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 15th, 2005 25


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


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


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) (np) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) (np) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) Services of Toronto 12 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 13 Julian Roy ) (np) 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 ) 22 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 23 24 25


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


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 LARRY TAMAN, Resumed 6 Continued Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Derry Millar 8 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 27 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat 37 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian Smith 47 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Douglas Sulman 50 11 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy 69 12 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 77 13 Cross-Examination by Ms. Janet Clermont 84 14 Cross-Examination by Mr. Murray Klippenstein 89 15 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 178 16 Cross-Examination by Mr. Anthony Ross 211 17 Cross-Examination by Ms. Colleen Johnson 223 18 Cross-Examination by Mr. Matthew Horner 236 19 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Falconer 250 20 21 22 Certificate of Transcript 306 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-952 Document Number 1006196. Fax from 4 Marcel Beaubien to Bill King with 5 attached letter from Citizen dated 6 September 05/'95, cc'd to Minister 7 Harnick, September 06/'95. 55 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning, Mr. Taman. Good morning everybody. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, 9 Commissioner. Before we start the cross-examination, I 10 just had a couple of more questions for Mr. Taman if I 11 might. 12 13 LARRY TAMAN, Resumed 14 15 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DERRY MILLAR: 16 Q: The first, Mr. Taman, we spoke 17 yesterday about the changes you made on September 7th and 18 the changes reflected in your notes which have been 19 marked Exhibit P-940 and they appear at Tab 23 of the 20 first volume. 21 And you spoke yesterday about there being 22 two (2) links between the police and the Government; do 23 you recall that? 24 And one (1) was that the OPP would have a 25 link with the Interministerial Committee or the Blockade


1 Committee and you told us about that yesterday; do you 2 recall that? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you also said that there would be 5 a link with the OPP through the Solicitor General as 6 Minister responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police. 7 And I did not ask you yesterday how that 8 was to work or how it did work back in September 1995 and 9 I was wondering if you could explain to the Commissioner 10 how that was to work on September 7th and how it did work 11 in the days following. 12 A: I think the change we were trying to 13 make quickly after the event was to get some transparency 14 about exactly how the police did connect with the rest of 15 government. 16 And so the idea, as it appears in the 17 sketch that I did on page 111 of my notes, was that there 18 would be a top level group which in the note is called 19 the 'nerve centre'. And there the OPP would be involved 20 through the minister to whom they're accountable, through 21 the Solicitor General, the minister and the deputy. 22 And then the sketch also envisages that 23 they would be inputting information to what in the sketch 24 is called the 'Blockade Committee'. 25 Q: And with respect to the link with the


1 Minister and Deputy Minister, was the link to be directly 2 to the Minister, directly to the Deputy Minister, 3 directly to both of them or how was it to work? 4 A: I think for this purpose, the 5 Minister and the Deputy are really -- have one (1) 6 person. So, that I mean it's through the Ministry which 7 is -- which is lead by the minister and the deputy. 8 Q: And so you envisioned it -- the -- 9 the plan, as you conceived, that you and Ms. Todres and - 10 - and Mr. Vrancart on September 7th was to have a link 11 with the Ministry at the senior level through the Deputy 12 and -- and the Minister? 13 A: My thinking was that it was naive to 14 suggest that there are no political issues in a situation 15 like this, so what's important is to deal with the 16 political issues in a transparent way so that the people 17 are not under any doubt about where the political issues 18 are being dealt with, and at the same time to try to 19 separate them from the operational issues on the ground. 20 Q: And what political issues are you 21 referring to when you say there were political issues 22 involved? 23 A: Well, I think there are always 24 important issue of policy even if -- if you take the 25 simple proposition that's repeated over and over again


1 that there's no substantive negotiation to go on. 2 A group of people come to the Government, 3 they come in this particular form, let's say of an 4 occupation of a piece of land. They say, We want to 5 discuss A, B, and C. Well, do you discuss it or not and 6 -- and if you do discuss it what do you say about it? 7 So, that -- that's what I mean by if 8 issues of -- of -- policy might be a better word. 9 I might also just make the observation 10 that as everyone knows in a situation like there are lots 11 of other stakeholders who -- who, you know, have a voice 12 or who want to have a voice as for example the -- the 13 cottagers in -- in -- in this case, and so those are all 14 issues that need to be resolved through the normal 15 processes of politics and policy. 16 Q: And the -- in the fall of 1970 -- 17 1995 did the system operate as you envisioned -- 18 envisaged it on September the 7th? 19 A: My recollection is that stuck to this 20 system quite closely from the point forward. 21 Q: And Ron Fox participated at the 22 Interministerial or the Blockade Committee, or 23 Interministerial Committee as I -- I guess it then became 24 the support committee as a representative of the 25 Solicitor General?


1 A: I think that's right, yes. 2 Q: And as a liaison officer seconded to 3 the Solicitor General department did you personally view 4 his role as a -- that of a police officer? 5 How did you characterize Inspector Ron 6 Fox? 7 A: I thought he was there to -- to 8 facilitate communication back and forth between the 9 Government and the -- and the police. 10 Q: And were you aware -- did -- were you 11 aware of Barb Taylor? 12 Did you know Barb Taylor? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And she was also seconded to the 15 Deputy Minister's office. And what did you understand 16 her role to be in the fall of 1995? 17 A: The same as far as I knew. 18 Q: As far as you knew? 19 A: And she was an advisor on policing 20 matters generally and I -- I assumed, I suppose, that in 21 this particular instance she was involved in facilitating 22 communication with the police. 23 Q: And if I could ask you -- yesterday 24 we briefly looked at Exhibit P-708? 25 A: Right.


1 Q: It's the Proposed Procedures for 2 Aboriginal Emergencies, dated February 14, 1996. 3 And if you go to page 4... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: There's a page entitled, Improvements 8 to Process for Dealing with Aboriginal Emergencies Can be 9 Made in the Following Areas. 10 And the third bullet is: 11 "Clarify the role of the OPP." 12 And is it fair to say that all of these 13 issues on page 4 were issues that were being considered 14 as part of the review of the procedures? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And then in the following pages there 17 are a number of proposed changes. And at page 7 under 18 the heading -- there's a heading, Clarify the Role of the 19 OPP. 20 And then the first bullet is: 21 "The OPP are responsible for protecting 22 public safety". 23 The second bullet: 24 "The OPP are responsible for managing 25 the situation on the ground, including


1 all communications regarding policing 2 matters." 3 Three: 4 "The OPP advise the deputy Solicitor 5 General's office of all developments in 6 a timely manner." 7 The next bullet: 8 "The deputy Solicitor General's office 9 advises the Chair of the Committee of 10 all developments in a timely manner." 11 The next bullet: 12 "The OPP do not participate in 13 Committee meetings." 14 And lastly: 15 "OPP operational decisions are made by 16 the OPP, not by the Committee." 17 And that appears to be a change from the 18 system that you, Mr. Vrancart and Ms. Todres, put in 19 place on September the 7th. 20 A: I think it's a change, although I'm 21 not sure it's really a significant change. I mean, the 22 issue that has to be dealt with is getting information 23 from the operation into the Government, so someone has to 24 be a bearer of that information, and I think in -- in the 25 days immediately following the events, this was done


1 through the liaison officer. 2 I think, with further thinking, it was 3 thought it might be better not to have them in the 4 meetings themselves. But as I look at it now, I -- I 5 don't honestly think it's a huge difference. 6 Certainly, what it does accomplish -- 7 this, I think, is to take away some of the possible 8 appearance of the police being indirectly influenced by 9 political people speaking to the liaison officer in a 10 Committee meeting. 11 Q: But, one of the changes you made on 12 September 7th though is to -- was to take away political 13 people from the liaison meeting. 14 A: Yeah, sure. 15 Q: And -- but, under the revised 16 procedures, were political aides to remain participants 17 in the Aboriginal Emergencies Committee? 18 A: No, as I recall, they were to 19 participate only in the top level group. 20 Q: So, that -- but as of -- in February 21 of 1996, when these guidelines were being considered, 22 what do you recall the role to be played by political 23 aides? 24 A: Well, as I say, I think the structure 25 recognized that there were legitimate political issues


1 that needed to be dealt with. 2 I think the key word here for me is 3 transparency; that is that we wanted the system to be 4 transparent about where that influence took place. And 5 if anybody later wanted to say, well, what exactly was 6 said and by whom, you would know exactly where all those 7 conversations had taken place. 8 So, I think the idea was to create a lower 9 level group which didn't have either the police or the 10 political staffers. 11 Q: And under this proposal, all 12 communications would be through the Deputy Minister. The 13 deputy minister would receive communications from the OPP 14 and pass them on to the Committee Chair? 15 A: The Deputy Minister's office. 16 Q: Office, yes. 17 A: So, in reality, you're always -- 18 you've always got to have somebody in the Blockade 19 Committee who's been speaking to the OPP otherwise you 20 don't have any information. 21 Q: Yes. But it would go through the 22 office of the Deputy Minister? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: And at page 13, there's a page 25 entitled, Timely Political Direction, and it was --


1 that's one of the issues identified on page 4. And this 2 is an issue, I think, that you just spoke about, that the 3 OP -- the police were not to be involved in these 4 meetings dealing with political issues? 5 A: I think that's right. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Thank you. And one (1) last area 10 that I wanted to ask you about was, we understand that 11 prior to June 26th, 1995 there was a minister Responsible 12 for Native Affairs and that Minister had a Deputy 13 Minister. 14 As well, typically the Minister 15 responsible for Native Affairs was also a minister -- had 16 a separate -- a second portfolio, often the Ministry of 17 Natural Resources with a second deputy minister reporting 18 to him or her. 19 My first question is: Did you see in your 20 experience with government, any issues with a minister 21 being responsible for two (2) portfolios and having two 22 (2) deputy ministers? 23 A: I don't see any particular issue in 24 that. I think it's done all the time and it has 25 advantages and disadvantages. If you're a small


1 organization, it's a big plus to be allied and 2 represented by a powerful minister who has influence in 3 other areas of the Government. 4 It may be that the downside is that your 5 issues might tend to get compromised inside the Ministry 6 and that's a potential downside. But, it's also a risk 7 that your issues might get compromised in the Cabinet if 8 you don't have a powerful minister representing you. 9 So, I don't think it's -- I don't think 10 there's any issue of principle in that myself. 11 Q: And at the time in the early '90's 12 and mid-90's when you became responsible for the Ministry 13 for Native Affairs as Deputy Minister it was fair to say 14 that ONAS was a small organization within government? 15 A: ONAS has great big responsibilities 16 but the organization itself, I think only had forty (40) 17 or fifty (50) people in it at the time. 18 Q: And that on June 26th, 1995 the 19 situation changed so that the ONAS -- the Minister who 20 was responsible for Native Affairs no longer had a deputy 21 minister dedicated to that portion of his portfo -- his 22 or her portfolio -- 23 A: We had a deputy minister, just not a 24 separate one. 25 Q: But, he had a deputy minister -- one


1 deputy minister, in this case Mr. Harnick had you 2 responsible for both the Ministry of the Attorney General 3 and for the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat. 4 And did you -- what impact, if any, on the 5 work and role of ONAS did you see with this change being 6 made? 7 A: I wasn't familiar with the day to day 8 workings of ONAS before I became responsible as a deputy, 9 so I'm not really in a position to do a comparison. I 10 think the -- the issue in, and of organizational design 11 terms is what they call 'span of control'. 12 It's how many organizations can one (1) 13 person be responsible for and -- and effectively get the 14 job done. The kind of rule of thumb in government is 15 that you can be responsible for somewhere between five 16 (5) and seven (7) before you start stretching yourself. 17 The -- the issue is also a function of who 18 the people are who are doing the work. You could look at 19 -- if you took the Ministry of the Attorney General, you 20 could take almost any part of the Ministry of the 21 Attorney General, take the Criminal Prosecution Service, 22 and you could ask the question whether it would be better 23 as a separate free standing organization with its own 24 minister and its own deputy. 25 In -- in fact the Ministry of the Attorney


1 General, like lots of other ministries, has five (5) or 2 six (6) or seven (7) big important units in it. And I 3 think the real issue as I said before, is about the 4 quality of the leadership of those unites rather than the 5 design, as such. 6 Q: And so that -- I take it from what 7 you're saying that you did not see a problem when you 8 became Deputy Minister, when Native Affairs were added to 9 the Ministry of the Attorney General? 10 A: When something happens like -- like 11 Ipperwash and you wish you had nothing else to do. I 12 think that much is true, you know, but it was also true - 13 - it was also the feeling I had when the Family Support 14 Plan was having trouble. 15 And, I mean, I think I don't have a strong 16 feeling about this. I think people who don't know 17 government often think that you would be better off 18 having your own minister, having your own deputy, and it 19 doesn't matter whether you're talking about, you know, 20 children's affairs or -- or First People's affairs. 21 It's not -- it's not always true. It's 22 not I think necessarily the right way to look at it. I 23 think there's a good case to be made for putting an 24 organization like ONAS in a place where there's a 25 minister and a deputy who have wide ranging


1 responsibilities that are important. 2 Q: And if I could take you back to the 3 time that Mr. Scott was Attorney General and was Minister 4 Responsible for Native -- Native Affairs, do you recall 5 if back in the late '80s when he was in those portfolios 6 whether there were two (2) Deputy Ministers, one (1) 7 responsible for the Ministry of the Attorney General, one 8 (1) responsible for Native Affairs? 9 A: My recollection is that when Ian 10 Scott was the Minister, the Secretary of ONAS functioned 11 as a deputy and had as I said yesterday, had the rank and 12 status of deputy. So, there was no deputy -- there was 13 no other deputy in the picture. 14 Q: And you also said yesterday that -- 15 that Mr. Yan Lazor was the Acting Director and functioned 16 as the secretary. And did you see him in the -- in the 17 same role? 18 A: No, because I -- I had been asked to 19 be -- to exercise a deputy's role and so that, I think, 20 implicitly changed the structure, even though I don't 21 know that anybody had at that time done actually done the 22 paperwork, but it implicitly made the secretary more like 23 an assistant deputy minister reporting to a -- 24 Q: I see. Yeah. Thank you. Is there 25 anything else you wish to add?


1 A: No, thank you. 2 Q: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, those 5 are my questions and perhaps we could canvass the 6 parties? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Does anybody 8 have any questions for Mr. Taman? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. On 13 behalf of Mr. Harris, Mr. Downard? 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I'm going to try for 15 fifteen (15) minutes. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Smith, I 17 think is there on behalf of -- 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, Ms. Horvat, for 19 Mr. Harnick. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 21 sorry Ms. Horvat is before you, yes. 22 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Twenty (20) 23 minutes. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ms. Horvat, twenty 25 (20) minutes for Mr. Harnick.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 2 Smith...? 3 MR. IAN SMITH: About ten (10) minutes. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Smith, ten (10) 5 minutes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Or Mr. 7 Hodgson? Is it Mr. Hodgson who doesn't have any 8 questions? 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No. There are no 10 questions. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay Mr. 12 Sulman...? 13 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Ten (10) to fifteen 14 (15) minutes, sir. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Sulman ten (10) to 16 fifteen (15) minutes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 18 Perschy...? 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: About twenty (20) 20 minutes. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ms. Perschy, twenty 22 (20) minutes on behalf of Ms. Hutton. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Tuck- 24 Jackson, on behalf of the OPP? 25 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Ten (10) to


1 fifteen (15), but likely less. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ten (10) to fifteen 3 (15) by Ms. Tuck-Jackson, on behalf of the OPP. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 5 Clermont...? 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ms. Clermont, ten (10) 7 minutes for the Municipality of Lambton Shore. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 9 Klippenstein...? 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: An hour and a 11 half to two (2) hours. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Klippenstein, an 13 hour and a half to two (2) hours. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 15 Rosenthal...? 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: About a half an 17 hour to forty-five (45) minutes, sir. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Rosenthal, a half 19 an hour. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: To forty-five (45) 21 minutes. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: To forty-five (45) 23 minutes. Excuse me. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Ross...? 25 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Half an hour max.


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Half an hour for Mr. 2 Ross. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 4 the Chippewas of Kettle and Stoney Point First Nation? 5 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: Ms. Johnson, twenty 6 (20) minutes depending on the questions My Friends ask. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Ms. Johnson, twenty 8 (20) minutes approximately. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 10 the Chiefs? 11 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Approximately an 12 hour but maybe less. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The Chiefs of Ontario, 14 Mr. Horner, says an hour. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 16 Eyolfson...? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can't hear 21 a word you're saying. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Mr. Eyolfson -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 24 probably better that I don't hear it. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He said -- Mr.


1 Falconer advised me yesterday that he has two (2) to four 2 (4) hours. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Depending on 4 what other people think. 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Depending on what 6 other people think and -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's why 8 it's better if you don't hear it until other people have 9 gone. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. He doesn't -- 11 he won't know until -- if everyone, as he put it 12 yesterday -- if everyone covers his territories then 13 he'll have less. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's going 15 to rely on you to tell him that I suppose because he's 16 not able to know for himself. So, you'll have to tell 17 him that everything has been covered. All right. 18 THE WITNESS: Do I get a say in this? 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Then you -- then -- 22 Ms. Twohig acts for Mr. Taman and she may have some re- 23 examination. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 25 So, we'll start now -- well, have you got a list of all


1 that so we can add it up at the end? 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah, I'll add it up. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 Mr. Downard, that'll give you some idea of 5 what you're facing as well. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Good morning, 10 Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 12 morning. 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 15 Q: Mr. Taman, my name's Peter Downard, 16 and as you know, I appear for former Ontario Premier, 17 Mike Harris, and I just have a few questions for you this 18 morning. 19 The first subject I would like to ask you 20 about is the meeting you told us about that you attended 21 with Chief Tom Bressette and Ovide Mercredi, and the 22 Premier and Minister Harnick. 23 Do you recall giving evidence about that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And as I understand your evidence,


1 the original discussion in the Premier's office was that 2 there was reluctance to have the meeting and then there 3 was a decision that it would be a meeting but it would be 4 a short meeting, and then as the matter evolved, it 5 turned out to be not a very short meeting, but as you put 6 it, a very civil and interesting and important meeting, 7 correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And your observation at the time was 10 that the Premier was interested and that the meeting went 11 on for quite some time, correct? 12 A: Yeah, absolutely. 13 Q: All right. Now, the Commission has 14 heard evidence that at this meeting the -- the Premier 15 walked in, and the first thing he said was: 16 "Let me very clear about this, I didn't 17 tell anybody to kill anybody." 18 That's the first thing that came out of 19 his mouth. Unquote. 20 Now, do you recall the Premier saying that 21 at this meeting? 22 A: No, sir, I don't. 23 Q: Did -- did you observe that at this 24 meeting the Premier really looked nervous? 25 A: No. He looked attentive and focussed


1 on an important matter. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And Mr. Harnick was described, in 6 evidence before this Commission, at this meeting as being 7 basically just slumped back in a chair, with his eyes 8 being really glazed over and red. 9 Do you recall that? 10 A: No, sir, I don't recall that. 11 Q: And the evidence we heard was that 12 Mr. Harnick never really said a whole lot of anything in 13 that meeting, he just sat there and observed. 14 Do you recall whether Minister Harnick 15 engaged in discussion in this meeting? 16 A: I don't think that either he or I 17 said very much because it was really a meeting between 18 the Grand Chief and the Premier. 19 Q: So, to your recollection, the 20 majority of the discussion was between the Grand Chief 21 and the Premier? 22 A: As my notes show, there was quite a 23 lot of discussion also, from Mr. Bressette. 24 Q: Thank you. But your recollection is 25 that the Premier was actively engaged in this discussion


1 for quite some time? 2 A: Yes, absolutely. My -- in fact, if I 3 could just say it in a slightly different way, you know, 4 I thought it was one of the interesting examples of a new 5 government coming to a problem and there was lots of 6 interesting theoretical discussion about whether you 7 should do it, whether you should do it at all, how long 8 it should take, but in the end, it turned out to be kind 9 of a normal human process, that the Premier was 10 interested in what the chief had to say, the chief was 11 interested in what the Premier had to say and it was a -- 12 it was a useful meeting. 13 They'd never met before, as far as I know. 14 Q: Now, I want to ask you a few 15 questions about the meeting in the dining room that you 16 described. 17 And as I understand your evidence, the 18 Premier concluded his comments at the meeting, and 19 essentially his attendance at the meeting, with words to 20 the effect that he expected you to get on with it using 21 your best professional judgment? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: All right. And I take it you would 24 agree with me that professional judgment is a sort of 25 judgment that has to be exercised in accordance with


1 principles? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. And principles for 4 example, if -- if one has any particular policy goal, the 5 applicable principles can form side constraints? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: On the choices you can make to pursue 8 that goal? 9 A: Absolutely. 10 Q: And I take it that when you 11 understood that the Premier was leaving it to you to use 12 your best professional judgment, I take it you also 13 understood that he expected you to act in accordance with 14 such principles? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And at this meeting, I take it, it 17 was made very clear in the Premier's presence that a 18 principle applicable in this matter was that the 19 Government could not direct the operations of the Ontario 20 Provincial Police? 21 A: Yes, I -- I think that's fair. 22 Q: And in fact Inspector Fox himself 23 came up to you at the end of the meeting and spoke to you 24 about how clear you had been that the operational 25 management was with the OPP?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And so you understood that that was a 3 principle that -- that the Premier expected you to be 4 compliant. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Now, in this Inquiry it has been 7 alleged that the Premier was attempting to ignore the 8 independence of police and the rule of law. 9 Is that what he was doing at this meeting? 10 A: No, I don't think that's a fair 11 characterization of the meeting. I think that it -- it 12 would be fairer to say that there was a discussion among 13 the most senior politicians and bureaucrats in government 14 and that in keeping with the spirit of all of those 15 discussions, there was free and open exchange of views. 16 And that when it was all over, the Premier 17 mandated us in what I thought was a very fair and 18 appropriate manner and I think I could put it even a 19 little more strongly than you did in -- in your question 20 to me, that he wanted it understood that he was there to 21 set a broad framework but that we were the ones managing 22 it and he expected us to use our judgment. 23 And that, I think, it would apply in -- in 24 all aspects of the matter including the one you'd 25 mentioned, maintaining a proper separation between the --


1 the police and the -- and the political side. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: Now, that being said and there was -- 4 there was lots of discussion at the meeting, but I think 5 that's the way government works. 6 Q: Well, is -- isn't that right? Isn't 7 it important to decide what the right approach is to have 8 a wide ranging discussion? 9 A: Absolutely. 10 Q: And to draw upon the best advice you 11 can for the purpose of trying to reach the right 12 conclusion? 13 A: Absolutely. And in my opinion what's 14 important is not the discussion but where it ends up. 15 And it ended up in a -- in a very sensible and 16 appropriate place. 17 Q: All right. Thank you. Now, sir, are 18 you familiar with the phrase 'redneck'? 19 A: I think I've heard that expression, 20 yes. 21 Q: Was the Premier's statement that he 22 expected you to use your best professional judgment, 23 something you would associate with a redneck attitude? 24 A: I think this -- the -- the 25 instruction to use our best professional judgment was not


1 consistent with a redneck attitude. 2 Q: Did the Premier say anything in this 3 meeting that would justify a conclusion that he was in 4 love with guns? 5 A: Not to my hearing or recollection. 6 Q: Now, do you recall, in this meeting, 7 the Premier saying that: 8 "We have tried to pacify and pander to 9 these people for too long. It's now 10 time for swift affirmative action." 11 A: I don't recall those words. 12 Q: Now, it's been alleged for many years 13 and the allegation has never been withdrawn, this an 14 allegation of the public record, that the Premier of 15 Ontario in this matter personally ordered the Ontario 16 Provincial Police to utilize its Tactical Response Unit 17 to take severe action against the occupiers at Ipperwash 18 Provincial Park. 19 To your knowledge, did the Premier ever 20 give such an order? 21 A: I have no knowledge of anything of 22 that sort. 23 Q: Now, do you recall in the dining room 24 meeting the Premier saying that the story of what had 25 happened at the Park would come out someday and that the


1 OPP would have to account for their actions possibly in 2 an inquiry? 3 A: I just don't recall the meeting at 4 that level of detail. I don't recall that being said. 5 Q: All right. Now, you were asked about 6 the -- the allegation, that a lot of people have been 7 asked about, that the Premier was reported to have said 8 by Deb Hutton -- pardon me, that -- this gets 9 complicated, the way it got complicated with you. 10 There's been the allegation out there that 11 the Premier said: 12 "Get those f-ing Indians out of the 13 Park and use guns if you have to." 14 Q: And a Mr. Bob Watts gave evidence 15 here, and he said that shortly after the events of 16 September 6th there was a concern in government to find 17 out who had informed Chief Tom Bressette at or around 18 that time of this allegation; if fact Mr. Watts had. 19 And Mr. Watts said that people in the 20 Government felt that their phones were being tapped and 21 computers were being taken away in an attempt to find the 22 source of that evidence and who had passed this 23 allegation on. 24 Now, as the Deputy Minister for ONAS, in 25 the fall of 1996 were people's phones being tapped and


1 computers taken away in an attempt to find out who had 2 passed this on? 3 A: Not on my instructions. 4 Q: All right. And this allegation was 5 first publicized by the Toronto Star in the spring of -- 6 May of 1996 -- spring of 1996, in May of that month -- 7 May of that year. 8 And do you have any recollection of such 9 activity being undertaken at that time? 10 A: I don't have a -- a direct 11 recollection. If -- if there were a leak of a 12 confidential conversation, it wouldn't be unusual to try 13 to find out how it happened and I think it would be 14 appropriate to try to find out how it happened. 15 I -- I don't know what steps precisely 16 were taken to deal with that. 17 Q: You don't have any knowledge of 18 people's phones being tapped for example? 19 A: No, sir. 20 Q: Wouldn't that be un -- highly 21 unusual? 22 A: It -- it would be highly unusual for 23 people's phones to be tapped I hope. 24 Q: And you've no recollection I take it, 25 of people's computers being taken away as part of a


1 search? 2 A: I don't know about that. 3 Q: Okay. Thank you very much, sir, 4 those are my questions. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Good morning. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 8 morning. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 11 Q: Good morning, Mr. Taman. My name is 12 Jacqueline Horvat and I represent Charles Harnick at this 13 Inquiry. 14 You testified yesterday that you recall a 15 meeting with Ministers Harnick, Runciman and with Elaine 16 Todres, do you recall whether this meeting took place on 17 September 5th or September 6th? 18 A: I met with the Ministers and the 19 Deputies several times over this period, so I -- I 20 couldn't say without more detail which day it was. I met 21 with them many times. 22 Q: Regarding Ipperwash? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: I anticipate that Mr. Harnick's 25 evidence will be that he met with yourself and Ms. Todres


1 on the morning of Sept -- September 5th and that he did 2 not meet with or speak to Minister Runciman until the 3 afternoon of September 6th at the dining room meeting. 4 A: That -- yeah, I wouldn't disagree 5 with that if he remembered more clearly than I, that's 6 possible. 7 Q: If -- 8 A: It is the case that there were a 9 number of these meetings and not every single person was 10 at each meeting, and so if that's what the Minister 11 remembers, I -- I wouldn't contradict him. 12 Q: Thank you. Yesterday you also 13 testified as to your recollection of the briefing of 14 Minister Harnick on the morning of September 6th? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Now, prior to that briefing you met 17 with Yan Lazor and Julie Jai -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- is that correct? 20 Do you recall anyone else being present at 21 that briefing? 22 A: I don't specifically but there 23 probably was. 24 Q: Now, was the purpose of that briefing 25 to prepare you for the briefing of the Minister?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And do you recall what was discussed 3 with Ms. Jai and Mr. Lazor? 4 A: I recall that they told me that the - 5 - the so-called Blockade Committee was recommending an 6 injunction, that I pressed them on what exactly that was 7 going to accomplish, and we had a discussion which I 8 think is recorded in one of the notes that Mr. Millar 9 referred to yesterday. 10 I think it was the note we thought might 11 have been Yan Lazor's note and that was what was 12 discussed. 13 Q: At Tab 21? 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: Yes, that's... 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 A: No, I don't think that is the note. 22 Maybe -- maybe Mr. Millar can help you. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's Exhibit P-943, 2 Inquiry Document 3001652 which should be in the pile of 3 material to -- on the desk. 4 THE WITNESS: It's P...? 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 943. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's the document I 10 was thinking of. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 13 Q: Okay. At this briefing of yourself, 14 do you recall Ms. Jai conveying the views of the Premier 15 as expressed by Deb Hutton at the Blockade Committee 16 meeting the day before? 17 A: Do -- do I recall her saying what, 18 excuse me? 19 Q: Expressing -- do you recall her 20 saying that Deb Hutton expressed the views of the Premier 21 at the September 5th Blockade Committee meeting? 22 A: I can't attribute it to any 23 particular conversation, but I can tell you that the 24 civil servants thought that there were quite strong 25 messages coming through Ms. Hutton about what the


1 Premier's office supposedly wanted. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Now, Ms. Jai testified that at the 6 briefing -- at your briefing, that you agreed with the 7 recommendation to seek an injunction as soon as possible; 8 is that correct? 9 A: My recollection is that at that 10 stage, and subsequently, I was not persuaded that it was 11 a good thing. I wasn't entirely sure what it was meant 12 to accomplish. 13 I knew that it would be appropriate for 14 there to be an injunction if the police were going to go 15 into the Park, but I also knew around this time that the 16 police didn't think they should be going into the Park. 17 So, I was still doubtful about what would 18 really be accomplished by this. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Can I take you to Tab 22, Exhibit P- 23 550, your handwritten notes? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Is it possible that these notes are


1 from your briefing prior to the briefing of the Minister? 2 A: No, I don't think that's possible 3 because I -- I -- after ten (10) years, one of the things 4 I recall very clearly is that it was very important to be 5 clear that this instruction had been given, that it had 6 been given from the Premier, and that it had been given 7 in these terms. 8 Q: I anticipate that Mr. Harnick's 9 evidence, or recollection of his briefing, will be 10 different from yours. 11 Specifically, I anticipate that he will 12 testify that he did not speak with the Premier prior to 13 the dining room meeting on the afternoon of September 14 6th, that he did not receive any instructions from the 15 Premier, and that at the briefing on the morning of 16 September 6th you and Ms. Jai presented a recommendation 17 to him to obtain an injunction as soon as possible and he 18 agreed with that recommendation. 19 Does that assist you at all? 20 A: Well, I have the highest regard for 21 the former Attorney General, but if that's his evidence 22 it wouldn't be consistent with my recollection. 23 Q: Thank you. Can I take you back to 24 Tab 21 which is the Minister's briefing form? 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now, this note -- this note, formed 4 the basis of the briefing on the morning of September 5 6th; is that correct? 6 A: I believe that's right. 7 Q: Okay. Can I take you to the -- in 8 the issue box, the second paragraph, the first sentence 9 says: 10 "On Tuesday, September the 5th, the 11 Interministerial Committee for 12 Aboriginal Emergencies met to review 13 the situation and develop 14 recommendations." 15 And then the last -- the last half of the 16 last sentence reads: 17 "Ontario will -- will take action as 18 soon as possible to remove them from 19 the Park?" 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Do you recall Ms. Jai briefing you on 22 this? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And then taking you to Summary of 25 Advice, the very first sentence:


1 "It is recommended that a civil 2 injunction be sought to provide Court 3 authority for removing the occupiers of 4 the Park. The injunction could be 5 sought either on an emergency ex parte 6 basis or an interim less urgent basis." 7 Do you recall Ms. Jai briefing you on 8 this? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Does this assist your recollection as 11 to where the recommendation to seek an injunction came 12 from or stemmed from? 13 A: Well, let me -- let me summarize my 14 recommendation of it in this way. I -- I don't want 15 there to appear to be a difference, you know, where there 16 isn't one. 17 This was around the time of my first 18 involvement in this. I received this report from Yan 19 Lazor and Julie Jai. I expressed, as I've said, some 20 scepticism about this. 21 But, that being said my recollection is 22 that the issue was foreclosed because we were told -- I 23 was told clearly by the Attorney General that the Premier 24 had made a decision and that that's what we were to do. 25 But, I don't want to -- I mean, in fair --


1 in fairness to the Attorney General, I don't want to -- I 2 don't want to disagree with him any more than I -- than - 3 - than I have. I think it was -- I think the situation - 4 - and I had spoken to him a number of times outside of 5 this meeting. I think I had expressed some scepticism. 6 I told you earlier that he and the other 7 Ministers had said they thought it made sense to go slow. 8 There was this idea of the injunction. I think people 9 had different views about it. The Blockade Committee 10 thought it was a good idea. I didn't think it really 11 accomplished very much. 12 I didn't really think it was the biggest 13 issue on the table though, but in any case it was taken 14 off the table in my -- in my recollection when the 15 Attorney General told me the Premier had decided he 16 wanted an injunction. 17 Q: Thank you. Now, on -- on or prior to 18 September 6th, 1995, did you have any interaction or 19 communication with any police officer in relation to 20 Ipperwash? 21 A: With the possible exception of -- of 22 Ron Fox, no. 23 Q: Did you ever provide any direction or 24 express any preferences about police operational matters 25 to, or in the presence of Mr. Fox, or any other police


1 officer? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Do you recall the Attorney General 4 ever expressing an opinion regarding police operational 5 matters? 6 A: No. I mean, again, the -- the 7 general tenor of these meetings was that everyone in them 8 agreed, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the 9 Deputies, that the OPP approach was one of moderation and 10 that that was the right approach. And there were no 11 instructions being given. 12 So, I think it's fair to say we were aware 13 of the approach, we agreed with the approach but we 14 weren't being asked to give an opinion on it either and 15 we weren't communicating at the senior levels. 16 Q: Okay. Thank you. Those are all of 17 my questions. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 19 Ms. Horvat. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. IAN SMITH: Good morning, 24 Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good


1 morning. 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IAN SMITH: 4 Q: Good morning, Mr. Taman, I'm Ian 5 Smith. I act for Mr. Runciman. You've testified as to 6 two (2) meetings that you had with Mr. Runciman, although 7 Ms. Horvat's just suggested that perhaps Mr. Runciman 8 wasn't at one (1) of them, that would be the meeting with 9 Dr. Todres and Mr. Harnick either on the morning of the 10 5th or 6th. 11 But, in any event at that meeting, whether 12 or not Mr. Runciman was there, it appears that the 13 position that was adopted by everyone present was that 14 this was basically a matter for the police to deal with 15 and that it was an operational matter that they could -- 16 that they could make decisions on; is that fair? 17 A: That's fair. 18 Q: And the -- the second meeting that 19 you had that Mr. Runciman was at, again assuming he was 20 at that first one, is the meeting in the Premier's dining 21 room. 22 And it's fair to say I think from the 23 evidence you've given and from other evidence we've heard 24 that both you and the Deputy Solicitor General again 25 emphasized that this was an operational matter for the


1 police; is that correct? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And that it wasn't the role of 4 government to provide direction to the police about 5 operational matters? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: And in fact Ron Fox thanked you for 8 emphasizing that fact? 9 A: He did. 10 Q: And do you ever recall Mr. Runciman 11 saying anything at any meeting you had with him with 12 respect to Ipperwash that was inconsistent with that 13 view? 14 A: Absolutely not. 15 Q: Do you recall him taking a strong 16 view about how the occupation ought to be handled in any 17 way? 18 A: None at all. 19 Q: Do you remember him giving an opinion 20 as to whether the injunction that was going to be sought 21 should be sought on an ex parte basis or on notice? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Do you recall him saying anything 24 that could be taken as a direction or instruction or even 25 a suggestion to the police about how they should consider


1 this operation? 2 A: No. Mr. Runciman was very, very 3 discreet throughout. 4 Q: Do you recall, in particular, him 5 saying anything about how the injunction should be 6 enforced by the OPP? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Or when? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Or saying anything about whether or 11 not they ought to use force in this matter? 12 A: No. In fact, just to be clear, I -- 13 I think he said very little the whole time. 14 Q: You -- just in one (1) of your very 15 recent answers you said something about an approach of 16 moderation by the OPP. 17 Did Mr. Runciman ever take -- say anything 18 in your presence that deviated from that kind of notion, 19 in other words, that there should be an approach other 20 than one of moderation? 21 A: No, sir, he did not. 22 Q: Thanks, Mr. Taman, those are my 23 questions. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 25 Mr. Smith.


1 I believe Mr. Sulman is up. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Good morning, Mr. 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 8 morning. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 11 Q: Good morning, Mr. Taman. My name is 12 Doug Sulman and I represent Marcel Beaubien who was the 13 MPP for this area at the time of the incident in 1995. 14 And do you recall or do you have any 15 recollection of speaking to, or meeting with, or in any 16 way communicating with Mr. Beaubien about the situation 17 at Ipperwash, or for that matter at all, prior to 18 September 7th, 1995? 19 A: I don't think I had ever met Mr. 20 Beaubien. 21 Q: Either prior to September 7th or 22 after? 23 A: Or since. 24 Q: Thank you, sir. I'm going to take 25 you to three (3) tabs in your evidence, so if you want to


1 be prepared to turn those up, the first is Tab 9. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Do you have that in front of you, 6 sir? 7 A: Yes, sir. 8 Q: And I want to go back to some 9 evidence that I understand you gave yesterday. 10 This Tab 9 is the letter from Mr. Beaubien 11 to Minister Harnick dated July 31st, 1995, and is -- for 12 the record -- is Inquiry Document Number 1000918 and it's 13 Exhibit P-534. 14 And I believe the evidence from yesterday, 15 sir, is that you indicated that you were quite sure you 16 didn't see this document prior to preparing your evidence 17 for the testimony here today. Am I -- 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: -- correct in that? Thank you. 20 And I take it that, and I'm not sure 21 whether this was your evidence yesterday or not, that you 22 didn't see this evi -- this correspondence prior to 23 September 6th either, sir? 24 A: I don't think I did, no. 25 Q: And it seems logical then, my


1 suggestion to you, sir, is that the contents of this 2 letter would have had no influence on any recommendations 3 you made in relation to the situation at Ipperwash in the 4 period of time, on September 6th? 5 A: The contents of the letter, it's true 6 to say, were not within my knowledge. There was, you 7 know, some discussion about some of these issues, but I 8 had no idea what Mr. Beaubien was saying or doing about 9 them. 10 Q: Right. And that's what I want to 11 focus on. Mr. Beaubien's letter and the contents thereof 12 had no influence on you at that time? 13 A: I think that's right. 14 Q: Okay. If we could then turn to Tab 15 13. 16 My focus, obviously, sir, is that of Mr. 17 Beaubien. I realize there was information floating 18 around in the media and other sources, but I'd like to 19 focus on Mr. Beaubien. 20 Tab 13, you have that in front of you, 21 sir? 22 A: Yes, I do. 23 Q: And that is Inquiry document 1012239 24 and it's Exhibit P-418. 25 And I believe your evidence yesterday,


1 likewise, was that you didn't think you saw this letter 2 in August of 1995? 3 A: That's right. 4 Q: Okay. So, I'd like to also focus on 5 whether you know whether you saw this letter at any time 6 prior to September 6th, 1995? 7 A: No, I don't believe I did. 8 Q: Okay. And again I would suggest to 9 you, sir, that not having seen it, the contents of the 10 letter from Mr. Beaubien didn't have any influence on 11 your recommendations with regard to the situation at 12 Ipperwash in that time period? 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: Okay, thank you, sir. Now, finally, 15 in my review of the tabs, Tab 31. And that, sir, is a 16 fax from Mr. Beaubien to Mr. King dated September -- Mr. 17 Bill King, dated September 6th, 1995. 18 Do you have that in front of you, sir? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And for the record, that is Inquiry 21 Document 1006196. 22 And sir, if you look at the top of that 23 document in the fax transmission line -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: It shows that the fax was sent from


1 Marcel Beaubien MPP at 09/06, 1995, of course, September 2 6, 1995, at 1:16 p.m. in the afternoon of September 6th. 3 Now, did you see this document prior to 4 making your recommendations concerning legal proceedings 5 with regard to Ipperwash Park on September 6th? 6 A: I don't believe so. 7 Q: And I take it the meeting that we've 8 heard about, variously described as in the dining room or 9 the sideboard meeting, the meeting after Cabinet, was 10 held prior to 1:16 p.m. on September 6th in any event? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: I -- I'm less certain about that. I 15 -- I have it in mind that the dining room meeting was at 16 about twelve o'clock but someone must know when it was. 17 I don't know exactly from memory. 18 Q: Okay. But, in any event, I take it 19 that this letter had no influence on your 20 recommendations. 21 A: No. 22 Q: Okay. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Well perhaps -- Mr. Millar points out 2 to me that while we have a document number, it has not 3 yet been entered as an exhibit. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I think 5 that's right. 6 MR. DOUG SULMAN: And I would ask then 7 that Inquiry Document 1006196 which is the fax from Mr. 8 Beaubien to Mr. King dated September 6th at 1:16 p.m. be 9 given an exhibit number. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And the 11 letter that's accompanying it? 12 MR. DOUG SULMAN: The letter that is -- I 13 believe it is all part of one -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, part of 15 one exhibit. 16 MR. DOUG SULMAN: Perhaps, it's not, 17 but -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 MR. DOUG SULMAN: -- I think it is all 20 part of one -- there are three (3) -- there are several 21 pages, but it is all part of one Inquiry document number. 22 THE REGISTRAR: P-952, Your Honour. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-952: Document Number 1006196. Fax 25 from Marcel Beaubien to Bill


1 King with attached letter 2 from Citizen dated September 3 05/'95, cc'd to Minister 4 Harnick, September 06/'95. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUG SULMAN: 7 Q: And perhaps I should clear that up, 8 Mr. Taman, while I'm there, now that we've gone through 9 the -- the procedural matters, I only referred to the fax 10 cover page. 11 It has, obviously, letters attached to it 12 and I want to make it clear that in asking you, I was 13 asking you about the contents other than simply the fax 14 cover page. 15 A: I was looking at the letters. 16 Q: I thought you were, sir. More 17 particularly and maybe this is fundamental from my 18 perspective, did you feel any pressure from Mr. Beaubien 19 that affected or influenced your judgment or affected or 20 influenced your recommendations or actions with respect 21 to dealing with the situation at Ipperwash? 22 Did you feel any direct pressure from him? 23 A: I think we all knew indirectly, 24 possibly from the -- possibly from the political 25 assistants in the Premier's office that the local MPP was


1 concerned that some of his constituents were -- were not 2 very happy with the situation. And that was common 3 knowledge in the group that people thought that -- that 4 was an issue, that Mr. Beaubien was involved in talking 5 to people in the community. 6 So, that much was known and I think it's 7 fair to say that it was part of the -- the picture, the - 8 - I mean the Provincial Park existed in a context, there 9 were people who lived around it and some of them were 10 reported to -- to be saying that they were concerned. 11 And that much we knew and we knew that Mr. 12 Beaubien was talking to them. 13 Q: Right. And I suggest to you, sir, 14 that -- while we're on that topic, the role of a 15 backbench government MPP, you've spoken about the role of 16 the Attorney General, the Cabinet minister, but on the 17 role of the backbench government MPP in addition to their 18 limited role in question period and the roles in some 19 committee work, that role is to communicate the concerns 20 of their, his or her constituents to the organs of 21 government at Queen's Park, correct? 22 A: That's the job. 23 Q: Right. That is their -- that is 24 their principal job, correct? 25 A: That's the job.


1 Q: And likewise, it's to convey the 2 policies and views of the Government in reverse back to 3 their constituents, correct? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: And I suggest to you that this role 6 as a conduit for information is particularly important 7 for MPP's who were outside that Toronto media centre of 8 the GTA, correct? 9 A: I think that's fair. 10 Q: And that's those MPP's in 11 southwestern Ontario, the north and the east, so that 12 they understood -- their constituents both feel they're 13 being heard at Queen's Park and understand that Queen's 14 Park has policies that affect them? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Thank you, sir. And I think on that 17 issue you said as a general principle, yesterday you said 18 as a general principle people have a right to turn to 19 their government and ask what the police are doing. I 20 think those were your exact words, late yesterday. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I think the corollary, sir, I'd 23 suggest to you is that it must be that the government 24 representatives or the representatives of those people 25 must be able to ask that question also.


1 A: I think that's right. I think the 2 question is of whom should it be asked. 3 Q: And do you have a response to that? 4 A: I think that there should be limited 5 if any, interaction between political people and the 6 police in the management of a crisis and I would include 7 the local MPP in that. 8 Q: Okay. But, let's -- let's turn then 9 to the topic that you spoke about in some detail 10 yesterday, and that was the -- what you suggested would 11 be the impropriety of the Solicitor General in directing 12 police in operational matters. 13 You recall that? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And I believe yesterday the question 16 of this Solicitor General's role in directing police 17 issues rose princi -- well, principally because that 18 falls within his authority of the OPP, the operation of 19 the OPP, generally. 20 A: Can you just say that for me once 21 more please? 22 Q: Okay. Yesterday -- yesterday you 23 were speaking to the issue of the impropriety of the 24 Solicitor General directing the OPP in operational 25 matters; do you recall that?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And the reason that arose as opposed 3 to any other minister was because the mandate for the OPP 4 falls under the authority of the Solicitor General's 5 office; that was the -- why we would be speaking about 6 that in the first place as opposed to other Ministries? 7 A: Well, I think it would be appropriate 8 -- I think the proposition is wider than that. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: I think the proposition is that it 11 would be inappropriate for representatives of the 12 Government to be seeking to direct the OPP in operational 13 matters. I don't think it would matter whether it was 14 the Solicitor General or the -- the Minister of Energy. 15 I think the principle would be the same. 16 Q: Okay, fair enough. So, maybe you 17 could help me with the issue that I found troubling to 18 this point. 19 In 1995, was there any specific statutory 20 provision which prohibited a minister of the Crown from 21 that type of behaviour; that is directing the OPP, or 22 attempting to direct the OPP, as it would be better put? 23 A: Well, I think there is -- first of 24 all, there are the provisions of the -- the Ministry of 25 the Solicitor General Act which I think make reasonably


1 clear that the Minister's role is a policy role not an 2 operational role. 3 I don't know of any other explicit legal 4 constraints on -- on that activity. 5 Q: All right. Now, that's at the 6 Cabinet Minister level, are you aware -- and at least you 7 have some direction from that statute. 8 But, let's go to another level. Let's go 9 to an MPP's level, either in opposition or government 10 back bench MP. 11 Can you tell me if there is any specific 12 statutory provision from 1995 era, of course, that you 13 were aware of in your role as Deputy Minister that's -- 14 that would specifically prohibit an MPP from attempting 15 to direct the activities -- operational activities of the 16 OPP? 17 A: I don't know of any statutory 18 provision to that effect. 19 Q: Okay. So, there's nothing that you 20 are aware of that would set that out as improper conduct 21 or misconduct on the part of a backbench MPP? 22 A: As I say, I don't know of any 23 statutory provision to that effect. 24 Q: Okay. Now, that's -- that's with 25 regard to actually trying to direct operations. Now, let


1 me shift over to another -- another area, and that is for 2 a Cabinet Minister to convey public feedback which is a 3 different situation than trying to direct operational 4 matters, you'd agree, correct? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Only -- I only ask for verbal because 7 -- because of the transcript. 8 In that area of a cabinet minister 9 conveying public -- public feedback to the police with 10 regard to matters of public interest that the police have 11 involved, would you say that that would be improper? 12 A: Just to be sure I understand the 13 question, you're asking me is there anything wrong with 14 the Member of Parliament telling the Government what his 15 constituents are thinking about? 16 Q: Well, you've cut to the chase very 17 well, Mr. Taman. I was going to go through whether it 18 was anything wrong with the Cabinet Minister doing that 19 first, but... 20 A: No, I think that's what MPP's are 21 supposed to do. 22 Q: And so communicating with the police 23 is not an improper activity, in your view, on the -- from 24 an MPP, provided it isn't meant to be directional on 25 their operational matters?


1 A: I mean -- sorry, I think you've lost 2 me a little bit here. I -- what I had intended to say 3 was that I -- I didn't think there was anything wrong 4 with an MPP feeding back to the Government what his 5 constituencies were -- his constituents were thinking 6 about and worrying about. 7 Q: Right. 8 A: If what we're talking about is the 9 MPP interacting with the police, my view is that it's 10 unwise because it's easily misinterpreted as government 11 interfering with or controlling the police, and no matter 12 what the MPP might be thinking, it's almost certain to 13 have that appearance. 14 Q: Okay. And that's a -- when you say 15 "appearance", that's a perception issue as opposed to a 16 statutory pro -- prohibition? 17 A: Again, I think the -- you know, in 18 our system the -- the convention is very strong that the 19 Government does not direct the police in an operational 20 manner. 21 I think when an MPP interacts with the 22 police, there is a risk that it will be seen as the 23 Government acting through that person to influence the 24 management of the operation. 25 So, if anybody asked my advice about it, I


1 would say don't do it. 2 Q: I understand that. I'm -- I'm 3 interested in any express prohibition against that type 4 of activity. 5 A: I don't -- 6 Q: Not directing, but just 7 communicating. 8 A: I don't know of any statutory 9 prohibition. 10 Q: Okay, thank you. Yesterday in your 11 evidence you indicated, if I've looked at the transcript 12 and understood it properly, you indicated that you 13 thought it would be normal for the police to have 14 dialogue with the occupiers in the Park? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And I take it that's because they're 17 stakeholders in the situation that was at hand? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And I suggest to you that it would 20 also be valuable for the police to have dialogue with 21 other stakeholders in the community? 22 A: Sure. 23 Q: Like the cottagers? 24 A: Sure. 25 Q: Citizens living near the Park?


1 A: Sure. 2 Q: Other people in the community who 3 might be affected either economically or otherwise? 4 A: Sure. 5 Q: And I suggest to you that likewise it 6 would be normal and appropriate for the police to have 7 dialogue with perhaps the mayor of the area? 8 A: Well, I think I can see where we're 9 going with this. I -- I -- sure with the mayor of the 10 area. 11 Q: Absolutely, because that's the single 12 representative of many voices who are stakeholders in the 13 community. 14 A: Yes, that's right. 15 Q: And do you see a difference between 16 having communication with the elected mayor and say the 17 Member of Parliament, that is the Federal Member of 18 Parliament. 19 A: The -- the Federal Member of 20 Parliament? 21 Q: Let's start with the Federal Member 22 of Parliament. 23 A: You know, I think these things would 24 go a lot better if lots of people just stayed out of it 25 and I think any number of the ones you mentioned might


1 just as well have stayed out of it. 2 And you know we can look at them one at a 3 time and -- and I think you're right. I -- I think the 4 point you make is a fair one. The police have to 5 interact with lots of people in order to figure out 6 what's going on. 7 Q: Right. 8 A: I think the Government has to 9 communicate better with people about what it's doing. I 10 think it's natural that the MPP needs to be involved in 11 that. I think the question is how. 12 And I think if the MPP interacts with the 13 police in a way that is open to the interpretation that 14 the Government is somehow trying to influence the police 15 operation, then it's probably ill-advised and it would be 16 a good thing not to do. 17 Q: But, again not something that has an 18 expressed statutory prohibition? 19 A: Not as far as I know. 20 Q: Okay. And I should tell you, to be 21 fair, that Mr. Carson and -- who at the time was the 22 Incident Commander has indicated that he thought it was 23 helpful to speak to -- and have open communication with 24 the MPP and the mayor and other elected officials. 25 A: Yeah. I think a lot would depend on


1 the context. And again, I would go back to the issue of 2 transparency. 3 I mean, if -- if for example we were 4 talking about having a community meeting in which the 5 mayor and the local MPP and the Federal MPP were on a 6 panel with the police talking in public about what was 7 going on in a situation, I think that would be a healthy 8 thing because it would be transparent. 9 I think if we're talking about other kinds 10 of communications that are not so transparent, then I 11 think the risk I've identified is -- is present. 12 Q: Yeah. I think that's valuable 13 information for the Commissioner and for -- for us 14 involved. Let me suggest to you one other -- from the 15 evidence, another situation and one other, you know, I'd 16 like your opinion on. 17 And that comes, again, from Incident 18 Commander and now Deputy Commissioner of the OPP John 19 Carson. He found it valuable to have a communication 20 with the local MPP as a conduit for information, both 21 receiving the views of the community and having an 22 opportunity to -- to have the MPP deliver views back to 23 the community, that things were either in hand and get 24 information from him. 25 Now, do you see that as a -- now having


1 known what Deputy Commissioner Carson said? 2 A: Yeah. I guess I'd want to think 3 about it. The risk is as I've stated, and I was 4 concerned about it at the time and I'm concerned about it 5 as we speak. 6 Q: Sure. 7 A: But, I think it goes back to 8 something else I've said which is that, you know, we have 9 to acknowledge and remember that we're not dealing here 10 with drawings on pieces of paper. We're dealing with 11 real life situations in which people are trying to get 12 information, they're trying to convey information. 13 And I think the most important thing is 14 that it be transparent, that it be clear to everybody 15 who's doing what to whom. And I think if -- if that can 16 be accomplished then that's good. 17 Q: Thank you, sir. It's clear that 18 there's no absolute answer to the questions I've been 19 posing to you, correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: A lot of it is perception after the 22 fact. 23 A: I think that's right. 24 Q: Thank you, sir. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Good morning, 4 Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 6 morning. 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 9 Q: Good morning, Mr. Taman. 10 A: Good morning. 11 Q: My name is Anna Perschy, and I'm one 12 of the counsel representing Deb Hutton who at the time, 13 as you know, was the Executive Assistant to Premier 14 Harris. I just have a few questions for you this 15 morning. 16 You -- you testified yesterday about a 17 meeting with some civil servants from ONAS and MAG on the 18 morning of September 6th, 1995. 19 And if I understood your evidence 20 correctly you don't have an independent recollection of 21 the meeting, but your memory was refreshed by looking at 22 some notes that Commission Counsel had taken you to with 23 respect to that meeting? 24 A: That's fair. 25 Q: I take it that the purpose of the


1 meeting was to review some of the legal options that the 2 lawyers had been looking at prior to -- to briefing, 3 excuse me, Mr. Harnick? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Do you recall how long this meeting 6 with staff took? 7 A: I don't think it could have been very 8 long. 9 Q: And I take it you -- you say that 10 because there were a number of meetings that morning and 11 I think you testified that you believe that you met with 12 Minister Harnick at around 9:30 in the morning? 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: So, again, you don't -- you don't 15 have a specific recollection, but your sense is it would 16 -- it would have been fairly brief? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And I understand that at this meeting 19 there was some reference to the Interministerial 20 Committee Meeting the previous day. 21 And I take you yourself were not present 22 at the Interministerial Committee Meeting on September 23 5th? 24 A: I don't think so. 25 Q: Well, we've had -- we've heard no


1 evidence to that effect. 2 A: Good. 3 Q: And I believe you -- you indicated 4 that you'd seen some meeting notes, the official meeting 5 notes of that meeting and you're not listed as one (1) of 6 the attendees? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: So -- and also with respect to the 9 Interministerial Committee Meeting on September 6th, I 10 take it that you yourself were not present at that 11 meeting? 12 A: I believe that's right, too. 13 Q: So any understanding that you would 14 have in regard to either of these meetings would be based 15 solely on what others may have communicated to you? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now some of the notes, and I believe 18 there was a suggestion that they may be those of Yan 19 Lazor that Commission Counsel took you to, referred to 20 Tim McCabe and Scott Hutchison and others as attending at 21 this meeting. 22 And as I understood your evidence you 23 don't have a recollection as to who attended this meeting 24 with -- with staff, but you -- you were essentially 25 relying on the notes in that regard?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Is that fair? 3 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's Exhibit P-943. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you, Mr. 5 Millar. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 8 Q: Now, this Inquiry has heard evidence 9 that Yan Lazor, Tim McCabe, and Scott Hutchison were not 10 at the Interministerial Committee Meeting on September 11 5th. 12 Were you aware of that? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Ms. Jai testified that she may have 15 spoken to you about that meeting. Do you recall if she 16 was the one who mentioned the meeting to you? 17 A: I don't recall. 18 Q: Now, Ms. Jai testified that, other 19 than the reference to an injunction, the Premier's office 20 didn't specify a particular course of action at the 21 Interministerial Committee Meeting on September 5th. 22 And can I take it that you were told that 23 at that meeting on the 5th the Premier's office had 24 suggested a policy position in terms of the goal of 25 ending the occupation but not any means to implement


1 that? 2 A: My understanding was that the 3 Premier's office was pressing for an injunction. If -- 4 if what you mean was, was there discussion about whether 5 it would be an injunction on notice or an ex parte 6 injunction, I don't recall whether there was any 7 discussion of that in the meeting I had on the morning of 8 the 6th. 9 Q: And I take it that you were advised 10 that the Interministerial Committee had made no 11 recommendation as of September 5th, but had agreed to 12 wait until the following day for further information and 13 advice? 14 A: Sorry. Your -- your question was: 15 Was I aware of that? 16 Q: Yes. Were -- were you advised of 17 that; that they hadn't -- they hadn't made an actual 18 recommendation? 19 A: I don't recall. 20 Q: You don't recall? 21 A: I don't recall if I was advised of 22 that or not. 23 Q: And do you recall if you were advised 24 that the people on the ground, OPP and MNR, were going to 25 communicate with the occupiers, or going to attempt to?


1 A: There was ongoing communication with 2 the -- with the occupiers. 3 Q: Now, I understand that you don't 4 recall receiving the e-mail which is at Tab 25 of your 5 materials. I believe it's the e-mail from Ms. Jai dated 6 September 6th and it's Inquiry Document number 1011762. 7 And I believe yesterday you indicated that you didn't 8 recall receiving it. 9 A: That's right. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: P-653. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 13 Q: It's P-653. Thank you, Mr. Millar. 14 No one has testified that they provided you of any verbal 15 update regarding the September 6th Interministerial 16 Committee meeting. 17 I take it that you don't recall receiving 18 any verbal update? 19 A: I'm sure I would have received a 20 verbal update. Again, I think the situation was that 21 people were in constant communication; there were people 22 in and out of my office the whole morning and that -- 23 that's how I was being kept informed of what was going 24 on. 25 Q: But you don't have -- you don't have


1 a specific recollection? 2 A: I don't have a specific recollection. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Commission Counsel took you to Tab 26 7 of the documents and that's document number 1003305. I'm 8 sorry. 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: P-654. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 12 Q: P-654. And you had testified that 13 you knew that the injunction was going to proceed the 14 next day. 15 Were you also advised that the meeting 16 with the occupiers didn't occur and that the occupiers 17 were not interested in talking, as is indicated in this 18 e-mail? 19 A: I don't recall that. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: And you had no discussions with Deb 24 Hutton on September 5th and 6th of 1995 in regard to the 25 Interministerial Committee meetings, right?


1 A: I don't believe that I did. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: We've heard testimony from MNR 6 representatives on the ground, who were in contact with 7 police, that they understood, by the early morning of 8 September 5th, that police regarded seeking an injunction 9 as a priority item, and that the police wanted MNR to 10 rapidly seek an injunction. 11 I take it that you weren't advised of 12 this? 13 A: My understanding was different from 14 that. My understanding was that the police were clear 15 that they did not want to go into the Park without an 16 injunction in hand, but that they did not have any early 17 plans to go into the Park, and therefore, were not 18 anxious to have steps taken while they were trying to 19 stabilize the situation. 20 Q: And do you recall what was the source 21 of that information? 22 A: I think the source must have been 23 discussions that I had with people who are participating 24 in the -- in the Interministerial meetings, but I can't 25 be more specific than that.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Thank you very much, those are all of 4 my questions. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 6 Ms. Perschy. 7 Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? 8 Would you like to take a break now? 9 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: It may be an 10 appropriate time, Mr. Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 12 morning break now. 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 14 for fifteen (15) minutes. 15 16 --- Upon recessing at 10:22 a.m. 17 --- Upon resuming at 10:44 a.m. 18 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 20 resumed, please be seated. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 25 Q: To begin again, Mr. Taman, my name is


1 Andrea Tuck-Jackson. I'm going to ask you some questions 2 on behalf of the OPP. 3 In the context of My Friend Mr. Downard's 4 examination of you, you indicated that your level of 5 recollection of detail was insufficient to answer some of 6 his questions in terms of the meeting that occurred in 7 the dining room on September the 6th? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And I trust, although it hasn't been 10 said expressly, I -- I trust that it is clear, sir, that 11 you did not take any notes during that meeting? 12 A: I believe I did not take notes. 13 Q: And I noted also, sir, just stating 14 the obvious, I suppose, to follow up on that point, is 15 that your evidence today, then, you haven't had the 16 benefit of refreshing your memory from those notes? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Right. Okay. I noted in the Inquiry 19 database, sir, that you had provided certain answers to 20 undertakings in the context of the civil litigation that 21 arose from this incident? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And I noted, sir, that they dated 24 back to, the earliest that I could find was around 2002. 25 And I'm going to ask you, sir, when was


1 the first time that you were asked to turn your mind back 2 to that meeting that we all put so much attention on? 3 When was the first time you were asked about it; what 4 your recollection was about it? 5 A: Asked by -- by whom, sorry? 6 Q: By anyone, about the details of what 7 occurred at that meeting. 8 A: I can't honestly recall the first 9 time I was asked about it. 10 Q: Would it be fair to say that it would 11 have been in the area of around 2002 when those answers 12 to undertakings were generated? 13 A: It might have been. 14 Q: All right. So it's quite possible, 15 sir, that the first time that you were asked to turn your 16 mind back to what transpired during that thirty (30) 17 minute meeting, was approximately seven (7) years after 18 the fact? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And I trust, sir, that you'd agree 21 with me that your inability to refresh your memory with 22 reference to your own notes, coupled with the delay in 23 your being asked to even turn your mind back to what 24 occurred at that meeting, would explain why today your 25 level of recollection as to detail of that meeting is


1 somewhat limited? 2 A: That and advancing years, I think. 3 Q: Well I would never allege that, sir. 4 A: I just thought I'd say it so you 5 didn't have to. 6 Q: You're very kind. I want to focus 7 then, if I may, on Ron Fox's participation at that 8 meeting, bearing in mind the limitations that we've just 9 set out. And I should indicate to you, sir, I don't 10 intend to challenge you on anything that you -- you 11 testified to. 12 We've heard from approximately four (4) 13 witnesses, including now Superintendent Fox, that during 14 the course of the meeting in the dining room he provided 15 an update as to what was happening on the ground. 16 A: He did. 17 Q: He did. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Do you have a recollection, one (1) 20 way or another, as to whether that occurred? 21 A: No. 22 Q: All right. So again that's another 23 example of a detail that you just can't turn your mind 24 back to? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Thank you. In terms, then, I'd 2 rather focus on impressions that you received from then 3 Inspector Fox. 4 And I trust, sir, that you would agree 5 with me that during the course of that meeting and indeed 6 during your contact with him after the meeting there was 7 nothing by his words or his actions that suggested that 8 he was seeking direction from anyone at that meeting on 9 police operational matters? 10 A: I would have said quite the contrary. 11 Q: Thank you. And I trust, sir, in the 12 same vein that he said or did nothing that suggested to 13 you that he was taking direction? 14 A: That's absolutely right. 15 Q: Thank you. And I don't doubt, sir, 16 that September the 6th was a very long workday for you. 17 And when you left your workday and headed 18 home, I trust, sir, it was your impression that the 19 police were going to contain the incident at the site at 20 Ipperwash, in other words, stay the course, and that the 21 plan was that they were going to await the outcome of the 22 injunction application that was scheduled to be heard the 23 following morning? 24 A: Certainly my understanding was that 25 they were going to stay the course and that they were, in


1 my recollection, not committing one way or the other to 2 what they would do when they saw the injunction. 3 Q: Precisely. And nothing from the 4 meeting that occurred in that dining room in any way 5 changed what your impression was, by the end of that day. 6 A: Of what -- of what the police planned 7 to do? 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: No, nothing at all. 10 Q: Thank you. Finally, Mr. Taman, My 11 Friend Mr. Sulman asked you some questions about the 12 value and the appropriateness of interaction between the 13 incident commander, who in this case was John Carson, and 14 individuals such as the local MPP, which again, in this 15 case, is Marcel Beaubien, or was at the time, Monsieur 16 Beaubien. 17 And you indicated quite fairly that the 18 value and appropriateness of such contact would be a 19 function of the context of the contact and indeed the 20 content of the information that was being shared back and 21 forth; you agree with that? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: I trust, sir, you would also agree 24 that the value and appropriateness of such contact would 25 be a function of the integrity of the individuals


1 involved? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Particularly the integrity of the 4 incident commander? 5 A: Sure. 6 Q: And finally, sir, I trust you would 7 agree that the value and appropriateness of such contact 8 would be a function of the incident commander's 9 understanding of what his duties as a police officer 10 were? 11 A: I think that's absolutely true, 12 although I would add this, that I agree 100 percent with 13 what you've just said, but it doesn't change the 14 appearance problem, in my view. 15 Q: I understand that issue. But again, 16 as you've made it perfectly clear, this was a human 17 situation and one must evaluate it in light of the human 18 personalities and characters involved? 19 A: That's absolutely right. 20 Q: Thank you very much for your time, 21 Mr. Taman. 22 A: Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 24 Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 25 Ms. Clermont...?


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Good morning, 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 10 Q: Good morning, Mr. Taman. 11 A: Good morning. 12 Q: My name is Janet Clermont and I 13 represent the municipality of Lambton Shores where the 14 incident occurred. And I -- I'm interested specifically 15 in communications with the municipality and -- and 16 government and what your observations were on that and 17 how you see room for improvement. 18 I just want to turn your attention to Tab 19 6, document 1011557, Exhibit P-303 and that's the 20 briefing note, July 10, 1995. 21 A: Yes, I have it. 22 Q: Do you have it there? 23 Okay. Under current status, the second 24 point, the first sentence: 25 "If there's an emergency situation, the


1 committee develops recommendations; may 2 appoint a negotiator; may recommend 3 that legal action be taken and ensures 4 that adequate communications occur with 5 affected groups including the general 6 public." 7 And I'm interested in the -- the reference 8 to ensuring adequate communications occur with affected 9 groups. And does this statement accord with your 10 understanding with respect to the role of ONAS in 11 ensuring communications occur with -- within the affected 12 groups? 13 A: It's what we should be doing, yes. 14 Q: And would you classify the 15 municipality as an affected group? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And how would you envision ONAS 18 ensuring that adequate communications occurred with 19 affected groups and the general public? 20 A: Well, as -- as you see in some of the 21 other paper, one of the things that happened here was 22 that, because there was so much concern about not 23 appearing to interfere in the operation, that, in the 24 early stages at least, it had the effect of, kind of, 25 strangling communication.


1 So that the communications got treated a 2 bit as though it were an ongoing police investigation. 3 And if it were only an ongoing police investigation that 4 might have been just fine. 5 But the fact was, that it was also an 6 ongoing incident in the community. It wasn't a historic 7 incident about which you could say we have it under 8 investigation; it was actually happening every day. 9 And so my view was, and I think we all 10 agreed on this, that we had to find better ways of 11 communicating without prejudicing the operations so that 12 local people would know what was going on, what the plans 13 were to the extent there were plans and so on. 14 It's the point I was trying to make -- may 15 I go on? 16 Q: Sure. 17 A: It's the point I was trying to make 18 earlier that I think one has to be a little bit careful 19 about the independence of the police model which is 20 clearly apt in -- in a police investigation into a 21 historic event. 22 And you would expect the police 23 spokesperson or you would expect the Minister, you know, 24 the -- the Solicitor General would say I'm not at liberty 25 to comment on that, it's in the hands of the police.


1 But when you have an ongoing matter like 2 this, it doesn't really meet the needs, does it? And so 3 you'll see in some of the paper and I think when you look 4 in the document that Mr. Millar took me to, 708, this 5 morning that one of the things that there was a desire to 6 do was improve communications. 7 Q: Right. And -- and maybe I'll turn 8 that up now because I was going to refer you to that 9 exhibit, 70 -- 708. And if you go to page 10, I 10 believe, there's reference to a briefing of stakeholders. 11 And the suggestion that appropriate -- Ministry to 12 provide regular briefings of stakeholders during an 13 emergency and there's listed in brackets their, local 14 politicians. 15 And is that what you were referring to 16 earlier? 17 A: Yes. And I think there could be 18 other -- other kinds of communications that could take 19 place. 20 Q: Such as? 21 A: I think there could be news 22 bulletins, there could be ministers on television, there 23 could be, I mean, the whole range of communications 24 tools. 25 I think it's important to remember that


1 because this situation is an ongoing one, the failure to 2 communicate is capable of exacerbating the issue because 3 people -- there are rumours about what's intended, there 4 are rumours about what's going on, there are rumours 5 about what might happen tomorrow, people get anxious and 6 afraid. Then maybe somebody who's anxious and afraid 7 does something that makes the situation worse. 8 So, if the overall goal is to preserve 9 public safety, make sure nobody gets hurt, I think it's 10 critical that people who are being affected by the 11 incident get some good communication -- appropriate 12 communication about what's going on. 13 Q: Okay. And I'll just turn you to page 14 11, the next page, Communications. 15 And I'm interested in the last bullet 16 where -- where it mentions: 17 "Committee may recommend additional 18 resources for onsite communications 19 [and in the brackets] example, help- 20 line government communications person 21 on onsite, appointment of community 22 liaison officer, et cetera." 23 And would -- would that kind of -- is that 24 what you were referring when you mentioned that 25 communications between the public and -- and government--


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- as being of value? 3 So, you would see some value of having a 4 government communications person onsite? 5 A: Yes, absolutely. 6 Q: And would you agree that there needs 7 to be some mechanism by which a municipality can receive 8 information on what the Government is doing in a timely 9 and consistent way? 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: I think those are my questions. 12 Thank you very much. 13 A: Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much. 16 I believe, Mr. Klippenstein...? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 21 Q: Good morning, Mr. Taman. 22 A: Good morning, Mr. Klippenstein. 23 Q: As I think you know, my name is 24 Murray Klippenstein and I'm one of the Counsel for the 25 Estate of Dudley George and Family Members of Dudley


1 George. 2 I'd like to start by asking you a number 3 of questions about your handwritten note of September 4 6th. So, if you could turn that up which is at one of 5 the tabs, and give me one second. You probably -- 6 THE WITNESS: 23. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 23. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Tab 22, I 12 believe, if my tabs are the same as yours. And it's 13 Exhibit -- 14 THE WITNESS: I have it. Thanks. 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- Exhibit P- 16 550, Inquiry Document 3000776. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 19 Q: I'd like to ask you some basic 20 questions about this note because at least in our view it 21 may be quite important. And forgive me if I slightly 22 overlap with some of the questions My Friend Mr. Millar 23 asked earlier. 24 This is your handwriting and I'm -- I'm 25 referring now to the page that says it's for Wednesday,


1 September 6th and there's a heading, ONAS Meeting Re, 2 Ipperwash. And the note says: 3 "AG instructed by P that he desires 4 removal within twenty-four (24) hours - 5 Instructions to seek injunction." 6 Is that correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Now, obviously that's your 9 handwriting, correct? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Yeah. And I assume this was written 12 in your day book that you used on a daily basis to take 13 notes of significant matters in your view? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And I believe you said that, because 16 the part I just read you comes before a heading called, 17 SMC, you thought you had probably made that note in the 18 morning of September 6th prior to an SMC meeting which 19 would have happened at what time? 20 A: Ten o'clock, I think. 21 Q: So, your sense is that that note was 22 made before ten o'clock on the morning of the 6th? 23 A: That's my construction from looking 24 at the notebook, yes. 25 Q: Right. So, you could be mistaken


1 about that, but that's your probable conclusion at this 2 point; is that fair? 3 A: Yes. Yes, sir. 4 Q: Okay. And as far as I can see from 5 what we've been provided with what I just reviewed with 6 you is the only notation in your daybook about the 7 Ipperwash events; is that right? 8 A: On September 6th. 9 Q: I'm sorry, I meant on September 6th. 10 Is that right? 11 A: I'm not sure. Let me just have a 12 quick look. 13 I think that's right, yes. The next note 14 which is at Tab 23 duplicates the page we're now looking 15 at and then has the sketch which, I think, we concluded I 16 did on September the 7th. 17 Q: All right. So, that note that I just 18 read you is the only Ipperwash note you made on September 19 6th? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And I think you mentioned something 22 like this yesterday, but I presume that you wrote that 23 down on September 6th because you thought it was 24 significant? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And am I right in thinking that you 2 probably, at the time, considered that sentence to be 3 very significant? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And I intend to look at the words you 6 used in a moment, but is it fair to say that you wrote 7 that down because you recognized that was important and 8 you wanted to encapsulate it -- encapsulate the essence 9 of that event for -- for future preservation; is that 10 right? 11 A: Yes. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Now, I'm unaware of the notes of any 16 other participant or alleged participant that exist that 17 refer to what you record here. 18 And can I take it you don't know of 19 anybody else who made notes about the event you've 20 recorded here? 21 A: I don't know about anybody else's 22 notes. 23 Q: Okay. So, it would appear from what 24 you know that this is the only recorded record of what 25 you've written down here?


1 A: Well, Commission Counsel can correct 2 me if I'm wrong, but my -- my recollection is that 3 there's a note from Julie Jai talking about the 4 Minister's instructions. 5 Q: Hmm hmm. All right. That may or may 6 not be the same thing, but aside from... 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: We've looked at that and aside from 11 that there would be no other notes that you're aware of? 12 A: Not -- not within my knowledge. 13 Q: Right. Now, I'd like to ask about 14 possible source of this comment that you made here, 15 because there's something else that is similar to this in 16 a slightly different context. And I just want to see if 17 you can tell me anything about possible connections 18 between those two (2). 19 We've looked, quite a number of times in 20 this Inquiry, at the notes of Julie Jai made on September 21 6th on the morning during an IMC meeting and we can pull 22 them up, but I don't think it's necessary, in which Ms. 23 Jai records Deb Hutton as saying the Premier wants them 24 out in a day or two (2). 25 And I questioned Ms. Jai quite extensively


1 about that and there are some similarities between that 2 recording of Ms. Hutton's statement and what you've 3 recorded. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 5 minute -- 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Mr. 8 Klippenstein. 9 Yes, Ms. Perschy...? 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Commissioner -- 11 Commissioner, I'm sorry to interrupt but this -- this 12 Witness wasn't in attendance at the Interministerial 13 Committee meeting and I asked him some questions this 14 morning with respect to what he was told about that 15 meeting and -- and his recollection was exceedingly 16 limited. 17 I'm not sure how this witness can answer 18 any questions as to -- as to what was happening at the 19 Interministerial Committee meeting on the 6th. 20 He doesn't have a recollection much of the 21 5th, let alone as to the meeting on the 6th. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 23 true but we're sort of -- 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Maybe if I can 25 ask a question or two (2) and -- and Ms. Perschy and


1 yourself can see where I'm headed and if -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're not 3 going where Ms. Perschy -- 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I don't think 5 so. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- suggests -- 7 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: No. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, that's-- 9 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm trying to 10 understand events other than in the IMC meeting, frankly. 11 I'm trying to understand whether this witness can tell me 12 anything that happened that connects to those two (2) 13 comments. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 15 I understand you. 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Perhaps, I can 17 ask -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 19 ask -- 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- the question 21 and -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the next 23 question -- 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- see whether -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But I mean,


1 it's -- at the moment it isn't clear. 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Okay. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 5 Q: Mr. Taman, both your handwritten note 6 and Ms. Hutton's comment in the meeting say that they are 7 containing the desires of the Premier and they have a 8 specified timeframe of twenty-four (24) hours or a day or 9 two (2), and they refer to the occupiers being removed or 10 out of the Park. 11 So those are at least three (3) things -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is 13 exactly what you do in argument, Mr. Klippenstein. 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yeah, my -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Exactly what 16 you do in argument. I don't understand how this Witness 17 can -- 18 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: With respect, 19 Commissioner, I haven't finished my question. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 23 Q: My question to you, Mr. Taman, is: 24 Do you know of anything that happened earlier that 25 meeting that accounts for those apparent similarities in


1 the notes? 2 In other words, do you know anything about 3 from what you saw, heard or -- or otherwise know about 4 what happened earlier that morning that resulted in such 5 a similar record from you and Ms. Hutton? 6 A: All I know for sure is what I wrote 7 down and it is that the Attorney General told me what 8 I've written here. 9 In fairness to Mr. Klippenstein, I -- I 10 mean, I did hear, at various times, public servants 11 talking about what Deb Hutton had said or what somebody 12 else said, and you'll note I didn't write any of that 13 down. 14 What I wrote down was what I was 15 instructed to do by the Attorney General. 16 Q: All right, thank you. Let me look at 17 some of the words in your comments. You say the AG was 18 instructed by the Premier. 19 Now the word "instructed" has somewhat of 20 a special meaning when it's used by lawyers or to lawyers 21 in a lawyerly context, and you said earlier that you, as 22 lawyers were, in a sense, lawyers for the government in 23 this context; is that right? 24 Is it fair to say that when you used the 25 word "instructed" you used -- you meant pretty much the


1 same as the word "direction"? 2 When a client instructs a lawyer to do 3 something, that is a direction to the lawyer; is that 4 right? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: And that is the sense in which you 7 used the term here; is that right? 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: Okay. So it's fair to say that what 10 you were recording was that to the best of your 11 knowledge, the Attorney General was directed by the 12 Premier, is that -- 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: Then another word that you used was 15 that the Premier desires removal. 16 Let me just focus on the word 'removal'. 17 Now, you didn't -- you didn't say he desires an 18 injunction. You said he desires removal. The word 19 "removal" has come up a number of times in different 20 contexts. 21 And would you agree with me that there's a 22 difference between an injunction and removal? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. In that context if I 25 could ask you to turn to a document we looked at


1 yesterday under questioning by Mr. Millar, which is I 2 think in addition to your binders and it's Exhibit P-943 3 a Criminal and Civil Proceedings memo -- 4 A: I have it, thank you. 5 Q: -- with various handwritten notes. 6 If you could turn to the page 4 which is the last page 7 which is a page of handwritten notes. 8 Do you see it? And this was, I gather you 9 agree, a meeting of the various parties listed there that 10 happened some time on the morning of the 6th of 11 September; is that right? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And it happened before you got the 14 instructions from the Attorney General; is that right? 15 A: Yes, I believe so. 16 Q: It would appear so from the context; 17 is that right? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And halfway down that -- by the way 20 it's interesting I'm a little bemused by the fact that 21 after eight (8) years of litigation and so forth, I saw 22 this document for the first time four (4) days ago. But 23 anyway that's neither here nor there. 24 Halfway down there's -- there's a line 25 that is attributed to JTSM, which would be Mr. McCabe; is


1 that right? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And it says: 4 "Would likely get injunction but still 5 need police to enforce." 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Now I suggest to you that what Mr. 8 McCabe was pointing out and what you understood in that 9 meeting was the distinction between an injunction and the 10 enforcement of that injunction. 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And I suggest to you that you were 13 well aware, probably before this discussion, that getting 14 an injunction then opened up the second issue of how it 15 would be implemented or enforced or brought about; is 16 that right? 17 A: The injunction is just a piece of 18 paper. 19 Q: Right. And in fact if you look at 20 the top of that page, the second line says: 21 "Injunction doesn't actually move 22 anyone." 23 Right? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: So when I go back to your handwritten


1 note, Exhibit P-550, and when you use the word "removal," 2 you were very well aware when you wrote this of the 3 difference between getting an injunction order and 4 implementing it by way of -- well implementing -- because 5 you knew it beforehand and you just reviewed it earlier 6 that morning. 7 Is that fair? 8 A: Yes, sir, that's right. 9 Q: So the word "removal" was used by you 10 with your usual precision and you meant getting them out 11 of the Park? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. And then if I move onto the 14 next part of the sentence: 15 "Within twenty-four (24) hours." 16 And I take it you believed when you wrote 17 this that that was an accurate record of that part of 18 your instructions? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And the twenty-four (24) hours 21 referred not to the obtaining of an injunction but to the 22 removal of the protesters from the Park; is that correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Would it be fair to say that you 25 understood the significance, potentially, of these words


1 and that was one (1) reason you wrote them down? 2 A: Yes 3 Q: And would it be fair to say that when 4 you wrote this down, you were aware that your 5 instructions involved not only getting an injunction but 6 having the protesters out of the Park within twenty-four 7 (24) hours. 8 Those were your instructions as you 9 recorded them? 10 A: The removal of the protesters, if it 11 happened, wouldn't have been the responsibility of the 12 Attorney General. So I wouldn't have meant to say that I 13 was instructed to see to the removal. 14 But I think broadly, you're correct that 15 the -- what I believe the Attorney General told me was 16 that the Premier wanted people out of the Park and that 17 we should go get our injunction now. 18 Q: But am I correct in understanding 19 that you believed more than that when you wrote this 20 down. 21 The Premier wanted them out of the Park 22 withing twenty-four (24) hours? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Yes. And you knew how to get an 25 injunction, or your department did, right?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: But -- 3 A: Even I did. 4 Q: But these instructions, as you've 5 pointed out, went beyond that and raised the question at 6 that time of what would be done to implement the 7 injunction within twenty-four (24) hours? 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: And is it fair to say that was a 10 problem for you and your department for precisely the 11 reason you've just discussed, which is you can get an 12 injunction order, but enforcing that raises new issues 13 some of which are not normally the responsibility of the 14 Attorney General's department? 15 A: It wasn't really my problem and it -- 16 it wasn't a problem for me, but it was going to be a 17 problem for somebody. 18 Q: And you knew at the time when you 19 wrote this that it was going to be a problem for somebody 20 because that was indeed what the Premier wished? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I'd like to look at bit more at 23 that second half of -- of what you've recorded here. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: Do you recall whether at the time 2 that you wrote this or thereabouts that you gave some 3 consideration to what the specific method would be of 4 implementing the injunction order within twenty-four (24) 5 hours? 6 A: I -- I can tell you that what I 7 believed at the time was that the injunction order could 8 not be enforced within twenty-four (24) hours because the 9 police had no intention of doing so. And they had no 10 intention, as I had it from them, of doing anything that 11 put any police officer or any protester in danger. And 12 that was my understanding of their position. 13 Q: So, is it fair to say that you were 14 aware at the time that you wrote this of some, shall I 15 say, dissidence between what were your clear instructions 16 and what you believed was legally possible? 17 A: I think that -- I think there's a 18 little confusion entering our conversation in -- in this 19 way. I -- notwithstanding what I wrote I didn't take it 20 that I was being instructed to get anybody out of the 21 Park. 22 The way -- if I could put it in my own 23 words, Mr. Klippenstein, I was being told that the 24 Premier wanted people out of the Park within twenty-four 25 (24) hours; that he was ordering the Attorney General to


1 get the injunction. This would then leave the question 2 of whether and how this was going to happen. 3 And my information, knowledge, and belief 4 as we say in the law was that the police were not 5 prepared to take steps if they had any concern for the 6 safety of anybody. 7 Q: Notwithstanding that and I -- I 8 understand what you're saying, you did still record the 9 combination -- the instructions as we've -- as we've just 10 discussed here. 11 I think maybe -- let me refine my question 12 a bit. You didn't then at the -- this time on September 13 6th know how the second half of the instructions here, 14 the actual removal or implementation of the injunction, 15 was going to be brought about within twenty-four (24) 16 hours if at all? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: You didn't know? 19 A: Right. 20 Q: And, in fact, you probably -- you 21 believed it probably couldn't be done? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Nevertheless, when you wrote this 24 down you knew that was what the Premier wanted? 25 A: Yes.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 Q: Now, let's just look at -- I just 5 want to combine what we've looked at a minute ago which 6 is the comment by Mr. McCabe that when you get an 7 injunction you need the police to enforce it. 8 Logically if I apply that to your note 9 here, if the removal was going to happen within twenty- 10 four (24) hours as the Premier wanted, the Attorney 11 General's department could get a court injunction and 12 then the police would need to enforce it within twenty- 13 four (24) hours? 14 A: If it was going to happen the way the 15 -- the Premier was reported to have said he wanted it to 16 happen, yes. 17 Q: Right. Now, had you any awareness at 18 that time or now for that matter, about how the Attorney 19 General's department works with or engages the police in 20 the enforcement of injunctions? 21 That may be something you didn't concern 22 yourself with then or now, I don't know. 23 A: I mean, I think generally we conceive 24 the relationship as being a relationship of -- of 25 supporting the police. And they would then do what they


1 had to do to do whatever the injunction required. 2 Q: Do you recall in the discussion you 3 had with Minister Harnick, and he conveyed to you what 4 you've written down here, whether you and the Attorney 5 General had any discussion of the problem, if you will, 6 that I've just pointed out to you, namely you can get the 7 injunction but you see a problem with enforcement within 8 the twenty-four (24) hours. 9 Did you have any discussion with Minister 10 Harnick about that, to your recollection? 11 A: I think we both understood that our 12 job, based on the instruction, was to get the injunction, 13 and that the rest of it was going to be up to the police. 14 Q: All right. Would you agree with me 15 that there's a potential problem in terms of the 16 perception of other people if the Premier or Premier's 17 office is stating that the Premier wants the occupiers 18 out of the Park within twenty-four (24) hours, and the 19 Attorney General department can do the injunction, but 20 not the rest of it within twenty-four (24) hours, but 21 that that expressed desire is out there. 22 Do you see a potential for problems? 23 A: I'm not sure what you mean exactly. 24 What problem do you have in mind? 25 Q: All right, well, for example, I


1 mentioned that Ms. Hutton had said in the IMC meeting 2 that the Premier wants them out in a day or two (2). 3 Now, as you -- as you've stated, the AG 4 can get an injunction in that time period but you don't 5 consider it your business to enforce that injunction -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 7 making an objection or just -- 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Finish the question. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 THE WITNESS: I think -- can I -- I mean, 13 I -- I think -- I think I can make this easy for 14 everybody. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 16 hear what the question is and then see if there is an 17 objection and then see where we are. 18 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I feel beset 19 upon. I have an objection and an answer all hanging over 20 my head. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Finish the 22 question. 23 THE WITNESS: And you're claiming to be 24 innocent in the whole affair. 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm innocent.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 3 Q: We have evidence that Ms. Hutton 4 stated in the IMC meeting to quite a large meeting of 5 various people including the MNR people and OPP people, 6 that the Premier wanted them out in a day or two (2). 7 Now, and that accords with your note as 8 well. What you've identified here is an issue about 9 clearly your understanding was the Premier wanted both 10 injunction and implementation within twenty-four (24) 11 hours according to your information? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: You can deal with the injunction, but 14 you've said you're not sure you can deal with the 15 enforcement. 16 A: I'm sure I can not. 17 Q: Yes. Now if that express desire or 18 instruction from the Premier is made known to other 19 people, my question is: 20 Do you, as the Attorney General's 21 representative, have concern about what might happen to 22 the enforcement side of it? 23 A: I mean, is -- is what you're asking 24 me whether I consider the instruction to have people out 25 of the Park to be an interference with the operational


1 control of the OPP? 2 Q: I don't think I'm asking that. It's 3 certainly part of what may be raised by what I'm asking. 4 My problem is that this statement is out there, it would 5 appear, and it -- it -- it specifically puts a time-line, 6 if I may say so, on enforcement of an injunction, and a 7 very short time-line which you think -- you concluded 8 wasn't possible. 9 My question is, as the Attorney General 10 representative who would get this injunction, do you see 11 problems with this being conveyed to a wide variety of 12 people. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now we have 14 an objection. 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My concern, 16 Commissioner, again is that this Witness wasn't in 17 attendance at the meetings on September 5th and 6th, the 18 Interministerial Committee meetings. 19 And that he -- questions are being put to 20 him which make reference to these meetings and are taking 21 isolated references that are attributed to the Premier's 22 office completely out of context. 23 And -- and it's being put to this witness, 24 and in fact it's simply not fair to this witness, because 25 as this witness has previously indicated, these are


1 difficult questions and you know, you need to have a full 2 context. 3 And in my -- in my submission, if My 4 Friend wants to ask these questions, he can do so with 5 respect perhaps to witnesses (sic) that this witness 6 actually attended. 7 But to make reference to witness -- to -- 8 to meetings which he wasn't even in attendance I submit - 9 - that -- that causes some concern frankly because he 10 wasn't there so he can't really speak to what concerns 11 that may raise other than purely in some sort of 12 hypothetical fashion. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 14 Klippenstein...? Do you want to respond to that? 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: There's some 16 validity in My Friend's comments. I understand that. 17 What I'm just trying to address, Mr. 18 Commissioner, is that we appear to have here something, I 19 think, of the first importance in, if I may say so, the 20 life of my client and in the civil operation of -- of the 21 government. 22 We have a Premier apparently giving 23 instructions to an Attorney General about an injunction 24 and enforcement of that injunction with a time-line, time 25 limit. And I'm just asking the Deputy Attorney General


1 of the day whether this raises concerns more broadly. 2 If it's an improper question I -- I will 3 withdraw it. It just seems to me that Mr. Taman could 4 possibly -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In a more 6 general way. The way you just put it I don't think there 7 is a problem. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think that Mr. Taman 9 could answer that question. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That -- as put it. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. The 13 way he just put it I think it's a little more general. 14 Can you answer that question? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. I think the -- let me 16 answer it in -- in this way. It seems to me that we're 17 making a bit on a heavy whether of this and that the big 18 picture of this is really quite clear at least to me. 19 The big picture is that some parts of the 20 political side of government were very adamant that there 21 should be strong action taken quickly to get the -- the 22 First Nations people out of the Park. 23 And whether I was at that meeting or not 24 it was, you know, I believe repeated to me and in any 25 case I imagine other witnesses have told you what was


1 said at the meeting, a similar sentiment was conveyed to 2 me by the Attorney General from the Premier. 3 And subsequently I heard some of this 4 directly from other people, many other people on the 5 political side of government. So the -- the big picture 6 is that the -- some parts at least or the political side 7 of government were anxious that there be aggressive 8 action to get the First Nations out of the Park. 9 It seems to me the question is whether or 10 not there was any improper interference with the 11 operational activities of the OPP. And on that point I 12 don't -- I don't have any information. But I think it's 13 common ground and plain that -- that's what the -- many 14 political people were saying. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 17 Q: Thank you, that's helpful and I want 18 to just clarify a bit of that. When you said some parts 19 of the government were pushing for aggressive action it 20 obviously includes the Premier, to the best of your 21 knowledge; is that right? 22 A: It appeared that the Premier, the 23 Premier's office were quite adamant that -- that the 24 First Nations people should be gotten out of the Park as 25 quickly as possible.


1 The Attorney General, the Solicitor 2 General were, I think, much more cautious in their 3 approach. 4 Q: All right. Now you've then said 5 quite properly, the question is whether, if you will, 6 that had any affect? Is that -- is that sort of what 7 you're getting at? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Would it concern you if the types of 10 -- well, first of all, would it concern you if the 11 statement that the Premier wants them out in a day or two 12 (2) was said in the presence of a police officer who was 13 communicating to the command post at Ipperwash? 14 A: Well, in the -- I mean in the 15 abstract -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 17 you answer we should hear Ms. Perschy. 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Again, Commissioner, 19 my concern is taking small points completely out of 20 context -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- and putting them to 23 a Witness with respect to meetings that he didn't attend. 24 You know if he -- if he -- if he wants to ask him 25 abstract questions that's one (1) thing and then he can


1 say that purely as some sort of hypothetical. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: But to try and extract 4 certain parts of -- of what his perception is of -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- what occurred at a 7 meeting without any other context. And this is a Witness 8 who wasn't at that meeting, in -- in -- with all due 9 respect, you know, I do think -- I do think that it's 10 unfair to this Witness. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: He wasn't there. 13 There -- there is a context to these things and he 14 doesn't have it. 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: If I may, My -- 16 My Friend suggested it was okay to do this in the 17 abstract and I think that's precisely what I did. 18 Perhaps I can repeat my question because it is an 19 abstract question. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps if he 21 repeats the question. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 24 Q: I said, Mr. Taman, would it concern 25 you if the -- if information that the Premier wanted the


1 occupants out of the Park in a day or two (2), was raised 2 at a meeting attended by a police representative who was 3 in communication with the command post at Ipperwash, 4 would that potentially cause you concern? 5 A: It would raise the issue of whether 6 there was some direct or indirect pressure being put on 7 the OPP in connection with their operational decisions. 8 I mean the way I -- Commissioner, may I just say the way 9 I see this if it will help? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think so. 11 You're being -- 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: No, you may 13 not. Go ahead, please. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Go ahead, 15 Mr. Taman. 16 THE WITNESS: I mean, the -- I mean, the 17 way I see it it's clear to everyone what the political 18 branch of government thought, largely speaking. 19 And the question -- one (1) of the 20 questions before the Inquiry is: Was there any improper 21 influence brought to bear on the -- on the OPP? 22 It -- it could have happened in either of 23 two (2) ways: 24 1. That it was relayed back by people who 25 were in attendance at the meeting.


1 Or number 2, that it was relayed in the 2 form of direct instructions of some kind, neither of 3 which I have any information about. 4 In either case it would also raise two (2) 5 other questions: 6 1. What did the OPP do? That is, were 7 they in any way influenced by it? 8 And number 2. I think it would be 9 important to -- to have a look at whether or not the -- 10 the expressions were, in fact, inappropriate; were, in 11 fact, interferences with operation or whether they were 12 setting government policy. 13 And so that's kind of the way I see it. 14 And I don't know that it's answered very much by, you 15 know, poring through all these notes. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 18 Q: Well, let me address one (1) of the 19 points you've just raised. 20 You said whether or not it was legitimate 21 government policy, for example, right? Because your 22 party view is it's legitimate for a government to have a 23 policy on these matters? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: Now, let me connect that back to the


1 facts at hand which is your note which says: 2 "Enforce [it says] Injunction plus 3 enforcement within twenty-four (24) 4 hours." 5 A: Yeah. 6 Q: Would you agree with me that it's 7 pretty hard to see how asking for enforcement of that 8 injunction within twenty-four (24) hours can be 9 appropriate government policy? 10 A: Well, whether it's government policy 11 and whether it's appropriate are two (2) different 12 questions. And I -- I don't have any difficulty in the 13 abstract with the notion that zero tolerance could be a 14 government policy. 15 I mean, a government -- it -- it wouldn't 16 be my advice, it wouldn't be my policy, but if someone 17 said, Could it be a government policy to have zero 18 tolerance, I think the answer is, yes, it could be. I 19 think the difficulty is, can you really make this policy 20 in the middle of an event like this without creating 21 problems -- 22 Q: Well, let me -- 23 A: -- and I should -- let me just 24 complete the thought, please. That it's one (1) of the 25 reasons why on the 7th I said we had to get the political


1 people out of this process otherwise we were going to be 2 hopelessly confused about what was policy and what was 3 operations. 4 And we ran the risk, and in some ways I 5 think it's why we're here today, we ran the risk that 6 there would be an appearance of improper influence in the 7 operations. 8 Q: Were -- 9 A: And that was why we made the changes 10 we did on the 7th. 11 Q: Yeah, let me -- I hear what you're 12 saying. Let me suggest there's another problem which you 13 haven't mentioned. And I take your point for purposes 14 today that a zero tolerance policy may be what the 15 government has decided it wishes to pursue. 16 But my question is: When you're 17 confronted or -- or -- or facing instructions or 18 directions that an injunction and enforcement should 19 occur within twenty-four (24) hours, and you haven't been 20 able to identify to me, not that it's your job, how that 21 enforcement could possibly happen within twenty-four (24) 22 hours? 23 Is it not the case that we move out of the 24 realm of legitimate public government policy to the point 25 where we're saying: How can you expect, you being


1 anybody, an enforce -- an injunction to be enforced 2 within twenty-four (24) hours, because nobody's 3 identified how it can be done without crossing some 4 lines? 5 Would you agree with me that in -- in 6 those specifics we are wrestling with a problem that's 7 just -- that's beyond government policy? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 9 an observation, Mr. Millar? 10 No, you don't. You're thinking about it, 11 so I won't -- 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 14 a question, can you answer that question. 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm honoured 16 that my question has -- has -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've got-- 18 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- caused Mr. 19 Millar to wander around thinking. 20 THE WITNESS: This part of the premise, 21 Mr. Klippenstein, that I don't really accept that I'd 22 just like to clear as between the two (2) of us. 23 I didn't take it that I was being 24 instructed to get anybody out of the Park. 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I understand.


1 THE WITNESS: All right. If I can 2 paraphrase, I would paraphrase in this way: The Attorney 3 General advises me that the Premier wants the protesters 4 out of the Park within twenty-four (24) hours, get your 5 injunction right away. 6 And the part of it that was an order to me 7 was the get the -- the injunction part. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 10 Q: Fair enough. There was an order or 11 direction to you to get the injunction and the context or 12 purpose of that was because the Premier wanted to use 13 that injunction to get them out of the Park within 14 twenty-four (24) hours is that your -- 15 A: That was my understanding. 16 Q: That was your understanding. And it 17 may be that you said, in your mind at the time, the 18 second half of that equation is not my specific issue. 19 In fact, that's probably what you did say, 20 right? 21 A: Well, I said more than that. I said 22 that it wasn't my issue, that it's not going to happen 23 because the police aren't going to do it. And I told the 24 Premier that in the dining room meeting. 25 Q: All right. I'll ask you some more


1 details about that. But you -- so you recognized that -- 2 well let me ask you about your answer. 3 When you said it's not going to happen 4 because the police weren't going to do it, are you saying 5 that the Premier is entitled, as a matter of policy, to 6 ask that the injunction be implemented within twenty-four 7 (24) hours but the police, for whatever reason, have 8 decided they're not going to do it? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 10 how this Witness can answer that question. 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well fair 12 enough, Commissioner. The problem is, I -- and I think 13 it's an essentially important one, if I may say so, and 14 I'm just looking for assistance. 15 I just -- if it -- I accept Mr. Taman's 16 suggestion for purposes of this discussion that a 17 government may have a zero tolerance policy, but I'm 18 trying to see whether that's all there is here. 19 Because if a government says we have zero 20 tolerance, you get an injunction and we're going to have 21 that implemented within twenty-four (24) hours, and 22 you've told us you didn't think it was going to happen 23 because the police weren't going to do it. 24 My question is: Where does that leave us? 25 Because -- and you may say I don't know,


1 but what we then have is the Premier -- my question is: 2 Where's the policy aspect there? 3 A: Well, I think it leaves us in the 4 same place we are as thousands of other problems, which 5 is the Premier or the Minister would like something to 6 happen and it doesn't happen. 7 I mean, they'd like to have clean water in 8 Walkerton, they don't. And it's just as simple as that. 9 The -- the -- the Premier was desirous that the people 10 would be removed. 11 My information was that the police were 12 not about to do anything that put either a police officer 13 or an occupant of the Park at risk. 14 And so my concern was merely to make it 15 clear to everyone that the government should not be 16 giving concrete deployment type instructions to the 17 police. And that was the point that was made in the -- 18 in the Premier's office. 19 Q: So what you're telling me is what the 20 Premier -- in your view, at the time, what the Premier 21 wanted done couldn't be legally done? 22 A: I'm not sure that I would say it 23 couldn't be legally done but I would say that in the 24 situation at the moment the disconnect was between what 25 the Premier expressed to want and what the OPP regarded


1 as being their operational responsibility not to get 2 anybody hurt. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 4 how much more you can get out of this, Mr. Klippenstein. 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 7 you've made your point. 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you, 9 Commissioner. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 12 Q: And in your view, you effectively, in 13 substance, communicated that to the Premier at the dining 14 room meeting? 15 A: I think what was effectively 16 communicated by me and by the Deputy Solicitor General to 17 the Premier was that it was inappropriate for the 18 Government to give operational instructions to the OPP. 19 Q: Well, my question then is at the 20 dining room meeting, how was this left hanging in the air 21 if -- for example, did the Premier rescind his 22 instructions to you? 23 A: It was left hanging in the way I've 24 described which is that the Premier effectively 25 reiterated the sense of what I wrote here, and then said,


1 I expect you to use your professional judgment to get it 2 done. 3 And what that meant to me was that we were 4 to move as quickly as we could, consistent with what was 5 going to work in the real world. 6 Q: The problem I -- I have several 7 problems in understanding that, and concerns, Mr. Taman. 8 My -- My Friend, Mr. Downard, asked you about the 9 apparent suggestion from the Premier that you use your 10 professional judgment, but where I see that leaves us is 11 -- and you said the Premier reiterated the sense of, Get 12 them out ASAP, but you said, We can't tell the police to 13 do it. 14 And therefore, my question is: At that 15 meeting, did anybody say, Mr. Premier what you want ain't 16 going to happen? 17 Or did somebody say, Mr. Premier, are you 18 changing your instructions? Or anything of that sort? 19 Or was it just left, This is what the 20 Premier wants, and everybody thought in their minds, It 21 can't be done? 22 A: I -- I think it was somewhere between 23 the two (2). I don't think anybody said, Premier do you 24 wish to rescind your instruction. I think that I and 25 others, as you know from the evidence, I talked to the


1 Premier at the meeting about how long it would take to 2 get an injunction, what the problems would be with 3 getting an injunction. 4 We talked about the -- the fact that it 5 would be inappropriate to interfere with the OPP. And I 6 think it was one of those discussions in which everybody 7 thought they had said what they had to say and that life 8 would then carry on. 9 I would also just like to say to, you 10 know, perhaps clarify a point for Counsel for the 11 Premier, if I may, that I thought the Premier was very 12 fair in the way that he left it with us. I'm not sure 13 what else he could have done bearing in mind what -- what 14 his opinions were. 15 He said this is my opinion, but I'm 16 counting on you to exercise your professional judgment to 17 do the right thing within the framework of that opinion. 18 Q: So, he didn't change what he wanted 19 to have happen? 20 A: I don't know whether he changed what 21 he wanted or not, but I think he implicitly acknowledged 22 that there were practical problems, that he expected us 23 to deal with them responsibly. 24 Q: Now, the difficulty I have and it may 25 be a -- a difficulty of appearances, and that may still


1 be a serious difficulty, is that it appears that after 2 that meeting there were extremely urgent, if I may use 3 that term, efforts to get an injunction, and yet it 4 appears that nobody knew how it would be enforced and, in 5 fact, people believed it couldn't be enforced. 6 And I'm wondering and I'm concerned about 7 what appearance or signal that sent. I mean if -- 8 A: Sent to whom? 9 Q: Well exactly; to the police for 10 instance. I mean, did anybody say to the police, we are 11 -- we're getting an ex parte injunction and we understand 12 it won't be enforced? Was any of this made clear? 13 A: All I can say is that I was clear in 14 my own mind from the beginning to the end of all the 15 conversations I had, and I can't pin it down any more 16 than that, that the police did not intend to put any of 17 their people at risk and they did not intend to do 18 anything to put anybody else at risk. That was the 19 message that was coming through to us. And so -- and of 20 course in the end, as you know, the -- the injunction was 21 not relied upon. 22 So, I think -- I -- I guess if the 23 question you're getting at is, you know, was the -- the 24 decision to call in the TRU team somehow related to the 25 relaying back of the Premier's sentiments, I just don't


1 have any information about that. I just don't know the 2 answer to that question. It's one (1) of the reasons why 3 I thought it was important to restructure the way we were 4 holding these conversations because there was some risk 5 of confusion. 6 Q: Well, I'm concerned that, and we've 7 heard evidence of this and -- and in fact had a tape of a 8 phone conversation played to us, that during a phone call 9 from Mr. -- from Inspector Fox to -- who was a -- sat in 10 on the -- on the IMC meeting, to Inspector Carson, the 11 Incident Commander at Ipperwash, in the early afternoon 12 of the 6th after the Premier's dining room meeting, that 13 Mr. Fox said: 14 "The political people are really 15 pushing. They're pushing to get this 16 done quick." 17 Now, in connection to my question a moment 18 ago there seems to be a bit of a dissidence and worse, 19 perhaps a -- a false signal if folks like yourself are 20 understanding that the injunction we're rushing to get 21 isn't enforceable within twenty-four (24) hours, but the 22 statement of political efforts is being discussed at the 23 command post? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 25 Downard...?


1 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I don't have the 2 transcript of the conversation in front of me, but my -- 3 my recollection is that Inspector Fox's evidence 4 certainly was that -- that what he was referring to by 5 pushing to get this done quick was an injunction. And I 6 believe the transcript indicates it's a reference -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Tuck- 8 Jackson has the transcript. 9 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My -- my only concern 10 is -- is that the -- the context of what's -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- being communicated 13 may not be fully put. Yeah. This is what I thought. 14 After Fox says: 15 "But I mean, they're pushing to get 16 this done quick. 17 [Carson says] Yes. Yeah. Okay. I 18 hear you. 19 Fox. They're lining up a judge. He's 20 from Lambton County." 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes -- 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: So, it's just a 23 matter of context. 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yeah. I -- I 25 think my question encapsulated -- it -- it was precisely


1 addressing what My Friends have raised. 2 What -- what happens when we have an 3 apparently clear signal that the injunction has to be 4 obtained on an urgent basis and the police are well aware 5 of this, and the police know that they may be the ones 6 who are going to be enforcing it, and yet the reality is 7 that people also know that the police aren't going to 8 enforce it, or something like that. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: In the way I 11 would -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- where 13 that question is? That question left me -- you might 14 want to start that one again? 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Let -- let me 16 repeat that, or vary it, yeah. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 19 Q: My concern is that the instructions 20 or message you got was the Premier wants an injunction 21 and removal within twenty-four (24) hours, and the 22 Attorney General's department proceeded to get an 23 injunction very quickly. 24 At the same time it appears from your 25 testimony and that of Mr. McCabe that nobody really


1 thought there was a way to enforce the injunction. 2 But, did that second half of the message 3 get through to the police who were in court testifying? 4 A: I think the second half of the 5 message came from the police. And it -- it -- I mean I 6 think to -- to cut through it, Mr. Klippenstein, I think 7 the fact is that as I understand it the police position 8 always was that they were not going to do anything if 9 anybody had any risk of getting hurt. 10 And so from my point of view it didn't 11 matter whether the Premier thought it should be done in 12 twenty-four (24) hours or twenty-four (24)days, the 13 police weren't going to do it if they thought it was 14 going to put anybody at risk. 15 That was what I understood. Now, the 16 question is does the evidence before the Commission -- is 17 the evidence before the Commission consistent with that? 18 Did -- did the police, in fact, say that they were not 19 influenced by this and if they were not influenced by it, 20 then they weren't influenced by it. 21 And I -- and I should -- I should just say 22 that, you know, in the -- in the law enforcement setting 23 this is something that will happen quite frequently. 24 I'll bet Mr. Carson's had -- had lots of 25 phone calls in his life, improper phone calls from well


1 meaning MPP's and others saying, Why haven't you 2 prosecuted this one or that one, and he said, you know, 3 Thanks for the info and goes back to his job. 4 And so as Counsel for the OPP has 5 suggested through her questions, part of his job is to 6 know what he's supposed to take in and what he's not 7 supposed to. 8 And so for me, it's just a question of 9 fact that I can't really help you with very much; were 10 they influenced or not? 11 The part of it that I saw would suggest 12 they weren't. 13 Q: Well, let me just followup on the 14 point you just mentioned, and it may be that, for 15 example, the Incident Commander Mr. Carson says, I'm not 16 influenced, I know how to deal with this. 17 But, I anticipate we'll also hear evidence 18 from the notes of Mr. Ed Vervoort, one of the MNR 19 employees that on September 5th at around 6:15 p.m. there 20 was discussion in a police command post team meeting at 21 Ipperwash in which -- which he records as, quote: 22 "Lots of political pressure. Strong 23 in-house comments by Premier, Solicitor 24 General." 25 Now, given what you just said about some


1 officers not being influenced, would it concern you that 2 that was being discussed more broadly at a team meeting 3 in the command post onsite? 4 A: Well, what -- what concerned me was 5 that the political sentiments should be more clearly 6 separated than they had been before the 6th from the 7 operational matters, and that was why we did that 8 restructuring. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: Now, as to whether or not anything 11 said before the 6th actually influenced anybody or 12 changed the course of events, I can't say. 13 Q: All right. I think you said the 6th 14 when you meant the 7th? 15 A: That's right. 16 Q: Thank you. 17 A: Thank you. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: By the way, let me just address an 22 issue about your handwritten note of the 6th. My Friend, 23 Solicitor for Mr. Harnick put to you that Mr. Harnick had 24 a different recollection or disagreed with your 25 recollection about the instructions you recorded.


1 Now, there's somewhat of a similar issue, 2 if I may, with respect to then-Premier Harris. And if 3 you could turn in your binders to Tab... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Tab 100, which is excerpts from the 8 transcripts of the examination for discovery of -- of 9 Michael Harris in the George versus Harris litigation. 10 A: I have it. 11 Q: And if you could turn to page 252 of 12 the transcripts. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: I have it. 17 Q: And I won't go through it all, but 18 just to -- but you have the context there and just to 19 show you want to ask you about, in these transcripts Mr. 20 Harris, it appears, denies that he as Premier instructed 21 the Attorney General in the way you've discussed in your 22 handwritten note, and I just want to get your response to 23 that. 24 At page 252, line 17, Mr. O'Sullivan, the 25 lawyer for Mr. Harris says:


1 "This Witness has already said he 2 didn't instruct the Attorney General." 3 And by the way, the context of this is Mr. 4 Harris is being specifically questioned about your note. 5 Turning the page also, if you could, before I leave that, 6 at -- on page 253 on the continuation of this, at line 7 649, I ask: 8 "I'm trying to understand whether what 9 Mr. Taman wrote in his notes is 10 considered to be wrong by Mr. Harris, 11 and I'm looking for now -- 12 A: Listen, I did not instruct the 13 Attorney General." 14 Drop a few lines further, at line 650 my 15 very well worded question is: 16 "Well, if you --" 17 And the answer is: 18 "But I did not instruct the Attorney 19 General." 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 21 Downard...? 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: With respect, to be 23 fair, it's highly unusual to be putting a discovery 24 transcript to someone other than the person who was the 25 Witness on the examination, but in any event --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- I don't think we 3 should drop a few lines down further, because in the 4 answer it reads: 5 "A: Listen, I did not instruct the 6 Attorney General." 7 So if Mr. Taman's interpretation from 8 leaving the meeting, and if I say, Good luck Charlie, go 9 and get the injunction, if that's his interpretation of 10 instructions then that's fine. 11 When we left the meeting it was my 12 understanding and I don't recall anybody objecting to 13 this is the way we should proceed. And Mr. Taman 14 interpreted that as direction by the Premier; he may 15 have, I don't know. 16 Now the context of this is evidence about 17 the dining room meeting. And that is not being made 18 clear by My Friend and I think it should be. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I put this to 21 the witness because My Friend didn't and I presume either 22 -- I presume either My Friend was not going to challenge 23 the credibility of Mr. Taman later on in argument on this 24 point, or maybe he forgot, but out of fairness to the 25 witness and the Commission --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, but I don't 3 think that you challenge the credibility of the Witness, 4 or not, by putting to the witness somebody else's 5 examination for discovery. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In a 7 different context as well. 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He can ask the 9 witness -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean, this 11 is referring to a different meeting. 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, secondly, it is 13 referring to a different meeting. But just on the 14 principle, you can say, Joe said X about the meeting with 15 you, what do you think about it, what do you to that? 16 But it's -- this is the evidence of Mr. -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Harris. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- Mr. Harris. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At his 20 examination for discovery. Yes. So it's pretty 21 difficult to challenge the credibility of this witness on 22 the basis of what somebody else said. 23 But anyway, you're -- where are you going 24 now? 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 2 Q: I won't get into detailed argument 3 because it's probably not helpful. I could but I won't. 4 My -- my question to you, Mr. Taman, is it appears that 5 Mr. Harris will disagree with your recorded notes and I 6 just want to ask you whether that changes -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I'm not 8 sure that that is a fact. I haven't read the whole -- 9 the whole transcript of the examination for discovery but 10 it appears as if this exchange is referring to a meeting 11 that took place in the dining room. 12 The recorded note occurred at a different 13 time and a different place. 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: There are 15 extensive questions in the transcript. I was trying to 16 avoid going through them. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I 18 appreciate that. I'm not asking you to go through them. 19 But be careful when you put something out that it's at 20 least in proper context. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. And I -- 22 there -- at the time of these questionings, much of the 23 information we now have about the sequence of that 24 morning was not available. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right.


1 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: The point is as 2 you can see from the excerpts I read, Mr. Harris in the 3 transcripts did not say, for example, I didn't instruct 4 him at that meeting but I did instruct him earlier that 5 morning. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, but I don't 7 think that's fair to say that. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 9 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Commissioner, I 10 withdraw the question, I'll move on. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That makes 12 it a little easier. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 15 Q: Do you have anything you want to say 16 on that topic, Mr. Taman, before I move on? 17 A: No thank you, sir. 18 Q: I think I'm going to move onto 19 another topic and I'm wondering if this is a good time to 20 stop for lunch? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I 22 wasn't sure how long you might be to a conclusion. I 23 would prefer, if it were possible, to have you conclude 24 your examination before we break for lunch. 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yeah. I don't


1 -- I think I'll be at least another half hour. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think a 3 half hour would be fine and then we could conclude your 4 examination. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 7 Q: All right. Mr. Taman, if you could 8 please retrieve the August 10th, 1995 memorandum to Rita 9 Burak from yourself and others, which I believe was an 10 auxiliary document from the Commission counsel. It's a 11 package, a briefing package to -- 12 A: Tab 12? 13 Q: I'm sorry, it's Tab 12, thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 15 what tab is that, Mr. Millar? 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's Exhibit P-642 and 17 it's at Tab 12 of the book. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I've got it. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 21 Q: Do you have that available to you? 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: Now, I'm going to ask you some 24 questions about Aboriginal rights at a fairly general 25 level and take those from the briefing materials that you


1 forwarded to the Secretary of the Cabinet for purposes, 2 as I understand it, of a briefing for Ms. Giorno and Ms. 3 Hutton and perhaps others. Is that right? 4 If you would turn to page 10 of that 5 briefing which is headed, The Law, the Province and 6 Aboriginal Peoples, correct? 7 Do you see that? 8 A: Yes, I do. 9 Q: And that page has two (2) headings in 10 it. One (1) says, The General Rule, and the second one 11 says, The Important Exceptions. 12 Is that right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And the essence of the general rule, 15 if I may, is that Aboriginal peoples are subject to the 16 same laws as Ontarians, generally. 17 That's part of the general rule, correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And then under the Important 20 Exceptions for example one (1) of them is: 21 "Canada's history has given rise to 22 unique legal rights for Aboriginal 23 peoples." 24 Correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And at a fairly abstract level do you 2 agree with that -- that framework? 3 A: I do. 4 Q: And then if we turn a few pages 5 further to page 12 there is an elaboration of the 6 important exceptions category we've looked at in brief; 7 is that right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: It looks at the constitutional 10 division of powers. On page 13 it looks about -- looks 11 at historically related Indian rights. For example, page 12 14 is devoted to Indian treaties; is that right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And page 15 is devoted to the issue 15 of Crown's fiduciary duty to Aboriginal people; is that 16 right? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Page 16 talks about land claims which 19 arise from those so-called exceptions; is that right? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Now... 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: I don't recall. Did -- did you


1 attend that briefing? 2 A: I think I did. I know that I -- I 3 had some input into the preparation of the briefing 4 paper. 5 Q: We've heard evidence from the -- from 6 -- based on the notes of Ms. Elizabeth Christie and 7 others, that at one (1) of the IMC meetings, specifically 8 on September 5th, Ms. Hutton said that -- referred to a 9 strategic imperative that this government treats non 10 Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people the same. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Recorded in several -- several 13 persons' notes. 14 Now, when I compare that to the essence of 15 the briefing that we just looked at, would you agree with 16 me that the generalization, namely this government treats 17 Aboriginal people and non Aboriginal people the same, is 18 problematic? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 20 you answer the question. 21 Ms. Perschy...? 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I apologize, 23 Commissioner, but this is proper for argument, this -- 24 this sort of connection. This is not a Witness who was 25 at this meeting and it is not appropriate question for


1 this particular Witness. 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Commissioner, 3 I'm putting to this Witness evidence of what a 4 representative of the Premier's office has said is a 5 strategic imperative of the government and it relates 6 directly to a briefing which was overseen by the Witness. 7 I just want to know if there's some kind of problem 8 between the two (2). 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And -- and as a 11 Deputy Attorney General overseeing all -- all or most 12 aspects of the overall administration of law in Ontario-- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- he has 15 knowledge and experience to -- to comment on it, if I 16 may. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 18 Millar...? 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: If I say to the 20 Witness, it's alleged that by -- witnesses have said that 21 -- Witness A said X, and can you comment on that -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it's 23 the -- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't have any -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, again,


1 I think it's the way the question is put, Mr. 2 Klippenstein. I think if you could put it the way Mr. 3 Millar suggests, I think it's a fair question. 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 5 I'll try my best and I may have to ask for your 6 indulgence. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 9 Q: A witness has said that Ms. Hutton 10 said that the strategic imperative of the government was 11 to treat Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people the same. 12 Would you agree with me that's 13 problematic, given the legal framework that is summarized 14 in the briefing notes which you oversaw? 15 A: I mean all I can say is that, you 16 know, they're not the words I would use to describe the 17 situation, but I don't honestly know what's meant by it. 18 If -- if the sense of the assertion was 19 that everybody's bound by the rule of law, yes, 20 everybody's bound by the rule of law and in that sense 21 everybody's the same. 22 Is the law the same for everybody? Well, 23 no, the law is not the same for everybody. So if you try 24 to stretch the -- or if the speaker tried to stretch the 25 proposition that far, then I would say it was -- it was


1 in error. 2 Q: And when you say "in error" this 3 isn't a case where you say different elected governments 4 can differ on policy. It's actually a fundamental legal 5 error; is that fair? 6 A: Again, I'm trying to say that I -- I 7 -- I can't speak for the speaker's intent in saying that 8 it is plainly the case that Aboriginal peoples have 9 different rights, entitlements and obligations than other 10 Canadians. 11 And to that extent, are not the same as 12 everyone else. But it is also true that, in other ways 13 of speaking, one could talk about how they are the same. 14 Q: Right. But, would you agree with me 15 that as a broad generalization, plain and simple, in a -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 17 you can go that far. I think the answer that you've got 18 to the question is about as much as you can get out of 19 that. 20 I don't think you can go -- the next 21 question that you're asking, I think -- I didn't hear it 22 all. Perhaps I should wait until I hear it all, but it 23 seems to me that you've now moved into the area of 24 argument. 25 You're now drawing conclusions --


1 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that I 3 don't think are appropriate for this witness any more 4 than is what he said. 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm addressing 6 Mr. Taman as an extremely knowledgeable and experienced 7 constitutional expert, if you will. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well, 9 that's not -- 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And also -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- why he 12 was called here, but anyway, I don't think we'd disagree 13 with that. 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well the 15 trouble I'm having is, frankly, from my client's point of 16 view, there are some fundamental issues here and we have 17 some witnesses who actually have both experiential and 18 intellectual knowledge and I'm just trying to be helpful 19 to the Commission by -- if it's appropriate, bring 20 forward some of that. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think the 22 questions you've asked up to this point have been helpful 23 and -- 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: --


1 appropriate. So I'm -- I just think the last one -- 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- went a 4 little bit beyond. 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, let me 6 try and rephrase it. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 11 Q: The statement, apparently, according 12 to the evidence, was made in a meeting dealing with 13 potential government response to a native occupation of 14 land they claimed was theirs pursuant to treaty. 15 Now in that context to say, generally, 16 Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals should be treated the 17 same -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I'm not 19 sure that you're putting the context of the statement 20 fairly. It's a meeting that he wasn't at and if you're 21 going to put it to him, you'd have to put a lot more to 22 him and I don't think that's helpful at this stage. 23 So we have the statement or the alleged 24 statement, it's on the record, and I think that's about 25 all we can do. The rest is for you to make in your


1 argument at some point, to connect the dots in -- 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- your own 4 way. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 7 Q: A different question I have with 8 respect to that statement, Mr. Taman. As the Attorney 9 General, or deputy Attorney General, excuse me, would it 10 concern you if that general simple statement was conveyed 11 and discussed amongst the police officers at Ipperwash on 12 the ground, in meetings? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 14 Millar...? 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's purely 16 hypothetical and -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As I say, 18 I'm not sure there's any evidence that that was the case 19 so I'm not -- 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Actually, that 21 is precisely the evidence that the statement that this 22 government treats Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people 23 the same was -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That 25 statement was commun --


1 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- discussed 2 in -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That 4 statement was communicated? 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes, yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 7 recall that but I don't challenge your ability -- 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: That is the 9 reason I'm asking the question. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So you want 11 to put the evidence then that -- because I don't recall 12 that, I truly don't. 13 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I will -- I 14 will need the lunch to do that, if I -- if I may, but. 15 So let me -- let me move on. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: With all 17 this help we have in this room, perhaps we can get to it 18 a little faster. 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. In fact, 20 I -- I believe I put to Inspector Carson, in cross- 21 examination of him, if I recall correctly. But I will -- 22 I will move on and, if necessary and if possible, deal 23 with that later. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if you 25 finish your examination and we have lunch and you find


1 something over the lunch break, you want to bring it back 2 then we'll do that. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 8 Q: You've mentioned in your evidence 9 that the amount of discussion that the issue of whether 10 an injunction should be ex parte or on notice was, to 11 your understanding, somewhat of a red herring I think was 12 the -- was the term you used. 13 Is it fair to say that, given the 14 instructions you received from the Attorney General about 15 a twenty-four (24) hour timeframe, that it's fair to 16 think of the ex parte issue as a technical manifestation 17 of that timeframe; is that fair? 18 A: It's certainly one way of getting it 19 done in -- within twenty-four (24) hours would be to 20 apply ex parte. But at that time I didn't really have 21 good information about what service might be available 22 and therefore whether short service would be an option. 23 Q: But is it fair to say that -- that 24 the issue of ex parte and notice can be subsumed in the 25 question of an injunction within twenty-four (24) hours?


1 A: I think if what you mean is if a 2 client asked you to get a -- an injunction within twenty- 3 four (24) hours, do you have to look at ex parte. Sure, 4 I think that's right. 5 But you could also look at short service 6 if you -- if you were in a position to affect short 7 service. The point I was making, Mr. Klippenstein, in my 8 evidence in-chief, was I didn't think it was going to 9 make any difference because I didn't think any judge was 10 going to make any important ruling about this without 11 hearing from all the parties. 12 So no matter how the injunction was 13 obtained, in my opinion it was going to come down to the 14 same thing which was a judge was going to give people the 15 time to come and tell him their points of view. 16 Q: And the reason you say that, if I may 17 ask, is that you have a general sense that putting 18 yourself in the shoes of a judge at that point, that a 19 judge recognizing the dynamics of First Nations group 20 occupying a park and making certain claims of colour of 21 right, would be concerned about an order that might bring 22 about the use of force; is that fair? 23 A: Even more generally than that if 24 Party A comes before the court and says Party B is 25 sitting on my land, I think the instinct of a Judge is to


1 say well what does Party B have to say, or why. 2 And if you say, Well it's too urgent for 3 me to bring him here to tell you about it, I think a 4 judge is likely to say, Well, do your best. So -- 5 Q: And is it fair to say that the reason 6 you think so is both because the judge is likely to be 7 concerned about the quality of the decision when only one 8 side is presented, and secondly, out of fairness to the 9 party that's not there? 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: And would you agree with me that that 12 logic also applies to the injunction application at 13 Ipperwash, namely the affect of a twenty-four (24) hour 14 or less timeline, was to make a rushed court application, 15 potentially ex parte, the only way to go, and that raised 16 concerns about the quality of a decision that a court 17 could make and the fairness to the party not represented; 18 is that fair? 19 A: I -- I don't think it is fair because 20 the point I've been trying to make is that the 21 application's just a piece of paper. In real life I 22 think the judge is going to look at it and is going to 23 say, I'm not going to make an important order affecting 24 anybody's rights until I hear what this is all about. 25 And so I -- I don't -- you can apply, but


1 I thought it was almost inevitable that that's what a 2 judge would do and, in fact, that's what two (2) judges 3 did. 4 Q: Hmm hmm. Right. And would you agree 5 with me that there's a perception problem again, if the 6 Attorney General's department, on instructions from the 7 Premier, is getting in a rush, an urgent basis, an ex 8 parte basis, an injunction, when the understanding is 9 actually that it ain't going to be granted anyway by the 10 judge. 11 Doesn't that create a perception of 12 urgency which is problematic in itself? 13 A: Well, I think it's fair to say that 14 it's one (1) example of the government making it clear 15 that they wanted action fast and I think that's why the 16 government wanted to do it that way. 17 Q: Sorry, why did the government want to 18 do it that way? 19 A: To -- to -- to show that they were 20 taking quick action. 21 Q: Okay. Do you know, with respect to 22 the notation you made in your note about instructions 23 from the Premier to the Attorney General, whether or not 24 at the time you were advised whether the Premier had any 25 input from Cabinet on the instructions that were given to


1 you? Or was it, to your knowledge, apparently just the 2 Premier? 3 A: I don't have a clear recollection 4 beyond what I wrote down. 5 Q: I see. So you can't -- you can't 6 tell? 7 A: I can't tell. 8 Q: Is there -- do you have any inference 9 from what you wrote down? You just mentioned the Premier 10 in your note, for example. If you were aware that it was 11 Cabinet or Cabinet involved you -- let me rephrase that-- 12 A: It couldn't have -- it couldn't have 13 been Cabinet because there was no Cabinet meeting. So I 14 -- I think if it -- if it had been a Cabinet decision I 15 would have heard about it because it would have had to be 16 a special Cabinet meeting to consider it. 17 Q: Right. In the meeting that you had 18 with various other lawyers on the morning of the 6th, and 19 we went through a page of the notes, there's a repeated 20 reference to people getting hurt; do you remember that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And, in fact, that appears to have 23 been one (1) of your main -- or one (1) of your concerns 24 that -- that moving fast increased the risk of somebody 25 getting hurt; is that right?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: What happened then was, apparently, 3 instructions to you via the Attorney General from the 4 Premier that the department move fast. 5 Now, I take it your concerns about 6 somebody getting hurt would then, in fact, continue after 7 those instructions? 8 A: Sure. 9 Q: And, in fact, somebody did get hurt 10 in the end; is that right? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Do you recall, in the Premier's 13 dining room meeting, whether there was any actual 14 discussion of anybody getting hurt? 15 A: I recall that there was a discussion 16 about whether or not it was essential to go fast. I -- I 17 don't recall specifically whether there was discussion of 18 anybody getting hurt. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: But I do -- I do remember the Premier 21 saying something to the effect that in other situations 22 the police would have gotten people out of this place 23 very quickly. 24 And I was saying, Well, I'm not sure 25 that's right and that there's lots of -- of best practice


1 that suggests patience and dialogue and we can think of 2 hostage and other instances where the police have 3 actually taken quite a lot of time in order to -- to 4 solve things peacefully. 5 Q: But to the best of your recollection 6 nobody said at this meeting, Somebody might get hurt? 7 A: I -- I can't say that those words are 8 used. I think the sense of it was that -- that if you 9 want to avoid -- if you want to have a peaceful 10 resolution you may have to take time. 11 Q: All right. I -- I'll -- I'm trying 12 to understand whether you're -- whether you've answered 13 my question. 14 But I'll -- I'll just simply be blunt, and 15 correct me if I'm just being repetitive but, you know, as 16 the -- as the Counsel for the individual who was killed, 17 I have for many years wondered whether there was a 18 discussion when the decisions were being made about the 19 government actions, whether the actual health and 20 possible lives of the occupiers was actually part of the 21 equation. 22 And in that context, I understand what 23 you've said about risks and so forth, but I, to be blunt, 24 I take it you can't recall anybody at that meeting 25 saying, People might get hurt and that's a factor?


1 A: No, but I can tell you that the -- 2 the -- you know, the welfare of all of the people 3 involved in it was in the forefront of -- of a lot of the 4 thinking and conversation. 5 I mean, people wrote notes about me saying 6 it on more than one (1) occasion. I certainly remember 7 the OPP talking about their unwillingness to do anything 8 that put any of their people or any of the people in the 9 Park at risk. 10 I mean, I'm not in a position to judge how 11 they actually made good on that concern or not, but I 12 think that -- I think it would -- it would clearly not be 13 right to say people were not thinking about the danger to 14 people; people were thinking about it a lot. 15 Q: I understand that. However, 16 specifically, I've been focussing on the instructions 17 from the Premier's office which, it appears, changed 18 everything. 19 But, was there ever any reference to the 20 possibility of people being hurt by or to Mr. Harris or 21 Ms. Hutton in the dining room meeting? 22 A: But just before I get to that, I 23 mean, I don't accept the premise that the Premier's 24 instructions changed everything. I don't think they 25 changed anything.


1 Q: All right, could you explain that? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, again, 3 that's a point for you to make in argument, if you want 4 to make that. 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I assume you 7 make that because -- 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I think -- but I 9 think in having -- I think that's it -- I think it's fair 10 for -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I will let 12 the Witness answer. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- the question, can 14 you explain that. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You want the 16 witness to answer it but -- 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. Sure. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But, I 19 regret that that question was put because I think it is a 20 -- and the way it was put is an argumentative point. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I apologize. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The Witness 23 deserves and opportunity to respond to it. 24 Yes...? 25 THE WITNESS: I mean, the situation was


1 what it was and it was the same way throughout. The -- 2 the Government, at least through most of the people 3 speaking for the Government, were anxious to have the 4 people removed from the Park as quickly as possible. 5 The reality on the ground was that the 6 police were not going to take steps until they felt it 7 was safe to do so, or so I believed at the time. 8 And so in that sense, what the Premier 9 said wasn't any different than messages that I'd been 10 getting for a couple of days about what Ms. Hutton and 11 others thought. And the only thing that happened was that 12 an effort was made to seek an injunction and it's for the 13 Commissioner to determine whether any of that changed in 14 any way what happened on the ground or was connected to 15 Mr. George's death. 16 And I don't know the answer to that. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 19 Q: Would you agree with me that it's 20 appropriate to correct the answer you just gave me when 21 you said the only thing that changed was instructions 22 were given to get an injunction? 23 In fact, what you wrote down was not that. 24 You wrote down: 25 "Desires removal within twenty-four


1 (24) hours." 2 Is that fair? 3 A: Yes, that's -- that's what I wrote 4 down. But, the -- the question was, did it change 5 anything and I think the Premier could have said twenty- 6 four (24) hours or thirty-six (36) hours or forty-eight 7 (48) hours, but what the police were saying was that they 8 weren't going to do it until they felt it was safe to do 9 so. 10 Q: Hmm hmm. But, what changed was the 11 Premier's views were made explicit to you on that 12 morning? 13 A: That's true, yes. 14 Q: And what also changed was an -- 15 wheels were in motion to get an ex parte injunction; that 16 also changed? 17 A: That's true. 18 Q: All right. A moment's indulgence, 19 Commissioner. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: We've spent some time asking about 24 the implications of what you wrote in your notebook about 25 removal within twenty-four (24) hours.


1 And I know that you, in your testimony, 2 mentioned that although some folks seem to have suggested 3 that an ex parte order from the court might be useful as 4 a way of helping to persuade the occupiers to leave by 5 means of persuasion voluntarily, you said something like, 6 you didn't see any signs that that was a realistic 7 possibility; is that fair? 8 A: I didn't mean to say that anybody had 9 suggested it. I was simply telling you about my thought 10 processes. I was considering the question of, well what 11 use is an injunction, and assuming that the police don't 12 intend to force people out of the Park, the only other 13 possible use of it is that the people in the Park will 14 say, Out of our respect for the law we'd better leave. 15 And I had not heard anybody say that was 16 likely. So between the two (2) I didn't see any urgent 17 need to do it. The occupiers weren't going anywhere and 18 neither were the OPP. 19 Q: But the -- the other logical 20 possibility which we've only partly addressed is that, 21 since the occupiers weren't -- occupiers likely weren't 22 going anywhere voluntarily, given their colour of right. 23 If I may -- by the way the notes 24 repeatedly talked about the concept of a burial ground, 25 would you agree with me that Native occupiers of land who


1 assert and apparently believe there's a burial ground 2 there, may not be willing to leave that very easily, 3 particularly if they believe past concerns have not been 4 listened to; is that fair? 5 A: At this stage I wasn't really very 6 clear what the First Peoples in the Park were asserting. 7 I was just making a kind of general reflection in my own 8 mind that I -- I didn't think they were likely to leave 9 because somebody handed them a piece of paper saying 10 leave. 11 Q: All right. But the logical option or 12 pathway that existed, in theory, was that the police 13 would, in fact, use force to implement the injunction. 14 That is a -- 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I'm not certain 16 that's -- that's a -- it's up to the police to determine 17 what would happen. And with the evidence of Mr. Carson 18 was if an injunction had been granted, he didn't know 19 what they were going to do. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 21 to wait and see what the injunction said, as I recall? 22 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well I -- 23 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: There was that, 24 Mr. Commissioner, and further that it was simply one tool 25 of negotiation.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: My question -- 3 with respect My Friends haven't actually addressed the 4 question that I asked which was: As a logical option or 5 a theoretical possibility, there is, in the background, 6 the possibility that the police would use force to 7 enforce or implement the injunction? 8 MR. DERRY MILLAR: But we're not -- we're 9 not here to ask him about theoretical possibilities. We 10 have the evidence of the incident commander, the man who 11 -- who had to respond to an injunction if -- if as and 12 when an injunction was granted. 13 And if -- if this theoretical question 14 might be put to the man who made the deci -- who would 15 have to deal with it, Mr. Carson, Inspector Carson said I 16 didn't know what I would do. As My Friend Ms. Tuck- 17 Jackson said, it was one of the tools. I don't know how 18 this witness can answer this. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 20 how this Witness can help us any more on that. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, 22 Commissioner, there's -- the notes of the IMC meeting 23 show that at the meetings it was clearly stated that in 24 the end, if the occupiers don't leave, you have to use 25 force.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: One (1) 2 option is force. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes, and with 4 respect I -- I don't believe it's doing anybody any 5 service if we all collectively believe that that was not 6 ever in the scenario at all. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 8 think anybody said that. We have the evidence of what 9 occurred at those Interministerial Committee Meetings. 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. And I -- 11 and I am -- we're having evidence discussed from this 12 Witness about what the Premier instructed the Attorney 13 General. And with respect I'm just asking whether that 14 was not, in fact, the use of force I mean, a theoretical 15 and logical part of what might be considered. And -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: When and 17 where? When and where are you referring to? 18 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Okay. Well, 19 let me -- let me rephrase that. 20 Mr. Taman -- 21 THE WITNESS: Commissioner, if I -- may I 22 just address myself to what I think Mr. Klippenstein's 23 question is or should -- I'll -- I'll wait for the 24 question. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we


1 should wait and hear what his question is. 2 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 5 Q: You've said, I think repeatedly, that 6 you didn't think the police would, in fact, enforce the 7 injunction. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Correct? But at the same time, if I 10 may, you were aware because, in fact, it was discussed 11 that very morning on the 6th at the lawyers' meeting, if 12 I may, that one (1) of the normal legal ways of enforcing 13 an injunction was for the police to use force? 14 A: Well, I can help you with this. I 15 mean one (1) of the reasons that I was not really very 16 positive about an injunction was because it kind of lets 17 the genie out of the bottle, if you will, and that, you 18 know, the -- the police can say that they don't have a 19 plan to enforce it, but as you now tell me from the 20 evidence of -- of Inspector Carson, well who knows 21 exactly what would happen next. 22 So my concern was, bearing in mind that 23 they didn't really want it at that stage, why do it? And 24 if you just do a risk analysis, the risk is that 25 something will happen. And, in fact, something did


1 happen which was that we then had to deal with the issue 2 of dropping orders from helicopters. 3 So one (1) minute people were standing 4 there quite safely and the next minute it was apocalypse 5 now. So it was just an example of how, you know, why do 6 it if you don't need to do it. 7 Q: I think this -- those are all my 8 questions. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 10 think he's answered, but that's fine. Are you going to-- 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I will check 12 during the -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 Are you going to leave that last item -- 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes, I may 16 have -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and see 18 if you can find something over the lunch break? 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I may have a 20 couple of minutes after lunch. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: If that's 23 acceptable. Thank you. 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, before 25 we break for lunch I want to alert My Friends that we've


1 called Mr. King, who's going to be here on Thursday, that 2 -- and alerted him and he's now going to be here, 3 hopefully we'll keep moving along as we have, for one 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon so. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, let's 6 hope we're done by then, but we're going to break for 7 lunch now. 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 9 adjourned until 1:45. 10 11 --- Upon recessing at 12:32 p.m. 12 --- Upon resuming at 1:45 p.m. 13 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 15 resumed. Please be seated. 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Commissioner, 17 as I discussed before the break, I was able to locate the 18 reference that I had in mind. I apologize for not doing 19 so earlier. But -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No problem. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- with your 22 indulgence I'll continue on that one topic for -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- hopefully 25 not too long.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 3 Q: Mr. Taman, we discussed a little bit 4 this morning a question or two (2) I had about parts of 5 the briefing to the Government about Aboriginal law and I 6 had started to ask questions about the transmission, if 7 you will, of related information to Ipperwash. 8 And over the break I've located parts of a 9 transcript and for other counsel, I'm referring to parts 10 of the June 8th, 2005 cross-examination of Inspector 11 Carson by myself. 12 And I have provided an excerpt to -- to 13 the witness and yourself, Commissioner, and I'm -- I'll 14 be referring, generally, to page -- pages 20 to 28. But 15 I have only a few short excerpts from that that I'd like 16 to read to try and be more efficient about it. 17 And Mr. Taman, if you could turn to page 18 24 of the transcript. 19 A: Yes, sir. 20 Q: You see? Now generally speaking this 21 is cross-examination by myself of Inspector Carson, the 22 Incident Commander at Ipperwash, pertaining to certain 23 handwritten notes which were the police scribe notes of a 24 command post meeting on September 5th, 1995, a meeting 25 that occurred at or near Ipperwash.


1 And on page 24 -- and this deals also with 2 the phone call between Inspector Carson and Inspector Fox 3 in Toronto on the afternoon -- or morning of the 5th. At 4 line 21 the sentence -- the question finishes: 5 "The bottom line is..." 6 Do you see that? 7 A: I have it. 8 Q: "The bottom line is shortly after the 9 phone call with Inspector Fox you're 10 advising the command team meeting about 11 what these handwritten notes say. 12 A: Sure." 13 Dropping then down to line 13 -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 15 I'm on the wrong page. What page again? 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm sorry. On 17 page 24 of the transcript. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 24 and line, 19 did you say 20? 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Lines 21 to 25. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Sorry, I'm 22 not -- 23 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: The page number 24 24 appears, I think, on the right hand side. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, the


1 page numbers are -- there it is. I've got it now. 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm sorry I 3 probably -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 7 Q: Okay. So at line 21 on page 24 the 8 bo -- the question includes: 9 "The bottom line is shortly after the 10 phone call with Inspector Fox you're 11 advising the command team meeting about 12 what these handwritten notes say? 13 A: Sure." 14 And then dropping down to line 13, part of 15 my question is: 16 "Can I fairly conclude that what you 17 were saying to the command team was 18 that you'd received information that 19 the Premier's wishes were that the 20 Natives receive no different treatment 21 from anybody else? 22 Or if I'm -- if I'm misstating what 23 these notes suggest, just help me out. 24 "A: I would suggest that what I was 25 doing was simply informing them what


1 Ron Fox had told me. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: I'm not suggesting. I would be 4 very cautious to suggest that -- that 5 it was anymore than passing information 6 on. 7 Q: Okay. So you were passing on the 8 information you had obtained as we just 9 discussed a minute ago? 10 A: Right." 11 Dropping then down to line 20 on page 26. 12 "Q: Right. So now we have various 13 senior officers including Detective 14 Sergeant Wright and the -- and Sergeant 15 Korosec, who heads up the ERT or 16 Emergency Response Team, hearing from 17 you the information you received, that 18 the Premier has some views on this 19 situation; is that right? 20 A: That's fair. 21 Q: And one of his views, apparently, 22 is that the natives should be treated 23 no differently than anybody else should 24 be treated; is that right? 25 A: That's what I said."


1 Dropping then to -- on the same page, 27, 2 line 18. 3 "Q: Right. And as -- as we 4 discussed, what is being transmitted to 5 your command team is not only the fact 6 that the Premier has views, but 7 actually, in substance, what those 8 views are on this particular -- in this 9 particular area; is that right? 10 A: That's true." 11 So this, Mr. Taman, is the evidence of 12 Inspector Carson about command team meeting at Ipperwash 13 following a telephone discussion with Mr. -- Inspector 14 Fox. 15 Now, the specific topic of this exchange 16 relates to what was described or attributed as views of 17 the Premier. 18 And, for example, the Premier's wishes 19 that the natives receive no different treatment from 20 anybody else. 21 Now, in the briefing materials that we 22 looked at a few minutes ago, the description with respect 23 to native rights talks about a general principle that the 24 law applies to native just like anyone else, and then it 25 describes some what it describes as important exceptions,


1 right; you recall that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And my -- my question to you is: 4 Would you agree that to focus only on the general rule 5 and not take account of the exceptions would be 6 misleading; is that fair? 7 A: For me, Mr. Klippenstein, what's 8 concerning about this is it's a clear leaking over of 9 political conversation into the operational domain and I 10 don't think this is good practice. 11 Q: Thank you. Is it fair to say that 12 the fact that what is being conveyed here is the views of 13 the Premier is not good practice? 14 A: No, I think -- I mean, I've just seen 15 this a moment ago. 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: I mean, my immediate reaction to it 18 is that it wasn't appropriate to pass on to officers on 19 the ground what the Premier had to say. 20 I don't know -- I doubt very much that it 21 was his intention that that should happen in that way, 22 but in any case it happened and, in my view, shouldn't 23 have happened. 24 Q: Now, let me ask a question or two (2) 25 about the content of what was apparently passed on. And


1 what was apparently passed on was, at least attributed or 2 described as the Premier's views, namely that natives 3 receive no different treatment from anybody else. 4 And would you agree with me that, as a 5 general proposition, such a statement, if the exceptions 6 are not also accounted for, is misleading and, in fact, 7 is contrary to law? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 9 minute. Before you answer I see Ms. Perschy has an 10 objection. 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry, Mr. 12 Klippenstein. 13 Yes, Commissioner, my concern with this 14 question is it gets into the content of what was 15 communicated and, of course, this Witness wasn't either 16 at the Interministerial Committee meetings, he wasn't -- 17 he wasn't a party to the telephone conversation between 18 Inspector Carson and Ron Fox and he wasn't a party to 19 what was communicated by -- by Inspector Carson on the 20 ground. 21 And I think it's very difficult for this 22 witness to be able to speak to the content of what was 23 communicated when he isn't a party to any of that. I 24 mean context is required for this and this Witness simply 25 doesn't have that.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 2 Downard...? 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, I'm concerned 4 we're getting into speculations as to what something 5 theoretically might be the case. 6 What is clear here is that this statement 7 was not communicated by Fox to Carson as a general 8 proposition, which is the way it's being put to this 9 Witness. It was communicated by Fox to Carson as being 10 in this situation, that is the view. 11 And in the context of these notes they're 12 talking about the situation before them. They're not 13 talking about a general proposition that, in all things, 14 Aboriginal people are to be treated the same as -- as 15 other people. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: So it's not fair to 18 talk about this as being a general proposition. And if - 19 - and if -- and if he's only talking about it 20 theoretically then it's not very useful to us, with my 21 respect -- with respect. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 23 think the part that you've dealt with so far, and you've 24 gotten a response that it was inappropriate, and that's 25 regarding the process, the manner in which it was


1 communicated. When you get into substance there are all 2 kinds of difficulties. I think you've made a point with 3 respect to the process. It was inappropriate in Mr. 4 Taman's views for those views to be communicated in that 5 way. 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. I 7 won't pursue the matter any further and thank you, 8 Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 Thank you very much. 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And thank you 12 very much, Mr. Taman, for your assistance. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 14 very much. 15 We now have, I think, Mr. Rosenthal. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Good afternoon, Mr. 20 Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 22 afternoon, Mr. Rosenthal. 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 25 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Taman. Sorry,


1 Taman is what we've been calling you until you got here 2 and so I'll try to -- but you pronounce it "Taman" I 3 gather; is that right? 4 A: Yes, but I've had both my whole life 5 so I'm not shocked one (1) way or the other. 6 Q: Sorry. I'll try to remember to call 7 you Mr. Taman. And I should indicate there are many 8 questions I'd like to ask you given your knowledge and so 9 on, but I'm going to be very expeditious given our time 10 constraints and restrict myself. 11 As you know my name is Peter Rosenthal. 12 I'm representing some of the Stoney Point people under 13 the name Aazhoodena and George Family Group. 14 I want to first ask you some questions 15 about the dining room meeting, as it's been called. You 16 told us yesterday that you concluded that the general 17 purpose of the meeting was to make sure that the public 18 servants understood what the Government was looking for, 19 what it expected to happen. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And I take it that what you 22 understood the Government expected to happen and what it 23 wanted was that the people be taken out of the Park as 24 soon as possible? 25 A: It was certainly what it wanted.


1 Q: Yes. And it was -- to emphasize then 2 that there wasn't going to be a go slow approach, as some 3 people had talked about, they wanted quicker more 4 aggressive action? 5 A: That's fair. 6 Q: Now, in response to a question from 7 Mr. Harris' lawyer, you indicated that you didn't recall 8 whether Mr. Harris said words to the effect: 9 "We've pandered to native people for 10 too long. Now is the time for swift, 11 affirmative action." 12 But you would agree that those words are 13 consistent with the attitude that was expressed at that 14 meeting by Mr. Harris? 15 A: I'm not sure I could agree with that. 16 I -- I mean the, you know, the -- the emotion-laden 17 language about pandering and so on is not something I'd 18 really want to sign onto. I -- I would just put it more 19 neutrally that it was clear that he thought this should 20 be dealt with swiftly. 21 Q: And you don't recall the word 22 'pandering' certainly? 23 A: No. And I don't recall that being 24 the spirit of either. 25 Q: I see. Okay. Now, you told us that


1 you recalled having a dialogue with the Premier in which 2 he had indicated that he would have thought that the 3 police would have the First Nations citizens out of the 4 Park by this time, by the time of the meeting in other 5 words? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And also that he had indicated that 8 other police forces would have done a better job, in 9 effect, right? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Now, Inspector Fox in the phone call, 12 that's become famous in this room and beyond, to 13 Inspector Carson, he said on that same day calling 14 Inspector Carson, he said that Mr. Harris had said at the 15 dining room meeting words to the effect: 16 "The OPP made mistakes. They should 17 have done something right at the time 18 and that will, I'm sure, all come out 19 in an inquiry sometime after the fact." 20 Now that is consistent with what you 21 recall; is that correct? 22 A: I -- I don't recall those words but 23 it's consistent with the sense that I had of it, that I 24 do recall. 25 Q: Yes. And in particular you might


1 well have indicated the Premier might well have indicated 2 that there could possibly be an inquiry into the OPP's 3 action or lack of action? 4 A: I don't recall that. 5 Q: I see. And then you told us that the 6 Premier told those assembled, including you: 7 "So I've told you how I feel about it 8 now. I expect you to get on with it 9 using your best professional judgment." 10 A: That's right. 11 Q: Now you understood by his saying 12 that, that he wanted those at the meeting, including 13 yourself and the various other people, to act in their 14 professional capacity and act professionally but to try 15 to achieve the goal of the Government which was to get 16 the people out of the Park as soon as possible; is that 17 fair? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And for you as the Deputy Attorney 20 General that meant within your bailiwick. As Attorney 21 General what you had to do was try to get an injunction 22 as soon as possible. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And you didn't have to concern 25 yourselves, as you've told us, with operational matters


1 beyond that. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: But it was your understanding that 4 the Premier was instructing everyone in the room to do 5 their part in trying to get the people out of the Park as 6 soon as possible? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you also told us that the tenure 9 of the meeting was that the police should be acting to 10 get those folks out of the Park, correct? 11 A: Yes. The -- the Premier did, as I 12 recall, say words to the effect that if this were in any 13 other country or any other setting that the police would 14 have acted more quickly. 15 Q: So now the people who were being told 16 to exercise their professional judgment to try to achieve 17 the Government's aim of getting the people out of the 18 Park as soon as possible, included OPP officers Fox and 19 Patrick, who were in the room; is that not fair? 20 A: That's true. 21 Q: And so this was in the context of the 22 tenure of the meeting being that the police should be 23 acting to get those folks out of the Park, and that 24 everyone there should, in their own capacity, do what 25 they could to try to achieve that goal, and that included


1 the two (2) OPP officers, right? 2 A: Yes. But, Mr. Rosenthal, could I 3 just add that it was also part of the discussion that the 4 Government needed to be cautious about interfering with 5 the operational role of the OPP. So that was very much 6 part of the setting. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: And -- and I think it would be fair 9 to add that as the sense of his comments when he was 10 talking about consistent with your professional 11 responsibilities including the operational management of 12 the -- of the police. 13 Q: Yes. And, in fact, that came up 14 several times and you, in spite of the Deputy Solicitor 15 General having made that point clearly, you felt required 16 to repeat that point; isn't that right? 17 A: That's true. 18 Q: And that was because it was your 19 understanding that some of the people there didn't really 20 understand that. That's why you had to repeat it, right? 21 A: Well I thought it was important 22 enough to say twice. 23 Q: Yes. And even at the conclusion of 24 your saying it, it was not apparent that everyone in the 25 room understood; isn't that fair?


1 A: I can't say that, but I did take it 2 that the Premier understood it. 3 Q: You did take it that he understood? 4 A: Yeah, I did. 5 Q: What did he say that indicated that 6 he understood? 7 A: It was what I took from his remark 8 that he expected us to act in accordance with our 9 professional roles and responsibilities. 10 Q: Yes. And it was understood with 11 respect to the police that although the Government could 12 not order them to get the people out of the Park, it 13 could request that they get the people out of the Park; 14 is that not correct? 15 A: I'm just trying to -- my best to 16 convey the spirit of -- of what was said and I think I'd 17 -- I think I'd just be repeating myself. 18 I took it that he understood that there 19 were limits to the role he had at that moment. And that 20 he was both acknowledging those limits and saying that, 21 within the big picture, this is what I would like you to 22 do. 23 Q: That's your view into his mind, so to 24 speak. 25 A: It's what I took from his words, is a


1 better way to put it. 2 Q: What you took from his words. But 3 you agree that the general concept that was being 4 explained to Mr. Harris and others, by you and the Deputy 5 Solicitor General and others, was that the Government did 6 have the possibility of requesting the OPP to remove 7 people from the Park, but did not have the authority to 8 direct them to remove the people from the Park? 9 A: I couldn't agree to put it that way 10 because what I took from it was that he accepted that we 11 had to do our job. 12 Q: Yes. Now, you did also tell us that 13 you did recognize, even at the time, the danger of having 14 those kind of conversations with everyone in the same 15 room, you said, there's a risk that it could compromise 16 the operational independence of the police, right? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And by everyone in the same room you 19 meant, in particular, two (2) police officers? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you were concerned about that 22 right at the time? 23 A: Yes. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: Now, throughout the course of that 2 meeting and throughout everything else that you learned 3 about Mr. Harris' position during this time period, he 4 never changed his position that he wanted them out of the 5 Park as soon as possible, consistent with professional 6 obligations, right? 7 A: I believe that was the only time that 8 I discussed it with him face to face. 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: And it remained the message from his 11 staff throughout the relevant period. 12 Q: Yes. It was his message consistently 13 throughout that one (1) meeting that you observed, and it 14 was the consistent message of his staff particularly Deb 15 Hutton and others throughout the several days, that they 16 wanted the people out of the Park as soon as possible? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And in response to questions from Mr. 19 Klippenstein, you indicated that there was some 20 discussion of the problem that speed can lead to danger 21 to people, and one -- you couldn't remember the exact 22 words, but there was that notion discussed at the dining 23 room meeting, right? 24 A: I don't know that it was discussed at 25 the dining room meeting. I think what I said to Mr.


1 Klippenstein was that my -- my own reflection was that if 2 there was no plan to use the injunction, why take the 3 risks involved in getting it. 4 Q: Yes, that was with respect to the 5 injunction, but also, in general, I believe you indicated 6 that acting -- one of the reasons that you advised going 7 slowly was because the possibility that if one goes 8 quickly in a situation like this, that can increase the 9 danger of someone getting hurt; is that fair? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And one -- I believe you told us that 12 in one sense or another that was in the air at the dining 13 room meeting as well? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Right. And so that -- people there 16 were aware of that possibility, it was evident from what 17 you heard? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: But nonetheless, Mr. Harris didn't 20 say, Well, in that case, slow down? 21 A: He said, In that case, use your 22 professional judgment. 23 Q: Yes. Now in answer to Mr. Harris' 24 lawyer's question of whether Mr. Harris displayed a 25 redneck attitude, you said, an interesting answer I


1 thought, That would not apply to the instruction to act 2 professionally. 3 Do you recall saying this? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: But do you agree, sir, that that 6 might apply -- someone might appropriately characterize 7 his attitude as redneck, with respect to the idea of get 8 them out of there as soon as possible and not giving any 9 credence to any possible rights they might have? 10 A: I think as far as my evidence is 11 concerned, I'm not an expert in rednecks, I just know 12 what he said and I'd be content to leave it at that. 13 Q: Yes, well you told us that the 14 redneck attitude wouldn't apply to the instruction to act 15 professionally. 16 You can understand why someone might 17 characterize some of his other expressions as redneck; is 18 that not fair? 19 A: I just feel uncomfortable with the 20 characterization. It's not a word I would use and -- and 21 I mean he said what he said and that's all I know about 22 it. 23 Q: Okay. Moving quickly along because 24 of -- I am trying to be as quick as possible. 25 With respect to -- and I don't need you to


1 turn it up necessarily, your note at Tab 22, the note you 2 made about out within twenty-four (24) hours. 3 You told Mr. Klippenstein you weren't sure 4 exactly when you wrote that, you constructed as best you 5 could the likely time. 6 But we can be absolutely sure that you 7 wrote that before the dining room meeting, can we not? 8 A: I think that must be right. 9 Q: Yes. So whatever exact time, it was 10 certainly before the dining room meeting? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you wrote that as a result of a 13 discussion that you had with the Attorney General shortly 14 before writing the note? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And you wrote the note soon after the 17 discussion, you're quite sure it was an accurate 18 transcription of the discussion? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And earlier you had been involved in 21 meetings with the Attorney General and Solicitor General 22 where you had discussed a go-slow attitude one might say, 23 right? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And so the Attorney General was


1 informing you that in spite of his previous agreement 2 with you and others that there should be a go-slow 3 attitude he'd been instructed by the Premier not to go 4 slowly but to go quickly, right? 5 A: I think that's the sense of it, yes. 6 Q: And as he informed you of that he was 7 indicating to you that that was then the ruling. There 8 was no more debate about slow or fast; we're going 9 quickly, right? 10 A: Yes. If I could just say one (1) 11 thing in fairness to Mr. Harnick and I think you put it 12 fairly in your -- in your question, Mr. Rosenthal. 13 I don't think it was so much a question 14 that he changed his mind, it was a question that in the 15 days leading up to this when we talked about it the 16 people I've discussed, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Harnick agreed 17 that there didn't seem to be any great need to go 18 quickly. The Committee had asked for an injunction. 19 There was conversation carrying on but the situation did 20 change that morning. 21 Q: Yes. And had Mr. Harnick, in his 22 earlier conversations with you, indicated his 23 understanding of what you understood, that going quickly 24 could increase the danger of someone getting hurt? 25 A: I think it would be fair to say that


1 he was content at that time to follow the advice that he 2 was receiving. 3 Q: Including from you, you mean? 4 A: Sure. 5 Q: And so it wasn't that he had changed 6 his opinion, he just told you the Premier said quick and 7 that's the end of the discussion? 8 A: That's the way I see it. 9 Q: Now, if you could turn please to Tab 10 23 of the Commission documents. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: This has been entered as Exhibit P- 15 940. It's Inquiry Document Number 1012540. I should 16 like to turn please to page 113 which occurs after 194, 17 for example, in the middle. 18 A: I have it. 19 Q: Thank you. Now, there's a heading a 20 quarter of the way down called, Actions. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And then it says: 23 "1. Further release. [and then] Who. 24 [and then] Who called OPP?" 25 Do you see those words?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Now, I believe you said to Mr. Millar 3 you don't now remember what you meant by that: "Who 4 called OPP?" 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: But, may I suggest to you that 7 various documents indicate that there was to be a request 8 of the OPP that they remove the people from the Park. 9 And might this well not have been then the question: 10 Who was the person who transmitted that 11 request in other words to the OPP? 12 A: I -- I may have missed something, but 13 I -- I don't know of any discussion requesting the OPP 14 to remove people from the Park. 15 Q: Yes. But, if there were -- if there 16 was such a -- if it was understood that such a request 17 had been, or should have been made, would it be 18 reasonable to extrapolate from that fact, if it is a 19 fact, which is not within your direct knowledge, and what 20 you wrote here, "Who called OPP?" that this might well 21 refer to that? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 23 Millar? 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: How can he answer 25 that? From what he just said he doesn't know.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He doesn't 2 know anything about it. 3 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with respect 4 he can answer that if -- I'm asking him if he, 5 hypothetically assumes that there was an indication that 6 there be such a request, would that then help him in 7 concluding that had there been such a fact, which he 8 can't testify to, but if there was such a fact might this 9 note well have referred to that question? 10 He might say, No, it's inconceivable, it 11 would have referred to something -- it couldn't have 12 referred to that. 13 THE WITNESS: It doesn't help me to 14 recall -- 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No. 16 THE WITNESS: -- what it refers to. 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It doesn't help. 18 Okay. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: Now, at Tab 29 of your documents we 22 find Exhibit P-634 to these proceedings, Inquiry Document 23 1011745. If you go several pages in there is a 24 subdocument, you might say, entitled, Criminal and Civil 25 Proceedings to Terminate the Occupation of Ipperwash


1 Provincial Park by the Stoney Pointers? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Thank you. Now, the first section of 4 that document is headed, Criminal and Quasi-Criminal 5 Offences. 6 Now, you've had evidence from Mr. 7 Hutchison and others that this was a summary of -- a 8 legal opinion about what possible criminal and quasi- 9 criminal offences could be used in getting the occupiers 10 out of the Park? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now, you remember that there was 13 discussion of those kinds of issues? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And given, as you told Mr. 16 Klippenstein, the fact that it was totally unrealistic 17 to, by way of an injunction, accommodate Premier Harris' 18 wish that they be removed from the Park within twenty- 19 four (24) hours, would you agree it there would have 20 remained -- there would have remained the possibility of 21 using criminal or quasi-criminal offences to remove them 22 from the Park within the timeframe the Premier wanted? 23 A: I think theoretically that's so. I 24 don't recall any discussion of that. 25 Q: But was it not the case that this


1 document was prepared at least in part in order to 2 explain to the OPP what possibilities they would have had 3 for criminal and quasi-criminal charges in removing 4 people from the Park? 5 A: I'm not entirely sure, frankly, for 6 whom this was prepared. 7 Q: Well, was this prepared under your 8 supervision? 9 A: I don't think it was. I -- I think 10 it was probably prepared by Ministry staff. 11 Q: Yes? 12 A: But -- but, I can't say that I know 13 exactly for what purpose it was prepared. 14 Q: Well, you were aware of this document 15 at the time? 16 A: I'm not sure that I was aware of it 17 at the time. I was certainly aware of the discussions 18 about the different remedies. I -- I suspect that it was 19 prepared to instruct the Blockade Committee -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 21 was. 22 THE WITNESS: -- in the basic legal 23 frame. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 25 sure, but I think the evidence was that this was prepared


1 after the first IMC meeting. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I believe it was 3 for both purposes, but in any event I'll -- I'll move on 4 since this Witness doesn't -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No? Wrong? 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- can't assist us. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm getting 8 nods and shakes so I... 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I don't know 10 what Mr. Downard was going to say, but the Witness said 11 that in-chief and again that he's never -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's never 13 seen -- 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- he can't recall 15 ever seeing this document. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so I 17 think he's moving on. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir, I'm 19 moving on. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That's 21 fine. You don't have to -- 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: If Mr. Downard 23 insists that I stay on this topic I'll consider it, 24 but... 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Take yes for


1 an answer. Carry on. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: You told us that in your view it 7 would have been appropriate although not necessarily 8 something you would have personally supported in your 9 personal capacity, but it would be appropriate for a 10 government to, if it wished to, have a zero tolerance 11 policy with respect to First Nations occupations, 12 correct? 13 A: It would be within the limits of the 14 authority of government, yes. 15 Q: Yes. But, then you alluded to the 16 problem of creating a policy in the course of a specific 17 event. 18 A: Right. 19 Q: Right. And that's what appeared to 20 happen in the course of this specific event; is that not 21 fair? 22 A: I think that's fair. 23 Q: And then the distinction between 24 policy and operational direction gets even more difficult 25 to maintain; isn't that fair?


1 A: I think that's fair. 2 Q: Because if you're saying we have a 3 policy right now, that might well be seen as an 4 operational direction as to what to do in this particular 5 situation; isn't that fair? 6 A: I think that's the danger. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Now, if you could please turn to Tab 11 23 of your document brief? 12 A: I have it. 13 Q: Which is Exhibit P-940, and Inquiry 14 1012540. And if we look now at page 111 which still 15 comes after page 194. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I must have 17 a different order because I have page 111. 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: In my -- in my copy 19 -- is it after 194 in yours, sir? 20 THE WITNESS: It's after 109 in mine. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, after 22 109. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: After 109. And 24 then -- well, in mine -- in mine -- perhaps it's just my 25 copy that's wrong.


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And now -- and now 2 what do -- unfortunately, My Friend -- My Friend printed 3 this out, but he didn't hear my explanation yesterday 4 that pages 23 -- pages 90 -- the first four (4) pages, 5 96, 99, 93, 194 are 1996 and come at the end in terms of 6 the order. 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: In terms of the 8 actual order? 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. In any event, 11 we do have page 111? 12 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It starts at page -- 13 my -- Mr. Taman's book starts at page 109 -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So, does 15 mine, so -- 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- and the other pages 17 are at the end. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So 111 is -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: In his -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- his 21 second page in mine? 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So, his is -- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And My Friend has 25 printed them double sided as we all should have but --


1 and Mr. Taman's are not printed double sided. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Okay, 3 we're on page 111. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 6 Q: All I want to look at is page 111, 7 wherever it comes. 8 A: I'm there. 9 Q: Okay. So, we're there. Now this 10 page 111 is the new structure that you designed right 11 after the shooting of Dudley George? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Now, it says "P" at the top, that's 14 the Premier? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And then underneath that it says, 17 "nerve centre"? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And going down from that, there are 20 two (2) arrows, sort of, lines one might say, and the one 21 to the right is then crossed out, but it says "police" 22 that's crossed out? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Then next to it, it has a different 25 box. What is that box to the right?


1 A: It says "police" again. 2 Q: It's "police" again? So, there still 3 is meant to be a police down that line? 4 A: I think the intention was to show 5 that the police should not be reporting into that nerve 6 centre. 7 Q: That they should not be reporting 8 into the nerve centre, that's why it's crossed out? 9 A: That's right, that they're 10 independent off to the side. 11 Q: I see, okay. But, then there is, 12 going on the left hand branch, there is the Blockade 13 Committee? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And underneath that, the police? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: But then was it not the case that 18 Inspector Fox and his assistant Patrick were, in fact, 19 members of the nerve committee? 20 A: I -- I think and I am just uncertain 21 about that. There must be minutes of those meetings. 22 Q: I understand that Mr. Patrick did 23 testify to that effect that they were members of the 24 nerve committee as well. 25 A: I'm just uncertain that it would help


1 me to -- 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: -- what the others had said. 4 Q: Now, we also did have -- this 5 reorganization took place on September 7, or began on 6 September 7? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: We have had some evidence that Deb 9 Hutton, as she walked out of the Interministerial 10 Committee meeting on September 6th said, This structure 11 is going to change, or words to that effect. 12 She wasn't happy, evidently, with the way 13 the Interministerial Committee had been functioning. And 14 now -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 16 Downard, do you recall the evidence? 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, there's no 18 evidence that she said that the structure is going to 19 change. She was critical about a possible waste of 20 time -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Waste of 22 time. 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- that -- the 24 meetings carry on the way they had. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Meeting


1 taking too long. 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, but with 3 respect, Mr. Bangs, I believe was -- I don't have the 4 exact reference, but that these were not going to 5 continue in that form any longer. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think she 7 was referring to the wastage of time and the meeting 8 going on for too long -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, for whatever 10 combination of reasons. But -- well, the record will 11 show what the evidence is about Deb Hutton. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 14 Q: Did you, before or during your 15 preparation of this chart, consult with Deb Hutton at all 16 about the idea of establishing a new body to be called 17 the nerve centre to -- dealing with this occupation? 18 A: No, sir. 19 Q: Did you, as far as you were aware, 20 come up with the idea all by yourself? You just thought 21 there should be another committee called the nerve 22 centre? 23 A: I don't want to say that I came up 24 with it all by myself, but I clearly went to the meeting 25 on the 11th determined to bring some order to the


1 interplay between the public servants and the political 2 staff and for that purpose, sketched out this new 3 structure. 4 Q: But is it possible that the idea of 5 forming some additional structure to take some of the 6 responsibility that had been in the Blockade Committee, 7 came from the Premier's office to you? 8 A: No, I don't think that's possible. 9 Q: I see. Okay. We're moving rapidly 10 along to Mr. Beaubien. In response to his Counsel you 11 indicated that there should be little or no contact 12 between politicians including the local MPP's and the 13 police in your view and the best practice would be not to 14 do that and so on, and it was ill advised. 15 But you didn't know of any statutory 16 prohibition; is that correct? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Now, would you agree that it might be 19 useful to have an explicit statutory delineation of these 20 roles so that Mr. Beaubien in future would know he's not 21 suppose to be sitting with the Incident Commander on the 22 eve of the shooting of Dudley George? 23 A: And I guess it raises, Mr. Rosenthal, 24 the interesting philosophical question of how far rules 25 can be a substitute for common sense. I wouldn't have


1 thought it was something that you'd have in a statute, 2 but neither would I think it was a wise thing to have 3 done. So now I don't know what to say. 4 Q: So, it might be a useful thing for 5 the Commissioner to consider? 6 A: I think it would be very useful, if I 7 may say so, for the Commissioner perhaps, you know, 8 taking a look at -- at 703 and proposing modifications 9 that have recommended themselves arising out of what 10 happened here to how such a process should be set up in 11 the future. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Okay. Thank you. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: Now, Mr. Millar suggests, sir, that 20 you might have meant 708 rather than 703 and we should 21 clarify that. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 708? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's true. I meant 24 708 which is the final draft, yes. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 708.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: Final draft, thank you. 4 A: 708 was the -- the civil servants 5 reflections on lessons learned. 6 Q: Thank you. Now you were asked some 7 questions about the problem, or maybe not a problem, of 8 the Minister of Native Affairs and the Attorney General 9 being the same human being and you -- and with only one 10 (1) deputy minister for both the portfolios. 11 And you indicated that there are normally 12 five (5) to seven (7) different responsibilities that a 13 minister might have and that's considered acceptable and 14 so on. 15 Is that -- do you recall? 16 A: What I meant to say was that when 17 they talked about how many people a deputy can supervise. 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: The Minister only has to supervise 20 one (1) person; the Deputy. The Deputy has to supervise 21 a group of people and -- and the recommended number is 22 five (5) to seven (7). 23 Q: Yes. And then you indicated also 24 that being part of a powerful ministry might give more 25 voice to, for example, Native concerns?


1 A: Sure. 2 Q: On the other hand in a situation like 3 Ipperwash wasn't there, at least an apparent potential 4 conflict of interest in having the same human being, the 5 Attorney General, responsible on the one hand for Native 6 Affairs and presumably for concerns of the Native people, 7 and on the other hand potentially responsible for 8 prosecuting them, and for getting an injunction to force 9 them out of the Park, and so on? 10 So, isn't that conflict perhaps 11 problematic? 12 A: I don't think it's a conflict of 13 interest in the conventional terms though because 14 government is about resolving conflicting interests. 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: That's what government does, and so 17 whether it's done at the Cabinet table, whether it's done 18 inside a single ministry, one is often looking at whether 19 or not to seek a civil injunction to send legal aid 20 lawyers back to work while being responsible for 21 supervising the ongoing funding of the legal aid plan. 22 So, it's pretty much the meat and potatoes 23 of government trying to sort out conflicts of -- what I 24 will call conflicting perspectives. 25 Q: Yes. But, in this particular case


1 you've told us that apparently Mr. Harnick, at least at 2 first, thought that there should be a go-slow approach 3 which one might argue would be consistent with his 4 responsibilities as Minister of Native Affairs. 5 But, then on the hand he was instructed by 6 the Premier as Attorney General to get that injunction as 7 soon as possible. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Now, wouldn't it be desirable if 10 there two (2) different human beings there? 11 A: I don't see why. 12 Q: Because -- so, that they could each 13 advocate their position. 14 A: Well, yes, that's -- that's -- that's 15 possible, but it's also possible that in advocating their 16 position that they're not as alive to possible 17 compromises and so on. 18 What I -- what I -- I said, Mr. Rosenthal, 19 you weren't here yesterday is that -- 20 Q: I -- I did read every word you said. 21 A: I'm sure you did. My general 22 disposition is that these issues are more about values 23 and leadership than they are about structures. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: And that structural solutions are


1 generally second-level solutions to issues like this. 2 Q: Yes. I did read your remarks about 3 that, but I'm glad you brought it up because you said if 4 we have good leadership we don't need tight rules, in 5 effect, right? 6 A: Well, I say that -- that good 7 leadership is more important than good structure. 8 Q: Yes. But for a Commissioner to 9 recommend good leadership it might be considered a rather 10 motherhood resolution and might be difficult to 11 implement, whereas structural changes can be implemented. 12 And would you agree that, in case there is 13 less than optimal leadership, it's important to have 14 structural safeguards as well? 15 A: Well, as I said yesterday I think 16 that bad leadership will defeat any structure so -- but I 17 don't -- I don't want to be quarrelsome about this. I 18 just say that I -- in -- in my work and the work I do 19 now, I spend a lot of time talking to people about, you 20 know, what's more important than building a ministry of 21 justice? What's more important than designing an anti- 22 corruption bureau? 23 And my general feeling as -- as I said to 24 Ms. Tuck-Jackson in -- in our colloquy was that, you 25 know, the integrity of people, the common sense of


1 people, their leadership ability counts for about 93 2 percent and the structure counts for the other 6. 3 Q: Yes, but even if that is true, one 4 tries to design structures as good as possible, as well; 5 isn't that fair? 6 A: Sure. 7 Q: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Rosenthal. 11 Mr. Ross...? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Thank you, 16 Commissioner. 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANTHONY ROSS: 19 Q: Mr. Taman, my name is Anthony Ross 20 and I represent the residents at Aazhoodena. 21 There are just a few areas that I'd like 22 to talk to you about. As I -- you might note I did not 23 walk with any big amount of binders because I don't 24 believe that the answers I'm looking for will be found in 25 the documents.


1 A: I noted it with great relief. 2 Q: Anything for you, sir. 3 A: Thank you. 4 Q: Mr. Taman, my questions would relate 5 to your office as a senior civil servant in the 6 Department of the Attorney General. 7 It's the position of my clients that the 8 situation which developed at Camp Ipperwash and the 9 Provincial Park which led to this Inquiry is fed from the 10 fact that as First Nations people they are not 11 sufficiently involved in matters which can impact their 12 future. 13 Do you agree or disagree that is a broad 14 proposition? 15 A: I think as a broad proposition First 16 Nations are not sufficiently well integrated into the 17 processes of government. 18 Q: And my clients were pleased that when 19 the Harris Government came into power in 1995 that you 20 and the Attorney General were briefed with respect to 21 treaties and -- Aboriginal rights. 22 Do you recall that as part of your 23 testimony? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Now, the question is whether or not


1 the broad promises of self-government, which we have 2 heard of from time to time, whether or not this is 3 sending a mixed message to the First Nations. 4 Number 1, if you're talking about self- 5 government. 6 And number 2, on the other hand, you've 7 got the Indian Act and all of the provincial legislations 8 which restrict your involvement in their own affairs. 9 A: Well I hadn't thought of it just that 10 way but I think it is true that, in my dealings with 11 First Peoples' issues, that there is sometimes a foot in 12 both camps, that sometimes self-government seems like a 13 good idea and sometimes the protections of the Indian Act 14 seem like a good idea. 15 Q: And in situations where there is this 16 foot in either -- in different camps, would you agree 17 that a consultative process which involves -- which 18 relies more heavily on the opinions and the desires of 19 these Aboriginal peoples, should be sought by 20 governments? 21 A: Yes, I agree with that. 22 Q: And, sir, with respect to the advice 23 that you would have given to the Attorney General back in 24 1995 at the different briefings, the topic of colour of 25 right, was that ever something that was discussed in any


1 length, as far as the briefings were concerned? 2 A: I don't recall that specifically, no. 3 Q: And do you agree with me, sir, that 4 in retrospect, hindsight being 20/20 vision, that one of 5 the things that governments must recognize is that the 6 First Nations people could have different views than the 7 dominant society and that colour of right ought to be a 8 serious consideration? 9 A: Sure. And I think that's one of the 10 senses in which we might say that the occupation of the 11 Park by the First Nation might be different from an 12 occupation by a biker gang. 13 Q: Or any other group? 14 A: Well, or possibly any other group, 15 but certainly a biker gang. 16 Q: Why I put it -- I don't want it -- I 17 don't want the analogy to be the First Nations group or a 18 biker gang. 19 For instance, I will take it very broad 20 and say that if any other identifiable group other than a 21 First Nation was to occupy the Park, there would be a 22 difficulty in raising colour of right? 23 A: I think we're both -- we're both 24 speculating. I'm not quibbling with you. A First Nation 25 might have a poor claim to colour of right and somebody


1 who's lands had been brought from his grandfather might 2 have a good one. 3 I'm just saying that, in general terms, I 4 think you're right that when one looks at a First Nations 5 claim to a piece of land, that colour of right is an 6 important issue that you wouldn't expect to encounter in 7 lots of other contexts. 8 Q: And, sir, I take it that as deputy 9 Attorney General you knew that after the occupation a 10 number of people were charged by the OPP? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And I take it, sir, that you also 13 understood that there was a very clear signal from the 14 Court that they would consider colour of right as a 15 defence as a result of which the -- the charges were 16 dropped? 17 A: I mean, I don't have that present to 18 my mind, but it all sounds familiar to me. 19 Q: Yes. And, sir, from time to time in 20 your evidence, you referred to stakeholders. And you 21 went on and some examples you gave was the Mayor in the 22 area and cottage holders. 23 Now is it fair to say that in the broad 24 consideration of the term 'stakeholders', you did not 25 include the people who were occupying the Park?


1 A: No, I absolutely intended to include 2 the people who were occupying the Park in -- in the sense 3 of saying that there are many stakeholders in a situation 4 like this. 5 Q: And, sir, if, in fact, the occupiers 6 were included, is it true that there was no one who was 7 at any table of power who was talking about their 8 interests and their view of the circumstances? 9 A: No, I think that's not right. I 10 think that ONAS was always a very powerful advocate 11 inside government for the rights of First Nations. It -- 12 it was in this case. 13 It's no accident that it's ONAS people who 14 are being quoted as having been quite distressed by some 15 of the things they heard from political staff, and so on. 16 Q: Then I must ask you then, ONAS -- I - 17 - I understand that -- and -- and tell me if this is 18 consistent with your -- your knowledge from -- from your 19 office as Deputy Attorney General, that there were a 20 substantial number of outstanding claims that had been 21 advanced to the Ontario Government? 22 A: A large number. 23 Q: And ONAS would have been involved 24 with these claims? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And I understand that, by and large 2 they remain unsettled? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: So that ONAS, being an advocate for 5 the First Nations, it could be a voice really without a 6 capacity to act? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And this, sir, I would suggest could 9 result in substantial frustration at the First Nation 10 level? 11 A: Sure. 12 Q: And if, in fact, the First Nation 13 members were of the view that they had certain land 14 rights, in this case to the Park, would you agree that 15 when all else fails the common law still provided self- 16 help remedies for situations of trespass? 17 A: I just am not in a position to give 18 an opinion on that without reading the law and studying 19 the facts of the case. I just couldn't responsibly 20 answer that question. 21 Q: Okay. That's fine. In your 22 evidence, sir, you spoke about the -- the politicians and 23 their support for their constituents. 24 Is it fair to say that when you made that 25 response you were not thinking of the First Nations


1 people as the constituents of the politicians? 2 A: Well, I think the context of the 3 discussion was that we were talking about communications. 4 There was communication going on with the occupiers and 5 with other members of the band through the police and 6 others, and my reference, I think, was to other 7 stakeholders. 8 Q: Well just to get some context to what 9 was happening, what culminated in the problems in 10 September 1995. 11 Were you aware, sir, as Deputy Minister, 12 that in 1993 the range -- the shooting range was occupied 13 by some of the members of what was then the Chippewa of 14 Kettle and Stony Point? 15 A: There were -- there were a member of 16 documents generated around the time, briefing documents, 17 explaining the history and in or about that time I 18 learned some of the history of this particular matter, 19 yes. 20 Q: Well, I will tell you my -- my 21 clients' position is that when there was an occupation of 22 the range in 1993 there was no response by the -- no 23 response or action by the OPP. 24 Is this consistent with your 25 understanding?


1 A: I don't know the answer to that. 2 Q: I see. Well, I'll -- I'll move to 3 1995. In July of 1995 while the range was occupied the 4 occupation extended to include the barracks, were you 5 aware of that; the barracks up at the Camp? 6 A: Yes, I was aware of that. 7 Q: And my understanding that around that 8 time the OPP, they took no action. 9 Is this your understanding? 10 A: Yes. But what I'm puzzled by is who 11 owned that land at the time. 12 Why would the OPP take action with respect 13 to that land? 14 Would that land not have been under 15 federal jurisdiction? 16 Q: Probably it was, sir. Probably it 17 was. 18 A: So maybe that's why they took no 19 action at the time. 20 Q: Yes. But at the same time on August 21 the 2nd there -- around August the 1st and August the 2nd 22 there were meetings in which senior people from the 23 Provincial Government were contemplating what would 24 happen if this occupation extended to the Park? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: So, the situation is that at the end 2 of August the range and the barracks are now occupied, 3 nothing is done by the police, presumably because it's 4 Federal lands, but the Province is taking a look to see 5 what -- if it spills over into the Park. 6 A: I think that's fair. 7 Q: And when there was the occupation of 8 the Park on September the 4th it means that the range is 9 occupied, the barracks are taken and now the Park is 10 occupied. 11 And again what happens is the Provincial 12 Government takes the view that this is just a situation 13 of trespass, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Yeah. And at the same time the OPP 16 are trying to see if they can develop some dialogue with 17 the occupiers. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And then on September the 5th certain 20 things happen on the ground. For instance, the movement 21 of picnic tables; did you hear anything about that? 22 A: I heard about various things which 23 were said to be happening in the Park. 24 Q: Yes. There was -- there was evidence 25 that some picnic tables were moved from the Park to the


1 sandy parking lot adjacent to the Park. And there's also 2 evidence that there was a situation where OPP cars had 3 rammed the picnic tables. 4 Had you heard of that? 5 A: I don't recall that specifically. 6 Q: But what was happening on the 5th is 7 that there was a number of meetings trying to determine 8 how best to deal with the situation. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: So -- and is it fair to say that 11 there was a -- that there were two (2) operations that 12 were taking place; one of them would be the OPP trying to 13 plan how do we deal with this situation on the ground and 14 the political people trying to develop a -- to deal with 15 it from a point of your policy? 16 A: Yes, I'd say the Government people 17 trying to deal with it from the point of view of policy, 18 yes. 19 Q: Yes. And this situation continued 20 throughout the 5th, which was Tuesday the 5th of 21 September, and throughout Wednesday the 6th of September. 22 A: That's right. 23 Q: And by the 7th of September the 24 tragedy had occurred. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Is it fair to say that things had 2 moved at such a very fast pace that the Government 3 planning had not been completed when the situation got 4 out of hand? 5 A: I'm not sure whether it's fair to say 6 that things had moved at a very rapid pace or simply that 7 an event occurred. And I don't know if there's a 8 difference between those two. I mean what's -- what's -- 9 Q: I'm prepared to accept either. So an 10 event occurred but when this event occurred, by that time 11 the Government had not yet formulated a total plan to 12 deal with the occupation of the Park? 13 A: I think that's fair. 14 Q: Now, Mr. Taman, is it fair to say 15 that very -- from your personal knowledge up until the 16 time you left government, that very little had changed as 17 between the relationship with First Nations people and 18 the capacity to -- to more meaningful influence their own 19 lives, than when you got involved in government first? 20 Very little had changed. 21 A: I think very little has changed for a 22 very long time, much longer than that. 23 Q: And would you agree with me, sir, 24 that -- now I was going to ask you about some common 25 sense dictating something, but I think you would not have


1 the total franchise on common sense. 2 Mr. Taman, thank you very much. Those are 3 my questions. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 5 Mr. Ross. 6 Yes...? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 11 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Taman. 12 A: Good afternoon. 13 Q: I'm Colleen Johnson. I represent the 14 Kettle and Stony Point First Nation. I just have one 15 area that I'm going to ask you about and you have 16 referred to it in your notes at Tab, I believe it's 23. 17 And it's got to do with the meeting between Grand Chief 18 Mercredi, Chief Tom Bressette and the Premier. 19 So if you want to refer to your notes, 20 feel free. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What page is 22 that, I'm sorry? I've got the Tab 23, I'm just not sure 23 what page you're referring to. 24 THE WITNESS: It begins, Commissioner, at 25 page 129.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 129. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 4 Q: And that was going to be my first 5 question. It does begin at page 129; is that correct? 6 A: Yes, I think that is correct. 7 Q: And does it begin where it says, 8 "Chief B." Is that the first part of your note or is the 9 top portion from that meeting as well? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 A: The -- the notes above relate to 14 something else entirely. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: And I think the note of this meeting 17 -- it begins with the reference to Chief B. 18 Q: Which would be Chief Tom Bressette? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And can you indicate for me, are 21 those notes background notes or are -- do you believe 22 them to be things that you were actually taking while 23 sitting there? 24 A: These are notes that I took while 25 sitting there.


1 Q: Okay. Now can you tell me, were you 2 at the meeting from the very beginning? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Now, you've indicated that it was a 5 fairly lengthy meeting; is that correct? You said it 6 went on for some time. 7 A: It was much longer than had been 8 planned. I can't honestly say how long -- I don't think 9 it was longer than an hour. It might have been even 10 thirty-five (35) or forty (40) minutes. 11 Q: Okay. And can you recall for us 12 again, you indicated that yourself was there, Minister 13 Harnick was there attending? 14 A: The Attorney General was there, I was 15 there, the Premier was there, Chief Bressette, Grand 16 Chief Mercredi... 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: That may have been it. It was a very 21 small group. 22 Q: Do you recall, was there a young 23 woman there as well? 24 A: Give me a hint. 25 Q: And I believe in -- in Grand Chief


1 Mercredi's testimony he indicated young to him was under 2 thirty-five (35), so. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: With the Premier. 7 A: It would have been usual for there to 8 be someone from the Premier's office there, so if Chief 9 Mercredi remembered that, I wouldn't disagree. 10 Q: He didn't recall who, but he recalled 11 a young woman. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: The way you described the meeting 16 seemed as though the character of it was fairly give and 17 take, and a productive meeting. 18 Is that your recollection? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Would you agree that tensions at that 21 time on that day were -- continued to be very, very high 22 amongst the native people? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. Would you agree that tensions 25 were very, very high between the Minister -- between


1 Chief Bressette and Chief Mercredi and the Premier? 2 A: I wouldn't have said the meeting was 3 a real -- was a tense one. At least, that's not my 4 recollection. I think there was a certain amount of 5 nervousness going into the meeting because there had been 6 some reluctance to have the meeting, some concern about 7 how it appeared. 8 But, as I said, the kind of human reaction 9 of friendly people meeting each other seemed to take hold 10 quite quickly and I, at least, thought that it was quite 11 an open and friendly meeting. 12 Q: Would you agree that it started out 13 with tensions fairly high? 14 A: Yeah, it might be fair to say that it 15 was tense at the beginning. 16 Q: Now it seems that from the previous 17 testimony of the two (2) chiefs, that initially Chief 18 Bressette would have done a lot of the presenting. 19 Would that be your recollection? 20 A: That's what my notes suggest, yes. 21 Q: And do you have an independent 22 recollection of the meeting as well? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Do you have any independent 25 recollection of the meeting at all?


1 A: Oh, sorry, excuse me. Yes, I have 2 some independent recollection of the meeting, yes. 3 Q: Okay. Do you recall the beginning of 4 the meeting when the Premier entered the room? 5 A: What about it? 6 Q: I'm wondering if you recall the 7 Premier entering the room. 8 A: I don't recall the Premier entering 9 the room, no. 10 Q: All right. Now, Chief Bressette's 11 testimony indicated that -- that the tension amongst the 12 -- the Premier and Minister Harnick was fairly evident? 13 A: The tension... 14 Q: Within the two (2) of them was -- was 15 fairly evident? 16 A: Well, as I say... 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's already 18 said there wasn't. 19 I'm sorry, yes...? 20 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, indeed, but in 21 addition I don't recall that being Chief Bressette's 22 evidence. I don't recall him saying that. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 24 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: If I might -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- are you


1 referring to the Chief's evidence. 2 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: I'm attempting to. 3 I -- I just had these -- had the transcript handed to 4 me. If I might just have a moment? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: 9 Q: On page 160 of the transcript, of the 10 March 2nd testimony of Chief Bressette he indicates that 11 the question to him is, you recall that: 12 "What was said in the meeting when Mr. 13 Harnick and Mr. Harris were in the 14 room?" 15 And the answer is: 16 "Well, the first thing I found was 17 rather strange that he walked in and 18 the first thing he said was, Let me 19 very clear about this, I didn't tell 20 anybody to kill anybody. That's the 21 first thing that came out of his mouth. 22 He put his hands on the table because 23 we were in this big committee room. He 24 put his hands on the table and when he 25 lifted at his hands you could see his


1 hand imprints were still on the table, 2 how perspiring his hands were. They 3 were leaving marks wherever, and his 4 hands were always moving. He really 5 looked nervous about meeting with us." 6 A: I don't recall the Premier saying 7 those things. I think it's fair to say that the -- you 8 know, the -- I mean, it was a difficult time and a 9 difficult issue, and none of these people had met before, 10 and I think -- I mean, I think it might be fair to say 11 that the meeting got off to a somewhat tense start. 12 Speaking for myself I felt somewhat nervous wondering 13 where this was all going to take us. 14 Q: Now, you indicated before that there 15 was a hesitancy to have the Premier meet because there 16 was no intention on behalf of government to be involved 17 in negotiations; is that correct? 18 A: Yes, that's essentially right. 19 Q: Would you not agree that -- that a 20 request to meet with the National Chief is somewhat 21 different than -- than a request to meet with 22 negotiators? 23 A: That's what I thought. 24 Q: Were you advocating for a meeting -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- with the National Chief? Tell us 2 about that. 3 A: Well, the -- I mean I -- the issue 4 had arisen as to whether or not -- how the Government 5 should respond to a request to meet with Grand Chief 6 Mercredi. There were some advisors who thought that this 7 was inconsistent with the position that the Government 8 would not negotiate with the occupiers. 9 My recollection is that I thought this was 10 quite different from negotiating with the occupiers and 11 that it opened up an avenue of dialogue with the First 12 Nation, the occupiers, and the others, and to the extent 13 it was worth doing. And I didn't think it was likely to 14 be seen by others as being negotiating with -- with the 15 occupiers. 16 Q: Would you also agree that it's 17 supportive of the concept of self-government and nation 18 to nation negotiation? 19 A: Me, personally? 20 Q: Yes, you personally. 21 A: Sure. 22 Q: Is that an appropriate for 23 governments to respond to each other do you think? 24 A: Sure. 25 Q: Would you want to say anything more


1 on that? 2 A: Well, I think it's -- again if we go 3 back to this issue about the extent to which, you know, 4 an occupation by a First Nation is different from an 5 occupation by, you know, a group of weekend drinkers or 6 whatever, I mean there is -- there is a government to 7 government relationship which is if not existent, 8 emerging. 9 I think that reflects or should be 10 reflected in the way people are treated. I don't -- that 11 all seems correct to me. 12 Again, remember at this stage that there 13 was a lack of clarity. It's clear from what Chief 14 Bressette said about, you know, the extent to which these 15 occupiers were supported by the First Nation, not 16 supported by the First Nation and so on. 17 So, what their demands were -- I mean, all 18 of this was quite uncertain at the time. I don't recall 19 there being any real, you know, discussion about the idea 20 of self-government. It was really just a practical issue 21 of could this be beneficial, opening of dialogue. 22 And some of us thought it could and the -- 23 the Premier agreed and the meeting took place. 24 Q: With regards to whether those people 25 who were present in the Park were supported by Chief


1 Bressette and the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, 2 would you agree that while he may not have supported some 3 of the actions that were occurring, that that's a 4 separate issue from whether he supported the claim? 5 A: Sure. I -- I'm not in a position to 6 speak for him. I didn't mean to speak for him, only to 7 say that my note reflects that he was not supporting the 8 occupiers. 9 Q: Certainly he -- do you recall that he 10 indicated that there was, at any point, that it was 11 tragic? I believe your notes reflect that the loss of 12 life was tragic for everyone involved? 13 A: I have a note that he said that. 14 Q: At page 130, I believe, about the -- 15 A: That's what my note says, yes. 16 Q: -- third paragraph down. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Would you -- would you characterize, 19 certainly Chief Bressette and perhaps Chief Mercredi too, 20 as still reeling from the loss of life? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: It just was concerning to me because 23 the characterization of the meeting up until this point 24 in time, from what I heard from you, sounded as if it was 25 simply a calm, cool exchange of ideas.


1 And I take it that there was a lot more to 2 that meeting than that. 3 A: Yes. I think that's fair. I -- I 4 may have expressed myself badly. I -- I -- what I 5 intended to convey was that there had been reservations 6 among some of the Premier's advisors, the reservations 7 turned out not to be warranted. It's true that what you 8 say is also part of the meeting. 9 Q: I have just one (1) final question 10 for you. And it's overall -- you referred to some of the 11 -- the meetings in -- in your initial testimony that were 12 occurring as being education of a new government and 13 policy -- policy shift and things like that, and that 14 with the new government that's to be expected. 15 Would you agree that new governments 16 aside, and policy shifts aside, none of that supercedes 17 Aboriginal rights? 18 A: I don't think the Aboriginal rights 19 are known and clarified in a way that permits a 20 government to say this is what they are and we have 21 nothing to think about. 22 And I think, on the contrary, that 23 governments have to have policies about rights they 24 recognize, claims for rights they don't recognize, 25 procedures they want to follow for regarding disputes and


1 so on. 2 And I think those are important policy 3 differences between government; some being more open on 4 those issues than others. 5 Q: Does that call for broad education in 6 terms of Aboriginal rights -- 7 A: Sure. 8 Q: -- with regards to government? 9 A: Sure. 10 Q: How would you effect that? 11 A: Well, I think we try to -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 13 that that's -- 14 15 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: That's fine. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- a 17 question for this Witness. 18 MS. COLLEEN JOHNSON: That's fine. Thank 19 you very much. 20 THE WITNESS: Thanks, Counsel. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 22 very much. I think we'll take an afternoon break now. 23 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 24 for fifteen (15) minutes. 25


1 --- Upon recessing at 3:07 p.m. 2 --- Upon resuming at 3:25 p.m. 3 4 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 5 resumed; please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 afternoon. 8 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Good afternoon, 9 Commissioner. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 12 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Taman. My name 13 is Matthew Horner and I represent the Chiefs of Ontario. 14 I'm just going to be asking a few questions this 15 afternoon. 16 I wanted to start, Mr. Taman, with 17 comments you made yesterday regarding meeting with some 18 civil servants in the early morning of September 6th, 19 1995. And they were concerned about the Premier's views, 20 or the -- the statements made by -- by Deb Hutton at the 21 IMC meeting regarding the hawkish atmosphere. 22 And -- and you stated that you told them 23 that your view was that it was important that nobody got 24 hurt. And you said that the Solicitor General and the 25 Attorney General agreed with this and that generally, you


1 should -- we should try to be stabilizing the situation 2 both internally and externally. 3 And I want to ask you a little bit more 4 about stabilizing the situation internally. What did you 5 mean by that? 6 A: Well, I meant that we should be 7 trying to be calm and that we shouldn't be taking too 8 seriously every word that was said by whoever said it and 9 that we should be working our way methodically through 10 the problem. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: And would you agree that -- that it 15 was this slower approach, this methodical approach as you 16 said, that was required in order for the Government to 17 develop its policy response to this situation? 18 A: I think it was more in my mind an 19 issue of giving the situation a time -- a decent time to 20 develop so that it would be possible to bring it to a 21 safe resolution. 22 Q: And so -- so -- then that -- but 23 that's -- I would understand that as being more of an 24 external stabilization, that you wanted the situation 25 down at the Park.


1 And so was there anything more internal, 2 within government, that you were concerned should be 3 stabilized? 4 A: I was concerned that we get some 5 clarity about what was going on; that we get some clarity 6 about instructions. It fairly quickly became clear to me 7 that we had to get some clarity about who should be at 8 what meeting and so on. 9 So, these were all things that we needed 10 to do to settle into the problem. 11 Q: Right. And in your -- following the 12 incidents of September 6th, you -- you, in the reports 13 that we've seen, such as Exhibit 708, there was an 14 emphasis that there should be improved communications 15 strategy set up within government? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And was that something that at the 18 time you were concerned needed to be stabilized? 19 A: I think it became clear over the few 20 days that we didn't have very good public communications 21 about what was going on. 22 As I said earlier, that we were -- we'd 23 kind of jumped into the communications mode that you use 24 in an ongoing criminal investigation, which is that you 25 say nothing to anybody, but probably not the right mode


1 to be in for an ongoing matter in a community. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Turning to the dining room meeting, 6 which I know we have discussed, but I do have to touch on 7 it. I just wanted to be clear, it wasn't clear to 8 through your evidence that -- whether this meeting was, 9 as you understood it, organized by the Premier? 10 A: As far as I know, it was organized by 11 the Premier's office. 12 Q: And they would organize a meeting at 13 his request? 14 A: That's right. 15 Q: And they would decide who attended at 16 the meeting? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And you've also noted in your 19 evidence that prior to that meeting you met with the 20 Attorney General and he informed you that the Premier 21 wanted the occupiers removed. 22 And -- and you also indicated that you 23 understood that you were going to obtain an injunction; 24 as the Deputy Attorney General that was your concern? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And from your evidence you -- you 2 indicated yesterday that you received that instruction, 3 but you weren't quite clear on how that was passed along 4 to -- to the people who had -- to who had -- who had 5 prepared the motion materials. You -- you indicated that 6 you thought Julie Jai might be -- be following that up. 7 Is that normally how information would get 8 passed down the Government lines? 9 A: Sure. It's one (1) of the ways. 10 Q: You wouldn't expect that if you had 11 received a formal instruction from the Attorney General 12 that you would take a more formal approach to passing 13 that direct message onto Mr. McCabe? 14 A: No, I think not. And I think that's 15 one (1) of the things that's, to some extent, unique 16 about the Ministry of the Attorney General, that lawyers 17 are talking to the Attorney General about problems all 18 the time and -- and taking instructions. 19 Q: All right. So you had clear 20 instructions from -- from the Attorney General and you 21 knew that the Premier wanted to remove the -- the 22 occupiers within twenty-four (24) hours or as soon as 23 possible. 24 I'm still left wondering what -- what you 25 saw as the purpose of the Premier's meeting in the dining


1 room. 2 A: I thought that the purpose of the 3 meeting was to make sure that everybody understood what 4 the Premier's view was. 5 Q: And had you been -- were you 6 concerned that or had you seen any evidence that people 7 did not know what the Premier's view was on this matter? 8 A: Well, I think it often happens in 9 government and maybe particularly with a new government 10 that the -- the political side and the public service 11 side are not convinced that they understand each other. 12 And so it wouldn't be unusual for the public servants to 13 seek a meeting with the Minister or the Premier to say, 14 We want to make sure you understand our advice. 15 And it wouldn't be unusual for the Premier 16 to say, I want you to come over to my office so that 17 we're all sure what you're supposed to be doing. 18 In this particular case my -- my inference 19 was that he wanted to make sure that everybody 20 understood. 21 Q: The attendees at that meeting were 22 the Ministers, the Minister of the Attorney General, the 23 Solicitor General, and Natural Resources, as well as 24 their Deputy Ministers and political aides, and Mr. Fox, 25 Mr. -- and Mr. Patrick among others.


1 Was it your understanding that any of 2 those people had concern -- had -- were not wishing to 3 fulfill the -- the Premier's policy? 4 A: No, I -- I mean, I'm not in a 5 position to say what was in the Premier's mind beyond -- 6 that judging from his conduct he seemed to think it was 7 worthwhile to make sure everyone was on the same page. 8 Q: Were you aware of any need for Ron 9 Fox to be at the dining room meeting? 10 A: And at that stage Ron Fox was 11 involved in most of the meetings that the Solicitor 12 General and the Deputy were involved in that I was 13 involved in. So, I don't know whether -- whether -- I 14 don't know who invited Ron Fox to the meeting. 15 Q: But you would suspect that it would 16 be the Premier or the Premier's office? 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Wait a minute. 18 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. 19 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: I'm sorry. I'm 20 sorry. I've -- I asked that the wrong way. 21 THE WITNESS: I just don't know -- 22 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: We -- 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, we've got 24 evidence from Ron. If he doesn't know, he doesn't know, 25 but we know from Ron Fox who invited him.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, 4 what's -- 5 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, My Friend Mr. 6 Horner points out there's some things we don't know and 7 My Friend can ask that question, but if he knows. 8 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Thank you. 9 THE WITNESS: I don't know who invited 10 Ron Fox. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 13 Q: You don't know who invited Ron Fox. 14 As you understood it, a meeting organized by the Premier, 15 people are invited by the Premier in general? 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Wait a minute. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- yes, 18 Mr. Downard...? 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: The Witness has made 20 it clear he'd only be speculating on this. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, he 22 doesn't know. 23 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: He doesn't know. 24 THE WITNESS: It -- it wouldn't be 25 uncommon for the Premier's office to say I want you to be


1 sure the minister's there and for the minister then to 2 bring along two (2) or three (3) staff people. So you -- 3 you couldn't, in fairness, judge from the fact that a 4 person was there exactly who had asked him to come. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MATTHEW HORNER: 7 Q: And I just want to be clear on one 8 other portion of your evidence. Clearly it would be 9 inappropriate, in your view, however you draw the line, 10 for the Government to direct the operations of the OPP? 11 A: I agree with that. 12 Q: And is it fair to say that your 13 opinion -- it had been inappropriate to call the dining 14 room meeting because it gave the appearance of directing 15 the police? 16 A: I don't think I said that. 17 Q: Okay. What was your concern about 18 the calling of the dining room meeting? 19 A: I didn't really have a concern about 20 the calling of the dining room meeting, except that as it 21 emerged there was quite a lot of discussion about taking 22 care not to be going over the line to give operational 23 instructions to the OPP, and that's all. 24 Q: So you were concerned about -- that 25 some of the discussions that occurred at the dining room


1 meeting were -- could be seen as inappropriate? 2 A: Yeah. I thought that they were -- I 3 thought that it was a discussion that was perfectly 4 appropriate for the Premier to have with his deputies and 5 his ministers. I was uncomfortable with having the 6 discussion with the OPP officers in the room. 7 Q: And that -- and you were 8 uncomfortable with them and you did say this because it - 9 - it could give the appearance of directing the police? 10 A: It could give the appearance or it 11 could lead to the fact of. 12 Q: And when Mr. Patrick was before this 13 Inquiry, he agreed with that. He said that -- that it 14 had the effect of communicating those things that, quote, 15 "We were there, we shouldn't have been," closed quote. 16 Would you agree with that statement? 17 A: Yeah, with hindsight. I mean, again, 18 in fairness to everybody who was involved, I don't even 19 know that the Premier knew who they were. So I'm not 20 attributing any wrongdoing. It was what prompted me the 21 next day to say we should be clear about whose at what 22 meeting and why. 23 Q: And I'll grant you that it is with 24 hindsight, but to be clear, that hindsight kicked in 25 immediately. And so when you heard of the events of --


1 of September 6th, your first concern was to change the 2 structure to prevent meetings such as that, that occurred 3 in the dining room. 4 A: It wasn't really focussed just on the 5 dining room meeting. It -- it was also related to, you 6 know, other conversations that I'd had with people 7 suggesting that they were feeling some pressure from 8 political staff to take a particular direction. 9 And I discussed it with the other deputies 10 and I think with the ministers and we agreed that we 11 should try to be more orderly in these meetings. 12 Q: One moment's indulgence, Mr. 13 Commissioner. 14 Thank you, Mr. Taman. 15 Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 17 Mr. Horner. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 MR. MATTHEW HORNER: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe 21 you're up now, Mr. Falconer. You just come in off the 22 highway but I believe you're up now. It's only twenty to 23 4:00. If it were closer to 4:30 I'd call it a day and 24 give you a chance to recover but I think we still have 25 almost an hour to go before we usually break.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: May I have a brief 2 indulgence while I just gather my papers? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I can't hear 4 you back there, but -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: May I have a brief 6 indulgence while I just gather my papers? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He just wants a brief 8 indulgence while he gets organized. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I have 10 no problem. Should we take a short break? 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's fine. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know 17 you're being... 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know 22 you're being briefed by Mr. Eyolfson and possibly by Mr. 23 Roy and so on, but we've gone over a lot of ground. I'm 24 sure you're -- even though you haven't been here, you're 25 aware of some the ground that has been well gone over.


1 Is that fair to say? 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, if may be of 3 assistance. When Mr. Taman raised the fact of not being 4 present with Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Rosenthal replied to 5 Mr. Taman that he read every word he said yesterday, 6 that's because I heard it in the car going down on the 7 live webcast. 8 The beauties of modern technology is that 9 we're all doing our best to keep up with everything being 10 said. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Isn't it 12 amazing? The miracle of modern technology; it's 13 phenomenal. 14 Well, do you have a more reasonable -- 15 more recent estimate on how long -- forgive the Freudian 16 slip. Do you have a more recent -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I can do an 18 internet search on "Freudian" and I think I could assist 19 with that slip. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 21 a more recent estimate? 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, I believe I 23 will be between two (2) and three (3) hours. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Still two 25 (2) or three (3) hours?


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah, instead of 2 two (2) to four (4). 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 4 not sure that that's much of an improvement. If you can 5 find two (2) or three (3) hours worth of questions to ask 6 I could go -- 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But I do want to 8 indicate, as I indicated to My Friend this afternoon, 9 what I -- what I did, and I don't want to take too much 10 time with this. I don't mean to waste your time, Mr. 11 Commissioner. 12 What I did was, I made sure I was able to 13 monitor the evidence of Mr. Taman this afternoon. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: However, I didn't 16 have the luxury of this morning because I was in front of 17 -- giving a presentation. 18 So what -- I have half an hour to forty- 19 five (45) minutes of an area that I know hasn't been 20 touched by anyone. And then what I was respectfully 21 request is that that might the appropriate time for a 22 break -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And then 24 you'll re-assess your situation. 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. I'll


1 read the transcript tonight. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And that will give 4 me the opportunity to catch up full-bore if that's all 5 right with the Court? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's do 7 that; let's carry on. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: All right. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: Mr. Taman, my name is Julian Falconer 12 and I act for Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto. Mr. 13 Eyolfson is co-counsel to my right. 14 Mr. Taman, can you assist me -- you made 15 mention to my previous -- the previous questioner, Mr. 16 Horner, that in respect of the dining room meeting you 17 don't even know if the Premier knew that police officers 18 were present in the room. 19 Did you say that? 20 A: I did say that. 21 Q: Do you think it's important for a 22 Premier to know who's in the room when he's speaking in 23 the room? 24 A: Premiers are in lots of meetings with 25 lots of people they don't know.


1 Q: All right. So from your perspective, 2 the Premier's lack of knowledge as to who's in the room, 3 if that were true, wouldn't be of concern to you? 4 A: Well, I'm just saying that in real 5 life, Premier's come in to rooms full of people; some of 6 them have been invited by people they want to be there. 7 For all I know, he did know who Fox and Patrick were. 8 If I thought about it, I might be able to, 9 you know, I might be able to recall whether they were 10 introduced. I don't know for sure whether he knew who 11 they were. 12 Q: Perhaps I can refresh your memory. 13 If you could work with me for a minute. We've heard 14 evidence from both Superintendent Fox and Sergeant 15 Patrick -- I'm sorry, Inspector Patrick, I'm terrible 16 with this. 17 We've heard evidence from both of them 18 that they were introduced, in -- in some cases twice, and 19 in one case, once. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 21 Downard...? We're just at the front end of this, Mr. 22 Downard. 23 Yes, do you have an objection? 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I know, but Inspector 25 Fox testified that he was not sure that he was introduced


1 when the Premier was in the room. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: That's my 4 recollection. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well I don't share 6 Mr. Downard's recollection. We've heard evidence 7 according to -- let's just work with Patrick for a 8 moment, since apparently Mr. Downard and I agree -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, Mr. -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- that Patrick 11 testified, in unequivocal terms, that Mr. Lindsey, he 12 would be the secretary, yes, Mr. Lindsey introduced both 13 Patrick and Scott to the room when they entered and Mr. 14 Patrick was struck by that. Now, that was the nature of 15 the evidence. 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Excuse me, that was 18 the nature of the evidence; that Patrick was struck by 19 the fact that they were introduced in that fashion -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- by their rank. 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Only -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 24 Downard, do you have a different recollection? 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: My Friend has -- My --


1 Inspector Patrick said only Inspector Fox was introduced. 2 He, Patrick, was not introduced. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: By his rank. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: No, Patrick said that 5 he -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- was not introduced. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, Inspector Fox 9 was introduced by his rank, for the third time. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 11 point arguing this. Somehow or other there is a 12 transcript and we can get it if we need to. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, there is. 14 Inspector Fox was introduced by his rank. Perhaps his 15 counsel Ms. Tuck-Jackson can refresh your memories. She 16 will also, I assume, confirm that. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 18 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Yes, Mr. 19 Commissioner, it is my recollection that Inspector 20 Patrick testified that then Inspector Fox was introduced 21 by his rank. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 23 Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER:


1 Q: Now, in circumstances where -- I 2 understand this room was -- what we call the dining room 3 was the size of a standard boardroom? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Right. In circumstances where it is 6 the testimony of Officer Patrick that Inspector Fox was 7 introduced by his rank, is there any reason to doubt, in 8 your mind, that that happened? 9 A: No, I have no opinion on it one (1) 10 way or the other. 11 Q: All right. So you would defer to 12 Patrick's memory on that? 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: Now, leaving aside the introduction 15 of a police officer, you made mention before that the 16 circumstances that premiers find themselves in is they 17 can often be talking to rooms in circumstances where they 18 may not know everyone that's there? 19 A: Right. 20 Q: But you and I can agree that a 21 meeting in the Premier's dining room, to discuss an 22 emergent crisis issue, hardly represents the general- 23 style meeting that premiers attend where they don't know 24 who's in the room. 25 Can we agree on that?


1 A: No. 2 Q: All right. So is it your evidence, 3 then, that meetings in the Premier's dining room between 4 Cabinet ministers, or some Cabinet ministers, and the 5 Premier, often include people that the Premier doesn't 6 know? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Their titles he doesn't know? 9 A: Well, all I'm saying is that premiers 10 go to a lot of meetings, that ministers and others bring 11 staffers. This is the early days of the Government, I 12 don't know that the Premier knew all the people, but I 13 don't know that he didn't either. 14 Q: May we draw the inference from you 15 raising that, firstly, with Mr. Horner, may we draw the 16 inference that, in some respects, given what you new 17 about the Premier, he may not have spoken that way if he 18 had known they were police officers? 19 Is that the inference we ought to draw 20 from what you said? 21 A: No, I don't think you need to draw 22 any inference from what I said beyond that I didn't know 23 if the Premier knew everybody in the room. 24 Q: No, I -- it's not -- with great 25 respect, Mr. Taman, it's not about whether I need to draw


1 the inference, I'm asking you a question: May we draw 2 the inference from what you've said? 3 A: No, you may not draw the inference. 4 Q: All right. So going back a step 5 then, would you agree with me that if the Premier made 6 comments concerning his views of whether the police 7 engaged in good police practices or bad police practices, 8 if he made those comments in front of police officers, 9 that was an unfortunate event? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: All right. And can we also agree 12 that the reason it was an unfortunate event is while you, 13 Mr. Taman, Deputy Attorney General, may have taken his 14 comments one (1) way, a police officer may have taken 15 them entirely another, correct? 16 A: Well I don't know about some and 17 another, but the danger, as I see it, is that the police 18 officers might consider that they were being urged to 19 operate in a certain way. 20 Q: Now you had some dealings with then 21 Inspector Fox? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Your staff, Ms. Jai in particular, 24 had extensive dealings with then Inspector Fox? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: The evidence we've heard, and not 2 from Ms. Jai in terms of question I've asked, the 3 evidence we've heard has been uncontradicted in the sense 4 of the credibility and judgment of Inspector Fox. 5 Do you dispute that? 6 A: I don't know what evidence has been 7 heard. 8 Q: I'm asking you -- well, let me back 9 up and rephrase it so that it's clear. 10 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Just a minute. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 12 minute, Mr. Falconer. 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to 14 rephrase it. Does My Friend want to object before I 15 rephrase it? 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: My Friend rephrases 17 more often than is appropriate. I mean -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's your 19 objection then? 20 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: My objection is, it 21 is inappropriate to be talking about evidence witnesses 22 are giving as to the credibility of other witnesses. 23 Evidence by one (1) witness as to the 24 credibility of another is entirely inappropriate 25 evidence. That is a matter for you, sir. And whether --


1 whether there are ten (10) people who come into this room 2 and say Inspector Fox is the most credible person who was 3 ever born, it doesn't matter and it's irrelevant because 4 it's for you. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Now if Mr. Downard 6 had risen each time Mr. Sandler asked those questions of 7 various police officers concerning other police officers, 8 there would be some sincerity to that objection. 9 But with great respect, he can't cherry 10 pick on the objections. He can't rise and say I object 11 today but yesterday it was okay when it suited my 12 purposes. Thus far -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, yes. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thus far witnesses 15 have been permitted to testify on their experiences with 16 other professionals in the setting. What I'm asking this 17 Witness, who said he's had experience with Mr. Fox, I'm 18 asking does he dispute the evidence that we've heard to 19 date from other witnesses about Inspector Fox. 20 But I was going to rephrase it to make it 21 easier to deal with. But My Friend objects -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's hear 23 your rephrasing and then we'll decide what to do with it. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. Thank 25 you.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: Do you know Inspector Fox to be 4 anything other than a police officer with good judgment? 5 A: I hardly know him at all. I -- I 6 have no reason to doubt his credibility. 7 Q: In your dealings with him or your 8 dealings with those who reported to you that dealt with 9 him, did you experience him to be anything other than a 10 police officer with good judgment? 11 A: No. 12 Q: All right. And did you understand 13 him at the time, and do you continue to understand him 14 today to be an officer of extensive experience? 15 A: I didn't really know what his 16 experience was. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: He looked like a senior man. 19 Q: And he kind of looked like a police 20 officer, didn't he? 21 A: And he kind -- and he kind of looked 22 like a police officer. 23 Q: There's another one to testify on 24 that. I'm notching them up. 25 A: So from that I took it that he was


1 kind of a senior police officer. 2 Q: Fair enough. And if the 3 Commissioner, which he did, heard evidence that Inspector 4 Fox didn't simply take Premier Harris as saying, I trust 5 you to exercise your best professional judgments. 6 The Inspector Fox was offended by the 7 expressions of opinion in front of him by the Premier and 8 he felt he had crossed the line. 9 If Inspector Fox was offended in that 10 fashion, you'd agree with me it's a perfect example how 11 different people can take the expressions of a Premier in 12 those circumstances different ways, agreed? 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: And if Patrick took the expressions 15 of opinion by Cabinet Minister Hodgson as an improper 16 crossing of the line in terms of political interference, 17 if Patrick took the expressions of opinion by Hodgson in 18 that fashion, that would be another example of something 19 you weren't struck by at the time, correct? But someone 20 else took a different view. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Stop. 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: This witness didn't 23 recall any comments by Mr. Hodgson. How can this witness 24 be asked to give an opinion on it? 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Unfortunately Mr.


1 Downard does not recall the evidence. The evidence of 2 Officer Patrick on this issue was that cabinet -- 3 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, the evidence of 4 this witness. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The evidence of 6 Officer Patrick was that Cabinet Minister Hodgson 7 expressed views to him that he felt crossed the line in 8 terms of political interference with the job of the 9 police. 10 Particularly, This is my land, there's no 11 reason not to go back and get it, and on and on. And so 12 my only point is, thus far, the tenure of Mr. Taman's 13 evidence has been that he saw no problems in the room at 14 that level. 15 Now if, in fact -- if, in fact, Mr. Taman 16 did see these problems then I stand corrected, but I did 17 not take that from his evidence, to be fair. So I'll 18 take a step back and canvas that with Mr. Taman. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 20 an objection -- 21 OBJ MS. ERIN TULLY: Well I have the exact 22 same objection. This witness has not testified. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I said I'll take a 24 step back. 25 MS. ERIN TULLY: He testified that he


1 doesn't recollect Mr. Hodgson making comments. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, that's 3 right he has. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 6 Q: Would you agree with me if Mr. 7 Hodgson's comments struck you as improper political 8 interference, that would be something you'd remember? 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 10 Downard...? He said he didn't -- 11 MR. PETER DOWNARD: He said he didn't 12 recall the comments -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- have any 14 recollection of Mr. Hodgson -- 15 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Indeed. I don't 16 understand -- 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no I'm allowed 18 to ask now questions saying if X happened you think you'd 19 remember X. It's a proper question. And that's all I 20 just asked. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well 22 he -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: It would be 24 noteworthy that he -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- he's


1 already testified that he did not hear Mr. Hodgson make 2 any comments. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I've pursued a 4 second question. If on the day you were driving down the 5 road there was a baseball thrown at the side of your car, 6 that's something you'd remember. 7 I'm entitled to ask if -- would that be an 8 event that's noteworthy enough that it would trigger your 9 memory. That's a proper question. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. -- 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I agree with Mr. 12 Falconer. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well 14 I'm not sure I don't. It depends on what -- you 15 understand that his testimony was that he did not recall 16 Mr. Hodgson make any comments? 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So now 19 you've moved to a question that -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's correct. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 23 Q: If Mr. Hodgson had made comments to 24 you at the time that struck you as crossing the line, 25 improper political interference with the job of the


1 police, that would be something you'd find noteworthy, 2 correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you'd remember it today, correct? 5 A: I'd have found it noteworthy at the 6 time and might remember it today. 7 Q: All right. And it's fair to say you 8 just don't remember anything about Mr. Hodgson's 9 comments? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: Again Mr. Patrick, a police officer 12 before this Court, took Mr. Hodgson very differently in 13 the sense that he found him noteworthy in what he 14 remembered. 15 It's possible, for different people in a 16 room, to take what is said differently, agreed? 17 A: Agreed. 18 Q: And -- 19 A: May I say -- may I say, Mr. Falconer? 20 Q: Certainly. 21 A: I -- 22 Q: It's answering my question, correct? 23 A: Yeah, it's answering your question. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: I think you may be starting from a


1 mistaken premise which is that I said, I think, quite 2 clearly that one of the things that drove me to want to 3 restructure this was my concern that the dining room 4 conversation was inappropriate. So -- 5 Q: All right. 6 A: -- I don't think we disagree about 7 that. 8 Q: Fair enough. But it's not just 9 inappropriate from 20/20 hindsight, from many miles away. 10 It was plain inappropriate from the point of view of 11 expressions of opinions by ministers and a Premier in 12 front of police officers; isn't that fair? 13 A: I'm not sure I know what you mean by 14 that. I -- all I can say about it is that a conversation 15 took place that both the Deputy Solicitor General and I 16 were at pains to say, look, let's be careful here because 17 we don't want to be crossing the line of giving 18 instruction to the police officers and that we change the 19 procedure the next day. That's what happened. 20 Q: I'd like to focus for a moment on the 21 change of the procedure that you referred to, just 22 briefly. You talked about creating a situation and I 23 just want to make sure I have my note of that. 24 I apologize, Mr. Taman, but you talked 25 about, this afternoon, I believe it was in answer to


1 questions by Mr. Rosenthal, but I could be wrong, you 2 said, quote, 3 "you wanted to bring order to the 4 interplay between civil service and 5 political staff". 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: That was your testimony? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And that was the focus of the 10 solution you were creating. You called it yesterday a 11 solution within forty-eight (48) hours, correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And that was the focus, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And it goes some distance to 16 explaining why you really today, in answer to Mr. 17 Rosenthal's questions, don't recall whether Patrick and 18 Fox were on the nerve committee, as Mr. Rosenthal called 19 it, or they weren't, correct? 20 A: I'm not sure I understand. 21 Q: Well, you said to Mr. Rosenthal you 22 couldn't remember looking at your notes and looking at -- 23 trying to recall, as you sit here today, you could not 24 recall. 25 You told this to Mr. Rosenthal not a few


1 hours ago. 2 A: Yeah, that's right. 3 Q: You told him you couldn't recall if 4 Patrick and Fox sat on the nerve committee? 5 A: I couldn't recall whether they came 6 to the nerve committee, that's right. 7 Q: Right. And I'm going to suggest to 8 you that the reason you couldn't recall that, is that 9 wasn't the heart of the issue that you were dealing with 10 in terms of the police presence, you were dealing with 11 the issue of the interplay between civil service and 12 political staff, correct? 13 That was the major issue you were aimed 14 at, yes? 15 A: No, I think that what I was concerned 16 about was that the -- was that the political expressions 17 not cross the line to be instructions to the police in 18 operational matters, and that to the extent that there 19 needed to be a forum for that, that it should be a 20 transparent one like the nerve centre. 21 Q: You testified that you did this to 22 bring order to the interplay between the civil service 23 and the political staff, correct? 24 A: I said that. 25 Q: And where do the police sit? Are


1 they members of the civil service? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. So, you -- and -- and you 4 testified in answering Mr. Horner's questions that you 5 had been approached by various people within your 6 Ministry, members of civil service within your Ministry, 7 that you felt that they felt the political staffers were 8 crossing the line or imposing their views or creating 9 some pressure, yes? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And so in your mind, you lumped the 12 civil service qua, civil service/civil servants, staff 13 and the police, yes? 14 A: No. I think you're mistaken, Mr. 15 Falconer. I think that I understood throughout that 16 there was an issue relating to what communications were 17 proper for the Government officials to have with the 18 police and that was an important issue. 19 Q: Was that a separate issue to the 20 issue of bringing order to interplays -- interplay 21 between civil service and political staff? 22 A: I think it was part of that issue. 23 Q: So, it was merged as part of that 24 issue? 25 A: Well, merged -- not merged I don't


1 know, but -- 2 Q: It was part of that issue? 3 A: Well, I don't know whether it was 4 part of the issue, not part of the issue. It was an 5 issue. 6 Q: Well, you used the words, "bringing 7 order to an inter -- the interplay between civil service 8 and political staff," and I want to understand if you saw 9 the police political staff problem or police -- more 10 importantly politicians, ministers, premiers, that 11 problem is a separate distinct problem from the simple 12 question on the interplay between civil service and 13 political staff. 14 Did you see it as distinct? 15 A: I'm -- I'm just not sure what we're 16 getting at here. I -- 17 Q: Well, with great respect, sir, as you 18 know you're a very experienced lawyer, it's -- as a 19 witness you don't go to where I'm getting at, you -- if 20 the question is not something you understand I'll 21 rephrase, but did you understand the question? 22 A: Yes, I understood the question. 23 Q: All right. Could -- with great 24 respect could you answer it? 25 A: No, I -- I don't understand what


1 distinct or not distinct means. I mean, we -- we had a 2 problem. The problem was that there were strong 3 expressions of political views coming from some members 4 of the political staff and I thought that it was 5 important that we create a process that put those 6 expressions in their proper place and that applied to 7 both the public servants, the civil servants in the 8 strict sense, and the police officers. 9 Q: And you'd agree with me that we 10 generally don't use civil servants in the strict sense as 11 the same as police officers, correct? We don't see them 12 in the same light when we analyse these things, do we? 13 A: Well, it's what I intended to say. 14 Q: All right. And in analysing the 15 problem of the interplay between politicians and police, 16 on the one (1) hand, and politicians and strictly civil 17 servants, on the other hand, would you agree with me that 18 the two (2) problems might actually lend themselves to 19 different solutions? 20 A: Sure. 21 Q: And so what might be effective for 22 keeping political staff from strict civil servants, if 23 you will, might not be effective from keeping politicians 24 from police. Agreed? 25 A: Sure.


1 Q: And as you sit here today you don't 2 know what role the police played on the nerve centre, do 3 you? 4 A: Well, I know that the Solicitor 5 General was on the nerve centre and that he is the 6 Minister responsible for policing. And I know that the 7 information that came into the nerve centre came from the 8 police. 9 Q: But you don't know whether the 10 police sat on the nerve centre? 11 A: Whether Inspector Fox. 12 Q: Well, those are the only police 13 officers that you dealt with; yes? 14 A: Yes. What you're asking me is 15 whether or not Inspector Fox came to the nerve centre 16 meeting. 17 Q: Or sat on it. 18 A: Yeah. And I can't recall. 19 Q: All right. And it's fair to say that 20 one (1) of the things you made clear to Mr. Millar was 21 that from the point of view of the role of Fox and 22 Patrick, Fox as far as you were concerned as of September 23 4th was there to facilitate communications back and forth 24 with the police, correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: That's what you saw as his role, to 2 facilitate communications back and forth with the police, 3 correct? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And so to the extent Fox sits on the 6 nerve centre, he's going to naturally facilitate 7 communications back and forth with the police, correct? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: To the extent Fox sits on the IMC or 10 subsequently the Blockade Committee, again, you would 11 expect him to facilitate communications back and forth 12 with the police, correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: What steps once you started to 15 address these issues, let's call it the afternoon or 16 evening of September 6th, 1995, because you had a 17 solution the morning of September 7th; correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: What steps did you take to restrict 20 the information that Fox was communicating back and forth 21 with the police? 22 A: Well, it wasn't my job to restrict 23 the information Fox communicated back and forth. 24 Q: Fair enough, but could you answer my 25 question though? What steps did you take?


1 A: I didn't take any steps beyond 2 setting up the new structure. 3 Q: All right. A new structure where you 4 don't actually recall if those officers were on that 5 committee? 6 A: But I do recall that the new 7 structure had a place for the police input and it was in 8 the senior group of ministers and deputies. 9 Q: But the police also had an 10 opportunity for input at the Blockade Committee level; 11 yes? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: It was anticipated that Fox would do 14 just what he did which was, for example, have 15 communications with Incident Command, correct? 16 A: Well, again I was very surprised to 17 see this bit of transcript I was -- I was shown and this 18 takes us back to the question of personal judgment and so 19 on. So... 20 Q: It was expected that Fox would have 21 communications with Incident Command, correct? 22 A: It was required that he have 23 communications -- 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: -- with Incident Command.


1 Q: So you're not dealing with the fact 2 that he picks up the phone and calls John Carson, you're 3 just dealing with what he tells him? 4 A: Sure. 5 Q: But you at no time, as Deputy 6 Attorney General, advisor to the Government, you at no 7 time cautioned or gave guidelines to the Solicitor 8 General, the Premier, or anyone else on what the Incident 9 Command should be told. 10 A: I don't think that's fair at all. 11 Q: You did? 12 A: I don't think that's fair at all. 13 Q: But you did tell them or give -- 14 A: No. I don't think that's fair at all 15 because it carries an inference that you know quite well 16 is not true. 17 What we did was exactly the opposite of 18 that. We made it clear to everyone that there was a real 19 problem if certain things were said in the presence of 20 police officers, which then created the possibility of 21 either the appearance or the fact of communications back 22 to the police. 23 Q: Well, I -- I hear -- and I meant no 24 disrespect when I asked the question and I think I may 25 have misspoke myself or misstated it. So I apologize. I


1 was not referring to the cautions you expressed to the 2 ministers or the Premiers, you clearly did that. 3 But no one I mean in your -- in your role 4 expressed those cautions to the -- to Fox, the person who 5 you say was the facilitator back and forth on the ground. 6 A: I did not instruct Fox on how to do 7 his job. 8 Q: Right. And we've had Fox testify and 9 he says basically there is no training and no cautions. 10 There were with great respect no rules on what could be 11 told incident command and what couldn't. 12 A: I don't know what he said. 13 Q: All right. That is what he said. 14 You -- you don't see Mr. Downard up and the best thing 15 about Mr. Downard is that he'll get up if I invite him. 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's -- it's 17 misleading the Witness. I mean Inspector Fox is very 18 clear that he knew that Inspector Carson had no need to 19 know the views of -- of the Premier on the occupation, 20 for example. Mr. Fox knew exactly where the lines were 21 and his answer was that he was venting at the time. 22 And -- and My Friend is -- is being 23 misleading to the Witness to suggest otherwise. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'm 25 going to ask you to back up a step, Mr. Falconer.


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Fair enough. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And just be 3 a little more civil to the Witness. You're entitled to 4 cross-examine -- 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but no 7 one's on trial here and the tone of your questions and 8 the manner, in my respectful view, is unnecessary. Ask 9 the questions -- just ask him in a slightly different 10 tone if you can do that. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I apologize. 12 It's probably more a function of being on the road for 13 three (3) hours in the driving rain. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No I -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: But I must say, Mr. 16 Commissioner, I thought my tone was civil. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I was 18 reluctant to start you after having come in off the 19 highway but -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Sure. Sir, no 21 that's fine. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just turn it 23 down a bit. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I must say I didn't 25 mean any disrespect to Mr. Taman.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 2 understand, you just said that. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I didn't mean 4 to be uncivil. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But it 6 sounded like you might have and that's why I'm just 7 saying just back up a step. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no. Not at 9 all. Not at all. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 12 Q: Mr. Taman, in terms of your answer, 13 I've clarified for you what I meant. It's not about not 14 cautioning the Premier or the ministers, it's about not 15 cautioning Fox or anyone else responsible as that 16 facilitation -- facilitator of communications. 17 And you'd agree with me that that didn't 18 happen? 19 A: I -- I know that I didn't caution 20 Fox. 21 Q: And to your knowledge did anyone 22 else? 23 A: I don't know whether anyone else did. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is this 25 where you want to break?


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I've got a few 2 questions that I want to start on a paper that I heard. 3 I believe the Witness' testimony was that he hadn't 4 looked at it closely. And -- and -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 Go ahead. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- I want to start 8 the questions and if it turns out that he feels better 9 about reviewing the paper then that might be the time to 10 break so he can do that overnight. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 13 Q: The paper I refer to is the McChesney 14 paper -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: McChesney. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 18 Q: And if I could ask you to turn it up. 19 Mr. Eyolfson was kind enough to provide me a listing of 20 where it is. I believe it appears at Tab 10 -- 104 of 21 Commissioner Counsel documents and I -- I apologize 22 because it seems that our tab numbering is slightly at 23 variance with yours. So I'm always nervous about saying 24 which tab. 25 A: No. I have it.


1 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's Exhibit P-578. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 4 Q: In answer, and I listened carefully 5 and I'm told by Mr. Roy from this morning that you 6 weren't asked any questions about specifically the -- and 7 I hope I pronounce this correctly, the McChesney paper. 8 I'm -- I'm checking with Mr. Millar 9 because I -- I seem to have a challenge on this. Mr. 10 Millar's our -- ever our resource. 11 The McChesney paper of 1991, you told Mr. 12 Millar that you had actually requesting this information 13 be brought to your attention. Yes? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And that you recalled looking at it 16 but only briefly in preparation for the Inquiry; is that 17 true? 18 A: Sorry, I -- I looked at it at the 19 time, is that -- is that what -- 20 Q: I thought that you told Mr. Millar 21 that in respect to this Inquiry you only had a chance to 22 skim it before testifying. 23 I'm trying to give you an exit door here. 24 It'll give me one, too and that is -- 25 A: I can't take it for you, sorry.


1 Q: That's all right. 2 A: No, no, what happen -- what I said 3 was that at the time of the events I asked whether there 4 was any research or learning on this that I could have a 5 look at, and this was produced and I had a look at it at 6 the time. 7 Q: And have you had a chance to look at 8 it more closely since? 9 A: I have and I could discuss it for 10 hours, Mr. Falconer. 11 Q: That's terrific. That's terrific. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Please, 13 please don't make that suggestion. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 16 Q: How many hours? The Commissioner has 17 a lot of experience with this. Is that a form of 18 authority, if the Witness tells me I can go for hours? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 22 Q: May I ask you first to -- to assist 23 me on a couple of issues then. If we're going to do this 24 properly, then Mr. Commissioner, I figure we'll go until 25 about 4:30 but I'll have --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I won't finish this 3 paper today. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And then continue. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Go as far as 7 you can. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 11 Q: If I can understand, Mr. Taman, your 12 position. Mr. Millar asked you: Was the McChesney paper 13 policy? Do you recall that -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- question? Now I was a bit 16 confused by your answer, so could I just reiterate the 17 question and then get an answer from you on the simple 18 question: Was this paper policy? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: I don't think policy is crystallized 23 in this way. I think what I can say is this is 24 background to what was a well-known practice on the 25 issues it addressed, particularly with respect to police


1 investigations, which was that ministers and others do 2 not interfere with police investigations and do not 3 interfere with police operational matters. 4 And that, I think, was a well-understood 5 convention in government. 6 Q: And neither -- obviously, I have no - 7 - I have no intention nor a brief to cross-examine you or 8 challenge you on that. 9 What it is, is about breaking that down 10 and analysing it for a minute, if -- if you'll indulge 11 me. 12 First, would you agree with me that when 13 you say police investigations or police operational 14 matters, that would certainly encompass the police 15 operation at Ipperwash? 16 A: Sure. 17 Q: All right, so that, for example, the 18 fact of criminal charges or criminal prosecution is sort 19 of a standard, say, CIB's investigation of a criminal 20 matter is a conventional criminal matter. 21 But a police operation where the police 22 are contemplating or potentially going to exercise their 23 discretion to deprive someone of their liberty to use 24 force, potentially lethal force, those trigger the very 25 same principles that we would want to ensure in terms of


1 maintaining a distance and a -- a proper line of 2 accountability between government and police; correct? 3 A: They trigger some of the same 4 principles but an ongoing situation adds new challenges. 5 Q: Very -- very fair. And would you 6 agree with me that the new challenges are what role 7 should the Government play in ensuring its policy is 8 enforced? 9 A: In the course of an ongoing policing 10 situation, yes. 11 Q: And while that may present new 12 challenges for those that are managing it such as Mr. 13 Larry Taman, deputy Minister, right, while it may present 14 new challenges, it doesn't change the rules, does it? 15 A: Well, I think it -- it -- it could -- 16 let me put in my own words. If you're dealing with a 17 historic event, whether or not Larry Taman did this is -- 18 and is going to be charged for it, it falls into the 19 category of what is done is done. And it's clearly 20 accepted that there's neither a need nor any useful 21 purpose served by political people being involved in that 22 discussion. 23 If you're dealing with an ongoing police 24 matter, an ongoing public safety incident, it engages 25 some of the same principles, but a whole bunch of other


1 problems, and I don't think you can reduce the two (2). 2 And I think it was in that sense that the paper, I would 3 say, didn't really cover fully the issue we were trying 4 to deal with. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Is there -- may I -- may we agree 9 though, that the imperative is not, in any way, lessened 10 about maintaining a distance between politicians on the 11 one (1) hand and police on the ground on the other? 12 A: Well, the situations are different. 13 I mean, the point I made to the -- to the Commission in 14 my evidence is that, I think that the -- the art of this 15 and the real challenge for the Commission is how does the 16 Government discharge its real political responsibilities 17 in connection with the ongoing incident, while at the 18 same time respecting the general principle that a police 19 operation is for the police and -- and not for the 20 Government. 21 Q: All right. If Wade Lacroix, the man 22 who ultimately led the Crowd Management Unit down the 23 road, Sergeant or Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix, is 24 communicating to the incident commander that the Premier 25 is taking a personal interest in this and I guess that


1 means we'll be evicting. 2 And then subsequently he's leading a Crowd 3 Management Unit against the occupiers; that, we can 4 agree, is over the line? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. And the reason it's over 7 the line is that the politicians have somehow reached the 8 officers on the ground who have the political views of 9 the highest ranking political officer in the Province, in 10 their head before they exercise their statutory 11 obligations under the Police Services Act and the 12 Criminal Code, correct? 13 A: Yes, yes. 14 Q: All right. Did you know that's 15 exactly what Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix said to Incident 16 Commander Carson? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Now, according to Incident Commander 19 Carson and according to a transcript, now, would you 20 agree with me that simply saying judgment or common sense 21 or good leadership may not necessarily fix what I've just 22 described? 23 A: Well, my experience is that hard 24 cases make bad law as we say. 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: I think this is a hard case and I 2 think in the end the Commission is going to find it 3 difficult to come up with a real substitute for the 4 leadership, the professionalism, the integrity of people 5 in -- in managing issues like this. 6 I don't think it would be possible to 7 manage this issue without an active role on the part of 8 the Government. 9 Q: But not an active role of the nature 10 that I just described to you, correct? 11 A: Well, the difficulty is that once you 12 have activity you then have difficulty, you know a 13 certain amount of difficulty separating out, you know, 14 what's appropriate, what's inappropriate. 15 Q: But you didn't have any difficulty 16 agreeing with me that that was inappropriate? 17 A: I don't have any difficulty dealing - 18 - I don't have any difficulty agreeing with you that it 19 would be better if those things had not been said in 20 front of police officers; that's right. 21 Q: The same man who led the Crowd 22 Management Unit, Staff Sergeant Wade Lacroix, was in 23 charge of interfacing with Marcel Beaubien the MPP. 24 That's not a good state of affairs; correct? 25 A: Well, that raises a different issue.


1 Again I -- as I said earlier my feeling is that with 2 respect to the MPP that it's easy to give rise to the 3 appearance that this is a government and that it would be 4 a better practice not to have the MPP involved in that 5 capacity. 6 Q: Now, to go back to where we were. 7 Ultimately, the McChesney paper addresses the importance 8 of distance between politicians on the one (1) hand and 9 police on the other; correct? 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: It preaches a series of structures 12 that are designed to respect that; correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: If I could direct your attention to 15 page 22. 16 A: Page? 17 Q: 22 of the paper. 18 A: Yeah. 19 Q: And as you go there, you testified 20 yesterday to Mr. Millar that the Commissioner of the OPP 21 was not someone you had dealings with; correct? 22 A: Not in this matter. 23 Q: Right. And in fact there's no 24 exchanges of memorandum between you and him; correct? 25 A: In connection with this matter?


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: No. 3 Q: I'm only talking about this matter. 4 A: No. 5 Q: And there's no telephone calls 6 between him and you; correct? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: And did Attorney General Harnick ever 9 come to you and say that he dealt with the Commissioner? 10 A: Not to my knowledge. 11 Q: Did Julie Jai ever come to you and 12 say she dealt with the Commissioner? 13 A: No, I don't think so. 14 Q: You also testified that Mark 15 Rosenberg played no role in this matter. Is that fair? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Okay. Now, page 22 under "Normal 18 Channels of Communication": 19 "The desired chain of communication is 20 from the Minister to the Deputy 21 Minister." 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: You -- sorry, Mr. Taman, I was just


1 discussing with Mr. Millar the benefit for the people in 2 the -- the audience if he can put this thing on the 3 screen. Mr. Millar can run all these toys. 4 "The desired chain of communication is 5 from the Minister to the Deputy 6 Minister to the Commissioner. And from 7 the Commissioner to the Deputy Minister 8 to the Minster. The Minister may meet 9 with both the Deputy Minister and the 10 Commissioner together or with either 11 individually. 12 Where the Minister wishes to discuss an 13 issue with the Commissioner alone, he 14 or she would advise the Deputy Minister 15 the intention. Communication will also 16 be enhanced through official social 17 contact." 18 As a proposition, would you agree under 19 the subtitle, Norman Channels of Communication, that 20 would be accurate? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: That's not ivory tower stuff, that's 23 pretty -- that's -- that's the chain of command that you 24 understood at the time? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Now if you could direct your 2 attention to page 25 please. And so you have some 3 context, starting at page 23 and through to 28, this is a 4 section called 'Ministerial responsibilities' and then 5 'Deputy Minister's responsibility'. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: At page 25. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Top of the page. 10 "The Minister may ask to be informed on 11 the general activities of the OPP as 12 they pertain to any investigation or 13 activity. The Minister should make 14 such request through normal channels, 15 that is, through the Deputy Minister to 16 the Commissioner to the investigating 17 officer. 18 To do otherwise might be seen as 19 political interference in the operation 20 of the police. The Commissioner may 21 refuse to make a full report if he 22 believe it would contain information, 23 disclosure which would be contrary of 24 the public interest." 25 Again, this would be a practice that in


1 your mind was present at the time of your position in 2 title as Deputy Attorney General? 3 A: Yes but, Mr. Falconer, I have to say 4 that I don't think it's the practice that's applicable to 5 the situation we're discussing in -- in this Inquiry. 6 Q: Okay. And could you explain why not? 7 A: Because I think that -- I'll read 8 this again overnight as I expect you will and -- and -- 9 and try to give a more studied answer. But -- 10 Q: Well, you said that we were going to 11 go for hours on this tonight. 12 A: Fair enough. Fair enough but let's 13 do that instead then. 14 There's nothing in here that deals with 15 the management of an ongoing public safety event and 16 certainly not one that involves First Nations. 17 Q: Fair enough. Now backing up a step. 18 Would you agree with me that an example of 19 where being flexible enough to accommodate an event or an 20 incident might include the Commissioner making choices 21 about delegating the authority to deal with the Minister 22 to someone else because of the management of an ongoing 23 incident and different things of that nature? 24 Those are the kinds of flexibilities -- 25 A: Explain flexibilities for me, sorry.


1 Q: That in dealing with different or 2 larger or ongoing incidents, one of the things the 3 Commissioner might do is delegate to someone who's in 4 charge of that incident, how they deal with it, which 5 ministers are to meet with, all of things of that nature. 6 But that might be an example of breathing 7 some flexibility into these rules. Correct? 8 A: I wouldn't -- I wasn't so much 9 concerned with the -- the flexibility in that sense as 10 just a need for the Government to have a role. 11 The kinds of things that are being talked 12 about here are things where I think it's clear the 13 Government doesn't have an active role. 14 And I think what the author is saying is 15 that in those circumstances like investigations -- well, 16 it's self explanatory what -- what she's saying. 17 I think it's quite different in this 18 situation in which the Government had an ongoing 19 responsibility with respect to elements of the problem. 20 Q: Well, could you have regard please to 21 pages 10 and 11. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: I don't mean to be argumentative with 24 you -- 25 A: No, no.


1 Q: -- but I suppose I do. But, it seems 2 like a polite thing to say. Pages 10 and 11 -- 3 A: Thank you. 4 Q: Application of the Ministry of the 5 Solicitor General. It refers to the four (4) key areas 6 of ministerial responsibility. 7 Do you see that at the bottom of page 10? 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: And then it flips over. 10 "The right to know, the right to direct 11 policy matters, the right to direct 12 operational matters and how can 13 ministerial authority be more clearly 14 defined." 15 Now, would you agree with me that those 16 four (4) areas are completely in play in the Ipperwash 17 incident: The right to know, the right to direct policy 18 matters, the right to direct operational matters and 19 ultimately the definition of the ministerial authority? 20 These were exactly what are triggered in 21 an incident management scenario such as Ipperwash. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: Would you agree with that? 24 A: Sure. 25 Q: All right. So it's in the context.


1 That -- that's the context the writer sets up so with 2 great respect, sir, when you say that page 22 really 3 doesn't help us with an Ipperwash like incident, page 22, 4 if -- if you go back through the paper and I encourage 5 you to overnight and 25, you'll see that they're 6 precisely in the contact of ministerial responsibilities. 7 Now I'm going to ask you to -- to reflect 8 on that but I'm going to put another suggestion to you. 9 We have heard evidence from Commissioner O'Grady that he 10 had no idea that his officers had been summonsed into the 11 Premier's dining room. 12 Did you know that? 13 A: No. 14 Q: We have heard evidence from the point 15 of view of Commissioner O'Grady that, as far as he was 16 concerned, that would be an example of bypassing him and 17 breaking the chain of command. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Did you know that? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Would you agree with me that in 22 addition to it being unfortunate that those officers were 23 there, it was also problematic that the Commissioner was 24 not party to their usage. 25 Would you agree with that?


1 A: I don't know whether the Commissioner 2 was or wasn't party to -- 3 Q: He -- that was his testimony under 4 Oath. He sat there just like you did, and I asked him -- 5 I took him through this paper and he agreed and, in fact, 6 adopted the theory that by breaking the chain of command, 7 in the fashion that it was broken, that it created the 8 very concern over political inference that the opera -- 9 that the author talks of. 10 That was the evidence of Commissioner 11 O'Grady. 12 A: Yeah, I don't really understand all 13 of that because I thought that was their job, I mean, 14 that was why they were there; they were there throughout. 15 Q: Exactly. In fact, your understanding 16 of what their job was may not be the same as what 17 Commissioner O'Grady's understanding of their job was. 18 Would you agree with that? 19 A: That's certainly possible. 20 Q: It's fair to say though, that in 21 terms of the process, that is, the notion of involving 22 first the deputy Minister and then the Commissioner, what 23 the author is doing, what McChesney's doing is 24 prescribing a chain of command that ensures the top level 25 officials are controlling who gets what information and


1 who they impart it to. 2 Is that true? 3 A: That would certainly be one of the 4 purposes. 5 Q: And the second salutary effect of 6 that kind of approach is it addresses what you spoke of 7 yesterday, avoiding the problem of the wrong people being 8 in the wrong room at the wrong time. 9 A: Sure. 10 Q: Now the wrong people did end up in 11 the wrong room at the wrong time; are we agreed? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 13 minute. Before you answer, your Counsel's got an 14 objection. 15 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes, Mr. Commissioner, 16 I'm a little concerned here that the context is not being 17 put fairly to the witness in that the officers, at the 18 time, were seconded to the Ministry of the Solicitor 19 General and Correctional Services and performed a very 20 different role there than they might have as ordinary 21 operational police officers, so to speak. 22 And perhaps it's important to keep it in 23 mind that when Commissioner -- former Commissioner 24 O'Grady gave his evidence, it was within a different 25 context, perhaps.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, that, with 3 great respect -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's 5 reminding us -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: --there was no 7 different context -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: He was asked about 10 Fox and Patrick and being in the room. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But we've 12 heard from, I'm not sure, I think Fox, maybe Patrick, 13 that at the time they weren't acting as operational 14 officers. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, well -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At the time. 17 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Let -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At the time 19 they were seconded -- 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Let me back up. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and so 22 they were technically, at that moment, working for the 23 Solicitor General. 24 Now there's lots of argument and stuff 25 that we can talk about on that --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I don't mean 2 to -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- argue with you 5 in any way, Mr. Commissioner. I think that everything 6 you've just said is true. 7 I was responding to the objection. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 9 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: The objection was-- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, she 11 wants me to keep it -- 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- was -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- keep it 14 in mind. What I just -- 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, but that's 16 not a way to object. Either the question's proper or 17 it's not. The context that O'Grady asked -- answered the 18 question in, was the Fox/Patrick presence at the dining 19 room. 20 The context I asked the question in, was 21 the Fox/Patrick presence. 22 Now, My Friend has probably inadvertently 23 assisted Mr. Taman on answering the question. But with 24 great respect, there's nothing wrong with the context I 25 put to the witness.


1 Commissioner O'Grady sat before you, Mr. 2 Commissioner, and said that as far as he was concerned 3 the chain of command had been bypassed and one of the 4 effects was just as the author said, and that's all I'm 5 putting to this witness and -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- with great 8 respect, if I'm being fair about it, My Friend shouldn't 9 be rising and giving what amounts to argument, in answer 10 to my question. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Do 12 you want to say any more, Ms. Twohig? 13 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes, I just wanted to 14 say that I did object on the basis that I thought the 15 question was unfair -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 17 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- because there seemed 18 to be an underlying assumption that then Inspector Fox 19 and Mr. Patrick were acting as ordinary police officers. 20 And that's all I wanted to -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I -- 22 MS. KIM TWOHIG: -- to ensure was -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- got your 24 -- I got that point. 25 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN FALCONER: 3 Q: You knew who Mr. Fox and who Mr. 4 Patrick were at the time that you were dealing with this 5 matter in 1995, correct? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: All right. And today, in November -- 8 I'll get the date wrong, so I'm not even going to try, in 9 November, I can do the year, 2005, you still know who 10 they were? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you don't resile from your 13 evidence that their function was to facilitate 14 communication with the officers on the ground, you don't 15 resile from that, do you? 16 A: I think that that's one of the things 17 they were meant to be doing. 18 Q: That's right. And the reason they 19 were able to do that, and it's a matter of common sense 20 and experience, was they were police officers who were 21 capable of speaking the language of the culture that they 22 were part of, correct? Yes? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And the reason that you testified not 25 an hour ago that it was regrettable that they were in


1 that dining room is because of their capacity as police 2 officers seconded or not, correct? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. Now, that context is the 5 very context I put to Commissioner O'Grady. 6 And Commissioner O'Grady's testimony was 7 to the effect -- though granted it was all suggestions, 8 right, was to the effect that the bypassing of the chain 9 of command, in his mind, was part of the problem. 10 And what I'm asking from you, sir, is can 11 you assist me on why there would not have been 12 communications with the Commissioner, either in your 13 capacity as Deputy Minister, as you did with the Deputy 14 Solicitor General and others, or in the capacity of the 15 Deputy Solicitor General, why the Commissioner was out of 16 the loop; why that would happen? 17 A: I wouldn't have -- I wouldn't have 18 communicated with the Commissioner because it would have 19 bypassed the chain of command. I wasn't in the chain of 20 command with the Commissioner. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: So that's why I wouldn't have 23 communicated with the Commissioner. Now, whether anyone 24 else thought that it would be appropriate for the 25 Commissioner to be in these meetings, I'm uncertain.


1 Q: Would you agree with me that if 2 Commissioner O'Grady's accurate in his evidence that no 3 one consulted him about the dining room meeting or about 4 bringing Fox and Patrick into such a meeting, that the -- 5 the danger, at page 25, is triggered? 6 A: Yeah, I'm -- 7 Q: And the danger, for the record, that 8 I'm talking about otherwise is, quote: 9 "To do otherwise might be seen as 10 political interference in the operation 11 of the police." 12 A: Yeah. And what confuses me a little 13 bit about this, Mr. Falconer, is that the two (2) 14 officers were seconded to the Office of the Deputy 15 Minister so it's not as if the Premier reached out into 16 the street or anybody reached out into the street and 17 brought in two (2) officers. 18 These were two (2) officers who worked in 19 the Office of the -- the -- the Deputy. They had been at 20 meetings throughout this process. 21 Now, I don't know how Commissioner O'Grady 22 reconciled that with his chain of command or not, but 23 that's what was going on. 24 Q: But, that -- 25 A: So for me it was less a chain of


1 command issue. 2 Q: But that didn't detract -- you -- you 3 don't back away from your evidence that you gave that you 4 think it was unfortunate they were in the room? 5 A: I think it would have been 6 unfortunate whether that had been said in front of 7 Commissioner O'Grady. I'd have felt the same way if it 8 had been said to Commissioner O'Grady. 9 Q: Would you agree with me though that 10 by virtue of the statute, Commissioner O'Grady reports to 11 the Deputy Minister? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And would you agree with me that in 14 keeping with the very protocol that the author McChesney 15 refers to, that it's contemplated that there's a level of 16 communication between a minister, deputy minister, and 17 commissioner that isn't authorized or practised with 18 other police officers? 19 A: Yes. I don't understand, though, 20 where the seconded team fits into that in the -- 21 Q: I -- 22 A: -- in the operations of the Minister 23 of the Solicitor General. 24 Q: And that's a very candid answer. 25 A: Very what?


1 Q: A candid answer because the 2 difficulty is there -- there are no rules to deal with 3 the secondment situation, are there? 4 A: I don't know whether there are or 5 aren't. 6 Q: Did you know or did you find anything 7 to assist you on how to deal with a Fox and a Patrick who 8 are police officers but are seconded? I can't find it 9 anywhere. 10 In fact that -- is that not what muddles 11 the equation in this case? 12 A: I'm a bit lost in our discussion I 13 guess -- 14 Q: Well, let me take a step back. 15 A: -- I just have to refocus my... 16 Q: Let me take a step back. No doubt 17 it's my fault. 18 At page 22 and 25 there is no provision in 19 the chain of command for police officers that happen to 20 wear dual hats, is there? 21 A: This doesn't appear to address the 22 issue of seconded officers. 23 Q: And do you know of any practice or 24 convention that would assist us? 25 A: No.


1 Q: So to some extent, would you agree 2 with me that there was a bit of a vacuum about the rules 3 on how to treat these police officers? 4 A: If there was a vacuum. I don't know 5 whether there was or wasn't. 6 Q: Well did you know of any rules? 7 A: I didn't know of any. 8 Q: All right. So from your perspective, 9 as Deputy Attorney Generally, formerly an Assistant 10 Deputy Minister for a number of years, you didn't know of 11 any rules, correct? 12 A: That's true. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would this 14 be an appropriate place to break? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, thank you. 16 Thank you, Mr. Taman. 17 18 (WITNESS RETIRES) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll break 21 now for the day and we'll reconvene tomorrow morning at 22 nine o'clock. 23 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 24 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 16th at 25 9:00 a.m.


1 --- Upon adjourning at 4:35 p.m. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Certified Correct, 9 10 11 12 13 _________________ 14 Wendy Warnock, Ms. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25