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 21st, 2005 25


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


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


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) (np) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) (np) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) (np) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 12 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 13 Julian Roy ) 14 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 15 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 16 17 Al J.C. O'Marra ) 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 ) 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 JEFFREY CHRISTOPHER BANGS, Resumed 6 Cross-Examination by Mr. Kevin Scullion 10 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Henderson 33 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. William Horton 37 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Roy 52 10 11 DEBBIE ELAINE HUTTON, Sworn 12 Examination-In-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 76 13 14 15 16 Certificate of Transcript 262 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-963 Document Number 1009454. Hostile 4 Occupations Review - Evacuation of 5 Serpent Mounds Provincial Park 6 - Sept. 01/95, undated. 15 7 P-964 Detailed Itinerary of Premier Harris, 8 Monday, Sept.04/95. 163 9 P-965 Week at a Glance, Week of Sept. 04/95: 10 Mon. Sept. 04 to Sun. Sept. 10/95. 11 Itinerary of Premier Harris. 164 12 P-966 Document Number 3000690. Detailed 13 itinerary of Premier Harris, Tuesday, 14 Sept. 05/95. 167 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 10:32 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 7 JEFFREY CHRISTOPHER BANGS, Resumed 8 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 10 morning. Good morning, Mr. Bangs. 11 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just want 13 to if I may just get an up-to-date scorecard on where we 14 are. It's been a while. I think, Mr. Scullion, you're 15 first. 16 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It's the first time 17 I've been first on the scorecard. I -- I think I'm 18 looking still within my time estimate. I might be a 19 little bit less. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You 21 estimated a half hour to forty-five (45) minutes. Was 22 that right? 23 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I did. I came up 24 with three (3) to four (4) finders last time. I only 25 have two (2) this time.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 2 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: So, we'll see how it 3 goes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I think 5 after that is Mr. Henderson? What's your estimate now? 6 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Approximately ten 7 (10) minutes unless of course Mr. Scullion covers some 8 ground which I intend to cover. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 And Mr. Horton? 11 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Twenty (20) minutes 12 or so. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That was 14 your original estimate so that's fairly consistent. And 15 Mr. Roy, how long do you estimate? 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: Probably closer to half 17 an hour than the forty-five (45) minutes -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- I'd estimated before. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That gives 21 us an idea of where we are. Okay. 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 24 very much. 25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's get 2 started. 3 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Good morning, Mr. 4 Bangs. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You may have 6 some questions depending on how it goes. I'm sorry, I 7 didn't ask you. 8 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: I may. Thank you. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 11 Q: Good morning, welcome back. 12 A: Thank you. 13 Q: And I can advise, Mr. Commissioner, 14 that I circulated an e-mail that had a number of 15 documents on it that I may refer to and I understand from 16 Mr. Bangs' Counsel that they didn't have a chance to see 17 copies of those. 18 So, this may be a little more general than 19 intended. But at the same time, if -- if I need to go to 20 the documents, I may do that still. 21 And I may just cover a little bit of the 22 ground that we were -- covered the last time you were up. 23 Just as a bit of a background. 24 My understanding from your evidence as to 25 the role of the IMC was that there was two (2) parts to


1 it which was information gathering -- 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: -- sort of, an opportunity for all 4 the participants to let the Committee know what they 5 knew. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And the second part was for the 8 members of the Government or the political staff to take 9 back to their Ministers the -- that kind of information 10 and just recommendations coming from the Committee; is 11 that fair? 12 A: Yes. The -- the role of the 13 Committee was as you -- as you just described, 14 information gathering, and to develop recommendations for 15 a possible decision by the politicians. Yes. 16 Q: Okay. Through the discussion in 17 those meetings, they were to come up with recommendations 18 that would then go back to the Ministers for their 19 consideration, correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Okay. And my impression from your 22 evidence was that this Committee was not a decision 23 making body. 24 A: That was my impression. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: That it was there to -- to accumulate 2 information and develop recommendations, but they did not 3 make decisions. 4 Q: Right. And they weren't in a 5 position to direct anybody to do anything specific. It 6 was simply to take recommendations back to the Ministers? 7 A: That was my understanding, yes. 8 Q: Okay. Now your role as an EA at this 9 type of meeting, was that to provide information as well? 10 A: If it was reporting on information 11 that I had discussed with my Minister or if I was asked 12 for his views, if I knew them, then I would pass them 13 onto the meeting. 14 Q: Okay. So, that was open to you to 15 provide information from the Minister or the opinion of 16 your Minister in terms of whatever was being discussed? 17 A: If I was aware of it. 18 Q: Okay. And you had had some 19 discussions with the Minister before the September 5th 20 and September 6th IMC meetings? 21 A: Before the September 6th? 22 Q: 5th and 6th. 23 A: I don't know about the 5th. 24 Q: Okay. So, you -- 25 A: The 6th certainly. But, the 5th I


1 don't know that he and I spoke before I went to that 2 meeting. 3 Q: Okay. So, you may have gone into the 4 5th without having discussed the issues with Minister 5 Hodgson beforehand but afterwards you had a chance to do 6 that? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Okay. You had mentioned in your 9 evidence in-chief and -- and more particularly in cross- 10 examination by one of our Friends here, the issues of 11 Serpent Mounds and Nawash. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And I'd like to take you to one of 14 your documents, if you have your book of documents in 15 front of you. Just to provide us a little more detail on 16 the Serpent Mounds issue, if you can turn to Tab 30. 17 A: 30 -- 18 Q: You have that before you -- yeah. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: There's an A, B and C but I just want 21 to focus on the main Tab 30. Do you have that before 22 you? 23 A: I do. I just want -- 24 Q: In particular, I'm looking for a 25 document that's 100 -- Commission Inquiry Document Number


1 1009454. 2 A: Hmm Hmm. 3 Q: Entitled, The Hostile Occupations 4 Review. 5 A: Yes, I have that before me. 6 Q: Okay. And you're aware that this 7 review occurred following the events of Serpent Mound? 8 A: I have not seen this document prior 9 to preparing for this Inquiry, no. 10 Q: Fair enough. But in terms of the 11 review that was taking place at MNR, you knew that there 12 was a review of these occupations that occurred? 13 A: I knew but some time later -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: -- following them. 16 Q: That's fair. That's fair. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: I'm just looking from generally -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: I don't know that this has been 21 marked as an exhibit yet. I'm wondering if -- if we can 22 mark this as an exhibit? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 24 think it has been. 25 THE REGISTRAR: It doesn't appear to be,


1 Your Honour. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 THE REGISTRAR: P-963, Your Honour. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-963. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-963: Document Number 1009454. 7 Hostile Occupations Review - 8 Evacuation of Serpent Mounds 9 Provincial Park - Sept. 10 01/95, undated. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 13 Q: And again, I'm just looking to 14 provide a little bit more detail on the Serpent Mounds 15 issue. If you turn to page 4 of this document, of P-963. 16 In your evidence in-chief you'd indicated 17 that you were in the impression that this blockade or 18 this occupation that occurred -- had ended some time 19 during the week following Labour Day. 20 Do you recall that information? 21 A: Yes, I believe so. 22 Q: Okay. If I can be a little more 23 specific, it would appear from this document and the 24 review that took place, if you look under Monday, 25 September 4 --


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- it says that the blockade was over 3 as of 6:00 p.m. on September the 4th. Do you see that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Is that consistent with your 6 recollection of -- 7 A: I believe most of the activity that 8 weekend at Serpent Mounds started on the Friday and was 9 over by the follow -- by the end of the weekend. 10 Q: Right. It was an -- 11 A: So, it's -- 12 Q: An occupation of the Park on the 13 weekend. 14 A: A protest at the Park. 15 Q: That's right. That's right. And it 16 was a peaceful protest. You evidence in-chief was fairly 17 specific that it was a peaceful protest and it was 18 somehow a little different, at least on that part, from 19 Ipperwash because there was no violence? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Okay. And if I can just refer you to 22 page 2 -- page 3 of that document, sorry. 23 A: The third page in? 24 Q: Well, we'll start at the bottom of 25 page 2; do you see the bullet point that says "at


1 Superintendent Buxton's request"? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: It says: 4 "Hiawatha van, Constable Walter 5 Jonasson attended the OPP meeting and 6 briefed on the events in the reserve. 7 The constable advised that the blockade 8 was imminent and Chief Cowie insisted 9 it was to be peaceful but it was felt 10 that the Chief would have little 11 control over radicals from Hiawatha and 12 nearby reserves." 13 A: Yes, I see that. 14 Q: Okay. I note that the recollection 15 is that it was peaceful, but there was potential for 16 violence here and that MNR was aware that there was 17 potential, that there were radicals that the Chief might 18 not be able to keep under his rein. 19 A: I -- I can't speak to what the MNR 20 officials knew. I -- some of this information I was not 21 aware of in great detail at the time. It was explained 22 to us that there was a chance of a protest and an 23 information pamphlet being distributed at the time. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: But, this is much more technical or a


1 much deeper level of information than I was privy to at 2 the time. 3 Q: Okay. That may shorten a couple of 4 my questions. 5 If we can turn to page 3. 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: We go down to the fourth bullet point 8 down. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And if I read, it's: 11 "OPP Superintendent Buxton attended the 12 Park around 4:00 p.m. and had all non- 13 Native police officers leave the Park 14 and standby in the nearby village of 15 Keene. 16 From that point on, the only police 17 presence at the Park was the three (3) 18 Native band constables who positioned 19 themselves at the blockade site and 20 liaised with the Natives and MNR staff 21 throughout the evacuation process." 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And I -- and I mention that 24 because when we go down to the last part which is what 25 worked --


1 A: On the next page? 2 Q: On the next page. The one note is, 3 "In general, the entire incident went 4 very smoothly. This was certainly due 5 to the fact that the Native 6 demonstration was non-violent. In 7 turn, Park and Ministry staff were 8 cordial, polite and accommodating 9 throughout the demonstration so as not 10 to trigger any violence." 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Is that consistent with your 13 recollection of the -- the demonstration? 14 A: Yes, it is. 15 Q: Okay. The next paragraph, if I may 16 read says: 17 "The decision by OPP Superintendent 18 Buxton to have only Band constables at 19 the blockade site is felt to be a 20 contributing factor to the peacefulness 21 of the demonstration." 22 A: Excuse me. 23 Q: Next page. 24 A: You said the next paragraph or the 25 next page?


1 Q: Next page. 2 A: Sorry. 3 Q: See that paragraph? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Is that consistent with what -- with 6 your understanding of that incident? 7 A: I did not know what the division of 8 responsibilities were on the ground. So, no, I don't 9 remember ever being told that First Nations constables 10 were separated from regular OPP. I don't -- 11 Q: You -- you weren't aware of that? 12 A: I wasn't aware that that had 13 occurred. 14 Q: Okay. And you certainly weren't 15 aware of that when you went into the IMC meetings of 16 September 5th and September 6th? 17 A: No, no. 18 Q: And I -- I've noted, there's a lot of 19 press releases in our documents, but one of the press 20 releases indicated that the Minister was prepared to 21 speak with the Chief and Council following this blockade 22 that occurred at the Provincial Park. 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: Do you recall that -- 25 A: Yes --


1 Q: -- intention to meet with them? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Okay. And that was shortly following 4 the ending of the blockade on September 4th; do you 5 recall that? 6 A: I don't remember the exact 7 chronology, but I don't dispute that. 8 Q: Okay. I'll suggest to you that 9 within -- it was within a couple of days that the 10 decision was made to meet with the Chief and Council and 11 that that occurred some time later. 12 Is that fair? 13 A: That's fair. 14 Q: Okay. You did refer in your cross- 15 examination to the issues at Nawash. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And in you examination-in-chief you 18 indicated that you thought that one (1) of the benefits 19 in how MNR dealt with that particular issue was that the 20 Minister actually went out and spoke with the 21 stakeholders. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Do you recall that? 24 A: I do, yes. 25 Q: We didn't get into, really, what the


1 difficulties at Nawash were other than there were 2 difficulties and they were longstanding? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Okay. Is it fair to suggest that in 5 both these instances there was a frustration, at least to 6 you -- the best of your knowledge. There was a 7 frustration on the part of the First Nations as to how 8 things were being dealt with by the Government? 9 A: That's fair. 10 Q: Hmm hmm. 11 A: And also by the non-Native community. 12 Q: Agreed. 13 A: Each of those areas. 14 Q: Agreed. By -- by -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- everybody involved. There's a 17 frustration -- 18 A: Yeah. 19 Q: -- and it led to what turned out to 20 be a blockade of Serpent Mounds and -- and a potential 21 difficulty at Nawash that was averted? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: All right. And I raise that because 24 this -- the meetings of the IMC on September 5th and 6th 25 seemed to be called by ONAS --


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: -- to deal with what -- what turns 3 out to be an emergency, an issue that they want to 4 discuss and come up with recommendations for. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: Is that -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- consistent? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: We've heard from Mr. Kobayashi and 11 we've heard from Mr. Sturdy that there were meetings with 12 OPP and in particular then Inspector Carson at the start 13 of August and they anticipated that if there was an 14 occupation that occurred on Labour Day, they would deal 15 with it in a certain way. 16 Were you aware of that? 17 A: Not in great detail. 18 Q: Okay. Let -- 19 A: Some of that briefing was provided to 20 us in the August 2nd meeting at ONAS, but not in any 21 great detail as to who from MNR was talking to OPP. That 22 wasn't made clear to me. 23 Q: Okay. Let me help you out. On Tab 3 24 of your book of documents -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- you had referred to this in your 2 examination-in-chief, and let me just go to the last 3 point which is in fact what occurred. 4 The occupation takes place Labour Day 5 Weekend and they have a significant number of people that 6 move into the Park? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And there were discussions back in 9 August between the OPP and MNR that if that occurred that 10 the OPP would take the lead on the ground and that the 11 MNR would assist the OPP to the extent requested? 12 A: That's consistent with what I 13 remember at the time. 14 Q: Right. 15 A: We were told right from the start 16 from becoming aware of tensions in the area that the OPP 17 were the lead. 18 Q: Right. 19 A: And we were also told that local MNR 20 staff were liaising with -- with the -- with the OPP and 21 cooperating with them. 22 Q: Right, providing logistics and -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- in addition allowing them to be at 25 the Pinery for their operations, to -- to put up some of


1 their officers and to help out with that end of things? 2 A: I wasn't aware of that until after 3 events occurred. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: But -- 6 Q: We -- we don't need to get into that. 7 What I'm -- what I'm looking for from this document is 8 that an injunction, a concept of an injunction was 9 discussed and agreed upon between the OPP and the MNR as 10 early as the start of August as to how to deal with the 11 potential occupation; is that fair? 12 A: I don't dispute that. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: What I'm looking at is that as of 16 September 4th this occupation occurs, the OPP take the 17 lead on the ground and the MNR, according to Mr. 18 Kobayashi and Mr. Sturdy, were providing logistical 19 support to the OPP? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Okay. And that their contingency 22 plan that had been developed by the MNR had been taken 23 care of in terms of moving assets out of the Park, 24 closing the Park, and ensuring the safety of the staff 25 and the public?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: At that point in time at least from 3 my client's perspective, it would appear that MNR is 4 looking to get the injunction and the OPP is handling 5 what's occurring on the ground and waiting for this 6 injunction to take place; is that fair? 7 A: My memory is that nothing happened as 8 far as the injunction was concerned until the OPP asked 9 that it happen. So, while it had been discussed as a 10 possible tool in the tool kit, if you will, previously it 11 was only to be done once the OPP had asked that it occur. 12 Q: I hear you, but wasn't Leith Hunter 13 and the legal department -- 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: -- that assisted MNR working on 16 injunction materials as early as the morning of the 5th 17 of September? 18 A: I don't know that. 19 Q: You don't know that? 20 A: I don't know that. 21 Q: All right. Because we then go into 22 the IMC meeting and it would appear that the concept of 23 the injunction is new; that that's one of the, as you 24 say, one of the tools in the tool box -- 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: -- that might be used. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And it seems from our direction that 4 this had already been discussed and it was the 5 contingency plan that was in place. 6 Was that raised at the IMC meeting? 7 A: I don't recall. I don't dispute that 8 these things were discussed and perhaps even before we 9 took office that summer and assumed our new roles. I 10 just -- I don't know. 11 Q: Okay. Because I -- 12 A: I don't know. 13 Q: -- I look at the guidelines. I don't 14 want to cut you off if you had -- 15 A: No, that's fine. 16 Q: -- more to add, but I look at the 17 guidelines for the IMC meeting, and in addition to what 18 you've described as an information gathering and taking 19 recommendations back to the Ministers, there's a listing 20 -- if I can turn you to Tab 5. 21 A: Okay. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Page 2 of this -- Inquiry Document


1 1012232. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: It has an exhibit number, but I'm not 4 sure -- 5 MR. DONALD WORME: I'm just looking for 6 that. 7 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Okay, thanks. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-498. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 13 Q: It's P-498. And I keep coming back 14 to number 11 which is the discretionary powers for the 15 Committee. 16 And it appears from our end that going 17 into the meeting of September 5th, that the OPP were on 18 the ground taking care of things as they had planned to 19 do, and the MNR was looking at the injunction and putting 20 together the materials for the injunction as had been 21 planned previous. 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: Then we get to the IMC, there's a 24 certain schedule to what they can consider and what they 25 can do from A to G --


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: -- that seems to be ONAS' input into 3 the problem solving that appears to be occurring at this 4 point in time. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: And Ms. Jai, in her testimony, 7 indicates that other than A and G, the subparts B through 8 F which is looking at a negotiating agenda, looking at 9 the problem, pulling in a third-party negotiator, those 10 were all skipped. 11 They weren't looked at seriously and it 12 simply skipped to recommending the legal action. 13 A: I don't dispute that. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: I think I testified previously that I 16 had not seen these terms of reference for the Committee, 17 so I can only tell you what my understanding of the 18 Committee was, having been invited to the August 2nd 19 meeting and on the subsequent meetings in early 20 September. 21 And my understanding was that it was 22 information gathering and for the development of 23 recommendations. I had never had by any one, this level 24 of detail provided me. I had not seen the document and 25 it was not explained in great detail, these elements that


1 I have before me today. 2 Q: No, that's fair, and I'm not trying 3 to get into -- 4 A: The -- 5 Q: -- specific detail. I just referred 6 to it and it seems consistent with your recollection that 7 the meeting moved very quickly to the -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- concept of legal action and, in 10 fact, it's the legal action that had been discussed by 11 the OPP and the MNR back at the start of August? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And it was consistent with what the 14 OPP and the MNR had decided was the best course of 15 dealing with a potential occupation? 16 A: Yes. I did -- I was aware that they 17 had contingency plans and, in fact, what we were told was 18 that the contingency plans existed for not only that 19 summer but the preceding summer as well; for at least a 20 year and perhaps longer, was the way it was explained to 21 us. 22 Q: Right. It was a longstanding -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- frustrated group that moved into 25 the Park and the plans for dealing with them had been in


1 place for a long time; it was fairly straightforward? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Which brings me to the question of 4 what were the rest of the participants doing, in your 5 view, at the meeting if you were already -- if you'd 6 already come to the conclusion that had been reached a 7 month and a half earlier, at the start of August? 8 A: I was certainly not at that 9 conclusion. 10 Q: No. 11 A: No. 12 Q: It seems that the Committee is 13 meeting again to discuss what had already been agreed was 14 the best course of action. 15 A: That -- that wasn't clear at the 16 time. 17 Q: Okay. I'm suggesting to you that 18 fairly quickly into the IMC meetings, it became apparent 19 that the course of action was going to be consistent with 20 what had already been discussed and that the rest of the 21 meeting may not have been all that necessary. 22 Is that a fair characterization? 23 A: In hindsight, yes. At the time and 24 not being privy to a document like this or having the 25 terms of reference fully explained to me, it did not seem


1 like a waste of time. But we had to go through the 2 process. 3 Q: Looking back on it, you went through 4 the process but the process was simply confirming what 5 had already been discussed and agreed upon as being the 6 best course of action; is that fair? 7 A: Between the OPP and field level staff 8 in the MNR. 9 Q: Right. But we've been discussing, 10 and -- and a lot has taken place before you took the 11 stand, but there's -- there's been a lot of discussion 12 regarding law and order. 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: And the concept that the OPP taking 15 care of what's on the ground, asking for an injunction 16 and the injunction being sought by MNR, fit into that law 17 and order concept. 18 Would you agree with that? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. And so the question is for you 21 which you may have answered already which is -- it's just 22 seemed to be going through a process here with these 23 meetings. And at the end of the day they've reached the 24 same conclusion that had already been reached. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.


1 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: I think Mr. Bangs 2 has answered that question to the best of his ability, 3 Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 5 you've asked the question and I think you've got an 6 answer to the extent that he can answer it. 7 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I guess the third 8 time you the question there's an objection to come. 9 Those are all my questions. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 13 very much, Mr. Scullion. 14 Mr. Henderson...? 15 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Thank you, Mr. 16 Commissioner. Good morning, Mr. Bangs. 17 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 20 Q: My name is Bill Henderson. Mr. 21 George and I represent the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony 22 Point First Nation. 23 I just want to ask you a few questions 24 relating to the background of the Williams Treaty 25 problem.


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: You're familiar with that and you 3 were at the time? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And essentially there was a Supreme 6 Court of Canada decision that said the Williams Treaty 7 First Nations did not have harvesting rights in their 8 Treaty area? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And following that decision the 11 Ontario Government under Premier Rae recognized that 12 these were the only First -- Treaty First Nations, 13 perhaps in Canada, that had no harvesting rights under 14 their Treaty. 15 Were you aware of that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And the Government -- that Government 18 entered into some negotiations and made an arrangement 19 for some harvesting rights for the Williams Treaty First 20 Nations? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And it was the Harris Government, 23 under Premier Harris and your Minister, who cancelled 24 that arrangement; is that correct? 25 A: Yes. That's correct.


1 Q: And we've heard evidence that it was 2 that cancellation that led to the occupation of Serpent 3 Mounds Park or the takeover of Serpent Mounds Park. 4 A: It was certainly a factor, yes. 5 Q: Okay. The -- as I understand it the 6 so-called Blockade Committee did not meet in relation to 7 Serpent Mounds; is that correct? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Was there any reason? 10 A: I should say unless they did, because 11 it's an ONAS chaired meeting. 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: I was certainly not invited to one 14 and I was not at one. I was not aware that one occurred. 15 Q: And to the best of your knowledge, 16 your Minister was not briefed on any such meeting? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Okay. When Mr. Downard was asking 19 you some questions on behalf of Mr. Harris, you 20 indicated, and I think I'm quoting this accurately that: 21 "The Premier was told repeatedly -- 22 [and this would be in the context of 23 the dining room meeting] was told 24 repeatedly that there was no role for 25 him."


1 Was that your evidence as you recall it? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: To me that suggests the one or more 4 persons repeatedly thought that the Premier was trying to 5 take a role at that meeting. Was that your experience? 6 A: No. My perception in the meeting was 7 that the Premier was not sure why he was actually in the 8 meeting if there was no role for him other than the 9 discussion about the injunction which he was asked to 10 consent to or to comment on. 11 But, he did not -- my sense was that there 12 was some level of frustration on his part as to why he 13 was there if there was no role for him. In fact, at the 14 end of the meeting he stood up and left the meeting which 15 brought the meeting to an end. 16 Q: And is it your recollection that the 17 Premier had made statements or suggested that he wanted 18 to take a role beyond the subject of injunctions and 19 that's why -- 20 A: No, that wasn't -- 21 Q: -- the discussion -- 22 A: -- that wasn't my perception, no. 23 Q: That wasn't your perception? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Okay. Those are my questions. Thank


1 you. 2 A: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 4 Mr. Henderson. 5 Mr. Horton...? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Thank you, 10 Commissioner. 11 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM HORTON: 13 Q: Mr. Bangs, I represent the Chiefs of 14 Ontario. There are just a few areas in which I -- I want 15 to see if I can get a little more clarity, Mr. Bangs. 16 A: Sure. 17 Q: You were clear, I think, in your 18 evidence that you treated Ms. Hutton's comments at the 19 IMC meetings as a direction that the Minister of Natural 20 Resources, your Minister, was to take the lead in terms 21 of being the Government representative on the Ipperwash 22 issue? 23 A: Yes, both in the meetings and in 24 other discussions I had with her in that timeframe. 25 Q: Yes, and I was just going to mention


1 that. And you were clear in your evidence that you took 2 that as a direction from the Premier via Ms. Hutton, 3 correct? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Now, you did mention also in your 6 evidence that I think over this timeframe you had a 7 number of discussions -- more than one (1) discussion in 8 any event -- with Ms. Hutton in an attempt to try and 9 change that result; is that correct? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: All right. And I did not understand 12 from your evidence that you or your Minister spoke to 13 anyone other than Miss Hutton in an attempt to change 14 that direction; is that correct? 15 A: I don't believe I did. 16 Q: All right. And to the best of your 17 knowledge you don't believe you Minister did; is that 18 correct? 19 A: I don't believe so. 20 Q: You don't believe he did? You agree 21 with me that he did not? 22 A: I agree that he did not. 23 Q: All right. Thank you. 24 Now, it's also clear from your evidence 25 that your Minister strongly disagreed with being the


1 spokesperson and I don't need you to repeat that, but -- 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: -- I gather that's right. And you 4 mentioned that the reason for that is that it had broader 5 consequences than just for the Minister of Natural 6 Resources? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: That was the reason though I just do 9 want to make sure we have all your evidence as to why you 10 thought that it had broader consequences. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: So, first if I may just start with -- 13 as I understand it, the message that you were to give or 14 the message that was to be given, put it that way, by 15 whoever was the Government spokesman was simply: We have 16 clear title to the land and we're proceeding to get an 17 injunction. 18 Is that -- is that the message? 19 A: Yes, that was part of the message. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: The injunction decision came later. 22 Q: Yeah. 23 A: But, it was implied, yes. 24 Q: By the time you were out of the first 25 meeting on the 5th, IMC meeting, what did you understand


1 was the message that was to be given by the Minister on 2 behalf of the Government? 3 A: Well, I believe there's a briefing 4 note that we've talked about before -- 5 Q: Yeah. 6 A: -- that outlines in detail -- 7 Q: Yeah. 8 A: -- what his key messages were. I 9 don't recall all of them off the top of my head. 10 Q: Yeah. 11 A: The -- the main thing was that we'd 12 been briefed on the fact or what was thought to be a fact 13 at the time that there was clear title to the Park -- 14 Q: Yeah. 15 A: -- by the Province, by third-party 16 and that was... 17 Q: All right. So, if -- if I may say so 18 it strikes me as a pretty simple message. Was there a 19 problem that you or your Minister had with -- with that 20 message, being the one to deliver the message: We've got 21 clear title to the land? 22 A: There wasn't a problem with that 23 particular part of the message, no. We -- 24 Q: Was there -- was there a problem with 25 any aspect of the message?


1 A: No, not specifically. One (1) -- one 2 (1) thing we talked about previously is the briefings we 3 had in the summer informed us that there -- there were 4 broader implications or at least they were suggested at 5 the time, with the Camp next door, the municipality and 6 local cottagers were rather concerned. 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: There was the suggestion that they 9 may not just be contained to the Park if something were 10 to happen at the Park and for that reason and constantly 11 being told that the OPP were the lead it seemed, other 12 than the fact that it was in a provincial park, it seemed 13 to be an odd fit for the Minister of Natural Resources to 14 be commenting on it all. That was the view that we took. 15 Q: Yeah. But, in terms of broader 16 implications I'm just trying to think about other 17 Ministers who would not be able to say the same thing; 18 that it had broader implications. In other words the -- 19 the Solicitor General could say it had broader 20 implications than just the OPP, right? 21 A: Perhaps, yes. 22 Q: And the Attorney General could say it 23 had broader implications than just proceedings for an 24 injunction or criminal proceedings, right? 25 A: The Attorney General was also the


1 Minister of Native Affairs. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: So -- 4 Q: And the -- right. And -- but 5 certainly it -- he didn't answer for the police? 6 A: No. 7 Q: And he didn't answer for the Natural 8 Resources or the Park aspect? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: So, couldn't every Minister say that 11 there were broader implications? 12 A: Perhaps they could, and I think there 13 was at some discussion in one of the meetings between 14 myself and my colleagues about that. 15 Q: Yeah. 16 A: But it did seem passing strange to 17 myself and my Minister at the time that the Minister of 18 Natural Resources was being asked to be the lead 19 spokesperson on something that was told to us to be an 20 OPP lead with, perhaps, broader implications than outside 21 the Provincial Park. 22 If it wasn't for the fact that it was in a 23 Provincial Park the Minister of Natural Resources 24 wouldn't have had anything to do with it. If it was a 25 provincial highway or anyone else in the province the


1 Minister of Natural Resources would never have been asked 2 to be a spokesperson. 3 Q: But, the Park was a key asset that 4 was in dispute, right? 5 A: Yes, at the time. 6 Q: And the Minister of Natural Resources 7 was responsible for that asset? 8 A: As -- yes, on behalf of the Crown and 9 the -- 10 Q: Yeah. Well, I -- I'm just having 11 trouble. Maybe, you can't add anything to what you 12 already have, in which case I'll move on, but broader 13 implications as the reason why the Minister of Natural 14 Resources wouldn't be one of the appropriate spokes 15 people for the Government. 16 I'm not understand -- can you help with -- 17 any further with that? 18 A: Well, as I -- as I just mentioned, 19 the -- one of the broader implications or possibilities 20 that was -- we were briefed on was the possibility of it 21 spreading beyond the Park -- 22 Q: Hmm hmm. 23 A: And we had been told over the course 24 of the summer that there were rising tensions in the 25 community with local cottage owners who certainly weren't


1 in the Provincial Park. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: So, if the -- if any of these events 4 were to occur, and the municipality as you know, was 5 quite active at the time and quite concerned, it was not 6 appropriate for the Minister of Natural Resources to be 7 commenting on anything that had occurred previously or 8 may occur in the future outside the Provincial Park. 9 Q: Well, can I summarize it this way, 10 did you -- did you or your Minister, as far as you knew, 11 felt that this was a situation that had some potential to 12 give rise to conflict? 13 Is that one of the broader implications 14 that you're talking about? 15 A: It was certainly a situation that 16 involved conflict. 17 Q: Well, is it -- is it the case that 18 your Minister didn't want to get involved, because it was 19 potentially an unpleasant situation that could rise to 20 conflict, for example, between the police and the 21 occupiers? 22 A: No, I don't think that was his 23 motivation at all. 24 Q: Let me ask you this: You seemed to 25 have a very clear memory of the -- the meeting that took


1 place between the IMC and the dining room meeting? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And without getting into all the 4 details of that meeting, whether they were all accurate, 5 can I suggest to you that the reason that you remember 6 that there was a meeting between the IMC meeting and the 7 dining room meeting was that that was a time at which 8 your Minister was actually supposed to be somewhere else. 9 In -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- in other word -- yes. Yes, he was 12 supposed to be at the Cabinet meeting? 13 A: He would have normally been at the 14 Cabinet meeting, that's correct. 15 Q: And -- and the fact that he was not 16 at the Cabinet meeting but was, in fact, at the Solicitor 17 General's office was one of the reasons that meeting 18 stands out in your mind; is that right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And I want to ask you a few questions 21 about that, because if I may say so, it might strike 22 someone as odd that having accepted apparently, the 23 position -- the direction of the Premier via Deb Hutton-- 24 A: Reluctantly. 25 Q: Reluctantly, that he would be the


1 spokesperson. 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: And then having taken some steps to 4 be the spokesperson, correct? In other words, he issued 5 the statement? 6 A: Yes, insofar as on the previous day-- 7 Q: Yeah. 8 A: -- he did do a media availability. 9 Q: Right, and he did media availability. 10 I was going to mention that. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And then on the 6th, he avoids going 13 to the Cabinet meeting, specifically, so that he is not 14 targeted by the press as the spokesperson on this 15 incident? 16 A: Correct. I said that previously. 17 Q: I understand that. But, I'm trying 18 to understand why -- is there any more help you can give 19 us as to why, given a direction that he accepted, however 20 reluctantly, to be the spokesperson on the 5th, on the 21 6th the Minister goes to the lengths of not attending a 22 Cabinet meeting so as to avoid being a spokesperson -- 23 being the spokesperson? 24 A: I can't shed any more light on it for 25 you.


1 Q: Hmm hmm. 2 A: I just know that that's -- that's 3 what happened. And I know that the Minister felt very 4 strongly about -- he did not believe he should have been 5 the spokesperson on the first day -- 6 Q: Yeah. 7 A: -- and he felt especially strong on 8 the second day. 9 Q: Yeah. And I -- I'm assuming, 10 correct me if I'm wrong, that he didn't seek or obtain 11 any permission to be absent from the Cabinet meeting on 12 the 6th; is that correct? 13 A: I don't believe so. 14 Q: You -- you agree -- 15 A: I don't believe that he sought 16 permission to be absent. 17 Q: He was just absent? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. So, wasn't that in effect 20 a double dereliction of duty if I can put it that way? I 21 mean, on the one hand he's not at a Cabinet meeting that 22 he should be at and on the other hand he's not being the 23 spokesperson for the Ipperwash Inquiry which he had been 24 directed to be. 25 Is that -- is that a fair way to put it?


1 A: Well, I -- I can't comment on the 2 roles and responsibilities of a Cabinet Minister. I know 3 this Minister to be a fairly principled person and he 4 felt quite strongly at the time as I've -- I've stated 5 previously. 6 Q: And even more strongly on the 6th 7 than on the 5th? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: But you can't help us as to why? 10 A: Beyond what I've already said, no. 11 No. 12 Q: Now, I just want to ask you a couple 13 of questions about Deb Hutton. 14 You told us that you would not have used 15 the word 'imperious' to describe how she might appear, 16 but you did agree with it as a -- as a description; is 17 that correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: I -- my hesitation on using the word 21 was that it's not a word that I commonly use or ever use 22 in -- 23 Q: I understand. 24 A: -- day-to-day language. 25 Q: I understand. Now, I didn't look it


1 up, but I -- I believe -- I believe it -- it means 2 exercising authority; being -- being authoritative. 3 Would you agree with that as a -- as a 4 description of Deb Hutton? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And you -- you made a comment, I -- I 7 can take you to the exact words if it's important, but 8 that someone who wasn't used to her might have a -- a 9 reaction to that. 10 Do you remember saying that? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And I just would like some clarity. 13 Once someone got to know Deb Hutton, in your -- in your 14 opinion, and I'm trying to understand what you said 15 before, would they get used to the fact that she was 16 imperious or would they then realize that she wasn't 17 imperious? 18 After you got to know her for a while what 19 -- what do you -- what do you mean -- what do you mean 20 would happen after you got to know her for a while? 21 A: I think, as I described previously, 22 having known Ms. Hutton for a number of years prior to 23 and -- and many years since I've -- I've seen her in many 24 different meetings and many different forums where once 25 you've known her for a while you take some things with a


1 grain of salt. 2 Q: Hmm hmm. 3 A: And people who are encountering her 4 for the first time would form a much different opinion. 5 She's a very strong-willed person and can be rather 6 forceful in meetings. She drives towards results on 7 behalf of her employer. 8 Q: Right. But, taking it away from the 9 personal for the moment in terms -- 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: -- of how someone may react to Ms. 12 Hutton personally, you knew her better that many of the 13 other people who were at the IMC meetings, correct? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: You had worked with her before, 16 correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And I assume your Minister knew her? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And had worked with her before? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And having that knowledge of her on 23 this occasion you accepted and your Minister accepted the 24 direction that she gave at the IMC meeting as 25 authoritative even though you didn't agree with it,


1 correct? 2 A: Correct. Correct. 3 Q: And even though you strongly 4 disagreed with it, both you and your Minister, you acted 5 on it without any further discussion with anybody else; 6 that's correct, isn't it? 7 A: Correct, although I have indicated 8 that I spoke with her outside of that meeting on more 9 than one (1) occasion. 10 Q: Right. And only with her? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: You treated her as the authoritative 13 person to give directions on that point? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And -- and you accepted that even 16 though you strongly disagreed with it? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And either you -- your Minister 19 either acted on it or he tried to avoid situations where 20 he would have to act on it. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Is that correct? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: Thank you very much. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you,


1 Mr. Horton. 2 Mr. Roy...? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: Good morning, Mr. 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 morning. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 14 Q: Good morning, sir. 15 A: Good morning. 16 Q: We're very, very close to the finish 17 line. 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: I'm sure you're very happy about 20 that, and you're probably not the only one. 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: One of the issues that -- that we've 23 been looking at -- I should introduce myself first. I 24 have off the record but -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- my name is Julian Roy and I'm one 2 (1) of the Counsel for Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And I wanted to -- I have a number of 5 questions on an issue that has been considered before. 6 There's been evidence about it at this Inquiry already. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: And that's about how information 9 flowed with the Ministry of Natural Resources. All 10 right? 11 Just so you know where my questions are 12 going. All right? 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: And it's related to the issue of 15 communications that a number of counsel have asked you 16 about. So, I'm going to ask a little bit about that as 17 well. All right? 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: Now, your evidence has been thus far, 20 at the IMC meeting on September 5th, that Mr. Hodgson was 21 effectively appointed by Ms. Hutton as the spokesperson 22 for the Government on the Ipperwash incident, correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And this was confirmed at the 25 September 6th meeting; you've already testified to that,


1 correct? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Now that outcome of those two (2) 4 meetings would have been particularly significant to you 5 given your role as an executive assistant to Mr. Hodgson, 6 correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Yes. Because part of your job as an 9 executive assistant is to give advice to your Minister 10 regarding communications issues, correct? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Yeah. And one of your jobs when 13 you're giving advice on communications issues to a 14 Minister is to, sort of, anticipate the kinds of 15 questions that a Minister might face from the media or 16 members of the public, correct? 17 A: Yes, that's fair. 18 Q: Yeah. Because the last thing you 19 want to have happen, particularly in circumstances where 20 the Minister doesn't want this communications role, the 21 last thing you want to have happen is to him -- or for 22 your Minister to be ambushed by questions he didn't 23 anticipate and isn't prepared for, correct? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: Okay. So, part of your job when


1 you're sitting at a -- at a meeting such as the IMC 2 meetings of September 5th and 6th is to -- is to look at 3 it through the lens of really trying to pick out that 4 information that you want the Minister to know about so 5 he isn't ambushed, correct? 6 A: Both I and the Ministry staff who 7 were there with me, the Deputy's EA, yes. 8 Q: All right. So, not only is that the 9 job of a political staffer, it's also the job of the 10 professional civil service as well, correct? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Now, the reports of gunfire that 13 you've already testified about from -- that were given at 14 the September 6th IMC meeting by Mr. Sturdy by 15 telephone -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- I want to direct you a little 18 about on that. I take it that that -- you've already 19 testified that that got your attention because it -- to 20 you it represented an escalation of events on the ground, 21 correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Yeah. And I'm going to suggest to 24 you that another reason why that would have gotten your 25 attention is because from the point of view of giving


1 advice to the Minister on communications, that's the very 2 kind of issue that he might get questions about, correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Yeah. Because you would have been 5 aware that -- that there was media on the ground at 6 Ipperwash at the relevant time, correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And there was also concern from the 9 local community, correct? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: So, they may have heard the gunfire 12 as well, correct? 13 A: Although when the gunfire was raised 14 in the meeting -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- Inspector Fox -- Mr. Fox, as he 17 was known to me at the time, immediately interrupted -- 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: -- and cautioned the room that we 20 ought not to believe that until he was able to confirm 21 it, so -- 22 Q: Sure. But, that's an issue that 23 you'd want to flag, correct? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Yeah.


1 A: Awaiting -- awaiting confirmation -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: -- as to whether or not it was true. 4 Q: Yes. But, it's -- it's the type of 5 information that you would want to flag for your 6 Minister, correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Subject to confirmation, I understand 9 your evidence. 10 A: Absolutely, yes. 11 Q: Now, did it not concern you that that 12 type of information, being reports of gunfire, was being 13 communicated by MNR staff on the ground as opposed to 14 being communicated through police channels? 15 A: In hindsight, yes. At the time, and 16 because of the way the preceding meetings had occurred, 17 the meeting flow was very informal. 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: It was around the table. Everyone 20 put on the table a report on what they knew or what they 21 had heard. So, until that point it had worked, to my 22 opinion, quite well. 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: And often times the MNR information 25 supplemented what the OPP are providing, the OPP agreed


1 with it. 2 This was the first instance and the most 3 significant one where the MNR information was not 4 consistent with what the OPP knew and what Inspect Fox -- 5 and Mr. Fox was able to confirm. And it was brought to 6 our attention immediately that we ought not to believe 7 that until he had an opportunity to confirm it. 8 Q: Yes. But, going into the meeting, 9 your point is -- is that you've told us that the informa 10 -- the information flowed very freely, correct? 11 A: It did, yes. 12 Q: And going into the meeting, you felt 13 that that was a good thing about the way the Committee 14 meetings were working, correct? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Yes. You didn't have it in your 17 mind, that there might be some types of information that 18 ought to be discussed and some types of information that 19 ought not to be discussed at a meeting such as that, 20 correct? 21 A: No, I did not have it in my mind, 22 part -- well, partly due to the fact that the role of Mr. 23 Fox in the meeting was not clear to me at the time. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: And I had talked about that


1 previously, that my understanding was that he was there 2 as a seconded OPP officer, but not act -- not acting as 3 an OPP officer in an advisory capacity to the Solicitor 4 General's Ministry. 5 So, it -- his role -- if I had known prior 6 to these meetings that he was acting in two (2) 7 capacities, perhaps -- 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: -- reporting to the OPP, and talking 10 to the OPP field staff, I may have felt differently. 11 But, I did not know that at the time. 12 Q: Okay. Now, you mentioned that in 13 hindsight you may have appreciated that there's a bit of 14 an issue about how information flows and in particular -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- police type information, correct? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: When in -- how long after this 19 incident did that come to your attention that that might 20 be an issue? 21 A: Well, when Mr. Fox -- when the 22 gunfire issue was raised in the meeting and he indicated 23 that he'd have to confirm it with the field, that was the 24 first indication to me that he wasn't just talking to 25 people over on Bloor Street at the Solicitor General's


1 office, he was talking to other people. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: It's more -- more vivid to me now 4 than it was at the time. 5 Q: All right. I -- 6 A: Looking back at it. 7 Q: I appreciate that it's probably quite 8 vivid to you, given that a number of counsel have asked 9 you questions about this. But, I'm wondering, closer to 10 the -- to the actual events, but after the events. 11 How long after did it occur to you that 12 maybe there was an issue about -- about problems with 13 information flow into this Committee? 14 A: I can't say exactly how long. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: I don't know. 17 Q: Do you recall that -- briefing your 18 Minister about this being a problem? 19 A: The communication flow? 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: I don't recall briefing him on that, 22 no. 23 Q: Okay. Do you recall any steps that - 24 - that the Ministry did at your direction or at the 25 direction of your Minister to deal with the issue of


1 communication flow? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Now, I want to ask you a little bit 4 more about your understanding of Inspector Fox's role, 5 because you raised it in an answer just -- just a second 6 ago. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And in -- in testifying in response 9 to Mr. Rosenthal's questions, and this was, I think 10 seventeen (17) days ago or -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: -- so, so I have -- I've provided you 13 with an excerpt -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- of the portion of the transcript 16 that I want to direct you on. And I -- I've had one 17 provided to you, Mr. Commissioner, as well. 18 And it's at page 238 -- 19 A: Excuse me. May I just -- my counsel 20 has the copy. I'd like to -- 21 Q: I see. 22 A: -- have it in front of me. 23 Q: Yeah, I'd be happy to -- I can 24 provide that to you. Do you have an extra? 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: Thank you. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: It's at page -- at the top of page 8 238. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And this is on November 3rd, 2005. 11 A: I'm sorry, what date? 12 Q: This -- this was your evidence on -- 13 A: Oh, okay. 14 Q: Your last day in Court which was 15 November 3rd, 2005; that's for the purposes of the 16 record, Mr. Commissioner. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And on page 238, you're asked the 19 following question: 20 "Do you recall Mr. Fox speaking at that 21 meeting?" 22 And you can take it from me that the 23 context of that question is about the Premier's dining 24 room meeting that you'd been asked some questions about. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: I understand that. 3 Q: And your answer is, 4 "Not specifically, although I think he 5 did add to the meeting some of the -- 6 the field information about the current 7 situation, but I don't recall exactly 8 what it was that he said." 9 Do you see that? 10 A: I -- yes. 11 Q: And I want to explore with you the 12 term 'field information'. 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: I -- I take it by 'field information' 15 you didn't mean information that was coming from the 16 Ministry of the Solicitor Generals in Toronto, correct? 17 A: No, he spoke more to the -- the kind 18 of report that would have gone around the table at the 19 IMC meeting in the morning. 20 Q: Yes. And I -- I take it that that 21 'field information', you weren't talking about OPP 22 headquarters, information coming from there, correct? 23 A: No. 24 Q: No. You were talk -- by 'field 25 information' you meant information that was coming from


1 on the ground at Ipperwash, correct? 2 A: Yes, of the nature that we received 3 in the earlier meeting. 4 Q: Yes. And that was -- the nature of 5 that information was policing-type information, correct? 6 A: Perhaps -- well, I don't know that it 7 was. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: It was situational. 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: As to what -- what OPP in the area 12 had heard. He was reporting that and the MNR officials 13 earlier had reported what they were hearing both days and 14 his report I recall being more along those lines. 15 Q: Okay. So as I understand your 16 evidence it was information that was coming from the OPP 17 on the ground at Ipperwash, correct? 18 A: I believe some of it would have had 19 to have been, yes. 20 Q: And you can't recall precisely what 21 it was that was said at the -- 22 A: Right. 23 Q: -- Premier's dining room meeting, but 24 you know it did relate to that type of field information, 25 correct?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And you've told us that that was 3 consistent with the kind of information that Mr. -- 4 Inspector Fox was conveying at the other meetings that 5 you were at, being the IMC meetings, correct? 6 A: In some respects it was a repeat for 7 me of what I'd heard earlier in the day. 8 Q: Now, you never heard anybody, at the 9 Premier's dining room, interrupt Inspector Fox and say, 10 Stop Inspector Fox? You can't tell us that kind of 11 information? 12 A: I don't recall that happening. 13 Q: No. Do you recall any comments at 14 the meeting regarding the propriety of Inspector Fox 15 conveying that type of information? 16 A: No. 17 Q: No. And I take it, given Inspector 18 Fox's position at a very, very high level meeting, I take 19 it Inspector Fox didn't interrupt the meeting and 20 interject with this field information? 21 A: I don't recall. 22 Q: No. I take it he was invited to give 23 this information by somebody at the meeting? 24 A: He was certainly invited to the 25 meeting. I don't recall what -- at what point he spoke


1 or who -- or if he was asked or -- I don't know. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: I don't know. 4 Q: That's fair. I want to followup on a 5 couple of questions that, Mr. Scullion, who was the first 6 counsel to ask you some questions this morning? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: I want to follow up on an area that 9 he covered and that's about the appointment of a 10 negotiator. 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: And I want to start by asking you 13 about or confirming with you your evidence about what you 14 understood the purpose of the IMC meetings were and your 15 role within those meetings, all right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: I understood your evidence to be that 18 -- that the purpose of these IMC meetings is to consider 19 a very, very broad range of options; is that correct? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And the -- the point of considering 22 those options is you develop them and then you present 23 them up the chain of command; is that correct? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: In other words, what you want to do


1 is you want to present the broadest range of options up 2 to your Minister; is that correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Because the point is is that, as an 5 executive assistant, you're not the one who's going to be 6 picking among these options, correct? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And it's not the job of the lower 9 level civil servants to be picking the options either, is 10 it? 11 A: No. 12 Q: It's the job of the Minister being 13 assisted by the Deputy Minister ultimately to decide on, 14 broadly speaking, what the options are or the general 15 approach in dealing with the situation, correct? 16 A: On -- on any significant issues. I 17 would just clarify by saying that there were some things 18 that were operational to the Ministry -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- that the Deputy Minister was 21 responsible for and was free to make whatever decisions 22 he thought necessary in dealing with his staff. 23 Q: Now -- I understand that. Thank you 24 for that clarification. Now, Mr. Scullion has already 25 confirmed with you that this option of appointing a


1 negotiator wasn't seriously discussed at the IMC 2 meetings, correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And I take it the notion of 5 appointing a negotiator was not part of a briefing that 6 you gave to your Minister, correct? 7 A: I believe we did speak about it. 8 Q: All right. Can you tell me the 9 circumstances of that? 10 A: When -- when we returned to the 11 ministry and Deputy Vrancart and Peter Allen the Deputy's 12 EA and I spoke with the Minister we did walk through a 13 range of possibilities for how this situation might be 14 resolved. 15 Q: Okay. And can you outline for us the 16 -- the range of possibilities that were -- or range of -- 17 range of options that were presented to your Minister in 18 this meeting? 19 A: The idea of a negotiator was discussed 20 but as you correctly described at the meeting earlier it 21 had not been entertained in any -- entertained in any 22 great detail. So we informed him of that but we did talk 23 about it. 24 Q: Okay. So you were able to -- to 25 alert him to the notion of a negotiator, but you weren't


1 able to give -- flush out any details for him in terms of 2 how that might play out as an option, correct? 3 A: That's correct. And it was seen by 4 us at the time that it would not be Minister -- the 5 Minister of Natural of Resources or the Ministry of 6 Natural Resources' role to enlist, obtain, engage a 7 negotiator. It was not -- it was not in our purview. 8 Q: I see. And that would be consistent 9 with what -- what you told us earlier about how your 10 Minister didn't see that they had -- didn't see that he 11 had carriage or the lead on this whole issue, correct? 12 A: Yes, from our point of view 13 discussions about appointing a negotiator would be more 14 in -- in the area of the Native Affairs Secretariat. 15 Q: And it would have been your 16 expectation that that type of option would have been 17 presented up the chain to the Minister of the Attorney 18 General through the Deputy Minister, correct? 19 A: I would have expected that but I 20 can't say -- I can't speak to whether or not that 21 happened. 22 Q: All right. Now, at the -- at the 23 Premier's dining room meeting, I take it there was no 24 discussion regarding the option of a -- of appointing a 25 negotiator, was there?


1 A: I don't recall that there was. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: Now, I've provided you with a copy of 6 Exhibit P-33 which is the definition of 'hawk -- 7 A: Okay. Yes. 8 Q: All right. I've already told -- I 9 spoke to your already and -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- raised that I would be asking you 12 some questions about this. 13 A: Yes, correct. 14 Q: And so you've had an opportunity to 15 review this? 16 A: I have looked at it. 17 Q: Yeah. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Now, you've already acknowledge in 20 your evidence that you recall Ms. Hutton using the term 21 'hawkish' with referent to the Premier's position on the 22 matter, correct? 23 A: I do recall that, yes. 24 Q: Yeah. And you understood that from 25 the context and from what she was saying that she was


1 speaking on behalf of the Premier, correct? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: In other words, you didn't have the 4 impression that she was out on some kind of frolic on her 5 own without authority, correct? 6 A: I did not have that impression. 7 Q: And in using the term 'hawkish', you 8 understood her at the time to be meaning that the Premier 9 was in favour of a careful and cautious approach; is that 10 correct? 11 A: I did say that. The -- what was more 12 important to me in that discussion, or when she made the 13 comment, was what followed. And I took her to mean that 14 we had to be cautious about the situation because of the 15 fact that it was the first major event that this new 16 government was going to have with First Nations in 17 Ontario. 18 Q: Yeah. And that was consistent with 19 her use of the term 'hawkish' in your mind, at the time, 20 correct? 21 A: Knowing her, yes. I'm not going 22 dispute the dictionary definition of 'hawkish'. 23 Q: All right. 24 A: I do know what the word means. But 25 it did not have -- it was not as weighty a comment in my


1 mind as it may have been to some others. 2 Q: All right. So, you understood what 3 the term meant consistent with the dictionary definition 4 at P-533 at the time that you heard her say that? 5 A: Yes. I won't dispute that. 6 Q: All right. So, you would have 7 understood her to be advocating on behalf of the Premier 8 immediate vigorous action in respect to the Ipperwash 9 incident, correct? 10 A: Well, I won't dispute the dictionary 11 definition. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: I did not take her -- her comments to 14 be as forceful as that. Especially in the context of 15 what she followed with which was this is the first major 16 encounter or issue we encountered with First Nations. 17 Q: In consistent with the dictionary 18 definition as you've acknowledged, you would have 19 understood her to mean that the Premier was taking a 20 militant attitude, correct? 21 A: An aggressive attitude. 22 Q: Yeah. 23 A: The reason I say that it didn't weigh 24 as much on me as it may have on others is that the word 25 'hawkish' is often used in day to day life for -- if you


1 think of the President of the United States for example, 2 when he's hawkish -- 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: -- the sixth fleet sails and bombs 5 start dropping. I did not take it to be that aggressive. 6 She was definitely making a point though. 7 Q: Okay. Did you take any steps at the 8 meeting to, sort of, clarify Ms. Hutton's comments for 9 the other people there who might have misinterpreted what 10 she meant? 11 A: No, I did not. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: I did counter with my own comments 14 following that though. 15 Q: I did see that and -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- that's been thoroughly canvassed 18 by other counsel and I don't want to til ground that's 19 already been fully copulated. Those are -- thank you 20 very much, Mr. Bangs, those are my questions. 21 A: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 23 very much, Mr. Roy. 24 Ms. Pagliaroli, do you have any questions? 25 MS. TANYA PAGLIAROLI: I have no


1 questions for Mr. Bangs. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No 3 questions. Then I think Mr. Worme have -- 4 MS. DONALD WORME: I don't have anything 5 by way of re-examine, Commissioner. But, I would like to 6 thank Mr. Bangs for returning back here and completing 7 his testimony today. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 9 very much for coming and giving us your evidence and for 10 coming back and completing it. Thank you very much. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That -- that 13 completes your evidence now. 14 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 15 16 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 17 18 MR. DONALD WORME: I wonder if we might 19 take the morning break at this -- this time, Mr. 20 Commissioner? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 22 think this would be an appropriate time. Let's take a 23 morning break. 24 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 25 for fifteen (15) minutes.


1 2 --- Upon recessing at 11:35 a.m. 3 --- Upon resuming at 11:52 a.m. 4 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 6 resumed. Please be seated. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good afternoon. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just barely. 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Almost. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's still 15 morning. 16 Good morning, Ms. Hutton. 17 MS. DEBBIE HUTTON: Good morning. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 19 morning. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: The Commission calls as 21 its next witness, Deb Hutton. 22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Ms. Hutton, do you 23 prefer to swear on the bible or affirm? 24 MS. DEBBIE HUTTON: The bible please. 25 THE REGISTRAR: The bible is on your


1 right there. Please take it in your right hand and would 2 you state your name in full for the record. 3 MS. DEBBIE HUTTON: Debbie Elaine Hutton. 4 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. 5 6 DEBBIE ELAINE HUTTON, Sworn 7 8 EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 9 Q: Good morning. 10 A: Good morning. 11 Q: I understand you graduated with a 12 Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University 13 of Western Ontario in 1988? 14 A: I did. 15 Q: And your first position following 16 graduation was working for Andy Brandt in 1988? 17 A: That's correct. He was the interim 18 leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party at 19 the time. 20 Q: All right. Now, from 1990 to 1995 21 you worked for Mike Harris while he was leader of the 22 Progressive Conservative Party? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And then in opposition? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: How did you first come to be hired by 2 Mr. Harris? 3 A: I was working, as I just indicated, 4 for Mr. Brandt and when the leadership occurred in May of 5 1990, we were starting to get the sense that, Premier 6 Peterson at the time, was going to be calling a 7 relatively early election, and so Mr. Harris had asked me 8 to stay on to help with some of the briefing and research 9 work that needed to be done in preparation for that. 10 Q: All right. And what was your -- your 11 position with Mr. Harris? 12 A: Well, as I just said, right after May 13 I was working -- sort of, getting ready for the election 14 which was ultimately, I believe, in September of 1990. 15 So, as of, I guess, right after then, 16 October, I -- I'm not sure I remember my specific title, 17 but I had responsibilities for Question Period, for Mr. 18 Harris' briefing at the time of, sort of, all of the 19 sorts of things that he was responsible for in 20 Opposition. 21 Q: Now, in terms of your academic 22 background did you take any courses specializing in 23 Aboriginal governmental relations? 24 A: When I was doing my undergraduate 25 work my intention at the time had actually been to pursue


1 my Master's in Public Administration most likely at the - 2 - at the municipal level was my thinking at the time. 3 The only course I recall specifically 4 taking would have been a -- a constit -- constitutional 5 law course that I took in my fourth year, but it was 6 considered a poly-sci course as opposed to a -- a law 7 course despite its title. 8 Q: All right. Now, during the first 9 five (5) year period that you worked for Mr. Harris what 10 would you say described your level of contact with him 11 was in relation to the Government work? 12 A: It was daily and -- and I know by 13 "government" you probably mean at least our rule and 14 Opposition. 15 Q: Yes, of course. 16 A: We -- we had a fairly small office, 17 with administrative staff, I'm guessing maybe fifteen 18 (15) people, and so we had -- and -- and obviously you 19 can appreciate in that small office daily contact 20 particularly when -- when Mr. Harris was in the office as 21 opposed to touring. 22 I began to tour with him probably in early 23 1994 at which time basically where he was I was for that 24 period of time leading up to what was ultimately the 1995 25 election campaign.


1 Q: All right. And is it fair to say 2 that you came to know and respect Mr. Harris' political 3 views? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Indeed to be successful you 6 would have to know his political positions and views with 7 respect to Ontario fairly well? 8 A: I think either know them or -- or be 9 able to speak to him about them so you could gain a 10 greater understanding. 11 Q: All right. Now, over the pre- 12 election period, if you will -- 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: -- '94 and forward, were you involved 15 in the development of any -- of the platform or position 16 ultimately issued on behalf of the Progressive 17 Conservative Party in '94? 18 A: We had some documents in the earlier 19 years of -- of opposition. I -- I think specifically 20 about a document that was generated, an economic document 21 that was generated, I believe, right after Mr. Laughren 22 and Mr. Rae's first budget, but -- but early in that 23 period of 1990 to '95; that document for example was more 24 of what I would call an Opposition document -- 25 Q: Hmm hmm.


1 A: -- that was more about the Government 2 of the day. 3 As we got closer to what was going to be 4 the 1995, or we weren't sure, in '94 perhaps election, we 5 had a very extensive policy process within our party and 6 within our Opposition in the Caucus that we had at the 7 time. So, most of the policy, if you will, came from a 8 series of meetings, policy conferences, stakeholder 9 events, that sort of thing. 10 So, the policy itself was generated by 11 many and the Caucus and the leader, Mr. Harris at the 12 time, sort of, took those policies and -- and collapsed 13 them into what they wanted to put forward as their 14 platform. 15 My role specifically was really one of 16 helping to draft the -- the platform once the policies 17 had been decided, so more of a communications or I call 18 it I think wordsmithing role is probably more accurate in 19 developing what was The Common Sense Revolution which we 20 launched in 1994. And as you referred to me there were 21 other policy papers that supported that. 22 Q: All right. I take it from your 23 earlier testimony that you played an active role in Mr. 24 Harris' election campaign? 25 A: I did, yes.


1 Q: And what was your specific role in 2 that campaign? 3 A: I was involved in the 1990, 1995, and 4 '99 campaigns specifically. 1990 I -- I played the role 5 of issue advance which is essentially preparing the 6 leader while he's on tour for any local issues, or what I 7 would call local flavour type things, when he goes into 8 an area on the actual election tour. 9 So, for example coming into an area you'd 10 want to know what the local issues are, obviously with a 11 provincial bent to them, but sometimes strictly other 12 issues as well that -- that went beyond provincial scope: 13 who the incumbent was, who the candidate was and 14 background; that --sort of the basket of information that 15 would help the leader as he goes into a particular 16 community. 17 In 1995 and in 1999 I travelled on the bus 18 with Mr. Harris. I performed the role of, sort of, last 19 stop before the candidate if you will. So, as things 20 came to the -- to the bus for Mr. Harris' review, I went 21 through them, made notations on them and helped brief him 22 for whatever we were asking him to do in the campaign 23 that day. 24 Q: Okay. Thank you. And if you would 25 go to your binder of documents, the Commission brief --


1 A: Right. 2 Q: Tab 3, please. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: And this is Exhibit number P-922. 7 A: Right. 8 Q: And it appears to be a copy of a 9 document entitled the, Common Sense Revolution, May 1994. 10 11 And indeed, is that -- do you recognize 12 that document? 13 A: Yeah, I do. I was most familiar with 14 it, with its -- sort of in its regular form with a cover, 15 but I think this is the substance of it. 16 Q: All right. And is this the entire 17 text of that document? 18 A: I believe so, when I reviewed it -- 19 the document, as you've said, was launched in or it was 20 released in 1994 specifically, I think early May. 21 I believe we had a federal budget 22 somewhere between May of '94 and the election of '95 and 23 so I think there were some revisions around numbers 24 reflecting the federal budget, but for the most part, I 25 think the answer is yes.


1 Q: All right. And is it fair to say 2 that you're familiar with its contents, then? 3 A: Yes. I certainly was at the time; 4 that's probably more accurate. 5 Q: Fair enough, fair enough. And is it 6 fair to say also that it was your understanding that Mr. 7 Harris was fully supportive of the concepts and his 8 positions in this document? 9 A: Absolutely. 10 Q: Indeed, that would be your operating 11 assumption? 12 A: It was more than an operating 13 assumption. This was something that Mr. Harris was 14 prepared to put to the Ontario electorate and say this is 15 what I want to do. So he obviously believed in it a 16 great deal. 17 Q: All right. And was it part of your 18 job, then, to assist Mr. Harris in getting out the 19 messages and key points contained in the Common Sense 20 Revolution? 21 A: I was certainly a member of the team 22 that helped him do that. 23 Q: All right. Now does this document, 24 or did this document outline the Progressive 25 Conservative's key -- party's key positions with respect


1 to what it thought were the key issues for the -- issues 2 of the day for Ontarians in 1994? 3 A: Yes, if I could maybe just take a 4 couple of minutes to give some context. We, as a party 5 and Mr. Harris as its leader and our caucus, took the 6 view that -- that the single biggest issue facing 7 Ontario, in that period leading up to 1995, was where our 8 economy had -- had come to. 9 Specifically, we were facing a deficit in 10 around $9 billion or $10 billion. We had a debt that 11 was, I think, in and around $100 billion. 12 We had one (1) in ten (10) Ontarians on 13 welfare. The provincial budget was far increased to what 14 it had been a decade earlier and we had had, by memory, I 15 think something like sixty-five (65) tax increases in the 16 previous two (2) governments after 1985. 17 And so Mr. Harris and his caucus and our 18 party put forward what we thought was the single most 19 important part of what an Ontario government needed to do 20 if elected in 1995. And that was to get, not only the 21 economy moving, but in order to do that, ensure that the 22 -- the size and cost of government was in synch or in 23 balance with the tax burden that we thought Ontarians and 24 businesses could handle. 25 So, long way of saying with some context


1 that -- that our first priority was to get the size of 2 government and the burdens on the economy into such a 3 degree that we could go forward and sustain the spending 4 that we thought the Ontario government should be spending 5 and at the same time, create jobs and drive the economy. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: So, for us, this was the first plank 8 in then how you could help address other priorities and 9 those things that we expect our government to do. 10 Q: And so this would intend -- this 11 would be intended to guard -- to guide the Government's 12 first plank, if you will, should the Progressive 13 Conservative Party be elected -- 14 A: Right. We thought this -- 15 Q: -- this first year. 16 A: Sorry, I cut you off. We thought 17 this was fundamental for getting the Government and the 18 economy in such a shape that then you could go forward 19 and -- and make the changes and continue to -- to support 20 the other priorities that Ontarians have. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: And I think, in here, we mention some 23 of the three (3) big spending areas for the Ontario 24 government. 25 Q: And it appears to contain positions


1 with respect, as you've already alluded to: Government 2 spending, welfare, job creation, health care, law 3 enforcement and education, to name a few. 4 Is that fair? 5 A: Yeah, actually probably would not say 6 to name a few. I think you've probably covered -- 7 Q: Hmm hmm. 8 A: -- the bulk of them. And again, 9 health, education and law enforcement along with welfare 10 policy, those were all pieces because of the size of the 11 budgets of those areas. and because of the growth in the 12 area of, in particular, welfare and health care. 13 Those were areas that -- that were 14 identified because they were key to make him show we were 15 getting the size and cost of government under control. 16 Q: All right. Well does any part of 17 this document expressly address Aboriginal issues as 18 distinct from non Aboriginal issues? 19 A: As you've just pointed out, the -- 20 the areas that you identified are the key areas for us. 21 They were included in the document to ensure that we were 22 able to get the size and cost of government under 23 control. 24 There were many other areas obviously a 25 responsibility, including Aboriginal affairs for the


1 Provincial Government. But they were not included here, 2 specifically. 3 Environment I think is another good 4 example simply because this was a document aimed at 5 getting the economy and the size of government, as I said 6 a couple of times, into the proper balance. 7 Q: Fair enough. And from your 8 perspective, did this document reflect -- was it 9 reflective, at least, of the Progressive Conservative 10 party's general approach, which was essentially to treat 11 all Ontario citizens the same regardless of race, 12 ethnicity or background? 13 A: Well you've asked me about something 14 that I'm not sure is explicit in the document so -- 15 Q: I'm asking if that's an underlying 16 premise of this document. 17 A: This -- this was the document that we 18 put forward to all Ontarians, regardless, as you said, of 19 -- of who they might be. To say this is -- this is what 20 we think needs to be done in government and this is what 21 we will do in government if you choose to elect us. I 22 hope that that answers your question. 23 Q: I wonder if you would go next to Tab 24 4 please. 25 A: Sure.


1 Q: This is Exhibit Number P-924. It's 2 entitled, Bringing Common Sense to Community Development. 3 A: Oops, I'm on 5, I'm sorry. 4 Q: Certainly. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: And do you recognize this document? 7 A: Yes. I believe there were a few what 8 I would call support documents to the common sense 9 revolution. I -- I've certainly been through it in the 10 last few days in preparation for today. But I certainly 11 would have been more familiar with it at the time. 12 Q: All right. And as he says: 13 "One of the supporting documents to 14 supplement the common sense revolution 15 document." 16 A: Right. You know, we talked, just a 17 few minutes ago, about the fact that there are obviously 18 many things the Ontario Government does and is expected 19 to do, that while they were not part of the core of us 20 getting government and economy to balance, as I said, 21 were obviously important for the Government and for 22 individuals who are thinking about electing the 23 Government to know where the Party stood on them. 24 Q: Do you recollect when this was issued 25 in relation to the common sense revolution document we


1 just reviewed? 2 A: I really don't. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: Sorry. 5 Q: You don't know if it was before or 6 after? 7 A: No, I don't. I -- I think I can 8 probably say with some certainty it was after, but I'm 9 not sure how far after. The -- the title of the common 10 sense revolution, which this obviously plays on, 11 obviously was -- was a new -- a new title, if you will, 12 or a new name to our document, in May of 1994. 13 Q: All right. Now I've noted that the 14 Native issues are specifically addressed in this 15 document; is that fair? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And is it fair to say that the 18 perspectives addressed, in terms of Native issues in this 19 document, are first the need for economic development by 20 First Nation communities and second, hunting and fishing 21 issues? 22 A: I -- I believe so, yes. 23 Q: Now was one of the objectives of -- 24 of the Progressive Conservative Party of elected 25 government according to this document to strike a balance


1 between Native hunting and fishing rights in Ontario's 2 conservation rights? 3 A: I believe so, yes. 4 Q: And is it fair to say that this 5 document also attempted to better integrate Native rights 6 into government policies? 7 A: Yeah I -- I believe so. I'm sorry I 8 don't obviously have as great a recall of the -- of the 9 underlying documents -- 10 Q: All right. 11 Q: -- at this time as I did -- 12 Q: For example, at page 5. 13 A: Page 5 of this document? 14 Q: Yes. First point -- 15 A: Correct, yeah. 16 Q: Yes. 17 "We'd strike a balance between Native 18 hunting and fishing rights and 19 Ontario's conservation priorities. 20 Insist on the same conservation rules 21 for all Ontarians." 22 And the second point: 23 "Work with Native leaders to reflect 24 Aboriginal concerns and include the 25 Native viewpoint in governmental [or,


1 sorry] government policies." 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: All right. And if you next go to Tab 4 5, please. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: It's been tendered as Exhibit P-925. 7 It's entitled, A Voice for the North: Report of the Mike 8 Harris Northern Focus Tour, January 1995. 9 And again, are you familiar with this 10 document? 11 A: Yes, I was at the time. 12 Q: All right. And can you tell us what 13 -- what this report is intended to convey? 14 A: My recollection at the time was that 15 Mr. Harris went on a, I'll call it -- I think we called 16 it at the time a listening tour of Northern Ontario. 17 Our caucus between 1990 and -- and 1995 18 with the exception of Mr. Harris and Mr. Eaves, both who 19 were in, sort of, the Southern part of Northern Ontario, 20 were our only two (2) Northern Ontario caucus members and 21 so we -- we did feel it was important to ensure that we 22 addressed what we saw as potentially some specific 23 concerns for Northern Ontario. 24 This, I recall, was sort of the 25 culmination of that tour and a report back as the -- as


1 the leader had promised he would do when he was in the 2 North. 3 And I don't think it was all specifically 4 him, I think our caucus also travelled if I recall, and 5 this was the report back what they had heard and what 6 they were reflecting from that, is my recollection. 7 Q: All right. And were you part of this 8 tour? 9 A: I don't believe so. I actually am 10 surprised that the date is January 1995. I don't -- I 11 don't dispute it, it just would surprise me that that was 12 the date, simply because I thought it pre-dated the 13 Common Sense Revolution and secondly it does -- it does 14 on -- well, the second page in, it doesn't have a number. 15 But it speaks to new directions, three 16 (3), a blueprint for justice and community safety in 17 Ontario. That was one of the -- the policy development 18 documents that I spoke about in the early years of 19 opposition that -- that pre-dated our campaign platform. 20 So, I'm a little confused about the time, 21 that's all. 22 Q: Oh, that's fair. Do you know whether 23 or not this formed part of the -- the platform for the 24 1995 election? 25 A: Certainly any -- I would -- I would


1 say, any policy that we had between 1990 and 1995 that 2 was as this was, a document, it maintained -- we 3 maintained to those policies certainly, and supported 4 those policies. 5 It didn't necessarily translate that it 6 became part of the Common Sense Revolution. It doesn't 7 mean it's not reflective of -- of what our government was 8 prepared to do -- 9 Q: All right. 10 A: -- during its mandate. 11 Q: All right. And it would appear that 12 one of the focuses of this report is a -- is a land 13 claims issue; is that fair? 14 A: I can't say focus, but it's certainly 15 addressed, yes. 16 Q: All right. And it contains the 17 observation that most of Ontario was the subject of some 18 form of -- of land claim. 19 Are you aware of that? 20 A: Yes, I would say I was. 21 Q: All right. And can you -- can you 22 help us understand, if you know, what was meant by that 23 observation, and the utility of pointing it out? 24 A: I can't speak to that; I don't know. 25 Q: Fair enough. It's fair to say that,


1 according to this report, there is -- there was, at 2 least, a perceived unhappiness of non-Ontarian -- non- 3 Native communities with respect to the uncertainty 4 created by outstanding Aboriginal land claims? 5 A: I guess I can only offer, too, that 6 what's printed here I would support, would have at the 7 time. I can't really provide any more background than 8 that. 9 Q: All right. Fair enough. 10 Now, after Mr. Harris and his party were 11 elected to power in 1995, did you receive an appointment? 12 A: I didn't consider it an appointment. 13 Q: All right. 14 A: I -- I was asked to -- to work for 15 Mr. Harris in the Premier's office. I generally think of 16 appointments a little differently. 17 Q: Fair enough. And -- and feel free to 18 correct me if there's any political lingo -- I'm dumping 19 on out -- 20 A: I'm not sure that -- 21 Q: -- lingo -- 22 A: -- was just how I viewed it, I guess. 23 Q: Fair enough. In any event, you were 24 hired by Mr. Harris? 25 A: I was.


1 Q: All right. And what position were 2 you hired for? 3 A: I believe my initial title was 4 Executive Assistant for issues management. I'm not sure 5 that was the title but I -- in fact I know when I left 6 government in 2000 my title was Senior Advisor. But, to 7 a certain extent part of my job, at least main -- was -- 8 was constant throughout that period of time. 9 Q: All right. And when you say, 10 "constant", throughout the 1995 year? 11 A: No, sorry, between 1995 and 2000, 12 when I did leave. 13 Q: All right. The same substance, 14 different title? 15 A: Different title, same substance, and 16 sometimes increased responsibilities or just change of 17 focus, if you will. 18 Q: All right. And within what office 19 were you working within the Government? 20 A: In the Premier's office. 21 Q: Now, can you describe for us the 22 organizational structure of the Premier's office in the 23 summer to fall of 1995? 24 A: Sure. We -- we had a fairly small 25 office at the time. We had as our, sort of, chief of


1 staff an individual who was principle secretary David 2 Lindsey. He had an assistant or deputy principle 3 secretary who was Mitch Patten. And then in terms of 4 communications and policy functions we notionally divided 5 the office into short-term and long-term communications 6 and short-term and long-term policy. 7 We also had a tour function and obviously 8 some administrative support. There was a correspondence 9 unit that resided more with Cabinet office, but that was 10 sort of the core of the Premier's office. 11 Q: All right. Now, were you considered 12 to be a civil servant or a political staff? 13 A: Political staff. 14 Q: And were the other positions -- can 15 you tell me what the other positions were characterized 16 as -- 17 A: I believe they were all the same, 18 those that I've mentioned. 19 Q: Political staff? 20 A: Yes, I've had correspondents 21 positions, as I said, resided in Cabinet office. They 22 may well have been civil service positions, but I think 23 there was a bit of a hybrid for those two (2) positions. 24 Q: Were there any civil servants, other 25 than that possible exception, in the Premier's office?


1 A: No, we had Cabinet office which is, 2 in my words, I'm not sure it's -- it's wholly accurate, 3 but I -- I considered Cabinet office sort of the parallel 4 to other ministries' deputies' offices. So, it was 5 almost the ministry for the Premier's office if you will. 6 Q: All right. And was there any civil 7 servants within the Cabinet office? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Who? 10 A: A very large number. 11 Q: Okay. A lot of them. 12 A: But, it -- but it was led by Rita 13 Burak who was the Secretary of Cabinet for, I think, the 14 entire time I was at Queen's Park. She had two (2) 15 assistant deputies, Jan Rush who was responsible for 16 policy and Lee Allison Howe was responsible for 17 communications. And then there were a number of policy 18 areas and communications areas that would support Lee and 19 Jan in their positions for example. 20 Q: Fair enough. Thank you. Now, you 21 indicated that there were four (4) key positions, if you 22 will, amongst you, one was for short-term communications. 23 Who was that person? 24 A: That was Paul Rhodes and short-term 25 communications had a media focus.


1 Q: All right. And what -- what -- when 2 you a "media focus," what are you conveying? 3 A: He was responsible for the group that 4 interacted with the media on behalf of the Premier's 5 office and to a certain extent Cabinet as well. 6 Q: All right. Who was responsible for 7 long-term communications? 8 A: We actually had a vacancy, so I 9 believe Mitch Patten was filling in. A few of us sort of 10 kept an eye on that, but we had a vacancy during 11 September of 1995 anyhow. 12 Q: All right. Now, what was the -- the 13 primary responsibility of that position? 14 A: Of the long-term -- 15 Q: Yeah. 16 A: -- communications position? Similar 17 to long-term policy, which I hadn't gotten to, but it was 18 filled by Guy Giorno. In tandem, those two (2) 19 individuals will ensure that -- that we were moving 20 forward on the Government's agenda; that the processes of 21 government that allow you to make those decisions and get 22 Cabinet approval and -- and draft legislation, those 23 sorts of things, that there was a plan, usually a six (6) 24 month plan with a -- a longer range one (1) year and -- 25 and full mandate plan that was moving forward.


1 The long-term communications piece is 2 distinct from the long-term policy piece, would ensure 3 that there were communications planning -- that there was 4 communications planning being done and there were 5 communications plans drafted to support the proactive 6 agenda of the Government. 7 Q: All right. And your position, the 8 short-term policy, can you describe what -- what first of 9 all -- what your specific qualifications for that 10 position were at the time? 11 A: I think I -- I said very quickly, so 12 perhaps I'll spend a little more time on it, that in 13 Opposition I had been responsible for Question Period, so 14 the Opposition's version of -- of issues, management if 15 you will. 16 So, that involved briefings for Mr. Harris 17 at the time, the Premier then, when we were in 18 government; getting him ready and our Cabinet Ministers 19 ready for Question Period; anticipating what was likely 20 to come their way, sometimes from the media, sometimes 21 when the House was in session obviously, most exclusively 22 for Question Period. 23 And I also had responsibilities for issues 24 advanced that I had spoken about from the 1990 campaign. 25 I had someone in my office who was responsible for that.


1 So, I think that's probably a good 2 starting point anyhow. 3 Q: And -- and perhaps you would just 4 describe who comprised your office in the summer/early 5 fall 1995. 6 A: In the summer we were still getting 7 ourselves setup to a certain extent. I had an assistant 8 name Brett Laschinger who had, as I had done in 1990, he 9 performed the issues advance role in 1995. And I'd asked 10 him to stay with me and -- and work for the Premier in 11 1995 and he did that. 12 I -- I would have had someone who would 13 have assisted with my administrative area, but I don't 14 recall that I had a full time person at the time. I 15 think it was some months later before I was able to get 16 somebody hired and -- and in that position full time. 17 Q: All right. Now -- 18 A: I'm sorry, I was also responsible for 19 the correspondence people as well that were in Cabinet 20 office. 21 Q: When you say the correspondence 22 people what do you mean? 23 A: Sorry, the two (2) individuals that 24 I'd referenced as being in Cabinet office but responsible 25 for Premier's correspondence specifically. I -- I had


1 responsibility for -- for them and -- and received their 2 material and their work and that sort of thing. 3 Q: All right. And did you also play a 4 role in relation to messaging, if you will? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Public messaging? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And can you just describe that a 9 little bit for us? 10 A: Well, I guess sort of, two (2) broad 11 areas of messaging; one wish is obvious to issues of adva 12 -- or issues management; the idea that -- that when 13 you're asked about a specific issue, or if you're faced 14 with an issue, that you respond publicly. There's an 15 expectation that you're going to respond publicly as a 16 government; sometimes the Premier specifically. 17 So, I was involved in helping craft those 18 messages, ensuring that we had some consistency across 19 government of what those message were and some 20 appreciation and understanding for what we wanted to say 21 amongst our Ministers. 22 And so that was sort of the issues 23 management piece. As well, given the small nature of our 24 office while someone else had primary responsibility for 25 the longer term communications, at a certain point when


1 you start to announce a policy and -- and go through the 2 communications of that there's some daily messaging that 3 supports that effort and that would have been within my 4 responsibility. 5 Q: All right. Now, as part of your 6 responsibilities in short-term issues, that include 7 preparing the Premier with respect to crises, events -- 8 crisis -- events that would come up from time to time. 9 A: Yeah. I probably call them issues, 10 but yes. 11 Q: Issues? 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: Fair enough. Can you just tell us 14 what was your general approach to your job as -- as the 15 Executive Assistant? 16 A: In a general sense I -- I saw my role 17 as and I think for a lot of political staff, I -- I 18 think, this is certainly part of their role and 19 responsibility, as facilitating the best possible 20 decision making and the best, sort of, carrying out of -- 21 of the duties of the Premier. 22 So, supporting him so that he's able to do 23 what is expected of him in his role and also that he's 24 able to make the most effective decisions that he can. 25 So included in that obviously is making sure that -- that


1 all available information is there; that there's being 2 some ability to analyse or discuss the pros and cons of 3 that. 4 And take that information and make it 5 available to him in a timely met fashion. In other 6 words, that he's time to -- to review it and make 7 decisions if that's what was required of him, but also 8 understand it and be able to sift through it himself. 9 Q: And was it part of your role to 10 prioritize the issues in terms of putting them before the 11 Premier? 12 A: Yes. I would say so, as a general 13 comment, yes. 14 Q: All right. Is it fair to say that 15 you were assertive in advancing the views of the Premier 16 and the Premier's office would call to do? 17 A: I -- I hope I was precise. Probably 18 a word I'd use. 19 Q: Precise? 20 A: I hope so. 21 Q: All right. Unequivocal then? 22 A: Precise is good. 23 Q: All right. Did you consider yourself 24 to be a no-nonsense type of person? 25 A: I think so. I try to be.


1 Q: And that you were a results oriented 2 person? 3 A: Yeah. I think that's first and 4 foremost, in my nature. Secondly given the volume of the 5 nature of issues as opposed to policy where you're sort 6 of moving a -- a smaller number of items forward, I think 7 I needed to be results oriented to ensure that we covered 8 the landscape of things that -- that we unfortunately 9 everyday had to -- had to deal with. 10 Q: All right. And is it fair to say 11 that you believed that you knew your job very well? 12 A: I believe so. I think, like everyone 13 you, you know, you learn every single day, but I -- I 14 felt confident that -- that I was doing what I was being 15 asked to do. 16 Q: Did you consider yourself to be an 17 effective spokesperson for the Premier and the Premier's 18 office when called to do so? 19 A: Yeah, I -- I actually, I just don't 20 think in those terms, if I might say that. I think there 21 certainly were occasions, and I think that's perhaps what 22 you were alluded to that, where I'd be called to reflect 23 -- called on to reflect the Premier's point of view, if I 24 knew it. 25 So if -- if that's the situation, I hope


1 that I was reflective of his views. 2 I didn't consider myself a spokesperson 3 per se, simply because that -- just that word to me 4 denotes something that sort of is public and I didn't 5 consider myself the Premier's public spokesperson, nor 6 was that part of my responsibility at that time. 7 Q: All right, but you were, in effect, 8 the spokesperson with respect to the internal 9 considerations within government? 10 A: On occasion, yes. 11 Q: All right. 12 A: It's certainly not a primary 13 responsibility or -- or, yes, something of that nature. 14 Q: Fair enough. And when you spoke on 15 matters within your jurisdiction then, on short term 16 issues -- 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: -- is it fair to say that you spoke 19 with the confidence of the Premier as far as you knew? 20 A: If -- if I indicated that I was 21 speaking on his behalf, I believe that's the case. Much 22 of what I did on a daily basis was -- was not necessary 23 to reflect the Premier's views. 24 Perhaps you might find an example, but you 25 know, we -- we managed issues and a lot of times a


1 Minister's office would give me a call and say this 2 particular issue has happened, here's what we know to be 3 the case. Here's where the Minister's head's at; what do 4 you think? 5 That's not the type of situation where I 6 would go and check with the Premier. I would say, 7 Minister's comfortable, sounds reasonable, seems to be 8 within that Minister's sort of specific area of 9 responsibility, doesn't overlap with another Minister's 10 area of responsibility, that -- in that situation I 11 wouldn't propose to speak on the Premier's behalf, nor 12 would I feel the need to go and check, if that makes some 13 sense, hopefully. 14 Q: Well, and that would be because you 15 would have some confidence that the positions you were 16 taking would be consistent with the Premier's thinking. 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Now did you have any experience or 19 knowledge base specific to Aboriginal issues when you 20 took on this post in '95? 21 A: Between 1990 and 1995, as I said, I 22 was responsible at various times for issues advanced, 23 issues management in opposition and certainly travelled 24 with the Premier in 1995. 25 So throughout the course of that I think I


1 gained what I would say is a sort of a working knowledge 2 of those policy areas and in some cases, policies, that 3 were within the purview of the Provincial Government. 4 I wouldn't have considered -- was not 5 responsible for a specific area of responsibility at the 6 time or a specific policy area. 7 But I certainly think I had a -- a decent, 8 after seven (7) years, a decent sense of the broad areas 9 at least. 10 Q: Fair enough. And had you ever heard 11 of -- of a 1992 document called the Statement of 12 Political Relationship relating to a statement of 13 principles reached between the Ontario First Nations and 14 the Province in 1992? 15 A: Yes, I believe it was something that 16 Mr. Rae announced in the Legislature, if not outside as 17 well. 18 Q: And is it fair, then, that you -- you 19 knew of that document in 1995? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And were you familiar with the 22 contents of the document at that time? 23 A: I can't recall specifically. My 24 sense was that it was a -- a sort of set of principles. 25 Perhaps my words, not theirs, by which the Government of


1 Premier Rae would operate or -- or deal with the First 2 Nations community. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: I don't know that I could have gone 5 more specifically than that, in 1995. 6 Q: Fair enough. Now, can you just -- on 7 a different topic for a moment, can you describe your 8 note taking practices as at 1995 in your position within 9 the Premier's office? 10 A: I -- and actually, I wouldn't 11 distinguish between opposite and government in this 12 regard. We -- those of us, when I say "we", who -- who 13 dealt with sort of daily issues, so the media and -- and 14 preparation for question period, that sort of thing, we 15 received a clippings package every day that was a 16 compilation done by the civil service of the major 17 dailies in -- in Toronto and, I believe, perhaps, some of 18 the other major cities on occasion. 19 And a -- and they were a clippings package 20 of -- it was a clippings package of -- of sort of all of 21 the articles that applied to the Ontario Government or 22 while we were in government, to Mr. Harris specifically, 23 and to opposition parties and their comments as well. 24 And so I actually used that as bit of my 25 guide to the preparation for the day and I quite often


1 made notations on that package every day and those 2 notations were usually given my responsibilities of the 3 nature of key messages, key facts, sometimes to-do's or - 4 - or that kind of thing and they formed the basis of the 5 verbal briefing that I did of Mr. Harris both in 6 Opposition and in -- in government. 7 In Opposition for example I was 8 responsible for drafting the questions that the -- the 9 leader at the time asked in the legislature. I was not 10 responsible for drafting the briefing notes that he used 11 as Premier, they were drafted by ministries and came to 12 me for edit and review and the notes that I would have 13 made on my clippings package would help form the basis of 14 any notations I'd send back. 15 Q: All right. And what was your policy 16 or practice with respect to maintaining those notes be 17 they on the sides of documents or separate pieces of 18 paper? 19 A: Well, given the nature of -- of what 20 I did, you know, I obviously used those as a guide 21 throughout the day. At the end of the day I would check 22 back and see if I covered everything off, if there were 23 questions I wanted to deal with or things I needed to do. 24 And sometimes if there were longer term 25 things, longer term for me sometimes was a few days, but


1 transfer them to another -- another set of notations to 2 -- to keep sort of for the next day and/or destroy them. 3 I mean they were sort of really notes to myself more than 4 anything. 5 Q: All right. Now, notwithstanding your 6 general practice did you maintain any notes with respect 7 to the Ipperwash matter in September of '95? 8 A: No, it like all other issues that I 9 dealt with as I said, the -- the actual drafting of the 10 notes was the responsibility of the specific ministries 11 involved and those notes would come to me and they -- the 12 ministries kept a full record as per the guidelines for 13 record keeping in the province. 14 Q: All right. Now, over the -- the 15 summer and early fall of 1995 did you have a -- a day 16 planning system? 17 A: I believe at that period I was still 18 using the sort of year at a time/day at a glance kind of 19 physical daytimer. I'm not sure at what stage in that 20 fall, perhaps when I received -- when I eventually hired 21 an admin assistant that I would have changed to a 22 computer daytimer, but I suspect until probably December 23 of '95 I maintained a -- the -- the book that I would 24 have used each year in Opposition. 25 Q: And what was your practice with


1 respect to maintaining your -- your annual then daytimer? 2 A: I shredded them at the end of the 3 year. 4 Q: And not withstanding your practice 5 did you maintain the daytimer book for 1995? 6 A: I did not. 7 Q: You indicated that you would brief 8 the Premier from time to time. 9 Did you have a routine or practice in 1995 10 with respect to briefings of the Premier on short-term 11 issues? 12 A: We had a system as a I recall where 13 the senior staff met first thing in the morning and the 14 senior staff would be the Principle Secretary, Deputy 15 Principle Secretary to the four (4) when they were all 16 filled positions, the four (4) policy communications 17 people I spoke about including myself and I believe our 18 tour director attended as well. 19 And we would meet in the morning and do a 20 bit of an update on everyone's area of responsibility, 21 what we had on our plates that day, what -- what we were 22 expecting on the Premier's behalf, what was expected of 23 the Premier that day from a tour perspective or a policy 24 perspective and then the Premier would join that briefing 25 I -- I believe about an hour into it.


1 Q: All right. 2 A: And we would updated him on sort of a 3 concise version of -- of that meeting. 4 Q: All right. And can you tell me 5 approximately what time in the morning your meeting would 6 start and therefore approximately what time the Premier 7 would join you or was there a consistent time? 8 A: I think at that time and in fairness 9 I've -- I've been aided some of the documents that exist, 10 I -- I believe it was nine o'clock with the Premier and 11 we either met at 7:30 or 8:00. 12 Q: All right. And how long typically 13 were your meeting briefings with the Premier then? 14 A: It -- it depended on the day, but I 15 would say between thirty (30) minutes and forty-five (45) 16 minutes. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays Mr. Harris had 17 commitments at ten o'clock. Caucus was on Tuesdays at 18 10:00 and Cabinet was on Wednesdays at 10:00 and he would 19 have some preparation for both of those to do, probably 20 more so for Caucus because Cabinet generally he had been 21 briefed on the Monday in anticipation of Cabinet on 22 Wednesday. 23 So, probably more so for Caucus on 24 Tuesdays, but generally we were around a half an hour I 25 think.


1 Q: All right. Now, were these briefings 2 recorded in any way, typically? 3 A: Did someone take notes? Is that what 4 you mean? Like, take minutes or something? 5 Q: Well, first of all, were there any 6 formal -- formal recording methods, such as minutes? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Of these meetings? 9 A: No. No. 10 Q: And was there any agendas that would 11 be prepared, typically, in advance of these briefings? 12 A: Not an agenda for the meeting. The 13 Premier had his daily schedule but it -- it would have 14 referenced the meetings as opposed to the content of the 15 meeting. 16 Q: All right. To your knowledge -- or 17 first of all I'll ask you: Did you take notes of the 18 briefings with the Premier, typically? 19 A: No. To the extent that anything that 20 I learned at the morning staff meeting, in advance of the 21 Premier, impacted what I was responsible for, I would 22 have made notations, the same as I had described earlier. 23 And then my responsibility at the 24 Premier's briefing would be to brief him on the issues. 25 And I would do that verbally.


1 Q: All right. Did you ever report or 2 brief the Premier in any written form? Would you have 3 any writing of documents for him? 4 A: I -- I don't want to say never but 5 very, very rarely. And I can't actually recall a 6 specific time when I would have drafted a briefing from 7 scratch, if you will. 8 Q: All right. And to the best of your 9 recollection, was any such written briefing provided to 10 the Premier by you on Tuesday, September the 5th or 11 Wednesday, September the 6th? 12 A: No. I think I can say beyond -- it 13 wouldn't be the practice. I -- I do not recall doing 14 that at all. 15 Q: All right. And did you observe 16 anyone else taking notes, typically, at these Premier's 17 briefings at 9:00 in the morning? 18 A: Well again, if -- if information that 19 was shared amongst the senior staff or with the Premier, 20 although less so with the Premier because we would have 21 been through the details of -- of our conversations at 22 the first meeting, I mean, if people had things that were 23 of note to them. 24 In particular I might have information 25 that was of note to Mr. Rhodes in his capacity as media -


1 - the person responsibility for media. But it wouldn't 2 have gone beyond that. It would only be if it was 3 important or germane to what those individuals were doing 4 that day or their responsibilities. 5 Q: All right. And conversely, did the 6 Premier ever provide you with written feedback or 7 direction during the course of these briefings? 8 A: Generally or specifically? 9 Q: Generally. 10 A: Generally, yes. If I haven't said 11 already I -- I should say, I mean I -- most of the 12 materials that went to the Premier for him to carry out 13 his responsibilities came through me first. 14 So if there was a notation on his speech 15 or a notation on a piece of correspondence or a notation 16 that he wanted to make on a specific piece of information 17 that had been given to him, it would come back through 18 me. 19 But, those pieces that I can think of all 20 would have been generated by others in the office and 21 would have been their responsibility and I was simply the 22 person through which this stuff went; a conduit, in 23 short. 24 Q: All right. And do you recall there 25 being any such written directions or briefings from the


1 Premier to you on the 5th or 6th of September -- 2 A: No. 3 Q: -- 1995? All right. 4 A: I don't recall and I don't believe 5 there were. 6 Q: All right. And would you have had a 7 briefing on Labour Day, September the 4th, in the 8 morning? 9 A: No. 10 I shouldn't say that. We wouldn't have a 11 -- a briefing of the nature we've just been discussing. 12 Obviously I think our office was probably closed. 13 It was very common, in fact I would say 14 more than common, probably routine, for the Premier and I 15 to speak most days. The media writes every day and 16 issues happen every day and so even on the weekends and 17 to a certain extent while he was on vacation, we would 18 speak every day at some point just really as a, you know, 19 what's happening, what do I need to know about, kind of 20 conversation. 21 Very informally. Often at the end of the 22 day, sometimes at the beginning, sometimes both. 23 Q: All right. And is it fair to say 24 that you would have contact with him during business 25 days, if you will, outside of these more informal


1 briefings? 2 A: Outside of the nine o'clock meetings? 3 Q: Yes. Outside the nine o'clock 4 meeting. 5 A: Yeah. Well certainly when the 6 legislature was in session, for example, I would be back 7 in front of the Premier by 12:30 or one o'clock getting 8 him ready for question period, for example. 9 Q: All right. Did the nine o'clock 10 briefings then happen typically every -- every day during 11 the business week? 12 A: Yes. And when the Premier was on the 13 road, whether it occurred at nine o'clock or at some 14 other time, that was reflective of his public schedule 15 that day. We would even do a phone -- a phone briefing 16 when he was out of the office. 17 Q: Okay. Fair enough. Now, were you 18 familiar with Bill King at the time? 19 A: Yes. I had worked with Mr. King in 20 opposition so I had known him since 1988. 21 Q: All right. And was he a member of 22 the Premier's political staff? 23 A: I don't believe so, technically. We 24 recognized that Mr. Harris, the individual, had a number 25 of hats that he wore.


1 One, obviously, was as Premier; one was as 2 Leader of the party and of the Caucus. Those members 3 both who were in Cabinet but also those who weren't. 4 So, Mr. King's responsibilities were, I 5 would say, in the area -- very definitely in the area of 6 Mr. Harris as leader of the Caucus and of the Party and 7 as such, while he was on Mr. Harris's staff, so Premier 8 Harris' staff, Mr. King was much more closely aligned 9 with the Caucus and we had caucus office that was 10 distinct and a research team, for example, that was 11 distinct from government and which serviced caucus in 12 their roles as MPP's and, in some cases, our back bench 13 members. 14 Now, I don't know if I've done a very good 15 job of explaining that but -- so Mr. King was, while a 16 member of the Premier's team, was a member of -- of, I 17 would say, more of the Legislative Assembly staff. 18 I can't -- I believe that's where he was 19 paid by and -- and that's who he technically worked for. 20 It's my understanding, my recollection. 21 He physically, then, was in the 22 legislative building where many of our back bench MPP's 23 had their offices and the Premier's core team that I've 24 talked about from a government perspective operated out 25 of the Whitney Block.


1 Those were our -- our offices were in the 2 Whitney Block. 3 Q: All right. And you talked earlier 4 about the cabinet office. 5 Was there a -- or did you work or did the 6 Premier's work -- office work with the Cabinet office in 7 a regular way? 8 A: Every day. 9 Q: Every day? 10 A: And we were physically in the same 11 sort of general space, I think. We were one side of the 12 hall versus the other, but we were all in the same -- 13 same general area. 14 Q: All right. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Now, prior to your taking on the 19 position in the Premier's office in 1995, had you had any 20 prior professional experience or interaction with civil 21 servants in the Government? 22 A: From time to time in Opposition we 23 would be briefed by members of the civil service to 24 assist Mr. Harris in his capacity as leader. 25 Some of our critics developed


1 relationships with the Ministries, in particular on 2 budget days, on Throne speech days. 3 We had some sort of relationships of -- of 4 a briefing nature, I guess, with -- with some of the 5 civil servants. 6 Q: Hmm hmm, okay. 7 A: It wasn't a regular occurrence, but 8 it was certainly common. 9 Q: Fair enough. Now, as a general 10 observation, were the priority issues in the Government's 11 first year of its mandate, 1995, those that were 12 presented in the Common Sense Revolution platform and 13 related documents? 14 A: Yes. And from the Premier's office 15 perspective, I would say so in particular. Each Minister 16 and Ministry has a number of day to day, just the 17 operations and business of government, issues that would 18 be part of their day to day job. 19 So it's not to say that if our Minister 20 did have -- a Minister didn't have something specific in 21 the Common Sense Revolution that they didn't have a job 22 to do or that weren't things that were important to them 23 in their area of responsibility. 24 The Common Sense Revolution, I think, 25 speaks more to the proactive agenda, if you will, of the


1 Government; the things that we wanted to ensure that we 2 got done, because we'd promised Ontarians that we would 3 do them, as distinct from other things that -- that arise 4 in government and -- and just the basics of government 5 functioning that every Minister and Ministry would have 6 had a number of those issues. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: To deal with. 9 Q: And from your perspective, were 10 Aboriginal issues a part -- amongst the prior -- the top 11 priorities of the Government's first year mandate? 12 A: Well I think I've done the best I can 13 to explain the Common Sense Revolution and the place that 14 it held for us as a set of priorities and certainly as -- 15 as the background to what we hoped to achieve in our 16 first mandate. 17 Each Minister, as I said, had individual 18 priorities within his or her Ministry, so I wouldn't want 19 to say that Minister Harnick, you know, didn't have a 20 certain number of priorities. 21 It's -- I guess I speak more from the 22 context of the overarching government agenda. 23 Q: Yes, fair enough. 24 And when you say you tried to speak to 25 that can you just be a little more specific for me in


1 what those priorities were with respect to Aboriginal 2 issues? 3 A: I would not propose to do that. I 4 think Mr. Harnick would be somebody who'd be better able 5 to speak to that. 6 Q: All right. But, from the -- from 7 your perspective in your position in the Premier's 8 office? 9 A: From my perspective the priorities 10 were those of The Common Sense Revolution recognizing 11 that there were things that came up from time to time 12 that were just a matter of good government. Those -- 13 those were sort of broadly the areas that would come to 14 my attention. 15 Q: So then the economic issues relating 16 to Aboriginal people? I'm just trying to understand what 17 that answer means. 18 A: Yeah. So were there pro-active 19 policies that were part of the economic development at 20 the Aboriginal community that I was involved in? 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: In the first year I don't recall any 23 specifically. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: We, as I think I'd indicated earlier,


1 had -- knew that -- that we were going to be facing as a 2 government if we were successful in 1995 a very large 3 agenda. 4 When we got into government in June of 5 1995, sworn in at the end of the month, we discovered in 6 fact the deficit was $11 billion and so much of the 7 Government's time and priority in that first few months 8 of -- of the summer of 1995 was trying to get the deficit 9 back down to what we had thought it would be and would be 10 consistent with the plan of The Common Sense Revolution 11 and our -- and our plan to balance the budget. 12 So I had a -- a number of -- to the extent 13 I was in economic briefings and there were a number of 14 them they were, for the most part in the summer of 1995, 15 related to the additional $2 billion in -- in -- in the 16 deficit number that we had not anticipated. 17 Q: All right. So that took a 18 considerable amount of your time then in the early part 19 of the -- 20 A: It did. I believe we were about six 21 (6) weeks from swearing in until Minister Eves at the 22 time, our Finance Minister, was able to publicly address 23 the -- the $2 billion gap. 24 Q: And can you just remind me what the - 25 - the swearing in date was?


1 A: The 25th or 26th of June I believe. 2 Q: Thank you. Now, were you part of any 3 internal general briefings, Ipperwash aside, which 4 informed -- which informed the Premier's office of the 5 Government's relationship with First Nations in those 6 early months of government? 7 A: We -- we received numerous binders I 8 think sort of the day of the election and going forward 9 and some of them obviously required extensive reading, 10 others flagged us to -- to issues that we needed to be 11 briefed on and that sort of thing. 12 I don't recall in the course of those many 13 briefings a specific one about Aboriginal policies or 14 issues. 15 Q: Or -- 16 A: That's not to say I didn't receive 17 it, I just don't recall it. 18 Q: All right. Or the Government's 19 interrelationship with First Nation's government? 20 A: That's correct, the same -- 21 Q: All right. 22 A: -- same recollection or lack of. 23 Q: Do you recall being part of any 24 briefings again related to Ipperwash which were -- 25 informed the Premier's office with respect to the


1 Government's relationship with the policing agencies, the 2 OPP in particular in the early months of the -- 3 A: I'm sorry, can you ask me that again? 4 Q: Certainly. Were you part of any 5 briefings which focussed on explaining the relationship 6 or interrelationship between the Government -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- and the OPP in the early months of 9 the Government? 10 A: I don't recall specifically again -- 11 it's not to say I wasn't. I had as I've indicated been 12 in Opposition for seven (7) years and I believe I had a - 13 - a very clear -- as I would argue the Premier certainly 14 seemed to have a very clear understanding of the 15 distinction between what the OPP was responsible for and 16 what the Government was responsible for. 17 Q: What was your early understanding of 18 that? 19 A: The only role that the Ontario 20 Government or that elected officials could play in -- in 21 government as it related to the OPP was one of a broad 22 policy nature. So for example we certainly set policy as 23 to number of OPP that the Government would fund for 24 example, those -- those sort of broad types of policy 25 areas and that's as far as it went.


1 Q: Did you have any involvement with the 2 Special Advisor First Nations official Ron Fox prior to 3 September of 1995? 4 A: No, I was not familiar with the 5 position or the individual. 6 Q: Fair enough. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: When did the potential takeover of 11 the Ipperwash Provincial Park first reach your attention 12 to the best of your recollection? 13 A: The potential of the Park takeover, I 14 don't know if I was familiar with it prior to it 15 happening on September the 4th. I do know that a member 16 of my team, Brett Laschinger, attended a meeting about 17 the issues at Ipperwash. He may well have said that 18 there was a potential for the challenges that were 19 happening outside of Camp Ipperwash. And that Camp 20 Ipperwash to -- to move to the Park. I don't recall that 21 specific piece of information. 22 And I don't recall him specifically 23 briefing me but I have no doubt that he would have. It 24 was our practice. 25


1 Q: That would be an expectation on your 2 part -- 3 A: Yes. Yes. 4 Q: -- if there was such an issue? 5 A: Yes. I -- my recollection was that I 6 had a sense in the summer of 1995 that there was some 7 unrest around Camp Ipperwash and there was some 8 frustration with the Federal Government. 9 As I said I don't know that I knew in 10 advance of September 4th that there was a -- a potential 11 or at least a realistic potential of an occupation. I 12 just can't say that. 13 Q: Of the Park? 14 A: Of the Park. I'm sorry, yes. 15 Q: Fair enough. All right. 16 Were you aware of -- were you aware that 17 on August the 2nd, 1995 that a group of Aboriginal 18 persons were self identified as the Stoney Point First 19 Nation sometimes referred to as the Stoney Point Group 20 had taken over the barracks of the military base called 21 Camp Ipperwash on July the 29th? 22 A: I -- I couldn't speak to -- 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: I wanted to know if -- my question -- 2 my question was whether you were aware as of August the 3 2nd -- 4 A: Right. 5 Q: -- of the occupation by a group of 6 Aboriginal people which occurred on July 29th of the 7 military barracks? 8 A: Okay. I don't recall -- I assume you 9 use August 2nd because that was the date of a meeting 10 that Brett attended? 11 Q: Correct. 12 A: And so I don't -- I don't recall 13 whether it was August 2nd or some time subsequent to 14 that. But Brett would have briefed me on that meeting as 15 to when I was briefed by him, whether July 29th was 16 specific I -- I don't recall. So the dates are not 17 specific in my mind. 18 I was aware that there was an occupation 19 of Camp Ipperwash. I just don't recall when I learned of 20 that. 21 Q: Were you aware prior to September the 22 4th of that? 23 A: I believe so, yes. 24 Q: All right. Similarly were you aware 25 prior to September the 4th that members of the Stoney


1 Point First Nation had -- had entered the Camp Ipperwash 2 lands as early as May of 1993 and were involved in a 3 partial occupation of those lands? 4 A: I -- I would not -- I don't recall 5 being aware of specific dates during this timeframe at 6 all. My general recollection was that there was some 7 longstanding frustration with the Federal Government 8 about the return of lands in that area. 9 And that as a result there had been an 10 occupation. I don't think I had anymore specific detail 11 than that and I don't recall at what point I knew even 12 that level of detail. 13 Q: All right. Were you aware prior to 14 September the 4th of '95 that Camp Ipperwash was adjacent 15 to the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 16 A: I don't believe I would have thought 17 about it in that term. No, I don't think so. 18 Q: Were you familiar with the manner in 19 which the Federal Government acquired the lands for use 20 of the Camp Ipperwash? 21 A: Prior to September 5th? 22 Q: Correct. 23 A: No. 24 Q: Were you aware that those lands had 25 formally been part of reserve territory of the Kettle and


1 Stony Point First Nation prior to September the 4th? 2 A: I don't believe again that I would 3 have had that level of detail. As I said earlier I 4 understood in general terms there was a frustration with 5 the return of land and with the Federal Government. 6 Q: Were you aware that representatives 7 of the Stoney Point First Nation had given an indication 8 to representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources 9 in May of 1993 that they had -- that they claimed that 10 there were sacred Aboriginal burial grounds within the 11 Ipperwash Provincial Park? 12 A: Prior to September 4th? 13 Q: Correct. 14 A: No. 15 Q: Or that they had expressed an 16 intention to enter onto the Ipperwash Provincial Park as 17 early as May of '93? 18 A: No. And in fact I think I just said 19 I wasn't even sure that I understood or was briefed that 20 there was a potential even in the summer of 1995. I just 21 don't recall that information. 22 Q: Fair enough. Now you were aware 23 however, that there was a meeting of the Emergency 24 Planning for Aboriginal issues, InterMinisterial 25 Committee on August the 2nd?


1 A: I believe I would have been aware of 2 it. I -- I -- when I attended the InterMinisterial 3 Committee meeting of August -- sorry of September the 4 5th, I had some preliminary information about the camp, 5 and to a lesser extent, the Park, and I believe that 6 information would have been communicated to me from Mr. 7 Laschinger. 8 I don't have a specific recollection of 9 that briefing or his attendance or knowing when -- 10 knowing either that he was going or -- or subsequently. 11 I just don't recall. 12 Q: All right. Are you aware that the 13 prime -- that the Premier's office was invited to attend 14 at this meeting? 15 A: Again, I have no doubt that I was 16 aware of it; I just don't have a specific recall of -- of 17 having a conversation about it in advance. 18 Q: All right. In your view, was that 19 invitation appropriate? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Why? 22 A: I think whenever you have an issue 23 that the Premier and Ministers of government would be 24 expected to know about, that any briefing related to that 25 issue would make obvious sense to me that -- that Members


1 of either the Government or the representatives would be 2 in attendance at that meeting, along with civil servants 3 who might have some additional information. 4 Q: All right. Now, you indicated that 5 Mr. Laschinger attended on your behalf. 6 A: It's my understanding, yes. 7 Q: And who designated him as your 8 representative, if you will? 9 A: I suspect I did; I just don't recall. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: If I couldn't attend, which I expect 12 was the case for whatever reason, I would have asked 13 Brett to go. He was certainly the logical choice. 14 Q: All right. And that's because -- 15 A: As you'll recall. 16 Q: -- he was your assistant? 17 A: He was my assistant, yes. 18 Q: Did you receive any direction or 19 queries from the Premier as to what the Prime -- what the 20 Premier's office's role at this IMC meeting would be? 21 A: No, and in fairness I'm not sure that 22 -- again because I've got limited recall of this, I'm not 23 sure that -- in fact I'm quite sure that knowing that -- 24 that Mr. Laschinger went to a meeting about a set of 25 issues and knowing it was a formal, as I knew


1 subsequently, InterMinisterial Committee meeting, are not 2 necessarily the same thing. 3 So we went to a number of meetings that 4 weren't necessarily, sort of, formally structured. 5 Q: All right. 6 A: If that makes some sense. 7 Q: Were you aware of -- of these 8 organized -- of the structure or the organization -- 9 A: No. 10 Q: -- of an IMC? 11 A: I wasn't, which is why I made the 12 avid -- 13 Q: All right. 14 A: -- point. 15 Q: Fair enough. Okay. 16 And you hadn't, I take it then, been 17 briefed or educated in any way about what the purpose and 18 function of this type -- this committee was? 19 A: I don't recall that I was, no. 20 Q: Okay. Or the general powers of the 21 InterMinisterial Committee? 22 A: I don't believe so. 23 Q: All right. Commissioner, it's one 24 o'clock, I wonder if we might break at this point for -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It would be


1 a good time to take a lunch -- 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- lunch? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- break. 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll 7 adjourn now for lunch. 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 9 adjourned until 2:15. 10 11 --- Upon recessing at 12:58 p.m. 12 --- Upon resuming at 2:19 p.m. 13 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 15 resumed. Please be seated. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 18 Q: Good afternoon. 19 A: Good afternoon. 20 Q: Before the lunch break we were 21 speaking about the August 2nd Interministerial Committee 22 Meeting and I wonder, do you recall receiving a copy of 23 the minutes of that -- from that meeting? 24 A: I don't recall that, no. 25 Q: Would you kindly look at Tab 8,


1 please, of your brief of documents, Exhibit P-506 -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- Inquiry Document 3000680. And the 4 front page is a fax transmittal cover sheet. You'll 5 notice the third person from the bottom on that sheet is 6 yourself. 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And I also note the fax number. Do 9 you recognize that fax number? 10 A: I believe that's the main fax number 11 for the Premier's office at the Whitney Block -- 12 Q: All right. 13 A: -- so it would not have been the fax 14 that I used exclusively, I don't believe. 15 Q: All right. Now, is it likely that 16 you received a copy of the attached minutes? 17 A: I perhaps would say possible as 18 opposed to likely, given that, as I look at this, it's a 19 copy of minutes of a meeting that I didn't personally 20 attend. 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: It is possible that it went to Brett, 23 for example. 24 Q: Well, except that his name isn't on 25 this fax transmittal sheet.


1 Q: That's correct. And it is possible I 2 received it. It's just as possible that it would have 3 been picked up and given to Brett, given that he did 4 attend on my behalf. 5 Q: All right. Now, I note that on the 6 fax transmission sheet that's also -- there's also listed 7 Ron Fox, seventh name from the bottom. 8 A: I see that. 9 Q: And he's listed as from the OPP. 10 Do you see that? 11 A: I do see that. 12 Q: And is it your practice to review the 13 transmittal sheets when you receive documents by fax? 14 A: I don't know if I could say it's a 15 practice or not, but on -- on this specific document, as 16 I said, I don't recall receiving it so. 17 Q: All right. Have you had an 18 opportunity to review these meeting notes, prior to 19 today? 20 A: I -- I read through them in 21 preparation for today, yes. 22 Q: All right. Now, assuming you 23 received them in -- on or about the date of their 24 transmission -- 25 A: But I can't assume I did, as I said.


1 Q: I'm going to ask you a question about 2 your practice. 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: Would it be your practice to review 5 fax sheet or at least minutes such as these that would -- 6 that -- that come to your attention? 7 A: It would be my practice to at least, 8 you know, flip through them and -- and I did try to read 9 as much as I could possibly read. As I said, given that 10 Brett had attended this meeting on my behalf I may well 11 have, if I received them, delivered them to him and sort 12 of said, you know, You should look at these. 13 I -- I -- I don't recall reading them 14 which makes me wonder if I did receive it or, in fact, 15 read them. 16 Q: All right. Having reviewed these 17 meeting notes for purposes of your evidence today, does 18 it refresh your memory at all with respect to the 19 briefing that you likely received from Brett Laschinger 20 in relation to his attendance at this meeting? 21 A: As I said I -- I recall, heading into 22 the meeting of September the 5th, that I had a sense 23 about the issues at Camp Ipperwash and the role of the 24 Federal Government in that. I -- I don't recall having 25 anything more substantive in my mind than that.


1 Q: All right. Now, if you look at page 2 3 of these minutes, Item 2 is an update from the 3 Solicitor General. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you'll see that item 3 relates 6 specifically to the impact of the takeover of Camp 7 Ipperwash, or the potential impact on the water supply to 8 Park users. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Now, given that this is an issue that 11 affected the Park directly and could affect the use and 12 enjoyment of the Park by its users, would this be 13 something that you would have expected to be apprised of 14 by Brett Laschinger, given your role? 15 A: In a general sense, yes. I'm -- I'm 16 not sure that he would have gone into the specifics of 17 the water or the impact. But I expect he would have made 18 me aware, at least, that there were potential for some 19 issues on the Park property. 20 As I said earlier, I don't recall 21 believing or knowing sorry, better -- better phrased, 22 that there was an imminent potential or that even a 23 potential of an occupation of the Park, prior to 24 September the 4th. 25 Q: I'm just seeing if this will refresh


1 your memory. 2 A: Sure. 3 Q: Look at the next bullet or next 4 point: 5 "Since the occupation of the base 6 itself some members of the Stoney Point 7 Group have implied that they may try to 8 take over the Ipperwash Provincial 9 Park." 10 Now, again, assuming you were briefed -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: -- by Mr. Laschinger, which you 13 believe is likely; is that right? 14 A: Right. Right. 15 Q: You'd expect this is something that 16 he briefed you about since it directly relates to the 17 Park and the use and enjoyment of it? 18 A: I expect that. And as I said, I 19 don't have a recollection of having had that information 20 in my mind though. 21 Q: And, in fact, the mandate of the -- 22 at least -- the mandate of the Interministerial group was 23 to deal with Aboriginal emergencies, be they blockades or 24 other similar situations by Aboriginal people; isn't that 25 right?


1 A: Yes, I know that now. And I knew 2 that September 5th. I did not know that in relationship 3 to the meeting on August the 2nd. 4 Q: All right. And Mr. Laschinger 5 wouldn't have advised you of that? 6 A: Not necessarily, no. 7 Q: Doesn't this directly impact on your 8 ability to do your job? 9 A: Yes. In -- in a broad sense but Mr. 10 Laschinger was, in my absence from this meeting, the 11 person that was dealing with this specific issue in and 12 around August the 2nd. 13 Q: All right. 14 A: And he was certainly capable of doing 15 that. 16 Q: If you look at page 5 and under, "The 17 next steps," essentially the -- the result of the meeting 18 was that the MNR and the OPP would monitor the situation 19 at the Park? 20 A: I see that. 21 Q: And if an incident should arise, that 22 there would be a further meeting of the Interministerial 23 Committee; is that right? 24 A: Hmm hmm. That's what it says, yes. 25 Q: And that if there was an actual


1 incident at Ipperwash Park then the MNR and OPP would 2 have the ability to do what needed to be do -- to be done 3 to protect the public safety. The last -- the last 4 paragraph: 5 "It was agreed that the Committee will 6 reconvene if an actual incident at 7 Ipperwash occurs but that MNR and OPP 8 staff on the ground do not need to wait 9 for the Committee's approval before 10 taking actions that are necessary to 11 protect public safety." 12 A: Correct, I see that. 13 Q: All right. 14 And again something of that importance you 15 would expect Mr. Laschinger would have brought to your 16 attention? 17 A: I believe so. Can I just add a 18 general point though, that on any given day I personally 19 and -- and the Premier's office would have been made 20 aware, largely through me of, you know, I would venture 21 to say thirty (30) or forty (40) issues from all of the 22 ministries. 23 It's not to say this wasn't important on 24 August the 2nd but had I attended this meeting and had 25 been briefed on these things, I would have come away


1 thinking, Okay, there's no immediate need for the 2 Government to do anything beyond what's happening. 3 And I would have assumed that the Ministry 4 of Natural Resources would be back to me when it required 5 my attention again. So it's -- it's not say that -- that 6 Brett or even in his briefing of me, given that I don't 7 recall it, wouldn't have taken note of these issues. 8 But -- but, given the number of issues we 9 were dealing with, it would have been very reasonable for 10 me to say, Okay that's -- that's parked and -- and the 11 Ministry of Natural Resources will be back when there's 12 another issue -- 13 Q: So this -- 14 A: -- around this. 15 Q: -- this issue hadn't reached the 16 threshold for bringing it to the attention of the 17 Premier? 18 A: I don't recall if I did speak to him 19 about it. It's -- it's not -- it's not necessarily a -- 20 a threshold, I don't think that's the word I'd use. But 21 was it something he would have to deal with today or 22 tomorrow? The answer would be, no. 23 And therefore I would not have necessarily 24 brought it to his attention until such point as there was 25 a need for him to be aware of it, either because he was


1 going to be asked to make a decision about something or 2 be asked to comment publicly about it; that sort of 3 thing. 4 Q: All right. Now you indicated that 5 this -- this wasn't likely one of the priorities, then, 6 on your agenda, at least, with respect to -- 7 A: It's not a matter of it not being a 8 priority. It -- it's simply that it didn't require 9 immediate attention on my part at that point in time and 10 that those in the Ministry would have been dealing with 11 it. 12 And so it's not to say it wasn't a 13 priority; it's -- it's just a matter of someone else 14 actually dealing with it at that time. 15 Q: Yes, it wasn't a priority item on 16 your agenda. 17 A: As an item, you're right. 18 Q: All right. Now you indicated that 19 there were other issues on -- that were on your agenda 20 during that time period. 21 Can you tell us -- sorry -- can you tell 22 us what -- what other or at least what -- what the main 23 issues were that you were, in fact, dealing with at this 24 time period? 25 A: Well, on any given day, as I said,


1 there were probably thirty (30) or forty (40) issues that 2 would come to my attention. Not all of them required any 3 action on my part beyond being aware of them. 4 So, that is sort of the category that I 5 would put this in during August as distinct from 6 September. 7 The big issue on my plate, but that's not 8 to say that -- that there weren't many other smaller 9 ones, but the big issue on my plate, as I think I said 10 earlier, was that we were addressing an additional $2 11 billion deficit problem that needed some fairly immediate 12 attention. 13 Q: All right. Now, earlier you 14 indicated that you could not recall whether or not you 15 were part of an internal briefing on aboriginal issues 16 prior to September the 4th of '95, is that -- 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: -- right? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 10, 21 please. 22 This is Exhibit P-642. There doesn't 23 appear to be an inquiry document number. It's a 24 memorandum dated August 10, 1995 to Rita Burak, Secretary 25 of Cabinet and Clerk of the Executive Council, subject:


1 Briefing on Aboriginal issues. 2 And I note that you are not, of course, 3 shown as having received a copy of this, but it does 4 indicate, in the first sentence, that guy -- is it Guy -- 5 A: Guy Giorno. 6 Q: Guy Giorno -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- and yourself asked for a briefing 9 on Aboriginal issues and asked that a briefing be 10 provided to -- to the Premier's office. 11 Does that refresh your memory at all? 12 A: It actually doesn't but as I said I - 13 - I received an extensive number of briefings during that 14 period of time, so this one just doesn't -- I just don't 15 have independent recall of it. 16 Q: All right. You don't deny that this 17 briefing occurred? 18 A: I can't; I don't have a recollection 19 of it, no. 20 Q: All right. It's purported to have 21 been provided on August the 11th, 1995. 22 Does that help at all? 23 A: No, sorry. 24 Q: All right. You're -- aside from this 25 briefing, do you recall -- let me put it this way. Well,


1 let's look at this document for the moment. 2 A: Okay. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Amongst the issues that were 7 apparently to be part of this briefing wasn't -- was a 8 discussion with respect to Aboriginal rights and -- and 9 in particular, the constitution as it affected Aboriginal 10 rights. 11 And if you look, for example, at page 10. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Seems to be the beginning of -- of 17 this series of slides on constitutional rights. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Indicates, "Subject to the exceptions 20 below, Aboriginal peoples are subject 21 to the same laws as Ontarians, 22 generally, and are entitled to the same 23 government benefits and programs as 24 Ontarians, generally." 25 Now, did you have any understanding to


1 this effect, prior to September the 4th of '95? 2 A: Well as I said, I don't recall this 3 specific briefing. I -- I -- 4 Q: Briefing aside, did you -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- have a general understanding of 7 these concepts? 8 A: Yes, I did. 9 Q: All right. And were they consistent 10 with your understanding? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: All right. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And if you go to page 13, for 17 example, item B: 18 "Canada's history has given rise to 19 unique legal rights for Aboriginal 20 peoples." 21 And there's a discussion of Aboriginal 22 rights, what they are, collective rights based on 23 Aboriginal people's traditional occupation and use in 24 organized societies of what is now Canada and on the 25 customs, traditions, and practices that made them


1 distinctive. 2 Now, did you have that basis of knowledge 3 prior to September the 4th? 4 A: In a general sense I would say yes. 5 I don't know that obviously I would have used that 6 specific language, but yes. 7 8 Q: Yes, but the general understanding of 9 that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Did you have a general understanding 12 of the Royal Proclamation of 1763? 13 A: I don't believe so. 14 Q: All right. Did you have a general 15 understanding with respect to Indian treaties on page 14 16 as to what they were and -- and what they meant today? 17 A: In a general sense I would say yes. 18 Q: And if you go to page 17 there's a 19 discussion with respect to the constitutional -- 20 Constitution Act 1982 and Section 35(1) of that Act which 21 reads: 22 "The existing Aboriginal and treaty 23 rights of the Aboriginal peoples of 24 Canada are hereby recognized and 25 affirmed."


1 Now, were you aware of this provision, 2 prior to September the 4th, 1995? 3 A: I was certainly aware that Aboriginal 4 rights were recognized and protected in the Constitution. 5 I don't think I could have ever cited a section for you 6 at any time. 7 Q: Fair -- fair enough. But you were 8 aware that there was a particular constitutional 9 protection? 10 A: Exactly, yes. 11 Q: Thank you. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: And if you go to page 34 next, 16 "Interim Enforcement Policy." It seems to outline the 17 position with respect to enforcement procedures with 18 respect to traditional harvest areas, et cetera and it 19 indicates that -- and this has to do with the hunting and 20 -- and fishing rights and harvesting rights. 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: It indicates that the exceptions to 23 those rights are: 24 "Where enforcement procedures are 25 required, if there is a risk to


1 conservation, risk to public safety, 2 commercialization or trespass to 3 private property." 4 Is this a notion that you were aware of, 5 prior to September the 4th? 6 A: Yes, I had a -- a basic understanding 7 that came about as a result, I think, of some specific 8 issues throughout the province that I believe spoke to 9 this very matter. 10 The one that comes to mind for me, prior 11 to 1995, would be one around Owen Sound where the issue 12 of at what point, in my language, perhaps not as precise 13 as -- as a lawyer's might be, but the idea that -- that 14 while there were aboriginal rights around hunting and 15 fishing, just as you've pointed out here, there are -- 16 there is a point where those rights start to bump up 17 against conservation policies. 18 And -- and I know that where that line was 19 and the distinction between those two (2) and how you 20 reconcile those two (2) things was an issue, for example, 21 around the Owen Sound area. And that was a good example 22 of -- of at least as a -- as something that would point 23 to this very issue, I think, of -- of my general 24 understanding. 25 Q: All right. And when you say, "The


1 Owen Sound area," is this dealing with the Chippewas of 2 Nawash or the Cape Croker? 3 A: Cape Croker, yes. Yes. 4 Q: And what was your -- your -- the 5 basis of your awareness of that situation? 6 A: It was an issue for the community in 7 that area, as I understand, about the aboriginal and non- 8 aboriginal community. It was something that the local 9 MPP, who was a member of our caucus, was concerned about 10 and that there had been, as I understood it, some 11 tensions as -- as those sort of two (2) -- two (2) 12 principles of -- of aboriginal rights versus, in this 13 case, conservation, as I recall it, were trying to be 14 sorted out. 15 Q: And did you have any -- did you 16 provide any advice with respect to that process to the 17 Premier? 18 A: I don't recall doing that, it's more 19 -- it was an issue I was aware of that I think 20 demonstrates this -- this section on page 34 of the 21 briefing. 22 Q: All right. And indeed, it appears 23 that the Cape Croker situation was, in fact, part of 24 this presentation at page 6; the slide entitled, Case 25 Study Cape Croker and slides to be presented at briefing.


1 Does that refresh your memory at all about 2 receiving a briefing on Cape Croker? 3 A: It -- it doesn't and as I said, in 4 fact, my sort of general understanding of Cape Croker 5 came from outside of the Government process prior to 6 1995. 7 Q: All right. If you would go to page 8 44 of this document. This appears to be a summary of the 9 current significant Aboriginal civil litigation matters 10 in Ontario. It reviews those matters. It includes, on - 11 - on page 45, the Cape Croker issue. 12 Did you receive -- do you recall receiving 13 information about the status of current -- what was then 14 the current civil litigation involving Aboriginal rights 15 in Ontario? 16 A: I don't. 17 Q: All right. Thank you. And just to 18 be clear, you have no recollection of attending this but 19 you are -- you're neither denying nor agreeing that you 20 would have attended this brief -- briefing? 21 A: That's correct. I'm not able to do 22 that because I don't recall. 23 Q: Thank you. If you go next to Tab 11. 24 This is Exhibit P-705. It's Inquiry Document Number 25 3001721 entitled, Additional information on Aboriginal


1 affairs for Premier's office staff, dated August 23, 2 1995. 3 Did you ask for further material or 4 briefing with respect to Aboriginal affairs for the 5 Premier's office? 6 A: I -- I don't recall doing that. I'm 7 hesitating because, I believe, around this timeframe, the 8 Premier and -- and I accompanied him. We were attending 9 the first Premier's Conference, that we attended and I 10 certainly don't recall the dates. But, I do recall it 11 was around this timeframe. It's very possible that some 12 of this information was used as briefings for our 13 attendance at the Premier's Conference. 14 It would seem logical and reasonable. I 15 do not have a specific recollection. I just hesitated 16 because the date I think is consistent with around that 17 timeframe. 18 Q: All right. And the anticipation that 19 Aboriginal issues would arise during the first Minister's 20 Conference? 21 A: Yeah. It was the Premier's 22 Conference but -- 23 Q: Premier's Conference. 24 A: -- but yes, it's quite often the 25 case.


1 Q: All right. Do you recall receiving a 2 briefing consistent with the materials in -- in this 3 document? 4 A: I don't. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: All right. Now, when did you first 9 learn that the Ipperwash Provincial Park had become 10 occupied? 11 A: On the evening of September the 4th. 12 Q: And how is it that you recall that 13 date? 14 A: In preparation for today and other 15 processes before today, I do recall that that is the 16 date. It was Labour Day Monday; I certainly recall that, 17 independently. 18 Q: I -- I have just been advised by my 19 colleague that the Premier's Conference appears to have 20 been at St. John's, Newfoundland? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: From August 23rd to 25th, 1995; is 23 that consistent with your -- 24 A: I have a better recollection that I 25 thought. Yes, that's consistent.


1 Q: All right. And you were there with 2 the Premier -- 3 A: Yes, I was. 4 Q: -- in St. John's? 5 A: I was. I was. 6 Q: All right. Now, just -- I apologize 7 for that digression. 8 A: That's okay. 9 Q: Going back to September the 4th, do 10 you recall who alerted you or how it was that you became 11 alerted to the fact that an occupation had commenced at 12 the Park? 13 A: I do. I received either a voice 14 message or I had a conversation and I'm sorry I don't 15 recall which, with Jeff Bangs who was Minister Hodgson's 16 Executive Assistant. 17 Q: All right. And were you in the 18 office at all that day? 19 A: I don't believe so. 20 Q: Where did you receive this telephone 21 voicemail or conversation? 22 A: If it was voicemail, it was likely on 23 my cell. I don't recall. 24 Q: All right. Do you recall 25 approximately what time of day it was that you received


1 this information? 2 A: Early to mid-evening. 3 Q: And what were you told by Mr. Bangs? 4 A: I recall having an idea of -- of a 5 number of around thirty (30) to forty (40) individuals 6 had entered the Park with the intention of -- of staying 7 there and occupying it, and that the Park had been closed 8 to campers that day, based on the calender schedule, and 9 that there was no immediate public safety risk that 10 evening. 11 Q: He specifically advised you of that 12 assessment? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Did he advise you about any 15 interaction with the OPP and/or the MNR, and, I should 16 say, Park staff, and the occupiers? 17 A: No, I was not aware of any. And can 18 I just say, as it relates to the point on public safety, 19 I think that was largely based on the fact that campers 20 had gone home. 21 Q: Okay. According to Mr. Bangs? 22 A: According to Mr. Bangs. I don't -- I 23 don't think it was any more extensive than -- than that. 24 Q: All right. Did you have a question - 25 - any further questions for him once you received the


1 information? 2 A: I don't recall a specific 3 conversation, so I can really answer that. 4 Q: All right. If you don't recall the 5 conversation, how are you able to tell me then what it is 6 he told you? 7 A: I can recall that, either by a 8 conversation with him or voicemail, I was aware of those 9 three (3) facts on the evening of Monday the 4th. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: Now, based on the information you 14 received -- well, let me ask you this: Did you receive 15 any additional information that evening about the 16 occupation? 17 A: I don't believe so. 18 Q: Based on the information that you had 19 received, did you make a judgment as to whether or not 20 the Premier needed to be alerted? 21 A: I don't recall. If I had spoken to 22 the Premier that evening, I certainly would have told 23 him, but I don't have a specific recollection; that's, 24 sort of, just kind of what my general practice would have 25 been, if we had spoken that evening.


1 Q: Sorry, the last part? 2 A: If -- if we had spoken that evening, 3 which we may well have, I just don't recall, and I was 4 aware of the information when we spoke, I certainly would 5 have passed it on. 6 Q: All right. Can I ask you then what - 7 - what you do recall doing as a result of receiving this 8 information that evening? 9 A: I don't recall doing anything 10 specific. 11 Q: All right. And why -- why didn't you 12 do anything specific? 13 A: It was my understanding, as I said, 14 that public safety was not an issue and that we would be 15 meeting the next morning on it. 16 Q: All right. How did you know you'd be 17 meeting the next morning? 18 A: I believe I either assumed that or I 19 was told that. I'm sorry, I don't know. 20 Q: All right. Did you contact anyone 21 else that evening? 22 A: Not to my knowledge. 23 Q: All right. Did you do any background 24 research that evening? 25 A: No.


1 Q: At some point between the evening of 2 September the 4th and the morning of September the 5th, 3 did you advise the Premier of the occupation? 4 A: I believe I did. In preparing for -- 5 for today I -- I have been through some of the schedules, 6 obviously, and I believe I would have spoken to him at 7 some point, if not the 4th in the evening, or the 5th in 8 the morning, perhaps even both. 9 We had a -- a general practice, 10 particularly, and I think I said this earlier, when -- 11 when the Premier was not in the House -- sorry, not in 12 the Legislature at Queen's Park, that we would touch base 13 and just, sort of, do an update, end of the day, 14 beginning of the day, quite regularly. 15 Q: And generally speaking, you had the - 16 - you, generally speaking, knew how to reach him at any 17 point in the day or evening? 18 A: If I needed to reach him, I -- I 19 could, generally. You know, in this type of thing I -- 20 we would have just chatted, perhaps as he was being 21 driven back home or something like that. It was fairly 22 common. 23 Q: All right. And would you also be 24 provided with a copy of his itinerary? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: As a matter of practice? 2 A: Yes. And as I said earlier, any 3 materials that went to the Premier with, I'm sure, very 4 minor exceptions related to personnel matters, 5 potentially, I -- I did review before they went to them - 6 - to him. 7 Q: All right. Now, we've just -- the 8 Commissioner has been provided today with a copy of what 9 appears to be an itinerary of Premier Harris by his 10 Counsel and we've... 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Oh, I'm sorry, quite a while. 15 I'm being advised that we had it earlier. 16 I'm just seeing it myself, but in any event, I believe 17 we've distributed it to all Counsel, the copies. I 18 wonder if might -- I believe you have a copy of this in 19 front of you -- 20 A: I do. 21 Q: -- for the Commissioner and for the 22 Registrar. 23 And I'm looking at the first page, which 24 is Monday September 4, 1995, Detailed Itinerary. 25 Can you identify this document for us?


1 A: The format is certainly consistent 2 with the itinerary format we had at the time. 3 Q: For the Premier? 4 A: For the Premier. I'm sorry, yes. 5 Q: All right. And who -- who typically 6 generated the itinerary? 7 A: We had a tour department led by Scott 8 Munnoch, and I believe the way the office was structured 9 at the time Scott had two (2) or three (3) assistants and 10 generally an individual would be responsible for a 11 particular day so they would sort of leap frog. So, one 12 (1) person would have been responsible for the 13 preparation of the details of this. 14 Q: All right. And according to this 15 itinerary, if I'm reading it appropriately, from 10:00 in 16 the morning until 8:00 at night is identified as "private 17 time"? 18 A: Yes, and -- and I'm going to jump 19 ahead to where you're going to take me. I suspect, that 20 there's more detail on the next page about what that 21 might mean. 22 Q: Fair enough. Just in a general way, 23 "private time" would -- would connote what? 24 A: It could be anything from private 25 time with his family, time at home, to an event that was


1 not open to the public. 2 Q: Okay. Fair enough. And if you look 3 at the next page of this document then -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- entitled, Week at a Glance, Week 6 of September 4, 1995 -- 7 A: Right. 8 Q: -- Last Updated September 7/95 at 9 15:28 p.m. 10 And is this a document that -- that you 11 are able -- that you are familiar with? 12 A: Yes. Again this was an internal 13 document. It was what we called the long range planner 14 as opposed as to the detailed daily itinerary. 15 Q: All right. And I note under Monday, 16 September the 4th, there is an indication to the effect 17 of the -- the Bell Canada Open. Does that assist us -- 18 you with respect to where the Premier was? 19 A: I make the assumption that is where 20 he was and what -- 21 Q: But -- 22 A: -- what I was noting earlier. 23 Q: All right. Does that assist with 24 whether or not it's likely you contacted him that day? 25 A: Yeah, I -- I really -- I can't say


1 that I -- that I spoke to him. As I said earlier I -- it 2 certainly was our practice in this situation where he 3 would have been coming back in from, I assume, Oakville 4 or -- or out that way for him to have called me while he 5 was in the car coming home. 6 And we would have spoken -- just updated 7 each other on what was happening that day, if there had 8 been anything, often chatted a little bit about the 9 media, and looked ahead to his next day. 10 Q: All right. Let's make the first 11 document, the Detailed Itinerary Monday, September 4, 12 1995, the next exhibit, please? 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-964, Your Honour. 14 15 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-964: Detailed Itinerary of Premier 16 Harris, Monday, Sept.04/95. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 19 Q: And the second document titled, Week 20 of September 4, 1995, Week at Glance, would be the next 21 exhibit, please? 22 THE REGISTRAR: P-965, Your Honour. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 24 25 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-965: Week at a Glance, Week of


1 Sept. 04/95: Mon. Sept. 04 to 2 Sun. Sept. 10/95. Itinerary 3 of Premier Harris. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 6 Q: In any event, can you tell me to the 7 best of your recollection what you told the Premier when 8 you first apprised him of the occupation? 9 A: I -- I can't tell you specifically, 10 but I would simply say that -- that the details that I 11 recall having at that time, if we spoke, I would have 12 communicated those details in their entirety. They -- 13 they were obviously a brief and so I would have 14 communicated them. 15 Q: So, the same three (3) facts as you 16 relayed them? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. Do you recall his 19 response? 20 A: I don't. 21 Q: Do you recall receiving any direction 22 from him as a result of the information? 23 A: I don't. 24 Q: Do you recall how long the 25 conversation was?


1 A: No, I don't. 2 Q: Do you recall anything else about 3 this -- the first conversation you had with the Premier 4 apprising him of the events? 5 A: No, and -- and in fairness I am -- 6 I'm making the assumption we had the conversation. I 7 really don't have independent recall of it. 8 Q: All right. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Did you have a -- a briefing session 13 with the Premier on Tuesday, September the 5th? 14 A: I can only refresh my memory through 15 the itinerary as it exists, and I have no reason to 16 believe we didn't meet that day. I don't have a 17 recollection of meeting. It was, as you can see 18 something we did every day. 19 Q: All right. And -- and I was just 20 going to say, it would have been your practice to have 21 had one at nine o'clock approximately, on -- 22 A: Yes, I'm not sure I would have been 23 able to recall nine o'clock because I think at different 24 times we -- we moved that set time. 25 It was a set time. We did do it whether


1 by phone or personally on days when the office was open, 2 regular work days, and I have no reason to believe that 3 it didn't happen that day. 4 Q: All right. And if you look at, 5 actually, Tab 12 of your book of documents there's a 6 document there. It's Inquiry Number 3000690, Detailed 7 Itinerary, Tuesday, September 5, 1995; and can you 8 identify this document for us? 9 A: It is, as I said earlier, with 10 respect to the one from September 4th, it is -- it is the 11 format that we used for the Premier's itinerary at that 12 time. 13 Q: All right. And according to this 14 document at least, there was a briefing at nine o'clock, 15 a senior staff briefing. 16 A: Right. 17 Q: Now, this doesn't list the Premier as 18 being present. 19 A: This is his itinerary, so -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- it's his meeting. 22 Q: Fair enough. Make this the next 23 exhibit, please? 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-966, Your Honour. 25


1 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-966: Document Number 3000690. 2 Detailed itinerary of Premier 3 Harris, Tuesday , Sept. 4 05/95. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 7 Q: Do you recall whether or not -- first 8 of all, did you participate in this briefing? 9 A: I don't have independent recall of 10 that. I have no reason to believe I -- I wasn't there. 11 I mean, it -- 12 Q: Was -- 13 A: -- my normal course to be there. 14 Q: All right. And given what had 15 happened the night before, you would have likely made it 16 your business to be there? 17 A: Well, at nine o'clock in the morning, 18 I wouldn't have had any more information than the night 19 before, so I -- I just don't think I characterized my 20 attendance that way, that's all. 21 Q: All right. Is it likely that the 22 issue of the Park occupation would have been discussed 23 during the senior staff briefing with the Premier on 24 September the 5th at or about 9:00 a.m.? 25 A: I would expect, and again without


1 specific recall, that I would have raised it with my 2 colleagues at our meeting which preceded this one and 3 again, if I hadn't already spoken to the Premier about 4 it, I would have done it at this -- at this point in 5 time. 6 I wouldn't have had any more information, 7 though, that I recall, than I had the evening before. 8 Q: Now, would -- the occupation, as you 9 understood it, as at nine o'clock Tuesday, September the 10 5th in the morning, was this something that was within 11 your -- fell into your jurisdiction amongst the Premier's 12 office staff? 13 A: We would have viewed it as an issue 14 and therefore, yes. 15 Q: As a short term issue? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: Do you recall whether or not at that 19 briefing there were any parallels drawn by anyone within 20 the meeting to the situation at Oka? 21 A: I don't recall that. 22 Q: Or the situation at Gustafson Lake? 23 A: I don't recall that. 24 Q: Was that Gustafson Lake ongoing at 25 this time, to your recollection?


1 A: Around the same timeframe. I'm not 2 sure I could say ongoing. I'm -- just in terms of recall 3 today, had it been, I would have been aware of it at the 4 time, obviously. 5 Q: All right. When -- is it likely that 6 the Premier provided you with some sort of guidance or 7 direction concerning the occupation at the Park? 8 A: I don't have a specific recall of 9 that. 10 Q: Okay. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: Given the nature of this situation, 15 it's fair to say that this is something that was hitting 16 the media? 17 A: Again, I -- I don't recall. I -- for 18 some reason, I don't think it was in the -- the daily 19 papers, the province-wide papers as early as Tuesday 20 morning, but I can't speak to that specifically. 21 I have -- 22 Q: All right. 23 A: -- no doubt it certainly was in the 24 local papers. 25 Q: Fair to say that you had the


1 foresight to anticipate that this could become a -- a 2 very large story? 3 A: I didn't have enough details to be 4 able to determine that at this time on Tuesday morning, I 5 don't think. 6 Q: The fact of the occupation of a Park 7 by Aboriginal people wouldn't draw attention? 8 A: I think, in a general sense, yes. I 9 just didn't have enough details, as I said at that point 10 in time, Tuesday morning, to be able to -- I just don't 11 think I would have viewed it that way at that stage. 12 Q: All right. Did you make any 13 preliminary recommendations to your fellow staff at the 14 senior staff briefing or to the Premier? 15 A: I don't recall doing so, again, 16 because I don't have a specific recall of the briefing. 17 Q: All right. Perhaps, you can assist a 18 little by telling us what would your general approach to 19 analysing the components of this type of an issue be in 20 terms of, you know, planning how the Premier might 21 respond? 22 A: Right. Well, at some point on 23 Tuesday morning I would have been made aware that a group 24 and -- and specifically the Interministerial Committee 25 meeting, and again, I don't know at what point I


1 understood that that group of individuals -- it was a 2 more formal structure than some meetings that -- that we 3 might hold on -- in terms of getting information on 4 issues. 5 But, I would have been made aware of the 6 fact that there was a meeting going to happen, that I 7 should be going to it, and that we -- I would be viewing 8 that meeting as an opportunity to get further facts than 9 I had at my disposal at that point. 10 Q: All right. So you were essentially 11 deferring your assessment to that attendance? 12 A: Yes. I -- I did have a couple of, 13 sort of, what I would say would be preliminary thoughts. 14 One was that, I think -- and you asked me a question 15 about general approach to issues, I would say it falls 16 into that category that -- that this type of thing, where 17 there's the potential for attention, that as an operating 18 thought it -- it's better to see these types of 19 situations come to an end sooner, rather than later. 20 So that would have been at least in the 21 back of my mind as a -- as a preliminary thought. 22 The second was that I had no reason to 23 believe, at that time yet, that the ownership of the Park 24 was in question. It was not part of the information I 25 had received.


1 And given that it was identified as a 2 Provincial Park, I -- I had some, again, preliminary 3 sense about the ownership of the Park. And if -- if, in 4 fact, the Province, on behalf of Ontarians, owned the 5 Park, I would have had a sense that -- that you wouldn't 6 have substantive negotiations with the occupiers until 7 the occupation ended. 8 Those were thoughts, if you will, about 9 managing this type of issue generally. But certainly 10 weren't anything firmer than that. 11 Q: Can I ask you what -- what informed 12 your preliminary conclusion that -- that -- that an 13 occupation such as this should be better ended sooner 14 than later? 15 A: I don't -- I don't think I would have 16 been so specific as to think, an occupation. I -- I 17 think whenever there's a potential for tension or there's 18 an obvious set of circumstances that could lead to some 19 tensions that -- that it's just, in my view, the more 20 prudent course to try and come to a resolution sooner, 21 rather than later. 22 Q: All right. Is there any -- any 23 rationale behind that or any experience that informed 24 that? 25 A: No. Although, you know, I certainly


1 had viewed tense situations in -- while in opposition 2 and, as I said, it was a preliminary point of view. It 3 was -- it was something that continued to form over the 4 course of being briefed on this situation throughout the 5 5th and the 6th. 6 And it was certainly routed in the view 7 that public safety was -- was to be our number one 8 priority. 9 Q: All right. But your understanding, 10 as of the evening of the 4th and the early morning of the 11 5th, was that public safety was not an issue because the 12 Park had been closed? 13 A: As of the 4th, that's correct. I 14 didn't have anymore information beyond that. And -- and 15 when I say public safety was not an issue I -- I say that 16 in a context that, as you've just identified, that there 17 were no other campers so there was not immediate 18 potential for any tension or -- or conflict that evening. 19 It wasn't a general statement about the 20 occupation. It was a -- sort of a comfort, if you will, 21 for us on Monday evening that this issue and further 22 details could wait until Tuesday morning. 23 Q: All right. And you said that the 24 second preliminary thought you had was that -- that -- 25 that you had no sense of ownership with that issue and


1 you'd had some information about the Park's title? 2 A: No. I don't want to overstate that 3 but if something is referred to as a provincial park 4 without any other information that says this is a park we 5 co-own with someone -- 6 Q: All right. 7 A: -- or something like that, I had a 8 preliminary sense that -- that, obviously, on behalf of 9 Ontarians we as the Government owned the park. It's 10 nothing more complicated than that. 11 Q: All right. Now was -- based on your 12 initial conversation with the Premier and your own 13 assessment of the situation, did you view this occupation 14 as something that could become a potentially significant 15 public and media issue? 16 A: Again as I think I said a few minutes 17 ago, I -- I don't know that I was thinking in those terms 18 yet on -- on Tuesday morning. Obviously it was a 19 significant enough issue for me to want to be personally 20 briefed and I was concerned about it, I just -- it was 21 just not necessarily how I was viewing it that morning. 22 I didn't know at that stage. 23 Q: All right. What was your preliminary 24 view? 25 A: I don't recall having one.


1 Q: All right. Now what was the -- the 2 purpose of advising the Premier at all then about the 3 fact of the occupation given the level of information you 4 knew or didn't know at that time? 5 A: Well again, you know, it was -- it 6 was an update I had received that day. It was obviously, 7 as I said a few minutes ago, a significant enough issue 8 and so I would have made him aware of it to the extent 9 that I had any information. 10 Q: All right. And you indicated that 11 you were aware that there was to be an Interministerial 12 Committee meeting that morning. How -- 13 A: And I don't recall how I -- I knew 14 that. I am making an assumption that it came to my 15 attention through cabinet office; that would have made 16 some sense. 17 Q: All right. Would that be the general 18 practice? 19 A: For something like this, yes -- 20 that's not probably not fair. 21 If an issue arose, for example, in the 22 media, so that would be very different than this issue, 23 it would be, sort of, general practice for, depending on 24 how big the issue looked like it might be, depending on 25 the number of factors for me to either deal with it by


1 speaking to a number of individuals, individually, or to 2 pull a group of people together either by phone or in a 3 meeting. 4 That, I would say, is probably a more 5 general action -- general course of action than going to 6 a more formal meeting or process when you're managing 7 issues. So I just make that distinction I guess. 8 Q: All right. In any event, did you -- 9 were you invited to the IMC meeting for that morning? 10 A: As I said, I don't recall. I 11 wouldn't have gone if it hadn't been made to clear to me 12 that it was appropriate for me to go. I certainly would 13 be looking for information that morning and if this venue 14 existed for us to -- to get information and be briefed 15 that would make some sense that I'd be there. 16 Q: Were you aware that the Premier's 17 office had standing, as a general practice, at the 18 Interministerial Committee Meetings? 19 A: I was not, but again I wasn't aware 20 of the more formalized structure of this group at the 21 time so to me it was a group of people getting together 22 to discuss this issue which was certainly the prudent 23 thing to do. 24 Q: Did you have any sense prior to going 25 to this meeting what the mandate and guidelines of the


1 Interministerial Committee was? 2 A: I did not. 3 Q: Or the powers? 4 A: I did not. 5 Q: Or the composition? 6 A: No. 7 Q: How is it that you knew that you 8 should go then? 9 A: Obviously I had been informed that 10 that -- that a group of people were getting together to 11 discuss this issue. If -- if it were happening and that 12 was the place that we were going to discuss this issue it 13 would made some sense I'd be there. 14 Q: All right. And did you advise the 15 Premier, likely, that you were attending at this meeting 16 and would report to him after? 17 A: I suspect I would have said, you 18 know, I'm going to be briefed today. I don't know how 19 any more specific I was. 20 Q: All right. Did you have any 21 indication or did you form any assumption as to whether 22 or not he would -- whether or not you would likely brief 23 him after you acquired more information about the 24 occupation? 25 A: Yeah. Just -- yes, but to a


1 certain extent it really does depend on the information I 2 would have received -- 3 Q: All right. 4 A: -- that morning. 5 Q: And did you attend at this meeting? 6 A: I did. 7 Q: Is this the first time that you have 8 ever attended at an Interministerial Committee Meeting on 9 Aboriginal Emergencies? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. Was there any other type of 12 Interministerial Committee within government that you -- 13 that you knew of aside from what -- this one focus on 14 aboriginal emergencies? 15 A: From time to time around specific 16 issues we did have more formal structures than was sort 17 of the general course, as I explained earlier. I think 18 about, for example, larger ongoing issues than of the 19 day-to-nature. 20 Specifically, for example, we had an 21 extended illegal teachers' strike in the province at one 22 (1) point in time and so we had a more formalized 23 structure, for example, than we would have normally, to 24 deal with that, because it was an ongoing issue. 25 The OPSEU strike, as well, is another


1 example where there were a set group, and by that I don't 2 necessarily mean individuals, but a set group of 3 positions that would come together on a regular basis, 4 daily, at a set time, in a bit of a set structure with 5 someone who would lead that group, a Chair. 6 So there's a couple of examples that would 7 be, I guess, closer to the Interministerial forum, but as 8 I said my general -- the general practice of manning 9 issues, given the number of them, was much more of an ad 10 hoc nature as it related to the Premier's office. 11 Q: Now, did you receive any specific 12 instructions or directions from the Premier or anyone 13 else with respect to what your, if you will, mandate or 14 role at the IMC meeting was to be? 15 A: No. 16 Q: What was your understanding of what 17 your role at this meeting was to be? 18 A: I'm not sure I thought of it in those 19 terms. I was, as I said, attending a meeting with a 20 group of individuals that obviously had some information 21 and a point of view about managing this issue. It -- it 22 was a fairly standard thing, as I said, to go to meetings 23 and look to be briefed while you were there. 24 Q: All right. So did you anticipate 25 that -- that this meeting was primarily designed to -- to


1 distribute, if you will, the up-to-date information to 2 the relevant people there? 3 A: Yes, first and foremost. 4 Q: All right. Any -- any other -- 5 A: Well, again depending on the nature 6 of the issue and -- and the information we received, then 7 the next steps would have flowed from that. 8 Q: All right. Did you have any specific 9 list of questions or agenda that you wanted to accomplish 10 at this meeting? 11 A: As I said, first and foremost, my 12 goal would have been to receive more detailed information 13 than I had. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: Yeah, I -- perhaps this isn't that 16 helpful, but for example, if -- if I had arrived at a 17 meeting at a Tuesday morning and found out that this was 18 a twenty-four (24) hour protest and there had been some 19 communication saying that, what I would expect out of the 20 meeting, having heard that information on Tuesday, would 21 be very different than if I were to receive different 22 information. I guess, that's the only point I'm trying 23 to make. 24 Q: All right. Do you recall where this 25 meeting was held?


1 A: At the ONAS offices, and I believe 2 they were somewhere on Bay Street at the time. 3 Q: And the -- this is in a different 4 location than when -- where the Premier's office is 5 located then? 6 A: Yes, it is. 7 Q: Okay. Did you receive an agenda in 8 advance of the meeting? 9 A: I don't recall receiving one. 10 Q: When you attended, did you recognize 11 anyone at the IMC? 12 A: I did. I recognized some of the 13 other political staff who were there and I believe the 14 Justice policy researcher was there from Cabinet office. 15 Q: You didn't speak to any of these 16 individuals in advance of the meeting about the fact that 17 the meeting was going to occur? 18 A: Again, I don't recall who informed me 19 it was happening. If it was cabinet office it may well 20 have been Ms. Spiegel that told me that; it could just as 21 easily been Rita Burak. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: Or it may have been Mr. Moran. Like, 24 I really don't recall. 25 Q: All right. If you go to Tab 20.


1 This is Exhibit P-509, Inquiry Document 1012288, and it's 2 the fax transmittal sheet with enclosed meeting notes for 3 the September 5th Emergency Planning for emerg -- 4 Aboriginal issues Interministerial Committee meeting. 5 And if you go to the second page, it 6 indicates who was in attendance, either in person or by 7 conference call. Would you just -- would you advise the 8 Commission who it is that you knew as at -- or prior to 9 this meeting listed on that sheet? 10 A: Certainly. I knew Katherine Hunt. I 11 knew David Moran. I'm not sure if I knew Mr. Pidgeon at 12 the time; I believe I did. I knew Mr. Bangs and I new 13 Ms. Spiegel. I believe I knew Mr. Allen as well but I -- 14 I can't -- I'm pretty sure I did actually. 15 Q: And for better clarification, did you 16 know Ron Fox prior to this meeting? 17 A: I did not. 18 Q: All right. Were you aware at this 19 meeting that Ron Fox was an OPP officer who -- 20 A: I -- 21 Q: -- was on secondment to the Solicitor 22 General? 23 A: I did not. And I'm sorry I -- I 24 skipped over Mr. Newman. If he was there I would have 25 known him.


1 Q: All right. Thank you. 2 A: My apologies. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Now, were you provided at the outset 7 of this meeting with -- well, first of all, were there 8 introductions facilitated? 9 A: I recall us going around the table 10 and identifying ourselves by name and -- and where we 11 worked, and including those individuals on the phone. 12 Q: And were you also provided with any 13 background information about what the IMC was? 14 A: No. 15 Q: All right. Did you receive any 16 document which outlined the powers and composition of the 17 Interministerial Committee? 18 A: I don't believed so. 19 Q: Do you recall that there were 20 individuals who participated in this meeting by 21 conference call? 22 A: I did, yes. 23 Q: And did you have -- did you find out 24 who those people were? 25 A: I believe they were from MNR.


1 Q: MNR? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. Now, when you attended at 4 this meeting, who were or what were you representing? 5 A: The Premier's office. 6 Q: And who was the head of the Premier's 7 office? 8 A: The Premier. Is that what you mean? 9 I mean, we had -- Mr. Lindsay was our chief of staff; I 10 just wasn't sure what your question was. 11 Q: No that's quite -- quite fair. And 12 who did you generally take instructions and direction 13 from? 14 A: In terms of the day-to-day running of 15 the -- of the office and working as a team and, sort of, 16 the leader of our team, that was Mr. Lindsay. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: I did, obviously, spend a great deal 19 of time with the Premier one-on-one, and in terms of much 20 of the quality of my work or specific details, that would 21 have been something that the Premier himself had some 22 comments about. 23 Q: All right. So, you received 24 direction from him on significant matters? 25 A: I did, yes. You mean significant


1 number,; is that what you mean? 2 Q: Sorry? 3 A: A significant number of matters or -- 4 Q: Well, significant matters. 5 A: Yeah, I -- to be honest, I mean, I 6 think that perhaps the most common thing you'd receive 7 direction on or input on would be actually less 8 significant matters; sort of, comments about his -- his 9 itinerary or his speech or those types of things that 10 would -- 11 Q: That would be more -- the more 12 frequent contact? 13 A: Anything that's sort of day-to-day, 14 yeah. You know -- 15 Q: Sure. 16 A: -- just making sure that he was 17 prepared for his responsibilities, that kind of back and 18 forth. 19 Q: All right. Is it fair to say that -- 20 that when you made representations in your position -- 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: -- that you did your very best to 23 communicate views and positions which you believed to be 24 accurate or consistent with the Premier? 25 A: I -- I would not have said something


1 of that nature without being confident that it was 2 reflective of that position. 3 Q: Yes, of course. You would not 4 intentionally misrepresent those views? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: Fair to say that you would be very 7 careful in choosing how and what views and expressions 8 you -- you conveyed? 9 A: I hope so. I hope I was. 10 Q: All right. And that's because of the 11 fact that you were representing the Premier's office? 12 A: Yes, but I mean I think I would feel 13 that way if I were a political staff to a minister, for 14 example, as well. 15 Q: Okay. And is it fair to say that -- 16 that you considered yourself to be one of the Premier's 17 key aides at this time? 18 A: I was part of a team of about six (6) 19 senior staff. 20 Q: And so you were one of the key aides? 21 A: Yes, in that context. 22 Q: All right. And you considered 23 yourself to be a trusted aide of the Premier? 24 A: I hope so. 25 Q: And at this point you were the -- the


1 lead person with respect to the Ipperwash Provincial Park 2 occupation from the Premier's office? 3 A: I was, given my responsibilities for 4 issues management. 5 Q: And did you perceive that when you 6 spoke, others in government listened because of your 7 position within the Premier's office? 8 A: I think that given the Premier's role 9 as -- as head of government, certainly there is a -- an 10 interest and a significance that comes with someone who 11 is representing his views or his office, yes. 12 Q: And did you intend those people to 13 understand that when you spoke to government matters, 14 that you were speaking on behalf of the Premier? 15 A: Only if that was my intention. 16 Q: All right. 17 A: I had a number of responsibilities in 18 the office that, certainly if the Premier had concerns 19 with, it was something he, I'm sure, would raise with me, 20 but that were sort of part of my day-to-day 21 responsibilities that -- that really weren't of the 22 nature of speaking for the Premier. 23 So, for example, on communications 24 matters, sometimes I would give advice that was solely my 25 advice. As I said, if there was any concern with it, the


1 Premier I'm sure would raise that concern. 2 But, it wasn't -- that's the type of -- of 3 comment or advice or, in some cases, even slight decision 4 making that I would do on my own, that's very distinct 5 from, I think, the kind of comments that you've been 6 talking about. 7 Q: All right. And it's fair to say that 8 you did your best never to act beyond what you understood 9 to be your scope of authority as the Premier's aide? 10 A: That's true. 11 Q: And it's fair to say that you never 12 committed the Premier to positions you hadn't vetted with 13 him first? 14 A: Yes, or had a very high expectation 15 that what I was saying was consistent with his views even 16 if we'd not had a chance to speak. 17 Q: Fair enough. And did you bring to 18 the meeting any preliminary views from the Premier's 19 office as to the legality of the occupation at the Park? 20 A: Not beyond what I've mentioned in 21 terms of the ownership issue. 22 Q: Can you translate that into what that 23 means? 24 A: I -- as I said, I'm not sure it was 25 anything more than an assumption because the Park was


1 considered a Provincial Park, but inherent in saying it 2 was a Provincial Park, I thought was an issue of the 3 Ontario Government's ownership. 4 I believed that to be the case, but 5 obviously was open to hearing about the details around 6 that. 7 Q: Yes. I guess my question was whether 8 you brought to the meeting any preliminary judgment as to 9 the legality of the occupation? 10 A: No, I had no information that 11 would have allowed me to do that. 12 Q: All right. Did you bring to the 13 meeting any preliminary views from the Premier's office 14 as to what actions the Government would or would not 15 engage in with -- with the occupiers? 16 A: I'd mentioned, sort of, the two (2) 17 preliminary views that I -- that I held and I believed 18 them to be consistent with the Premier's views given what 19 we knew at the time. I do not recall having any specific 20 conversation about them. 21 Q: All right. So, no -- no negotiations 22 on substantive issues -- 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: -- was one (1) of those views? 25 A: That's right.


1 Q: And the second was? 2 A: The idea that in this general type of 3 situation -- again I'm not specific to this occupation or 4 even an occupation that -- that public safety would say 5 that you would attempt to find a resolution to these 6 types of issues sooner rather than later. 7 Q: All right. And did you convey these 8 two (2) preliminary views to the Committee on the 5th? 9 A: I recall the Committee, I'll say for 10 roughly the first hour and I -- and I may be too short, I 11 may be too long on that, really being, as I expected it 12 to be, a briefing session where we really spent a 13 considerable amount of time just going through the very 14 basic facts of what we knew that morning. 15 So, I certainly didn't come to the meeting 16 with those views and express them of the top if -- if 17 that's what you're suggesting, not at all. 18 Q: No, no, no. 19 A: I was there -- no, no, I know. But, 20 I was there to -- to be briefed on it. 21 Q: All right. And you believe that 22 occurred during the first hour or so of this three (3) 23 hour meeting? 24 A: I think so. I'm not sure I would 25 have recalled the meeting was three (3) hours so I


1 would have thought about half of our time was spent being 2 updated on just the very basic facts. 3 Q: All right. At some point during this 4 meeting did you convey your two (2) preliminary -- the 5 two (2) preliminary views to the Committee? 6 A: I recall over the course of that 7 meeting given the information that I was receiving and -- 8 and my apologies because the 5th and the 6th do run 9 together on occasion for me. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: But I -- but I recall that those 12 preliminary views that I had were, I think, reinforced 13 and confirmed based on the facts that I learned that 14 morning and -- and over the course again of -- of 15 Wednesday. 16 I don't recall specifically communicating 17 on the Tuesday, either of those things, but I believe 18 that we came out of the Tuesday meeting with 19 communications messages that would have been consistent 20 with my preliminary thoughts that were reinforced that 21 morning. So, I -- I can't say that I didn't communicate 22 them. 23 Q: All right. Do you -- do you recall 24 any reaction to the concept of no substantive 25 negotiations were to occur?


1 A: No, and again I -- I don't 2 specifically recall saying that -- 3 Q: No -- 4 A: -- but -- 5 Q: Was that concept discussed? 6 A: I believe on Tuesday it was. 7 Q: Right. 8 A: I certainly recall it being discussed 9 on Wednesday. I believe it was discussed on Tuesday. 10 Q: And do you recall any reaction to 11 that? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Was there any discussion on Tuesday 14 with respect to the issue of timeliness of the ending of 15 the occupation? 16 A: I believe there was on Tuesday. 17 Q: And do you recall what that 18 discussion entailed? 19 A: Not specifically. 20 Q: All right. Did you form a general 21 impression as to whether or not everyone was on the same 22 page as you? 23 A: We didn't reach any conclusions about 24 recommendations at that meeting, if I recall. And so to 25 the extent that we had concurrence, I believe it was


1 around communications messages, I -- I don't -- I don't 2 recall any concern with the communications messages that 3 -- that we developed in the conclusion of that meeting. 4 Q: And maybe you can just expand for me 5 what you mean by communication messages? What -- what 6 was that process and what do you mean by that? 7 A: There is a -- I think a reasonable 8 expectation that in matters that the Provincial 9 Government has some responsibility for and involvement 10 with that the Provincial Government will have a 11 position on that matter. 12 And there are many vehicles for how you 13 will communicate it, but agreeing on the messages that 14 would be communicated was something that -- that was part 15 of my responsibility, and I think probably prudent for 16 this Committee to have done on the Tuesday. 17 Q: All right. Did -- were you aware on 18 -- on the Tuesday that the Committee had the power to 19 appoint a third-party to assist in negotiation or to 20 facilitate discussions with occupiers with a result -- 21 with -- with respect to trying to resolve the physical as 22 opposed to the substantive issues underlying the 23 occupation itself? 24 A: The answer to your question directly 25 is no. But I guess I would say, more generally, that


1 while I didn't have, what I've now seen in preparation 2 for today, an understanding or in fact did not have the 3 documents that I guess existed at the time for the 4 Committee. 5 It's not that it would be beyond the 6 expectation that a committee could make that 7 recommendation so. I'm not sure I'm being clear but the 8 answer to your question is no. 9 That being said, if a group of civil 10 servants and political staff and -- and elected 11 officials, as the case may be, get together to discuss an 12 issue, I -- I'm not sure that there's ever anything 13 that's not on the table in terms of recommendations, at 14 least. 15 Q: Now perhaps we could go to Tab 7 of 16 your brief of documents. It's Exhibit P-498, Inquiry 17 Document 1012232. It's entitled, Appendix Guidelines For 18 Responding to Aboriginal Emergencies." 19 And do you recall seeing this document or 20 reviewing this document at any time prior to September 21 the 7th of 1995? 22 A: No, I do not. 23 Q: And you'll see that Item 10, page 2 24 reads as follows: 25 "The objectives of the Committee are to


1 guide provincial reactions when the 2 Aboriginal blockade act as a clearing 3 house for information regarding any 4 blockade and ensure the timely exchange 5 of information, formulate any 6 provincial negotiating position on 7 substantive issues if such is required, 8 negotiate removal of any blockade." 9 And did you have a clear understanding 10 that these were the objectives of this Committee on 11 September the 5th or 6th? 12 A: I did not. 13 Q: Item 11 states as follows: 14 "The Committee will have discretionary 15 powers to define problems, agree to 16 negotiating agenda with all parties, 17 make decisions on third party 18 intervention, appoint a facilitator 19 negotiator, involve the Indian 20 Commission of Ontario, second Ontario 21 public servants on an emergency basis, 22 recommend that legal action be taken." 23 Did you know that the Committee had these 24 specific discretionary powers on the 5th or 6th of 25 September?


1 A: I did not. 2 Q: All right. Did anyone, to the best 3 of your recollection on the 5th, raise the possibility of 4 appointing a third party negotiator or a facilitator or 5 perhaps involving the Indian Commission of Ontario or 6 anything along that line? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Is that something that -- that you 9 had considered, independently? 10 A: As I said a few minutes ago, I -- I 11 really didn't feel I had enough information that I would 12 have been considering those types of options heading into 13 the meeting on the Tuesday. 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: I personally, other than 16 communications messages, did not put any options on the 17 table on the Tuesday. I was -- I was there really to 18 learn from others at that stage. 19 Q: All right. 20 Do you recall whether Jeff Bangs advised 21 the Interministerial Committee, on the Tuesday, that the 22 statement of political relationship still reflected a 23 valid binding government policy document? 24 A: I should just say that, as a general 25 comment, I have recollections about the 5th and the 6th


1 of topics and in some cases comments, although less -- 2 they're less fresh in my mind. 3 I don't have a specific recollection of 4 individual comments coming from specific people. So -- 5 so, do I recall Jeff Bangs saying that? The answer's, 6 no. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: I do recall the fact that the 9 statement of political relationship had not been 10 something that our government had reconfirmed or 11 addressed being raised. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: And at some point on the 5th and the 14 6th, I'm not sure which. 15 Q: You don't recall it being raised at 16 all? 17 A: Sorry. I do recall it being raised. 18 The specific -- the person who raised it, specifically, 19 is not something I can speak to and that -- that would be 20 pretty consistent I think throughout comments that you 21 ask me about. 22 Q: Okay. Fair enough. Perhaps you 23 would just advise me then when you're answering if your 24 answering -- 25 A: Sure.


1 Q: -- more specific of -- 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: -- perspective of one of the meetings 4 or the other, or both. 5 A: Yes. And just so I'm clear, I don't 6 recall Mr. Bangs raising it. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: I do recall it being raised. 9 Q: All right. Either the 5th or the 10 6th? 11 A: And either the 5th or 6th, yes. 12 Q: Fair enough. And what -- perhaps you 13 can go to Tab 2 which is Exhibit P-643, Inquiry Document 14 1007239. This is entitled, Statement of Political 15 Relationship, prepared by the Ontario Native Affairs 16 Secretariat, August 1992. 17 And were you familiar with the -- the 18 general con -- the general contents of this document? 19 A: I can't say that I was familiar with 20 the contents. I think, as I said earlier, I was familiar 21 with the statement of the political relationship in -- in 22 broad terms. I would have been at Queen's Park when Mr. 23 Rae and his government -- Premier Rae and his government 24 introduced it and announced it. 25 Q: All right. And what was your


1 position, then, when you heard it being raised at one of 2 these IMC meetings as to whether it had any impact on the 3 way the Government would handle this occupation? 4 A: My recollection of -- of what I 5 thought at the time was that it was being raised more to 6 say we have some outstanding issues, broadly speaking, 7 with the Aboriginal community, this being a good example 8 of them. 9 I shouldn't say issues, but we'd not yet 10 made a comment on this as a government and this is 11 obviously something that the aboriginal community would 12 want to have confirmed by our government going forward. 13 So I think it was raised more as a -- it's 14 a broader issue to be aware of than having any specific 15 significance in dealing with this matter. 16 Q: All right -- 17 A: I hope -- 18 Q: So as far as you were concerned, was 19 -- was the statement of political relationship a binding 20 document on your government or was it not until the -- it 21 would be confirmed? 22 A: I think technically speaking the 23 answer is yes. I think that there was an expectation 24 that at some point our government would overtly say, 25 We're committed to these principles or Here are


1 principles that we'd like to work with the Native 2 community on. 3 Q: Hmm hmm. 4 A: So I saw it more as context an 5 important environment around this issue, as opposed to 6 having a specific impact on how we were going to deal 7 with this issue. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: If that makes some sense? 10 Q: Yes, that makes sense. And is it 11 fair to say that this document reflected a spirit of 12 resolving disputes through negotiations and discussions 13 with First Nations? 14 A: Again I can't speak to the document. 15 Q: All right. 16 A: But that I -- I think I sort of 17 indicated what I thought my general perception of the 18 statement of political relationship was. 19 Q: All right. In any event, the bottom 20 line is, as far as you were concerned, the statement of 21 political relationships did not assist, from your 22 perspective, in how the Government should handle or react 23 to this situation, or what governmental action it should 24 take? 25 A: I think that's correct. I'm not sure


1 it's my language, but yes, I think it's correct. 2 Q: All right. Commissioner, I just 3 noticed it's 3:30. Perhaps it's time to take the 4 afternoon break? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 We'll take an afternoon break now. 7 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 8 for fifteen (15) minutes. 9 10 --- Upon recessing at 3:31 p.m. 11 --- Upon resuming at 3:49 p.m. 12 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 14 resumed. Please be seated. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 17 Q: What was -- what -- what were you 18 hoping to take away from this meeting; the Tuesday, 19 September 5th IMC meeting? 20 A: I was hoping to be briefed fully on 21 it, and as I said earlier dependent on what I learned at 22 that briefing, potentially come up with some options if 23 there was a role for the Government to play in this 24 matter, but certainly also to develop some communications 25 messages.


1 Q: All right. When you say, "options 2 for a potential role for the Government", what -- what do 3 you mean? 4 A: Again heading into the Tuesday 5 meeting I wouldn't have any perspective on that yet. 6 Q: All right. But, you mean things -- 7 governmental action that might need to be taken? 8 A: Potentially, yes. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: But, it could also just include a 11 communications action. 12 Q: All right. And what if anything 13 struck you about this meeting, this first meeting? 14 A: The only thing I recall thinking 15 about it was the size of it. It was -- it was, I think, 16 rather unique over my -- certainly at that point in 17 September but I would say even the years following my 18 time in government -- or while I was in government, up to 19 when I left in 2000, it was a fairly large meeting in 20 terms of my experience there. I don't recall thinking 21 anything generally about it when I -- when I first 22 arrived. 23 Q: All right. And what messages were 24 you trying to convey on behalf of the Premier's office at 25 this meeting?


1 A: Again going in, other than a 2 couple of preliminary thoughts that I've shared I didn't 3 have any preconceived ideas because I really did not know 4 what the situation was or what we would be briefed on. 5 Q: All right. But, after you were 6 briefed and you did have a better idea did you -- 7 A: Right. 8 Q: -- articulate those preliminary 9 views? You said they -- they were confirmed. 10 A: Yeah. I -- as I said, I don't recall 11 specifically, but I -- I do know, I think I said I said - 12 - as I said earlier that coming out of that we had 13 messages that I think were certainly consistent with my 14 preliminary views which had been confirmed throughout the 15 course of the -- of the meeting. 16 Q: And what were the messages that the 17 Committee agreed upon? 18 A: I believe, in a general sense, that - 19 - that the Park had clear ownership -- sorry, that the 20 Province had clear ownership over the Park; that as a 21 result the individual in the Park were trespassing and 22 that we were looking at our legal options as a government 23 to see the occupation come to an end. 24 There may have been a couple of others -- 25 public safety obviously being number one. But, I think


1 that was the general set of messages that were important 2 for us to communicate. 3 Q: And come to an end within any 4 particular timeframe? 5 A: I believe either sooner rather than 6 later, or as soon as possible. 7 Q: All right. Did you feel any 8 particular discomfort or tension with respect to this 9 meeting? 10 A: Did I personally? 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: I was in the latter half of the 13 meeting, slightly frustrated because I felt that we did 14 not seem to have a large number of options being put on 15 the table. 16 And while my first goal in the meeting was 17 to be briefed, once we -- we did that and as I indicated, 18 I think that was about half of the meeting, I would have 19 said around an hour, then obviously I -- I felt there was 20 a need for the Government to at least look at some of its 21 legal options. 22 And I -- I wasn't -- I wasn't getting the 23 sense that we were sort of thinking outside the box or 24 being creative in making sure that we had all potential 25 options on the table for the Government to then assess


1 and analyse and make a decision about. 2 Q: What options do you recall were being 3 placed on the table? 4 A: I recall two (2) specific things 5 being placed on the table that I think were considered to 6 be options. 7 The first was that we -- we, sort of, sit 8 back and wait, do nothing, see -- see what happens, see 9 what occurred, and the second was a discussion of an 10 injunction. 11 Q: All right. Do you recall there being 12 any options discussed with respect to direct police 13 action? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Okay. Of these two (2) options did 16 you have any views which you expressed at this Committee 17 meeting? 18 A: I recall what I thought and -- and I 19 say that because I'm not sure, I don't recall a lot of 20 the specifics of -- as I said earlier, what anyone said, 21 myself included, but I recall thinking and -- and then 22 perhaps expressing then the idea that an injunction as -- 23 as I had heard it placed on the table as an option was a 24 fairly lengthy process and therefore was potentially 25 inconsistent with what I viewed to be important for --


1 for public safety which was to see the occupation come to 2 an end sooner rather than later. 3 I was concerned as well, but I don't 4 believe I expressed this specifically as a response to 5 the other option, but I was concerned about simply not 6 having a -- a government response at all. And, as I 7 said, obviously leaving the meeting on Tuesday we did 8 formulate a government response. 9 So, I assume in that specific context we 10 at least, as a group, decided that -- that doing nothing 11 and saying nothing was not a consensus that we were 12 comfortable with. 13 Q: You said that -- that there was now 14 public safety element. This is a public safety element 15 that wasn't there to your knowledge the night before? 16 A: No. And perhaps I haven't done a 17 very good job of explaining that. When I talked about 18 public safety on the Monday evening, for me it was 19 because there were no other individuals in the Park, it 20 was my understanding from the information I had that we 21 could wait until the morning to get further information, 22 come together as a team and -- and talk about this issue. 23 So, when I say public safety wasn't a 24 factor Monday evening, that's what I had in my mind. The 25 more broader point I hope -- I've been trying to make is


1 that I did think that the longer you let a situation of 2 this nature continue, the greater potential, at least, 3 you had for there to be escalated tensions. 4 And therefore I felt that the more prudent 5 course in support of public safety would be to see an end 6 to the occupation sooner rather than later. 7 Q: All right. Did you hear any 8 opposition expressed to the view that the occupation 9 should be ended as quickly as possible or sooner than 10 later? 11 A: There was a discussion about the fact 12 that, as I said earlier, we could just sort of wait and 13 see. That was a viewpoint that was expressed, yes. 14 Q: All right. And did you take issue 15 with that viewpoint specifically? 16 A: As I said I -- I don't recall 17 specifically when it was raised -- responding to it in -- 18 in that sense. But, obviously it was not a position that 19 I was particularly comfortable with the Government 20 taking. 21 I did feel that the Government needed to 22 at least have a communications response that indicated, 23 given the facts we had learned, that this occupation was 24 illegal and that the Government didn't condone it. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: So, in that sense I -- I obviously 2 disagreed with the position. I'm not sure that I had a - 3 - an immediate comment back, as I said. 4 Q: All right. Now, I think you 5 indicated earlier you identified the people that you had 6 had dealings with earlier; did any of those people 7 include civil servants, or were they all political 8 staffers? 9 A: Shelly Spiegel was a civil servant 10 from Cabinet office. 11 Q: All right. And was that -- was she 12 the only exception in terms of the civil servants? 13 A: I believe so, at that time. 14 Q: All right. What was your candid 15 account of, or assessment of Julie Jai's performance as 16 Chair of the meeting? 17 A: I -- I don't recall thinking anything 18 about it one way or another at the time. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 20 minute. 21 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's an 23 objection that we should hear before you answer the 24 question. 25 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's all 2 right. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I didn't see that 4 either. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 6 Twohig...? 7 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you. I certainly 8 have no objection with Commission Counsel asking the 9 Witness what Ms. Jai did or said at the meeting, but I'm 10 not sure that it's appropriate to ask the Witness to 11 assess her performance at the meeting. 12 Perhaps that's not what My Friend 13 intended. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It was. I think it's 15 perfectly appropriate for a member at this meeting to 16 provide her assessment of the Chair's performance at 17 handling the meeting. 18 I don't see why she's not qualified to 19 give that answer. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Give her 21 impression. 22 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Well, I think she -- she 23 can talk about how Ms. Jai handled it, but I think that's 24 a little bit different than effectively providing a 25 performance appraisal.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 2 think you could -- 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, I think -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- ask the 5 question a little -- 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, I think we -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- more -- 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- received the answer 9 and -- and I'm content with the answer. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 11 Has the answer already been made? 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I believe it has. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 14 I was trying to interrupt -- to intercept you; I didn't 15 hear the answer. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: In any event -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 18 need to repeat it, I'll -- all right, carry on. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Shall I carry on? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, yeah, 21 move on. 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Okay. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 25 Q: Now, you indicated earlier that --


1 that you were briefed for about the first half of this 2 meeting. 3 A: That's my recollection. 4 Q: I wonder if you would go to Tab 20. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Again, this is Exhibit 509. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And it's Inquiry Document Number 11 1012288. 12 And did you receive these meeting notes? 13 A: This is the -- these are the minutes 14 to the 5th meeting, is that -- 15 Q: Correct. Yes, they're entitled, 16 Meeting Notes, but they -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- would appear to be the minutes of 19 the September 5th IMC meeting. 20 A: I believe they were at our -- sort 21 of, around the table, I was going to say at our desks, 22 but around the table on the morning of the 6th meeting. 23 I don't recall receiving them prior to then. 24 Q: All right. But, you did receive 25 them?


1 A: I recall seeing them, yes. 2 Q: And you reviewed them? 3 A: I believe that was one of the things 4 we did on the meeting of the 6th. 5 Q: You mean at the IMC meeting of the 6 6th? 7 A: I believe so, yes. 8 Q: All right. And item 1 is the 9 background and related issues; is this consistent with 10 what you recall part of the briefing to comprise of? 11 A: Yeah, I would -- I would say it is 12 quite a precis, but yes. 13 I mean, I -- we -- for example, we went 14 through maps at the briefing as I recall, and so there 15 was sort of an orientation of where the Park was, where 16 the mp was. 17 I mean, there was more information than 18 would have been contained here, is all -- all I wanted to 19 point out. 20 Q: All right. Did you receive 21 additional handouts at that meeting? 22 A: On the 5th? 23 Q: On the 5th. 24 A: On the 5th, I recall we all received 25 a map, or at least there was maps available for us at the


1 table. 2 Q: Okay. And were -- 3 A: I don't recall any other information 4 though being handed out per se. 5 Q: Were you provided with the background 6 at that time with respect to the history of the 7 appropriation of the reserve to become part of the Camp 8 Ipperwash? 9 A: To become part of Camp Ipperwash? 10 Q: Or that the -- sorry, that became 11 part of Camp -- became Camp Ipperwash? 12 A: So, the -- this area? 13 Q: The history of the -- 14 A: For the Camp, not the Park, is what 15 you're saying? 16 Q: Correct. 17 A: I believe that was part of the 18 context, yes. 19 Q: Okay. And I was trying to understand 20 what history you learned. Did you learn also that -- 21 that members of this group had entered Camp Ipperwash in 22 '93? 23 A: I believe so at that time, yes. 24 Q: And that had subsequently taken over 25 the barracks in July of '95?


1 A: I believe so. Again, I -- I can't 2 speak to the specific timeframes that I recall from the 3 time, but that -- that general information was conveyed, 4 yes. 5 Q: All right. And was the general 6 information that in May of 1993, members of the Stoney 7 Point First Nation or Stoney Point Group had indicated 8 that there were burial grounds within the Park? 9 A: I recall at some point on the 5th and 10 6th, and I just can't speak to which day, the suggestion 11 was made that perhaps one (1) of the issues on the part 12 of the occupiers was the existence or the potential 13 existence of a burial ground. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: I further recall two (2) pieces of 16 information in that regard that were important to me: 17 One (1), that there was a process for dealing with that 18 under the Cemeteries Act. And secondly, that regardless 19 of the potential if in fact that was part of the concern 20 or if in fact there was proof to support that point that 21 it did not have any bearing on the ownership of the Park. 22 Q: All right. You indicated earlier 23 that you were perhaps disappointed that the options that 24 were tabled seemed to be restricted to two (2) options? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And that people weren't thinking 2 outside of the box, I think you said? 3 A: Yeah. I -- I don't want to 4 generalize too much but I think in the past, and 5 certainly my experience going forward, that you would 6 have had a more -- greater number of options, 7 potentially, on the table. 8 And I did not know what those other 9 options might be and just wanted to ensure that if there 10 were other options that we weren't precluding them from 11 being put on the table. 12 Q: All right. And do you have -- can 13 you give us a sense as to what other kinds of options you 14 were thinking should be pursued or at least -- 15 A: I -- I didn't know and -- and that 16 was the point of my asking. And at this point I think I 17 do recall -- sorry, I do recall, and I believe at this 18 point in the meeting, I do recall using the example of -- 19 of a private landowner. 20 If they, themselves, personally, were in 21 the situation where a group of individuals who weren't 22 necessarily aboriginals had set up on their front lawn 23 and intended to stay, what could that individual 24 homeowner do? What would be at their disposal? 25 And I put that example on the table as a


1 way of sort of saying, Let's -- let's just open our minds 2 here and see what options might be available and then we 3 could evaluate them and figure out what recommendations 4 could and should be made to the -- the Ministers and the 5 Premier. 6 Q: And as a result of giving that 7 example were further options put on the table, that you 8 can recall? 9 A: My recollection is that some of the 10 lawyers in the room and perhaps with others were going to 11 go away and -- and see if there were other civil, in 12 particular, remedies that might be available to us. 13 Q: Other civil remedies? 14 A: I believe so. I believe so. 15 Q: And if you look at item 3 under 16 "Options." I asked you earlier whether any disc -- there 17 -- there was any discussion around direct police action. 18 19 You indicated there was not, but item 3(1) 20 indicates as other options: Criminal charges, example 21 Mischief and item 2, Trespass offences Provincial Parks 22 Act, Trespass to Property Act, and Public Lands Act. 23 A: Right. 24 Q: Does that refresh your memory at all 25 about whether or not other options were discussed?


1 A: Yeah and my apologies. I understood 2 your question earlier to be about what the police were 3 doing specifically. I didn't -- and so to the extent 4 that criminal charges or trespass offences were discussed 5 it was more in the terms of, If we do nothing that is the 6 environment in which we are and these are potential 7 charges that may be laid. 8 They weren't, in my view, options for the 9 Government to pursue, they were -- they were part of the 10 do nothing options. 11 Q: Okay. When you say "do nothing" you 12 mean-- 13 A: -- I mean -- 14 Q: -- on the part of the Government? 15 A: -- on the part of the Government. If 16 the Government chose to do nothing this was part of the 17 environment that was there. It was not, quite frankly, 18 as is indicated here, it was not my understanding that 19 these were options available to Government. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Do you have an understanding as to 24 whether or not the property owner would have to raise 25 complaints with the police before these options might be


1 pursued? 2 A: That was actually one (1) of the 3 specific questions I was trying to understand and I 4 believe -- I know at some point, I just don't know 5 whether it was Tuesday or Wednesday we made it clear that 6 we had indicated or we would be indicating to the police 7 that -- that we had -- did not condone the occupation as 8 the property owner and were asking that the occupation 9 come to an end. 10 Q: Asking the police? 11 A: I believe that was one (1) of our 12 messages. In fact, I believe that was -- that was, if 13 not Tuesday, then on Wednesday. 14 Q: When you say that was one of your 15 messages, messages to whom? 16 A: To the public that we -- we did not 17 condone, as I said, the occupation that we believed that 18 the ownership of the Park was clear. 19 And therefore we hope to see the 20 occupation come to an end. And that we ourselves would 21 be seeking whatever legal options we could and we were 22 assessing those on the evening of Tuesday. 23 Q: All right. Just so that I 24 understand, was -- was part of the message to the public 25 intended to convey also a message to the police?


1 A: No. No. 2 Q: That you were the property owners and 3 that you did not condone this action? 4 A: Right. That was a public message. 5 Q: Okay. What if anything did you 6 understand about the peoples actually occupying the Park? 7 A: I -- I knew numbers, I guess roughly 8 about forty (40) individuals, I believe between thirty 9 (30) and forty (40). I understood they were -- I believe 10 the term that was used in describing them, and not my 11 term, was a 'splinter group', I believe was the -- the 12 term that was used of the Stoney Pointer First Nations. 13 Q: Of the -- 14 A: Stoney Point First Nations. 15 Q: Could that be the Kettle and Stony 16 Point First Nations? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. There -- there are two (2) 19 different distinct groups that have come up in this 20 Inquiry. One is the Stoney Point First Nation and one is 21 the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation. 22 So what's your recollection of -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, do you 24 want -- 25 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Perhaps we could


1 state that differently. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You want -- 3 it's -- we haven't heard of the Stoney Point First 4 Nation. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, I said there was 6 the name mentioned -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mentioned in 8 the -- 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- in this Inquiry of 10 two (2) groups. I think that's accurate. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Stoney 12 Pointers on the one hand and the Kettle and -- 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think My Friend is -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Stony 15 Point First Nation on the other. Your Friend is quite 16 alive to that issue. 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I understand that. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: But, in any event, do you recollect 21 now which group this was described to be a splinter group 22 of? 23 A: My recollection was that Chief 24 Bressette was the Chief of the Kettle and Stony Point 25 First Nations. And that this was a splinter group of --


1 and my shorthand earlier I apologize, the Stoney Point 2 First Nations, I believe obviously it was the Kettle and 3 Stony Point. That was my understanding I... 4 Q: That's fair. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: And I want to know what your 7 understanding -- 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: -- was at the time. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: So that's quite fair. All right. 12 And did you have any further information 13 about this group other than the nature of their First 14 Nation and the number of people that were there? 15 A: It was my understanding that this was 16 a similar group to those that had occupied Camp 17 Ipperwash. 18 And that Chief Bressette did not support 19 the action nor, and I don't know if I knew this on 20 Tuesday or Wednesday, the underlying -- what we assumed 21 to be the underlying issues in support of the occupation. 22 Q: And was the Chief's apparent lack of 23 support relevant to your analysis with respect to what 24 appropriate governmental action might be? 25 A: It -- it was in this regard. For me,


1 the clear ownership of the Park was an important piece of 2 information. The fact that, even if a burial ground 3 existed, there was a way to protect and respect that 4 without affecting ownership and in fact it did not or 5 would not affect ownership. So those were some of the 6 important pieces for me. 7 The fact that the Chief did not support 8 the action I guess supported that -- that point of view 9 that -- that or I guess supported the notion that our -- 10 our ownership was clear, in a sense. 11 Q: All right. How did you perceive this 12 group of occupiers by the end of the September 5th 13 meeting? 14 A: How did I perceive them? 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: I don't -- 17 Q: In terms of their status. 18 A: I believed the occupation was illegal 19 if -- if that's what you mean. I'm not -- I'm not sure I 20 had any thoughts beyond that about the individuals. 21 Q: Yes. Okay. Did you convey your view 22 back to the Premier? 23 A: I would have, I believe. And again I 24 don't recall specific conversations. I'm sure I would 25 have indicated the points that I took from the meeting


1 that I thought were important. 2 Q: All right. 3 And you indicated you recall the 4 discussion either on the 5th or 6th about a burial -- 5 burial ground claim? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And can you tell me a little more 8 about what you understood from that briefing -- that part 9 of the briefing? 10 A: Yeah. And I -- I don't believe it 11 came to us in the form of a claim. I believe, it was 12 suggested that the existence or the potential existence 13 of a burial ground was one of the potential rationales 14 for the occupation. 15 And -- and as I said earlier, then we got 16 advice at the table that even if that were the case and 17 even if there would -- if there were to be evidence of a 18 burial ground, that there was a process that could be 19 followed under the Cemeteries Act. 20 And secondly, that the outcome of that 21 process would not impact on title. 22 Q: All right. And do you recall there 23 being any discussion at either this or the following 24 meeting, the September 6th meeting, about any colour of 25 right issue?


1 A: I recall the concept being raised. 2 I'm not sure who raised it, and I -- I can't recall on 3 which day. 4 Q: What do you under -- what did you 5 understand colour of right to mean, in a general way? 6 A: I want to be clear, because I don't 7 recall what I knew specifically at the time, so I -- I 8 just -- I don't want to speculate on that after the 9 fact. 10 In a general sense, though, the ownership 11 of the Park, as I understood it and the clear title of 12 the Park, meant that colour of a right was not -- colour 13 of right was not applicable in this situation as it 14 related to the occupation. 15 Q: All right. Do you recall there being 16 any discussion with respect to the issue of land claims 17 in relation to the Park? 18 A: I believe the issues of land claims 19 were raised more in the context of the Camp. And again, 20 I'm not sure if I'd had an opportunity to say this, but 21 one of the -- the potential rationales for the occupation 22 that -- that was suggested at the meeting was that this 23 was simply frustration with the Federal Government on the 24 part of the occupiers, and that therefore the action -- 25 of occupying the Provincial Park was really more aimed at


1 the Federal Government, if you will, than the Provincial 2 Government, or really with respect to the Provincial Park 3 lands itself. 4 That was one of the potential rationales 5 that was put on the table. 6 So, I know that the -- the land claim, as 7 it related to the -- the Federal lands was raised. I 8 believe there was another process that had just wrapped 9 up, but again I don't recall the specifics of what I knew 10 at the time. 11 But, again, at no time did anyone suggest 12 that there had been a land claim for the Parklands 13 itself. And as I tried to indicate earlier, I think the 14 fact that the Chief did not support this, in my view, 15 sent a -- an additional signal that this was not a land 16 claim issue, the Park itself. 17 Q: All right. And when you say this is 18 not a land claim issue in terms of the Park, did you have 19 any understanding as to whether or not the people within 20 the Park alleged it was a land claim, notwithstanding the 21 official -- 22 A: Right. 23 Q: -- perhaps, characterization. 24 A: There was speculation about that, 25 because I believe we had a -- a quote or a comment from -


1 - from one of the occupiers about the Park being their 2 land or something of that nature. 3 Q: All right. And you said that one of 4 the theories that were -- that was laid out in this 5 meeting, or one of these two (2) meetings, was that the 6 occupation of the Park was, in part, fuelled by 7 frustration at the Federal Government in relation to Camp 8 Ipperwash and the failure to return that land. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: As a result of that observation, did 11 you consider whether or not the Federal Government should 12 be contacted to, perhaps, provide assistance in resolving 13 this occupation? 14 A: it's not something that occurred to 15 me, and if I felt that perhaps -- I shouldn't say if I 16 felt, if -- if, as was relayed to us, the Federal 17 Government could, in fact, be part of the problem, it 18 didn't strike me as being obvious that they then should 19 be brought in to help with the situation. 20 Q: And were you aware, as part of the 21 IMC's mandate, that in composition, that there was 22 express provision made for inviting the Federal 23 Government, particularly Indian Affairs, to a provincial 24 IMC meeting? Were you -- 25 A: No, I was not.


1 Q: -- aware of that? Okay. And was 2 that raised at either of the meetings to your 3 recollection? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Now, in your mind, on September the 6 5th, 1995, did you consider this occupation to represent 7 an opportunity for the Government to assert itself? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Did you consider it to be a test of 10 government in any way? 11 A: I did believe that how we responded, 12 and by that I mean, including from a communications 13 perspective, would be something that -- that others would 14 view, they would be looking to us. It was -- obviously 15 it became a -- a significant provincial issue and as you 16 talked about earlier it did in fact become a significant 17 media issue and so how the Government responded I -- I 18 believed, was going to be something that people took 19 particular note of. 20 Q: Were you concerned at all that -- 21 that this case could be seen as potentially precedent 22 setting in the Province? 23 A: Only insofar as I've -- I've just 24 explained. And -- and I want to be clear when -- when I 25 talk about the fact that I thought others would be


1 looking to see how the Government handled this issue, it 2 wasn't because it was with regard to -- to First Nations 3 people. It wasn't specific to the fact that it was an 4 occupation. 5 I thought more generally that this was the 6 first time that a group of people, regardless of whom 7 they were or where they were, were obviously attempting 8 to make a point, get the Government's attention, perhaps 9 encourage the Government to respond in a particular way. 10 So it was a -- it was a general concern and a -- and a 11 general sense that -- that we didn't want to send the 12 signal that it was okay, or that this was the way to get 13 the Government's attention by not responding and by not 14 saying we don't condone this activity. 15 Q: All right. So, you were -- you were 16 concerned that you didn't want to encourage, if I can use 17 this term, "self-help initiatives"? 18 A: Yes, I think that's fair. 19 Q: Okay. And had this government, in 20 your view, had to deal with anything comparable to this 21 occupation up to September the 5th? 22 A: I don't believe so. 23 Q: Is it fair to say that you were 24 concerned that the Premier might be judged harshly by the 25 public if he was seen to be indecisive about this issue?


1 A: I don't recall thinking of it in 2 those terms. 3 Q: All right. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: At the end of this meeting was it 8 your view based on what you heard that this occupation 9 was a simple case of trespass? 10 A: I don't know that I would say a 11 simple case of trespass; it's just not the way I viewed 12 it. I understood based on what I had been briefed on 13 that it was illegal. So I -- I just did -- I think, a 14 different set of -- of words. 15 Q: All right. Illegal occupation? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: I -- I believe the trespass language 19 actually came in our communications, but it -- it's just 20 as distinct from how I personally was viewing it at the 21 time. 22 Q: All right. Would you agree that -- 23 that you were one (1) of the most vocal participants at 24 this meeting? 25 A: No.


1 Q: No. After the briefing part? 2 A: I -- I would say I did contribute 3 after the briefing part which -- which as I say was about 4 half of the meeting, but I -- I don't recall speaking any 5 more frequently than others. Some at the meeting who 6 didn't participate at all I -- I believe. 7 But, for those who were participating I 8 think it was a -- a fairly sort of ongoing discussion. I 9 -- I don't recall anyone speaking more than the others. 10 The only exception I would make to that is 11 to those on the phone. I certainly put a great deal of 12 stock in what they had to contribute given that they were 13 -- they were on the ground. 14 Q: You put a great deal of -- of stock 15 in what the MNR personnel told you who were on the phone? 16 A: Who were on the phone, yes. 17 Q: You -- you accepted what they said as 18 -- as accurate representation? 19 A: I accepted what everyone said as 20 accurate representation. I just felt that they had a 21 particular perspective that those of us at Queen's Park 22 did not have, that I thought was important to 23 understanding this issue. 24 Q: All right. Now, some have testified 25 at this Inquiry that you told the Committee that the


1 Premier was hawkish on this issue; and the specific 2 emphasis is on the term 'hawkish'. 3 Do you recall describing the Premier's 4 position on this issue as being hawkish? 5 A: I do not recall, specifically. I've 6 -- because I don't recall it I -- I can't dispute it 7 either. 8 Q: Well, all right. You -- you don't 9 deny it? 10 A: Correct. I do not have any 11 recollection of it so -- 12 Q: I guess to be -- 13 A: -- I can't assist you. 14 Q: Well let me ask you this: Was the 15 term 'hawkish' something that was within your general 16 vocabulary in 1995? 17 A: It's a word I knew. I just -- I 18 simply don't recall using it at that time. 19 Q: Okay. It was a word that you knew. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And what did you believe it to mean? 22 A: I'm not sure what I believed it to 23 mean at the time. I can simply tell you what I believed 24 the Premier's general view of this was. 25 Q: All right.


1 A: And -- and I mean, that's the best I 2 can -- I can help you with. 3 Consistent with what I said earlier, I -- 4 I think the Premier did -- was of the view that we did 5 need to respond; that sort of not saying anything was not 6 an acceptable response; that we did need to make clear 7 that we didn't condone this behaviour; that it was 8 illegal and therefore as -- as landowner, we would take 9 whatever steps we could to see the occupation come to an 10 end. 11 Q: All right. And what do you base your 12 -- your views of -- of what you thought was the Premier's 13 views on this issue? 14 A: Again I -- I don't have a specific 15 recollection of my conversations over this period of time 16 with the Premier, because we would have spoken quite 17 regularly on -- on a number of issues at that time. 18 But either through what he and I discussed 19 directly, which would have been one source, or I think it 20 would be fair to say that whether we had had this 21 specific discussion or not, the concept of not having 22 substantive negotiations while an activity of this nature 23 was underway, would be something I could have quite 24 freely spoken about without having confirmed for the 25 Premier and knew that that would have been consistent


1 with his views, for example. 2 Q: All right. Was it your understanding 3 that -- that the Premier wished to have some form of 4 governmental action exercised as soon as possible? 5 A: Yeah, I would call it government 6 response. 7 Q: Government response. 8 A: Right. 9 Q: And how do you differentiate between 10 government response and government action? 11 A: Well, for example, on Tuesday we had 12 not yet fully landed on a recommendation. It was a 13 certainly a leaning toward an injunction but we were not 14 yet fully, I believe, convinced that an injunction would 15 be an action the Government should take yet. 16 And so, for example, our response on 17 Tuesday was strictly a communications response. And I 18 was comfortable on Tuesday that that was an appropriate 19 response that day. 20 Q: Was it -- 21 A: I just don't consider that an action, 22 but it's a response. 23 Q: All right. Was it your intention to 24 convey a sense that some form of proactive action on the 25 part of the police should be engaged?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Or that some form of proactive 3 conduct on the part of the Government should be engaged, 4 aside from messaging? 5 A: Yes, as I said, I think one of the 6 messages, if I recall, was that we were reviewing our 7 legal options and -- and would be potentially making a 8 decision on that. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: Perhaps if I could assist you a 11 little bit, this was a bit of, as I think most issues 12 are, a bit of a sort of an evolutionary process so -- 13 Q: Hmm hmm. 14 A: -- so I've made comments about 15 certainly thinking Monday night versus Tuesday and -- and 16 then of course I'm sure we'll talk about Wednesday. 17 But, you know, as you learn more 18 information and as you -- as you understand the situation 19 more, I think -- I think that's fairly common to -- to 20 sort of evolve your thinking. At least it was for me. 21 Q: All right. Now, just returning for a 22 moment to the -- the allegation that a burial ground may 23 exist within the Park. 24 You -- did you consider whether or not 25 immediate discussions or discussions with the occupiers


1 might be warranted if indeed a reason for the occupation 2 was the existence of a Aboriginal burial ground within 3 the Park? 4 A: I don't recall specifically any 5 thoughts I had about it. I can say, looking back, that I 6 would have considered if, in fact, the existence of a 7 burial ground was one of the motivations for the 8 occupiers, I would have considered a discussion of 9 protecting and respecting the burial ground to be of a 10 substantive nature and therefore that process would wait 11 until the occupation ended. 12 Q: All right. So notwithstanding the 13 merit or lack of merit of that allegation, that -- that 14 did not influence your assessment of whether or not 15 immediate discussions should occur? 16 A: Yeah, as I said, I don't recall 17 thinking about it specifically but in a general sense, if 18 the Government were to begin discussions about protecting 19 and respecting a burial ground while the occupation was 20 taking place, that's exactly the kind of response that I 21 think could have the potential to encourage others to 22 take a similar course of action to encourage discussions 23 of -- of their concern with the Government. 24 So, I don't recall specifically thinking 25 about it but that is certainly the kind of example that I


1 would have felt was -- was going to encourage more 2 behaviour of a illegal nature potentially instead of 3 support the notion of ending this in -- in a safe way. 4 Q: All right. And did you advise the 5 Premier of the -- the allegation that a burial ground may 6 exist within the Park as -- as a possible motivating 7 factor for the occupation? 8 A: Again I -- I don't recall whether the 9 burial ground was raised on Tuesday or Wednesday and so 10 that would have an impact on whether I would have 11 discussed it with him. 12 Q: Well at some point did you? 13 A: I -- I don't recall. If in fact the 14 burial ground for example had not been raised 'til 15 Wednesday, I don't recall briefing the Premier personally 16 after the Wednesday's Interministerial meeting. 17 We -- as I think the Inquiry's aware of, 18 there was an additional meeting and I did not leave that 19 briefing. So that's the only distinction I'm making. 20 Q: All right. In the event that you did 21 brief the Premier then on -- on Tuesday and the -- and 22 the burial ground issue was raised during the Tuesday 23 meeting, is it likely something that you would have 24 raised with him? 25 A: I would have and I believe and at the


1 same time I would have indicated the link between that 2 and ownership or the lack of a -- of a link. 3 Q: All right. And you also indicated 4 that there was some preliminary discussion with respect 5 to the option of an injunction being pursued. 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And you had a -- at least an initial 8 concern with respect to the length of time that might be 9 taken by that process? 10 A: I recall being advised that to get 11 into court and seek an injunction could take a couple of 12 weeks. And I felt again given some of the -- the things 13 I shared with the Commission already, that that was a 14 fairly lengthy process. 15 And as I indicated, continued to ensure 16 that we had all options on the table before we -- we made 17 a judgment about that one. 18 Q: But your preliminary view at least 19 was that a couple of weeks was too long? 20 A: That was my preliminary view, yes. 21 Q: And prior to this meeting did you 22 have an appreciation as to what an injunction was? 23 A: I can't recall what I knew 24 specifically at the time. I think in general terms I 25 think it's fair to say that I believed it was a -- a -- a


1 civil -- I'm not even sure if I knew it was civil. 2 I -- I think I knew it was a -- a civil 3 process as opposed to anything else because I thought 4 that that was really what was within the Government's 5 purview to do so. I just don't know if I thought of it 6 in those terms that supported the notion that the 7 occupation was illegal and that the occupiers then should 8 -- should leave the Park. 9 Q: I guess what I'm -- what I'm asking 10 is how familiar were you with the legal process of 11 injunctions? 12 A: I don't believe I had a great 13 familiarity with it. 14 Q: All right. Did you learn more about 15 injunctions during the course of this meeting? 16 A: I did. 17 Q: What did you learn? 18 A: Specifically I know we discussed that 19 there were more than one type. I believe two (2) types 20 of injunctions that would be -- I don't know if there are 21 more than those two (2) types but two (2)types that might 22 be available to our government in this situation. 23 That one (1) was a I'll call it speedier 24 process than the other. And my general recollection and 25 -- and I say this in a room full of lawyers and I'm not


1 one, but my general recollection was that -- that the 2 speedier one had a higher test. 3 That was sort of the -- my take away from 4 the discussion that I probably have collapsed a lot of 5 detail that I was given at the time into -- into that 6 conclusion. 7 Q: All right. Did you have any 8 appreciation at the time that the speedier injunction 9 process would in -- makes -- would occur in a process 10 where the occupiers would not be given advance notice of 11 the intended application? 12 A: I may have. It is not something that 13 I can specifically recall. As I said I -- I believe I 14 understood that the test was much higher to be granted a 15 -- a ex parte injunction. 16 Q: And in terms of your preliminary 17 assessment of these two (2) types of injunctions, what -- 18 what was that? 19 In terms of what would be more 20 preferential for the Government? 21 A: If in fact the Government could meet 22 the test, I believed that consistent with what I've 23 shared today, that getting into court sooner rather than 24 later was -- was supportive of how we believed we should 25 be responding.


1 Q: Did you have any understanding or 2 were you apprised at the meeting, either of the meetings 3 as to how such an order might be enforced? 4 A: I don't recall this specific 5 discussion if there was one. 6 Q: All right. Did -- did you have that 7 knowledge as to how such an order would be enforced? 8 A: I don't believe so. Again this was a 9 meeting about government options and -- and so I would 10 have viewed the seeking of the injunction and -- and 11 hopefully being granted the injunction sort of the 12 Government's piece of -- of all of that. And so that 13 would have been what I was focussing on. 14 Q: The -- the motion for the injunction 15 as government action? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Is that what you're saying? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And how -- and the -- how did you see 20 the enforcement of such an order if it was given? 21 A: I believe that would be in the hands 22 of the OPP. 23 Q: And what's the basis -- what was the 24 basis of that belief? 25 A: I don't know if that was general


1 belief or whether it was a specific part of the 2 discussion. I can't recall. 3 Q: Fine. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: At any time over the course of this 8 meeting or any other meeting which you attended between 9 September the 5th and the 6th, 1995, did you ever express 10 the view to the effect that the -- the natives were to be 11 removed and to use guns if necessary? 12 A: Absolutely not. 13 Q: Did you express the view that the 14 occupiers should be physically removed by the OPP by one 15 (1) means or another? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Did you convey the view that it was 18 paramount that the aboriginal people be removed from the 19 Park as quickly as possible? 20 A: I -- I appreciate the significance 21 that the word 'remove' has to this Inquiry, but I -- I do 22 want to say that at the time and subsequently I guess I - 23 - I thought about removing the occupiers and -- and the 24 occupation coming to an end as -- as interchangeable and 25 it wasn't. I wasn't placing a -- a judgment of action if


1 you will on the word "remove". I wasn't discounting the 2 notion that the occupiers could remove themselves. 3 I mean there was -- there was not -- there 4 was not anything implicit in the word 'remove' that 5 wasn't clear to me in the sense of ending the occupation 6 so I -- I don't know if that's clear, but -- but I -- as 7 I said I do appreciate the significance of that word 8 today. For me those were completely interchangeable 9 concepts. 10 Q: Did you -- 11 A: I'm not sure if that's clear, is it? 12 Q: Well, during the course of these 13 meetings did you make that distinction to the -- the 14 Committee? 15 A: Did I make the distinction? No. 16 Q: The distinction between -- 17 A: There was not a distinction in my 18 mind so... 19 Q: All right. So, the -- the -- the way 20 you intended to use that term was either they would be 21 removed or they would leave voluntarily? 22 A: Yeah. As I said it was -- it was 23 another way of saying -- having the occupation come to an 24 end. I didn't -- I didn't place any particular vehicle 25 or notion on the word "removed".


1 Q: Did -- did you discuss any options 2 that would encourage or affect a voluntary removal then 3 by the occupiers themselves? 4 A: Well, I -- I don't want to pretend 5 that it was a likelihood or that -- that we expected this 6 to happen, but there was certainly a sense that in 7 seeking an injunction and if we were successful in being 8 granted an injunction, I mean it's certainly a 9 possibility that the occupation would come to an end. 10 Q: That it would come to an end? 11 A: Voluntarily. 12 Q: Voluntarily? 13 A: Yes. As I said I -- I don't want to 14 pretend that that was our whole thought, but in terms of 15 -- of how I approached this meeting I'm there to look at 16 the Government's role and the Government's options and as 17 it relates to the injunction that was an option for the 18 Government and -- and not that we'd sort of walk away at 19 the end, but -- but that was really my thinking and my 20 focus. It was seeking the injunction. 21 Q: All right. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Now, you indicated earlier that you


1 gave an example when you were trying to search for 2 options or get the Committee to talk about different 3 options for ending the occupation of a private landowner 4 having people, aboriginal or not -- 5 A: Right. 6 Q: -- occupy their front yard and what 7 would the objectives be or the remedies be? 8 A: Right. What would -- what could the 9 private landowner do, what would they be able to do. 10 Q: And is that -- was that reflective of 11 your view that in this circumstance, based on what you 12 knew from the meeting, that this was not a distinctly 13 aboriginal occupation, but that it was just coincidence 14 that aboriginals were occupying the land? 15 A: Yeah, I think some of the things that 16 you said in your preamble are very important to me, so 17 it's not a matter of it being coincidence. 18 It was that because the ownership issue 19 was clear, as I understood it, and would continue to be 20 clear even in the existence of a burial ground, and given 21 the Chief's lack of support, reinforced that for me as 22 well; that in this very specific issue we were dealing 23 with an issue that was not aboriginal -- it was not a 24 land claim issue, I guess, is how I viewed it. 25 Q: And more than that, it was not an


1 aboriginal issue or a native issue? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Right. And did that view change at 4 all over the course of the 5th and the 6th? 5 A: No. In fact, I would say that was a 6 view that -- that I developed over the course of the 5th 7 and the 6th based on the information that was available 8 to us. 9 Q: It became a stronger view? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And did you convey your view to the 12 Premier? 13 A: Again I don't have specific 14 recollection of my conversations with him but I believe 15 we discussed the fact that -- of ownership. 16 I mean, it was pretty core to the premise 17 for managing this issue. 18 Q: Based on your conversations with the 19 Premier, was it your impression that his views were the 20 same as yours in this respect, i.e., that this was a not 21 an aboriginal issue per se? 22 A: In this specific case, I believe 23 that's consistent with his view. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 2 Q: And do you think, from your 3 perspective at least, the fact that you viewed this as a 4 -- as a non-aboriginal occupation affected your analysis 5 as to what government action would be appropriate? 6 A: The facts as they were provided to us 7 on both the 5th and the 6th were the significant factors 8 in -- in my recommending to the Premier and others that a 9 -- an injunction on the 6th was the appropriate route for 10 government to go. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: All right. Do you recall anything 15 else of significance which occurred during the course of 16 the September 5th IMC meeting? 17 A: I don't believe so. 18 Q: Okay. Was it determined that there 19 would be a meeting the following morning -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- at the end of that meeting? 22 A: I recall there was, yes. 23 Q: All right. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 2 Q: And just before we get to that, I 3 wonder if you'd go to Tab 19. This is Exhibit P-649, 4 Inquiry document 1011769. It's an e-mail from Julie Jai 5 to Yan Lazor and others, dated Tuesday September the 5th, 6 1995 at 2:27 p.m. Subject: Ipperwash Park emergency. 7 And this has been identified as an e-mail 8 which Ms. Jai did send after reporting on -- on the 9 conclusion of the IMC meeting of that day. 10 Now, according to this memorandum in the 11 second last paragraph, it says the following: 12 "Deb Hutton had already spoken to the 13 Premier and MNR; had already spoken to 14 their Minister. Premier's views are 15 quite hawkish on this, Deb's words, and 16 he would like action to be taken as 17 soon as possible to remove the 18 occupiers. 19 It was agreed, though, that no legal 20 action would proceed until the lawyers 21 sub-group had done a risk assessment of 22 the options so that we could take the 23 best course possible to reach the 24 agreed-upon goal, which is removal of 25 the people from the Park and until we


1 had direction from Minister Harnick." 2 Now, do you agree that at the conclusion 3 of this meeting that it was agreed that there would be no 4 legal action until there was a further assessment of the 5 options by the lawyers' sub group? 6 A: Yes. And I hope I had indicated that 7 earlier, I think I did. 8 Q: And that the agreed upon goal was the 9 removal of the people from the Park? 10 A: Yes. And again as I said that I used 11 the term 'removal', I personally at least considered the 12 term 'removal' of the people from the Park 13 interchangeably with ending the occupation. 14 Q: And this indicates that you had 15 already spoken to the Premier prior to the meeting and 16 received some direction I think is the suggestion here. 17 Does that accord with your recollection? 18 A: I'm not sure what direction this 19 implies. 20 Q: With respect to removal of the people 21 from the Park or that there would be some form of 22 government action or response? 23 A: Yes, I think that's consistent. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: Again, I don't recall the specific


1 conversation but it's not inconsistent with my view at 2 the time and his I believe. 3 Q: Fair enough. Now do you recall 4 whether a government -- a spokesperson was designated to 5 speak to this issue at the meeting? 6 A: Yes. As -- as is indicated here I 7 believe it was Minister Hodgson. 8 Q: Okay. And do you recall who 9 suggested Minister Hodgson as perhaps the appropriate 10 spokesperson? 11 A: I don't. It may well have been me. 12 Ensuring that government had a spokesperson identified on 13 an issue or sometimes any number of things was part of 14 what was my personal responsibility. 15 Q: All right. Do you recall whether or 16 not the -- Mr. Bangs had -- had a reaction to the 17 suggestion that his minister be the spokesperson? 18 A: I -- I don't recall that. But, you 19 know, designating a spokesperson on behalf of the 20 Government was something that I did several times a day 21 so that conversation wouldn't necessarily stick in my 22 mind. 23 Q: Do you recall expressing at this 24 meeting words to the affect that the Premier was firm 25 that there should be no one involved in conversations


1 with the occupiers other than the OPP and perhaps the 2 MNR: do you recall that? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 4 Perschy? 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I just want to make 6 sure 7 -- I'm not sure it's been specified which meeting we're 8 talking about. So if that can just be clarified. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Certainly, we're still 10 on September the 5th. 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 14 Q: You don't recall or -- 15 A: I -- I don't recall that being on 16 Tuesday. 17 Q: Was that possibly a statement you 18 made on Wednesday? 19 A: It's a -- a statement that has 20 received some media coverage of me having said and -- and 21 I can't recall saying it. But I've -- I've not disputed 22 that I -- I said something of that nature. 23 Q: All right. Was this consistent with 24 your understanding of the Premier's position? 25 A: That statement as I understand it is


1 consistent with the idea that there would not be 2 substantive negotiations. So to that extent, the 3 answer's yes. 4 Q: All right. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now did you hear anything over the 9 course of the September 5th meeting which altered your 10 view or gave you pause to consider whether or not the 11 best course of action was action that would cause the 12 people -- the occupiers to be removed as quickly as 13 possible? 14 A: I'm not sure I understand the 15 question. 16 Q: Were there -- was there any concerns 17 raised that -- that gave you pause for concern with 18 respect to that notion over the course of the 5th? 19 A: I -- hopefully I understand the 20 question. But I -- I think as I indicated I had a 21 preliminary view that coming into the meeting and the 22 facts that I heard in the briefing that I had on the 23 Tuesday reinforced that view so. 24 Q: Okay. And when -- when -- 25 A: I hope that answers it.


1 Q: Well let -- let me try to be a little 2 clearer. 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: When you expressed the view that the 5 occupation could be ended the sooner the better, that 6 would be your preference -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- did you have any limitations or 9 restrictions as to what that meant because that's 10 obviously a relative concept, the sooner the better? 11 A: Right. It really was dependent on 12 having a better understanding of what legal options the 13 Government had. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: So for example when an option was put 16 on the table for the injunction which I understood 17 initially to be two (2) weeks I found that to be a 18 lengthy option. So -- I mean that's the only sort of 19 comment I can make about that. 20 Q: Well, is there any other 21 considerations aside from time that impacted your 22 assessment of -- of the options that would affect or 23 cause the occupation to end? 24 A: Public safety and -- and -- and 25 peaceful end obviously were -- were top of mind for us.


1 Q: All right. At any point in time 2 during the September 5th meeting did you call the Premier 3 or the Premier's office? 4 A: During the meetings? 5 Q: During the course of the meeting? 6 A: I don't believe so. 7 Q: All right. Do you recall advising 8 the Interministerial Committee on the 5th that you were 9 going to call the Premier or the Premier's office during 10 the course of this meeting? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Did you learn anything during the 13 course of this meeting which gave you -- gave rise to a 14 public safety concern on your part? 15 A: We had been advised and again I -- I 16 apologize if it's more the 6th than the 5th, but -- but I 17 believe there was strong suggestion on the 5th as well as 18 the 6th that the -- the local community around the Park, 19 in particular some permanent cottagers as I understand it 20 and homeowners were extremely concerned. 21 And from my perspective the existence of 22 potentially two (2) different groups of individuals on 23 this -- the -- the longer the occupation went on, I -- I 24 did have a concern that -- that there would be heightened 25 tension or an escalation of that tension.


1 Q: All right. Do you recall there being 2 any particularly heated or emotional exchanges during the 3 course of this meeting, the September 5th meeting? 4 A: Not at all. 5 Q: All right. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Now, is it likely that you reported 10 to the Premier with respect to the results of this IMC 11 meeting on the 5th? 12 A: I think it is likely. 13 Q: Do you recall what you told Mr. 14 Harris? 15 A: I don't, but again I would have sort 16 of communicated the nature of the discussion, the options 17 that were available, I'm sure the fact that we were 18 coming back and -- and -- the next day and I suspect as 19 well I would have communicated that Minister Hodgson was 20 going to make, you know, sort of the following comments 21 kind of thing. 22 Q: All right. Do you recall whether or 23 not you relayed to Mr. Harris the -- that there had been 24 at least at some point in the meeting an opposing view 25 with respect to the go quick versus go slow possible


1 approach to ending the occupation? 2 A: I don't, but -- but just in terms of 3 the -- of that discussion I mean I guess there -- there 4 was a couple of points that were made, one (1) was the do 5 nothing which I guess is -- is inherent in go slow to a 6 certain extent, but -- but I guess that's how I viewed 7 the -- the one (1) position, sort of a let's just wait 8 and see. 9 Q: And did you likely convey that back 10 to the Premier? 11 A: I -- I think that's very likely, yes. 12 Q: All right. Did the Premier say 13 anything to you that caused you to be concerned that you 14 may have misunderstood his preferences or analysis of the 15 occupation? 16 A: I don't recall anything like that. 17 Q: All right. Did you receive any 18 specific feedback from the Premier that you can recall 19 with respect to your report or briefing of the IMC 20 meeting? 21 A: I don't recall because I don't really 22 recall the conversation as I've said. 23 Q: All right. 24 A: Or conversations plural. I don't 25 know.


1 Q: All right. Is it likely that you 2 received any further direction or instructions from the 3 Premier following the -- your report of the IMC meeting 4 on the 5th? 5 A: I don't know. 6 Q: All right. As a result of the 7 meeting did you change your position in any way with 8 respect to the -- your characterization of this 9 occupation? 10 A: As a result of the meeting on the 11 5th? 12 Q: As a result of your discussion with 13 the Premier? 14 A: Oh, no, I -- I don't believe so. 15 Q: Or did you alter your assessment of 16 the best way to handle the situation? 17 A: I don't believe so. 18 Q: All right. 19 Did you change any of the public messaging 20 that had been discussed at the IMC meeting of the 5th as 21 a result of your meeting with the Premier? 22 A: I don't believe so, but again I -- I 23 don't have a specific recollection of -- of any of our 24 discussions in that time frame. 25 Q: But you didn't change the messaging?


1 A: Not to my recollection. 2 Q: All right. All right. 3 Now moving to a slightly different topic, 4 did you typically play any role in defining the cabinet's 5 agenda? 6 A: In defining the matters that Cabinet 7 would...? 8 Q: Would consider at a particular 9 meeting? 10 A: That was the responsibility of our 11 long term policy person, my colleague who was responsible 12 for that, Guy Giorno. 13 Like all matters, we -- we all had a 14 certain amount of input, but it was certainly not my 15 primary responsibility or focus. 16 Q: All right. 17 Do you recall whether or not you were 18 consulted at all about -- well, let me ask you this: 19 When were Cabinet meetings typically? 20 A: Wednesday morning. 21 Q: At what time? 22 A: Ten o'clock. 23 Q: And were you -- to your knowledge, 24 was there a cabinet meeting to be held on Wednesday 25 September the 6th?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Were you consulted at all about the 3 agenda for the September 6th Cabinet meeting? 4 A: That agenda would have been developed 5 between Cabinet office and the Premier's policy unit, as 6 I said. I would have received a copy of that agenda in 7 advance of the Premier being briefed for items that were 8 going to appear that day. 9 The only input I would have had, 10 generally, and not specific to the 6th, would have been 11 if I was concerned about the, you know, the number of 12 topics or ensuring that we had adequate briefing time 13 with the Premier or something like that. 14 But otherwise, making that decision would 15 be Cabinet office and Premier's policy unit. 16 Q: And to your knowledge, or first of 17 all, it is likely that you reviewed, then, the agenda for 18 the Cabinet meeting for the 6th in advance of the 19 Cabinet? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And was there any item relating to 22 the occupation of Ipperwash Park? 23 A: I don't recall there being one. Let 24 me say, in a general sense, that cabinet agendas are set 25 many days in advance.


1 So this occupation occurred Monday 2 evening; the agenda for the Wednesday would have been set 3 already. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: Further, in a general sense, Cabinet 6 meetings were to discuss policy decision making and -- 7 and as of, you know, Tuesday, really this -- this would 8 not have fallen into that category. 9 Q: All right. 10 Did you brief anyone else with respect to 11 the September 5th IMC meeting? 12 A: I suspect I would have given an 13 informal update to my senior staff colleagues. I don't 14 recall doing so, but that would be, in particular, Mr. 15 Rhodes who was responsible for media. 16 It would be very likely I'd sort of said, 17 you know, the very basics of -- of what had happened and 18 our messages probably would have, in particular, made him 19 aware of Mr. Hodgson's spokesperson role and I suspect 20 just indicated we were getting back together the next 21 day. 22 Q: Well who -- was he responsible to 23 actually get that message out to the -- the public via 24 the media? 25 A: Mr. Rhodes?


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: It would depend on the specific 3 situations. In this case, obviously, Minister Hodgson 4 was going to be the Government spokesperson, but Mr. 5 Rhodes would certainly want to be aware of that fact and 6 the communication messages. 7 I don't recall specific speaking to him, 8 but as I said earlier, we had a very small office and, 9 you know, we all worked within a few feet of each other. 10 Q: Okay. 11 Do you recall taking any other steps or 12 action on September the 5th relating to the Ipperwash 13 Park occupation? 14 A: I don't. While this was obviously an 15 important issue, it would have been only one of several 16 things I would have had on my plate that day. 17 Q: Did you take any notes of this 18 meeting? 19 A: I don't recall doing so. It is 20 possible that I -- I made some notes to myself. I don't 21 recall doing so. 22 Q: All right. 23 And if you had made notes of this meeting, 24 would you -- would you have maintained them? 25 A: Probably not. Again, I mentioned


1 earlier that I might keep notes for the next day but that 2 was generally not my practice to go much beyond that. 3 Q: To your knowledge, are there any such 4 notes in existence today? 5 A: No. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Just to confirm, to your knowledge 10 are there any notes existing with respect to the senior 11 staff meeting of that morning that you have in your 12 possession? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Or of the briefing of the Premier 15 after the September 5th IMC meeting? 16 A: No. 17 Q: With respect to the minutes of the 18 IMC meeting of September the 5th at Tab 20, did you 19 identify any significant errors or omissions in those 20 minutes, from your perspective? 21 A: No. As -- as I said I believe they 22 were sitting at the -- at the table on the September 6th 23 meeting. I don't recall going through them in any great 24 detail. 25 Q: All right. Thank you. Commissioner,


1 this would be a convenient time to -- to take the break 2 for the day if that's satisfactory. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 We will adjourn now and reconvene tomorrow morning at 5 nine o'clock. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes. 7 8 (WITNESS RETIRES) 9 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 11 adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 22nd at 9:00 12 a.m. 13 14 --- Upon adjourning at 4:57 p.m. 15 16 17 18 Certified Correct, 19 20 21 _________________ 22 Carol Geehan, Ms. 23 24 25