1

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

2

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 ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) 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 ) (np) Residents of 16 Cameron Neil ) (np) Aazhoodena (Army Camp) 17 Kevin Scullion ) 18 William Henderson ) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) (np) Point First Nation 20 Colleen Johnson ) (np) 21 22 Kim Twohig ) Government of Ontario 23 Walter Myrka ) (np) 24 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 25 Michelle Pong ) (np)

3

1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 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 ) (np) 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 ) 20 21 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) (np) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) 24 25

4

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 ) 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

5

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

6

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 JEFFREY CHRISTOPHER BANGS, Sworn 6 Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Donald Worme 9 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 120 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat 137 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Alice Mrozek 138 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Lauwers 140 11 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy 172 12 Cross-Examination by Ms. Leslie Kaufman 184 13 Cross-Examination by Ms. Kim Twohig 191 14 Cross-Examination by Ms. Janet Clermont 199 15 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 205 16 Cross-Examination by Mr. Vilko Zbogar 253 17 18 19 20 Certificate of Transcript 317 21 22 23 24 25

7

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-935 Document Number 2000505. Memo from 4 Jeff Bangs re. Winterization of 5 Ipperwash Provincial Park, November 6 28/'95. 111 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

8

1 --- Upon commencing at 9:01 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 MR. DONALD WORME: Good morning, 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good morning 9 everybody. 10 MR. DONALD WORME: Commissioner, we call 11 as the next witness Mr. Jeff Bangs. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 13 morning, Mr. Bangs. 14 MR. JEFFREY BANGS: Good morning. 15 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Mr. Bangs. 16 Do you prefer to swear on the Bible, affirm or use an 17 alternate oath, sir? 18 MR. JEFFREY BANGS: The Bible please. 19 THE REGISTRAR: The bibles on your right. 20 Pick it up with your right hand please, and would you 21 state your name in full for the record. 22 MR. JEFFREY BANGS: Jeffrey Christopher 23 Bangs. 24 25 JEFFREY CHRISTOPHER BANGS, Sworn

9

1 2 MR. DONALD WORME: Commissioner, I might 3 just take a moment to introduce Mr. Bangs counsel, Tanya 4 Pagliaroli. She is seated here in the front. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 6 morning. 7 8 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DONALD WORME: 9 Q: Mr. Bangs, I wanted to just start 10 with you -- to go over with you your professional 11 background. And you received a Bachelor Degree in Public 12 Administration from Carleton University in 1992? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And you worked then at Queen's Park 15 as I understand from 1992 until 1995? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And can you tell us the capacities 18 that you were so employed? 19 A: I began working in '92 on a part-time 20 basis as a summer student and subsequently or subsequent 21 to that worked for David Turnbull the MPP for York Mills 22 as a legislative assistant. And then in 1994 having 23 worked on a volunteer basis on his bi-election I worked 24 for Chris Hodgson when he became MPP for Haliburton -- 25 Victoria/Haliburton.

10

1 Q: And you were an executive assistant-- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- in that capacity as well for Mr. 4 Hodgson? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And that has been commonly thought of 7 as political staffer; is that fair? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Yeah. Now, Mr. Hodgson won a bi- 10 election you just indicated and -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- that's when you commenced your 13 employment with him? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And in March of 1994 he became the 16 MPP did he not? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And you worked with him throughout 19 that period? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And into the election campaign of 22 early '95? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: All right. And Mr. Hodgson was 25 elected as the -- as the MPP, he was the incumbent and

11

1 was -- and went on to -- to win that election? 2 A: That's correct, in June of 1995. 3 Q: All right. And in -- and at that 4 time you were appointed then by him? 5 A: Yes. When he was sworn into Cabinet 6 and asked to be the Minister of Natural Resources he then 7 asked me very shortly thereafter to be his executive 8 assistant in his minister's office at Natural Resources. 9 Q: And he was -- he also held another 10 ministry as well or another -- another position? 11 A: He was also responsible for the 12 Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and -- 13 Q: And were you his executive assistant 14 in that capacity? 15 A: At a later date. I was -- not until 16 later on in 1996 and into -- then on into 1998. But my 17 first executive assistant experience was at Natural 18 Resources. Minister Hodgson had another staff and 19 another executive assistant at Northern Development and 20 Mines. 21 Q: I see. And you were appointed as 22 Chief of Staff or executive assistant to Minister Hodgson 23 immediately upon his swearing into Cabinet? 24 A: Yes. It was within -- I don't know 25 that it was the same day, but very shortly thereafter.

12

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Mr. Bangs, I had provided you with 4 copies of documents that are in front of you. They are 5 numbered in this Inquiry as P-922 which is a print-off of 6 the Common Sense Revolution platform. 7 A: Yes? 8 Q: And secondly P-924, Bringing Common 9 Sense to Community Development. 10 A: Yes? 11 Q: And lastly P-925, A Voice for the 12 North, a Report of Mike Harris Northern Focus Tour. And 13 that one's dated January of '95? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: You've had an opportunity to review 16 these? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And you would have seen these 19 documents during the initial period of your -- of your 20 involvement as executive assistant? 21 A: Yes, they were developed by the 22 Progressive Conservative Party in -- or preceding the 23 1995 election in the opposition days. 24 Q: And did you have a role in the 25 preparation of any of -- any of this documentation?

13

1 A: No. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: When you were initially appointed 6 then as Executive Assistant, Mr. Bangs, I understand that 7 there would have been some orientation period, and -- and 8 can you tell us about that? 9 A: Yes, there was. There was some 10 explanation of the role and responsibility of an 11 executive assistant provided by the Premier's office and 12 to a certain extent I suppose by the Cabinet office who 13 worked with the Premier's office in developing a common 14 set of guidelines for each minister's office that was 15 explained to us. 16 We also went through an orientation period 17 with our new ministry staff. We were meeting a new 18 Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Ministers and Directors 19 for the first time and building a relationship with them 20 in the -- in the very early days. 21 Q: As you mentioned the Deputy Minister 22 of MNR, that would be Mr. Vrancart? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And his assistant Peter Allen? 25 A: Yes.

14

1 Q: All right. And would you describe 2 for us please, just in very general terms, the role of an 3 executive assistant? 4 A: There were really four (4) areas, I 5 guess, of responsibility, in a general sense. 6 One was direct management of the 7 Minister's office. So, everything from recruiting, 8 hiring, firing, assigning work assignments to staff in 9 the office; the day to day management of the minister's 10 office. 11 Another area of responsibility was more on 12 the political side and the constituency side looking 13 after not so much the -- the Minister's ministerial 14 responsibilities but his MPP and member of the political 15 party type responsibilities. 16 Being a liaison between the Minister's 17 office and other minister's offices and the Premier's 18 office was a third area of responsibility. 19 And the fourth, and perhaps most important 20 area, at least from my point of view, was the 21 relationship building responsibility with the civil 22 service in the Ministry that we were responsible for. 23 So there's four (4) broad areas of 24 responsibility that -- that I was responsible for. 25 Q: Thank you for that. We'll come to

15

1 that last point you've just made. But the first point 2 was the managing or the staffing of the minister's 3 office? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And I understand that you went 6 through a screening process as it were when -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- when you were recruited.? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And what did that amount to? 11 A: There was -- it wasn't -- it wasn't 12 very complicated. It was a process that was initiated by 13 the -- the Premier's office, post election, in the period 14 between the election and the swearing in of the new 15 government and the new cabinet. 16 It was a time when it was anticipated that 17 ministers offices would be requiring staff and there were 18 many people seeking jobs and putting their names forward. 19 And in an effort to coordinate that, the Premier's office 20 set up a central process to receive resumes. 21 People could come forward and express an 22 interest in different positions within ministers offices. 23 And they -- they accumulated I believe it was presented 24 to us in a binder form, a collection of resumes that was 25 provided to -- well in the case, the first step was to

16

1 provide it to ministers and from that suggested list of 2 potential executive assistants for them to choose 3 executive assistants. 4 And in my case it wasn't as rigorous 5 because I had a pre-existing relationship with my 6 minister. This binder and the screening process was then 7 turned over to executive assistants to -- as a tool. 8 So, we were able to look at the different 9 resumes and people who had come forward and expressed an 10 interest in different position. 11 And I guess the only other thing I can say 12 about it is that it was -- an effort was made prior to 13 the material coming to me to categorize based on people's 14 areas of interest and -- and where people involved in the 15 screening process thought they might be best suited to 16 different positions. 17 So, it was a tool that was provided to us 18 in the form of a binder. 19 Q: The previous relationship that you 20 had with Minister Hodgson of course included, I think as 21 you pointed out, the last of the four (4) general areas 22 was relationship building? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And as I understand it you had 25 engaged in that process with Minister Hodgson prior to

17

1 the election of '95? 2 A: Yes we did -- well in the sense that 3 as a -- as a critic responsible for an area, he was the 4 critic for Natural Resources and in that role we did work 5 with a variety of stakeholders that affected that 6 particular Ministry. 7 Q: The stakeholders would include what - 8 - what groups for example, Mr. Bangs? 9 A: Most of the major client groups of 10 the Ministry of Natural Resources from Forestry, the 11 Ontario Internal Forestry Industries Association, Ontario 12 Sawmillers Association, environmental groups like 13 Wildlands League and World Wildlife Fund, the Ontario 14 Federation of Anglers and Hunters, a whole -- Ducks 15 Unlimited; the whole variety of client groups in the 16 Ministry of Natural Resources. 17 Of course, in opposition it's -- it's -- 18 you don't have all the resources of government but it was 19 an effort -- an effort was made to reach out and -- and 20 have relations with those people in opposition. 21 Q: Aboriginal groups, Mr. Bangs, were 22 they seen as stakeholders? Was there that similar 23 reaching out? 24 A: There -- there was -- there were 25 certainly stakeholders to many of the issues affecting

18

1 Natural Resources. The party also had a critic 2 responsible for Native Affairs who would have done that 3 kind of outreach. It was not something that I recall 4 doing in that time period in the -- preceding the 5 election. 6 Q: And just to cover off that area, was 7 there any liaison as -- as you can recall as between the 8 critic for Aboriginal Affairs and the -- the critic for 9 Ministry of Natural Resources? 10 A: I don't recall. 11 Q: In the early days then of -- when you 12 were -- when you were appointed as Executive Assistant to 13 then-Minister Hodgson, it's a new portfolio for him, can 14 you tell us about those initial days in terms of the 15 activity that was going on, the briefing processes. 16 A: It was a -- a very busy time. As you 17 can imagine, it was a change in government, a change in 18 people in Minister's offices and for many of us it was 19 quite a learning curve, especially on some of the more 20 technical issues within the Ministry. 21 The -- we, I think, commenced our briefing 22 process very quickly, relative to some other Ministries. 23 And I say that because immediately upon the Minister 24 being sworn in or very shortly thereafter, we were on a 25 plane going to Northern Ontario to look at forest fires.

19

1 And the Deputy -- it was a particularly forest fire 2 season that year, and the Deputy arranged to have himself 3 and the ADM's come along on the trip with us. 4 So, it wasn't just a trip to look at 5 forest fires, it was actually a working trip. So, on the 6 plane on the way to Northern Ontario and while we stayed 7 over, we arranged briefings throughout the course of this 8 trip. 9 So, immediately from the start, we began 10 briefings on a whole range of issues affecting MNR. 11 And I think, my sense was that the -- 12 there was an effort on behalf of the Deputy and his staff 13 to prioritize. So, in issues that they anticipated would 14 affect the Minister sooner, on a more urgent basis, the 15 ones that he was likely to encounter first, were at the 16 top of their priority list. 17 Forest fires was, of course, we learned 18 about the budget for forest fires and the operation on 19 the ground and that was the first briefing I recall 20 having in some detail. 21 But beyond that it was -- it went through 22 every division of the Ministry over a period of time, 23 flowing from that first trip and on for many weeks. 24 Q: And would that characterise the pace 25 throughout --

20

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- that initial period at least? 3 A: Yes, it was a very busy time. And 4 again, we talked earlier about staffing, we were also in 5 the process of staffing so as we get more staff on board, 6 more people were included in those briefings and it went 7 on -- it went on all summer really. 8 Q: In terms of the relationship between 9 your Minister and the -- and the new Deputy in this whole 10 briefing process, how would you describe that 11 relationship? 12 A: I would characterise a relationship 13 with both the Deputy, his own office staff, Peter Allen 14 being the lead person in that office on his behalf, and 15 his ADM's and directors, the senior staff of the Ministry 16 and our office and our Minister got along very well. 17 We hit it off quite well right from the 18 start. We had a very good working relationship. 19 One of the things that was talked about in 20 the orientation as a new Executive Assistant and -- and 21 new Minister's staff, was the need to respect the -- the 22 hierarchy within government and within the Ministries and 23 recognizing the Deputy as the head of the Ministry in the 24 organization and not -- not going around the Deputy to -- 25 to talk to his staff, and really working in co-operation

21

1 with the Deputy. 2 So, we had a very cooperative relationship 3 right from the start. I think it worked very well and to 4 this day, look back on the experience as quite a good in 5 terms of how quickly we formed that relationship. 6 Q: Given the role of the Deputy as 7 you've just described it, what was your interface or the 8 interface of your Minister with the -- with the civil 9 service? 10 A: It was -- well, depending -- as I was 11 explaining the briefing process, they had prioritized 12 based on which issues the Minister would be encountering 13 sooner. 14 I thought the Deputy did a good job of 15 that prioritization. And then putting the right people 16 in the room for briefings with the Minister, the people 17 in the Ministry who were experts in certain areas to 18 brief the Minister in a very forthright and knowledgeable 19 basis. It was very interactive. 20 And in the early -- early days, do you 21 recall any briefings on -- on Aboriginal issues and 22 particularly contentious Aboriginal issues? 23 A: There were -- I remember the Ministry 24 staff providing a briefing to us in the initial period. 25 I don't know exactly when it was in the sequence but we

22

1 were briefed on issues across the Province that might 2 affect the Ministry of Natural Resources and have a First 3 Nation component to them. 4 Q: And can recall for us who it was that 5 would have been involved in providing these briefings? 6 A: The -- the Ministry had its own legal 7 services branch so people like Barry Jones, who I think 8 was the director of legal services at the time, 9 participated. 10 And there were also people in the Ministry 11 who were specifically assigned to Aboriginal issues, 12 people like Mel Crystal. Leith Hunter, I don't know that 13 she was specifically assigned, but people like Leith 14 Hunter. 15 Karen Wishart was another person who 16 participated in briefings on -- on First Nations issues. 17 Those are the people -- David DeLauney who was another 18 person in the Ministry who participated in those 19 briefings. 20 Those are the people who would participate 21 in -- in giving us that scan of the Province and where 22 the issues might be occurring or were potential to occur. 23 Q: Were you familiar with a person by 24 the name of Julie Jai? 25 A: Julie Jai worked in another ministry.

23

1 I did become familiar with her on August 2nd at meeting 2 at ONAS. She worked at ONAS. 3 Q: And in this initial period in terms 4 of the briefings do you recall whether Julie Jai might 5 have been providing some of those briefings? 6 A: I can't say for certain. I was not 7 in a briefing on the MNR scan of issues with Julie Jai. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: You have had a chance to look at the 12 -- the campaign material as well as -- 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: -- if I can call it, the basic policy 15 type of documentation -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- or at least it was a -- a basis 18 for formulating policies as we understand here? 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: And can you recall whether with -- 21 within those documents, or subsequent in the initial 22 period, in the policy formulation period, whether there 23 was any policies or guidelines that were issued during 24 the summer of 1995 relating to Aboriginal peoples or 25 issues?

24

1 A: I don't know that -- I don't recall 2 any specific policy directives being issued. I do know 3 that the -- the areas flowing from the campaign documents 4 that were most -- of most importance to us at the 5 Ministry of Natural Resources were the items that spoke 6 to creating and seeking out economic development 7 opportunities, was one (1) area. And the other area 8 being to be -- have a more open and inclusive land claim 9 process in a communications sense. 10 Those are the two (2) areas that stick out 11 in my mind flowing from those documents that affected us 12 at the Ministry of Natural Resources. 13 Q: And the latter point that -- you just 14 mentioned, that this the inclusive -- including a -- a 15 broader voice in the land claims processes that is 16 contained in the Voice of the North document there in 17 front of you? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: You were also aware, Mr. Bangs, of a 20 policy guideline entitled, Statement of Political 21 Relationship? And that's found at Tab 1 of the book of 22 documents in front of you. 23 A: Yeah. 24 Q: And marked as Exhibit P-643. 25 A: Yes.

25

1 Q: You had some familiarity with this? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. Had you looked at it back 4 in those days? 5 A: No, I had not -- I had not seen this 6 document prior to recently meeting you and -- and seeing 7 it then. 8 Q: Okay. And you were aware of it in -- 9 in what -- in what capacity? 10 A: I was aware of its existence. I knew 11 that -- and I don't recall exactly when I became aware, 12 if it was prior to the election or after as part of the 13 briefing process of Natural Resources, but I certainly 14 was aware of its existence having been entered into by 15 the previous government with the First Nations of 16 Ontario. 17 And I understood that it was a document 18 that spoke to the requirement of the Province to enter 19 into dialogue and discussions and negotiations on a 20 government-to-government basis with First Nations on 21 matters that affected them. 22 Q: Okay. Thank you. Again in the 23 summer of 1995 you had been provided a briefing, as I 24 understand it, with respect to a matter going on at 25 Serpent Mounds?

26

1 A: Yes, I believe that was part of the - 2 - the issue scans that were provided by -- in the -- in 3 the initial round of briefings, that were provided by the 4 Ministry of Natural Resources staff. We were briefed on 5 the -- the history of her -- of Serpent Mounds and the 6 nature of the -- the land claim situation and the fact 7 that it was First Nations land. 8 Q: All right. And we -- we'll come to 9 that in -- in some more detail in a moment. 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: But occurring around the same period 12 of time was the incident at Ipperwash that we -- we've 13 been focussed on here? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And how did you become aware of -- of 16 this matter? 17 A: The first time I heard about 18 Ipperwash was, I believe late, July of '95. I was in a 19 meeting -- an Executive Committee meeting of the Ministry 20 which was a standing meeting, I believe, we had weekly, 21 and the Ministers or the Deputy Minister's executive 22 assistant Peter Allen had been out of the room for some 23 time. 24 He entered the room and asked me to come 25 out into the hallway and he told me that there had been

27

1 some incidents at Ipperwash -- or Camp Ipperwash I 2 believe, and that he briefed me on what had -- what had 3 happened and what was likely to be reported in the media, 4 that there was an occurrence. He told me that it was -- 5 there was quite some history to the situation and that 6 the OPP were in charge and they were the lead on the 7 ground. 8 So, it was very much informational in 9 terms of the way he explained it to me. Not that it's 10 really that important, but at the time he actually had to 11 refer me to a map to indicate where Ipperwash Provincial 12 Park and Camp Ipperwash were. I did -- I was not aware 13 prior to that. 14 Q: And aside from a sense of -- of the 15 history behind this issue did he convey to you any -- any 16 potentials, either with respect to a confrontational 17 matter or -- or risk or threat? 18 A: I don't know that it was in that 19 initial conversation, but certainly in that time period 20 and then leading into the August 2nd briefing at ONAS we 21 were certainly made aware that there was quite some 22 history and a longstanding police presence in the area 23 since the occurrences in '93 on Camp Ipperwash. 24 And there was -- it was indicated to us 25 that there had been repeated suggestions or recurring

28

1 suggestions that this might spread perhaps to the Park, 2 beaches in the area, perhaps even private properties in 3 the area; that's the way it was explained to us. 4 Q: And if I can refer you to Tab Number 5 3 of the book of documents in front of you, Mr. Bangs, 6 that is a document -- there's a document there, an 7 e-mail -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- to Barry Jones from Peter Sturdy. 10 It has been marked as P-777. And I note that on the 11 second page of that that you were copied with this? 12 A: I see that. 13 Q: Firstly, do you recall seeing this 14 document and secondly is there anything in here that is 15 not consistent with your understanding at that point in 16 time; that is, August 1st of 1995? 17 A: I don't recall seeing this particular 18 e-mail. I -- I note that it was copied to me so I may 19 have, but I don't recall it. I do remember hearing these 20 events relayed to me verbally by the Deputy's Executive 21 Assistant, Peter Allen. 22 Q: And it would appear that there was 23 the potential for the occupation of the Park that had 24 stemmed -- or pardon me, that had been relayed through a 25 conversation with Inspector Carson if you look at the

29

1 document? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: And this is I believe consistent with 5 what I was saying, that we were hearing that there were 6 suggestions, and the way it was explained to us was that 7 this was -- it was a recurring thing, that it had 8 happened the preceding year and suggestions that the Park 9 might be next and other -- perhaps other properties might 10 be next, was the way it was presented to me. 11 Q: And in receiving this information as 12 I'd ask you earlier, was there any sense of concern as a 13 result of that? 14 A: Well, certainly it was -- it was 15 important information to know. From a -- a Natural 16 Resources point of view there was not an initial concern 17 in the sense that we were being told that it was an OPP 18 matter, that the OPP were the lead on the ground and that 19 there was no role for us at that point in time. It was 20 informational, the way it was relayed to us. 21 Q: Thank you. I want to turn to the 22 subject of the Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal 23 Emergencies. You're familiar with that body? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: It's been referred to variously as

30

1 the Blockade Committee or the Barricade Committee -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- of the IMC? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. Under Tab Number 5, 6 that's Exhibit P-498, it's an appendix that's entitled, 7 Guidelines for Responding to Aboriginal Emergencies, and 8 in quotations, "Blockades". 9 Are you familiar with this document? 10 A: I have not seen this document before. 11 Q: You've had an opportunity to review 12 it? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And is that -- does that reflect your 15 understanding of the role of the Committee either in 16 August of '95 or later? 17 A: In a general sense, yes. My 18 understanding of the Committee was that it was -- it was 19 a standing committee in the sense that it existed within 20 government led by ONAS. The -- the makeup of the 21 Committee changed constantly as different issues arose. 22 So, depending on the nature of the issue, 23 if it was a provincial highway that was affected the 24 Ministry of Transportation might be at the meeting for 25 example, and not the Ministry of Natural Resources.

31

1 So, the membership of the Committee was 2 somewhat fluid in that sense. And my understanding of 3 the Committee was that it was a clearing house, or 4 information gathering body, and also there to create 5 options or recommendations. 6 Q: With respect to decision making, did 7 you understand this Committee to have any such role? 8 A: No, I did not understand it to be a 9 decision making body. 10 Q: We know from other documents that 11 have been provided in testimony that there was a meeting 12 of this Committee on the 2nd of August 1995. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And you had been invited to that 15 meeting. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Is there anything that you can recall 18 firstly with respect to -- to this meeting? 19 A: Not -- not in any great detail. It 20 was -- it was convened as a meeting to very much go 21 around the table, was the format, and for people to 22 report on -- from their different Ministry's perspective 23 what they knew and what they were hearing about incidents 24 in the Camp Ipperwash, at that time, area. 25 And it was in some respects I suppose, a

32

1 repeat of information I'd been hearing the week prior and 2 in the -- in the day preceding that through my Deputy's 3 office. 4 Q: Did you have a general impression 5 from that meeting as to whether there was -- there was 6 any sense of urgency or concern that -- that should be 7 taken into account? 8 A: No, not a -- not a great sense of 9 urgency. Again there was this notion that this is -- 10 this -- these threats have been -- have happened before, 11 there have been recurring incidents over the preceding 12 two (2) years. 13 So, it was very much informational in that 14 sense. And also the takeaway point for me was that there 15 was still no direct impact on the Ministry of Natural 16 Resources and that is was an OPP matter. The OPP were 17 the lead on the ground and it had no direct bearing on 18 the Ministry of Natural Resources at that point. 19 Q: In terms of the OPP being the lead on 20 the ground, what -- what do you mean by that? 21 A: That we were told that as part of 22 this long history the OPP were in the area. And we were 23 told that they had surveillance underway, that basically, 24 that they were the lead agency on the ground and -- and 25 they were in charge of the situation.

33

1 Q: And as a consequence of receiving 2 this information from this meeting, what -- what did you 3 do? What was your role? 4 A: My role and that of the Ministry 5 staff who were there were to take note of it. And we did 6 at a later time brief our Minister upon returning to the 7 Ministry and the Deputy Minister on what we had heard at 8 the meeting. 9 Q: I want to ask you a bit about the 10 dynamics of the meeting if you can recall that. 11 A: Okay. I'll try. 12 Q: Do you remember the parties -- the 13 people that were there, the -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- the representations that they 16 made? 17 A: I don't remember a great deal of 18 detail about the representations that were made. I do 19 know that there were representatives from the Ministry of 20 Solicitor General, Ministry of Natural Resources, ONAS, 21 Attorney General's office. There were people from the 22 ministries. There were people from the political offices. 23 I think the -- the record of minutes 24 indicates the attendance list. But there were certainly 25 people represented from a variety of ministries and

34

1 offices in attendance. 2 And it was -- what I recall of it was that 3 in some respects it was a repeat of information I was 4 hearing through our Ministry and it was a round table 5 fact gathering type of meeting. 6 Q: All right. You mentioned the minutes 7 of that and I'll draw your attention then to Tab Number 4 8 of the book of documents. It's marked as P-503 and it -- 9 and it purports to be the minutes and documentation 10 arising out of that Interministerial Committee meeting of 11 August 2nd, '95. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: You've had a chance to review those 14 today, would you have received them at the time, Mr. 15 Bangs? 16 A: I think they were distributed to me 17 shortly after the meeting occurred. 18 Q: And do you have a recollection of 19 receiving those back in that time period? 20 A: I remember that they were 21 distributed. I don't know how long after the meeting 22 they were distributed and I -- I don't know that I took 23 particular note of them at the time because I had just 24 been at the meeting. 25 Q: Among the references in those meeting

35

1 minutes is the -- the possibility of an occupation of 2 Ipperwash Provincial Park; one of the topic items. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And what do you recall in terms of 5 that -- in terms of that discussion? 6 A: Only that it was mentioned as a 7 possibility in the meeting. Again, as was the suggestion 8 that there -- it could spread to other properties as 9 well. 10 Q: And I take it from your earlier 11 responses that that was discounted, at least in the sense 12 that it didn't appear to be an immediate or imminent 13 concern or threat? 14 A: Correct. Well, it wasn't that it was 15 discounted, it was that the way it was explained to me, 16 the way I understood it from these briefings, was that 17 there had been a history prior to the summer of '95 where 18 suggestions like these had been made before and not acted 19 upon. 20 And therefore, the way it was presented to 21 us was that this was not necessarily any more urgent than 22 what had been heard or rumoured or speculated on before. 23 And that's my memory of the way this 24 information was presented. 25 Q: Thank you for that. And in addition

36

1 to that, there was -- or was there, I should ask, any 2 discussion around the possibility of a burial site or 3 burial grounds being within the Park boundaries? 4 A: At the August 2nd meeting I don't 5 recall that coming up. 6 Q: I understand that part of the 7 information that was provided as well, in terms of the -- 8 the history that was given to the -- to the group of this 9 area, was some discussion around the history of Camp 10 Ipperwash itself and the appropriation of that -- of that 11 land? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Is there anything that you can add to 14 -- to that, in terms of your recollection? 15 A: There was considerable discussion to 16 educate the collective group at the meeting about the 17 long history of Camp Ipperwash going back to the Second 18 World War and the way that the land had been expropriated 19 and turned into a Military Base. 20 And there was also considerable discussion 21 about the period '93 to 1995 and -- and actions that had 22 occurred beginning of 1993 on the Camp Ipperwash 23 property. And that was -- that was discussed in the 24 meetings. 25 Q: Was there discussion about the title

37

1 to the Park, as -- as part of this? 2 A: There was information provided at the 3 meetings. I remember information being provided that 4 indicated that the Province had clear title to the Park 5 and there was some description, I remember, of the 6 history. 7 I don't recall the exact dates and the 8 sequence but that the -- the Park had not been obtained 9 directly from the First Nation, but from a third-party 10 who had at a -- at a previous time in history obtained it 11 somehow, but I don't recall exactly how that occurred. 12 But, it was made known to us that the Park 13 was under clear title by the Province, or of the 14 Province. 15 Q: Given your responsibilities as 16 executive assistant, I take it that this information 17 would be flowed up your chain of command and -- and you 18 would brief your Minister? 19 A: Yes, yes. 20 Q: Do you recall that you, in fact, did 21 brief him following this meeting of August the 2nd? 22 A: Yes. I don't know exactly when the 23 briefing occurred, if it was immediately following or 24 shortly thereafter, but it did occur. And it -- I 25 believe it was in the company of Mr. Vrancart and Mr.

38

1 Allen and we collectively talked about and updated the 2 Minister on what we had heard on the August 2nd meeting. 3 Q: And again, do you recall whether and, 4 pardon me, do you recall what level or degree of concern 5 or -- or imminent threat might have been conveyed as part 6 of this briefing? 7 A: Exactly as I've described here. The 8 way it was presented to us and -- and the way we 9 understood it coming away from the meeting. 10 Q: Throughout the month of August, you 11 had received additional information with respect to the 12 goings on at Camp Ipperwash and surrounding areas? 13 A: I believe sometime in August, again I 14 don't recall the exact date, but there were incidents 15 reported in the media of confrontations that occurred, I 16 believe, on the beach at Ipperwash Provincial Park 17 between, it was suggested at the time, people from -- who 18 had been occupying Camp -- Camp Ipperwash, and -- and 19 confrontations were occurring between those people and 20 campers in the Park. 21 And I believe some of that was reported in 22 the media at the time. So, we did learn about that 23 through our normal media clipping review and -- at the 24 Ministry. 25 Q: And do you recall any specific

39

1 incidents that you might tell us about? 2 A: There was -- there was one incident 3 that sticks out in my mind. It involved a car being 4 driven onto the beach at Ipperwash Provincial Park in the 5 presence of campers using the beach. 6 And I think it was suggested that the car 7 was doing donuts on the beach and acting in a -- in a 8 dangerous manner. And my memory is that someone of -- I 9 think it was a father of one (1) of the children on the 10 beach attempted to stop this from happening and was 11 perhaps injured while this was occurring. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: And I believe that was reported in 14 the media at the time. 15 Q: During the same period of time did 16 you have any occasion to either deal with or hear from 17 the local MPP, Marcel Beaubien? 18 A: I don't believe in the -- in that 19 time period, prior to the Labour Day weekend I did. I 20 certainly knew Mr. Beaubien because he was a member of 21 the Government Caucus and I would see him from time to 22 time at Queen's Park. But, I don't recall talking to him 23 about this issue in August of '95. 24 Q: And had you any direct contact with 25 any of the MNR staff that were on the ground?

40

1 A: No. I may have met Mr. Sturdy in 2 another briefing on provincial park matters. I -- I 3 remember seeing Mr. Sturdy at some point in August of 4 1995, but I don't believe it was on -- in relation to 5 this issue at all. 6 Q: Mr. Kobayashi? 7 A: No. No. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: I'd asked you earlier about an 12 incident occurring in and around the Labour Day weekend 13 at Serpent Mounds Provincial Park? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Would you tell us about your 16 involvement in that? 17 A: Well, as -- as I described earlier we 18 had been briefed on the history of Serpent Mounds and the 19 -- the fact that it was First Nations land and there was 20 a legitimate title and claim to that land by the First 21 Nation. 22 My memory is that -- my -- what I remember 23 of that weekend was on the Friday at the beginning of the 24 long weekend I was actually enroute to a cottage for the 25 weekend with my wife and I believe the Minister was

41

1 enroute to a cottage as well and we received a call from 2 our Deputy's office indicating that a demonstration was 3 occurring, or a blockade, was occurring at Serpent 4 Mounds. 5 The -- our first concern was for public 6 safety and ensuring that everyone was safe. We were told 7 that the OPP had been called and that again they were the 8 -- the lead on the ground. And we were told that public 9 safety was being addressed and campers were being turned 10 away for the weekend. 11 The -- the only matter that really was 12 discussed as far as MNR was concerned, and it was the 13 Minister's idea to -- from a public relations point of 14 view ensure that campers enroute to the park who were 15 turned away were given a -- I don't know what the term 16 was, if it was a coupon or certificate that they could 17 use at another provincial park that weekend or at another 18 time, just recognizing that, you know, people look 19 forward to their -- their weekend camping vacation as a 20 bit of a holiday and it was simply a PR thing. 21 And that was pretty much the extent of, 22 just to let the police -- when we were told the police 23 were the lead on the ground and we really had not much 24 more involvement in it than that at the beginning of the 25 weekend, nor throughout the weekend for that matter.

42

1 Q: You were aware, however, of the 2 outcome of -- of that event? 3 A: The outcome in what sense? Sorry? 4 Q: Well, maybe just tell us what did -- 5 what did -- what did happen? 6 A: Well following -- 7 Q: Whether or not that situation was 8 resolved? 9 A: Well, following -- following the 10 weekend and I -- it wasn't immediately following the 11 weekend, but sometime later that fall the Ministry 12 entered into negotiations with the local First Nation to 13 assume management of the Park on a co-management basis. 14 And at the time, I believe Minister 15 Hodgson suggested it very early in the process, and it -- 16 it actually related to not only knowing the fact that 17 they -- it was First Nations land and it was -- they had 18 clear title to the Park, that from a practical point of 19 view one of our missions at the Ministry of Natural 20 Resources was finding cost savings within the Ministry 21 and part of that exercise was finding partnerships in the 22 private sector or other partners to co-manage provincial 23 parks. 24 And because of the clear title situation 25 and the First Nations' desire to take over the Park and -

43

1 - and reclaim the Park, the co-management arrangement 2 worked and I believe to this day it is still the case. 3 Q: You mentioned that there were 4 negotiations; is that -- is that what I understood? 5 A: I believe so. There had to be some-- 6 Q: All right. I'm sorry. 7 A: There had to be some sort of 8 negotiation or agreement put in place with the First 9 Nation following that. I don't -- I was not directly 10 involved in it. 11 Q: I was just going to ask you that. 12 Thank you. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Turning then to the occupation of the 17 Ipperwash Provincial Park, when did you first become 18 aware of that, Mr. Bangs and how was that -- how did that 19 come about? 20 A: I believe it was when I was returning 21 to or shortly after arriving back in Toronto after the 22 Labour Day weekend on the Monday afternoon or Monday 23 evening, I was told -- I was notified by Peter Allen from 24 our Deputy's office that the occupation was occurring. 25 And I believe in that conversation he told

44

1 me that the Deputy was going to be notifying the 2 Minister, simultaneous to his phone call to me. The 3 information that he relayed to me was that the occupation 4 was occurring. 5 We had a discussion about public safety. 6 And at the time it was the regular routine for that 7 particular park to close down after the Labour Day 8 weekend anyway so any campers who had not already left 9 were in the process of leaving the Camp -- the Park 10 anyway. 11 And so public safety was either addressed 12 -- or public safety of campers was either addressed or 13 being addressed at that particular time. 14 And beyond that I don't believe there was 15 much more discussion. He did make the point again that 16 the OPP, as we'd been told earlier in the summer, had 17 been involved in -- in the situation, and they were 18 certainly the lead on the ground and responsible for 19 activities on the ground at that time. 20 Q: And obtaining this information, what 21 did you do with it? 22 A: I made a phone call to the Premier's 23 office -- to Ms. Hutton in the Premier's office. I don't 24 remember if we spoke or if I left her a message. But I 25 do remember making the call to give her the -- the

45

1 information. 2 Q: And why it would be necessary to 3 provide her with that information? 4 A: There was a -- a protocol between 5 offices, Ministers offices and the Premier's office and 6 also in fact between Ministries and the cabinet office 7 was a dual reporting process. 8 Protocol that if you were aware of 9 information that was breaking issue or -- or something 10 that was -- that was occurring that the Premier might be 11 asked about or might be reported in the media, it was 12 partly protocol and partly courtesy to notify colleagues 13 in -- in the Premier's office. 14 At the same time the expectation was that 15 the Ministry would, and the Deputy's office, would notify 16 the cabinet office. And so that's why that call was 17 made. 18 Q: And do you recall whether that 19 process was followed, whether protocol or courtesy with 20 respect to the Serpent Mounds incident that you just told 21 us about? 22 A: Well with the Serpent Mounds 23 incident, I did not make that call on the Friday when I 24 first learned about it. So I -- no, I did not make that 25 call.

46

1 Q: Okay. And in addition to passing 2 this information along regarding the occupation of 3 Ipperwash Provincial Park, did you discuss -- can you 4 recall, with your Minister, any strategies that might be 5 undertaken, whether communication or otherwise? 6 A: No. Not on -- not on that day. 7 Q: Were you provided any instructions 8 from your Minister to do anything as a result of having 9 this information? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Were you aware, Mr. Bangs at that 12 time that beyond the general long history the OPP had in 13 the region, or in the area, I think as you've explained 14 to us, that they had set up either in Forest or somewhere 15 near Ipperwash Provincial Park, a centre to deal with the 16 matter? 17 A: No. 18 Q: As a result of the occupation, we 19 understand that there was a further meeting of the 20 Interministerial Committee on Aboriginal Emergencies. 21 A: Yes. On -- 22 Q: Was that -- 23 A: -- on the 5th. 24 Q: On the 5th of September, 1995? 25 A: Yes.

47

1 Q: That you were invited to this meeting 2 as well? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. You did attend that 5 meeting? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And prior to attending that meeting 8 you had some interaction with your Minister, I take it? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Okay. Can you tell us about that? 11 A: It would have been by phone because 12 he had not returned to the city at that point. And it 13 wasn't -- it was quite limited only to inform him that I 14 was going to this meeting and I would be reporting to him 15 following the meeting on what the outcome of the meeting 16 was. 17 Q: Okay. Were you aware at that point, 18 Mr. Bangs, that there had been, or there would be some 19 discussion with respect of the obtaining of an 20 injunction. 21 A: Not at that point. 22 Q: You don't have any recall of that? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Tell us then about the meeting of 25 September 5th of 1995 of the Interministerial Committee.

48

1 A: It -- it was conducted much the same 2 way that the meeting on August 2nd was. It was Chaired 3 by people from ONAS. It was conducted as a round table, 4 at least at the beginning of the meeting, as an update, 5 going around the table Ministry by Ministry, getting 6 information on the table. 7 Predominantly led by, I believe, Mr. Fox, 8 representing the Solicitor General with his update being 9 the most lengthy; people from MNR, some in the room and 10 some on the speaker phone providing additional 11 information. 12 And beyond that, as far as information 13 being reported from the field, I don't know that there 14 was much more. The other Ministries in the room didn't 15 have a presence in the field or on the ground and most -- 16 that's why I say most of the information provided to the 17 meeting in the round table session, was from MNR and from 18 -- predominantly from Sol Gen and then was supplemented 19 by information from -- from MNR. 20 Q: So, they would -- they would have 21 commenced the meeting by providing again, the history, as 22 you've indicated? 23 A: I don't know -- well, I don't 24 remember if they got into the history in that meeting. 25 For me it was from memory from the previous meeting where

49

1 the history had been known to us. 2 There were new participants at this 3 particular meeting than at the previous meeting. I don't 4 remember if -- if there was much time spent on the 5 history of -- of the whole situation. 6 Q: One individual you did mention was 7 Mr. Fox. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Ron Fox. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And who did you understand he to be? 12 A: Mr. Fox was introduced at that 13 meeting, and my understanding of his role was as a 14 seconded OPP officer; seconded to the Ministry of 15 Solicitor General as an advisor to senior officials at 16 the Solicitor General's Ministry and as a liaison back to 17 police headquarters. 18 That was my understanding of his function. 19 Q: In terms of the type of information 20 that he was providing to the Committee, can you tell us 21 anything about that? 22 A: He was -- he was providing 23 information about what was -- what was happening at 24 Ipperwash. 25 Q: Do you have any detail that you --

50

1 A: No, I don't recall the exact detail 2 of what he was reporting on. 3 Q: Did you get any sense of Mr. Fox's 4 capacity beyond what it was that he had been introduced 5 as? 6 For example, did you know that -- that he 7 was in contact with somebody at the frontline? 8 A: That was not evident at that meeting 9 to me. 10 Q: The information -- in terms of that 11 information that was provided to the Committee, was it 12 then understood as to who these people in the park were 13 and what there -- what they wanted? 14 A: No, it was very unclear, was the way 15 it was presented to the meeting and that's the way I 16 remember it, that who these people were was very unclear. 17 There was an apparent lack of a spokesperson on behalf of 18 this group and no articulated demands as to what it was 19 that they -- that they wanted. 20 That was very unclear at that time, that's 21 my memory of it. 22 Q: All right. And as a result of the 23 occupation, I take it that there would have been some 24 discussion about how to end it, in terms of first of all 25 providing -- providing notice to, you know, to vacate?

51

1 A: There was -- 2 Q: Do you recall that? 3 A: There was some discussion about that. 4 Q: All right. Can you recall any 5 details about that discussion at this moment? 6 A: I don't recall many details other 7 than there -- there was a discussion about the -- an 8 injunction, the possibility of an injunction at some 9 point. 10 And there was a discussion about the OPP 11 enlisting the involving of Mr. Kobayashi on the ground, 12 because of his knowledge of the Park, being the 13 superintendent. 14 Q: Okay. And Mr. Kobayashi would be 15 enlisted to do what? 16 A: I don't know all the details of what 17 he was being asked to do. I'm not aware of that. 18 Q: Do you recall whether or not there 19 was any concern registered by anybody with respect to 20 this potential enlisting of Mr. Kobayashi? 21 A: I and the other people from MNR, I 22 don't know that we -- we voiced it directly in that 23 meeting, but we certainly to our Deputy and our Minister 24 about the fact that Les was going to be asked to so 25 certain things and we shared a -- a common concern for

52

1 his safety. 2 And I remember having a discussion about 3 only -- only if Les agreed to do this. And if he agreed 4 to cooperate with the OPP and do this, it was up to him. 5 It wasn't up to us as to whether -- it was what -- what 6 he felt comfortable with. 7 Q: All right. And the concern for his 8 safety, that you and others from the Ministry, that came 9 about why? 10 A: Because of the -- the incidents that 11 were occurring in association with the occupation and the 12 way it was being reported to us. 13 Q: And again, I'll ask you if you can 14 recall any of the details of the incidents that were -- 15 that were -- had occurred? 16 A: At that point it was -- it was 17 presented to us as an occupation with a leaderless group 18 with lots of threats and -- and suggestions and rumours 19 that this may spread. 20 And it was a very uncertain situation, but 21 the uncertainty caused us to be concerned for an employee 22 of the Ministry of Natural Resources having any role at 23 all in it. 24 Q: Okay. I want to ask you a bit about 25 Debra Hutton -- you -- or Debbie Hutton. You know who

53

1 she is? 2 A: Yes, I do. 3 Q: And you knew her at that time having 4 dealt with her on numerous previous occasions? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. It's been reported and -- 7 and we have documentation where she is reported to use 8 the word, 'hawkish' in relation the Premier's feelings 9 with respect to the situation. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Can you describe for us what your 12 under -- well, first of all did you hear that? 13 A: Yes, I did. 14 Q: And having heard that do you have -- 15 can you tell us what your sense was about the use of that 16 word and the context? 17 A: My -- what I thought she meant when 18 she said it was that she was expressing the view that the 19 Premier was cautious and wanting the group and -- and the 20 Government to respond carefully to this because it was 21 one (1) of the first encounters the new Government was 22 having with a First Nations issue. 23 And that there was -- for that reason we 24 needed to think through very carefully what options were 25 going to be developed; that's the way I interpreted it.

54

1 Q: All right. Now, the suggestion 2 perhaps may be made to you, Mr. Bangs, that the word 3 'hawkish' perhaps describes aggressive tendencies or 4 behaviours? 5 Does that -- does that fit with your 6 recollection of anybody's attitude in that meeting? 7 A: The -- Ms. Hutton, for those who did 8 not know her, may have interpreted the way she spoke 9 somewhat differently than I would have having known her 10 from previous encounters. She was a very results 11 oriented person and was driving the meeting towards the 12 development of options that she could take back to report 13 to the Premier on. 14 And I didn't read much more into her 15 comments than what I've just said, that it was to -- to 16 be careful and cautious about how we proceeded. 17 Q: Beyond her use of that word do -- do 18 you recall whether or not she had made any queries of the 19 Committee as to what position or actions the Premier 20 ought to take? 21 A: I don't recall that. 22 Q: Do you recall her saying that: 23 "The Premier wanted the fucking Indians 24 out of the Park and to use guns if you 25 have to."

55

1 A: No. 2 Q: Is that something you might recall if 3 it were used? 4 A: If that were said I would think I 5 would remember it. 6 Q: All right. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: I understand that there was some 11 reference made by Ms. Hutton to the Serpent Mounds matter 12 that you had described for us earlier? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And what was the context of that and 15 what do you recall of her commenting on that? 16 A: I believe she asked why this 17 particular Committee had not met on the matter of Serpent 18 Mounds and why this forum had not been convened. 19 Q: You've mentioned earlier that you did 20 not as -- as you did with respect to the Ipperwash matter 21 place a -- a protocol or a courtesy phone call to -- to 22 her, or to the Premier's office? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And was that raised with you? 25 A: She, outside this meeting, did

56

1 suggest to me that it would have been proper protocol to 2 have informed the Premier's office about what was 3 happening at Serpent Mounds. 4 Q: Okay. Given the context that you 5 described for us and the -- the use of the word that the 6 Premier was 'hawkish' on this matter, I understand that 7 you would have raised a counterpoint to that? 8 A: Shortly after she made the comment, I 9 raised the point that I thought we had to mindful of the 10 statement of political relationship which was still in 11 existence and on the books. 12 Even though it was signed by the previous 13 government with First Nations, it was still an existing 14 live document and I thought we needed to be mindful of it 15 and perhaps follow some of the elements of it. 16 Q: All right. And some of the elements 17 of it, what do you -- what do you mean by that, Mr. 18 Bangs? 19 A: I was describing earlier my general 20 knowledge of it to indicate that the Province, when 21 dealing with First nations issues and matters that 22 affected First Nations had an obligation and a commitment 23 with First Nations to engage them in discussion and 24 dialogue and consultation on those matters. 25 Q: Now, I'll take you to a document in a

57

1 moment that outlines the context of this discussion. We 2 had a chance to review that earlier. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: How was that point that you had 5 raised taken? 6 A: I don't recall that it was -- we -- 7 we began talking about other things. My comment was 8 noted and we moved on. 9 Q: So, in terms of the suggestion, and I 10 take it from your earlier response, is that you were 11 suggesting that there ought to be some dialogue or 12 negotiations occurring? 13 A: Yes. I thought that was the 14 appropriate way to try to proceed. Despite the 15 challenges with the lack of an identified spokesperson 16 for the group, I thought some action or some effort 17 should be made to establish some dialogue. 18 And do you recall whether, specifically, 19 anybody within the Committee rejected that suggestion 20 that there ought to be negotiations? 21 A: No. 22 Q: We've heard something about the -- 23 the potential for Mohawk warriors to also show up. Do 24 you recall anything like that arising in that meeting? 25 A: I remember that suggestion being

58

1 made. I don't recall who -- who mentioned it. I believe 2 it was part of the round-the-table discussion of who 3 knows what of potential consequence for circumstances on 4 the ground. And that I do remember the comment being 5 made, but I don't know by who. 6 Q: I'd asked you earlier about the 7 prospect of an injunction being sought -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Do you recall that discussion and 10 would you tell us about that? 11 A: I do remember the discussion. Not 12 being a lawyer, I did not engage in the discussion. And 13 it was my memory of that part of the discussion was that 14 it was put on the table as a possible tool that the OPP 15 might use if they were to present something to the 16 occupiers. 17 But again, not being a lawyer, the nuances 18 of it were somewhat lost on me. 19 Q: You did understand, however, that the 20 MNR would have some role in this, did you? 21 A: I understood that the MNR field 22 staff, Les Kobayashi being one of the most active, would 23 play a role in contributing evidence and evidentiary 24 material to the Attorney General's office in drafting the 25 request for an injunction in support of the OPP.

59

1 Q: Okay. There was some discussion as 2 well, Mr. Bangs, about the time lines surrounding the 3 obtaining of an injunction and so forth. 4 Do you recall that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And what can you tell us about that? 7 A: That there was considerable 8 discussion about just the length of time it takes to get 9 before a Judge. And I believe it was suggested by someone 10 from the Attorney General's office that it could be later 11 that week, or possibly even the following week before, 12 through the normal course of things, they could actually 13 get in front of a Judge and -- and present their 14 material. 15 Q: Okay. Did that timeline present any 16 concern for you at all? 17 A: Not for me, no. 18 Q: Anybody else? 19 A: There was discussion in the room 20 about trying to find quicker -- a quicker process to 21 proceed to obtaining an injunction. 22 Q: And do you -- 23 A: The injunction -- 24 Q: -- recall -- I'm sorry? 25 A: The injunction, was what I was just

60

1 saying. 2 Q: And do you recall who was leading 3 that discussion to find a quicker way? 4 A: I believe Ms. Hutton was asking 5 questions in the development of options as to what -- 6 whether the timeline indicated by the Attorney General 7 staff was the only timeline that might be pursued. 8 Q: And toward that end do you recall 9 her, again speaking on behalf of the Premier, words to 10 the effect that, you know, Let's get this done in a day 11 or two (2), we're not going to wait? 12 A: No, I don't remember that. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: I'll ask you to turn to Tab Number 9, 17 Mr. Bangs, of the book of documents in front of you; 18 those are handwritten notes of Eileen Hipfner. First of 19 all, do you know Eileen Hipfner? 20 A: No. 21 Q: All right. And they're marked as 22 Exhibit P-510 in this matter and you'll see on the very 23 first page that there's a date at the top, the 5th day of 24 the 9th month 1995, Aboriginal Emergencies Committee 25 meeting.

61

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: You've had an opportunity to review 3 these? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And does it accord first of all with 6 your recollection of -- generally, of the discussion that 7 occurred at that meeting? 8 A: Generally -- generally, yes. 9 Q: And if I can take you to page 4 of 10 that document. And right at the -- at the top there's 11 comments that evidently are attributed to you. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. 14 "We can afford to wait." 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: "If get injunction we'll be expected 17 to move in. Don't want to escalate 18 situation." 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Does that reflect the -- the position 21 that you had taken -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- and advocated at that meeting? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: All right. Did anybody share that

62

1 view with you? 2 A: I believe that the people from the 3 Attorney General's office certainly did. 4 Q: All right. What about the field 5 staff in MNR that were participating on the telephone? 6 A: I don't know that they disagreed. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: You had mentioned earlier that Mr. 11 Fox had a -- a role to play within the meeting? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Do you know what position Mr. Fox had 14 taken with respect to the issue of -- of the timelines 15 that were being discussed? 16 A: I believe he was advocating that 17 there needn't be any haste. So, consistent with what 18 I've indicated here in the notes. 19 Q: And as a result of those two (2) 20 positions, that is that there was no need for haste and - 21 - and I'm assuming on the other side of that, there was 22 some degree of wanting to get things done a little 23 quicker I think is the way you put it. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And as a result of those two (2)

63

1 positions, did you get a sense that there was any 2 conflict in the room beyond that, or -- or a level of; 3 perhaps I can ask you that? 4 A: My interpretation of what was 5 happening was that there was a discussion about options 6 and getting all of the options on the table from one end 7 of the spectrum to the other. 8 There was a discussion about trying to 9 move the process along quicker and there was a discussion 10 about -- that the fact that it would perhaps take longer. 11 And I remember the discussion occurring. 12 Q: Do you know what the outcome of that 13 discussion was as -- again, just in relation to those two 14 (2) positions respecting timelines? 15 A: No. I don't know that there was an 16 outcome that we both discussed at the meeting. But, I 17 don't know that there was an outcome at that meeting. 18 Q: All right. And you came away from 19 that meeting, I take it -- well, maybe just ask what was 20 your impression then when you came away from the meeting? 21 A: The -- the main issue that affected 22 me coming out of that meeting was the notion that my 23 Minister was being asked or directed to be the main 24 spokesperson on this matter. 25 Q: And who provided that direction?

64

1 A: That came from the Premier's office 2 from Deb Hutton. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: And I had initially indicated, even 5 prior to speaking with my Minister, that I didn't think 6 it was appropriate for the Minister of Natural Resources 7 to be the lead spokesperson on this matter. 8 Again, because of the history over the 9 course of the summer we were repeatedly told that it was 10 an OPP matter. The OPP were the lead. And then in the - 11 - once something has occurred we're being told that the 12 Ministry of Natural Resources is to be the lead 13 spokesperson. 14 I did not agree with that and expressed 15 that. And -- and subsequent to that, confirmed that my 16 Minister felt the same way. 17 Q: As a result of receiving these 18 directions from the Premier's office, what did you do? 19 A: Returned to the Ministry and notified 20 my Minister that this discussion had occurred and that 21 this was the role he was being asked to play. He did not 22 agree, but having been given the direction he then -- he 23 carried it out, but was not -- certainly not entirely 24 comfortable in doing so. 25 Q: And what was the responsibility of

65

1 the Ministry as a result of receiving these directions 2 insofar as preparing your -- your Minister to take and -- 3 and to discharge these directions that had been provided 4 now? 5 A: The Ministry in consultation with 6 ONAS, the Attorney General's office, the Ministry of the 7 Solicitor General, but the Ministry of Natural Resources 8 being the lead crafted a series of messages -- a 9 suggested message note for the Minister that came through 10 the Deputy's office and was provided to the Minister, 11 that he then used at a media availability later that day. 12 And he did as instructed. 13 Q: And if I could just ask you to look 14 at Tab Number 11, it's Inquiry Number 3000806? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: It's a Minister's note from Ron 17 Vrancart. You've identified him as being the Deputy 18 Minister? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And it concerns the occupation of the 21 Park. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Suggested responses. Is this the 24 document that you're referring to? 25 A: Yes.

66

1 Q: All right. Now, I'm not sure, Mr. 2 Commissioner, if this has been made an exhibit yet and... 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: What's it's number 4 again? 5 MR. DONALD WORME: 3000806. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 7 if I -- 8 MR. DONALD WORME: I don't -- I don't 9 believe it has been. The trouble obviously is that some 10 of these documents appear within portions of others, 11 bearing a different Inquiry document number. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 918. P-918. 13 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 18 Q: The role that you would have played, 19 Mr. Bangs, in developing this Minister's note, can you -- 20 can you tell us what that might have been? 21 A: I was the recipient of the note 22 having been vetted by the -- the Deputy's office and 23 signed off by Deputy Vrancart and I did not object. I 24 don't know that I had a -- much of a role from an 25 editorial point of view, but certainly didn't object to

67

1 the note that was being presented to us. It was 2 consistent with what had been discussed and the 3 information that we were working with at that time. 4 Q: Going back to the meeting do you 5 recall there being discussion with respect to the 6 possibility of a burial site being within the Park 7 boundaries? 8 A: I believe it did come up at the 9 September 5th meeting. Again it was not anything that 10 was presented as a definite. 11 It was asked around the table what 12 different Ministries in the Province knew about the -- 13 the possible existence of a burial site and no one was 14 able to provide evidence or any indication even that that 15 might, in fact, be true. 16 And again it was presented to us as the 17 result of rumours and speculation in the community as to 18 why this occupation might be occurring. And with -- in 19 the absence of an identified spokesperson for the group 20 the OPP had no one to confirm whether or not that was the 21 reason or one (1) of the reasons why this action was 22 occurring. That's the way it was presented to us and the 23 way I remember it. 24 Q: All right. Do you know whether that 25 information was -- was supported or not supported by

68

1 anybody within the community? 2 A: I remember as part of the information 3 presented at -- I believe it was on the -- at the 4 September 5th meeting, and I don't know if it was from 5 MNR staff or Sol Gen staff, but the comment was made that 6 Chief Bressette had indicated publicly that the occupiers 7 were not speaking on behalf of their community. And I 8 don't know -- I can't say that he discounted the comments 9 that were -- that were being attributed to them. I can't 10 say that. 11 But, I do know that -- I do remember quite 12 vividly that Chief Bressette made the point that these 13 people were not speaking on behalf of, or with authority 14 of their community. That's -- that was presented to us 15 in one (1) of these meetings. It's certainly one (1) of 16 the things I remember. 17 Q: All right. And after -- after 18 leaving the Committee meeting you told us that your -- 19 your next step was to brief your Minister? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Yeah. And inform him that he would 22 now be taking the lead on communications? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And his response to that was, I think 25 you said he shared your -- your view?

69

1 A: Yes, and -- and the view of the 2 Deputy. The Deputy and I shared the concern that it was 3 not appropriate for the Minister of Natural Resources to 4 be the lead spokesperson on a matter. 5 It just happened to be taking place in a 6 Provincial Park, but it had much broader consequences, 7 potentially. 8 Q: And further to the briefing that you 9 provided your Minister and the document that was prepared 10 through the Deputy Minister's office, what happened? 11 A: Later that day, there was a media 12 availability that occurred that was not planned by us, 13 but it occurred in the lobby of the Minister's office. 14 Our receptionist notified us that there 15 were several reporters assembling in our lobby. And the 16 Minister then went out and basically stuck to the script 17 but did encounter the media and did speak to the media 18 about the matter. 19 Q: Okay. Do you recall whether or not 20 this -- these documents for such notes to be provided to 21 the Premier's office in the same fashion as you'd 22 indicated earlier when matters would come up, you would 23 inform the office as a matter of protocol? 24 A: The..? 25 Q: The speaking notes. The Minister's--

70

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- notes? 3 A: Yes. They would have been provided 4 both to cabinet office and to the Premier's office. 5 Q: If I can direct you to Tab number 18. 6 There's a series of documents in there. It's marked as 7 P-732. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: The initial fax cover page is -- 10 would appear to come from you to Shelly Spiegel? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay. And you've had a chance to 13 look at these before coming here today, Mr. Bangs? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Do you recognize those documents as 16 being documents you had circulated? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And included in there, there's -- the 19 second portion is a transcript of Minister Hodgson's news 20 conference of that day? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Together with two (2) OPP news 23 releases dated September the 6th? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And the letter of notification to MNR

71

1 field staff? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Okay. Just with respect to the media 4 availability session, that's -- that's a press 5 conference, isn't it? 6 A: I would not describe it as a proper 7 press conference. A press conference in my mind is 8 something that is deliberately arranged with a podium and 9 a microphone and it is -- it's hosted by you. 10 This was not that situation. The media 11 came to our office. 12 Q: All right. It's more of a -- what -- 13 what's been described, perhaps by some, as a scrum? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: Yes, that's a good way to 17 characterise it? 18 Q: And were you -- were you a 19 participant in that? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Given what you've indicated about the 22 position that you and others within the Ministry had 23 taken, respecting the Minister's now taking a lead role 24 in communications, I understand that you had some 25 conversations with Ms. Hutton of the Premier's office on

72

1 -- around that? 2 A: During this period of time, yes, I 3 did speak with Ms. Hutton and repeatedly expressed our 4 view that it was not appropriate for our Minister to be 5 the lead spokesperson. 6 Q: And how was that view met? 7 A: We were told -- I was told that, for 8 the time being, he was going to be the lead spokesperson. 9 Q: All right. I want to turn nextly to 10 the Committee meeting of September the 6th. 11 Perhaps, just before we leave that, is 12 there any further to your recollection, Mr. Bangs, that 13 you can tell us about -- about September the 5th? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Okay. And we understand that there 16 was a Committee meeting that commenced the first thing in 17 the morning, well, perhaps not the first thing but 18 certainly early in the morning of September the 6th? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And you had been invited to that as 21 you had attended the previous meeting? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And what can you tell us about -- 24 about that -- that meeting? 25 A: In terms of format, it was very

73

1 similar to the one the preceding day. It was an around 2 the table reporting of what people had heard the 3 preceding day and over night. 4 I would describe the meeting as being of a 5 higher level of concern and -- and a bit more charged 6 environment because of the information that was being 7 reported. 8 There were reports being received from Sol 9 Gen and from MNR field staff; suggestions that there had 10 been vandalism, I believe, the suggestion that a -- a 11 building had been burnt. And then this is also the 12 occasion where the issue of gunfire was raised. 13 So at that, hearing the collection of 14 those reports started off the meeting in a much higher 15 level of concern that -- than we'd had the previous day. 16 It seemed to be an escalating situation. 17 Q: Now each of those items you've just 18 mentioned, can you attribute those to any particular 19 speaker? 20 A: The -- the only one that I can 21 specifically attribute from memory is the gunfire 22 suggestion coming from MNR field staff, who I believe to 23 have been Peter Sturdy, reporting over the phone. He was 24 not in the room. 25 Q: Was there any response and reaction

74

1 to that report of gunfire or anybody within the meeting 2 that you can recall? 3 A: Mr. Fox immediately stopped -- he 4 didn't stop the meeting, but he immediately interjected 5 and indicated that he was not aware of that and that he 6 would have to make efforts to confirm whether or not the 7 OPP had heard that as well. 8 Q: All right. Did you get any 9 impression as to -- as to this -- this -- the difference 10 in the information that was coming forward? And here we 11 have Mr. Fox who evidently was connected to the OPP -- 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: -- in some fashion as you -- I think 14 as you told us. 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: All right. 17 A: The -- at that point in the meeting I 18 thought it was actually appropriate and helpful to the 19 meeting that he did it -- that he in fact interjected, 20 because if -- it was important that the meeting 21 participants knew whether or not that was, in fact, true. 22 And he did I think properly interject and 23 indicate that he had to confirm that information and we 24 should not necessarily believe it to be true. And I 25 thought that was appropriate at that point in the

75

1 meeting. 2 Q: I should perhaps just ask you, the 3 other information that came forward was the vandalism you 4 described? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Can you -- can you recall any further 7 detail beyond the generic wording? 8 A: I believe there was discussion about 9 a building being burnt, but beyond that I don't know. 10 Q: And the building that was burnt, how 11 -- how was that described? What building was it? 12 A: I don't know. I don't remember which 13 building. There are a number of buildings in the Park 14 and I don't recall which one was being referred to. 15 Q: And just so I'm clear, you don't 16 recall who specifically would have been providing that 17 information? 18 A: I believed it to be Peter Sturdy by 19 phone. But Inspector Fox -- Mr. Fox also made reference 20 to some of the events overnight. And I'm not certain 21 which was attributed to which speaker. 22 Q: Might it be a report of burning 23 picnic tables as opposed to a building, Mr. Bangs? 24 A: Possibly. I remember it as a -- as a 25 building but --

76

1 Q: All right. You've used the words "a 2 bit more charged" in describing or characterizing this 3 meeting from the day previous. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: I'd asked you earlier whether you had 6 a sense of any kind of tension in the -- in the meeting 7 from the day previous. What would you say about this 8 meeting in that respect. 9 A: Now I wouldn't describe it as been 10 tense. I would describe it as the collective group 11 having a higher -- a heightened level of concern and 12 again predominately because of the kind of information 13 that we were hearing was occurring on the ground. 14 Q: Perhaps before I move further into 15 the substance of that meeting, do you recall whether 16 there was any meetings that you would have attended prior 17 to this Committee meeting? 18 A: I don't believe so. 19 Q: You had indicated to us that you had 20 some ongoing discussions with Ms. Hutton regarding the 21 view that you and others within the Ministry shared about 22 who ought to be carrying the lead on this. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Did that continue on that day? 25 A: Yes. It was raised in that -- in

77

1 that meeting that day and I did make the point again at 2 that meeting. 3 Q: If I could refer you to Tab Number 4 15, Mr. Bangs. These are again notes -- handwritten 5 notes of Eileen Hipfner dated the 6th day of September 6 1995. They're marked as Exhibit P-636. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: You've had a chance to review these 9 before coming here? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And on page 3 of those notes, there 12 are comments there that are evidently attributed to you 13 as well? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: All right. Perhaps I can just read 16 those. It says: 17 "Bangs: Went to M..." 18 Well, maybe I can't read them. 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: "And plan developed at the table. He 21 spoke to eight (8) to ten (10) 22 [something]" 23 But I'm really interested in the third 24 line where it -- where it indicates the way things are 25 escalating:

78

1 "M [which I'm assuming to be the 2 Minister] doesn't want to carry this 3 especially in threat to nearby lands." 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: All right. And at the bottom of the 6 page, there's some comments that this is spiralling out 7 of MNR's hands. 8 A: Where do you see that, sorry? 9 Q: Just at the -- just before the -- 10 A: The bottom of the reference to me? 11 Q: Of that reference, I'm sorry. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: That's right. Four (4) lines down. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. And do you recall making those 16 comments? Is that properly attributed to you? 17 A: I believe so, yes. 18 Q: And that's consistent with what 19 you've just told us? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: All right. And in relaying this both 22 to the meeting as well as you've told us, to Ms. Hutton, 23 what was the reaction that you were met with? 24 A: That for the time being we would 25 continue to be the spokesperson.

79

1 Q: Beyond the indication that your 2 Minister would continue to be the lead on this, did Ms. 3 Hutton give you any other indications or impressions of - 4 - of how this matter was being viewed? 5 A: Me directly? 6 Q: Yeah. 7 A: No. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: I want to move nextly to your 12 understanding, Mr. Bangs, -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you think 14 this would be a good point to take a morning break? It's 15 up to you? 16 MR. DONALD WORME: Absolutely -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this a 18 good point? 19 MR. DONALD WORME: -- Commissioner. 20 Certainly. 21 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 22 for fifteen (15) minutes. 23 24 --- Upon recessing at 10:25 a.m. 25 --- Upon resuming at 10:46 a.m.

80

1 2 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 3 resumed. Please be seated. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 5 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you, 6 Commissioner. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 9 Q: Mr. Bangs, we were talking about the 10 meeting of September the 6th, 1995, the Interministerial 11 Committee Meeting that you were in attendance at? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: I wanted to ask you about your -- 14 first of all with respect to your understanding of any 15 line as between government or politicians and police and 16 police operations. 17 A: It was something that I was 18 knowledgeable -- knowledgeable about before attending at 19 these meetings and it was also something that was spoken 20 to in the -- the course of these meetings. 21 Q: In terms of being knowledgeable about 22 -- about that what can you tell us about -- about that 23 beyond that? 24 A: That there is a very definite line 25 between the political arm of government and the police,

81

1 whether it's Provincial or at the Federal level, the 2 RCMP, and that that line is not to be crossed by 3 politicians directing the activities -- the operational 4 activities -- of the police regardless of the force. 5 Q: And when you say you were aware of 6 this; before your duties in government, how did you 7 become aware of that? 8 A: Common knowledge. I mean we learn 9 about it in school and I certainly learned about it in 10 university and -- as part of public administration. It's 11 -- I don't know exactly when I would have first learned 12 about it, but it was certainly something that I was 13 knowledgeable about. 14 Q: You've indicated a flurry of 15 briefings when you first came in as the Executive 16 Assistant to Minister Hodgson. Can you recall whether or 17 not that was part of a briefing? 18 A: Not specifically to police forces, 19 but there was an element of it within the Ministry of 20 Natural Resources in terms of the Minister's relationship 21 and responsibility with conservation officers of the 22 Province who are in some ways regarded as law enforcement 23 officers -- who certainly are law enforcement officers. 24 And a very similar relationship exists 25 between the Minister of Natural Resources and the

82

1 conservation officers in the province. There's a line 2 and it should -- should not be cross -- shall not be 3 crossed. 4 Q: Given the discussions of the meeting 5 of the 6th, or the days previous, did you get any sense 6 that -- that -- that this was not understood by anybody? 7 A: I believed it to be understood, but I 8 certainly understood it myself. 9 Q: All right. And was there anything 10 that you observed or heard that gave you an impression 11 that it wasn't understood by anyone in the meeting? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Do you recall whether or not anybody 14 in the meeting spoke up to reinforce this issue or... 15 A: On September 6th? 16 Q: Or -- or the day previous? 17 A: I know that it was addressed in one 18 (1) or both of those meetings, but I -- I don't recall by 19 whom. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: In terms of the injunction that was 24 discussed that would be sought -- 25 A: Yes?

83

1 Q: -- I think you said to provide a 2 further tool for -- for the police service? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. What role did you 5 understand your Ministry to have in obtaining that 6 injunction if any? 7 A: My understanding at the time was that 8 the field staff of MNR, predominantly Mr. Kobayashi, 9 would be providing evidentiary material to the OPP and to 10 -- well, predominantly I suppose to the Attorney 11 General's staff who were drafting the motion for the 12 injunction. 13 Q: And that was the extent of the 14 involvement? 15 A: I believe so. That's my -- my memory 16 of it. 17 Q: But the MNR would certainly be -- be 18 a party to the injunction? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: All right. You'd indicated that 21 there were reports of -- of vandalism and -- and such; 22 guns or gunfire I think? 23 A: That was reported at the meeting, 24 yes. 25 Q: All right. Do you recall any

84

1 suggestion of the use of baseball bats or people using 2 baseball bats, vandalism of a vehicle? Do you recall 3 anything like that at all, sir? 4 A: Not specifically. I do remember a 5 discussion about vandalism and a fire as I -- as I 6 described earlier, but as far as the details I don't 7 remember. 8 Q: You had expressed, I think you've 9 told us, the reluctance on the part of the Ministry to be 10 lead on this. I -- I take it that that would have 11 continued? 12 A: Yes. It did continue at the 13 September 6th meeting. 14 Q: If I can take you to Tab Number 15 15 being the notes of Eileen Hipfner. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And marked as Exhibit P-636. At page 18 7 of those notes, Mr. Bangs -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- you'll see in the middle of the 21 page there is again a comment that is attributed to you. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: It reads: 24 "MNR may withdraw its staff from area. 25 Not have them participate any longer."

85

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And that's consistent with what 3 you've told us was the position you and others had taken 4 at that meeting in previous -- 5 A: Yes. We had -- both the Minister and 6 I had discussed with the Deputy and the deputy's EA a 7 concern for MNR field staff. And we were having 8 discussions about the possibility of withdrawing staff 9 from that area and reassigning them elsewhere until 10 matters -- or circumstances had changed. 11 Q: Okay. And part of that suggestion 12 about withdrawing field staff was the growing sense of -- 13 of concern you -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- relayed to us -- related to us 16 earlier? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. In terms of some of that 19 information, particularly the gunfire and the response 20 that Mr. Fox evidently was obliged to provide, did you 21 get a sense or did you have any impression about the 22 propriety of that information coming forward to the 23 meeting; the gunfire specifically? 24 A: I don't understand. 25 Q: I -- I'm sorry.

86

1 A: The appropriateness? 2 Q: Yeah. I -- I realize you -- and 3 recognize that you've told us earlier that you felt that 4 that kind of information was, I believe you use -- used 5 the word helpful. 6 A: Hearing the report from around the 7 table from the various ministries at these meetings was 8 helpful. The information reported about gunfire, I think 9 was -- it was important, I indicated this earlier, that 10 it -- that Mr. Fox interjected and said that he would 11 have to confirm. 12 He was not aware of it and he would have 13 to confirm whether or not that had occurred. And he 14 cautioned that he did not know whether or not it was true 15 and he would have to check it out. 16 Q: All right. 17 A: As far as the appropriateness it was 18 -- it's factually -- it was a fact or a -- it's fact that 19 it was presented in that meeting. I don't know that the 20 information was factual. 21 Q: Thank you for that. As an executive 22 assistant, you told us earlier something about the -- the 23 line of reporting and the chains of command -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- as far as the civil service was

87

1 concerned. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: I take it you would have had no role 4 in constraining or otherwise commenting on that kind of 5 information being brought forward by a civil servant? 6 A: No. In fact to that point -- and I 7 would -- I would suggest that in both those meetings, 8 the flow of information was very open. And it was 9 complimentary to one another the information that was 10 presented by the Solicitor General's representative, Mr. 11 Fox and the information that was reported by MNR field 12 staff. 13 In some cases it confirmed what 14 information that Mr. Fox was already presenting. The 15 only time I remember there being an inconsistency or a 16 discrepancy in the information was when the issue of 17 gunfire occurred and Mr. Fox interjected and said he 18 would have to confirm whether or not that was in fact 19 true. 20 But for the most part the process of 21 getting all of the information on the table seemed to 22 work quite well. 23 Q: All right. I want to ask you nextly 24 about coming away from that meeting, but before I do I 25 just want to take you back to the tab -- to the document

88

1 at Tab 15. And at page 8, I just want to finish this 2 with you, there's further comments there that are 3 attributed to you. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Do you see those? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: "Municipalities L's [which I'm 8 assuming are lawyers] are actively 9 preparing injunction." 10 It goes on to speak about a tender issue: 11 "Disqualified Native tender based on 12 opinion from L that tender was not a 13 complete document." 14 Do you see all that? 15 A: I see that. 16 Q: And do you recall speaking to those 17 matters? 18 A: I recall this material being 19 presented at the meeting. I believe I spoke to the issue 20 of a -- knowing. I was aware that the municipalities 21 were talking about preparing an injunction. 22 This other material though to me appears 23 to have present -- been presented by someone like Peter 24 Allen for example or someone else from MNR that may have 25 -- I don't believe I got into the level of detail and

89

1 certainly don't recall things like talking about PST. 2 I do not -- I don't know what that 3 reference is -- is referring to. 4 Q: All right. Do you recall there being 5 any further discussions, Mr. Bangs, at the meeting of 6 September the 6th before you had left? 7 A: At the end of the meeting there was 8 some discussion by Ms. Hutton about the -- the way these 9 meetings had been proceeding. I think she was expressing 10 some frustration and it was indicated that these meetings 11 would not be occurring in that fashion any longer. 12 Q: Okay. And do you know specifically 13 what it was that she was referring to? 14 A: I don't know specifically. 15 Q: Either in terms of the frustration 16 or...? 17 A: I don't know. I don't know 18 specifically what it was that she was referring to. I 19 just know that it was made known that these meetings 20 would not occur in that fashion any longer. 21 Q: All right. Did you hear any words to 22 the effect from anybody at the meeting that this meeting 23 was a waste of time? 24 A: No. 25

90

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: During the course of that meeting, do 4 you have any recollection of Ms. Hutton either leaving 5 the meeting and returning and reporting that she had 6 either left to speak to the Premier or had just spoken 7 with? 8 A: No. 9 Q: And once the meeting was over, do you 10 recall whether all of the political staff had left 11 together? 12 A: I didn't leave with the political -- 13 my political colleagues. I left with the staff from MNR 14 and went back to -- to my Ministry or was enroute. I did 15 not leave with the other political staff. 16 Q: And having returned back to your 17 ministry, what -- what were the, I think you used the 18 expression take-aways, that you came out of that meeting 19 with? 20 A: The main thing again affecting us and 21 despite my objections, was that our Minister was, for the 22 time being, to continue being the spokesperson on behalf 23 of the Government on the issue. 24 Q: I'd asked you earlier about a comment 25 that we've heard something about and that was attributed

91

1 to, well, I won't say whom, but did you hear the 2 expression on that day to the effect of: 3 "Get the fucking Indians out of the 4 Park and use guns if you have to." 5 A: No. 6 Q: Following this meeting, I understand 7 that you attended at -- at a further meeting? 8 A: Following...? 9 Q: The -- the Interministerial Committee 10 meeting? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Tell us about that if you would, 13 please. Who were you with and -- 14 A: That day I remember leaving the 15 Interministerial -- the Interministerial Committee 16 meeting and going to the Solicitor General's office for a 17 meeting. 18 And I believe it was, as I indicated -- it 19 was indicated in that meeting, in the previous meeting, 20 the Interministerial meeting, that these meetings were 21 not going to happen in that fashion any longer and a new 22 form would be created. 23 I believe I was notified, I don't recall 24 by whom, to attend at the Solicitor General's office in 25 Bloor Street very quickly after the Interministerial

92

1 meeting and I recall going there with Minister Hodgson 2 and Deputy Vrancart. 3 What occurred when we got there, it became 4 apparent that -- I don't -- and I don't know exactly the 5 sequence of events, but it's as if there was an attempt 6 to have a meeting started, but because there was a 7 Cabinet meeting happening at the same time and Ministers 8 weren't necessarily available, the meeting that was -- 9 we'd been called to didn't actually occur as a proper 10 meeting. 11 But, I do recall going to the Solicitor 12 General's office on Bloor Street that morning. 13 Q: And who do you recall -- 14 A: Later -- 15 Q: -- being -- 16 A: -- later that morning around 17 lunchtime. 18 Q: Thank you. Who do you recall being 19 there when -- when you arrived together with deputy 20 Vrancart and Minister Hodgson? 21 A: Well, when we got there it was a very 22 busy place, a beehive of activity if you will, within the 23 Solicitor General's and deputy Solicitor General's area. 24 Mr. Fox was there. I remember him being 25 there. And I believe Mr. Patrick was there.

93

1 Q: That would be Mr. Fox's assistant, 2 Scott Patrick? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: What about other Ministers? 5 A: I don't believe that there were other 6 Ministers in attendance. As I say, I believe it was a 7 meeting that attempted -- it was an attempt to have a 8 meeting occur, and because of the location of other 9 Ministers and the fact that there was a Cabinet meeting 10 on, some Ministers chose to go to that meeting and I 11 don't -- I don't remember another Minister being there 12 when we arrived? 13 Q: Do you recall whether there was any 14 discussion? You've certainly told us that there was an 15 attempt to have a meeting. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Was there in fact any -- anything of 18 substance or any discussions that you can recall? 19 A: I remember a discussion that day 20 about the -- we sort of walked in to the middle of an 21 ongoing discussion at the Solicitor General's office and 22 there was a discussion happening about the -- the idea of 23 an injunction and more importantly, what would happen if 24 an injunction were obtained, how would it be served. 25 Q: Okay. Anything further you can tell

94

1 us about that; what would happen if an injunction were in 2 fact obtained? 3 A: Because of the -- the difficulty to 4 that point in the OPP identifying a spokesperson for the 5 group. And I believe there had been an earlier attempt 6 perhaps when Mr. Kobayashi in cooperation with the OPP to 7 have some sort of a dialogue and it did not occur was my 8 understanding. 9 There was a sense that an alternate means 10 of delivering an injunction if obtained would have to be 11 found. And we had a discussion -- I remember there being 12 a discussion about the possibility of dropping it from 13 the air. 14 Q: And what was the discussion about the 15 possibility of dropping an injunction from the air? 16 A: I remember Minister Hodgson asking a 17 question at that point about the size that these 18 documents would be. And the response I believe from Mr. 19 Fox was that in order to possibly satisfy a court order 20 to serve the injunction it would have to be delivered in 21 numerous copies. 22 And Minister Hodgson asked about the 23 weight, the possible weight of these documents, and 24 suggested that it didn't sound very safe to be dropping 25 packets of documents from a helicopter onto people below.

95

1 Q: Do you recall a specific comment that 2 he might have made in relation to that -- 3 A: Yes, there was -- there was a -- a 4 comment that was the only, I guess, point of levity in 5 these whole proceedings. He actually said that it 6 reminded -- when this -- when this was described to him, 7 throwing documents out of a -- out of a helicopter en 8 masse to -- to people below, it reminded him of a 9 previous episode of WKRP in Cincinnati that he had seen 10 once on throwing turkeys out of a helicopter and it 11 hadn't gone so well. 12 So that stuck out -- that certainly stuck 13 out in my mind as -- as something that had occurred. 14 Q: Do you recall anything else from this 15 meeting in terms of an outcome or a take-away? 16 A: No. Because we -- as I said we -- my 17 impression was that we had walked into a meeting -- or 18 arrived expecting to be part of a meeting that didn't 19 actually get going, didn't actually occur. We didn't 20 stay very long and we're on our way back to -- very 21 shortly thereafter headed back to the Ministry of Natural 22 Resources. And then we were summoned subsequent to that 23 to the dining room meeting. 24 Q: And just before we go to the dining 25 room meeting can you recall the reactions of anybody at

96

1 this earlier -- I'm going to called it an attempted 2 meeting? 3 Do you recall the reactions of anybody in 4 particular? 5 And I'm -- I'm interested in Mr. Fox's 6 reaction if any if you can recall? 7 A: He appeared somewhat defensive, 8 partly I guess, from not knowing my Minister and it not 9 being his Minister there's not a familiarity. But, he 10 did appear somewhat defensive in the discussion about my 11 Minister asking him questions about the safety of 12 dropping documents from a helicopter. 13 Q: Okay. And it may be suggested to 14 you, Mr. Bangs, that this meeting that you attribute to 15 this point in time might have occurred on another day. 16 Do you, if anything -- 17 A: I remember it occurring on the 6th 18 between the Interministerial Meeting in the morning and 19 the dining room meeting. And as I say it was -- it was 20 not a formal meeting in the sense that everyone else you 21 would expect to be there was there. I got the sense that 22 we went to a meeting that didn't actually occur and very 23 shortly thereafter left, but this discussion, I believe, 24 occurred on the 6th. 25 Q: Let's turn to the -- to the Cabinet -

97

1 - Cabinet room meeting that you've just told us that you 2 then were summoned to. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. Tell us about that. When 5 did you arrive? Who were -- who were the participants -- 6 are in attendance? 7 A: I don't know the exact start time of 8 the meeting. I believe it was over the -- or later in 9 the lunch hour or after one o'clock, but I don't know the 10 exact start time. 11 When we arrived there were several people 12 either in the room or -- or moving into the room as we 13 were: Minister Harnick, Minister Runciman, my Minister, 14 the executive assistants from each of the -- accompanying 15 each of the Ministers, the Deputy Ministers; Mr. Taman, 16 Ms. Todres, Mr. Vrancart, representing the ministries; 17 Ms. Hutton from the Premier's office. I remember Ms. 18 Burak and Mr. Lindsey being in attendance and the 19 Premier, of course. 20 Q: We understand Mr. Lindsey to be the 21 principle secretary to the Premier? 22 A: He was at the time, yes. 23 Q: And Ms. Burak was the Cabinet 24 Secretary? 25 A: Cabinet Secretary, yes.

98

1 Q: Okay. Do you recall Mr. Fox being 2 present or Mr. Patrick? 3 A: Yes, I remember Mr. Fox being there. 4 I do not recall Mr. Patrick being there. 5 Q: All right. Tell us then about the 6 meeting. What -- what do you recall about -- about its 7 conduct? 8 A: The -- the meeting was structured as 9 a briefing for the Premier. It was led by Mr. Taman who 10 gave a brief overview of the situation. And most of the 11 discussion led by Mr. Taman centred around the 12 possibility of seeking an injunction. 13 Q: And can you recall, Mr. Bangs, 14 whether or not, in addition to the possibility of seeking 15 an injunction, whether Mr. Taman brought forward a 16 recommendation? 17 A: I don't know that he had a 18 recommendation. He discussed two (2) different types of 19 injunctions. Again, not being a lawyer, the difference 20 was not, at that time, known to me between the two (2). 21 I did not engage in the conversation, was not a 22 participant in the conversation. 23 But I do know that he -- he did explain 24 the difference between the two (2) and -- but he -- I 25 don't know that he had a recommendation.

99

1 Q: Okay. And we are informed that at 2 the conclusion of that meeting at least, that a decision 3 had been taken with respect to the nature of injunction - 4 - injunction that might be sought. 5 Do you recall that? 6 A: I recall upon leaving the meeting 7 understanding that an ex parte injunction would be sought 8 and it appeared to be the consensus of the room. 9 Q: In terms of that decision, I -- 10 again, I hear you say consensus, but do you recall how 11 the decision -- or who might have made the decision? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Can you recall whether or not Ms. 14 Todres spoke at all during the course of that meeting? 15 A: I don't remember Ms. Todres speaking. 16 Q: And what about the Premier? 17 A: The Premier spoke from time to time 18 in response to -- in questioning Mr. Taman to learn more 19 information. So, yes, the Premier did speak. 20 Q: And do you recall anything that he 21 might have spoken to specifically? 22 A: One of the things that -- it was -- 23 part of it was asking questions about the -- the 24 injunction, then two (2) different types of injunction. 25 The other was asking questions about why

100

1 he was in attendance at this meeting, because one of the 2 things that did come up in the meeting and I don't know 3 if it was by Mr. Taman or if Mr. Fox spoke to this, was 4 the very definite line between the political arm of 5 government and the police. 6 And Mr. Harris was asking why he was here 7 if he was being told by these people that there was no 8 role for him. He didn't have role in directing the OPP, 9 so what was he being asked to do? 10 The answer was that we're here to have 11 this discussion about the injunction, sir. 12 Q: And aside from expressing -- 13 expressing that, did he -- what can you tell us about the 14 manner? 15 A: At the conclusion of -- the meeting 16 concluded by the Premier rising and leaving the room. I 17 think he felt that -- I think he -- aside from the 18 injunction and being in a room where he was being told 19 there was no role for him, that he didn't -- there was no 20 longer anything for him to do, so he rose and left the 21 room. 22 Q: Okay. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

101

1 Q: I take it that -- that once he rose 2 and left the room, that that would be the end of the 3 meeting or can you recall whether there was further 4 discussion? 5 A: I remember that being the end of the 6 meeting. 7 Q: Okay. Insofar as who would be 8 leading this issue at that point in time, did you have 9 any understanding different than what you've told us 10 earlier? 11 A: We came away from that meeting on the 12 understanding that my Minister was no longer going to be 13 the lead spokesperson on this issue. 14 Q: All right. You had that discus -- 15 you had a discussion about that, did you, as well? 16 A: I don't remember an exact discussion 17 about it at the meeting, but it was known -- made known 18 to us. I don't know exactly who would have said this, 19 but upon leaving the meeting, we were informed that we 20 were not -- we were no longer the lead spokesperson. 21 Q: All right. And how was that received 22 by -- by you and others who had been advocating that? 23 A: By me and Minister Hodgson and Mr. 24 Vrancart? 25 Q: Yes.

102

1 A: A sense of relief. As I've 2 indicated, I had for the preceding couple of days, been 3 making the point on behalf of my Minister that I didn't 4 think it was appropriate that he be the spokesperson and 5 finally someone listened to us. 6 So, there was a sense of relief upon 7 leaving that meeting. 8 Q: Given the consensus you've told us 9 about at the conclusion of that meeting, what did you 10 understand would happen after that? 11 A: That actions or activity would be set 12 in motion to seek the injunction on an ex parte basis. 13 Q: Okay. Did you have any further 14 involvement in that matter on -- on that date? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Okay. What's the next thing that you 17 would have had to do with this? That -- that is with the 18 -- with the Ipperwash matter. 19 A: The Ipperwash matter. It was very 20 late the night of the 6th or it may have even been past 21 midnight on the morning of the 7th receiving a phone call 22 from Peter Allen from our deputy's office telling me that 23 there had been an unfortunate incident. 24 That two (2) people were wounded with 25 gunfire and -- and that was the information that was

103

1 relayed to me very late at night or early in the morning 2 of the 7th. 3 Q: All right. So it was as general as 4 that? You don't recall whether you were informed that in 5 fact someone had been killed? 6 A: I don't know if it was in that first 7 phone call or if -- if I spoke with Peter a little bit 8 later. I did -- some time that evening or that late that 9 night or early that morning learn of -- of the death. 10 And -- but I don't know if it was in that very first 11 phone call. 12 Q: Having received that information, 13 what did you do, Mr. Bangs? 14 A: When Mr. Allen phoned me, he told me 15 that Deputy Vrancart was phoning the Minister so I did 16 not have to phone the Minister. I very nearly -- I was 17 well obviously shocked and surprised that -- that 18 something of that nature had occurred. 19 And I very nearly thought that my role in 20 communicating anything was over and I very nearly went 21 back to bed knowing that I'd have to get up very early 22 the next morning and -- and get to the office. 23 And then I decided that I should at least 24 phone some other people to let them know what I'd been -- 25 what had been reported to me. So I did make efforts to

104

1 phone people in the Premier's office. 2 People like David Lindsey, Deb Hutton who 3 was not immediately available or I had to leave messages 4 and she called me back at a later time. 5 I believe I spoke to Bill King in the 6 Premier's office, Mr. Rhodes and notified them and what 7 I'd learned from making those phone calls was that my 8 phone call to them was actually the first they had heard 9 of it. 10 My assumption earlier as I said, I wasn't 11 going to make those calls because my assumption was that 12 surely they would have heard through other means, through 13 the Solicitor General's or some sort of OPP reporting 14 system but they had not. 15 Q: You -- you indicated I believe that 16 on receiving this information, you were in shock did you 17 say? 18 A: Yes. I was quite surprised to hear 19 that things had escalated to that point and that there 20 had been gunfire. 21 Q: Did you get a sense of -- when you 22 relayed this information to the others that you had just 23 told us about, what their reaction was? 24 A: Everyone was quite surprised when I 25 reported that news.

105

1 Q: And in providing this information to 2 the others as you've just told us, was there any 3 discussion that you can recall as to what would happen 4 next? 5 What -- how it would handled? 6 A: No. The calls were very much me 7 relaying the information that had been provided to me and 8 not much more involved than that. It was me informing 9 people of what I had heard and nothing beyond that. 10 Q: Can you just go ahead and tell us 11 what happened next? 12 A: In one of the phone calls I had and I 13 don't know if it was the first call or if he called me 14 back, I believe David Lindsey asked me to attend at seven 15 o'clock the next morning on the 7th in Rita Burak's 16 office, the Secretary of Cabinet which I did. 17 And my presence there was simply to report 18 to her and to -- Mr. Lindsey was there, I believe Ms. 19 Hutton was there just to repeat again what I had heard 20 over the phone from Mr. Allen that preceding evening. 21 Q: There were further meetings in -- in 22 the cabinet room -- or in the cabinet offices? 23 A: Yes. I don't -- I did not stay for 24 those. I reported what I had heard the night before and 25 left shortly thereafter.

106

1 Q: Did you attend a meeting that day or 2 that morning I should say, with the Premier at all? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Did you have a role to play beyond 5 what you've just told us in terms of reporting this at 6 Ms. Burak's office on the 7th that you might recall for 7 us? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Given what occurred, Mr. Bangs, at 10 the Park, did you have any sense about what the outcomes 11 would be? 12 First of all with respect to ending the 13 occupation of the Park? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Or facilitating the return of the 16 Park? 17 A: On the morning of the 7th? 18 Q: Yeah. 19 A: No. 20 Q: If I can refer you to Tab 22, Mr. 21 Bangs. It's Inquiry Document 1009968. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And it is a letter that's apparently 24 under the -- a number of letters under the hand of 25 Charles Fox who was then the Grand Chief of Nishnawabe

107

1 Aski Nation. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And it's addressed variously to the 4 then-Premier Mr. Harris, then Prime Minister Jean 5 Chretien. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: As well as the Minister of Indian 8 Affairs, a series of three (3) letters. Do you see that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And at the back there is a -- a list 11 to whom these letters were copied to and I see that your 12 Minister is named as among them? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: The question is simply whether or not 15 you can recall receiving these or seeing those letters 16 and in terms of the content of those letters, they -- it 17 is essentially calling on political leaders to intervene 18 in -- in this matter that was described as a crisis by 19 Mr. Fox? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Do you recall receiving these or did 22 you have anything to do insofar as preparing for your 23 Minister, a response? 24 A: I don't believe so. 25 Q: We also have become aware that as of

108

1 the -- the 12th of September 1995 that the Federal 2 Minister of Indian Affairs provided certain documents to 3 the public -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- in relation to the Ipperwash Park? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: What can you tell us about that? 8 A: On September 12th, the Federal 9 Minister of Indian Affairs and Urban Development, I 10 believe is the proper title, Ron Irwin released documents 11 that spoke to the possibility of burial grounds at 12 Ipperwash Provincial Park. 13 The -- the thing that sticks out in my 14 mind about that is that while we had discussed the 15 possibility and the suggestions and the rumours that were 16 floating around about the possibility of this, when asked 17 at these September 5th and September 6th meetings if 18 anyone in any of the Ministries knew of the possible 19 existence, the answer was no. 20 What was surprising -- it wasn't 21 necessarily a surprise that Minister Irwin produced the 22 document, what was surprising was that I believe it was 23 the same day officials at the Province of Ontario 24 uncovered the same document. 25 And that was a surprise to us because we

109

1 had been asking previously whether or not there were any 2 -- there was any documentation or anything anywhere that 3 would speak to the possibility of burial grounds and the 4 answer we were being told was no. 5 And so when Minister Irwin released his 6 letter and I don't recall who it was, but I know the 7 documents were then immediately or very shortly 8 thereafter, located at the Province, and that was a 9 surprise to us. 10 It would have been, in my opinion, nice to 11 know or have known of the existence of those documents 12 previously. 13 Q: When you say "nice to know", what -- 14 what does that mean? 15 A: Well, it would have -- because we had 16 been asking for some confirmation or indication that what 17 we were hearing about the possibility of burial sites was 18 true, we were asking those questions and obviously wanted 19 to know. We wanted some corroboration and not receiving 20 it, left us with some uncertainty about that matter. 21 These documents, though, when revealed to 22 us did speak to a higher level of certainty that there 23 was perhaps the existence of burial sites. 24 So when I say it would have been nice to 25 know, as part of the decision making process, it would

110

1 have been -- it would have been useful for the Committee 2 that was meeting and the people who were involved in this 3 to know that there was more than just rumour and 4 speculation about the possibility; that there might 5 actually be something. 6 Q: You're aware, Mr. Bangs, that there 7 was attempts to obtain a third party to mediate the -- 8 the situation at -- at Ipperwash Provincial Park to try 9 to end the situation? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Do you have any role in that? 12 A: Not --not immediately in that time 13 frame. I know we made some efforts, I believe it was in 14 '96, to engage someone to play a third party -- respected 15 third party role to enter into some dialogue and it's my 16 understanding that despite efforts to -- to make that 17 happen, it did not occur. 18 Q: All right. Now I understand, Mr. 19 Bangs, that you and Minister Hodgson were informed very 20 shortly after the events of the -- the 6th that the MNR 21 field staff was involved in certain necessities with 22 respect to the Park winterization specifically? 23 A: Yes, later that fall I believe. 24 Q: And at Tab 24 of the book of 25 documents in front of you there's a confidential memo

111

1 from yourself dated November 28th of '95 that speaks to 2 options for winterization? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Do you recognize that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And perhaps I can ask that that be 7 marked as the next, please? 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-935, Your Honour. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-935. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-935: Document Number 2000505. 12 Memo from Jeff Bangs re. 13 Winterization of Ipperwash 14 Provincial Park, November 15 28/'95. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 18 Q: Now, I take it that this would have 19 prepared -- you would have prepared options. Somebody 20 was asking you what the options might be and -- 21 A: Well, the -- 22 Q: -- this is your response? 23 A: The Ministry generated the note 24 that's attached to my transmittal memo -- 25 Q: Okay.

112

1 A: -- that spoke to possible ways of 2 acting to winterize the -- the Park and -- and make sure 3 that the water system was not damaged by freezing. 4 Q: All right. And at Tab 25 there's a 5 letter under the -- under the letterhead of Chiefs of 6 Ontario -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- directed to your Minister the 9 Honourable Chris Hodgson. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And it's signed by Gord Peters who 12 was the Ontario Regional Chief of that organization? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: All right. And there's a suggestion 15 in there that -- that MNR officials were in violation of 16 a Memorandum of Understanding that had been entered into. 17 A: Yes, I see that. 18 Q: You -- you were made aware of this? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: All right. And this was specifically 21 with respect to steps that were taking or anticipated to 22 be taken in winterizing the facilities of the Park? 23 A: Yes, I believe so. 24 Q: And do you know how that was -- how 25 that was resolved?

113

1 A: I believe that following the receipt 2 of the letter some -- some sort of arrangement was 3 reached at the field level and the winterization did 4 occur with the cooperation of the people occupying the 5 Park; that's my -- my memory of it. 6 Q: Okay. And beyond that role that you 7 had insofar as flowing this information on winterization 8 of the Park did you have any further involvement in this 9 matter? 10 A: Not in that time period, no. 11 Q: I don't have any further questions in 12 chief, Mr. Commissioner, of -- of Mr. Bangs. 13 Mr. Bangs, we have asked other witnesses 14 whether they might have any -- any comment or 15 observations by way of recommendations to this Inquiry to 16 assist Commissioner Linden in -- in his task? 17 A: Yes. I believe if I may make 18 comments in two (2) specific areas, one (1) is in -- is a 19 historical -- in a historical context. I think it is 20 important that the -- the long-term history dating back 21 to World War II and commitments that were made around the 22 Camp Ipperwash property are considered in the 23 circumstances in the way over the decades that -- that 24 tensions arose in this community. 25 I think that is important to examine and I

114

1 also think that the -- the nearer term history from '93 2 to '95 and occurrences on the Camp Ipperwash property and 3 what actions or lack of actions were taken on the part of 4 the Federal Government I think are -- are -- are 5 important as the examination of that history and -- and 6 how it contributed to events that occurred in the summer 7 of 1995 particularly and the -- following the Labour Day 8 weekend. 9 The other comment I would make is in -- 10 with respect to the role of the -- the liaison officer of 11 the Solicitor General. It is nothing directed personally 12 at Mr. Fox, but I do know from my personal experience in 13 having lived through that period, that there was 14 uncertainty about his role. 15 And it was described or interpreted 16 differently by different people. I have my memory and 17 understanding of what his role was as I've described here 18 but I believe it was not necessarily clear to other 19 people at all times throughout this process. 20 And I think that in the future that anyone 21 in that key liaison role as was described to me between 22 government and the OPP, they need -- their role needs to 23 be made perfectly clear to anyone that they're dealing 24 with so that there is never any doubt about their chain 25 of command, who they're reporting to and exactly what

115

1 their role and function is. 2 And looking back on this situation, I 3 think having more clarity around that role would have 4 been helpful frankly. 5 So those are the two (2) -- the two (2) 6 areas I would make suggestions and in hope that there's 7 some consideration given to. 8 Q: Thank you for that, Mr. Bangs. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 10 very much. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We will now 13 do our usual canvas of parties. 14 MR. DONALD WORME: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Does anybody 16 wish to examine Mr. Bangs? And I would appreciate it if 17 you would stand up. I'll just do a bit of a roll call. 18 On behalf Mr. Harris, Mr. Downard, how 19 long might you be? 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I estimate forty- 21 five (45) minutes. 22 MR. DONALD WORME: Forty-five (45). 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 24 Horvat...? I can't see if you're up or not. 25 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Ten (10) minutes

116

1 or less. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long. 3 MR. DONALD WORME: Ten (10) minutes or 4 less, Mr. Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 6 Smith? I saw somebody. 7 MS. ALICE MROZEK: Five (5) minutes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Five (5) 9 minutes. 10 And Mr. Lauwers on behalf of Mr. Hodgson? 11 MR. PETER LAUWERS: About forty-five (45) 12 minutes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Perschy 14 on behalf of -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Half an hour to forty- 16 five (45) minutes. 17 MR. DONALD WORME: Thirty (30) to forty- 18 five (45) minutes. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Ms. 20 Kaufman...? 21 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Ten (10) to fifteen 22 (15) minutes. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Ms. 24 Twohig...? 25 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Five (5) minutes.

117

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 2 Clermont? 3 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Five (5) to ten (10) 4 minutes. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sounds like 6 a roll call -- 7 MR. DONALD WORME: Five (5) to ten (10). 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in the 9 Congress, you know, going through the various states. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Clermont 11 who speaks for Lambton Mills, yes. 12 Mr. Zbogar...? 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: An hour and ten (10). 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 15 an hour? 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: An hour and ten (10) 17 minutes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 19 Scullion...? 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: What about me? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 22 I don't why we keep going around Mr. Rosenthal. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I should tell you a 24 very big number now. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well yes.

118

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Should be forty- 2 five (45) minutes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 4 Scullion? 5 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Half an hour to 6 forty-five (45) minutes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 8 Henderson? 9 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: I'll match the 10 previous bid. Thirty (30) to forty-five (45) minutes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 12 Horton? 13 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Twenty (20) minutes 14 perhaps. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 16 Roy...? 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: Forty-five (45) minutes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know that 19 you're all overestimating so as not to be caught short, 20 right? 21 And Ms. Pagliaroli, is that -- you'll have 22 an opportunity at the end depending on what happens if 23 you need to ask any questions. 24 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: Yes. Depending on 25 what happens, thank you.

119

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I hope 2 even with my great optimism it's unlikely that we'll 3 finish today. But we'll carry on and just see how far we 4 get. If there's any chance of finishing today, I'd like 5 to, but if not, we'll just put over until Monday. 6 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you, 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll start 9 with Mr. Downard. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 14 available on Monday? 15 THE WITNESS: Monday? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 17 think if we don't -- 18 MR. DONALD WORME: Monday the 14th is 19 set, Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 21 We're not here next week. That's right. 22 MR. DONALD WORME: That's right. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Return on 24 the 14th and we may already have a scheduled witness on 25 that day. I don't want to cross that bridge at this

120

1 stage. Let's just start and see how far we get. 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Good morning, 3 Commissioner. 4 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 6 Q: Mr. Bangs, my name is Peter Downard 7 and I appear for the former Ontario Premier, Mike Harris. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: I'd just like to start by asking you 10 a couple of questions about your recollection of the 11 September 5th Interministerial Committee meeting, the 12 first of the two (2) meetings in September -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- by that Committee. And -- I take 15 it you -- you have some recollection of discussion 16 regarding the Chief of the local Indian Act Band in the - 17 - in the area at that meeting? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And do you recall any discussion at 20 that meeting to the effect that the -- the Kettle and 21 Stony Point Band could get frustrated if the Government 22 didn't -- didn't take some sort of appropriate action in 23 the case? 24 A: I don't remember that discussion 25 occurring.

121

1 Q: Okay. I take it you recall 2 discussion to the effect that the Chief of that Band 3 supported the Ontario Provincial Police and the MNR? 4 A: I don't know that that was 5 characterized in the meeting. 6 Q: All right. Do you -- do you recall - 7 - I take it you recall that the Chief of the Indian Act 8 Band did not support the occupiers? 9 A: Yes, that was indicated. 10 Q: All right. And do you recall any 11 discussion, because we've -- we've heard evidence to this 12 effect -- that we've seen some -- a note to this effect 13 in the meetings, to the effect that the Chief did not 14 want the government to take any steps that would 15 recognize the -- the group occupying the Park? 16 A: Yes, I remember that discussion 17 occurring. 18 Q: And in connection with Inspector 19 Fox's comments at the September 5th meeting, do you 20 recall him discussing in that meeting words, or making a 21 statement to the effect that the longer the occupiers 22 were in the Park, the more familiar they would become 23 with their surroundings and the more difficult it would 24 become to remove them? 25 Do recall him saying anything to that

122

1 effect? 2 A: I don't recall it from the meeting. 3 It's been refreshed to me from reviewing the minutes of 4 the meeting. I notice -- I noticed that there was a 5 notation of that effect -- 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: in the notes of the meetings, but I 8 don't remember it from that -- 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: -- meeting myself. 11 Q: So it's not in your recollection. 12 A: No. 13 Q: You've seen a document but that's 14 somebody else's note? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And in either the meeting of 17 September 5th or 6th, with respect to a burial site or a 18 possible burial site, do you recall discussion about that 19 the government had a process in place, obligations under 20 the Cemeteries Act and that -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And that the government should uphold 23 its obligations under that statute? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: All right.

123

1 A: It was described to us that if there 2 was evidence to suggest there were a burial site, that 3 there was a process under the Cemeteries Act that was 4 governed by another Ministry. 5 I believe it was Consumer and Business 6 Services or Consumer and Commercial Affairs at the time, 7 and that there was a process to come forward and pursue 8 the possible existence of a burial site. 9 Q: Okay. And wasn't -- was it your -- 10 was it indicated at the meeting that the government would 11 uphold any obligations it had under that process? 12 A: If an application or claim or clear 13 articulation that there may be a -- a burial site was 14 brought forward, then yes, there was a process under the 15 Cemeteries Act that I was not personally familiar with, 16 but there was -- it was described to me that there was a 17 process that would ensue. 18 Q: And did anyone in the meeting object 19 to dealing with the issue in that fashion? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Do you recall Inspector Fox saying 22 that at any time in either of these meetings that there 23 should be an investigation on the ground at Ipperwash 24 that would involve a -- consulting native elders or 25 investigating oral history?

124

1 A: I don't believe it was discussed in 2 that meeting. 3 Q: Now, I want to refer you to an 4 exhibit which is Exhibit P-897, if that could be put 5 before the witness. 6 These are -- are notes which I understand 7 are notes of Dan Elliott. Do you know Dan Elliott? 8 A: I know that he worked for the 9 Ministry of Natural Resources. 10 Thank you. 11 Q: And if you can look at page 8 of 12 these notes you will -- you will see that there's a date 13 in the upper left corner, "95/09/06"; do you see that? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Right. And then if you look further 16 down the page, you'll see that there's a reference at 17 09:30 hours to a phone call being received from Elizabeth 18 Thunder? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And now, did you become aware on 21 September 5th or 6th that Mr. Elliott of the MNR would be 22 contacting Elizabeth Thunder? 23 A: I don't recall that. 24 Q: All right. You'll see there's some 25 information towards the bottom of -- of the page in which

125

1 it's stated and I quote -- there's a -- it's the third 2 last bullet point of the page. Quote: 3 "Liz states that there's no land claim 4 at Ipper -- on Ipperwash Provincial 5 Park." 6 And then the next bullet point is, quote: 7 "Past discussions with Elders indicate 8 that to the best of their knowledge no 9 burial sites exist in the Park. This 10 will again be discussed at a -- at 11 council meeting this evening." Unquote 12 Did that information come to your 13 attention during September 5th or 6th? 14 A: I don't recall it specifically. 15 Q: All right. Fine. Thank you. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: And with respect to the possibility 20 of a land claim, formal or informal, being made on the 21 lands on which Ipperwash Provincial Park was located do 22 you recall any discussion in either the September 5th or 23 6th meeting to the effect that there had been discussions 24 with someone from the Stoney Point Group two (2) years 25 previously and that there had been an invitation to them

126

1 to make a claim if they had a valid claim and that 2 nothing had been produced? 3 Do you recall that being discussed? 4 A: Not specifically, no. 5 Q: All right. I'll -- I'll try to avoid 6 plumbing the -- the depths of things you don't remember. 7 A: Thank you. 8 Q: And if I can refer you to the 9 document at Tab 8 of your brief and these are Julie Jai's 10 notes of the September 5th and 6th meetings. And -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- the notes of the September 5th 13 meeting come after the notes of the September 6th 14 meeting. So, about four (4) pages -- it should be about 15 four (4) pages from the back of your tab, it's the page 16 with the number "8" circled at the top? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: You'll see at the bottom of the page 22 there's a note that says, quote: 23 "Deb wants an emergency injunction. 24 Doesn't want to wait two (2) weeks." 25 Unquote

127

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Does that -- do you have any 3 recollection of her saying that at the meeting? 4 A: I do remember Ms. Hutton as I was 5 saying earlier seeking options and exploring the idea of 6 doing something sooner than in a two (2) week timeframe. 7 Q: All right. Is it your recollection 8 that by the conclusion of that meeting she was generally 9 supportive of -- of proceeding with an injunction? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Now, I'd like to refer you to Tab 18 12 of your materials and in particular the transcript of 13 Minister Hodgson's media conference. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And in -- in my book that appears 16 about eight (8) pages in, might be seven (7) pages in. 17 Do you have it? 18 A: "Questions and Answers" at the top? 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Right. And I just want to read you a 22 passage. This might be -- this might be the -- an 23 example of a reporter tossing a -- a fly out onto the -- 24 onto the water to see if the fish will bite, but anyway 25 it reads, quote:

128

1 "Q: Minister, the mayor and the 2 others called it basically a 'reign of 3 terror'. He says that people are being 4 assaulted on the beach, buildings are 5 being burnt to the ground, and 6 basically lawlessness in the area and 7 that the Provincial and Federal 8 Government should step in and impose 9 the law." 10 And then the Minister says, quote: 11 "I don't want to deal in rhetoric. I 12 understand the mayor's got concerns, 13 the whole township would. We have 14 concerns as well. We're trying to do 15 our best to make sure we rectify the 16 situation in a manner that's legal." 17 Unquote 18 Now, do you recall having discussion with 19 the Minister in advance of this media conference about 20 this media release from the local community referring to 21 a reign of terror in the area? 22 A: I don't know that we discussed it 23 prior to the media availability. 24 Q: Okay. Did you -- 25 A: Don't know.

129

1 Q: -- did you recall -- you recall 2 having any discussion with the Minister -- because I -- I 3 take it you had discussed with the Minister quite often 4 how he would approach media scrums, right? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Right. Did -- did you have any 7 discussion with the Minister prior to this media scrum 8 about what general approach he was going to take with the 9 media, whether he was going to engage in rhetoric or make 10 a statement to the effect that he did not want to deal in 11 rhetoric and that -- that he just wanted to rectify the 12 situation in a manner -- manner that was legal. 13 Did you have a discussion about the tone 14 he would adopt in that respect? 15 A: No, I didn't give -- I didn't have a 16 discussion nor did I direct the Minister in what tone to 17 take? 18 Q: Okay. So, he was on his own on -- on 19 that point? 20 A: Well, there was a script that was 21 developed earlier that we've talked about earlier this 22 morning. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: And that was -- that was the extent 25 of my involvement in preparing him for this encounter

130

1 with the media. 2 Q: Fine. Thank you very much. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Now, in the September 6th meeting do 7 you recall any discussion about whether the -- the 8 Government should seek the support of the Kettle and 9 Stony Point Band's chief Tom Bressette? 10 A: No, I don't recall a discussion about 11 that. I know that people from government and the OPP 12 were speaking with him, but I don't remember a discussion 13 about seeking his support. 14 Q: Okay. You mentioned or you were 15 taken by Mr. Worme to Ms. Hipfner's notes where there's a 16 reference to matters on September 6th seem to be 17 spiralling out of your Minister's hands? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: That -- that was your view at that 20 time? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I take it that was your view 23 because of the information that you were receiving as to 24 what was happening on the ground; is that right? 25 A: It -- it was and it was my view that

131

1 -- even the preceding day before receiving that 2 information on the 6th. 3 Q: Okay. And that -- and that's because 4 of what was happening on the ground? 5 A: Yes, and it was an escalating 6 situation that had broader implications than just the 7 Ministry of Natural Resources. 8 Q: All right. And -- and at the 9 September 6th meeting do you recall there being a report 10 given in the meeting to the effect that the Attorney 11 General Mr. Harnick had directed that an injunction 12 should not be sought on an ex parte basis? 13 A: I don't remember that. 14 Q: Now, if I can refer you to Ms. Jai's 15 notes again, and in particular -- 16 A: Sorry, what tab? 17 Q: Sorry. Tab 8. 18 A: 8. 19 Q: It would be the page 4 of her... 20 A: Which date? 21 Q: The September 6th. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: You'll see at -- at the bottom of

132

1 page 4 there -- there's a -- there's a little section 2 that -- that starts with the word 'agreed'. 3 A: Page 4? 4 Q: This is page -- page 4 of her notes 5 of September 6th. It would be -- it should be about -- 6 A: Oh, sorry. It's the first -- 7 Q: Yeah. 8 A: -- page 4. Yes. 9 Q: And at the bottom of the page there's 10 a little section that starts with the word 'agreed'? Do 11 you see that ? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: All right. And then the last line of 14 the page says, quote: 15 "All agree goal is to remove people 16 ASAP." Unquote 17 Is that consistent with your recollection 18 of a consensus at the meeting? 19 A: I don't agree that -- that everyone 20 was on the exact same page with respect to the timeframe. 21 Q: Oh, okay. That's fine. 22 A: Everyone of course wanted the 23 situation resolved somehow -- 24 Q: Right. 25 A: -- as quickly as possible.

133

1 Q: Okay. 2 A: But, there was a discussion on a 3 difference of opinion I believe between whether we could 4 wait until Friday or the following week or perhaps doing 5 something sooner. 6 Q: Fine. Thank you. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: In the course of these discussions on 11 September 5th and 6th do you recall any particular 12 conflict or oppositional relationship developing between 13 Deb Hutton on the one hand and Inspector Fox on the 14 other? 15 A: No. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Now, let me come to the dining room 20 meeting. In the dining room meeting do you recall the 21 Premier ever saying words to the effect that, We have 22 tried to pacify and pander to these people for too long; 23 it's now time for swift, affirmative action? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Were you paying attention to what the

134

1 Premier was saying in the meeting? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: If he had said that, do you think 4 you'd remember it? 5 A: I believe I would remember. 6 Q: Do you recall the Premier saying in 7 this meeting that he thought the OPP had made mistakes in 8 this; they should have just gone in? 9 A: No. 10 Q: And I take you -- you've -- you've 11 told us that you had a clear understanding of the -- of 12 the principle that politicians should not direct the OPP, 13 right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: So if the Premier had said this in 16 the meeting, do you think you would remember it? 17 A: Yes. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Do you recall the Premier saying 22 anything in this meeting that you considered or that you 23 think a reasonable observer might consider, was an 24 instruction to the OPP as to the steps that the OPP 25 should take at Ipperwash?

135

1 A: No. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Do you recall the Premier saying 6 anything to the effect that some day the OPP will have to 7 account for their actions in this matter? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Did the Premier say anything in this 10 meeting that, to you, would justify a conclusion that the 11 Premier believed he had the authority to direct the OPP? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Did you ever come to the view that 14 the Premier, in this meeting, was seeking, in any way, to 15 improperly influence police operations? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Now, I want to ask you some questions 18 about your general observation of -- oh actually, one 19 more thing about the dining room meeting, do you recall 20 the Premier saying anything that referred to the 21 holocaust? 22 A: No. 23 Q: All right. Now I'd like to ask you 24 some questions just that, I guess, call for a general 25 reflection on the meetings with the Committee of the 5th

136

1 and 6th and the dining room meeting. 2 Now -- well actually, the first one is 3 about -- about the 5th. If someone were to say that, 4 regarding the discussion at the Interministerial 5 Committee meeting on the 5th that the whole group was on 6 a testosterone high, what would you say to that? 7 A: I would not agree with that. 8 Q: If, now on the basis of your 9 participation and your observation of events on September 10 5th and 6th in the Committee meetings in the dining room, 11 if someone were to say that the OPP were dealing with a 12 real red neck government, what would you say about that? 13 A: I don't agree with that. 14 Q: If someone were to say that the 15 government were barrel suckers, just in love with guns, 16 what would you say with that? 17 A: I do not agree with that. 18 Q: And if someone were to say on the 19 basis of their observation of the Premier in the dining 20 room meeting that the Premier was a red neck from way 21 back, what would you say about that? 22 A: I would not agree with that. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

137

1 Q: Thank you very much, sir, those are 2 my questions. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 4 Mr. Downard. 5 Ms. Horvat...? 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 8 Q: Good morning, Mr. Bangs. My name is 9 Jacqueline Horvat and I represent Charles Harnick at this 10 Inquiry. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: I'd just like to clear up the record 13 regarding the meeting that you attended at the Solicitor 14 General's office between the blockade committee meeting 15 and the dining room committee -- the dining room 16 meeting -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- on September 6th. 19 Do you recall Charles Harnick being 20 present at that meeting? 21 A: I do not. 22 Q: Do you recall Larry Taman being 23 present at that meeting? 24 A: I do not. 25 Q: At the dining room meeting, do you

138

1 recall Attorney General Harnick or deputy Attorney 2 General Taman ever expressing an opinion regarding police 3 operational matters? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Thank you, those are all of my 6 questions. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 On behalf of Mr. Runciman...? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 13 morning. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ALICE MROZEK: 16 Q: Good morning, my name is Alice Mrozek 17 and I'm here on behalf of Rod Runciman who was the 18 Solicitor General at the time. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: I also just wanted to ask you a 21 question about the attempted meeting that you said took 22 place between the IMC and the dining room meeting. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: So just to be clear, Mr. Runciman was 25 not present?

139

1 A: I don't believe he was there. He had 2 already left to go to the cabinet meeting. 3 Q: And Katherine Hunt was not present? 4 A: I don't believe so. 5 Q: And you mentioned that at the end of 6 the IMC meeting you were noti -- notified to attend the 7 meeting? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: So is it your evidence that you 10 didn't have any previous notice of this meeting? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And do you have a recollection as to 13 who notified you? 14 A: No I don't. I recall being -- 15 returning from the IMC meeting to MNR and somewhere -- I 16 don't know if it was to a cell phone call along the way 17 or upon returning to MNR. 18 But it was suggested to us that there was 19 going to be a meeting at the Solicitor General's office 20 on Bloor Street. And that's why we went there. That's 21 the way I remember it. 22 Q: Okay. And just turning now to the 23 dining room meeting. 24 Do you recall if Mr. Runciman said 25 anything at the meeting?

140

1 A: I don't remember Mr. Runciman 2 speaking at the meeting. 3 Q: Thank you, those are all my 4 questions. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 6 very much. 7 Mr. Lauwers for Mr. Hodgson...? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 12 Q: Good morning, Mr. Bangs. I'm Peter 13 Lauwers and I'm here for -- representing Chris Hodgson. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now let me just start in a different 16 place all together. I understand there was an issue 17 relating to fishing rights in Owen Sound that came to a 18 head in August of 1995? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Could you describe that problem, 21 briefly? 22 A: There were very heated tensions in 23 the local community, a conflict between local residents 24 and the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation, is my 25 recollection.

141

1 And some very unfortunate incidents 2 occurred in the community, vandalism of fishing boats and 3 it was suggested that there was the theft of nets. And 4 as far as the -- what was occurring that's what I 5 remember. 6 Q: What did Minister Hodgson do about 7 the situation? 8 A: Minister Hodgson -- we did -- we 9 attended a meeting at the Band Council office of the 10 Chippewas of Nawash and he took a personal role in 11 meeting with people face to face. 12 I believe he had also met with local 13 representatives of the Anglers and Hunters groups and 14 various community representatives and took a first hand 15 role in understanding the issue and meeting people face 16 to face to -- to try and bring about some sort of 17 resolution and lower the tensions in the community. 18 Q: What was the outcome of that -- that 19 exercise? 20 A: It was -- I don't believe it was 21 immediate, but in the weeks and months following that the 22 Ministry of Natural Resources negotiated licenses and 23 quotas with the First Nations fishermen and they were 24 able to continue fishing on a commercial basis. 25 And my impression was that tensions in the

142

1 community were generally lower following the Minister's 2 involvement and visit to the community than they were 3 prior to that. 4 Q: Thank you. I would like to now turn 5 you to the August 2nd meeting of the Interministerial 6 Committee. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And I wonder if I could ask you to 9 turn up the -- the minutes of that meeting which are 10 found at Tab 6, Exhibit P-506. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Have you seen these minutes before? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Let me take you to pages -- to page - 15 - I'm sorry, page 5. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And if you would go and look at items 18 -- item 4 in particular. 19 A: "Options?" 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: Just make sure I have the right 23 connection here. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

143

1 Q: I take it there's a prospect in there 2 that -- being discussed at the meeting of the -- of the - 3 - of the occupation of the Park happening? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Yes. And -- and then under 5 it 6 says: 7 "It was agreed that the Committee..." 8 Sorry. 9 "It was agreed that the Committee will 10 reconvene if an actual incident at 11 Ipperwash occurs, but that MNR and OPP 12 staff on the ground do not need to wait 13 for the Committee's approval before 14 taking actions that are necessary to 15 protect public safety." 16 A: Yes, I see that. 17 Q: Was that a conclusion that you 18 supported? 19 A: I don't know that -- I don't have a 20 direct recollection of that. I believe what the 21 reference is to is that if something were to occur the 22 safety of Park staff and campers in the Park would be 23 addressed immediately. 24 Q: And you agreed with that approach? 25 A: Yes.

144

1 Q: Yes. And did you brief Mr. -- 2 Minister Hodgson about the meeting after it was over? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: What did you advise him about the 5 situation and the role that MNR was expected to play? 6 A: I think I indicated earlier this 7 morning that following that meeting the indication to -- 8 we as MNR representatives at the meeting was that it was 9 an OPP matter, that they were the lead on the ground, the 10 lead agency, and that there was -- while there was the 11 possibility and suggestion that something may happen with 12 respect to Ipperwash Provincial Park there was also the 13 suggestion that other properties could also be affected 14 and that there was no immediate role for MNR and 15 certainly not at the Minister's level. 16 Q: And what was Minister Hodgson's 17 response to that briefing? 18 A: He received the information and I 19 don't know that there was any -- I don't recall any 20 specific response. 21 Q: Now, I think you gave evidence 22 earlier today about another incident in August that came 23 to your -- at Ipperwash that came to your attention? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And that was the donuts on the beach?

145

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Was the Minister briefed at the time 3 that that information came to your attention? 4 A: I don't know if it was by me, but it 5 was -- it was my understanding that it was reported in 6 the media. The media or the Ministry had a media 7 clipping service that was provided to our office and 8 issues were brought to our attention in that manner. 9 Q: Did you brief the Minister? 10 A: I don't recall if I did directly on 11 this incident or not. 12 Q: Were you present when he was briefed; 13 any recollection of that? 14 A: I don't know. 15 Q: Okay. Was the Minister asked to 16 comment on it to the Press? 17 A: No. 18 Q: And did he in fact comment at that 19 time? 20 A: I don't believe so. I don't believe 21 so. 22 Q: Now the -- the incident in this 23 instance, of the occupation of the Park, happened on 24 Labour Day? 25 A: Yes.

146

1 Q: What was your -- your first contact 2 with Minister Hodgson about it? 3 A: I don't recall exactly if we spoke on 4 that -- the Labour Day Monday or if it was not until the 5 next morning. As I indicated earlier when Peter Allen 6 notified me I believe he also told me that the Deputy was 7 contacting the Minister so that was a call that I did not 8 have to make. 9 Q: Okay. So I'm going to bring you back 10 to the -- the first conversation you had with him about 11 the occupation. Can you just sort of bring yourself 12 there? Do you recall the -- the conversation? 13 Can you describe it to us? 14 A: Not in great detail. 15 Q: What were the concerns that -- that 16 were shared between you at the time, if any? 17 A: We certainly talked about the 18 circumstances as being reported to us by our deputy's 19 office. The immediate concern was for safety. And I was 20 able to provide the Minister with the information as 21 provided to me that campers had already left the Park. 22 It was the regular closing date for the Park on the 23 Monday and the safety of campers was not an issue and -- 24 and generally, at that point, the safety of Park staff 25 was not an issue either.

147

1 Q: Did you discuss with him the reasons 2 for the occupation? 3 A: At that point I don't know that it 4 was clear to anyone and certainly wasn't clear to me. So 5 I don't believe I would have, that early in this process, 6 had that discussion with him. 7 Q: Did he ask the question: Why are they 8 there? 9 A: I don't know. I don't remember that. 10 Q: All right. And what happened next? 11 Would that be the Interministerial Committee Meeting on 12 the morning of September the 5th? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: All right. I'm going to start there, 15 Mr. Commissioner. It's a reasonable time to break, 16 perhaps. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would you 18 like to break for lunch? 19 MR. PETER LAUWERS: That'd be great -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that -- 21 MR. PETER LAUWERS: -- but it's really up 22 to you. I don't know the timing. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we try 24 to break at noon if it's a good time. 25 MR. PETER LAUWERS: It's great and I'll

148

1 be able to shorten things down if I have a little more 2 time. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then let's 4 break for lunch now. 5 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Thank you. 6 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 7 adjourned until 1:15. 8 9 --- Upon recessing at 12:01 p.m. 10 --- Upon resuming at 1:17 p.m. 11 12 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 13 resumed. Please be seated. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 15 afternoon. 16 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Good afternoon, 17 Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 19 afternoon. 20 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Good afternoon, Mr. 21 Bangs. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 25 Q: Okay. I'd then take you to Tab 7 of

149

1 your -- of your document book which is Exhibit 509. 2 These are the meeting notes from the Interministerial 3 meeting of -- of Tuesday, September 5, 1995. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: It notes that the meeting went from 6 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and that you were present; is 7 that correct? 8 A: Yes. Yes. 9 Q: If you flip then to Tab 8 which is 10 Exhibit 536, you'll see handwritten notes that are 11 attributed to -- to Julie Jai. Now these are in reverse 12 order so that the 5th is a little further down. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: If I could take you to the 5th and to 15 page 3 of the notes on the 5th you'll see just down 16 around, a quarter down the page it has Peter Allen's name 17 and said: 18 "They spoke with the DM. No attempt 19 made so far to speak to them and find 20 out what they want. They're just 21 occupying an empty park. Shouldn't 22 take overly precipitous action." 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Do you see that? 25 A: Yes.

150

1 Q: Do you recall whether Mr. Allen 2 actually said that? 3 A: I believe he did. 4 Q: And did you agree with his comment? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Further down the page, your name 7 appears towards the bottom. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: "Jeff Bangs: Discussed with 10 Minister this morning [and I'm assuming 11 that means -- MIN means minister] this 12 morning. If we get an injunction we'll 13 be expected to enforce it and will 14 escalate things. Could lead to a 15 confrontation." 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Did you make that comment? 18 A: Yes, I did. 19 Q: And let me just ask you: Did you 20 have a chat with the Minister that morning? 21 A: Yes. As I indicated earlier we had 22 talked about this and the question of what would happen 23 once an injunt -- an injunction was obtained and what -- 24 what it might precipitate was discussed. 25 Q: And what did the Minister say about

151

1 that, to the best of your recollection? 2 A: Basically what I've said here was -- 3 I was relaying a report of my discussion with him that 4 morning to the meeting. And he was concerned that if we 5 sought an injunction and if it was granted by the court 6 there would be some expectation that it would be actioned 7 or something be done with it. And he was concerned about 8 that. 9 Q: Did you share his concern? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Now, if I could ask you then to -- to 12 flip to Tab 9 which is Exhibit 510. These are Elaine 13 Hipfner's notes. On page 3 of those notes, just under 14 the title called, Options, your name is cited and it 15 says: 16 "Should consider injunction first." 17 Do you see that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Do you recall making that comment? 20 A: I don't recall specifically, no. 21 Q: Does it make sense that you would 22 have made that comment? 23 A: Possibly, yes. 24 Q: Why would you have made a comment 25 like that?

152

1 A: As I say I don't recall making the 2 comment and I could only speculate as to why I said it at 3 that point in the meeting if it was noted here. 4 Q: Thank you. Thank you. So, I won't 5 cover the ground that My -- My Friend has already covered 6 in -- in examination. 7 I take it from your earlier evidence that 8 after this meeting was over you went back to MNR? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And when you were there you briefed 11 Minister Hodgson? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And in doing that briefing did you 14 use the briefing note which is at Tab 11, being 15 production -- or Exhibit 918? 16 A: I believe we did. And that note was 17 prepared in advance of the Minister's media availability 18 and provided to him by the Deputy. 19 Q: Thank you. And what was Minister's 20 Hodgson's reaction to the information that he was going 21 to be the media spokesman or spokesperson on this? 22 A: As I've indicated earlier today he 23 was not pleased with that being put upon him. 24 Q: And why -- did he give reasons for 25 his displeasure?

153

1 A: It was that he did not feel and it 2 was actually the consensus of the Deputy, myself, and the 3 Minister that given the nature of the circumstance and 4 that we'd been told all summer that it was an OPP lead, 5 both on the ground and from a -- a spokesperson point of 6 view, that it was somewhat unnatural at that point for us 7 to be, or for he as Minister, to be the lead spokesperson 8 on a matter that, aside from the fact that it was 9 occurring in a provincial park, had broader implications. 10 Q: So, your evidence then was that after 11 this briefing he -- he went off and -- and met the 12 media -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- in, I think, what you termed was 15 more of a scrum than anything? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And where did that occur? 18 A: It occurred in the lobby of the 19 Minister's office which at the time was on the 6th floor 20 of the Whitney Block. It occurred in front of -- the 21 lobby area was -- was really an off section of the main 22 hallway and there was a reception desk in that area and 23 it occurred in front of the reception desk. 24 Q: Was it usual for the Press to meet 25 this way at the Minister's office?

154

1 A: No. 2 Q: And how did the Press come to be 3 there? 4 A: I don't know. It was not arranged by 5 us. 6 Q: I now want to turn to events on -- on 7 September the 6th which is Wednesday? 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: That was a Wednesday; did Cabinet 10 usually meet on Wednesdays? 11 A: Yes, it did. 12 Q: Did -- did it meet on this particular 13 Wednesday? 14 A: I believe it did. 15 Q: Did Minister Hodgson attend the 16 Cabinet meeting? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Why not? 19 A: Two (2) reasons: One (1) that as I 20 described earlier I believe we were sent or suggested 21 that we attend a meeting that was to occur at the Sol 22 Gen's office on Bloor Street, the meeting I described as 23 not actually taking place, but we ended up being en route 24 to that meeting. It's one (1) reason why he was not in 25 attendance at Cabinet.

155

1 The other reason was that he felt quite 2 strongly about the fact that he should not be the 3 spokesperson and knowing the nature of Cabinet meetings 4 and the fact that media are available outside of Cabinet 5 meetings prior to their commencement to greet and 6 encounter Ministers as they show up for Cabinet, he 7 deliberately decided not to attend Cabinet that morning 8 because he knew he would have to talk to the media if he 9 did. 10 And he felt strongly enough about the fact 11 that he should not be the spokesperson that he chose not 12 to. 13 Q: And so he didn't want to run the 14 media gauntlet again? 15 A: Exactly. 16 Q: Okay. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: At Tab 14 of the -- the volume which 21 is Exhibit P-509 there are meeting notes for the 22 September 6th Interministerial Committee Meeting. 23 It says here that -- according to the 24 notes -- that it went from 9:30 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. I 25 gather that's probably a typographical error?

156

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 2 that's already been corrected. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 6 Q: You were present? You've been over 7 this? 8 A: Yes, I was. 9 Q: Sure you have. Thank you. 10 Now, if you go back to Tab 8 and this time 11 the front part of Tab 8, these are the meeting notes of 12 Julie and that would be P-536. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: I'd ask you to turn to page 1. 15 There's a reference at the bottom to MNR. It says: 16 "MNR - now views this as a police 17 issue." 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Do you recall that comment being 20 made? 21 A: Not specifically. 22 Q: Was it the MNR position? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: On page of the document there is a -- 25 on page 2 there are some comments ascribed to you

157

1 concerning, it seems, briefing with Ministers. 2 "Jeff: We did what was agreed re. 3 messages. He stuck to the script. 4 Their Minister doesn't want to carry 5 this especially if it spreads beyond 6 the Park. Feels this is quickly 7 spiralling out of MNR's hands. OPP 8 should be spokespeople." 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Is that an accurate reflection of the 11 remarks you made? 12 A: Yes, I believe so. 13 Q: And if you would go to page 6, you'll 14 see that the notes at the top of the page say: 15 "Ministerial spokesperson. [and it has} 16 MNR doesn't want it to be them." 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And that in keep -- is an accurate -- 19 accurate about the message that you were conveying to 20 that meeting? 21 A: Yes. I don't know if I was speaking 22 at that point in the meeting but it was an accurate 23 reflection of our views, MNR's views. 24 Q: And for your pains, at the bottom of 25 the page, there's a note that says:

158

1 "Minister Hodgson will take lead in 2 communication as property owner." 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Okay. Now, after this meeting 5 concluded what -- what did you do? 6 A: This was on the 6th, correct? 7 Q: 6th, yes. So, we're about -- looks 8 like about 11:00 -- I don't know, now, 11:45 I believe it 9 was, a.m.? 10 A: Or shortly -- yes. The -- after that 11 meeting, as I was describing earlier today, I believe 12 that -- first of all at that meeting it was suggested 13 that there would no longer be -- there would not be 14 further meetings of this nature and that another type of 15 meeting would be convened. 16 And it was my understanding, upon -- 17 either on the way back to MNR following this meeting or 18 upon arriving at MNR that it was suggested to us that we 19 attend at the Sol Gen's office on Bloor Street, which I 20 remember going to the office with Minister Hodgson and 21 Deputy Vrancart. 22 Q: Okay. Just before I get to that, at 23 -- behind Tab 17 of this document there's a briefing note 24 and I don't have an exhibit number on it. It doesn't 25 have an exhibit number.

159

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 2 document an exhibit, do you know? 3 MR. PETER LAUWERS: It's at Tab 17. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's a 5 briefing note, September 6th. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 8 Q: I'm just wondering if you could 9 identify that note for it. Is it -- have you seen this 10 briefing note before? 11 A: I don't recall. I -- 12 Q: You can't identify it? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: I don't recall. If it was generated 17 in that time, then I very likely did, but I don't recall, 18 specifically seeing this. 19 Q: When you went back to -- to MNR to -- 20 I gather you picked the Minister up and went off to the 21 Sol Gen's office, is that essentially -- 22 A: That is my -- 23 Q: -- what happened? 24 A: -- memory of that day. 25 Q: Okay, did -- did you brief the

160

1 Minister? 2 A: I did tell him what had happened at 3 the earlier meeting. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: And particular the point about 6 communications -- the communications lead still resting 7 with him. 8 Q: And tell me, did the Minister after 9 the scrum on the 5th that you've described, did he ever 10 have any subsequent media contact as media lead on the 11 Ipperwash issue? 12 A: I don't believe so. 13 Q: Thank you. So, you indicated that 14 you went back to the Sol Gen office for this meeting 15 which turned out to be an aborted meeting. I'm going to 16 call it a meeting anyway, but -- because there were 17 people in the room together. 18 A: Sure, yes. 19 Q: And you went back, I take it, with 20 the Minister to the -- to Sol Gen or you went to Sol Gen 21 with the Minister? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Yeah, okay. And who was -- can you 24 describe the room for us, just give us a sense of what 25 the room looks like that you were meeting in.

161

1 A: I believe it was one of the 2 boardrooms. I don't know if it was the deputy's 3 boardroom or the Minister's boardroom. It was a large 4 room and there were several people there. 5 The only two (2) people who I distinctly 6 remember being there were Inspector Fox or Mr. Fox, and 7 Mr. Patrick. 8 Q: And where did -- where -- when you 9 went into the -- when you came in the room, you said the 10 meeting was already underway or something was already 11 underway at that point. 12 A: It was -- it was a very busy place 13 and things were in motion, discussions were happening. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: And we arrived expecting to be part 16 of a meeting that didn't occur. 17 Q: Did you sit down? 18 A: I don't remember if I sat or not. 19 Q: Did Mr. -- Mr. Hodgson sit down? 20 A: I don't remember, specifically. I 21 don't know. 22 Q: Where was Mr. Fox? 23 A: I believe he was in the room. But I 24 -- I don't know if he was seated or -- I don't know. 25 Q: You don't recall that?

162

1 A: No. 2 Q: Okay. How long were you and the 3 Minister present in that room? 4 A: I don't know for certain. I -- 5 Q: I guess -- 6 A: -- it wasn't -- it wasn't long. Once 7 we realized that the meeting we thought we were there to 8 attend was not occurring, we then left. I don't think it 9 was very long. 10 Q: Okay. And you relayed earlier on the 11 discussion about the service and the WKRP in Cincinnati-- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- episode. What was the tone of the 14 discussion during the time that you and Minister Hodgson 15 were present? 16 A: I don't remember any particular tone 17 to the meeting. I indicated earlier that I thought Mr. 18 Fox was somewhat defensive about the Minister asking the 19 question about the service and then suggesting that it 20 may not be the safest way to do this. 21 But there was no particular tone or 22 negativity around the discussion. 23 Q: Did -- did Mr. -- Minister Hodgson, 24 was he angry at any point during the course of the 25 meeting?

163

1 A: I don't remember him being angry. 2 Q: Now you then left you said -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- when you realized the aborted 5 meeting was not going ahead? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And where did you go? 8 A: We returned to the Ministry of 9 Natural Resources, the Minister's office. 10 Q: And Minister Hodgson was with you? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: During that return? What happened 13 next? 14 A: Upon returning to our office, we were 15 notified that there was to be a meeting in the Premier's 16 dining room. 17 Q: Now can you describe that room for us 18 again, briefly? The dining room -- the cabinet dining 19 room where this meeting was held? 20 A: Describe the layout of the room or 21 the people who were there. 22 Q: The layout of the room. 23 A: The layout of the room? 24 Q: Yeah. 25 A: It was not a particularly large room.

164

1 It was perhaps eighteen (18) or twenty (20) feet wide by 2 twenty-five (25) or thirty (30) feet long with a dining 3 room type, boardroom style table in the middle surrounded 4 by chairs, with a certain number of chairs around the 5 perimeter of the room. 6 Q: And where did Minister Hodgson go 7 when he got to the room? 8 A: He was seated at the table. I don't 9 know exact -- I can't recall exactly where at the table. 10 I believe along the side of the table. 11 Q: And where were you? 12 A: I was seated against the wall, back 13 from the table. 14 Q: And was Mr. Vrancart with you? 15 A: Yes, he was. 16 Q: And where was he seated? 17 A: I believe he sat at the table with 18 the Minister. 19 Q: And where did the other ministers -- 20 where were they? 21 A: The other ministers and deputies, I 22 believe, were around the table. 23 Q: Thank you. Where was Mr. Fox 24 located? 25 A: I don't recall exactly. I believe --

165

1 I believe he was on the opposite side of the table but 2 not directly across from Mr. Hodgson. But it's -- it's 3 rather -- to be honest, that's rather vague in my memory. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: He was at the table though. 6 Q: Thank you. Now you've related the 7 events of that meeting, I'm not going to go over that 8 again. 9 Did Minister Hodgson say anything at this 10 meeting? 11 A: I don't remember him speaking at this 12 meeting. 13 Q: Thank you. Did Minister Hodgson have 14 any further involvement with the Ipperwash situation 15 after this meeting? 16 A: After this meeting. No, no. Not 17 that -- we did talk earlier this morning about some of 18 the activities that occurred later that week and the 19 following week -- 20 Q: Right. 21 A: -- and later that fall, but not that 22 day. 23 Q: Okay. So I want to turn now to 24 Serpent Mounds if -- if I may. 25 A: Yes.

166

1 Q: That was an occupation of a 2 provincial park that started on Friday of that Labour Day 3 weekend? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the park was occupied by the 6 First Nation itself? Not a breakaway group, by the First 7 Nation itself? 8 A: My understanding that it was 9 representatives of the First Nation who were -- who were 10 exercising a protest. 11 Q: And the decision you described 12 earlier was to give the campers coupons or raincheck, in 13 affect -- 14 A: Yes. You can use that term, sure. 15 Q: -- and close the park? Okay. Now 16 during the time of that occupation when you were talking 17 about Serpent Mounds, did you and Mr. Hodgson discuss the 18 possible longer term resolution of the Serpent Mounds 19 dispute along the lines of co-management? 20 A: I don't remember if it was on that 21 weekend or following. But I know that we certainly did 22 discuss the possibility of co-management, and as I 23 indicated earlier it was consistent with where we were 24 headed with the Ministry in that time period in terms of 25 cost reduction and reaching out to private sector and

167

1 community partners to co-manage parks with the Ministry 2 of Natural Resources. 3 Q: Was -- was thought given as to when 4 this idea might be tabled with the First Nation, the 5 Hiawatha First Nation? 6 A: I don't remember specifically, no. 7 Q: Did you share the thoughts about co- 8 management at the time with anyone at the Ministry? 9 A: I don't believe that I did. 10 Q: Okay. Who was involved in that 11 discussion? 12 A: The -- 13 Q: Just at the outset, I don't -- I 14 mean -- 15 A: At the outset it -- it was an 16 internal discussion of the Ministry of Deputy Vrancart, I 17 believe Peter Allen and the Minister and I. 18 Q: Just the four (4) of you? 19 A: I believe so. 20 Q: And when did the occupation peter 21 out? Being a Peter, I guess I shouldn't use that term. 22 A: The time line for me on that 23 particular incident is somewhat unclear given that the 24 other situation occurred coming out of that weekend that 25 we're here to discuss today.

168

1 I do know that there was certainly not the 2 degree of -- of confrontation or concern over the 3 situation at Serpent Mounds and it was some weeks later I 4 recall, but later that fall that discussions between the 5 Ministry and the First Nation occurred around co- 6 management and agreements were reached. 7 And, as I said earlier, I believe those 8 agreements are in place to this day or some fashion of 9 them, some manner of them. 10 Q: So if I suggested to you that -- that 11 the occupation of Serpent Mounds ended some time in the 12 week after Labour Day, would that ring a bell with you? 13 A: I would not dispute that. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: I don't remember that it went on for 16 a great length of time at all. 17 Q: All right. So in his evidence about 18 a meeting with Minister Hodgson on September the 6th, Mr. 19 Fox made the following remark, and this is during the -- 20 the course of the meeting that Mr. Fox is -- is -- he's 21 giving evidence about: 22 "In my capacity as [this is on page 72 23 of the transcript] -- my capacity as an 24 advisor I offered up a suggestion and 25 the suggestion was perhaps inroads

169

1 would be made with the First Nation 2 with respect to Ipperwash Park in terms 3 of co-management. I do recall 4 exampling the park that was managed by 5 the Cape Croker First Nation and the 6 park managed at Serpent Mound First 7 Nations as well. 8 I felt I was providing, in my capacity 9 as an advisor, advice. Whether it was 10 taken or not it seemed to me prudent 11 that I provide it and that was with 12 respect to the park and co-management 13 issues or as a possible solution. 14 Q: Thank you. And you indicated 15 there is a precedent in relation to 16 Cape Croker and Serpent Mounds in that 17 respect? 18 A: That's correct." 19 Now, Mr. Bangs, to the best of your 20 knowledge would Mr. Fox have had the information 21 necessary to make that remark about Serpent Mounds to Mr. 22 Hodgson on September the 6th? 23 A: I don't know. I know Mr. Fox -- I 24 understand he had a role to play in -- in the past in 25 First Nation liaisons. He may have been knowledgeable, I

170

1 don't remember being present when that was said by him to 2 Mr. Hodgson. 3 Q: No, that's not my question. He is 4 saying that he mentioned Serpent Mounds at the meeting 5 with Minister Hodgson on September the 6th. 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: Your evidence is that the co- 8 management issue on -- on Serpent Mounds came up later. 9 So my question is: Could he have had the information 10 that he says he passed over the table at that meeting on 11 September the 6th? 12 A: I don't -- I don't believe so, but I 13 also don't recall him saying that at the meeting, at any 14 meeting I attended. 15 Q: That was my next question. 16 A: I don't remember hearing him say 17 that. 18 Q: I should have started with that I 19 guess. Thank you. 20 You have worked with Minister Hodgson for 21 a number of years? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And during that time had you ever 24 heard Mr. -- Minister Hodgson make comments to the effect 25 that he did not support Aboriginal rights and did not

171

1 care about First Nations constitutional rights? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Did Minister Hodgson work with the 4 First Nations in furtherance and support of Aboriginal 5 rights? 6 A: Yes, he did. 7 Q: Did you ever observe Minister Hodgson 8 to be in any way negative towards First Nations people? 9 A: No. 10 Q: And in terms of burial sites, I 11 understand, Mr. Bangs, that this issue would be covered 12 by the Ontario Cemeteries Act? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And did you ever observe Minister 15 Hodgson in any way directing that First Nations burial 16 sites should not be handled in accordance with the 17 Cemeteries Act? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Those are all my question. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 21 very much, Mr. Lauwers. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe

172

1 Ms. Perschy's up next on behalf of Deb Hutton. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Good afternoon, 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 8 afternoon. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 11 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Bangs. 12 A: Hello. 13 Q: As indicated, my name is Anna Perschy 14 and I represent Deb Hutton who, at the time, as you know, 15 was the executive assistant to former Premier Harris. 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: You testified about the 18 Interministerial Committee meeting being a clearing house 19 for information and I just had a few questions in that 20 regard. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: I believe you testified just a few 23 moments ago that at the meeting on September 5th, you 24 made reference at the Interministerial Committee meeting 25 to your prior discussions with your minister and you

173

1 shared some of those discussions with the 2 Interministerial Committee at that meeting? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And, in fact, at that meeting on 5 September 5th, the meeting was concluded on the 6 understanding that people would go back to their 7 Ministers and report back to the Interministerial 8 Committee the next day? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And these report backs were an agenda 11 item the following day? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And I believe you were taken to this 14 by Commission Counsel. You testified that you shared 15 your minister's views at the meeting on September 6th in 16 regards to his views about being a spokesperson for the 17 Government and this being a police matter? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And do you recall that Julie Jai, on 20 September 6th, also reported back that she'd met with the 21 deputy and the Attorney General and the direction from 22 the Attorney General was to apply for a civil injunction 23 ASAP; do you recall that? 24 A: I don't recall that. 25 Q: You don't recall it. But I take it

174

1 at both of these meetings in September, people were 2 sharing information regarding their Minister's views; 3 that was part of the in -- the information sharing that 4 was going on? 5 A: Yes. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: I anticipate that we will hear 10 evidence that Marcel Beaubien had some communications 11 regarding the Ipperwash situation with a, I believe it's 12 a, Lesley Shimmin (phonetic) from MNR. 13 Do you know who Ms. Shimmin was? 14 A: Ms. Shimmin worked in the minister's 15 office at Natural Resources. I'm trying to recall what 16 her exact title was. 17 Q: Was she the caucus liaison? 18 A: She was the MPP liaison, was the term 19 we were using. 20 Q: And do you have any information 21 regarding Mr. Beaubien's communications with Ms. Shimmin 22 with respect to the Ipperwash matter, prior to September 23 7th? 24 A: No, I don't. 25 Q: Did you have any communications with

175

1 Mr. Beaubien regarding the occupation of Ipperwash Park, 2 prior to September 7th? 3 A: No, I don't believe I did. 4 Q: And do you have any information 5 regarding any -- any communications that your staff may 6 have had with Mr. Beaubien regarding the occupation, 7 prior to September 7th? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Now, you testified about your 10 understanding regarding the -- the line between the 11 Government and the police and I believe you also asked 12 about a -- the context of the comment regarding the 13 protocol. 14 Now, I was wondering if you could turn to 15 Ms. Hipfner's notes from the September 6th meeting; I 16 just want to see if I could tweak your memory about the 17 context. 18 A: Sorry, what Tab? 19 Q: This is at Tab -- I believe it's Tab 20 15. 21 A: Okay. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: Of the 5th or the 6th?

176

1 Q: The meeting notes of the 6th. 2 A: 6th. 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: Thank you. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: And I believe you've been taken to 9 some of this -- part of these passages before. I'm 10 looking at the page 3 under the heading, Directions from 11 Ministers. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And you were taken to some comments 14 that were attributed to you and I believe this has 15 previously been read into the record so I won't -- I 16 won't repeat that. 17 But be -- below the comments that were 18 attributed to you, there's then a comment which is next 19 to the name Sturdy crossed out. Also a question of what 20 minister can say if OPP are handling this and especially 21 now that charges have been laid. 22 Do you call who would have made that 23 comment? Do you recall making that comment yourself? 24 A: I don't recall making it myself. It 25 may have been someone else from MNR.

177

1 Q: Fair enough. And then just below 2 that there's a comment attributed to Dave Moran: 3 "Can't have OPP speak on behalf of 4 government. Harnick clear if AG is 5 being asked to seek injunction, will do 6 so ASAP with regard to public carriage 7 of issue, we're open to direction from 8 the centre." 9 And then there's a reference to a comment 10 attributed to Katherine Hunt: 11 "Runciman's reservation comes from the 12 fact that Sol Gen's protocol is not to 13 be involved in the day to day operation 14 of police. Political arm should be 15 divorced." 16 And my question was, does that assist you 17 in terms of refreshing your recollection that the comment 18 regarding the -- Runciman's reservation and the protocol 19 with Sol Gen was made following some questions as to what 20 ministers can say now that charges have been laid and who 21 was to be the spokesperson? 22 A: It -- it assists my recollection? 23 Q: Yes. I'm sorry the answer was? 24 A: It assists my recollection. 25 Q: It does assist you?

178

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And -- and do you recall now that 3 that was the context of that comment? 4 A: I remember a discussion like this 5 occurring, yes. 6 Q: Okay. Thank you. Did anyone direct 7 police operations at either of these IMC meetings on 8 either September 5th or 6th? 9 A: No, I don't believe so. 10 Q: You made some references to a meeting 11 at the Solicitor General's office on September 6th. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And I anticipate that Ms. Hutton will 14 testify that she wasn't in the Solicitor General's office 15 on September 6th and never attended a meeting with either 16 Minister Hodgson or his deputy regarding the occupation 17 of the Ipperwash Provincial Park, prior to the dining 18 room meeting attended by the Premier. 19 And I'm simply going to suggest that 20 perhaps you're mistaken regarding your recollections of 21 the meeting at the office of the Solicitor General's 22 office on September 6th and that that meeting perhaps 23 occurred, instead, on September the 7th. 24 A: No. I remember it happening on -- I 25 remember going there as I described to a meeting that, in

179

1 one sense, I suppose, had a false start and didn't occur. 2 I do remember physically going to the Sol Gen's office on 3 the 6th. 4 Q: All right. You made reference in 5 your testimony previously that there was some differences 6 between Serpent Mounds and Ipperwash Provincial Park and 7 I just wanted to explore that a little bit. 8 With respect to the Serpent Mounds 9 situation, the First Nation people in that situation 10 owned about a quarter of the land that constituted 11 Serpent Mounds Provincial Park and had leased it to the 12 Government. 13 You were aware of that, I take it? You 14 recall that? 15 A: No, I don't recall that level of 16 detail. 17 Q: Well I've provided you with the 18 document previously and I don't know if you've had an 19 opportunity to look at it. It's Document Number 1012220. 20 MR. DONALD WORME: It's P-802. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 24 Q: It's Exhibit Number P-802. 25 A: Is this the document you provided to

180

1 my counsel earlier today? 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: I did look at it, yes. 4 Q: And I was wondering, did you have an 5 opportunity to -- this is the -- the report regarding the 6 occupations at Ipperwash and Serpent Mounds Provincial 7 Parks. 8 I'm wondering if you saw those reports at 9 the time? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Okay fair enough. 12 A: I believe it was prepared the 13 following year as an internal document to the Ministry of 14 Natural Resources. I have not seen it before today. 15 Q: Okay. Fair enough. But unlike the 16 Ipperwash Provincial Park, I take it that with respect to 17 Serpent Mounds, you were aware that the First Nation 18 people had clear rights to at least some of the lands? 19 A: Yes, I understood that. 20 Q: You were? Okay. And did you 21 understand that they -- that they had, in fact, leased 22 some of those lands to the Government? 23 A: I don't recall that. 24 Q: I take it you were aware that the 25 Government had cancelled the harvesting agreement and

181

1 that, with respect to the Serpent Mounds situation, the 2 First Nation band took a vote and almost unanimously 3 agreed to blockade the park in protest of that 4 cancellation? 5 A: I remember that there was a 6 cancellation of the agreement. The -- what happened with 7 the band and the vote I don't -- I don't recall. 8 Q: Do you recall that the -- the 9 cancellation of the agreement was -- was the reason for 10 the protest at the Park? 11 A: That it was part of it, yes. 12 Q: And I -- I believe you were aware 13 that, with respect to the Ipperwash situation, the 14 elected chief of the Kettle and -- and Stony Point First 15 Nation didn't support the occupation of the Ipperwash 16 park? 17 A: That was made -- that was 18 communicated to us in the meetings that we attended. 19 That was my understanding. 20 Q: And in the Serpent Mounds situation, 21 were you aware that in that situation MNR evacuated the 22 park and that shortly thereafter and prior to the First 23 Nations people actually taking any action in terms of 24 occupying the park, some of the protesters stood at the 25 park gate and were handing out pamphlets explaining why

182

1 they were going to take this action in advance? 2 A: Yes, I understood that. 3 Q: And in contrast, I believe you've 4 testified that in the Ipperwash situation you didn't have 5 a clear understanding at all of -- of -- even after the 6 occupation of the Park had begun, as to the reasons 7 behind those actions? 8 A: My understanding, as we were briefed 9 at the time, was that the -- the reasons and the lack of 10 -- there was a lack of a spokesperson on the part of the 11 occupying group to articulate demands or -- or the 12 reasons as to why it was occurring. 13 Q: And at Serpent Mounds there was no 14 violence with respect to that occupation and there was no 15 damage done to the park? 16 A: None whatsoever. 17 Q: And again, in contrast in the 18 Ipperwash Park situation, you were aware that there was 19 some violence even from the outset of the -- of the 20 occupation when the occupiers smashed a police cruiser 21 window and that there were further incidences, 22 subsequently? 23 A: I do not know from first-hand 24 experience but we were told that there was violence and 25 incidents. I don't remember the exact occurrence of the

183

1 -- the one that you just mentioned, but I do remember 2 that we were -- we were told that there was violence and 3 vandalism and -- and threats being made. 4 Q: And you received some of that meeting 5 -- some of that information at these Interministerial 6 Committee Meetings? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And from your perspective as a result 9 of the reports from the ground, I believe you testified 10 that that was the reason for the consensus of the 11 Committee on the 6th to recommend seeking an injunction 12 ASAP? 13 A: To recommend seeking an injunction, 14 yes. 15 Q: And you attended the meeting in the 16 Premier's dining room? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And an injunction was discussed 19 there? 20 A: It was. 21 Q: And the Government decided to seek an 22 injunction ASAP and did proceed the following morning on 23 September 7th to do so; you were aware of that? 24 A: I understand coming out of the 25 meeting that it was to be sought. The timing I learned

184

1 of after the fact, later on on the 7th, that it had 2 actually occurred. 3 Q: And once the Government had decided 4 to proceed with an injunction, you understood that it 5 would therefore be appropriate for the Attorney General 6 to now become a spokesperson on behalf of the Government? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Those are all of my questions. Thank 9 you, Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 11 very much, Ms. Perschy. 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you, Mr. Bangs. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Kaufman? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. 19 Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 21 afternoon. 22 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. 23 Bangs. 24 25 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN:

185

1 Q: I'm Leslie Kaufman and I appear on 2 behalf of the OPP. 3 A: Thank you. 4 Q: I just have a few questions for you. 5 Sir, you've given evidence today about 6 this attempted meeting on -- that you recall taking place 7 on September 6th, after the IMC meeting? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And you'd agree with me that you have 10 no notes of any such meeting? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Okay. And as far as you're concerned 13 there are no notes from your Minister as -- as to such an 14 attempted meeting? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Okay. And you'll agree with me there 17 was no memorandum made to reflect any such attempted 18 meeting? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Okay. So in fact you have nothing at 21 all to assist in your personal recollection of such an 22 attempted meeting -- 23 A: It is -- 24 Q: -- nothing written -- 25 A: It is only my personal recollection

186

1 that that day I went from one meeting to another meeting 2 to another meeting, in that sequence. 3 Q: And just again, what time do you 4 recollect the IMC meeting ended at, on September 6th? 5 A: I believe it was prior to noon on 6 that day, around 11:45 I think. 7 Q: Prior to noon. And then what time do 8 you recollect the dining room meeting starting at? 9 A: Around one o'clock. 10 Q: Okay. And do you, sir, recall 11 attending a meeting on September 7th in the afternoon 12 with your Minister and -- and two (2) other Ministers? 13 A: Yes, I believe I did. 14 Q: You did? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And what time was that at? 17 A: I don't know the exact time. 18 Q: Okay. And do you recollect Dr. James 19 Young being in attendance at that meeting as well? 20 A: I don't remember exactly whether or 21 not he was there, I don't. 22 Q: And, sir, we've heard evidence that 23 earlier on in the day on September 7th, the issue of 24 service of an injunction order by helicopter formed part 25 of the Court Order that was made by Justice Daudlin in

187

1 Sarnia. 2 Was that something that you were aware of? 3 A: I learned of it after the fact. 4 Q: Okay. So you learned about that 5 after the fact, which would have been on September 7th -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- correct? Okay. 8 And I'm going to suggest to you, sir, that 9 that was the first time any issue of service by 10 helicopter was ever brought up by anyone; that it was -- 11 that it was on the 7th, after the Court appearance, the 12 Court Order. 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: Okay. So I'm suggesting to you that 15 it was not brought up on the 6th, at this attempted or 16 aborted meeting, but rather on the 7th after -- 17 A: I believe -- 18 Q: -- the Judge brought it up. 19 A: I've only tried to explain what my 20 recollection is of the 6th. 21 Q: Okay. Well, I'm going to suggest to 22 you that -- that your recollection is incorrect and that, 23 in fact, it was -- this issue was brought up on the 7th 24 and that it would make more sense that you discussed it 25 on the 7th, given that it was brought up in -- in the

188

1 Court Order. 2 A: I only have my memory of that -- of 3 that time period and -- 4 Q: Which isn't based -- 5 A: My memory is that I went from one 6 meeting to another meeting to another meeting on the 6th, 7 the IMC meeting, a meeting with the Sol Gen that was not, 8 in fact, a proper meeting or a full meeting, and then 9 back to the dining room meeting at -- at the Legislature. 10 Q: And -- and this attempted meeting, am 11 I right that in your recollection, if any such attempted 12 meeting took place, it would have been a few minutes? 13 A: Yes, it was very brief. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: We were not there very long. 16 Q: So you specifically recall being at 17 the Solicitor General's office? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: And returning there on the 7th for 21 another meeting. 22 Q: So the meeting on the -- I'm sorry, 23 just -- just chronologically, the meeting on the 7th that 24 you recall was at the Solicitor General's office as well? 25 A: Yes.

189

1 Q: Okay. 2 A: Back in the same location. I 3 remember going there twice. 4 Q: All right. And in the same boardroom 5 that you've discussed? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: All right. And you recall at that 8 meeting helicopters being discussed as well? 9 A: Yes, as a report of what had occurred 10 in the Court earlier that day. 11 Q: All right. And do you recall 12 Inspector Fox discussing the fact that he thought it 13 would be unsafe to -- on the 7th, to distribute an 14 injunction in that manner? 15 A: No, I recall that happening on the 16 6th in the very brief time that we were there. 17 Q: Which, you're saying, was a matter of 18 minutes? 19 A: It was a short period of time, yes. 20 Q: All right. All right. Finally, sir, 21 just to go to just another issue, just very briefly. I 22 believe you said today that -- that Inspector Fox was 23 emphasising not to proceed with haste and to have a slow 24 and considered approach -- 25 A: Yes.

190

1 Q: -- to matters? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: At the -- yes at the meetings on the 4 5th and the 6th? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Okay. And -- and just once again, 7 you'd agree that there was absolutely -- he was not 8 seeking direction in any way from members of the 9 Committee? 10 A: Mr. Fox was not? 11 Q: Yes. With regard to -- 12 A: No. 13 Q: -- police operational matters? 14 A: No, I don't believe so. 15 Q: And once again, that he was not being 16 given any direction in that matter? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. Thank you, sir. Those are my 19 questions. 20 A: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 22 Ms. Kaufman. 23 MS. LESLIE KAUFMAN: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25 Ms. Twohig...?

191

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're making 4 good progress. We're moving right along. 5 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you, Mr. 6 Commissioner. 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 9 Q: Hello, Mr. Bangs. My name is Kim 10 Twohig and I represent the Province of Ontario. You 11 talked about the meeting of September 5th, of the 12 Interministerial Committee. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And you said that there was 15 discussion about an injunction at that meeting. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And you recalled considerable 18 discussion about the time it takes to get the matter 19 before the judge. 20 Do you remember that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And do you recall whether this 23 discussion involved any -- any discussion about the need 24 for service on the occupiers? 25 A: Not specifically, no.

192

1 Q: Do you remember Tim McCabe, a lawyer 2 from the Ministry of the Attorney General, expressing the 3 view that it would be preferable to give notice to the 4 occupiers? 5 A: I remember Mr. McCabe being there. I 6 don't specifically remember him saying that. 7 Q: Okay. Do you remember any reasons 8 being given about why it would take a long time to get 9 the matter before a judge? 10 A: My understanding and again not being 11 a lawyer, my understanding of the discussion was that it 12 was just the normal course of -- in bringing something 13 before a court, that it did take time, it was not 14 something that could be done immediately. 15 Q: And were steps in the process 16 discussed? 17 A: May have been, but I don't recall. 18 Q: Okay. Would it be fair to say that, 19 at that meeting, civil servants generally advocated a 20 slow and cautious approach to a response to the 21 occupation? 22 A: Yes. That would be a fair comment. 23 Q: Then on September 6th you said that 24 following the meeting Deb Hutton had expressed some 25 frustration with the meeting. I was wondering whether

193

1 that frustration, as far as you were aware, may have been 2 due to her view that the civil servants were proceeding 3 too slowly? 4 A: I don't know. 5 Q: Did she say anything about why she 6 was frustrated? 7 A: No. Not directly to me. 8 Q: Okay. How did you hear that comment 9 or how did you become aware that she was frustrated? 10 A: It was more the -- I guess the tone 11 that she was taking, and then at the end of the meeting, 12 I don't remember the exact wording, but she made it clear 13 that we would not be having another meeting of this 14 nature, and we didn't. 15 Q: That was outside the meeting room, 16 afterwards? 17 A: I believe it was right at the end of 18 the meeting as it was -- it may have been as it was 19 wrapping up, but it was toward the end of the meeting. 20 Q: All right. Thank you. Now just 21 going to the meeting of September 6th that happened at 22 the Solicitor General's office that you've talked about. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: I know that you had some difficulty 25 remembering who was in attendance, but do you remember if

194

1 there were any Ministry of the Attorney General 2 represented at the meeting? 3 A: I don't know. I don't know. 4 Q: You did mention that neither the 5 Minister nor Larry Taman were there. 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: Yeah. If anyone else had been there 8 from the Attorney General's office, do you know who that 9 might have been? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Do you remember the context for the 12 discussion about service by helicopter, assuming that 13 this meeting did take place on the 6th? Why was that 14 raised? 15 A: It was -- it was a question that 16 arose because of the fact, as we have discussed earlier 17 and as I was informed earlier, there's a lack of a 18 spokesperson, no one willing to come forward and receive 19 documents from the OPP and that was -- that was the 20 dilemma that was described to me at the time. 21 And the question was posed, Well if an 22 injunction is granted, how then might it be served. And 23 the discussion ensued about dropping it from a 24 helicopter. 25 Q: Okay. Is it possible that there was

195

1 some discussion about the need for service and how 2 service might be effected before the lawyers went to 3 court? 4 A: Yes. It was -- it was known to me at 5 that point that if service was a requirement, I don't 6 know if it was -- and this is just my memory, I don't 7 know if it was a requirement prior to going to court, but 8 if an injunction were granted at the court, that document 9 would then have to be served in some manner. 10 Q: Okay. So when this discussion was 11 taking place about service of the notice, was it 12 contemplated that this service would take place after the 13 order was obtained or before? Or don't you remember? 14 A: I don't -- I don't recall the 15 distinction, or I don't remember the distinction being 16 made between service of the notice of going to court 17 versus if the injunc -- I'm speaking of, if the 18 injunction were granted, how would that then be served. 19 So it was my -- my memory is that the 20 discussion was around what would happen if the judge 21 agreed with the motion that was being brought to the 22 Court, how would it then be served on the occupiers? 23 Q: I see. Do you remember who raised 24 this issue? 25 A: I believe when we arrived it was

196

1 being discussed and Mr. Fox was -- was commenting on it 2 and somehow we got engaged, not me personally, but my 3 Minister got engaged in the conversation and asked the 4 question about public safety and whether dropping 5 documents of this volume and size from a helicopter was 6 safe. 7 Q: All right. So I take it then that, 8 on September 6th, nothing was conveyed to staff at the 9 Ministry of the Attorney General about attempting notice 10 by helicopter? 11 A: Not that I'm -- I can't speak to 12 that, I don't know. 13 Q: Okay. Moving then to the dining room 14 meeting, did you notice anyone taking notes at that 15 meeting? 16 A: No. 17 Q: You said that a decision was made to 18 proceed with the injunction on a ex parte basis. 19 Do you recall any discussion about the 20 reason for seeking an ex parte injunction? 21 A: Again not being a lawyer much of the 22 discussion was -- was not that familiar to me. The -- 23 what I did understand though was that ex parte meant on a 24 quicker basis than the normal process for seeking an 25 injunction. And that's about all I remember of -- of

197

1 what that meant. 2 Q: So the discussion then centred around 3 timing mainly, in your view? 4 A: And that ex parte was a -- a more 5 expeditious way -- 6 Q: All right. 7 A: -- to do it. 8 Q: Would it be fair to say that the -- 9 the direction was to seek an injunction as soon as 10 possible and that the best way to do this would be ex 11 parte? 12 A: That's a fair assessment. 13 Q: And finally, with regard to the 14 correspondence regarding the burial site, we know that 15 the Federal Government sent some copies of 1937 16 correspondence to the Government on September 12. 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: And staff from the MNR, shortly 19 thereafter, I believe it was on September 14th, provided 20 copies of that correspondence to the Minister's office? 21 A: The material that Minister Irwin had 22 sent? 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: Or material that was found in the 25 archives of the Province of Ontario?

198

1 Q: Well, I'm assuming that they were the 2 same, but material found in the archives. 3 A: Well, it's two (2) distinct things. 4 The receipt of the material from Minister Irwin, I think, 5 happened on the 12th, when it -- 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: -- was released we obtained a copy of 8 it. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: And it was shortly thereafter that 11 copies -- and I -- I don't recall if it was from MNR or 12 ONAS or somewhere else -- were found, as described to me, 13 in -- in the Government archives. 14 Q: Okay. You said that it would have 15 been nice if you would had received the documents 16 earlier. 17 Were you aware that MNR staff were 18 attempting to ascertain the existence of a burial site 19 beginning on September 5th? 20 A: I know that in the meetings it was 21 discussed that all of the ministries who might possibly 22 have any knowledge whatsoever about the possibility of 23 burial sites, was asked to go away and seek out that 24 information and report back on it. 25 Q: All right. So I take it you weren't

199

1 suggesting that Ministry staff had deliberately withheld 2 this -- 3 A: No. 4 Q: -- documentation for any reason? 5 A: No. Not at all. There was a sense 6 of -- of disappointment on our part that we had found out 7 from the Federal Government and not from the Province -- 8 Q: Right. 9 A: -- but that's not a reflection on -- 10 on the people in the province of Ontario who were seeking 11 out this information. I do not mean to suggest that 12 anyone withheld it. 13 Q: Thank you, sir, those are my 14 questions. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Ms. Twohig. 17 Ms. Clermont...? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 22 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Bangs. My name 23 is Janet Clermont and I'm one (1) of the counsel 24 representing the Municipality of Lambton Shores, which 25 was formerly Bosanquet Township where the incident

200

1 occurred. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And you'll be happy to know that I'm 4 going to be very brief. 5 A: Thank you. 6 Q: You described the August 2nd IMC 7 meeting, in your testimony, as informational. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And that the MNR was not instructed 10 during the meeting to take any steps at that point? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And I'm interested, specifically, in 13 communications with external stakeholders such as the 14 Municipality. 15 And I take it that a communications plan, 16 that anticipated dialogue with municipal leaders, was not 17 pursued by the MNR following the August 2nd meeting? 18 A: I don't believe so. 19 Q: And I understand from your testimony 20 that -- that the MNR was directed to be a spokesperson at 21 the September 5th IMC meeting? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And -- and would communicating with 24 external stakeholders such as the municipality been 25 included in the role as -- as spokesperson?

201

1 A: I did not regard it as such. And the 2 lead of -- the role of lead spokesperson, I understood to 3 be with respect to the media and encountering the media 4 predominantly at Queen's Park. 5 Q: Okay. Did you have -- did you form 6 an impression or -- as to who would have that 7 responsibility of communicating with external 8 stakeholders, or did you not turn your mind to that? 9 A: No, I did not. 10 Q: Okay. And did -- did your office 11 communicate with any municipal officials on September 4th 12 to the 7th? 13 A: I don't know, I don't recall. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: And I just wanted to turn you to Tab 18 14 of Commission Counsel documents, Exhibit P-509, 19 document number 1012252. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And these are the IMC meeting notes 22 from September 6th. And if you turn to page 2, under 23 number 4, Communications? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: You see the second sentence starts,

202

1 "MNR will also work on informal 2 communications with key people in the 3 region, examples are Marcel Beaubien 4 MPP, and local politicians, to diffuse 5 tensions." 6 And do you recall that -- that suggestion 7 being made? 8 A: I don't recall it specifically. And 9 I know, in practice, that was not something that we took 10 away as an action item that we did. 11 Q: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last 12 bit. 13 A: That we did not take it away and 14 action it in that fashion as it is described here. 15 Q: So, you can't help me with what 16 informal communications were contemplated? 17 A: No, not personally. It may -- well, 18 I do know that local officials with MNR were talking with 19 -- with many people here in the community. 20 I don't know if this meant more to them 21 than it meant to me, but it does not -- it's not 22 something that I actioned. 23 Q: So, no one from the Toronto office, 24 then, was taking these steps in any event? 25 A: Pardon me?

203

1 Q: That no one from the Toronto office 2 was -- was taking steps to diffuse tensions as -- as was 3 set out in this suggestion here -- 4 A: Not that -- 5 Q: -- to your knowledge? 6 A: -- I'm aware of. Not that I'm aware 7 of. 8 Q: And -- okay that's fine. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: And the last document that I wanted 13 to turn you to was Tab 8 which are Julie Jai's notes and 14 that's Exhibit P-536, document number 1012579 and page 7. 15 A: 7 on the 5th or the 6th? 16 Q: Oh, 7 of the 6th. 17 A: The 6th, let me just... 18 Q: Do you have that there? 19 A: I believe so. 20 Q: Okay. And at the very top of the 21 page it says -- has "MNR", Minister's office. I'm 22 assuming that's Minister's office, 23 "With help from PO [which is Prime 24 Minister's office] will manage 25 municipal leaders, et cetera."

204

1 And then it says "Bosanquet". 2 And I'm wondering if you have any 3 recollection of that comment being made? 4 A: I don't. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: I don't. 7 Q: I think those are my questions. 8 Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 10 very much. I think we're a -- we've got a little switch. 11 Somebody's playing through. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 16 fine. That's fine, Mr. Rosenthal. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All it 22 means, Mr. Rosenthal, is you have to be a lot shorter. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I do very much 24 appreciate My Friends and you allowing me to accommodate 25 my personal situation. Thank you.

205

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And I shall be as 3 expeditious as I always am. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As you 5 always are. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: As I can be. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As you 8 always are. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 11 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Bangs. My name 12 is Peter Rosenthal. I'm Counsel on behalf of some of the 13 Stoney Point people under the name Aazhoodena and George 14 family group. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: I want to begin with something that 17 you said towards the end of your examination by 18 Commission Counsel. You indicated that you suggested 19 some recommendation about the role of somebody in the 20 position that Inspector Fox was in during these events. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And you said something to the effect 23 of that it was not clear to some people what his role 24 was. 25 Do you recall saying something to that

206

1 affect? And that's why -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- that's why you support a 4 recommendation that the role of a person like that be 5 clarified? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Now, you understood that part of his 8 role was liaison between the OPP and the Government; is 9 that fair? 10 A: Yes. OPP headquarters and the 11 Government. 12 Q: OPP headquarters and Government. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: I see. 15 A: That was my understanding of his 16 role. 17 Q: Yes. And was one of your concerns in 18 making the recommendation that you did to this Inquiry, 19 that some people might have, from your observations, seem 20 to have the view that he could be used as a channel to 21 tell the OPP what to do? 22 A: Not that he could be used as a 23 channel but that -- by people not knowing what his clear 24 role was, that there was the opportunity for some 25 confusion.

207

1 Q: I see, yeah. So, because of lack of 2 clarity about his role -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- there was the opportunity for that 5 channel being, in effect and -- and if your 6 recommendation were made and adhered to, would close that 7 possible channel. Is that -- is that what I understand-- 8 A: My recommendation was more looking 9 forward to the future. 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: I think, looking back in hindsight 12 based on my own experience, looking to the future. And 13 if anyone were ever in my position or the position of 14 others in such meetings, that if there is a person in 15 that role in those meetings that it is clear to everyone 16 in the room what their role is, what their reporting 17 structure is and what have you. 18 Q: Yes. Thank you. Now, if you could 19 please turn to your Tab 9 which are Ms. Hipfner's notes 20 of September 5th, 1995 which have been made Exhibit P- 21 510, to these proceedings, Inquiry Document Number 22 1011739. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Now if you turn to page 3 please you 25 were -- you were referred to the first real entry on that

208

1 page under, Options, attributed to you: 2 "Bangs: Should encounter injunction 3 first." 4 And you indicated that you didn't recall 5 the context. But, I -- I would suggest to you and would 6 like to know if this might, upon reflection, be the 7 apparent context that should consider injunction first 8 must have been when some people were talking about the 9 possibility of just enforcing the criminal law and going 10 in -- to more directly. 11 And you -- given your general view as 12 you've told us that things should proceed a little more 13 slowly would have interjected in your view, you should 14 consider the injunction before doing something like that. 15 Is that a reasonable conjecture at this 16 point as to what that would have meant in that context? 17 A: I think the comment was more having 18 heard the discussion -- was this the 5th or the 6th, 19 sorry? 20 Q: This is on the 6th. 21 A: This is on the 6th. Well, having 22 heard the previous discussion on the 5th -- 23 Q: I -- I think -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think this 25 is the 5th.

209

1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: -- I believe this is the 5th. 4 A: This is the 5th. Having heard the 5 discussion about the possibility of seeking an 6 injunction, I was not objecting to the idea of seeking an 7 injunction and I don't know that there was more to it 8 than that. 9 Q: Well but it says: 10 "Consider injunction first." 11 A: First, yes. 12 Q: As opposed to some other 13 possibilities I'm presuming. 14 A: Perhaps. I -- I don't know. 15 Q: And I'm suggesting to you the only 16 other possibilities that were being discussed was the use 17 of the Criminal Law or the Law of Trespass to go in 18 directly. 19 A: I can't say for certain. I really 20 don't recall the context in which that comment was made. 21 Q: Thank you. Turn to the next then. 22 There are more comments from you that you've been 23 referred to on page 4. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: You're saying:

210

1 "We can afford to wait and if we get an 2 injunction..." 3 And so on. And then -- well you indicate: 4 "Public safety doesn't seem to be an 5 issue at the moment." 6 Is that correct? 7 Continuing with your comment, I'm trying 8 to move as quickly as I can but -- 9 A: No. I -- I do recall making the 10 comment about public safety not being an issue at the 11 moment. 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: I don't know that this whole string 14 of comments though is all attributed to me. Mr. Allen, I 15 think it was reflected in another set of minutes from 16 that day, did comment -- and make the comment about the 17 Mohawk Warriors, for example, above. 18 Q: I see. 19 A: I don't recall making that comment. 20 But I do recall in -- in the course of these meetings 21 talking about public safety and speaking particularly 22 about the campers and the park staff at that time. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: It was not an issue at that point in 25 time. So I did --

211

1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- I did speak to that. I just 3 wanted to clarify that -- 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: -- the comment above I don't believe 6 is mine. 7 Q: And then right after you say, "public 8 safety doesn't seem to be an issue," and it apparently 9 continues to the effect that therefore the chances of 10 successfully getting an injunction might be negatively 11 affected by that. 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: You might have said something to that 14 affect as well? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: But, then right after that we see 17 attributed to Deb: 18 "Premier is hawkish on this issue." 19 Now, you've told us you recall her saying 20 that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: It would appear from the context and 23 I'd like to see if you agree with this that she was 24 saying that in response to your, sort of, go slow 25 attitude. You're saying there's no emergency and she

212

1 says, Well, the Premier's hawkish on this. 2 That's in response -- that's expressing 3 the opposite view from what you were expressing, right? 4 A: It was somewhat opposite to what I 5 was saying. I don't know that it was necessarily 6 adversarial in -- in the room, but it was in contrast to 7 what I was saying, I would agree with that. 8 Q: And then also attributed to her in 9 these notes are words to the effect that it will set the 10 tone as to how we deal with these issues over the next 11 four (4) years. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Do you recall her saying something to 14 that effect? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Yes. And then according to these 17 notes you respond: 18 "SPR is the bigger [something] issue." 19 A: Umbrella issue. 20 Q: Umbrella issue. And is that correct 21 that -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- you responded to that effect? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: So, as to how fierce a debate it was

213

1 it seems to be you're talking on opposite sides of, go 2 fast/go slow, right? 3 A: Yes, that's fair. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, I didn't understand, I must say 8 your response earlier today when you were asked about the 9 meaning of 'hawkish' in this context. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Would you not agree that 'hawkish' in 12 this context means aggressive? 13 A: The thing I remember more about the - 14 - the comment being made is what came after, the 15 suggestion that it -- the discussion was about being 16 careful because this was the first encounter this new 17 government was having with First Nations people, and 18 being careful because it was going to set a tone and we 19 had to be mindful of that is the way I remember it. 20 Q: Well, being careful in what sense? 21 Being careful to make sure that the tone that is set is 22 the tone that the Premier wants said, right? 23 A: I don't know. I don't know exactly 24 what she may have meant by this. I'm -- I can describe 25 what I thought she meant.

214

1 Q: But, in any event the word 'hawkish' 2 doesn't mean cautious, it means aggressive, doesn't it? 3 A: I didn't interpret it that way -- 4 Q: You didn't -- 5 A: -- in context to this meeting and the 6 -- and the comments she made about being careful about 7 setting the tone for the next four (4) years. 8 Q: Perhaps I'll let other counsel deal 9 with that, Mr. Commissioner. I'll move on. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: Now, some people have characterized 14 at these proceedings, Ms. Hutton's manner in the course 15 of these two (2) meetings as imperious. 16 Can you understand why some people might 17 characterize her that way even if you would not 18 necessarily do so? 19 And what your observation of her be -- 20 A: It's -- it's not a word that I would 21 use. I've known Ms. Hutton -- I'd known her for several 22 years prior to this and had worked with her, known her 23 for several years since, and she definitely, in the role 24 that she was playing as Executive Assistant to the 25 Premier, she was -- her mandate in attending these kinds

215

1 of meetings was -- was to drive towards options and 2 results and get options on the table that she could 3 report back to the Premier with. 4 She was, I believe, in some ways effective 5 in doing that. For someone who did not know her I think 6 it's a fair comment to say that they may have interpreted 7 her style differently than I would have having known her 8 previously. 9 Q: You could understand why people 10 observing that meeting who didn't know he might have 11 characterized her as behaving in an imperious manner? 12 A: Yes, I can understand that. 13 Q: Now, at one (1) of the two (2) 14 meetings she indicated that there shouldn't be any 15 negotiations with the occupiers; isn't that correct? 16 A: I don't remember that specific 17 comment. The -- the problem that we were dealing with 18 was that, as articulated to us and described to us in 19 these briefings, that there was no one to communicate 20 with and no one to negotiate with. 21 The OPP had not been able to identify a 22 spokesperson for the group and that that was a challenge 23 that we were facing. 24 But I don't recall her making that 25 specific comment.

216

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 2 Downard...? 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I suppose one can 4 distinguish between negotiations in the sense of 5 substantive matters and discussions, but I wouldn't want 6 the witness to be misled into thinking that Ms. Hutton 7 said there could be no discussions with the occupiers. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Regard -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with respect 10 I -- I understood that this person might have witnessed 11 her saying something -- something that might have had the 12 view that she indicated something, no negotiations with 13 the occupiers and I put it to him, but he answered -- he 14 answered and I'm ready to move on. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 16 that's fair. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I don't understand 18 why Mr. Downard -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- rose, I must 21 say. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He just 23 wants to make sure that the record isn't muddy. I assume 24 he wants to make sure the record isn't confusing. 25 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, the statement

217

1 attributed to Ms. Hutton in the notes is that the Premier 2 wants no one involved in discussions except OPP and 3 possibly MNR. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And I just didn't 6 want the witness to be inadvertently misled -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 8 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- as to what the 9 evidence was. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 11 then the record will speak. Carry on. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I didn't refer to 13 any other evidence -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- I just asked him 16 what his view was, Mr. Commissioner. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 19 Q: Now do you recall Ms. Hutton 20 commenting at one of these meetings to the effect that 21 she didn't want to wait for an injunction? 22 A: No. 23 Q: You don't recall her saying that? 24 A: No. 25 Q: And now, in response to a question

218

1 from Mr. Downard, you indicated your disagreement with 2 the characterization that the whole group was on a 3 testosterone high. 4 Do you recall that? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: But you can understand why some 7 people observing that meeting or those meetings, might 8 have concluded that Ms. Hutton, in particular, and 9 perhaps some other people, were acting in a sort of 10 aggressive manner; isn't -- wouldn't that be fair? 11 Some people who didn't know her normal 12 style, for example -- 13 A: Yes, as I've already -- 14 Q: -- might have -- 15 A: -- indicated -- 16 Q: -- come to that conclusion. 17 A: -- people who didn't -- had -- did 18 not previously know her, may have interpreted her style 19 differently than I did, having known her before. 20 Q: And you told us that when you 21 reminded the meeting of the statement of political 22 relationship -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: You -- you indicated the obligation 25 to consult and have dialogue and so on, right?

219

1 A: That was my understanding of it, yes. 2 Q: Yes. And you told us at this point 3 it wasn't known who among the occupiers would be able to 4 conduct that dialogue, right? 5 A: Yes, that was my understanding. 6 Q: So consistent with your view, I 7 presume, would have been the reasonable way of proceeding 8 of just waiting a day or two (2) before doing anything 9 and trying to determine whether consultation and dialogue 10 would be possible; isn't that fair? 11 A: That's fair. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: And you told us that you, early on in 16 -- upon your assuming your position as executive 17 assistant, established a very good relationship with the 18 civil service and in particular, I gather, that means 19 with deputy Minister Vrancart? 20 A: I believe so, yes. 21 Q: And he testified when asked about 22 dealing with the three (3) options, options including 23 criminal charges, mischief and injunction, he testified 24 that, in his view, they were all premature and there 25 should have been a little more investigation and attempt

220

1 to find out more about them, before doing any of those 2 things. 3 That seems to be consistent with what you 4 just told me that it could have waited a day or two (2) 5 and see what's happening, right? 6 A: Yes. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Now, could you please turn to Tab 8, 11 which is Exhibit P-536, the much referred notes of Julie 12 Jai. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: And I'm interested in September 6th. 15 Which is it? First page 3. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: About two-thirds (2/3's) of the way 18 down there's a notation, Deb, and it says: 19 "Premier feels the longer they occupy 20 it, the more support they'll get. He 21 wants them out in a day or two." 22 Is that consistent with your memory of 23 comments that Ms. Hutton would have made? 24 A: I don't remember her making that 25 specific comment.

221

1 Q: You don't remember those specific 2 comments? 3 A: No. 4 Q: But are those consistent with the 5 general message that she was giving on that occasion? 6 A: I -- I really can't say. 7 Q: You can't assist us with that? 8 A: No. I -- I can't. 9 Q: Okay. Now if I understood correctly 10 and if I remember correctly, you told us after the 11 September 5th meeting you had a discussion with Ms. 12 Hutton about the question of your ministry being the 13 spokespeople on this, right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And your indication that you didn't 16 think it was appropriate. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: But she, I gather, insisted that, at 19 least for the time being, that was going to remain the 20 case; is that right? 21 A: Yes, that's correct. 22 Q: Was there a discussion at that time 23 about why the Premier's office itself does not become the 24 spokespeople on this issue, since the Premier's office 25 seemed to be the office that wanted to move quickly?

222

1 A: No. I don't remember a discussion of 2 that nature. 3 Q: I see. Well when you tried to 4 convince her that your ministry shouldn't be the 5 spokespeople, did you explore other possible 6 spokespeople? 7 A: I did not. I was solely making the 8 point that I didn't think -- 9 Q: You said, not us. 10 A: It was not appropriate for us, for my 11 minister. 12 Q: Now if you turn to Tab 15 please. 13 Which are Ms. Hipfner's notes of September 6th, Exhibit 14 P-636, Inquiry Document Number 1011784. 15 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 16 Q: On page 3 thereof. 17 A: Yes. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Sorry, I got fooled again even 22 thought it's happened a million times. Page 3 and 4 23 being interchanged. Sorry, yes, page 3. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: There -- the -- you've been turned to

223

1 comments attributed to you, Bangs. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And that includes your indication 4 that your ministry did not want to be the -- the people 5 on this? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: The spokespeople on it? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And then shortly after that there are 10 comments attributed to Ms. Hunt about Runciman, her 11 minister having reservation about being the spokesperson 12 as well. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: So do I gather by putting those two 15 (2) together that at this point there was a general 16 discussion as to who can be the spokesperson on this and 17 you saying, Not my ministry. And she was saying, Not her 18 Ministry. 19 A: That's -- that's fair, yes. 20 Q: And then were there other 21 possibilities mentioned or other aspects of that 22 discussion that are not recorded in the notes? 23 A: I don't believe so. The -- I think 24 it was suggested by Mr. Moran that -- he made the case 25 that the Attorney General should not be the spokesperson.

224

1 Ms. Hunt spoke on behalf of her minister and I spoke on 2 behalf of mine. 3 Q: So the three (3) ministries, Natural 4 Resources, Solicitor General and Attorney General 5 indicated that they should not be spokespeople on this 6 issue? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: But then didn't the question arise as 9 to who should be the spokesperson? 10 A: I don't recall that. I know the 11 outcome of the meeting was that it still stayed with my 12 minister. But I don't recall there being much change. 13 Q: The outcome of the meeting, you said, 14 with the Prime Minister or with -- 15 A: No, with my minister. 16 Q: With your ministry. Sorry, my 17 hearing 18 is a bit -- 19 A: Yeah. Okay, yes. 20 Q: But wasn't it suggested by someone 21 that the Prime Minister's office should be the 22 spokesperson. 23 A: The Premier's office? 24 Q: The Premier's -- sorry, the Premier's 25 office, sorry, should be the spokespeople because the

225

1 Premier's office was the office that was pushing this. 2 A: I don't -- I don't recall that and I 3 certainly didn't make that suggestion in the meeting. 4 Q: Now you understood that the general 5 advice was that the Government, and in particular your 6 ministry, could ask the OPP to -- could request that they 7 remove the occupiers but could not direct them to remove 8 the occupiers; is that fair? 9 A: That was my -- my understanding, yes. 10 Q: And then if you turn to Tab 12 11 please. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: I'm sorry, I'm going to skip that if 16 I may. Sorry about that. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 20 Q: Now, are you aware then of who did 21 make that request of the OPP? 22 A: No, I'm not. 23 Q: Deputy Minister Vrancart indicated 24 that Mr. Kobayashi would have transmitted that request to 25 the OPP?

226

1 A: That's possible -- 2 Q: I see. 3 A: -- but I don't have personal 4 knowledge of that. 5 Q: I see. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Now, turning to the burial site 10 question you told us that at the September 5th meeting 11 the possibility that there was a burial site within the 12 Park premises was raised; is that correct? 13 A: Yes, I believe so. 14 Q: And at the time there wasn't any hard 15 evidence either way? 16 A: That was my understanding that there 17 was no hard evidence. 18 Q: That was your -- I'm sorry? 19 A: That was my understanding that there 20 was no hard evidence. You're correct. 21 Q: At least in possession of the 22 Committee members there was no hard evidence either way? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: But it was your understanding that 25 the people occupying the Park were concerned about that

227

1 issue, they had raised that issue in some form or 2 another? 3 A: It was not directly communicated. My 4 understanding was that it was not directly communicated 5 to government by the occupiers, it was more a case of 6 rumours and speculation as to why this might be happening 7 and -- 8 Q: I see. 9 A: -- it was not -- my understanding was 10 that it was not that -- that or any other articulation of 11 demands came from the occupiers. 12 Q: I see. In any event it was discussed 13 as as possible justification on the occupiers' part for 14 their occupying the Park? 15 A: It was. 16 Q: And that was at the September 5th 17 meeting as well as the September 6th meeting; is that 18 correct? 19 A: I believe so. 20 Q: Now, if you could turn to Tab 27, 21 please. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: If you turn to the last page, and

228

1 this is the way I have it, it's page 72 -- page 72 at Tab 2 27? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And then there's the last entry on 5 that page, "522." This is a document that reports -- or 6 responses to undertakings that were made in the course of 7 the civil suit -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- surrounding this issue. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And question 522 says: 12 "To inquire of Jeff Bangs as to whether 13 he followed up, in any way, to find out 14 whether, in fact, there was a claim 15 about a burial ground in the Park by 16 the occupiers, following this press 17 conference." 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And the answer given there is: 20 "Bangs advises that he reviewed the 21 content of Exhibit 152 before he sent 22 it out under his cover letter dated 23 September 6th, 1995. Bangs advises 24 that the reference to burial grounds in 25 the last question on page 2, Exhibit

229

1 152 was a generic question by the 2 reporter. 3 It was not until several days later 4 that the Federal Government raised, for 5 the first time, any possibility of a 6 burial ground existing at the time. 7 Bangs advises that, accordingly, there 8 was no perceived need on September 5, 9 1995 to do any [and then continuing 10 next page] followup report regarding 11 any burial ground." 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: Now, is that an accurate reflection 14 of your response to that undertaking, sir? 15 A: I believe it is an accurate response 16 of what I said at the time. The -- 17 Q: It is what you said at the time? 18 A: I believe so. I don't dispute it. 19 The -- what we were dealing with I thought was the -- 20 the distinction between any hard evidence of a burial 21 site and the rumours and speculation that we were hearing 22 about with no clearly articulated -- 23 Q: But then in the last -- 24 A: -- notes. 25 Q: -- sentence there is that there was

230

1 no perceived need on September 5th, 1995 to do any 2 followup regarding any burial ground. 3 Wouldn't you agree that if it was 4 discussed at the meetings of September 5 and 6, as you've 5 told us, that at least, in retrospect, wouldn't you agree 6 that there should have been a follow up to do some 7 enquiries and perhaps maybe uncover those documents that 8 were uncovered a week later? 9 A: I believe one of the things we talked 10 about earlier today was, in that time period each of the 11 Ministries, who were represented at these meetings and 12 might possibly have any information related to the 13 possibility of a burial site, were asked, at the time, 14 and I do remember that now. 15 Q: Now, you indicated earlier today that 16 you would have liked to have known what was later 17 discovered about -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- the burial ground a week later, at 20 the time of September 5th and 6th. And would you agree 21 that had you known that, that would have been another 22 argument to go slow on dealing with the occupiers; they 23 seemed to have some legitimate concern here and let's go 24 in more slowly? 25 A: I would agree with that.

231

1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 Q: Now you told us that either at the 5 end or towards the end or just after the end, I gather, 6 of the September 6th meeting, Ms. Hutton said words to 7 the effect of -- that these meetings are not going to 8 occur in this fashion any longer, right? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And it appeared to you that she had 11 just sort of made up her mind on that as she sat through 12 that second meeting? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And in fact, that then happened. 15 Those meetings didn't occur in that fashion subsequently; 16 isn't that right? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And did she give you an indication 19 that she had thought it was basically a waste of time? 20 A: She did not say that to me. 21 Q: And you didn't get that sort of 22 indication from her at all? 23 A: No. 24 Q: You told us that your Minister 25 Hodgson did not attend the Cabinet meeting on September

232

1 6th because he wanted to avoid the possibility of a media 2 scrum. 3 A: He felt very strongly, as I indicated 4 earlier, that he should not be the lead spokesperson. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: And he did not go to Cabinet that day 7 for that reason. 8 Q: Now, I -- I gather that he thought if 9 he did go to Cabinet, knowing that there is often a media 10 scrum after Cabinet -- 11 A: Prior -- it's normally prior to. 12 When the Ministers are -- 13 Q: Prior to -- 14 A: -- arriving at Cabinet, prior to the 15 meeting. 16 Q: I see, so normally prior to, that 17 there would have been reporters asking about Ipperwash 18 and since the Committee had decided or Deb Hutton had 19 decided or someone had decided that he was the 20 spokesperson, any other Ministers would just point to him 21 and he'd be on the spot, right? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Did he tell Mr. Harris that that's 24 the reason he didn't attend at the cabinet meeting? 25 A: I don't know that the two (2) of them

233

1 ever spoke about it. 2 Q: Now, the meeting at the Solicitor 3 General's office on September 6th, the abortive -- 4 attempted meeting -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: You told us the Solicitor General was 7 there, you don't believe; is that correct? 8 A: I don't believe so. 9 Q: But there must have been someone from 10 the Solicitor General's office there, presumably, since 11 you were meeting in -- in his office and -- 12 A: But I don't recall exactly who. 13 Q: Now, could that have been Kathryn 14 Hunt, who we understand was his executive assistant at 15 the time? 16 A: I don't know for certain. 17 Q: You don't recall? 18 A: I know that she was the executive 19 assistant at the time, but I don't remember encountering 20 her or seeing her when we arrived and shortly thereafter 21 left. 22 Q: So you're not sure either way whether 23 she was there? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Can you tell us approximately how

234

1 many people were there? I mean you've mentioned several 2 individuals -- 3 A: It was -- it was -- as I said 4 earlier, it was very busy, it appeared to be very busy. 5 I'd only be guessing at how many people were there I... 6 Q: But you've -- you've told us a few 7 specific names that you remember. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And that includes you and your 10 Minister and Mr. Fox and Mr. Patrick. 11 A: And Mr. Vrancart was there as well. 12 Q: And Mr. Vrancart. 13 A: I believe -- 14 Q: So that's five (5) people. Were 15 there approximately another five (5) or ten (10) or -- 16 A: There may have been another eight (8) 17 or ten (10) people around and, like I say, it was -- it 18 appeared to be very busy; people moving around and a lot 19 of activity. 20 Q: But sort of participating in the 21 attempted meeting there would have been another five (5) 22 or six (6) people in addition to the ones you mentioned? 23 A: No. The discussion -- the meeting -- 24 it was never actually a meeting. It was a discussion 25 that occurred between Minister Hodgson and -- and Mr.

235

1 Fox. 2 Q: I see. Now, turning to the dining 3 room meeting that took place after that. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Do you know who requested your 6 attendance at the meeting? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Did you get the understanding that 9 the meeting had been arranged by the Premier's office? 10 A: Oh yes. Yes. 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: We would not ourselves attend a 13 meeting in the Premier's office without being invited. 14 Q: And it was your understanding that 15 only the Premier's office could have arranged a meeting 16 in the Premier's dining room at that time; is that right? 17 A: Normally, yes. Yes. 18 Q: Now, I'm going to try to jog your 19 memory of some things there and if they assist you and 20 you can assist us that would be good. If not you'll tell 21 me so. 22 There is some suggestion that Larry Taman 23 speaking at that meeting was quite forceful with some of 24 the people there about the separation of duties between 25 government and police.

236

1 Do you recall him speaking in that kind of 2 direction? 3 A: I don't remember him being forceful. 4 I do remember that subject matter being discussed and he 5 was one (1) of the people who raised it. 6 Q: I see. So you remember this -- the 7 question of separation between -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- police and government being 10 discussed? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you recall Mr. Taman speaking to 13 that issue? 14 A: I do. 15 Q: And who else to you recall speaking 16 to that issue? 17 A: I don't recall anyone else 18 specifically speaking to that issue. 19 Q: I see. Do you recall any questions 20 or comments Mr. Harris might have made on that issue? 21 A: Only as I indicated earlier that I 22 thought the -- the issue came up more than once and the 23 Premier seemed to be of the opinion that he wasn't sure 24 after being told repeatedly that there was no role for 25 him in -- in directing any activities and the only thing

237

1 there -- we were there to discuss was the injunction, he 2 did seem somewhat -- he was questioning why in fact he 3 was there at this particular meeting. 4 Q: Doesn't it strike us all as a bit odd 5 that the Premier would say why am I at this meeting if 6 he's the one who called the meeting? 7 A: I don't know that he personally 8 called the meeting. His staff certainly asked us to be 9 there. 10 Q: Now, do you -- some specific words 11 that might have been attributed to the Premier were put 12 to you and you indicated you don't recall them -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- in response to several questions. 15 Do you recall though to some extent in some words that 16 you may not specifically recall that the Premier 17 indicated some criticism of the OPP for at least previous 18 actions up to that time? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Or in -- in particular indicated his 21 displeasure that they had allowed the occupation -- 22 occupation to take place? 23 A: No. 24 Q: You don't recall that? 25 A: No.

238

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Do you recall Mr. Fox speaking at 4 that meeting? 5 A: Not specifically, although I think he 6 did add to the meeting some of the -- the field 7 information about the current situation, but I don't 8 recall exactly what it was that he said. 9 Q: Do you recall Mr. Harris asking 10 questions while speaking -- 11 A: No. 12 Q: -- in apparent direction to Mr. Fox? 13 A: No, I don't. Not specifically. 14 Q: So, you do recall a discussion though 15 about government and police and at least some people in 16 the course of that discussion seemed to not understand 17 that fine line that had to be drawn. 18 Isn't that fair to say? 19 A: I don't know that -- I wouldn't say 20 that they did not understand. I know that the point came 21 up more than once throughout the course of the meeting. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: But, I -- I don't know that -- I 24 certainly understood it and I can only speak for myself. 25 Q: But there were people on both sides

239

1 of it to some extent, that's why it kept coming up; isn't 2 that fair? 3 A: I would not agree with that. 4 Q: I see. Okay. I'd like to put to you 5 some testimony from Mr. David Moran from a couple of days 6 ago, November 1st, beginning at page 29. 7 He told us that he didn't recall the 8 Premier referring to the holocaust directly, but he then 9 said: 10 "The other thing that I think is 11 important to note is and I -- I've read 12 some of the media coverage about the 13 Premier's comments and focus on what 14 the Premier was trying to say and yes, 15 he was a little frustrated, was that 16 it's important to act before things 17 escalate and go before a tragedy 18 occurs. And the same -- that some 19 people's impression of the Premier's 20 comments surrounding a particular 21 holocaust were taken out of context 22 from a lack of understanding." 23 Does that help to refresh your memory, 24 sir, about something the Premier said? 25 A: No. I don't remember any discussion

240

1 about the holocaust in that meeting whatsoever. 2 Q: Do you recall the Premier indicating 3 that it's important to act quickly before things escalate 4 or words to that effect? 5 A: No, I don't remember that. 6 Q: Well what do you recall Premier 7 Harris saying at that meeting? 8 A: As I indicated, he asked -- he did 9 express, more toward the end of the meeting, the 10 suggestion that he was wondering why he was even there if 11 he was being repeatedly told that there was no role for 12 him. 13 He wasn't being asked for any direction 14 and he wasn't -- it was not his role to provide direction 15 and he -- at the end of the meeting indicated that he 16 wasn't sure why he was there. 17 Q: Yes. That's -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is just 19 a repeat of what we've already heard, Mr. Rosenthal. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I appreciate 21 that, Mr. Commissioner. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: That was at the end of the meeting? 25 A: Yes.

241

1 Q: Now he surely spoke well before that, 2 did he not? 3 A: There was -- there was discussion 4 between he and Mr. Taman and Mr. Fox throughout the 5 meeting but I don't recall the specifics. 6 Q: You don't recall? 7 A: No. I do know -- 8 Q: You don't recall the specifics but 9 can you assist us as to the nature of what Mr. Harris 10 said in his interactions with Mr. Fox and Mr. Taman 11 before the final comments that he made? 12 A: Well, most of the discussion led by 13 Mr. Taman had to do with the injunction and the nature of 14 the injunction. And again, not being a lawyer I was not 15 that familiar with the subject matter. Mr. Harris had 16 some questions about the nature of the injunction and I 17 believe at the end of the meeting consented to the 18 decision to... 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Now you not only don't recall the 23 specifics of what Mr. Harris -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 25 Yes, Mr. Downard...?

242

1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It appeared to me 2 that when Mr. Horton came to speak with Mr. Rosenthal, 3 the Witness terminated an answer, he hadn't finished 4 and -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He didn't 6 finish an answer? I didn't notice. 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It sounded to me 8 like he was -- he was saying that the Premier consented 9 to something. I didn't hear what -- he stopped at that 10 point. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Did you get 12 a chance to finish what you were saying? 13 THE WITNESS: No, I did not. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry. I was 16 totally unaware of that and I do agree you should be 17 given a chance. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, what -- 19 THE WITNESS: I was just -- I was just 20 going to say that the -- I know that in the course of the 21 meeting, toward the end of the meeting, the Premier did 22 consent to the suggestion that there be an ex parte 23 injunction sought. So, I do recall that. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL:

243

1 Q: You do recall that part? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: But, of the earlier interaction 4 between him and Inspector Fox and Mr. Taman and perhaps 5 others you don't recall, not only you don't recall the 6 specifics but you can't assist us as to the nature of his 7 questions or his interaction? 8 A: No, not specifically. 9 Q: But, it did come up several times at 10 least the question of separation between police and 11 government, right? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. You're 13 going to say that he's been asked that question and he's 14 answered it. 15 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: About three (3) 16 times now. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you I 18 think that we should move on from that, Mr. Rosenthal. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I am going to. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 24 Q: Now, you told us that early on as you 25 assumed your new role of executive assistant, the -- one

244

1 of your jobs was to assist in establishing relationships 2 with various stakeholders; is that correct? 3 A: That was one of my roles. It was 4 not -- 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: -- necessarily the main role but it 7 was one of -- 8 Q: One of the roles of the Ministry 9 and -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- you would play some role in that 12 role; is that fair? 13 A: That's right, yes. 14 Q: Now, I gather though -- you -- you 15 gave us a listing of some of the stakeholders and you 16 didn't mention any Aboriginal interests; is that fair? 17 A: That was in response to a question 18 preceding the election of 1995 in the days when we were 19 in opposition. 20 Q: I see. And what about -- once you 21 were not in opposition, once you were in power -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- did you, prior to, let's say 24 September of 1995, establish relationships with 25 Aboriginal stakeholders?

245

1 A: With some, yes. 2 Q: I see. And can you give us some 3 rough outline of what those were? 4 A: I believe I was asked earlier about 5 the dealings we had with the Chippewas of Nawash. I know 6 that we were briefed in the summer of 1995 on Temagami 7 issues and the Minister set about meeting the First 8 Nations community later that year in the Temagami area -- 9 Q: I see. 10 A: -- including the First Nation. 11 Q: Yes. Those were a couple of issues 12 that had to be dealt with because there were potential 13 active issues there, right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: That's different though from 16 approaching people as stakeholders in general; isn't that 17 fair? 18 A: Well, I don't recall the exact timing 19 of when meetings occurred, but I know that the Minister 20 through both his portfolios, had several dealings with 21 the First Nations at various levels and particularly at a 22 community level when issues were involved. 23 Q: Am I correct in understanding that it 24 was the policy of the Harris Government that Aboriginal 25 and Non-Aboriginal people should be treated the same?

246

1 Is that -- 2 A: That's not my understanding of the 3 policies. 4 Q: I -- I see. 5 A: No. 6 Q: Can you tell us your understanding? 7 A: One of the things that -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 9 that that's a fair question. I don't know if it is or 10 not. I don't think that this Witness should be asked to 11 explain the policy of the Harris government. 12 His understanding -- are you going to go 13 much further in this, are you, because it really isn't an 14 area that I want to explore, with -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I wasn't -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- not with 17 this witness. I mean, it may be an area that you should 18 explore with -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But with respect, 20 Mr. Commissioner -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 22 proper witness. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This is a 24 political -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.

247

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- staff -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It is a 3 political -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Of course it would 5 be inappropriate to ask a civil servant that question but 6 political staff -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Even a 8 political aide. A political aide is not responsible for 9 developing policy. 10 But he may know what it was. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or what his 13 understanding of it is and that's the question? You want 14 to ask the question -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That's what I was 16 asking him about. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask the 18 question again; let's see what it is. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ask the 21 question again and see -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

248

1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I had asked-- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What -- 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 5 Q: -- was it not the Harris -- just to 6 get us back to where we were, was it not the Harris 7 Government policy to treat Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal 8 the same -- people the same and you indicated that's not 9 your understanding. 10 A: No. 11 Q: And then my question was -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 13 THE WITNESS: That it was not -- 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 16 Q: -- what -- what is your 17 understanding? 18 A: It was not my understanding that that 19 was the policy and it was not the way we conducted 20 ourselves in practice. 21 Q: Then what was your -- 22 A: In my personal view, it was 23 recognized that there were Aboriginal and treaty rights 24 that distinguished different rights from -- for First 25 Nations people than other members of society and we had

249

1 to be cognizant of those and recognize those in our 2 dealing with First Nations people. 3 Q: That's your personal view? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Was it your understanding that that 6 was the view of the Harris government? 7 A: It was certainly the view of my 8 Minister and that's the way we conducted ourselves at the 9 Ministry of Natural Resources. 10 Q: Now, in general, there was a policy 11 against co-management; is that correct? 12 Co-management with Aboriginal people of 13 disputed lands had been something introduced by the 14 previous NDP government, particularly, or emphasised by 15 them, and rejected by the Harris Government in general; 16 is that fair? 17 A: I don't believe so. 18 Q: Well, we had evidence, for example, 19 from deputy minister Vrancart on October 27 beginning at 20 page 83 where he testified as follows: 21 "Co-management is a term for a 22 partnership arrangement, in this case 23 between First Nation and the Ministry 24 of Natural Resources to manage 25 Ipperwash Provincial Park. And co-

250

1 management was a philosophy that was 2 promoted by the NDP Government between 3 1990 and '95. 4 It's not a philosophy that the 5 Conservative Government subscribed to 6 and my Minister was quite clear that he 7 was not in favour of co-management 8 initiatives." 9 Now, do you agree or disagree with Mr. 10 Vrancart's testimony in that respect? 11 A: I don't agree with that portrayal and 12 it doesn't account with the way we conducted ourselves. 13 And we spoke earlier about Serpent Mounds, for example -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- in which we ent -- very shortly, 16 it was the fall of 1995, I believe, we entered into a co- 17 management agreement with the First Nation. 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: And there were other examples 20 subsequent to that. 21 Q: Are there other examples, sir? 22 A: Not -- 23 Q: In the Harris government? 24 A: Not necessarily with co-management. 25 Q: No.

251

1 A: I'm thinking of other examples where 2 there were negotiated agreements on resource sharing and 3 -- and those sorts of things. 4 Q: No, in fact, sir, there are no other 5 examples of co-management during the Harris Government 6 except for Serpent Mounds; is that not fair? 7 A: I don't know. 8 Q: You don't know? 9 A: I don't know. 10 Q: Now, with respect to Serpent Mounds, 11 it was a special situation because of the fact that the 12 First Nation owned a portion of that park, right? 13 Everybody agreed to that, right? 14 A: Everyone agreed to that. 15 Q: And that's the only situation in 16 which the Harris Government -- 17 A: I don't know. 18 Q: I see. 19 A: I don't know if that's the case. 20 Q: Now, when Commission Counsel asked 21 you towards the end of his examination of you if you had 22 any further involvement with these matters after the 23 winterizing in the fall of '95, you answered "not in this 24 time period", is my recollection of your answer that I 25 noted.

252

1 Is it -- do you recall that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: So, in what time period did you have 4 further involvement then? 5 A: I remember in the spring, I believe, 6 of 1996 there were efforts made to engage a third-party - 7 - respected third party as part of the negotiation or to 8 try and get some form of dialogue and negotiation going. 9 And I remember being part of some of those discussions at 10 the Ministry. 11 I don't know what the -- well, my 12 understanding is that there was not any tremendous 13 outcome from that, but I know we had discussions in the 14 spring of 1996. 15 Q: Yes, and in that period also 16 sporadically, there was on and off reconsideration of the 17 possibility of seeking and injunction to get the 18 occupiers out of the Park; is that correct? 19 A: I'm not aware of that. 20 Q: You were not aware of that? 21 A: No. 22 Q: I see. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

253

1 Q: You're not aware of it. I can't ask 2 you about it so thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 3 Commissioner. 4 A: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 Thank you very much. I think this would be a good time 7 to take an afternoon break. 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 9 for fifteen (15) minutes. 10 11 --- Upon recessing at 3:00 p.m. 12 --- Upon resuming at 3:18 p.m. 13 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 15 resumed. Please be seated. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 17 afternoon, Mr. Zbogar. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Good afternoon, Mr. 19 Commissioner. Good afternoon, Mr. Bangs. 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 22 Q: My name is Vilko Zbogar, I'm 23 representing the Estate of Dudley George and members of 24 Dudley's family. 25 I was listening attentively to your

254

1 recommendations towards the end of your answers given to 2 Mr. Worme's questions and in particular the 3 recommendation that -- that you think it's important 4 that the long-term history of these situations be 5 reviewed. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And I understand -- and is it your 8 understanding that part of the long-term history of this 9 situation involves a piece of land which is the subject 10 of a treaty which guaranteed it to First Nations peoples 11 -- peoples forever as well as a subsequent purported 12 surrender of those lands to the Federal Government? 13 Are you aware of that? 14 A: I understand some of that; not all 15 the specific detail that you're mentioning, but I do know 16 that there was a surrender process many, many years ago. 17 My recommendation spoke specifically to 18 the World War II period and the expropriation of lands to 19 create Camp Ipperwash and the -- the fact that they were 20 not returned. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: That's what I was thinking of. 23 Q: Okay. But this -- this issue of the 24 surrender and the treaty is also part of this history of 25 this land.

255

1 A: It certainly is, yes. 2 Q: All right. I'm not going to ask you 3 to get into the details of that you'll be relieved -- 4 relieved to know and I think everybody will, but I want 5 to ask about what the Ministry, or yourself or your 6 Minister, may have been told about these issues or not 7 prior to the -- the incidents that happened at Ipperwash. 8 Now, you were advised by MNR staff in 9 August of 1995 I think was your testimony that the 10 Province had valid title to the Park lands? 11 A: Yes, that's the way it was described 12 to me. 13 Q: Do you remember who it was that 14 advised you of that? 15 A: Not specifically. I don't know if it 16 was in a briefing or if it was from the Deputy's office, 17 but I remember being told that. 18 Q: Do you remember if it came from the 19 Deputy's office or someone -- or would it have possibly 20 come from another source? 21 A: I don't know for certain. 22 Q: Okay. Do you recall more 23 specifically what you were advised? 24 Actually, let me ask you this, the -- was 25 the advice to the effect -- to the effect of the

256

1 Province's title was good, based on the fact that it was 2 fairly acquired from a private owner some time in the 3 1930's, who in turn had acquired it from the Federal 4 Government which had obtained it previously as surrender 5 of those lands from the First Nation and that there was a 6 chain of documentation which proves that? 7 Was that -- would that fairly characterize 8 it? 9 A: That's the way -- that is the way it 10 was explained to me, yes. 11 Q: Okay. Now as far as the underlying 12 surrender goes, there was no advice or information given 13 to you at the legality or fairness of -- of the 14 underlying surrender of those lands by the First Nation; 15 is that right? 16 A: I don't believe so. 17 Q: Okay. Or to the minister I take it 18 at any time? 19 A: I don't believe so. 20 Q: Now if there were issues as to the 21 legality or fairness of the underlying surrender of those 22 Treaty lands, do you agree that is information that you 23 or your minister would have wanted to be aware of, in 24 order to understand the context of the issues that might 25 affect your Park?

257

1 A: I can't say for certain. I know that 2 there was -- one of the things that we were briefed on 3 was that there was an existing land claim process in the 4 Province of Ontario and that if parties, anywhere in the 5 Province, First Nations, had a claim to bring forward to 6 exercise, or over a potential dispute, that there was a 7 process for that. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: I did understand that. 10 Q: And you were aware there was no 11 formal land claim with respect to this property at that 12 time, right? 13 A: That was my understanding, yes. 14 Q: But you would have still wanted to be 15 aware of whether there might have been an informal land 16 claim that might have needed some followup. 17 That would have been something you would 18 have been interested in knowing, or your minister would 19 have been interested in knowing, given its connection to 20 the Park, which he had responsibility for; I 21 Is that fair? 22 A: I -- I would agree, yes. 23 Q: Yes. Now there was a meeting we 24 talked about in -- in August 2nd and the first 25 Interministerial Committee meeting that you attended.

258

1 Now is there anything -- you talked about 2 that briefly, but is there anything about that meeting 3 that particularly sticks out in your mind? 4 A: No. I think I've suggested earlier 5 that my impression of the meeting was that it was a fact 6 finding meeting and I took it away as having been to 7 another of many briefings that summer. 8 And took away some facts that I 9 subsequently shared. And I and the Deputy Minister's 10 staff shared with the deputy and with the minister. 11 Q: Okay. So there was no disagreement 12 or tension as to how to approach the situation in this 13 context? 14 A: I don't believe so. 15 Q: Okay. Do you recall if a 16 representative from the Premier's office participated in 17 this meeting in any way? 18 A: I believe Mr. Brett Laschinger was 19 there. 20 Q: He was there but did he participate 21 aside from listening? 22 A: I don't recall that he -- that he 23 spoke or -- I can't say that he did not speak but I don't 24 recall any participation. 25 Q: On September 5th of 1995, now I

259

1 understand the morning of September 5th was the first 2 time you had direct contact with Minister Hodgson about 3 this occupation? 4 A: I believe it was in the morning of 5 the 5th that we spoke. 6 Q: By telephone? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And was that conversation purely 9 information or was there some discussion during that 10 conversation of possible options to deal with this 11 situation? 12 A: I don't remember any discussion of 13 options. It was mainly information and the fact -- and 14 telling him the fact that I was going to a meeting and 15 would report more to him following that meeting. 16 Q: Okay. So you were reporting to him. 17 Did he -- do you recall him saying anything back? 18 A: I don't recall specifically, no. We 19 had had -- we did have a discussion, I believe, as I 20 indicated earlier, more of a question from him and I was 21 able to assure him that public safety -- public safety of 22 campers and Park staff was not an immediate issue. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: And that issue had been addressed by 25 the campers leaving the day before.

260

1 Q: Okay. So you wouldn't have said that 2 -- in addition to saying that this is what's happened and 3 this is a meeting I'm going to, you wouldn't have said 4 that, We should think about possibly an injunction or 5 other options to deal with the situation? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: No. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Now, I think your evidence was that 13 you didn't recall whether an injunction was discussed but 14 it -- are you now telling me that you are certain that an 15 injunction was not discussed, if I can put it a bit 16 differently? 17 A: At the meeting? 18 Q: Sorry, when you spoke with Minister 19 Hodgson -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: I just want to maybe ask the question 22 a little bit differently. Is it is your recollection, 23 like, can you confirm that the topic of the injunction 24 was not discussed between you and Minister Hodgson on -- 25 A: On the morning of the 5th before I

261

1 went to the Interministerial Committee meeting, I do not 2 believe so. 3 Q: All right. Okay. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Was there any understanding following 8 your conversation with -- or during or following your 9 conversation with Minister Hodgson, what anticipated next 10 steps might be, aside from your attendance at this 11 meeting? 12 A: No. It was very much that I would 13 attend the meeting and we would discuss it again later 14 that day. 15 Q: Okay. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: During the course of your attendance 20 at the Interministerial Committee meetings on September 21 5th and 6th of 1995, is it fair you became aware that 22 there were two (2) issues or grievances or -- or -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Zbogar, 24 I'm going to ask you politely not to go over the same 25 ground in the same way as it's already gone over. You've

262

1 a right to ask you questions but I would be very grateful 2 if you made effort not to cover the same ground that's 3 already been covered. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm making great 5 effort to do that, Mr. Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 7 very much. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: In some cases, it is 12 necessary to go back to one question just to ground it in 13 the evidence -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you have 15 to put some -- 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- asking -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- context 18 to a question, I certainly understand that, but I'm 19 hoping that you ask questions that haven't been asked 20 already. 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I intend to do so, Mr. 22 Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR:

263

1 Q: Now you became aware that there were 2 two (2) issues in play and first of all an issue that or 3 a claim that the land belonged to the occupiers and 4 second of all that the Park contained an Aboriginal 5 burial ground? 6 You became aware of that during the course 7 of the Interministerial Committee meetings? 8 A: The -- the possibility that a burial 9 ground might exist was raised at that meeting. But as I 10 -- as I discussed earlier, it was -- there was no 11 definitive evidence of the province by anyone at that 12 meeting in attendance that day to suggest that that was, 13 in fact, true, but they -- 14 Q: Right. 15 A: -- were not able to say that it was 16 not true. 17 Q: I've heard your evidence on that 18 point, I don't -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- need you to repeat it but -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 24 Q: I just wanted to ask you to identify 25 that that was one of the issues in play now --

264

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: This issue as to what validity it had 3 or that sort of thing. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: The other issue that you would have 6 become aware of was assertion or claim that the Park was 7 the occupiers' land. 8 A: I don't know that that was 9 immediately clear on the 5th. It was a matter, I think, 10 of some speculation that they were -- that they may make 11 some claim to the Parkland but I don't recall that being 12 something that we were -- there was no formal suggestion, 13 and again, going back to the fact that there was no 14 identified spokesperson for the group and no articulated 15 demands, we weren't certain that that was the case. 16 It was the matter, I believe, a matter of 17 speculation that that might be one of the -- the reasons 18 and the burial -- and the possibility of burial grounds 19 might be another reason. 20 Q: Okay. Now you said that you didn't 21 recall that coming forward on September 5th, particularly 22 or specifically, but you do remember it having come 23 forward during one (1) of those two (2) meetings before 24 the actual shooting of Dudley George; right? 25 A: Yes.

265

1 Q: The claim that it -- the Park was 2 their land? 3 A: Yes. The possibility that that might 4 be at the root of the occupation. 5 Q: Okay. So even though there were not 6 formal -- there was no formal communication of demands 7 directly between the occupiers and some representative of 8 your government, it was understood by you that there were 9 these two (2) live issues and -- and that's what was 10 going on. 11 Is that... 12 A: Only the possibility that they were 13 live issues. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: As I -- as I've already said, that 16 there was this distinction. There was nothing clearly 17 articulated as far as a demand goes and it was best 18 efforts on behalf of the different people around the 19 table, the different Minister's represented and what 20 people were hearing from the media, quite frankly, at 21 that time as well, to try and -- and guess at what was at 22 the root of this. 23 Q: Hmm hmm. 24 A: But those two (2) issues were -- were 25 talked about as possibilities, yes.

266

1 Q: Okay. Now at these September 5th and 2 6th Interministerial Committee meetings, which were 3 attended by a number of executive assistants including 4 yourself -- 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: -- political EA's. Each of you 7 would have respectively been speaking for your Ministers, 8 is that right, or would you be speaking on your own 9 behalfs? 10 A: I would say there's a bit of both. 11 Q: A bit of both? 12 A: And there were some -- in the case 13 where I knew and had talked about or talked to my 14 Minister about certain things, if I knew that it was 15 something that he had said to me then I would have 16 represented that at the meeting, and if it was something 17 that I believed and was comfortable saying then I would 18 have said it. 19 Q: Now, Ms. Hutton said a number of 20 comments during the course of those two (2) meetings. 21 Did you understand her to be speaking on 22 behalf of the Premier or on her own behalf or a 23 combination of both? 24 A: When the Premier's executive 25 assistant attended a meeting, and not just these

267

1 particular meetings, but our expectation as political 2 staff was that when they spoke they were spoking -- 3 speaking with the authority of the Premier. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: Unless they stated otherwise, just 6 clarify it that way, but for the most part they were 7 representing the Premier. 8 Q: Okay. Kathryn Hunt, when she was 9 here yesterday, told us that she was under the impression 10 that Deb Hutton was chairing the Interministerial 11 Committee Meetings. 12 Was -- was that your impression also? 13 A: That she was chairing them? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: That was not my impression. 16 Q: Okay. I think my interpretation of 17 what may have been understood is that Ms. Hutton was a 18 dominant voice at those meetings. 19 Is that a fair way to characterize? 20 A: That's fair. 21 Q: And Ms. Hutton seems to -- seemed to 22 be steering the direction of the discussion? 23 A: Towards the development of options 24 and getting all the issues on the table, yes. 25 Q: Okay. And you do recall her saying

268

1 that at several points this was a -- a test for the new 2 government and this is -- things like this is important 3 for how we position this government, for how we deal with 4 -- deal with these kinds of issues? 5 Do you recall her saying those kinds of 6 things? 7 A: Yes, I've already indicated that I 8 heard her say comments to that effect. 9 Q: All right. So in -- in steering the 10 committee meeting discussions towards the development of 11 those options, that steering was with -- you understood 12 to be with the mindset that this was something that had 13 to be done with an understanding of -- this was -- this 14 was a test for the new government? 15 Does that make sense? 16 A: The point that she made was that it 17 was -- because it was the first encounter the new 18 government had with a First Nations issue, that it had to 19 be -- we had to be mindful that it was the first 20 encounter and it might set the tone for other encounters 21 to come. 22 Q: Right. 23 A: That's the way I remember it. 24 Q: Now, we've heard from other witnesses 25 that the discussion at parts of the meeting seemed to

269

1 focus on responding to or reacting to things that Ms. 2 Hutton said. 3 Is that consistent with your recollection? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: No, I don't -- I don't -- there were 8 some cases in the meeting where that was the case, but it 9 was not the case throughout the whole meeting or 10 throughout both of those meetings. 11 Q: That was part of it, but not all of 12 it? 13 A: There -- there was some element of 14 that and I think we've already talked about the back and 15 forth that she and I had when I mentioned the statement 16 of political relationship, for example, as a discussion. 17 Q: Now as a political EA attending these 18 two (2) Interministerial Committee Meetings, I understand 19 you saw your role, primarily, as listening, gathering 20 information to take back to your Minister; is that right? 21 A: Yes. Well, reporting back to the 22 Minister and representing his views at the meeting if I 23 knew what those views were at the time, yes. 24 Q: Primarily -- primarily listening, but 25 where necessary you would comment on the -- on the

270

1 Minister's views, but primarily information gathering 2 duty, from your point of view, wasn't it? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you understood that to be the 5 appropriate role of a political staffer at these 6 meetings? 7 A: The way the -- the Committee had been 8 previously structured and -- and the way the meeting was 9 conducted, yes. 10 Q: Now, I want to ask you a few things 11 about this point that you've made a number of times about 12 Ms. Hutton wanting to develop options and I think narrow 13 them down to -- to some degree. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now when you refer to, "a full range 16 of options," I -- I take it that you're referring to 17 actually only those options that would result in getting 18 the Indians out of the Park; is that right? 19 A: I'm just trying to remember the full 20 nature of the discussion. It was the range of options to 21 resolve the matter and I don't know that it was exclusive 22 to getting people out of the Park, but it was resolving 23 the situation and -- and however that would be defined. 24 Q: But resolving the situation meant you 25 get your Park back without any occupiers; isn't that

271

1 right? 2 A: Not necessarily, no. 3 Q: Was there any scenario which was 4 discussed at those meetings, or contemplated, or that you 5 understood was being contemplated at those meetings which 6 might result in the occupiers keeping those lands? 7 A: I don't know that it was specifically 8 discussed. I do know that, for example, when I was 9 talking about the statement of political relationship and 10 the -- and making the representation that we could afford 11 to wait and saying things like that in the meeting, I was 12 talking to the idea of establishing a dialogue and having 13 some sort of process that would be ongoing to bring about 14 a resolution. I had not envisioned what that resolution 15 might look like, but that's my memory of it. 16 Q: And the -- the idea of you saying we 17 can afford to wait or the idea of maybe waiting them out, 18 I know you did table that, but that was never really part 19 of the options that were under consideration; isn't that 20 right? 21 A: It was discussed in the meetings. 22 Q: It was discussed, but it wasn't part 23 of the options that made the final list, at least? 24 A: The options that came out of the 25 meeting ended up centering around the injunction.

272

1 Q: Right. 2 A: So yes, there were other things 3 discussed at the meeting, but the options that were taken 4 away from the meetings centred around the -- the pursuit 5 of an injunction. 6 Q: The options included an injunction, 7 Criminal Code charges, mischief charges, Provincial Parks 8 Act charges, trespass charges. 9 Those were some things, you remember that, 10 right? 11 A: I do remember some discussion of 12 those things, not specifically. 13 Q: And waiting -- waiting wasn't one (1) 14 of the options that made that list, right? 15 A: It was discussed in the meetings. 16 Q: It was discussed but it didn't make 17 the list of options? 18 A: I -- I don't recall. I know that it 19 was discussed. 20 Q: Now, was the option of doing research 21 into the validity of possible underlying issues regarding 22 the surrender ever tabled at the meetings to your 23 recollection? 24 A: I don't believe research per se. I 25 do know that at the meetings each of the Ministries were

273

1 asked to make best efforts to not only on the issue of 2 the possibility of burial sites, but to report back and - 3 - and investigate as best as they -- as best they were 4 able in that short time period if there was any validity 5 to the possibility of outstanding issues that needed to 6 be addressed, and report back to the meeting. 7 Q: Okay. Now this -- I appreciate you 8 may not understand this distinction necessarily, but 9 there's a distinction between proving a chain of title 10 from between the previous owner and Ontario, for example, 11 and issues that might regard the actual surrender of the 12 treaty lands that preceded that some time ago which 13 wasn't -- in which Ontario wasn't directly involved. 14 So I want to -- you know I understand 15 there was some -- some discussion about proving the 16 title, the chain of title, but do you recall whether 17 there was any discussion of looking into the underlying 18 surrender issues? 19 A: I don't remember any. 20 Q: And isn't it correct that the option 21 of appointing a mediator was not tabled at either of 22 these Interministerial Committee Meetings? 23 A: I don't know that it was -- I don't 24 remember it being specifically tabled, but the problem 25 that was being faced in that brief time period, when this

274

1 incident began, was the lack of a spokesperson on the 2 other side. And I remember a great deal of discussion 3 about not -- not getting to the point of talking about a 4 mediator, but first of all opening lines of communication 5 and how difficult that was -- 6 Q: Yeah. 7 A: -- the lack of an identified 8 spokesperson. 9 Q: I understand the concern about not -- 10 not knowing there was a spokesperson on the other side. 11 I'd like to ask from the Government's perspective, was 12 there a spokesperson on the Government's side that could 13 deal with this issue? 14 A: I don't know. 15 Q: There wasn't, wasn't there, to your 16 knowledge? 17 A: I don't know. I don't know what was 18 happening in the other ministries, if ONAS had people. I 19 don't know. 20 Q: As far as -- as far you know neither 21 the occupiers nor the Government had spokespeople 22 available; is that right? 23 A: No, I don't know that. 24 Q: You don't know that, right? You 25 don't know -- that's right that you don't know that,

275

1 sorry. 2 As far as -- let me -- let me ask the 3 question with as few "I don't knows" as possible. 4 A: But I do know -- just -- I do know 5 that there were some attempts at communication and I do 6 know that some people, I believe, from ONAS and some 7 people from MNR were talking to Chief Bressette, for 8 example. 9 I don't know -- certainly that doesn't 10 constitute dialogue with the occupiers, but again, the 11 dilemma was that there was no person on the other side 12 representing the occupiers who would come forward and 13 dialogue with the OPP or with MNR staff, Les Kobayashi 14 being one of them. 15 Q: Now, you mentioned attempts to speak 16 with Chief Bressette. Now, you understood that Chief 17 Bressette -- well the occupiers were a group that seems - 18 - seemed to be separate from or -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Or a splinter from the Band itself, 21 right? 22 A: I understood that, yes. 23 Q: Right. And when Mr. Kobayashi or the 24 -- with the OPP went to speak with the occupiers, you 25 noticed that he tried to serve them with a note of

276

1 trespass on the night of the 4th, do you remember that? 2 A: I recall hearing about that, not 3 prior to it happening, but after the fact, yes. 4 Q: So isn't it fair that the only -- 5 well, that the province was not ready to speak with the 6 occupiers between September 4th and September 6th except 7 to ask them to leave? 8 A: I don't know that. 9 Q: You don't know -- 10 A: I don't know what discussions were 11 attempted at the field level through the OPP or I had no 12 idea what Mr. Kobayashi had attempted. 13 Q: You can't tell me that's not the 14 case? To your knowledge -- to your knowledge there's -- 15 to your knowledge, the province was not ready to speak 16 with the occupiers except to ask them to leave? 17 A: I don't know that. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, yes? 19 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: He said I don't 20 know to all of -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: -- those 23 questions. I don't think he can go any further -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, when 25 he --

277

1 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: -- with that many 2 questions -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 4 that's right. 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I think it's a 6 different way of saying that's correct. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 10 Q: Was the option of sending a fact 11 finder from the public service to speak with the 12 occupiers ever tabled at these Interministerial Committee 13 meetings? 14 A: I don't recall that. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Now, you talked about the difference 19 of opinion regarding time and I want to ask you a few 20 questions about that. 21 I think, specifically, I think I 22 understood your evidence to be that the Attorney General 23 representative was suggesting that a best case scenario 24 would be a Court date for an injunction on Friday and 25 others wanted a quicker resolution.

278

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And I understand Hutton -- Ms. Hutton 3 was one of the ones that wanted a quicker resolution than 4 Friday? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Was there anybody else who you 7 understood to feel that Friday was not a good enough 8 date? 9 A: I don't recall anyone else expressing 10 that view. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: And is it fair that, given Ms. 15 Hutton's views as expressed at the meeting and as you 16 understood them, that an option that would have 17 potentially not resulted in a removal of the occupiers 18 from the Park with -- sorry. 19 Is it fair that an option that would not 20 have resulted in the removal of the occupation within 21 weeks -- I have a poorly worded question here, let me 22 rephrase, I'm sorry. 23 Let me try number 3. An option that would 24 have potentially brought an end to the occupation, but 25 not for a matter of weeks or months, was not something

279

1 that you understood was one of the options that would 2 have been preferred by Ms. Hutton? 3 A: I -- I can't say that; I don't know. 4 Q: Okay. I think it's my poor question, 5 but I am not going to try it again. 6 Now you understood, and I think you even 7 expressed this in your comments, that there is a 8 difference between getting an injunction and enforcing an 9 injunction. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And you -- you didn't and your 12 Minister didn't expect that if, or once an injunction was 13 obtained, that the occupiers would voluntarily just pack 14 up and leave; is that right? 15 A: No. No. 16 Q: So you -- you agree that it -- you 17 didn't expect that to happen? 18 A: I agree. 19 Q: So, because I take it from that, 20 obviously, that if the objective of -- if the objective 21 is getting the occupiers out of the Park, one of the 22 things that's contemplated as a likely scenario is that 23 there will be -- there will have to be enforcement steps 24 taken, right? 25 A: Possibly. That would be up to the

280

1 OPP as to how they handle the injunction. 2 Q: And that kind of thing could take an 3 number of days or weeks potentially; you understood that? 4 A: Perhaps. Perhaps. 5 Q: And as you said, that -- that would 6 be something that the OPP or the Sheriff with the OPP, 7 would be expected to undertake at their discretion? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And if they were to take steps to 10 enforce the injunction, that -- and the occupiers didn't 11 remove themselves from the Park voluntarily, you 12 understood that, under that scenario, there would 13 potentially be the use of physical force necessary? 14 A: I don't know. I have no knowledge of 15 what the OPP might have done or how they would have 16 conducted themselves. I don't know. 17 Q: But it's fair that if people remain 18 on a piece of land in breach of an injunction, don't 19 remove themselves from that land voluntarily, you 20 understood that the only way to get them off that land is 21 to use physical force to remove the; isn't that fair? 22 A: No. 23 Q: What other ways were you 24 contemplating that might -- this might be resolved, 25 without physical force?

281

1 A: I -- I can't say what would have 2 happened in the course of time. If time had gone on, 3 then things may have unfolded differently. But I can't 4 say that that was the only option available to the OPP, 5 and I can't speak for them. 6 Q: Okay. Assuming it wasn't resolved 7 during the course of time, what other scenario can you 8 foresee that could possibly result in the injunction 9 being enforced without physical force? 10 A: I don't know. The matter of, I think 11 it's fair to -- to say, that the matter of what happened 12 with the injunction was not something that we at the 13 Ministry of Natural Resources were particularly involved 14 with. 15 If the injunction were granted, what would 16 come next was really not a matter that we were concerned 17 about or had an opinion about. 18 Q: Right. But I -- you did speak at the 19 Interministerial Committee meeting, I can't remember 20 which one now but, a concern that, if we get an 21 injunction, we will be expected to enforce it and that 22 can cause some escalation and -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- tension and that sort of thing. 25 A: My Minister and I had discussed that,

282

1 and I raised that point at the meeting. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: As -- mainly to say, or to ask: Once 4 an injunction is granted, then what happens? Because 5 there's the possibility that once it is, or not the 6 possibility, but the expectation that if granted, there's 7 an expectation to do something with it. 8 Q: And one of your concerns, of course, 9 would have been that if there's an expectation to enforce 10 it, that means the OPP would likely be getting involved, 11 right? 12 A: My understanding was that seeking the 13 injunction was at the request of the OPP. There was an 14 item that they wanted the Government to seek, and it 15 would give them something that they could have, the tool 16 in their toolkit, if you will, that was my understanding. 17 Q: Well what I want to ask is: What you 18 had on your mind when you were concerned about this issue 19 of enforcing an injunction, now why was that a concern to 20 you? 21 It's -- it's of a concern because you knew 22 if there is enforcement steps required, that means OPP, 23 right? 24 A: Well, I just said that I knew that 25 the OPP were the ones who had requested that the

283

1 Government seek the injunction and I knew full well that 2 the OPP would be the ones who would deal with it, if 3 granted afterwards, but I did know that -- 4 Q: Okay. I think -- 5 A: -- that it would be an OPP -- it was 6 being dealt with as an OPP matter. 7 Q: I think that's a long way of saying 8 yes. 9 A: Well -- 10 Q: Given that context... 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 15 moving on from there? Are you moving to another -- 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm moving on from 17 there. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, 19 because I think he's answered that question as best he 20 can. 21 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay, I'm moving on, 22 Mr. Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah, that's 24 fine. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: That's why I'm taking

284

1 some time to look at my -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- documents here. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 8 Q: I think you -- you talked about your 9 recollection that there were people at the meeting who 10 urged restraint and caution in dealing with the situation 11 and I take it obviously you would have agreed with that 12 approach of restraint and caution given that you 13 specifically expressed that at the meetings. 14 I think you've already talked about that, 15 right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now, Ms. Hutton was not one who urged 18 for restraint and caution; isn't that right? Among the 19 various things she said one (1) of them was not we 20 should -- 21 A: She did -- she did -- she did ask 22 questions specifically seeking out options that were of a 23 -- on a quicker timetable. 24 Q: Right. She wanted things done 25 quickly, but in saying she wanted things done quickly she

285

1 didn't say or add a caveat, for example, that as long as 2 it's done cautiously or in a restrained manner; is that 3 fair? 4 A: I did not hear her say those things, 5 no. 6 Q: All right. She didn't say or -- or 7 do anything that suggested to you that she agreed with 8 restraint or caution would be the appropriate response; 9 isn't that fair? 10 A: I really can't say. I don't know. 11 Q: Pardon me? 12 A: I really can't say. I don't know. 13 Q: You can't say? 14 A: I guess other than your comment that 15 her saying the Premier's hawkish, which you interpret to 16 mean cautious? 17 A: Yes, cautious and the main point from 18 that being that it's the first encounter and we need to 19 be mindful of the tone that we set. 20 Q: And to your recollection Ms. Hutton 21 never expressed a concern for resolving the occupation 22 peacefully? You don't recall her saying anything like 23 that, right? 24 A: I think it was everyone's hope around 25 those tables that it would be resolved peacefully. I

286

1 didn't hear her say anything to the contrary. 2 Q: You didn't hear her say anything 3 either way? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Okay. And -- and I note that there 6 were a number of people who did express a concern for 7 dealing with it peacefully or -- or, as you've already 8 talked about, using restraint and caution, not rushing 9 in, those sorts of things. 10 And isn't it fair that Ms. Hutton never 11 expressed any agreement, explicitly, when others talked 12 about those kinds of issues, to your recollection? 13 A: I don't remember her disagreeing when 14 those things were said. 15 Q: Right. And you don't remember her 16 explicitly agreeing? 17 A: Correct. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 19 where that gets us. I really -- 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm moving on, Mr. 21 Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I know, 23 but I'm just not sure where that gets us. I just -- 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm exploring a number 25 of issues --

287

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- and I don't know 3 where they all will get us, that's why I have to ask. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, carry 5 on. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 10 Q: Now, your conversation that you had 11 with Ms. Hutton through September 5th and 6th of 1995 12 outside of the Interministerial Committee Meetings, do 13 you recall if anything was discussed during those 14 meetings other than your displeasure with Mr. Hodgson 15 being asked to take on the lead role in communications? 16 A: No, I don't remember anything else 17 being discussed. 18 Q: That was the sole topic of 19 conversation? 20 A: I believe so. 21 Q: And I think you told us that Ms. 22 Hutton -- it was Ms. Hutton who told you that Mr. Hodgson 23 would be the spokesperson? 24 A: For the time being, yes. 25 Q: Was it her that made the decision or

288

1 was she passing on somebody else's decision? 2 A: I don't know. She -- she was the one 3 who told me. 4 Q: Did you understand that she was 5 deciding it or did you understand that she was passing on 6 the Premier's instructions? 7 A: I don't know. I assumed, as I 8 indicated earlier, that when she was speaking she was 9 speaking on behalf of the Premier. 10 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: He'd already 11 answered that. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's already 13 answered the question. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 18 Q: If I can refer you to Tab 18. You've 19 seen this document a number of times today already, it's 20 -- specifically I want to look at Minister Hodgson's 21 comments to the press. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And do you have that page before you, 24 the transcript of his -- 25 A: Yes.

289

1 Q: -- media sessions? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: This is Inquiry Document 1012311 and 6 the Exhibit number escapes me at the moment. 7 THE REGISTRAR: 732. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 10 Q: 732. 11 I want to ask you about just one specific 12 comment that appears half way down on page 1 and is a 13 question, it doesn't -- this is the question from the 14 media person: 15 "It doesn't sound like you are looking 16 at consultation at this point?" 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: The Minister says, 19 "Well, there is not much to consult 20 about, they're illegally trespassing." 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: I want to ask you about the comment 23 the Minister made, "well, there is not much to consult 24 about". 25 Now as I understand it and having read

290

1 the Minister's or deputy Minister's briefing note or the 2 script as you called it, it doesn't touch on that point 3 or topic. 4 There is nothing to consult about, that 5 -- that's fair to your recollection? 6 You can turn it up if you like, but -- 7 A: No, that's fair. 8 Q: Yeah. Do you know whether that 9 comment that "there was not much to consult about", 10 whether that was something that you briefed Minister 11 Hodgson on? 12 A: No and I -- he said this in the 13 context of a media scrum. I don't know why it was 14 phrased that way. 15 Q: Okay. So you have no idea where he 16 might have got that information or suggestion that that 17 was...? 18 A: No. 19 Q: All right, okay. 20 A: No. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now, dealing with the September 6th 25 Interministerial Committee meeting specifically, you

291

1 mentioned that there was information about buildings 2 being burned and vandalism and reports of gunfire being 3 heard that caused a more charged atmosphere? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And am I correct in understanding 6 that that was the -- pretty much the extent of the 7 things, or at least what you remember -- extent of the 8 things that caused this charged atmosphere? 9 A: Yes, they were very serious matters 10 that were being reported over the phone and right from 11 the start of the meeting. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: It put a different tone on -- on that 14 day's meeting than that of the previous day. 15 Q: And those kinds of issues that were 16 brought forward, I take it those were the basis for your, 17 again raising your objection to the Minister being the 18 spokesperson on this, that was -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- part of your comments at that 21 meeting on that regard? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Now, I don't believe that any of the 24 handwritten notes that were taken on the September 6th 25 meeting refer to reports of a building being burned, not

292

1 that I recall or -- or have seen in my further review 2 anyway. 3 And I think that the evidence is that 4 there were no buildings burned in the Park before the 5 shooting although one was burned in the park after Dudley 6 George was shot. 7 Now, I suggest to you that your 8 recollection about this building having been burned was 9 something that may have actually come up on September 7th 10 but it's ten (10) years later, you've mixed it up in your 11 mind a little bit? 12 A: And I think I -- earlier today, I 13 don't know in whose questioning I did, correct that. The 14 nature of the information that was being relayed over the 15 phone was of -- on the 6th, was of vandalism and in -- in 16 this meeting. 17 Not just over the phone but of -- talk of 18 vandalism and I think I used -- made reference to the -- 19 hearing that a building had been burnt and it was pointed 20 out to me at that time that that may not have been the 21 case and I -- I don't dispute that. 22 Q: Yeah, I just wanted to -- 23 A: There was -- the reports we were 24 hearing were of vandalism and threats and -- and then the 25 gunfire suggestion, of course, was concerning to all of

293

1 us and we talked about that earlier, as well. 2 Q: All right, now those reports of 3 automatic gunfire, you were -- obviously were concerned 4 about those when they were -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- mentioned. And you talked about 7 Mr. Fox urging -- or Inspector Fox urging caution, 8 assuming those reports were accurate and you appreciated 9 that it was appropriate for him to make that caution. 10 And I'd suggest that if what someone heard 11 that they thought sounded like gunfire was actually 12 fireworks and that was information that was communicated 13 to the meeting, you certainly would have reacted to that 14 much differently, that it was fireworks and not gunfire? 15 A: If we had been told that at that 16 particular meeting. I remember having that suggestion 17 put forward at a later time, but I don't recall if it was 18 in the course of that meeting or at another time. 19 But I do very vividly remember Inspector 20 Fox cautioning that we couldn't assume that that was 21 necessarily true, the report of gunfire. 22 Q: All right. So there was no issue or 23 idea raised that it might have been fireworks or 24 something else, and not actually gunfire, that was not 25 mentioned at the September 6th meeting, although Mr. --

294

1 or Inspector Fox made a general caution about assuming 2 these kinds of reports were accurate; is that fair? 3 A: I don't believe it was raised at that 4 time, I don't remember it that way. 5 Q: Okay. Now, did you -- did you 6 yourself find these Interministerial Committee Meetings 7 to be useful? 8 A: From an information-gathering point 9 of view, yes. 10 Q: Okay. We've heard from at least one 11 witness that they thought it to be largely a waste of 12 time; would you share that opinion? 13 A: No. 14 Q: The meeting in the Premier's dining 15 room, I think in answers you gave to Undertakings for 16 Discovery, sometime in the course of litigation in this 17 matter, you advised that your impression was at the 18 meeting, or your attendance at the meeting lasted for 19 about an hour or so; is that...? 20 A: I -- I believe so. 21 Q: Okay. And I want to ask you a bit 22 more about the arrangement of people at the meeting. Now 23 you talked about the -- I want to ask you who was around 24 the table. The -- I know there was people around the 25 table, there was also people sitting around the perimeter

295

1 of the room? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: I understand that you mentioned the 4 Premier, the Ministers, their Deputy Ministers, and Ron 5 Fox, were all seated around the table? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Ms. Hutton was as well? 8 A: I believe so. 9 Q: Anybody else that you recall? 10 A: At the table? No, I don't recall 11 anyone else. 12 Q: Okay. Now, you said -- 13 A: Sorry, sorry. Ms. Burak and -- and 14 Mr. Lindsey, I believe, were in the room, and were at the 15 table. 16 Q: They were at the table? 17 A: I believe so. 18 Q: Do you remember where they were 19 seated -- 20 A: No. 21 Q: -- in reference to yourself? 22 A: No. Not exactly. No. 23 Q: Okay. You don't recall either of 24 them saying anything at the meeting; right? 25 A: No.

296

1 Q: Do you remember them being there for 2 the entire time that you were there? 3 A: I can't say for certain. I don't 4 know. 5 Q: Do you recall either of them leaving 6 or coming in during parts of the meeting? 7 A: I can't say for certain. 8 Q: Okay. Now prior to that dining room 9 meeting, was it your understanding that an -- an 10 injunction was already, or the process of an injunction 11 was already underway by the Attorney General on behalf of 12 the Ministry of Natural Resources? 13 A: I know that in the -- the development 14 of options around seeking an injunction, that work had 15 been done. The decision to actually seek the injunction 16 didn't come until the dining room meeting was my 17 understanding. 18 Q: Okay. So there was some work being 19 done for the injunction before the dining room meeting, 20 but it was not until the Dining Room Meeting that an 21 actual formal, final decision was made to -- to go ahead 22 with the injunction? 23 A: I believe so. 24 Q: Okay. 25 And you understood that prior to this

297

1 dining room meeting, that the best case scenario would be 2 a Court date of Friday, based on your Interministerial 3 Committee Meeting? 4 A: Yes. I believe Mr. McCabe spoke to 5 that. 6 Q: And you also understood that 7 enforcement of that injunction could take additional 8 time? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And you were asked a few -- quite a 11 few questions about the contents of this discussion. I 12 want to suggest something else to you. 13 The -- to the extent that there was 14 discussion about the injunction, the issue at this dining 15 room meeting was largely regarding implementation of that 16 injunction or the timing of that injunction or the timing 17 of getting the occupiers out of the Park; right? 18 A: I don't recall that specifically. I 19 -- I remember there being the back and forth about the 20 nature of a normal injunction versus an ex-parte 21 injunction, and I understood that an ex-parte meant on a 22 -- a quicker basis. 23 And, but that's the extent of my 24 understanding of -- of what was being discussed. 25 Q: Okay. Can I ask you whether you have

298

1 any specific or general recollection whether the Premier 2 expressed a preference as to the timing for an 3 injunction? 4 A: I don't remember him expressing a 5 view on timing. 6 7 Q: If the topic came up at that -- this 8 Premier's dining room meeting, that the best case for the 9 injunction was Friday, do you remember there being any 10 reaction to that that it should be sooner by the Premier 11 or by anybody else? 12 A: No, only as I indicated that I know 13 the outcome of the meeting was to seek an ex parte 14 injunction which to me meant on a -- a quicker basis than 15 what might otherwise occur. 16 Q: Do you remember Ms. Hutton speaking 17 at this Premier's dining room meeting? 18 A: I don't recall her speaking at the 19 meeting. 20 Q: You talked about the consensus to get 21 an ex parte injunction and I want to ask you about that. 22 Actually maybe I'll ask you a bit more about your 23 understanding of the term 'ex parte'. 24 Now, I understand at the -- at the time 25 that was not very familiar to you?

299

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Do you now understand what that 3 means? 4 A: I suppose more than I did at the 5 time. 6 Q: Right. 7 A: But I'm not a lawyer and it's... 8 Q: Well, you understood at the time that 9 an ex parte injunction is faster, you -- you said that? 10 A: Yes, I understood that. 11 Q: Did you understand that an ex parte 12 injunction meant you would be in court without any -- the 13 other party being given notice of that? 14 A: I don't know that I understood that 15 at the time. 16 Q: You understand that now? 17 A: I do understand that now, yes, I've 18 learned that since. 19 Q: And you understood that an ex -- did 20 you understand then that an ex parte injunction is 21 something that's normally granted or done normally in 22 very emergency situations? 23 A: I understood that, yes. 24 Q: And when you said there was a 25 consensus to go ex parte could you describe that

300

1 consensus, how it came about and who were the people that 2 participated in that consensus? 3 A: By consensus I mean that going into 4 the meeting that was the recommendation or that was the - 5 - the nature of the two (2) was discussed, and I know 6 that the Premier by the end of the meeting consented to 7 it and that was what was carried out. 8 Q: Do you know -- I anticipate the 9 evidence of Mr. Taman who was speaking on this issue was 10 that an ex parte injunction -- whether or not at least -- 11 at least there were not grounds for an ex parte 12 injunction. I anticipate that's what he'll tell us this 13 Inquiry. 14 Do you -- does that assist you at all in 15 terms of understanding or recollecting who may have 16 recommended or put forward the preference for an ex parte 17 injunction? 18 A: I don't recall. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 20 minute. Yes, Ms. Twohig...? 21 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Mr. Commissioner, I'm 22 not sure on what basis My Friend is anticipating the 23 evidence of Mr. Taman, but I would be surprised if he 24 made a -- if he agreed to go into court knowing that 25 there was no basis for it. So --

301

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- perhaps My Friend 3 could clarify what he meant. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, there's some -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's the 6 basis for your understanding? Do you have a statement of 7 some sort? 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: A number of documents 9 which specify there's no grounds for ex parte injunction. 10 I didn't anticipate this being an objection. I can 11 certainly pull them up, there's -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There -- 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- there's more than 14 one (1) document that -- that... 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There are 16 documents that -- 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, we're hear from 18 Mr. Taman so it doesn't matter. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we 20 will, but you've said what you anticipate his evidence 21 will be and I presume there's some document that you 22 have -- 23 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that 25 gives you reason to believe that and you expect that will

302

1 be his evidence? 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Absolutely and if I'm 3 wrong I stand to be corrected. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 You're not just making a statement without having some 6 support for it; that's all... 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Absolutely. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 11 Q: Did you have a general sense that the 12 Premier favoured rapid removal of the occupation? 13 A: No, I don't believe so. 14 Q: You don't believe so? 15 A: No. I -- as I said I know that he 16 consented to the -- the seeking of the ex parte 17 injunction at the end of the meeting and that's what I 18 understood his position to be. 19 Q: Did you have a general sense the 20 Premier favoured a longer time frame for this issue to 21 resolve itself? 22 A: I don't know what his preferences 23 were. 24 Q: And you talked about your 25 relationship with Ms. Hutton that you had an ongoing

303

1 working relationship with her before -- even before the 2 Government was elected in 1995? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Did you have ongoing meetings between 5 executive assistants that lasted throughout the period of 6 your tenure there or were these informal kinds of things 7 that you -- can you just characterize the nature of your 8 relationship? 9 A: It was a working relationship, I 10 guess somewhat social in the sense that executive 11 assistants and political staff in general socialised 12 together from time to time. 13 And in a professional sense there were -- 14 I mean there were issues of the Ministry of Natural 15 Resources I often dealt with Ms. Hutton and other people 16 in the Premier's office. 17 It was common for political staff to talk 18 to one another and deal with one another. 19 Q: You would meet with other political 20 staff or -- or -- or speak with them from time to time 21 during the course of your tenure as the executive 22 assistant in the Government? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And during the course of those -- 25 that-- that tenure lasted for a number of years after the

304

1 actual shooting incident. 2 During the course of those kinds of 3 ongoing communications did you have occasion to speak 4 about the Ipperwash incident from time to time with -- 5 with political staffers? 6 A: I don't remember. 7 Q: You don't remember? 8 A: I don't remember. As I indicated, in 9 some of the discussion today, I did have various levels 10 of involvement with the winterization right around the 11 fall and the attempts the following year to find a third 12 -- a credible third party as -- as someone to open the 13 dialogue. 14 I certainly talked to people at that time 15 period. 16 Q: Okay. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And my last few questions I want to 21 ask you a little bit about this burial ground issue 22 again. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And it's fair that if MNR staff were 25 aware that there was evidence of a burial ground in the

305

1 Park, it certainly would have want -- or expected to know 2 that prior to the occupation? 3 A: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 5 you've already said that. 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He said that 8 already. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: He has to some extent. 10 I only -- I just -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, he's 12 said that. He said that -- 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- specific but it's - 14 - it's -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 16 leading up to something else? 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm leading up to 18 something, Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine, 20 then I'll leave you alone. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 25 Q: I think your Counsel has put before

306

1 you a document, Exhibit P-8 -- 8222 -- sorry, Exhibit P- 2 822. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: This is Inquiry document 1008093. 7 I take it you've never seen this document 8 before? 9 A: I have not. 10 Q: What this is, is a memorandum from 11 Daryl Smith, information services coordinator from the 12 Ministry of Natural Resources dated September 14th, 1995 13 to -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- a number of individuals in the 16 Ministry of Natural Resources and the first page says: 17 "The attached is a collection of 18 historical notes I've found in my files 19 relating to the beginnings of Ipperwash 20 Provincial Park on January 16th, 1975. 21 I found these in the third basement of 22 Whitney Block." 23 Then he goes on, on the next page: 24 "Includes a memorandum dated January 25 16th of 1975."

307

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: "From the District manager of MNR in 3 Chatham D.R. Fortner. " 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: "That is superintendent of Ipperwash 6 Park which says you will recall that I 7 mentioned that I would attempt to look 8 up old Ipperwash records in the 9 provincial archives..." 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: "I have recently perused several 12 Ipperwash record files and attach 13 copies of rather interesting 14 information." 15 And then it goes on. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. If he 17 hasn't seen these -- yes? 18 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: Mr. Bangs has 19 never seen this document before -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, he's 21 never seen this before so I'm not sure -- 22 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: -- and I'm not 23 sure what the relevance is. 24 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No, I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure

308

1 how it helps to read it to him. 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Standing on 4 your feet and reading it to him is not -- 5 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: No, I am -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- helpful. 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- leading up to a 8 question. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We know 10 what's in it; we've seen it before -- 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and I'm 13 not sure how it's helpful to read it to this witness now, 14 when he hasn't seen it -- 15 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm making sure that 16 he's aware of the contents of it and take him to the 17 relevant portions but I'm almost done and I'm -- just 18 have a question -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, okay. 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- one or two (2) 21 questions. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 24 Q: And you'll see attached to this -- 25 those two (2) pages are transcripts, apparently, of two

309

1 (2) letters which talk about a burial site in the Park. 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: Have you had a chance to look at 4 those during the break? 5 A: No, not in great detail. 6 Q: No. Okay. 7 A: I -- I perused the document and 8 determined that I've never seen the document -- 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: -- in its entirety before. 11 Q: Okay. Now this -- the document that 12 is attached, was the transcribed letter dated August 13 17th, 1937 and I understand you've -- you've probably 14 seen a version of this before so I want to read this to 15 you. 16 A: I don't -- 17 Q: The letter to -- 18 A: Sorry. I don't know that I have. 19 Q: Well let me ask you this: In 20 September 12th or thereabouts, when the Federal 21 Government dug up copies of 1937 correspondence leading 22 to a burial ground, -- 23 A: Is this the text of the letter 24 provided by Mr. Irwin? 25 Q: That's my understanding.

310

1 A: Okay. Then yes. If that is the text 2 of that letter then, yes, I have seen it before. 3 Q: Okay. That -- that helps shorten my 4 question, thank you. 5 A: Yeah. 6 Q: So, if this, to the extent that this 7 accurately transcribes that letter, you've seen this text 8 before? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Okay. Now, my question is simply 11 this: Based on this, we're aware that as far back as 12 1975, MNR staff were, in fact, aware of evidence about a 13 burial site in the Park. 14 First of all, does that surprise you? 15 A: It doesn't -- it does not surprise 16 me. 17 Q: Does it surprise you that this 18 evidence, even though MNR staff knew about it prior to 19 1995, didn't come to your attention during the course of 20 these events of September -- September of 1995? 21 A: It -- it surprises me, I guess, in 22 the same sense that I indicated earlier, that when Mr. 23 Irwin released his letter, it was found in the Province. 24 So that, yes, I guess finding this out now is somewhat of 25 a surprise, and as I indicated earlier with respect to

311

1 the letter released by Mr. Irwin, it would have been nice 2 to have known at the time. 3 Q: It would have been nice. So it's -- 4 are you disappointed, now knowing, that this information 5 could have been available to you in 1995 and might have 6 affected how you approached the situation? 7 A: I wouldn't say that I'm disappointed. 8 I -- I note that the civil servant who -- who found the 9 information did pass it on to -- to people in the 10 Ministry of Natural Resources and made it available as 11 quickly as he found it or recalled it. I can't -- as I 12 indicated, information like this would have been nice to 13 know about at the time -- 14 Q: It would have been nice? 15 A: -- I indicated that earlier. Yes. 16 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 18 very much. 19 Mr. Henderson, aren't you next? Oh no, I 20 am sorry, Mr. Scullion is next. I am sorry, I am jumping 21 the gun. 22 Mr. Scullion...? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

312

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 2 Mr. Zbogar. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Thank you, Mr. 4 Commissioner. 5 Thank you, Mr. Bangs. 6 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 7 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Good afternoon, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 afternoon. 11 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I am scheduled to be 12 next. We are at twenty-two minutes after 4:00. Your 13 counsel had advised me we were looking at 4:30 as an 14 ending time. Do you want me start, I'm not going to 15 finish in that time. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You are not 17 going to finish? 18 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: No. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And then we 20 still have Mr. Henderson and Mr. Horton and Mr. Roy. 21 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So if we 23 push, we are not going to finish today. So we might as 24 well call it a day. 25 We are going to have to have you come

313

1 back, Mr. Bangs. I mean, even if we push, and it is not 2 a good idea to push at the end of a week; I think we are 3 all tired. 4 THE WITNESS: I understand. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I think 6 we should probably stop now. So the Inquiry will adjourn 7 and convene on Monday, the, is it the 14th? 8 MR. DONALD WORME: 14th of November, Mr. 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fourteenth 11 of November. But I am not sure when Mr. Bangs will come 12 back. Are we agreed November 21st. 13 MR. DONALD WORME: The witness has 14 advised that he is not available on that week so we are, 15 and we will be looking to work together with he and his 16 counsel to find a date that meets his schedule. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We do not 18 want to agree now; we will just say: On a date to be 19 agreed. 20 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well I think that -- I 21 spoke to Mr. Bangs' counsel and it's -- we are going to - 22 - Mr. Bangs is going to come back on November 21st. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 24 That's fine. 25 THE WITNESS: If that's suitable -- if

314

1 that's suitable to you? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 3 fine. I am sorry, I see Mr. Roy standing there. 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: I do want to address you 5 on a matter before you adjourn, if we are -- if there are 6 no other matters before -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I do not 8 think there are. Are there any other matters? 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No. 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: And it's in regard to 11 the stated case on the OPP discipline records. And it's 12 just, by way of an expression of concern on the part of 13 ALST, that we are coming to some witnesses for which 14 those records are going to be absolutely critical in 15 terms of pursuing our interest at this Inquiry and the 16 Cross-Examination, in particular, of Ms. Todres and Mr. 17 Runciman. 18 And without being critical of anybody, I 19 know your counsel are working very hard on this issue and 20 other issues. It's not -- I'm not suggesting otherwise. 21 But we -- I feel it is necessary for us to 22 raise this as a concern -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, you 24 raised it. 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- that it is absolutely

315

1 critical that we have those records prior to cross- 2 examination of those two (2) witnesses -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. There 4 is a stated case, that will take time for the case to go 5 to Court. 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: I understand that. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And there 8 will be time for a Decision. I mean, I am not sure what 9 I can do about that. I appreciate you raising it. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, perhaps -- 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you for the 12 opportunity. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You know how 14 the Court system works. Perhaps Mr. Miller has something 15 to say. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. Perhaps I could 17 just advise the -- we are dealing with the issue of the 18 stated case with the OPP and OPPA as quickly and as 19 expeditiously as possible. 20 In your Order, you directed that the OPP 21 produce the documents to the Commission Counsel for a 22 Rule 32 review, and so that we could carry out a case-by- 23 case review. Once the case-by-case review was conducted, 24 you, in your Order, provided in Paragraph 50, that you 25 would release a Decision.

316

1 You also directed that the OPP could tell 2 us by August 19th, if they wanted to -- if they were 3 going to request the stated case, the OPPA, I meant the 4 OPPA, the OPPA did request the stated case, including the 5 stated case with respect to the right of you to order 6 production of these documents to Commission Counsel. 7 We've had discussions with the OPP and the 8 OPPA, and with respect to the issue of the stated case, 9 and reached an agreement with them on a "without- 10 prejudice" basis that the documents would be provided to 11 Commission Counsel for review, and the documents were 12 provided to us, I think, last week, and we are undergoing 13 -- we are conducting the review. 14 And the -- once that's done, you will be 15 able to deal with your Decision with respect to the -- 16 the case-by-case review, and this procedure saves us 17 having to go to Divisional course -- Court twice, as 18 opposed to going once and then coming back a second time. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 20 very much. And thank you for raising it. 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm very appreciative of 22 My Friend, -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- keeping us informed, 25 and --

317

1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There is 2 some information on the Public Record. 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- keeping us informed 4 about it and I would appreciate in the future hearing 5 also, because of our interest in it, it's our questions 6 that give rise to -- to your Ruling. We -- we definitely 7 have a -- have a direct interest in this issue. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Everybody 9 does. Thank you, Mr. Roy. 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you very much. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 12 We will adjourned now until next week. 13 14 (WITNESS RETIRES) 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 17 adjourned until Monday, November 14th, at 10:30 a.m. 18 19 --- Upon adjourning at 4:23 p.m. 20 21 Certified Correct 22 23 24 ________________________ 25 Carol Geehan