land to that nation? 24 A: That's right. 25 Q: And you agreed with this goal at that
211 time? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Did I agree with it? 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: In my -- personally? 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: Yes, I did. 10 Q: Okay. And you told us yesterday that 11 the strategy that you agreed with, was to pursue these 12 goals through education and through speaking out? 13 A: In heightened awareness, yes. 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And that was a strategy that you 17 employed, for example, when you spoke with the media and 18 you were taken to a couple of articles yesterday? 19 A: You mean was I using the media to 20 enhance understanding and -- 21 Q: And awareness of -- 22 A: -- and awareness? 23 Q: -- the issues. 24 A: You know, I never really was big at - 25 - with the media. I wouldn't say that I ever engaged
221 them -- 2 Q: Okay. Okay. 3 A: -- because I'll be honest with you, I 4 don't think they really report what they're told a lot of 5 the time. 6 So, no, I wouldn't say that the media was 7 ever a strategy that I used. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: For a fact. 10 Q: You did, on occasion, speak with them 11 and they did report, accurately, your -- your viewpoint 12 from what you said yesterday in the two (2) articles that 13 we reviewed? 14 A: Yeah, I guess, you know, the words 15 that I read were in quotation marks, so -- 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: -- probably something I said, yes. 18 Q: We also heard from Marcia Simon when 19 she testified here September, I believe, of 2004, she 20 told us a story about your father reading a statement 21 called a declaration of independence -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- for then Minister of Indian 24 Affairs, Thomas Siddon -- 25 A: Yes.
231 Q: And that was in August of 1991? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And -- 4 A: Well, I'm -- I'm saying yes, because 5 you're saying that to me. I'm not agreeing with that or 6 acknowledging that. 7 Q: Oh, I see. Were you present when 8 your father -- 9 A: You know I've sat here -- 10 Q: Hmm hmm. 11 A: -- and listened to a lot of testimony 12 and I've mulled information like that around in my head 13 and I have to be honest with you, I don't really recall 14 that. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: I know it sounds like a very 17 significant event, but I personally don't have a very 18 clear recollection of that. 19 Q: Would it be possible to show the 20 Witness Exhibit P-52, that is the -- P-52, that is a copy 21 of the statement that was read by your father. I just 22 want to see if that assists you in refreshing your memory 23 at all. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: There is no document number for that,
241 it's something that was provided by Ms. Simon. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Thank you. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: What date was this? 10 Q: I don't have a specific date, but I 11 was -- Ms. Simon testified that it was in August of 12 1991. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: And who did -- who did she say he 17 presented this to and where? 18 Q: The Minister of Indian Affairs 19 apparently came to Kettle Point at that time and your 20 father read that statement at Kettle Point. 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MS. MARCIA SIMON: I think the date is at
251 the end of that. 2 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Ms. Simon advises 3 that the date is at the very end of the document. 4 THE WITNESS: So, August the 3rd, 1991 is 5 when it's... 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 8 Q: That's what it says on the document 9 in any event. 10 A: Yeah, okay. 11 Q: Now, the reason that I -- I've asked 12 you to take a look at this is -- 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: -- I understand that you actually 15 wrote that statement. Now, that you've had a chance to 16 look at that does that refresh your memory? 17 A: No. 18 Q: You have no memory at all of the 19 statement? 20 A: No, I don't. 21 Q: Do you disagree that you wrote it or 22 you just don't recall? 23 A: I can't say that I wrote it or I -- I 24 can't disagree that I wrote it. 25 Q: Okay.
261 A: I could have. Some of the stuff in 2 it -- and -- and I'm not trying to say that I -- I 3 didn't, you know. If I wrote this it's not a bad 4 declaration, actually. You know, I mean that's what 5 people are thinking, but some of the -- some of the font 6 and punctuation and stuff that I might not use in the way 7 that I write. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: But I wouldn't -- I wouldn't -- I 10 wouldn't deny writing it. 11 Q: Okay. Then, I'll move on then to -- 12 I just wanted to ask you a few more questions -- 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: -- about your appearance before the 15 Standing Committee. 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: Now, I understand from the 18 transcripts that just prior to your presentation and that 19 of your -- your father and Maynard T. George who were 20 with you, there were representatives from the Department 21 of National Defence who made a presentation as well. 22 A: I read that and you know something, I 23 don't really recall. 24 Q: You don't recall that? 25 A: Yeah.
271 Q: Okay. 2 A: I didn't really pay much attention to 3 what they had to say at the time. 4 Q: Okay. I noted from the transcript 5 that -- they left before you made your presentation. 6 A: Yeah, I read that, too. 7 Q: Yeah, but you don't have any 8 independent recollection of that? 9 A: No, I don't. 10 Q: And I understand as well, and we've 11 heard from Ms. Simon that the House of Commons Standing 12 Committee did make a recommendation following the 13 evidence that they heard and this is in P-50, which I 14 don't -- I'm not sure is in the document database, but 15 they made a recommendation that the Government rectify a 16 serious injustice done to the Stoney Point First Nation 17 almost fifty (50) years ago by returning the land at 18 Stoney Point to its Aboriginal inhabitants and their 19 descendants from whom the land was seized under the War 20 Measures Act. 21 Does that sound familiar to you that that 22 recommendation was made? 23 A: I know that there was a -- a 24 recommendation, something like that -- 25 Q: Okay.
281 A: -- and it was very positive, yes. 2 Q: Right. And the recommendation was 3 that a serious injustice done to the Stoney Point First 4 Nation be rectified? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And that was, in fact, one (1) of the 7 goals that you had in making your presentation was that 8 you would have a recommendation such as this. 9 A: I don't know if that -- if that was a 10 specific goal, you know, to have that recommendation come 11 out of the proceeding like that. 12 Q: What was the -- 13 A: I must -- I must admit that when we 14 were working through these things we were all pretty -- 15 pretty new at it. You know, I mean we were functioning 16 quite independent of anybody else. 17 I could tell when I first engaged that 18 there was a lot of misinterpretation of documentation and 19 correspondence that was historic in nature and so we were 20 trying to wade through that and try to get a sense of 21 what all of this meant. 22 You know, what the, sort of 23 characteristics of the big picture and -- and so, you 24 know, I -- I was -- I was quite consumed in my bar 25 admission exams and when I look at this it causes me to
291 sort of recall that I really didn't -- I wasn't much 2 involved in the preparation. I guess at the time I -- I 3 was a little bit more comfortable with reading before a 4 group like that, the kind of presentation that they 5 wanted to make, so I can't say that with -- with, you 6 know -- that, in the definitive way, that that was a goal 7 of our presentation. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: I mean, if it was, you know, a -- a 10 sort of residual effect if it, that was a good thing. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: It was perceived and seen as a good 13 thing. 14 Q: Now, I'd like to move on and ask you 15 just a few questions about the role that you played as a 16 Counsel -- as Counsel for some of the Stoney Point 17 people, and I recognize yesterday you said you couldn't 18 recall a whole lot about that. 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: And, of course, I'm not asking you 21 for any privileged information. I -- what I suggest I'll 22 do is, we have a copy of letters that are already 23 exhibits in this proceeding that are not privileged that 24 I would like to just to ask you about if I could? 25 A: Sure.
301 Q: Now, you were asked yesterday about a 2 meeting with Gord Peters in Toronto -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- regarding the preparation of a 5 working agreement -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- and you said that you didn't -- 8 that you couldn't recall very much about that. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: I have a letter which has been marked 11 as P-209, that is Volume XXIV, Document Number 9000030 12 and that is dated July 27th, 1993. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: I have a copy for the Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 20 Q: Now, this is a letter from you to Mr. 21 Gord Peters and the subject heading is, Agreement on 22 Working Relationships. And this letter appears to 23 discuss some amendments that are being proposed to the 24 agreement that was put before you yesterday. 25 A: Yes.
311 Q: Okay. And I'd like to -- I just 2 wanted to point out, actually, on the second page -- I'll 3 give you a moment to read it, if you... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: Okay. So, it appears that at least 9 as of -- as of this date, you were acting in some 10 capacity as a lawyer for the group? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And I just wanted to -- 13 A: That still doesn't help me with my 14 memory about the meeting itself -- 15 Q: Right. 16 A: And I appreciate that, you know, 17 there's some distinction with -- you know, what I recall 18 after that. But I don't remember that meeting very well. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: I do remember people leaving with not 21 a great deep -- deal more, sort of, positive energy than 22 when they went in the place, yeah. 23 Q: I did want to highlight a portion of 24 the letter. On the second page -- 25 A: Yes.
321 Q: -- there's a, I suppose, first full 2 paragraph. 3 "The Stoney Point Council has further 4 instructed me to advise you of the 5 following fundamental principles 6 embraced by their membership which 7 must, at least, be recognized and 8 respected throughout the process." 9 And then there are five (5) principles. 10 The first is: 11 "The Stoney Point must be given full 12 Band status pursuant to the provisions 13 of the Indian Act. 14 Number 2. The Stoney Point Reserve 15 Number 43 must be returned to the 16 Stoney Point Band. 17 Number 3. Compensation must be made to 18 the Stoney Point Band. 19 Number 4. Compensation must be made to 20 the Kettle Point Band. 21 And Number 5. Throughout the process, 22 the membership of the Stoney Point 23 Band, particularly the Elders, will not 24 be encouraged to leave Stoney Point." 25 A: Yes.
331 Q: So, these were the fundamental 2 principles that were guiding the working out of a 3 working -- 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: If you wish, I'll 5 let My Friend finish the question, but it's obvious that 6 Mr. George wrote this in his capacity as a lawyer, that 7 he's stating the position of his client and I think we 8 would -- we would like to assume that all correspondence 9 from a lawyer on his or her letterhead is communicating 10 information on -- on behalf of a client, in a manner 11 which the client endorses, supports and has agreed upon. 12 That, I suggest, is the case here. I 13 don't think My Friend is going to suggest any 14 differently. So, other than stating his clients' 15 position, because of the nature of the relationship, 16 obviously, I don't think Mr. George can answer any 17 questions about what that position is, or how he came to 18 write it or even its punctuation for that matter. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You -- 20 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: That certainly was 21 not what -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You weren't 23 going to go there? 24 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: No, I just wanted to 25 confirm that these were the principles that, at least
341 according to this letter, were guiding the working out of 2 a working relationship between the Kettle Point --Kettle 3 and Stony Point Band and the Stoney Point First Nation. 4 That is what it appears on the face of this letter to 5 say. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I don't 7 want to be difficult. I've tried not to be and I'm not 8 trying to be difficult here, but that's my letter -- 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 11 Q: Hmm hmm. 12 A: -- it has five (5) stated principles 13 that indicate that that were the principles that were 14 being embraced by that membership and one would assume 15 that that's correct by the letter. 16 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Yes, thank you. I 17 didn't -- I didn't wish to go any further from that. 18 Thank you. 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: There's one (1) other letter I wanted 21 to put before you which has been marked as P-210 is 22 Document Number 9000 -- sorry there's five (5) zeros -- 23 38 and that is dated September 21st, 1993 and again this 24 is a letter on your letter head and it's to Chief Tom 25 Bressette.
351 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 4 an extra copy of that letter? 5 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Oh, pardon me, yes I 6 do. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 14 Q: And you'd agree with me that 15 according to this letter it appears as though some 16 agreement had been reached with respect to the working 17 agreement? It says: 18 "Chief George has agreed to execute a - 19 - execute a -- regarding associated 20 services to be supplied by E. E. Hobbs 21 & Associates Ltd." 22 So, there was some agreement with respect 23 to E. E. Hobbs. 24 A: They were, at least approaching some 25 agreement.
361 Q: Okay. 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: And then in the second paragraph, 4 you're confirming with Chief Tom Bressette that he's open 5 to the appointment of two (2) members of the Stoney Point 6 community to a negotiation team? 7 A: I'm sorry, can you ask me that 8 question again? 9 Q: Yes. In the second paragraph it 10 indicates that Chief Tom Bressette is open to the 11 appointment of two (2) members of the Stoney Point 12 community to a negotiation team. 13 A: It certainly extends that suggestion 14 that he's open to it. 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And that this arrangement would allow 18 for the appointment of two (2) members of Kettle Point to 19 that group? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And then it states that the 22 parameters of any additional appointees to that team 23 would be subject to further review and our mutual 24 agreement. 25 A: Yes.
371 Q: Okay, so, it appears as though there 2 was some progress being made, at least at the date of the 3 letter? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: In terms of the -- executing the 8 agreement, yes. 9 Q: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What -- what 11 exhibit number is this, it's marked on here -- 12 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Sorry, that's P-210. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is it two-o- 14 nine (209) or two ten (210)? 15 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Two ten (210). 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Two ten 17 (210). Thank you. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 20 Q: Okay. I -- I'm going to move to a 21 different to now. I wanted to ask you a little bit more 22 about the meeting that you had on September 6th, 1995 23 with two (2) OPP officers, Lorne Smith and Brad Seltzer? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And you did describe that meeting to
381 us yesterday and it appeared that the OPP were interested 2 in establishing communications with individuals who were 3 involved in the -- in the occupation of the Park? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you told us that you had 6 suggested that -- you had suggested Roderick George might 7 be a good person for that -- for such a meeting? 8 A: Judas? 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: Judas, yes. 11 Q: Now, I understand also from Sgt. 12 Seltzer's notes that you had also suggested possibly 13 Glenn George? 14 A: I don't recall that, but if that's 15 what he said, that could have been true. 16 Q: Now, his -- his -- 17 A: I know my -- and I guess I'm 18 reflecting back over a span of ten (10) years and I can 19 recall going to -- and attempting to contact Judas. 20 Q: Now, his notes also suggest that you 21 had raised a concern that a promise be made that Roderick 22 not be arrested in the event that he took part in such a 23 meeting with the OPP. 24 Do you recall raising that concern? 25 A: I'm sorry, you're going to have to
391 read that to me. I -- I've never heard that. Maybe I 2 read and -- do I have a document that says that? 3 Q: Sure. There's -- let me see, his 4 notes... 5 A: I know I -- I had read Seltzer's 6 stuff and I -- I just want to review that again. 7 Q: Okay. His notes are at Tab 1. I'm 8 actually looking at the handwritten notes. 9 A: You've got the hand -- you have 10 handwritten notes? 11 Q: I've got some handwritten notes as 12 well. I'll just identify the page. 13 A: I -- I don't have handwritten notes. 14 Q: Oh, you don't? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Some notes are being provided to you. 17 A: Thank you. And so where do I go with 18 this? 19 Q: I'm looking at memo page 93 of the 20 handwritten notes that follow the -- the typed notes. 21 A: I have information related to 22 Constable Martin. That's what I have here. That's what 23 you gave me. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: And you're -- you're looking for Brad
401 Seltzer? 2 Q: Tab 1. 3 A: I have -- I have some -- 4 Q: Document -- Volume XXII, Document 5 2003866 is the document that I'm looking at. 6 A: Thanks again. Okay. I still have -- 7 I've been given, just now, a -- a copy of a typed 8 material and I already have that typed material. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: So, I don't have those handwritten 11 notes you're talking about. 12 Q: Sorry, I thought you would have had 13 the handwritten notes as well. If you look at -- you 14 can't look at it obviously but Document Number 2003866 15 does also include the handwritten notes -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you get 17 that on the screen? 18 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: -- and I thought 19 they were part of the tab. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll just 21 get that up on the screen in a minute. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm just reading 23 over this -- this typed stuff again to see if I -- if I 24 missed that so... 25
411 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 2 Q: Sure. 3 A: -- you're saying that -- that Staff 4 Sergeant Seltzer said... 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: September 6, 1995. Page 93 of the 9 memo book. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are the 14 typed notes the same as the handwritten notes? 15 THE WITNESS: No. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, they're 17 not. 18 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: There's more 19 information in the handwritten notes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Well, 21 let's see if we can get them up on the screen. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr.
421 Henderson is handing him a copy of the written notes, I 2 think. 3 THE WITNESS: Holy cow. 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I can indicate, 5 Commissioner, it's not easily legible. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sure it 7 wouldn't be. That's why they type it, but obviously 8 there's more there. 9 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Sorry, has Mr. 10 Henderson provided a copy of that page, is that -- thank 11 you very much. 12 THE WITNESS: Page 93? 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 15 Q: Yeah, page 93. 16 A: I -- I'm having some difficulty 17 reading this. 18 Q: I -- I'm right at the very top. 19 A: Yes. Where it says, "Spike and Bob"? 20 Q: And I recognize it's difficult to 21 read this handwriting. I read it as saying: 22 "Spike and Bob think perhaps Judas or 23 Glenn might talk if no arrest is made." 24 A: Yes. Yeah. 25 Q: Would you agree with me that appears
431 to be what that handwritten note says? 2 A: What does -- what does the rest say? 3 Q: I think it says -- 4 A: I would be nice to put that in 5 context: "Because --" 6 Q: "Because all agree, Lorne, myself, 7 Bob and Spike, that safety will..." 8 And I can't make out that word. 9 "...only when we can open 10 communication." 11 A: "Only when we can open 12 communication." 13 Yeah, that looks like what that says. 14 Q: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's on the 16 screen now, I -- 17 THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I don't 19 think we can read it any better up there -- 20 THE WITNESS: That's a little -- no, 21 that's harder than this. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 23 probably worse. 24 THE WITNESS: This is -- 25
441 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 2 Q: I'm just asking you about the top of 3 the page -- 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: -- where it appears to say that Spike 6 and Bob think, perhaps, Judas or Glenn might talk if no 7 arrest is made. 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: Do you recall having any conversation 10 with the officers about the possibility of making an 11 arrangement whereby if Roderick or Glenn spoke with the 12 police, they would not face arrest? 13 A: I don't recall that. 14 Q: Okay. I wanted to ask you a few more 15 questions about your experience at the Forest Detachment 16 when you went there on -- it was the early morning of 17 September 7th, 1995. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: And those of the scribe notes, I 20 believe, are at Tab 3 of your book. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And that is Volume XIII, Document 23 3000746. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
451 2 Q: Now, you were asked some questions 3 about that -- the section at 01:16 hours and I just 4 wanted to ask you about one (1) part of it. 5 Do you have that page? It's page 84 at 6 the top. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What Tab is 8 it, now? 9 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Tab 3. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Three (3)? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have it. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 14 Q: Now, the second paragraph under that 15 time, it says: 16 "Dudley's oldest brother disclosed to 17 Spike, Harry Neil Watson George is 18 other injured". 19 And I'm wondering, it seems to me that 20 perhaps that should say "Perry Neil Watson George", who 21 was also known as "Pierre". 22 Did you have information that -- from 23 Reginald that perhaps Pierre was one of the injured 24 persons? 25
461 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: That doesn't -- I have to say that I 4 don't recall that. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: I -- see I don't understand what that 10 means, whether that -- whether this is a record of what 11 was actually said there, like somebody -- a scribe was 12 watching. 13 I'm assuming that would be -- would be 14 Reg, that somebody was actually watching Reg and I have 15 this discussion and then write down what they thought Reg 16 told me, or is it a note saying that they had information 17 that at some point in time Reg told me that? 18 Because it would seem to me that -- I just 19 find it hard to believe that Reg would be talking to me 20 about something sitting in that truck when we hadn't gone 21 -- we'd gone nowhere. We were in that truck, we didn't 22 get out. We had started at a point. We were sort of 23 going forward on the basis of some information we have, 24 and so that doesn't make any sense to me -- 25 Q: Okay, I have no knowledge as to how--
471 A: And I don't recall -- 2 Q: -- this was made. 3 A: I don't recall that, I'm sorry? 4 Q: Okay. You just don't recall any -- 5 A: No. 6 Q: -- having any information like that? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Now, did you know at the time that 9 you were at the Forest Detachment that Marcia Simon was 10 being held there? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Okay. And we understand from her 13 testimony that she did, at some point, speak with you in 14 the early morning of September 7th, 1995. 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: Okay. And I'm not asking you about 17 any conversation that you may have had with her, but I 18 understand it was actually the OPP who contacted you at 19 Strathroy Hospital to speak with her. 20 Do you recall that? 21 A: I don't recall that. 22 Q: Okay. So, you don't -- 23 A: I don't recall how the contact was 24 made, but I know we did speak. 25 Q: Do you recall speaking with any OPP
481 officers about why she had been arrested or why she was 2 being held? 3 A: I don't recall that clearly, but 4 that's normally how it goes. 5 Q: Hmm hmm. 6 A: And then normally you would -- you 7 would get to a point where you speak with some officer 8 that's involved in -- in that incident. 9 Q: Do you have a memory today of -- of 10 what -- what information was conveyed to you by the OPP 11 with respect to Marcia Simon? 12 A: No, I don't. 13 Q: Now, with respect -- 14 A: I would say that my recollection of 15 what occurred would have been more the result of my 16 conversation with Marcia which, of course, I can't speak 17 about. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: You know. 20 Q: Then I'd like to move on then, to 21 your dealings with the OPP with respect to Pierre and 22 Carolyn George. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Now, I understand from the -- the 25 notes that we have from the officers that they record
491 speaking with you around 4:00 a.m. at the Strathroy 2 Detachment. 3 Does that sound right to you? 4 A: I'm sorry? 5 Q: Around 4:00 -- do you -- does it 6 sound right to you that you -- 7 A: That would sound right, yes. 8 Q: Okay. And you were asking -- you 9 asked him about the status of any charges against Pierre 10 or Carolyn George? 11 A: I believe I did. 12 Q: And you were told that the OPP didn't 13 know what charges were going to be laid; is that right? 14 A: I believe that's correct. 15 Q: So, you understood from that 16 conversation that no charge had been laid? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: Did they say anything to you about 19 attempted murder? 20 A: I think that was -- I think that was 21 it. 22 Q: That that may be a charge that they 23 would lay? 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: Now, did they provide any explanation
501 to you as to why Pierre and Carolyn had been arrested? 2 A: I don't recall getting that kind of 3 information. 4 Q: And I assume you were fairly 5 concerned that these two (2) individuals were being held 6 without any charge? 7 A: Yes, I was. 8 Q: And with respect to Nicholus 9 Cotrelle, you had some dealings with him and the OPP as 10 well? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now, I understand from the notes and 13 statements we have from Detective Constable Martin that 14 they were taking a witness statement -- what they called 15 a witness statement from Nicholus Cotrelle on September 16 7th of 1995 at the Strathroy Detachment and that you had 17 come into the room when -- while they were taking that 18 statement? 19 A: I'm not really clear on where it was 20 that I spoke to Nicholus Cotrelle and I'm -- I know that 21 I saw him in the hospital and I think as I said 22 yesterday, I'm not even clear where I picked him up that 23 night that I went to pick him up, but I do recall having 24 some further discussions with him. 25 Q: Okay. And I'm not asking about your
511 discussions with him, but I understand from the notes 2 that we have that you were told that the police were -- 3 the OPP were taking a witness statement from Nicholus 4 Cotrelle and that this was something in their view that 5 could now be used against him. 6 Do you recall that information being 7 conveyed to you? 8 A: No, no I don't, not in that fashion. 9 Q: Okay. Okay and there's only -- 10 there's one (1) final area that I'd like to ask you 11 about. 12 Yesterday you spoke a little bit about the 13 Potawatomis and some of the history? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, I understand that the 16 Potawatomis are part of the Three Fires Confederacy? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And that the Three Fires Confederacy 19 also includes the Chippewa and the Ottawa? 20 A: The Ojibway and Ottawa, yeah. 21 Q: Ojibway? Okay. And that these three 22 (3) nations are all considered Anishnaabeg people? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And these three (3) nations consider 25 themselves to be brothers and sisters?
521 A: I'm not really sure about that. I 2 know what my view is. 3 Q: And what is your view? 4 A: My view is -- my view is that all 5 Aboriginal people consider themselves to be brothers and 6 sisters, so that would -- 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: -- appear to be correct. 9 Q: And -- and that, I understand as well 10 that the Three Fires Confederacy was formalized in a 11 meeting at Garden River in 1992; is that correct? 12 A: I don't know anything about that. 13 Q: Okay. Now, you say -- 14 A: I -- I would have assumed that the -- 15 the -- the confederacy of this sort of group of three 16 (3), that belongs to a particular Algonquin linguistic 17 group that existed prior to that day -- 18 Q: Hmm hmm. Okay. Now, you suggested 19 yesterday that the Potawatomis may not have as clear a 20 claim to the land in this area. 21 A: I'm sorry? 22 Q: You suggested yesterday that the 23 Potawatomis may not have as clear a claim to the land in 24 this area. 25 A: If I said that, I was -- I didn't
531 mean that. 2 Q: Okay. I did want to just clarify 3 that point. 4 A: I don't think -- did I say that? 5 Q: Well, you were being asked some 6 questions about the treaty. 7 A: Well, I wonder if you could -- that's 8 a little bit important to me. 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: Did I say that the Potawatomis didn't 11 have as clear a claim to the land? Did I use those 12 words? 13 Q: Well, perhaps I could verify that 14 with you. I -- you were being asked some questions about 15 the treaty -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 17 Henderson, do you have a recollection? 18 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: A very clear one, 19 Commissioner. My Friend asked Mr. George -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- whether or not 22 he -- his rights were derived from the treaty when his 23 Potawatomi group became part of the -- the First Nation, 24 and he said his rights predated the treaty. He did not 25 say that, We don't have any rights under the treaty --
541 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- or that they 3 were somehow different or contrary or lesser or greater, 4 because they were in fact -- have a Potawatomi 5 derivation. 6 So, that -- that was the evidence. He 7 clearly didn't say what -- what was suggested. And is 8 rightly concerned that he might have said that, but he 9 didn't. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I thought 11 you would have a clearer recollection of it, Mr. 12 Henderson. Thank you. 13 THE WITNESS: I think -- 14 15 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 16 Q: I thought -- 17 A: -- I think -- 18 Q: -- your evidence. 19 A: -- it's just important, and it's 20 important from my perspective, to not get caught up in 21 some language that would suggest that I feel that the 22 Potawatomis have some kind of a diminished right to the 23 land and that it wasn't, quote, "clear", unquote. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: And not -- that's not what I said.
551 Q: Okay. My apologies if I misstated 2 your evidence. And Mr. Henderson has -- 3 A: So, the answer -- 4 Q: -- stated it in a way that you agree 5 with? 6 A: Yeah. The answer to the question -- 7 the answer to your question would be, No I didn't say 8 that. 9 Q: Okay. Thank you. It's my 10 understanding, and perhaps you could tell me if I'm right 11 or wrong, that the Potawatomis were given the same 12 guarantee as Tecumseh, that as a result of their service 13 to the British in the war of 1812, that they were 14 guaranteed land here. 15 A: I guess I get my impression about the 16 rights of the members of, you know, these particular 17 local First Nations who are of Potawatomi descent from a 18 belief that, you know, as we were forced into settlement 19 in Ontario because of the migration of Potawatomi people 20 in the early 1800's, we were forced, at least our 21 forefathers were forced to hide amongst the Ojibway here 22 because obviously they came from the same linguistic 23 cultural group. 24 So, it was easy for them to hide amongst 25 these people as they were being pursued by the American
561 Government to force them across the Mississippi River. 2 They spoke similar languages. Their 3 customs, their lifestyles were of woodlands, so they were 4 hard to detect. And my understanding of my own personal 5 history is that, of my forefathers that is, is that he 6 arrived here in 1834 and thirty-nine (39) years later he 7 was fully accepted and drafted into the Ojibway culture. 8 I mean, I get a lot of my understanding as 9 to where our rights come from based on that history. So, 10 I can't necessarily agree with what you're saying. 11 Q: I -- and please don't misunderstand, 12 I'm not suggesting the Potawatomis had a lesser right. A 13 wanted to confirm with you that they -- they don't have a 14 lesser claim, and you -- 15 A: Oh, I don't think -- 16 Q: -- you have confirmed that. 17 A: -- yeah, I don't think they have a 18 lesser claim at all. 19 Q: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that 20 point for me. Those are all my questions. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 22 very much. I think Mr. Ross is next. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
571 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 2 Q: Good morning, Inspector George. 3 A: Good morning. 4 Q: Good to be on the same side with you 5 once again. There's something I would like to just 6 confirm, and the reason is I do not want to go into the 7 area where you considered yourself as being Legal Counsel 8 with respect to the Stoney Point occupation and -- and 9 issues that resulted thereafter. 10 You'd agree with me that it is clear that 11 you ceased your association as Legal Counsel when you 12 sent letters to Carl George and to the Chief and Council 13 at Kettle Point confirming that you no longer represented 14 the, quote/unquote, Stoney Point People? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And that was in August 1994? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: August the 3rd, 1994? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Yeah. Now, there were two (2) 21 letters that were filed, one (1) of them is Exhibit 22 225(a), which is a letter over your signature to Kettle 23 and Stony Point chief -- sorry, Kettle and Stony Point 24 First Nation, attention Chief Tom Bressette, that's 25 225(a).
581 Have you got that one? 2 A: I don't know where that would be. 3 Q: Well -- 4 A: What's the date of it? 5 Q: August the 3rd, 1994. There were two 6 (2) of them, one of them sent to -- 7 A: Oh, the August 4th letter to Carl 8 George saying that I was no -- 9 Q: Yes, yes. 10 A: -- longer involved and then there was 11 a letter to Tom Bressette that -- 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: -- said please find enclosed, that 14 sort of thing? 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: Yeah, I recall those letters. 17 Q: Now, I just want to confirm, you 18 would have sent the letter first to Carl George and then 19 to Chief and Council. 20 It's unlikely that you would have told 21 Chief and Council first that you're not representing 22 before expressing that view to Carl? 23 A: They're both the same date, they 24 could have been sent at the same time, but I don't 25 believe I would have sent Chief and Council a letter
591 first. 2 Q: Absolutely. 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: Yeah, okay, fine. Nothing turns on 5 it, except the order. 6 A: Yeah. 7 Q: They are listed as an (a) and (b) and 8 I think it should have been reversed, but that's fine. 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: So, now we know that the end date is 11 August the 3rd, 2000 -- 1994? 12 A: That's when I sent this letter. 13 Q: Yeah, okay. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, I would like to back up and try 16 to get the commencement date. We know that in May of 17 1993, people moved onto the range. Correct so far? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Yeah. And we also know that at that 20 time, you were not involved in your capacity as a lawyer. 21 Still correct, am I correct? 22 A: I can't say that's true. 23 Q: Okay, fine. Then you tell me then 24 when you first became actively involved with a lawyer, 25 with a quote/unquote, lawyer/client relationship back in
601 1993. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: I'm not really clear on that. 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: I guess what you're asking me to say 8 is that the point of establishing of that relationship 9 was May of 1993? 10 Q: No, I'm not asking you that at all, 11 Mr. George. Let me tell you, my purpose for this line of 12 questioning is that I do not want to tread on so-called 13 bad ground. 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: I will ask you questions after August 16 3rd, 1994 and I want to know how far up in 1993 I can go 17 without having Mr. Henderson getting on my case. 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: Okay? Now, I'm trying to help you 20 and not to trick you. 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: For instance, we know that there was 23 a meeting in Toronto in early July in -- in 1993. The 24 first part of July 1993 and you saw the list? 25 A: Yes.
611 Q: Yeah. And I'm suggesting to you, at 2 that time, you were not yet working in your capacity as a 3 lawyer in any broad lawyer/client relationship. 4 Am I correct, so far? 5 A: This is the meeting that I referred 6 to in the letter that the previous Counsel had directed 7 my attention to, right? 8 Q: Yes, that was the -- 9 A: My -- 10 Q: -- meeting at the office of the 11 Chiefs of Ontario. 12 A: Yeah. I think I was acting in that 13 capacity. 14 Q: Okay, fine. At least -- 15 A: Yeah. 16 Q: -- we've got that now. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay, now there are two (2) other 19 small matters I am going to need your help on. 20 A: But, I'm not saying that was the 21 start date. I'm just saying at that time -- 22 Q: Well -- 23 A: -- I would have appeared to have been 24 acting in that capacity. 25 Q: No problem, Mr. George.
621 A: Yeah. 2 Q: We know that in May you weren't and 3 we know that in mid-July you were, and I'm going to find 4 a way to work it down, I promise you. 5 Now, before I -- 6 A: Wait a minute, let me go back to 7 something here. You said, we know in May I wasn't? 8 Q: You said that in May when they moved 9 onto the site -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- when they moved onto the range you 12 were not working with the group in a lawyer/client 13 capacity. 14 A: That's not what I said, I don't 15 think. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: What Mr. George 17 told Counsel previously was that he did not have any 18 meetings or advise anyone in relation to any occupation. 19 You know, we're walking very subtle lines here because 20 not all of the group, perhaps -- on whose behalf Mr. 21 George spoke or participated with in 1991 at the Standing 22 Committee were necessarily the same people that moved -- 23 moved onto the Army Range. 24 So, there -- there may have been a 25 relationship there, but he wasn't consulted about part of
631 it or maybe he just wasn't here. I'm having difficulty 2 seeing what turns on the precise date. He said what he 3 didn't do in May, he did not say that he was not 4 representing anyone at that time. 5 It is, of course, now thirteen (13) years 6 ago or twelve (12) years ago and he's having a little 7 difficulty on that. And, Commissioner, you'll appreciate 8 that when one is involved in more of a social movement, 9 one does not always have a nice retainer letter on the 10 file in relation to involvement with the group, 11 particularly when the lawyer's also the member of the 12 group. 13 So, this could be difficult to ascertain. 14 We seem to be talking about a few weeks either way and I 15 -- I'm -- if something turns on that, let's go there, 16 otherwise, you know, we can spend a lot of time for no 17 reason at all. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 19 don't know if anything turns on it or not, but Mr. Ross 20 is trying to establish what the beginning and ending of 21 the solicitor/client relationship is. 22 I take it that's what you're trying to do 23 so you won't tread on the area? 24 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Precisely. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.
641 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: That's exactly what 2 I'm trying to do and I will get there. I will get there, 3 Mr. Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if you 5 ask a question that occurs during the period, then I'm 6 sure Mr. Henderson will be on your case or on his feet. 7 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Absolutely, and that's 8 what I'm trying to avoid. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 10 trying to avoid it. 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 13 that. 14 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yeah. So -- 15 THE WITNESS: Let me -- let me just say 16 with respect to May of 1993? 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 19 Q: Yes? 20 A: I think Mr. Henderson stated it 21 clearly that I think my response was intended to convey 22 that in 1993, in May, when there was the initial 23 occupation that I, myself, with respect to that issue was 24 not involved, nor did I participate in a discussion about 25 it, nor did I give any legal advice with respect to it.
651 That doesn't mean that I wasn't engaged in 2 representing some of those people who might have been 3 involved in that with respect to related issues before 4 that. 5 Q: The problem I'm having, Mr. George, 6 is when I get an answer that I've got to go find a 7 question for, I don't want to go to that, I want to ask 8 it. I know the end date. 9 Could you tell me that as far as the group 10 who occupied the range under the broad name Stoney Point, 11 when did you start acting in a lawyer/client capacity for 12 that group? 13 A: With that group? 14 Q: Yes. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 A: You know what? It -- it could have 19 been then, it could have been before. 20 Q: It could have been then or it could 21 have been before? 22 A: Yeah, I'm not really clear on that. 23 And you're right, we didn't -- I don't recall ever having 24 a formal retainer with respect to that group? 25 Q: I appreciate that.
661 A: And the -- and the -- it really 2 appeared to me -- when I look back on it, it appeared 3 that this group was going through a process of evolution, 4 that it started with respect... 5 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Sorry, 6 Commissioner. Obviously, since there is a relationship 7 there, my client is -- is starting to talk about the 8 group itself, who would be his clients, and -- and I 9 would -- I would caution him about that and again, you 10 know, if -- if we're talking about a period of a couple 11 of weeks, let's ask the question and see if he have a 12 proper -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 14 better to ask the question -- 15 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- rather than 16 define the parameters of -- of a calendar when we won't 17 talk. If there's a question, let's hear the question -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's pretty 19 hard -- 20 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: -- and then see - 21 - see where we are. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 23 that's a better way to go. It's pretty hard for you to 24 object, Mr. Henderson, that it's solicitor/client 25 privilege if he can't say that he was acting in his
671 capacity as a lawyer during that -- at the time of the 2 question. 3 So, I think it's better that we ask the 4 question and you assess it and if you think it's a 5 solicitor/client situation, or privilege situation then 6 you can object at that point. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 9 Q: Mr. George, for now I'm going to 10 abandon this whole idea of when you started. I will let 11 the questions determine that as we go along. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Perhaps you can help me. Could we 14 have Document Number 9 -- triple zero -- 549 flashed up. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Mr. George, flashed up on the screen 19 is Inquiry Document Number 9 -- triple zero -- 549, do 20 you recognize that document? 21 A: Yes, I've seen it. 22 Q: Now it pur -- it purports to address 23 a meeting some time ago and I'm just asking if you could 24 help me with an approximate date if not a specific date 25 when this meeting -- where the meeting was led to this
681 document would have occurred? Perhaps just a year and a 2 month would be good enough. 3 A: I have no idea. There's nothing to 4 kind of cue me on that. I'm sorry, I -- I don't have any 5 idea. 6 Q: I see. 7 A: I -- I can't even -- I can't even go 8 to the year. No, I can't. 9 Q: Recognizing you can't go to the year 10 but you recog -- but you recall -- you recall the 11 photograph. The position, it says here: 12 "Ron George, Stoney Point. Our 13 position is that we have a degree of 14 sovereignty, because we have found no 15 treaty that says we relinquish 16 sovereignty." 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Yes. Now when you were saying we, 19 who were you speaking about at that time? 20 A: I would assume we were -- I was 21 speaking about the -- the Stoney Point people that I was 22 working with. 23 Q: Stoney Point people. 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: I see. Okay. There's another
691 document, Exhibit P-2 -- 2 A: I must say this though, that's kind 3 of a general statement that's made by a lot of Aboriginal 4 activists and Aboriginal leaders because the review of 5 treaties historically indicate that there was never any 6 terminology that would use to suggest there was a 7 relinquishing of sovereignty, so I believe I was -- I was 8 talking with respect to the Stoney Point people but it 9 was kind of a general statement that's made. 10 Q: For dating purposes also I ask you to 11 look at Exhibit P-231 which is the report of an 12 interdepartmental working group to the committee of 13 Deputy Ministers on Justice and Legal Affairs, July 1993. 14 A: Yes, I have that. 15 Q: Seen that document? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: This was passed onto us yesterday as 18 part of the documents which I understood came from your - 19 - your files. Do you recognize this document as having 20 come from your files? 21 A: Yes, I do. 22 Q: Could you tell us approximately when 23 you would have gotten your hands on this document? 24 A: No, I can't. 25 Q: I see. The fax cover sheet at the
701 back has a date on it 12/10/93. Could you recall whether 2 this would have been December the 10th '93 or October the 3 12th '93? 4 A: I -- I don't know where. 5 Q: So, you don't know where it came from 6 and you don't know what time it would've gotten into your 7 files? 8 A: Well no. I'm trying to find out 9 where you're talking about this. 10 Q: Well there are two (2) things. The 11 top -- the trail from the -- the fax trail on the top and 12 there's also -- 13 A: You know, I don't -- I don't know 14 that we're looking at the same thing. That's all. I 15 have this page; is that what you're talking about? 16 Q: Fax cover page. 17 A: Is that what you're talking about? 18 Q: Yes, the fax cover page at the back. 19 All I'm trying to do is to find -- 20 A: You mean the one that says, "to Irvin 21 George"? 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: And you're talking to me about some 24 date and just -- what date is that? 25 Q: I will repeat --
711 A: I don't see where the date is. 2 Q: -- the question. 3 Mr. George, Mr. George, let me -- sorry, 4 Inspector George, let me repeat the question and I'll 5 tell you why. 6 I'm just trying to get an idea of when you 7 would have had access to this document. If you don't 8 know, the short answer I can live with -- 9 A: Well, wait a minute. 10 Q: Pardon me? 11 A: Wait a minute. You were ref -- you 12 were quoting a date and my only response was, I don't see 13 that date you're talking about. 14 Q: It appears -- 15 A: And then -- and then what I did was I 16 snipped off the clip and I've seen that there's a date of 17 12/10/93. Is that the date that you're talking about? 18 Q: That's on the top and on the bottom 19 is also 93/12/9, so I could imagine it's December, 20 December '93? 21 A: And then you asked me a question 22 about that date? 23 Q: Yes. When would you -- when would 24 you have obtained this document, any idea? 25 A: And I think your question was -- was
721 it the 9th of December or the 10th of December, '93 or 2 12th of October, '93, something like that? 3 Q: And -- 4 A: I'm -- 5 Q: -- with time, Inspector -- 6 A: I don't know what it is. 7 Q: -- George, the bottom of the document 8 where it's got 93/12/9 -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- suggests then, that it was a 11 December document. 12 A: I don't know. 13 Q: So, you don't know when you got it? 14 A: No, I don't. 15 Q: Fine, okay. Then I'll stop and start 16 walking you forward. 17 Is it fair to say that prior to the taking 18 of 1942 that what you had was two (2) land bases occupied 19 by two (2) separate communities, one (1) of them, the 20 Stoney Point community and the other one the Kettle Point 21 community, prior to 1942? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And is it fair to say also, that 24 although they were two (2) separate communities, there 25 was substantial interchange between these two (2)
731 separate communities? 2 A: It appeared that way. 3 Q: Nobody needed an invitation to come 4 from Stoney Point over to Kettle Point and vice versa? 5 A: I don't think so. 6 Q: Yeah. And from a point of view of 7 governance, the Stoney Point people conducted an election 8 on Stoney Point lands for their councillors and the 9 Kettle Point people conducted an election on Kettle Point 10 for their councillors; correct so far? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Commissioner, 13 with respect to My Friend, I don't think we have an 14 evidentiary basis for that assumption. We saw a document 15 yesterday which -- which Mr. George produced, which 16 showed the results of the 1940 election, clearly shows 17 that there's a councillor from Stony Point, the 18 councillor from Kettle Point, somehow the chief got 19 elected. 20 So, My Friend is suggesting that there's 21 one (1) election for a councillor, one (1) election for 22 another councillor in the two (2) different places 23 doesn't explain how the chief got elected. 24 So, I'm just saying that, you know, we 25 don't have an evidentiary basis either for the thesis My
741 Friend put forward, or to explain how -- how the chief 2 got elected. 3 So, perhaps if it's necessary for you to 4 have that evidence at some point, someone could try to 5 introduce it or acquire it, but it's not here for Mr. 6 George to opine upon. 7 It's not before him, unless he knows 8 himself and can assist you, obviously, but other -- other 9 than what he might know and might now be offering for the 10 first time, there's no basis for the -- the propositions 11 My Friend put to him. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You put it 13 in the form of a statement, Mr. Ross. Perhaps you could 14 put it in the form of a question and see if he knows the 15 answer. 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: With respect, Mr. 17 Commissioner, I think the easy answer for the Witness is 18 I don't know, but I will rephrase. 19 And you see, Mr. Commissioner, all of this 20 is embraced in the submission that Mr. George was part of 21 before the Standing Committee, but I will get to it 22 again. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 25 Q: So as far as the documents are
751 concerned, Mr. -- Inspector George, it appears to me that 2 prior to 1942, a councillor was elected at Stoney Point 3 by the residents of Stoney Point; is this consistent with 4 your understanding? 5 A: Yes, it is. 6 Q: And it is also my understanding that 7 at Kettle Point a councilor was elected for that region. 8 Is that also your understanding? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And I further understand that as far 11 as a chief was concerned, it was the combined efforts of 12 both communities to elect a chief. Is that consistent 13 with your understanding? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: All right. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I expect 20 you're going to be a while with this Witness, Mr. Ross. 21 I think this is a point for us to take a morning break. 22 You're going to be bit more. 23 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: A bit more. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 25 should take a break and let you continue after the break.
761 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you, Mr. 2 Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 4 fifteen (15) minute break. 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 6 for fifteen (15) minutes. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 10:15 a.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 10:30 a.m. 10 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 12 resumed. Please be seated. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sure you 14 have all the privilege stuff sorted out by now, Mr. Ross. 15 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Oh, it was sorted out 16 before I came -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 18 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: -- it's just Mr. 19 Henderson's imagination. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 22 Q: Inspector George, I want to go back 23 to your presentation before the Standing Committee in 24 Ottawa. 25 A: Yes.
771 Q: Now, there was a document which is 2 entered as Exhibit P-51 and it -- it says, caption: 3 "The case of the Stoney Point Reserve 4 Number 43, a brief of fact and 5 argument." 6 Now, you are acquainted with that 7 document; am I correct? 8 A: Hmm hmm, yes, I am. 9 Q: You would have looked at in 1991? 10 A: I assume I would have. 11 Q: You assume? 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: Well, I'm going to suggest, sir, that 14 you more than assumed, that you looked at that and you 15 studied it in 1991 before making a presentation to the 16 Standing Committee in Ottawa. You would have, wouldn't 17 you? 18 A: No, I can't say that. 19 Q: I see. So then your presentation to 20 the Standing Committee in Ottawa was just from what, your 21 basic knowledge? 22 A: No, it could be that I had a 23 different document that I was reading from. 24 Q: I see. I see. I see. So, as far as 25 the Document P-51 is concerned, I take it you're not sure
781 if that was the document that you present -- that -- that 2 you worked from with your presentation to the Standing 3 Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in 1993? 4 A: That's correct. I'm not -- I'm sure, 5 but I -- I do -- I would think that whatever it is I was 6 reading from was either this or it could have been 7 another document that could have been more like an 8 executive summary or something that was capturing certain 9 points. 10 Q: I see. 11 A: So, I don't know exactly what I was 12 reading from that day. 13 Q: Yeah. So, then as far as this 14 document itself is concerned, who would have prepared 15 this document, do you know? 16 A: I'm not really clear on that, but I 17 know that at one (1) point in time there were a group of 18 -- I forget what they call themselves, but they were some 19 organization of Japanese Canadians. 20 There was a woman named, Ann Sunahara and 21 she was extensively involved in -- in -- in having 22 discussion with -- with these people that I was -- I was 23 working with. And I know that because they were Ottawa 24 based that they were doing a lot of research and it could 25 be that this document was -- was prepared by them. I can
791 tell you this document wasn't prepared by me. 2 Q: I see. Now the document is dated 3 December 11, 1991, you see that on the face? 4 A: Yes, I do. 5 Q: Yeah. And as I look at the Hansard 6 transcript, it appears that you appeared before the 7 Standing Committee on December the 12th, 1991. 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Yeah. So would you agree with me 10 that in all probability, this would have had to be the 11 working document? 12 A: Oh, no -- no question about that. 13 Q: I see. 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: Now I take it that for you to have 16 used this document in 19 -- before the Standing 17 Committee, you would have believed in -- in what was 18 embraced in that document? 19 A: In this document? 20 Q: The document -- 21 A: Or -- or in the -- in -- 22 Q: -- Exhibit P-51. 23 A: I don't -- they -- they don't have 24 those dates. My -- the two (2) things I have don't have 25 those tabs on them. So, which one are you referring to?
801 The Hansard things or the -- or this document that you 2 referred to, December 11th? 3 Q: The document dated December 11th is 4 in as Exhibit P-51. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: And I want to deal with just P-51 for 7 a moment. This P-51, is it fair to say that you embraced 8 this -- that submission in full otherwise you would not 9 have presented it to the Standing Committee? 10 A: Again, I -- I don't know that I've 11 ever fully read that. But I will say that I've read this 12 and that when I made the submission in 1991, I embraced 13 those submissions. 14 Q: Okay. Stop for a minute. You said 15 that and this. By that, you mean Exhibit P-51 which is 16 the document that was prepared and entitled, The Case for 17 the Stoney Point, and by this, you mean the Hansard 18 report? Just for identification. Mr. George -- 19 A: You're -- your're asking -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. George, 21 you said this and that. 22 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: The transcript will not 23 pick up what is this and that. 24 THE WITNESS: Yeah. That's right. 25
811 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS. 2 Q: That's my point. 3 A: Well let me say this. See this 4 document here. The one that says -- 5 Q: P-51. Okay. That's fifty-one (51), 6 yes. 7 A: December 11th, I don't have a P-51 or 8 P-52 or any P on my stuff. What I have is a document 9 December 11th, 1991. 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: I don't -- I can't say with certainty 12 that I've ever fully read that document. With respect to 13 this document which is the transcript of my submissions 14 to the standing committee on Aboriginal affairs, what I 15 said in there I fully embraced at the time. That I can 16 say. I think that's what you're getting at. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Each of 18 those documents have an exhibit number. 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I think 21 that's all Mr. Ross is trying to do is refer to them by 22 their exhibit number so we can be speaking about the same 23 document. 24 THE WITNESS: So, what is -- what's the 25 exhibit number for this?
821 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 2 P-221. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS. 5 Q: P-221. 6 A: I fully embraced what I said in that 7 document. 8 Q: It's P-221. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Now, have you had a chance to review 11 the document P-51 before coming here to give your 12 testimony? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which is the 14 December 11th document. 15 THE WITNESS: This is P-51? 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 18 right. 19 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't. I saw the 20 document but I've never read it. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 23 Q: There are two (2) issues that appear 24 on page 1 of Exhibit P-51. Could you turn to that 25 document please.
831 A: That's this document? 2 Q: See in that, the issues? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Yes. It says, 5 "This Brief supports the proposition 6 that: 7 1. The Department of National Defence 8 must immediately return the Stoney 9 Point Reserve to the Department of 10 Indian Affairs which shall hold it in 11 trust for those entitled by Treaty to 12 occupy it." 13 Would you agree with me that that was one 14 of the issues that you advanced before the Standing 15 Committee? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 A: Yeah, it would have been something 20 like that. That -- that the essence of it I think is 21 there. But I don't -- 22 Q: And as far as the -- 23 A: I'm sorry. 24 Q: Finish, sir. Go ahead finish. 25 A: I was going to say I don't know if
841 that was verbatim recorded here in my submissions but it 2 sounds as if it's something that I would have -- I would 3 have -- 4 Q: That was the thrust of part of your 5 submission? 6 A: I believe it would have been 7 something -- 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: -- like that. 10 Q: And Number 2: 11 "Those entitled by treaty to occupy the 12 Stoney Point Reserve are those who were 13 uprooted from the reserve in 1942 and 14 their descendants." 15 Was that the other proposition being 16 advanced to the Standing Committee? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: I guess the difficulty I'm having 21 with that, is that that should be in here with clarity. 22 And so the only reason I'm hesitating, Mr. Ross, is 23 because I don't want to say it was, because I don't want 24 there to be -- me to convey some belief that I was making 25 submissions that were --at the Standing Committee that
851 were verbatim. I'm not sure that that was true. 2 These things sound as if they are 3 principled and they're something that I would have said-- 4 Q: I will into -- 5 A: -- something like that. 6 Q: -- I will buy into your language. 7 Would you agree with me that those were the principles 8 that you were advancing before the Standing Committee? 9 A: I think what I'd like to do is -- is 10 actually have a look at the Standing Committee thing, and 11 then I think I can give you with certainty what I was 12 saying at the Standing Committee. 13 Q: Well -- 14 A: I mean, it's right here. 15 Q: Pardon me? 16 A: What I was saying to the Standing 17 Committee is right in here. I'd like to review that and 18 then I can tell you with certainty what I was advancing. 19 I don't know why I should be asked to 20 refer to this document when I can tell you by just 21 reviewing this and let's find out. That seems to make 22 sense to me. 23 I'm not trying to be difficult. That's 24 just -- 25 Q: Your call Mr. Commissioner. It's
861 just a matter of time. I mean, if he wants to look at 2 it, I've got no difficulty. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I haven't 4 read this document word for word. I presume that the 5 principles you're referring to in Exhibit P-51 are 6 referred to in the submission and there at -- can you 7 point them -- 8 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I don't know if I 9 can -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you 11 point to those -- 12 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: -- point to those -- 13 those -- that's -- what's why I was asking him in broad 14 terms -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Because they're -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 18 that, but he's reluctant to agree in broad terms. If you 19 can point him to the document, P-221, where he says these 20 things, then he -- 21 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Well -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- can 23 embrace them or not. 24 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I thank you, Mr. 25 Commissioner, but what I will do, is if he says -- if he
871 tells me that he can't, says so looking at P-51, I will 2 just have to walk him through the appropriate sections of 3 221. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That seems 5 to be where we're at. 6 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: That's true. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 9 Q: So, Mr. George, rather than have 10 you -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- try to go through P-21 -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- 221, now we're under this sort of 15 a -- time constraints, I can ask you some other 16 questions. 17 Now, when you made your presentation to 18 the Standing Committee on December the 12th, 1991, I take 19 it you were there with your father and Maynard George? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And at that time, there were also -- 22 there was also evidence from the Department of National 23 Defence. 24 Now, were you and your father and Maynard 25 George present in the Committee room when the evidence
881 was taken from the representatives of National Defence? 2 A: I don't recall being in the room when 3 they made their submissions. 4 Q: Okay. And your father, he appeared 5 on behalf -- he was the Chairman of the Stoney Point 6 Locatees Committee? 7 A: I'm sorry, he was what? 8 Q: The Chairman of the Stoney Point 9 Locatees Committee. Now, I'm going to tell you where you 10 find that, Mr. George. Look on page, I think it's 822. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Of Exhibit P-221. Eight twenty-two 15 (822) on the top left. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Got eight twenty-two 822? Now, come 18 down, and about the second last paragraph on that page it 19 says: 20 "Chief Robert George (Chairman of the 21 Stoney Point Locatees Committee)" 22 A: Yes, I see that. 23 Q: Yeah, now Mr. George, I'm going to 24 tell you, I'm going to promise you that in all of the 25 questions rather than arouse suspicion, I'm going to take
891 you to the area so that I can get a response, okay? 2 Now -- so, Maynard George was there in 3 what capacity? You don't recall, do you? 4 A: No, I don't. 5 Q: Fine. And you were there in what 6 capacity? 7 A: I think I would have been the primary 8 spokesperson to -- 9 Q: The primary spokesperson? 10 A: -- to kind of deliver the -- the bulk 11 of the message. 12 Q: Yeah. You were the primary 13 spokesperson, then, for the presentation on behalf of the 14 Stoney Point Locatees Committee; would that be correct? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 A: I -- I would have been there as a 19 primary spokesperson to deliver the presentation for 20 whoever it was that was being represented there. I don't 21 know whether it was the -- the Stoney Point Locatee 22 Committee or some chief and council. I'm not -- I'm not 23 clear on that. 24 Q: I see. Now, but is it fair to say 25 that you were not there in a lawyer/client capacity?
901 This is 1991; you weren't admitted to the Bar yet, were 2 you? 3 A: I can't say that's correct. 4 Q: You cannot say it's correct? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: When were you admitted -- called to 7 the Bar in Ontario? 8 A: I was called in February of 1992. 9 Q: In February of 1992? 10 A: That's right. 11 Q: So, that when you were doing this 12 presentation in December of 1991, you were not yet called 13 to the Bar? 14 A: No, I wasn't. 15 Q: So, I take it, sir, there could not 16 have been a lawyer/client relationship at that time? 17 A: I don't know. There was -- there's 18 one (1) difficulty. I was articling with a firm, Dave 19 Stoesser, and Dave Stoesser had been retained by these 20 people. 21 Q: By these people, means whom? 22 A: The -- these people that we were 23 working with. I referred to them yesterday as the -- the 24 older people. 25 Q: Would that be --
911 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: If I might just 2 have a word with my Client? 3 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Not all, please feel 4 free. It helps. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I suggest 6 again, Mr. Ross, you might be better off asking the 7 question and if it's a solicitor/client situation we'll 8 deal with it. But you're trying to find out if it's a 9 solicitor/client situation before asking and that seems 10 to be a bit problematic. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 THE WITNESS: So, your question again? 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 17 Q: I was speaking about the Stoney Point 18 Locatees Committee. I asked whether or not there was a 19 lawyer/client relationship. You indicated you were 20 articling to a law firm that was advising, quote/unquote, 21 these people. 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: I then asked you when you were 24 admitted to the Bar in Ontario; you told me February 25 1992.
921 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Now, I think there's a way around 3 this. 4 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: May I suggest 5 one? Commissioner, Mr. George already testified this 6 morning that he thought he had just finished the Bar 7 admission course when he was giving this evidence on this 8 occasion. 9 If it will assist my Friend and the 10 Commission, he's not asserting any solicitor/client 11 privilege in respect of any statement he made to a 12 standing committee of Parliament, so, if My Friend's 13 question are to the statement, perhaps he could just move 14 to it. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 16 very much, Mr. Henderson. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 19 Q: Thank you, Mr. Henderson, you've been 20 most helpful. 21 Now, Inspector George, the statements that 22 you made to the Standing Committee, I take it you 23 embraced them then as being true? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Is there any reason that you'd want
931 to distance yourself from any of the -- the -- those 2 statements now? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm sorry, 7 Commissioner, I'm assembling a collection of non- 8 adjudicata of facts and I want to be able to find them 9 easily in the transcript. 10 Mr. George, made a presentation, he'll 11 answer any questions about the presentation. He said 12 that embraced the thoughts that he had at that time. 13 Now, we can pursue him from 1991 to the 14 present through several different relationships and find 15 out what he might think today or might not think today; 16 it has nothing to do with -- with what we're inquiring 17 into in the relevant time. 18 It's -- we're tracing rainbows here. At 19 least I hope their rainbows for Mr. George's sake. But, 20 I mean it's just a line of inquiry we really don't need. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 25 Q: Mr. George, at the Standing
941 Committee, your father appeared under the name Chief 2 Robert George as shown on page 822. See that? 3 A: Yes, I do. 4 Q: He was chief of whom and what? 5 A: The Stoney Point people. 6 Q: Okay. And over on page 824, the 7 second paragraph reads: 8 "The Government made all the Stoney 9 Point people move to Kettle Point 10 Reserve. And since then we've been 11 outsiders. I don't blame the Kettle 12 Point people because they lost part of 13 their home too. 14 They were forced by Government to take 15 us in and they were also told that we 16 could vote on their business. If I was 17 them, I'd be angry too." 18 Now, is that -- would you agree with me 19 that that's a very fair way to put the concerns of the 20 Stoney Point people at the time you made this 21 presentation to Ottawa? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And we move over to page 825 and this 24 is a part of your presentation. Have you got that? 25 A: Yes.
951 Q: Third paragraph from the bottom. It 2 reads: 3 "The Kettle Point Band and the Stoney 4 Point Band lived peacefully and 5 cooperatively each on its own reserve 6 from 1919 to 1942." 7 Is there any reason today to believe that 8 that statement is still not a correct statement? 9 A: No. 10 Q: So, what I'm getting at is this, Mr. 11 George is that these two (2) communities, they had a 12 relationship whatever it was, something that they could 13 manage and something that worked for them until the 14 intervention of the Federal Government and moving the 15 Stoney Point people onto Kettle Point. 16 Is that a correct statement? 17 A: That's the way we felt at the time. 18 Q: Yes. And the relationship you had, 19 it was based on a substantial -- a high level of 20 cooperation between the two (2) groups, correct? 21 A: I'm sorry. Say that again. 22 Q: The relationship was based on a high 23 level of co-operation between the two (2) groups, those 24 resident on the Stoney Point IR-43 and those resident on 25 Kettle Point IR-44?
961 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 A: I don't -- I don't know whether there 5 was this high level of cooperation. 6 Q: But there was -- okay, fine. But 7 there was -- 8 A: That was the cause of it. 9 Q: Pardon me? 10 A: That was the cause of the 11 relationship. Like, the relationship was good, based on 12 what we understood during that timeframe -- 13 Q: Yes, yes. 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: But -- better language, I accept your 16 language. 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: So, a good relationship existed, a 19 working relationship and but for the intervention of the 20 Federal Government, there's no reason to believe that 21 that good relationship would not have continued? 22 A: That's what we believed, yes. 23 Q: And as such, the reason why we're 24 here is because of the actions of the Federal Government 25 and the chaos that they created, the problems that they
971 created for the two (2) groups. 2 A: The reason we're here today? 3 Q: Yes, sure. If -- but for that, 4 we'll, okay. Perhaps I'll let you to answer another -- 5 deal with other questions -- 6 A: I don't know whether I want to answer 7 that. 8 Q: Okay, fine, don't. 9 A: You know I -- 10 Q: You want to answer it or you don't. 11 A: The reason we're here is because of 12 that? 13 Q: I will withdraw the question and I 14 will say to you that this cooperative relationship that - 15 - this relationship that was existing between the Kettle 16 Point and Stoney Point it had gone on from around 1919 17 when you separated from Sarnia, until 1942. 18 A: That's correct. Well, what we -- we 19 at least believed that during that time frame there was a 20 good relationship. 21 Q: And at that time, whatever problems 22 developed were worked out as between the two (2) 23 communities? 24 A: I don't -- I don't know about that. 25 Q: Fine.
981 A: Yeah. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: As we go down a little further on 6 that page, the next paragraph, the second sentence 7 starts: 8 "In 1919" -- 9 A: I'm sorry, what -- where's that at? 10 Q: Page 825 -- 11 A: Two (2) -- yes -- 12 Q: -- second to last paragraph -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- starting at the second sentence. 15 "In 1919, there was what we believed to 16 be an economic separation of the Kettle 17 Point, Stoney Point and Sarnia Bands. 18 So, it was a very important point in 19 time, but I think the important point 20 we would like to make is that from 1919 21 to 1942 the Kettle Point and Stoney 22 Point Bands were living peaceably apart 23 from each other." 24 And that's a true statement? 25 A: I'm sorry?
991 Q: Was that a true statement? 2 A: That's what we believed at the time, 3 yes. 4 Q: Have you got any reason to believe 5 that that statement made -- that it was a wrong 6 statement? 7 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I am sorry, sir-- 8 THE WITNESS: No, we've -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 10 Henderson, he said it was a -- 11 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Commissioner, I 12 mean I understand what My Friend is trying to do. I am 13 less persuaded that it's anything is going to become any 14 sort of adjudicative fact before this Commission. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Mr. George made a 17 presentation. It's quite a detailed presentation. It's 18 fairly clear, you know -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He embraces 20 it now. 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: He embraces it 22 now, he embraced it in advance. Going through sentence 23 by sentence and then doing what I suggest is 24 inappropriate to say whether, like the rest of us, he 25 might have different views today on some matters than he
1001 did in 1991, you know, really doesn't take us anywhere. 2 So, it's possible we might be able to save 3 a little time, since My Friend already has, you know, the 4 gross acceptance, and I mean gross in the sense of total, 5 of the statements made then. 6 Going through them one by one doesn't add 7 anything to that. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 9 you're right, Mr. Henderson. 10 But I think you've got as much as you 11 could get. He's embraced his statement that he made at 12 that time. 13 No, he said that that was the view that he 14 had when he made his statement. 15 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, that 16 might be true but as I recall, there were quite a few 17 areas in which the answers of Inspector George were far 18 from crystal, and they're one of the areas that I would 19 just like to continue and ask about. I -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if you 21 ask him about a specific paragraph and he can embrace, 22 that's -- 23 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Sure. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if that's 25 what you want to do, then I wouldn't stop you from doing
1011 it. I do think it's largely unnecessary, but if you 2 think it's necessary then go ahead and do it. 3 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you -- thank you 4 Mr. Commissioner. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 7 Q: Inspector George, I'd like you to 8 look at page 830. 9 A: Yes? 10 Q: In the fourth paragraph you said: 11 "By the 1950s the relationship that the 12 Stoney Point Reserve -- sorry -- the 13 realization that the Stoney Point 14 Reserve would not be returned in the 15 foreseeable future began to sink into 16 everybody's consciousness. The Kettle 17 Point temporary refugees became a 18 permanent irritation." 19 That was the situation in 1991; am I 20 correct? 21 A: That was a belief at the time, yes. 22 Q: Okay. And a couple of paragraphs 23 down it says: 24 "The effect of PC-6016 was to abolish 25 the general council system on the
1021 Stoney Point natives and the Kettle 2 Point natives each elected their own 3 council. In its place was imposed a 4 system in which the Stoney Point 5 Natives became minority among the 6 Kettle Point natives. 7 As such, they were subject to the whims 8 of the Kettle Point dominated Council 9 in all matters affecting their own 10 welfare. Their only recourse was to 11 leave." 12 A true statement in 1991 -- December 1991? 13 A: That's what we believed. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Now, is it fair to say, Inspector 18 George, that when that mission to Ottawa was undertaken, 19 the idea was to secure the return of the lands to those 20 who classified themselves as the Stoney Point people? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Now, you were elected to Council in 23 1992? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And your term would have been 1992 to
1031 1994? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Yeah. So, in December of 1991, you 4 were presenting to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal 5 Affairs, a position for the Stoney Point people? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And the following year you are a 8 Kettle Point councilor? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And you're there from 1992 to 1994? 11 A: No. 12 Q: My recollection is -- well, you'll 13 help me when I tell you my recollection. 14 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm just trying 15 to help you. 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: He can answer. Please 17 don't help. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, you 19 don't have to object, Mr. Henderson. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 22 Q: My notes, Inspector George, is that 23 you were elected to Council in 1992. 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Was that the first time?
1041 A: I believe so, yeah. 2 Q: My notes are that you were again 3 elected in 1996? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And you retired early between -- and 6 that the term was 1996 to 1998. 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And that you resigned early in 1998 9 before the election? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Yeah. Now, take me back to 1992 when 12 you were first elected. 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: The term was from 1992 to 1994? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Did you resign during that term? 17 A: No. 18 Q: I see. So, you served the full term, 19 1992 to 1994? 20 A: No. 21 Q: No. You didn't resign -- 22 A: That's right. 23 Q: -- and you didn't serve the full 24 term. Tell me what happened, please? 25 A: I was removed by the Federal
1051 Government. It was -- there was a challenge by someone 2 on Kettle Point. One (1) of the requirements of being an 3 elected member of council is that you had to be in 4 accordance with the Indian Election Regulations, quote 5 "ordinarily resident on a reserve," unquote. 6 Q: I see. 7 A: We had challenged that much like the 8 principles that were enunciated in the Regina vs. 9 Corbiere later, that it seemed unfair. So, we put a 10 number of names before the people, mine included, I was 11 elected as a result of a significant lobby and ultimately 12 when I was elected I -- someone -- and I'm never really 13 sure who did this because I have never bothered to look 14 into it, submitted a -- I guess you would call it a 15 petition to have me removed because I didn't fit within 16 the terms, "ordinarily a resident on the reserve." 17 The Federal Government did their 18 investigation into it and unilaterally removed me and I 19 didn't resist that. 20 Q: When was this? 21 A: I think it may have been, and I could 22 be wrong, I don't think I was on Council very long. It 23 could have been as early as the fall of '92. I don't 24 think -- I think it was in the fall time and I don't 25 think it went to the fall of '93, so I think it was
1061 early. The opposition came fairly quick. 2 Q: I see. So, I take it then you were 3 elected in 1992, you served for a short time. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Okay. So that in 1993, when there 6 was an occupation of the range, you were not on Council? 7 A: Again, I can't say with certainty 8 because I'm not sure whether -- I believe I was removed 9 in the fall of the year and I -- I could be wrong on all 10 of this, but I don't know whether it was the fall of '93, 11 but I -- I really believe it was the fall of '92 or that 12 period that I was removed. I -- I wasn't very long on 13 Council, I can tell you that. 14 Q: Well, that -- that's -- that's 15 probably correct, Inspector George. If -- if you were 16 elected in 1992 and there was a challenge in 1992, it's 17 probable you would have been removed in 1992 if it was 18 successful. Can we -- do you recall -- sorry, I think I 19 can solve that for you. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, I'm 24 referring to the Kettle and Stony Point Council meetings 25 and I'm looking at the first one which is dated January
1071 5, 1993, regular Council meeting. And it says here: 2 "Present: Chief Tom Bressette, Gerald 3 C. George, Norman Shawnoo, Gary L. 4 Bressette, Laverne R. George, Maynard 5 T. George, Allan B. Bressette, and 6 Miles C. Bressette. Also present: Liz 7 Thunder, Band Manager; Faye Jackson, 8 recorder." 9 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Who were you 10 talking about, Mr. Ross? 11 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Just the names who 12 attended the -- 13 "Absent: Bonnie Bressette." 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 16 Q: Now, the fact that your name does not 17 appear as present or absent would suggest that you were 18 not on Council. 19 A: Was that -- was that 19 -- what year? 20 Q: January 5, 1993. 21 A: If -- if that's the date, that's -- 22 that's true and that would support my belief as to when I 23 was removed. 24 Q: That -- okay. Now, as far as the 25 quest for the return of the lands, the IR-43 lands, would
1081 you agree with me that one (1) of the problems has always 2 been to whom should these lands be returned? 3 A: That would -- that was a very salient 4 question. 5 Q: Yeah. And would you agree with me 6 further that the -- from your experience, the general 7 position in Ottawa is that they would deal only with the 8 elected Council of the Chippewa of Kettle and Stony 9 Point? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: But at the same time, they would like 12 to see some involvement of other interested parties? 13 A: I'm sorry, could you ask the question 14 again, because I -- I guess -- are you saying that they 15 felt this way, the position of the federal government was 16 always that or -- 17 Q: That the position of the federal 18 government has been consistent that they will deal only 19 with the elected Chief and council of the Chippewa of 20 Kettle and Stony Point but also they were of the view 21 that other -- that there was a place for other interested 22 parties in these negotiations? 23 A: My recol-- in the negotiations? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: Maybe in the -- maybe with respect to
1091 negotiations but my recollection tells me that when we 2 first began our efforts, that I don't recall the Federal 3 government ever really indicating that they wanted to 4 hear from us at all in any context. 5 It -- I believe that their position would 6 have been more clearly that they wanted to deal with the 7 official Band -- 8 Q: With what? 9 A: And -- the official Band, Kettle and 10 Stony Point Band -- 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: -- and its elected leadership and I - 13 - if my recollection serves me right, it was sometimes 14 later that they begin to take some notice of the other 15 interested parties which would, of course, would have 16 included us. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: That has been helpful. So I would 21 just draw your attention to Exhibit P-230 which is the 22 letter from Ron Irwin back to you after -- 23 A: Oh -- 24 Q: -- a letter had been sent to the 25 Prime Minister.
1101 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: Thank you. 4 Q: And down at the second last sentence 5 -- well, I'll read -- read that I'm -- the lower part of 6 the middle paragraph. You said: 7 "In accordance" -- 8 A: I'll just -- 9 Q: "-- with the legal obligations set 10 out in the original Appropriation 11 document and in the 1980 agreement 12 between the band and DND, the federal 13 government will therefore be returning 14 the whole of the former Stoney Point 15 reserve to the Chippewa of Kettle and 16 Stony Point Indian Band. 17 It is expected that the Stoney Point 18 group who are officially members of the 19 Chippewa of Kettle and Stony Point 20 Indian Band will participate in these 21 negotiations." 22 So, that was a substantial move forward 23 from the position previously adopted by the Federal 24 government, am I correct? 25 A: Well, there's no question about that;
1111 that it -- my belief was at one point in time the Federal 2 government was not interested in listening in any 3 official capacity to the -- to the Kettle -- to the 4 Stoney Pointers. 5 Q: And is it fair to say that between 6 May of 1993 and August of 1994 that the leadership of the 7 group calling themselves Stoney Point it changed from 8 time to time, it showed some flexibility and created some 9 internal problems? 10 A: Well it was certainly clear that the 11 leadership of the Stoney Point group was changing often 12 and when I say leadership, certainly the position of 13 Chief appears to have been changing and I can't really 14 say with respect to who were noted as Councillors, 15 whether that was changing significantly. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Now, one of the things that you did 20 mention, Mr. George, before the Standing Committee, you 21 spoke about education and I'm just going to try to find 22 that. Sorry, for having to take you back. 23 This is at page 837. You got that; 837? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: The second paragraph just below the -
1121 - the number bullet 1040, second paragraph, second 2 sentence. It says: 3 "Education has been a major problem in 4 the Canadian public for many years when 5 it comes to understanding the lives of 6 Aboriginal people." 7 Now in this regard I must ask you to just 8 help us with, in a little area. I don't think that the 9 statement could be argued with but the question is how it 10 goes. 11 One of the issues that has raised its head 12 from time to time is the question of something called 13 warriors. And there seems to be a collective negative 14 connotation to the concept of a warrior. 15 Would you agree with me that this is one 16 of the areas where education could be helpful as far as 17 the larger community is concerned with the concept of a 18 warrior? 19 A: To diminish the negative impression 20 that's left you mean? 21 Q: Yes, yes. 22 A: Yeah, I would agree with that. 23 Q: And as -- but as a First Nations 24 person, Inspector George, and as a lawyer and as a member 25 of the OPP, how could you help the broader community to
1131 understand that the word 'warrior' does not necessarily 2 mean violent or militant? 3 A: I'm sorry, can you ask that question 4 again? 5 Q: I will put it another way. Marcia 6 Simon gave evidence and one of the things she indicated 7 that she was part of the group which started up a warrior 8 society. Were you here for that evidence? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Sorry, I stand corrected, it might 13 not be Marcia but we have received evidence that at 14 Stoney Point, there was a move to create a warrior 15 society. 16 Were you here for that evidence? 17 A: I don't think I was. 18 Q: But in any event it suggested that 19 the role of the warriors would be to assist all the 20 people, to give guidance to younger people, protection of 21 your lands and -- and words in that line. 22 Is this consistent with part of your 23 understanding of what warriors are? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Well, perhaps then you'll tell us
1141 what's your view of these warriors and warrior societies. 2 A: My view comes from a couple of 3 things. I once had a very extended interview with a man 4 called Gugallagallo (phonetic) and that's not Bruce 5 Elijah because Bruce Elijah used the same name at the 6 traditional knowledge forum. 7 But I -- I went to Akwesasne and New York 8 State and had a very lengthy discussion with a couple of 9 people that were involved in the Mohawk warrior society. 10 And I asked them that specific question. 11 Q: Excuse me a minute. I'm not spe -- 12 I'm not restricting it to the Mohawk Warrior Society. 13 It's a broad and a more general question. 14 A: And I'm trying to answer the 15 question. 16 Q: Okay, fine. 17 A: And I did say I got it from a couple 18 of perspectives. The first perspective was from the 19 Mohawk Warrior Society. And it was very clear to me when 20 I asked that question that their position is that these 21 are men within a community who are responsible for 22 protection of lands and people. No question. 23 I've since then subjected the same 24 question to an Elder in Grand Council Treaty 3 in 25 Northern Ontario and the response I got from this Member
1151 of the Ojibway community is that warrior necessarily 2 embraces not just men, but embraces the idea of women who 3 also protect people and the lands, and work for the good 4 of all of the members. 5 So that would be my understanding of them. 6 I mean, it's a little bit more complex than that, but 7 that's the general basis upon which I have formed a 8 belief. 9 Q: Now, Inspector George, there's just a 10 couple more areas that I want to touch. I have not 11 addressed the area when you were on -- in a lawyer/client 12 relationship and I move on to what happened after the 13 occupation of the Park. 14 Now, there's a Will Say that was put 15 before you, probably under Tab 1, and tell me please 16 whether that's the state -- the Will Say of Staff 17 Sergeant Brad Seltzer . Is that it, under Tab 1? 18 A: That -- yes, I have that. 19 Q: I tell you the problem I'm having 20 with this. Now, as I look at it, it appears to be 21 reporting on activities between September 1 to September 22 6, 1995. 23 And it seem to have been compiled as I 24 look at the second page, in March 1994, sorry March 2004, 25 approximately eight and a half (8 1/2) years later --
1161 A: I'm -- again, it's -- I'm having a 2 problem with that second date that you're talking about. 3 Q: It's on the second page -- 4 A: Oh, I see it. March 19th at the -- 5 Q: -- signed March -- 6 A: -- bottom, okay, I got it. 7 Q: Well, you see what happen -- this 8 sort of a -- wouldn't there be occurrence reports or 9 incident reports that would have to be compiled and filed 10 by officers if in a situation similar to what happened 11 with respect to Dudley George? 12 A: I don't know what the process would 13 have been at that time. 14 Q: I see. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: So eight and a half (8 1/2) years 19 later to compile a page and a half, it doesn't cause you 20 any concern, I take it? 21 A: I -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just wait a 23 minute, Mr. George. 24 Yes, Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? 25 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Yes, Mr.
1171 Commissioner. I rise at this time just perhaps to 2 illuminate the context of that. I anticipate that we'll 3 hear that the officer prepared that in conjunction with a 4 request for his notes for the relevant time period as it 5 relates to this Inquiry and nothing more than that. 6 It was pursuant to a request that was made 7 by officers who are currently assigned to assist both the 8 OPP and the Inquiry in putting materials together for 9 this matter. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think that 11 helps. 12 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: It might help, but not 13 in relation to the Inquiry, because I don't think you 14 were appointed until some time after March, unless there 15 were -- 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: November of 1992-- 17 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 199 -- 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 2003. 19 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 2003? Okay, fine. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 24 Q: And I take it that that would apply 25 to all the other reports?
1181 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Finally, Inspector George, there are 4 one or two things that I want to ask about your 5 attendance at the Strathroy Detachment or at the hospital 6 with respect to Nicholus Cotrelle. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Do you recall the police advising you 9 that Nicholus Cotrelle was going to be charged with 10 attempted murder? 11 A: I don't know about attempted murder, 12 but I think they told me he would be charged with 13 something. 14 Q: Yeah. 15 A: I can't remember specifically. 16 Q: And did you have a chance to speak to 17 Nicholus Cotrelle that night? 18 A: I think I did. 19 Q: I -- I take it that with the amount 20 of problems that were occurring that you did not make any 21 notes? 22 A: No, I did not. 23 Q: Yeah. Thank you, very much, 24 Inspector George, those are my questions. 25 A: You're welcome.
1191 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 2 very much, Mr. Ross. 3 I'm not sure who's next. I think, 4 perhaps, Andrea Tuck-Jackson. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 9 Q: Good -- good morning, sir. 10 A: Good morning. 11 Q: You and I already know each other, 12 but for the purposes of the record, I'm Andrea Tuck- 13 Jackson, I'm going to ask you a very few number of 14 questions on behalf of the OPP. 15 Sir, I want to take you back to the 16 evidence you gave yesterday about your encounter with 17 John Carson at around 1:15 in the morning on September 18 the 7th. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And you told us that in your 21 interaction with him, he communicated a certain 22 sensitivity to the situation; would that be fair to say? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And I anticipate, frankly, that we're 25 going to hear, as we already have thus far, certain
1201 telephone calls that John Carson had with various members 2 of the Kettle and Stony -- Kettle and Stony Point 3 community that reflect that same sensitivity, but I want 4 to ask you something else. 5 I trust, sir, that you'd agree with me 6 that in your policing experience not all officers share 7 that same ability to communicate sensitivity or empathy 8 in a high stress situation as does John Carson? 9 A: I would agree with that. 10 Q: Would it be fair to say that not all 11 officers can do it in such an obvious way as he can? 12 A: I would agree with that. 13 Q: And is it fair to say that he sets a 14 fairly high bar in that regard? 15 A: I believe he is clearly more -- more 16 sensitive than many officers. 17 Q: And -- and -- 18 A: And he -- and he -- and he expresses 19 that very clearly. 20 Q: And that's exactly the point I wanted 21 to make. 22 Thank you, sir, those are my questions. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 24 Ms. Jones...? 25
1211 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KAREN JONES: 4 Q: Good morning. 5 A: Morning. 6 Q: Just to start, it's Karen Jones, one 7 (1) of the lawyers for the Ontario Provincial Police 8 Association. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: I wondered if you could just give me 11 some help in how you'd prefer to be addressed, I've heard 12 Inspector George and Mr. George and is there, given the 13 many hats that you wear, do you have a preference for 14 this Proceeding? 15 A: It doesn't really matter to me. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: Whichever you prefer. 18 Q: Okay. And -- 19 A: Thank you. 20 Q: -- I had asked that the Commission 21 put before you Exhibit P-219, which is minutes of the 22 Kettle and Stony Point Council. I don't believe that you 23 would have had a chance to see them before. 24 Over the course of this period of time 25 I'll take you to some documents just to see if they
1221 assist you in -- in refreshing your memory. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: And I'll make sure that you have time 4 to look at them before I ask you questions. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: I just wanted to see if I could put 7 some pieces of what seems like a bit of a complicated 8 puzzle together in terms of a bit of a historical 9 background. 10 You had told us in your evidence yesterday 11 that in the 1970's, Chief Shawkence began making noise 12 about the land and that raised some awareness of the 13 issue about the land at the base. 14 A: I don't know if that's when he began 15 but it's certainly when -- when it got my attention. 16 Q: Okay. And another document that I 17 wanted to refer you to and I believe you have it before 18 you, is Exhibit P-221 and that is the Hansard of the 19 meeting before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal 20 affairs from December 12th, 1991. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I wanted to see if I can pull 23 some of your comments together with what you said in 24 Hansard and see if we can relate it to some of the other 25 evidence and see if we can sort of get a bit more of a
1231 coherent picture of what was going on. 2 Because when I looked at your comments in 3 Hansard, that is the Exhibit P-221 and I look 4 particularly on page 30 under bullet point 1015 -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- one of the things that you had 7 indicated to the Standing Committee was that in the 8 1970's Kettle Point Council began to seek compensation 9 for the use of Camp Ipperwash. 10 And I wanted to ask you if some of the 11 discussion or some of the as you called it, the noise 12 that Chief Shawkence was making about the land, related 13 to the Kettle and Stony Point Band's efforts during the 14 70's to get some compensation or at least interim 15 compensation for the expropriated lands at the Army Base. 16 A: Well certainly my recollection is 17 that Chief Shawkence had addressed the issue of having 18 the land returned to -- to the Band. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: No question about that. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: I can't say with certainty that he 23 had addressed issues related to compensation. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: If that of course is referring to
1241 some sort of financial compensation. 2 Q: Okay. Do you know whether or not 3 then, in the 1970's, a point apart from Chief Shawkence's 4 discussions were starting to raise a profile of the issue 5 of the return to -- the return of the land whether there 6 was also discussion going on or a position being taken by 7 the Kettle and Stony Point Band that there ought to be 8 compensation? 9 I'm just trying to relate the comment you 10 made in Hansard to your earlier comment. 11 A: Well yeah. I think compensation was 12 something that would have been discussed in the 1970's. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Whether or not it was early on, I'm 15 not clear. But clearly it was being discussed later. 16 Q: Okay. And we've heard some evidence 17 and you make reference to it in the Hansard as well, that 18 in or about 1980 the Federal Government paid to the 19 Kettle and Stony Point Band or agreed to pay to the 20 Kettle and Stony Point Band $2.49 million. And -- 21 A: Do you have -- 22 Q: -- if I can give you some assistance 23 with that, is you turn to page 31. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Just near the top of the page.
1251 A: Yes. 2 Q: You talk there about a 1981 3 settlement for $2,490,000. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you made some comments there 6 about 7 the fact the settlement only dealt with the 8 Band's interest. 9 "Approval of the settlement was not a 10 surrender vote and claims of locatees 11 were not affected by the settlement." 12 And I took from that, that the position of 13 the Stoney Point group was that the settlement in 1981 14 somehow didn't involve them or didn't take their interest 15 properly into account. 16 And I don't know if you need a minute to 17 look at that or think back, but can you help us out with 18 that at all. 19 A: Well I think you're correct in saying 20 that. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: That the position that they were 23 taking at the time is that this agreement had been 24 negotiated and then executed without their meaningful 25 participation.
1261 Q: Okay. 2 A: And I think in part it was also a bit 3 of a disclaimer that whatever you did, didn't affect our 4 existing rights -- 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: I think that's kind of what we were 7 trying to get at. 8 Q: Okay. And I wanted to ask you just a 9 couple more questions about your information, knowledge 10 or belief about that 1980 to 1981 period, because we've 11 seen some documents, so far, in this Inquiry that 12 indicates that as of the 1990's and specifically in 1993, 13 just to take you back a little bit more clearly, there's 14 a document that was issued by the Kettle and Stony Point 15 Band indicating, apparently, its view that the 1980 or 16 1981 agreement took into account people's interest. 17 We haven't had a chance -- 18 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Commissioner? 19 Sorry, I know the document My Friend refers to. It's 20 perfectly clear in -- in both versions that Mr. George 21 related to Hansard and also in the document to which My 22 Friend refers, the locatees' interest in Stoney Point 23 lands was not covered or dealt with in any way by the 24 1981 agreement and My Friend has just said that it was. 25 It wasn't. The First Nation didn't say
1271 that and the Stoney Point group didn't say that. They 2 were concerned about the fact that it didn't deal with 3 it, but it's quite clear that the agreement didn't deal 4 with locatees' interests at Stoney Point at all. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What 6 document were you referring to, Ms. Jones? Perhaps we 7 should have a closer look at it. 1993 document? 8 MS. KAREN JONES: Mr. Commissioner, I 9 don't have -- I don't have the number right before me. 10 But, what I was actually hoping to do, was to explain why 11 -- a little bit why I was asking this question. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. KAREN JONES: 14 And that's because when I looked at the 15 excerpt from Hansard that I just took you to, it looked 16 as though there were two (2) concerns, that the Stoney 17 Point group had. 18 One (1) was the content of the agreement, 19 that is what you covered, and the second was the process 20 that had been used when the Kettle and Stony Point Band 21 entered into the agreement. 22 And I'm just wondering if that's a fair 23 summary of what the concerns were. 24 A: Well, I think that based on this -- 25 this particular paragraph and it seems consistent with my
1281 recollection -- 2 Q: Hmm hmm. 3 A: -- is that the Stoney Point people at 4 the time were concerned about process, there's no 5 question about that. 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: But they were also concerned with -- 8 and I think to some extent it may have been based upon a 9 lack of a comprehensive understanding of these sort of 10 technical processes -- 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: -- but essentially, we're trying to 13 say that, you know, whatever processes have occurred, you 14 know, we -- we haven't relinquished what might be our 15 rights or our interests in it. 16 Q: Okay. In the Exhibit before you, P- 17 219, which is that Cerlox bound volume that has the 18 Kettle and Stony Point Council minutes -- 19 A: Yes. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: And the volume I have it's listed 24 under Tab 3, April 20th, 1993. 25 And perhaps you can just check your tab to
1291 see that we have the same documents under that tab, 2 because -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- mine is in sort of a variety of -- 5 it looks like there are different documents in different 6 order, but there is the regular Council meeting minutes 7 dated April 20th, 1993 and then there is a document 8 that's entitled, Camp Ipperwash Informational Material. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And then there is a document that is 11 an agreement dated March 14th, 1985 between Her Majesty 12 and the Kettle and Stony Point Band Council. Do you have 13 that in your -- 14 A: I'm sorry, what was that one again? 15 Q: It's an agreement made March 14th, 16 1985 between Her Majesty the Queen -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- and the Kettle and Stony Point 19 Band Council? 20 A: Yes, I have that. 21 Q: Okay. And then there appears to be a 22 letter dated April 20th, 1993 that's signed by Maynard T. 23 George. 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: Okay. And what I wanted to walk you
1301 through or see if you had any knowledge, information or 2 belief about was that portion of the tab that deals with 3 Camp Ipperwash Informational Material. 4 And if you just wanted to take a minute to 5 look at that, please do so. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: It looks as if -- I -- I have three 10 (3) pages. 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: And the second one and the third one 13 appear to be the same. 14 Q: They're duplicates. 15 A: Yeah. 16 Q: It looks like that to me as well. 17 Okay. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: Okay. And the question I wanted to 20 ask you in terms of -- is whether or not you had any 21 information, knowledge or belief about a concern that the 22 Stoney Point Group had about the manner in which or the 23 process that was followed for the vote that was taken on 24 the settlement in 1981. 25 A: I don't recall ever --
1311 Q: Sorry, in 1980. 2 A: Yeah, I don't recall that they had 3 ever expressed a concern about that specific point. 4 Q: Okay. And we've also heard that each 5 Kettle and Stony Point Band member out of the $2.49 6 million received some money. 7 Did you -- do you have any knowledge or 8 information or belief about what was paid out and when it 9 was paid out? 10 A: Well, first of all, I've -- I've 11 heard that maybe not all people got paid -- 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: -- and if they did, they would have 14 gotten paid at different intervals; and that's Band 15 members. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: But, I also have heard that some 18 people got one (1) amount, which was a thousand dollars 19 ($1,000) and that other people got different amounts. 20 Q: Hmm hmm. 21 A: The figure seven hundred dollars 22 ($700) has been quoted -- 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: -- from time to time, so I don't know 25 what the distribution of those particular figures would
1321 be. 2 Q: Okay. And was the way the payment 3 was made, that is, as you've described some people got 4 one (1) amount, some people got a different amount, other 5 people may have gotten no amount, to your knowledge, 6 information or belief, was that an issue. Sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: To a 8 question was asked, now do you have something to say? 9 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'm sorry, 10 Commissioner, but this is a Federal First Nation 11 agreement that was entered into twenty-three (23) years 12 ago. We are not the auditor general. 13 You know, the -- the agreement is 14 completed and put into place. You, know, surely at some 15 point there must be some way of getting this Inquiry into 16 the 90's and to matters that are relevant and -- and 17 which might actually assist to in writing a report. 18 We can -- we can go through all of the 19 agreements forever. Some days it seems like we're going 20 to but surely this level of detail in this context is 21 just taking us nowhere in my respectful submission. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me, 23 Ms. Esmonde? 24 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE I just briefly wanted 25 to respond to the comments from Mr. Henderson. We
1331 certainly have considered historical events that occurred 2 before the 1990's. I just wanted to make sure -- I'm not 3 sure where My Friend is going with these particular 4 questions. But, I think it is relevant to into some 5 historical issues, not just those that occurred in the 6 1990's. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 8 fine. 9 Where are you going with this, Ms. Jones? 10 How is this relevant? I mean, I know we've had some 11 evidence about this but where are you going with this? 12 MS. KAREN JONES: Mr. Commissioner, one 13 (1) of the -- I had already referred earlier to a 14 document and I'm sorry I don't have the number off the 15 top of my head. But at or in or about May of 1993 the 16 Kettle and Stony Point Band Council had issued a press 17 release. 18 And one (1) of the items covered by that 19 press release was an assertion that the 1980 or '81 20 Agreement was something that was fair and that in its 21 view was proper. I took from that, that there was some 22 disagreement or some dispute about that else it might not 23 have needed to be raised by the Kettle and Stony Point 24 Band Council. 25 I anticipate that Chief Bressette when he
1341 gives evidence will be speaking to that as well as to a 2 number of other issues about as in 1993 and through the 3 course of 1995 what were some of the issues that were 4 causing a dispute or a disagreement between the Kettle 5 and Stony Point Band in the Stony Point group. 6 And it's been unfortunate that we've 7 gotten some of these documents a little later in the day 8 or that we've had witnesses to date who haven't been 9 able, who don't either -- don't have knowledge or aren't 10 able to recall or don't have much information. 11 Mr. George, actually, is one of the first 12 witnesses that we've had who both has, through his 13 experience and through his contacts with his family and 14 his work, has some knowledge and information from a 15 particular perspective which is one that we haven't had 16 before. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or may have. 18 MS. KAREN JONES: Or may have and I'm 19 just asking to see if he does. And if he doesn't that's 20 fine. I don't intend to go on for a very lengthy time. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 MS. KAREN JONES: I don't intend to cover 23 the field. But I'm asking that -- that specific point 24 because I anticipate it's something Chief Bressette will 25 speak to.
1351 And if there's another version of events 2 or another perspective it might be helpful for you to 3 have that before you. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As long as 5 you're not going to dwell on it for too long, I think 6 this is an appropriate area. 7 MS. KAREN JONES: No, I -- I don't plan 8 to dwell on it for too long. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. KAREN JONES. 11 Q: I'm sorry. Getting -- 12 A: I think you asked me a question but 13 you'll have to go over it again. 14 Q: I had -- I had asked you a question 15 which was whether you had any knowledge, information or 16 belief about concerns of the Stoney Point group or people 17 who identified themselves with Stoney Point about the 18 payment or what they were entitled to or what was paid 19 out by the Band. 20 A: Again, you -- I want to put this in 21 perspective. The group that I primarily worked with were 22 the older people that I spoke about and then by 23 association there were some family members that engaged 24 in our discussions in a group. 25
1361 Q: Yeah. 2 A: It seems to me that the concern that 3 they had about this, Number 1, was to -- they went 4 forward and I think that is what I was trying to convey 5 at the Standing Committee presentation, was that whatever 6 had happened back there at that point in time, whatever 7 results as a matter of technical workings of the 8 principle of law that didn't affect the interest or the 9 rights of the Stoney Point people. 10 And again, I have to say that much of that 11 was being said because there was a -- a sort of a growing 12 knowledge of how all of this worked. 13 So, it would be like chasing an elusive 14 butterfly. We knew that at some point in time, we would 15 probably understand it, but it was kind of this swooping 16 comment that was being made. 17 There were concerns amongst the group that 18 -- and this -- again, this -- this was not a salient 19 focus for them -- 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: -- this point -- 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: -- but I'm answering it because 24 you've asked a question, that at some point in time there 25 was discussions of concerns that some people got paid
1371 more than other people but there was also, and I can't 2 say that I personally embraced this -- this position, 3 there was concern from some people and I can't recall who 4 that might have been, that Kettle Pointers -- 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: -- shouldn't have been paid. 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: That it should have been Stoney 9 Pointers. But I think you can see that that position was 10 -- was, I think, addressed by -- I can't remember who but 11 somebody had presented -- I think it was the presentation 12 that I got from -- I can't recall where from, but when 13 they had the letter that had five (5) points on it -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- and one (1) of the points was -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- that Kettle Point should be fairly 18 dealt with, too. So, I think the overriding position was 19 not really an objection to Kettle Point descendants 20 having been paid as well. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: But that -- it wasn't the salient 23 issue to them. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: That it -- just they wanted to
1381 address it, because it was sort of there all the time. 2 Q: Okay. So, if I -- if I understand 3 what you're saying, then, is that over the course of the 4 80's the major point or a major concern of the group of 5 people that you've talked about as the elders of the 6 Stoney Point group, they really were identifying 7 themselves as locatees at Stoney Point; is that right? 8 A: Yeah, and again, my interest was 9 really aroused not at the first part of the '80's but 10 later on in the '80's -- 11 Q: Right. 12 A: -- and at least during that time 13 period, it appeared to me that the -- the people that 14 were the more prominent group or locatees. 15 Q: Okay. And you've told us a little 16 bit in your evidence about your growing awareness over 17 the '80's about the issues related to the land at the 18 Base. 19 And one of the things that you said was 20 that prior to that, when you were growing up if there was 21 a distinction that you knew or you recognized, it was 22 that there were Georges and there were Bressettes. 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And I -- I didn't understand what 25 that comment referred to. Could you take us back a
1391 little bit and explain to us that dynamic? 2 A: Well, first of all, the two (2) 3 prominent families in Kettle Point are Georges and 4 Bressettes, at least by way of number. 5 Q: Hmm hmm. 6 A: I don't know what the specific 7 details would be, that there's probably out of the two 8 thousand (2,000) people in the membership, five (500), 9 six (600) seven (700) would belong to each of those 10 families or at least be related. 11 But, when I was a kid, the distinction 12 between the two (2) families was clear. And I think you 13 have to appreciate my perspective that I came from a very 14 large, probably the largest George family that existed at 15 the time on that land base, and we -- when you entered 16 onto the reserve, there wasn't the existence of that farm 17 where the Plaza is built on when I was a kid, that it -- 18 the reserve started at -- it -- what they now call Indian 19 Lane, and so the first residence that you come to when 20 you came to the community back then, was this George 21 family. 22 My grandfather and my uncle Abe and my dad 23 and my uncle Dan and -- and uncle Reg and then my 24 grandmother later lived in that house, and then just down 25 the road a bit was my uncle Bruce and aunt Daisy.
1401 So, the Georges were all kind of up in 2 this -- above the hill -- up the hill we called it -- 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: -- and they lived in the -- primarily 5 on the north or the southeast corner of the reserve. 6 So, my perception of the community as a 7 kid came from that the fact that I lived amongst these 8 people, my family and each of my aunts and uncles had 9 anywhere between nine (9) to twelve (12) children. So at 10 any given point and time when I was twelve/thirteen 11 (12/13) years old, there could have been forty (40) or 12 fifty (50) cousins running around this community. 13 So we saw ourselves as we were the 14 George's. And then there didn't appear to be a whole lot 15 of Bressette's living around us. They kind of lived down 16 the hill and around the lake and that sort of thing. 17 And in fact when we were finally 18 integrated into the public school system in Forest, and I 19 think it was 1961 or '62 or '63, something like that, the 20 bus would pick us up last but drop us off first. 21 When we returned after school in Forest 22 and the kids from down the hill would refer to us as the 23 sort of next stop as George Town. So, it was kind of 24 driven in our --in our heads and then our perceptions 25 that there was this distinction between George's and
1411 Bressette's. 2 Q: And -- 3 A: I'm not saying that was necessarily 4 accurate but it was the view of a young kid growing up in 5 a large extended family in the late 50's and early '60's. 6 Q: And was part of that view about there 7 were George's and there were Bressette's, you've talked 8 about the people who you lived with up on the hill -- 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: -- and I take it from what you've 11 said earlier that a number of those people were people 12 who considered themselves to be Stoney Pointers or having 13 been dispossessed from the Stoney Point Band? 14 A: Up on the hill? 15 Q: In the George -- in the George sort 16 of camp. 17 A: Well, there was no question about 18 that. 19 Q: Yeah. And was that something other 20 and different than -- sorry, let me see if I can get the 21 question a little better. 22 Would the -- would that have been a view 23 that was unique or more unique to the George group as 24 opposed to the Bressette group? 25 And -- and sorry, just to be a little --
1421 just to try to be a little bit clearer. 2 One (1) of the things that when you had 3 said when you were growing up the distinction was between 4 the George's and Bressette's. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: We've hear a little bit, very 7 briefly, in this Inquiry in the past that in amongst all 8 of the layers of issues concerning the base that a 9 portion -- that a piece of it or a piece of the overlay 10 had to do with an ongoing balancing as between the 11 George's and the Bressett's that they were seen as sort 12 of having very separate and different interests and being 13 represented quite differently. 14 Is that consistent with how you saw the 15 matter? 16 A: It certainly would have been 17 consistent with the way that I saw it and it would have 18 been pronounced when I was younger. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: But I think, though it -- I'm not 21 sure that was the cause of -- of some of the difficulties 22 later on. At least as I viewed them. 23 Q: Hmm hmm. 24 A: For example, we would have finally 25 come to terms with certain realities that we were unaware
1431 of when we were kids. And one (1) reality was that my 2 mother came from the Bressette family. So my views 3 changed significantly once found that out. 4 I thought my mother was always directly 5 related to the Bunces on Sarnia reserve and it turns out 6 that her mother was a Bressette from Kettle Point. 7 Q: So -- 8 A: So, your view changes when you get 9 information. But, I still think there was some reason to 10 believe there was a sort of -- for a long period of time 11 at least, you know, in the spacial perspective of a child 12 it -- 13 Q: Hmm hmm. 14 A: -- seemed like a long time that there 15 was this notion there was this distinction between 16 Bressette's and George's that carried with that degrees 17 of influence. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: Bressettes in our had more influence 20 than we did. 21 Q: Okay. And you've told us I think 22 that in the '70's, the chief of the Kettle and Stony 23 Point Band was Chief Shawkence. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Who was a Bressette, if I can put it
1441 that way or Tom Bressette's related to him. 2 A: Chief Shawkence was a Shawkence. 3 Q: A Shawkence, separate and apart, I'm 4 sorry. 5 A: Yeah. So, I don't in -- so I'm 6 quickly running through my head how he might have been 7 connected with Bressette's -- 8 Q: Okay. Okay. 9 A: -- but I don't think that's a fair -- 10 Q: Okay. No, fair enough. And you were 11 asked if a few questions yesterday about your knowledge 12 of burial grounds. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Both in the base and in the Park. 15 A: Yeah. 16 Q: And one (1) of the things that you 17 told us, you were sort of doing a review of who you knew 18 was buried in the burial ground on the Base where your 19 uncle Dan was buried -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- and one (1) of the people you said 22 that was buried there was Fletcher and I just wanted to 23 make sure you had that right. 24 A: No, what I -- what I -- what I think 25 I said was --
1451 Q: Okay. 2 A: -- first of all, I didn't go through 3 some sort of an official or technical review, I -- 4 Q: No, no, you certainly didn't. 5 A: -- I would have went there with my 6 father -- 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: -- and then, you know, ultimately I 9 would have went there with these other older cousins that 10 I was talking about. 11 And when I was there with my father, he 12 brought to my attention that, you know, his brother and 13 sister were buried there, but the only one that he could 14 positively point to was the one that was associated to an 15 old gravestone that was there. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: And that was -- you had -- you had 19 mentioned the name Fletcher though, was that in relation 20 to that old gravestone? 21 A: Well, Fletcher was one (1) of the 22 brothers -- his brothers who had -- had died very young. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: And had died prior to the move in 25 1942.
1461 Q: Okay. And did you know or did he 2 tell you where Fletcher was buried? Did you have any 3 knowledge about that? 4 A: No, he didn't. No, he didn't. 5 Q: Okay. And again, just to go back a 6 little bit to the chronology of the events in the very 7 late '80s and early 1990s, it appears from the Hansard 8 transcript that as of 1991 Robert George, your dad, was 9 being identified as the chief of the Stoney Point Group; 10 is that right? 11 A: It appears that way from the 12 document. 13 Q: Okay. And at the -- in the late '80s 14 and early '90s, that is before 1993, did that group, the 15 Stoney Point Group, have its own chief and council as 16 among themselves? 17 A: That -- that was happening -- 18 Q: Hmm hmm. 19 A: -- at some point and I -- I have to 20 be clear on this. I -- I can't really specifically 21 recall the details of how this membership was shifting so 22 quickly from Chief Robert George to Chief Carl Otto 23 George to Chief Maynard George. It was -- 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: -- you know, and I've looked at the
1471 documents and I've -- I can't come up with a -- a really 2 clear view of that. 3 Q: Okay. And did you have any 4 knowledge, information or belief, at least, in the late 5 1980s as to how the Kettle and Stony Point Band Council 6 and Chief viewed the Stoney Point Group that had 7 identified itself? 8 A: Did I have some personal views on 9 that? 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: Yes, I did. I felt that the Chief 12 and Council was resistant to and opposed this sort of 13 growing movement that was coming from these older people 14 and they were becoming more overt in verbalizing their 15 position. 16 Q: Hmm hmm. And one (1) of the things 17 that you had indicated in the Hansard that, again, is 18 Exhibit 221 and if you look on page 31 on the left-hand 19 column, about four (4) paragraphs down -- 20 A: I'm sorry, page what? 21 Q: Page 31 on the left-hand column. 22 A: Yes? 23 Q: And you'll see the paragraph that 24 starts: "In 1985, Dan George..." 25 A: Yes, yes.
1481 Q: And I believe just to paraphrase what 2 you had indicated in Hansard is that the Kettle Point 3 Council would recognize the locatees and their heirs as a 4 working group, but they would get no funding. 5 And do you know whether or not that 6 situation continued in the late '80s and early '90s? 7 A: Well, I know for a fact that, at 8 least I believe that, when we were working together, that 9 is with this group, I don't recall there being any 10 official funding being forwarded to these people. 11 Q: Okay. And to your -- 12 A: And I stand to be corrected on that, 13 but I don't recall that as something -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: I know that there was also a struggle 16 to get money for the things they were doing. 17 Q: Okay. And so when you ran and became 18 a councillor in 1992 -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- were you running as a 21 representative of the Stoney Point group or were you 22 running as a Kettle and Stony Point Band member? 23 A: I was clearly rep -- running as a 24 representative of Stoney Point. 25 Q: Okay.
1491 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And we've talked earlier a little bit 4 about the events of -- sorry, Mr. Commissioner. I see 5 you -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 7 MS. KAREN JONES: Would you like to -- I 8 have about twenty (20) more minutes. If you'd like to 9 take a break now, I'm glad to look at what I have left as 10 well, and see if I can tighten that up. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 12 are giving me a hint that this would be a good time -- 13 MS. KAREN JONES: No, I'm just -- if you 14 -- I see you're -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 16 fine. 17 MS. KAREN JONES: -- sighing and I think 18 perhaps a break would be a good thing. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 Then we'll take a lunch break now -- 21 MS. KAREN JONES: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and give 23 you a chance to see if you can tighten it up. 24 MS. KAREN JONES: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you
1501 very much. We'll have a break now for lunch. 2 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 3 adjourned until 1:20. 4 5 --- Upon recessing at 12:05 p.m. 6 --- Upon resuming at 1:21 p.m. 7 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 9 resumed. Please be seated. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. KAREN JONES: 12 Q: Mr. George, one (1) of the documents 13 that's been made an exhibit in this Proceeding is P-207, 14 which is also Document Number 4000322 and that's a two 15 (2) press clipping that's entitled, Native Tents Near 16 Grenade Range. And perhaps we can get it on the screen 17 so that you can look at it or this may be an easier way. 18 A: Thank you. 19 Q: And, Mr. George, you're certainly 20 welcome and entitled to read the entire thing. I can 21 tell you the specific section that I wanted to ask you 22 questions about was on -- is on the second page. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And part way down the second page, 25 starting at the paragraph that says, "The Stoney Point
1511 Band", I wanted to -- just to sort of relocate you in 2 time; I wanted to ask you some questions about 1993. And 3 this is an article from later in May 1993 after the 4 occupation of the Base started. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And you'll see part way down it says: 7 "The Stoney Point Band will formalize 8 their breakaway from the Kettle and 9 Stony Point this month by holding 10 elections on May 27th to elect a chief 11 and council." 12 And then it goes on: 13 "The Band held a membership drive 14 Monday and nominations will be accepted 15 on May 24th. Only those who declare 16 themselves Stoney Point and sign a 17 declare of independence from Kettle and 18 Stony Point Band will be eligible to 19 vote in the election." 20 And that's the background and from this I 21 wanted to ask you if you know, or do you recall, the 22 election in May of 1993 that's being referred to? 23 A: Something's familiar about it, but I 24 can't say with -- with certainty that I remember, like, 25 the details of it, but I do remember something like this
1521 being coordinated. 2 Q: Okay. And were -- were you someone 3 who voted in that election as a Stoney Point Group 4 member? 5 A: I don't recall voting. 6 Q: Okay. And do you recall whether or 7 not you would have signed a declaration at that time or 8 if, in fact, this is accurate that only those who signed 9 a declaration could vote; do you know? 10 A: I don't think that means that if 11 someone didn't vote, they didn't sign the declaration. 12 It could be there were people who signed the declaration 13 that didn't vote. 14 Q: Sure. 15 A: But I -- I can't really say, again, 16 for certainty that I would have signed the declaration. 17 And the -- and the reason that I'm -- I'm hesitant with 18 some of that is because in my -- in my capacity as a 19 lawyer I -- I probably would have leaned toward not 20 actually doing some of what others were doing, although I 21 recognized that I had an interest in it. 22 And it wouldn't be that I didn't 23 personally want to sign things like that, it's just that, 24 you know, it didn't seem appropriate to be signing those 25 things and then sort of being, you know, actually a
1531 client at the same time. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: So, I -- you know, I think I 4 struggled with that a little bit, but I -- I tried to be 5 very carful with it. So, I -- like I said, the reason I 6 -- if -- if I wasn't in the capacity as a lawyer, I -- I 7 probably would have been inclined to -- to sign such a 8 thing. 9 And of course I'm -- I'm assuming that 10 what they're talking about here is -- is some of the 11 documents that I've -- I've seen so far. 12 So, I would -- I would have to have my 13 attention specifically drawn to that document. 14 Q: Okay. And it appears from this 15 article and from other documents that we've seen in the 16 Inquiry, that as of at least May of 1993, that the group 17 that identified itself as the Stoney Point Group was 18 making a very clear statement that it wanted to be a 19 separate and distinct group from Kettle and Stoney Point? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Yes. And do you have any knowledge, 22 information or belief about how that, in essence, 23 declaration of independence was received by the Chief and 24 Council of Kettle and Stony Point Band? 25 A: No, I -- no, I don't.
1541 Q: No? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Okay. And just before we leave -- 4 sorry, move in to another area, I had one (1) more 5 question that I wanted to ask you about your comments in 6 Hansard. And I'm sorry to take you back and forth to 7 different documents. This again is Exhibit P-221. 8 And I believe that you have the Hansard 9 before you? 10 A: Yes. And what page is it? 11 Q: I'm looking at page 45. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: And if -- again, if you want to take 14 a minute to read this page or a little bit more to get 15 more context, please feel free to do that. You were 16 asked some questions on this page by Mr. Skelly about 17 whether or not your group, that is the Stoney Point 18 group, had take any steps to establish or re-establish 19 itself as a band under the Indian Act. 20 And you'll see that your answer there 21 follows under paragraph 1110. 22 A: And your question is? 23 Q: And my question is, at the time, that 24 is in 1991, it appeared as though your position and the 25 position of the group was that it did not need to do
1551 that, that is it did not need to establish itself as a 2 band under the Indian Act, or at least that's what I take 3 from your comments. 4 Is that -- is that a fair summary of what 5 you said? 6 A: Well, now that I have a question let 7 me just have a look -- 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: -- at my response. 10 Q: Yes. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: Okay. So, can you ask me the 15 question again, please? 16 Q: Okay. Did you -- it appears as 17 though in 1991 your position or the position being put 18 forward by the group was that you didn't need to apply -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- for separate band status under the 21 Indian Act? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Did your view of that change as 24 between 1991 and 1995? 25 A: My personal view?
1561 Q: Your personal view? 2 A: I think you have to put this in 3 context again and -- 4 Q: Yeah. 5 A: I think in many ways, and this is a - 6 - a view that's shared by myself, the Indian Act in its 7 paternalistic nature has been very offensive to 8 Aboriginal people, particularly First Nations People. 9 Q: Hmm hmm. 10 A: And I draw my view on that from a 11 review of the original document that was an older piece 12 of Victorian legislation which was very, in my humble 13 opinion, offensive and archaic to the extent that it used 14 terminology that was then and now, and would be offensive 15 to anybody when they speak about people as heathens. 16 And, you know, the -- the whole idea that 17 a piece of, I guess -- and these were my thoughts at the 18 time and I still embrace those to some extent -- that a 19 piece of European legislation would come and dictate to 20 us who we were and who we weren't. 21 To be able to have sort of conferred upon, 22 you know, a body of people that are not Aboriginal to 23 determine who's Indian, who's not Indian; to say things 24 like, that if you become a lawyer or a doctor you cease 25 to become an Indian, you know, de facto.
1571 And, so those kinds of things led me to 2 believe that we had to develop a sense of who we are 3 based on our own traditions and our understanding of our 4 own history and an understanding that to some extent -- a 5 great extent, these kinds of things were determined to 6 our own spirituality. 7 So, I think when it came to -- and I -- 8 well, I know this for a fact that when it came to making 9 that statement about having to get some kind of a 10 legitimate recognition that we had to go to the 11 Department of Indian Affairs, I think the easiest thing 12 for us at the point -- at that point in time, was to 13 embrace the idea that we are who we are first and that we 14 can move and govern ourselves accordingly. 15 But, I think the -- the statement there 16 also alludes to the fact that there is the possibility 17 that in order to do other things we would have to access 18 some recognition by virtue of the provisions of the 19 existing Indian Act and if we had to do that, ultimately 20 we would do that, but for now we don't need that. 21 And to be honest with you, to some extent 22 I continue to promote those ideas that, you know, we 23 should first of all understand who we are as aboriginal 24 people from our own cultural perspective and then we 25 should also appreciate what being a status Indian means
1581 from a legislative perspective. 2 And it's a struggle sometimes to -- for 3 people to grasp that way of thinking. For me it isn't, 4 but I'm -- I'm pretty sure that's what we were talking 5 about there. 6 Q: And I take it between 1991 and 1994, 7 to your knowledge, no steps were taken to obtain or try 8 and obtain a separate status? 9 A: I don't believe that we ever 10 officially -- and -- and of course you have to remember 11 that I think there was a bit of a distancing of myself in 12 -- in terms of being the spokesperson during that period 13 of time, but I don't -- I don't -- I'm not aware of any 14 official steps that were taken to get proper recognition 15 as an Indian band pursuant to the Indian Act. 16 Q: Okay. I wanted to move on now, then, 17 to the summer of 1994. You told us in response to some 18 questions yesterday that you didn't know that the 19 takeover of the built-up area was going to happen in July 20 of 1994; is that right? 21 A: '95, wasn't it? 22 Q: Sorry, '95. Sorry. 23 A: Yeah. 24 Q: And from your own personal 25 perspective, was that a move that you, personally, would
1591 have supported? 2 A: Well, I think, again, when I reflect 3 back on what my perspective is and my position is in 4 regards to addressing these kinds of issues -- 5 Q: Hmm hmm. 6 A: -- the newspaper clipping and my 7 description of what soft activism means and who I am in 8 relation to that, it's not something I would have 9 supported. 10 Q: Okay. And similarly, I take it that 11 you wouldn't have supported personally the takeover of 12 the Park? 13 A: I wouldn't have promoted that sort of 14 thing. 15 Q: Okay. And I just have two (2) more 16 questions or areas of questions that I wanted to ask you 17 about and you were taken earlier this morning and it was 18 referred to previously, the statement of Staff Sergeant 19 Seltzer and the handwritten notes. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Do you still have the handwritten 22 notes before you? 23 A: No, Mr. Henderson gave me those and I 24 think they came from Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 25 Q: I'm just wondering if we could assist
1601 you and get you those back again. 2 And for the assistance of Counsel, that is 3 Document 2003866, and a portion of which is at Tab 1 of 4 your book, but apparently not the handwritten portion of 5 the notes. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: I'm sorry? 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: It's just above it, yeah. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: And the page I'm looking at is page 16 94. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Sorry, my mistake, ninety-three (93). 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: And I'm looking at the top of page 21 93. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And you'll see part way the top of 24 the page where it says, "Spike and I", and it's a little 25 hard to read. I'll tell you -- I mean we can -- I can
1611 through how I read that, and you can -- if you -- if that 2 needs to be corrected, please let me know. 3 A: No, I think you're -- 4 Q: But I see it: 5 "Spike and I talked about..." 6 A: Is that the middle of the page? 7 Q: Yes, it is. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Yeah. 10 "...about a window of opportunity lost 11 for an apology between Glenn and 12 Vince." 13 Do you see that? 14 A: Yeah, I see that. 15 Q: And then: 16 "Maybe we should open a window of 17 opportunity." 18 And first of all, do you have a 19 recollection of talking about the issue between Vince and 20 Glenn with Staff Sergeant Seltzer? 21 A: No, I don't. 22 Q: Do you recall what that refers to? 23 A: I have no idea. 24 Q: Okay. 25
1621 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And the last question that I have for 4 you, Mr. George, and again if it assists you, the 5 question arises out of the Hansard which is Exhibit P- 6 221. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: And you were asked a series of 11 questions and gave some answers in the course of the 12 Hansard about locatees and the effect of locatee tickets 13 and -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- establishing who was part of the 16 Stoney Point group. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And I wonder if you could assist us 19 in terms of understanding from your perspective in 1991, 20 and if it's changed to 1995, if it's changed, who the 21 Stoney Point group was? 22 And I understand that it would have been a 23 subset, if I can put it that way, or a smaller entity 24 within the Kettle and Stony Point Band; is that right? 25 A: Well, I -- I think back in 1991 we
1631 weren't -- 2 Q: Yeah -- 3 A: -- necessarily looking at it that 4 way, that -- 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: -- the Stoney Point people were 7 identified as a subset of the Kettle and Stony Point 8 Band -- 9 Q: Okay. That it -- it maybe bad 10 language to use, I guess the, when I'm thinking about it, 11 I'm thinking it would have been a part or members of that 12 group would have also been part of the Kettle and Stony 13 Point 14 A: So, the people -- 15 Q: -- Band at the time? 16 A: -- well, let me put it this way, if I 17 hear what -- 18 Q: Yeah. 19 A: -- you're saying. 20 Q: Yeah. 21 A: Is that the people who were 22 identified by ourselves as locatees would have been 23 people who had their names registered on the Indian Band 24 list that was associated to the sort of technical Kettle 25 and Stoney Point Band.
1641 Q: Okay. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And so the Stoney Point group, as I 4 take it, would have been those people with locatee 5 tickets and their descendants; is that right? 6 A: Well, the way that I understood it at 7 the time -- 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: -- and I'm not suggesting that this 10 was an accurate interpretation of the law -- 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: -- but I think it's close at the very 13 least -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: -- is that locatees, in our minds, 16 were people who actually had at some point in time what 17 would be called, I guess, certificate of -- certificates 18 of possession to land that was clearly identified on the 19 Stoney Point Reserve in 1942, at the time that the base 20 was exprop -- or the land was expropriated. 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: And I guess we were, by extension, 23 including people who were the immediate descendants of 24 those people. For example, if my grandfather had a 25 certificate of possession for a piece of property on
1651 Stoney Point, then by association my father would be a 2 locatee. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: And I -- 6 A: But I -- but I didn't con -- and I 7 would be the third generation, I would have considered 8 myself to have been a locatee. 9 Q: Okay. And did you have a view in 10 what -- what you talk about in -- in that Hansard is you 11 talk about there being people who lived on Stoney Point 12 that had tickets? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: You talk about there being people 15 from Kettle Point who had tickets for Stoney Point Land-- 16 A: Yeah. 17 Q: -- and you make mention of others, 18 and it's not -- it's not clear to them where they belong 19 one way or the other? 20 A: Yeah. That was -- that was a bit of 21 a -- 22 Q: Yeah. 23 A: Well, I -- I guess I should wait for 24 your question. 25 Q: And -- and I'm wondering if you can
1661 assist in your view at the time and, if it's changed up 2 to 1995, how it changed, about how that sort of grey 3 group would be defined or who would decide whether or 4 not -- 5 A: So, you're talking -- 6 Q: -- they were part of the Stoney Point 7 group or not part of the Stoney Point group? 8 A: So, you're talking about people that 9 may have been living on Kettle point and -- and had a 10 certificate of possession for a land base on Stoney 11 Point? 12 Q: Or people who felt or believed, I 13 guess, that they had an interest in Stoney Point land but 14 would or may have difficulty in establishing a lineage 15 collect -- or connection, or who, through marriage or 16 intermarriage -- 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: -- would be in that position? 19 A: Yeah. My own personal view of that 20 at the time -- 21 Q: Yes. Hmm hmm. 22 A: -- was that those people who had a 23 direct connection of lineage to people who had 24 certificates of possession in 1942, at the time of the 25 expropriation, were unquestionable.
1671 Q: Yes. 2 A: But they had to make choices -- 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: -- ultimately, at the end of the day, 5 as to whether or not they wanted to associate with this 6 group or not. There were people who had certificates of 7 possession but may have resided on Kettle Point and may 8 have had certificates of possession for lands on Kettle 9 Point and, of course, those people too were being seen or 10 embraced as Stoney Pointers. 11 There were others who expressed an 12 interest in the clear linkages between themselves and 13 people who had certificates of possession in 1942 was not 14 clear to us. 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: But, in my view, ultimately what 17 happened was, as things moved along and as the group 18 began to be more crystal in its construction, it was 19 clear that everybody should be given an opportunity to 20 make a determination as to which group they wanted to 21 associate with. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: That was my view. 24 Q: Okay. So, in your view, just so I'm 25 clear then, anyone who was a member of the Kettle and
1681 Stony Point Band should have an opportunity to elect 2 whether they would be a Stony Pointer or a Kettle 3 Pointer; is that, sir, the way it played out? 4 A: Ultimately, at the end of the day, if 5 the issue was the -- a choice between two (2) legitimate 6 band memberships -- 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: -- and of course, that wasn't a 9 reality at the time, it was more a dream that -- 10 Q: Sure. 11 A: -- ultimately there would be a 12 separate band called Stoney Point. But when that 13 occurred, my view was that people should be given a 14 choice to decide which band they wanted to belong to. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: And it wasn't all that simple, you 17 know. 18 Q: No, I -- I appreciate that. 19 A: I mean it was pretty complex and the 20 idea of getting to those goals really required a lot of 21 thought, a lot of conviction, commitment to sets of 22 objectives that would have got the people to a point 23 where they were in a position to be able to make those 24 kinds of choices. We were nowhere near that. 25 Q: Yes. And you talked just briefly
1691 about being elected as a councillor -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- I believe in 1996? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And then again in 1998? Did I get 6 that right? 7 A: No, I was elected in '92, '96 and 8 then again in 2000. 9 Q: 2000, I'm sorry. And you told us 10 earlier when you ran and were elected for a councillor in 11 1992 -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- you ran as a Stoney Pointer. 14 A: Yes, I did. 15 Q: Was the same thing true in 1996 and 16 after? 17 A: No, of course, and then you have to 18 appreciate what the surrounding circumstances were at the 19 time. The 1992 pursuit of an elected office was really 20 characterized by a strategy that was being used by people 21 like myself who wanted to get representation on council 22 and that -- that didn't exist in 1996. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: And those are my questions. Thank
1701 you very much. 2 A: You're welcome. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 4 I think Mr. Downard had indicated he had some questions. 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yes, but I've changed 6 my mind, Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 8 very much, Mr. Downard. Is there anybody else who has 9 any questions other than Mr. Henderson? Mr. Henderson, 10 do you have some questions? 11 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Very few, 12 Commissioner. 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 15 Q: Mr. George, when you first became 16 involved in the mid '80s with the Stoney Point locatees 17 and, of course, your own family members, the people that 18 you were involved with -- you gave a list and you 19 mentioned, of course, your father and -- and some other 20 members of your family. You mentioned Melva George -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- who would have been your aunt. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: You mentioned Rosemary Wolfe. 25 A: Yes.
1711 Q: I don't recall that you mentioned 2 Angeline Shawkence? 3 A: I thought I did, but she was 4 involved. 5 Q: She was involved as well? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And do you know if Angeline Shawkence 8 had ever served in council prior to 1990? 9 A: I don't know that for certain. 10 Q: And Melva George? 11 A: I don't know that either. 12 Q: How about your father? 13 A: My dad did, I think. 14 Q: Your dad did? 15 A: Yeah. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: You know, something tells me that 18 maybe Melva did. I'm not -- not really sure of that. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: Yeah. 21 Q: Thank you. The -- with respect to 22 location tickets, you were referring to them as 23 certificates of possession. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: If I suggest to you that the 1951
1721 amendments to the Indian Act introduce the term, 2 "Certificate of Possession" -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Would -- would that be correct? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And location tickets was the older 7 term? 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: The -- when Ms. Jones was asking you 10 about the graveyard at Stoney Point, you gave some 11 testimony about that yesterday and you mentioned two (2) 12 of your father's siblings, Marlene and Fletcher both of 13 whom were deceased as children, I -- I believe -- 14 A: And I think somebody named Nora. 15 Q: Norm? 16 A: I'm -- I'm not sure on the Nora. I 17 probably think -- you'll recall I talked about her 18 earlier. 19 Q: Yes, that's what you said yesterday, 20 as well. 21 A: So, there were three (3) I was 22 referring to. 23 Q: And your understanding, as part of 24 your family history, was that all three (3) were buried 25 in the graveyard at Stoney Point?
1731 A: Yes. 2 Q: And when Ms. Jones was taking you 3 through the same material this morning you left the 4 suggestion that you didn't know where he was buried. 5 Your testimony yesterday was that he's in the graveyard, 6 but you didn't know exactly where in the graveyard. 7 Is that -- is that true? 8 A: That's right. I -- I do -- I -- I 9 have a belief that all three (3) of them including 10 Fletcher were buried in -- in the Stoney Point graveyard. 11 Q: Okay. The -- Mr. Ross was asking you 12 about a movement through the 1980's and differences in 13 the community and developing a political movement. 14 Would it be correct to say that between 15 1988 and 1990 the chief of the Band was Yvonne or Bonnie 16 Bressette? 17 A: I don't know that for certain, but I 18 know she was chief some time in that area. 19 Q: Towards the end of 1980's? 20 A: Pretty close to that, yeah. 21 Q: But we have heard testimony on that 22 point, so we can -- 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: -- we know that she was the chief 25 and, of course, she would be a Stoney Pointer, too,
1741 having been removed from her father's farm as a child, as 2 your father was. Is that correct? 3 A: Well, I have to say that at the time 4 that I was involved -- 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: -- people had to specifically 7 identify -- 8 Q: Hmm hmm. 9 A: I mean, that was very clear to us, 10 that from our perspective a Stoney Pointer was somebody 11 who had these qualities or this history but also 12 identified with the group -- 13 Q: Hmm hmm. 14 A: I think as time went on we began to 15 see that in the face of the event in the future where 16 people might make some kind of an election as to which 17 group they wanted to belong to, if they both had stand -- 18 Band status, then, yes, Bonni would have -- would have 19 been included in that group. 20 Q: Yeah, so -- 21 A: But I don't know that she ever made 22 this kind of open declaration that associated with this 23 group. 24 Q: I understand that. So what you're 25 suggesting is that the real criteria between this
1751 movement, if you want, and the other members of the 2 Kettle and Stony Point Band were political? They had 3 nothing to do with ever -- whether or not you were a 4 child of the Stoney Point reserve and -- 5 A: I'm sorry, can you ask me that -- 6 Q: -- were removed in 1942? 7 A: Can you say that again to me? 8 Q: I sure can. It sounds to me from 9 what you've said, that the criteria for distinguishing 10 between the members of your group or movement and the 11 other members of the Kettle and Stony Point Band were, in 12 fact, political. 13 It was a question of identification and 14 not whether or not they had actually lived on the Stoney 15 Point reserve. 16 A: There was a pretty strong political 17 element to it. 18 Q: Hmm hmm. 19 A: But at the same time, there was also 20 a -- a very strong personal and emotional component that 21 drove, particularly the older people as I said yesterday, 22 where they were manifesting a very strong passion for 23 their ideas, and that through the process of heightened 24 awareness encased information other younger people, I 25 thought were beginning to embrace that kind of thinking.
1761 So there was a period of time when there 2 was really a bit of a mix in -- in -- as I look back on 3 it, that was probably accurate that there was a -- a 4 shifting of ideas and values -- 5 Q: Hmm hmm. 6 A: -- but there's no question there were 7 a lot of political strategies being used. One (1), of 8 course, included the 1992 election and the campaign that 9 was being driven. 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you'd indicated, I believe, that 13 -- or we certainly heard evidence that there was a full 14 slate or, if not a full slate, a large slate of Stoney 15 Point candidates, as such, in the 1992 election. 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And three (3) were actually elected? 18 A: Three (3) people that were on that 19 list, yes. 20 Q: Yes, okay. Now, when we talk about 21 the membership of the group, over the period say from 22 1985 to 1995, did you -- did you see a change in the 23 membership of the group? 24 A: Oh, definitely, yeah. 25 Q: Okay. And finally, you talked about
1771 the long term goal of separation, which I take it would 2 mean a Stoney Point reserve with a Stoney Point First 3 Nation? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And a Kettle Point reserve with a 6 Kettle Point First Nation? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Would you agree with me that it makes 9 absolutely no sense to have a Stoney Point First Nation 10 without a Stoney Point reserve? 11 A: That was certainly at the heart of 12 what it is we were doing at least in the late '80's and 13 maybe the very early part of the '90's. The two (2) were 14 connected at the hip. 15 Q: Yeah, inseparable? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Thank you very much. Those are my 18 questions, Commissioner. 19 A: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Worme...? 20 MR. DONALD WORME: I don't have any 21 re-examination, Mr. Commissioner, but I do want to thank 22 this witness for his co-operation and his assistance to 23 the Commission in coming here for the last couple of 24 days. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you
1781 very much. 2 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you, Mr. George. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. George, 4 thank you very much. 5 6 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 7 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Our next witness is 9 Chief Thomas Bissett. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 afternoon. 12 13 THOMAS MICHAEL BRESSETTE, Sworn 14 15 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 16 Q: Good afternoon, Chief Bressette. As 17 I understand it, you were born on March 23rd, 1955; is 18 that correct? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And your -- as I understand it, your 21 grandfather owned land at Stoney Point? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And prior to the appropriation in 24 1942 the -- your grandfather sold his land to your great- 25 uncle Archie Bressette; is that correct?
1791 A: Yes. 2 Q: And I note that you're looking at the 3 outline of -- in front of you. I wonder if you could set 4 that aside, Chief Bressette. We'll come to other 5 documents. 6 And, as I understand it as well, your 7 great-uncle Archie Bressette owned the land at the time 8 of the 1942 appropriation? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And the -- you're not related to the 11 late Dudley George, although your cousin was married to 12 Mr. Dudley George's sister, Carolyn George? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And you knew -- how long did you know 15 Mr. Dudley George before his death? 16 A: Probably when he moved to Kettle 17 Point. He used to live in Sarnia and he moved, I guess, 18 two (2) houses to the east of our home. 19 Q: So, they lived -- I think that was in 20 the early 60's? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And so they were neighbours? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And did you go to -- how, in relation 25 to Dudley, how -- Dudley George, how much older was he
1801 than you? 2 A: Oh, he was a lot younger than I was. 3 Q: I mean younger, yeah. 4 A: Yeah. I don't know exactly. I never 5 went around asking people how old they were. 6 Q: And did you go to school with him at 7 all or at the same time at the same school? 8 A: I -- I went to school on the reserve. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: And he went to the Forest School. 11 Q: And you live at the Kettle and Stony 12 Point First Nation? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And your grandfather Thomas Bressette 15 was the chief of the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation 16 for a twelve (12) year period? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And your father-in-law Charles 19 Shawkence then followed your grandfather as chief for 20 fourteen (14) years? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And roughly I -- I understand your 23 grandfather was chief in -- roughly in the 60's and your 24 father-in-law in the 70's? 25 A: Yes.
1811 Q: And you served in the United States 2 Military from 1972 to 1974? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you successfully completed the 5 Native Counselling course offered by Laurentian 6 University in Sudbury in 1989? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And, as well, you completed the 9 diploma program in Native Community Care Counselling and 10 Development as well? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you've served as the Kettle and 13 Stony Point Native Alcohol and Drug Addiction Program 14 worker? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And you were first elected to the 17 Band Council in 1986; is that correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And you remained on Council until 20 1992 when you were elected Chief? 21 A: Yes, it was in 1990 when I was 22 elected chief. 23 Q: 1990? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And you held the Chief's position
1821 from 1990 to 1997; is that correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And in 1997 you were elected Ontario 4 Regional Chief and Vice-Chief for the Assembly of First 5 Nations? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And you held those positions from 8 1997 to 2000? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And after you went to -- became 11 Ontario Regional Chief, in 1997 you were replaced by 12 Chief Irwin George for one (1) year? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And then Chief Norman Shawnoo from 15 1998 to 2000? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you were then -- in 2000 you were 18 elected Chief of the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And re-elected in June of 2002? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And June of 2004? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And, as I understand it, under the 25 Indian Act Prior to 2000, in order to vote in band
1831 elections, one had to live on the reserve to vote? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And starting in the election in 2000 4 under the Indian Act was changed to permit voting by all 5 members of the First Nation no matter where they resided? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And as I understand it, in 1995 there 8 were approximately eighteen hundred (1,800) or nineteen 9 hundred (1,900) members of the Kettle and Stony Point 10 First Nation? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And today there are approximately two 13 thousand (2,000) members? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And that includes the -- the people 16 who are living at the Army Camp? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And you have in front of you on your 19 right-hand side, Chief Bressette, a book that's got some 20 tabs in it that was marked Exhibit 219, it's the cerlox 21 bound book. We'll get to that in a minute, but I just 22 wanted you to have that. 23 Now, we've heard some evidence that in 24 1982 the Band was paid approximately $2.49 million by the 25 Federal Government?
1841 A: Yes. 2 Q: And I know that you were not elected 3 to council until 1986, but did you become familiar with 4 that transaction? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And can you tell us what the money 7 was paid for, from your understanding? 8 A: Well, the money was calculated back 9 to a time when the land was taken. There were payments 10 made for moving people and I think what they had taken 11 into account was what -- what monies were spent were not 12 adequate at that time and they compounded interest and 13 calculated it into terms of the dollars of the day that 14 should have been allocated. And that money was, in fact, 15 negotiated and turned over to the community. 16 Q: And I've -- I understood that as -- 17 as well, that part of that money was recognized as rent, 18 by the -- at least by the First Nation? 19 A: Well, it -- it was, I guess, 20 calculated as what should have been paid had they been 21 paying rent, so I -- I would have to say I guess that was 22 the understanding at that time. 23 Q: And I understand, as well, that back 24 in the early '80s the Band council learned that the 25 Federal Government was paying the -- Municipality grants
1851 in lieu of taxes for the Stoney Point lands; is that 2 correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And that was considered to be unfair 5 by Band members? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And it was because it was the Band, 8 not the Municipality that had lost the land? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And the municipality which had not 11 lost the land was receiving compensation out of the -- 12 the Stoney Point lands? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And I understand that the money that 15 was received by the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation 16 was -- a portion of it was paid out to Band members; is 17 that your understanding? 18 A: Yes, it was. 19 Q: And a portion was retained by the 20 Band; is that correct? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And the portion that was retained by 23 the Band, what was it used for? 24 A: Portions of that money are still in 25 accounts and some of it was used to provide services to
1861 the Band membership. We don't have a generated income in 2 the community, like, we don't have any resources to draw 3 upon for -- for, I guess, payments to services that are 4 provided by the Band, so they -- they ultimately use some 5 of that fund to provide those services to the community 6 members. 7 Q: And when you say services to the 8 community members, can you tell us what types of 9 services? 10 A: Well, there's garbage collection and 11 things of that nature. We don't get adequate resourcing 12 out of Federal funds to pay for that, and that has to be, 13 I guess, dealt with through accounts with outside people 14 who take that away and to waste disposal sites and 15 there's costs for doing business of that nature. 16 So those are the kind of services that are 17 provided. 18 We didn't have accounting services 19 generally, to keep track of payments for housing and 20 other things and we had to employ clerks and people to 21 work in that area as well. 22 So, we don't operate on a completely 23 funded budget where all of the positions that we have to 24 provide services to the community are not adequately 25 funded by Government, so we have to generate revenues to
1871 pay off those positions at some -- some way, shape or 2 form. 3 If we don't do that, we fall behind on -- 4 on the -- the ability to process the statements with 5 people owing and prove that they're, in fact being -- 6 being charged adequately for services that are being 7 provided. 8 Q: So, that part of the money that was 9 received by the Band in the early 80's is still being 10 used today to provide services to the community? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And in 1982, I understand that your 13 father in law, Chief Shawkence, was the chief? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And I understand as well, that it was 16 his view that the monies were being received as rent, 17 rather than compensation for the loss of the land or the 18 loss of the use of the land? 19 A: Well, he had a different version. I 20 think that's the one that the Federal Government was 21 pushing upon him, but his -- his opinion were they'd 22 never paid people anything and I don't believe they paid 23 anybody anything. 24 The monies that were spent to remove 25 people were paid to contractors who moved houses and
1881 removed people from the land. 2 Primarily, they made the benefits off of 3 the taking of the property and nothing was actually given 4 to any of the Band members that lost their properties or 5 were moved off their land and lost their livelihood. 6 Q: But, the money that was received in 7 19 -- in the early '80's, wasn't to be money to 8 compensate the people who had lived on Stoney Point for 9 the loss of their land? 10 A: No, that was clearly identified at a 11 general Band meeting that was held outside and one (1) of 12 the issues brought up were on a ballot that that would 13 not have impact and affect any claims if any of the 14 people lost their lands. 15 Q: And as a matter of fact, if we could 16 look at Exhibit 219 for a moment, and at Tab 3. 17 Exhibit 219 are Band minutes and at Tab 3 18 which we will come back to at a later time, there is -- 19 at the second page, there's a document entitled, Camp 20 Ipperwash Informational Material, and is that what you 21 were just referring to, Chief Bressette? 22 A: Yes, it was. 23 Q: And I note that the proposal was set 24 out in the first -- on the first page and the first item: 25 "All of Camp Ipperwash is included and
1891 not just that part taken from us in 2 1942." 3 And do you know what that's referring to? 4 A: That's referring to the land that 5 they called surrendered land. 6 Q: And is that the land on which the 7 Ipperwash Provincial Park was built? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And did that include the land that 10 was in the northeast corner of the Military Base on the 11 Port Franks side? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And -- and Item Number 8: 14 "This proposal deals only with the 15 Band's interest. The vote to be held 16 is not a surrender vote. Locatee 17 claims for those who were moved are not 18 being affected." 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And is that what you're referring to? 21 A: Yes, it is. 22 Q: Now, when you were on Council and 23 Chief Bonnie Bressette was the chief, I understand the 24 Band sought to obtain a catering contract from the Army 25 Camp?
1901 A: Yes, we did. 2 Q: And can you tell us what you did -- 3 you're aware of this as a Band Councillor, of what 4 happened? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Can you tell us what the -- what the 7 Band did to prepare for making the bid for the catering 8 contract? 9 A: Well, what we done, we have training 10 funds that are allocated out of human resource 11 development and we took those funds and we got funds from 12 our local -- it was basically a community future's 13 corporation, we were putting together a proposal that 14 would look at funding attendance of food preparation 15 courses at Lambton College, registered a large number of 16 our people into those programs and courses. 17 We, as well, hired an individual named 18 Victor Arth (phonetic), who used to be one of the 19 contractors who was working inside the base, running the 20 catering company. We -- we employed him and -- and 21 brought him on board to help us prepare a menu because 22 there were stipulations that the menus that were prepared 23 were supposed to deal with the allocation of a meal and 24 there had to be three (3) options for a meal. 25 And for the first person in the door to
1911 the last person out, they all had to have the ability to 2 have the same meal. We had to meet those requirements as 3 well. We -- we went into detailing snacks and delivery 4 of food out in the field if the Cadets were out, I guess, 5 working out in the fields. 6 We -- we had an understanding from quite a 7 few of our members actually working in the kitchen there. 8 So, what the Chief tried to do is say, Look, you know, we 9 were not getting anywhere in -- in the move to acquire 10 our lands back, so we're going to try and get in and get 11 some economic development opportunity so our people can 12 get jobs there, that we can be a contractor and run this. 13 We put all this together and we bound it 14 up in -- in a book similar to this type of book, and we 15 went and we made a presentation, not me but the Chief and 16 our -- our consultant went and made a representation to a 17 board of people that were associated with Canada 18 Catering. 19 Upon that -- that presentation they looked 20 at our -- our book that we had presented, it had menus 21 and had met all the requirements, and they complained 22 that the photocopying wasn't of good quality and -- and 23 the paper that we used -- put on the cover was not very 24 high quality. 25 And they didn't talk anything at all about
1921 the meals or go into any detail, that we failed to meet 2 any -- any portion, and they denied us the contract and 3 awarded it to another contractor who was a former 4 military -- retired military, I guess, mess sergeant and 5 looked after running mess halls in -- in the military. 6 Him and his, I guess, partners got the contract and we 7 were kind of brushed aside on that basis. 8 And with our interest we felt that, at 9 that time, it was an approach where we wanted to generate 10 some livelihood because our people are chosen by outside 11 caterers and many of them are turned away in place for 12 officers, children and people who were employed inside 13 that base, their kids were given opportunities above the 14 young people we had looking for summer jobs. 15 So, we -- we were sincerely trying to deal 16 with this in the best interest of our community. 17 Q: So, what -- and I think Bonnie 18 Bressette, when she testified, she said, as well, that 19 what the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation was trying 20 to do was to obtain economic opportunities for your 21 members? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And one (1) of the places to obtain 24 those -- to seek the economic opportunities were -- was 25 on the base that was built on the lands that was
1931 appropriated from the Kettle and Stony Point people. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And it was -- I take it it's your 4 belief that your bid was rejected not on its merits, but 5 on the issues of poor photocopying, at least according to 6 the person in charge and the way it was bound? 7 A: Well, there were no other comments. 8 Q: Those were the only comments that 9 were -- 10 A: Yes. Those are the only comments 11 that were made. 12 Q: And the -- what effect, if any, did 13 the rejection of the bid have on the Band Council and the 14 Chief in terms of the Army Camp and the returns -- the 15 return of the land, if any? 16 A: Well, I believe the Chief informed 17 the Government at that time after discussion with Council 18 that we had tried to work with them, we had tried to find 19 a way to resolve the matter and that from this point on, 20 we were going for full and final return of that land and 21 we'd take nothing else in return, because there -- there 22 was a lack of good will in -- in their dealing with us, 23 even though this matter had been pursued ever since they 24 took the land in 1942. 25 The -- the Councils that preceded ours
1941 were basically requesting and demanding that land be 2 returned continuously ever since that date and that was 3 an overture on our part to try and generate some -- some 4 benefit for our people and -- and it was rejected. So, 5 we -- we saw no benefit of sitting there taking whatever 6 jobs they decided to turn over to us. 7 And it was a very sincere effort on our 8 part, but it was rejected, so after -- ever since that 9 time, it's been full and final return of that property 10 and dealing with our people and nothing less. 11 Q: And I understand, as well, that the 12 Band and Band members bid on other types of contracts to 13 try to get some economic benefit from the Army Camp? 14 A: Well one (1) thing we had to was we 15 had to recoup some of the finances that we had put into 16 building up and hiring this consultant to do this work, 17 so we bid on grass cutting contracts, maintenance 18 contracts on the building. 19 We -- we were given some of those 20 contracts to do the grass cutting and we also got funded 21 to provide carpenter services down there by some of our 22 certified tradesmen and I -- I think basically it ended 23 when -- shortly after the Council made that decision. We 24 -- we folded up our company because the company that we 25 created was losing money and it was of no benefit to us
1951 to keep trying to bid on those smaller contracts. 2 We tried to go external, but we were 3 rejected many instances because we were an Indian Band 4 and we didn't have a bid bond to secure in terms of that 5 even though we came forward with letters from the bank 6 that a bank would guarantee full cost and full payment in 7 the of a default, they still rejected us. 8 Q: And -- but this -- the bids that 9 you're talking about now were bids made by the Band for 10 catering contracts outside of the Army Camp? 11 A: Yes, they were for all kinds of work 12 that was available in the area. 13 Q: And part of the problem, at least you 14 were told, was that as a band, you could not get a bond 15 and therefore the -- you were rejected because you didn't 16 have a bond? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: But you had -- your bank was prepared 19 to provide a letter, and did provide letters that they 20 would stand behind the Band? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And the -- some of the -- do I stand 23 -- understand it correctly that some of the contracts for 24 -- such as the grass contract, the maintenance contract, 25 you entered into those to try to recoup some of the money
1961 that you had spent on training people for the catering 2 contract? 3 A: Well we tried to recoup the money. 4 We -- we had this external contractor for -- because he - 5 - he disappeared on us and there were a number of people 6 looking for him and maybe, I don't know the reason why, 7 but he just walked away one day. 8 And because we couldn't offer him a job, 9 we couldn't do anything to keep him, he just decided to 10 give up and leave and we had to recoup some of the losses 11 we incurred as a result of hiring this individual and 12 paying him a salary and not having any -- any other 13 revenues to draw from to pay him. 14 We -- we bid on those jobs, Number 1, to 15 create employment opportunities but the second was to 16 recoup some of the losses that we suffered. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I may have 18 missed it, Mr. Millar. When was this? What year, what 19 period of time? 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It was 1988/1989. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: '88/'89? 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 25 Q: And in 1990, we've heard that Mr. Jan
1971 George -- Dan George was buried at the Army camp? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And the -- what role, if any, did you 4 as -- I take it you were chief in 1990 -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- and the Band Council have, with 7 respect to the burial of Mr. Dan George? 8 A: We -- we advised the military were 9 fully supportive of the request that was being made and 10 urged them to allow this to happen, based on the fact 11 that there was still a burial site within Stoney Point 12 and if that was his wishes, he should have been able to 13 have -- have that, because that was where his family had 14 land and property and where he wanted to be buried. 15 If that was that we -- we fully endorsed 16 and supported that and we -- we went to Sergeant Major 17 Downer (phonetic) and asked him if, you know, that was 18 going to a problem. 19 He, in turn, said, look I will go down 20 there and -- and I'll clean up the site as best I can. 21 I'll clear out the trees and whatnot. And they put a 22 bunch of sand, levelled it off and put a -- I think a 23 fenced-in area around there. 24 Q: And that was in the old -- in the 25 cemetery on the Army Camp?
1981 A: That was right next to the -- the old 2 cemetery, yes. 3 Q: In the Army camp? And did you attend 4 the funeral of Mr. Dan George? 5 A: I believe -- I believe I did. I'm 6 not sure. 7 Q: And in 1991, I believe Mr. Cecil 8 Bernard George and a group of people participated in a 9 protest on the Army Camp; were you aware of that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And what did -- what was your 12 knowledge or association with that protest? 13 A: Well, we went there -- I went there 14 with Joe Mescokoman (phonetic), he was Grand Council 15 Chief of the Union of Ontario Indians at the time, and I 16 think what we were trying to do, is generate a meeting to 17 negotiate and -- and bring the Government to the table to 18 deal with us in a more effective way, because we were 19 told they wanted to meet with us, but every time we did, 20 we ran into difficulties. 21 And Joe was going to assist me in trying 22 to set up a meeting with the Minister of -- of Indian 23 Affairs and -- and the Minister for the Department of 24 National Defence and we kind of basically, we were told 25 that there needed to be some overture to ask the people
1991 to leave, because it would interfere with us meeting with 2 the Government officials in any way to bring about, I 3 guess, negotiations, while there was an occupation in 4 place. 5 And we -- we, I guess, notified them that 6 that may lead to a difficulty and a problem and -- and 7 after a certain amount of time they removed their -- 8 their encampment and -- and left the base. 9 But they -- they, informed the military 10 people there that they were going to do that, and they 11 told them where to set up their tents and whatnot, so 12 there was some dialogue that occurred there at that 13 point. 14 Q: And that -- that, I think, lasted 15 approximately a week? Do you know how long it lasted? 16 A: I'm really not sure of the time 17 frame. It was quite a while back. 18 Q: And the -- if I could take you to 19 that black book that's in front of you. And at Tab 1, 20 there's a letter, it's Inquiry Document Number 6000352, 21 and it's a letter addressed to you dated January 7th, 22 1991, and it's signed by Hubert J. Ryan from the 23 Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 24 And can you tell us why -- firstly, I take 25 it you received this letter?
2001 A: Yes. 2 Q: And why were you seeking this 3 information from the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 4 in early 1991? 5 A: I think what was occurring at that 6 time, there was -- there was a move, and Maynard was 7 doing a lot of research and he started bringing this 8 issue up that there were two (2) separate reserves with 9 two (2) separate councils. 10 And we started to do research to try and 11 deal with -- with that matter so we could have factual 12 information to look at and to deal with, and how we -- we 13 would handle, I guess, this kind of a matter. 14 Because we weren't clear of exactly what 15 went on back at that particular point in time. And a 16 research was required to be done to sort of provide 17 answers to the membership and to ourselves about exactly 18 what was the nature and makeup of the community at that 19 particular time. 20 Q: So that when you say Maynard, are you 21 referring to Mr. Maynard T. George? 22 A: Yes. I should have made that clear. 23 Q: And the -- and Mr. Maynard T. George 24 raised the issue of two (2) bands in 1990? 25 A: Well, he was always insinuating that
2011 he had information that that existed. And, like -- like, 2 I came onboard as a chief, I heard some brief history, I 3 was told a told of things but actually not doing the kind 4 of research that is required. 5 So, I started to ask from -- and the 6 reason it was to Mr. Hubert Ryan was because he -- he had 7 done a lot of research for the Department of Indian 8 Affairs at that time. 9 Q: So, what you were doing on behalf of 10 the Band is engaging in research to try to answer the 11 questions that were being raised by Mr. Maynard T. George 12 and other Band members? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And at Tab 2 of the book there's an 15 article, it's dated from the London Free Press 1991, 16 August the 7th, I believe, 1991. 17 Perhaps, Commissioner, before I pass on I 18 should mark that exhibit -- that letter of January 7th, 19 1991 as the next exhibit. 20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P- 21 232, Your Honour. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Two thirty- 23 two (232). Thank you. 24 25 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-232 Document No. 6000352. Letter
2021 to Chief Tom Bressette from 2 Hubert J. Ryan, Department of 3 Indian and Northern Affairs 4 Canada Re: Documentation on 5 Camp Ipperwash. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 8 Q: And this letter -- this article 9 speaks of a visit by the Indian Affairs Minister, Mr. Tom 10 Siddon, to Kettle Point in August of 1991. And there's a 11 quote from you on the issue of the group headed by Mr. 12 Robert George with respect to the Stoney Point Band. 13 And this is, excuse me, for the benefit of 14 Counsel, it's Inquiry Document 1008315. 15 And there's a reference to you in the 16 third paragraph: 17 "If that's the case, Kettle Point Chief 18 Tom Bressette said later, you'd wonder 19 why they're staying here." 20 And then, at the top of the -- bottom of 21 that first column and the top of the second you're 22 responding to a statement by Mr. Siddon that the lands 23 should be returned to the Kettle and Stoney Point Band, 24 and you are quoted as saying that you: 25 "Consider Siddon's statement a major
2031 step in the long bitter fight by the 2 Indians for the return of Stoney 3 Point." 4 Do you recall the visit by Mr. Siddon back 5 in August of 1991? 6 A: Yes, I do. I remember him coming 7 down. And I guess he -- he wanted to drive down and -- 8 and look at the -- the Stoney Point land, and he did and 9 we were accompanied by some Military driver from -- I 10 assume he was from London. 11 He was driving Mr. Siddon around and we 12 went down onto the beach and there was a big sign there, 13 it says, "Unexploded ordinance," whatever, "Do Not Enter" 14 and Mr. Siddon got out of the vehicle and he walked out 15 and he walked up on the sand and he was looking around 16 and he essentially said, Oh, this is a very beautiful 17 piece of real estate here. 18 And I asked the driver, Why don't you go 19 over where he is? He said, I'm not foolish. He said, 20 Look at the sign he's standing beside and it had a 21 warning that there was an exploded ordinance there, so, 22 then we basically left that area. 23 And I know there were, I guess, reporters 24 that basically always want to sensationalise something, 25 whatever's being said, because that sells paper. And
2041 that was -- my own personal observation has been since 2 this thing entered the news media, the media kind of 3 fuelled it and wanted to see a big fight out of it. And 4 I guess that's one (1) of the things that they do cause 5 is dissension. 6 And I was told by a band member during a 7 band meeting that, I watched you give an interview and 8 everything you said was good. And they only take a 9 little statement like that and write it down and say, 10 That's what he said out of the whole interview. Forget 11 the good stuff, just focus on the negative, stick it in a 12 newspaper article. 13 And I was told not to trust the media 14 after that because they were fuelling distention in the 15 community as well as amongst people. 16 Q: So, I understand that your view of 17 newspaper accounts -- you don't hold much credence with 18 what you're quoted to say in the newspaper? 19 A: Well, nobody likes to read good news, 20 they -- they focus on bad stuff and I think that's why 21 the National Enquirer makes so much money. 22 Q: But the -- the point I'm trying to -- 23 that I -- do you recall saying, for example, in this 24 quote that's on the screen: 25 "In that case, Kettle Point, Chief Tom
2051 Bressette said later, you wonder why 2 they're staying here." 3 A: Well, like I say, you know, I talk to 4 a lot of reporters and I always get treated the same way. 5 I talk to them about our history and everything else. 6 They don't write that. And -- and I explain a whole lot 7 of other things, community feelings, and -- and what the 8 -- the general feeling is; that doesn't show up in the 9 paper. 10 One (1) little statement that somebody 11 makes is a key thing they pull out of a whole fifteen 12 (15) -- twenty (20) minute interview and that's what you 13 get. 14 Q: And -- 15 A: That's why I don't really -- you 16 know, whoever wrote this was doing it to drive a fight 17 and -- and create a problem here between our people and 18 that's what it's done. 19 Q: And did you know a man by the name of 20 Mr. Don Collins? 21 A: I don't know. He may be in here 22 today, but I couldn't say I know him personally. 23 Q: And in the early 1990s the -- did you 24 have discussions with the Federal Government about -- or 25 discussions with the Federal Government about obtaining
2061 land other than the Army Camp for the Kettle and Stony 2 Point First Nation? 3 A: Well, Bob Bressette and myself were 4 in Ottawa and we -- we went to meet with a guy by the 5 name of John Hill. And John Hill, I understand it, was 6 in charge of properties for the Department of National 7 Defence. And he was the guy I understood that had met 8 with the former Chief Shawkence and -- and was -- was 9 discussing ways and means how to return the land. 10 And at one (1) point in particular, I -- I 11 know that there was a discussion about cleaning up one 12 quarter of the land at a time starting on the easterly 13 side and -- and trying to gradually turn that over to the 14 community; that never materialized in a concrete 15 dialogue. 16 And -- and when I met him, he made mention 17 of a trade off for property up at Burwash, Ontario. Now, 18 when he made that statement it never came across in an 19 official worded document. So it was basically, By the 20 way, we got property up here, are you interested in it? 21 And I told him I couldn't make any -- any 22 comments about whether we were interested or not and I -- 23 I came back to the community. There was a Band meeting; 24 I made mention of this and it may have been even in a 25 council meeting at the time, I'm not sure.
2071 But I said I don't know if anybody would 2 be interested to move up near Sudbury. And the only 3 person who gave any immediate response was Maynard T. 4 George. He said, well, I'm interested. 5 And, you know, he -- he made that 6 statement right as bold as whatever, that I'm interested 7 in this property, because the property was, I was told, 8 had roads in it, it had infrastructure, it had fairly new 9 administrative buildings in it. That was the way he 10 described it. 11 But I was never at Burwash, Ontario. I 12 never seen the property and I didn't know what he was 13 talking about and Bob and I both reported that back to 14 council. 15 And it never came back in any form of 16 official response. And we were asking, is there a 17 possibility that we could acquire the Pinery Park as -- 18 as property and we questioned Mr. Hill at the time, you 19 know, why didn't you take the Pinery Park? It was free 20 and clear. 21 Why did you take First Nation land? Is it 22 because we were Indians and was easy just to remove, like 23 the Indian Agent at the time and we read his comments, 24 George Down, it's more expedient for the Government to 25 move a few straggling Indians down with the main body of
2081 the band is the way he put it. 2 But we were after Mr. Hill and exchange 3 and there were a lot of discussions came out of that. 4 And after we discussed the Pinery, I then approached Mr. 5 Wildman, the Ontario Native Affairs Secretary and 6 Minister in the NDP government of the day, and I -- I -- 7 Bud Wildman basically, I told him, you know, this guy 8 offered me land up in Burwash. I've never been there, 9 but I don't think it's in our treaty area. 10 And I asked him if there were Crown lands 11 possibly in the area where our community was that we 12 could look at in exchange if, in fact, the property 13 couldn't come back as a way and means of having some 14 place to relocate people, because even today it exists, 15 we're running out of land in our community. 16 And people want to purchase and buy lands 17 for homes and there's no land available. It's a very 18 serious situation that exists. And in our community at 19 the growth rate we're experiencing, we're not going to 20 have enough for our people very shortly. 21 Q: And when you say -- you indicated 22 that you had spoken to Mr. Bud Wildman, and in fact, Mr. 23 Wildman wrote you a letter and if I -- at Tab 4 of the 24 book in front of you, there's a letter dated November 25 26th, 1992 from Mr. C.J. Bud Wildman, the Minister
2091 responsible for Native Affairs. 2 And is that -- did you receive this 3 letter? 4 A: Yes, I did. 5 Q: And perhaps we could mark that as the 6 next exhibit. It would be Exhibit 233. 7 THE REGISTRAR: P-233 your Honour. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-233: Document No. 1006505. Letter 10 to Chief Thomas Bressette 11 from C.J. (Bud) Wildman, 12 Minister responsible for 13 Native Affairs Ontario, Nov 14 26/92. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 17 Q: And I note, Chief Bressette, that on 18 the first page that Mr. Wildman says in the first full 19 para -- second full paragraph: 20 "At the Chiefs gathering you will 21 recall that we discussed the matters 22 concerning the resolve of the Kettle 23 and Stony Point First Nation to reclaim 24 land now occupied by Camp Ipperwash. 25 You advised me that the Department --",
2101 excuse me, "-- you advised me that the 2 Department of National Defence, DND 3 officials had asked the First Nation to 4 identify Crown lands within its treaty 5 area after the parties considered as 6 unsuitable the acquisition by the First 7 Nation of the Burwash Correctional 8 Facilities in Northern Ontario in lieu 9 of Camp Ipperwash. 10 Further to Canada's request, you also 11 indicated that the First Nation had 12 identified Pinery Provincial Park as 13 acceptable Crown Ontario land that 14 could be acquired by the Federal 15 Government for the community in lieu of 16 land currently controlled by Camp 17 Ipperwash." 18 Does that accurately describe your 19 discussions with Mr. Wildman? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And he goes on to say: 22 "For your information, Native Affairs 23 Secretariat staff also have been 24 approached by staff of DND concerning 25 the possible involvement of Pinery
2111 Provincial Park in what is ostensibly a 2 Federal issue. Secretariat Staff 3 advised DND that Ontario was not 4 prepared to sell the Pinery to Canada. 5 However, I wish to assure you that 6 Canada's -- Ontario's position 7 regarding the park does not compromise 8 our support of the efforts of the First 9 Nation to reclaim Camp Ipperwash land 10 for the use and benefit of the 11 community." 12 And he then goes on to say: 13 "Further to this matter, as you will 14 recall, I had agreed to review the 15 documentation that you provided 16 concerning the claim at our meeting of 17 April 2, 1991 and to address the issue 18 with my Provincial and Federal 19 colleagues. I have, since that 20 meeting, written to the Honourable Tom 21 Siddon, Minister of Indian Affairs and 22 Northern Development, concerning his 23 department's position on the claim. In 24 response Minister Siddon reaffirmed the 25 Federal position that Camp Ipperwash is
2121 still required by DND for training 2 purposes." 3 He goes on to say: 4 "Ontario is not, of course, involved in 5 the Camp Ipperwash land claim because 6 the nature of the claim against the 7 Federal Government is such that the 8 claim falls entirely outside the scope 9 of Ontario's constitutional authority. 10 Nevertheless, we have taken appropriate 11 steps to ensure that the Province will 12 not encumber a timely and just 13 settlement of the issue. In this 14 matter, the Ministry of Natural 15 Resources staff have been asked to 16 discontinue their use of Camp Ipperwash 17 facilities for training purposes and 18 the Honourable Allan Pilkey, the 19 Solicitor General, has advised me that 20 the Ontario Provincial Police are no 21 longer using these facilities. 22 Although the Ministry of Solicitor 23 General does not have the authority to 24 determine the training locations for 25 municipal police forces, we will ask
2131 Mr. Pilkey to address their continued 2 use of Camp Ipperwash with the 3 appropriate officials." 4 And lastly he says: 5 "I fully support the efforts of the 6 Chippewa of Kettle and Stony Point 7 First Nation to reclaim the land now 8 occupied by Camp Ipperwash and would be 9 interested to hear about further 10 developments as they arise." 11 So, that Mr. Wildman supported the efforts 12 of the Chief, you as Chief, and the Bank Councillors to 13 reclaim the land but wasn't about to sell Pinery Park to 14 the Federal Government so that it could be traded for 15 Camp Ipperwash? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I anticipate that we'll hear 18 evidence from Mr. John Carson -- do you know who Mr. John 19 Carson is? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And I understand that you got to know 22 Mr. Carson when he was Detachment Commander in Forest? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And that was -- I think he became 25 Detachment Commander in 1989?
2141 A: Yeah. 2 Q: And do you recall having a meeting 3 with Mr. Carson where you indicated to him or to the 4 Ontario Provincial Police that the use by the Ontario 5 Provincial Police for training hindered the return of the 6 Army Camp to you? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And I understand that after that 9 discussion the Ontario Provincial Police, at least the 10 Forest area dist -- district of the Ontario Provincial 11 Police stopped using the Army Camp for training? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And as -- and other parts of the 14 Ontario Provincial Police stopped using it as well; were 15 you aware of that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And there's a little book in front of 18 you, a little blue folder in front of you, it's on the 19 side, and this is a document that -- it's a document 20 dated June 4th, 1993, and prior to these proceedings, 21 have you ever seen this document before? 22 A: No, I haven't. 23 Q: And I'm referring to Inquiry Document 24 9000002? 25 A: No, I haven't seen this.
2151 Q: And the -- this appears to be an e- 2 mail from a Mr. Swan to a Mr. Gagnon and Vanierson. Do 3 you know either a Mr. -- or did you know, in 1993, a Mr. 4 Swan or a Mr. Gagnon or Mr. Vanierson? 5 A: I didn't know any one (1) of these 6 people. I knew Graham Swan was a -- he was a Deputy 7 Minister, I believe of Indian Affairs at the time. 8 Q: And the -- there's a reference to you 9 -- and this is talking about negotiations with Mr. 10 Maguire and proposed meeting on June the 9th and there's 11 a reference here: 12 "During the course of their 13 conversation, Tom Bressette began to 14 ask about the availability of some DND 15 lands at Burwash in the Sudbury area. 16 He seems to feel that if the Band is 17 split, he wants the Georges as far away 18 as possible." 19 Do you -- firstly, in 1993 -- in June of 20 1993, was the Burwash proposal of the Federal Government 21 still being considered by the Band and the Band council? 22 A: Yeah, that -- I think what he's 23 referring to here, I -- I told him Maynard T. George 24 wanted to -- was interested in the land and if he wanted 25 to, by all means take him away because he was the one
2161 that, in my mind, was generating all of the dispute 2 internally within the community. 3 He was saying there were two (2) bands and 4 when we asked him to produce that information he wouldn't 5 do it to -- for us. 6 Q: So, the reference that you may have 7 made to Mr. Swan was -- was to Mr. Maynard T. George? 8 A: Yes, him alone. 9 Q: Because he had expressed an interest 10 in the Burwash proposal? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now -- 13 A: I -- I never referred to all of the 14 people, it was only him that I was sort of annoyed with 15 at the time because he kept raising issues and he had no 16 documentation. He just says, I got the proof, I got the 17 proof and we kept telling him, Well, bring it out. 18 And I think when we initially started 19 asking questions, he did ask about why were we asking 20 questions about who was the Chief and whatnot. That's 21 what started the whole process in that direction and, you 22 know, it was a very expensive process, one that the Band 23 had to undertake to try and satisfy what he was saying 24 and -- and we -- we did spend an enormous amount of our 25 time and efforts on trying to deal with that particular
2171 question. 2 Q: And I think we'll come back to that 3 in a little while and look at some documents that relate 4 to that issue, but the -- were you aware prior to May 5 6th, 1993, that there was going to be an occupation of 6 the Army Camp on May 6th, 1993? Had anybody told you 7 that before? 8 A: I think there was -- there may have 9 been a rumour that -- floating around that that was going 10 to happen and it -- usually, you know, when you hear 11 things like that, there's something behind it, that 12 someone is talking about it and, you know, people 13 regularly call the office and -- and advise me of things 14 and tell me this or tell me that and, you know, I just 15 relay it on to whoever -- whoever should be notified 16 about it. 17 Q: And when you say you relayed it on -- 18 you relayed things on, do you recall doing that with this 19 respect to the Park -- the occupation of the rifle ranges 20 at the Army Camp prior to May the 6th, 1993? 21 A: I can't be sure, like, I -- I -- I've 22 been called and people complain to me and I told them I 23 don't have jurisdiction in the area. I -- I clearly know 24 that -- well, I asked about this area in terms of my 25 dealings with, I guess, the former and still is
2181 recognised by the federal government, Camp Ipperwash, but 2 it's the Stoney Point reserve covered by a treaty that 3 our people term -- use a terminology. 4 But when we've sort of looked into this 5 official government position, and it's still today is -- 6 that land is under our control. We met with that 7 resistence all through the time dealing with -- with the 8 grants in lieu of taxes matter. 9 That -- sorry, we can't give it to you, 10 it's in the jurisdiction of the municipality, they get 11 the money. We met it and we looked at terms of providing 12 welfare assistance. The government referred back to the 13 same process. It's not in your jurisdiction. 14 And any time it did, I -- I notified 15 people because I was demanded that I do something, and I 16 just notified whoever had the jurisdiction in that area 17 to ensure that, you know, we were a cooperative 18 organization. 19 We weren't sort of, you know, engaged in 20 any -- any kind of alternative activities that may have 21 upset our negotiation processes we were attempting to get 22 going. 23 Q: And we'll come back to this in a 24 moment, as well, but I take it what the position of the 25 federal government was back in 1993, and subsequent, was
2191 that Camp Ipperwash was still a military base and was not 2 recognized by the government of Canada as a -- as a 3 Stoney Point reserve or as belonging to the Kettle and 4 Stony Point First Nation? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And the position was that so long as 7 it remained in the hands of the federal government as a 8 military base, even after 1995, July 1995, it still 9 remains classified as a military base? 10 A: Yes, they still say that, even today. 11 Q: And in 19 -- May -- on May 6th, 1993, 12 did you learn on that day of the movement by members of 13 your First Nation into the Army camp? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And how did you learn about that -- 16 A: It was the same way. Somebody came 17 into the office and told me and I got about four (4) or 18 five (5) phone calls about the matter. 19 Q: Now, I may be mistaken, but it -- at 20 one point were you in -- at a meeting in -- in Northern 21 Ontario when this took place, when the -- I think Cecil 22 Bernard George said that -- or Gerald George said that 23 you may have been in Northern Ontario when the actual 24 occupation took place? Do you recall -- 25 A: I believe I was at the Chiefs of
2201 Ontario meeting in the Kenora area. 2 Q: And -- so you were advised by someone 3 from the office that -- or someone that this had taken 4 place? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And what, if anything, did you do 7 after you heard that the -- there had been a movement of 8 your people onto the Army camp? 9 A: There wasn't much I could do. I 10 wasn't really in a position to do anything. I'd left 11 them an acting chief in place. I think it was Al 12 Bressette who was put into that position when I left and 13 I couldn't get a hold of Al when I tried to call him, so 14 I came home and basically the position I took was -- 15 after consultation was, that, you know, if the Band 16 Council supported this, would it hamper the negotiation 17 process and definitely, yes, it would have. 18 And we would have been in a mode of 19 occupation and I don't know if the government would have 20 dealt with us, so we -- we basically couldn't support 21 that at that time. 22 Q: And, in fact, the Kettle and Stony 23 Point council issued a press release and if I -- if you 24 go to the blue book, the blue folder, excuse me, and 25 there's a press release.
2211 It's Inquiry Document 7000132. Is that 2 the press release issued by the First Nation? 3 A: Yes, it is. 4 Q: And perhaps we could mark that the 5 next exhibit? It would be Exhibit 234. 6 THE REGISTRAR: P-234. 7 8 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-234: Document No. 7000132 Kettle & 9 Stony Point Council Immediate 10 Release May 07/95 Re: 11 Occupation of Camp Ipperwash. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 14 Q: And the press release indicates that 15 the, as it states in the first paragraph: 16 "The Chief and Council of the Chippewa 17 of Kettle and Stony Point do not 18 sanction the occupation of Camp 19 Ipperwash that is presently being 20 carried out." 21 You go on to say: 22 "Chief Thomas Bressette and the elected 23 Council of the community however fully 24 support the return of the lands of Camp 25 Ipperwash. We have an open line of
2221 communications on the entire issue in 2 regards to the Stoney Point lands with 3 the Department of National Defence. We 4 are satisfied that our discussions with 5 the Federal Government are progressing. 6 It concerns me that Maynard T. George 7 and his followers will hamper these 8 discussions, which could prove to be 9 detrimental to the entire Band 10 membership of Kettle and Stony Point." 11 Then -- it then goes on to say: 12 "Chief Bressette supported nationally 13 the recognition of all native veterans 14 and thus fully supports the claims by 15 Elders like Clifford George who want to 16 return to their homeland. This support 17 has never been unscrupulous or 18 questioned." 19 And then: 20 "The Chief and Council would like to 21 clarify the following issues as well. 22 1) Equal distribution payments were 23 made to every man, woman and child who 24 was eligible at the time, with 25 compensation payment, were handed out
2231 in 1980; clearly identified records are 2 available for review. 3 2) The 1980 agreement between the 4 Chippewa of Kettle and Stony Point and 5 DND allowed the original location 6 ticket holders of Stoney Point the 7 option to call question to the 8 agreement and to ensure that their 9 interests are looked after. 10 3) Claims of malicious treatment 11 towards the people from Stoney Point 12 who were moved to Kettle Point in -- 13 1942 are unjustified. A tour of the 14 community can be arranged. Arrangement 15 to point out the various residences of 16 the individuals who make those claims. 17 All Band members have the option to 18 submit for housing within the 19 community, whether they live off or on 20 the reserve." 21 So, is it fair to say that one (1) of the 22 issues that you -- had been raised with the Chief and 23 Band Council in 1993 was the distribution of the money in 24 1980? 25 A: Yes.
2241 Q: And was that an issue raised by Mr. 2 Maynard T. George? 3 A: Yes, it was. 4 Q: And, as well, there was an issue 5 raised with respect to the locatees? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And, as well, and that -- was that 8 issue raised by Mr. Maynard T. George? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And, as well, there were claims -- 11 the issue of the bad treatment of people in 1942 was -- 12 was raised? 13 A: Well, can I sort of clarify that? At 14 that particular time, Maynard T. George had undertaken an 15 initiative to go around and focus on -- on homes that 16 were in disrepair or weren't in any good standard, and he 17 attributed that to that Band Council's treatment of 18 people. And that -- that really wasn't the case. 19 There was an old home that he, in 20 particular, asked for that had been left by the person it 21 was allocated to and abandoned. He requested the Band 22 Council specifically for that home. He wanted that home 23 for his family and himself. He identified a piece of 24 property. 25 He then attempted to build a -- front
2251 steps of -- he had used timber. And we -- we had built a 2 foundation on it and we -- we didn't really have money, 3 at that time, to -- to provide him with a home. And he 4 wanted that particular home and he chose that. 5 He then started to construct a -- a deck, 6 sort of, or maybe he intended to build an addition on 7 that home, and he never finished it. And you could have 8 -- I believe he did fall through and injure himself on 9 his own steps that he made himself. And he was bringing 10 the TV cameras around and saying, Look what they did to 11 me, Look what they do to me. 12 And I guess that angered quite a few 13 people who were in the Council at the time because they 14 recollect and had dealt with him and he had asked 15 specifically for that -- that older home. And he made 16 demands, I want that home and they gave it to him with 17 the understanding that there was no resources in that 18 year and then he put this on TV. 19 He then went to find any home that was 20 sort of in really old condition that never had been 21 renovated, put that on the media. I mean, people live in 22 the area and probably still recall seeing that on the TV 23 camera. And I -- I was driving down the road and I met 24 him going down the road in a TV truck right behind him 25 and he was doing that again.
2261 And the statement that we put out 2 basically was because he was trying to influence people 3 that we were treating him badly when, in fact, he was the 4 one that made the specific request for -- for that 5 particular unit and that home. And I mean, you know, he 6 done all of that on his own, but he tried to use it in 7 theatrics and demonstration to the public that he wasn't 8 being treated very good. 9 And, like, it was quite an irritation 10 because we done our best. We do our best to try and 11 provide for many, many people with -- we don't have a 12 resource base that generates revenue annually to deal 13 with all of the -- the conditions we live in. And I 14 think the Federal Government just went through a big -- a 15 big statement in terms of dealing with some of the 16 housing crises that exist in many native communities 17 across the country. 18 We do our best to -- to provide for our 19 members. And it was being sort of painted a picture that 20 we were not doing our best and we were doing this on a 21 political interest. And that certainly was not the case 22 and that's the reason why the -- the -- the statement was 23 issued the way it was in that -- in that regard. 24 Q: So, the -- the third paragraph was 25 addressing these complaints that Maynard T. George was
2271 raising at the time? 2 A: Yes. 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And I don't know when 4 you want to take an afternoon break. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 6 would be a good time, Mr. Miller, it's three o'clock. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Does it suit 9 you? I mean -- 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, that's fine, 11 that's fine. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's take a 13 break. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Because you know I'll 15 just keep going. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know that, 17 I know that. I have to remind you. Thank you. 18 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 19 adjourned for fifteen (15) minutes. 20 21 --- Upon recessing at 3:03 p.m. 22 --- Upon resuming at 3:18 p.m. 23 24 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 25 resumed, please be seated.
2281 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Chief Bressette, if I 2 could take you back for a moment to Exhibit 219, which is 3 the book of minutes of council -- council at the -- right 4 there, yes. And at Tab 3, the second page of Tab 3 I 5 asked you some questions about item number 1 on that 6 page: 7 "All of Camp Ipperwash is included and 8 not just that part taken from us in 9 1942." 10 And I asked a question and -- which -- 11 with which you agreed, but which both of us were having 12 the Federal Government agreeing to give back lands in the 13 provincial jurisdiction at the time in any event. And I 14 wanted to ask you a question about the meaning of 15 Paragraph 1. 16 "All of Camp Ipperwash is included and 17 not just that part taken from us in 18 1942." 19 And perhaps you could explain that to the 20 Commissioner, please? 21 A: Well, when -- when Ron Irwin visited 22 the community after, I guess, after September the 7th, 23 1995, he brought a map down and he basically outlined 24 what the Federal Government were discussing on national 25 TV. I believe it was on CTV news.
2291 He pointed the whole area except the -- 2 the Ipperwash Provincial Park and the -- he said the -- I 3 believe it's the north-east corner, there's a section of 4 cottages in that area. 5 He excluded those in his description. 6 Q: And -- but back in 1980 when the 7 agreement that was voted on that -- that provided for the 8 return -- for the payment of the money, the land that was 9 being talked about then was land -- all the Camp 10 Ipperwash and included some lands that had been 11 surrendered in 1928? 12 Is that correct? 13 A: Yes, that was the beachfront lands. 14 Q: And so that the lands between 15 Ipperwash Provincial Park and a portion of -- over to 16 Outer Drive or the beachfront to the upper right-hand 17 corner where the cottages are today, that portion had 18 been surrendered in 1928 as well? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And in 1942 that portion of the land 21 had been appropriated by the Federal Government? 22 A: Yes, they took it all. 23 Q: And they took not only the land that 24 -- that had been surrendered in 1928 between the 25 Provincial Park and the cottages on the east side, but
2301 also what remained of the Stoney Point First Nation? 2 A: Yes, and my recollections go into 3 some detail back to documents I don't have, but the 4 cottagers were complaining that shells were going over 5 their heads into the -- out onto the lake at targets out 6 on the lake they were shooting at. 7 And they were concerned these shells may 8 drop and hit their cottages. And that's what led to the 9 discussion about -- about them wanting the Federal 10 Government to take that land and purchase it back from 11 them and I believe that was done. 12 Q: The cottages that were -- that were - 13 - ran along the Lake Huron -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- and -- on the northern part of 16 Camp Ipperwash were purchased by the Federal Government? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And so that in 1980 the land that was 19 going to be returned, not only -- included not only the 20 land appropriated from the Kettle and Stony Point First 21 Nation in 1942, but the cottages -- the land that had 22 been purchased from the cottagers along Lake Huron? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And -- but did not include the land 25 that formed Ipperwash Provincial Park nor the cottages in
2311 the upper right-hand corner along Outer Drive? 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: I just wanted to clear that up, 4 Commissioner. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, as part of -- in May of 1993, 9 Mr. Maynard T. George, as well, made a claim with respect 10 to Ipperwash Provincial Park, excuse me, is that correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And did you have discussions with 13 individuals from the Ministry of Natural Resources with 14 respect to the claim advanced by Maynard T. George with 15 respect to the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And if I could take you to a 18 document, it's Document 3000598 and it's in that blue 19 folder. This is an e-mail to Mr. Ron Baldwin from a 20 Terry Humberstone and it's dated May 20th, '83. 21 But before actually I go to there, if I 22 could take you to Tab 6 of the -- the black book. And 23 again it's a e-mail May 18th, 1993 from Terry Humberstone 24 to Ron Baldwin. I switched back to the black book that's 25 just in front of you, sir, we'll hold to that but we get
2321 at -- at Tab 6, Chief Bressette. 2 Now, this document refers to a 3 conversation. The author of the document says: 4 "I had a speaker-phone conversation 5 with Chief Tom Bressette and Band 6 Administrator Elizabeth Thunder today 7 at approximately 12:30 noon regarding 8 the notice served to Ipperwash Park 9 staff by Bailiff J. Scott Ewart, City 10 of Middlesex, today. Chief Bressette 11 stated that their First Nation does not 12 recognize Stoney Point as an official 13 First Nation. Further, they do not 14 condone the actions of Maynard George 15 and his group." 16 And the Maynard George that's being 17 referred to is Maynard T. George? 18 A: That's King Maynard T. George -- 19 Q: 20 "And that --" 21 A: -- as he calls himself now. 22 Q: 23 "And that we MNR should be taking this 24 up with the Government of Canada re: 25 the legality of Maynard George's
2331 actions re: his claim to Ipperwash 2 Provincial Park." 3 Do you recall having a discussion in -- in 4 or around May 18th, 1993 with officials from the Ministry 5 of Natural Resources? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And does this -- do you recall this 8 discussion with a Mr. Terry Humberstone? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And Mr. Humberstone goes on to say: 11 "Chief Bressette further appeared to be 12 surprised that we were just going to 13 let them walk in and take over the 14 Park." 15 And quotes: 16 "He felt that we should have them 17 removed or else we would be inviting 18 anyone else in who had a claim to make. 19 I had explained to the Chief our 20 position and that we would reluctantly 21 allow George in, explained that we do 22 not condone their actions but will 23 attempt to resolve the issue in a 24 peaceful manner. The Chief was very 25 interested in being kept informed of
2341 developments by myself. Band 2 Administrator Thunder stated that this 3 activity by Maynard George was simply a 4 ploy to get media attention." 5 And again, the Maynard George is Maynard 6 T. George? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And were you surprised -- did you 9 make the statement attributed to you that you were 10 surprised that they were, quote: 11 "Just going to let them walk in and 12 take over the Park." 13 A: Well, yes, I was because we had, I 14 guess, after this -- this whole incident occurred, 15 received commentary and letters from individuals stating 16 that they had -- they had claims on -- on the beachfront 17 area of -- of the whole surrendered land; that they had 18 basically had the same -- could make a land claim the 19 same as the First Nation because the properties, when 20 they were surrendered, they purchased them and later sold 21 them to DND. 22 So, they felt they could go back and -- 23 and do the same type of thing. And -- and it was a 24 concern of ours that this may happen. And nobody was 25 saying anything about it. And we felt that until this
2351 matter was dealt with through the -- the proper legal 2 procedures, it shouldn't be recognized. 3 And -- and by Maynard going up and putting 4 a kiosk, a little wooden shanty that he had constructed, 5 was going to draw media attention and bring those type of 6 claims into this whole process. 7 Q: So, one (1) of your concerns as Chief 8 was that the lands and -- and the surrendered lands that 9 they -- that you're referring to are the lands that -- on 10 which the cottages -- some cottages were built and which, 11 during the Second World War, were purchased by the 12 government after they appropriated the Stoney Point lands 13 and became part of Camp Ipperwash? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And there was a concern -- you had 16 received letters or indications of people claiming part 17 of that land? 18 A: Yeah, they were in a local paper as 19 well making those -- those assertions that they had the 20 right to make claims as much as the Band did at that 21 time. And we were concerned that we had already entered 22 dialogue with the Federal Government and they had 23 basically outlined that they were prepared to return all 24 of that land. And we didn't want to lose the opportunity 25 or have to go through a -- a lengthy financial court
2361 proceeding like we -- we've had to in other areas. 2 Q: And perhaps we could mark that e-mail 3 as the next exhibit, it's 2 -- 4 THE REGISTRAR: Document number, please? 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 1008106. 6 THE REGISTRAR: P-235. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 8 one in the binder? 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-235: Document No. 1008106 E-mail 12 to Ron Baldwin from Terry 13 Humberstone, MNR, Native 14 Liason Specialist Re: 15 Conversation with Tom 16 Bressette May 18/93 01:07 17 P.M. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 20 Q: And Mr. Ron Baldwin, were you aware 21 of Mr. -- who Mr. Ron Baldwin was? 22 A: No. 23 Q: And this -- at this point in time, 24 the Superintendent of the Pinery and the Ipperwash 25 Provincial Park was Mr. Kobayashi?
2371 A: Yes. 2 Q: And you knew Mr. Kobayashi? 3 A: Yes, he had been to our office 4 several times and was trying to promote economic 5 opportunities in the way that we could look at co- 6 management of the Park and -- and other initiatives at 7 that particular time, but that never materialized. 8 Q: Okay. Then, if I could take you to - 9 - it's Inquiry Document 3000598. It's in that blue 10 folder. It's an e-mail from, again, Mr. Humberstone to 11 Ron Baldwin dated May 20th, 1993. And I know that you 12 haven't seen this document before, but it refers to a 13 conversation between you and Mr. Humberstone, and it's 14 very difficult to read, so I'll read it out: 15 "Ron, I've just had a telephone 16 discussion with Chief Don -- Tom 17 Bressette of KP/SP F.N. re: Maynard 18 George's plans in Ipperwash Provincial 19 Park. My reason for phoning Tom was to 20 update him re: MNR's involvement in 21 this issue. 22 Tom passed on the following thoughts 23 for us to consider: 24 1) They, KP/KP, claimed some land a few 25 years ago and did similar things. They
2381 set up tents, camps, etcetera, the OPP 2 moved in and arrested them, evicted 3 them, and charged them with trespass. 4 Tom feels that we are setting a double 5 standard by letting M. George and his 6 group move into the Park unchallenged. 7 Tom said he is going to complain to the 8 Ontario Government re: this 9 discriminatory treatment. 10 2) Tom thinks we are setting ourselves 11 up for some real trouble by letting 12 them in the Park to demonstrate. He 13 said they will probably move more 14 people in at a later date and then we 15 are going to have real trouble ever 16 getting them out. 17 He and his council and people are 18 having difficulty understanding why we, 19 MNR, would allow an illegal occupation 20 of public Park lands take place. He 21 thinks we should evict them now. 22 Tom warned that Warrior Society members 23 from other First Nations are moving 24 into the general area and wanted us to 25 be aware of this. I guess this means
2391 that we may have to deal with the 2 Warriors at some point. 3 4) He said that some of his people have 4 suggested that if Maynard can get into 5 the Park so easily, then perhaps we, 6 the KP/SP people should also set up a - 7 - something to demonstrate our support 8 -- MNR help -- helping hand out 9 pamphlets refuting Maynard's claim. 10 5) Tom indicated that Maynard's group 11 is trying the real Chief and Council 12 look foolish and that by giving them 13 our support, the MR -- MNR is helping 14 them to accomplish that." 15 And he goes on to say: 16 "I explained our position to Tom 17 including the fact that we had been 18 served with official papers and until 19 our legal service had determined their 20 legality and applicability, we would 21 not interfere with the peaceful 22 activity. 23 I also explained our responsibility to 24 the public and their safety, including 25 the staff -- safety of our staff and
2401 the FN's" 2 I take it he meant First Nations? 3 "Tom stated that he understood, but 4 still thought we should not allow 5 Maynard's group to enter the Park. 6 However, if we did allow it, they 7 should pay just like everyone else. 8 Our conversation then ended with my 9 commitment to keep Tom informed of our 10 progress and of any developments which 11 might occur." 12 Do you recall a conversation with Mr. 13 Humberstone on or about May 20th, 1993 wherein you 14 discussed the matters raised in this e-mail? 15 A: Yes, I recall discussing the matter. 16 That's like I say, he -- he wrote to his supervisors 17 advising what he thought we discussed and I just told 18 him, you know, that it was a concern that was raised to 19 me by several members of the community and through our 20 council as well. 21 Q: And do you -- so you were passing on 22 the concern of members of your community as well as 23 members of your council? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And not simply the concerns that you
2411 had personally? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Is that correct? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And does this e-mail accurately set 6 out the concerns that you expressed to Mr. Humberstone? 7 A: It expresses a general concern. 8 Q: And perhaps that could be marked the 9 next exhibit, it would be -- 10 THE REGISTRAR: P-236. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 236. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-236: Document No. 3000598 E-mail 14 to Ron Baldwin from Terry 15 Humberstone, MNR, Native 16 Liason Specialist Re: 17 Conversation with Tom 18 Bressette May 20/93 01:27 19 P.m. 20 21 THE WITNESS: I couldn't read this, 22 though -- 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 25 Q: That's why I read it out to you.
2421 A: Okay, I -- 2 Q: Do you agree with what I read out? 3 A: Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. 4 Q: And then in that book in front of 5 you, in that blue binder in front of you as well, there's 6 a document. It's 1007612. Again, it's an e-mail from 7 Mr. Humberstone to Mr. Baldwin dated May 27th, 1993 and 8 it's -- you should be able to read this one -- 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: And I -- this refers to a meeting on 11 May 26th, 1993 with people from MNR, at least Mr. 12 Humberstone? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Do you recall a meeting with Mr. 15 Humberstone in -- towards the end of May in 1993? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And this was a discussion about 18 Maynard T. George's claim with respect to Ipperwash 19 Provincial Park? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And that, at least at the time, in 22 paragraph -- the second paragraph indicates that both you 23 and Mr. Humberstone agreed that the claim should be 24 through the Federal Government? 25 A: Yes.
2431 Q: And he indicates, 2 "Tom couldn't understand what Maynard 3 thinks he will gain by using a 4 Bailiff's Order that is of no force." 5 And, do you recall -- do you recall now 6 making that type of a statement back then? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And why did you think that the 9 Bailiff's Order is of no force? 10 A: A bailiff can, I guess, serve papers 11 on somebody but assert that they're taking over or own a 12 particular piece land without it being adjudicated, I 13 don't understand how that -- that could be taken that -- 14 it allowed him to take ownership. 15 Q: And that's -- so you're -- so you 16 just didn't think that by serving a piece of paper that 17 Mr. Maynard T. George could claim ownership of the Park? 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: And do you know who he was claiming 20 ownership of the Park in who's name? 21 A: No, I know he's done this quite 22 recently and it was on the Pinery Park, the village of 23 Grand Bend and the area chiefs weren't too happy about 24 that. We -- we don't really, I think if there's 25 legitimate claims to be filed there's due process to do
2441 that and I think we -- we attempt to work through those 2 processes to ensure that, you know, we don't wind up in 3 difficulties with our own membership, leading them down a 4 path where we -- we get to the end and we find out 5 there's no official response and maybe there was some 6 documentation that we didn't have. 7 These things have to be fully looked at 8 and I don't really believe at this point in time Maynard 9 did do the appropriate research and had any information 10 that -- that would have moved this anywhere, because had 11 he done that and chose the other approach, maybe we 12 wouldn't be faced with the circumstance we're dealing 13 with today. 14 And I think, you know, that's a general 15 feeling that a lot of people have about, when you do 16 something like this it -- it inadvertently draws an 17 adverse effect from surrounding communities and it upsets 18 the balance in how we deal with our neighbours. 19 Q: So one of -- back in 1993 one (1) of 20 your concerns of the actions by Mr. Maynard T. George was 21 the effect on the other members of your community? 22 A: Well, it was that, it was on the 23 tourism in the area, it was on, you know, the local 24 business owners, they were complaining they were starting 25 to lose revenues, and, I mean, it was impacting on a lot
2451 of people. 2 And, you know, we had just come through 3 the -- the Oka crises and had -- had occurred across the 4 country. We didn't want to see that kind of event unfold 5 in our area. And it was a grave concern to a lot of our 6 community members. 7 Q: And the -- your -- the concern about 8 economics was economics, the tourism, this area back in 9 1993 and today relies on tourism a great deal? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And one (1) of your concerns as 12 Chief, I take it, back in 1993 was the effect on tourism? 13 A: Well, yes. My -- my responsibility 14 is to the community as a whole. I can't just go off and 15 support actions taken by someone unless it's a decision 16 of the whole Band. And that's where I always seek 17 direction in any -- in any actions that are taken. How 18 do we deal with it? We go through general Band meeting 19 and basically let our people advise us and we tell them 20 what the situation that we're aware of and how -- how do 21 we deal with it. 22 And people weren't supportive of the 23 process that was being undertaken here because there was 24 no community consultation. No one understood the 25 rationale or what was going to be the outcome of all of
2461 this kind of action. 2 Q: And the -- the community, you're 3 concerned not only with the First Nation but with your 4 neighbours and the wider community in this area? 5 A: Well, I think, you know, we were 6 beginning to be, I guess, my comments targeted all -- 7 painted with the same brush that we're all of the same 8 mode and didn't -- didn't believe in due process and just 9 we're going to start to do things. 10 And -- and people had concerns. I had 11 calls from, I guess, people surrounding the area, 12 basically in the office, and our community members 13 stating they didn't like to see what was going on 14 happening there. 15 Q: And then Mr. Humberstone in his e- 16 mail to Mr. Baldwin indicates in the third paragraph 17 that: 18 "He reaffirmed the Ministry's position 19 regarding recognition of the elected 20 Chief and Council as the body that we 21 do business with on a day-to-day basis. 22 Tom seemed to be pleased with that and 23 thanked me for the vote of confidence. 24 I explained that, that said, given the 25 fact that Maynard and his group have
2471 served us with an official document 2 (even though it probably means nothing) 3 and are occupying a provincial park 4 without our blessing, we must still 5 talk to him and negotiate the terms of 6 this occupation. Tom recognized that 7 and understood our position." 8 Is that an accurate reflection, as you 9 recall it, of -- of that point of the May 26th meeting? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And he then goes on, in the next 12 paragraph, to indicate that: 13 "I advised Tom that our legal services 14 folks are looking into the validity of 15 Maynard's Bailiff Order and would be 16 coming up with a decision in that 17 respect very shortly." 18 And he goes on to say that you had asked 19 that a copy of the letter be provided to you. Is that -- 20 is that an accurate -- could you just read that 21 paragraph, Chief Bressette, and -- 22 A: Which one? The whole paragraph? 23 Q: The third -- the fourth paragraph, 24 yes. 25 A: It says --
2481 Q: No, just read it to yourself. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: We can speed this up a bit because 4 then, if you agree with it... 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And then the last paragraph on the 10 first page, there was a discussion about a co-management 11 agreement for Ipperwash Provincial Park. As I understand 12 it from this letter, Mr. Maynard T. George had suggested 13 a co-management agreement. 14 But there was also set apart from that, 15 the Chief -- the Band council was discussing a co- 16 management agreement as well with the Ministry of Natural 17 Resources, is that correct? 18 A: Yeah. Yes, Mr. Kobayashi, basically, 19 was the one who initiated that dialogue and suggested 20 maybe, you know, we could try and resolve things through 21 recognition of the cultural inhabitants of the area and 22 basically engage our young people in -- in doing things 23 in the Park such as drumming, possibly selling craft work 24 and making crafts there to demonstrate some of the 25 history and -- and the cultural events that took place
2491 there. 2 Q: And that was -- that was separate and 3 apart from the proposal of Maynard T.? 4 A: Yes, it -- it looks to me like 5 Maynard may have heard what we were discussing and tried 6 to mimic the same process and follow the same procedures. 7 And that -- he's great at doing that, I mean -- 8 Q: So, some of the things that -- that's 9 referred to in the third -- the last paragraph -- the 10 cultural aspects, the drumming, etcetera, were things 11 that you and the Band council were already in discussion 12 with Mr. Kobayashi about? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And perhaps, Commissioner, we could 15 mark this the next exhibit, it's Exhibit 237. 16 THE REGISTRAR: P-237, Your Honour. 17 18 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-237: Document No. 1007612 E-mail 19 to Ron Baldwin from Terry 20 Humberstone, MNR, Native 21 Liaison Specialist Re: 22 Meeting - Tom Bressette. 23 Humberstone May 26th, May 24 27/93 09:47 A.M. 25
2501 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 2 Q: And then if I could take you to the 3 top of the next page, I concluded by asking Tom and 4 Elisabeth for any suggestions regarding the management of 5 this issue. They both felt that Maynard should be told 6 that his activity is illegal and that if he doesn't 7 vacate the Park, trespass charges will be laid. If that 8 fails, get the OPP and remove them. 9 Does that accurately reflect the 10 discussion you had with Mr. Humberstone? 11 A: Well, you -- I -- I guess so. It -- 12 Q: It's a long time ago. 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: I -- I'm asking you the question. 15 This is what he wrote down. 16 A: Yeah. 17 Q: Can you -- does it -- 18 A: I -- I told him basically, I felt, 19 you know, that trespass charges should be laid against 20 him and leave it up to the appropriate authorities. I -- 21 I wasn't the one, I had no jurisdiction there. 22 Q: And did -- the question -- did you 23 used the words, "Get the OPP and remove them? 24 A: I -- I told him, get the OPP to 25 charge him. That's what I told him.
2511 Q: Okay. So, you didn't use those words 2 that -- that he's attributed to you in this particular e- 3 mail? 4 A: I don't think I would have basically 5 said that. I mean, I would assume if he was charged, he 6 would leave. That's the way I would look at it. 7 Q: And then he -- in the next paragraph 8 he reports: 9 "I followed this by asking if we 10 ordered Maynard to vacate, would it be 11 possible that violence would result. 12 Tom responded by saying that he didn't 13 sink so -- didn't think so, but that 14 anything is possible. 15 He did state, following a further 16 question by me, that, quote 17 "peacekeepers", close quote, were in 18 the are from Moraviantown and Oneida 19 and, quote, "other places", close 20 quote. 21 The presence, however, was in relation 22 to Camp Ipperwash and not Ipperwash 23 Provincial Park was my interpretation." 24 Do you recall having a discussion with him 25 about peacekeepers from Moraviantown and Oneida?
2521 A: Well, I knew there were other people 2 in the area. It was brought to my attention by the Band 3 members and I did advise him that's what was conveyed to 4 me. 5 Q: Pardon me? 6 A: I told him that was conveyed to me. 7 Q: Conveyed to you. Then, in the last 8 paragraph on page 2, finally: 9 "Tom told me that there had been a big 10 meeting with the DND the day prior, May 11 25th, that he and his people were not 12 happy with the response they had 13 received from DND. He feels that the 14 DND is dragging its feet on this issue 15 and is not being honest with them. 16 As such, Tom states that he is 17 reluctantly switching his -- allegiance 18 and may recommend to his people that 19 they also move into Camp Ipperwash en 20 masse. Apparently, he had many of his 21 First Nation members tell him that they 22 were going to pitch their tents. Tom 23 is between a rock and a hard place on 24 this one. He'll be left out in the 25 cold if his people start to back
2531 Maynard George's involvement at Camp 2 Ipperwash. Tom would rather settle it 3 through the negotiation process 4 instead, but is becoming frustrated at 5 the lack of progress with the DND." 6 Did you talk -- do you recall talking to 7 Mr. Humberstone about the lack of progress with the 8 Department of National Defence? 9 A: Oh, I did, but he's using his own 10 words. I have no allegiance to DND. We were basically 11 at a point where DND was giving us a hard time in the 12 process and we did inform the membership that they had 13 dealt with another First Nation in Alberta quite 14 differently. 15 We wanted the same type of agreement that 16 they had. They, in turn, were telling us we couldn't 17 have this same agreement whereby we would have an 18 environmental expert on site, and unexploded ordinance 19 personnel. And these -- these statements that he makes 20 is -- is his own words. 21 I think I just told him, I'm getting quite 22 frustrated that the government doesn't seem to be in good 23 faith negotiations. And, you know, maybe I should vacate 24 the position to try and negotiate and basically do that, 25 was basically the generalized comment that -- that I
2541 made. 2 But I mean, this guy wrote down basically 3 what he thought and I just told him, we are in a 4 negotiations until I'm told to change that. I -- we're 5 stuck on that process and that was a mandate that was 6 given to me. 7 Q: And -- 8 A: -- so the community basically made 9 the decision, yes, we'll continue working with the 10 government and that's the course we followed. 11 Q: And in the period of May and June 12 1993, did you go down and visit the Army Camp after the 13 occupation of the ranges by members of your First Nation? 14 A: Yes, I did. 15 Q: And when did you go down there, Chief 16 Bressette? 17 A: I went down there after, I guess, the 18 whole occupation started and I tried to talk to some of 19 the folks. But they just told me, because I wouldn't 20 support their position, that they didn't want me around 21 there and I guess that was the end of that. 22 Q: And did you tell them that the -- 23 your concern was that the occupation could interfere with 24 the negotiations? 25 A: Yes.
2551 Q: And that was your concern? 2 A: Well, it was. The Minister, 3 basically, advised me if there was occupations, it was 4 going to hamper things. The government couldn't 5 negotiate with us under those circumstances. 6 Q: And he put that in writing a little 7 later and we'll come to that, but was that a concern that 8 you had in -- when was it that you went down to the Army 9 Camp? 10 A: I'm not clear on the dates. I don't 11 keep a journal. I -- it's -- 12 Q: It was some time after the occupation 13 in 1993? 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: And were you only at the Army Camp 16 the one time between May 6th, 1993 and July -- September 17 7th, 1995? 18 A: No, I think we went down and there 19 delivered a letter. 20 Q: Okay, other than the -- delivering 21 the letter, which we'll come to, did you ever go onto the 22 -- prior -- between 1993 when you went the one time, and 23 after you actually went on the Army Camp after Dudley 24 George's death, did you visit the Army Camp at all? 25 A: I --right after the death, yes, there
2561 was a large meeting hall -- 2 Q: But -- 3 A: -- down there. 4 Q: But -- but -- but before -- 5 A: But before, I'm not clear. 6 Q: Okay, now there was a suggestion that 7 you had some correspondence with officials in the 8 government with respect to social assistance; is that 9 correct? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And as a matter of fact, at Tab 10 of 12 the book that's in front of you, there is a letter and 13 it's Inquiry Document 1002054 and this is a document -- 14 letter written by you? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And perhaps we could mark that the 17 next exhibit. It'll be 238. 18 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, P-238, your Honour. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-238: Document No. 1002054 Letter 21 to Hon. Bob Rae, Premier of 22 Ontario from Chief Thomas 23 Bressette Re: General 24 Welfare Assistance, June 25 09/93
2571 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 2 Q: And this is a letter that you wrote 3 to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the letter relates to the 6 occupation and the general welfare assistance? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you indicate, in the second 9 paragraph: 10 "My problem concerns the issuing of 11 general welfare assistance to the 12 people who are occupying the Camp. 13 Many of these people have homes in our 14 community. We continue to provide a 15 service to all Band members. The 16 Ministry --" 17 In the third paragraph: 18 "The Ministry of Community and Social 19 Services through the Windsor office has 20 stated that they will issue general 21 welfare assistance to those people who 22 are occupying Camp Ipperwash. We 23 understand that this directive comes 24 from your Ministry -- Minister of 25 Community and Social Services."
2581 Paragraph -- next paragraph: 2 "I believe your government has a 3 commitment to the Chippewa of Kettle 4 and Stony Point for the return of the 5 lands. We appreciate your support and 6 are encouraging you to become involved 7 in this welfare concern. Our point is 8 that the occupation of Camp Ipperwash 9 has not been sanctioned by the elected 10 Chief and Council. The people who are 11 occupying Camp Ipperwash are now 12 suggesting, quote, "Confrontation 13 methods," gravely concerns me that 14 things might get out of hand. If your 15 government continues to provide 16 services which already exist at the 17 Band level, you will only perpetuate 18 the internal dispute that we are trying 19 to solve at the present. As well, I am 20 concerned that if people are satisfied 21 that the Province will provide a 22 service to them during this -- 23 occupation, they will only be 24 encouraged to stay longer. The threats 25 of violence heard over the local radio
2591 stations this morning are not being 2 taken lightly in our community. 3 As well, the Department of National 4 Defence has indicated that they will 5 officially negotiate with the Chippewa 6 of Kettle and Stony Point towards a 7 lasting solution on the land 8 grievances. 9 We are satisfied that this issue is at 10 the forefront of the government agenda. 11 In relation to working towards a 12 solution, officials from the Department 13 of National Defence will be in our 14 community today and tomorrow to meet 15 with Band members. 16 We are asking you to intervene with 17 officials from the Ministry of 18 Community and Social Services and 19 enlighten them to what is really 20 happening in this community. We 21 encourage you to stop the intervention 22 by your officials. I will reiterate 23 again that we continue to provide 24 equitable unbiased service to all Band 25 members of the Chippewa of Kettle and
2601 Stony Point." 2 And, firstly, have I read that correctly? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And what was the purpose of this 5 letter, Chief Bressette? 6 A: Well, we wanted to continue, I guess, 7 to be delivering the services to our Band members and 8 didn't feel that the -- the Province should be, I guess, 9 making direction to us. And they -- they had given us 10 direction to stop providing assistance and we objected, 11 of course. Our Welfare Administrator brought this to my 12 concern and I followed it up with a letter to Mr. Rae 13 suggesting that we be allowed to continue to issue that 14 assistance. 15 And I guess it went all the way up through 16 the channels and to Federal and Provincial Governments, 17 and they came back with the ruling that it was out of our 18 jurisdiction because it was a Federal Military 19 reservation and that we were supposed to be dealing under 20 a 1965 Indian welfare agreement with the lands on the 21 reserve and lands reserved for Indians. 22 So, I mean, that was the basic response 23 that we received. And I know it generated quite some 24 unhealthy feelings. People felt we -- we withdrew the 25 service but in fact it was the government who said if we
2611 continued to provide that service they would -- they 2 wouldn't reimburse us for -- for the finances that we put 3 out in -- in providing this service. 4 Q: So, the Kettle and Stony Point First 5 Nation was providing welfare assistance to people who 6 needed it who lived on the Army Camp. 7 And you had been told that you should stop 8 doing that, and that was the purpose of your letter -- 9 which we've marked Exhibit 238? 10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, sir. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 13 Q: To Mr. Rae? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And, in fact, you did get a letter 16 from Department of -- Indian and Northern Affairs that 17 appears at Tab 69 of the book in front of you. And this 18 is a letter, it's Inquiry Document 1004218, and it's to 19 Ms. Elizabeth Thunder, dated April 15, 1996. And this is 20 from the -- excuse me, I've skipped ahead too far. 21 If I could take you to Tab 20, this is a 22 letter of June 13th, 1994 from -- pardon me? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
2621 Q: 1994, it's a letter -- exhibit -- 2 Inquiry Document 2000697 from Mr. Steve O'Brien, Indian 3 and Northern Affairs, Canada, to Mr. Kirk, Social 4 Assistance Programs Branch in the government of Ontario. 5 And do you -- did you receive a copy of 6 this letter at any time? 7 A: I believe I did and I was basically 8 handed to me and -- in the office in Toronto and it was 9 basically Steve O'Brien who gave me the letter and said 10 this is the official position. 11 Q: And in this letter, in effect, they 12 say, it says: 13 "Thank you for your letter of April 14 18th, 1994 to Maria Ansoar along with 15 the attached documentation from Lambton 16 County pertaining to their request for 17 the continuation of cost sharing under 18 the 1965 Canada-Ontario Indian Welfare 19 agreement for eligible status Indians 20 currently residing at Camp Ipperwash. 21 Your letter was forwarded to my 22 attention for a response. 23 As you may be aware, there have been 24 several discussions between Brenda 25 Relf, Don Hamelin, Maria Ansoar and
2631 myself regarding delivery options, 2 specifically the continuation of 3 Lambton County delivering social 4 assistance to those eligible status 5 Indian persons in need at Camp 6 Ipperwash or alternatively them 7 receiving service from the Kettle and 8 Stony Point First Nation. 9 In the spirit of government to 10 government relationships, and the fact 11 that Camp Ipperwash is in the process 12 of being returned to the Kettle and 13 Stony Point First Nation, I met with 14 Chief Tom Bressette on May 27, 1994. 15 Chief Bressette expressed the 16 willingness for the Kettle and Stony 17 Point First Nation to assume 18 responsibility for the provision of 19 social assistance to those eligible 20 status Indians residing at the Camp 21 Ipperwash base. 22 Have communicated Chief Tom Bressette's 23 wishes to Don Hamelin and Brenda Relf. 24 The Department fully respects Kettle 25 and Stony Point's wishes and it's our
2641 preference that they be administering 2 body at the earliest possible date." 3 And then in the third paragraph on the 4 next page: 5 "It is our understanding in the above- 6 noted scenario Lambton County would 7 like to remain the delivering body 8 until such time as Camp Ipperwash is 9 officially returned to the Kettle and 10 Stony Point First Nation community. 11 At that time, it is understood Kettle 12 and Stony Point First Nation will then 13 assume full responsibility for GWA 14 [general welfare agreement] program 15 delivery." 16 So the long and the short of it, was 17 because Camp Ipperwash still remained as a military base, 18 the request by Kettle and Stony Point to provide for its 19 people living there was denied? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And that was also re-affirmed in the 22 letter that I was going to take you to, and I take you to 23 now on Tab 69. It's a letter to Ms. Thunder of April 15, 24 1996, Inquiry document 1004218 and this is the letter 25 from the provincial government. Ms. Cunningham of the
2651 Windsor area office and I note that a copy was sent to 2 you, as Chief, on the second page. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And the position -- again they refer: 5 "It has come to our attention that 6 Chief Thomas Bressette is requesting 7 that your Band office administer 8 general welfare assistance to eligible 9 Band members who are currently residing 10 at camp Ipperwash. 11 Please be advised that as long as the 12 land known as Camp Ipperwash remains in 13 the hands of the federal government, it 14 is the municipality's obligation to 15 deliver such social assistance to 16 persons living there. Once the land is 17 transferred, the issue of 18 responsibility for delivering of social 19 assistance will be re-opened. 20 In the meantime, persons residing on 21 this land are entitled to have their 22 eligibility entitlement for social 23 assistance determined by the County of 24 Lambton in accordance with the GWA 25 legislation and then ask for
2661 questions." 2 So that in 1996, again, the -- the 3 Provincial Government takes the position that as long as 4 Camp Ipperwash remains in federal lands, then it -- it -- 5 the Provincial Government has a responsibility and the 6 Band, even though it wished to do so, could not deliver 7 social assistance to the persons at Camp Ipperwash? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And I take it that one (1) of the 10 issues with respect to social assistance being delivered 11 through Lambton County was that people had to travel, I 12 believe to Wyoming, to obtain social assistance? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And rather than obtain social 15 assistance from Kettle Point, which is about two (2) 16 kilometres away, they had to travel the long way to 17 Wyoming to obtain it? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And was that a concern of you, as 20 Chief and the Band council? 21 A: Yes, it was discussed quite openly 22 that it was just creating another financial burden on -- 23 on people and we -- we -- we shouldn't be hampered by 24 delivering this service, so, I mean, we wrote the 25 letters.
2671 That letter is also cc'd to our welfare 2 administrator and -- who initially brought this concern 3 up because it was raised by a couple of people that he 4 was issuing assistance to and he told them he couldn't do 5 it no longer and they basically, I think, got to feeling 6 that it was the Band Council who made that decision when, 7 in fact, it was officials from -- from the provincial 8 Ministry who made that -- that decision. 9 Q: Okay. And if I could go back for a 10 moment to -- well, even today, I take it that the -- the 11 position remains the same until the land is returned. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: It's social assistance delivered 14 through -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Now, there was another issue that you 17 were successful on, it's with respect to income tax? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: As I understand it, the members of 20 your First Nation who worked and lived at Kettle and -- 21 at the -- the Army Camp on the Stoney Point lands were 22 initially treated by Revenue Canada as not living on 23 reserve lands and they therefore had to pay income tax? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And the Band -- the Band Council
2681 fought that? 2 A: Well, we -- we brought that up in -- 3 in the course of negotiations and -- and repeatedly 4 requested that they consider the fact that that was an 5 Indian reserve recognized under a treaty that was 6 negotiated in 1827 and that the treaty rights were being 7 violated by the government. 8 Our position remained the same that we 9 felt that that was an Indian reserve, it still is an 10 Indian reserve. The government position is no, and they 11 went to, I guess, the negotiations with the -- the 12 Revenue people in Ottawa as well as Ontario. 13 This issue was resolved outside by -- I 14 forget what it was called -- there was an Order in 15 Council issued anyway, and that Order in Council 16 basically gave an exemption for the collection of income 17 tax and taxes paid to both the Federal and Provincial 18 Governments and I think the -- the order was agreed to by 19 Ontario. 20 As such, many people quite recently 21 received a lot of money that they did pay into the tax 22 systems while they were working there and those benefits, 23 I guess only those individuals would know what they got 24 back, but we -- we -- we've done everything we could and 25 we continue to do so to try and ensure our members'
2691 rights are protected. 2 Q: And -- thank you. Before we go on, 3 Commissioner, I should have marked the letter of June 4 13th, 1994 as the next exhibit, it would be Exhibit 240. 5 THE REGISTRAR: P-239. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 239? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 239. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-239: Document No. 2000697 June 10 13/94 to Allan Kirk, Manager, 11 Program Development and 12 Support, Social Assistance 13 Programs Branch, Social 14 Assistance & Employment 15 Opportunities Division from 16 Steve O'Brien, Social Services 17 Advisor, Intergovernmental 18 Relations, Southern District, 19 Indian and Northern Affairs, 20 Canada, Re: Social assistance 21 delivery at Camp Ipperwash. 22 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And that's Inquiry 24 Document 2000697. And then the letter at Tab 69 to Ms. 25 Thunder, dated April 15, 1996, Inquiry Document 1004218
2701 should be Exhibit 240? 2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, P-240, Your Honour. 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-240: Document No. 1004218, April 5 15/'96 Letter to Elizabeth 6 Thunder, band administrator, 7 Chippawas of Kettle and Stony 8 Point from Shari Cunningham, 9 area manager, Windsor area 10 office regarding general 11 welfare assistance. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 14 Q: And then could I take you to Tab 13 of 15 the book of documents in front of you. And this is a copy 16 of a -- of a letter addressed to you from Ron Baldwin, 17 District Manager, Aylmer District, dated June 14, 1993. 18 Did you receive a copy of this letter, 19 Chief Bressette? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What tab is 21 that at, Mr. Millar? 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Tab 13, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 13? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And perhaps we'll mark
2711 that, before I forget, as the next exhibit, Exhibit 241. 2 THE REGISTRAR: 241, Your Honour. 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-241 Document No. 1011203 June 5 14/93 Letter to Chief Tom 6 Bressette from Ron G. Baldwin, 7 District Manager, Alymer 8 District Re: Management of 9 Ipperwash Provincial Park 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 12 Q: And this is a letter that responds to 13 you with respect to the issue of the provincial park; is 14 that correct? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And the response of the provincial 19 government, at least through Mr. Baldwin, is set out in 20 the second paragraph of the letter, where he says: 21 "In response to the written material 22 directed to him by Mr. Maynard George, 23 the Minister of Natural Resources had 24 advised Mr. Maynard George that Ontario 25 believes it is in lawful possession of
2721 the lands that are designated as 2 provincial -- Ipperwash Provincial 3 Park." 4 And that was the position of the government 5 as expressed to you? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And on the top of page 2, Mr. Baldwin 8 indicates that: 9 "I want to confirm that the Ministry of 10 Natural Resources will address matters 11 of information sharing and economic 12 opportunity pertinent to aboriginal 13 people's interest respecting Ipperwash 14 Provincial Park with you as Chief and 15 Council for the Kettle and Stony Point 16 First Nation. As you will recall, we 17 have in the past had a number of 18 informal meetings of this type. I look 19 forward to continuing our contacts with 20 you as we continue to explore matters of 21 mutual interest and benefit regarding 22 the management of Ipperwash Provincial 23 Park." 24 And what did you take that to -- to refer 25 to, the discussions about co-management --
2731 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- cultural issues and most 3 importantly, employment for your young people? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Then, if we could turn to the summer - 6 - later in the summer of 1993, I understand that you met 7 with Mr. Siddon, the Minister of National Defence, in 8 early August 1993? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And the purpose of that meeting was to 11 discuss the return of, again, the negotiations involving 12 the return of the Camp Ipperwash lands? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And if I could -- could we put before 15 the Witness, exhibit P-190 and for the benefit of my 16 Friends, it's Inquiry Document 900034. It also has other 17 numbers, but it was 900034 that was marked P-190. Mr. 18 Reg -- 19 Now, there should be two (2) letters there 20 as part of P-190, Chief Bressette, a letter August 27th, 21 1993 and attached to it, a letter dated August 19th, 1993. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Addressed to you? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And, if we could start first with the
2741 letter addressed to you, that's the second letter that's 2 part of Exhibit P-190, the letter August 19th, 1993 and it 3 refers to a meeting that you held with the Minister in 4 Ottawa with respect to a solution to the controversy 5 surrounding Camp Ipperwash. 6 Can you tell us what happened at the 7 meeting? Give us a brief description as to the meeting 8 you had with the Minister in August of 1993? 9 A: Well, we -- we're always at meet -- 10 trying to meet with Ministers and the Minister of Indian 11 Affairs basically agreed that he would convey our concerns 12 off to the -- the Minister of National Defence. 13 We did have a -- an opportunity to meet 14 with Tom Siddon and I -- I think what he was talking about 15 was the fact that we did explain to him the -- the -- the 16 history of -- of the land and -- and basically went 17 through a whole scenario of telling him the treaty was set 18 aside and reserved for certain purposes, the -- the 19 sections of land that were identified by the Chiefs that 20 were present at that meeting. 21 As well, it went into detail about what the 22 Royal Proclamation stated that we should not be any -- any 23 way approached by anyone to sell our lands or those lands 24 were our -- for our posterity and use and we were not to 25 be disturbed or molested in the use of our lands.
2751 And as such the -- we -- we told him we 2 felt that the -- the War Measures Act didn't apply to this 3 land because it was not part of Canada. It was never 4 surrendered to Canada, it was unceded land that was set 5 aside for the use and benefit of members of the Chippewa 6 nation and it's taking words right out of our treaty. 7 We went through that whole process with him 8 and basically told him, you know, our people wanted that 9 land returned. We explained all the frustration that we 10 encountered previously trying to get in the catering 11 contracts and -- and the -- the -- the attempts to get 12 contracted employment there. 13 That was all conveyed to him and we told 14 him we wanted, you know, the government to release that 15 land, that our -- our view and the people who worked there 16 was, it was nothing more than a -- a luxury retirement 17 camp for a lot of the former Military officers and I think 18 I referred him back to a document -- documentary that was 19 put on the Fifth Estate that former Chief Yvonne Bressette 20 had put together and it was dated "A Hell of a Deal" that 21 basically went to sort of talk about these Military 22 personnel being given a camp site. 23 The wood and everything was provided by the 24 people working there who primarily were our people. They 25 had a little camp set up and they were paying a dollar
2761 ($1.00) a day for staying there. 2 On the other side of the line, there was 3 the Provincial Park where people were paying fifteen 4 dollars ($15.00) a day or somewhere in that neighbourhood 5 for camping and the Military's on the other side saying, 6 Well, you get this -- you get this land for a dollar 7 ($l.00) a day. What do you think about that? And then 8 the guy they interviewed said, Well, it's a hell of a 9 deal, so that's what the documentary was entitled and it 10 was shown on -- in Canada from coast to coast on the Fifth 11 Estate. 12 We went into all of those things, told the 13 Minister that it appeared to us that this was nothing more 14 than the Cadillac of cadet camps and we never seen no real 15 Military usage of the property. And -- and we -- we made 16 indentures to stop everyone from using that land that we'd 17 had an influence with. And he, in turn, basically came 18 back with a response, I'm sorry, but we still need the 19 land. 20 Q: And it was your understanding in 1993 21 that the Military was basically using this land as a cadet 22 camp? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And the land that I think that you 25 referred to that Chief Bonni Bressette when she was Chief,
2771 and the -- the -- the program on the television was 2 called, "The Marriage Patch." Do you recall that? We've 3 seen that video here at the Inquiry. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And one (1) success -- one (1) result 6 of that video was that marriage patch was closed down -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- back in the -- at the end of -- in 9 the late '80s. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And so, Mr. Siddon responded in this 12 letter and I take it at the meeting as well with the same 13 response that the Military needs it and -- for Military 14 use and as I note in the third paragraph: 15 "As I underlined at our meeting, Camp 16 Ipperwash is essential to the Canadian 17 Forces training programs in the southern 18 Ontario area. The Camp is still needed 19 for Military purposes and will continue 20 to be needed into the foreseeable 21 future. 22 Since you indicated that some of the 23 Band members including some elders do 24 not fully understand why the CF cannot 25 vacate Camp Ipperwash and how the
2781 training conducted there fits into the 2 overall government plan, I've asked 3 General Vernon to contact you to offer 4 an information session for your 5 members." 6 Did such an information session ever take 7 place? 8 A: No, I don't believe that ever 9 happened. 10 Q: And then he goes on to say in the last 11 paragraph on that page: 12 "After meeting with you, I'm convinced 13 that we can find a solution that 14 addresses both the concerns of the Band 15 and the Military requirement. 16 You and your Band council have been open 17 and very constructive over the past 18 year, in trying to help us better 19 understand your concerns. 20 Now, is the time to begin formal 21 negotiations and I believe that goodwill 22 exists between the Government of Canada 23 and the Kettle and Stony Point Band to 24 agree on the path ahead. However, I 25 must re-emphasize we cannot effectively
2791 conclude negotiations until the current 2 trespass at Camp Ipperwash ends." 3 And I see that that was underlined in the 4 letter. Was it underlined in the letter when you received 5 it? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And had that been -- did Mr. Siddon 8 tell you that at the meeting as well, that so long as the 9 Camp Ipperwash was occupied by members of your First 10 Nation, they wouldn't conclude the negotiations? 11 A: Yes, he basically went on to state 12 that any kind of occupation would hamper any negotiations 13 with the government. 14 Q: And that was a concern that you had? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And then, he suggests on page 2 in the 17 second paragraph: 18 "One (1) element of your proposal might 19 be a suggestion which was raised during 20 our meeting, designation of a small 21 parcel of land which will allow the 22 Band, without prejudice to Canadian 23 Forces continuing need for the entire 24 Camp for Military purposes and without 25 prejudice to the final settlement to
2801 have symbolic presence during 2 negotiations. 3 I've instructed my officials to discuss 4 with you -- this with you directly. The 5 proposed site would be a two hundred 6 (200) metre by two hundred (200) metre 7 parcel in the extreme southeast corner 8 of Camp Ipperwash. 9 I must underline that this would be a 10 short-term symbolic measure. There 11 would be only temporary structures 12 erected, only small numbers could -- 13 would gather on the site at any one (1) 14 time and the demonstrators would agree 15 to leave all of their sites and stay off 16 all other areas of the Camp. 17 This element is an indication of my wish 18 to see negotiations begin in the 19 atmosphere of cooperation and goodwill. 20 However, I encourage you to come forward 21 with any other measures which you 22 believe would resolve this issue." 23 And was there any resolution of the two 24 hundred (200) by two hundred (200) metre parcel as a 25 symbolic --
2811 A: No. 2 Q: -- part of the land to be occupied by 3 members of your Band? 4 A: I guess he made that statement of two 5 hundred (200) metres. What led -- what led up to that 6 discussion was the former Chief, my father-in-law, Charles 7 Shawkence had -- had met with John Hill and they had kind 8 of parcelled up the property, and I told him that that was 9 a decision that was made earlier, that there would be a 10 section cleared off, the people could move on there. 11 They would move to another and slowly 12 eliminate that -- that base. That's what I had -- I had 13 told Minister Siddon was already previously agreed to by 14 property manager, and that -- that was never implemented. 15 Q: So, he -- 16 A: He was the one that based the two 17 hundred (200) by two (2) metre section as a symbolic 18 gesture up in the southeast corner and said, They can stay 19 there but there can't be a large build-up happening and we 20 can negotiate under those terms. 21 Because I had told him, quite frankly, the 22 people who were on the property at time wouldn't leave 23 because they didn't trust them because, you know, any 24 other time we had agreements the government seemed to fail 25 or -- or their bureaucrats are the ones that sort of
2821 sidelined everything. And -- and it froze the 2 negotiations to a point where frustrations grew and there 3 was no movement at all on them. 4 So, that was all conveyed to him and that 5 was his comeback to, may -- might I suggest, this proposal 6 that he should make to us. 7 Q: And, in effect, the proposal was a 8 variation of what you had thought had been already agreed 9 upon, that -- that by -- between your father-in-law when 10 he was Chief and -- and Mr. Hill, that -- that a small 11 portion of the -- the Camp would be returned and then 12 incrementally parts would be cleaned and then returned to 13 the Band over a period of time? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And that never happened? 16 A: No. 17 Q: And this was simply another version of 18 that? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And when you say that the people at 21 the Army Camp didn't trust someone, you're referring, I 22 take it, to didn't trust the Government of Canada? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And I note that you, there's Exhibit 25 P-190 contains your letter dated August 27th, 1993 to Mr.
2831 Carl George. I take it you sent the letter from Mr. 2 Siddon to Mr. George? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And in the -- why did you send it to 5 Mr Carl George? 6 A: Well, he was -- I guess, made an 7 approach to me saying, We've got to find a way to sort of 8 resolve this, this is going nowhere, we're bumping heads 9 on this issue. And he wanted to find a way that we could 10 address the concerns that were expressed by people who had 11 told him their concerns. 12 And I think we -- we did have a general 13 meeting and we presented a document that we put principles 14 for negotiating the return out to the general community at 15 large. 16 Q: And that, I think, that's a little 17 later? 18 A: Well, I mean, that's what we were 19 working up to -- 20 Q: Oh, okay. 21 A: -- when we started this talk. And 22 Carl had approached me and he was the spokesperson at the 23 time who came forward to me and said, We've got to find a 24 way to deal with this. So, I -- I basically told him I 25 would let him know what was going on and -- and I would
2841 pass on this information to others so it didn't look like 2 Carl and I were sort of doing something improper, that it 3 was sent on to -- I think they had Ernie Hobbs working on 4 this. 5 And that came about as a result of a 6 meeting that we had at the Chiefs of Ontario office, I 7 believe, where Ernie Hobbs is brought on the scene by 8 Regional Chief Gord Peters at the time to say, Look maybe 9 Ernie can mediate and bring you guys back together. So, 10 that's how Ernie Hobbs got involved. 11 Q: We'll come back to Ernie Hobbs 12 probably tomorrow morning. But they -- what you were 13 doing, I take it, with this letter and -- and during the 14 course of the summer of 19 -- at this period of time in 15 1993 was trying to work with Mr. George and the people 16 that he represented to try to solve the problems between 17 the two (2) groups? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: With the ultimate goal to get us back 20 as quickly as possible to the Army Camp? 21 A: Yeah. It -- basically I was following 22 up with this end -- the occupation had to come to an end 23 the Minister had raised. And I wanted to let Carl know 24 that it was underlined and basically concerned that as 25 long as the occupation was there, they'd be --be no
2851 negotiations. 2 So, I just let him know at our meetings, 3 externally, I told him I'd keep him updated on any 4 discussions I had with the government. 5 Q: And then on Page 2 of that letter, you 6 refer to a general Band meeting on August 31st, 1993. I 7 take it that's the meeting of August 31, 1993, there was 8 going to be a document discussed concerning the working 9 relationship document. 10 Can you tell us what the working 11 relationship document was? 12 A: Oh, it's in, I guess, this black book. 13 Q: Is that the principles of negotiation? 14 A: Yes, that's the one that was passed 15 out to the Band members, and I told them that's what that 16 was formed the basis, is a working document, how we would 17 try and bring your people back together to deal with this, 18 because as long as we were divided and split, we were 19 playing into the government's hands and I think they've 20 used that against us many times and it hampers any 21 meaningful negotiations taking place when there's two (2) 22 different opinions and people taking alternative 23 approaches to it. 24 Q: And if I could take you to Tab 30 for 25 a moment.
2861 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We usually 2 break at 4:30, Mr. Millar. I won't interrupt you in the 3 middle of -- 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: If I could have, 5 perhaps, five (5) minutes? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 7 that's fine. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can just 10 see Counsel getting edgy. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 13 Q: At Tab 30, Chief Bressette, there's a 14 document on the second page in, it's Inquiry Document 15 3000370. It's statements of principles for negotiating 16 the Stoney Point land claim and this is a document from 17 1995, but is the document that you're referring to -- was 18 -- was being started back in 1993? 19 A: Yes, this is what we were working on 20 with -- with Carl, basically, to outline the points for 21 negotiation. So they were -- everyone would know what we 22 were attempting to do and we were committing ourselves to 23 do. 24 Q: And -- and this document as it stood 25 in 1995 which is part of Exhibit -- Exhibit P-30 was a
2871 document that you were -- worked on over a number of 2 years, with input from Mr. George -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- Carl George and his group? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And if I could take you back to 7 Exhibit P-190, again your letter to Mr. George. The 8 second paragraph: 9 "For your information, I have also sent 10 correspondence to the Minister 11 indicating my wishes to hear from the 12 Department and their position on whether 13 they plan to continue to conduct 14 surveillance by helicopter of either 15 land base. 16 Once a response is received, I will 17 forward a copy of that to you." 18 So had you -- you'd raised with the 19 Minister a concern about the use of helicopters at -- at 20 the Army camp? 21 A: Yeah. 22 Q: And I -- did -- what did you ask the 23 Minister to do? To stop? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And when you say of "either land
2881 base", was there helicopters flying over Kettle Point as 2 well? 3 A: Well, I think basically, there was 4 complaints from generally all our members that they seen 5 helicopters in the area and were -- there was a grave 6 concern, what are they doing, you know. 7 People seen military helicopters flying 8 around, it -- it kind of -- they were flying low, too, 9 over Kettle Point at the time and -- and Stoney Point as 10 well. 11 And I -- I -- my own feeling at that time 12 was they were conducting surveillance operations on -- on 13 -- on the community, seeing what was going on and I start 14 -- I wanted Carl to be aware that those issues were raised 15 to me and I'd be raising them all further on with the 16 government that we didn't want that to continue on. 17 Q: In fact, you refer here that you had 18 raised that issue with the -- 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: And then, in the last paragraph, you 21 indicate, 22 "Finally, I've also asked the Minister 23 Raines (phonetic) for a presentation on 24 the continued use of Camp Ipperwash by 25 the military. We are anxious to hear
2891 what their plans are in the future which 2 justifies their claim that they continue 3 to need these lands for military 4 training. 5 Tentatively, this presentation has been 6 scheduled for the next regular council 7 meeting." 8 Did that presentation take place? 9 A: We had a meeting with a Major, I 10 believe, at that time. I can't remember his name, but he 11 came down and -- very abruptly and very rudely made his 12 presentation, like, you know, I don't care what you say, 13 this is what we're going to be doing and matter of fact, 14 that's the end of that, and he left. 15 Q: So that it wasn't a collaborative or 16 consultive kind of arrangement; it was simply, this is 17 what we're going to do, and left? 18 A: Oh, I remember I had to calm down a 19 couple of my councillors, 'cause they were shouting at the 20 man and I had to tell them to please be quiet and they 21 wouldn't and I wound up telling them, shut up, because 22 we've not getting anywhere yelling and we wanted to convey 23 our message back to him but that's the kind of dialogue 24 that occurred at that meeting where he attended. 25 Q: Okay. Perhaps, Commissioner, I just
2901 wanted to finish with that letter. We could -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The skaters 3 are getting a little noisy behind me here. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I hear that. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a little 6 distracting. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: So -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- we'll continue 10 tomorrow morning, Chief Bressette, at nine o'clock. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Nine o'clock 12 tomorrow morning? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll adjourn 15 now until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. Thank you. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Thank you, sir. 17 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 18 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday March the 2nd, at 9:00 19 a.m. 20 21 (WITNESS RETIRES) 22 23 --- Upon adjourning at 4:35 p.m. 24 25
2911 2 Certified Correct 3 4 5 6 7 ______________________ 8 Carol Geehan 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25