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


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


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 6 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 7 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 8 Jennifer McAleer ) 9 10 Ian Smith ) Robert Runciman 11 Alice Mrozek ) 12 13 Harvey Stosberg ) (np) Charles Harnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) 15 16 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 17 Mary Jane Moynahan )(np) 18 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 19 Trevor Hinnegan ) (np) 20 21 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) (np) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) 24 25


1 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 ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) (np) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 12 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 13 Julian Roy ) 14 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 15 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 16 17 Al J.C. O'Marra ) (np) Office of the Chief 18 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 19 20 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 21 Matthew Horner ) (np) 22 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 23 24 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Mark Fredrick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 3 Craig Mills ) (np) 4 Megan Mackey ) (np) 5 Erin Tully ) 6 7 David Roebuck ) (np) Debbie Hutton 8 Anna Perschy ) 9 Melissa Panjer ) 10 Adam Goodman ) (np) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 4 5 DAVID MORAN, Resumed 6 Continued Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Donald Worme 7 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 43 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat 69 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Douglas Sulman 76 10 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy 81 11 Cross-Examination by Ms. Leslie Kaufman 119 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Walter Myrka 128 13 Cross-Examination by Ms. Janet Clermont 130 14 Cross-Examination by Mr. Murray Klippenstein 143 15 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jackie Esmonde 228 16 Cross-Examination by Mr. Anthony Ross 271 17 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Horton 290 18 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Roy 344 19 20 Certificate of Transcript 365 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- 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 THE WITNESS: Good Morning. 9 MR. DONALD WORME: Good morning, 10 Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 12 morning. 13 14 DAVID MORAN, Resumed 15 16 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DONALD WORME: 17 Q: Mr. Moran, we left off yesterday 18 having dealt with September the 5th, 1995, I believe. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Just before we do that I -- I ask you 21 to turn to Tab Number 15 in the book of documents in 22 front of you. That's a collection of documents, some 23 twenty (20) fifteen (15) or so pages bearing Inquiry 24 Document 1012311, marked as P-732 in these proceedings. 25 It is a facsimile, or photocopy of a fax


1 to Shelley Spiegel from Jeff Bangs dated September the 2 6th. And you'll note just on the second page in that you 3 are copied on that. Or at least it was sent to you by 4 Mr. Bangs. And it purports to be an update, as it says, 5 of the last two (2) days of events at the Ipperwash 6 Provincial Park. 7 Do you see that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: If you go into the third page, 10 September the 6th, there is briefing notes from Ron 11 Vrancart regarding the same matter. 12 You've have a chance to review those? 13 A: The third. All right, yes. 14 Q: They're all dated September the 6th, 15 as you can see? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And if you go further in, there's a - 18 - a further fax from Jeff Bangs to a number of parties, 19 including yourself. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Which includes a transcript of 22 Minister Hodgson's news conference of the day previous, 23 as well as the OPP news release dated that day as well, 24 that's September the 6th of 1995? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: You've had a chance to review those? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And having looked at those, did you 4 contribute to or comment on those points prior to their 5 being provided to Minister Hodgson? 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: And were you aware of the news 8 conference that occurred on that day? 9 A: I believe it was an impromptu scrum 10 from the Minister. I don't believe that it was actually 11 a news conference. 12 Q: And had you any role in preparing or 13 briefing Minister Hodgson -- 14 A: None whatsoever. 15 Q: -- for that news conference? 16 A: No, sir 17 Q: Let's turn, then, to the 6th of 18 September 1995. I understand that you'd attended a 19 briefing of Minister Harnick by Mr. Taman and Yan Lazor. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Is there anything -- first of all, 22 where did that briefing occur? 23 A: In the Minister's office. 24 Q: And that was located at? 25 A: 720 Bay Street.


1 Q: Okay. In terms of any details of 2 that briefing, do you have any recall today that you 3 could share with us, Mr. Moran. 4 A: That meeting was a -- really a 5 summary of the meeting that we'd had that previous day 6 with the added benefit of the legal review that Counsel 7 had taken after the meeting. 8 So, it was a -- really an opportunity to 9 make sure that the Minister was fairly informed of the 10 facts as we knew them to -- to date and at the same time, 11 make sure that from both a legal perspective and a 12 communications perspective, the Minister was prepared to 13 go out in public. 14 Q: And in terms of the degree of 15 urgency, if I can put it that way, was there any 16 difference between the day previous and this particular 17 briefing on the morning of September the 6th? 18 A: Well, I think that, just in terms of 19 time, I -- I don't know -- we were a little better 20 informed at this point in terms of what was going on. 21 At that time, we were, you know, I -- I 22 went to the meeting really to -- to try and ascertain 23 facts and now we'd had a chance to kind of review the 24 facts as we knew them as -- and then have officials and 25 Counsel kind of discuss where we were in a meas -- matter


1 of sense. 2 I think that earlier there'd been a 3 greater sense of uncertainty and now, we at least, were 4 beginning to see some sort of a picture of what was 5 actually going on. 6 When I say there was an urgency, I -- I 7 say that we -- there was a little more -- we were a 8 little more comfortable, frankly, now that we had some 9 idea of what was happening. 10 Q: And one of the outcomes from the 11 meeting the day previous was the suggestion that an 12 injunction would be sought? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And was that discussed on that 15 morning's briefing? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: The morning of the 6th; what can you 18 tell us about that? 19 A: Oh, we had begun to -- we had -- it's 20 a little generous. We had -- the Counsel had begun to 21 review the -- the facts of the case and begin to prepare 22 the legal argument. 23 This -- I believe this is the -- the 24 meeting in which, you know, the Minister and his senior 25 Counsel, you know, Yan -- well, it hasn't really been


1 mentioned, to much -- my knowledge in the Inquiry, Yan 2 was, in fact, the head of the legal division for ONAS. 3 And he was acting in a superior position 4 because that position was vacant. As you know Julie Jai 5 was acting -- I can't remember the name of the -- what 6 was Julie's position? Can you remember? 7 Q: Perhaps Chairperson? 8 A: No, no, not in terms of the 9 Committee. Well, you know, that which was Yan's proper 10 position. She was the lead counsel -- acting lead 11 counsel -- for ONAS. 12 Which was Yan's actual position. So he 13 was the senior legal counsel in ONAS. So you have the 14 lead counsel for ONAS and the lead counsel for the 15 Ministry of the Attorney General both briefing the 16 Minister at the time. 17 It was at this point, I believe, where 18 they discussed the injunction and whether it was possible 19 to go for an ex parte or just a traditional injunction. 20 Q: And do you know whether there was any 21 recommendation on the nature of that injunction? 22 A: Yes. It was recommended to the 23 Ministry that -- that he approve an ex parte injunction. 24 Q: And who made that recommendation? 25 A: Mr. Taman.


1 Q: Thank you. I take it from there, 2 from that briefing meeting, you did attend the 3 Interministerial Committee Meeting? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. And if I can refer you 6 again to Tab Number 7 which we had marked yesterday as 7 Exhibit P-926. If we go into in the third page of -- of 8 that exhibit those are your notes from that -- 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: -- from September the 6th? And I 11 note that it's not dated but it would appear to indicate 12 that it's dated September. 13 A: Oh, well, just for the Inquiry's 14 point of view the -- the first two (2) pages are the 15 notes from the first meeting, the second two (2) are from 16 the second meeting. 17 Q: All right. And again does reviewing 18 those notations that you made, the two (2) pages of 19 handwritten notes, does that assist you in terms of 20 refreshing your memory of that meeting or... 21 A: Yes. And the most memorable part of 22 the -- the meeting was the conference call with the guys 23 on the ground. 24 Q: And tell us about that, in terms of 25 the conference call from the guys on the ground as you


1 put it. 2 A: The -- the Park Managers, I'm sorry, 3 were conference called in and painted a picture of 4 extreme concern on the ground that -- 5 Q: Can you elaborate on that for us? 6 A: Oh, that's when they -- they told the 7 Committee that they had heard the automatic gunfire and 8 that that situation -- that the situation on the ground 9 had become very tense. 10 Q: Okay. Aside from the automatic 11 gunfire -- 12 A: And -- 13 Q: -- that was reported, what can you 14 recall for us, Mr. Moran? 15 A: Well, that -- that they had had some 16 sort of discussion and that was when there was beginning 17 to have discussion about -- we had actually heard why 18 they were in the Park which we didn't know the day before 19 with the issue of the land claim and there were -- they 20 brought forward that they thought there was a burial 21 ground there. 22 Q: In terms of the discussion about the 23 burial ground what do you recall about that in the -- in 24 the Committee? 25 A: I don't recall that there was a great


1 deal of difference between this one and the previous one 2 where it was stated that the burial ground was not just 3 cause for a land claim. And in -- and in terms of -- of 4 the burial ground that the appropriate steps to be would 5 be to properly preserve the -- the site and provide the - 6 - the Natives with the support to protect their culture. 7 And in terms of the land claim there was - 8 - we had a discussion about what the appropriate process 9 was for the filing of the land claim, that if there -- 10 there was a land claim then this was how it should go. 11 But, to our knowledge there was no either grounds for a 12 claim or none that had been filed with the Province. 13 Q: In terms of the people at this 14 Committee meeting, was it the same people that were there 15 the day previous? 16 A: Well no. When you look at the -- 17 there -- big change in my knowledge with the addition of 18 Scott Hutchinson. And Scott was a counsel from Crown 19 Office Criminal. 20 I don't know who decided to invite him but 21 I guess the -- the point upon reflection of inviting him 22 was to provide some educational background in terms of 23 what they -- the Criminal Law related to in this area. 24 Q: All right. And do you know whether 25 that was a reaction to the queries that were made


1 previously, the day previous? And that is to say you had 2 indicated I believe yesterday that there was some 3 suggestion as to why the police couldn't simply move in 4 and remove the occupiers. 5 A: I don't know whose decision it was so 6 I don't know why that decision was made. 7 Q: Mr. Fox was at that meeting again as 8 he was the day previous? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: Do you recall what information he 11 provided if any? 12 A: I can't remember anything of -- of 13 new substance other than providing a simple update of 14 here's what was happening on the ground. 15 Q: Do you recall whether he provided any 16 response to the information that was coming from those 17 people that were on the ground? 18 A: The -- 19 Q: The reports of automatic gunfire, for 20 example, do you recall whether or not Mr. Fox had any 21 response to that? 22 A: I believe that he said that, you 23 know, that's been unconfirmed and, you know, there was 24 uncertainty whether there was guns. I don't think that 25 had -- while -- from a personal standpoint, I don't think


1 there -- there was a great doubt whether there was any 2 sort of guns in the Park. 3 I think that there may have been some 4 people in that Committee room that did think that there 5 were guns in there but it wasn't -- and certainly in my 6 mind, there wasn't any sort of an armed resurrection 7 (sic) or anything like that. 8 Q: Do you know whether or not Mr. Fox 9 had, in terms of the information that he was providing or 10 the suggestions that he was making in response to 11 information that was coming to the committee, do you know 12 whether or not he had any direct contact with officers at 13 the frontline as it were? 14 A: It's my understanding that he was -- 15 the frontline or the -- I think they had like a command 16 unit or something like that that was -- 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: -- you know, was separate from the 19 officers actually on the -- and it was my understanding 20 that they had some discussions with him. 21 Q: Did you have any reaction to that, 22 that Mr. Fox would have that kind of contact? 23 A: Oh not in terms of the 24 appropriateness. It was my understanding there was just 25 an informational contact. The -- and there did seem to


1 be some sort of a disagreement between the OPP and the 2 police officers about how tense the situation was on the 3 ground. 4 Q: Can you -- can you elaborate on that 5 point at all for us? 6 A: Well, I think that -- that the police 7 were demonstrating an experience with tense situations 8 whereas the actual manager of the Park was not quite as 9 use to some sort of a situation like this. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: During the course of that -- of the 14 meeting on this particular day, you had indicated on the 15 day previous there were questions asked by some of the 16 political staffers which you were one, did those 17 enquiries occur on -- on the meeting of the 6th to your 18 recollection? 19 A: I don't believe so. I -- the queries 20 had pretty much been answered the day before. 21 Q: All right. And -- 22 A: But I can't remember. I can't recall 23 specifically but in my best recollection it would have 24 been that there's no need to answer -- ask the question 25 twice.


1 Q: And specifically did you hear the 2 words from anybody to the effect that, you know, Get the 3 fucking Indians out of the Park and use guns if you have 4 to? 5 A: I did not. 6 Q: Is that something that would stick 7 out in your mind, do you think? 8 A: Very much so. 9 Q: Okay. In term of Mr. Fox's 10 participation in this, did you get the sense -- 11 A: Just -- on that note -- 12 Q: Yeah -- 13 A: -- it would have been extremely rare 14 in my experience for someone to use language like that in 15 a mixed meeting between civil service and political 16 staff. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: It would have been inappropriate. 19 Q: Okay. I think the question begs to 20 be asked, what about in a -- in a not mixed meeting, in a 21 meeting of just among political staffers, for example, 22 would that be unusual? 23 A: Yes. Like it would have been -- 24 while -- like sometimes maybe with -- usually, one 25 doesn't use vulgar language unless you have a -- you


1 know, a personal relationship with the individual or 2 something like that. 3 Q: All right. And again, just with 4 respect to Mr. Fox and his participation at that meeting, 5 did you get the sense that he was advocating an approach 6 that might have been different from what other people 7 were talking about? 8 A: I think that the Committee was in 9 consensus that we were seeking an injunction. 10 Q: During the course of that discussion 11 were there -- we talked yesterday about -- about Mr. 12 Beaubien, Marcel Beaubien. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Was there any discussion on this date 15 as you can recall, as to some of the concerns that he had 16 raised? 17 A: The concerns raised by Mr. Beaubien 18 were -- were brought forward in terms of what was 19 happening in terms of the Committee -- the community and 20 the -- the general sense of law -- lawlessness. 21 Now, the extent that he raised it at the 22 first meeting versus the second meeting, I can't recall. 23 Q: Do you know whether or not there was 24 any additional information or from your perspective was 25 there any new information that was brought to this


1 Committee meeting on the 6th of September that you hadn't 2 had the day previous? 3 A: That I hadn't already addressed? 4 That -- well, that we'd actually had a contact with the 5 Native community to find out what the situation was. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: We'd been provided with an update 8 from the park managers and the OPP in terms of the 9 current state of the situation, but any additional 10 information, I can't recall. 11 Q: And just overall, did you get a 12 sense, Mr. Moran, that the situation was more urgent on 13 this date as it was on the previous? 14 A: It seemed like things were becoming 15 much more tense on the ground, but in terms of, we needed 16 to deal with this now more than the day before, there was 17 a -- I thought there was a great deal of consensus that 18 we needed to deal with it as expeditiously as possible on 19 both days. 20 Q: All right. You've had a chance to 21 look at the material at Tab 8 -- 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: -- of the book of documents in front 24 of you, and that is Exhibit P-509, being the meeting 25 notes of the Interministerial Committee meeting of -- at


1 least the second part of that is the meeting notes of 2 September the 6th. 3 A: The second part? 4 Q: Yeah, if we can -- if I can direct 5 you to the second part of those materials. 6 A: All right. 7 Q: And you've had a chance to review 8 those before coming here today. 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: The question I simply have you is, 11 whether or not -- when did you receive these as part of 12 the circulation of these meet -- meeting notes and having 13 reviewed them, whether that concurs with your 14 recollection of the outcome of that meeting? 15 A: I can't remember when I received 16 them. And I -- I wouldn't say that I completely agree 17 with its contents, no. 18 Q: All right. What parts of it do you 19 not agree with? 20 A: Well I -- I wouldn't say that the 21 following meeting Cabinet directed MAG lawyers to apply 22 immediately for an injunction. 23 Q: You're looking at page 3 of that 24 under the note under step five (5) -- pardon me under "5. 25 Next Steps"?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: I wouldn't know how the summer 4 student like Nathalia Nepton would have been able to 5 ascertain that information. 6 Q: That Cabinet directed MAG lawyers to 7 apply immediately for the ex parte injunction; is that 8 the part? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Following this Interministerial 11 Committee meeting or -- or perhaps even prior to it, did 12 you attend a meeting at the Solicitor General's office? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Do you know of a meeting that would 15 have taken place on that date? 16 A: No. 17 Q: At the Solicitor General's office? 18 A: No. 19 Q: And following the Interministerial 20 Committee meeting, did you attend a further meeting, Mr. 21 Moran? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And would you tell us about that 24 please? 25 A: This is the meeting at the


1 Legislative Assembly. 2 Q: All right. And where did that occur 3 and who was present at that meeting? 4 A: The meeting occurred in a room 5 referred to as the Premier's dining room which is one of 6 the offices within the Premier's office in the 7 Legislative Assembly. 8 In attendance were the Ministers and 9 Deputies and Executive Assistants of the Ministries of 10 the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Minister of 11 Natural Resources, as well as the Premier, one of his 12 executive assistants as well as I --two (2) OPP 13 representatives. 14 Q: And the two (2) OPP representatives, 15 do you know who they were? 16 A: I thought it was Barb Fox -- Barb 17 Taylor and Ron Fox. 18 Q: All right. And do you know who 19 arranged the meeting? 20 A: No. 21 Q: If I can direct you -- 22 A: I -- I assume it was someone in the 23 Premier's office that had actually called the meeting but 24 that's to the best of my knowledge. 25 Q: All right. Thank you. If I can


1 direct you to Tab 26 of the book of materials in front of 2 you. 3 A: 26? 4 Q: 26. It's right at the back. It's 5 Inquiry Document Number 6000379. 6 A: And -- and -- oh, I was going to say 7 I don't have a 26 but -- 8 Q: Oh, I think you do. 9 A: Okay. Yeah I do. It was hidden. 10 Sorry. 11 Q: And if we can go to page 19 of that 12 and you'll see that -- that is the last page in that Book 13 of Documents. It bears front number 6002263. 14 A: 19? Yeah okay, got it. 15 Q: And you'll see at the very top in 16 terms of the answer, there's -- the question is: 17 "Inquire of everyone who is at the 18 meeting in the Premier's dining room is 19 to how the meeting was convened and 20 arranged." 21 And you'll see under the answer portion of 22 that: 23 "David Moran advises the meeting was 24 arranged by the Premier's staff." 25 Is that --


1 A: It seems like a logical thing. I 2 can't imagine any of the line ministries calling a 3 meeting in the Premier's office. 4 Q: All right. And these documents -- 5 A: I -- I'm comfortable saying that it 6 was arranged by the Premier's office. 7 Q: Thank you. These documents, I'll 8 simply indicate, are answers to undertakings in the civil 9 action of R. B. George. 10 And I'm pointing that out to you if that 11 at all refreshes your memory? 12 A: Thank you. 13 Q: Let's go back to the meeting then, 14 Mr. Moran, and can you tell us what occurred at the 15 meeting; who spoke and what the messaging was? 16 A: The messaging? 17 Q: Well -- 18 A: The substance of the remarks? 19 Q: Well, yeah. 20 A: They -- I can't remember the sequence 21 in terms of the Deputy Solicitor General, the Attorney 22 General. Both spoke at length, to some extent, for such a 23 short meeting about the -- this -- Deputy Solicitor 24 General about the separation of the political side versus 25 the police officers.


1 And that that relationship -- that message 2 was followed up by the Deputy Attorney General who spoke 3 about the Constitution and the legality of the injunction 4 in terms of the -- the due process of law. Both of them 5 provided a -- an intellectual and legal briefing in terms 6 of the situation. 7 I believe that the -- that Ron Fox 8 provided an update of what was happening on the ground. 9 The Attorney, the former Attorney General, made some 10 comments about the -- the process and the propriety of 11 applying for an injunction. They both -- the former 12 Solicitor General and the former Minister of Natural 13 Affairs (sic) made brief -- in my knowledge of 14 substantive remarks just supporting the general 15 recommendations of the Committee. 16 And then the Premier stated that he was in 17 agreement with the injunction and left the room. 18 Q: Okay. And aside from being in 19 agreement with the injunction process or the discussion 20 occurring around that did the Premier take a particular 21 position with respect to the operations that the OPP had 22 conducted? 23 A: The -- the substance of the Premier's 24 comments were that he was disappointed that the OPP had 25 allowed the situation to get this far. It was his


1 understanding that -- from previous briefings that the 2 OPP had the situation under control and that -- that 3 everything was well in hand. 4 Q: Was that the briefing that you had 5 relayed following the August 2nd meeting? 6 A: I didn't understand your question, 7 I'm sorry. 8 Q: I believe you told us yesterday and 9 you can certainly correct me, but following the August 10 2nd meeting the outcome of that particular meeting is 11 that there appeared to be no particular urgency? 12 A: Well, the outcome of that meeting 13 was, very directly, that -- that there was not a sense of 14 urgency, that the OPP knew of the situation in advance, 15 and that they had been preparing contingency plans, that 16 it would -- take the appropriate steps in advance to make 17 sure things didn't escalate. 18 I believe that -- that the Government as a 19 whole, that's a little generous, but was taking steps to 20 -- to mitigate the situation before it escalated. And I 21 think -- 22 Q: And clearly by -- sorry. 23 A: And I think that the Premier was 24 expressing his frustration and disappointment that when 25 officials knew a situation could potentially become a --


1 a real problem that the appropriate steps weren't taken 2 to diffuse it in advance. 3 The other thing that I -- I think is 4 important to note is -- and I -- I've read the -- some of 5 the -- the media coverage about the Premier's comments, 6 and in focus of what the Premier was trying to say and 7 yes, he was a little frustrated, was that the it's 8 important to act before things escalate and go and -- 9 before a tragedy occurs. And the -- the -- the -- some 10 people's impression of -- of the Premier's comments, 11 surrounding in particular the holocaust, were taken out 12 of context from a lack of understanding. 13 I think that the -- the former Attorney 14 General would say that his greatest accomplishment in his 15 five (5) years of opposition was bringing in -- getting 16 the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a Holocaust 17 Memorial Day. And in that undertaking he had a great 18 deal of support from Mr. Harris as well as the Government 19 of the -- of the day 20 And that Mr. Harnick had been working very 21 hard in terms of improving -- getting Mr. Harris really 22 involved in the Jewish community. Mr. Harris had become 23 a Board of -- Member of the Board of Directors of Yad 24 Veshem, the holocaust memorial society. 25 And so, what I took from the Premier's


1 comments was that it's really important for officials to 2 act before a tragedy occurs and it -- I think that maybe 3 someone that was less familiar with the situation of the 4 history could have taken those out of context and I think 5 that's what's happened. But certainly I didn't take 6 anything that he had said in a negative context with 7 regard to that. 8 Q: All right. In terms of the overall 9 tone of the meeting and the length of this meeting, what 10 can you tell us about that. How long was the meeting? 11 What -- what was the -- 12 A: Approximately twenty (20) minutes. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: The tone was -- it was a tense 15 situation. 16 Q: All right. And is it your 17 recollection, then, Mr. Moran, that Premier Harris would 18 have left the meeting before anybody else did? 19 A: Well, usually that was how -- in the 20 normal course of my experience, when the most senior 21 person in the room adjourns the meeting, then that's when 22 they end. 23 Most of the meetings with Mr. -- Mr. 24 Harris are, for instance, most of the meetings that I was 25 in with the former Attorney General, when they said the


1 meeting was over, the meeting was over. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: And so, you know, when Mr. Harris 4 said that -- that he agreed with the recommendations of 5 the Attorney General and left the room, there really 6 wasn't anything more to discuss that I can recall. 7 Maybe, you know, it may have gone on a 8 couple of minutes after he had left but the substance of 9 the meeting had been concluded. 10 Q: And in terms of the outcome of that 11 meeting, did you have any further involvement in 12 following that up at all? 13 A: Oh, in terms of next steps? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: Well, that -- you know, technically 16 the instruction had already been provided from the 17 Attorney General to his Counsel and the Premier had 18 confirmed the Minister's decision. 19 So, the appropriate next steps were be -- 20 were for the Deputy Attorney General to follow up with 21 his legal Counsel. In terms of a -- of political role, 22 really for me or the Attorney General there it was -- 23 Q: All right. And just when you say 24 that his Counsel, you're referring to Mr. McCabe, are 25 you?


1 Q: All right. 2 A: And Elizabeth Christie, I believe, 3 were the two (2) co-Counsel that were -- I think by that 4 time en route to Sarnia, if not that day the next day. 5 It was around that time they were, you know, quickly 6 preparing their legal arguments and -- 7 Q: And just incidentally to that, were 8 you present when Mr. Taman would have been providing 9 instructions to Mr. McCabe and Ms. Christie? 10 A: No. 11 Q: What was your next involvement, Mr. 12 Moran, in the -- in this matter? 13 Do you have any further involvement on 14 that day of the 6th of September? 15 A: On the 6th? 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: Not that I can recollect. 18 Q: All right. Can you tell us when you 19 next would have heard about this? 20 A: One of my responsibilities working 21 for the Attorney General was I was one of the first 22 points of contact for the Special Investigations Unit. 23 They called me at home the following night 24 to report that an incident had -- had occurred and it was 25 the middle of the night and I waited until the following


1 morning, early, and called the Attorney General and so 2 on. 3 Q: Do you know what time it was that you 4 would have been alerted by the Special Investigations 5 Unit personnel? 6 A: About 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning. 7 Q: Okay. And you waited until what 8 time, to your recollection, before you called Mr. 9 Harnick? 10 A: About 6:00/6:30. I didn't think that 11 there was anything he could do in the interim few hours. 12 You know, in the normal course, anyways, like there was 13 no role for him or I in the course of an investigation. 14 Q: And that was the next question I was 15 going to ask you, whether you had any follow up role in 16 connection with -- 17 A: The actual investigation? 18 Q: Or with the news that was reported to 19 you of the shooting death? 20 A: Oh, I would have informed the 21 Premier's office as is in the normal course. Any -- any 22 issue that occurred whether it's in the courts or Native 23 Affairs or anything, it was my responsibility to make 24 sure that the appropriate people were informed. 25 Q: All right. And in informing the


1 Premier's office do you have any specific recollection of 2 -- of doing so and if -- and if so what reaction if any 3 you would have received? 4 A: I can't remember things specifically. 5 Q: Were you involved, Mr. Moran, or 6 aware of the decision to ultimately withdraw the 7 injunction application? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And -- and how was that? 10 A: It seemed like the appropriate thing 11 to do given the fact that the tragedy had occurred. It 12 was -- it just seemed that the best case scenario for the 13 situation was to really kind of diffuse it and wait for 14 everything to just relax a little bit to prevent any 15 further escalation. 16 Q: All right. 17 A: I can't remember the forum for how 18 that took place. I can remember discussing it with the 19 Deputy and the Attorney, but there would have been some 20 discussion with the other parties involved and the 21 Premier's office, but I can't -- it would have been just 22 an informal process, I think. 23 Q: We understand, sir, that after the -- 24 after this -- this event occurred from the 7th of 25 September onwards do you know whether or not the


1 Interministerial Committee had continued to participate 2 in -- in the events? 3 A: For some reason we started meeting at 4 the Solicitor General's office. And I don't know why the 5 platform changed or why it became different. 6 Q: Do you recall a meeting at the 7 Solicitor General's office on the 7th of September where 8 these matters would have been discussed? 9 A: I don't recall any details of it. We 10 met for -- we met every day it seemed like for a week or 11 two (2) afterwards where we just kind of went through 12 basic updates, but I -- there's no -- given the situation 13 I don't think there's any real new information that came 14 out of it. 15 Q: Can you recall a meeting at the 16 Solicitor General's office where the subject of how to 17 serve the injunction might have arisen? 18 A: Yeah. 19 Q: And what can you tell us about that? 20 A: I believe it was the judge who had 21 recommended that -- I don't know because we -- yeah, I 22 don't know, I think it was judge that said that -- that 23 it should be flown over the Park in a helicopter to make 24 sure that they were properly informed of what was going 25 on.


1 Q: Okay. And do you recall any 2 responses by anybody in particular to that part of the 3 discussion? 4 A: Larry had made some comments. I'm 5 sorry, Mr. Taman had made some comments about that. He 6 didn't think it was servable or actually safe. He 7 thought the idea of -- of dropping things from a plane 8 like people could do and possibly endanger public 9 safety -- 10 Q: Do you recall anybody providing 11 perhaps an anecdote to that suggestion? 12 A: I can't recall. But you know, like, 13 it was -- it wasn't something that was practical. 14 Q: We -- we received some information, 15 that subsequent to these events, the National Chief of 16 the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi at the time 17 had -- 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: -- attended at the Premier's office 20 for a meeting. 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: Perhaps in -- in the company of the 23 Chief of the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation -- 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: -- Tom Bressette.


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: All right. You're -- you're aware of 3 that? 4 A: Yes. The -- the former Attorney 5 General was part of that meeting. I was -- 6 Q: Minister Harnick? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Right. 9 A: I was not part of the meeting. 10 Q: All right. That's the question I was 11 going to ask you, as to -- 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: -- whether you were a part of that 14 meeting. 15 A: I believe it took place either in the 16 Premier's office or in the room adjacent to the Cabinet 17 room. 18 Q: If I can just get a moment, 19 Commissioner. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Mr. Moran, those are all the 24 questions that I have for you at -- at this particular 25 point. And one of the things that we have been providing


1 is an opportunity to witnesses to offer their 2 suggestions, recommendations, what have you, to assist 3 Commissioner Linden at the end of the day in his mandate. 4 In that respect do you have anything that 5 you might be able to offer? 6 A: I've got a couple suggestions in 7 terms of how things could be. I think that, and I'm sure 8 that this -- I'll start off with the obvious and go into 9 a little more detail. 10 I think that there's certainly in cases 11 like this there should never be a situation with 12 political staffer or elected officials are exposed to an 13 active police officer. I think that there's got to be 14 someone who relay information in such a way so that 15 officials, elected officials included, are informed of 16 what's going on. 17 But, I think better safeguards have to be 18 in place. I think that there -- when situations like 19 this occur that there's got to be a better representation 20 of senior officials that are directly involved with it. 21 You know, upon reflection there were too 22 many junior officials that were involved in the situation 23 that I think would have made the syst -- the system work 24 better. 25 And I mean the -- the makeup of the


1 Interministerial Committee; I do think having sort of 2 coordinating body established is a good idea. I just 3 think it should be done at a little more senior level. 4 I think that the ideal place for that 5 committee to happen would be at a cabinet office. The 6 problem with any of the line ministries frankly is that, 7 in the actual practical undertakings of the Government in 8 terms of how it works, the cabinet office has the 9 authority to make -- to require attendance and make sure 10 it happens. 11 You know, for instance, the committee had 12 stayed with the Native Affairs Secretariat that, you 13 know, if -- if it needed a senior official to appear from 14 another ministry or needed a definitive answer, it just - 15 - don't have the authority to make sure it happens. 16 And you need someone chairing the 17 committee that is experienced and the actual authority to 18 make sure that things happen and that there's a very 19 direct line of -- of reporting given the hierarchal 20 nature of the civil servants. 21 I just don't think that you could have 22 what, you know, a line ministry with no authority over 23 who, attendance, what's going on or anything. It's the 24 appropriate way to go. 25 I think that -- I think that on a -- on a


1 broader sense stepping aside from the actual blockades 2 and when these things happen, I think that -- that 3 there's got to be a real focus in terms of what comes out 4 of that committee about addressing long term tensions 5 between the Native and the Native community. 6 I think that -- that, you know, for 7 someone that had studied a lot of history and political 8 science and the amount of information and education about 9 the relationship between the Native community and the non 10 Native community is really lacking. 11 And that the -- that Canadians in general 12 could be better informed about the -- the relationship 13 between the two (2). And that the current manner in 14 which Native Affairs is taught in schools isn't really 15 practical in terms of helping what's actually going on at 16 the ground. 17 And I think that -- that in terms of this 18 community, there's got to be some focus and effort coming 19 out of this on efforts to bring the two (2) communities, 20 the Native community and the non-Native community back 21 together. 22 I think that this process has been 23 difficult on both sides and that there's got to be a 24 reckoning -- recognition and a realization on -- on 25 behalf of the Inquiry and the Government as a whole that


1 -- that at the end of the day, when your Inquiry's over, 2 and you leave, that the community is still going to have 3 to live and they're going to have to co-exist between the 4 two (2) of them. 5 And that there's got to be some sort of -- 6 of a healing process put together so that -- that, you 7 know, that -- that the -- that the two (2) sides can 8 really co-exist and grow and learn. 9 Right, that's -- that's really all. 10 Q: All right. Thank you for that, Mr. 11 Moran. We appreciate those insights. 12 A: Thank you. 13 MR. DONALD WORME: Commissioner, we 14 yesterday canvassed, as you will recall, the parties as 15 to their estimations in terms of -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 17 going to canvass again. You're finished now, correct? 18 MR. DONALD WORME: I am. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You 20 estimated an hour and you've finished a little less -- 21 MR. DONALD WORME: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and I'm 23 going to operate on the assumption that some of the 24 estimates that people made yesterday were made generously 25 so that they could live within them.


1 And I know that this is the first 2 political witness that we have, and whenever there's a 3 new, sort of, group of witnesses, there's a tendency for 4 people to want to ask a lot more questions than they 5 would ordinarily. But I think that the estimates that 6 people made yesterday, we'll just like with them. 7 And I just want to say that I think it's 8 important that we try to finish this Witness today if 9 we're going to keep it on any kind of schedule for the 10 balance of the week. We have to make effort to try to 11 finish this witness today and I'm prepared to stay a 12 little later if necessary. 13 So, if everybody takes -- 14 MR. DONALD WORME: All right -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 16 maximum amount of time that they estimated yesterday, I 17 think we would go beyond the end of the day. So, I'm 18 just hoping that it will work out and we finish this 19 witness today. 20 So, let's get started with our -- 21 MR. DONALD WORME: All right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the first 23 cross-examiner is Mr. Downard on behalf of the former 24 Premier, Mr. Harris. 25


1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 2 Q: Sir, as the Commissioner indicated, 3 my name's Peter Downard and I appear for the former 4 Ontario Premier, Mike Harris. 5 I'd like to start by taking you back to 6 the September 5th Interministerial Committee meeting and 7 just asking you a few questions about some matters 8 relating to that. 9 I believe that, when you testified 10 yesterday, you spoke to your coming to understand at the 11 time that there was an issue as between the group of 12 First Nations people, some of whom had occupied the Park 13 who referred to themselves as the Stoney Pointers and the 14 established Band under the Indian Act, the Kettle and 15 Stony Point First Nation, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I take it that you would recall 18 that in that meeting it would have been, in the September 19 5th meeting, it would have been conveyed that Chief 20 Bressette of the formal band did not support the action 21 of the people occupying the Park. 22 Do you recall that? 23 A: Yes, sir. The -- the other thing of 24 importance was that apparently the Elders of the Stoney 25 Pointers did not support the actions of the occupiers as


1 well. 2 Q: Do you recall anything further about 3 that? 4 A: That...? 5 Q: Who were the Elders, for example? Do 6 you recall anything further about who these Elders were? 7 Were they people who were at the Camp or living elsewhere 8 or what? 9 A: Oh, I'm not sure where -- I can't 10 recall where they were living. But, the -- I do recall 11 that all the senior officials for lack of a better word, 12 within the community -- well, that we were informed that 13 all the senior officials within the community, both in 14 terms of the First Nation and the -- the Stoney Pointers 15 did not support the action. 16 And that information, I think, had a 17 tremendous impact on -- on the Committee and certainly 18 myself. 19 Q: And why did that information have 20 tremendous impact? 21 A: It -- it conveyed the message to me 22 personally and I -- I believe the Committee as a whole 23 that this wasn't a -- a -- focussed on Native issues for 24 lack of a -- a -- you know, to be generalized about the 25 whole thing and at the same time that this was just a --


1 a law enforcement issue. 2 Q: Do you recall a discussion in the 3 September 5th meeting about the formal Indian Act band, 4 the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation possibly becoming 5 frustrated if the Government didn't take appropriate 6 action in this situation? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: And do you recall anyone suggesting 9 that each hour that passes will increase the concern of 10 the Chief of the Indian Act Band? 11 A: Yes, sir. 12 Q: And do you -- do you recall any 13 discussion about the formal Indian Act band being 14 concerned about government taking any steps that would 15 recognize or acknowledge the legitimacy of the position 16 being taken by the persons occupying the Park? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: Do you recall anything further about 19 that? 20 A: Well, it was my understanding that 21 there was some tensions between the Stoney Pointers and 22 the First Nation and some sort of jockeying in terms of 23 the influence -- influence and legitimacy. 24 I think the -- given the -- the fact that 25 this issue was -- was within the realm of the Federal


1 Government I believe it was something that we were trying 2 to stay out of. We didn't want to be seen to be acting 3 ultra vires -- vires I guess. 4 Q: Acting beyond the authority of the 5 Provincial Government? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: But, did you feel, though, that it 8 was important that you give serious weight to the views 9 of the local Indian Act Band? 10 A: Yes, well, it was -- I think that, 11 you know, on a personal level and, you know, my 12 impressions of the Committee was we weren't quite sure 13 what to do with the dissident band. 14 Q: By "the dissident band" you mean the 15 people who were actually occupying the Park? 16 A: No, the Stoney Pointers. There was 17 kind of like -- 18 Q: I see. 19 A: -- you know, like when I went through 20 my Native Affairs 101, you know, you -- we went through 21 the --well, this is the -- the status Indians and then we 22 went through the First Nations Indians and these are the 23 off reserves Natives and these are the Metis, but, there 24 wasn't a -- we weren't quite sure how to -- to classify 25 in terms of our thinking of what to do when you had a --


1 a group within a community that wanted to separate from 2 their -- their community. And we weren't sure whether it 3 was an issue that was best addressed by the Federal 4 Government or whether it was an issue that was internal 5 to the -- the local Native community. 6 So, there was just a, kind of, an 7 uncertainty how best to proceed with it. But it was kind 8 of like one (1) of those -- it was a situation where we 9 were unsure about how best to address it in that, whether 10 it was an internal issue or whether it was an issue that 11 the Federal Government would eventually have to step in. 12 Q: All right. But, in -- in terms of 13 the Committee's support generally though, I take it from 14 you've said that the committee was concerned to -- to 15 know and give appropriate weight to the views of the -- 16 the formal Indian Act Band in the area and indeed as you 17 understood it, Elders in the Stoney Point Group itself? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Now, I'd like to ask you something 20 about some -- the comments that Ron Fox made in the 21 September 5th meeting. 22 Do you recall him making any comment in 23 that meeting to the effect that, in substance, the longer 24 the occupiers were there the more familiar they become 25 with their surroundings and the more difficult it becomes


1 to remove them? 2 Do you recall any discussion in that 3 regard? 4 A: I recall discussion around that -- 5 that -- I can't remember it coming from Ron or whomever, 6 but yes, I do remember that being said. 7 Q: Do you recall -- 8 A: It seems like a logical thing that he 9 would have said but I couldn't ascribe it to him. 10 Q: Do you -- do you recall anything 11 further being discussed in the meeting about that 12 subject? 13 A: About the -- 14 Q: Of the subject -- the subject of the 15 longer they're there the more difficult it becomes to 16 remove the occupiers. 17 A: We discussed it. I can't remember 18 anything more in terms of substance other than the fact 19 that it was kind of a -- an acknowledged situation. 20 Q: And if I can refer you to -- 21 A: Is your binder the same as mine? 22 Q: Beg your pardon? 23 A: Is your binder the same as mine? 24 Q: In theory it is supposed to be. 25 A: All right.


1 Q: And it usually is. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It usually 3 is. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 8 Q: I say I'll -- I'm going to step back 9 from that for a minute. 10 A: Sure. Can I -- just want to revisit 11 one (1) thing that I forgot to mention about the -- how 12 to allay these issues when they -- they bring forward. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this in 14 your recommendations? 15 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 THE WITNESS: There's got to be a way to 18 involve the Native community in addressing these issues 19 because I just think that, you know, if you get officials 20 from Toronto to come forward and talk about a local 21 Native community, that is going to have very little 22 credibility on the ground with the Natives, for instance 23 the Stoney Pointers that have gone through fifty (50) 24 years of frustration. 25 And that as I can understand hesitant --


1 leaders of the First Nation, as a whole, would be in 2 terms of involving themselves in the process. You know, 3 in the same way that we've got Native police officers 4 that really step in and allay these sort of concerns. 5 I think that there's got to be some system 6 to set up to better involve Native leaders in solving 7 Native issues, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 11 Q: Sir, I believe that you testified 12 that by the end of the September 5th meeting, it was your 13 view that there was a consensus to seek an injunction? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: And is it fair to say that -- 16 A: I -- I -- can I just go a little 17 stronger than that? 18 Q: Sure. 19 A: I -- I don't recall there being any 20 opposition to the injunction. You know, like we -- we've 21 talked, you know, which, you know, eventually was not 22 productive, but I -- I think that there was a general 23 consensus that -- that the injunction was the appropriate 24 way to go. 25 I don't think anyone was suggesting any


1 other option. I certainly don't recall them. 2 Q: Okay. And in your view that 3 consensus included Debbie Hutton? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: Now, we've heard some evidence in 6 this Inquiry, I'm going to call it testimony, in this 7 Inquiry, you have spoken to the manner, personal manner, 8 personal habits, personal character of Debbie Hutton. 9 And on the -- on the basis of 10 A: I thought you were Mr. Harris' 11 lawyer. 12 Q: Yeah, I -- I am -- I am but I have a 13 concern for the legitimacy of the process and some of the 14 things that are said. And I wanted to know from you 15 whether, in your view, Ms. Hutton conducted herself in a 16 professional manner in this meeting? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: Did you observe any unusual conduct 19 on her part or anything that you would consider to be 20 inappropriate? 21 A: Inappropriate? No, sir. I think she 22 was a little frustrated as were all of the political 23 staff at the way the meeting was being conducted. Be -- 24 you know, it -- and to put it in terms that you're more 25 familiar with. I assume you're a litigator. You're used


1 to getting the -- the facts going over the substance of 2 the fact in making -- and making a decision. It is just 3 a much more expeditious manner. 4 The -- the -- because the situation was, 5 you know, there's an emergency in terms of the situation 6 with the Park -- had been taken over, that one would have 7 think (sic) that -- that time management of the situation 8 would have been better handled then I think more 9 experienced staff and Chair would have made that better, 10 I think. 11 Q: Well, I'm not going to ask you what 12 was in the minds of any of the other political staffers 13 or your impression of what was in their minds, but -- 14 A: I was frustrated myself. 15 Q: And that was why you were frustrated? 16 A: Well, I think that the -- I was 17 frustrated because the meeting was poorly chaired. I 18 thought that -- that the time was not well used. I 19 thought that some of the debate was not necessary. I 20 think that -- that the way that the meeting was handled 21 in terms of the substance of the debate, at the time 22 created a level of frustration that I -- I was very 23 cognizant of. 24 Q: Okay. All right. Now, you may have 25 heard something about -- you said you had been reading


1 the media, you may have heard something about some tape 2 recordings involving Mr. Fox -- Inspector Fox at the 3 time. 4 And on the September 5th, after this 5 meeting, Inspector Fox called the incident commander, 6 John Carson, on the ground at Ipperwash and he spoke 7 about the September 5th meeting and he said, quote: 8 "Well, I'll tell you, this whole 9 fucking group is on some sort of 10 testosterone or testosterene (sic) 11 high." Unquote. 12 Do you have any comment on that 13 observation? 14 A: I'm surprised by it coming out of the 15 meeting. 16 Q: Well -- 17 A: Like it wasn't my understanding -- I 18 did not leave the meeting with a sense that it was a 19 testosterone high. 20 Q: So -- 21 A: I was not feeling that I was on a 22 testosterone high at the time. 23 Q: But, not -- not you personally, sir. 24 A: I was not. 25 Q: Did -- did you consider it to be an


1 accurate description of the discussion or general 2 behaviour at the -- at the meeting? 3 A: No, I think that the -- that the 4 messages that were conveyed were that the Government 5 wanted to handle the situation in a firm manner, but I 6 don't think that anything beyond being seen to be strong 7 in that situation was conveyed. 8 Q: Now, coming to the September 6th 9 meeting -- 10 A: At the intermin -- which one? 11 Q: Yes, yes. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: I'm just going to take you to some 16 portions of Julie Jai's notes which are -- should be at 17 Tab 10 of your brief? 18 All right. These are her notes of the 19 September 6th meeting and if you look at the -- I think 20 it should be the third page under your tab. 21 It's a -- it's a page that says September 22 6th at the top in the middle. 23 A: This one with "3" on it? 24 Q: It's got one -- I've circled "1" on 25 it.


1 A: Oh, sorry. 2 Q: Okay. Do you see the date September 3 6th at the top in the middle? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Okay. Now, you'll see that a little 6 bit past half way down the page is a note that reads, 7 quote: 8 "Prem (sic) doesn't want anyone 9 involved in discussions other than OPP 10 and possibly MNR." Unquote. 11 Do you recall that being discussed in this 12 meeting? 13 A: I believe it was discussed at the 14 previous meeting as well and that -- that from a -- a 15 messaging standpoint that the voice of the Government was 16 going to be -- we were only going to have one (1) 17 spokesman on behalf of the Government, as was the normal 18 course with any situation. 19 Q: Okay. But what -- we've heard other 20 evidence of this passage, and I should have given this to 21 you, was actually directed to discussions at -- at 22 Ipperwash involving the -- the OPP and -- and MNR. 23 Do you recall there being discussion at 24 the meeting about who -- who should or should not be 25 involved in any potential discussions with the occupiers


1 of the Park? 2 A: It was my understanding the OPP were 3 the only people that were going to be in discussion with 4 the occupiers. I -- I didn't get the impression that the 5 MNR staff would be discussing with the -- the occupiers. 6 Q: Well... 7 A: I know that in a practical sense they 8 -- they exchanged keys and stuff like that, but I can't 9 remember that level of discussion being -- taking place 10 with the committee. 11 Q: And we've heard some evidence that -- 12 that MNR officials did not want MNR people being involved 13 in those discussions, that that was raised at the meeting 14 that they -- they were reluctant to have MNR people 15 involved in discussions with the occupiers. 16 Does that ring any sort of bell with you? 17 A: It does not, sir. 18 Q: Okay. Thank you. And if you'll go 19 to -- 20 A: I -- I -- I do note that she's -- 21 she's given herself an A-plus for today's meeting. 22 Q: Well, different people have different 23 views of things. 24 A: It's always good to be proud of your 25 work.


1 Q: And they -- they can have those 2 different views reasonably, obviously. 3 Now, turning over the next page, page 2 at 4 the top you'll see there's a -- a note that says: 5 "PO [we've heard evidence that that 6 refers to Premier's office.] 'Would 7 like chief to support us. Would do 8 this independently. Doesn't want to go 9 into land claims.'" Unquote 10 Does that note trigger any sort of 11 recollection of yours as to a discussion on -- on this 12 subject of the meeting? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: What do you recall in that regard? 15 A: Well, there was a -- a brief 16 discussion about the -- about the chief helping to allay 17 the concerns. But in the similar sense in terms of -- I 18 don't remember referring to the chief and land claims. 19 I do remember the idea that there was a 20 concern about the OPP being able to negotiate land 21 claims, which was more of a -- an educational question 22 that I believe someone, probably in the political side, 23 had asked in terms of when the OPP were discussing the 24 occupation with the occupiers, the extent that their 25 negotiating powers could go -- authority, I should say.


1 Q: Become what? Pardon me? 2 A: Oh, I said "authority." We didn't -- 3 there was some concern, I don't think on my behalf, that 4 -- to what authority the OPP had in terms of negotiating 5 a mandate. 6 Q: And I -- I take it that the concern 7 that was raised in the meeting was that the OPP should 8 not be negotiating substantive issues? 9 A: Yes. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: In your observation of discussion at 14 the September 6th meeting did it appear to you that there 15 was any sort of a split or oppositional relationship that 16 had developed between Debbie Hutton and Ron Fox? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Did that appear to you to be the case 19 at the September 5th meeting? 20 A: I thought there was a little 21 frustration from Ron Fox and the Ministry of Natural 22 Resources, but I -- I can't recall any sort of 23 interaction between Debbie and Ron at all. 24 Q: Okay. What -- what frustration do 25 you recall on the part of Inspector Fox?


1 A: I took it at the time that, because 2 the question was asked, how come MNR seems to know so 3 much more than the police in terms of what was going on 4 on the ground. 5 And so I thought he was acting 6 defensively. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: I can't recall even an exchange 11 between Debbie and Ron. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: All right. I'd like to come to the - 16 - the dining room meeting, please. 17 A: Sure. 18 Q: And I want to ask you whether you 19 recall the -- the Premier saying any of the following 20 things. 21 Just bear with me for a moment. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Do you recall Premier Harris in -- in


1 the dining room meeting saying that the OPP had made 2 mistakes in this, they should have just gone in? 3 A: No, sir. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: I think that what the Premier was 8 expressing was a belief that it was his understanding 9 that the OPP were going to stop this before it happened. 10 Q: Do you recall the Premier saying in 11 this meeting, 12 "We've tried to pacify and pander to 13 these people for too long. It's now 14 time for swift, affirmative action?" 15 A: No, sir. 16 Q: If that had been -- well, were you 17 paying attention to what the Premier said at this 18 meeting? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And if that had been said, do you 21 think you'd remember it? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: I didn't mean to suggest that you 24 weren't paying attention. 25 A: Usually when the Premier spoke, I did


1 my best to pay attention. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And I believe you said that in the 6 meeting the deputy Solicitor General Elaine Todres 7 discussed the separation of police and government? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And is it fair to say that you recall 10 it being made clear at the meeting that the political arm 11 of government could not direct the OPP? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: Is that something that was made clear 14 in a relatively early stage in the meeting? 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: Okay. Would you agree with the 17 proposition that, in saying that, Ms. Todres made the 18 ground rules for the situation quite clear? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Commissioner, I'm 24 seeking to expedite the process. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 THE WITNESS: Sir, if I can provide sort 4 of a background, I think that -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 6 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 8 THE WITNESS: Man. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 THE WITNESS: I think that -- that Ron 11 Fox may have been feeling a little defensive after the 12 Premier had said that he was disappointed with their 13 actions to date. That's all. Sorry, sir. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 16 Q: Well, did you form a -- ever, a view, 17 in the dining room meeting, that the Premier was at 18 anytime giving any direction to the Ontario Provincial 19 Police? 20 A: No, sir. 21 Q: Did you ever form any view that the 22 Premier was attempting to influence the behaviour of the 23 Ontario Provincial Police at Ipperwash? 24 Q: No, sir. Now in your evidence in 25 direct you -- you refer to this -- this holocaust comment


1 and do you have a recollection, because this wasn't clear 2 to me in your direct evidence, do you have a recollection 3 of the Premier saying something about, or that referred 4 to the holocaust, in the course of this meeting, or were 5 you speaking to media reports of other people's evidence? 6 A: I -- I can't remember him referring 7 to the holocaust directly. I do remember him referring 8 to the -- that his understanding that the tragedy could 9 have been prevented before it occurred. 10 Q: Now did you ever form the view on the 11 -- on the basis -- well, no, let me put it in front of 12 you this way. 13 After the dining room meeting Inspector 14 Fox called the Incident Commander Carson and he described 15 to him what Inspector Fox characterized as positions of 16 the politicians on what the -- what the police should 17 have done at Ipperwash. 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: Now, does it surprise you that 20 Inspector Fox would have conveyed politicians' views in 21 that regard to Incident Commander Carson on the scene? 22 A: Yes, sir. It wasn't my understanding 23 that that was his role. 24 Q: Okay. And what was it that you saw 25 his role as being?


1 A: To act as a liaison between the OPP 2 and the political staff so that they would be informed 3 about what's happening on the ground. You know, if -- at 4 the meeting I did not expect the -- the Inspector to be 5 calling the Incident Commander, I realize now that from a 6 legal perspective someone needed to be informed that a 7 police officer would be required in court, but other than 8 that I, you know, I don't see any purpose for the call. 9 Q: All right. Now in the -- in the 10 call, Inspector Fox makes some comments and he is 11 speaking, it appears, or he's commenting, it appears, on 12 his impression of the Government based upon his presence 13 at the dining room meeting and September 6th 14 Interministerial Committee meeting and September 5th 15 Interministerial Committee meeting. And he said, quote: 16 "They are fucking barrel suckers. They 17 just are in love with guns." Unquote. 18 Now do you have any comment on that? 19 A: I don't recall at either of the three 20 (3) meetings that I attended that guns were ever 21 discussed whatsoever, really, or the use of force in any 22 way. The only guns that were discussed was whether there 23 was gunshots occurring within the Park or not. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: Just bear with me for a moment, sir, 2 I just have to get my notes of your evidence this 3 morning. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, do you recall, at any time in 8 either of the Interministerial Committee Meetings, 9 Inspector Fox saying that there should be an 10 investigation conducted of the -- the question that was 11 raised regarding a -- a burial ground, including speaking 12 to First Nations Elders in the area and explore oral 13 history? 14 A: With regard to the burial ground 15 there was a general discussion about finding out what the 16 facts of the situation were. It was my understanding 17 that MNR had been charged with trying to determine what 18 the facts were. I don't recall any details of Ron Fox 19 bringing that forward, what you just recommended. 20 Q: And I wanted to ask you some 21 questions about the -- the briefing of Attorney General 22 Harnick on the -- the morning of September 6th. I 23 believe your evidence was that in -- in attendance with 24 the Minister were yourself and Yan Lazor? 25 A: I believe so and Larry -- Larry


1 Taman. 2 Q: Larry Taman? Right. And was Julie 3 Jai there? 4 A: No. sir. 5 Q: She's testified to this Inquiry that 6 she was there. Does that give you any pause? 7 A: Well, I think the way that the -- the 8 sequence worked was that -- that -- that we had had a 9 discussion with some officials and that junior officials 10 were asked to go and the more senior counsel had a -- the 11 discussion in terms of next steps and what was actually 12 going to be decided. 13 Q: Sorry, so -- so what -- what 14 involvement might Julie Jai have had, if any, in 15 connection with this briefing of the Attorney General on 16 the morning of the 6th? 17 A: I can't remember her being there, but 18 the only thing that she would have been there for was to 19 be providing background information. I -- I don't think 20 she was regarded as a senior counsel within either of the 21 ministries. 22 Q: All right. And I take it that, from 23 your evidence this morning, that your recollection is 24 that the outcome of this meeting was that the Attorney 25 General was supportive of the Government proceeding with


1 an ex parte injunction? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: It was the Attorney General's 5 decision to pursue an ex parte injunction. The Premier I 6 -- I don't believe was ever provided the option of ex 7 parte versus a -- a more traditional injunction. 8 Q: All right. So that if -- if it was 9 suggested that an outcome of the September 6th morning 10 briefing of the Attorney General was that there was -- 11 that the Attorney General's view was that the Government 12 should not proceed on an ex parte basis, I take it you 13 would say that's incorrect? 14 A: If the AG had said let's not go for 15 an ex parte? 16 Q: Right. 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: That it's incorrect? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 A: We -- we went to the Premier with one 24 (1) recommendation and he accepted it. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, actually I'll just move on for a 4 second. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Just bear with me for one (1) moment, 9 sir. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Commissioner, I've 14 tried to cut to the chase with this and those are my 15 questions. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 17 very much. 18 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Thank you much, sir. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 21 Mr. Downard. We're going to take a morning break now. 22 We'll take a break now. 23 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 24 for fifteen (15) minutes. 25


1 --- Upon recessing at 10:29 a.m. 2 --- Upon resuming at 10:49 a.m. 3 4 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 5 resumed. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 7 Horvat? 8 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Good morning. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 morning. 11 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 13 Q: Good morning, Mr. Moran. My name -- 14 A: Hi. Sorry, who are you again? 15 Q: My name is Jacqueline Horvat and I 16 represent Charles Harnick at this Inquiry. I just have a 17 few questions for you. I just have some questions 18 relating to the briefing of Minister Harnick on the 19 morning of September 6th. 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: Now, I anticipate that Minister 22 Harnick will testify that his instructions were to seek 23 an injunction as soon as possible and that those 24 instructions remain constant throughout the day. And 25 that he never directed anyone specifically to seek an ex


1 parte injunction or not to seek an ex parte injunction. 2 Is it possible that you're confusing as 3 soon as possible, with ex parte? 4 A: I don't think so. 5 Q: Do you recall Mr. Harnick 6 specifically saying, Seek an ex parte injunction? 7 A: I can recall a discussion with a 8 Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General and myself 9 about the ex parte. 10 Q: Okay. Can I take you to Tab 10 of 11 your -- of Commission Counsel's book, the first page of 12 handwritten notes -- of handwritten notes. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: I believe the notes at the bottom 15 under the heading, AG Direction -- 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: -- those are Julie Jai's notes and I 18 believe those were taken at the briefing of Minister 19 Harnick. And the third point down says: 20 "Will apply for civil injunction ASAP.' 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: Does that refresh your memory at all? 23 A: It still seems consistent with what I 24 said. 25 Q: Okay. Can I take you to Tab 11?


1 A: What's this? 2 Q: Eileen Hipfner's notes of the 3 September 6th Blockade Committee meeting. 4 A: Yes. Who is Eileen again? 5 Q: She was a lawyer with ONAS, I 6 believe. 7 A: All right. 8 MR. DONALD WORME: It's P-636. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 11 Q: Exhibit P-636, page 3 of those notes. 12 The top page says, "Fox will make inquiry" 13 A: I'm missing a page 3. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe it 15 comes after page 4. They're in reverse order. 16 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 19 Q: Sorry. If you look midway down it 20 says "Moran" on the left hand side. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And then the second point: 23 "Harnick clear if AG is being asked to 24 seek injunction, he will do ASAP." 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Does that refresh your memory at all? 2 A: You know what, I believe that's 3 referring to is that the Attorney General had said to 4 both Counsel and myself by briefdome that if the decision 5 was made by the Committee and the Government as a whole 6 to seek an injunction, he would act expeditiously. 7 Q: Okay. Taking you down to the bottom 8 of the page where it says "Julie". And I believe it 9 says: 10 "Brief with Deputy AG and AG this 11 a.m."? 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: And then underneath, it says: 14 "Direction from AG is to apply for 15 civil injunction ASAP."? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now, nowhere in these notes does it 18 state ex parte. Are you 100 percent positive that 19 Minister Harnick directed government lawyers to seek an 20 ex parte injunction? 21 A: I'm positive that discussion took 22 place between the Deputy, the Attorney and myself about 23 the ex parte aspect. 24 It -- I don't recall Julie being part of 25 that discussion.


1 Q: Okay. Are you familiar with Tim 2 McCabe and Elizabeth Christie? 3 A: Both. 4 Q: And were you aware that they had 5 carriage of the Ipperwash matter? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And they were preparing the 8 injunction materials? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Ms. Christie testified that she 11 received instructions from deputy Attorney General Taman 12 some time on the afternoon of September 6th to apply for 13 an injunction: 14 "Just as fast as you can." 15 Would you agree that "just as fast as you 16 can" is equivalent to as soon as possible? 17 A: I think -- don't really think that's 18 for me to say. I don't know. 19 Q: Well, does that refresh your memory 20 at all? 21 A: No. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: I really wasn't part of that


1 conversations with that -- Deputy would have been 2 instructing his staff. 3 Q: Well, if Charles Harnick instructed 4 deputy Attorney General Taman to seek an ex parte 5 injunction, wouldn't it be logical if he would instruct 6 the Government lawyers handling the injunction to seek an 7 ex parte injunction -- 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: -- and not an injunction as soon as 10 possible? 11 A: Yes, that actually quite makes sense. 12 Q: Wouldn't he be specific in his 13 instructions; do you agree with me? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: On or prior to September 6th, did you 16 have any interaction or communication with any police 17 officers in relation to Ipperwash? 18 A: Other than Ron Fox? 19 Q: Other than Ron Fox? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Did you ever provide any direction or 22 express any preference about police operational matters 23 to or in the presence of Ron Fox or any other police 24 officers? 25 A: No.


1 Q: Do you recall Minister Harnick ever 2 expressing an opinion regarding police operational 3 matters? 4 A: No, and I don't recall the Minister 5 ever even speaking directly to a police officer and I -- 6 in operational manners. 7 Q: Do you recall deputy Attorney General 8 Taman ever discussing police operational matters? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Do you have any knowledge as to 11 whether Minister Harnick or deputy Attorney General Taman 12 gave directions or expressed any preferences regarding 13 police operational matters to or in the presence of Ron 14 Fox or any other police officer? 15 A: No. 16 Q: thank you, those are all of my 17 questions. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 19 very much, Ms. Horvat. 20 I think Mr. Smith -- oh, I'm sorry, 21 whoever is cross -- 22 MS. ALICE MROZEK: We have no questions. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No 24 questions. Good. 25 Ms. Tully...?


1 MS. ERIN TULLY: We have no questions, 2 Your Honour. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 4 Sulman...? 5 MR. DOUG SULMAN: Good morning, Mr. 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 8 morning. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 11 Q: Good morning, Mr. Moran. My name is 12 Douglas Sulman and I represent Marcel Beaubien who was 13 the, as you know, the MPP for this area at the time. 14 And I only have some brief questions for 15 you simply to clarify the record from yesterday's 16 evidence. 17 A: Sure. 18 Q: Okay. In your evidence yesterday, 19 Mr. Worme was asking you about the July 31st 1995 letter 20 from Mr. Beaubien to Mr. Harnick. 21 Do you recall that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And that letter, to summarize it, was 24 a letter from Mr. Beaubien advising Mr. Harnick of Mr. 25 Beaubien's constituents' concerns regarding the West


1 Ipperwash beach litigation, the costs therein, the 2 uncertainties to the -- to the constituents, the 3 cottagers in the area and other matters concerning West 4 Ipperwash beach. 5 You recall that? 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: And that letter, of course, was prior 8 to the takeover of the Park that is the subject matter of 9 -- of this Inquiry, correct? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And then Mr. Worme was asking you 12 questions about the August 2nd, 1995 meeting of -- I 13 believe the transcript calls it the Emergency Committee, 14 it's -- we've heard it called the Interministerial 15 Committee, the Blockade Committee, et cetera. 16 Do you recall that -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- questions yesterday? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. And in the course of those 21 questions you indicated that you didn't believe that you 22 had any direct communication with Mr. Beaubien, but you 23 were aware that the Attorney General did have a 24 conversation with Mr. Beaubien and you recall saying that 25 yesterday?


1 A: I believe so, sir. 2 Q: Okay. And that was with regard, I 3 take it, to the 1995 July 31st letter? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: That was the context of the cross 6 exam -- or the examination yesterday? 7 Do you recall that, sir? 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: Mr. Harnick would be much -- I -- I 11 couldn't comment on a conversation that he had with Mr. 12 Beaubien. I just don't recall having one with Mr. 13 Beaubien myself. 14 Q: Right. And I wouldn't ask you to 15 comment on the contents of any conversation, but just so 16 the record's clear, your evidence yesterday was the 17 conversation between Mr. Harnick and Mr. Beaubien related 18 to the July 31st letter and is it that it took place in 19 the August 2nd, 1995 timeframe? 20 A: I don't recall. 21 Q: Let -- let me put it this way. From 22 your evidence yesterday I took it that that conversation 23 in any event, whether it took place in the August 2nd 24 timeframe, it certainly took place before the takeover of 25 the Park and the Labour Day weekend?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. And did the Attorney General 3 tell you specifically that he spoke to Mr. Beaubien or 4 was that an assumption on your part? 5 A: I believe they did. 6 Q: But, that's what I want know. I know 7 you say you believe -- 8 A: It's my understanding that they had. 9 Q: And -- but did he specifically tell 10 you that he had spoken to -- 11 A: That's how I came to have that 12 understanding. 13 Q: Okay. And did he tell you where the 14 discussion took place? For instance, was it -- 15 A: I thought it was at the Legislative 16 Assembly. 17 Q: Oh, in the Assembly someplace? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. But, was there a specific 20 meeting marked down that he told you about that you'd be 21 aware of from his calendar? 22 A: I thought that Mr. Beaubien had given 23 the Minister the letter at a Caucus meeting. 24 Q: Okay. At a Caucus meeting? 25 A: Yeah.


1 Q: Okay. So the discussion may have 2 ensued at a Caucus meeting? 3 A: Well, not -- the situation wasn't 4 occurred. I think the correspondence -- 5 Q: Yeah. 6 A: -- was delivered at the Caucus 7 meeting. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: But I -- I -- I'm going on 10 assumption, okay. It's my understanding. I -- but -- 11 Q: Okay. That -- that -- 12 A: -- Mr. Harnick would be more accurate 13 and be able to tell you how he got the letter. 14 Q: Pardon me? Mr. Harnick -- 15 A: I think Mr. Harnick had better answer 16 that question. 17 Q: Both the letter and the conversation 18 that he had with Mr. Beaubien? So the best evidence on 19 that, sir, could -- would come from Mr. Beaubien and Mr. 20 Harnick? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: That would be your view. Okay. Very 23 good. Thank you, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 25 Mr. Sulman.


1 Ms. Perschy...? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In view of 6 some of Mr. Downard's questions your examination may be 7 abbreviated a bit. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Good morning, 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 morning. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 14 Q: Good morning, Mr. Moran. 15 A: Good morning. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: You testified about the 20 Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal Com -- 21 Emergencies, and I take it that you were aware that this 22 was a Committee which was in existence prior to the 23 election of the Harris government? 24 You -- you had some understanding that it 25 was a process that was already in place?


1 A: I believe it was set up in the late 2 '80's. 3 Q: And the Harris Government did in fact 4 use this existing process, this Interministerial 5 Committee on Aboriginal Emergencies, but I take it that 6 any new government is entitled to set up its own 7 processes and consider issues from scratch? 8 A: Yes, ma'am. 9 Q: We've heard evidence that the role of 10 the Interministerial Committee was discussed at the 11 August 2nd meeting August 2, 1995. Is that your 12 recollection or do you recall being briefed about -- 13 A: In terms of op -- operationally? 14 Like here's what -- generally how it functions and 15 operates? 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And we've heard evidence that the 19 goal of this Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal 20 Emergencies was to prevent such emergencies from 21 occurring, or if they occurred to prevent -- sorry, to 22 bring them to an end as quickly and as safely as 23 possible. 24 Did you understand that as the goal of the 25 Committee.


1 A: Yes, ma'am. 2 Q: You've testified about how typically 3 political staff would communicate with the civil service 4 through Deputy Ministers and I take it that the 5 Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal Emergencies was 6 an exception to that. 7 A: Yes, ma'am. 8 Q: And I take it that you understood 9 that the reason for that was to enable the Government to 10 respond more quickly in dealing with Aboriginal 11 Emergencies? 12 A: I didn't really understand why it was 13 set up that way. 14 Q: But you understood that -- that this 15 was an exception of the general process? 16 A: I understood it was an exception. I 17 -- I didn't really -- 18 Q: You didn't think about it. 19 A: No. 20 Q: Now, you testified that one of the 21 principles for this Committee was that no substantive 22 negotiations was suppose to occur while a blockade or an 23 occupation was ongoing? 24 A: Yes, ma'am. 25 Q: Now, we've heard evidence that the


1 rationale for not entering into substantive negotiations 2 while a blockade or occupation is in place, is to avoid 3 encouraging illegal action or que-jumping ahead of others 4 who have filed claims and that this rationale existed 5 prior to the Harris Government. 6 Were you aware of this rationale for not 7 entering into substantive negotiations? 8 A: Yes, ma'am. 9 Q: I've provided you with some documents 10 last night, and I was wondering if you could turn to 11 Document -- I believe it's 1012212. 12 A: I don't think mine are -- 13 Q: These are the revised procedures for 14 Aboriginal Emergencies dated February 14th, 1996. 15 A: Could you give me the number again, 16 please? 17 Q: Sorry it's -- I believe, it's 18 1012212. Commissioner, it's previously been made an 19 exhibit but I have -- I have another copy for you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 21 a copy there, Mr. Moran? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you. 1012212? 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And I'm wondering if you recall 3 seeing this document previously? 4 A: Yes, ma'am. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. DONALD WORME: It's Exhibit P-708. 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 12 Q: And you could take -- turn to page 13 15, I was just going to draw your attention to one (1) 14 part of this document. 15 The heading is, Ending Illegal 16 Occupations, Blockades, Et Cetera, Once They Are in 17 Place'. 18 A: Yes, ma'am. 19 Q: And the last bullet indicates: 20 "Do not negotiate substantive issues 21 while a blockade or occupation is 22 underway as it encourages illegal 23 action and to que -- que-jumping." 24 And you'd indicated that you were aware 25 that this was a rationale. Was it your understanding


1 that this remained a concern in terms of dealing with 2 occupations and blockades generally and continued to be a 3 reason as to why in principle the Government wouldn't 4 engage in -- in substantive negotiations in such 5 situations? 6 A: Pardon me? 7 Q: What I'm getting at is that -- you 8 testified previously that -- that you were aware of this 9 rationale. 10 And I was just simply trying to find out 11 from you, that this -- this draft is dated February 14th, 12 1996 and I wanted to get a sense from you as to whether 13 it was your understanding that this rationale, this -- 14 this concern with respect to not entering into 15 substantive negotiations and why, whether that thinking 16 was -- was still something that you were aware of as of 17 1996? 18 A: Yes, ma'am. 19 Q: I've provided you with a -- another 20 document and that is Document Number 1012232 and it's a 21 fax -- it's a fax sent by Julie Jai, but, really, all I 22 wanted to draw your attention to was the appendix. 23 Again, this document has previously been 24 made an exhibit. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And the appendix is... 4 A: The -- the information note? 5 Q: No, keep going. 6 MR. DONALD WORME: It's P-504. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't have 8 that. They -- 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 11 Q: There -- there's a diagram of Camp 12 Ipperwash and then the next page is -- is entitled, 13 "Appendix, Guidelines for responding to Aboriginal 14 emergencies and (blockades)." 15 A: I've got a bunch of media clippings 16 and then there's a briefing note on camp Ipperwash. 17 Q: If you see the -- the fax information 18 -- the fax information indicates that it's page 5 of 23. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: I'll just count the pages then. 23 A: Sorry. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 A: Oh, yes, sorry, I got it, right here. 2 Q: And this fax wasn't sent to you and 3 I'm wondering if you were ever provided with this 4 document? Did you recall seeing it? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Now, this appendix, as I said, is 7 entitled, "Guidelines for responding to Aboriginal 8 emergencies" and in brackets is the word "(blockades)." 9 And I just wanted to ask you a few 10 questions about blockades and occupations. 11 I take it that you understood that a 12 blockade in the context of the Interministerial Committee 13 is a situation where the First Nations people would 14 blockade, say, a highway or a train track or something 15 like that in order to draw attention to some other issue, 16 environmental contamination, harvesting agreements, what 17 have you. 18 Was that your understanding of what a 19 blockade was? 20 A: Yes, ma'am. 21 Q: And with respect to an occupation, an 22 occupation could be, for example, a sit in at a public 23 place such as Queen's Park or a local minister's office 24 in order to do -- draw attention to a governments -- in 25 order to draw the Government's attention to an issue.


1 But I take it an occupation can also be a 2 situation where a group simply takes physical control of 3 land with respect to which they regard that they have 4 some sort of claim? 5 Do you have that sort of understanding 6 about what an occupation can be? 7 A: Yes, ma'am. 8 Q: Where a group is engaging in a 9 blockade, the blockade, while it may raise awareness or 10 exert some sort of pressure on the Government, it 11 doesn't, in of itself, achieve the group's objective. 12 For example, it's not going to fix the 13 environmental issue, the fact of having a blockade? 14 Did you understand that; were you aware of 15 that? 16 A: I don't think I really thought about 17 it, so. 18 Q: But I take -- it's self evident, you 19 understood that? 20 A: Yeah. 21 Q: In contrast where a group wants some 22 land or believes that its entitled and simply takes 23 control of that land, by taking that land they've 24 actually taken control of -- of the land that they want. 25 Again, that's -- that's self evident?


1 A: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 3 Ms. Perschy, if it's self evident I'm not sure why you're 4 asking it. 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, it's simply to 6 get -- to ensure that this Witness had this 7 understanding. He may not have, sort of, thought it -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well it -- 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- through formally, 10 but... 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 13 Q: You testified about the Provincial 14 Government's land claim process and the number of claims 15 which were resolved during the years that the Harris 16 government was in power and -- and I take it that you 17 were aware that many First Nations had chosen to 18 participate in the provincial Government's land claim 19 process? 20 A: Yes, ma'am. 21 Q: And they'd filed claims with respect 22 to that process? 23 A: Yes, ma'am. 24 Q: And if there's an existing process 25 with a queue of claimants, establishing another process


1 may be inconsistent with the rationale of not rewarding 2 illegal action or encouraging queue jumping? 3 A: Yes, ma'am. 4 Q: And I believe that with respect to 5 burial sites you were made aware during the 6 Interministerial Committee meetings that there were 7 procedures under the Cemeteries Act for dealing with 8 that? 9 A: Yes, ma'am. 10 Q: While there were processes for land 11 claims and for burial sites I take it, since blockades 12 can be about any issue, there may not necessarily be 13 processes in place for whatever issue may arise with 14 respect to a blockade? There may or may not be any 15 processes in place? 16 A: I -- 17 Q: You don't know? 18 A: Oh. Oh, what was the process for...? 19 Q: Let me ask -- 20 A: Sorry, I understand your question 21 now. The process for addressing issues that were in a 22 blockade involved the -- the committee hearing, but was 23 there any way other than the committee to deal with a 24 blockade? 25 Well, after the fact I -- my understanding


1 that often it would happen on a local level where the -- 2 the Native community worked with the OPP and often, you 3 know, a blockade would take place in terms of an 4 informational blockade so it would be dealt with 5 completely at the local level and it never reached that 6 level. 7 Q: You were -- you were asked by 8 Commission Counsel to look at the briefing notes from 9 Charles Harnick. 10 A: From Charlie? He didn't write very 11 many. 12 Q: And if you could turn up that 13 briefing note just for a moment. 14 A: I'm not sure which one you're 15 referring to. 16 Q: It's in Commission Counsel's 17 documents. 18 A: All right. 19 MR. DONALD WORME: It's the one from July 20 10th. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It's the one from July 22 10th and I apologize, Commissioner, I just have to 23 retrieve my -- my tabs. 24 MR. DONALD WORME: It's under Tab 2. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry,


1 what tab is it? 2 MR. DONALD WORME: Tab 2. It's Exhibit 3 P-303. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 8 Q: And you referred to the principles 9 guiding the response to emergencies and in regards to the 10 third bullet it states: 11 "A review of Aboriginal grievances and 12 issues and the establishment of 13 processes to address them." 14 And I take it that in regards -- 15 A: The third bullet? In the third 16 bullet: 17 "The ONAS in close liaison with the 18 Ministry...?" 19 Q: No, this is the third bullet of the 20 briefing note of July 10th -- 21 MR. DONALD WORME: Page 2. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- Tab 2. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's on the 24 second page. 25 THE WITNESS: Oh, on the second page?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The second 2 page at the top. 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, yes. 4 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My apologies. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 8 Q: It was -- you -- you testified in 9 regards to the principles guiding the response. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And the third bullet -- 12 A: Yeah. No substantive negotiation -- 13 Q: -- the establishment of processes. 14 And -- and I take it that -- that you understood that to 15 mean that one would establish a process to address a 16 grievance if there wasn't already a process in existence? 17 A: Sorry, I'm not sure where you're 18 referring to in terms of the process, the third point 19 under the principles guiding the response to emergencies? 20 Q: Yes, it states, a review of the 21 Aboriginal -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- grievances and issues -- 24 A: And the establishment of -- 25 Q: -- and the establishment of processes


1 to address them. 2 A: Yes. Sorry. And what was your 3 question? 4 Q: And -- and my question was that you 5 understood that one would establish a process to address 6 the issue if there wasn't already a process in existence? 7 A: Yes, ma'am. 8 Q: This wasn't to suggest that we were 9 going to start establishing multiple processes for -- for 10 the same thing? There was already a process. 11 A: It was my understanding -- 12 Q: You didn't need to establish another 13 one? 14 A: Right. It was my understanding the 15 process was in place. 16 Q: And with respect to both this 17 briefing note and this appendix in regards to guidelines, 18 I'm going to suggest that at least some of the points in 19 both documents refer more to situations involving 20 blockades and might be less applicable to situations 21 involving occupations? 22 Did you have any sense of that? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Well, for example the point that -- 2 that we just looked at with respect the establishment of 3 processes, would that make sense to you in the context of 4 a blockade, for example? 5 A: Would that make -- I -- I don't 6 understand your question. Like, you know, did we ever 7 actually figure out a great way to end an occupation? 8 Is that your question? 9 Q: No. My -- my question is simply that 10 this appendix, for example, is entitled, Guidelines 11 Responding to Aboriginal Emergencies. And in brackets 12 its (Blockades). 13 And I'm wondering if it was your sense 14 that this document applied primarily to blockades? Was 15 designed to address blockades or did you have a sense? 16 A: I -- it wasn't my -- my impression. 17 Q: I take it -- did you take a lot of 18 time to review this document? 19 A: The one you gave me last night? 20 Q: The appendix. The appendix. Did you 21 have much of an opportunity to review it? 22 A: There -- the one you gave me last 23 night? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: Yeah, I reviewed it last night.


1 Q: No, not last night. 2 A: This one before? 3 Q: The -- the appendix, the guidelines 4 that -- that we've been looking at. 5 A: Oh, no. 6 Q: My -- my question was: In the 7 timeframe of August and September of 1995, did you have 8 much of an opportunity to review this appendix at the 9 time? 10 A: Oh, no. 11 Q: You testified that the view, on 12 August 2nd, 1995 at the Interministerial Committee, was 13 that the risk of an occupation was low. Now we've heard 14 evidence that Ron Fox attended and participated at that 15 meeting on August the 2nd. 16 I take it that you recall him attending at 17 that meeting? 18 A: I'd have to check the -- the minutes. 19 In terms of the August 2nd meeting I couldn't recall 20 whether Ron was there or not. I believe he was. 21 Q: Well his name is -- is referenced in 22 -- in the minutes. I take it -- I suggest that you 23 understood that the assessment regarding the risk of an 24 occupation, that assessment came from the OPP. 25 Was that your understanding?


1 A: I think there was kind of a -- a 2 joint belief in terms of both the OPP and the officials 3 at the Native Affairs Secretariat, that the chances were 4 low. 5 Q: And unfortunately the -- the view on 6 August 2nd that the risk of an occupation was low proved 7 to be wrong and as you testified you attended the 8 meetings on September 5th and 6th to share information 9 and develop recommendations regarding a government 10 response; that was the purpose of the meetings? 11 A: Yes, ma'am. 12 Q: Now, why -- on August 2nd the 13 consensus was that there would not be an occupation at 14 all. But by September 5th there is information, there's 15 an occupation, the First Nations people, the occupiers 16 are denying access to the Park to anyone else. 17 They're not making any demands and you 18 were aware that there was, in fact, some violence, at 19 that point in time that there had been a smashed window 20 cruiser. I think that -- 21 A: Yes, ma'am. 22 Q: So the situation had evolved 23 considerably at that point between August 2nd and 24 September 5th? 25 A: Yes, ma'am.


1 Q: And you couldn't make any assumptions 2 as to how this situation might further evolve? 3 A: No, ma'am. 4 Q: And one of the goals of the this 5 Interministerial Committee was to prevent emergencies 6 from occurring, right? 7 A: Yes, ma'am. 8 Q: And I'm going to suggest that under 9 the circumstances it would be prudent to identify all 10 possible options for ending the occupation. 11 A: Yes, ma'am. 12 Q: And having identified those options 13 it would also be prudent for the Committee to evaluate 14 those options before making any recommendations. 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And some options may require more 17 information in order to properly evaluate them, right? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And that may require further time. 20 A: Yes, ma'am. 21 Q: And that's another reason for 22 identifying as many options as possible, early on, 23 because it may take time to evaluate them and meanwhile 24 you can't predict how the situation may evolve. 25 A: Yeah. Having said that, I think some


1 of the options that put forward to the Committee, like 2 upon retrospect and with a little -- with a small -- 3 small understanding of the law as it is now, that some of 4 them were not -- should not have been discussed at the 5 Committee. 6 Q: We've heard evidence that at the 7 meeting on September 5th, when the issue of options 8 initially came up, the -- the only issue that was 9 referred to was an injunction. 10 Is that what you recall in the initial 11 stage of the discussion? 12 A: Could you ask your question again, 13 sorry? 14 Q: The initial option that was put on 15 the table was the option of an injunction? 16 A: Well, the only option really is that 17 we -- that was pursued was the injunction. You know, we 18 did discuss the other ones to try and get an 19 understanding of the situation. 20 Q: And we -- with respect to the other 21 options, you've heard that Elizabeth Christie listed 22 several statutes, the mischief provisions of the Criminal 23 Code, Trespass to Property Act, Provincial Parks Act, 24 Public Lands Act, but I take it that there was very 25 little analysis by the lawyers of these options, at the


1 meeting on September 5th? 2 A: Well, there was very little 3 discussion about them? There was a little education that 4 took place for the lay people in the room in terms of 5 what it was now, would it work. But -- and we discussed 6 to some extent the -- the -- what was a practical 7 solution and the focus of that practical solution was the 8 injunction. 9 Q: And the review of these -- of the 10 statutes was -- was pretty cursory on September 5th, 11 'cause in fact, the Committee decided that day that some 12 further analysis was needed and that they would report 13 back the next day, that there was sort of, in effect, a 14 legal sub committee that was formed to -- to -- to 15 provide some more -- some more education with respect to 16 these statues? 17 A: Oh, with more respect to the 18 statutes? 19 Q: Yes. Well, you referred to some 20 education. I'm going to suggest that much of that 21 actually took place on the 6th. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: And I take it that none of the 24 lawyers on the 5th provided an explanation as to what 25 other rights the Government, as a property owner, might


1 have? 2 I mean, you talked about the -- the five 3 (5) statutes, or four (4) statutes, that's what was 4 discussed along with the injunction -- 5 A: Well, could you ask me about a -- if 6 I remember a specific statute coming forward rather than 7 just saying, you know, was that all the laws that were 8 discussed. 9 Because, you know, there was a few. So 10 I'm not quite sure what you're -- you're -- you know, if 11 you're asking me to list all the statutes that were 12 discussed at the meeting, I can't. 13 Q: No, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't ask a 14 non lawyer about that. I'm simply asking -- 15 A: I appreciate that. 16 Q: I'm simply asking, in terms of your 17 recollection that we've heard the evidence, and I think 18 it's reflected in your notes, that there was a reference 19 to the mischief provisions of the Criminal Code, the 20 Trespass to Property Act, the Provincial Parks Act and 21 the Public Lands Act and I believe you -- your testimony 22 in regards to that was that there was a little education 23 provided with respect to that. 24 And there was also discussion about an 25 injunction, and that really the focus of the -- of the


1 discussion was with respect to an injunction? 2 A: Yes, ma'am. 3 Q: And what I'm getting at -- that -- 4 that's essentially what was discussed in terms of 5 options? 6 A: Yes, ma'am. 7 Q: And you referred to Scott Hutchison 8 attending on September 6th and that that had struck you 9 in that he hadn't been in attendance the previous day. 10 And I'm going to suggest to you that Tim 11 McCabe also attended on September 6th and not on 12 September 5th, and he also provided some advice on 13 September 6th. 14 A: I think that's very possible. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 A: It was a -- I think that was a 19 reflection like of -- both of them were really -- Scott, 20 while not experienced, is really quite a smart lawyer and 21 Tim is a very experienced lawyer. So they were trying to 22 get some, you know, practical legal advice, like, to the 23 Committee. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: Now we've heard evidence that the 2 local MNR representatives had prepared contingency plans 3 in the event of civil disobedience or an actual 4 occupation, and I believe you mentioned on August 2nd 5 that that was your understanding, in principle. 6 A: That MNR had set up contingency 7 plans? 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: I can't remember what contingency 10 plans the MNR had. I knew that they were conscious of it 11 and that -- but the focus of my understanding was that 12 the OPP were monitoring the situation, setting up 13 contingency plans. 14 I can't remember MNR setting up 15 contingency plans in case of an occupation. I just 16 thought they were monitoring the situation. 17 Q: So you obviously -- you -- you didn't 18 have any awareness as to the substance of the -- of the 19 MNR plans? 20 A: No, nor of the OPP. We were just 21 provided with some information that plans were being 22 made. 23 Q: Well, we've heard evidence that the 24 OPP had advised the local MNR representatives that the 25 OPP regarded any occupation as a policing matter?


1 Were you aware of that? 2 A: No, ma'am. 3 Q: Now, you've testified that you were 4 told that an injunction would assist the OPP? 5 A: Yes, ma'am. 6 Q: And I take it that you understood 7 that it would be the Government not the OPP who would 8 actually be seeking the injunction, who would be the MAG 9 lawyers? 10 A: Yes, ma'am. 11 Q: So you understood that while the OPP 12 might have its role in responding to this occupation the 13 Government for its part would also have its role, its 14 responsibilities? 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And the purpose of the 17 Interministerial Committee of course was to focus on the 18 Government's response? 19 A: Yes, ma'am. 20 Q: And I'm going to suggest that the 21 Interministerial Committee needed to have some 22 understanding of what the police could do in the 23 situation in order to sensibly consider what -- what the 24 Government for its part could do or needed to do and to 25 consider what to communicate to the public?


1 A: Yes, ma'am. 2 Q: Now, you testified that there was a 3 reference on September 5th to there being permanent 4 cottages and homes in the vicinity of the Park and we've 5 heard evidence that Ron Baldwin, who was one (1) of the 6 individuals on the phone who was a representative from 7 MNR with some enforcement background and that he made 8 such comments. 9 And -- and do recall that those comments 10 came from somebody on the ground? 11 A: Yeah, but I remember -- in terms of 12 who from MNR made the comments I couldn't recall, but I 13 remember that there was a -- 14 Q: It was somebody? 15 A: Yeah, there was -- there was a 16 concern for the non-Native community in the vicinity. 17 Q: And we've heard evidence that Ron 18 Baldwin noted that trees, Park property was being damaged 19 and was asking why criminal charges couldn't be laid. 20 Do -- do you recall MNR representatives 21 making those sorts of comments? 22 A: I -- I remember the question being 23 asked but I couldn't recall who. 24 Q: And I take it that you understood 25 that there's quite a difference between asking what


1 police could do and trying to direct police operations, 2 right? 3 A: Hmm hmm. We -- we went through kind 4 of a -- the educational process where we were kind of 5 walked through the -- the process for someone who in 6 effect called the police. 7 Q: And you've testified about some of 8 the information that the Interministerial Committee 9 received at these meetings about what was actually going 10 on in the vicinity of the Park and I take it that in 11 addressing issues such as the injunction you regarded it 12 as important for the Interministerial Committee to have 13 information as to what was going on in the Park and its 14 vicinity? 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And I take it that information as to 17 what is occurring may be relevant for example in terms of 18 considering what to communicate to the public? 19 A: Yes, ma'am. 20 Q: So for example reports of gunfire may 21 be relevant because gunfire by its nature may be 22 something that members of the public may have heard? 23 A: Yes, ma'am, but I -- I think that 24 just on a general note that the elected officials should 25 have a general idea of what's going on the -- on the


1 ground. 2 Q: And I take it that with respect to 3 information flow did you know that some of the 4 information that MNR was providing at the 5 Interministerial Committee such as for example the 6 reports of gunfire actually originated from the OPP? 7 A: No, ma'am. 8 Q: Okay. Now, you referred to Ron Fox 9 and you indicated that he provided information to the 10 Interministerial Committee from the OPP? 11 A: Yes, ma'am. 12 Q: And I wanted to ask a question about 13 information flow going the other way from the Government 14 to the OPP. 15 I take it that you'd agree with me that it 16 would be up to the Deputy Solicitor General as to what if 17 anything an advisor and her Ministry could communicate to 18 the OPP or practically anyone else regarding internal 19 discussions within government. 20 A: Yes, ma'am. It was my understanding 21 that -- that Ron had kind of been seconded away from the 22 OPP and was working for the Ministry which were kind of 23 two (2) different things. 24 Q: You understood him as to be an 25 advisor with the Ministry?


1 A: Yes, ma'am. 2 Q: Now we've heard a suggestion from 3 some counsel that this Inquiry should be concerned about 4 political pressure on civil servants and -- and I just 5 had a few questions for you in that regard. 6 You testified yesterday as to your 7 understanding as to how government works. And you 8 referred to the civil service as sort of effectively 9 inert and looking to elected officials for direction. 10 And -- and I take it that it was your 11 understanding that in dealing with the Ipperwash 12 Provincial Park occupation you understood that it was 13 ministers, it was elected officials, not civil servants 14 who would make the decision regarding the Government's 15 response? 16 A: You're making a little bit of a 17 bridge there in terms of the -- the logic of the 18 argument. Yes, the elected officials are elected to 19 provide directions to the professional civil service in 20 terms of -- of the direction and policies of the 21 Government. 22 And yes, elected officials are ultimately 23 responsible for the actions of the Government. And yes, 24 elected officials are responsible for anything that 25 happens in terms of government officials.


1 But my only caution is is that in, you 2 know, I'm not sure how far you're going to go with this 3 in terms of providing direction. And so, yes, elected 4 officials are -- are tasked with providing instruction 5 and ultimately being responsible for the civil service. 6 But I believe and I'm no expert on 7 governance of the police force. That's a little 8 different. 9 Q: Oh. Fair -- fair enough. Now you 10 testified regarding your role as Executive Assistant and 11 I take it that you attended these Interministerial 12 Committee meetings expecting that you would need to brief 13 your minister. 14 A: That I would need to? 15 Q: That you would then brief your 16 minister subsequently as to what occurred at these 17 meetings. 18 A: Yes, ma'am. 19 Q: And in order to fulfill that role, 20 you would want to ensure that you understood what had 21 been discussed. 22 What the options were, what were the 23 respective advantages and disadvantages, it's that sort 24 of thing -- 25 A: Yes, ma'am.


1 Q: And I take it you would expect to ask 2 questions at these meetings if you needed more 3 information? 4 A: Yes, ma'am. 5 Q: And you attended these meetings on 6 September 5th and 6th and information was sought at these 7 meetings as to what were the views of the ministers at 8 various points? 9 A: Yes, ma'am. 10 Q: In fact the Interministerial 11 Committee concluded the meeting on the 5th on the basis 12 that the ministers were going to be briefed with respect 13 to that minister-- that meeting and that there would then 14 be a report back the following day regarding feedback? 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And in fact there was a report back 17 the following day. I take it you recall for example, 18 Jeff Bangs 19 advising as to his minister's views that he didn't want 20 to be a spokesperson, that he viewed it as a police 21 matter? 22 A: Yes, ma'am. 23 Q: And Julie Jai reported back regarding 24 direction from the Attorney General on September 6th. 25 She attended the meetings previously and --


1 A: I can't remember Julie speaking on 2 behalf of the Attorney General. 3 Q: Do you recall on September 5th 4 someone asking at one point what was the Government's 5 tolerance level if there was an escalation? 6 A: No, ma'am. 7 Q: A number of witnesses have commented 8 that the Interministerial Committee meetings were quite 9 large. And I believe you've made some reference to that 10 as well. I take it that's your recollection? 11 There was a significant number of people 12 at these meetings? 13 A: Yes, ma'am. 14 Q: And from the evidence that we've 15 heard to date, it appears that a number of people 16 attended the meetings on August the 2nd on -- and/or 17 September 5th and/or September 6th, that never actually 18 participated. 19 Was that your observation? You attended 20 all three (3) meetings. 21 A: Oh. That some people came and didn't 22 really participate? 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And I take it you didn't know many of


1 these people personally -- 2 A: At the time? 3 Q: At the time. 4 A: No, ma'am. 5 Q: But as I said, you -- you -- you were 6 at these meetings, you observed this and I'm going to 7 suggest that that occurred at the meeting on August 2nd 8 some people showed up and never made any comment or 9 questions, never participated. 10 A: Yes, ma'am. 11 Q: That happened on the 5th -- 12 A: Yes, ma'am. 13 Q: -- of September and that happened on 14 the 6th? 15 A: Sure. 16 Q: And after -- 17 A: It -- to this day, I'm still not sure 18 who some of the people were at some of the meetings. 19 Q: And so I take it -- 20 A: And now that's after five (5) years 21 working in the Ministry. 22 Q: And I take it in that sense that some 23 people attended but didn't participate in that sense, all 24 three (3) meetings were quite similar? 25 A: Yes, ma'am.


1 Q: Now, we've heard evidence that the 2 local MNR representatives understood from the OPP that 3 the injunction was a priority item and that the OPP 4 expected MNR -- 5 A: That who understood that it was a 6 priority? 7 Q: Sorry. I'll slow down. We've heard 8 evidence that the local MNR representatives on the ground 9 understood from the OPP on the ground that the injunction 10 was a priority item, and that the OPP wanted MNR to 11 obtain it rapidly. 12 And I take it that -- 13 A: That MNR was going to obtain an 14 injunction? 15 Q: The government. 16 A: Oh. 17 Q: I take it that you weren't made aware 18 of that at the meeting on September 5th? 19 A: No. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Now, we've heard some evidence 24 regarding Ms. Hunt making a comment about the protocol of 25 the Solicitor General. I was wondering if you could turn


1 to Eileen Hipfner's notes of September 6th. I believe 2 they're Tab 11 of Commission Counsel's documents. 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: And if you turn to the fourth page in 5 with the number 3 at the top... 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: I don't see referring to Kathryn. 10 Oh, underneath that... 11 MR. DONALD WORME: It's P-636. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sorry, I see it. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 15 Q: It's -- I've just been advised it's 16 page 636. 17 MR. DONALD WORME: Exhibit number P-363. 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Oh, exhibit number. 19 THE WITNESS: No, I've got it. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Kathryn was really 24 quite clear on this point. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 2 Q: And this is the discussion under the 3 heading "direction from Ministers" and there's some 4 comments attributed to Mr. Bangs: 5 "Went to Minister with plan devised at 6 table. He spoke to eight (8) to ten 7 (10) media outlets. The way things are 8 escalating Minister doesn't want to 9 carry this, especially with threat to 10 nearby lands. 11 Upset because situation hasn't been 12 contained to military base. Gunfire 13 damage to Park property. Are they 14 digging trenches? This is quickly 15 spiralling out of MNR's hands." 16 And then there's a reference below that: 17 "Also question of what Minister's can 18 say if OPP are handling this and 19 especially now that charges have been 20 laid." 21 And then there's a comment which appears 22 to be attributed to you, it says: 23 "Can't have OPP speak on behalf of 24 government. Harnick clear if AG is 25 being asked to seek injunction, will do


1 so ASAP, and with regard to public 2 carriage of the issue, we're open to 3 direction from the centre." 4 And then just below that there's the 5 reference to a comment attributed to Kathryn Hunt: 6 "Runciman's reservation comes from the 7 fact that Sol Gen's protocol is not to 8 be involved in the day to day operation 9 of the police. Political arm should be 10 divorced." 11 And my question for you was simply, is 12 that consistent with your recollection regarding Ms. 13 Hunt's comment regarding the protocol that it was in the 14 context of -- of a question regarding what Ministers can 15 say now that charges have been laid? 16 A: Whether it was referring to charges 17 that had already been laid? 18 Q: Well, it seems -- 19 A: I can't remember. 20 Q: My question was simply whether -- do 21 you recall this comment being made by Ms. Hunt? 22 A: I remember Kathryn speaking about the 23 protocol between the political arm and the police. But I 24 can't recall specifically with what she was referring to. 25 Q: Fair enough. I take it that there


1 was a lot of discussion at these meetings on the 5th and 2 the 6th with respect to communications and messages? 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: There was -- 5 A: There was a lot of discussion about 6 it? 7 Q: Well, that -- that it was an issue 8 that came up, the issue of who was going to be a 9 spokesperson, who would speak to various issues - 10 A: It was an issue that Mr. -- 11 Q: -- came up on the 5th. Sorry, if I 12 could just finish my question; that it came up both on 13 the 5th and the 6th? 14 A: Yes, ma'am. 15 Q: Those are all of my questions. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 17 very much, Ms. Perschy. 18 I believe Ms. Kaufman...? 19 Ms. Kaufman appears on behalf of the OPP. 20 THE WITNESS: Oh, thanks. 21 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Good morning, Mr. 22 Commissioner. Good morning, Mr. Moran. 23 THE WITNESS: Good morning. What's your 24 name again, I'm sorry? 25 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: It's Leslie Kaufman


1 on behalf of the OPP. Thank you. 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: 4 Q: Mr. Moran, you've testified to Ron 5 Fox's participation at the IMC meetings of September 5th 6 and 6th and I just wanted to summarize a few points as to 7 what Mr. Fox was advocating -- Inspector Fox was 8 advocating. 9 A: Yes, ma'am. 10 Q: And first of all, I'm going to 11 suggest he was advocating for an approach that emphasized 12 reluctance on the part of the police to move on Park 13 occupiers in the absence of a court injunction. 14 In fact he -- he emphasized the 15 importance of a court injunction? 16 A: Yes, ma'am. 17 Q: Okay. And secondly that he was 18 advocating for a slow and considerate approach to the 19 issue? 20 A: I wouldn't -- I don't recall Mr. Fox 21 discussing speed, I recall him talking about due process 22 and the need to follow the -- the process of the 23 injunction. 24 Q: Okay. Sir, I'm going to take you to 25 Julie Jai's notes again. You've been taken to them a few


1 times. 2 A: Tab? 3 Q: At Tab 10, page 3 of the notes. 4 A: So that's really page 2? 5 Q: Right. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And if you look down the page under 8 "Ron." See, Ms. Jai attributes -- 9 A: Wait, I haven't got a "Ron" on my 10 page. You're sure that it says the actual "page 2" at 11 the top? 12 Q: I'm sorry, it says "page 3" at the 13 top. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this the 15 September 6th meeting? 16 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 17 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that the 19 one you're referring to? 20 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Yes, Mr. 21 Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, okay. 23 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Thank you. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN:


1 Q: You'll agree with me that Ms. Jai 2 attributes people's comments to the individuals by naming 3 the people --- 4 A: Yes. No, no. I'm with you here. 5 Q: Okay. Sorry. And -- 6 A: Thank you. 7 Q: And you'll agree with me that in your 8 notes you didn't do that, correct? 9 A: Yes, ma'am. 10 Q: Okay. So three-quarters of the way 11 down the page under, "Ron"? 12 A: Yes. No, no, I'm looking. 13 Q: Okay. You'll see: 14 "Injunction is preferable. Feels it's 15 imprudent to rush in." 16 A: Yes, ma'am. 17 Q: Okay. So that he was advocating for 18 a -- 19 A: An injunction. 20 Q: -- slow and considerate approach? 21 A: Well, the -- the -- to put that in 22 context I believe was that we had been discussing the 23 idea about Trespass to Property Act and stuff like that. 24 Now, why couldn't -- like in a very simplistic way for, 25 you know, lay people that we were were but why -- the


1 example that was used was why don't the police just 2 charge them? 3 It wasn't a -- it wasn't an idea of a use 4 of force, it was a -- well, I don't get it, like why 5 don't they just charge them and that's when Ron explained 6 that the -- the proper process was to pursue the 7 injunction because, you know, as his notes -- that you 8 know, this is a mischief charge and this is not a 9 significant -- but he charged them. 10 Q: And that it would be imprudent to 11 rush into things? 12 A: Yes, ma'am. 13 Q: Okay. Because Ms. Hipfner also 14 recorded that in her notes -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- right? All right. Thank you. 17 And, sir, we've heard from -- from numerous individuals 18 who testified at this Inquiry and who attended both IMC 19 meetings as you did that Ron Fox was not seeking 20 direction from the -- that Ron Fox was not seeking 21 direction from members of the Committee regarding police 22 operational matters and I trust that you'd agree with 23 this as well? 24 A: Yes, ma'am. 25 Q: Okay. Sir, in your evidence


1 yesterday and a little bit today as well, you mentioned 2 yesterday quite a number of times that you thought that 3 the MNR officials had better information than the OPP and 4 that there was, and I believe you said yesterday, "A 5 general sense of surprise"; that you were surprised that 6 the OPP didn't seem to know what was going on on the 7 ground. 8 A: Yes, ma'am. 9 Q: Okay. And you'll agree with me that 10 your impressions as to what the OPP knew, or didn't know, 11 derived solely from what information Ron Fox was sharing 12 or not sharing -- 13 A: Yes, ma'am. 14 Q: -- with you at the committee meeting? 15 16 A: Yeah. There was no other access to 17 information. 18 Q: Okay. Right. And you'll also agree 19 with me that there was no way that you could have known 20 what the Incident Commander knew or didn't know because 21 you never spoke with him. 22 A: Right. 23 Q: Correct? 24 A: Yes, ma'am. 25 Q: And further, I'll further suggest to


1 you that you -- you couldn't have known the extent to 2 which the MNR was deriving their information from -- from 3 being at the command post and that -- 4 A: Yes, ma'am. 5 Q: -- or from being with the OPP, 6 correct? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Okay. And then the decisions that 9 they then made to disseminate it at the September 5th and 10 6th meetings. 11 A: Yes, ma'am. 12 Q: Okay. Sorry, I'm jumping around a 13 little bit but yesterday you -- 14 A: I'll try and stay with you. 15 Q: Okay, thank you. You were asked -- 16 you were asked by Commission counsel whether Ron Fox 17 raised anything along the line of colour of right. And 18 yesterday you responded, No, but that it came up sometime 19 later. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: So today when you were giving 22 evidence about September -- the September 6th meeting, 23 you weren't asked that question again. 24 And I'm going to suggest to you that Mr. 25 Fox did, sorry, that Inspector Fox did bring -- bring the


1 issue of colour of right up at the September 6th meeting. 2 Do you recall that? 3 A: No, ma'am. But it's quite possible 4 that -- that, if it was brought up, the lay people 5 wouldn't have understand [sic] either the significance or 6 what it meant. 7 And if the officials hadn't explained it 8 to us we would have -- it wouldn't have resonated with 9 anyone that was there. 10 Q: Okay perhaps -- 11 A: Because I do -- whether -- the reason 12 why I do recall was because I do remember it coming up at 13 a later date, where it was actually explained and the 14 significance of it was explained. 15 Q: Okay. Just -- just to clarify for 16 the purposes of this Inquiry, then the -- the -- if I 17 could just take you to Tab 11, Eileen Hipfner's notes, 18 September 6th, page 5 of her notes. 19 A: So it's really page 6, right? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, page 5. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: 23 Q: Page 5 24 A: Oh, sorry. 25 Q: Under "Fox."


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: You'll see the second line down, 3 attributed to Ron Fox's -- 4 A: "Closed Provincial Park dispute as to 5 ownership?" 6 Q: Second line down: 7 "SP asserting colour of right -- 8 A: Oh, yes. 9 Q: -- may be different from trespassing, 10 [et cetera]." 11 So you'll agree with me, then, if they're 12 in her notes, it was something that Ron Fox brought up at 13 the September 6th meeting, correct? 14 A: The -- the only thing I can comment 15 on is that, if it was brought up, it didn't resonate with 16 me. Like, I didn't understand it. So if it -- I don't 17 remember it being brought up. 18 Q: You're not disagreeing with her 19 notes, with her recollection? I mean her notes, you'll 20 agree with me are -- are very detailed, correct? 21 A: Her notes are detailed. I -- what 22 I'm saying is is I don't remember it coming up at the 23 meeting. And that if it did come up at the meeting, that 24 in terms of myself, that I didn't -- either I don't 25 remember it --


1 A: Okay. 2 Q: -- or and I wouldn't have understood 3 it. 4 Q: All right. Finally, today you gave 5 evidence that Inspector Fox seemed defensive in response 6 to Premier Harris' expression of disappointment with the 7 OPP for their actions -- 8 A: Yes, ma'am. 9 Q: -- correct? It was -- obviously it 10 was clear to -- to you that the Premier knew that Ron Fox 11 was a police officer? 12 A: Yes, ma'am. 13 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much. 16 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Thank you, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: OPP has no 18 questions, I believe, at this point. 19 Then it's Mr. Myrka. 20 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Good morning, Mr. 21 Moran. THE WITNESS: Good morning. 22 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, I 23 anticipate five (5) minutes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, that's 25 good. Then we can finish and then we'll have a break for


1 lunch. 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WALTER MYRKA: 4 Q: Mr. Moran, you were taken earlier 5 this morning to a telephone call between Ron Fox and 6 Inspector Carson, after the meetings of September 6th, 7 and you were referred to the expression 'testosterone 8 high'. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Did you observe or hear anything at 13 the dining room meeting that might account for that kind 14 of comment being made by Ron Fox? 15 A: That -- following the dining room 16 meeting that there was a -- I thought that -- that he'd 17 made that call after the Interministerial meeting. 18 Q: All right. Well if we -- well, let 19 me ask you this: Did you observe or hear anything at any 20 of the meetings that you attended, be they the IMC 21 meetings or the dining room meeting or any other meetings 22 on the Labour Day weekend that might account for that 23 kind of comment being made by Mr. Fox? 24 A: I think there was a general level of 25 frustration that was expressed by a number of officials.


1 But I don't -- I wouldn't attribute anything that would 2 be justifiable for that sort of analysis. 3 Q: Do you recall anybody acting 4 improperly at any of these meetings? 5 A: No, sir. 6 Q: Okay. And everybody, as best as you 7 can recall, were dealing professionally with what must 8 have been very difficult circumstances; is that fair? 9 A: Sure, there was understandable 10 tension in the room and -- but, you know, for the most 11 part, while there was frustration and -- and tension in 12 terms of -- of the situation, I didn't think anything was 13 unprofessional. 14 Q: And you'd agree that one can be 15 frustrated and one can be test -- or tense and stressed 16 and yet still continue to act professionally? 17 A: Oh yes, sir. 18 Q: And indeed that's what you saw? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: Okay. And with respect to the dining 21 room meeting, did you take notes of that particular 22 meeting that you -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- can recall? Did you observe 25 anybody else taking notes?


1 A: I can't recall. 2 Q: All right. Thank you, Commissioner, 3 those are my questions. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 5 very much. I think Mr. Klippenstein's next, so we'll 6 adjourn now and -- 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Lambton Shores is 8 next, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 10 sorry. Begin with Ms. Clermont. We might as well do Ms. 11 Clermont. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 16 Clermont, I'm sorry. 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 19 Q: Hello, Mr. Moran. 20 A: Hi. 21 Q: My name is Janet Clermont and I'm one 22 of the Counsel acting for the Municipality of Lambton 23 Shores, which was formerly Bosanquet Township where the 24 incident occurred. 25 And my -- my focus is -- is simply going


1 to be on communications with external stakeholders and 2 who was responsible for those communications. 3 First, I'll ask you to turn to Tab 2 of 4 Commission Counsel documents, and that's -- for the 5 record, that's document 1011557, Exhibit P-303. 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: This is the ONAS briefing note for 8 Charles Harnick that you were referred to yesterday. 9 A: Yes, ma'am. 10 Q: And if you could go under -- do you 11 see the heading there, "Current status?" 12 A: Yes, ma'am. 13 Q: And the second point, first sentence, 14 "If there's an emergency situation, the 15 Committee develops recommendations, may 16 appoint a negotiator, may recommend 17 that legal action be taken and ensures 18 that adequate communication occurs with 19 the affected groups, including the 20 general public." 21 And does that accord with -- with your 22 understanding of -- of one of the functions of the 23 Committee? 24 A: Yes, ma'am. 25 Q: All right. And do you know whether


1 the -- was communications with external stakeholders 2 discussed at the August 2nd IMC meeting? 3 A: Yes, ma'am. 4 Q: All right. And -- and by 5 communications, I mean opening up a two-way dialogue with 6 -- with external stakeholders such as the municipality -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Was that discussed? And can you tell 9 me what those discussions entailed, involved? 10 A: Just generally that there was a need 11 to just reach out to them and communicate with them. 12 Q: But to your knowledge, was that done? 13 A: Undertakings were made that it would 14 be done. I couldn't testify that it was -- it took place 15 or not. 16 Q: And do you know who -- who that task 17 was assigned to, which -- which Ministry that was 18 assigned to? 19 A: I think it was either the Natural 20 Resources, but I -- I actually thought the Premier's 21 office was doing it, but I -- I'm not sure. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: I just knew it wasn't me. 24 Q: That's all. And I'll have you now 25 turn to Tab 10 and these are Julie Jai's September 6th


1 notes, page 5 of -- of her notes. I believe September 2 5th is first and then September 6th. 3 A: Is this the one that says, "page 5" 4 on the top or...? 5 Q: Pardon me? 6 A: The one that says, "page 5" on the 7 top? I -- they're not actually in -- 8 Q: Yeah. Yeah. Page 5. 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: It says, "page 5" at the top. And 11 you'll see there's a referen -- your name is at the 12 bottom of the page there. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: And this is -- this is attributed to 15 you: 16 "Get a list of who needs to be calmed 17 down." 18 A: Oh, no, no. I volunteered to do it. 19 Q: Okay. And -- and did you -- did you 20 do that? 21 A: No, I was -- 22 Q: Oh. 23 A: -- well, I volunteered. I, you know, 24 wasn't actually assigned the task. 25 Q: And -- and why was that something


1 that you felt was important to -- to do or to raise at 2 the meeting, getting a list of -- of people who needed to 3 be calmed down? 4 A: Oh, because it was our understanding 5 that -- that the situation on the ground was really quite 6 tense and that people were concerned. 7 Q: And did you have -- did you 8 anticipate who would be on the list? 9 A: I would have thought the -- the mayor 10 and the local MPP. I -- off the top of my head it 11 wouldn't have occurred to me to add anyone else to the 12 list, but. 13 Q: And to your knowledge that hadn't 14 been raised prior to September 6th, compiling this list? 15 A: Oh, I don't know. I don't know 16 whether the list was ever actually created. 17 Q: But I'm asking whether it was 18 contemplated, prior to September 6th? 19 A: Oh, like are you saying at -- at the 20 November 5th meeting? 21 Q: No, the -- at the August 2nd or 22 September 5th meeting? 23 A: Oh, no, no. 24 Q: It wasn't? 25 A: No.


1 Q: And would that have been helpful to 2 have -- to have such a list readily available? 3 A: Yes, ma'am. 4 Q: Okay. And I'm going to ask you to 5 turn now to Tab 8. 6 And that's Document Number 1012252 -- 7 A: All right. 8 Q: -- Exhibit 509. And these are the 9 September 6th IMC meeting notes. 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: And if you turn to -- just a minute - 12 - the second page under number 4, "Communications." 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: The second sentence, it says: 15 "MNR..." 16 Do you -- do you have that there? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: "MNR will also work on informal 19 communications with key people in the 20 region." 21 A: The -- the last point you mean? 22 "MNR will contact the Municipality with 23 regard to..." 24 Q: Yes. 25 "MNR will also work on informal


1 communications with key people in the 2 region to diffuse tensions." 3 And do I -- do I take it from that 4 suggestion made at the meeting that no formal or informal 5 communications plan was discussed prior to this, that 6 contemplated diffusing tensions? 7 A: No, I wouldn't -- it wasn't my 8 understanding. I think leaving the August 2nd meeting 9 that I had assumed, I guess incorrectly, and in 10 hindsight, that when -- that as a result of the August 11 2nd meeting that steps would be taken to diffuse the 12 situation. 13 Q: And would you agree with me that it 14 would have been helpful to have a communication plan in 15 place whether formal or informal, well in advance of 16 September 6th? 17 A: Yes, ma'am. 18 Q: Okay. And the last document that I 19 want to take you to is -- is at your Tab 23. It's 20 Document 1012179, Exhibit P-301 21 A: 23 you said? 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: Tab 23. And if you turn -- it'll 25 probably be easier if you turn to the back and -- and


1 work -- 2 A: Oh, 23, I only got one (1) page in 3 23. 4 Q: Oh, you just got one (1) -- just a 5 minute, please? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MS. JANET CLERMONT: That's all right. 10 The attachment that I was referring to is not -- is not a 11 part of that tab. Just a moment. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. DONALD WORME: The exhibit only has 16 one (1) page, Ms. Clermont. 17 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Okay. Actually I 18 think I can ask -- ask the questions without it. 19 THE WITNESS: I've got the one page. 20 MS. JANET CLERMONT: No, that's fine. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 23 Q: There were some attachments to that 24 letter that I was going to ask you about. But I think I 25 can do it without it. There were -- there were some


1 slides that were prepared by -- by Julie Jai and these 2 were proposed procedures for Aboriginal Emergencies and 3 they were -- 4 A: Are these after the fact that you're 5 referring to? 6 Q: No, no they're not. But -- but they 7 were drafted following the incident with -- with the idea 8 of revising or revisiting the policy that was -- the 9 procedures that were in place. 10 And one of the areas that were noted as in 11 need of improvement were providing regular briefings of - 12 - of stakeholders. 13 And my question to you is whether -- 14 whether you feel that that would be of value or was that 15 -- was that your understanding as well that this was an 16 area that could have been improved? 17 A: Yes, ma'am. 18 Q: Okay. And also in -- in the -- in 19 the document there was mention that with respect to on 20 site communications it would have been helpful to have a 21 government communications person on -- on the field -- on 22 the ground level. 23 And I'm wondering what your thoughts were 24 on that and whether that would be something that you 25 would consider helpful?


1 A: No, ma'am. 2 Q: And why is that? 3 A: I think it's impractical and I -- I 4 also think that there's no way that you could get a 5 senior enough official who could effectively communicate 6 on behalf of the Government at a local level. 7 Q: All right. And so how -- how would 8 you foresee that -- that communications mechanism working 9 aside from having someone on -- on site? 10 What would be another alternative? 11 A: Well I think that there's got to be 12 some level of transparency in terms of the Government in 13 terms of -- of who is going to be the community liaison 14 in this situation or the media liaison. Like the people 15 in the media have a pretty clear understanding of who to 16 call if they have a question about government or 17 government situations. 18 But I think in terms of who a community 19 leader should call in these situations, I think it would 20 be a shot in the dark at best as with the general public. 21 So I -- I think that there's got to be some -- some -- 22 some clear understanding in some situations that -- to 23 properly deal with it. 24 Q: So you would agree with me that there 25 should be a mechanism in place that would -- that would


1 foresee consultation with elected officials and by 2 consultation I mean seeking input of -- of the other 3 party? 4 A: I think consultation's too far but I 5 do think that -- that input is required in terms of -- of 6 being informed of what's going on in the local community. 7 Q: But certainly a two (2) way dialogue. 8 A: Yes, ma'am. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: But I think they are two (2) 11 different things in terms of an exchange of information 12 and actually addressing it and solving problems. And I - 13 - I just think that there's a -- a difference in terms of 14 how it's actually done in a practical sense. 15 The reason I'm looking -- I'm looking at 16 it from inside government to dealing with the municipal 17 government and I just -- you know, because the Provincial 18 Government doesn't operate as a -- as a one unified body. 19 And so I'm just trying to think of it in a 20 practical sense how that exchange of information could 21 work in a way that, for instance, if you're elected Mayor 22 and you want to have an informed discussion about 23 different aspects, well what -- you know, there's any, 24 you know, you could go to six (6) different ministries 25 depending on what answer you're looking for and so, you


1 know, whether you're -- it's just -- 2 Q: So it should be clear, it should also 3 be clear where -- where that official is contact -- or 4 who that -- which ministry that official is to contact -- 5 A: Yes, ma'am. 6 Q: -- to open a two-way communication? 7 A: Yes, ma'am. 8 Q: Okay. Thank you, those are my 9 questions. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 11 Ms. Clermont. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, before 13 we break for lunch, I just wanted to give everyone an 14 update as to where we are with respect to the witnesses 15 for this week. 16 Tomorrow we will have Ms. Hunt and then on 17 Thursday we will have Mr. Bangs and Mr. King will come 18 some time later, hopefully the week of November 14th. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 20 Klippenstein...? 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Commissioner, 22 just by way of update, if I'm to be next. We estimated 23 two and a half (2 1/2) hours for our cross-examination. 24 We've been working hard to reduce that, to taking out all 25 adjectives and commas and so right now I expect to be an


1 hour and a half or so. 2 And for -- for purposes of starting, I 3 intend to begin with Exhibit P-550 which is the 4 handwritten note of -- of Larry Taman and -- and for your 5 convenience, Commissioner, I will make a few references 6 to the other IMC meeting notes binder which we've 7 provided earlier. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 9 very much, Mr. Klippenstein. So, we should be able to 10 finish today. There's a good chance that we'll finish 11 Mr. Moran today. 12 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 14 very much, Mr. Klippenstein. We'll break for lunch now. 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 16 adjourned until 1:20 p.m. 17 18 --- Upon recessing at 12:08 p.m. 19 --- Upon resuming at 1:22 p.m. 20 21 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 22 resumed. Please be seated. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 24 afternoon, Mr. Klippenstein. 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Good afternoon,


1 Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's carry 3 on. 4 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 6 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Moran. My name 7 is Murray Klippenstein and I'm one of the legal counsel 8 for the Estate of Dudley George and the family of Dudley 9 George. 10 And I would like to ask you questions in a 11 number of areas beginning with some issues that arise 12 from a handwritten note which has been made an exhibit in 13 these proceedings earlier. 14 I believe you have a copy and 15 Commissioner, I have a copy for you if you don't have 16 one. This is Exhibit P-550 and that is a handwritten 17 note by Mr. Larry Taman on September 6th. I believe it's 18 not in the document binder for this witness, 19 Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No but in 21 the binder that you gave us? It's not in there either? 22 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: No. No. I 23 have several copies available. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yeah, this is


1 already Exhibit P-550. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 550. Thank 3 you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 6 Q: And it's Document Number 3000776. 7 That's 3000776. Mr. Moran, have you seen this document 8 before it was provided to you recently as part of these 9 proceedings. 10 A: Not to the best of my knowledge. 11 Q: Okay. The evidence has been in 12 discovery and I anticipate the evidence will be that 13 these are the handwritten notes of Mr. Larry Taman. And 14 it's very brief so I'll read it and I believe the 15 evidence from discovery in the litigation is that the 16 words are as follows: 17 "ONAS meeting the Ipperwash, AG 18 instructed by P that he desires removal 19 within twenty-four (24) hours - 20 instructions to seek injunction." 21 Now my questions to you relate to 22 attempting to see whether you can enlighten us about the 23 -- the facts in this note considering your position in 24 relation to the AG, the Attorney General. 25 I understand you were the Attorney General


1 at that time's executive assistant for approximately 1990 2 to 1995, prior to he becoming Attorney General; is that 3 right? 4 A: Yes, sir. 5 Q: And as executive assistants I presume 6 you would have worked very closely with him in terms of 7 scheduling -- his schedule, his meetings, his contacts; 8 is that fair? 9 A: I didn't do a lot of scheduling, if 10 that's what you're asking. 11 Q: Okay. In terms of his contacts, his 12 meetings, you would help arrange them, you would 13 participate in them, you would -- 14 A: I would participate in them, I didn't 15 really -- 16 Q: Sure. 17 A: -- do scheduling for him. 18 Q: Okay. But you would work closely 19 with him in his meetings, in his contacts, on his issues, 20 generally? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: Yeah. Very closely, is that fair? 23 A: Yes, sir. 24 Q: And when Mr. Harnick became Attorney 25 General around about then you became Chief of Staff for


1 him; is that accurate? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: Yeah. And is it fair to say you 4 continued to work very, very closely with him? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: Yes. So I'm wondering, in that 7 context, whether you have any recollection from September 8 6th that could enlighten us about, what appears to be 9 from this note, an instruction to the Attorney General by 10 'P', which I take in all circumstances to mean the 11 Premier, related to removal of the occupiers. 12 A: It's my understanding that from a -- 13 a strictly legal standpoint it's the Attorney General's 14 decision on actions taken by the Government. Having said 15 that in a practical sense, that's why it was my 16 understanding that, formally, the decision to -- to seek 17 an injunction was the Attorney General's. 18 Now -- but in a practical sense the reason 19 why we went up to brief the Premier was to make sure that 20 he was supportive in approval of the direction that we 21 were going. So that in a practical sense that, yes, he 22 had been instructed to seek the injunction, but, having 23 said that, I think Mr. Taman could better address the -- 24 the legalities of the process. 25 Q: Well, I may come back to that but I'm


1 interested in details of whether there was some other 2 conversation, for example, between the Attorney General 3 Mr. Harnick and the Premier Mr. Harris on or about 4 September 6th that would explain this note, that you're 5 aware of, either in person or in a hallway or on the 6 phone or in a meeting. 7 Do you recall anything like that? 8 A: Not that I'm aware of. 9 Q: Okay. You've mentioned a meeting on 10 the morning of September 6th in Mr. Harnick's office that 11 involved Mr. Taman; is that right? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: Do -- 14 A: The -- the timing of that meeting -- 15 we -- we met before we went to the -- the Premier and 16 whether that meeting took place before the 17 Interministerial Committee Meeting or after the 18 Interministerial Committee Meeting I -- I can't recall, 19 but I -- I don't think the sequence of that is of any 20 substance one (1) way or the other. 21 Q: Well, it might be in the fact that, 22 in -- in the argue it might be quite significant, so I 23 just want to see whether you have any further 24 recollection on that. 25 So thinking about it just a little bit now


1 it's -- your initial impression is it's possible that 2 that meeting with Mr. Harnick, in his office, occurred 3 before the IMC meeting, or it's possible it occurred 4 after the IMC meeting and before the Premier's meeting? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: And can you recall anything further 7 that would help us identify which of those two (2) time 8 slots it might have been? Did you -- did -- you had just 9 attended -- let met take a step back. If it was after 10 the IMC meeting you had just attended the IMC meeting -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: -- so presumably you would have 13 briefed the Attorney General about what happened in the 14 meeting. Do you recall if that's what you did? 15 A: Well, yes, and that's why it makes it 16 sense that -- sequentially, that it had taken place after 17 the meeting rather than before the meeting, because if it 18 had taken place before it would have been a -- a topic of 19 discussion at the Committee meeting. So it just doesn't 20 -- like in terms of the logical flow, it doesn't make 21 sense. 22 Q: In other words you're saying that if 23 you had just met with the Attorney General before the IMC 24 meeting you probably would have raised that at the IMC 25 meeting or...?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: You know, quite honestly, I'm sure 4 that I had briefed him before I went to the meeting and 5 after the meeting. 6 Q: All right. Is it possible that the 7 Attorney General, Mr. Harnick, spoke with the Premier 8 before you met with the Attorney General after the IMC 9 meeting, in other words -- 10 A: Could you say that again? I -- is it 11 possible that the Attorney General spoke with the Premier 12 before the Interministerial Committee meeting? 13 Q: Let me repeat the question. Assuming 14 for the moment that your recollection is that you met 15 with the Attorney General after the IMC meeting? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Together with Mr. Taman? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Is it possible that before that 20 meeting, Mr. Harnick had spoken with the Premier on the 21 morning of the 6th? 22 A: I -- 23 Q: When you think about it now? 24 A: I -- I'm fairly certain that that did 25 not take place.


1 Q: Can you tell me why you would be 2 certain about that? 3 A: Usually a call from the Premier was 4 something that we're -- take note of and I don't -- I 5 don't recall that call taking place. 6 Q: Did either Mr. Taman or Mr. Harnick, 7 in the meeting you had with them after the IMC meeting, 8 as you now think likely, refer to a discussion with the 9 Premier? 10 A: Not that I can recall. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: The only other time that -- before 13 the -- the meeting off the Premier's room, it's possible 14 that the Attorney General could have spoken with the 15 Premier in the hall or passing on the way to the meeting, 16 but I wouldn't be aware of that. 17 Q: And -- 18 A: And I don't -- to my knowledge, they 19 never had a -- a conversation between the two (2) of 20 them, okay, sorry. 21 Q: Do you know if both the Premier and 22 the Attorney General attended the cabinet meeting the 23 morning of the 6th? 24 A: I believe so, sir. 25 Q: So it's possible that they had a


1 conversation in the hallway, as you say, or leaving that 2 cabinet meeting or something like that? 3 A: It's possible, but not to the best of 4 my recollection. I don't know. 5 Q: All right. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Do you recall when you met with Mr. 10 Harnick and Mr. Taman after the IMC meeting as you now 11 think -- think likely, that Mr. Harnick had already 12 attended the cabinet meeting on the 6th; do you happen to 13 know? 14 A: So is it after the IMC meeting -- I 15 just want to get the -- the flow right? After the IMC 16 meeting, meeting with Mr. Harnick about the decision to 17 proceed with the injunction? 18 I can remember that meeting taking place, 19 but it's the timing of it that -- that, you know, it's -- 20 Q: All right. 21 A: And you know, I'm -- and I know that 22 -- I don't think that there was any substantial 23 discussions between the deputy, the Attorney or I, after 24 the meeting with the Premier -- 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: -- where we were just carrying out a 2 -- the instruction. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: I'm not sure if that helps, I'm 5 sorry. 6 Q: Okay. Thank you, I -- 7 A: I'm just trying to -- 8 Q: I presume Mr. Taman will -- 9 A: -- I'm sorry, it's been ten (10) 10 years. 11 Q: -- will testify as well and he may be 12 able to enlighten us. 13 Would you agree with me that if, as this 14 note says, the Attorney General was instructed by the 15 Premier that the Premier desires removal within twenty- 16 four (24) hours, that that's a pretty -- pretty 17 significant event. 18 Would you agree with that? 19 A: Well, I don't recall it -- it being 20 said and I -- I don't know -- like I -- I didn't... 21 Q: All right. 22 A: I don't view it too realistically. 23 Q: Okay. What do you mean by that? 24 A: Well I think it's unrealistic in 25 terms of I don't think anyone expected that this would be


1 over in twenty-four (24) hours, but I didn't expect it 2 would be over in twenty-four (24) hours, I guess, is my 3 only comment. 4 Q: Okay. And when you say that, I take 5 it you're -- you're interpreting this comment as do I, 6 that when it says "removal" it's not talking about having 7 a Court injunction in hand, it's about the occupiers 8 being out of the Park, right? 9 That's how you interpret this? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: The only focus that anyone had ever 13 discussed, was the injunction. 14 Q: All right. Okay. Well, I'll come 15 back to -- to that and I have some further questions 16 about this in a few moments. 17 I'd then like to ask you some questions 18 about Ms. Hutton's role as the representative, if I may 19 use that word, of the Premier's office in the IMC 20 meeting. 21 And I'd like to focus on the first IMC 22 meeting on September 5th in the morning which was of 23 course the morning right after the occupation did start, 24 right? 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: And if you could turn in the document 2 binder that the Commission Counsel provided to you and 3 I'll be referring potentially to three (3) different sets 4 of notes so if you could just keep these tabs -- 5 A: I'll try and stay -- 6 Q: -- or stickies or fingered or 7 something. One if your notes of the meeting which are at 8 Tab 7. 9 A: They didn't provide me with stickies. 10 Okay. 11 Q: Everybody's on a budget. And then 12 Ms. Hipfner's notes which are at Tab 9. 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: And then Ms. Jai's notes which are at 15 Tab 10. 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: Several pages into Tab 10. 18 A: Yeah, I know, I -- 19 Q: I'm just focussing on September 5th 20 which is the first IMC meeting. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: And I'd like to get some context of 23 the comment made by Ms. Hutton apparently that the 24 Premier is hawkish on this issue. 25 Now you said you recalled her saying that


1 or using that word; is that right? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: And in Ms. Hipfner's notes on page -- 4 on Tab 9 it -- it appears on handwritten page 4. 5 Perhaps you could just look at that. 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: Halfway down page 4 it says: 8 "Deb: Premier's hawkish on -- hawkish 9 on this issue." 10 Do you see that? 11 A: Hmm hmm. Yeah. 12 Q: All right. That same quote appears 13 in Ms. Jai's notes and I won't ask you to look at it but 14 just so you'll know that it also appears in Ms. Jai's 15 notes. It does not appear in your notes but -- but be 16 that as it may. 17 What I'd like to do is ask some context 18 questions about that comment. Ms. Hutton was clearly 19 there as a representative of the Premier's office, right? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: That was obvious, right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And Ms. Hutton spoke with 24 forcefulness and authority; is that fair? 25 A: I'd say authority. I don't know


1 whether I would say forcefulness. 2 Q: Okay. But she spoke with authority 3 because -- well she spoke with authority, is that fair? 4 A: She often spoke what she knew what 5 she's talking about. I'm not sure what you're referring 6 to. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: Like she was providing instruction? 9 No. 10 Q: No. She was not providing 11 instruction? 12 A: No, but I think that she was -- it 13 was more of an educational comment I guess for the people 14 in -- 15 Q: Well, I'm talking generally now 16 throughout the meet-- the two (2) meetings when Ms. 17 Hutton spoke and not necessarily just about this hawkish 18 comment. But I'll come back to that. 19 But is it fair to say that Ms. -- Ms. 20 Hutton spoke with obvious self confidence in these 21 meetings? 22 A: She's a self confident woman. 23 Q: Yes. And she spoke from your 24 knowledge and recollection as if she was speaking with 25 the authority of the Premier's office and indeed of the


1 Premier; is that fair. 2 A: I'll agree with the former, not the 3 latter. You know, she -- she was working for the Premier 4 and working in the Premier's office, so she was speaking 5 as a representative from the Premier's office. 6 I don't know whether -- I don't -- I think 7 it's a stretch to say she's speaking on behalf of the -- 8 the Premier. 9 Q: Oh, is it? 10 A: Well, I -- I guess just in a 11 practical sense from a political staff perspective when - 12 - like there is times in terms of dealing with the media 13 where you would speak publicly on the record on behalf of 14 your Minister and you'd go to meetings and represent the 15 -- your Minister at that meeting. 16 But, would I go so far as -- like, I guess 17 it's just a sense of perspective that, I think, for me to 18 be in a meeting it would be a little bold of me to say I 19 -- I am speaking on behalf of the Attorney General. 20 I -- you know, it would depend on the 21 situation, you know. 22 Q: Yeah, this isn't a public meeting, 23 it's to say, for these particular meeting with these 24 folks based on Ms. Hutton's relationship with the 25 Premier, her long standing relationship with the Premier,


1 you knew that in that meeting she was speaking with the 2 authority of the Premier; is that fair? 3 A: I wouldn't say the authority of the 4 Premier, no. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: I -- I'd say that she was 7 representing his office but I -- I wouldn't use the word 8 'authority'. 9 Q: Now, we've heard -- there's evidence 10 in the -- in the court proceedings and I anticipate we 11 will hear evidence in these proceedings that Ms. Hutton 12 participated in -- in essentially daily meetings with the 13 Premier and a small group of his senior staff on many if 14 not most mornings. Are you familiar with that? 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: And for example that would be a 17 meeting at -- at 8:00 or nine o'clock with Mr. Harris 18 that would involve Ms. Hutton, Guy Giorno, Paul Rhodes. 19 You're familiar with those meetings? 20 A: All political offices held similar 21 meetings usually. 22 Q: Yes. And I anticipate the evidence 23 will show that, in fact, Ms. Hutton and several of the 24 people that I mentioned did meet with the Premier that 25 morning on September 6th and discussed Ipperwash with the


1 Premier that morning before the IMC meeting. Do you know 2 if that's true? Or would you expect that to -- 3 A: I would expect that to be true, but I 4 -- I wouldn't know for -- for certain. 5 Q: Okay. So, from your knowledge and 6 understanding of the way things worked there and probably 7 did work, Ms. Hutton had in fact met with the Premier and 8 discussed Ipperwash just a couple of hours before she 9 came to the meeting; is that correct? 10 A: It would have been my expectation, 11 yes, sir. 12 Q: So, in that context when she spoke at 13 -- at least you knew that she probably wouldn't say 14 anything unless she was very confident the Premier would 15 agree with that; is that fair? 16 A: I think that she would have been 17 speaking with insight having discussed the issue with -- 18 with his senior staff to the extent that he would agree 19 with any particular thing -- any individual thing that 20 she said, you know, would be up for discussion -- 21 Q: Well, that -- that might be true but 22 she -- she'd worked with -- she'd worked very closely 23 with the Premier for many years; is that fair? 24 A: Oh, yes, sir. 25 Q: Yeah.


1 A: The same that I'd worked for the 2 Attorney General for a number of years, but I guess, you 3 know, in any different situation I could be -- try as 4 best I could to represent the Minister in a meeting that 5 he could do so much more eloquently and -- 6 Q: That -- that may be -- 7 A: -- more so than I could have. 8 Q: -- but neither you nor she would say 9 something unless she was pretty sure that it was in 10 general and probably specifically -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- in line with the wishes and 13 desires of -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- your -- your -- her principle, 16 right? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: And it was your impression through 19 seeing Ms. Hutton in those two (2) meetings that's in 20 fact what was happening; is that right? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: Okay. Now, Ms. Hutton made the 23 comment -- first of all, well, you -- you do recall the 24 hawkish comment so I'll just ask a couple of question 25 about that.


1 The word 'hawkish' would you agree with me 2 you would have understood to mean at the time in it's 3 ordinary sense very, very aggressive; is that fair? 4 A: It wouldn't be how I'd define it, but 5 you know it depends on, you know, you've used quite a 6 few, "very's" in that, but I -- 7 Q: Let's cut it down to one (1) very -- 8 very aggressive. You're comfortable -- 9 A: Well, it's kind of like, you know, 10 there was an attitude of hawks and doves. You know those 11 are the -- the two (2) opposites. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: And, you know, it is very black and 14 language that's -- that as I said earlier I -- I had 15 thought that that the Government's attitude was one (1) 16 that they wanted to be seen to be and -- and to actually 17 be strong in dealing with the situation. 18 Q: And you've used the -- the analogy of 19 hawks and doves which -- which is very commonly used, but 20 in that context and generally a hawk is seen to be pretty 21 aggressive, right, that's -- that's the customary meaning 22 of the term 'hawkish' and that's what you would have 23 understood the reference to be? 24 A: I -- I -- having heard the comment it 25 didn't occur to me that it meant aggressive. I -- I


1 thought it meant, you know, very strong, maybe forceful. 2 I just wouldn't have used the word aggressive. 3 Q: Okay. Very strong or -- or forceful? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And so when -- and -- and a number of 6 people have remembered that comment or put it in their 7 notes, so is it -- is it -- it appears -- it appears to 8 have -- 9 A: It likely happened. 10 Q: But it also stuck out in people's 11 minds as far as you could see; is that fair? 12 A: Yeah, I -- I wasn't particularly 13 moved by it one way or the other. 14 Q: But you can see how other people 15 might be; is that fair? 16 A: In retrospect. 17 Q: Yeah. 18 A: You know, at the meeting did I think, 19 hey, what's this? No, I -- 20 Q: Right. But other people might have; 21 is that fair? 22 A: I think in retrospect they did. 23 Q: And what -- what appeared therefore 24 to be the case, is that a representative of the Premier's 25 office and a -- well, of the Premier's office, appeared


1 to be saying, with some authority, that the Premier felt 2 very strongly about this issue? 3 A: I think that -- that I would agree 4 that I got the impression the Premier -- the Premier felt 5 strongly about the issue, yes. 6 Q: Sorry, you used the term, up front? 7 Well, I just didn't hear your words. 8 A: I just mumbled back what you said. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: Yes, sir. 11 Q: So the answer is "yes"? 12 A: Sorry. 13 Q: You'll go home earlier tonight if you 14 don't mumble and just say yes to my questions. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Sorry, I say that respectfully. 17 A: No, no, no, of course. 18 Q: I'm laughing at myself. Well, let me 19 just go through a number of the notes in the -- in 20 several of the participants, the more detailed notes of 21 participants, before that comment from Ms. Hutton, 22 because I want to see what the effect of that comment, 23 made in that way, from that person, may have had on the 24 meeting and on -- subsequently, in that meeting and other 25 meetings, and --


1 A: Sure, it's tough for me to say, 2 though, you know, really. 3 Q: Well, to try and be -- be efficient 4 about this, let me just quote to you from a couple of the 5 other -- 6 A: From Eileen's of Julie's? Tell me 7 where you're going or should I just follow? 8 Q: Well, here's what I propose to do. 9 To have your notes in front of you and then I will, as -- 10 I will -- I want to address, very quickly, nine (9) 11 topics, very, very quickly. 12 A: All right. 13 Q: And I will read to you what your 14 notes say on those, if anything, and what Eileen -- Ms. 15 Hipfner's and Ms. Jai's say on those topics, before the 16 hawkish comment. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: I'll do it very quickly and I can 19 refer you to the -- to the notes themselves, but you can 20 also take my word for it, if you wish. 21 First of all, your notes which are Tab 7, 22 Exhibit P-926. 23 A: Are we talking about the 5th or the 24 6th. 25 Q: The 5th.


1 A: Thank you. 2 Q: I just want to talk about the 5th -- 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: -- and just before Ms. Hutton's 5 comments. First of all, it appears that Ron Fox is 6 reported in your notes as saying "stable," right? 7 Do you see that in your notes? 8 A: It's a guess who -- who informed me 9 that -- to attribute that to Ron Fox is generous. 10 Q: Okay. Whoever, you took -- you wrote 11 down the word "stable." 12 A: I thought the situation was stable, 13 yes. 14 Q: Right. That somebody said the 15 situation was stable, right? And I can tell you that, 16 according to Ms. Hipfner's notes, Ron Fox said there was 17 a stable situation. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: From your recollection is that either 20 something you recall or that you don't disagree with? 21 A: Oh, I don't disagree with it. 22 Q: Yeah. All right. And then Ms. 23 Hipfner's notes and Ms. Jai's notes refer to a burial 24 site as well. Ms. Hipfner's notes say there may be -- 25 quote:


1 "Dan Elliott of the MNR is saying there 2 may be a burial site." 3 And Ms. Jai's notes say: 4 "There's some new evidence recently." 5 [Pertaining to a burial site]. 6 Now, you also have a reference to burial 7 site several points below the stable note, do you see 8 that? Burial site, question mark? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: So there was some discussion or 11 reference to a burial site, as well, at that point -- 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: -- is that fair? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: There was also a reference at that 16 point to whether or not the occupiers were armed and Ms. 17 Hipfner quotes somebody saying that there was no 18 indication that Stoney Pointers are armed. And Ms. Jai's 19 notes say: 20 "No indication that they are armed." 21 Would you disagree with that? 22 A: No, sir. 23 Q: Question about or the issue of 24 speaking to the occupiers, according to Ms. Hipfner's 25 notes Peter Allen of the MNR said:


1 "Need to have a talk with them." 2 And Ms. Jai's notes say: 3 "No attempt made so far to speak with 4 them." 5 Does that sound fair to you? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: On the question of the -- of the Park 8 being empty, Mr. Allen is quoted in Ms. Hipfner's notes 9 as saying: 10 "Occupying empty Provincial Park." 11 And Ms. Jai's notes say: 12 "They're just occupying an empty Park." 13 Do you recall that or find that a fair -- 14 fair comment on what was said? 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: Yeah. There were comments about not 17 being precipitous. Mr. Allen of the MNR is quoted in Ms. 18 Hipfner's notes as saying: 19 "Shouldn't be too precipitous." 20 And Ms. Jai says: 21 "Shouldn't take overly precipitous 22 action, not proceed precipitously." 23 Sound fair to you? 24 A: I -- 25 Q: As a record of what was said?


1 A: Yeah. I can't remember the direct... 2 Q: Mr. Allen is quoted as saying in Ms. 3 Jai's notes as: 4 "No great inconvenience." 5 Does that sound fair to you as what was 6 reported or said? 7 A: I can't remember Mr. Allen saying 8 that, but. 9 Q: Okay. You don't disagree with that 10 though? You wouldn't disagree with Ms. Jai's notes that 11 they said that? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Okay. And -- and eighthly Mr. Bangs 14 is recorded of the MNR as saying: 15 "We can afford to wait." 16 Is it fair to -- to -- to assume he said 17 that at that point, in the meeting? 18 A: I can't remember him saying that. 19 Q: But you wouldn't disagree if the 20 notes say that? 21 A: I -- no, I just can't recall Mr. 22 Bangs -- 23 Q: All right. 24 A: -- making any comments. 25 Q: Do -- do you recall Mr. Bangs being


1 there? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: Do you recall him speaking at all? 4 A: No, sir. 5 Q: Okay. Ms. Hipfner's notes, however, 6 do record Mr. Bangs, apparently, as saying: 7 "Public safety doesn't seem to be an 8 issue." 9 Again, all before Ms. Hutton's comment. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Do you have any disagreement with Mr. 12 Bangs having said that? 13 A: With -- 14 Q: Eviden -- 15 A: That Mr. Bangs was commenting about 16 public safety? 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: I can't remember Mr. Bangs saying 19 anything -- 20 Q: Okay. All right. 21 A: -- so I -- I remember that the 22 officials from MNR, whether the political or civil 23 service side gave us the impression that there was no 24 personal safety threatened. 25 Q: Right. Okay. So according to these


1 notes, it appears that before Ms. Hutton made her 2 comment, and near the beginning of the September 5th 3 meeting, various people talked about the stable 4 situation, the burial site, the Stoney Pointers not being 5 armed, need to talk with the occupiers, the Park being 6 empty. Shouldn't be precipitous. No great 7 inconvenience. We can afford to wait. Public safety not 8 an issue. 9 And then Ms. Hutton says: 10 "Premier is hawkish on this issue." 11 According to the notes, that appears to be 12 the first time Ms. Hutton spoke in the meeting, of 13 substance anyway. 14 Do you know if that's the case? 15 Do you recall or do you -- would you -- 16 A: I can't recall. 17 Q: Okay. Would you agree with me that 18 the tone of the meeting changed after these discussions 19 about empty Park, let's talk to them and then Ms. Hutton 20 said, considering who she was representing or which 21 office and the manner in which she said it and what she 22 said when she said, "The Premier's hawkish on this 23 issue," would you agree with me the tone changed? 24 A: Well -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, just a


1 minute. Just before you answer the question, Ms. Perschy 2 has an objection. 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, my apologies, 4 Commissioner, I'm just not sure how this is helpful. 5 What we've heard from a number of witnesses who actually 6 attended this meeting, as to, you know, what they saw and 7 how they reacted and what their impressions were. I'm 8 not sure how helpful it is to revisit this. 9 This Witness has his own recollection. He 10 can speak to that, he can speak to what his impressions 11 were, but to -- to revisit, sort of, impressions, 12 generally, based on a -- a summary of some of the things 13 that were said at the meeting, not all of the things that 14 were said at the meeting. I'm just now sure how helpful 15 this is at this point. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, this 17 is -- this is cross-examination. What Mr. Klippenstein's 18 trying to do is show that the meeting changed after that 19 comment and I'm not sure that that's -- he's able to do 20 that with this Witness, but that's obviously what he's 21 trying to do and I think it's proper cross-examination. 22 THE WITNESS: I -- I think to -- to 23 answer your question, that your view of the meeting 24 leading up to there is not quite accurate, in that there 25 was a general acceptance of -- of people at the meeting,


1 and certainly myself, that the situation was serious in 2 that, you know, a park had been occupied. 3 So I don't think anyone was sitting around 4 saying, you know, why don't we just meet on this tomorrow 5 and see what happens. So, like, it wasn't quite the -- 6 the -- the -- the sense of the meeting wasn't of a lack 7 of urgency from the beginning to the end, there was 8 always a sense of -- that we were all dealing with a -- a 9 larger problem. 10 You know, I think that -- that -- that, 11 you know, the more we discussed it and the more we talked 12 about the -- the possibility that the situation could 13 spread to other jurisdictions in neighbourhoods and that 14 -- that they -- the number of occupiers could actually 15 increase. 16 That that was one of the things that on 17 me, personally, began to increase the level of concern. 18 Q: And my question -- fair enough. My 19 question didn't relate necessarily to how you felt 20 though. My question related to, given the various 21 comments I put to you about lack of urgency, did the tone 22 of the meeting, to your knowledge and perception, change 23 when Ms. Hutton -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 25 Downard...?


1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My -- my only 2 concern -- the witness has spoken to matters of tone 3 previously. I have no objection to -- to Mr. 4 Klippenstein asking whether the tone of the meeting 5 changed with -- with that comment. 6 But what concerns me is -- is that the 7 device or approach of picking certain notes and -- and 8 then saying, on the basis of that, did the tone of the 9 meeting change? 10 The implication is that the notes that My 11 Friend has selected accurately reflect the tone of the 12 meeting, as a whole, before that comment. And there -- 13 there are more notes that aren't referred to and it might 14 be unfair to the witness. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It is and 16 the witness has already explained that he commented on 17 other -- other matters that occurred before that comment. 18 I mean that's what I think the witness is trying to show, 19 that it wasn't a simple matter of one (1) word or one (1) 20 event changing the meeting. 21 I think that's what you were saying just a 22 few minutes ago. 23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. And for me the -- 24 the threat of Mohawk Warriors and the threat of -- of it 25 spreading to other Provincial Parks and the number of


1 occupiers increasing and potentially becoming armed, in a 2 personal sense, that was what I thought was the larger 3 threat. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And this 5 information was becoming more evident as the meeting 6 continued. 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 9 essence of what you're saying. 10 THE WITNESS: You're right. Because we 11 began the discussion about what was happening on the 12 ground in the individual park. And then it kind of 13 enveloped into discussing the larger issue. 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Okay. Sir, the 15 witness is here and represented has a bit of concern as 16 to the methodology. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 18 fine. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 22 Q: Is it your evidence that -- that the 23 tone of the meeting did not change after Ms. Hutton made 24 that comment? 25 A: I think that Ms. Hutton's comments


1 were of no surprise to the political staff as any of the 2 senior political staff in the room had worked for the 3 Premier previously. 4 I couldn't really speak to the reaction to 5 the civil service. You know, that Mr. Harris wanted to 6 deal with this in a strong manner, for people that had 7 worked for him in the past it was really not much of a -- 8 it wasn't a surprise. 9 Q: And why do you say that? 10 A: Mr. Harris was generally a no 11 nonsense kind of guy. 12 Q: And no nonsense is one thing, but 13 being hawkish about this issue might be another thing. 14 Why -- why do you say that that comment -- are you 15 telling me that that comment, "The Premier's hawkish on 16 this issue," was of no surprise to you? 17 A: I thought it was a -- a poor choice 18 of words and that it could have been articulated 19 differently. Q: But the substance was in no surprise 20 to you? 21 A: I, you know, you're asking me to, I 22 guess, guess at the intent of the person giving it. And 23 the way I took it, I was not surprised by the comment, 24 no. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: Just a choice of words. 2 Q: And you mentioned that what was made 3 a -- you mentioned that for somebody who'd known Mr. 4 Harris for some time, that was why it was not a surprise 5 for you, and why would it not be a surprise to you to 6 have this comment put forward about Mr. Harris on this 7 issue? 8 A: Oh, I wasn't trying to narrow it in 9 terms of this issue. 10 Q: Okay. No, but -- 11 A: I -- I meant in terms of just about 12 anything he did. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Most of the things he did was -- the 15 issues that he tried -- that he addressed while in 16 government, he usually felt a great deal of passion about 17 one way or the other. 18 Q: So, that that would apply to this 19 issue based on this comment and your knowledge as well? 20 A: I guess, generally, yes. 21 Q: And so it was your belief that 22 Premier Harris felt passionate about this issue, that's 23 the word you just used. 24 A: I'm sure he had strong views on it, 25 would be a better way to articulate it.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he 2 said he felt passionate about everything. 3 Is that what you said? 4 THE WITNESS: That's what -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that what 6 you said? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, I said he either felt 8 strongly about some things or he didn't feel -- they just 9 weren't really on his radar, things that he want -- 10 really wanted to address. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 13 Q: My -- my question was clarificatory, 14 if he felt passionate about everything, I guess he felt 15 passionate about this. It was just a clarification. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, okay. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 21 Q: So, so it was clear in this -- in the 22 room after Ms. Hutton spoke that the Premier had -- had 23 strong views about this issue? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Okay.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 Q: I'd like to then ask some questions 5 pertaining to the timeframe of action on this issue and 6 first of all referring to what happened in the September 7 5th IMC meeting on the -- in the morning. If you could, 8 in your book, look at Tab 9 which we've just been looking 9 at, Ms. Hipfner's notes. 10 A: All right. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Sorry, Ms. Jai's notes for this -- 15 for this issue which is Tab 10. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: And the second -- 20 A: And -- 21 Q: -- last page in that tab which is 22 handwritten page 8, being September 5th, at the very 23 bottom there's a comment attributed to Ms. Hutton. The 24 notes say: 25 "Deb: Wants an emergency injunction,


1 doesn't want to wait two (2) weeks." 2 Do you see that? 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: Do you recall Ms. Hutton saying, 5 "wants an emergency injunction"? 6 A: I don't remember her comm -- asking 7 for an emergency injunction. I didn't know that an 8 emergency injunction existed, but I'm a layperson. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: The -- I do recall talking about the 11 -- the timeframes and the sequence of the injunction 12 versus trying to proceed with an ex parte injunction and 13 yeah, we -- I -- I had thought that in terms of the 14 Committee, that we wanted to move forward sooner rather 15 than later. 16 And I know that there was some discussion 17 in terms of Counsel about whether there were grounds for 18 the ex parte or not the ex parte, and that that was an 19 issue that needed to be dealt with. 20 Q: All right. But you don't disagree 21 when the notes you're -- identifying Ms. Hutton as 22 wanting an emergency injunction; that sounds all right to 23 you? Accurate, I mean? Or don't -- you just don't 24 recall? 25 A: Well, no, I'd -- I'd say that, you


1 know, that -- that Deb doesn't want to wait two (2) weeks 2 is -- I think is -- is accurate. 3 It's the -- the emergency injunction is 4 that -- the -- I'm a little question -- in terms of is 5 there such a thing as an emergency injunction? I don't 6 know. 7 Q: Well, I -- the term appears in 8 various notes of various people involved in the -- on 9 September -- 10 A: Oh, that's -- that's fine. I'm just 11 -- I don't remember her using that word. Now, is the 12 intention in terms of -- of wanting to move sooner rather 13 than later accurate? Yes. 14 Q: Okay. And so it wouldn't surprise 15 you if she used the term 'emergency injunction' given her 16 apparent timeline desires? 17 A: Yeah. I just can't I -- I didn't 18 know there was such a thing as an emergency injunction. 19 Q: Right. 20 A: Like, I wouldn't have used that word. 21 And I don't -- I can't remember that word being used. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: But -- 24 Q: Then I'd like you to turn in Ms. 25 Jai's notes for the 6th which are the same tab, Tab 10 --


1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: -- to the notes of September 6th, the 3 next day, at the IMC meeting -- 4 A: Can you give me a page? 5 Q: Yes. It's the fourth page -- the 6 fifth page in, handwritten page 3 at the top and I've 7 gone through this with a number of witnesses. 8 A: Three (3) at the top, okay. 9 Q: Do you see that? And do you see the 10 reference to "Tim" at the top? Near the top? 11 This is handwritten page 3 at the top and 12 then -- 13 A: It starts out: 14 "Blocked. It is gated to 15 trespassers."? 16 Q: No, let me back up a step. On Tab 10 17 it's the fifth page in, at least in my binder. 18 A: Oh, sorry. Okay. 19 Q: It makes sense? 20 A: Yeah. Where -- yeah, "Tim's coming"? 21 Q: "Tim" And there's a number of 22 comments and the evidence is that was Tim McCabe. Does 23 that make sense to you he could be speaking -- 24 A: Yeah, yeah. 25 Q: And --


1 A: I didn't think -- wasn't it said 2 earlier that Tim wasn't at the 5th, he was only at the 3 6th? 4 Q: Correct. And these are the meeting - 5 - the minutes of -- the notes of Julie Jai of the 6th. 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: And at the end of Tim's comments, you 8 see the line: 9 "Best case, Friday in court." 10 Do you see that? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: Do you recall as many people do in 13 the notes, do you recall Tim McCabe saying, "Best case 14 Friday"? 15 A: Hmm, hmm. 16 Q: And then according to these notes, 17 Ms. Hutton then says: 18 "Premier feels the longer they occupy 19 it, the more support they'll get. He 20 wants them out in a day or two." 21 Do you recall Ms. Hutton making those 22 comments as recorded here? 23 A: I -- I can't recall those comments. I 24 -- I can recall the agenda that we were all working on, 25 in terms of a practical sense was Friday. So, in terms


1 of her -- her comments about a day or two (2), I guess my 2 -- my reaction to that would have been, right, you can't 3 always get what you want. 4 Q: I'm sorry. You can't always get what 5 you want. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Well, that may have been your 8 reaction but -- the evidence of Ms. Jai, for example, was 9 that she took careful notes, these notes, while the 10 person was writing that she believed that when she 11 recorded that the Premier wants them out in a day or two 12 (2), that that was accurate. 13 A: Okay. I can't recall that. 14 Q: Yeah and you wouldn't disagree with 15 it though would you? 16 A: It was my understanding that we were 17 proceeding in the schedule for the 5th -- or the Friday. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: But I -- I -- and I can't recall what 20 Deb was quoted as saying here. So -- 21 Q: Okay. But, it appears that this is 22 accurate that -- that -- and it would appear to you that 23 Ms. Hutton was not quite satisfied with Friday, correct? 24 A: I -- I can't remember -- recall her 25 not being happy with Friday.


1 Q: All right. 2 A: I -- I thought that was kind of an 3 agenda we were working on. 4 Q: Okay. Well, it appears that -- is it 5 fair to say that there -- there was a difference of 6 understanding or desire amongst people in the meeting. 7 Some people, including Deb Hutton, apparently were not 8 satisfied with Friday and other people, perhaps yourself 9 and others either were satisfied or thought that was with 10 -- the plan. Is that fair? 11 A: No. The way I -- I would have 12 characterized the meeting is that, you know, I -- I'd 13 like it to happen as soon as possible. 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: And the answer was, Well Friday is 16 the soonest you can get it. Okay, well I want it to 17 happen as soon as possible. But it's like Friday's the 18 soonest you can get it. Okay. 19 I think that -- it was my understanding 20 leaving the meeting that -- that while there was a desire 21 to address this issue as soon as possible, that just from 22 a practical process standpoint, Friday was the earliest 23 date that reality could be achieved. 24 Q: That what could be achieve? 25 A: That the injunction could be


1 achieved. 2 Q: Okay. All right. And I'll come back 3 to the difference between an injunction and having them 4 out of the Park in a minute. 5 A: That's fine. 6 Q: But, could you now turn back to what 7 I started with, which was the handwritten of Mr. Taman. 8 A: Yup. 9 Q: And that appears to be also referring 10 to a timeframe that says: 11 "AG instructed by Premier that he 12 desires removal within twenty-four (24) 13 hours." 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: Now, is it possible that there's a 16 connection between the one (1) or two (2) days of Ms. 17 Hutton in these minutes or notes and the twenty-four (24) 18 hours in Mr. Taman's note? 19 A: Well, it's best to ask Mr. Taman. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again I 21 think -- excuse me. I said this before, Mr. 22 Klippenstein, I think what you're doing is making your 23 argument and I don't think this Witness can answer the 24 kind of questions that you're asking. 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I don't


1 intend -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 3 perfectly proper -- 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I don't -- to 5 be clear, I don't intend to make my argument here. I'm 6 asking factual questions because of the -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: With respect, 9 Commissioner, these events appear from the notes to have 10 involved a small number of people -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- in a 13 sequence on a day and I am trying to understand the 14 factual surrounding and if this Witness was -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's 16 not facts at all. You're asking him to connect the note 17 that Ms. Jai has written with a note that Mr. Taman has 18 written and -- 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I think 21 that's something that you can do in your argument -- 22 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: It was a 23 poorly -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- not 25 through this Witness.


1 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: It was a poorly 2 worded question. I was trying to elicit facts and I -- I 3 apologize. I'm trying to see whether this Witness -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you're 5 eliciting facts you just carry on, but when you make your 6 argument I have to stop you. 7 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes, thank you. 8 Thank you, Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 12 Q: Mr. Moran, I am trying to understand 13 and I ask you because you were a very close assistant of 14 the Attorney General whether these notes -- and they were 15 notes I had just given you or showed you about Ms. Hutton 16 refresh any memory or -- or spark any recollection of a 17 connection here that helps explain these things? 18 Do you recall why -- anything about your 19 principle, Mr. Harnick, and his schedule or meetings or 20 conversations of that day that can tell me whether there 21 is a connection between these two (2) limits as -- or 22 timeframes in these notes? 23 A: As I said earlier I -- I think that 24 there was a -- the -- the Premier and his staff were 25 clear in that they wanted to deal with this situation as


1 soon as -- as quickly as possible. But, you know on my 2 own personal behalf I did not expect anything to happen 3 before the Friday when the judge could decide. 4 Like, with -- with -- Tim McCabe, our -- 5 our counsel, went through the sequence of events in terms 6 of -- of saying let's just talk through the process so 7 the people could understand. You know, like we can't 8 physically get to Sarnia and get before a judge and do 9 this before then, and so here is just logistically why 10 Friday is going to be the day. 11 So, that it certainly was my expectation 12 that regardless of -- of how soon the -- you know, we 13 wanted to act, the Friday was the day that anything -- 14 was the soonest we could -- anything could happen. 15 Q: All right. Let me ask you one (1) 16 more question about this. 17 The -- the notes of Julie Jai that I just 18 pointed to you have a fairly detailed description of what 19 you just said Tim described about Sarnia, about notice, 20 about a bridging notice and so forth. He appears to have 21 convinced you, but my question is, Ms. Hutton then says: 22 "Premier wants them out in a day or two 23 (2)." 24 And my question to you is: Can you 25 explain to me, you were there, you -- you saw or heard


1 this, I don't know if you recall it, why or -- or the 2 context of Ms. Hutton saying that after the discussion 3 from Tim that just convinced you? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 5 Perschy? 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm sorry to 7 interrupt, Commissioner, but this Witness has already 8 testified on several occasions that he doesn't recall the 9 comment and -- and I just -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- I don't see where 12 we can go from there. With the greatest of respect, he 13 doesn't recall, he doesn't recall. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 15 right? Did -- you don't recall? 16 THE WITNESS: In terms of the -- the day 17 or two (2) I don't -- I do not recall -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 19 recall. 20 THE WITNESS: -- her saying that. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, it's 22 pretty hard to ask him much more about that comment that 23 he doesn't recall. 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. I 25 won't proceed any further with that.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 3 Q: Now, the next question or topic I'd 4 like to ask you questions about relate to something we've 5 mentioned a couple of times and that is when the notes or 6 the meeting talked about when something was going to 7 happen, I want to focus in on what was going to happen. 8 One of the notes talks about -- Mr. 9 Taman's note uses the word "Removal." These notes talk 10 about "Out," which, would you agree with me, and this is 11 something I canvassed with Mr. McCabe,. 12 There is -- there is, and even to a non 13 lawyer sitting through these meetings, you understand 14 that there's a difference between obtaining an injunction 15 and implementing it in the sense of having the occupiers 16 out of the Park, correct? 17 A: Sure. 18 Q: And -- 19 A: What you could -- it was one of the 20 things we discussed at the meeting, was that how the 21 process would work so we had a general understanding. 22 It's my understanding that the -- go 23 before the Judge, the Judge would decide. If the Judge 24 ruled in our favour we -- the injunction would be ordered 25 and then it would be served by a sheriff and --


1 Q: Okay. That's what I was going to ask 2 you about and I understand, in your evidence in-chief, 3 Mr. Worme walked you through that. 4 Let me just start by referring you to that 5 portion of your notes which is, I believe, at Tab -- Tab 6 7 and the fourth page in. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Near the bottom there's the phrase: 9 "Best case Friday." 10 Do you see that? 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: And then: 13 " - sheriff, OPP." 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: Do you see that? And I believe you 16 were asked about that and I believe you -- in-chief you 17 said that that related to how the Court Order would be 18 served -- 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: Or something like that. 21 A: I am quite sure that I -- I didn't 22 need to brief the Attorney on the process, but I think 23 that one was a little more for me. 24 Q: All right. What I want to do is 25 suggest to you that -- well, let me put some other notes


1 to you. If you turn to Tab 11 which are Ms. Hipfner's 2 notes of the 6th, September 6th IMC meeting. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: And page 6, did I already say that? 7 Handwritten page 6, if you go on page 6, two-thirds (2/3) 8 of the way down there's a reference to Tim on the left 9 margin; do you see that? 10 A: Yeah, I do see it, I'm just trying to 11 make out what it says. 12 Q: And then there's the word "Sheriff" 13 behind the bullet point; do you see that? 14 Do you see the word, "Sheriff?" 15 A: Under -- are you referring to Tim? 16 Q: Under the "Tim" yes, several lines 17 down. 18 A: I see -- the one that starts up: 19 "A Judge may..." 20 Q: No, sorry, this is handwritten page 6 21 about two-thirds (2/3's) -- 22 A: Oh, sorry. 23 Q: -- of the way down. 24 A: Sorry, sorry, sorry. 25 Q: There's --


1 A: Yes, yes, yes, I -- 2 Q: There's "Tim" and drop down three (3) 3 or four (4) lines and you see where -- 4 A: Yeah, Tim -- yes, "Sheriff enforces 5 Order." 6 Q: And then it says: 7 "And Sheriff enforces Order, asks OPP 8 assistance to do so." 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: "Police discretion as to how." 11 Do you see that? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: That appears to be Tim describing how 14 the Order would be enforced. 15 Does that refresh your memory about that 16 discussion? 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: And so -- 19 A: I think that was consistent with what 20 I said. 21 Q: Right. I just wanted to clarify. It 22 wasn't about just serving the Order, it was about 23 enforcing the Order; is that right? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: Okay. And according to the


1 discussion by -- by Mr. McCabe, once the Order is 2 obtained, it's enforced by the Sheriff and he or she asks 3 OPP assistance to do so; is that right? 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Okay. So connecting that to the 6 discussion about the injunction, Mr. McCabe was saying 7 the best case to enforce the Order was Friday, correct? 8 Sorry, I misspoke myself. Best case to 9 obtain the Order was Friday in Court, correct? 10 A: It's my understanding. 11 Q: And after that, as Mr. McCabe 12 described here, would be the process of enforcement which 13 would involve the sheriff and him -- him or her asking 14 the OPP assistance? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Is that right? Okay. And did -- 17 A: It's my understanding that the OPP 18 were -- my recollection that the OPP were asking for the 19 injunction. 20 Q: Right. Now there's a difference 21 between the OP -- there's quite a big difference between 22 the OPP asking for an injunction Order which they might 23 use to negotiate or discuss with the occupiers on the one 24 hand, or the OPP having an order turned over to them by 25 the sheriff with a request to enforce it.


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: Would you agree with me there's a 3 difference, potentially? 4 A: I think that, on a personal sense, my 5 understanding was once the -- the OPP had the order, how 6 they enforced it was going to be up to them. I think it 7 was my hope at the time, that given the power of the 8 courts behind them, and I believe that this was a 9 discussion we had in the Committee, that with the power 10 of the courts behind them, that people would recognize 11 that really they -- they had to get out of the Park. 12 So I don't think it was anyone's intention 13 that there be any sort of physical force. 14 Q: I'll get back to that, but if -- if 15 you could then turn with me to another reference to 16 enforcement and this is in Ms. Hipfner's notes at Tab 9 17 of the 5th, September 5th. 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: And turn to page -- handwritten page 20 5? 21 A: Has it got a "5" at the top or... 22 Q: "5" at the top. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And at the middle you see what 25 appears to be:


1 "Elizabeth, 5 options." 2 Right? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you drop down to Sub V, Sub Roman 5 5, it's an injunction, right? 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: And then third written line from the 8 bottom says: 9 "Problem arises when they don't comply 10 with order." 11 Do you see that? 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: "Civil or criminal contempt 14 proceedings." 15 Correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: The next bullet point says: 18 "But if they won't leave, comes down to 19 using force." 20 Do you see that? Do you recall that 21 discussion or comment? 22 A: It was -- I -- I can't recall it 23 being, "comes down to using force." I remember it being 24 that -- I -- I remember the sequence of events, but how I 25 would have just changed that to make it more reflective


1 is, then -- then we're going to have to, in effect, 2 revisit the situation again. 3 Like, you know, maybe that -- that -- I 4 think that's overly generous, but, yes, we -- we did know 5 that -- that if they didn't leave voluntarily then there 6 could be potential problems down the road. 7 Q: And you, in your evidence-in-chief or 8 in response to a previous question, you said you didn't - 9 - earlier today, I believe, you said you don't recall 10 that there was -- there was any discussion of using 11 force. 12 Do you remember saying that? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Does this refresh your memory and 15 indeed now you -- you accept that there was this comment 16 about using force? 17 A: I don't think there was anyone's 18 expectations that force was going to be used. 19 Q: All right. But that wasn't my 20 question. My question was, there was this comment about 21 what happens if they don't leave, right? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And that comment was, "it 24 comes down to using force?" 25 A: Yeah. I -- what I said was I -- I


1 don't recall that issue of the force. What I do recall 2 is that -- that if they don't leave, then there's another 3 bigger situation that is going to have to be dealt with. 4 Q: Right. And... 5 A: But what I'm saying is I don't think 6 that -- it wasn't my impression in leaving the -- the 7 Committee that a discussion had been had about any sort 8 of use of force. 9 It was my expectation, and maybe I was 10 just looking at the very short term, was that we were 11 going to follow the -- use the court process to try and 12 get the injunction to try and, A) give the police the 13 tools that they had asked for and, B) have some more of - 14 - more of authority in trying to -- to end the 15 occupation. 16 Q: And is it fair to say, because it 17 appears that way to me, that when you understood this 18 process about getting the order and implementing the 19 order, there appears to be a disconnect between your 20 understanding and the comment recorded of Ms. Hutton that 21 the Premier wants them out in a day or two (2)? 22 Is it -- does it appear that you -- your 23 understanding was not the same as what Ms. Hutton said? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 25 minute.


1 THE WITNESS: No. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 3 Perschy...? 4 You're going to remind me that he doesn't 5 remember hearing the comment? 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, there's that 7 problem A) and -- and problem B) of course is that -- is 8 that my client will testify with respect to what her 9 understanding was, and I have some concerns about the 10 question which comes dangerously close, I think, to 11 asking this Witness to comment as to what was the 12 understanding of -- of another person. 13 And we've -- we've touched on this issue 14 of trying to read people's minds a number of times at 15 this Inquiry, and I think we're up against it again, with 16 all due respect. 17 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Mr. 18 Commissioner, I did not say, What her understanding was, 19 I said, What she said. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And I'm trying 22 to probe whether there was a disconnect, because, and I 23 think that's a legitimate connection you've seen. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. But I 25 think you are referring to a comment that he does not


1 recall her making; that's the difficulty, or is it? 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Fair enough. 3 What -- well the evidence clearly is from Jai, in my 4 submission, that this comment was said and recorded. Now 5 I want to ask, on that -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 7 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- basis, this 8 witness, a question or two about his understanding -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- versus what 11 was said. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 13 sure. Yes, Mr. Downard...? 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Without a foundation 15 in the witness's recollection, I don't understand how My 16 Friend can be doing much more than inviting the witness 17 to agree with an argument My Friend wants to make on the 18 facts. I think we're back to that problem. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That 20 seems to be the problem again, that these are legitimate 21 things for you to make an argument, but I am not sure how 22 this witness can help you any more than what he knows, 23 what he can recall. 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, let me 25 rephrase the question or -- or withdraw it or whatever --


1 whatever that constitutes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. Try to 3 rephrase it and see if comes out that it's a question you 4 can ask. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 7 Q: Yeah. The evidence seems to be in 8 these notes and -- and in Ms. Jai's oral testimony, that 9 -- that the comment was said by Ms. Hutton. 10 Now I take it it was not your 11 understanding from what Mr. McCabe and others were saying 12 in the meetings, that that process would result in the 13 protestors being out of the Park in a day or two? 14 That was not your understanding; is that 15 fair? 16 A: It was not my understanding that that 17 was a -- a realistic goal. It was my understanding that 18 there was an -- an urgency in terms of trying to get 19 things done as quickly as possible, but I -- I don't 20 think that that was anyone's expectations. 21 Q: Well -- 22 A: It wasn't mine. 23 Q: Wait a minute. You said you didn't 24 think it was anyone's expectations. 25 A: No. Yeah.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. It 2 wasn't yours. 3 THE WITNESS: And I -- then I rephrased 4 it. I -- it was not my expectation that it would be 5 addressed within the next twenty-four (24) hours. 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. I 7 hate to object my -- to the witness's answers. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 9 fine. I think you have got about as much out of this 10 point as you can. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: A moment's 15 indulgence, Mr. Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 21 Q: I asked you some questions before 22 about Ms. Hutton's apparent comment that, "The Premier 23 was hawkish on this issue." 24 Can I ask you what your understanding of 25 this issue meant?


1 In other words, what was the issue, in 2 your understanding? 3 Was it -- 4 A: The occupation of the Park. 5 Q: Was it just the occupation of the 6 Park? You've also mentioned that you or others were 7 concerned about other parks in the rest of the Province; 8 is that correct? 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: So the issue was not only Ipperwash 11 Park, but it was a Province-wide issue about Natives 12 asserting claims and rights; isn't that fair, and how 13 they did so? 14 A: Not at all. 15 Q: Not at all? 16 A: No, I wouldn't agree with that in the 17 -- in the slightest. I think that -- that the -- the 18 issue that we were dealing with was, as we had thought at 19 the time, of a law-and-order issue. 20 You know, and I had previously testified 21 the Premier had very strong views about making sure that 22 -- that in terms of Native land claims for -- for exis -- 23 example, that we change the process to make it more in 24 line with, you know, what later became a mediation to 25 some extent.


1 But I wouldn't have said that that's how 2 he viewed Native issues as a whole. 3 Q: Well you did, however, say that you 4 were concerned about other Parks? 5 A: Yes, sir. 6 Q: In other parts of the Province, 7 right? 8 A: Yes, sir. 9 Q: And when Ms. Hutton said, "This 10 issue," you understand her to mean those things, is that 11 right? The premier was concerned not only about 12 Ipperwash Provincial Park, an empty Park three (3) hours 13 from Toronto, right? 14 He was -- 15 A: I don't think that was referring to - 16 - or she was referring to at the time. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: I think she was referring to the 19 occupation. 20 Q: So you -- your understanding that -- 21 was that when she said the Premier is hawkish about this 22 issue, your understanding was Ipperwash Park, and that's 23 it? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: All right. Now, but you've just said


1 that you, at least, were concerned about how this related 2 to other Parks in other parts of the province? 3 A: Well I think that it could be -- it 4 would be fair to say that the Premier felt strongly about 5 occupations. I don't think it would be fair to say that 6 that's how he felt about Native issues as a whole. 7 Q: Okay. So -- but you do, then, accept 8 that when Ms. Hutton said, "Premier is hawkish on this 9 issue," your understanding was that it -- this issue 10 included not only Ipperwash Park but occupations by 11 Natives everywhere else in the Province possibly, too. 12 A: It's a stretch. I think she was 13 referring to the Park. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 15 answered the question a couple of times now. I'm not 16 sure what -- if you have an objection, but -- 17 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, I -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 19 answered the question -- 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I -- I think -- 21 I think -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 23 answered the question. 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- there's a 25 consistency to it, but I think she was referring to the


1 Park. 2 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I just didn't 3 hear you. 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I think there's 5 a consistency to it, but I think she was referring to the 6 Park. 7 THE WITNESS: A consistency or an 8 inconsistency? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 10 THE WITNESS: I just didn't hear your 11 last -- 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Consistency. 13 THE WITNESS: Okay. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 18 Q: Now you, I believe, in your 19 discussion with Mr. Worme in evidence in-chief, talked a 20 bit about colour of right, and my understanding of your 21 comments was that -- and this afternoon your comments -- 22 or this morning that you did not -- you do not now feel 23 that you fully understood the significance of the colour 24 of right concept in those meetings; is that right? 25 A: I believe what I said was that I


1 don't recall it being brought forward in the meetings, 2 but if it did -- if it was, then I did not understand 3 either the significance or the importance of it or, 4 really, the concept. 5 Q: All right. And I -- 6 A: It wasn't something that we'd covered 7 in the briefings yet. 8 Q: Hmm hmm. However, Mr. Fox had 9 mentioned in the beginning of the September 6th meeting - 10 - well, let me -- 11 A: Yeah, I just -- I can't remember -- 12 yeah, either Ron or Scooter are referring to it there. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Well, if you can turn to your notes, 17 Tab 7. 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: The first page of the September 6th 20 notes -- 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: And there's initials half way down 23 that say "BM"; do you see that? 24 A: Hmm hmm. Bert Manning. 25 Q: "Bert Manning. Claim land burial


1 site." 2 Right? 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: I've asked a number of other 5 witnesses about this and I'll ask you. 6 It appears that the evidence or 7 information to the Commission -- to the IMC committee on 8 the 6th was that, at least as expressed by one of the 9 occupiers, Bert Manning, there were two (2) different 10 threads to the occupiers' position; one was that they 11 claimed the land and the other was that there was a 12 burial site there in the Park. 13 Is that right? 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: Okay. Now, in terms of the concept 16 of colour of right, I just want to know why it was the 17 case that -- 18 A: Why I didn't understand? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Wait until 20 you're asked the question. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: No. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 23 think he's going to ask you that. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:


1 Q: If that's what you wanted me to ask, 2 then I -- then I'll change my question. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 5 Q: I'm just having a very simple problem 6 which is, I gather that there was talk about the Province 7 supposedly having clear title. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: But also that there was a claim of a 10 burial ground, correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And what I don't understand -- before 13 I ask you that, there appeared to be the proposition in 14 the room that the burial ground doesn't affect clear 15 title, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now, whether that's true or not that 18 seemed to be the discussion, right? 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: What I don't understand is why it 21 wasn't possible for people in the room to say if there's 22 a burial ground that is a very serious matter, burial 23 grounds deserve respect as a basic matter of human 24 decency. We better check this out and if it doesn't 25 affect clear title, that doesn't mean we move quickly or


1 as quickly as possible or on Friday to actually get a 2 court order to have them out. 3 A: I don't think that's what I said. 4 Q: Well -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that 6 isn't what you said but that was a very long question. 7 Is that -- that was a very long question and -- 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I thought it 9 was eloquent. 10 THE WITNESS: It was beautifully, well 11 said. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I'm not 13 sure that, you know, in that form it's a question that 14 can -- 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Let me try -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- be 17 answered. 18 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- and rephrase. 19 I apologize. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps, you 21 can break it down a little bit. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 24 Q: People knew about the claim to a 25 burial ground in the Park, correct?


1 A: Yes, sir. 2 Q: And the answer to that apparently was 3 we have clear title, burial ground doesn't affect clear 4 title. That was the general discussion or -- or 5 conclussion, correct? 6 A: Well, no there's the other half of 7 it, that they went through the education process where 8 we went over the Cemetery Act and what the Provincial 9 obligations were under the Cemetery Act in terms of 10 addressing those very concerns that you had raised 11 earlier. 12 Q: Fine. But the point was, the general 13 idea seemed to be, we will get them out of the Park even 14 though they claim there's a burial ground there; is that 15 correct? 16 A: I wouldn't characterize it -- that is 17 we'll take the appropriate steps in terms of the burial 18 ground. But having said that, the burial ground is not 19 justification for taking over the Park. That's the 20 information that I left the meeting with. 21 Q: Okay. That may be but -- 22 A: And similar to the land claim is that 23 if they have a land claim it's out position that we have 24 clear title to the Park and if they have a land claim 25 then there's a process to follow.


1 I think one of the things that -- that on 2 a personal note was important was that no -- that they -- 3 there had been no discussion about a land claim to date, 4 that the -- the occupiers were not supported by the 5 Elders, and so I guess in terms of the -- the legitimacy 6 to, you know, to use a catchall word, I don't know 7 whether we were given the impression that that was a 8 realistic concern. 9 Q: Well, given what you knew about, and 10 you'd been assistant to the Minister -- to the critic of 11 the Minister of Native Affairs for something like five 12 (5) years. Mr. Harnick, in opposition, had been the 13 Native Affairs critic, correct, and throughout that time 14 you got to know a lot about Native matters, right? 15 A: I wouldn't agree with that. 16 Q: Pardon me? 17 A: I would not agree with that. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: In -- in opposition you're very 20 limited in terms of the -- for a lack of a better term, 21 educational opportunities with regards to the real issues 22 involving any -- either of the critique portfolios 23 whether it was Native Affairs or whether it was the 24 Ministry of the Attorney General. You -- you try and 25 become better informed but, you know, the learning that I


1 was doing in the first few months, the Ministry was much 2 more in-depth -- much -- we -- that the expertise were 3 much greater. 4 We -- we didn't have the resources to 5 become as informed as possible in opposition about any of 6 your critique portfolios. 7 Q: Right. Well in your recommendations 8 to the Commissioner at the end of your evidence in-chief, 9 I believe you suggested that it was important that -- 10 that people become more educated about the situation of 11 First Nations; is that fair? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: And in fact what happened in this 14 case is that the claim for burial ground was made and it 15 appeared not to have, in many people's eyes, legitimacy, 16 correct? 17 You just said that. 18 A: Right. Yeah, but I -- I wanted to 19 explain it. Like, we were given -- there was no 20 legitimate -- legitimacy from it from the officials, in 21 contrast to something like the colour of right which was 22 a -- a misunderstanding on my part. I didn't get the 23 impression from the officials that there was a legitimacy 24 to that. 25 Q: Well, we now --


1 A: We just viewed the two (2) 2 differently. 3 Q: We now know, and you know if I may 4 suggest, that given the documents that were found about 5 1937, awareness of a burial ground -- you know what I'm 6 talking about? 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: And the discovery of a skeleton in 9 the Park in 1950 -- do you -- do you know what I'm 10 talking about? 11 A: Yes sir. 12 Q: And a few other bits of information 13 that have come forward we now know that in hindsight the 14 burial ground claim should have been given more 15 consideration back in September of '95. Do you agree? 16 A: Well, it was the advice of officials 17 that whether there was a -- a burial ground or not that - 18 - that had no bearing on the -- the issue of the 19 occupation. 20 Q: I -- I have this vague feeling that 21 we've gone around in a circle so whether or not the 22 burial ground was legitimate, it still had no bearing on 23 title and no bearing on whether they should be there or 24 not, is that what you're saying? 25 Let me put it this way --


1 A: That it had no bearing on the 2 occupation. 3 Q: If the burial ground claim was 4 considered legitimate would you agree with me that now it 5 is a legitimate claim, whether -- 6 A: Oh, yes, of course. 7 Q: Okay. If the burial ground then had 8 been considered a legitimate claim the fair and decent, 9 humane thing to do would have been to sit down and talk 10 with people and not rush off to get an ex parte 11 injunction to have them out. Don't you agree with that? 12 A: No, sir. 13 Q: You don't think so. So, you think 14 that in the case of Native people in this situation if 15 they feel aggrieved that a burial ground claim that they 16 have, that they believe in is not being considered 17 seriously and they act to protect those with an 18 occupation it is legitimate to, as a first response, seek 19 a court order to get them out? 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: That's not fair. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he's 22 putting a question to him, he can agree with it or not 23 or... 24 THE WITNESS: I think that -- that 25 there's a due process for a number of issues and whether


1 it's the burial site or the land claim, and that I'm 2 going to, you know, I can only speak on a personal 3 behalf, I -- I don't think that the occupation is the 4 proper way to go. 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, one (1) 6 last area of questioning. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can I ask 8 one (1) question, just for clarification -- 9 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if I may, 11 at this point. 12 I understand that when you were assistant 13 to Mr. Harnick, when he was in opposition, was Native 14 Affairs part of his critique -- 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It was? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But was 19 Native Affairs not part of the Ministry of Natural 20 Resources in those days? 21 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't believe it 22 was. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It was in 24 the AG in that period? 25 THE WITNESS: I believe so.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 I don't remember -- 3 THE WITNESS: I -- I -- you know I -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've heard 5 some evidence earlier that Mr. Wildman, when he was the 6 Minister of Natural Resources, had responsibility in 7 the -- 8 THE WITNESS: Oh, he did. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Government 10 for or Native Affairs. 11 THE WITNESS: Yeah, but necessarily isn't 12 reflective in terms of the AG. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Opposition? 14 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In terms of 16 the critiques portfolios were different. 17 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm sure that Mr. 20 Harnick in terms of that issue -- we met with -- I don't 21 know why, but we -- we called a meeting with Tony Belcore 22 (phonetic) on several occasions and that it was Mr. 23 Harnick that was doing it. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 25 THE WITNESS: I believe that he was the


1 Native Affairs critic. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 Thank you. 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you, 5 Commissioner. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 8 Q: Finally I'd like to as you about some 9 -- some of the more general -- one (1) of the more 10 general points that was raised in your evidence in-chief 11 and -- and ask some specifics about it; that's found at 12 Tab -- in my binder it's 25B which is -- 13 A: B? 14 Q: -- a document titled, Bringing 15 Commonsense to Community Development, Exhibit P-924. 16 A: Oh. 17 Q: Sorry, it's a separate document from 18 your binder. 19 A: Just give me one (1) moment. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: And it's called -- it's an excerpt I 24 believe from a document headed, Bringing Commonsense to 25 Community Development.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it's 2 Exhibit 924. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you, 4 Commissioner. We don't have that in -- 5 THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Yup. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 8 Q: If you could turn to the page which 9 is page 4, I believe, of the excerpt, entitled, Native 10 Canadian Communities. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: I want to read the first sentence and 13 then the last two (2) sentences. The first sentence 14 says: 15 "Native Canadians are a special group 16 in our society with unique recognition 17 in the Constitution and specific needs 18 and concerns." 19 Dropping down to the second last 20 paragraph: 21 "While Canadian history and law both 22 mark this group as a unique -- as 23 unique, we are committed to integrating 24 the rights and needs of all Ontarians 25 in our policies in this area. That's


1 what the commonsense revolution is all 2 about." 3 Did you have a hand in drafting this? 4 A: No, sir. 5 Q: No. Did you have a hand in approving 6 it or -- or any other involvement in it? 7 A: I saw it before it was published. I 8 believe, Mr. Harnick had a greater level of input than 9 me, and I believe that it was referring to involving the 10 Native and non-Native communities in land claims. 11 But I wasn't the author of it so I 12 couldn't really -- 13 Q: All right. Well, you worked, I 14 gather, with Mr. Harnick for years while Mr. Harnick was 15 the critic for Native Affairs, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: While this was being formulated; is 18 that right? 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: and then worked as -- as his Chief of 21 Staff, as the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, for 22 about four (4) or five (5) years, while I guess this was 23 being implemented; is that right? 24 A: I think that's a little generous. I 25 think that -- that this was a campaign document that gave


1 us some broad direction in terms of where we wanted to go 2 as a -- as a Government. 3 And, you know, as I testified yesterday, 4 that what this framework provided us, was a -- a 5 direction in which we were going to go as a -- the 6 Government, you know, the policies that we had developed 7 as a Government are proving that. 8 Q: All right. Well, the -- the sentence 9 that says: 10 "While Canadian history and law both 11 mark this group as unique, we are 12 committed to integrating the rights and 13 needs of all Ontarians in our policies 14 in this area." 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: Do you -- are you in a position to 17 tell me anything about what it means to say, we are 18 committed to integrating the rights and needs of all 19 Ontarians in this area? 20 A: I'd be guessing. 21 Q: Okay. Could you turn, in the binder 22 of minutes that we provided to you; the notes of 23 meetings. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: To Tab 4, which are meeting notes of


1 Anna Prodana? 2 A: Who is Anna, sorry? 3 Q: She was an attendant, or attendee of 4 the meeting of September 5th, and I believe she was 5 someone from Onas, as I recall. Do you see the -- the 6 notes in front of -- 7 A: Oh no, no. I've got the notes, I 8 just -- I can't remember who she was. 9 Q: You don't -- you don't remember -- 10 you don't know Ms. Prodana? 11 A: No, I -- I assume she was a junior 12 staff, but I -- I can't remember who she was, no. 13 Q: All right. If you could turn to Tab, 14 or sorry, page 4 of those notes -- 15 A: Yes, sir. 16 Q: -- and according to those notes, Deb, 17 I guess Ms. Hutton, said in the meeting of the 5th: 18 "Premier wants to deal with group as if 19 they were non-Aboriginals." 20 okay? Do -- 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: -- you see that? And then, if you 23 could turn, and I want to ask you a question about that 24 in a minute, but turn to Tab 8 in the Binder -- 25 A: In same --


1 Q: -- in the binder, this is the Meeting 2 Notes Binder that I gave to you. 3 A: Okay. There's Christie's notes. 4 Q: There's Christie's notes and if you 5 turn to the third last page, in that tab, which is a page 6 with a kind of a doodle at the top. 7 A: At the top? 8 Q: The doodle is at the top. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: I'd like you to refer to the bottom. 11 A: "The Crown owns the Park?" 12 Q: Just below that -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- there's an asterisk sentence which 15 says: 16 "Strategic imperative. This government 17 treats non Aboriginal people and 18 Aboriginal people the same." 19 Do you recall that comment or that 20 principle being enunciated in -- in the meetings? 21 A: It was my understanding that, in 22 terms of how we were, you know, maybe this is some of the 23 learning that -- that we needed to do was that -- you 24 know, as I said earlier, specifically referring to the 25 colour of right, that the -- we were viewing this


1 situation as a -- as a law enforcement issue. 2 And, you know, as a law enforcement issue, 3 we didn't see that there was -- that -- that this should 4 be treat -- that whether it was Native or non Native, 5 whether there was a need to treat any things differently. 6 You know, in contrast to, like, you know, 7 treaty rights in terms of hunting and fishing where, you 8 know, there is a clear line of distinction between the 9 different rights. 10 I don't think that -- that, you know, in a 11 personal sense, I -- I understood at the time that -- 12 that there were more issues involved. 13 Q: Well, let me just follow up on that. 14 You've mentioned treaty rights, and I won't get into this 15 much but -- 16 A: Well, I, you know, the level that you 17 want to get into Section 35 of the Constitution with me, 18 is not going to go far. 19 Q: All right. I had -- I didn't plan to 20 ask that question, but maybe I will. 21 The evidence, and you've talked about -- 22 A: Well the opinion was my legal 23 opinion, it's not worth much. 24 Q: Mine neither, sometimes. You talked 25 about the need to be educated about First Nations issues


1 and then you've just thrown out the idea of treaty 2 rights, and the evidence has repeatedly come forward in 3 this Inquiry that the Ipperwash Parklands were part of 4 lands that had originally been promised to the First 5 Nation people here and in agreement with the Crown, back 6 in 1827. 7 And so that those lands had originally 8 been treaty -- had been treaty reserve lands. And is it 9 fair to say that that aspect of the Ipperwash Provincial 10 Park did not come forward in these meetings as a factor 11 to think about? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: It did or did not? 14 A: No, I'm agreeing with you. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: The fact that it came forward was 17 that the province had clear title, that the province had 18 bought the land from two (2) private individuals. 19 Q: Right. Would you agree with me it 20 would have been useful for consideration, for example, 21 for understanding the motivations of the protesters if it 22 had been tabled that these lands were treaty lands that 23 had been formally promised to the Band, to the First 24 Nations people -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- in perpetuity? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: That would have been useful, correct? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And it's -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 7 Klippenstein, I'm sorry, I thought you were finished with 8 that piece, because I'm holding open three (3) documents. 9 I'm trying very hard to follow you. 10 I'm holding the Commonsense Revolution, 11 I'm holding Ms. Hipfner, I'm referring to the Parks that 12 you drew the witness' attention to and I'm waiting for a 13 question that relates to this. 14 Is there a question coming or I can take 15 my finger out of the holding spot? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, you can 20 close -- you can take your fingers off of those 21 documents. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, that's 23 fine. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:


1 Q: Well, would you agree with me, you've 2 suggested, Mr. Moran, you've agreed with me that it would 3 have been useful as a factor for consideration back in 4 September of '95, in understanding the situation that 5 those lands, the Provincial Park lands, had formerly been 6 guaranteed to the First Nation by a treaty agreement. 7 That -- you've agreed with me -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Would you agree with me that that is 10 a useful factor to take into consideration at this point 11 in this Inquiry? 12 A: I think that's for the Commissioner 13 to decide, not me. 14 Q: Okay. I have no further questions, 15 Commissioner. You look surprised? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I was 17 hoping there would be at least one (1) question on the 18 matters that -- but anyway, if you're finished that's 19 fine with me. 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I guess I'll -- 21 you told us time matter for argument so. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You said you 23 would take approximately an hour and a half and you did 24 and I think that's about the -- my attention span at the 25 moment, so I think this would be a good time to take a


1 break. 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you very 3 much, Mr. Moran. 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 6 for fifteen (15) minutes. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 2:55 p.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 3:12 p.m. 10 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 12 resumed. Please be seated. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 14 afternoon, Ms. Esmonde. 15 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Good afternoon, Mr. 16 Commissioner. 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 19 Q: Good afternoon, sir. 20 A: Hi. 21 Q: I'll be asking you some questions on 22 behalf of the Aazhoodena and George Family Group. And 23 I'd like to begin by asking you some questions regarding 24 Mr. Beaubien. And unfortunately I'm going to take you 25 back to that letter dated July 31st, 1995. You don't


1 need to turn it up at this point but -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 3 Beaubien's counsel. I just saw him heading for the 4 washroom as we walked in. If you're going to ask him 5 questions about Mr. Beaubien, it would be a good idea if 6 Mr. Beaubien's counsel were here. 7 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll just 9 wait one minute, Ms. Esmonde, because I think he'll be 10 here in a minute. I feel a little guilty because I told 11 him not to worry. 12 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Okay. Well in the 13 interest of time perhaps I'll move onto another topic and 14 come back to Mr. Beaubien when his counsel has returned. 15 THE WITNESS: All right. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 18 Q: Now yesterday you were asked some 19 questions regarding the statement of political 20 relationships which it was a policy document created 21 under the NDP. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And you had expressed some surprise 24 that the -- what you call the Memorandum -- Memorandum of 25 Understanding was not in your binder.


1 A: Yes, ma'am. 2 Q: And that was the policy document that 3 was created by the Conservative Government. 4 A: Yes, ma'am. 5 Q: Would it be fair to say, though, that 6 this Memorandum of Understanding was not in place in 7 September 1995 when these events occurred? 8 A: Yes, ma'am. 9 Q: Okay. And that the Conservative 10 Government wanted to develop its own policy in this area? 11 A: Yes, ma'am. 12 Q: And planned on taking a different 13 approach with respect to First Nations issues and had 14 been the case under the NDP Government. 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And you've described some of the 17 differences I think -- 18 A: I don't think all of them had yet 19 been defined. 20 Q: Pardon me? 21 A: I don't think all of them had yet 22 been defined. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: We -- we weren't certain how the next 25 five (5) years would unfold.


1 Q: Would it be fair to say that you, as 2 a political staffer, had a perception that the NDP 3 Government had not been sufficiently attuned to the 4 rights and concerns of non Natives, with respect to 5 Native issues? 6 A: The rights of non Natives? I -- I 7 wouldn't have used the word 'rights.'. I think that the 8 -- the -- on several occasions that their input wasn't 9 sought into processes. In for -- point of view, yes. 10 I'll say yes. 11 Q: Okay. We've heard some evidence 12 about -- and you may not know about this because it 13 relates mainly to MNR. But we've heard some evidence 14 that there was an enforcement policy under the NDP 15 Government where -- 16 A: The Interim Enforcement Policy? 17 Q: Yes. The Interim Enforcement Policy; 18 you were familiar with that? 19 A: Had a general understanding of it. 20 It was something that we touched from a -- a legal 21 standpoint because there was a number of legal cases that 22 were ongoing. 23 Q: Right. And you had an understanding 24 of that while you were in opposition? While the 25 Conservative Government was in opposition?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Yes. And was this -- this 3 Enforcement Policy, was that continued after the 4 Conservative Government was elected in 1995? 5 A: It's not my understanding that it 6 was, no. 7 Q: Okay. I see Mr. Sulman has returned 8 so I will return to the topic of Mr. Beaubien. 9 Now, I believe you had testified that with 10 respect to the July 31st, 1995 letter, that you were not 11 responsible for responding to that letter? 12 A: Yes, ma'am. 13 Q: Okay. And I have a couple -- 14 A: The -- the Ministry had a 15 correspondence unit that was responsible for 16 correspondence. 17 Q: Right. You said you weren't 18 responsible for writing letters? 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: If I could just turn you to that tab, 21 it's Tab 6 in your book? 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: The second page in that tab -- 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: Sorry, this is Document 1003513.


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: And I'm not sure that the fax cover 3 sheet has been marked as an exhibit yet. I believe that 4 the -- the letter has been marked as P-534, but I'm -- 5 I'm interested mainly in the fax transmission sheet at 6 the moment. 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: And it's from you. 9 A: Yeah. Sorry. 10 Q: It's stamped, "Received, August 10th, 11 1995." 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: It's been marked as urgent, correct? 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: And it's to Julie Jai. And I note in 16 the comments it says: 17 "Can you help me with this or should I 18 be speaking to Civil Law? I have to 19 respond ASAP." 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: Now, is that your handwriting? 22 A: Yes, ma'am. 23 Q: Okay. So it appears that you had 24 some responsibility for responding to the letter. 25 A: Well, I meant I didn't draft letters


1 and stuff like that. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: I -- I believe that for situations 4 like for this it would have been a verbal response. It's 5 my recollection that I was handed the letter by the 6 Minister and asked, kind of, what the facts were around 7 it and I needed to get back to him. 8 Q: Okay. And you did get back to him? 9 A: That's my recollection. 10 Q: Okay. Do you remember what -- what 11 you said to him when you got back to him? 12 A: No, ma'am. 13 Q: Okay. Now, would it be fair to say 14 that you understood, from reviewing the letter, that Mr. 15 Beaubien had a concern that the OPP were not properly 16 enforcing the law? 17 A: Yes, ma'am. 18 Q: And that he wanted -- that you had 19 the understanding that he wanted the OPP to take more 20 decisive action against the First Nations in the area? 21 A: I think that's a stretch in terms of 22 my understanding of anything from Mr. Beaubien. 23 Q: Okay. Now, we've heard some evidence 24 that the Commissioner of the OPP was aware of this 25 letter?


1 A: Really? 2 Q: You sound surprised? I take it he 3 wasn't made aware of it by you? 4 A: The Commissioner? 5 Q: That's right. 6 A: No. No, ma'am. I -- I didn't meet 7 the Commissioner for some time until after the series of 8 events. 9 Q: Okay. Can you assist us with respect 10 to whether Mr. Harnick had communications with 11 Commissioner O'Grady of the OPP regarding the letter -- 12 A: Not to the best of my knowledge. 13 Q: Now, would it be fair to say that 14 after the Stoney Pointers moved in to the Park in 15 September 1995, you became aware that Mr. Beaubien was 16 expressing, again, similar concerns about the OPP not 17 properly enforcing the law? 18 A: I was aware that Mr. Beaubien was 19 expressing a number of concerns. I wouldn't go that far 20 in terms of his opinions on law enforcement issues. 21 Q: Okay. What concerns were you aware 22 that he was raising? 23 A: Oh, he was very concerned about the 24 situation within his community, but I -- I think I had 25 mentioned yesterday that the instructions that I had


1 received from Mr. Harnick was to rely on officials for 2 advice in terms of what was going on on the ground and 3 not Mr. Beaubien. 4 Q: Okay. And -- and those were -- that 5 was a specific direction that was made to you? 6 A: Yes, ma'am. 7 Q: Was that the 5th or the 6th? 8 A: I couldn't recall. 9 Q: Okay. I provided you with a copy of 10 two (2) letters at the lunch break. 11 A: Yes, ma'am. 12 Q: I have a copy for the Commissioner as 13 well. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: I got it. Yeah. I don't need 18 another. 19 Q: The first document, there's a number 20 "1" at the top, it's a fax cover sheet to Bill King from 21 Marcel Beaubien. The document number is 1006195? 22 A: Yes, ma'am. 23 Q: And I don't see a date on it though 24 the -- the fax stamp on it is September 5th, 1995 at 25 1:07 p.m.


1 Do you see that? 2 A: Was it the one with the big stamp on 3 it, where it says, "Received July 15th?" 4 Q: No, I'm looking at the -- the fax 5 header at the top of the page, which shows what time this 6 was transmitted? 7 A: Oh, yes. Yeah, sorry. 8 Q: Okay. And there's a letter attached 9 which is a draft of a press release under the letterhead 10 of Marcel Beaubien. 11 A: Yes, sorry, I was wondering what the 12 delay was, and I think that's just the Government's rapid 13 response, in administration. Sorry, go on. 14 Q: I think we'll have evidence that it 15 was received before 1997, but for now I just wanted to 16 know if you -- was this draft of a Press Release brought 17 to your attention on September 5th or September 6th? 18 A: No, ma'am. 19 Q: It was not. Okay. I think I'll -- 20 we'll have that marked as an exhibit with the appropriate 21 witness. 22 Would the same answer apply to the second 23 document I've given you, which is another fax from Mr. 24 Beaubien's Office with a fax header, September 6th, 1995 25 at 1:16 p.m., Document Number 1006196?


1 A: Yeah, I don't recall seeing this 2 letter. 3 Q: That wasn't brought to your 4 attention? Okay. 5 A: I just don't recall. 6 Q: Okay. Could you turn up Tab 10, 7 these are the notes of Julie Jai. 8 A: Yes, ma'am. 9 Q: Okay. If you could turn to the notes 10 from September 6th, 1995 Interministerial Committee 11 Meeting, these are -- have been marked as P-536, and 12 there's a handwritten 5 at the top of the page. 13 A: Yes, ma'am. 14 Q: Okay. You have it? Now there's some 15 comments at the bottom of the page that are attributed to 16 you? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: And just to give some context, just 19 above that there's an unattributed comment: 20 "Marcel Beaubien, MPP in the area, 21 tried to diffuse tensions, needs 22 someone to work with local officials, 23 et cetera, to try to diffuse tensions, 24 perhaps the local MPP informal behind 25 the scenes."


1 And then there's a comment that appears to 2 be attributed to you, David Moran: 3 "Marcel not an appropriate person to do 4 this, get a list of who needs to be 5 calmed down, David Moran's office to 6 communicate with key person on this." 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Okay. Now specifically with the 9 comment, "Marcel not an appropriate person to do this," I 10 take it you recall making a comment to that effect at the 11 meeting? 12 A: Yes, ma'am. 13 Q: And can I take it that it was based 14 on your experience working with Mr. Beaubien in August, 15 that led you to make this comment? 16 A: No, it had nothing personal in terms 17 of Mr. Beaubien at all. I -- I -- 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: -- wasn't of the view that an 20 individual MPP should be speaking on behalf of the 21 Government in this situation. I think that, you know, a 22 Member of the Government proper, and I mean a Member of 23 the Cabinet or their direct staff, should be speaking on 24 behalf of the Government. I just didn't think that Mr. 25 Beaubien was the appropriate person to be...


1 Q: Okay. And I believe you also 2 testified, as well, that the -- the notation below that, 3 "Get a list of who needs to be calmed down," that you had 4 included Mr. Beaubien as one of the persons that needed 5 to be calmed down? 6 A: Well, it's probably accurate, but I'm 7 not sure whether I was referring to him in that list. 8 Q: Okay. And why -- can you help us 9 with why that would have been accurate to say that Mr. 10 Beaubien would be someone who needed to be calmed down? 11 A: I -- I had gotten the impression that 12 he was quite exercised about what was happening in the 13 community. 14 Q: Okay. And what gave you that 15 impression? 16 A: I'm not sure. 17 Q: Okay. Because you -- 18 A: It was my understanding -- 19 Q: -- you told us you hadn't seen these 20 particular letters I referred you to. Had you had other 21 communications with him on September 4th, 5th or 6th? 22 A: I think it was -- I can only remember 23 at one time speaking with -- about Mr. Beaubien with Mr. 24 Harnick and I -- I think it was when he had instructed me 25 to rely on the officials and I think that, while I am a


1 scrapping motive, I believe it was because Mr. Harnick 2 believed that Mr. Beaubien was a little exercised about 3 the situation. 4 Q: Okay. Okay. I have a few questions 5 regarding the Interministerial Committee Meeting, so I 6 will try to be brief, I think. Most of the issues have 7 already been addressed. 8 But, would it be fair to say that as a 9 political staff in attending these meetings, you were 10 very attuned to the -- the implications on a political 11 level for the Government? 12 A: I'd like to hope so. 13 Q: Okay. And in particular for the 14 Attorney General's office? 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And you wanted to ensure -- you were 17 concerned about the Government would be perceived in its 18 response to the issue? 19 A: Yes, ma'am. 20 Q: And you wanted to ensure that the 21 response was reflective, generally, of the Government's 22 policies? 23 A: Yes, ma'am. 24 Q: Now, you testified, and I believe 25 these are the words that you used, that there was an


1 understandable tension and frustration in the room during 2 the IMC meetings, and -- 3 A: Well, yeah, but those are two (2) 4 separate kind of things. You know, there's the tension 5 because an occupation was taking place. 6 The source of the frustration, to some 7 extent, was because how the occupation was dealt with was 8 not being done in a very efficient manner. 9 Q: I see. Okay. As -- fair to say the 10 frustration in the room, that you perceived, was from the 11 political staff? 12 A: There may have been some -- I -- I'm, 13 you know, I'm sure that there was some frustration from 14 the -- the civil service, with, you know, having to 15 answer, you know, what some would deem to be elementary 16 questions. 17 Q: And you also made reference to there 18 being debate during the meetings. And can you assist us 19 in what the debates, what -- what subject matters those 20 debates surrounded? 21 A: Well, I don't know, like, as we 22 talked through the issues in terms of -- of how any 23 particular issue was going to be addressed, we were kind 24 of, you know, it's the political staff's job in any 25 meeting is to kind of ask probing questions to find out


1 what all the options are so that they can present their - 2 - their minister with, you know, a full spectrum of -- of 3 options. 4 So, you know, our job in a meeting is to 5 ask those probing questions so that we can figure out all 6 of the options. 7 So, you know, I guess that's the best way 8 to describe what the debate was. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: But it, you know, it wasn't really 11 what I'd call a formal debate. Excuse me. 12 Q: Now, you were asked some questions 13 earlier regarding guidelines for responding to Aboriginal 14 emergencies? 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And I'm not sure -- it appeared to me 17 that perhaps you didn't actually have that document in 18 front of you at that time. 19 And I have some questions for you 20 regarding that, and I've given you a copy. I don't think 21 it's in the binder. 22 A: I don't -- 23 Q: Sorry, that's for the Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 THE WITNESS: Can I ask --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have this 2 one. 3 THE WITNESS: In terms of -- I think that 4 the -- I'm not sure that the genesis of this one, because 5 it -- I had thought it was the other briefing note on the 6 Commission -- the Committee that we had relied to. 7 So how do the two (2) relate? 8 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Well... 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 13 Q: We've heard evidence that the 14 appendix, which I've given you a copy of, was actually 15 attached to the briefing note you're talking about. It 16 just -- 17 A: Oh, okay. 18 Q: -- it just wasn't included in the 19 binder. 20 A: Oh, okay. 21 Q: Okay? This has been marked it's -- 22 and it's marked as a separate exhibit, P-498 -- 23 A: Oh. 24 Q: Document number 102232. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, does that assist you, do you 4 recall now that you -- you were aware of these guidelines 5 in September of 1995? 6 A: I remember the details of the 7 previous briefing note. I don't remember the details of 8 the appendix. 9 Q: You don't, okay. 10 A: You can ask me a particular question 11 if it -- 12 Q: Yeah, I'm going to ask -- 13 A: All right. 14 Q: -- you some particular questions 15 that -- 16 A: I'm sure you are. Okay? 17 Q: Well, I'll ask -- we need -- we don't 18 necessarily need to look at the document if you weren't 19 familiar with it, but I'll put some principles to you and 20 see if you were -- that was your understanding about how 21 the committee was to function. 22 A: Sure. 23 Q: And I think you've already agreed 24 that you had an understanding that one of the objectives 25 of the Committee was to ensure a timely lifting of


1 blockades through a negotiated solution? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: You -- that was your understanding of 4 one (1) of the underlying principles for the Committee? 5 A: I wouldn't have used the word, 6 'negotiated'. 7 Q: Oh, I see. 8 A: Like did -- you know, like, it's kind 9 of getting into the minutiae of how it actually ended, 10 which -- I think you're mixing apples and oranges. 11 Q: Okay. I didn't hear that. 12 A: I think you're mixing apples and 13 oranges. 14 Q: Okay. Well, that maybe a question 15 for argument, but if you could -- if you could look at -- 16 actually, I do want to turn you to the document actually, 17 because I've used that -- the word, "negotiated" because 18 it appears in this document. 19 A: Okay. Well, can you just refer me or 20 could someone, then, where the -- the -- the front part 21 of this note is? 22 Q: Yeah. 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: It's at Tab 2 of your documents.


1 A: Thank you. This isn't the note I'm 2 referring to, I'm talking about the -- oh, no, this one 3 is. Sorry. I'm with you. 4 Q: Okay. Now, if you -- the document 5 that I've provided you, number 3, says: 6 "All efforts will be made to ensure 7 timely lifting of any blockades through 8 a negotiated resolution." 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: And perhaps -- we've -- we've heard 11 evidence that there was a distinction between substantive 12 negotiations and process negotiations. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: And in the document that I've placed 15 before you that -- I believe that distinction is made 16 here as well. It was your understanding, as you've 17 already said, that the Committee could not engage in 18 substantive negotiations, but did you understand that the 19 Committee could -- did have the power to appoint a 20 facilitator/negotiator to engage in process negotiations? 21 A: Yes, ma'am. 22 Q: Okay. And we've heard from many of 23 the witnesses who have testified regarding these meetings 24 that there was no discussion about appointing a 25 facilitator/ negotiator by the Ontario Government.


1 Does that accord with your memory of the 2 September 5th and 6th IMC meetings? 3 A: Yes, ma'am. 4 Q: And given the understanding that 5 you've described to us that, based on the information you 6 had, you didn't see it as a Native issue. 7 Would it be fair to say it was your view 8 there was really nothing to negotiate about? 9 A: Well, there was -- kind of negotiate 10 how they end the occupation, but, I guess, in -- in my 11 view that, in terms of the -- the -- I'm hesitant to make 12 that kind of a generalistic statement because that could 13 accomplish anything. 14 I think you'd have to give me an example 15 of, could they have negotiated this, this, or this? 16 Q: Well, okay for example -- 17 A: I just don't want to agree with 18 everything because -- 19 Q: Okay. So that's fair enough. I have 20 two (2) things in mind. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: And the information you had was that 23 there was no merit to the claim that there was a burial 24 ground in the Park. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: So in your view there would have been 2 -- there would be no purpose in having -- appointing a 3 facilitator/negotiator to attend at the Park and enter 4 into negotiations about -- about addressing the issue of 5 there possibly being a burial ground in the Park? 6 A: I think that -- 7 Q: It's awkwardly worded, but I hope you 8 understand what I mean. Okay. 9 A: No, but I -- I think that -- that -- 10 I can only speak for myself -- 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: -- and guess for the rest of the 13 Committee. But I don't think that there was any 14 opposition whatsoever to the appropriate things being 15 done with regard to a possible burial ground. I think 16 that -- that -- that the general attitude was that if 17 there is, let's find out for sure, and if there is, 18 let's take the appropriate steps. 19 Q: Okay. And would it -- 20 A: So, you know, like with regard to 21 your question about well, should there be no discussion 22 about it, I -- I don't think that would have been a 23 problem at all. 24 Q: Okay. But would it not be fair to 25 say that, in your view, such discussions should take


1 place once the occupation was over? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And similarly the other issue that 4 was brought forward by the people in the Park, 5 apparently, was that they believe they had a claim to the 6 Park? 7 A: Yes, ma'am. 8 Q: And would it be fair to say that, in 9 your view, any discussions about entering a process for 10 that would -- would take place after the occupation was 11 over? 12 A: Yes, ma'am. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now, we've heard evidence and I 17 believe it's also contained in the minutes from the 18 September 6th, 1995 meeting that there were three (3) 19 main communication messages that were agreed upon at the 20 end of that meeting. And do you recall that? 21 A: Are you asking me to go on my memory 22 what the three (3) were? 23 Q: No I wouldn't -- wouldn't ask you to 24 do that. If you can turn to Tab 8, I believe. 25 A: Okay.


1 Q: I think it's the second to last page. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: Under the heading, Communications. 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: Are you with me? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Okay. And in the -- there are three 8 (3) bullet points near the bottom of the page. 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: It says: 11 "MNR will develop a communication plan 12 with the main messages as follows: 13 1. The AG has been instructed to seek 14 and injunction ASAP. 15 2. Police have been asked to remove 16 the occupiers from the Park, and 17 3. Public safety and removing the 18 trespassers from the Park are the key 19 objectives." 20 And does that accord with your memory of 21 what the main communication messages coming out of that 22 meeting were? 23 A: No. But, as I commented earlier on 24 this -- this note, I think that the summer student that 25 wrote it, like, I don't necessary agree with the comments


1 of it. 2 Q: Okay. I had understood that you 3 didn't agree with the note on the last page about a 4 decision being made at a Cabinet meeting. 5 A: Well, I really hadn't been asked 6 about the communications -- 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: -- aspect of it. 9 Q: Okay. Can you tell us then in your 10 view what is in error about this, these minutes, with 11 respect to the communication messages? 12 A: Well, I think that if someone had 13 asked me like, you know, this is, you know, as I referred 14 to earlier, the fine line about whether the AG has been 15 instructed to do it or a lawyer for the AG had been 16 instructed to do it. You know, it was one of the things 17 that we were -- that a summer student may not have been 18 aware of, but the more senior counsel were -- were a 19 little more sensitive to the issue about the instructions 20 versus decisions. 21 And I never would have agreed with a 22 communications message that said that the police had been 23 instructed to remove, because it was my understanding 24 coming out of these meetings that we were seeking an 25 injunction with the hope that we could achieve an


1 injunction and that this would bring an end to the 2 application. 3 And one of the things that our counsel 4 continually reinforced to us was that, and this is much 5 more on the AG side than the ONAS side, that it was 6 always premature to suggest what a court was going to 7 decide and that often, you know, judges would use their 8 own discretion in terms of making decisions. So, that it 9 was premature to say that. 10 Q: Okay. Now -- 11 A: Now in terms of public safety being 12 paramount, yes. Did we agree that the removal of the 13 occupiers from the Park in terms of, like, did we want 14 them to leave the Park, yes. 15 But I thought we had already addressed the 16 issue of trespassing. And that, you know, while a 17 colloquial term that some uninformed political staff or a 18 summer student would use that I think that officials had 19 already said that -- that it really couldn't be deemed a 20 situation of trespassing. 21 So, I guess now in terms of the 22 communication sense that I wouldn't agree with -- with 23 any of these. And then in a practical sense just so 24 anyone would -- would know, and whether it was written by 25 a summer student or anyone else, the way that


1 communications work within the -- the Government, and 2 this is regardless whether the Tories or the Liberals are 3 in, is that officials would recommend, you know, some 4 basic facts or text for a -- an elected official to 5 speak. 6 But, it was actually the -- the political 7 staff's responsibility to actually write anything that an 8 elected official would -- would say publicly. 9 So, I'm just saying that anything that was 10 written in terms of saying, Here's our -- our recommended 11 comments, really is gotta be considered in that vein. 12 Q: Okay. I appreciate that 13 clarification. Now, I understand from you, you don't 14 recall actually having reviewed these minutes at the 15 time, after they were prepared? 16 A: I wouldn't have been my -- 17 Q: Right. 18 A: I -- I wouldn't -- it was not my role 19 or responsibility to approve notes of any... 20 Q: So, I take it then that you don't -- 21 you also don't recall suggesting any corrections to these 22 minutes? 23 A: I can't even remember seeing these 24 meeting -- these Minutes. 25 Q: Okay. Now, specifically --


1 A: No, like I -- like I'm sure that they 2 came forward and stuff like that, but I wouldn't -- 3 Q: Right. Now, specifically with 4 respect to the second bullet point, about that police 5 have been asked to remove the occupiers from the Park -- 6 A: Just, sorry, and just to give you the 7 information that you're looking for in terms of -- of the 8 approved messages. And I know that there's some efforts 9 that have been put into this, but all of the Ministers 10 there would have been -- received what was deemed to be 11 House Book Notes. 12 Each Minister had a House Book with all 13 the issues reflecting his issues that contained both, you 14 know, the facts of the case as we knew them, and 15 suggested public comment. And that would have been the 16 actual communications message that any elected official 17 would have viewed publicly. 18 Q: Okay. So, again, with -- 19 A: And -- and at the same time, that -- 20 that note that had actually gone to the Minister, would 21 have received a higher level of approval, in terms of 22 finalization, than any briefing note like this. 23 Q: Okay. I -- I understand. But -- 24 A: Sorry. 25 Q: -- specifically with respect to the


1 second bullet point -- 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: -- you -- you made a clarification, I 4 believe that, the Government was not directing the OPP to 5 remove the occupiers from the Park. But would it be fair 6 to say it was your understanding that Government 7 Officials had asked -- had asked the police to remove the 8 occupiers from the Park? 9 A: Well, like I think that's kind of a - 10 - like the sequence of events was much more simplistic 11 than that in that either the -- the Ministry of Natural 12 Resources, I believe, called the OPP and, you know, 13 alerted the OPP to the situation and I'm assuming had 14 said, you know, Could you do something about the 15 occupiers. 16 As, you know, there -- subsequent to that, 17 there was a big meeting where we said, Okay, well how are 18 we going to deal with this situation, where, you know, a 19 number of -- of officials said, the best way to deal with 20 this situation is to get an injunction. So, we were 21 proceeding with injunction. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 23 to just hold it there. Yes, Mr. Ross...? 24 You better come up here, because I will 25 not hear you, that's all. I just -- unfortunately, the


1 way the room is structured, I won't hear you from there. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Nice to have 6 a little walk in the middle of the afternoon. 7 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: It probably -- at my 8 age it usually helps. 9 OBJ The problem I'm having is not the 10 question, Mr. Commissioner, but the response. He started 11 by saying "assuming" and then he goes into a long speech. 12 And I don't know that it's going to be helpful at all. 13 And that's my objection. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 15 sir. 16 THE WITNESS: You object to my answer? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. No, 18 no. Sometimes your assumptions are helpful, sometimes 19 they are not, but I am not sure that you want his 20 assumption, I am not sure -- 21 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Right. I -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you were 23 not asking him for his assumption. 24 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: No. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 2 Q: I do appreciate objections to answers 3 rather than questions, but my -- the question I was 4 asking about was whether you had any -- any knowledge 5 about -- or about Government Officials asking the OPP to 6 remove the occupiers from the Park? 7 A: I couldn't comment on -- in any 8 detail in terms of the conversations that had taken place 9 with the police. 10 Q: Okay. And, but you assumed that that 11 had been done? 12 A: I -- I had assumed that they had 13 said, you know, how are you going to solve this situation 14 with the -- the end result of ending the occupation. 15 Q: Okay. Now, you've talked to us a 16 little bit about Mr. Hutchison being present on the 6th. 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: And that you understood that he was 19 there to discuss criminal Code options and the -- the 20 options available under the criminal law for dealing with 21 the occupation; is that right? 22 A: Well, I'm not -- like, I -- I assumed 23 that -- I didn't invite him there, I thought it was just 24 to -- to -- if there was questions that related to the 25 Criminal Code that he could answer them.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: That was his area of expertise. 3 Q: And do you recall that the -- the 4 issue of the Criminal Code charge of mischief was 5 discussed at the meeting? 6 A: I remember it being discussed at -- 7 at one (1) of the two (2) meetings. I couldn't remember 8 which one. It would seem logical that if there was a 9 Criminal Code question that he would be there. 10 Q: Okay. And so you do recall that that 11 -- that particular charge was discussed? 12 A: Yes, ma'am. 13 Q: And do you recall, as well, that here 14 was discussion about reminding the OPP about the option 15 of the mischief charge. 16 A: That we were going to remind them 17 about the law? 18 Q: That's right. 19 A: No, I don't recall any discussions 20 about reminding them about different aspects of the law. 21 Q: Okay. Could you turn up your notes 22 at Tab 7? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And I'm interested in your notes from 25 the September 6th IMC meeting.


1 A: Okay. 2 Q: And the last page in that tab near 3 the bottom. 4 A: Oh, 6, sorry. 5 Q: That's right, it's the last page -- 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: -- near the bottom. It says: 8 "OPP reminder, mischief." 9 A: Okay. I don't recall that. 10 Q: Could you turn up Tab 13? 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: This is an e-mail from Julie Jai 13 marked as P-653 from September 6th of 1995. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: And you were taken to this document I 16 believe in your direct examination. There is a reference 17 you see under, "Main Communication Messages". They're 18 the three (3) bullet points which are similar to the ones 19 we've discussed already. 20 A: Yes, ma'am. 21 Q: And then there's a paragraph in 22 parentheses? 23 And the last sentence: 24 "The OPP will be advised as to their 25 legal options such as the mischief


1 charge under the Criminal Code and that 2 it is up to them as to how to proceed." 3 Does that -- does that assist you or 4 refresh your memory? 5 A: No, I can't remember it, but looking 6 back on it a bit it seems a little presumptuous. 7 Q: Right. You're a bit surprised that 8 there would be discussion about reminding the OPP about 9 the availability of a Criminal Code charge? 10 A: I am. 11 Q: Now, during the -- again during the 12 meeting on the 6th when -- when Tim McCabe was present, 13 you recall that he gave a clear overview of the 14 injunction process? 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And you've described him as being a 17 senior lawyer in the Attorney General's office? 18 A: He was a senior litigator, I wouldn't 19 refer to him -- like, he wasn't management, but he was an 20 experienced litigator, I believe. 21 Q: Right. His opinion was highly 22 respected by you? 23 A: I don't think I'd met him before the 24 meeting. 25 Q: Oh, is that -- okay.


1 A: I may have. I don't recall it. Yes, 2 I did respect his opinion. 3 Q: Okay. Now -- 4 A: You know whether I came to respect it 5 after or I had already formed that opinion -- I did 6 respect his opinion. 7 Q: Okay. And you recall that set out 8 the difference between an injunction on notice and an ex 9 parte injunction, one without notice? 10 A: Yes, ma'am. 11 Q: And we've heard -- we've heard from 12 him and from many other witnesses that he gave clear 13 advice that it was his view that there were no grounds 14 for an ex parte injunction. 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And you recall hearing that? 17 A: Yes, ma'am. 18 Q: Okay. Turning -- skipping ahead to 19 the dining room meeting as we've been calling it. 20 A: I don't have the tab for that one. 21 Q: No. Now, you testified this morning, 22 I believe it was this morning, that you recalled the 23 Premier stating that the tragedy could have been 24 prevented before it occurred? 25 A: Well, that's paraphrasing.


1 Q: That's -- 2 A: You know I can -- I -- I think that 3 it was my understanding from his comments that he -- he 4 was of the opinion that this could have been averted 5 before it had happened. 6 Q: Okay. Now, you use the -- the word, 7 "tragedy". Do you recall him using that word? 8 A: No, ma'am. 9 Q: Can you assist me with why you use 10 that word in describing -- in paraphrasing today? 11 A: I guess it was just the way I viewed 12 the situation. 13 Q: Okay. You viewed the occupation of 14 the Park as a tragedy? 15 A: No, the death. 16 Q: Okay. This was before. 17 A: Oh, sorry. Well, that was -- 18 Q: This meeting took place before -- 19 A: Yes, yes, yes, yes. But, when I -- 20 when I said, "the tragedy," that's what I was referring 21 to in my mind. 22 Q: I see. And you testified that upon-- 23 A: You know, I think what the Premier 24 was saying is that the situation could have been averted 25 before hand.


1 Q: Now, you testified that your review 2 of the media coverage of the Inquiry had led you to 3 believe that the holocaust comment had been 4 misunderstood. 5 A: I think that the Premier's comments 6 at the meeting were misunderstood. 7 Q: Okay. Now, Mr. Harris was clear that 8 he was frustrated at the OPP failure to contain the 9 situation. 10 A: I would have said prevent it before 11 it had happened, not contained. 12 Q: I see. And I believe you testified 13 earlier that it was your understanding that Premier 14 Harris wanted the situation to be dealt with quickly. 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: And he made that clear during this 17 meeting? 18 A: Not to my recollection. I -- I had 19 thought -- I got the impression at the meeting that the - 20 - the Premier was a little resi -- well, don't get me 21 wrong because he was frustrated that he was resigned to 22 the occupation. 23 Q: Okay. Would it be fair to say that 24 following the dining room meeting, it was your 25 understanding that the injunction would be pursued on an


1 ex parte basis? 2 A: Pardon me? 3 Q: Would it be fair to say that 4 following the dining room meeting, it was your 5 understanding -- 6 A: Yes, ma'am. 7 Q: -- that an injunction would be sought 8 on an ex parte basis? 9 A: Yes, ma'am. 10 Q: Now, you've described a little bit 11 your role as the Executive Assistant to Mr. Harnick. 12 Would it be fair to say that as a rule Mr. Harnick didn't 13 take notes of the briefings that you provided to him? 14 A: The only -- the only time I really 15 noticed the attorney taking notes was in the approval of 16 Dangerous Offenders Applications. I -- I don't recall 17 him taking notes other than -- than when he was reviewing 18 those. 19 Q: And in fact it was one of your 20 responsibilities as his EA to take notes of those 21 briefings? 22 A: It was not. 23 Q: It was not. Okay. We've heard 24 evidence from Mr. Vrancart that that would have been one 25 of the responsibilities of an EA.


1 A: Maybe of his but -- there's a clear 2 difference between a civil service executive assistant 3 and a political executive assistant let alone a private 4 sector executive assistant. 5 Basically the reason why I would take a 6 note if for one of three (3) reasons, and this is in a 7 personal sense in terms of practicality, it's to be, to 8 either brief my Minister, which he was there, is to brief 9 the Premier's office and a situation, and they were there 10 or -- 11 Q: Hmm hmm. 12 A: -- to write down a to do thing of 13 something that I had to do coming out of the meeting. It 14 didn't occur at this meeting so... 15 Q: I wasn't asking with particular 16 reference to the dining room meeting but is that what 17 your answers are being addressed to, just to clarify? 18 A: It wasn't my job to take meetings 19 (sic) in the -- that the minister was at. If he provided 20 me instruction at a meeting and told me to take a note, 21 then I would follow his instructions. 22 Q: Yes. Okay. Could you turn up Tab 23 16. This is a fax dated September 7th from Kathryn Hunt 24 to you. It's Document Number 1003521. 25 A: Yes, ma'am.


1 Q: And it appears to attach some 2 handwritten notes of a briefing note regarding Ipperwash 3 Provincial Park. 4 Do you recall receiving this fax? 5 A: I remember receiving some information 6 from Kathryn about the situation, but I, you know, can I 7 remember this note, no. 8 Q: Okay. So, you recall that on the 9 morning of the 7th you were provided information -- you 10 were provided a briefing with what had occurred at the 11 Park the night before? 12 A: Well, I'd -- I'd heard in the evening 13 -- well the middle of the night, from the Special 14 Investigations Unit but I didn't know any of the details 15 and I can't remember how I had learned the greater 16 details the next morning. But yes, I remember being 17 provided some information on the details of it. 18 But I don't think that a formal briefing 19 took place at the Ministry providing us with some further 20 background, but I can't recall, I guess is the... 21 Q: Okay. I'm interested in the facts 22 that are in this -- this fax at the bottom of the first 23 page. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: Where it refers to:


1 "At approximately ten (10) to 11:00, a 2 member of the Kettle Point band council 3 was driving on Army Camp Road on the 4 west edge of Ipperwash Park when he was 5 confronted by First Nations persons who 6 had left the Park. His vehicle was 7 damaged and he was threatened." 8 Now apart from this fax which you don't 9 specifically recall, do you recall learning those facts 10 on the morning of the 7th? 11 A: No, ma'am. 12 Q: Do you recall learning those at any 13 point? 14 A: They -- any of the substance of what 15 had actually happened on the ground, I learned at a much 16 later date from the -- the guy who was the head of the 17 Special Investigations Unit after his investigation had 18 been completed, I think it was Graham Reynolds at the 19 time. 20 But in terms of what actually had happened 21 on the ground, I -- I didn't know any details really. 22 Q: I see. Okay, there's just one other 23 matter. I just wanted to correct the record on one 24 point, it's with respect to the notes of Julie Jai at 25 Tab 10.


1 A: Okay. 2 Q: I'm looking at the -- the notes from 3 September 6th, 1995 with a "1" at the top. 4 A: Yes, ma'am. 5 Q: It's the third page in. You had 6 commented earlier that you read it as -- that she gave 7 herself an A plus on today's meeting and I just wanted to 8 correct the record that -- 9 A: Oh, yeah. 10 Q: -- believe it says -- 11 A: Probably, yeah. 12 Q: -- at -- it says, "At today's 13 meeting". 14 A: Yes, I think you're right; I stand 15 corrected. 16 Q: Okay. Thank you very much. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 18 very much, Ms. Esmonde. 19 Mr. Ross...? 20 MR. DONALD WORME: He just stepped out, 21 Commissioner. 22 THE WITNESS: We can skip over him then, 23 right? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 2 any -- do you want to wait just a minute? Okay, we'll 3 just wait in place for just a minute. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 8 any questions, Mr. George? We're not going to go out of 9 order, but you don't have any questions? 10 MR. JONATHON GEORGE: No questions, 11 Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And how long 13 do you think you might be, Mr. Horton? 14 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I am assuming forty- 15 five (45) minutes and possibly a little longer. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we're 17 going to try and finish today. And Mr. Roy, have you got 18 any current estimates in view of what's gone on so far? 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think until I hear 20 from Mr. Ross and Mr. Horton, I don't want to -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You want to 22 hold? Do you want to hold the -- 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'll hold. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, just -- 25 okay. I don't want to -- let's wait until we hear.


1 You're up now Mr. Ross, if that's okay? 2 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Fine. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 THE WITNESS: Mr. Ross? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just so we 8 can gauge where we are in terms of the day, do you have 9 an estimate of how long you might be, Mr. Ross? 10 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: I will fall within my 11 time, probably twenty-five (25) minutes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 13 very much, Mr. Ross. 14 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: Mr. Ross, your tie's... 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Oh, thank you, we 17 can't have that with the camera. Thank you very much. 18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 20 Q: Mr. Moran, my name is Anthony Ross 21 and I represent the occupiers of Aazhoodena, from time to 22 time referred to by -- as the dissidents. 23 Now, would you agree with me, Mr. Moran, 24 that the documents -- all the documents that have been 25 referred to by you would pretty much tell us what the


1 Government was doing as opposed to what was necessary to 2 avoid the type of confrontation that led to the death of 3 Dudley George? 4 Would you agree with that? 5 A: Are you asking me to agree with what 6 the Government -- the -- the course of action that was 7 pursued didn't prevent the death of Dudley George? I 8 think that's -- 9 Q: I will rephrase the question. I will 10 ask it again. 11 I'm suggesting to you, sir, that the 12 documents that you've had to prepare for this Inquiry 13 will inform us on what was done by the Government on a 14 day by day basis, but will not specifically answer the 15 question, what could have been done to ensure that this 16 type of problem did not develop? 17 A: I'll agree with that. 18 Q: Now, between September the 6th, 1995 19 and now, and from the time that you left government -- 20 what year was that? 21 A: '99. 22 Q: '99? Between '95 and '99, September 23 the 6th/95 when Dudley George got shot, did you come 24 across any documents or any information which could have 25 justified the shooting of Dudley George?


1 THE WITNESS: I don't think I can answer 2 that. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 4 that's a question -- any documents that would have 5 justified the shooting of Dudley George? 6 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: He can answer that 7 question. He can either say yes or no, Mr. Commissioner. 8 THE WITNESS: I don't think I'm qualified 9 to answer that question. 10 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Pardon me? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm trying 12 to think -- 13 THE WITNESS: I don't think I'm qualified 14 to answer that question. 15 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: That's good enough. 16 That's good enough. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 19 Q: As far as the police activity on the 20 night of the 6th of September, 1995 I take it that your 21 position that year was not direction from the Government 22 as -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- to what the police should or 25 should not be doing?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And is it fair to say that between 3 the 4th of September, 1995 and the night of the 6th of 4 September, 1995 government was trying to formulate a 5 position to deal with the occupiers? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Is it fair to say that Government had 8 not completed formulating any real position when the 9 tragic death of Dudley George occurred? 10 A: The only position that we had was 11 that we were going to seek an injunction. 12 Q: That's fine. But that's as far as 13 you went? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: Yes. Now, the -- the -- the 16 occupation, did you understand this to be a progressive 17 matter that in May of 1993 that the rifle range was 18 occupied by most of the -- the people occupied the Park 19 eventually? 20 A: No, sir. 21 Q: You did not know that? 22 A: You asked me if I understood it to be 23 a progressive escalation. 24 Q: Sorry. Did you understand that there 25 was an occupation of the range in May of 1993?


1 A: Of the range? 2 Q: Yes, the rifle range. 3 A: I didn't even know there was a rifle 4 range there. 5 Q: That's fine. Did you know that in 6 1995 that there was an occupation of the barracks? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: Yes. And after the occupation of the 9 barracks I take it that there was discussion about 10 occupying the Park? 11 A: In May of that year? 12 Q: No, in August of that year. 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: And what steps did the Government 15 take to engage the occupiers in an effort to prevent the 16 actual occupation of the Park? 17 A: To the best of my knowledge none were 18 taken. It was my understanding that -- that some were 19 supposed to be taken. 20 Q: And that would be around what time? 21 You see the -- the -- we -- we understand -- 22 A: Oh, no, no. I understand your 23 question entirely. What you're asking is -- is: How 24 come nothing happened in between August and September and 25 I think it's a great question.


1 Q: Thank you very much. Now, give me a 2 great answer. 3 A: I don't know. 4 Q: So -- so, there's no answer to that 5 great question? 6 A: No, I think it -- you know I -- I 7 would assume that, certainly, that a number of -- of 8 officials in the Government were under the understanding 9 that something was happening, when it didn't really seem 10 like something was. 11 Q: I see. So we've got the occupation 12 of the barracks around the end of July 1995? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: And the Provincial Government 15 understands this? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: And the Provincial Government is 18 meeting in early August of 1995 and there's speculation 19 that the next thing will be occupying the Park? 20 A: That's a bit of a leap. We didn't -- 21 we didn't really think that that threat was -- there was 22 a -- the issue was raised, but I don't know the extent 23 that we thought that it was a real threat or a 24 possibility. 25 Q: I was hoping not to have to go


1 through these documents again, God knows they've been 2 through enough. 3 A: No, no, no. But I think -- 4 Q: I refer to tab -- 5 A: -- I think -- I think you're fair in 6 terms of what you're saying. 7 Q: If I will refer you, sir, to Tab 8 Number 8, paragraph 1, Background and Related Issues. 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: Bullet 1. 11 A: Yes, sir. 12 Q: "The Stoney Pointers are a dissident 13 group from Kettle Point and Stony Point 14 First Nation who are not recognized as 15 an independent band under the Indian 16 Act." 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: On August 2, 1995, the 19 Interministerial Committee met to discuss the Stoney 20 Pointers occupation of Camp Ipperwash. In the course of 21 that meeting -- and, sir, I would suggest to you that's 22 the August 2nd meeting, so far so good? 23 A: I'm with you. 24 Q: Okay. And at that meeting it was 25 mentioned that the Stoney Pointers had implicitly


1 indicated that they would attempt to occupy Ipperwash 2 Provincial Park. 3 So, we now know that the Government was 4 aware, around August -- 5 A: Oh, no, no. I -- I agree that there 6 was an awareness. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: And I agree that there was an 9 awareness of the threat. What I'm -- I'm questioning is 10 the level of -- that people were of the understanding 11 that this was a -- a real threat of something that could 12 occur. 13 Q: I see. And -- 14 A: But don't -- don't get me wrong. I 15 don't want to downplay it. Like, I -- I think that -- 16 that there was understanding that there was a potential 17 problem out there. 18 Q: But nothing was done about it? 19 A: As I said earlier, yes, to the best 20 of my knowledge, but it was my understanding that 21 something was being done about it. It was my 22 understanding that -- whether that -- I had thought that 23 officials at Onas were reaching out to the First Nation, 24 and I -- it was my understanding that the OPP was charged 25 with, you know, looking into, hopefully, mitigating the


1 situation. 2 But, you know, like, upon reflection it's 3 easy to say, well, it doesn't seem like anything 4 happened. 5 Q: Yes. Now, was it consistent with the 6 political platform of the Government, that you were an 7 Advisor too, to some level the -- the Ministry of the 8 Attorney General? 9 What is the position that, okay, this is 10 was -- this was a -- a platform position that the 11 Government had taken and they're going to take hard line 12 as against the occupiers? 13 A: It was never an issue that was 14 discussed. 15 Q: I see. And, when the occupation 16 actually took place, is it fair to say that that is the 17 only time that the Government of Ontario, sorry, that 18 your department focussed on -- on this issue as a serious 19 problem? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: And at that time, recognizing it as a 22 serious problem, were there any efforts made to reach out 23 to any other First Nation communities, to try to see if 24 there was a solution? 25 A: I don't think any efforts were


1 conducted other than the ones we've already discussed. 2 Q: Yeah. But on the other hand, a 3 decision had been made: We will not negotiate so long as 4 the occupation may -- continues? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Yeah. Now, being an Advisor to the 7 Attorney General, do you know whether anybody had looked 8 at the Treaty relationship between the First Nations in 9 this area and the Government? 10 A: It was my understanding that that 11 research had -- had been conducted. 12 Q: As far as the Treaties were 13 concerned? Or as far as the lands? 14 A: It was my understanding that Council 15 looked at all the issues affecting the local community. 16 Now, the scope of their research I -- I couldn't comment 17 on, they'd be better able to comment on that than I 18 would. 19 Q: Who would be able to tell us about 20 that? 21 A: Well, the -- 22 Q: Would it -- 23 A: The Deputy would probably be able to 24 -- to comment on that better than I would be. 25 Q: That would be the Deputy Attorney


1 General? 2 A: Yes, sir. 3 Q: I see. 4 A: You know, I -- you know, in a 5 practical sense I'm sure that Yan Lazor could, but, you 6 know... 7 Q: And you spoke about colour of right. 8 You understood the concept of colour of right, didn't 9 you? 10 A: No, not at the time, I learned about 11 it later. 12 Q: Oh you learned about it after. I 13 see. Now, you, in your -- in response to some questions 14 from Mr. Downard, indicated that the Elders did not 15 support the action of the occupiers; do you recall that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now, have you got any idea how many 18 Elders there were on the Kettle and Stony Point Band 19 list? 20 A: No, sir. I -- I -- to tell you the 21 truth I -- I don't have any certainty on whether the 22 information is accurate or not. But -- 23 Q: I see. 24 A: -- you know. 25 Q: But, it was not checked -- nobody


1 checked it. It was just an indication. The Elders don't 2 support it. This suits our purpose. Let's not check it 3 any further? 4 A: That's kind of outside of my area of 5 responsibility in terms of the verification of facts. 6 You know, I assumed that the information that we're being 7 briefed on is accurate. 8 Q: I see. And do you know where you got 9 that information from then that the Elders did not 10 support the occupation? 11 A: No, sir. 12 Q: So, you can't verify it was accurate 13 and you can't tell us where it came from? 14 A: Yes, sir. 15 Q: Now, under Tab Number 16 there is a 16 handwritten document. 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: Is that in your hand? 19 A: 16? 20 Q: Under Tab 16. 21 A: No, sir. 22 Q: Now the information in this document, 23 was it checked -- sorry, I must ask you, this is a 24 briefing note for whom? 25 A: I don't know. It was provided to me


1 I think as a point of information from Kathryn, to the 2 best of my recollection, but I haven't got a clue. This 3 is from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, not the 4 Attorney General. 5 Q: I see. But this is not in your 6 handwriting? 7 A: No, sir. 8 Q: No. I see. So, I take it that you 9 just accepted the document at face value and you didn't 10 check any of the information? 11 A: Well, it's my understanding, sir, 12 that -- that -- that the appropriate process for checking 13 anything in the situation was for the Special 14 Investigation to investigate it. 15 And since the Special Investigation had 16 been called into the situation, I -- I had been briefed 17 on that one and I knew that my role was to let the 18 Special Investigation conduct their investigation. 19 Q: But, sir, it's dated September the 20 7th, is the morning and the day after Dudley George was - 21 - was killed. As a matter of fact, sorry, the fax 22 appears to have been sent September the 6th, 1995 at 23 8:25. 24 A: Well, whether the date on the fax is 25 accurate -- I believe the -- the details in the fax


1 actually outline -- well, hang on, here let me read it -- 2 is -- before -- well, you see, it's my understanding that 3 -- that the details of the fax outline how the actual 4 incident occurred and that actually hadn't occurred yet 5 at 8:30 on the 6th. 6 Q: So, you're telling us that line date 7 -- the date line on the fax is wrong? 8 A: Sir, I'm telling you that -- that, 9 you know, this is a fax that came from a different 10 Ministry to someone else's office and I can't really 11 verify the contents of it one way or the other. 12 Q: Well, I just got some help from 13 Commission counsel and it is wrong because it says the 14 6th as Thursday when we knew that the 6th was -- was 15 Wednesday. So, sorry about that. 16 A: No, no. That's -- 17 Q: But as far as -- 18 A: -- that's government, how it usually 19 works. 20 Q: In spite of a Commonsense revolution. 21 A: I think there's a consistency to any 22 government in terms of some levels. 23 Q: You see the point is, sir, over on 24 the third page -- on the second page of this document, 25 four (4) lines from the bottom, it reads:


1 "At this time shots were fired from 2 vehicles toward our people." 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: But, we all know that that isn't 5 true; am I correct? 6 A: I couldn't really be the one to 7 comment on what happened on the ground or not. 8 Q: Okay. That's fine. You also 9 mentioned that there were tensions between Stoney 10 Pointers and the First Nation. 11 Now, what did you mean by that? 12 A: It was my understanding and this is 13 going on my ten (10) year recollection is that the Stoney 14 Pointers wanted to -- that, just in terms of the history 15 of it, that they were originally two (2) bands and that 16 for some reason, I think the Federal Government had 17 merged the two (2) bands into one (1), and that the 18 Stoney Pointers wanted to separate and become their own 19 band again. 20 And that there was, you know, some tension 21 between the two (2) of them in terms of that separation 22 and who spoke on behalf of the community and that's my 23 general understanding of it. 24 Q: Yeah. And then you went on to say 25 that because of this tension and there was -- you


1 mentioned that the province didn't want to become 2 involved because they saw this as a Federal Government 3 matter? 4 A: Well, in terms of whether the Stoney 5 Pointers became a First Nation again? Yes, sir. 6 Q: Okay, I see. And you didn't want to 7 get involved because you say it was ultra vires, ultra 8 vires what? 9 A: Well, I'll -- outside of the 10 responsibility of the Province, I'll make sure that my 11 use of Latin is restricted entirely. 12 Q: Well, I'm not worried about your 13 Latin. I'm worried about the concept of what you're 14 trying to get across to us. 15 A: Sure. That whether this -- 16 Q: You thought that it was not a 17 provincial Government problem? 18 A: Well, it depends what you're 19 referring to. If you're referring to, you know, 20 regardless of the occupation that they -- the Stoney 21 Pointers becoming an independent First Nation, that was 22 the responsibility of the Federal Government. 23 Q: Well, you see, sir -- 24 A: I understand what you're saying and 25 I'm saying I'm not agreeing with you in terms of how far


1 you're going to take it. 2 Q: You see, what I'm trying to get at, 3 sir, is what could have been done to prevent this 4 situation from continuing as far as it reached. 5 1. We know that there was some tension 6 within the First Nation bodies. 7 2. We know it's happening here in the 8 province of Ontario. 9 3. We know that there has been an 10 occupation of the -- the camp. 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: We know that there's a high 13 probability of an occupation of the Park and I'm saying 14 is it responsible for the Government just to stand by and 15 leave it alone or the Department of the Attorney General 16 that you are advisor to, just to stand by and just leave 17 it alone as a Federal Government problem? 18 A: No, but that wasn't my understanding 19 of -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 21 that this -- 22 THE WITNESS: -- what was happening. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me, 24 excuse me. I'm not sure this is the Witness to ask that. 25 This is a political aide, this person -- I don't think


1 he's the right person to ask about that question. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 4 Q: Well, sir, assuming that you're not 5 the right person to ask this question, can you tell us 6 which one is -- who would be able to answer that 7 question? 8 Would it be the Attorney General? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: Well, I think that in hindsight it's 13 clear that and, you know, that better efforts could have 14 been made to diffuse the situation on the ground, and I 15 think that -- that, you know, in hindsight, a number of 16 different departments within the Government could have 17 diffused it. 18 Now, in terms of how I -- my understanding 19 of the role of the -- the Ministry Responsible for Native 20 Affairs, there could have been, you know, a consultation 21 role in terms of this and I think that, you know, the 22 Provincial Government could have reached out more 23 proactively to the Federal Government in saying, now, 24 hey, there's a big situation here. We've got to be aware 25 of it.


1 But I think the Federal Government's 2 actions over the last fifty (50) years are pretty well 3 demonstrated that they weren't really interested in 4 addressing any problems on the ground. 5 Q: Just finally, sir, at the meetings 6 when these -- when the occupiers were being discussed, 7 where did the idea come from to refer to them as 8 dissidents, do you know? 9 A: From the civil service. 10 Q: Pardon me? 11 A: From the civil service. 12 Q: I see. Do you recall at any time 13 that they were referred to as being thugs? 14 A: I don't recall that language being 15 used in -- in the meeting, but I think it was -- it was 16 and accepted that the people that had occupied the -- 17 the Park, I got the impression they were -- they were 18 breaking the law. 19 So that, you know, I think that -- I don't 20 think anyone used that word at the meeting to the best of 21 my knowledge but either that -- I'm trying to give you a 22 -- a more complete answer than that, in that -- that -- 23 that they were viewed as being -- it was a lawless act 24 and so, you know, how one characterized that, you know, 25 is the -- the -- the challenge that, you know, probably


1 someone with a -- a better use of words would choose a 2 name. 3 Q: Am I to take it then that in your 4 experience they were not referred to as thugs? 5 A: I can't recall that. I can't recall 6 it being used one (1) way or the other, but it was the -- 7 but in terms of the -- the meaning behind that word that 8 yes, that was my general impression. 9 So did -- did I give you -- like -- 10 because I wanted to -- I want to say I don't remember the 11 -- the -- that word being used but I do remember that 12 that was the -- kind of the message that was being 13 delivered. 14 So I kind of don't agree with you -- 15 disagree with you all the way. Sorry if -- if that's... 16 Q: That's good enough. Thank you very 17 much, sir. 18 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, 19 those are my questions. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 21 Mr. Ross. 22 Yes, Mr. Horton...? 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 25 Q: Mr. Moran, I'm Bill Horton and I


1 represent Chiefs of Ontario. I believe that's an 2 organization you're familiar with so I don't have to 3 explain. 4 A: No. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: Sorry, total waste of time. 7 Q: Mr. Moran, one (1) of the things that 8 we've been grappling with during the evidence is how 9 people behaved at certain meetings, especially the IMC 10 meetings and this is a hard thing sometimes to capture in 11 words. 12 In terms of your own involvement in those 13 meetings would you say that you participated in those 14 meetings in pretty much the same way you've testified at 15 the Inquiry? 16 A: No, I didn't speak as much as I have 17 in the last two (2) days. 18 Q: Hmm hmm. Just in -- were you a 19 little bit more formal and restrained would you say at 20 the meetings than you were at the Inquiry or...? 21 A: No, I'm probably a little more formal 22 in front of the Inquiry than I was at the meeting. 23 Q: Right. So -- so at the Inquiry we're 24 seeing a more formal and restrained version of -- of how 25 you normally participate in these kinds of discussions,


1 is that -- would that be fair? 2 A: Well, it depends on how you classify, 3 'restraint'. Like I didn't really say a lot at the 4 meetings so I'm much more involved in these meetings than 5 I -- I was in those ones. 6 Q: I'm interested in your comment about 7 the meetings taking too long. 8 A: Sir? 9 Q: And I -- I think you specifically 10 said -- 11 A: I think that too long is more of a 12 reflection of their level of productivity. I think if 13 they could have been a little more fruitful, then -- then 14 necessarily -- 15 Q: No -- 16 A: It necessarily the time -- 17 Q: Thank you. 18 A: -- it was how it was used. 19 Q: Thank you. That's what I'm getting 20 at. You -- you felt that the time -- that there was a lot 21 of time that was wasted -- 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: -- at these meetings? And I think 24 you gave us a specific example of the September 6th 25 meeting which lasted two and a half (2 1/2) hours and you


1 thought it should have lasted about an hour, is that 2 correct? 3 A: Yeah. That's maybe a little over 4 exaggeration, maybe an hour and a half, but -- 5 Q: Right. Okay. 6 A: You know, like the example that 7 sticks in my mind was we kept on going back to the map 8 and by that time we'd pretty well figured out where 9 Sarnia and Ipperwash was. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Moran, 11 if you want this meeting to end -- 12 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you're 14 going to have to answer the question and just the 15 question. Carry on. 16 THE WITNESS: Pardon me, sir. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 19 Q: Mr. Moran, there wasn't an hour to an 20 hour and a half spent pointing out where Sarnia was? 21 A: No, sir. 22 Q: No. I mean, let's -- let's be a 23 little bit focussed on this. 24 Your evidence amounts to saying that of a 25 two and a half (2 1/2) hour meeting to discuss a serious


1 issue with the First Nation, an hour to an hour and a 2 half of that meeting was in your opinion wasted; is that 3 correct? 4 A: That's not what I said. 5 Q: Well, you said it was unproductive. 6 A: No, I said it could have been covered 7 in an hour and a half would have been the better way. 8 Q: All right. So, therefore, just -- 9 just do the math. You're saying that an hour to an hour 10 and a half of that meeting from your perspective was a 11 waste of time? 12 Isn't that what you're saying? 13 A: No, what I said was that the meeting 14 could have taken place in an hour and a half. So yes, I 15 thought about an hour of it I didn't -- I thought was not 16 productive time. 17 Q: And were -- were there -- apart from 18 this map were there some specific topics you thought that 19 could have been just left out of the discussion? 20 A: Not upon my reflection. 21 Q: No. 22 A: I can't recall. 23 Q: Yeah, they were all pretty important 24 topics weren't they? 25 A: Some were and it -- it -- I think


1 that if you look back on the notes, they capture the 2 flavour of the meeting. It just seems that it took a 3 long term to get to that. 4 Q: Mr. Moran, we actually do have very 5 detailed notes of these meetings. 6 A: Yes, sir. 7 Q: Are -- are you suggesting, based on 8 your recollection, that there was a lot of unnecessary 9 repetition at these meetings? 10 A: No, it probably just could have been 11 moved along a little quicker. 12 Q: So, so you thought that individual 13 people were speaking too -- too long, is that -- is that 14 what you thought? 15 A: No. I just thought the meeting could 16 have moved a little quicker. 17 Q: Okay. So, there weren't any topics 18 that needed to -- that shouldn't have been covered, that 19 weren't any -- 20 A: I actually thought that there were 21 topics that should have been covered in greater detail, 22 on reflection. 23 Q: But that would have made the meeting 24 longer? 25 A: Yes, sir.


1 Q: Yeah. All right. Now, one thing 2 that surprises me about your saying that you felt the 3 meeting took too long, was that I -- I thought you also 4 said that essentially, because you were relatively new to 5 the position, you didn't have a lot of background on some 6 of the issues that were discussed at the meeting; isn't 7 that correct? 8 Didn't you say that? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: All right. So, you're attending a 11 meeting at which you don't really have full background on 12 what's going on, but you think people are taking too long 13 to explain this to you; is that -- is that what we take 14 from your evidence? 15 A: That's not what I said. 16 Q: Well -- 17 A: What I had said was that I didn't the 18 -- the meeting had moved along as quickly as it could. I 19 just didn't -- didn't think it was well Chaired. 20 Q: Hmm hmm. And another thing you said 21 that intrigued me was, that you felt that the people at 22 this meeting were of too low a level of seniority; do you 23 remember saying that? 24 A: Yes, sir. 25 Q: And that in fact you had never met


1 with people below your level of seniority? 2 A: That's not what I said. 3 Q: And -- and -- 4 A: What I said was, you know, that it 5 was rare for me to meet with someone at that level, 6 without a more senior person there. 7 Q: Well let me read you what -- what you 8 said, from the transcript, this is page 181, and tell me 9 if you need to actually have it put in front of you: 10 "It led me to believe that the issue 11 was not urgent, the seniority of the 12 people in the room was certainly below 13 my level of seniority within the -- the 14 organization." 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Let me stop there. 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: So you were meeting with people who 19 were below your level of seniority? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: Right. 22 "And it was below the level of 23 seniority that I had encountered to 24 date or would encounter for the next 25 five (5) years;"


1 Remember saying that? 2 A: Where they -- in a one-on-one 3 briefing, yes. 4 Q: Okay. So, you -- one of the problems 5 you had with this meeting was that you were meeting with 6 people at too low a level of seniority; is that right? 7 A: What I was saying was that I think 8 that the meeting should have been represented by a higher 9 level of -- of official, yes. 10 Q: I'd like to be a bit more specific 11 about that, in terms of who exactly at this meeting you 12 thought shouldn't have been there because their level of 13 seniority was too low. 14 And let me take you to Tab 10 of your 15 binder, Julie Jai's Notes of the meeting, -- 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: -- and the reason I'm doing this is 18 just to look at people who actually participated. 19 A: Tab 10...? 20 Q: Yeah, Tab 10 of your binder, of the 21 -- of the Commissioner's notes. 22 A: I've got the handwritten notes from 23 Julie. 24 Q: That's right. Handwritten Notes of 25 Julie Jai, --


1 A: Oh, okay, sorry. 2 Q: -- move -- just turn the page. Now 3 her notes are in reverse order, September 6th comes first 4 and then September 5. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: So, I'm just going to go down and -- 7 and look at people that she's referred to. 8 Ron Fox: Was he of too low a level of 9 seniority to have been a useful participant in that 10 meeting, in your opinion? 11 A: Why don't we just go over the -- who 12 attended the meeting, and we can get over that that way. 13 Q: Why don't we do it the way I'm 14 suggesting, -- 15 A: That's fine. 16 Q: -- Mr. Moran? 17 A: I -- I don't think Ron Fox was the 18 appropriate person to be there. 19 Q: You -- you thought he was too low in 20 -- in terms of his level of seniority, -- 21 A: No, I don't think it was appropriate 22 that he was there. 23 Q: All right. Okay. And -- and Peter 24 Sturdy of MNR...? 25 A: Yes, I don't think it was appropriate


1 that he was there. 2 Q: Too low a level of seniority? 3 A: I don't think he was the appropriate 4 person, and that he was there. 5 Q: Yeah. Well I'm talking about too low 6 a level of seniority now, Mr. Moran, stick with me on 7 this. 8 A: Why don't we just stick with it -- 9 Q: Are you -- are you -- are you 10 suggesting that Mr. Sturdy should not have been at this 11 meeting because he was of too low a level of seniority? 12 That's the question? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 Q: All right. Now we're making some 15 progress. 16 How about Peter Allen? Too low a level of 17 seniority to have been at this meeting? 18 A: No, Peter was appropriate. 19 Q: How about Tim McCabe? 20 A: No, it was appropriate for Tim to be 21 there. 22 Q: Appropriate. How about, -- 23 A: I think that -- 24 Q: -- Julie Jai? 25 A: I think Julie should have been there.


1 Q: Okay. And how about Scott 2 Hutchinson? 3 A: I think Scott's boss should have been 4 there. 5 Q: You think Scott's boss should have 6 been there? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: All right, okay. 9 The fact that Mr. McCabe was there was not 10 good enough? 11 A: They're from different departments, 12 sir. 13 Q: Okay. How about, just going over to 14 September 5th, Dan Elliott; too low a level of seniority 15 to have made a contribution at this meeting? 16 A: I don't know who Dan Elliott is. 17 Q: Okay. Okay. And is it fair to say, 18 Mr. Moran, that between you and Deb Hutton, you 19 communicated to this meeting the sense that you thought 20 the meeting was taking too long? 21 A: I don't think that I communicated 22 very much to the meeting, sir. 23 Q: Do you think between the two (2) of 24 you, either in terms of what you said or how you said it, 25 you communicated to the meeting the fact that you felt


1 that there were people of too low a level of seniority 2 who were there? 3 A: I don't think so. 4 Q: There seemed to be people who've 5 concluded that there was. 6 I'll summarize it as a lack of respect 7 for the input of others who had been involved in this 8 process for some time. 9 Do you think you might have communicated 10 that -- 11 A: I don't think so. 12 Q: -- you actually did seem to feel it? 13 A: I don't think so. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: While we were in Julie Jai's notes, 18 I'll just take you back to that Tab 10 if I might. 19 Do you have it there? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: Just go to the second handwritten 22 page. While you were on this page, I think Mr. Downard 23 was questioning you and there was a -- there was a 24 comment that you said, that she gave herself an A plus 25 for the meeting.


1 Do you remember making that comment? 2 A: Yes, and I've since stood corrected 3 about my mistake. 4 Q: Yeah. But I'm interested in the 5 comment you made after that, which is to suggest well, 6 you know, anybody can give themselves a good mark if they 7 were marking themselves or words to that effect. 8 Do you remember saying that? 9 A: It was more of a self deprecating 10 comment, sir. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Moran, 15 that your participation and the participation of Deb 16 Hutton at that meeting was seen to be exactly what it was 17 and that was a reflection of arrogance on the part of the 18 Government of the day. 19 Would you agree with that? 20 A: No, sir. 21 Q: Now -- 22 A: What I was suggesting, sir, was that 23 for instance, someone such as Tim McCabe's boss would 24 have been a valuable addition to the meeting. Someone 25 like Mark Rosenberg who was the senior civil lawyer


1 within the Ministry would have been a valuable addition 2 to the meeting. 3 Q: Mr. Moran, who between you and Mr. 4 McCabe had more experience with respect to dealing with 5 First Nations litigation matters and meetings of the IMC? 6 A: I'm not -- I'm not suggesting that -- 7 that Tim wasn't qualified, that his opinions weren't 8 valued. What I was suggesting was that it would have 9 been a valuable addition for Tim's boss to be in the 10 meeting as well. 11 Q: Why do you say that? What is the 12 possible basis that you have for saying that? 13 A: I guess it was just a reflection of 14 the personal respect I have for Mr. Rosenberg. 15 Q: Just a seniority thing, right? 16 A: No, sir. 17 Q: There's not -- you don't have any 18 other basis for believing that Mr. Rosenberg had more to 19 contribute to this meeting than Mr. McCabe other than -- 20 A: I didn't say more. 21 Q: -- the fact that it was -- that -- 22 other than the fact that Rosenberg was his boss, isn't 23 that right? 24 A: What I said was I thought that he 25 could have been a valuable addition to the meeting, and


1 my comments were much more focussed in terms of they -- 2 commission on how to fix the process in the future. 3 Q: All right. Are -- are you aware, Mr. 4 Moran, that Mr. McCabe is viewed as perhaps the leading 5 Crown lawyer with respect to this type of matter and was 6 at the time? 7 A: Oh, sure. I have said all along I 8 thought he should have been in the meeting and that I 9 agreed with him there. 10 Q: Why are you then suggesting that Mr. 11 Rosenberg had something to add? 12 A: I think that -- that a number of 13 senior officials could have provided some insight to the 14 meeting. 15 Q: Wouldn't that just have made the 16 meeting longer, more people? 17 A: It could have. 18 Q: All right. Let's just move on. I'm 19 interested in your views before you attended any of these 20 meetings. 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: Now, I think you've -- I think you've 23 -- I've understood you to say that before you attended 24 the first IMC meeting on September the -- the 5th, let's 25 take that as our date --


1 A: The -- the first one -- this -- the 2 October one or the August one I mean. 3 Q: I'm saying before September the 5th. 4 A: All right. 5 Q: I think I understood you to say that 6 you did not have any knowledge about injunctions; is that 7 correct? 8 A: No. Yes. Yes, sir. 9 Q: You're agreeing with me? 10 A: Yes, sir. 11 Q: Okay. And that you viewed this 12 matter at that time as being similar to people occupying 13 someone's backyard without a right to be there; is that 14 right? 15 A: Prior to this meeting or -- 16 Q: Yes. No. 17 A: -- after this meeting? 18 Q: No, no. Prior to this meeting, prior 19 to going to this meeting? 20 A: It's a good question. The -- it was 21 never an issue that -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 23 minute. Just a minute Mr. Moran. 24 Yes, Mr. Downard...? 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I thought the


1 Witness' evidence was that Ms. -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Somebody 3 else had done it. 4 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- Ms. Hutton raised 5 an example in that regard -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- at the meeting. I 8 thought that was the evidence. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 10 I wasn't sure who raised it, but someone else raised it 11 as an example as I remember the evidence. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 14 Q: Did you discuss this matter with -- 15 with Ms. Hutton before you went to the September 5th 16 meeting? 17 A: The occupation? 18 Q: Yeah. 19 A: I can't remember. I believe I was 20 the one who told her that the meeting was taking place. 21 Q: All right. And did you discuss the 22 subject matter of the meeting before going to the 23 meeting? 24 A: The occupation of the Park? In a 25 general sense, yes.


1 Q: Yeah. Okay. And did you discuss 2 what was going to happen at the meeting of September the 3 5th before you went to the meeting? 4 A: No, sir. 5 Q: Did you discuss what position would 6 be taken at the meeting? 7 A: No, sir. 8 Q: And so I take it then the -- the 9 first you heard this example of, it's like people -- if 10 someone's in my backyard what do the police do, was at 11 the meeting; is that correct? 12 A: Yes, sir. 13 Q: All right. And that was -- and that 14 was put on the basis that if this is not an -- an 15 Aboriginal matter, it's just a law enforcement matter, 16 then let's just look to see what -- what the police would 17 do in that situation; is that -- is that the context? 18 A: Could you say that again? Sorry. 19 Q: Well, I understand the example -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Help me understand the example. The 22 example's been given on the basis that if this isn't -- 23 if there's no Aboriginals involved what would the police 24 do? 25 A: Well, it wasn't really in that


1 context. It was more like if -- if someone had done this 2 -- like, what -- I -- like, I don't think the Aboriginal 3 context was there. It was more like if someone does 4 this, then what's the appropriate step? 5 Q: All right. She was talking about it 6 in the context of if there's no Aboriginals involved, the 7 police would go in and lay charges. 8 Isn't that the context in which she was 9 making that -- that statement? 10 A: I don't think so. I think it was 11 more a reflection of -- of how does the -- the Government 12 respond versus a private citizen. 13 Q: And in term -- and she was using the 14 private citizen example as an example of what might be 15 done in this case? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: Is that right? 18 A: To the best of my knowledge, yeah. 19 Q: And in the private citizen example 20 she was suggesting the police would go in and lay 21 charges? 22 A: That's not what she was suggesting. 23 She was asking if that's what -- what would take place. 24 Q: Let me -- let me try and skip to -- 25 skip to some -- another aspect of this, Mr. Moran.


1 Did anybody suggest that the occupiers 2 were going to leave voluntarily? 3 Did anyone suggest that that was going to 4 happen? 5 A: I think it was our hope that once the 6 injunction was obtained, that the occupation would end. 7 Now -- 8 Q: That wasn't my question. 9 A: Well, I know, but I'm saying I -- we 10 didn't really know. 11 Q: Yeah. You didn't know? 12 A: Well, I don't recall discussing the - 13 - the -- you know, that aspect of it. 14 Q: Well, I just want to keep tabs in 15 terms of a number of witnesses have addressed this issue. 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: Are you saying that you seriously 18 believe that the occupiers were going to leave 19 voluntarily? 20 A: That's not what I said. 21 Q: That's what I'm asking you. I'm 22 asking you, did you seriously believe that this situation 23 was going to be resolved by the occupiers leaving 24 voluntarily? 25 A: I seriously hoped that the injunction


1 would bring an end to the occupation. 2 Q: Now, just on the -- on this issue of 3 whether or not it was a Native rights issue or not a 4 Native rights issue -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: And I'm not -- this may have been 7 covered, I apologize, Commissioner, if it was. But we've 8 had very specific evidence from Ron Fox on the fact that 9 he brought to the attention of these meetings, the fact 10 that you could not avoid viewing this as an Aboriginal 11 issue. 12 And he provided detailed information 13 about comments he made at this meeting, including the 14 burial site, including the -- a special geographical 15 feature, including treaties that go back for centuries. 16 Are you saying, just to be clear, are you 17 saying you remember none of that? 18 A: That's not what I said. What -- what 19 I said was that in terms of the -- the information that 20 was presented to me in terms of -- of the burial ground, 21 and land claim, what I -- what I said earlier in this, 22 you know, in particular with regard to the colour of 23 right, that I didn't understand the -- the significance 24 of the Native issues to their fullest extent at the time. 25 Q: Well abso -- there's something we can


1 agree on, Mr. Moran, and -- 2 A: I'm just trying to help you. 3 Q: -- but -- but -- and in fact, that is 4 the case isn't it, that you -- you say you were not all 5 that familiar with Section 35 of the -- of the 6 Constitution, and you were not all that familiar with 7 Aboriginal issues and you were not familiar with 8 injunctions, all of that's correct? Yes? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: Okay. But -- but you thought shorter 11 meetings would have -- would have helped on -- on all 12 these subjects; right? 13 A: I think we already covered that, 14 yeah. 15 Q: And -- and in the meantime, you don't 16 recall at the meeting, points that were made by Inspector 17 Fox with respect to this very subject matter; is that 18 correct? 19 You don't remember any reference to this 20 being potentially the subject of Treaties? 21 A: Yeah, that's correct, yes. 22 Q: You don't remember that; correct? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: Right. And you don't remember any 25 reference to the geographical point that may be -- may


1 have special interest to the First Nations, correct; the 2 -- the Kettle Point or the Stony Point? 3 A: Well, that's not actually what the 4 briefing notes say. What the briefing notes say is that 5 the Province has clear title to the Park. 6 Q: I'm -- I'm not asking you about that, 7 Mr. Moran, I'm asking you about whether you recall these 8 very detailed comments that Inspector Fox has testified 9 he made to this meeting, so that the meeting could take 10 that into account. 11 And you don't recall those comments, 12 correct? 13 A: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 15 Downard...? 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The witness is here 17 without counsel, if Mr. Horton wants to examine the 18 witness crossly, he has his right to do so. But if he 19 wants to put comments to the witness he should -- he 20 should put the specific comments to the witness and ask 21 him whether he recalls it or not. 22 There were two (2) comments attributed to 23 Inspector Fox, the first of which it seemed to me was not 24 one (1) that Inspector Fox said he had made at the 25 meeting, but I simply suggest that Mr. Horton should


1 fairly put comments to the witness if he wants to know -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- if he wants to 4 know whether this witness recalls whether they've been 5 made or not. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 7 copies of the transcript? 8 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Commissioner, I'm 9 quite happy to compare this witness's evidence to 10 Inspector Fox's evidence at another time. No one (1) is 11 -- no one (1) is -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 13 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- fooled by any of 14 this. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. No, 16 no. We don't need that, Mr. Horton -- 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but if 19 you want to ask a question and put to him Inspector Fox's 20 evidence, you should do it accurately. I am sure you 21 would agree with that. 22 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, I -- I'm 23 pretty sure I have done it accurately, Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I do 25 not have the transcripts of what his evidence --


1 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: It's just -- it's 2 just Mr. Downard getting up and -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 4 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- and suggesting 5 otherwise and that's all that's happening now. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I do not 7 think that is what we have now. I think Mr. Downard made 8 a legitimate objection. 9 If you are going to put evidence it should 10 be accurate. And I do not know if it is, because I do 11 not have that in front of me, and if you do and you read 12 it, then we will be sure that it is accurate. 13 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, we can, 14 Commissioner, I don't have any more questions of this 15 witness on this point. I'm ready to move on. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 17 Then move on. 18 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Then we can search 19 the -- the record some other time. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 23 Q: Now, Mr. Moran, I had the impression, 24 from hearing your evidence, that it's your recollection 25 that the Progressive Conservatives, during the 1995


1 Election, consulted with First Nations before the 2 election, and reflected that input into the Commonsense 3 documents? 4 Do I have your evidence correctly on that 5 point? 6 A: It -- I'm not sure which documents 7 you're referring to. 8 Q: Well, -- 9 A: Like, the -- the Commonsense 10 Revolution, the single document? 11 Q: There -- there were three (3) 12 documents that were -- 13 A: Yeah. 14 Q: -- referred to: There's the 15 Northern... 16 A: I'm familiar with the three (3) 17 documents, I wasn't sure which one you were referring to. 18 Q: Well, I'm referring to -- I am going 19 to be referring to at least two (2) of them shortly. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: But you -- you are not seriously 22 suggesting that the Commonsense documents were an attempt 23 to balance a Native and non-Native perspective on the 24 issues it addressed, are you? 25 A: I don't understand the question, I'm


1 sorry. 2 Q: I thought -- I took it from your 3 evidence, Mr. Moran, so let's start with my trying to 4 understand what you are testifying to and what you're not 5 testifying to. 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: That you would have us believe that 8 the -- the Commonsense Revolution documents reflect input 9 from First Nations that were -- 10 A: The First Nations as a whole...? 11 Q: From First Nations in Ontario. 12 A: I didn't mean to suggest that, in 13 terms of the entire -- like a -- a broad consensus of the 14 First Nation, that's not what I was trying to say. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: I know that some consultation had 17 taken place in terms of the development, and what I had 18 said earlier was that in terms of the -- the Party and 19 the Government detailed policies with regard to the First 20 Nation, there was a lot of work to be done. 21 Q: Well, on the contrary, Mr. Moran, I'm 22 going to suggest to you that the Commonsense documents 23 that we -- that we've seen, very clearly adopt a non- 24 First Nation perspective on the key issues of hunting and 25 fishing rights, and land claims.


1 Do you agree with that? 2 A: I don't think I'm -- be the one to 3 properly speak on behalf of the First Nations, so -- 4 Q: Well let me -- 5 A: -- as their Counsel, I guess that's 6 your job. 7 Q: Let me be very specific about it. 8 I'd like you to look at Exhibit 924. 9 A: You're going to have to help me out 10 on that one. 11 Q: All right. It's - it's been -- 12 A: Well just with the title of it. 13 Q: Before -- before I -- before I go to 14 that, while the Registrar is finding that, let me take 15 you back to a comment that you made -- 16 A: Maybe I can stop this before it 17 happens and save the Inquiry some time. I -- I think 18 that the -- the proper person to ask questions about the 19 consultation and the contents of the document, is the 20 Premier, perhaps Deb Hutton, or one of the individuals 21 responsible for drafting it. 22 I wasn't directly responsible for it, so, 23 you know... 24 Q: Yeah. Let me -- let me go -- 25 A: I -- I'm really coming at it second


1 hand. 2 Q: Let me relate it -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: To some 4 extent that is correct. 5 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He did 7 testify about them and he did say some things, and I have 8 assumed that that is why you are examining him. But he 9 really is not the person who knows -- 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well let me -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- about 12 this. 13 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well let me relate 14 it back to his evidence, Mr. Commissioner. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 17 Q: When Mr. Klippenstein was questioning 18 you earlier this afternoon, he took you to a comment in 19 the notes at one of the IMC Meetings, which stated: 20 "It is the policy of this government to 21 -- to treat Natives and non-Natives the 22 same." 23 Or words to that effect. Do you recall 24 that? 25 A: I think I addressed that question


1 already. 2 Q: Exactly. And in response to that 3 question your -- your response was: 4 "Well, that was in relation to 5 occupations." 6 A: I thought it was to law enforcement 7 is what I -- 8 Q: To law enforcement. And I think you 9 specifically said that it was not in relation to other 10 matters such as hunting and fishing rights. 11 Do you recall saying that earlier this 12 afternoon? 13 A: I think that with regard to the 14 Government's policy on hunting and fishing you should 15 talk to officials from the Ministry of the Municipal -- 16 or Natural Resources because that was their 17 responsibility. 18 Q: Well, I -- I'm just -- do you -- do 19 you retract that comment that it was not in your 20 understanding that the -- that the treatment of Natives 21 and non-Natives the same, was not a policy that extended 22 to Natural Resources? 23 Do you retract that? 24 A: It's my understanding that -- it's my 25 understanding that there -- at that time there was a


1 number of outstanding issues with regard to Native 2 hunting and fishing that were before the courts, that we 3 were waiting for the courts to decide. 4 Q: Mr. Moran, you were the Executive -- 5 Executive Assistant to Mr. Harnick and he was responsible 6 as the AG and as the Minister for Native Affairs, 7 correct? 8 A: Yes, sir. 9 Q: You had some background in that, 10 right, in terms of advising him when he was in 11 opposition, correct? 12 A: Yeah, limited. 13 Q: All right. And you can certainly 14 speak, from your own knowledge, as to what your 15 understanding was of government policy with respect to 16 First Nations -- 17 A: Hunting and fishing? 18 Q: With respect to First Nations in 19 relation to hunting and fishing? 20 A: You're asking me to remember what the 21 Government's policy was on hunting and fishing and I -- 22 Q: Mr. Moran, I'm suggesting to you that 23 -- let's -- let me just look at the -- let me just show 24 you the document because I think it is relevant to look 25 at the document --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just don't 2 think it's fair to ask a political aide to be the person 3 to speak to the Government policy. 4 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm not asking him 5 to speak to the Government policy, Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It seems 7 like you are and -- 8 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: He -- he testified 9 as to his understanding and I'm suggesting -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- that that is not 12 -- does not reflect what his understanding was at the 13 time. Let's be clear about that. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He did 15 discuss these in his evidence-in-chief and some cross- 16 examination's -- 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: That's right. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 19 appropriate, but just keep in mind he's a political aide; 20 he's not a politician, he's not a minister, he's not 21 speaking on behalf of the Government. He wasn't involved 22 in -- 23 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- setting 25 the policy, in other words it wasn't his responsibility.


1 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: No, but 2 Commissioner, he was at a meeting -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 4 understand. 5 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- where the issue 6 of treatment of First Nations people, relative to 7 treatment of non First Nations people, arose. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, he was 9 and he made a comment on it. 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And he made a 11 comment on it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, he did. 13 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And the whole point 14 or at least one (1) of the points of this Inquiry is to 15 explore whether or not this government had a systemic 16 approach towards disregarding the rights of First 17 Nations. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you're 19 talking about what happened at the meeting and he did say 20 what he thought then I think that's -- 21 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- fair 23 examination, but -- 24 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I just


1 want you to keep in mind that you're going much further 2 afield. 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, maybe I can do 4 it in how I frame the question, but if we look at Exhibit 5 924 which is, "Bringing Commonsense to Community 6 Development," and you have the document in front you now 7 I believe? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 11 Q: And I'll just take you to the second 12 page after the -- 13 A: What's the page number at the bottom? 14 Q: I don't think there is a page number 15 at the bottom. It's the second page after the title 16 page. 17 A: I've only got ones with page numbers 18 on the bottom. 19 Q: Oh, I'm sorry, page 5. It's not 20 printed very well on mine. Okay. 21 And you see the -- the first bullet: 22 "Strike a balance between Native 23 hunting and fishing rights and 24 Ontario's conservation priorities." 25 And then the next sentence:


1 "Insist on the same conservation rules 2 for all Ontarians." 3 Do you see that? Now, you were aware at 4 the time of these meetings that it was the Government 5 policy. You were aware, were you not, that at the time 6 of these meetings it was the Government policy to insist 7 on the same conservation rules for all Ontarians. 8 Is that not right? 9 A: Sir, as I said, conservation issues 10 were the responsibility of another Ministry. I don't 11 recall know what the -- their policies were. 12 Q: Let me then -- so -- so when you said 13 earlier in your evidence that the comment that the policy 14 of this government is to treat Natives and non Natives 15 the same, and then in response to that you said -- 16 A: It was my understanding that the 17 context of that -- 18 Q: Yeah -- 19 A: -- was for law enforcement issues. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: Now, in terms of how it dealt, like - 22 - believe it or not sir, at this meeting we were not 23 talking about the birds and the bees and hunting and 24 fishing issues. 25 Q: Okay. But when you -- when you made


1 the comment, sir, that it did not apply to hunting and 2 fishing, you're telling me now you really didn't know 3 what you were talking about; isn't that correct? 4 Is that what you're saying? 5 A: That with regard to hunting and 6 fishing issues, I think that there's other people that 7 would be better able to describe it. 8 Q: Yeah. When you testified earlier 9 that that did not apply to hunting and fishing, you 10 didn't know what you were talking about. 11 Is that -- is that what we take from that 12 evidence? 13 A: I think what I said is clear, yeah. 14 Q: Now turning to the other important 15 issue, sorry Commissioner -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 17 just wondering how much longer you're going to be because 18 you have exceeded any estimates. I think you have, but 19 I'm not sure. I -- you -- I want you to finish your 20 examination. 21 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And you're - 23 - in your own way, but we -- 24 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Sir, my estimate was 25 forty-five (45) minutes to an hour.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 2 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I've been going half 3 an hour. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 5 all right. Then I've lost track. 6 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm -- I'm happy to 7 continue or to stop. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 9 think I'd like you to continue and finish your 10 examination. 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Thank you, sir. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 16 Q: Now, similarly, Mr. Moran, on the 17 question of land claims, you testified both in-chief and 18 in cross about the Government's policy of involving local 19 land owners, non-Native land owners in the negotiation 20 process. 21 Do you recall that? 22 A: That's not what I said. What I said 23 was that we were going to involve the non-Native 24 community as well. 25 Q: The non Native community in the


1 negotiation process. 2 Isn't that right; you testified to that? 3 A: Yes. What I had said was that we 4 needed to identify a means to -- to make this system work 5 and that while they wouldn't be giving full standing or 6 party or whatever the appropriate term would be in the 7 process, that we needed to find a better way to inform 8 them of what was going on. 9 Q: Well, the -- I'm not sure that is 10 exactly what you said before, but -- 11 A: I have pretty -- 12 Q: Let me just -- let me just -- let me 13 just get to my point, which is this. 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Again, the witness is 15 entitled to fairness as -- particularly being without 16 Counsel. If Counsel wants to put to the witness that 17 he's inconsistent with what he said before, he should put 18 what he says the witness said before specifically to him 19 and not simply make a passing comment with a barb on it. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 21 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I just -- all I want 22 to say is I want to focus on what I want to focus on and 23 not get into a big debate about irrelevant matters. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON:


1 Q: The point being this, Mr. Moran, that 2 you testified to the fact that the new government policy 3 was that there would be non Native interests represented 4 in the land claims negotiation process in some manner; is 5 that correct? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: All right. And that had never been 8 done before, correct, in terms of involving non Native 9 interests in the negotiation process as opposed to 10 consultation. 11 Are you aware of that? 12 A: No, sir. 13 Q: You're not aware of that? 14 A: Well, I don't know what the history 15 of the process for land claim negotiations were and to 16 how far it goes back. 17 18 Q: All right. 19 A: What I do know is that there was a 20 sense in the non Native community that they weren't being 21 properly involved in the -- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- process. And what I do know is 24 that we were charged with trying to figure a way to make 25 this -- the process better, and that was something that


1 we had planned on working at but in the first three (3) 2 months we really hadn't determined how best to do that. 3 Q: Mr. Moran, just to be clear about 4 this, though, this idea of involving non Native interests 5 in land claims negotiations, you're not suggesting that 6 that was an idea that originated with the First Nations 7 of Ontario, correct? 8 A: No, sir. 9 Q: You're not suggesting that that was 10 something that the -- that the Government was responding 11 to because of requests that they've had from the First 12 Nation's elements, correct? 13 A: What I am suggesting, sir, is that 14 the end result of the new policy was -- means that 15 quickly addressed a number of land claim issues. 16 Q: But your -- well, I'll get to that in 17 a moment, but I'm trying to address something in your 18 evidence where I thought you might be suggesting that 19 these were points in terms of the -- the hunting and 20 fishing policy, or the land claims policy, that were 21 adopted in response to consultation with First Nations, 22 and clearly that's not the case; isn't that right? 23 A: I didn't mean to suggest that. 24 Q: You did not mean to suggest that. 25 Right?


1 A: Yes, you -- you are correct. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: I did not mean to suggest that. 4 Q: And on the other hand, these are 5 points that would be very responsive to concerns that you 6 were hearing within the non-Native community, during that 7 consultation process; isn't that correct? 8 A: It had to -- to speak with someone 9 that was a little more involved in the consultation 10 process than I was. 11 Q: Well you testified as to it, and 12 that's why I'm asking my questions, Mr. Moran? 13 A: My general understanding are the 14 results. 15 Q: And your general understanding is 16 that those are points that were being pushed by certain 17 non-Native interests? 18 A: Yes, sir. 19 Q: Right. And that were then adopted 20 by the Progressive Conservative Party as part of their 21 platform? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: Right. And in fact they were points 24 in which there was friction between non-Native and Native 25 interests; correct?


1 A: I don't know whether I'm the right 2 person to ask that question to. 3 Q: You're -- you're not aware of whether 4 there was friction between the Native and non-Native 5 communities on hunting and fishing rights and land 6 claims? 7 A: Yes, there was -- 8 Q: Right. 9 A: -- friction, yes. I do -- 10 Q: And you yourself testified, did you 11 not, that those were two (2) of the most important issues 12 that were causing friction between those two (2) 13 communities, isn't that correct? 14 A: I don't think I -- I commented on 15 what was the two (2) biggest things that were between the 16 two (2) of them. 17 Q: Do you agree with me now, that those 18 were two (2) of the issues that were the most important 19 causes of friction between the two (2) communities? 20 A: I don't think I'm the right person to 21 comment. 22 Q: And Ms. Perschy asked you about 23 processing of land claims? 24 A: Could you remind me who Ms. Perschy 25 is?


1 Q: Ms. Hutton's lawyer. 2 A: Oh, thank you. Sorry. 3 The processing of land claims? 4 Q: You may recall that she -- you may 5 recall that she asked you a number of questions about 6 people occupying a Park and jumping the queue for land 7 claim, do you remember that line of questioning? 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: You have to say "yes" or "no" for the 10 record? 11 A: Oh, sorry, I thought I was audible. 12 Yes. 13 Q: And are you aware of the fact that 14 the queuing for land claims is itself a major source of 15 discontent among First Nations communities in Ontario, 16 are you aware of that? 17 A: No, sir. 18 Q: When you answered Ms. Perschy's 19 questions, were you aware of the information that's 20 contained in a report that's being filed with this 21 Commission on Part II, by Professor Michael Coyle, to the 22 -- to the effect that there are a hundred and sixteen 23 (116) land claims that have been filed since 1976, and 24 only eleven (11) have been processed to date. 25 Are you aware of that?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Now, you also talked a little bit 3 about Chiefs of Ontario and a Memorandum of 4 Understanding. 5 Do you recall that? 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: Now again, is that something you know 8 -- actually know anything about? 9 A: Only in a cursory manner. Not -- not 10 directly. I know of its existence, I know a general idea 11 of how it came to be, but -- 12 Q: Well, Mr. Moran, my information, and 13 I do have some documents here I can show you, is that the 14 -- there was a framework for the political process, which 15 was proposed by the PCs in March of 1996; correct? Is 16 that -- do you recall that? 17 A: I can't remember the date. 18 Q: You can't remember the date, but it 19 incorporated some of the things we've talked about, in 20 terms of treating non-Natives and Natives the same on 21 hunting and fishing and involving non-Native interests in 22 land claim negotiations. 23 Do you recall that? 24 A: I -- as I said earlier that it has 25 been too long since I've seen the -- the document, that


1 you know, perhaps the Attorney General could better 2 remember its contents or an official from ONAS could 3 better remember its contents. I just remember that -- 4 that we had reached some sort of an agreement. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, excuse 6 me. All you have to do -- if you don't know, just say 7 you don't know. 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean 10 really, that's the end of the question. 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 12 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: And -- and that's 13 fair enough because that's partly what I'm trying to 14 establish, Mr. Moran. If -- if your evidence is not 15 really reliable evidence -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well.. 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- on a particular 18 area, then that's what I want to establish and I'm -- I'm 19 suggesting in part that your evidence is not reliable 20 because you don't have a clear recollection with respect 21 to these matters. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I didn't say 23 it wasn't reliable by the way -- 24 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: No, no. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I just


1 said if he doesn't know, he should say he doesn't know; 2 that's different than being unreliable. 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: No, I understand 4 that, Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm explaining to 7 the Witness why I'm asking these questions -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 9 That's fine. 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- even though he 11 doesn't know exactly what the answers are. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 14 Q: And my information is that in fact it 15 wasn't until a couple of years later in 1998 when the 16 Chiefs of Ontario at a meeting decided that in fact they 17 would not adopt the framework, but would prefer to work 18 under the statement of political relationship which they 19 viewed as being already in place. 20 Do you recall any of that? 21 A: No, sir. 22 Q: All right. And my information is 23 that the first agreement that was entered into between 24 Chiefs of Ontario and the Progressive Conservatives 25 actually wasn't entered into until after Mr. Harris had


1 left government and it was under Ernie Eves. 2 Were you aware of any of that? 3 A: No, sir. 4 Q: And that in fact that agreement, all 5 that it called for was the fact that there would be a 6 couple of meetings a year. 7 Do you recall that? 8 A: I'd already left government, sir. 9 Q: Okay. You don't know anything about 10 that? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Now, were you in your capacity as 15 Executive Assistant to Mr. Harnick involved in -- I'm 16 going to just mention a few different matters here and 17 see if you were involved in those other matters as well. 18 Your involvement in the events that led up 19 to the shooting of Dudley George we've covered. What 20 about -- and I won't dwell on this, Commissioner, but I 21 just do want to find out whether this Witness was 22 involved. 23 The Casino Rama situation where the 24 Progressive Conservatives -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. --


1 he hasn't finished asking the question. 2 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Well, I'll let him 3 finish. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 6 Q: Where the -- where the Progressive 7 Conservative Government within a few months of taking 8 office decided to claim 20 percent of the -- of the gross 9 revenues of Casino Rama which previously had been -- the 10 previous government had said could be used by First 11 Nations across Ontario. 12 Were you involved in that matter? 13 A: No, sir. 14 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, Casino 15 Rama has absolutely nothing to do with the issues for 16 this Inquiry. As Mr. Horton well knows those issues are 17 in litigation and simply have nothing to do with -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I prefer you 19 didn't ask any questions about Casino Rama. Is that 20 okay, Mr. Horton? I don't think Casino Rama has any 21 relevance to this Inquiry. 22 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well, Commissioner, 23 the -- the relevance is this, that -- and Mr. Moran can 24 just correct me and then I don't have to ask any of these 25 questions. I --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, it's not 2 the way it works. If it's not a proper question, then 3 it's not a proper question. 4 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: No, no. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We don't 6 need the Witness to tell us. 7 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I didn't make myself 8 clear, Commissioner, I'm going to ask a different 9 question. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, then 11 that's fine. 12 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: I'm going to ask a 13 different question. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not 15 about Casino Rama? 16 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Not about Casino 17 Rama. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay then, 19 go ahead. 20 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: But then I'll come 21 back to Casino Rama if I get the wrong answer. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 24 Q: Mr. Moran, someone listening to your 25 evidence might have thought you were saying that the


1 Harris government had a good relationship with First 2 Nations during this period of time we're talking about 3 and did you actually mean to suggest that? 4 A: What period in question are you 5 referring to? 6 Q: Well, I'm talking about the fall of 7 1995? 8 A: I didn't mean to suggest that. 9 Q: You did not mean to suggest that? 10 A: No, sir. 11 Q: Okay. And that would not be correct 12 would it? 13 It would not be correct to suggest that 14 the Harris government had a good relationship with First 15 Nations in the first few months of office? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I do not 17 think that is a question that he should be asked. I 18 think the fact that he was not suggesting that they did, 19 is about all you could ask this witness. 20 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Commissioner, I will 21 move on in an effort to finish exactly on my lower 22 estimate of time. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 24 are close to an hour. 25 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: No, I --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I am advised 2 that you began at 4:22. I am advised by the -- 3 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Well I think I'm 4 still -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You are 6 coming very close. 7 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- closer to forty- 8 five (45) minutes than an hour on that, sir, but I'm -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- I'm just going to 11 ask for an -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 13 fine. Carry on. 14 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- but no, I'm -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: These are 16 only guidelines. I understand that. 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: That's fine. I 18 wouldn't cut out anything important, sir, unless I had a 19 very -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know 21 that. 22 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: -- serious 23 direction. So, I'm almost done. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON:


1 Q: Mr. Moran, you were involved as an 2 Executive Assistant to a Senior Member of Cabinet at the 3 time these events were going on. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you attended meetings, including 6 a meeting with the Premier, to talk about how the matter 7 should be handled; correct? 8 A: Yes, sir. 9 Q: There were discussions about that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And apart from the fact that there 12 was a fatality in this situation, apart from that fact, 13 do you view the efforts that were made by the Government, 14 to deal with that situation, to have been a success or to 15 have been a failure? 16 A: I don't really think it's my place to 17 judge it. 18 Q: Thank you very much, Commissioner. 19 Those are my questions. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 21 very much, Mr. Horton. 22 Mr. Roy, could I have you give us some 23 estimate of where you are and what you are planning to do 24 so we can decide? I really would like to finish this 25 witness today if possible.


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: And -- and I'd like to 2 accommodate that also, Mr. Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long do 4 you think you need? 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: I had originally 6 estimated about forty-five (45) minutes to an hour -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, and 8 now? 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- and I'm pleased to -- 10 to tell you that I will be under that, but it's going to 11 depend to some extent on -- on answers and what have you. 12 The nature of the questions I ask are not amenable to yes 13 or no answers, frankly, so... 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 15 see, are you able to continue, Mr. Moran? Would you like 16 to adjourn and continue tomorrow morning, or could you 17 continue? 18 THE WITNESS: No, I'd rather -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Because we 20 started at nine o'clock this morning and it has been a 21 long day. If you are able to continue, I think we 22 should. 23 THE WITNESS: I'd prefer to get it over 24 with today, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right.


1 Then let's carry on. 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. I'll try and 3 throw lobs, just to make it easier, since it's the end of 4 the day. 5 THE WITNESS: That would be a pleasant 6 change. 7 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 10 Q: What I want to -- by the way, my name 11 is Julian Roy, and I am counsel, or one of the counsel 12 for Aboriginal Legal Services, Toronto. 13 A: Oh. Thank you. 14 Q: And -- 15 A: Where is that located, just as a...? 16 Q: It's in Toronto. 17 A: Sorry. 18 Q: It's on Yonge Street. 19 What I want to -- what I want to start 20 with is a question where one of your answers that you 21 gave during the course that Mr. Downard -- when Mr. 22 Downard was -- was questioning you early on, you sort of 23 added a recommendation. 24 Do you remember at the end when -- when 25 Mr. Worme was asking you about the potential


1 recommendations you would have? 2 A: I don't know what you're referring to 3 a specifically. 4 Q: All right. Well, after you finished 5 with Mr. Worme's question, Mr. Downard had asked -- 6 A: Okay. Yeah, yeah. 7 Q: -- asked you questions and you 8 interjected with sort of an after-thought 9 recommendation, -- 10 A: Where I said that there's gotta be a 11 -- a way to better involve the Native leaders and, so 12 there's -- 13 Q: Absolutely. And that's -- that's 14 what I want to ask you some questions about, because I -- 15 I thought it was a very good idea on your -- on your part 16 to suggest that. 17 And I want to elaborate on it, given your 18 experience, because you might be able to provide us some 19 assistance on -- on how that kind of process might work 20 in a situation like this. 21 A: Yeah. Just let me put it in context 22 that -- 23 Q: Sure. 24 A: -- you know, I was a political 25 advisor, and that's something that I would recommend. I


1 don't think I'm really a dispute-resolution person. That 2 -- that would be more a more appropriate person to 3 discuss. 4 Q: I understand. But you do have -- you 5 have had the unfortunate experience of going through a 6 process that didn't work well. We can all agree on that; 7 correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And from that one can gain some 10 insight whether or not one is an expert on this 11 particular area, and that's the one I want to pick your 12 brain about. 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: Now, I take it your suggestion was 15 that -- that in a situation where there's sort of a First 16 Nation protest or occupation, that it might be a good 17 idea to sort of engage somebody from the First Nations 18 leadership or somebody who is trusted by First Nations 19 communities, to assist in sort of opening up a line of 20 communication with the occupiers, correct; is that true? 21 A: Yes, sir. 22 Q: All right. You have to answer 23 audibly. 24 A: Sorry. 25 Q: I know it's been a long day and


1 I'll -- 2 A: No, that's all right. 3 Q: -- I'll remind you when you don't do 4 that -- 5 A: Thank you. 6 Q: -- all right? And I take it, given 7 your evidence that you gave to Ms. Perschy that what 8 you're not suggesting is you're not suggesting that this 9 person would engage in substantive negotiations about 10 what happens with the land; correct? 11 A: My -- I think that the details of how 12 it works, I -- I don't know in terms of the details, it's 13 not something that I'm an expert on. I just thought that 14 there's got to be a way to involve the -- the Native 15 leaders in the solution. 16 Q: Well -- 17 A: And how that would work best, your -- 18 I'm not really the person to comment on it. 19 Q: I do want to explore it, given -- 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: -- your evidence, because it does 22 seem like a good idea. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And you went through this, and I -- 25 we have to have a process that works from the point of


1 view of -- or is going to be amenable to -- to the 2 perspective of a political staffer who's involved in a 3 committee like this. 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: That -- that's what I want to 6 explore. 7 Now, getting back to my question, what 8 you were not suggesting is that this person would be 9 involved in substantive negotiations about what happens 10 to the land; correct? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: What that -- what you had in mind was 13 a person who would perhaps develop a line of 14 communication with the occupiers that might assist with 15 developing a process to end the occupation itself; 16 correct? 17 A: Yes, sir. 18 Q: And in hindsight you viewed such a 19 process as perhaps a better way at getting at a peaceful 20 resolution of an occupation; correct? 21 A: I think that -- that the best way 22 would be to end it before it happened, and you know, 23 having said that I think that -- that you -- perhaps if 24 the OPP had had a First Nation's Office on the ground 25 that may have diffused it better.


1 Does that answer your question? 2 Q: Partly. And I want to -- I want to 3 continue along that line -- 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: -- if you -- if you don't mind. 6 But what you were saying is that -- that 7 possibly getting a First Nation's person or person 8 respected by that community, using that person to open up 9 that channel of communications might assist in -- in 10 getting to a peaceful resolution of the problem? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And that was your point in making the 13 recommendation? 14 A: Yes. Yes, yes, yes, sorry, I was 15 unsure. 16 Q: And I take it from the fact that this 17 is a suggestion on your part, that you didn't see that 18 happening in the way that this particular occupation was 19 approached; correct? 20 A: Yes, sir. 21 Q: And you didn't -- looking back at it 22 in hindsight, and of course hindsight is twenty/twenty 23 (20/20). 24 Looking back on it with hindsight, you 25 don't see anything about the circumstances, that would --


1 would have prevented that type of person being appointed; 2 correct? 3 A: No, sir, that's not what I said. 4 Q: Now you -- 5 A: No, what I -- what I'd said was that 6 in terms of the situation, it was our view that it was a 7 law enforcement issue and not necessarily a Native issue. 8 And what I have said is that I think that, just speaking 9 on behalf of myself, that some better education on the 10 Native issues could have helped the process along. 11 Q: So what you're saying is that -- that 12 the way it was approached, the whole manner that it was 13 approached, the guiding principle was that this was a law 14 enforcement issue, and not a First Nation's issue; 15 correct? 16 A: Yes, sir. 17 Q: And what that meant was that this 18 type of -- of suggestion that you now feel is a good 19 suggestion, of having a First Nations person become 20 involved in -- in engaging this communication process, 21 was just not something that was considered; correct? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: Now, you would agree with me that -- 24 that a staffer, a political staffer in the Attorney 25 General's office is not probably the person who's going


1 to be able to identify the right kind of person to do 2 this type of task; correct? 3 A: Yes, sir. 4 Q: It would be -- would I be right in 5 suggesting to you that ONAS would probably be the right 6 group to suggest the right person to engage that type of 7 process? 8 A: I think that in the similar way that 9 for instance, a -- a judge is appointed, that you know, 10 providing the Minister with a list of recommendations and 11 why, and letting the elected official make the decision, 12 it would have been... 13 Q: But within the Government, can you 14 think of any organization better than ONAS to identify a 15 list of possible candidates who -- 16 A: In this situation? No. No, sorry, 17 you're right. 18 Q: All right. So what we would have to 19 have is that the political staffers and other civil -- 20 and perhaps civil servants who were also involved who 21 were not from ONAS would have to some extent defer to 22 what ONAS felt was the right person, correct? 23 A: Well, no, I wouldn't necessarily go 24 along with that. 25 Q: All right. And why not?


1 A: Well, because I think that if you're 2 going to be negotiating on behalf of the Government 3 there's got to be some -- I don't think that necessarily 4 the -- the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs is in 5 a position where he can pick who to represent on behalf 6 of the Government. 7 Q: But isn't ONAS part of the 8 Government? 9 A: Yes, but that's -- what I said was 10 that I don't know whether that -- that -- that is a high 11 enough authority in terms of saying who's best to 12 represent all the -- the issues of the Government. 13 Q: All right. So part of the problem is 14 that ONAS doesn't have the sort of the power and status 15 within the -- within the Government to have that role. 16 A: That's not what I said. What I said 17 was that I just didn't think that without some sort of a 18 consultation you could pick someone to represent the -- 19 the Government on a myriad of government related issues. 20 Q: All right. But you're not 21 disagreeing with me that ONAS could provide a -- could 22 make a helpful contribution in sort of picking a short 23 list of people? 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: Now, I take it that this -- this sort


1 of appointing this First Nations person or a person 2 trusted by the First Nations community engaging this sort 3 of line of communication, you would agree with me that 4 that's a process that could take some time, correct? 5 A: It could or it could not. You know, 6 like sometimes government positions are made quite 7 quickly and sometimes they drag on. 8 Q: But you would agree with me if we're 9 talking about communication we're talking about on one 10 (1) side the Government and on the other side the 11 occupiers, correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: So it's not just up to the Government 14 how fast things happen, correct? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: You have to have a person that you 17 can talk to, correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: So this type of process would have to 20 take account of the fact that it may take some time to 21 get that two-way communication going, correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And the Government can't just say, 24 Well, we move at our speed, correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: That's if we want to have a peaceful 2 resolution of the problem, correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And in hindsight you would agree with 5 that, correct? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And that issue of -- of slowing 8 things down and letting -- having time to allow that type 9 of communication happen wasn't sort of front and centre 10 in your mind as you approached the meetings on September 11 5th and 6th, correct? 12 A: That's not what I said. What I said 13 was -- like it's my understanding that efforts had been 14 made to reach out to them to find out what the issue was 15 and then at the same time in terms of the process that 16 had been followed, it was the -- that proper legal steps 17 were being followed. 18 Q: I understand, but let -- let's leave 19 the legal steps such as the injunction aside for a 20 moment. 21 In terms of -- of this communication 22 process you would agree with me -- you've already agreed 23 with me that it would take -- could take a little bit of 24 time, correct? 25 A: It could or it could not.


1 Q: Yes. And you'd have to give some 2 time for that process to work before you gave up on it, 3 correct? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Yes. And you didn't have that in 9 your mind as you approached the meetings of September 5th 10 and 6th, that notion that you might have to give a 11 considerable amount of time to have that communication 12 process work its way out? 13 A: Well, I think that in terms of the 14 communication that we -- we -- we had had a, you know, 15 some level of communication but, you know, in hindsight, 16 you know, could there have been more? Yes. 17 Q: All right. Now, you -- you've told 18 us that -- that part of the reason why that -- appointing 19 that First Nations person was sort of not on the radar 20 screen in the meetings was -- was driven by this need to 21 portray this as a law enforcement issue, correct? 22 A: That's not what I said. I said we 23 viewed it as a law enforcement issue. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: And that we were concerned that --


1 that the situation could spread to other parts of the 2 Province and that, you know, there was a possibility of - 3 - of escalation. 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: And so that's why we dealt with it as 6 we -- we did. 7 Q: Okay. And part of dealing it -- with 8 it as you did was a need to have the process move very 9 quickly; correct? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And another part of it was that you 12 did not want to do anything that implied that this was a 13 First Nations issue as opposed to a law-enforcement 14 issue, correct? 15 A: That's not what I said. What I said 16 was that the -- 17 Q: Well I know it's not what you said, 18 it's a suggestion -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Yes. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 22 Q: -- I'm making to you, and I'm asking 23 if you agree with it? 24 A: No, sir. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Would you agree with me this though, 4 that it would be inappropriate for the Government, out of 5 a need to portray an issue as a -- a law-enforcement 6 issue versus a First-Nation issue, to avoid doing 7 something that -- that might lend itself to a peaceful 8 resolution of an occupation? 9 A: I completely disagree with that. 10 Q: All right. So it would be okay for 11 the Government -- it was okay for the Government in this 12 incident and would be okay in the future, to, out of a 13 desire to portray something as a law-enforcement issue, 14 to avoid taking steps that might lead to a peaceful 15 resolution? 16 A: Pardon me? 17 Q: I'm -- I'm suggesting to you, my 18 first suggestion to you is that it would be inappropriate 19 for the Government to take a stand that it was out of a 20 necessity to portray the issue as a law-enforcement issue 21 as opposed to a First Nations issue. 22 It would be inappropriate based on that to 23 avoid doing things that would lead to a peaceful 24 resolution of the problem? 25 A: Sorry, it's -- it's a convoluted


1 question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I am 3 confused, I have to say. I know it is late in the day, 4 but I am confused. There is a couple of double negatives 5 and I just could not follow what you -- 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: There could even be a 7 triple negative in there. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, then 9 it comes back where you began, I guess. But it is 10 confusing. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: All right. I can -- 12 THE WITNESS: Can I -- can I ask, like, 13 would it -- it be possible for -- to deal within a law- 14 enforcement manner and still have a peaceful resolution? 15 Yes. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 18 Q: I understand -- 19 A: I think that was what our goal was. 20 Q: I understand that. But we've heard 21 evidence from Ms. Jai that one of the reasons why a 22 negotiator or facilitator was not appointed in this 23 situation was, Number 1, the need to, conveyed by Ms. 24 Hutton, to move the process quickly, that's part of it; 25 and the second part of it was the need to portray the


1 issue as a law-enforcement issue as -- as opposed to a 2 First Nations issue. 3 Is that consistent with your understanding 4 of how the meeting proceeded? 5 A: No, that's not what I've testified to 6 in the last day and a half. 7 Q: All right. Well that's the evidence 8 that we've heard. And I'm suggesting to you that it 9 would be -- 10 A: Yeah, but what I testified to, was 11 that there was a -- it was my understanding that we 12 needed to move quickly because there was afraid -- there 13 was a fear of -- of safety within the community, Pinery 14 Provincial Park, and that they -- that the possibility 15 that they -- the occupation could get, you know, more 16 people could join it. 17 So that was the reason for the last -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You do not 19 have to repeat your evidence. I mean, you can if you 20 want to, but it is on the record, you do not have to 21 repeat your evidence. 22 If you do not agree with the suggestion, 23 or if you do not agree with Ms. Jai's evidence, you can 24 say so. 25 But your evidence is already on the


1 record. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 5 Q: Let me move on to this point then. 6 Your suggestion -- your suggested recommendation about 7 having a First Nations person or another person appointed 8 to engage in communication, it sounds a lot like 9 Exhibit P-498, that Ms. Esmonde took you to. Remember 10 she showed you the part about the facilitator/negotiator? 11 A: Who is Ms. Esmonde? 12 Q: Ms. Esmonde -- 13 A: Sorry. 14 Q: -- is the lawyer that -- if -- 15 perhaps if P-498, I was hoping not to show any documents, 16 but if P-498 could be put in front of the witness, 17 please? 18 A: I think I still got a copy. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He probably 20 still has it. 21 THE WITNESS: P-498. I got it. Yeah, 22 I've already testified that I can't remember the 23 Appendix. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY:


1 Q: Yes. You -- this is the Appendix 2 which is the Guidelines for Responding to Aboriginal 3 Emergencies. This is the Guidelines for the 4 Interministerial Committee, of which you were a part. 5 A: I understand that. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: And what I testified to was that I 8 couldn't remember the contents of this document. 9 Q: Okay. You couldn't remember it at 10 the time, correct? 11 A: I don't remember it now. 12 Q: I beg your pardon? 13 A: I don't remember it now. 14 Q: All right. But do you have a 15 recollection of knowing these guidelines at the time that 16 you were engaged on the Committee on September 5th and 17 6th? 18 A: I knew that there was guidelines for 19 the Committee. 20 Q: Okay. And you would have read them 21 prior to attending at the meetings? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: Okay. Because the reason why I'm 24 asking you this, is if you go to page 2 of the 25 guidelines --


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: -- the -- there's -- at number 11? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: There's a number of discretionary 5 powers that the Committee has -- 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: -- and one (1) of those is to 8 appoint, if you look at D, appointing a 9 facilitator/negotiation, see that? 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: That sounds a lot like your suggested 12 recommendation that you made; would you agree with me? 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: You have to say yes or no, okay. Am 15 I right in saying that -- that you weren't aware that -- 16 that ONAS had this ability under its discretionary powers 17 to appoint a facilitator/negotiator to deal with the 18 situation at the time? 19 A: No, sir. 20 Q: You weren't aware of it? 21 A: That's not what I said. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: I said that -- was I aware that -- 24 that that power was there; I believe so. 25 Q: Okay. And was that something that


1 you heard discussed at the September 5th and 6th 2 meetings? 3 A: I don't recall. 4 Q: Okay. Is that something that you 5 would recall if you -- if it was discussed? 6 A: I don't know. 7 Q: Okay. Is that something that you 8 recall briefing your Minister about? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Now you told us that one (1) of the 11 things that -- that an executive assistant's role is for 12 a Minister, is that you're to ensure that all of the 13 options are put before the Minister so that he can make a 14 decision; correct? 15 A: Yeah, and so just to follow up on 16 that point, to ensure that both the Native issues and the 17 legal issues, we've brought the appropriate spokespersons 18 in to deal with him, and that in terms of the options 19 available to ONAS and the legal advice provided by the 20 Ministry of the Attorney General, that was provided to 21 him by his officials. 22 Q: Okay. But were you part of a 23 briefing where a negotiator/facilitator was discussed as 24 an option that was available? 25 A: Not to the best of my recollection.


1 Q: If I could look at my notes, I think 2 that's... 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Thank you very much, sir, those are 7 my questions. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 9 very much, Mr. Roy. 10 Do you have any re-examination Mr. Worme? 11 MR. DONALD WORME: I -- actually I don't 12 have any re-examination, and I simply want to thank Mr. 13 Moran for his attendance here and his testimony. 14 THE WITNESS: Thanks. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it's 16 been a very long day and I want to thank you very much 17 for coming and providing us with your evidence, thank you 18 very much. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's over, 21 you're finished. Thank you. 22 23 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 24 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll


1 adjourn now and reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00. 2 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 3 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 2nd, at 4 9:00 a.m. 5 6 --- Upon adjourning at 5:33 p.m. 7 8 9 10 Certified Correct 11 12 13 14 15 __________________________ 16 Carol Geehan 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25