11 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 November 22nd, 2005 25
21 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 ) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) Family Group 14 15 Anthony Ross ) (np) Residents of 16 Cameron Neil ) 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)
31 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 6 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 7 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 8 Jennifer McAleer ) 9 10 Ian Smith ) Robert Runciman 11 Alice Mrozek ) 12 13 Harvey Stosberg ) (np) Charles Harnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) 15 16 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 17 Mary Jane Moynahan )(np) 18 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 19 Trevor Hinnegan ) (np) 20 21 Mark Sandler ) (np) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25
41 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) (np) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) (np) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) Services of Toronto 12 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 13 Julian Roy ) (np) 14 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 15 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 16 17 Al J.C. O'Marra ) (np) Office of the Chief 18 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 19 20 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 21 Matthew Horner ) 22 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 23 24 25
51 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 ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
61 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 DEBBIE ELAINE HUTTON, Resumed 6 Continued Examination-In-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 8 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 156 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 177 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Kim Twohig 195 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Murray Klippenstein 211 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Rosenthal 295 12 13 14 15 Certificate of Transcript 315 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
71 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-967 Detailed Itinerary of Premier Harris, 4 Wednesday, Sept. 06/95. 21 5 P-968 Diagram of floor plan of Premier's Office, 6 Premier's Boardroom, Council Chamber, 7 E.A's office, reception, hallway and 8 washroom, marked by witness Ms. Debbie 9 Hutton, Nov. 22/05. 103 10 P-969 Document Number 1011727. Ms. Caroline 11 Pinto's handwritten notes, Sept. 05/95. 232 12 P-970 Document Number 1006188. Handwritten 13 notes of Janina Korol, Sept. 05/95. 284 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
81 --- Upon commencing at 9:01 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. 8 9 DEBBIE ELAINE HUTTON, Resumed 10 11 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 13 morning, everybody. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 16 morning. Yeah. 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning, Ms. 18 Hutton. 19 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 20 21 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 22 Q: Is it likely that you had your daily 23 nine o'clock a.m. senior staff meeting with the Premier 24 on September the 6th, 1995? 25 A: I've no reason to believe we didn't.
91 Q: Is it safe to say you briefed the 2 Premier on the Ipperwash Park situation? 3 A: Assuming we had the meeting I -- I 4 think it's fair to say I would have updated both my 5 colleagues and the Premier on what I knew at that point. 6 Q: And at minimum you conveyed to him 7 that morning what you learned at the briefing? 8 A: I believe I would have. 9 Q: And the views that were expressed at 10 that meeting? 11 A: I think I would have summarized them 12 certainly, yes. 13 Q: What positions you took at the 14 meeting? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And did the Premier express any 17 disagreement with the positions you took as you relayed 18 them to him? 19 A: Not that I recall. 20 Q: Now, had anything of significance 21 from your perspective occurred since the September 5th 22 IMC meeting as far as you knew? 23 A: By the morning of September the 6th? 24 Q: Correct. 25 A: Not to my knowledge.
101 Q: Now, the September 5th IMC minutes 2 indicate that the staff would recommend that their 3 Ministers would seek the approval of their -- sorry, that 4 the staff would seek the approval of their Ministers for 5 the injunction approach. 6 Did you broach that issue with the Premier 7 on the morning of September the 6th? 8 A: I can't recall, as I said earlier, 9 the specific conversations, but at some point on either 10 September the 5th in the evening of September the 6th in 11 the morning, or perhaps both, I would have raised that 12 with the Premier. 13 I was also waiting as well for any other 14 options that -- that might have been developed over the 15 course of the evening. 16 Q: All right. You have no reason to 17 dispute the accuracy of the meeting notes from the 18 September 5th meeting? 19 A: On that -- on that point, no. 20 Q: And it indicated that staff would 21 seek the approval of their Ministers with respect to the 22 injunction remedy? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: Would that -- 25 A: Recognizing we were waiting for some
111 additional information as well. 2 Q: Did you, therefore, seek direction 3 from the Premier on the morning of the 6th with respect 4 to the injunction remedy as a preferred option subject to 5 anything else you might learn? 6 A: Again I don't have specific recall of 7 the conversation. Thinking back to what my thinking was 8 at the time I suspect what I would have said is we are 9 leaning toward an injunction. There is going to be some 10 more work-up done over night and we'll meet back again on 11 Wednesday. 12 So, I'm not sure I would have sought 13 specific direction on that point, but certainly would 14 have had a sense of what he was thinking about the 15 injunction. 16 Q: Did you ever form the view that the 17 Premier was against the principle of seeking an 18 injunction? 19 A: No, I did not. 20 Q: And can I go further and ask whether 21 you formed a view that he was in favour of an injunction 22 among the options you discussed with him? 23 A: I can't speak to that because I don't 24 have a recollection on the morning of the 6th. 25 Certainly, by the middle of the day on the 6th he was
121 supportive of that approach. 2 Q: All right. Did the Premier tell you 3 that he preferred the occupiers to be removed from the 4 Park within twenty-four (24) hours? 5 A: I don't recall that specific 6 timeframe. The comment that, you know, we used -- I used 7 on his behalf and I believe he used with me was, "as soon 8 as possible". 9 Q: Was any timeframe contemplated by you 10 with respect to "as soon as possible"? 11 A: No, the -- the only timeframes I 12 recall being discussed were sort of around the -- the 13 length of time it would -- it would take to get an 14 injunction or to seek the injunction, at least -- be in 15 court to seek the injunction. Those are really the only 16 specific timeframes I recall being discussed. 17 Q: And what do you recall specifically 18 in relation to that? 19 A: On the Tuesday, as I think I said 20 yesterday, I recall the, sort of, it could take us a 21 couple of weeks. We then discussed a little bit, sort 22 of, the -- the second type of injunction that we could 23 seek and -- and I think I spoke a little bit about that 24 yesterday. 25 I recall a conversation about -- and I
131 believe on the Wednesday -- about getting into court, you 2 know, maybe as early as Friday. It didn't sound like 3 Friday was the likeliest that they would -- that the 4 lawyers would be in court and I did express that I was 5 concerned that Friday being the soonest was still a 6 fairly lengthy process. 7 Q: Longer than the timeframe that that 8 you would like to see accomplished? 9 A: My recollection at the time is my 10 sense is if -- if at a meeting on Wednesday I'm -- I'm 11 understanding that Friday's, sort of, the soonest I did 12 have some concerns that that likely meant the following 13 week and at that point we were one (1) week into the 14 occupation. 15 And so I had some concerns that we at 16 least move the process along. I didn't have a specific, 17 it needs to be today or tomorrow, just that if -- if 18 Friday's the soonest that likely signalled Monday and I 19 had some concerns about that. 20 Q: All right. Well, your preference was 21 that it be sooner than Friday? 22 A: If possible, yes. 23 Q: And did the Premier provide you with 24 any direction or guidance with respect to the positions 25 that you had taken at the September 5th IMC meeting?
141 A: Again I -- I don't recall the 2 specifics. I certainly felt that the positions that I had 3 taken and the conversations I had and what I knew about 4 the Premier were consistent with anything that was 5 discussed from my perspective on the Friday -- or sorry, 6 on the Tuesday. 7 Q: Did you have any discussions with Mr. 8 Harris concerning the role of the OPP in this operation 9 or what the OPP should be doing? 10 A: On Wednesday morning? 11 Q: Wednesday morning. 12 A: I don't believe so, no. 13 Q: Any other time during Wednesday? 14 A: I don't believe so. 15 Q: Tuesday? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Now, the result of your briefing or 18 discussions -- 19 A: I'm sorry, can I just clarify that? 20 Q: Certainly. 21 A: Certainly, I would have communicated 22 what we knew about the OPP on the ground, so I -- I don't 23 want to say that -- that the idea that the OPP were 24 monitoring the situation or comments of that nature 25 weren't -- weren't shared. But that would be as far as
151 the discussion went between myself and the Premier. 2 Q: You -- you advised the Premier as to 3 what the OPP role to date had been? 4 A: Exactly. So, part of the information 5 I had coming out of Tuesday for example, was -- I recall 6 a couple of things; specifically, that the OPP were 7 monitoring the situation and that they were on the 8 ground. That obviously would have been a point I -- I 9 think I would have conveyed to him. 10 And secondly, the one point that -- that 11 does stand out in my mind about the OPP on Tuesday and it 12 was information that was shared with the Committee. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me. 14 Yes, Mr. Falconer...? 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm sorry to 16 interrupt the Witness, Mr. Commissioner and I'm -- I'm 17 not objecting to any question by My Friend at all. It's 18 just that to date any conversation that this Witness has 19 had with Former Premier Harris she couldn't remember. 20 She's now referring to, I would have told 21 him. My only concern is if she could clarify whether 22 she's giving us her recollection or she's now 23 remembering. Something -- it's just the distinction's 24 important, with respect. 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I wonder if the Witness
161 could finish her answer and then perhaps I would clarify 2 that point? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 4 Why don't you finish your answer then we can deal with 5 it. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. The second point 7 that I recall on the Tuesday was that we had been 8 informed at the meeting I believe by Ministry of Natural 9 Resources staff that the OPP had indicated there was no 10 way to control access to the Park from a geographical 11 perspective. 12 And -- and that was an important point for 13 me only insofar as it -- it signalled that the size of 14 the occupation could increase. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 17 Q: Now, is this information that you 18 thought it important that the Premier know on the 6th? 19 A: I, as I said a number of times, I 20 don't have a specific recollection of any of the 21 conversations I had with the Premier. 22 I've tried my best to inform the Inquiry 23 about what I believed I would have said just based on the 24 fact that I -- I tried to brief the Premier always on 25 points that I felt were important or -- or germaine to
171 whatever issue we were dealing with. 2 Q: Yes. And -- and my question was were 3 these items that you thought it important to convey to 4 the Premier? 5 A: If -- if I could -- yes. If I could 6 I -- 7 Q: And it -- 8 A: -- mean there were three (3) or four 9 (4) things on the Tuesday that were important. I 10 believe, as a result, I would have communicated this to 11 the Premier. 12 Q: Thank you. As a result of your 13 discussions with the Premier on the morning of the 6th, 14 did you change any of your views or perceptions of the 15 situation at Ipperwash or the preferred government 16 approach with respect to Ipperwash? 17 A: I don't believe so. 18 Q: And did you conclude, as of the 19 morning of the 6th, based on your likely conversations 20 with the Premier, that the positions you took at the 21 September 5th IMC meeting, in particular, with respect to 22 the characterization of the occupation as illegal and a 23 non-Native issue were consistent with his views? 24 A: Did I communicate on the 6th, is that 25 your question?
181 Q: Did you conclude -- conclude? 2 A: Did I conclude that -- 3 Q: Yes. Those positions were consistent 4 with the Premier's? 5 A: I don't recall doing so. But, as I 6 said earlier, I -- I don't recall thinking that anything 7 I had said on the Tuesday were -- was inconsistent with 8 the Premier's thinking. 9 Q: All right. Because had it been, you 10 would have been obliged to change your views at the 11 September 6th meeting, correct? 12 A: Definitely, yes. 13 Q: And you would have had to convey that 14 to the meeting. 15 A: And I would have communicated that, 16 yes. 17 Q: To your knowledge, did the Premier 18 meet with his Attorney General, Minister Harnick at -- 19 during the morning of September the 6th to discuss the 20 removal of the occupiers, and in particular, to impart 21 his -- any views that the injunction remedy was the way 22 to go for the Government? 23 A: I am not aware of a meeting and I do 24 believe if it had occurred the Premier would have at 25 least mentioned it to me.
191 Q: Why do you believe he would have 2 mentioned it to you? 3 A: Given that I was dealing with the 4 issue on his behalf I think he would have apprised me of 5 a conversation of that nature. 6 Q: And that was the nature of the 7 relationship you had with Premier that you kept each 8 other informed as to your respective positions and 9 happenings on --on any critical issues that you were 10 responsible for? 11 A: I think that's fair. 12 Q: Did you discuss with the Premier 13 whether he may -- whether he should or may have a 14 conversation with Minister Harnick about seeking an 15 injunction? 16 A: I don't believe so. As I said 17 earlier, on the morning of September the 6th I was 18 heading to the second InterMinisterial Meeting looking to 19 see if we had any additional options and to get updated 20 on the situation. 21 And as I suspect we were all sort of 22 thinking that after that meeting there might be an 23 opportunity for a further conversation. 24 Q: Now, with respect to the Cabinet 25 meeting that was held on Wednesday to you knowledge you
201 testified yesterday that generally speaking the Cabinet 2 met at 10:00 in the morning? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: I wonder if you would go to Exhibit 5 P-965. And this is the document I gave to you yesterday 6 entitled, Week at a Glance? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: Week of September 4, 1995. And if 9 you would look at Wednesday, September 6th entry? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: It indicates that there is a Cabinet 12 meeting from 9:00 to 1:00? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Does that alter your -- your 15 recollection at all as to what time the Cabinet meeting 16 likely occurred on Wednesday, September the 6th? 17 A: It doesn't. As I said standard 18 Cabinet was from 10:00 til 1:00. If it was different that 19 day for a particular reason it should be reflected in his 20 detailed itinerary and maybe I haven't looked ahead. 21 Q: All right. And if you look then at 22 the doc -- the next document in that package of 23 documents, it's a detailed itinerary for the Premier 24 Wednesday, September 6th, 1995. Do you see that? 25 A: I do.
211 Q: And it appears to start at 6:55 p.m. 2 with respect to an event that the Premier was attending 3 that evening and it's quite a detailed rendition of that 4 event. 5 Based on this detailed itinerary then can 6 you offer us any opinion as to whether or not the Cabinet 7 meeting started earlier than the normal time? 8 A: I can't. As you've stated it -- it 9 begins in the evening so it can't assist me. 10 Q: All right. I'd like to make the next 11 exhibit, Commissioner, and with the proviso that we -- if 12 there are any phone members revealing personal 13 information, those should be redacted. 14 THE REGISTRAR: P-967, Your Honour. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-967. 16 17 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-967: Detailed Itinerary of Premier 18 Harris, Wednesday, Sept. 19 06/95. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 22 Q: And where did Cabinet generally meet? 23 A: In the Cabinet or Council chamber. 24 Q: And what -- 25 A: The same place, sorry.
221 Q: Sorry? 2 A: It's the same place, just two (2) 3 different words. 4 Q: Fair enough. And what complex was 5 that in? 6 A: That was in the main legislative 7 building at Queen's Park. 8 Q: Is that the -- was it on the same 9 floor as the Premier's dining room? 10 A: It was adjoining, an adjoining 11 office. It's not -- not directly adjoining. 12 Q: All right. Now, you testified 13 yesterday that as far as you knew Ipperwash was not on 14 the Cabinet agenda for the 6th? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: To your knowledge was the situation 17 at Ipperwash Park discussed at this Cabinet meeting? 18 A: I do not believe I was at that 19 Cabinet meeting, given that I believe I was at the 20 InterMinisterial Meeting and recall being there. 21 We had a practice in Cabinet whereby 22 usually after the formal agenda we had a -- sort of, a 23 communications opportunity and I cannot say given that I 24 wasn't there that it didn't occur during that time. 25 If, in fact, it did, it would have been an
231 informal discussion of an update nature; that's the type 2 of discussion that communications meetings, or the 3 communications portion of Cabinet usually entailed. 4 Q: All right. Had it been discussed, is 5 it likely the Premier would have informed you later in 6 the day on the 6th? 7 A: May have, although we moved forward 8 on the Government's efforts to seek an injunction. So -- 9 so, it's -- it's possible that we wouldn't have actually 10 had that discussion. 11 It would not have been necessarily 12 significant given that -- that we met subsequently, as 13 I'm sure we'll discuss, and -- and made a decision about 14 the injunction. 15 Q: All right. And by the time that the 16 Cabinet meeting was held on September the 6th, there had 17 been no formal conclusion or official conclusion by the 18 Government that the injunction would be sought to the 19 best of your knowledge? 20 A: From my perspective that's accurate, 21 yes. 22 Q: And you -- did you attend at the 23 September 6th InterMinisterial Committee meeting? 24 A: Yes, I did. 25 Q: You have recollection of that?
241 A: I certainly recall attending, yes. 2 Q: And was it in the same format as the 3 September 5th meeting? 4 A: I believe it was, yes. 5 Q: Was it the same composition of 6 people, more or less? 7 A: I think, more or less. I don't have 8 a specific recollection of any changes that there may 9 have been. 10 Q: I understand that Scott Patrick 11 attended at the September 6th meeting. Do you have 12 recollection of that? 13 A: No, I don't. 14 Q: Do you know who he was? 15 A: At the time, no. 16 Q: Do you know now? 17 A: I have subsequently learned who he 18 was, yes. 19 Q: All right. When did you learn? 20 A: I'm not sure at what point, but quite 21 subsequent to September of 1995. 22 Q: All right. Now, what were your 23 primary objectives in attending at this meeting? 24 A: As I said earlier, we were expecting 25 further advice or potentially, options from civil
251 servants overnight, certainly expecting a situational 2 update in terms of any changes from the Tuesday meeting 3 and, as I had said, in going into Tuesday, a lot of -- of 4 what I expected further out of the meeting really was 5 dependent on those first two (2) things. 6 Q: But, it was still from your -- your 7 mandate, as far as you were concerned, to seek and push 8 for an option which would result in the removal of the 9 occupiers as quickly as possible? 10 A: Yes. The -- as I tried to explain 11 yesterday, ending the occupation, removal of the 12 occupiers, that was our goal and both meetings were an 13 opportunity to discuss not only the facts of the 14 situation but also options and hopefully to analyse those 15 options and make recommendations. 16 Q: Then it's safe to say that you and -- 17 you -- your expectation was that by the end of this 18 meeting, you would have the -- an option to recommend to 19 the Premier which would result in the -- the removal of 20 the occupiers or an ending of the occupation in the 21 quickest manner possible? 22 A: It was certainly my hope. It may 23 well have been my expectation as well, yes. 24 Q: All right. And did you receive any 25 brief -- further briefing at the September 6th meeting
261 with respect to events that had transpired in or around 2 the Park since the last IMC meeting? 3 A: We did. 4 Q: Did your views -- main views about 5 the propriety of the occupation change in any way as a 6 result of what you heard at that meeting? 7 A: No, I believe, I really formed those 8 views throughout the course of the Tuesday meeting and I 9 don't recall them changing. 10 Q: And similarly, did your views with 11 respect to the proper approach to resolving the 12 occupation remain consistent? 13 A: Well, on Tuesday I was not -- I was 14 not yet fully convinced that the injunction was the most 15 appropriate route. 16 We certainly had certainly had discussed 17 that, as we talked about earlier, that -- that we were 18 going to recommend that to the Ministers. 19 I, as I said, was waiting to see what 20 additional information if any we had from the meetings 21 overnight or in the day before for Wednesday morning from 22 the civil servants. 23 So, my view did change in that I, by the 24 end of the September 6th meeting was fully supportive of 25 seeking an injunction.
271 Q: All right. But, you were -- you 2 continued to be of the view not -- during the course of 3 the September 6th moving -- meeting that the removal of 4 the occupiers as soon as possible and the position of no 5 negotiations was the proper approach for the Government 6 in these circumstances? 7 A: That's right. As I said, removal of 8 the occupiers, ending the occupation, that was our goal. 9 And I felt that for a number of reasons that I discussed 10 yesterday, having no substantive negotiations was 11 something that needed to be firm throughout the course of 12 the occupation until it ended. 13 Q: Now, do you recall who provided the 14 briefing to the Committee with respect to occurrences 15 which had transpired in and around the Park sub -- 16 between the September 5th meeting and the September 6th 17 meeting? 18 A: Both on September 5th and September 19 6th, to answer your direct question, the information came 20 for the most part from MNR staff and from staff at the 21 Solicitor General's office. Much of the information was 22 conveyed or confirmed by both of those sources. 23 I recall specifically, that, I would say 24 the bulk of the information came from the MNR staff on 25 the ground and on the phone at our meeting.
281 Q: And during the course of that 2 meeting, did you have any reason to dispute or question 3 the accuracy or reliability of the information which you 4 received from the MNR staff, in particular? 5 A: I had no reason to question it with 6 one exception. And that was there was a piece of 7 information that did not seem to be confirmed by both the 8 Solicitor General's staff and the MNR staff, and that was 9 a report of gunfire. 10 Q: All right. Was that -- 11 A: And for -- for me that was an 12 important point to confirm, obviously. 13 Q: Why? 14 A: I think it -- if in fact it were 15 true, it signals a -- I believe a greater concern that we 16 should all have for public safety. And it, in my mind, 17 signalled a potential escalation of the situation. 18 Q: All right. Aside from the report of 19 -- of potential gunfire, did you receive any other 20 significant information from that briefing which -- which 21 you thought was important or material to the analysis of 22 -- of the approach, government approach to the 23 occupation? 24 A: Two (2) things stick in my mind. One 25 was that there had been some activity overnight that had
291 -- had required the police to issue warrants, I believe. 2 And secondly, that our MNR staff on the 3 ground were being advised to wear bullet proof vests. 4 And both of those things again coupled with potential for 5 reports of gunfire were of concern for me. 6 My overall impression as a result of the 7 updates in the briefing were that things were escalating. 8 Q: And when you say escalating, 9 escalating towards what end? 10 A: I did not know. It was a -- it was a 11 progression. 12 Q: Okay. But, an escalation of what? 13 A: The tensions, the potential for 14 danger to public safety. 15 Q: And is it likely that you relayed the 16 information which you received from the MNR staff that 17 you've testified about, to the Premier that day? 18 A: My recollection of the timeframe 19 following the September 6th InterMinisterial meeting was 20 that the next time I had a opportunity to -- to really 21 discuss this issue with the Premier was in the dining 22 room meeting. 23 And I don't believe actually conducting 24 the briefing myself, so much of the information that I 25 would have wanted to convey, obviously in other
301 circumstances, I believe was conveyed by others but I 2 don't have a specific recollection of how many of those 3 details that -- that I knew about were conveyed at the 4 dining room. 5 Q: All right. Well, we certainly will - 6 - will get to that event in a little bit. 7 A: Right. 8 Q: But, right now I'm focussing on what 9 you told the Premier or believe you likely told the 10 Premier. 11 All right. Now based on -- on this 12 meeting, did you come -- were you presented with any -- 13 well let me ask you this: What were the options that you 14 understood to be available to the Government as a result 15 of this meeting? 16 A: The specifics of -- of the 17 conversation that I recall were around really two (2) 18 types of injunctions and further discussion than what had 19 taken place on Tuesday. 20 I don't recall if it was ever explicitly 21 stated but it was certainly my impression that other than 22 the do nothing option which we had discussed yesterday, 23 the only two (2) courses of action from a legal 24 perspective that the Government could take were the two 25 (2) types of injunctions.
311 So, I think, I personally concluded that 2 that was the sum total of our -- of our legal options. 3 I'm not sure, as I said, if it was explicitly stated that 4 way. 5 Q: All right. Well, was the option -- 6 was the option of -- of engaging in discussions with the 7 occupiers not a legal option that could be taken by the 8 Government? 9 A: As I said yesterday, it was not an 10 option that was put on the table. We did understand at 11 the meeting, it was one of the updates we had, that there 12 was going to be a meeting at I believe noon on Wednesday 13 with the OPP, and it was our understanding the MNR would 14 be sitting in on that meeting because of their concern 15 for the -- the Park and the facilities at the Park. 16 Q: Okay. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: All right. Now, did you learn 21 anything further about the injunction process at this 22 meeting? 23 A: Yes, as I said, I think I learned a 24 little more detail about the two (2) types of injunction. 25 My impression on the Tuesday had been that one was
321 quicker than the other and that the test, as I said, was 2 -- was going to be higher for the ex parte injunction. 3 We did have some discussions about that. 4 I don't -- I don't have a specific recollection of the 5 details of that though. 6 Q: All right. And just for further 7 clarification now, did you understand that the speedy 8 injunction, I think is the way you called it, also would 9 be brought without notice to the occupiers? 10 A: I perhaps -- when I spoke to this 11 yesterday wasn't clear that I didn't recall whether it 12 was the Tuesday or the Wednesday -- 13 Q: Right. 14 A: -- but I don't recall that specific - 15 - my conclusion was around the test and so I -- I may 16 well have known the information, I just don't recall 17 that. 18 Q: In any event then, did the -- the 19 fact that under the without-notice injunction would mean 20 that the -- that the occupiers would not be present in 21 court, factor into your assessment as to the propriety 22 and preference of the speedy injunction over the longer 23 injunction? 24 A: Well again, I don't recall that I 25 knew that specific --
331 Q: Right. 2 A: -- piece so I can't -- I can't speak 3 to that point. 4 Q: Right. All right. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, how would you describe the 9 dynamics of the September 6th meeting as compared with 10 the September 5th IMC meeting? 11 A: My recollection generally, was that 12 there was a heightened sense of concern on the part of 13 the MNR staff on the phone in particular. Some of the 14 facts that I just shared with the Inquiry I think were 15 obviously important to me and I had a heightened sense of 16 concern as a result of that meeting as well. Beyond that 17 I don't recall a specific dynamic. 18 Q: All right. Do you recall being 19 involved in -- in any particularly heated or emotional 20 exchanges involving others at this meeting? 21 A: I do not. 22 Q: Or observing or hearing any such 23 exchanges as between others at the meeting? 24 A: I do not. 25
341 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: You testified yesterday that you had 4 at least a general awareness that the Aboriginal peoples 5 had constitutional rights under Section 35 of the 6 Constitution Act? 7 A: Yes, although I don't believe I could 8 have cited the section. 9 Q: All right. Now, did -- did you have 10 understanding as to what the -- the nature of that 11 protection was? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: As I said I -- I think it was that 16 the Aboriginal peoples in Canada had particular rights. 17 The ones from provincial policy perspective that were 18 significant to me were around their hunting and fishing 19 rights and as well around land claims. 20 Q: All right. Did you give any thought 21 as to how that provision might affect your analysis of 22 the propriety of the occupation? 23 A: It was my understanding because I was 24 told that the Province had very clear title to the land 25 and that there was not a land claim in existence that
351 therefore this was a separate and distinct issue from 2 anything that might be impacted or affected or covered by 3 that section of the Constitution. 4 Q: And so in your view this was not 5 relevant to the analysis? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Was -- do you recall whether there 8 was a discussion over the course of the -- this IMC 9 meeting with respect to the concept of police 10 independence? 11 A: I don't recall that specifically. 12 For me I would have thought it was obvious to everyone at 13 the meeting; it certainly was to me. There may have been 14 a discussion about it with regard to communications and 15 making sure that our communications were respectful of 16 that as well. 17 Q: All right. Did you express -- have 18 any concern about the -- the -- about any limits that the 19 con -- that the police independence might place on the 20 options available to government? 21 A: I don't believe so, but I'm not sure 22 I understand your question. 23 Q: All right. Fair enough. Well, 24 perhaps we should back up. 25 A: Okay.
361 Q: Tell us again what your understanding 2 was of the concept of police independence as it related 3 to this incident; to this -- 4 A: The police had full responsibility 5 for and independence around dealing with the situation on 6 the ground. The Government had no role to play in that, 7 save and except the potential civil option of seeking an 8 option that would be supportive, I believe, I understood, 9 of police efforts. 10 Q: All right. Did you have any 11 understanding as to whether the police would have any 12 involvement or participation in the injunction process, 13 if that was chosen? 14 A: I believe that they would provide the 15 Government with details to support the injunction, but I 16 was not aware of the specifics of who or what or anything 17 of that nature. It was something that the lawyers would 18 deal with. 19 Q: Do you recall having any frustrations 20 -- well, let me ask you this: Did you ask whether or not 21 the police -- the Government would have the ability to 22 ask the police to effect the removal of the occupiers 23 from the Park? 24 A: As I believe I said yesterday, being 25 fully cognizant about the separation between government
371 and police, I asked the question, I believe, about how 2 far we could go in -- in communicating as landowner, that 3 our goal was to have the occupiers removed, and -- and I 4 believe that question may have been raised. 5 My recollection around the answer was that 6 MNR staff were going to check to make sure that, in fact, 7 that request had been made. In other words, that someone 8 had said to the OPP, as Park owner, as landowner, we 9 don't condone this activity. 10 Q: All right. Did you in fact, well -- 11 did you ask the question whether or not the MNR as land 12 over -- owner could, in fact, tell the police that it 13 wished the occupiers to be removed? 14 A: I believe -- I don't know the 15 specific words, but I believe that sentiment was raised. 16 It may well have been raised by me, as I said. 17 Q: Hmm hmm. 18 A: Keeping in mind that that was the 19 same sort of thing as I understood that any landowner 20 could do. It doesn't speak to the how or the when by 21 police, obviously. 22 Q: All right. And in this context, did 23 you have an understanding as to why -- why it would be 24 important for the landowner or the MNR in this case to -- 25 to advise the police of its sentiments?
381 A: It wasn't so much for me that it was 2 important that we advised the police; that was not part 3 of my thinking. 4 As I said earlier, I believed, because 5 this was the first incident of this nature for our 6 government, and by nature I mean illegal activity, not 7 more specific than that, designed, I believe to either 8 get the Government's attention or to hopefully force them 9 to do something, that it was important that we signalled 10 publicly that this was not the type of behaviour that we 11 would respond to. 12 And as a result of that, I think most 13 people would assume in the, sort of, analogy that I used 14 yesterday, that a landowner would say I've asked that 15 this occupation end, I'm taking whatever steps I can. In 16 our case, as a government, that was an injunction, but 17 secondly that we've asked the police to see that this 18 occupation come to an end. 19 Q: All right. And what was the answer 20 that you -- you received to your question? 21 A: As I said, I don't recall, other than 22 I think MNR staff on the ground indicated, sort of, we'll 23 check if we've done that and if not, we will, kind of 24 thing. 25 Q: All right.
391 A: And I believe then the only other 2 discussion on that was that it would form part of our 3 public communications. 4 Q: Were you content with that response? 5 A: Yes, I was at the time. 6 Q: Now, was it important to you that 7 there be no public perception that the Premier's office 8 or the Government was working with First Nation 9 occupiers? 10 A: In this specific situation that, to 11 me, would have signalled that there was some form of 12 negotiation while the occupation was ending -- before the 13 occupation ended. 14 Q: All right. Now, we've heard evidence 15 from Elizabeth Christie. Do you recall Elizabeth 16 Christie? 17 A: I don't. 18 Q: Do you recall that she was a lawyer 19 at this meeting? 20 A: I don't. 21 Q: Do you recall her being at this 22 meeting? 23 A: I -- I indicated yesterday that -- 24 two (2) things in terms of my recollection of people. 25 One (1) is that it was a very large meeting. I think
401 there were -- 2 Q: All right. 3 A: -- twenty (20) some people at it, and 4 that with a few exceptions I had not previously meet the 5 individuals. We all introduced ourselves at -- at the 6 meeting. I don't recall if that occurred again on the 7 6th for anyone that joined us. I -- I just don't have a 8 recollection of that. 9 So, for that time I -- I would have known 10 that the individual people -- I would have known their 11 names, but because I had not met them before I -- I don't 12 recall after the fact anything specific about any of the 13 individuals that I had not previously met. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: The only exception would be Julie 16 Jai. I certainly could have recognized her and known 17 that she had chaired the meeting because of her role as 18 Chair. 19 Q: All right. You could have or likely 20 would have? 21 A: Both. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: Both. I -- I guess I would say she 24 is the one (1) individual beyond those that I already 25 knew who stuck out in my mind.
411 Q: All right. Ms. Christie testified 2 that you said on September the 6th during the course of 3 this meeting that, quote: 4 "The Premier's office doesn't want to 5 be seen to be working with Indians at 6 all." 7 Do you agree that you said those words or 8 words to that effect? 9 A: First I -- I generally used 10 Aboriginal peoples or First Nations or Natives to refer 11 to -- I -- I don't use the term 'Indians' generally. I - 12 - I don't believe I actually ever do. So, that does not 13 sound like something I would say as a result of that. 14 As I said a few minutes ago it is -- it 15 was certainly consistent with my point of view that any 16 discussions by the Government with the occupiers would be 17 inconsistent with my view that -- that I think it is 18 prudent to say you will not have substantial negotiations 19 while an occupation is underway. 20 Q: All right. Well, did it not go 21 further than that perhaps and did you not suggest that 22 the Government and the Premier did not want any third- 23 parties to be engaged in discussions at all, aside from 24 the OPP and the MNR, with the occupiers during the course 25 of the occupation, including, if there were offers for
421 example, by the chief to engage -- or attempt to engage 2 in discussions? 3 A: If I could just break that thought up 4 a little bit. 5 First my thoughts, my very clear thoughts 6 around discussions spoke to those who would represent 7 government very, very specifically. So, I wouldn't -- I 8 just wouldn't use the terms 'third-party' in that 9 context. 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: As it related to the Chief I 12 understood that -- I believe someone asked if he was 13 prepared to help, was that helpful? I recall thinking -- 14 I'm -- I'm not clear on what I said, but I recall 15 thinking that that would be obviously extremely helpful 16 if he had some influence to end the occupation. 17 But, I thought for us to work together in 18 this specific situation may well have confused or 19 complicated the issue and may well have put him in a 20 difficult position and the Government in a difficult 21 position. 22 Q: All right. So, your -- your 23 conclusion was that it would not be helpful to have non- 24 governmental parties engage in discussions with the First 25 Nations occupiers during the course of the occupation?
431 A: I just want to be a little more 2 specific. The -- the concept of someone other than the 3 Chief was not raised so it wasn't a -- it wasn't 4 something that I discussed specifically at the meeting. 5 The only third-party, if you will, that was raised was 6 the Chief and -- and I've just indicated my thoughts on 7 that. 8 Q: Perhaps you could go to Tab 24 of 9 your brief. 10 A: 24? 11 Q: This is a typed transcription of 12 Eileen Hipfner's notes. It's Inquiry Document 3000550. 13 I know that her handwritten notes have been entered as 14 Exhibit P-636. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 16 Ms. Vella, what tab number? 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Tab 24, 18 Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 24 Q: And page 2, in particular. And Ms. 25 Hipfner has testified that she was a participant at this
441 meeting and she was a lawyer at this meeting. 2 Do you have a recollection of her? 3 A: Again, not specifically. I had -- I 4 don't believe I had met her before or subsequent. 5 Q: In any event her note reads as 6 follows at the top of page 2: 7 "Hutton: [And she's ascribing this 8 thought to you -- the statement to 9 you.] Premier is firm that at no time 10 should anybody but OPP, MNR be involved 11 in the discussions despite any offers 12 that might be made by third-parties 13 (Chief, et cetera) because get into 14 negotiations and we don't want that." 15 Do you deny expressing that sentiment at 16 the meeting? 17 A: As I've just said, my recollection is 18 that the only specific individual being contemplated at 19 all or -- or discussed that was a third-party, as 20 distinct from government, was the Chief. So, a broader 21 statement is not something I recall making. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: I want to say, it would be consistent 24 with my view that -- that we should not be having 25 substantive negotiations. But the concept of someone
451 other that the Chief being involved, I don't recall being 2 raised. 3 Q: Was it not also your view that -- 4 that with respect -- I mean the -- the discussions or 5 negotiations that were attempting to be entered into by 6 the OPP and the MNR were not substantive, to be 7 substantive in nature isn't that right? 8 A: That's my understanding, yes. 9 Q: And so this -- the discussion 10 surrounding the possible assistance -- engaged in the 11 possible assistance of the Chief of Kettle and Stony 12 Point First Nation was with respect to trying to 13 negotiate an end to the remo -- the end to the occupation 14 as opposed to substantive issues; is that not right? 15 A: That's correct and -- and a result I 16 -- I didn't have a problem with that. It was the issue 17 of us working together and confusing the situation that I 18 was concerned about. 19 Q: Was it your view however that there 20 should be no -- no parties other than the OPP or the MNR 21 engaged in discussions of any sort with the occupiers 22 while the occupation was ongoing? 23 A: Of a substantive nature, yes. As I 24 said yesterday -- that's correct. That's my view. 25 Q: No. I -- I'm being very specific.
461 I'm not -- 2 A: Okay. I'm sorry. 3 Q: -- restricting discussions to 4 substantive discussions because, as you have testified, 5 it was your understanding that that wasn't to occur in 6 any event. 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: My question is whether or not you, 9 with your position that non-governmental parties such as 10 Aboriginal leaders should not be engaged in discussions 11 of any sort, substantive or otherwise, with the occupiers 12 during the course of the occupation? 13 A: Right. And -- and as I said, I 14 believe the only suggestion of that nature was with 15 regard to Chief Bressette. And I've shared my comments 16 on that. 17 I don't believe at any time did anyone 18 else suggest, or did anyone suggest, another third party 19 option. I would not have dismissed it out of hand, 20 certainly. I would have been open to discussing it. 21 I do want to say though in fairness, I 22 would have had some concerns and would want to have 23 understood how it could possibly have worked, about an 24 individual on behalf of government, whoever that might 25 be, engaging in discussions without getting into
471 substantive negotiations. 2 Like, I would have had some concerns about 3 how that would have worked. 4 Q: And you have had serious concerns 5 about that? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And reservations? 8 A: I would have. But, as I said, it was 9 not raised as an option and -- so I don't believe I -- I 10 expressed those concerns at the meeting. 11 Q: All right. Now, do you recall 12 conveying to the meeting members on September the 6th the 13 message that the Premier's view was that the occupiers 14 should be treated like everyone else? 15 A: I don't specifically recall saying 16 that. Given what we understood to be the facts of this 17 specific situation, it is consistent with what I was 18 thinking and I believe the Premier was as well. 19 Q: All right. And did it continue to be 20 your position at this meeting on behalf of the Premier 21 that this occupation was to be treated as a law 22 enforcement, rather than as an Aboriginal issue? 23 A: Yes. I'm not sure law enforcement 24 was -- was how I was thinking about it. I -- I tended to 25 think about this as it should be treated as an illegal
481 occupation. I don't know how much difference there is in 2 those two (2) thoughts but it's just the way I thought of 3 it. 4 Q: All right. Now, do you recall at 5 this meeting having an exchange and being directly 6 involved in an exchange with another individual with 7 respect to the -- whether the Government's approach 8 should be one that was quicker rather than a go-slow 9 approach? 10 A: I don't specifically recall an 11 exchange. I do recall there were individuals at the 12 table. I just don't recall who, specifically, that -- 13 that were of the view that we should move slowly. 14 As I said earlier, if there was any 15 dynamic that I recalled at the meeting it was that those 16 on the phone, therefore those on the ground, were a 17 little more concerned than the people at Queen's Park. 18 And I believe I stated yesterday, 19 consistently throughout this, I did -- I did place a lot 20 of stock in -- in -- in their opinions and their point of 21 view. 22 Q: All right. Would you go to Tab 21 of 23 the book of documents. It's Exhibit P-517. These have 24 been identified as the -- the notes of Scott Patrick who 25 was identified as being at that meeting and has given
491 evidence here. 2 And the -- you'll see, I believe the first 3 page is a Will Say in your -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- book? All right. If you continue 6 to the handwritten notes, we've got the fourth page in. 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: Those have been identified as his 9 handwritten notes of the September 6th IMC meeting. 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: And if you would kindly go to the -- 12 excuse me, the fourth page. 13 A: Fourth of the handwritten? 14 Q: Of the handwritten and at the top it 15 says, "Considerations". 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And then there's a notation, "Ron". 18 Do you see that? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And this has been identified as being 21 attributed to Ron Fox at that meeting. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: As expressing the following 24 sentiments: 25 "Long term versus short time. Close
501 Provincial Park. Dispute over 2 ownership. Trespass, mischief, not 3 serious charges. Appreciate Premier's 4 concern but should be rush in? Step by 5 step approach with longer term view." 6 And then there's: 7 "A discussion on opposing views with 8 respect to urgency, civil matter, past 9 approaches. This dispute; do not want 10 it in Criminal Court." Et cetera. 11 Just to give you a bit of context. Now, 12 do you -- does that refresh your memory at all about an 13 individual raising, or at least directly raising with you 14 the Premier's concern about going quick -- more quickly 15 than slower? 16 A: It doesn't help me recall that -- 17 that Mr. Fox said this as a specific. I think it's 18 consistent with what I said was the discussion at the 19 time. 20 I just don't have a recollection having 21 not met Mr. Fox prior to then or subsequently, that he 22 was the individual who spoke about this. 23 Q: Sure, and I'm more concerned about 24 the substance of what was said than who said it. 25 A: Yeah.
511 Q: So -- 2 A: I think generally it's reflective of 3 one of the positions that was taken in our discussion. 4 Q: All right. And what was your -- 5 firstly, what was your understanding of the, if you will, 6 the pros of the go-slow approach as opposed to the go- 7 quick approach, if I can put it that way? 8 A: I don't recall specifically any 9 conclusions at the time, so I think I would be 10 reconstructing; I'm not sure that that's helpful. 11 I recall it being -- considering it a 12 legitimate approach. I mean I certainly wasn't 13 dismissive of it. 14 And I respected the fact that, as should 15 be the case in these situations, different individuals 16 from Ministries have their Ministry perspective as they 17 should have. 18 It's why, in cases like this, and many 19 other in government, you bring all Ministries together 20 and everyone is represented and has an opportunity to 21 share their view. 22 I, in my responsibilities in the Premier's 23 office, and I would say Cabinet office, would be 24 consistent with that as well, had a overall government 25 perspective that was, I think, also important and needed
521 to take into each -- into account each Ministry's 2 perspective on this matter. 3 So, I would have respected, obviously, if 4 Mr. Fox said this, I knew he was from the Solicitor 5 General's Ministry at the time, I would have respected 6 that that was a Solicitor General's view, a Solicitor 7 General Ministry view, and -- and that would have been, I 8 think, an appropriate view for them to hold. We had 9 other issues as well that we need to consider government- 10 wide. 11 Q: All right, and at the end of the day, 12 did you alter your review as a result of the Solicitor 13 General's views as expressed at this meeting? 14 A: I don't recall specifically 15 responding to or thinking about, individually, that -- 16 the views at the table. I mean, it was -- it was a 17 discussion. 18 As I said, a few things were important to 19 me on the Wednesday, what I believe to be facts of a -- 20 of an escalation overnight, the -- what I believed to be 21 the views of the MNR staff on the ground who -- who I 22 don't think were advocating a go-slow approach at all, 23 and -- and my general view that I had formed over the 24 course of the Tuesday that it really was in the greatest 25 public safety interest from our government's perspective
531 to see this come to an end sooner rather than later. 2 Q: All right. And again this 3 summarizes; that was based on the information that you 4 received from the MNR on the ground during the course of 5 that meeting? 6 A: And the Solicitor General's Ministry. 7 Q: And the Solicitor General's Ministry. 8 And -- 9 A: Right. If I could just add to that, 10 you know, it's very disturbing to -- to hear that civil 11 servants are being asked to wear bullet-proof vests. I 12 mean, that's something that was very concerning to me 13 obviously -- 14 Q: It struck you? 15 A: -- for example, absolutely. 16 Q: Now, you testified yesterday that the 17 MNR Minister was to be the spokes -- designated 18 spokesperson for the Government at this -- at this 19 meeting? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And did -- did your views change at 22 all with respect to the -- the propriety of the MNR 23 Minister, Minister Hodgson, being the spokesperson for 24 the Government on the occupation? 25 A: No, with one (1) exception. Once the
541 Government did conclude that they would be in court to 2 seek an injunction then obviously the spokesperson on 3 that matter, I believe, would more appropriately have 4 been the Attorney General. 5 So, for that period of time when the 6 injunction was, sort of, the -- the key piece of this, 7 once we had made that decision Wednesday there would have 8 been a shift, I -- I think, in terms of the spokesperson. 9 Q: All right. And do you recall there 10 being any discussion or resistance to that suggestion by 11 -- by the MNR representatives? 12 A: I don't. I am aware that the Inquiry 13 has heard information to the contrary. All I can say is 14 that -- that determining a Government spokesperson was 15 something I did numerous times every day, so it's not the 16 kind of conversation that would have stuck in my mind. 17 It was fairly routine for me. 18 Q: Was it your suggestion that the MNR 19 Minister be the spokesperson? 20 A: I believe it would have been. It 21 certainly was something, as I said, that I was 22 responsible for. 23 Q: And did you also suggest that the 24 Premier would be prepared to take the lead on this issue? 25 A: I believe on Wednesday, given that I
551 knew the Premier was at Queen's Park if necessary that -- 2 that would be appropriate as well. 3 Q: And why would it be appropriate for 4 the Premier to be spokesperson on this issue? 5 A: I think in -- in any situation, if 6 the Premier is available, we certainly need him to be 7 prepared to -- to take the lead on a matter. That 8 doesn't mean that he necessarily carries all aspects of 9 it or that the Minister of Natural Resources wouldn't be 10 better able to speak about some specifics as would the 11 Attorney General for example in the case of the 12 injunction. 13 Q: As a communications -- someone 14 familiar with communications what -- what message would 15 you expect to be sent out if the Premier is speaking to 16 this issue as opposed to his Minister? 17 A: I don't know if I would have thought 18 about it that specifically at the time. I think in many 19 cases it's -- it's not necessarily that you choose to 20 have the Premier available, there's often an expectation, 21 as I said, if he is physically available that he would 22 respond to an issue that was obviously of importance to 23 the people of Ontario. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: And by Wednesday I believe this issue
561 certainly was. 2 Q: Did you believe that you had the 3 confidence of the Premier that he would be willing to 4 take the lead on this issue? 5 A: I wouldn't have said it if I didn't 6 feel -- 7 Q: All right. 8 A: -- that that was the case. 9 Q: And did he at any time subsequent 10 tell you that you'd been wrong? 11 A: No, not on this at least. 12 Q: Okay. Now, at any point during the 13 course of the September 6th meeting did you advise that 14 you were -- that you were going to be speaking to the 15 Premier or contacting the Premier about what was going on 16 in the meeting? 17 A: I -- I don't believe so. 18 Q: Did you leave the meeting to make a 19 call to the Premier? 20 A: I don't recall doing that, and I 21 think I would have known he was in Cabinet, so that's not 22 the kind of thing I would have done. 23 Q: Now, Ms. Hipfner has testified that 24 you left the room to call either the Premier or the 25 Premier's office either on the 6th or possibly the 5th.
571 Do you have any recollection of that? 2 A: I don't and I have no idea why I 3 would need to do that. 4 Q: All right. Now, was there, in your 5 view, a consensus reached at the end of the September 6th 6 meeting at the IMC as to what government action would be 7 recommended? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: What was that consensus? 10 A: That -- that we seek an injunction as 11 soon as possible. 12 Q: And as soon as possible meant what? 13 A: I believe that the lawyers were going 14 to see if seeking an ex parte injunction was possible or 15 feasible given the test that needed to be met and that 16 they would proceed accordingly. 17 Q: They would proceed -- if it was 18 feasible they were to proceed with an ex parte 19 injunction? 20 A: That would have been my 21 understanding, yes. I'm not sure anyone specifically 22 said that but I think given the conversations that we'd 23 had that that was a reasonable expectation. 24 Q: And did there had to be formal 25 instructions or direction given by any of the Ministers
581 or the Premier before the lawyers to your understanding 2 would be able to take the -- launch the injunction? 3 A: I can't speak to the technicality of 4 who needed to give those instructions. So -- so, within 5 the Attorney General's Ministry I just -- I can't speak 6 to that. There may well have been a -- a formal need. 7 It was important to me that I -- given 8 that I had a bunch of new information as a result of the 9 meeting that the Premier didn't yet have, it was 10 important to me that he be aware of that and that we just 11 confirm that we were all on the same page. 12 So, with -- with that one exception, I 13 think we had come to a conclusion. 14 Q: All right. Now, do you recall who 15 you left this meeting with? 16 A: I don't. 17 Q: Did anything else of significance 18 transpire over the course of the September 6th IMC 19 meeting that we have not reviewed? 20 A: I can't recall that now. If someone 21 puts it in front of me I'll do my best to recall it. I 22 don't think of anything right now though. 23 Q: All right. Do you recall leaving the 24 meeting with -- well firstly, did -- you knew Shelly 25 Spiegel?
591 A: I did. 2 Q: All right. And she was at this 3 meeting? 4 A: I believe so, yes. 5 Q: Do you recall leaving the meeting 6 with her? 7 A: I don't; I may well have. We would 8 have been going to the same place. 9 Q: All right. And -- and where were you 10 going? 11 A: I was going to Queen's Park, so in 12 fairness she may have been going to the Whitney Block but 13 they're side by side. 14 Q: All right. Do you recall telling Ms. 15 Spiegel that in -- in your view the -- the IMC meeting 16 had been frustration -- frustrating to you? 17 A: No. As I think I indicated, I was -- 18 I was somewhat frustrated on the Tuesday, not about the 19 meeting, but about what I thought was -- was a lack of 20 options being presented to the Government. 21 I don't recall been frustrated on 22 Wednesday at all. I was certainly concerned on Wednesday 23 given the information I had received. And for me there 24 was a -- a need to, sort of, get the final approval by 25 those who were in a position to make the decision around
601 the injunction and -- and to get on with it. 2 Q: Okay. Ms. Spiegel has testified that 3 as she was walking back with you to -- to the office, you 4 expressed a frustration and displeasure with the IMC, 5 both in respect of how large it was and how low the level 6 of the bureaucrats, civil bureaucrats, were in 7 attendance. 8 Do you recall expressing those sentiments 9 at all to her? 10 A: I don't. And I don't believe I knew 11 at the time people's individual positions. That's not 12 how we introduced ourselves so I don't recall saying that 13 at all or thinking it. 14 Q: Do you recall telling anyone that you 15 thought the meeting -- this meeting was useless and a 16 complete waste of time? 17 A: No. 18 Q: Or making that comment with respect 19 to the September 5th meeting? 20 A: I don't. And I would turn to that 21 process on the 6th though; I think that would be 22 inconsistent with my thinking. 23 Q: All right. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
611 Q: I would like you to go then please, 2 and try to refresh your memory with respect to some of 3 the September 6th meeting, to Tab 13. These have been 4 identified as the meeting notes -- handwritten notes of 5 Julie Jai. Exhibit P-536. 6 And I believe in -- in your binder, the 7 way this has been produced, is that the September 6th 8 agenda and meeting notes is -- are first. 9 You see the date? 10 A: That looks to be correct, yes. 11 Q: Okay. And it's Inquiry document 12 number 30006 -- sorry, 706. 13 A: At the top right? 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: Mine says 1012579. 16 Q: All right. Yes, okay. Unfortunately, 17 we have the same document reproduced in a few different 18 Inquiry document numbers, but that's correct. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: That's correct. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: As I review this, you'd asked me a 25 few minutes ago if there was anything else of
621 significance that I had recalled of September the 6th. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: I do recall -- again, I don't recall 4 if it was Julie Jai or Dave Moran or Caroline Pinto, but 5 it was conveyed to us on the morning of September the 6th 6 that the Attorney General did support the injunction 7 option. 8 Q: Okay. That is important, thank you. 9 And you have a recollection of that now, having looked at 10 these notes? 11 A: I do, I -- yes. 12 Q: All right. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: All right. And page 2 then, you'll 17 see at the top there's a circle with a "1" and then a 18 circle with a "2"? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: All right. At the bottom there is 21 the following note by Ms. Jai. First of all: 22 "Peter Allen feels spokesperson still 23 be local, keep matters local --" 24 A: I'm sorry, I'm not with you. 25 Q: I'm sorry. Top of the page is -- is
631 page 2. 2 A: Oh, 2, sorry. I thought you said 1. 3 Yes, okay, Peter Allen. 4 Q: Go to the bottom. 5 A: I'm there. 6 Q: Thank you. 7 "Peter Allen feels spokesperson still 8 be local, [or should be local, excuse 9 me] keep matters local. This Committee 10 could also vet releases." 11 And there's a sentiment attributed to you. 12 "Deb: But we want to be seen as having 13 control over this so Ministers can't 14 duck if scrummed, and Premier not 15 adverse to this being a Provincial 16 Government action." 17 Do you recall expressing that sentiment at 18 the meeting now? 19 A: Not specifically, but it was 20 certainly my view so I don't deny that I would have 21 expressed that; that I did believe, as I think I said a 22 couple of times, people of Ontario would be looking to 23 the Government to respond, first of all, and particularly 24 on a day when we had Ministers and the Premier at Queen's 25 Park.
641 So, from the media perspective, there 2 would be an expectation. I think from a public 3 perspective, there would be an expectation. 4 And finally, it was important for me, 5 regardless of that expectation, that we did, for the 6 overall sake of public safety in the long term, indicate 7 that the Government did not condone this behaviour; that 8 because of the illegal nature of this activity we would 9 not be responding to it in any way. 10 Q: All right. Thank you. If you go to 11 page 3, then, the next page, of her notes, midway there's 12 a notation: 13 "Deb: Premier feels the longer they 14 occupy it, the more support they'll 15 get. He wants them out in a day or two 16 (2)." 17 Do you recall now expressing sentiments to 18 that effect? 19 A: I don't, but it's certainly 20 consistent with the view that I held and believed the 21 Premier held that we shouldn't let this continue; that 22 the longer we did, the more likelihood there was of, I 23 believe I've used the term 'escalation', increased 24 tension. 25 I don't recall the "day or two (2)"
651 comment, but I think it's reflective of sooner rather 2 than later. 3 Q: And what was your concern with 4 respect to the garnishing of more support, the longer the 5 occupation occurred? 6 A: As I said earlier, one of the key 7 facts for me on the Tuesday was the fact that, as we had 8 been told, that there was no way to ensure that other 9 individuals didn't join the current group of occupiers. 10 And that was a -- a factor that I, as I expressed 11 earlier, that was of concern. 12 Q: All right. And did you have any 13 specific information with respect -- which informed that 14 concern that other people might come and join the 15 occupation if it was allowed to continue? 16 A: Did someone specifically say this 17 will happen? No. 18 I think it's reasonable if you are told as 19 a -- as an important fact that there's no way to ensure 20 that -- that others can't join the numbers that that is a 21 reasonable expectation that you would be concerned about 22 that. 23 Q: And who were you concerned might come 24 and support the occupiers? 25 A: I don't believe I had a specific view
661 on that. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: Can I just say on the "day or two 4 (2)" comment. It appears to follow the comment about 5 best case Friday in court. So again, it seems reasonable 6 that as I -- as we discussed earlier, that -- that I had 7 concerns if Friday was the best case, that we may well 8 have been into the next week. 9 So, it appears as though that comment if I 10 made it, was in response to that sentiment. 11 Q: Okay. Because the Friday would have 12 been two (2) days later? 13 A: Because Friday was best case. 14 Q: Yeah. Okay. All right. 15 Would you go next to page 6 please, of Ms. 16 Jai's notes, and you'll notice that near the top, the 17 first notation: 18 "Deb: Feels MNR as property owner can 19 ask OPP to remove people. 20 Scott: You can ask them to remove 21 them. You can't insist on demand that 22 they be removed. 23 Deb: Has MNR asked OPP to remove them? 24 They could be formally requested to do 25 so but how and when they do it is -- is
671 up to -- up to them. Could have that 2 as a community -- or communication 3 message. MNR has formally asked that 4 they remove them." 5 Do you recall having a discussion to that 6 affect? 7 A: I -- I think this is exactly the 8 point that we spoke about earlier, so I can't recall the 9 specific words but I think that's completely consistent 10 with -- with the discussion you and I had a few minutes 11 ago. 12 Q: All right. In other words, that it 13 was your position that the MNR, as property owners, could 14 ask the OPP to remove the people? 15 A: Yes. I think it was a question that 16 I asked, as I said earlier. 17 Q: All right. And then you asked for 18 confirmation that they had indeed asked for that -- 19 A: When we were on that, yes. 20 Q: Thank you. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now, if you would go next to Tab 23, 25 this is Exhibit P-636. These have been identified as the
681 notes of Eileen Hipfner taken during the course of the 2 September 6th IMC meeting. And if you would go to page 3 4, please. You'll see the number 4 handwritten at the 4 top of the page 5 A: I have 3 and 5. 6 Q: You don't have 4? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And these 8 are the notes again where those two (2) numbers are 9 inverted. 10 THE WITNESS: I have 44-3. I found it 11 so -- 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, 13 that's right. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've run 15 into this before. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's right. We've 17 had that prob -- the way it was produced us in the -- 18 sorry and it's scanned. 19 THE WITNESS: I have found it. That's 20 okay. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 23 Q: In any event, page 4. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Third paragraph, if you will:
691 "Hutton: Premier's office wants to be 2 seen as having control, removing 3 expeditiously 4 -- [sorry] moving expeditiously [thank 5 you] as a matter or principle generally 6 agree, but in this situation not 7 adverse to having this be viewed -- 8 seen as a political issue." 9 Now, did you express the sentiment that 10 the Premier was not adverse to having this seen as a 11 political issue? 12 A: I don't recall doing so. 13 Q: All right. 14 A: I'm -- I'm not sure what it's meant 15 by this, sorry. 16 Q: Thank you. All right. If you go 17 next to Tab 20 please. It's Exhibit P-509, Inquiry 18 Document 1012288. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And this has been identified as the 21 minutes, if you will, of the September 6th IMC meeting. 22 And it's the second document, I believe ,in your package. 23 The first one I think is September 5th. 24 A: Oh, yes, I'm sorry, I'm on the 5th. 25 Q: No, no, no. Not at all.
701 A: Yes. 2 Q: Again it's the way it was produced. 3 All right. And you're shown as having received a copy of 4 these minutes. 5 Is it likely that you received them? 6 A: I'm not sure that it -- I -- I don't 7 have a record that I received them in -- in here so I -- 8 I don't know if there's a fax cover if that's what you're 9 referring to or, it's -- I think it's likely I received 10 them. 11 As, I recall from the September 5th 12 minutes we received them the following day. Obviously by 13 the 7th we were into a very different situation so I 14 don't recall reviewing these specifically. 15 Q: You don't recall reviewing them? 16 A: Or receiving them. I think -- 17 Q: Or receiving them? 18 A: -- it's likely I would have, I just 19 don't recall. 20 Q: Do you recall having any concerns 21 about the contents of the -- the minutes in terms of 22 accuracies or significant omissions? 23 A: No. Given that I can't recall 24 reviewing them I -- I can't help you with that. 25 Q: All right. Thank you.
711 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Just returning for a moment to Ron 4 Fox. You've testified that you didn't realize that he was 5 an OPP officer seconded to the Ministry of the Solicitor 6 General at any time over the 5th or the 6th of September; 7 is that right? 8 A: That's correct, I had not met him 9 before. I don't believe I've met him subsequent to 10 September 1995 and he was certainly not identified to me 11 as an OPP officer on secondment. 12 Q: Now, did you learn that -- later on 13 that he had been an OPP officer seconded to the Ministry 14 during the course -- at the time that he was present at 15 these meetings? 16 A: I did but much later and I don't 17 recall specifically when. 18 Q: And in hindsight -- had you realized, 19 I should say, that Ron Fox was an OPP officer seconded to 20 the Ministry of the Solicitor General, would you -- would 21 that have altered any of your comments or the tenor of 22 the comments you made at either the September 5th or 23 September 6th IMC meeting? 24 A: It would not have altered my 25 comments. I do want to say, very clearly, that if anyone
721 was of the impression that Mr. Fox was operating as an 2 OPP officer in his capacity at that meeting that -- that 3 I would have found that inappropriate for him to have 4 been there, but I would not have -- looking back, if I'd 5 known his secondment I wouldn't have altered my -- my 6 words or my thoughts or my thinking, obviously. 7 Q: All right. In -- in hindsight do you 8 think it was appropriate that -- to have the Special -- 9 the First Nations Special Advisor person at the IMC 10 meetings given that he was an OPP officer, albeit on 11 secondment to the Ministry? 12 A: Well, albeit on secondment is an 13 important concept for me -- 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: -- and it was my experience in 16 government -- I -- I can't say specifically before, but 17 certainly overall in government, that when you are 18 seconded to the Civil Service that is your responsibility 19 and what you did previously, while it might have an 20 impact and a bearing on your experience, would not be 21 relevant nor would you be acting in that capacity. 22 Q: All right. So in principle you saw 23 nothing wrong with the fact that he was an OPP officer by 24 trade but on secondment? 25 A: If, in fact, everyone understood that
731 his position was a civil service position, I believe that 2 is appropriate. It's something that government does, 3 I'll say regularly, I'm not sure how routinely but 4 regularly. 5 Q: Fair enough. And as of the 6 conclusion, then, of the September 6th IMC meeting, is it 7 fair to say that it was your view and understanding that 8 Section 35 of the Constitution Act had no impact on your 9 conclusion that the Park occupation was illegal? 10 A: Yes, I believe I said that earlier as 11 well. 12 Q: And that that -- you believed that 13 view to be consistent with the Premier's views? 14 A: I can't say no to that, I -- it just 15 -- it's just a thought I didn't have at the time, 16 necessarily. 17 Q: All right. Was it raised with him, 18 to your knowledge? 19 A: No, I -- I think what I expect I 20 would have raised with him was the very clear advice and 21 information we received that the ownership of the Park, 22 the title of the Park was clear. 23 Q: And that the claim of an Aboriginal 24 burial ground possibly being within the Park had no 25 impact on the Province's good and valid ownership of the
741 Park, as far as you were concerned? 2 A: It wasn't so much as far as I was 3 concerned, it was what I was clearly advised, and I 4 accepted that advice. 5 Q: And that there was no meaningful 6 colour of right argument that could be made by the 7 occupiers? 8 A: As a result of the ownership issue in 9 this specific situation, yes. 10 Q: And that in formulating your views 11 and recommendations to the Premier with respect to how to 12 approach the occupation, you did not believe that the 13 statement of political relationship was relevant to the 14 discussion? 15 A: That's correct, specifically 16 relevant. I mean, obviously, it was part of the 17 environment in which we were operating. 18 Q: All right. That you were unaware 19 that the IMC had, as part of its scope of authority, the 20 power to appoint a third party to engage in discussions 21 with the occupiers with a view to developing a non- 22 substantive solution to encouraging them to leave 23 voluntarily? 24 A: I was unaware and it was not raised. 25 Q: And, indeed, you were unaware of the
751 formal mandate powers and authority of the IMC as 2 explained in the guidelines we referred to yesterday, 3 Exhibit P-498. 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And that the perspective of the 6 Premier and the Premier's office, as you conveyed it 7 during those meetings, was that there was to be no 8 substantive negotiation whatsoever while the Park was 9 being occupied? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And further that there would be no 12 discussions with the occupiers with the exception of the 13 OPP and the MNR field staff? 14 A: I believe that's correct. 15 Q: And that while on the evening of 16 September the 4th, you did consider the state of affairs 17 at the Park in terms of risk to public safety to be 18 urgent. 19 By the end of September the 6th IMC 20 meeting, you considered that there were escalating 21 factors which enhanced the risk to public safety to the 22 point that this had become an urgent matter? 23 A: That's correct. And, as well, just 24 reinforcing that over the -- of the course of the 5th and 25 the 6th, as I think I've tried to say earlier, it was
761 important to me that we not -- that our response made it 2 clear that this was not the type of behaviour that anyone 3 should engage in and we didn't want to be encouraging 4 this type of illegal activity, generally, throughout the 5 course of the Government's mandate. 6 Q: And given the escalating state of 7 affairs, as you understood them, that urgent governmental 8 action in the form of a speedy injunction was the 9 preferred course of action? 10 A: Agreed. 11 Q: And finally, that this occupation was 12 seen by you as a -- an illegal trespass and not as an 13 Aboriginal issue, notwithstanding the facts that the 14 occupiers believed that the Park contained a burial 15 ground? 16 A: That's correct, except to say that we 17 were not -- we were not ever advised that, in fact, the 18 belief of a burial ground was -- was the motivating 19 factor; it was a speculation. 20 Q: Okay, fair enough. You indicated 21 that -- that you, upon leaving the IMC meeting on 22 September the 5th, proceeded to Queen's Park? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Did you make any intervening stops? 25 A: I don't believe so.
771 Q: All right. And why were you on your 2 way to Queen's Park? 3 A: First, it was my practice, when I 4 could, to sit in on Cabinet. So I would have gone up to 5 -- to sit in on the end of Cabinet at that stage, if it 6 were still underway. 7 Secondly, specifically with regard to this 8 situation, as I said earlier, I wanted to ensure that the 9 Premier in particular, but I also was aware that our 10 Ministers would be at Cabinet, it was an opportunity to 11 make sure that, as I said, we were all on the same page 12 on this and it was just a one last check. 13 Q: All right. So it was your intention 14 to have a discussion with the Premier and the Ministers 15 concerning the results of the September 6th meeting? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. And was this a pre- 18 planned meeting -- 19 A: No. 20 Q: -- that you were going to have? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Now, according to the minutes, this 23 meeting, the IMC meeting ended at, well, it says 11:45 24 p.m. but I take it that that is a typo and it would be 25 11:45 a.m.
781 Is that generally consistent with your 2 timeframe? 3 A: I would have said about a couple of 4 hours, so yes. 5 Q: All right. And how long would it 6 have taken you to -- to get to Queen's Park? 7 A: I don't recall if I walked or grabbed 8 a cab, so five (5) to ten (10) minutes maximum. 9 Q: Either way? 10 A: Either way, I think. 11 Q: Okay. All right. So assuming it's 12 under that 11:45, would you -- do you believe you -- you 13 arrived at Queen's Park somewhere around noon or shortly 14 thereafter? 15 A: I think -- I think that's a 16 reasonable expectation. 17 Q: All right. And when you arrived was 18 the cabinet meeting still ongoing? 19 A: I believe so. I'm not sure I have a 20 very clear recollection but I -- I believe so. 21 Q: All right. And did you enter the 22 cabinet meeting? 23 A: Again I don't specifically recall 24 doing so, but I think it's likely. 25 Q: You think it likely?
791 A: It's likely, yes. 2 Q: And based on what? 3 A: As I said I generally did attend 4 cabinet. 5 Q: All right. And you had free passage 6 into the cabinet? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Do you have any -- 9 A: The only exception to that is there - 10 - on very rare occasions was a Ministers only discussion 11 but we would have been advised of that. Otherwise I was 12 free to enter. 13 Q: Okay. Now did you -- did you take 14 any steps or speak to anyone prior to going into cabinet? 15 A: I don't recall. I don't think -- 16 Q: Okay. What do you recall doing next 17 then? 18 A: I -- I don't have a specific 19 recollection of the -- sort of end of cabinet beginning 20 of the dining room meeting that I'm sure we'll discuss. 21 So I can only speculate for you and I'm not sure how 22 helpful that is. 23 Q: All right. Speculation is probably 24 unhelpful. Thank you. All right. 25 Do you have any -- I appreciate -- I take
801 it that as you don't recall specifically entering 2 cabinet, you don't have any recollection as to what was 3 occurring in cabinet? 4 A: No. 5 Q: All right. Had you spoken with the 6 Premier at all between the morning meeting -- briefing, 7 that likely happened with him and your appearance at -- 8 at the cabinet? 9 A: No. And again I'm a little perplexed 10 about the timing because I would have -- based on general 11 practice I would have assumed I had met the Premier at a 12 nine o'clock meeting, headed right to the 9:30 13 InterMinisterial Committee meeting and he would have been 14 gone to cabinet. 15 So I -- I -- as I said I don't recall 16 cabinet beginning at 9:00 so I'm not sure when we would 17 have our morning briefing with him. But the timeframe, 18 even at ten o'clock cabinet, wouldn't have allowed for a 19 further discussion. 20 Q: All right. And, to your knowledge, 21 was the Premier expecting you to arrive at Queen's Park 22 to make a report to him on the IMC meeting? 23 A: I expect so. It seems very logical 24 to me that, as I said earlier, we would be getting back 25 together after I had been briefed.
811 Q: All right. And I'm wondering, 2 Commissioner, perhaps just before we go to the next, so 3 that I don't interrupt this line of questioning, perhaps 4 we should take the morning break at this time. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 7 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 9 morning break now. 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 11 for fifteen (15) minutes. 12 13 --- Upon recessing at 10:25 a.m. 14 --- Upon resuming at 10:47 a.m. 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 17 resumed. Please be seated. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 20 Q: Thank you. When we broke we -- we 21 just placed you in the Cabinet office facility or 22 vicinity. 23 You don't recall whether or not you 24 attended at the Cabinet meeting, but think you would have 25 if it was still ongoing?
821 A: Correct. 2 Q: And you believe you likely arrived at 3 approximately noon or shortly thereafter on September the 4 6th? 5 A: That -- that appears likely, yes. 6 Q: And in the normal course Cabinet 7 would end at about one o'clock? 8 A: Yes, it -- it would be dependent on 9 the agenda. The 10:00 to 1:00 timeframe was most likely 10 when the legislature was in session given that Question 11 Period and afternoon proceedings started at 1:30. That 12 was not the case on September the 6th. 13 Q: All right. There was no active 14 legislature in session? 15 A: That's correct. It was not in 16 session. 17 Q: All right. And in any event, I take 18 it that the Cabinet meeting ended? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And can you tell us then, what 21 happened next? 22 A: Again, I -- I don't have a specific 23 recall, so I would be speculating, but my next very clear 24 memory is that in the dining room, in the Premier's 25 office, we did have a meeting on this topic.
831 Q: All right. Now, do you recall, under 2 what circumstances the meeting in the Premier's dining 3 room was convened? 4 A: I don't. A couple of things that I 5 would point to is that at the end of Cabinet there's a 6 great deal of activity that happens to collect Cabinet 7 binders, to clean up from lunch sometimes and that sort 8 of thing. 9 So, the Cabinet chamber itself, for a 10 smaller group to have a meeting just wouldn't make sense. 11 The dining room is in close proximity, and so I guess 12 that would point to the fact that we likely convened in 13 the dining room. 14 Q: All right. Do you recall who 15 convened this meeting? 16 A: Not specifically, no. 17 Q: Did you have any -- any conversation 18 with Rita Burak immediately in advance of the meeting? 19 A: I don't recall. Again, I'd be 20 speculating. 21 Q: Do you recall speaking to any one 22 immediately in advance of this meeting? 23 A: Not specifically, no. 24 Q: To your knowledge, was it part of the 25 Premier's practice to have smaller meetings in his dining
841 room? 2 A: Yes. It was a room we used for 3 meetings routinely, yes. 4 Q: Okay. And do you recall being at 5 this meeting? 6 A: I do. 7 Q: Do you recall others being at this 8 meeting? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Who do you have recollection of? 11 A: I recall the Premier; the Ministers - 12 - the three (3) Ministers; Natural Resources, Attorney 13 General and Solicitor General. I believe all three (3) 14 of their Deputies were there. I believe the three (3) 15 political staff were there. And I know there were 16 others, but I don't specifically recall who they were. 17 Q: All right. And can you just give the 18 names of the -- the three (3) Deputy Ministers? 19 A: Ron Vrancart, Elaine Todres and Larry 20 Taman. 21 Q: All right. And the three (3) 22 political assistants? 23 A: Jeff Bangs, Kathryn Hunt and David 24 Moran. 25 Q: All right. Do you know on what basis
851 this configuration of Ministers, Deputy Ministers and 2 executive assistants were -- or aides, were -- were 3 gathered? 4 A: I'm not sure I understand the 5 question. 6 Q: Do you know the basis, the premise 7 upon which this composition of people gathered? 8 A: No. As I said, I don't have a 9 specific recall. It just seems to me to be logical that 10 if each of us were looking for final confirmation from 11 our individual Ministers, in my case the Premier, and 12 that's where they were, it makes some sense that we'd 13 come together and have one conversation instead of four 14 (4). 15 Q: All right. Did you speak to the 16 Premier in advance of the dining room meeting; so between 17 Cabinet and the dining room meeting? 18 A: As I said, I don't specifically 19 recall. It seems likely I would have said, you know, 20 Hey, let's -- let's get together, but I don't recall that 21 it was me specifically who convened the meeting. 22 Q: All right. In any event, you didn't 23 have any substantive discussion with him? 24 A: I believe that's correct, yes. 25 Q: All right. And would you consider
861 this to be a formal or informal meeting? 2 A: I would have considered it to be 3 informal. 4 Q: Informal? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. And was it the Premier's 7 practice to have these types of informal meetings from 8 time to time? 9 A: From time to time, yes. 10 Q: And can you just help us with -- with 11 understanding the -- the concept of these types of 12 meetings? 13 A: Well, sort of the Premier's role 14 aside, I think I'd expressed yesterday that quite often 15 when we were dealing with the topic or managing an issue 16 outside of this sort of proactive policy process, it 17 would be very common for -- for me in particular, but 18 others, to convene a group and say, Okay, well let's all 19 get in the same room and -- and have this discussion 20 once. 21 So, they're not formal meetings in the 22 sense of regular Cabinet meetings or something like that, 23 but they're certainly regular occurrences throughout 24 government. 25 This to me, I think, at the time struck me
871 as I said a few minutes ago, a convenient way to -- to do 2 what I think needed to be done before we fully confirmed 3 the Government's course of action in seeking an 4 injunction. 5 Q: All right. So, your understanding of 6 the purpose of this meeting then was to review the 7 options the Government had, with respect to ending the 8 occupation? 9 A: Well, I -- I think, certainly from my 10 perspective the Premier was up to speed as of Tuesday on 11 what options were available. I expect, as I said 12 earlier, that I would have let him know that we were 13 going to have some more work done overnight on the 14 Tuesday. 15 So, Wednesday would have been an 16 opportunity more to report back on any new options. But 17 in the case of -- of the fact that we had no further 18 options on the table, then I think more likely to bring 19 the Ministers and the Premier up to speed on any new 20 information since we individually would have spoken with 21 the Ministers and in my case the Premier that morning, 22 and also then to discuss anything that they might like to 23 about the injunction before making that, sort of, final 24 call on it. 25 Q: All right. And I just should make it
881 clear for the -- the record, you're certain that you had 2 conversations with the Premier over the course of the 5th 3 and 6th of September concerning Ipperwash Park and the 4 IMC meetings you attended, you're just not certain as to 5 what time those conversation occurred; is that fair? 6 A: That's very fair. Thank you. 7 Q: Thank you. Now, I'd like to show to 8 you a diagram. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: And for the benefit of My Colleagues 13 this is a diagram that was circulated by counsel -- 14 A: Thank you. 15 Q: -- received from Ms. Twohig, which 16 has on it the -- the Premier's office, Premier boardroom. 17 It hasn't been scanned, so we don't have an Inquiry 18 document number. 19 I'm showing you a diagram now which 20 appears to be a part of a floor plan which, amongst other 21 things, shows Council Chambers, the Premier's office and 22 the Premier's dining room. 23 Now, I wonder first of all does this floor 24 plan reflect the configuration of rooms as they existed 25 on September the 6th, 1995?
891 A: Yes. 2 Q: And did you know the -- the rooms to 3 be identified by the labels that are attached here? 4 A: With one (1) exception and that is 5 the EA's office on the top left? 6 Q: Yes? 7 A: That was more of an open space. 8 There were a couple of desks, a sofa, and -- and some 9 tables in that area. It is the area where the Premier's 10 personal secretary sat when he was in his office here at 11 the legislative building. 12 Q: All right. Note that for the record. 13 And perhaps you could cross out EA's office on your copy 14 and make a very brief notation that this was open space 15 and the site of the Premier's personal secretary when he 16 was in chambers. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And I note that the top right corner 21 is the Council Chamber; that -- that's where Cabinet was 22 held? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: There's a hallway in the center area? 25 A: Yes.
901 Q: Then there appears to be a washroom 2 between the Council Chamber and the Premier's office? 3 A: Yes, although accessible only, as 4 this shows, from the Premier's office. 5 Q: All right. The Premier's office 6 then, is -- is right below that facility? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And adjacent to the Premier's 9 boardroom? 10 A: It is, although that doorway that's 11 shown on this particular diagram was not one that we used 12 and there was furniture across from it -- 13 Q: All right. And can you just -- is 14 this the -- the -- the doorway that shows, or the 15 passageway between the Premier's boardroom and the 16 Premier's office? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: Would you draw a line through that 19 passageway signifying the fact that was not a functioning 20 door? 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: All right. Any other such 23 modifications to this diagram? 24 A: Yes. The -- there are two (2) doors 25 into the Premier's boardroom --
911 Q: Yes? 2 A: -- aside from the one we've just 3 discussed. The one to the far left, which is actually 4 the west of the -- that room again was -- was closed off 5 if not sealed actually. 6 Q: Closed off. So, perhaps a line 7 across there? 8 A: Right. 9 Q: Okay. And which -- which way is 10 facing north? Can you tell us that? 11 A: I have -- the bottom is south. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: The top is north. 14 Q: Okay. That's convenient. Perhaps 15 you can just put that on -- on your diagram as well. 16 A: And -- and this entire suite is in 17 the southeast corner of the main Legislative building on 18 the second floor. 19 Q: On the seventh floor? 20 A: Second. 21 Q: Second floor. Thank you. All right. 22 Now, focussing on the Premier's boardroom, which on this 23 diagram is in the southwest corner? 24 A: Southeast. Oh sorry. The Premier's 25 boardroom --
921 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- is in the southwest. Yes, I'm 3 sorry. 4 Q: Okay. Okay, that's fine. Do you 5 recall the approximate size of that boardroom? 6 A: Between fifteen (15) and twenty (20) 7 by twenty-five (25) to thirty (30). 8 Q: Feet? 9 A: Feet, sorry. Roughly. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: It -- it's I believe and its original 12 purpose was a dining room hence the name that we all used 13 for it. It was certainly a large dining room but still 14 within keeping to a dining room size. 15 Q: All right. And you indicated that 16 the Premier would use this room for informal meetings 17 from time to time? 18 A: As well as formal meetings 19 periodically, yes. 20 Q: As well as form -- did he also use it 21 as his -- as his dining room? 22 A: No. 23 Q: All right. And on this, of course, 24 diagram, it is called the Premier's Boardroom. 25 A: Right.
931 Q: But at the time it was also known as 2 the Premier's dining room? 3 A: Yes. That's what we refered to it 4 as. 5 Q: All right. Perhaps you can just put 6 in brackets, 'Premier's Dining Room' under 'Premier's 7 Boardroom' so that we're clear. 8 All right. Do you recall the -- the 9 configuration of furniture within the boardroom? 10 A: Yes. There is a table, or there was, 11 certainly it may well be there still, a large dining room 12 table that would seat twelve (12) or fourteen (14) 13 people, perhaps. Perhaps less. Ten (10) to fourteen 14 (14) I think would be safer. 15 Q: And where was that situated? 16 A: In -- in the center; the long way of 17 the room. 18 Q: Perhaps you can draw that. 19 A: As a rectangle. 20 Q: And that was in the center of the 21 room? 22 A: Roughly, yes. 23 Q: Okay. Any other furnishings that you 24 can recall? 25 A: Yes. Obviously there were chairs
941 around the table. There was a credenza on the east wall. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: And I recall a desk in the bottom 4 right, so the southwest corner. 5 Q: Do you recall whether there was any 6 air conditioning unit in this room? 7 A: I don't recall if there was one at 8 the time. This building, given its age, has air 9 conditioning units that are installed for a few months in 10 the summer. It would have been in the bottom right 11 corner of that room. Those three (3) lines are actually, 12 I assume, a window; that is where the window is. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Actually the window goes right 15 across, but the air conditioning would have been in that 16 window. 17 Q: The south wall? 18 A: South wall of the dining room is a -- 19 I think the window goes pretty well across. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: And the air conditioner would have 22 been somewhere in that window. 23 Q: All right. Can you just mark, 'AC 24 unit' for air conditioning unit. 25 Were there any chairs in that vicinity
951 that you recall? 2 A: Any chairs? 3 Q: Chairs. 4 A: Well, chairs along -- additional 5 chairs along both the east and west walls. 6 Q: All right. Was there a fireplace? 7 A: No. 8 Q: All right. Was there any other 9 furnishings that you can recall in this room at -- at the 10 time? 11 A: Other than the chairs, no. 12 Q: Okay. And do you recollect where 13 people were positioned in this meeting, in terms of 14 physically? 15 A: I have a couple of -- of 16 recollections. I believe I was at -- just get my 17 directions right her -- the north end -- near the north 18 end of the table. 19 My recollection is either, sort of, at the 20 northwest corner or -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner. 22 I'm wondering, as Ms. Hutton starts describing this in 23 helpful detail, is it possible to perhaps put the diagram 24 on the screen, so that we're no just following in words? 25 I have it printed out version of the
961 diagram if that's what's needed because I -- I'm just 2 wondering because that way we can -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have 4 what kind of a version? 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I said, a printed 6 out version, if that's helpful. But, I'm just wondering 7 if -- if we could -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 9 not sure what I -- 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Because that way 11 the Witness can point on it. Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can we do 13 that? That's fine. If we can do it, let's do it. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. It's a 18 helpful suggestion. Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 23 Q: You should have a laser pen there, do 24 you? A pointer? That's it. 25 Okay just give us a second, Commissioner
971 and we'll get this up on the screen. 2 And I'm going to ask you also, Ms. Hutton, 3 to nonetheless mark the diagram. 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: After you explain where the -- the 6 positions are. 7 All right. Thank you, very much. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There we 9 are. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 14 Q: Good, thank you. We now have on the 15 screen the Premier's boardroom which we have also -- we 16 have identified as the Premier's dining room. 17 And just indicate roughly where the table 18 was located? 19 A: In that area. 20 Q: In this area, the centre area, all 21 right. It's going to be a little bit difficult still, so 22 people will have to envision the table on the -- the 23 screen. 24 But, in any event, you indicated that you 25 believed that you were seated where?
981 A: In the top slightly to the left of 2 the table. 3 Q: Okay, but at the table? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And have you put that on -- position 6 on your diagram with your initials? 7 A: I have, I've put all of the initials 8 currently that I recall being there. 9 Q: All right, perhaps you can -- 10 A: Or where they were. 11 Q: You can run through them, then, 12 please? 13 A: I recall Elaine Todres being to my 14 right, so further down the -- further down the -- it's 15 hard without the table. Further down the left side of 16 the table. 17 Q: So would that be the west side? 18 A: The west side -- 19 Q: On the west side of the table? 20 A: -- of the table, south of me. 21 Q: Okay. Thank you. 22 A: You're taxing my directional 23 abilities. 24 Q: Sorry, I'll try to... 25 A: To Elaine's right, so further south-
991 west, I recall Mr. Taman. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: I don't recall if there was an 4 individual between them. I have that recollection 5 because I recall both individuals speaking at the 6 meeting. 7 I recall Mr. Harris being at the top of 8 the table, so to my left. Again, I don't recall if there 9 was anyone between us and at what I would refer to as the 10 head of the table. 11 In fairness, that is where Mr. Harris sat 12 routinely and so it's difficult for me to say I know he 13 was there on this particular day, because it was a -- a 14 common recollection in my mind. 15 Q: All right, and so that's the north 16 end of the table? 17 A: North end of the table what -- which 18 we -- 19 Q: To your left? 20 A: -- considered the sort of head of the 21 table, if you will. 22 Q: Okay, yes. 23 A: And then along the east side I recall 24 part way down, Minister Hodgson and I believe Minister 25 Harnick as well, but I'm starting to get a little less
1001 sure of that. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: And that's all I recall specifically 4 at the table. I recall there were others at the table, 5 other bodies, I just don't recall -- 6 Q: Where they were around the table? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: Who do you recall also sitting at the 9 table, though? 10 A: All of the deputies and all of the 11 three (3) Ministers, the Premier, myself. I have from 12 time to time thought that both David Lindsay and Rita 13 Burak were there. 14 I did not indicate that earlier, 'cause 15 I'm very -- I'm not fully sure of my recollection of 16 that. 17 Q: All right, they may have been there. 18 A: They may have been there and -- and I 19 would have expected them to be at the table. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: And the reason I say that is I don't 22 recall others beyond the deputies and the Ministers at 23 the table and those I've discussed, but I believe the 24 table was full, so I'm filling in a little bit. I'm not 25 sure how helpful that is.
1011 Q: All right. In any event, the 2 Premier, Minister Hodgson, Minister Harnick, Solicitor 3 General Runciman, Elaine Todres, Larry Taman, Jeff Bangs, 4 Ron Vrancart, yourself. 5 A: I don't recall the EA's specifically 6 at the table. 7 Q: Oh, you don't? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Okay. Oh -- 10 A: No, no, and that's why I said I -- 11 I've had -- have a vague recollection that Rita and David 12 may have been there, more because I knew the table to be 13 full than anything. Hopefully, I've been clear on that. 14 I -- I just don't have a very specific recollection of 15 those two (2). 16 Q: Okay, let's take it from the top 17 then. Who do you -- 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: -- specifically recall being around 20 the table? 21 A: Specifically, as I've indicated on my 22 chart, myself; the Premier; Deputy Todres, Deputy Taman, 23 Ministers Harnick and Minsters Hodgson. 24 I believe Minister Runciman and -- and 25 Deputy Vrancart were also at the table; I can't recall
1021 where they were seated. 2 And my further recollection is that the 3 table was full. So I guess we're at the number 8, and as 4 I said earlier, the table was somewhere between ten (10) 5 and fourteen (14) so that's -- that's just the piece 6 that's missing, I guess. 7 Q: Okay. Fair enough. And aside from 8 Mr. Lindsay and Ms. Burak, were there any others who -- 9 who you thought were at the meeting? 10 A: I don't believe so. 11 Q: You don't believe so? 12 A: I believe there were potentially 13 other people, I don't have a recollection of who they 14 were. 15 Q: All right. And you don't have a 16 recollection as to whether they were at the table or 17 around the room elsewhere? 18 A: No, I don't. 19 Q: All right. Thank you. And you've 20 marked your diagram accordingly? 21 A: I have. 22 Q: I'd like to make that the next 23 exhibit please? 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-968, Your Honour. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-968.
1031 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-968: Diagram of floor plan of 2 Premier's Office, Premier's 3 Boardroom, Council Chamber, 4 E.A's office, reception, 5 hallway and washroom, marked 6 by witness Ms. Debbie Hutton, 7 Nov. 22/05. 8 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And we'll certainly 10 make this available to Counsel at the -- the lunch break 11 so that we'll have it to look at. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 16 Q: All right. Do you know who chaired 17 this meeting? 18 A: No, but again I considered it rather 19 informal so I wouldn't have thought about someone 20 chairing it, per se. 21 Q: Who led the meeting then? 22 A: I don't recall. 23 Q: Do you recall who spoke first? 24 A: My first very specific recollection 25 and perhaps one (1) of the few I have specifically about
1041 this meeting, was Deputy Todres indicating that because 2 of the nature of this issue we needed to be very clear of 3 the separation between the police and the Government and 4 each -- each of those two (2) parties' roles. 5 Q: Can you be a little more specific as 6 to -- first of all, was she responding to a particular 7 question? 8 A: I -- I recall -- again it was an 9 informal meeting -- 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: -- but I recall that sort of being 12 first off the top. That's not to say she was the first 13 to speak, but it's the first real comment that I recall 14 and it seemed to me at the time to be an appropriate way 15 to kick off the meeting. 16 Q: All right. And -- and she made a 17 presentation of sorts? 18 A: No, she made that comment. 19 Q: A comment? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: And specifically what did she say? 22 A: It was something along the lines, and 23 I don't have specific recollection of the words, but 24 something along the lines of, you know, let's all make 25 sure we're remembering and clear on the fact that the
1051 Government has a role to play and -- and the police have 2 a role to play in this matter and that those two (2) 3 shouldn't be confused. 4 Q: Do you recall -- 5 A: And in fairness those are my words; 6 it's -- that's a... 7 Q: It's not a direct quote? 8 A: Exactly. 9 Q: I understand. Do you recall whether 10 there was any reaction or questions to her comments? 11 A: No, not at all and I wouldn't have 12 expected there to be. It was sort of a statement of 13 fact. 14 Q: All right. What was the next thing 15 that you recall transpired at this meeting? 16 A: Again I -- Ms. Todres' comments are 17 sort of the main piece I recall, I think because it was 18 sort of kicking off the meeting, as I said. As in much 19 of the meetings of the 5th and 6th, I recall topics or 20 conversations as opposed to specific individuals chatting 21 about it. 22 My recollection though that -- is that 23 when we spoke about the injunction Mr. Taman spoke most 24 often about that, but not necessarily exclusively. 25 Q: What do you recall the tenor of his
1061 comments being? 2 A: I recall -- the tenor did you say? 3 Sorry. 4 Q: Yes. Basically what -- what would -- 5 what did he say? 6 A: It was a briefing and we were really, 7 I think, just, as I said, bringing the Ministers up to 8 speed, the Premier up to speed. And it was not a long 9 meeting or a lengthy conversation, I would say probably 10 fifteen (15) or twenty (20) minutes in length. So it 11 was, in my mind, really an update and reiteration of what 12 I had learned over the previous two (2) days. 13 Q: And the meeting you recall taking 14 fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes in total? 15 A: I would say so, yes. 16 Q: And did Mr. Taman address, to your 17 recollection, the -- the different types of injunctions 18 that were available? 19 A: I believe so, but again, for me this 20 was a bit of a recap, so I certainly was paying attention 21 but I don't recall what he specifically laid out versus 22 what I already knew from -- from the morning of the 6th 23 and to a certain extent the 5th. 24 Q: Do you recall whether or not Mr. 25 Taman made any specific recommendation to the Ministers
1071 and Premier with respect to the choice of injunction? 2 A: I don't. 3 Q: All right. What -- what next do you 4 recall? 5 A: My recollection is that there was 6 agreement that the Government would seek an injunction 7 and the meeting ended. 8 Q: Was there a specific agreement with 9 respect to the type of injunction which, as you knew, was 10 something that had to be decided? 11 A: We were specifically talking about 12 time frame insofar as saying we want to get this done as 13 soon as possible. My recollection, from both my 14 perspective coming out of the 6th InterMinisterial 15 Committee meeting and the dining room, was that that 16 meant that the lawyers would attempt to put together the 17 information they needed to seek and ex parte injunction. 18 But I think we were all fully aware that 19 if there was any sense that we wouldn't be successful in 20 that, then we would -- they would be back to us to let us 21 know that. 22 Q: Had -- and that deci -- that recom -- 23 was that recommendation forthcoming at this meeting with 24 respect to the chance of success on an ex part or a 25 speedy injunction?
1081 A: I don't believe so. 2 Q: Was there an expression of co -- of - 3 - of preference made by any of the Ministers or the 4 Premier with respect to their preference for choice of 5 injunction, as between the two (2)? 6 A: No. Other than the concept of the 7 timeframe. 8 Q: Just that it be as quickly as 9 possible? 10 A: Correct. And -- and we did, I think, 11 I certainly did and believe others did, understand that - 12 - that one injunction was a speedier process than the 13 other. 14 Q: All right. Did that come through at 15 this meeting though that -- that the ex parte injunction 16 would be a quicker injunction remedy if it was 17 successful, than the with notice? 18 A: I believe so. But again, I knew some 19 of that from the 6th earlier. So I'm -- I'm just not 20 sure how much was new for me so that -- that's why I'm a 21 little foggy on -- on -- 22 Q: But as I understand it, you hadn't 23 had a chance to brief the Premier yet with respect to the 24 outcome of the -- the 6th? 25 A: That's correct. But we did have a,
1091 as I indicated, a very brief preliminary discussion about 2 the two (2) types as early as -- as the 5th, I believe. 3 Q: Yes. All right. Do you recall any 4 comments made by the Premier at this meeting? 5 A: I don't. 6 Q: Do you recall whether he made any 7 comments at this meeting? 8 A: Yes, I believe he spoke. 9 Q: All right. You just don't recall 10 what about? 11 A: No, not specifically. 12 Q: Do you recall what -- whether 13 Minister Harnick spoke at this meeting? 14 A: I believe he did. Again, I don't 15 recall specifically what he said. 16 Q: Or generally, even? 17 A: No. And again, because I knew from 18 the morning meeting that Minister Harnick supported, 19 prior even to the InterMinisterial Committee meeting, the 20 option of the injunction. 21 If he said that, again, it wouldn't have 22 been news to me so I would not necessarily have noted it. 23 I wouldn't have had a chance, personally, to let the 24 Premier know that that's the Minister's view. So I'm 25 speculating again but that he would have made his view
1101 known. 2 Q: Do you recall whether or not Minister 3 Hodgson made any comments at this meeting? 4 A: I don't recall either Minister 5 Hodgson or Minister Runciman saying anything 6 specifically, nor do I recall that they spoke. 7 Q: All right. And -- 8 A: That's not to say they didn't. I 9 just don't recall it. 10 Q: All right. What about the Solicitor 11 General? 12 A: That's Minister Runciman. Sorry did 13 I misspeak? 14 Q: I thought I addressed Minister 15 Hodgson. 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: If I didn't -- did I -- did I not? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You asked 19 about Hodgson. She answered you about both Hodgson and 20 Runciman. 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I asked her about 22 Minister -- right. 23 THE WITNESS: I answered too too much. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Right. You're quite 25 right. Quite right. Thank you very much, thank you.
1111 Okay. Excuse me. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 6 Q: Now do you specifically -- do you 7 recall whether or not the Premier expressed any views 8 with respect to -- or concerns with respect to the length 9 of time this occupa -- this matter was taking to resolve? 10 A: I don't believe so. 11 Q: Did you -- do you recall him making 12 any comments which led you to believe that he was 13 frustrated in any way with the manner in which this 14 matter was being handled by the police? 15 A: I don't recall that. 16 Q: Now we have heard evidence from Ron 17 Fox and Scott Patrick that they attended at this meeting. 18 Do you have any specific recollection of that? 19 A: I don't. 20 Q: Do you deny that they were there? 21 A: I can't. I don't have a recollection 22 of it. 23 Q: One way or the other? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: But you do recall there being
1121 individuals at the meeting that you can't -- can't 2 identify? 3 A: As I said, I recall the dining room 4 table was full and I've only been able to give a firm 5 recollection of some of those individuals. I do also 6 recall that there were individuals on the perimeter of 7 the dining room, in chairs. 8 Q: Okay. Thank you. Ron Fox and Scott 9 Patrick have both testified that they were left or at 10 least that they were left with the impression that the 11 Premier was -- was not happy with the manner in which the 12 OPP had initially handled the -- the occupation or the 13 entry into the Park by the occupiers. 14 Did you hear anything from the Premier 15 that conveyed that impression to you? 16 A: I did not. 17 Q: Did you hear the Premier indicate 18 that he thought that the police or the OPP had made 19 mistakes or errors of any kind, to date? 20 A: I did not, and I don't believe I ever 21 heard him speak about that type of thing in any situation 22 at any time that I worked for him. 23 Q: At any time over the course of the 24 5th or the 6th of September? 25 A: Yes. And I'm actually indicating
1131 beyond that. 2 Q: Or after that, as well? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: All right. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, just to be clear, you don't 9 recall the -- the Premier making any statement at this 10 meeting about his preference for a time frame for the 11 injunction? 12 A: That's correct, although it was very 13 well known to me that the Government should be seeking an 14 option and in this case we were seeking the option of the 15 injunction in a manner that would see an end to the 16 occupation sooner, rather than later, or as soon as 17 possible. 18 Q: All right. Was there any discussion 19 at this meeting, aside from the initial comment by Elaine 20 Todres with respect to what the Government could or could 21 not ask, or ask or direct the police to do with respect 22 to the occupation? 23 A: I don't believe so, no. 24 Q: You don't recall the Premier 25 specifically making a comment, or question to that
1141 effect? 2 A: I do not. 3 Q: Did you hear the Premier make any 4 reference to the Holocaust at this meeting? 5 A: No. 6 Q: To your knowledge, as part of the 7 Premier's office staff, was the Premier involved in any 8 matter related to the Holocaust during this general 9 timeframe? 10 A: I don't believe so. 11 Q: All right. Do you recall anything 12 else whatsoever that the Premier said or indicated at 13 this meeting? 14 A: No, as I said, I -- I recall that he 15 participated in the meeting and spoke; I just don't 16 recall specifically what he said. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: For me, much of that dining room 19 meeting was, as I said earlier, a -- a repeat of what I 20 knew already, so unless something was said that was 21 particularly new, it wouldn't -- I don't think it stood 22 out in my mind. 23 Q: Did you make any comments or 24 statements at this meeting? 25 A: I don't recall doing so.
1151 Q: Okay. Did you have any -- any 2 discrete conversations with the Premier, since he was 3 sitting beside you, over the course of this meeting? 4 A: No, and I'm not sure he was directly 5 beside me either, as I said earlier. 6 Q: You did not, though? 7 A: I don't believe so, no. 8 Q: All right. You don't recall, with 9 respect to Minister Hodgson, whether he expressed any 10 views with respect to how he viewed the nature of the 11 occupation in terms of -- of legality or validity? 12 A: I don't believe so. As I said, I 13 don't recall specifically Minister Hodgson or Minister 14 Runciman speaking. 15 Q: Speaking at all? 16 A: Speaking at all, yeah. 17 Q: All right. Thank you. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Now, moving to Minister Harnick, you 22 indicated -- I believe you indicated that you thought he 23 said something at the meeting? 24 A: I believe so, yes. 25 Q: And with respect to what he said, was
1161 -- was it in the manner of -- of giving his views with 2 respect to the legal remedies that were being presented? 3 A: Again, I don't specifically recall. 4 As I said, it was -- it was known to me, at the time, 5 that he supported an injunction based on the comments of 6 the September InterMinisterial Committee meeting. 7 That's not something I would have had an 8 opportunity to share with the Premier, I don't believe, 9 prior to the dining room meeting, so I am purely 10 speculating that Minister Harnick would have commented 11 about his view of the injunction. 12 I don't have a specific recollection. 13 Q: You don't have a recollection -- 14 A: I don't. 15 Q: -- it's speculation. 16 A: Exactly, but I do recall him 17 speaking, I'm just not sure exactly what he said, I 18 don't recall. 19 Q: But do you recall whether he -- 20 whether or not he raised the issue of the statement of 21 political relationship and how that might impact on the 22 course of governmental action being discussed? 23 A: I don't recall and I don't have a 24 recollection of the statement of political relationship 25 being raised during the course of the dining room
1171 meeting. 2 Q: All right. Did -- do you recall 3 whether or not Minister Harnick raised the perspective 4 that the occupation had distinct Aboriginal components to 5 it -- 6 A: I don't -- 7 Q: -- or raised Aboriginal issues? 8 A: I don't recall that specifically, no. 9 Q: All right. Did you -- do you recall 10 him conveying any views with respect to the position of 11 ONAS with respect to the proper approach to this 12 occupation? 13 A: No. 14 Q: And you don't recall right now 15 whether or not he advised that he already given 16 preliminary instructions to his staff to seek a speedy 17 injunction? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: Do you recall anything else of 20 significance that's still in your mind which occurred 21 during the course of this meeting? 22 A: Not at this time. 23 Q: Do you recall there being any 24 comments by any of the people who were sitting on the 25 periphery of the room as distinct from around the table?
1181 A: I don't. 2 Q: All right. Do you recall any 3 comments by anyone else at the table? 4 A: Beyond the specifics of Deputy Todres 5 speaking as I said I believe the Premier spoke, I believe 6 Minister Harnick spoke, and I recall Mr. Taman that -- 7 speaking; that's my recollection. 8 Q: Okay. Can you describe what the 9 general dynamics were in this meeting as -- as amongst 10 the Premier and his Ministers and the Deputy Ministers? 11 A: It was an informal discussion. 12 Q: Did you detect any sense of urgency 13 or anxiety in the room? 14 A: No. 15 Q: All right. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: You indicated that there were others 20 on the periphery of the room. 21 Given that you -- you'd -- is it likely 22 that these were civil servants? 23 A: I don't recall. It's possible they 24 were the three (3) EA's who I recall being there but 25 don't recall where they were seated.
1191 Q: All right. And do you recall what -- 2 when the Premier left the room? 3 A: I -- I believe at the conclusion of 4 the meeting. 5 Q: At the conclusion of the meeting? 6 A: I believe so. 7 Q: And did you depart with him? 8 A: I believe so. I don't have a 9 specific recollection of that. 10 Q: And to your knowledge did everyone 11 depart with the Premier or were people left behind when 12 you exited the room? 13 A: Given my recollection of where the 14 Premier sat and I sat, I expect he was probably the first 15 to leave, just where he was physically. 16 Q: All right. And you would have been 17 likely behind him? 18 A: Yes, if -- if I had any reason to 19 believe the meeting was going to continue I -- I may have 20 stayed, but I don't recall that was the case so again I'm 21 putting things together and making the assumption that I 22 left with him. 23 Q: Do you have -- and do you have any 24 knowledge as to whether or not Minister Hodgson stayed 25 behind in the dining room after the Premier left?
1201 A: Well, as I said I -- I think because 2 he was likely the first to leave I -- I just -- I can't 3 speak to that. 4 Q: All right. It has been suggested in 5 this Inquiry by Ron Fox and Scott Patrick that after the 6 Premier left Minister Hodgson stayed behind and had a 7 further discussion which involved them. 8 Do you recall any such exchange? 9 A: I don't. 10 Q: Thank you. Now, just -- just for the 11 record we've been advised by counsel for the Attorney -- 12 Ministry of the Attorney General that the Premier's 13 dining room or boardroom is seventeen (17) feet ten (10) 14 inches wide and twenty-four (24) feet two and a half (2 15 1/2) inches long. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm sorry. Could 17 you say that again just a little louder? 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Certainly. That the 19 dimensions of the Premier's dining room in which this 20 meeting took place is seventeen (17) feet ten (10) inches 21 wide and twenty-four (24) feet two and a half (2 1/2) 22 inches long. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 25 Q: Is that roughly consistent with your
1211 recollection? 2 A: I -- I think I was in the ball park. 3 Q: I think you were as well. Thank you. 4 What did you do after you left the 5 Premier's dining room? 6 A: I don't recall. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Do you recall at the Premier's dining 11 room there being any report provided with respect to what 12 had transpired at the IMC meeting of earlier that day? 13 A: Not specifically, although as I said 14 earlier, I expect that at least a summary of some of 15 those things would have been provided to the Premier and 16 the Minister. 17 Q: But you don't have a recollection 18 of -- 19 A: I don't -- 20 Q: And you didn't provide -- 21 A: -- and I -- 22 Q: -- that information? 23 A: Correct. I was just about to say I 24 don't recall doing it myself. 25 Q: Did you meet -- take the opportunity
1221 to meet with the Premier to discuss with him, at any time 2 during September the 6th, the -- what transpired over the 3 course of the IMC meeting of that day? 4 A: I don't believe I did, which is why I 5 have felt comfortable speculating that the information we 6 received on the morning of the 6th at the 7 InterMinisterial Committee meeting would be part of our 8 discussion at the dining room meeting. 9 Q: All right, because if it hadn't been, 10 then you would have been obliged to tell the Premier? 11 A: Exactly. 12 Q: All right. Is it likely that you 13 spoke further with the Premier during the course of 14 September the 6th? 15 A: It's very likely. On this matter, I 16 don't believe I did. 17 Q: All right, not on the Ipperwash 18 matter? 19 A: Correct. I'm sorry, I don't have his 20 afternoon schedule in front of me to help me refresh my 21 memory. 22 Q: All right, thank you. Did you have 23 any specific follow up or remaining tasks that you had to 24 do, if you will, on your to-do list or your agenda with 25 respect to the Ipperwash matter as a result of the IMC
1231 meeting and/or the Premier's dining room meeting? 2 A: I don't believe I did. 3 Q: Did you have any further 4 conversations during the course of the day or receive any 5 further information during the course of the day relevant 6 to the Ipperwash occupation? 7 A: I don't have a specific recollection 8 of it. It would not be uncommon for me to have informal 9 conversations with the executive assistants if they had 10 any information to update me on. 11 Q: All right. 12 A: I just can't recall that there -- 13 there was. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: That there were any of those 16 conversation, but it's possible. 17 Q: Do you recall whether or not you 18 received a report or information about the conclusion of 19 the legal team with respect to what injunction, what type 20 of injunction would be sought? 21 A: No, and -- but that's why I 22 speculated a moment ago. I don't believe I would have 23 left for the day without at least knowing roughly where 24 we were in the process. 25 Q: And what was your understanding at
1241 the end of the day? 2 A: I believe I understood that we would 3 be seeking an ex parte injunction. I certainly 4 understood we were seeking an injunction based on our 5 earlier meetings, but I believe I understood by the end 6 of the day, Wednesday, that there had been determination 7 made that that was an appropriate injunction to seek. 8 Q: Would it be your practice to 9 communicate a decision of that significance to the 10 Premier? 11 A: I would have called that sort of an 12 update, so I suspect I would have communicated it to him. 13 Q: Promptly? 14 A: If I was able to. I don't know at 15 what time, if at all, in fairness, that I -- I learned 16 that. I just -- as I said, it would be in my practice 17 before I left for the end of the day, to make sure I had 18 whatever updates were available and I just can't speak to 19 the time frame of that. 20 If the Premier, for example, based on the 21 schedule we looked at very briefly, had already left for 22 the evening, I may not have updated him. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
1251 Q: All right, and did you have any other 2 matters that you were dealing with on September the 6th, 3 aside from the Ipperwash occupation? 4 A: I have no doubt that I did. I don't 5 recall specifically what they were. 6 Q: All right. And approximately what 7 time did you leave the office that day? 8 A: I don't recall. I generally left 9 the office somewhere around 7:00, but I really don't 10 recall. 11 Q: Do you have any reason to believe 12 that you left at a different time that evening? 13 A: I don't. 14 Q: When did you first hear that a major 15 incident had occurred in and around the Park? 16 A: Later that day you mean? 17 Q: Yes. After you left? 18 A: I received a page from Jeff Bangs 19 somewhere between 2:00 and four o'clock in the morning of 20 September the 7th. I believe I also received a page that 21 I at least picked up at the same time from David Moran. 22 I returned Jeff's call and that's when I 23 found out. 24 Q: And do you recall approximately what 25 time you returned his call?
1261 A: When I got the page, so somewhere 2 between 2:00 and 4:00 and I don't have a better 3 recollection of the time and that, certainly in the 4 middle of the night. 5 Q: And what did Jeff Bangs convey to 6 you? 7 A: He indicated to me that there had 8 been an altercation outside of -- I believe he said 9 outside of the Park, that an individual had been killed 10 and that there were two (2) others who were injured. He 11 did not know anything about their potential injuries. 12 Q: Did he tell you what gave rise to the 13 altercation or his understanding of it? 14 A: I don't recall that we had any more 15 specifics at that -- at that juncture. 16 Q: Did he indicate that it involved the 17 OPP and the occupiers? 18 A: I believe I understood that to be the 19 case, yes. Yes. 20 Q: Did you have any understanding as to 21 who it was that had been killed and who it was had been 22 injured? 23 A: I knew the individual who had been 24 killed was an occupier. I did not have anymore 25 information than that. And I believe we understood that
1271 it had -- the individual who had killed him was an OPP 2 officer. 3 Q: Sorry? 4 A: I understood it that the OPP officer 5 was likely the individual who had killed the individual. 6 Q: All right. Did you know, with 7 respect to the two (2) individuals who had been injured, 8 whether they were occupiers or police officers? 9 A: I believe I understood they were 10 occupiers but I'm not 100 percent clear about that. 11 Q: All right. Did Mr. Bangs relay 12 anything else to you in terms of next steps or anything 13 else he understood? 14 A: I believe we had a conversation about 15 who he had notified, who he had talked to, but I -- I 16 don't have a recollection of the specifics of that. 17 But I believe that was the only other part 18 of the conversation. I had a sense obviously we were 19 going to get together on this very early in the morning. 20 I don't recall if he said, you know, let's meet at a 21 certain time. I -- I just don't recall that. 22 Q: All right. And what was your 23 reaction to this information? 24 A: I was shocked. It was very 25 upsetting.
1281 Q: Did you have any understanding or 2 information that there -- that there was going to be -- 3 that the police were going to move in towards the Park 4 that evening? 5 A: No. 6 Q: What did you do after hanging up from 7 Jeff Bangs? 8 A: I -- I actually believed that while I 9 was on the phone with Jeff, Mr. Moran called me and -- 10 and so I think I finished the one conversation and began 11 the other. And I don't recall any more specific 12 information other than just all confirming who knew and 13 that sort of thing. 14 Q: So you spoke with Dave Moran on the 15 telephone next? 16 A: Very briefly. 17 Q: And there was no additional 18 information or different information that you received 19 from him? 20 A: I -- I don't believe so, no. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: I think both individuals were just 23 trying to make sure that I had been made aware of the 24 issue. 25 Q: All right. So he was making you
1291 aware of the issue? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. And what did you do next? 4 A: At some point I obviously got ready 5 and -- and recall going into work very, very early. 6 Q: Do you recall approximately what time 7 you arrived at your office on September 7th? 8 A: I don't. It was my practice to be at 9 work around 7:00, 7:30. I recall going in earlier but I 10 -- I can't say whether that was 6:30 or 7:00. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: 6:00, I don't know. 13 Q: And upon arriving at your office, did 14 you make any telephone calls or receive any telephone 15 calls in relation to this matter? 16 A: I don't recall. The first specific 17 recollection I have on the morning of September the 7th 18 was a meeting, or at least a gathering I'll call it, an 19 informal meeting of individuals at the Solicitor 20 General's ministry. 21 Q: All right. Now just before we get to 22 that, did you have any conversation with Julie Jai, prior 23 to that meeting? 24 A: I don't believe I ever spoke with Ms. 25 Jai outside of the 5th and 6th InterMinisterial Committee
1301 meetings. 2 Q: All right. And at some point in time 3 did you advise the Premier? 4 A: I would have, absolutely. I don't 5 recall, specifically when. 6 Q: Was it before this meeting? 7 A: I don't recall. Something of this 8 significance, I suspect I would have called him and not 9 waited to see him that day, and in fairness I don't even 10 recall if he was in the office that day. 11 Q: All right. Do you recall anything 12 about the conversation you had with the Premier in which 13 you conveyed the information that you received the night 14 before? 15 A: No. But given the limited 16 information I had I -- I suspect I would have conveyed it 17 in its entirety. 18 Q: Do you have any recollection of his 19 response or reaction to receiving this information from 20 you? 21 A: I don't recall the conversation. 22 Q: All right. Did you have a 23 conversation with him later in the day that you do recall 24 about the Ipperwash incident? 25 A: I don't.
1311 Q: What were your preliminary views if 2 any as to what the -- the Government -- how the 3 Government should react to the fact that an Aboriginal 4 occupier had been killed by an OPP officer? 5 A: I don't recall having any preliminary 6 views about that. I just -- I don't recall. 7 Q: All right. You said your first 8 specific recollection is attending at a meeting. Do you 9 recall, approximately, what time you attended this 10 meeting? 11 A: I think it was around 7:30. 12 Q: All right. Where did it -- where was 13 it held? 14 A: There was a large, what appeared to 15 be a boardroom at the Solicitor General's Ministry. I 16 can't recall the room number or the floor or anything 17 like that, but it clearly looked to be a large boardroom. 18 Q: Okay. And how did you know to attend 19 at this meeting? 20 A: As I said a few minutes ago, I'm not 21 -- I'm not sure. 22 Q: You're not sure. All right. But, 23 you're fairly certain that you got there at around 7:30? 24 A: Yeah. I'd -- I'd be less certain 25 about the time, but that's my first recollection, and I
1321 think it was around that time. 2 Q: And did you have any understanding as 3 to what this meeting was intended to accomplish? 4 A: No. And again I must consider that 5 sort of thing more, let's all get together and, you know, 6 share want information we have sort of thing. It just... 7 Q: And who all was there? 8 A: I recall my colleague Paul Rhodes 9 being in attendance. 10 Q: And what was his position? 11 A: He was responsible for -- for the 12 media in the Premier's office. 13 Q: Sorry, yes? 14 A: I recall the three (3) executive 15 assistants that we've discussed previously being there. 16 Q: Yes? 17 A: I recall -- perhaps, if I could step 18 back for a second. I recall being in this same room 19 throughout the course of September the 7th, not 20 necessarily at specific meetings but there as a -- sort 21 of the central location where we were going to get 22 together and -- and update each other. 23 And -- and I say that simply because I 24 recall different individuals being in that room at 25 different times. I just can't speak to whether they were
1331 there at any specific given time. 2 Q: All right. So, this boardroom became 3 the gathering place for people to update and to 4 strategise around what the Government reaction should 5 be? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: All right. And -- 8 A: I -- I think it goes beyond that. I 9 mean, this was a -- a place where information could come 10 into and -- and communications would be drafted, et 11 cetera. 12 Q: And we've heard some evidence with 13 respect to a committee, if you will, or a grouping, that 14 came to be described by some as the nerve centre. 15 Did you -- do you have any knowledge about 16 that? 17 A: That's a term I've heard 18 subsequently. 19 Q: Applied to this meeting? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And can you -- what -- it's not the 22 term that you used to describe it? 23 A: No, and perhaps I haven't done a very 24 good job of conveying this, but I -- as I said outside of 25 the bounds of formal Cabinet meetings that are a regular
1341 occurrence, and -- and perhaps very specifically -- 2 specific formal meetings that the Premier would have with 3 individuals from the -- a stakeholder outside of 4 government, many of the -- the meetings that we had in 5 government were in my view much more informal. 6 And -- and so I -- I don't -- I guess I 7 don't see them in -- in a specific or structured way, as 8 perhaps others do. 9 Q: All right. Who -- who else, over the 10 course of the day, came to -- to this room then, that you 11 saw? 12 A: As I started to say, in explaining 13 sort of the dynamic of my recollection that day, I recall 14 it being much more of a, what I would say, communications 15 focussed group. 16 So the directors of communications, 17 specifically for Natural Resources and the Solicitor 18 General's Ministry from the civil service side, I recall 19 being there. 20 I suspect, perhaps as well the -- the 21 director of communications for the Attorney General's 22 Ministry, but I don't recall that specifically. 23 I recall, at least, deputy Todres being 24 there and I believe deputy Vrancart. Mr. Taman may well 25 have been there throughout the day, I don't have very
1351 specific recollection of that; it's possible. 2 Q: All right. Did any of the Ministers 3 come to the room, that you saw? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: I believe Minister Runciman may have. 8 Q: All right. Do you recall what his 9 role there was? 10 A: No, and I'm not 100 percent clear. 11 Q: Did you see the Premier attend at -- 12 at this Board room over the course of the day? 13 A: No. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: And what was your main roles and 18 responsibilities in relation to the -- the aftermath of 19 the shooting? 20 A: Obviously, on the morning of 21 September the 7th it was important that we get as much 22 information as we could. 23 It was important from my perspective, 24 having learned that information, that we -- we did make a 25 public statement about the tragedy and I believe that's
1361 what we did over the course of the day. 2 Q: So was it your role to help design 3 the public messaging, if you will, and the statements 4 that would be made by the Minister -- the key Ministers 5 and the Premier? 6 A: It would have been. I don't recall 7 the specifics of that, but yes. 8 Q: All right. Was there any further 9 discussion with respect to what government action should 10 or ought be taken in light of the -- the incidents of the 11 night before? 12 A: I don't believe there was any 13 discussion about that at all, and I don't recall any 14 specific action being contemplated. 15 Q: All right. Would you kindly go to 16 Tab 33. It's Inquiry document number 1011806; it's 17 entitled "Ipperwash incident: Crisis Communications 18 Procedures and Contact List." 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: It's Inquiry -- sorry, it's the 21 Exhibit number P-661 and in fact the companion Inquiry 22 document number is 300002. 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: Thank you. And is this something -- 25 a document that -- that you had a hand in?
1371 A: I don't recall seeing it. 2 Q: You don't recall seeing it? 3 A: I don't. 4 Q: At any time? 5 A: No. 6 Q: All right. It indicates it was 7 prepared by the communications branch. 8 Can you assist us to as to what 9 communications branch? 10 A: I can't. 11 Q: All right. I note that it's prepared 12 at 7:33 p.m. September the 7th. 13 A: Each ministry on a civil service side 14 had a communications branch. I just -- I could speculate 15 it is from Solicitor General's Ministry, but I don't know 16 that. 17 Q: All right. And we've heard evidence 18 to that effect -- 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: It was -- 21 A: It makes sense to me. 22 Q: All right. Thank you. It indicates 23 on page 1 that a core working group has been established 24 to manage, direct, and facilitate the information 25 gathering and dissemination to support the Ministry's
1381 role. 2 And then it describes the composition as 3 including the Ministers of -- that is the Attorney 4 General, Natural Resources, Solicitor General and 5 Correctional Services, the Minister's executive 6 assistants, the Deputy Ministers from those three (3) 7 Ministries, the Special Assistant, Native Issues, the 8 communications Premier's office and others who are 9 listed. 10 Now, is this consistent with the group 11 that you were associated with on the 7th? 12 A: Yes, although this is a little more 13 formal than I recall, that's all. 14 Q: Okay. And do you recall seeing the 15 special assistant Native issues, or special advisor? 16 A: I don't. 17 Q: All right. Now perhaps you can just 18 take a -- a few moments to -- to review this document. 19 Have you seen it before today? 20 A: I have, yes. Just not at the time. 21 Q: Certainly. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Yes? Okay. You've had an
1391 opportunity to review this again? 2 A: Yes, briefly. 3 Q: And under the Principles of 4 Operations and Communications there are five (5) 5 particular principles. Were they consistent with how you 6 understood the nerve centre or core group to be -- their 7 roles to be? 8 A: I don't see anything that I -- I 9 wouldn't support here. Again, there's a structure to 10 this that -- that just goes beyond, sort of, my 11 perception of the group getting together at the time. 12 Q: All right. And perhaps I should -- I 13 should indicate or ask you this. After the 7th, did you 14 continue to play an active role with this group? 15 A: I recall, I believe throughout the 16 7th and I would say the 8th going to the boardroom at the 17 Solicitor General's office regularly throughout the 18 course of the day. I wasn't there full time. 19 By the following Monday I don't recall 20 being as involved but certainly was continued to be 21 updated on -- on what was happening. 22 Q: All right. And Item 2 under 23 Principles reads: 24 "There should be a steady flow of 25 authoritative, accurate, reliable and
1401 timely information from a single 2 designated authority, the Ontario 3 Provincial Police." 4 Do you have any understanding as to what 5 gave rise to the formation of this principle of 6 operation? 7 A: I don't. 8 Q: All right. Had you received any 9 information which questioned the reliability of some of 10 the information reported by MNR staff at the IMC meetings 11 you attended? 12 A: I indicated either -- I've lost track 13 of time, either yesterday or today, that there was one 14 very specific piece of information shared with us at the 15 InterMinisterial Committee meeting on the 6th, that that 16 was one of the pieces of information, that is the 17 potential evidence of -- of gunfire. 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: That was one piece of information 20 that was not shared by both the Solicitor General's 21 ministry in attendance and MNR. And we did question if 22 we could get confirmation of that fact. So that would be 23 the only exception. 24 Q: And did you receive an update on that 25 particular piece of information as to its reliability?
1411 A: I thought that that information had 2 been confirmed for us by the end of the meeting of the 3 6th. 4 Q: As being accurate? 5 A: As being accurate, yes. I believe 6 so. 7 Q: And going back to the document in 8 front of you, P-661. If you go to item 4 under, "Contact 9 Points and Responsibilities," it's the next page. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: "Premier's office: Contact 12 responsibility, Ministers staff. The 13 Premier's office will be contacted by 14 the Minister's office immediately upon 15 the receipt of significant event 16 information and on a regular basis." 17 Do you rec -- is -- is this an accurate 18 description of what happened after the -- the 8th? 19 A: In my view that's an accurate 20 description of how we functioned overall. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: And again not specific to anything 23 here. 24 Q: And who was the specific designated 25 contact for the Premier's office for the purposes of
1421 this? 2 A: I'm not sure we had a specific 3 designated purpose -- person, sorry. As I indicated I 4 had been dealing with this issue on behalf of the 5 Premier's office. When it became a slightly different 6 matter as a result of the events of September the 6th in 7 the evening Mr. Rhodes also joined given the, I think, 8 increased media attention that this was likely to 9 receive. 10 Q: All right. Do you recall having 11 further contact with the Premier on the 7th or after the 12 7th specifically with respect to the Ipperwash incident 13 and occupation? 14 A: I don't recall specifically, no. 15 Q: All right. Is it likely that you 16 did? 17 A: I think it's likely, yes. 18 Q: And in what -- in what role? 19 A: Again as I was updated I would have 20 continued to update the Premier. 21 Q: All right. Did you have any 22 discussions with him with respect to the advisability of 23 pursuing an injunction at any time after the -- the 8th 24 of September? 25 A: I don't recall that at all.
1431 Q: Did you have any discussion with him 2 as to what -- what options or what recommendations there 3 were with respect to governmental action on a go-forward 4 basis? 5 A: I -- I don't think so. It's a pretty 6 general question for me though. 7 Q: All right. Do you recall 8 specifically there being any strategy with respect to -- 9 which was aimed to de-escalating the tensions that were 10 in and around the -- the community? 11 A: Not beyond sort of general 12 discussions that we had at the Solicitor General's 13 ministry on the -- on the 7th. And again I -- I just 14 have a general sense of those, I don't have a specific 15 recall. 16 Q: All right. Is it fair to say -- 17 well, let me ask you: What -- what were your main roles 18 and responsibilities then after the September the 7th or 19 after September the 7th of 1995 in relation to Ipperwash? 20 A: I would say they remained the same as 21 they were before. 22 Q: Did you have any role or 23 responsibility with respect to the development of 24 messages or communications on behalf of the Government? 25 A: I would have, yes. I don't recall
1441 that we had -- I don't recall a specific situation where 2 that arose, but I would have continued to -- to have that 3 as one (1) of my responsibilities. 4 Q: Did you have any role in preparing 5 the Premier for Question Period in the legislature on 6 this issue? 7 A: It was my responsibility to prepare 8 the Premier for Question Period daily regardless of the 9 topic. 10 Q: All right. And did you do so in 11 relation to Ipperwash matters? 12 A: I believe I did. 13 Q: Would you go to Tab 34 please, 14 Inquiry Document Number 1012287? It's a document 15 entitled, Aboriginal Emergencies Preparedness Plan, dated 16 September 7, 1995, by the ONAS Legal Branch. 17 Do you recognize this document? 18 A: I don't believe I saw it at the time. 19 Q: All right. Did you see it at any 20 time -- well, when's the first time you saw it do you 21 believe? 22 A: In the course of preparation for any 23 of these proceedings. 24 Q: All right. Thank you. 25 Would you go next then to Tab 35 Exhibit
1451 P-733 Inquiry Document 1011852. And this is a fax sheet 2 and a memorandum to the InterMinisterial Group from Julie 3 Jai dated September 8, 1995, enclosing a series of press 4 releases and statements. 5 Do you recall receiving this package? 6 A: I don't. I have no reason to believe 7 I wouldn't have seen it though. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: I'd indicated earlier in the Inquiry 10 that a fax number that was used previously was not the 11 one I used. The fax number that is on this cover sheet 12 is the fax that was in my office. 13 Q: Your direct -- that was your direct 14 fax? 15 A: Correct. Correct. 16 Q: Okay. Thank you. And is it likely 17 that you briefed the Premier on the contents of this 18 package which consists of a letter from Gordon Peters, 19 Ontario Regional Chief, the Chiefs of Ontario, a bulletin 20 issued by the Chiefs of Ontario, a news release issued by 21 the Chiefs of Ontario, a copy of the OPP release; all 22 dated September the 7th; chronology of events. 23 And, it appears, an e-mail from Leith 24 Hunter, legal services branch, dated September 7th, 1995 25 which essentially is reporting on the result of the
1461 injunction application of September the 7th. 2 A: I -- as I said, I don't recall 3 specifically seeing this. The information here is, in my 4 view, important enough that it's the kind of thing I 5 would have shared with the Premier. 6 This is exactly the sort of thing where I 7 might include even the Chiefs of Ontario press release in 8 his package going home that night, for example. 9 I mean, that was fairly common for me to 10 do. 11 Q: All right. Do you have any 12 recollection about the Premier's response, first of all 13 to the statements that were being issued by the Chiefs of 14 Ontario? 15 A: I don't. 16 Q: Or in relation to the press release 17 issued by the OPP on the 7th? 18 A: I don't specifically, no. 19 Q: Or in relation to the results of the 20 injunction proceeding before Justice Daudlin, September 21 the 7th? 22 A: I don't. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
1471 Q: If you go to September -- or sorry, 2 Tab 36, Exhibit P-535, this appears to be a news release 3 from the office of the Premier, statement, Mike Harris, 4 Premier, dated September 12th, 1995. 5 Is this something that you prepared for 6 the Premier? 7 A: I would have been involved in it, 8 yes. 9 Q: All right. And do you agree that 10 this appears to reflect a shift in the governmental 11 thinking with respect to character -- its 12 characterization of the occupation, at least in part, as 13 being an Aboriginal issue? 14 A: Yes, but obviously an issue of 15 tremendous significance took place after the 16 InterMinisterial meeting of September 6th and before this 17 was issued. 18 Q: Yes, I understand that. And perhaps 19 you can expand and advise, if you know, what it was that 20 caused this shift, this apparent shift. 21 A: If I know, sorry? 22 Q: The basis of this apparent shift. 23 A: An individual had been killed. 24 Q: All right. It also appears to 25 reflect a shift in -- in governmental action or analysis
1481 in the sense that now First Nation leaders are being 2 engaged to facilitate discussions with the occupiers. 3 A: Yes, we were tremendously concerned 4 about the relationship between the community as we had 5 been before, but even more so, and the relationship 6 between the OPP and the relationship between the -- at 7 this point not only the occupiers, but the First Nations 8 Band in the area. 9 Q: All right. And again, what gave 10 rise, if you know, to -- to this adjustment? 11 A: As I said, we -- we'd had a 12 tremendous tragedy occur. 13 Q: Do you recall being involved in any 14 discussions concerning the possible abandonment of the 15 injunction application? 16 A: I do not. 17 Q: Okay. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Did you ever speak to, or have direct 22 contact with any active OPP officers relating to the 23 Ipperwash occupation at any time between September 4th 24 and 6th, 1995? 25 A: I did not.
1491 Q: Did you ever speak to the incident 2 commander, Inspector John Carson? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Did you ever attempt to? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Did you speak to any of Commissioner 7 Tom O'Grady, Superintendent -- Chief Superintendent Chris 8 Coles, Superintendent Tony Parkin or Inspector Dale 9 Linton between the 4th and the 6th of September 1995? 10 A: I did not. 11 Q: Did you attempt to? 12 A: No. 13 Q: To your knowledge, did the Premier 14 speak to any of these OPP officers between that time 15 frame? 16 A: No. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Did you ever have any direct contact 21 with Marcel Beaubien between September 4th and 6th, 1995? 22 A: I don't believe so. 23 Q: Do you recall having any form of 24 direct contact with him subsequent to the 6th? 25 A: On this matter?
1501 Q: Yes? 2 A: No. 3 Q: All right. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: And in hindsight, do you have any 8 views with respect to the effectiveness of the 9 InterMinisterial Committee mechanism in relation to the 10 management of the occupation? 11 A: I don't believe so. I -- as I said, 12 the only observation I initially had on September the 5th 13 was that it was a significantly larger group of 14 individuals than up to that point, recognizing it was 15 September of 1995, but certainly subsequently, my 16 following five (5) years at government, it was a larger 17 meeting than I was accustomed to participating in. 18 I'm not sure I made a further judgement 19 about what that meant. It just seemed that we had a 20 large number of people in -- in the room and -- I try to 21 be a very result-oriented person and so having as many 22 people as you need but -- but not any additional people 23 in the room I think is -- is a good way to -- to get to 24 the bottom of an issue and to -- to drive toward results. 25 So I -- I think I had a question about the
1511 number of people we needed in the room. I don't recall 2 having any specific point of view about who should have 3 been there and not been there. I did not know their 4 individual responsibilities well enough to make that kind 5 of judgement. 6 Q: All right. To your knowledge, were 7 there any further meetings of the InterMinisterial 8 Committee specific to Ipperwash, after the 6th? 9 A: I did not recall. I didn't go to any 10 and I don't know if there were. 11 Q: All right. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: And, Ms. Hutton, we've given the 16 opportunity to witnesses to provide any insights they may 17 have with respect to assisting the Commissioner with 18 making recommendations aimed at preventing similar 19 incidents of violence in the future. 20 Do you have any such insights or 21 recommendations to share? 22 A: I don't think so at this time. 23 Q: Thank you very much. Commissioner, 24 that completes my examination-in-chief of this witness. 25 And perhaps before we break for lunch we should canvass
1521 the parties with respect to their estimates. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 3 Does anybody intend to ask Ms. Hutton any 4 questions? Well, let's go around the room. 5 On behalf of Mr. Harris? 6 MR. PETER DOWNARD: About fifteen (15) 7 minutes. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Fifteen (15) minutes 9 for Mr. Harris. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 11 Mr. Harnick? 12 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Perhaps ten (10) 13 minutes. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Ten (10) minutes for 15 Mr. Harnick. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On behalf of 17 Mr. Runciman? 18 MR. IAN SMITH: Five (5) minutes at the 19 most. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Five (5) minutes for 21 Mr. Runciman. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 23 anybody standing for Mr. Hodgson. Is there anybody 24 behind you, Mr. Horton? No? 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No questions on behalf
1531 of Mr. Hodgson. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 3 anybody. 4 Ms. Tuck-Jackson...? 5 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Fifteen (15) to 6 twenty (20) minutes. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Fifteen (15) to twenty 8 (20) minutes on behalf of the OPP. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. McGilp, 10 on behalf of the OPPA? 11 MR. IAN MCGILP: Commissioner, I do not 12 anticipate any questions but Ms. Jones will be here 13 tomorrow, it's possible she will have questions. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: A reserve with respect 15 to the OPPA, Commissioner, unless we get to her this 16 afternoon of course, which is very likely, I think. 17 MR. IAN MCGILP: In which case there will 18 be no questions. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Okay. Thank you. No 20 questions, assuming -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 22 Twohig...? 23 MS. KIM TWOHIG: About fifteen (15) 24 minutes. 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Fifteen (15) minutes
1541 for the Province. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 3 Alexander...? 4 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: An hour and a half 5 (1 1/2) to two (2) hours, and Mr. Klippenstein will be 6 doing the cross-examination. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: One (1) to one and 8 half (1 1/2) hours -- 9 MR. BASIL ALEXANDER: An hour and a half 10 (1 1/2) to two (2) hours. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm sorry. Excuse me. 12 One and a half (1 1/2) to two (2) hours on behalf of the 13 Estate. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 15 Rosenthal...? 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: One (1) to one and 17 half (1 1/2) hours, Commissioner. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Without any 19 duplication, right? 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: One (1) to one and 21 a half (1 1/2) -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'm 23 saying without any duplication or overlap, that's fine. 24 And Mr. Scullion...? 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's one (1) -- I'm
1551 sorry, one (1) to one and a half (1 1/2) hours with 2 respect to -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 4 Scullion...? 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- Mr. Rosenthal. 6 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thirty (30) to 7 forty-five (45) minutes, depending on what goes ahead. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thirty (30) to forty- 9 five (45) minutes for Mr. Scullion. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 11 George...? 12 MR. JONATHON GEORGE: Half an hour. 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thirty (30) minutes 14 for Mr. George. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 16 Horton...? 17 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Perhaps an hour. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: One (1) hour for Mr. 19 Horton. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Mr. 21 Falconer...? 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Perhaps an hour. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: An hour for Aboriginal 24 Legal Services. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And then Ms.
1561 Hutton, depending on how things go? 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll break 4 for lunch now and start as soon as we come back. Thank 5 you all very much. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That gives 8 you an idea of what you're facing, Ms. Hutton. 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry 10 stands adjourned until 1:25. 11 12 --- Upon recessing at 12:09 p.m. 13 --- Upon resuming at 1:27 p.m. 14 15 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 16 resumed, please be seated. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 18 afternoon, Mr. Downard. 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Afternoon, 20 Commissioner. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 23 Q: Ms. Hutton, as you know I act for 24 former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, and I just have a few 25 questions for you this afternoon.
1571 A: Okay. 2 Q: When Julie Jai was here giving 3 evidence on August 30, 2005, she attributed a view on the 4 rights of Aboriginal people to you. My reference for My 5 Friends is to pages 67 through 70 of the transcript of 6 that day, August 30th, and also to pages 91 and 92. 7 Now, to give you the -- the gist of the 8 evidence she said that she had been at a briefing for 9 Premier's office staff regarding Aboriginal rights and 10 that she thought you were there and that she informed her 11 audience there that Aboriginal people have special rights 12 protected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act. 13 And she testified here, then in response 14 to that she was told, Well, we don't care. And then 15 later in her evidence at pages 91 and 92 of the 16 transcript she was asked: 17 "Q: And can you recall how long this 18 briefing took with Ms. Hutton and Mr. 19 Giorno? 20 A: I would say between an hour and an 21 hour and a half but that's just 22 approximate. I can't say for sure. 23 Q: And what response if any did you 24 get from Mr. Giorno and Ms. Hutton to 25 your -- to the briefing?
1581 A: Well, the response was that the 2 position of the -- this government was 3 that Aboriginal people have no special 4 rights and that's irrespective of 5 Section 35." Unquote 6 Now, did you ever say to Julie Jai that 7 you did not care whether Aboriginal people had certain 8 special rights protected by the Constitution of Canada? 9 A: No. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: To your knowledge, in 1995 did the 14 Harris Government have any intention of disregarding 15 requirements of the Constitution respecting Aboriginal 16 rights? 17 A: No. 18 Q: In 1995, to your knowledge, did the 19 Harris Government have any intention to disregard the 20 legal rights of Aboriginal people apart from the 21 Constitution? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Now, I would like to take you to 24 Exhibit 444(a) in the Inquiry which is a -- it's a brief 25 of transcripts of telephone calls, and in particular I
1591 want to take you to Tab 16 of that brief -- 2 A: Should -- should I be -- 3 Q: I don't -- I don't need you to -- 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: -- look at this right now. I -- I 6 can tell you -- 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: -- what I'm going to be referring to; 9 that's more for My Friends. 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: We can put it to her. 11 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, that's fine. 12 Okay. For convenience she's brought the brief to you. 13 THE WITNESS: Okay. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 16 Q: So, it -- for your information it's 17 at Tab 16 and there are pages numbered in the lower 18 right-hand corner of the brief and I'm going to be 19 referring to page 121 under Tab 16. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: Now, just so you know this is a 22 telephone conversation that takes place after the 23 September 5th Interministerial Committee Meeting at 24 approximately 2:45 in the afternoon, and it's a phone 25 call from -- or a phone discussion rather between Ron Fox
1601 and Inspector Carson who was the incident commander on 2 the ground at Ipperwash. 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: And at page 121 Inspector Fox makes a 5 comment to the incident commander about the 6 Interministerial Committee Meeting of -- of that day at 7 which you in attendance. 8 And he says at the bottom of page 121, 9 quote: 10 "Well, I'll tell you, this whole 11 fucking group is on some sort of 12 testosterone or testosterene (sic) high 13 [and I'll just leave it there]." 14 Unquote. 15 Now do you have any comment on that 16 characterization of the September 5th Interministerial 17 Committee meeting by Inspector Fox? 18 A: I don't know how anyone could have 19 made that conclusion of the September 5th meeting. 20 Q: All right. Now if you could turn to 21 the last page under this tab, page 126. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: You'll see that towards the top of 24 the page Inspector Fox says to the Incident Commander 25 Carson quote:
1611 "Let me assure you that I pushed them 2 and they are going to apply for this 3 adjoining order." Unquote. 4 Now do you have a recollection of 5 Inspector Fox pushing the Interministerial Committee to 6 pursue an injunction order in the September 5th 7 Interministerial Committee meeting? 8 A: No. I -- I'd like to follow by 9 saying as I hope I've done before, I don't recall 10 specific comments being made by any specific individual. 11 And that's -- that's a general statement about the 12 meetings. 13 I do not recall, though, further, anyone 14 pushing for an injunction, anyone at all, on September 15 the 5th. It was one of the options that were on the 16 table, one of two (2). But it was not something that any 17 individual was pushing strongly for at all. 18 Q: All right. Thank you. Now if I can 19 refer you to Tab 37 of the brief in front of you. This 20 is another transcript of a phone call from Inspector Fox 21 to Incident Commander Carson and later in the transcript 22 he also speaks to Chief Inspector Coles -- Superintendent 23 Coles, I believe. 24 And in any event, this takes place at 25 about 2:00 p.m. on September 6th.
1621 A: Okay. 2 Q: So it's -- it's after the dining room 3 meeting. 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: And if I can refer you to page 262 of 6 that transcript. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Now you'll see at about the middle of 9 the page, quote: 10 "Okay. Well let me just give you the - 11 - I went through this meeting, John, 12 we're dealing with a real redneck 13 government." Unquote. 14 Now did you see anything in the dining 15 room meeting or in the Interministerial Committee 16 meetings that would justify a conclusion that the 17 Government in place was a real redneck government? 18 A: Absolutely not. 19 Q: You will see that Fox goes on a 20 couple of lines down and he says: 21 "They are fucking barrel suckers, they 22 just are in love with guns." 23 Now setting aside the obscenity, did you 24 observe anything in the dining room meeting or in the 25 Interministerial Committee meetings that would justify a
1631 conclusion that the Government of the day was in love 2 with guns? 3 A: Absolutely not. I -- I'm hesitating 4 because I -- I just -- I don't even know, aside from the 5 impression that this leaves, how you could even begin to 6 come up with that thought. I've really heard nothing 7 that would even suggest that whatsoever. 8 Q: All right. Then he goes on further 9 in the page and he says, quote: 10 "They couldn't give a shit less about 11 Indians." Unquote. 12 Now again, setting aside the obscenity, 13 did you observe anything in the dining room meeting or in 14 the Interministerial Committee meetings that would 15 justify a conclusion that the Government of the day did 16 not care at all about Indians? 17 A: No. 18 Q: And then you'll see Incident 19 Commander Carson says, and of course he's not somebody 20 who's been present at -- at these meetings. He says, 21 quote: 22 "All right. They just want us to go 23 kick ass." 24 And Fox's response: 25 "That's right."
1641 Now did you observe anything in the 2 Interministerial Committee meetings or in the dining room 3 meeting that were justified conclusion that the 4 Government of the day wanted the OPP to physically attack 5 occupiers in the Park? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Now, if you can turn to the bottom of 8 page 263, near the bottom, Inspector Fox refers to the 9 Premier and he says, quote: 10 "Well, John, I'm here to tell you this 11 guy is a redneck from way back." 12 Unquote 13 Now, would you agree with that 14 characterization of the Premier? 15 A: No. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. 17 Commissioner...? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 19 Falconer...? 20 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Simply this. My 21 Friend seeks to elicit an answer, he's allowed to do it. 22 But if Mike Harris' character as a redneck over his 23 entire life is an issue in the proceedings because his 24 counsel had chose to make it so, fair enough. 25 But I emphasize that once he asks that
1651 question and gets an answer, with great respect, cross- 2 examining counsel, and counsel calling evidence and 3 counsel asking Mr. Harris questions and putting to him 4 his history, may have a different take on it. 5 So, with respect, if Mike Harris's life is 6 on trial, fair enough, but My Friend may want to re- 7 consider. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't -- 9 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I don't need Mr. 10 Falconer's help. If Mr. Falconer wants to stand in his 11 shoes when my client testifies and tell my client he's a 12 redneck and seek to justify that in public -- 13 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no, no. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. That's 15 not what he's saying. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No, no. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 18 minute. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Downard -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're not 21 asking -- 22 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- does not get the 23 opportunity to decide how I test his proposition. Once 24 he decides that Mike Harris's entire history as a 25 redneck --
1661 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Not at all. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- is an issue in 3 these proceedings -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 5 have -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- then we get to, 7 with respect, call evidence, cross-examine and ask any 8 witnesses -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 10 Mr. Falconer. 11 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- not just the 12 ones he chooses. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 14 Mr. Falconer. That's not what you're doing, is it, Mr. 15 Downard? 16 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No. I'm just -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 18 asking him about a quote, a specific quote; right? 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Yeah. This -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're not 21 putting his life on trial. 22 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I'm not putting his - 23 - no, I'm not putting his -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And his 25 whole reputation isn't --
1671 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No. I mean, this -- 2 this is ridiculous. This is quite ridiculous. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I'm not going 4 -- I'm not going to engage in Mr. Downard's usual 5 personal attacks as a means of responding to objections. 6 What I am going to say is the way he framed his question 7 was very broad. 8 If he could rephrase it to confine himself 9 to the comments in the transcript, then we all can work 10 on the basis of a narrow framework instead of a broad 11 one. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 13 that's what you did, isn't it? 14 MR. PETER DOWNARD: All right. But I 15 want to -- I want to say one thing. I want to say one 16 thing. When this tape became public, these sorts of 17 statements -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is not 19 the time for a speech, Mr. Downard. Please ask the 20 question -- 21 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Fine. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- in the 23 language of the transcript. 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Fine. 25
1681 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 2 Q: Do you agree with that 3 characterization of the Premier as at September of 1995? 4 A: No. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, carry 6 on. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 9 Q: Now, you -- you said, I think, sort 10 of, in several ways in your examination in direct, that 11 you didn't recall the substance of anything that the 12 Premier said in the dining room meetings. So I -- I 13 don't want to dwell on that too much but just to kind of 14 put a little bit of a point on it. 15 You'll see that at the bottom of this page 16 Fox says, regarding the Premier, quote: 17 "And he came right out and said, I just 18 walked in on the tail end of this, the 19 OPP, in my opinion, made mistakes as 20 they should have done something right 21 at the time and he said, that will, I'm 22 sure, all come out in an inquiry 23 sometime after the fact." 24 Unquote. And, in particular, do you 25 recall the Premier saying that or anything like that in
1691 the dining room meeting? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Okay. And then Fox goes on to say, 4 quote: 5 "He believes that he has to authority 6 to direct the OPP." 7 Unquote. Now, did you see anything in the 8 dining room that would justify a conclusion that the 9 Premier believed he had authority to direct the OPP? 10 A: No. 11 Q: And you'll see further down the page 12 there's a reference to the Commissioner, and you can take 13 it that's a reference to the Commissioner of the OPP. 14 A: Okay. 15 Q: And Fox says, quote: 16 "Oh yeah, yeah. Well, of course, the 17 Commissioner is already brought into 18 the loop on this." 19 Unquote. 20 To your knowledge, was the Commissioner of 21 the OPP involved in discussions regarding steps the 22 Government should take regarding the Ipperwash occupation 23 during September 4th, 5th and 6th, 1995? 24 A: Not with me, and I don't have any 25 knowledge that he was with anyone else.
1701 Q: Okay. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And just, again, to come back and 6 just put a -- a finer point on something. At the bottom 7 of page -- or middle of page 224, I suspect this 8 question is largely a formality but -- 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Is that 274, I'm 10 sorry? 11 MR. PETER DOWNARD: 2 -- 274. I beg your 12 pardon. 13 THE WITNESS: 274? 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 16 Q: 274, yes. It's under the same tab. 17 Those handwritten numbers got to me. 18 A: Okay. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 21 Q: In the middle of the page there's -- 22 it's -- the Premier is said to use the words, quote: 23 "I mean we've tried to pacify and 24 pander to these people for too long. 25 It's now time for swift, affirmative
1711 action." Unquote. 2 Now, do you recall the Premier saying that 3 or anything like that in the dining room meeting? 4 A: No. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, as I've mentioned to you we've 9 looked at conversations between Fox and the Incident 10 Commander Carson, on the ground at Ipperwash. 11 And I take it that you've become aware of 12 -- of the content of these transcripts I've just reviewed 13 with you, prior to today? 14 A: Through the media, yes. 15 Q: And when you found out that Fox had 16 been saying these sorts of things to Incident Commander 17 Carson, were you surprised by that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Why? 20 A: Two (2) reasons. I -- the content 21 was not reflective of anything that I had participated in 22 or witnessed. 23 Secondly, I can't speak to Mr. Fox 24 directly, but it is my very clear understanding that each 25 of us, whether civil service or political staff, swear an
1721 oath of confidentiality when we enter government and so a 2 conversation of this nature, generally, I forget the 3 specific words that were used, would not be something 4 that would be appropriate for him to have had with anyone 5 outside of government. 6 Q: Now, I want to turn to another 7 subject. Since early 1996 there's been an allegation on 8 the public record in Ontario that, regarding the events 9 at Ipperwash Provincial Park on the night of September 10 6th, Premier Harris ordered the OPP to utilize its 11 tactical response unit with the express purpose and 12 intent of taking severe action against the protestors at 13 Ipperwash Provincial Park. 14 Now, is that true or false to your 15 knowledge? 16 A: False. 17 Q: And in May of 1996 there was an 18 article in the Toronto Star, it was entitled, Secret 19 Talks Held on -- on Ipperwash, and you got your picture 20 in the paper, which you may recall. 21 And that article reported that, prior to 22 the incident at Ipperwash Park on the night of September 23 6th, Tom Bressette, chief of the Kettle and Stony Point 24 Band, had been warned that occupiers in the Park were 25 going to be driven from the -- the Park even if it meant
1731 police drawing guns. 2 And this is the -- the article. Yeah, I 3 stand to be corrected, but I believe this is the first 4 publication of this allegation in May of 1996, that 5 Bressette said he was told the decision was made at the 6 September 5th Interministerial Committee Meeting in 7 substance to, quote: 8 "Get those fucking Indians out of the 9 Park even if you have to draw guns." 10 Unquote. 11 Now, did you ever say those words or words 12 like them to anyone during September 4th, 5th, and 6th? 13 A: No. 14 Q: To your knowledge did the Premier say 15 those words or words like them during that period? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Now, this article also talks about 18 how, at the -- at Ipperwash Park on the night of the 6th, 19 there were two hundred and fifty (250) heavily armed 20 police -- 21 A: No. 22 Q: -- including snipers who were among a 23 group that confronted the occupiers of the Park after 24 11:00 p.m. on September 6th. 25 Now, during the Interministerial Committee
1741 Meetings -- now, setting aside whether that's an accurate 2 statement and -- and I've -- just to be clear my position 3 is that it is not accurate, in any event, were you 4 provided with information during the Interministerial 5 Committee Meetings that the OPP had two hundred and fifty 6 (250) heavily armed police, including snipers, on the 7 ground at Ipperwash Provincial Park? 8 A: No, nor nothing similar of that 9 nature. 10 Q: Okay. Now, in July of 1997 there was 11 a report in the Globe and Mail in which it was alleged 12 that -- well, pardon me, in which a -- a person, a lawyer 13 involved in this proceeding alleged that the -- the 14 Premier, in this matter had directed a no-negotiation 15 strategy of violence. 16 Now, you've talked about what your 17 understanding of the Government was regarding 18 negotiations -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- substantive negotiations. 21 A: Right. 22 Q: Did the Premier direct a strategy of 23 violence in this matter? 24 A: No, quite the opposite. Only -- the 25 only discussions that I ever heard take place, with
1751 regard to this matter, were ones that always used the 2 term, Peaceful. 3 Q: Okay. Now, in 1999, a current 4 Cabinet Minister, then MPP Jerry Philips, issued a press 5 release in which he said there's considerable evidence 6 that the Harris Government was inappropriately involved 7 in the OPP operation at Ipperwash. 8 Now, to your knowledge, was the Harris 9 Government inappropriately involved in the OPP operation 10 at Ipperwash? 11 A: No. 12 Q: In 2001, the current and then-leader 13 of the NDP said that in this matter it's clear that the 14 Premier his staff were telling the OPP to force the 15 Natives out of Ipperwash. 16 Now, in this matter, did the Premier and 17 his staff tell the OPP to force the Native occupiers out 18 of Ipperwash? 19 A: We did not. 20 Q: And finally, there's an editorial in 21 the Toronto Star in January 2002, it's an editorial 22 written about the occasion on which the -- the individual 23 who was convicted of shooting Dudley George, lost his 24 job. 25 And in that editorial, it reads as
1761 follows, quote: 2 "Yet Deane's dismissal, while welcome, 3 doesn't cast any more light on the 4 truth of what really happened in 5 Ipperwash. 6 Who, for example, demanded that the 7 cops muscle their way into the Park 8 against the advice of OPP commanders 9 who were pushing for a peaceful 10 resolution to the Indian occupation? 11 The damning memos and briefing notes 12 that trace a path right to the 13 Premier's door hint at the answer." 14 Unquote. 15 Now, did the Premier demand that the 16 police muscle their way into Ipperwash Park against the 17 advice of OPP commanders who were pushing for a peaceful 18 resolution to the Indian occupation? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Thank you, those are my questions. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 25 Horvat...?
1771 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: I don't have any 2 questions. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't 4 have any questions? 5 Mr. Smith...? 6 MR. IAN SMITH: I have no questions 7 either. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Tuck- 9 Jackson...? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Good afternoon, 14 Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 16 afternoon. 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 19 Q: And good afternoon, Ms. Hutton. 20 A: Good afternoon. 21 Q: My name is Andrea Tuck-Jackson. I'm 22 going to ask you some questions on behalf of the OPP. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: And I want to begin, if I may, with 25 your recollection or, if I could put it this way, your
1781 lack of recollection of certain features of the events 2 that occurred between the 4th and the 6th. 3 And I want to make it very clear to you 4 that I'm not critical when I ask you these questions, 5 because to state the obvious, it's been ten (10) long 6 years before this -- we've been able to get to this 7 matter, this Inquiry. 8 And so it's understandable that you'd have 9 some difficulty recalling the details. 10 It's apparent to us all that you have 11 given your evidence over the past two (2) days without 12 the benefit of any notes that you took during the course 13 of the two (2) IMC meetings or as what is often referred 14 to as the dining room meeting, in order to refresh your 15 memory. 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: That's correct? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. And unlike Ron Fox, for 20 example, to state the obvious, you do not have the 21 benefit of a recorded telephone call, that was made 22 contemporaneous with the events, to refresh your memory? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: Right. I note that in relation to 25 the civil proceedings that arose in this matter, you were
1791 not examined for discovery; do I have that correct? 2 A: Yes, I was asked a number questions, 3 undertakings and -- 4 Q: Right. 5 A: -- and I did respond to them. 6 Q: I was going to get to that next, 7 thank you. 8 I noticed in the material that we could 9 review, in anticipation of your testimony, that you did 10 indeed provide a number of answers to undertakings that 11 were made in connection with that civil proceeding. And 12 I also noticed that the date of those answers to 13 undertakings began around 2002. 14 Does that accord with your recollection? 15 A: Off the top of my head, I might have 16 said 2001, so. 17 Q: All right. 2001 at the earliest 18 then? 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: Is it fair to say then that the first 21 time that you were asked to turn your mind back to the 22 events of the three (3) meetings that we're all spending 23 so much time focussing on now, was some six (6) years 24 after the events in question? 25 A: No. I would actually add an
1801 additional fact, as I believe Mr. Downard was referring 2 to. There were a number of allegations raised through 3 the course of the Legislature -- 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: -- and in the media, in particular in 6 the Toronto Star over the course of 1996. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: And at that time a number of freedom 9 of information requests were made of the Government and 10 information was provided. I would have reviewed some of 11 that material in early or to mid, I guess, 1996. 12 Q: Oh. That's fine I understand that. 13 But, what I'm saying to you -- I'm trying to ascertain or 14 identify when it was, where you actually put your mind to 15 reconstructing the events of what transpired in the three 16 (3) meetings that we're talking about. 17 And I'm going to suggest to you that in 18 reality, you didn't actually turn your mind back to doing 19 that until you had to focus on the answers to 20 undertakings that you were requested to make. 21 A: I -- I think given the nature of the 22 questions, I certainly turned my mind to it much -- much 23 more so. But I really did attempt in 1996 so within 24 about eight (8) or nine (9) months after, September of 25 1995, I did attempt to recall the 4th, 5th and 6th
1811 through the use in the course of -- of other's notes and 2 just my own recall at the time. 3 I have a -- I think -- I don't have as a 4 great a recall of September 7th and going forward for 5 that very reason that I was focussing on the 5th and 6th, 6 in particular, of the 4th, 5th and 6th. 7 Q: All right. Then as I understand your 8 evidence that approximately nine (9) months after the 9 fact, was the earliest point that you actually turned 10 your mind your recreating the events of September 4th, 11 5th and 6th? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: So, I have that correct? 14 A: I believe that's correct, yes 15 Q: All right. And again you did that 16 with the benefit of other people's recollections of what 17 occurred in those three (3) meetings? 18 A: Right. And I -- I can't speak to the 19 specific information that was available but I know for 20 example there were certainly a number of individual's 21 handwritten notes. 22 For example, that formed the basis of the 23 information that had been requested for the freedom of -- 24 under the freedom of information process. 25 Q: I understand, thank you. And again
1821 that the first time where you put or required to dig 2 perhaps into the deeper recesses of your recollection and 3 trying to dig down deeper in terms of further details, 4 was until 2001? 5 A: That's correct. And it was based on 6 some very specific questions I was being asked at the 7 time. 8 Q: Thank you. And just to be clear, 9 some of those questions that were being asked related 10 very specifically to details of what had transpired at, 11 for example, the meeting in the dining room? 12 A: I recall that's the case, yes. 13 Q: Yes. I want to move on if I can to 14 the two (2) Interministerial Committee meetings. And you 15 can take it from me that for the purposes of my question, 16 I'm going to blend the two (2) meetings together because 17 for my purposes it really doesn't matter whether 18 something, particularly, occurred on the 5th or the 6th. 19 All right? 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: You've told us that during the course 22 of those meetings, one viewpoint that was recommended or 23 advocated was a slow or wait-and-see approach. 24 Do you recall telling us that? 25 A: Yeah. I'm not sure I'd use the term
1831 'advocated'. It was one point of view on the table -- 2 Q: Which was discussed? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Okay. And I can tell you that we've 5 heard from a variety of witnesses who attended at those 6 meetings that Ron Fox was one person who indeed spoke 7 about a slow and wait-and-see approach and indeed 8 recommended it as an appropriate avenue to take. 9 I trust you don't recall one way or 10 another what Mr. Fox or Inspector Fox as the -- as he 11 then was, what his approach was? 12 A: No. I -- I think as I said earlier, 13 I don't have a specific recollection of specific 14 statements and individuals. It's more the topic and -- 15 and general overview of the conversation that I recall. 16 Q: I understand. And I have -- I trust 17 that you have no reason to dispute that that was a 18 position that he was recommending? 19 A: I couldn't do that. I don't recall. 20 Q: Thank you. And again as My Friend, 21 Ms. Vella took you to Tab 21, if you can turn to Tab 21 22 in your materials, please. 23 It's Exhibit P-517 -- 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: The handwritten notes that have been
1841 identified as having been authored by now-Inspector Scott 2 Patrick. 3 If you look at page 4 of the handwritten 4 portion -- 5 A: Page 4, or page 4 of his notes? 6 Q: Page 4 of the handwritten brief of 7 his notes. 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: You'll see at the top, the passage 10 that Ms. Vella referred you to, and what it appears to 11 do, and we've heard evidence to this effect, that it 12 captures comments that then-Inspector Fox was making 13 where he was recommending a more slow and considered 14 approach to the issue. 15 And, again, I gather from what you're 16 saying to us that you don't dispute that these kinds of 17 comments were made by him? 18 A: I don't dispute that they were made 19 by him. I can't do that. 20 Q: I understand. Thank you. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: You'll note that in the passage that 25 Scott Patrick has captured, it attributes to then-
1851 Inspector Fox that he, meaning Inspector Fox, appreciated 2 the Premier's concerns but it continues: 3 "should we rush in? Step by step 4 approach with longer term view." 5 And again I don't anticipate that you're 6 going to have a recollection one way or another about 7 this -- 8 A: All right. 9 Q: -- but I trust you don't dispute that 10 there were times when Inspector Fox was engaging in the 11 debate of whether or not it would be appropriate to take 12 a slow and considered approach as opposed to an approach 13 which was quicker? 14 A: I don't dispute it. This suggests he 15 asked the question and that would be more in keeping with 16 what I considered the tone, in looking back at that 17 meeting. 18 I don't use the term 'debate' in -- I 19 wouldn't use the term 'debate' to describe that meeting. 20 It was a discussion. 21 Q: It was a discussion, a flow of ideas 22 back and forth. 23 A: Exactly, I think that's fair. 24 Q: And I trust that during the course of 25 those discussions, as you characterize them, over the
1861 course of the two (2) meetings, that you never received 2 any indication that Inspector Fox was reticent to express 3 his views on the matter? 4 A: I don't recall him specifically 5 saying anything so it's -- I don't think I could answer 6 your question. 7 Q: You don't have any recollection of 8 him saying anything? 9 A: No, I'm sorry; that wasn't what I 10 wanted to convey. I -- I don't recall the specifics of 11 what he said. I do recall that the Solicitor General's 12 representative spoke and I believe he was one of them. 13 He is not one of the people that I recall 14 -- I've just too many negatives. There were -- there 15 were people at the table that I know didn't speak. 16 Q: Right. 17 A: I'm not sure I could say to you this 18 person did or this person didn't -- 19 Q: Right. 20 A: -- in many cases. I recall the 21 Solicitor General's representative, Mr. Fox, engaging in 22 a conversation. I just don't recall the specifics of 23 what he said. 24 Q: All right. And nothing stands out in 25 your mind, I'm going to suggest to you, that he appeared
1871 in any way intimidated by you? 2 A: No. 3 Q: No. Or the position that you held? 4 And what I mean by that is that, you were speaking there 5 as the representative of the Premier's office. You had 6 no indication that he appeared to be intimidated by that? 7 A: No. 8 Q: No. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: And I trust -- and again, I'm asking 13 you to draw upon impressions more than specifics, but I 14 trust that there was nothing by words or actions -- 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: -- said by anyone there that you 17 understood who -- from the Solicitor General's office, so 18 including Ron Fox, because we know he was there on behalf 19 of the Solicitor General's office; there are nothing from 20 the words or actions of those individuals that suggested 21 that the OPP was seeking or taking direction on police 22 operational matters from anyone at either of those IMC 23 meetings? 24 A: No. 25 Q: So, you're agreeing with what I'm
1881 saying? 2 A: I -- yes. 3 Q: Thank you. And I trust again, I 4 suspect to state the obvious but I want to make it very 5 clear, for the record, at no time during the course of 6 either of those IMC meetings did you provide direction to 7 Ron Fox on any type of police operational matter relating 8 to Ipperwash? 9 A: I would go further and say not just 10 to Mr. Fox but that is the case for all participants at 11 the table. 12 Q: Thank you. And in particular, I 13 trust you would agree that at no time did you direct Mr. 14 Fox or anyone from the Solicitor General's office, as you 15 understood them to be at that table, to take back a 16 direction to the OPP that it remove the trespassers from 17 the Park in the absence of an injunction? 18 A: That's correct. And in fact as I 19 said a few minutes ago this to me was a government 20 meeting with civil servants and political staff all of 21 whom were sworn. 22 Q: Now, again I can tell you that we've 23 heard from quite a number of witnesses, attendees from 24 those two (2) meetings who've indicated that they were 25 left with the impression by Inspector Fox that the OPP
1891 did not want to move on the occupiers of the Park in the 2 absence of an injunction. 3 And I trust you have no reason to dispute 4 that? 5 A: I don't. I don't recall being 6 informed of that. 7 Q: I understand, but you also have no 8 reason to dispute it? 9 A: I don't. 10 Q: Thank you. We'll move on then to the 11 dining room meeting as it has so infamously been 12 labelled. 13 You've told us that you have no specific 14 recollection that Ron Fox or Scott Patrick were in 15 attendance at that meeting. I have that correct do I? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Again I can tell you that we've heard 18 from at least four (4) witnesses that not only was Ron 19 Fox in attendance, in other words they had a specific 20 recollection that he was in attendance and indeed we've 21 heard from other witnesses to that effect, but particular 22 from four (4) witnesses that he actually participated in 23 the meeting. In other words he spoke at the meeting. 24 And again I trust that's just another one 25 (1) of those things that you simply do not have a
1901 recollection of at this time? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: But, again you wouldn't dispute that 4 that occurred, you just don't know one way or another? 5 A: That's correct. I'm not able to do 6 so. 7 Q: Thank you. And I trust also, that 8 from what you could observe during the course of that 9 meeting that there was no one there who either by actions 10 or words was indicating that they were seeking or taking 11 direction from anyone in that room on police operational 12 matters? 13 A: I believe that's correct. 14 Q: And I trust you would also agree that 15 nobody in your presence indicated that the OPP was to be 16 directed to remove the Park occupiers without an 17 injunction? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 19 Falconer...? 20 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, Mr. 21 Commissioner, it's -- it's an objection only to this 22 extent. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 24 it's an objection...? 25 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Only to this extent
1911 and -- and I don't mean to make it any more controversial 2 than it has to be. 3 I understand that direction of My Friend's 4 questions and I'm not seeking to interfere with it, but 5 obviously she's asking the Witness who has said she 6 doesn't remember. So, we're working with that, but I 7 assume My Friends will be equally patient when we cross- 8 examine on that very issue and again she says she doesn't 9 remember. 10 I simply point out that she's asking her 11 for all of the things she says she doesn't remember. So, 12 my only concern is that we in no way be restricted from 13 doing exactly the same thing going the other way. That's 14 my only concern because it can't be a -- a lack of memory 15 only helpful in one (1) direction, that's all. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 17 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Well, with 18 respect, Mr. Commissioner, what this Witness did not 19 remember was that Ron Fox, specifically, was present at 20 the meeting. She hasn't said that she couldn't remember. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She 22 remembers things being said; she can't attribute them to 23 any -- 24 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Exactly. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- specific
1921 individual. 2 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: And I simply 3 want to clarify -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 5 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: -- that to the 6 best of recollection "X" was not said. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we 8 have to be a little more precise. I think you are being 9 precise, but try to be a little more so there's no 10 question that you're asking her to comment on things that 11 she can't remember. 12 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Thank you. 13 I'll do it again. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 18 Q: I am looking to you for confirmation 19 as I've heard confirmation from other witness who 20 preceded, that nobody in your presence at that meeting in 21 the dining room indicated that the OPP was to be told 22 that they were to remove the occupiers from the Park in 23 the absence of an injunction? 24 A: That's correct. And if -- if I could 25 add, given that I would consider that type of comment
1931 wholly inappropriate there are things that I would feel 2 more comfortable saying to this Inquiry that I believe 3 did not happen as opposed to I didn't recall because had 4 they happened they would have stood out in my mind. 5 Q: And so I trust then what you're 6 telling us that you feel confident that that comment was 7 not said because if it had been it's something that would 8 have stood out in your mind? 9 A: That's exactly what I mean. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: You told us that when you left for 14 the day you did so at about seven o'clock, you 15 anticipate, in accordance with your ordinary practice? 16 A: Yeah. I -- I can't give you any more 17 specifics than that. 18 Q: And when you left for the day I trust 19 that what you anticipated was going to be happening in 20 relation to Ipperwash was that the police were going to 21 continue to contain the situation on the ground and that 22 they were going to be waiting for the outcome of the 23 injunction application, which you understood was going to 24 heard the following morning? 25 A: Yeah. I -- I think you're
1941 attributing far more to what I would have thought at the 2 time than I think is likely. Keeping in mind that my 3 perspective on this matter was from the Provincial 4 Government's perspective, I would not have been thinking 5 throughout the day, or at the end of the day about the 6 OPP's role. 7 I would have been thinking, and my 8 expectation, I'm sure, would have been around strictly 9 the Government's action, which was the injunction. 10 Q: And I understand that -- that, 11 clearly, Government actions depended again, I suppose, in 12 considering what its various options were, was dependent 13 in part of waiting to see what happened with the 14 injunction application the following day? 15 A: That's true. And as I said earlier, 16 I'm not sure how much of the status of that process I was 17 aware of, as I said. I think I would have endeavoured to 18 check by the end of the day as to where we were in that 19 process, I just can't say that I knew definitively at the 20 end of day Wednesday that we would be in court Thursday 21 morning. 22 Q: Let me put the question a different 23 way because I think we're going to get at the same idea 24 just from a different perspective. 25 You -- you indicated and hinted at it
1951 earlier, you had no idea when you left home that evening 2 that several hours later the OPP were going to be 3 marching down East Parkway Drive towards Ipperwash 4 Provincial Park; do I have that correct? 5 A: That's very correct. 6 Q: Thank you, Ms. Hutton. Those are my 7 questions. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 9 Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 10 Ms. Twohig...? 11 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 13 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. My name 14 is Kim Twohig and I'm here for the Province of Ontario. 15 I just wanted to ask you a question about the diagram of 16 the Premier's dining room, first of all, Exhibit P-968. 17 I have information to the effect that 18 there was a built-in heating, ventilating, and air 19 conditioning system underneath both windows in 1995, and 20 I'm -- I'm wondering if that's consistent with your 21 recollection? 22 A: Yes and no. I recall that there were 23 built-in units in most of those offices along the window 24 and underneath, as you've said, for heating. I further 25 recall, as I said earlier, I believe we had -- the
1961 windows were a single window that lifted. 2 And I recall that in most offices, and 3 that would have been my recollection of the dining room, 4 again, I don't know what the case was in September of 5 1995, the entire window was lifted and a board was put in 6 and a unit was -- was -- just as we would in our homes, a 7 window unit was put in. 8 That was generally my recollection of the 9 air conditioning units. 10 Q: Okay. Do you recall whether -- so 11 are you saying then that it's possible that there was an 12 air conditioner in both windows, or is your recollect 13 that it was just in the south window? 14 A: I recall it was just in the south 15 window. In fairness, I was in that room many, many times 16 over the course of five (5) years, I can't speak to 17 whether there was one (1) in the window that day. 18 Q: Okay. So, I take it that you 19 wouldn't recall either whether the air conditioner was 20 running that day or not? 21 A: That is correct. 22 Q: Okay. When the air conditioner was 23 running do you recall whether it was loud enough that it 24 made it difficult for some people to hear what was said 25 in the room?
1971 A: I can't speak to that. We did hold a 2 number of meetings in that room and I don't recall it 3 being an issue, but I -- I really can't -- I don't recall 4 it being there, so I can't say. 5 Q: Okay. Thank you. With respect to 6 the September 5th and 6th Interministerial Committee 7 meetings, I understand that you recall that there were 8 two (2) options basically put forward. One was the wait- 9 and-see option and the other one was the injunction; is 10 that right? 11 A: That speaks specifically to the 5th, 12 I would say, yes. 13 Q: The 5th. Okay. I understand, as 14 well, that the wait-and-see option was one that you 15 characterized as a slow and cautious approach, 16 essentially? 17 A: I would say a slow approach. It was 18 my own view that a more cautious approach, actually, was 19 to see this occupation come to an end sooner rather than 20 later. 21 Q: Okay. Under, then, this wait-and-see 22 or slow approach, was that something that was thought to 23 involve leaving it to the OPP to see what would happen 24 and to let them monitor the situation? 25 A: I don't think it was as specific as
1981 that, and again we were in a room to discuss the 2 Government's response. 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: So it's not how I would characterize 5 it. 6 Q: Would it also have involved, then, 7 some fact finding, perhaps, on the part of MNR staff as 8 to the reason for the occupation and the demands of the 9 occupiers? 10 A: I think that was the expectation in 11 the minds -- perhaps I shouldn't say that. But I expect 12 that that was part of it, yes. 13 Q: Okay. And then depending on what 14 facts were found, again some options would be explored 15 and some decisions made later on as to the best way to 16 resolve this situation. 17 Is that your understanding of what part of 18 the wait-and-see approach might have entailed? 19 A: Yeah. I think you've added far more 20 than was on the table at that time. 21 Q: Okay. And I take it that this 22 approach would also involve process negotiations as 23 opposed to substantive negotiations? 24 And by that I mean discussions about a 25 process whereby the occupation might be ended; was that
1991 your understanding? 2 A: No, not at all. As I said, the idea 3 of discussions by the Government or anyone on their 4 behalf was not put on the table on the Tuesday at all. 5 Q: All right. 6 A: But the wait-and-see approach, as I 7 understood it on the table, was a very non-active 8 approach. 9 Q: Hmm hmm. 10 A: Just literally wait -- wait and see. 11 Q: And this is one that would not 12 involve any third parties going in to speak to the 13 occupiers? 14 A: And again I -- simply because that 15 wasn't raised, yes. 16 Q: I understand, though, that you would 17 have been content for the MNR and the OPP to have had 18 some discussions with the occupiers? 19 A: Yes, I -- I understood that, in the 20 normal course of what the OPP would do, they would be in 21 discussions and there was a distinct difference, in my 22 mind, between government or substantive -- 23 Q: Right. 24 A: -- negotiations and OPP negotiations 25 that were --
2001 Q: Right. 2 A: -- very different. 3 Q: So again, the types of discussions 4 the OPP would have had -- 5 A: Right. 6 Q: -- would have been part of the wait- 7 and-see or the -- the Government's uninvolved approach; 8 is that fair? 9 A: Yes. You're combining those two (2) 10 thoughts in a way that I necessarily didn't combine them 11 at the time, but -- but I think that's accurate. 12 Q: Okay. So basically, then, the 13 approach that would not involve any government action was 14 basically all the steps that would have been considered 15 as part of the wait-and-see approach? 16 A: I don't understand your question. 17 Q: Okay. So it would have been -- it 18 would have been gathering facts on the part of, perhaps, 19 lower level MNR staff on the ground? 20 A: Yeah, I think why I'm having trouble 21 with -- with your question is simply that -- that you are 22 adding much more to the discussion than I recall -- 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: -- having taken place. 25 Q: Okay. What I wanted to ascertain,
2011 though, was what your understanding of the wait-and-see 2 approach was. 3 A: Do nothing, would be how I would 4 describe it. 5 Q: And when you say, "do nothing," I 6 take it you're referring to higher level government 7 people doing nothing? 8 A: Yes, but I think there was also my -- 9 my impression was the idea that maybe we'll learn more. 10 It wasn't as though, why don't we do this so we can learn 11 more, which I think is what you were initially getting 12 at. 13 I don't recall that being part of the 14 discussion. 15 Q: Okay. But I understand, from what 16 you just said, that you would find it acceptable and you 17 would even understand that MNR staff on the ground might 18 have some discussion with the occupiers? 19 A: That's correct. And, in fact, I 20 believe on Wednesday we not only knew there was to be a 21 meeting taking place but I was -- I believe I asked, and 22 again I'm recalling based on notes, but I understand it's 23 recorded that I asked and it seems consistent with what I 24 would have done, that we make sure that we had an update 25 of that meeting.
2021 Q: Right, okay. So what I'm just trying 2 to ascertain is that the -- the only other option to the 3 injunction was not necessarily a do nothing approach, but 4 just a slower wait-and-see kind of approach, take it one 5 step at a time, in other words? 6 A: I'm most comfortable with the way 7 I've characterized it. 8 Q: Okay. Now just so I understand 9 though, is that consistent also with the way I 10 characterized it, in that there would be no higher level 11 involvement by government but simply the -- the situation 12 would unfold in the usual course with the OPP and MNR 13 staff on the ground dealing with it. 14 A: Yeah. I can't speak to usual course. 15 Q: Okay. Assuming that this is the only 16 situation that you dealt with then, would that approach 17 be consistent with your understanding of the wait-and-see 18 approach? 19 A: I think so. 20 Q: Okay. And so, in other words, it 21 wasn't -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Twohig, 23 I think you've -- 24 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I've exhausted this one, 25 okay.
2031 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- done 2 enough of this wait-and-see approach. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 5 Q: Would it be fair to say that everyone 6 in the room, at the ONAS boardroom on September 5th who 7 spoke at that meeting, was in favour of the more slow and 8 cautious approach? 9 With the exception, perhaps, of the MNR 10 staff who were on the phone and to you said, favoured a 11 more proactive approach? 12 A: Yeah. I -- I don't -- I don't 13 recall. 14 Q: Okay. It's possible, though, that 15 that's the case? 16 A: I think it's possible. 17 Q: So in terms of the -- the more 18 proactive approach, the injunction was the only real 19 option that was being considered, as I understand your 20 evidence? 21 A: I -- I think that's fair. I didn't 22 dismiss the other option, I expressed my concerns about 23 it and as of Tuesday I had not personally come to a 24 conclusion. There was certainly a consensus building 25 around the injunction and I think it was fair and -- and
2041 I wasn't adverse to that either. 2 My role at this meeting, broadly, or -- or 3 at any meeting where you have a number of ministries and 4 a number of perspectives involved, is to try and make 5 sure that not only are we taking into account each of the 6 perspectives of the ministries -- 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: -- where they have some expertise but 9 that -- that the Government's response or the 10 Government's activity is cast in the overall light of 11 government and making sure that all of the potentially, 12 in many cases, competing priorities of government are 13 managed for the overall good of government and the 14 overall situation. 15 Q: Okay. In terms of the options being 16 presented, though, at the meetings, I understand that 17 Elizabeth Christie presented a number of options around 18 the possibility of charges, both under the Criminal Code 19 and the Provincial Offenses Act, as well as the 20 injunction. 21 Is that right? 22 A: I can't say it to Ms. Christie 23 specifically. 24 Q: Okay. I'm wondering if it might help 25 to refresh your memory, if you could turn to Tab 13 of
2051 your materials, which is Exhibit P-536. These are the 2 handwritten notes of Julie Jai of the meeting. 3 And I'd like to take you to page 5 of the 4 September 5th notes, which are the second set of notes at 5 that tab. 6 A: I'm sorry, this is September? 7 Q: 5th. 8 A: 5th, okay. 9 Q: Do you see at page 5 under Elizabeth 10 Christie it says, "Five (5) options?" 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Yes. Do you recall a discussion 13 about mischief charges under the Criminal Code being a 14 possibility, although that would be within the discretion 15 of the OPP? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And do you recall also the 18 possibility of the Provincial Offences Act charges under 19 the Trespass to Property Act, Public Lands Act or 20 Provincial Parks Act? 21 A: Yes. I recall a general discussion 22 of that. 23 Q: And you'll see a note there from Ms. 24 Jai beside those three (3) pieces of legislation: 25 "Can charge them but can't easily get
2061 them off the land." 2 Do you remember that being discussed as 3 part of the overall examination of the options? 4 A: My recollection, although I would 5 have thought it was September 6th, was that one of the 6 pieces of information that I received was that, in the 7 event that the police laid any charges of any nature, the 8 challenge was that there was no guarantee that the 9 occupiers wouldn't return. 10 And, in fact, for me that was one of the 11 significant pieces of information in supporting the 12 Government seeking an injunction. 13 Q: All right. 14 A: As I said I -- I would have guessed 15 the 6th, but I don't dispute it was the 5th if that's, in 16 fact -- 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: -- reflected in these notes. 19 Q: Do you recall, also, in terms of the 20 injunction, a discussion about the difficulties involved 21 in enforcement if, in fact, the occupiers didn't comply 22 and leave the -- the land when faced with an injunction 23 order? 24 A: Once faced with an injunction, I 25 don't.
2071 Q: No. If you just look at little 2 further down the page on page 5 where it says, 3 "Enforcement," under the discussion of injunctions, do 4 you see where it says: 5 "Once order exists they are obliged to 6 comply and if they don't leave we would 7 have to take civil or criminal contempt 8 proceedings." 9 Do you see that? 10 A: I do and I -- as I said, I'm sorry, I 11 don't recall that. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: I don't dispute it. 14 Q: Does that refresh your memory in any 15 way? 16 A: It doesn't. 17 Q: Okay. Now, with respect to the 18 injunction then, you mentioned that you recall two (2) 19 types, one (1) being a faster approach with a higher 20 test. And -- and is it fair to say that that was 21 one that you also understood would have less chance of 22 success because of the higher test? 23 A: Well, I -- I guess I looked at it a 24 little differently. I thought you would want to know you 25 could meet that test before you would take that route, so
2081 I don't -- I wouldn't characterize my thinking the way 2 you have. 3 Q: But given that a judge, a third 4 party, was going to evaluate the evidence, did you 5 understand that there was a greater risk in bringing an 6 ex parte injunction? 7 A: Yes. As I said, I would have said a 8 -- a higher threshold had to be met and again I'm just 9 not sure we're disagreeing, I'm just -- 10 Q: Right, right. 11 A: -- more comfortable using my 12 language. 13 Q: Right, yes. Okay. But you 14 understood that it was the ex parte injunction that was 15 the speedier injunction; is that correct? 16 A: Correct, yeah. 17 Q: And you said that you weren't aware 18 that the speedier injunction would be brought without 19 notice; do you -- do you recall that? 20 A: Yeah, I -- I don't recall that being 21 a specific factor that I was -- 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: -- aware of at the time. 24 Q: Do you recall, on the other hand, Tim 25 McCabe or anyone at the meeting on September 6th, saying
2091 that it would be preferable to give notice to the 2 occupiers and that notice should be given? 3 A: I don't recall that specifically. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: To -- to a certain extent, while 6 understanding the injunction was very important to me, 7 some of this was process that the lawyers would handle. 8 So I would have acknowledged it and -- and, you know, 9 felt that was someone else's responsibility, to a certain 10 extent. 11 Q: All right. Do you recall whether 12 Larry Taman, at the dining room meeting, said anything 13 about the importance of notice and the pros and cons of 14 an ex parte injunction? 15 A: Again I -- I can only recall that Mr. 16 Taman did participate in the discussion. I would have, I 17 think, assumed it was specifically around the injunction, 18 I don't recall the specifics though. 19 Q: Okay. And I take it that you 20 wouldn't deny that both Mr. McCabe and Mr. Taman raised 21 that issue? 22 A: I -- I couldn't do that. 23 Q: Okay. I understand that the main 24 concern that you had was that the injunction application 25 should be brought as soon as possible; is that fair?
2101 A: That's correct. 2 Q: All right. And if possible you 3 thought it should be brought before Friday? 4 A: I think it's more accurate to say 5 that when the suggestion was raised that Friday might be 6 the soonest that we could get into court, I had some 7 concerns about that. I was a little bit worried about 8 slippage. 9 Q: Hmm hmm. 10 A: And so it was just -- I intended to 11 communicate that we needed to move as quickly as we could 12 on this. 13 Q: Okay. But I take it you had no 14 objection with the time frame being moved up a little bit 15 in order to get to court before Friday? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And I also take it that neither you 18 nor the Premier had any objection to the injunction 19 having been brought on an ex parte basis, in order to 20 bring it on a timely basis? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And, in fact, that would be 23 consistent with the instruction that the Premier gave at 24 the dining room meeting? 25 A: I don't recall the Premier giving
2111 instruction at the dining room meeting. But it would be 2 consistent with, I think, the consensus that I believe 3 the Government had reached, coming out of the dining room 4 meeting. 5 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 7 Ms. Twohig. 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 10 Klippenstein...? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 15 afternoon. 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Good afternoon, 17 Commissioner. 18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 20 Q: Good afternoon, Ms. Hutton. 21 A: Good afternoon. 22 Q: My name is Murray Klippenstein and I 23 am one of the legal counsel for the Estate of Dudley 24 George and family of Dudley George. 25 A: Thank you.
2121 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 Q: I'd like to begin, Ms. Hutton, by 5 asking about the state of affairs before the IMC meeting 6 of the morning of September 5th, 1995. 7 And I recall, if I recall correctly, that 8 in answer to questions from Ms. Vella you mentioned that 9 you probably first heard about the occupation of 10 Ipperwash Park in conversation with, was it Jeff Bangs? 11 A: Yes, or voicemail. I just don't 12 recall which. 13 Q: And as I recall, one of the things 14 that you did recall from your conversation with him on 15 the 4th was that there did not appear to be any immediate 16 public safety issue because, basically, the Park was no - 17 - not in use at this point; is that fair? 18 A: That's correct. I -- I further 19 understood the next morning that, in fact, the Ministry 20 of Natural Resources staff had to take a further step to 21 close the Park. 22 I didn't appreciate that distinction on 23 Monday evening. 24 Q: I see. And did you find that out at 25 the meeting of the September 5th IMC in the morning?
2131 A: I believe so, yes. 2 Q: So, as I understood your evidence on 3 the morning of September 5th, you were going to the IMC 4 meeting not sure whether there would be a great deal of 5 urgency or not because your information was that there 6 was no immediate public safety issue as of that point, 7 prior to the meeting on the morning of the 5th? 8 A: Yeah, I -- I indicated the public 9 safety issue on the evening of the 4th by way of an 10 explanation that I -- it appeared as though we could wait 11 until the morning of the 5th to convene a meeting. 12 That was really all I was intending to 13 convey by that. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: There are occasions in government 16 where, if you find out information, you should bring 17 people together immediately. 18 Q: Right. 19 A: The fact that campers were not in the 20 immediate vicinity of the occupiers that evening, I felt 21 gave me comfort that we could wait until the morning to 22 meet. 23 Q: All right. And then you said, I 24 believe, that on the morning of the 5th, you went to the 25 IMC meeting with some preliminary thoughts, but no
2141 particular hard preconceptions; is that right? 2 A: That's right, I didn't feel I had 3 enough information to go beyond that. 4 Q: And you went to the meeting, I 5 believe you said, with one of your main expectations 6 being that you would receive a factual briefing; is that 7 right? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Yes. And I believe you said you 10 probably met with the Premier that morning on the 5th 11 before you went to the IMC meeting; is that right? 12 A: I believe, based on his itinerary 13 that that -- 14 Q: Right. 15 A: -- would be reasonable to assume, 16 yes. 17 Q: And when you got to the IMC meeting, 18 I believe your evidence was that, for about an hour or an 19 hour and a half, you basically listened to a briefing on 20 the factual background; is that fair? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Yes. Now, the notes then show, and I 23 believe you were asked whether you had a recollection 24 that after the briefing portion of, or the initial 25 briefing portion of the meeting, you said to the meeting
2151 that the Premier is hawkish on this issue. 2 And do you have a recollection of making 3 that statement? 4 A: No, I've already indicated that. 5 Q: Right. And I believe you said, 6 however, you didn't dispute the various notes that record 7 that statement made by you to the meeting, is that fair? 8 A: I don't recall, so I can't do that; 9 that's fair. 10 Q: Right. Now, what I'm wondering is, I 11 guess Premier Harris had not been in that meeting and 12 obviously, I take it, had not heard the factual briefing; 13 is that correct? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And yet we have you saying to the 16 meeting participants that Mr. Harris was hawkish on the 17 issue, although he hadn't heard any of the factual 18 briefing; is that fair? 19 A: It's fair. As I said, I believe 20 yesterday, if not this morning, the two (2) preliminary 21 thoughts I had which I believe were consistent with Mr. 22 Harris' was that in this type of situation, if in fact, 23 as I understood it, it was an illegal occupation which 24 was my preliminary thought that two (2) things would be 25 important.
2161 One, that there not be substantive 2 negotiations while the occupation continued and secondly, 3 that this would be the type of situation that you would 4 want to see come to an end sooner rather than later. 5 Q: But, whatever Mr. -- Premier Harris' 6 views were, they were views when you were saying that he 7 was hawkish on were views that he had prior to the 8 meeting on the 5th; is that right? 9 A: Yes. As I've just said, the -- I 10 said earlier, that those two (2) sort of original 11 concepts or preliminary ideas that I had having heard all 12 of the facts that I did at the beginning of the meeting 13 of the 5th, I felt quite comfortable that that in fact, 14 those two (2) principles, if you will or thoughts, were 15 the way to go on this issue. 16 Q: When you said that the Premier was 17 hawkish, I take it you believed yourself to be speaking 18 the truth at that point; is that right? 19 A: You're asking me something that I 20 don't recall saying. 21 Q: Right. But, I thought you didn't 22 disagree with the evidence, but let's just phrase it that 23 way. The evidence suggests that you said the Premier is 24 hawkish on this issue. If that evidence is accurate, I 25 take it you would have said that believing it to be true;
2171 is that right? 2 A: I'm not sure I understand your 3 question. 4 Q: Assume -- 5 A: You're asking me if -- if something 6 that I don't recall saying, if I said it, I would have 7 believed it to be true? 8 Q: Well, the evidence before the Inquiry 9 is that you did say it. 10 A: Right. I -- I just -- I can't 11 confirm that. I don't recall. 12 Q: Right. Assuming that you did say it 13 for purposes of the question based on the evidence, I 14 take it you would have believed it to be true. 15 A: You're asking me a question about 16 something I don't recall saying. 17 Q: I'm asking you about the evidence. 18 The evidence is -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She can't 20 answer it. She's saying that she does not recall saying 21 it and -- 22 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yeah, I think with 23 respect and My Friend is -- is making a statement with 24 respect to what some of the evidence is before the 25 Inquiry --
2181 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- but not all of the 3 evidence, and it's very difficult for the Witness to 4 speculate to something that she doesn't recall saying. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She can't 6 say it so -- I think there -- 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: There are other ways to 8 approach this -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- which I believe we 11 did approach in the examination for chief. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 16 Q: Do you recall anything of what Mr. 17 Harris or you discussed on the morning of the 5th if 18 indeed you had a discussion? 19 A: No. As I said I don't have a 20 specific recollection of those conversations. 21 Q: I take it from what you said in your 22 evidence earlier, that the comments you made in the 23 meeting with respect to Mr. Harris' position, you said 24 because you believed them -- you believed you would be 25 accurately representing Mr. Harris' position; is that
2191 right? 2 A: I think that's fair. 3 Q: That's right. So, when you -- let me 4 -- let me take a step back. We'd heard evidence that in 5 the briefing on the morning of September 5th that -- 6 A: The Interministerial Committee 7 meeting? 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: -- that the meeting was advised that 11 there was a claim of a burial ground in Ipperwash Park 12 and do you recall -- 13 A: That -- sorry I shouldn't have 14 interrupted you. 15 Q: -- whether or not that was part of 16 the briefing in the morning of the 5th? 17 A: My recollection was not that that was 18 what was conveyed. My recollection was that there was 19 speculation at the table that the existence, the 20 potential existence of a burial ground might well be one 21 of the motivating factors for the occupation. 22 Q: So, the potential of a -- the 23 potential existence of a burial ground was part of the 24 briefing to the best of your recollection? 25 A: As -- yes -- as a -- a motivator or
2201 potential motivator, very much in a speculative way about 2 the root causes of the occupation. 3 Q: And do you know whether -- or are you 4 aware of any basis why Mr. -- Premier Harris would have 5 been aware of the potential claim of a burial ground -- 6 A: I'm not -- 7 Q: -- prior to -- prior to the meeting 8 of September 5th in the morning? 9 A: I'm not aware of why he would have 10 been. I was not. 11 Q: All right. So if -- if you said that 12 Premier Harris was hawkish you have no reason to believe 13 that he was aware of the burial ground claim when you 14 said that? 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I -- no -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again I'm 17 not sure how she can answer that question -- 18 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- given 20 what her evidence has been so far. 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Let me -- let 22 me withdraw that and see if I can frame a better 23 question. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
2211 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 2 Q: Do you now believe that Premier 3 Harris was hawkish on the morning of September 5th prior 4 to the IMC meeting? 5 A: I believe Mr. Harris and I shared a 6 preliminary point of view about how you would handle this 7 type of situation. 8 During the course of the briefing on 9 September 5th which I only, not Mr. Harris, attended I 10 felt comfortable with that information, that in fact 11 those two (2) preliminary thoughts were, as I said 12 earlier, in fact the way to go. 13 I felt comfortable having heard the 14 briefing, knowing as you point out that Mr. Harris had 15 not yet heard the briefing, that we could continue to 16 think about options in the context of those two (2) 17 preliminary points of view. 18 Q: All right. Thank you. That wasn't 19 quite responsive to my question -- 20 A: I'm sorry. 21 Q: -- which was: Now -- 22 A: Yes? 23 Q: -- at this point in time -- 24 A: Yes? 25 Q: -- do you believe that Premier Harris
2221 was hawkish on September 5th prior to the IMC meeting? 2 A: I've -- I've just indicated what I 3 believe I knew about Mr. Harris' position at the time. 4 Q: Well, there's evidence that on 5 September 5th you said to the meeting that he was hawkish 6 and I just want -- 7 A: I understand that. 8 Q: -- I just wanted to know, I'm asking 9 a different question, whether now at this point you 10 believe it's accurate to say that Premier Harris was 11 hawkish on the morning of September 5th? 12 A: I've given you my -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 14 minute. You want to say something about that? 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes, and I understand 16 perhaps the difficulty here. It would be -- now the 17 question is what this Witness thinks today, reflecting on 18 events of September 5th, and a particular term is being 19 used and it happens to be a term that's reflected in some 20 of the notes. 21 Perhaps, part of the difficulty is not 22 understanding what the term means and that may give 23 assistance to the Witness in whether or not she adopts... 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 25 sure.
2231 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, if I can 2 -- I think -- I believe the -- the Witness' evidence was 3 that she was aware of the -- of the term hawkish, she 4 knew what it meant -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She was 6 aware that -- 7 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- at the time. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- others 9 said that she was hawkish. I think she's -- others have 10 said that she was hawkish. 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Others have 12 said that she said -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That she 14 said -- 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- the Premier 16 was hawkish. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the 18 Premier was hawkish. I'm sorry. 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I believe her 20 testimony in answer to questions from Ms. Vella was that 21 at this point in time Ms. Hutton said she knew what the 22 term hawkish meant. 23 I am simply taking something that -- a 24 piece of the evidence, and several pieces of the 25 evidence, and I want to apply them and explore them. I'm
2241 not putting words in the Witness' mouth in an 2 unjustifiable and unreasonable way, I just want to know-- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What her 4 belief is now? I think that's your -- was your question. 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: What her belief 6 is now about the state of affairs back then, and I submit 7 that's a reasonable question. I want to know whether a 8 term that the evidence suggests she used then is a term 9 she would use now. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And -- 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: That's a fair 12 question in my respectful submission. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. 14 Perschy? 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My only concern is 16 this Witness has testified at some length with respect to 17 her recollection not only of the Interministerial 18 Committee Meetings but also the state of her 19 recollections with respect to any communications that she 20 had with the Premier. 21 I'm not really -- I mean she's testifying 22 today with respect to her recollection. Going back 23 then -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- I'm not that she
2251 can really answer this question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 3 rephrased the question in a way that may be answerable. 4 You want to put that question again in a -- 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- tight 7 frame and I -- 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- if you 10 can't answer it, I don't need to tell you, you can't 11 answer it. But, if you can then you will. Do you want 12 to try it again? 13 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you, 14 Commissioner. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 17 Q: Ms. Hutton, is it your assessment 18 today, given what you know about the events of September 19 5th, 1995, that on the morning of September 5th, 1995, 20 Premier Harris was hawkish before the IMC meeting? 21 A: As I was starting to say a moment 22 ago, I believe that I have done my best to explain today, 23 on reflection, what I believed Mr. Harris's point of view 24 was. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And just so
2261 I understand it, it's the two (2) points that you 2 mentioned were your preliminary views. In other words -- 3 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- no 5 substantive negotiations and the second was, and sooner 6 rather than later; is that fair? 7 THE WITNESS: That's correct. And -- and 8 I further said that I felt comfortable that that could be 9 our position given the briefing that I took, recognizing, 10 in fact, that Mr. Harris, as of the morning of September 11 5th, was not yet privy to that additional information. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 15 Q: All right. I'd like to ask you about 16 another aspect of the evidence pertaining to the 17 September 5th, 1995 IMC meeting. It's been touched on by 18 some of my friends a few minutes ago. 19 And that pertains to the enforcement or 20 implementation of an injunction order. My Friend Ms. 21 Twohig asked for your recollection about parts of that 22 and I want to take her questions a step or two (2) 23 farther, if I may. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: Do you have any recollection with
2271 respect to the discussion in the September 5th, 1995 2 meeting about what would happen by way of enforcing an 3 order if the occupiers did not leave? 4 A: As I said a few minutes ago, I don't 5 have a recollection of that. 6 Q: All right. Does it -- if you could 7 refer to the binder of Committee meeting notes which we 8 provided to you earlier, I want to just -- 9 A: This smaller binder? 10 Q: That's correct. I want to see if I 11 can refresh your memory. And if you could turn to Tab 7, 12 which is copy of the handwritten notes of Eileen Hipfner, 13 and it's Exhibit P-510, Inquiry Document 1011739 -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's two 15 (2) ones -- 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 1011. 18 Did you say 1011? There's two (2) ones. 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: The Inquiry is 20 -- Document number is 1011739. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 1011739. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 24 Q: And if you turn to handwritten page 5 25 of those notes.
2281 A: Yes. 2 Q: The notes of Ms. Hipfner list five 3 (5) options, the last one being an injunction, at the 4 bottom part of the page; do you see that? 5 A: Yes, I do. 6 Q: And the very last line in the page 7 says: 8 "But if they won't leave, it comes down 9 to using force." 10 Do you see that? 11 A: I do. 12 Q: Does that refresh your memory on the 13 discussion about enforcement of an injunction order? 14 A: No. 15 Q: No. Do you have any reason to 16 dispute or deny that that was said at the meeting? 17 A: I do, simply because I think if the 18 discussion of force had come up I would have recalled it. 19 Q: I see. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: If you could turn to Tab 6 of the 24 same binder, which is the Committee meeting notes. And 25 that is Inquiry Document 1011727.
2291 A: Yes. 2 Q: If you could turn to page -- 3 handwritten page 4 of that document. 4 A: Page 4? 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: Yes. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: And do you see again, at the top half 11 of the page, a listing of about five (5) or so options? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And again, the last option, the fifth 14 option is an injunction? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And do you see a number of bullet 17 points? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And the -- what appears to be the 20 last bullet point says: 21 "Enforcement, if do not comply, may 22 require force anyway." 23 With "force" being in capitals. 24 Do you see that? 25 A: Yes, I do.
2301 Q: Now, I believe those are the notes of 2 Caroline Pinto? 3 A: Okay. 4 Q: And my question to you is, having 5 seen these notes of Ms. Pinto of that meeting does this - 6 - does this now refresh your memory about a discussion of 7 the use of force in implementing an injunction? 8 A: It does not. 9 Q: So you wouldn't change your answer? 10 You disagree that that was -- that that was discussed; is 11 that right? 12 A: Yes, I don't have a recollection of 13 that. 14 Q: And do you dispute the accuracy of 15 the references in these notes that I've just referred you 16 to? 17 A: They're not my notes; I can't do 18 that. 19 Q: So you don't dispute the accuracy? 20 A: You're asking me to dispute the 21 accuracy of someone else's notes? 22 Q: I -- yes. I'm just wondering if 23 that's your position. 24 A: I don't think I can do that. 25 Q: Okay.
2311 A: This does not accord with my 2 recollection of anything that was said at the meeting. 3 Q: All right. But are you saying these 4 notes are wrong? 5 A: I can't -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no. I'm 7 sorry, I'm not getting that impression at all. She does 8 not have any recollection of that, I -- 9 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 10 That's fine. I don't need to pursue that further. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Commissioner, I 15 wonder if those notes could be made an exhibit, the notes 16 of Caroline Pinto. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They are 18 already an exhibit. 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm not sure 20 they are. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have them 22 -- oh, I'm sorry, I have them in my binder. I was trying 23 to find them and I found them at Tab 17 in my binder. 24 They're not an exhibit. 25 Are they an exhibit?
2321 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Not to my knowledge. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 3 sorry, then by all means, let's make them an exhibit. 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: That again is 5 the notes of Caroline Pinto of the meeting of September 6 5th 1995 being Inquiry document 1011727. 7 THE REGISTRAR: P-969, Your Honour. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-969: Document Number 1011727. Ms. 10 Caroline Pinto's handwritten 11 notes, Sept. 05/95. 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I was trying 14 to find the notes in the binder that I have, but -- 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yeah, they may 16 not be in -- 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No they are, they're at 18 Tab 17 -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, they 20 are. I have them at tab -- 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: But they're a different 22 Inquiry document number. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 Does it make any difference which ones we make an 25 exhibit? No.
2331 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, we'll just ensure 2 that -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As long as 4 you only make one. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- it's Inquiry 6 document number 1011727. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As opposed 8 to 1006189. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, that's right. 10 They're companion numbers -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- if I can use that -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- same document. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you. 17 Thank you, Ms. Vella. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 20 Q: Now, Ms. Hutton, I believe in your 21 answers yesterday to Ms. Vella's questions, you said that 22 -- in answer to the question of whether or not there was 23 discussion of any options that would encourage or affect 24 voluntary removal by the occupiers themselves, you 25 suggested that it wasn't necessarily a likelihood or that
2341 you expected this would happen, but that it was a 2 possibility. 3 Is that -- is that fair? 4 A: What was the question Ms. Vella asked 5 me? 6 Q: With respect to whether or not any 7 options were discussed that would encourage or affect a 8 voluntary -- a voluntary removal of the occupiers from 9 the Park by themselves. 10 You said that you didn't want to pretend 11 that such voluntary removal was a likelihood or that it 12 was expected, but that it was certainly a possibility; is 13 that right? 14 A: Actually I feel a little 15 uncomfortable answering without the context of the 16 question. 17 Q: All right. Well let me ask about 18 whether you recall any discussion of, first of all, the 19 possibility that the occupiers would voluntarily remove 20 themselves from the Park, once presented with an 21 injunction order? 22 A: Once presented with an injunction 23 order? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: I do recall that question, I'm sorry.
2351 And I believe that my view at the time was I don't think 2 any of us thought it was highly likely, but it certainly 3 was a potential. 4 Q: So when you say you didn't think at 5 the time that it was highly likely, you thought it was 6 equally possible that the occupiers would not voluntarily 7 remove themselves when presented with a -- with an 8 injunction order? 9 A: I think that's fair. 10 Q: And do you recall any discussion of 11 what would happen, in that scenario, if the occupiers 12 were presented with an injunction order to remove 13 themselves from the Park and they didn't do so, perhaps 14 because they believed it was a burial ground? 15 A: I do not. As I said, I believe 16 earlier yesterday or today, my perspective on all of this 17 matter -- all of these matters was from the Government's 18 perspective. So for me I would be focussing on the 19 seeking of the injunction which was the Government's 20 responsibility and role. 21 Q: Are you suggesting that when you say 22 you were focussing on the Government's responsibility, to 23 the best of your recollection or knowledge, you didn't 24 think about what would happen once an injunction order 25 was obtained, in terms of implementing it?
2361 A: It's not that I didn't think about 2 it, it just was not my perspective. 3 Q: All right. Did you, in fact, think 4 about it? 5 A: I think I was aware that, as I said 6 earlier, that it was possible the occupiers could remove 7 themselves. It was also possible they might not. And 8 regardless, all of those matters would be in the OPP's 9 hands. 10 Q: I'm sorry, I just didn't hear. 11 A: Regardless, all of those issues would 12 be in the hands of the OPP. 13 Q: And that was your view at the time; 14 is that what you're saying? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And are you suggesting today that 17 when your view was that the -- the occupation of the Park 18 should come to an end as soon as possible, all that you 19 meant by that was obtaining an order? 20 A: Well no. I -- as I think I've tried 21 to communicate, I had a progression of thoughts. It 22 wasn't until Wednesday that I believed that the most 23 appropriate action to support the goal of ending the 24 occupation was, in fact, the injunction. 25 So I just -- that's not a characterization
2371 of my thoughts throughout this process, I don't think. 2 Q: And when you said a number of times 3 that your view was that the occupation should come to an 4 end as soon as possible -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- that the end that you were talking 7 about and the only part that the Government had any 8 influence on, was the obtaining of the injunction? 9 A: Well, again, I think that's fair for 10 sort of middle of the day September the 6th. Prior to 11 that, certainly ending the occupation was our goal. I 12 did not yet have in my mind a clear recommendation that I 13 felt I was 100 percent comfortable making to the Premier, 14 and that occurred on the course of the 6th. 15 Q: And are you suggesting that prior to 16 the 6th you did not have a position on what should be 17 done in terms of specifics? 18 A: That's correct. I was comfortable on 19 Tuesday the 5th with the Government having as its action, 20 if you will, a communications message that indicated that 21 as a government we would not be responding or having 22 substantive negotiations as long as the occupation was 23 ongoing and that we would be reviewing what legal steps 24 were most appropriate for us to take. 25 Q: Well, I -- I want to ask a bit about
2381 that recollection of yours and see whether I can assist 2 you further with some possible recollection on that 3 topic. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: If you could... 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: If you could turn in your small black 12 binder of committee meeting notes to the second section 13 which is September 6. Excuse me, it's the first section 14 September 5th at Tab 12. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And that's Inquiry Document 1012579 17 Exhibit P-536 being the handwritten notes of Julie Jai 18 for the September 5th meeting. 19 A: Okay. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: That set of handwritten notes at 24 handwritten page 5 has a list of options apparently 25 described by Elizabeth Christie.
2391 Do you see that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And then if you turn to handwritten 4 page 6 at the middle of the page we see notes saying what 5 -- saying: 6 "Would we likely succeed at an 7 injunction application?" 8 Do you see that? 9 A: I do. 10 Q: And it says: 11 "Yes, especially with recent Bosanquet 12 decision but probably wouldn't succeed 13 in getting an urgent ex parte 14 injunction." 15 Do you see that? 16 A: I do. 17 Q: Do you recall that discussion; on 18 September 5th? 19 A: I recall a discussion about the 20 injunction. I don't recall specifically anyone saying as 21 of Tuesday that we would unlikely succeed in getting an 22 urgent injunction. I just don't recall that as... 23 Q: And since you don't recall, you can't 24 comment on the accuracy of these notes, I take it? 25 A: That's correct.
2401 Q: If you'd then turn to handwritten 2 page 8 of the same September 5th meeting's -- meeting 3 minutes or notes of Julie Jai. At the bottom of the page 4 the note-taker apparently records: 5 "Deb wants an emergency injunction. 6 Doesn't want to wait two (2) weeks." 7 Do you see that? 8 A: I do. 9 Q: Does that assist your recollection, 10 particularly with your comments a few minutes ago that 11 you didn't believe you had a position on this issue on 12 September 5th? 13 A: I believe I said that I was not yet 14 ready to recommend to the Premier that an injunction was 15 the most appropriate course, as of Tuesday. I do recall, 16 and believe I spoke about this yesterday, that when an 17 injunction was initially raised the -- the time frame of 18 two (2) weeks was raised in -- in conjunction with the 19 injunction, and I had some concerns about the lengthiness 20 of that. 21 Q: So you recall expressing concerns 22 about the length of a two (2) week injunction? 23 A: I expressed that on Tuesday, yes. 24 Q: Yes. Having seen these notes that 25 say -- that record you apparently as saying something
2411 like, Deb wants an emergency injunction, does that assist 2 your recollection any further as to saying something of 3 that nature? 4 A: No, I just wasn't... 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Sorry, I -- I rise 6 because I recall putting these questions to Ms. Hutton 7 and she had already confirmed that she made these 8 statements at the September 5th meeting. So I don't know 9 why the exact same questions are being put to her again. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm being put - 12 - I'm putting the questions to Ms. Hutton to seek to 13 clarify a comment she made a minute or two (2) ago in 14 which Ms. Hutton said that she, as of the 5th, was 15 content with the communication message and would be 16 reviewing the issue of an injunction. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 18 there's anything inconsistent there. Are you suggesting 19 that that's inconsistent with the notes? 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 22 that it is. 23 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- if this 24 record is accurate, which says: 25 "Deb wants an emergency injunction --
2421 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She's 2 explained that in a different way than you put it to her. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: A moments 4 indulgence please. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Mr. 9 Commissioner -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you 11 want -- 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- perhaps by 13 way of clarification, is the reason I put this particular 14 question, namely, the notes which say, "Deb wants an 15 emergency injunction," to the Witness, is because I don't 16 recall, having listened to Ms. Vella's questioning, that 17 the specifics were put to Ms. Hutton. These are specific 18 words and Ms. Jai has testified that she took notes 19 contemporaneously while people were speaking. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But not 21 verbatim though, and this is Jai's characterization of 22 that exchange. 23 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, Ms. Jai 24 said that her notes were often verbatim and -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, when
2431 they were and when they weren't, how do we know that? 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: That -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But you're 4 entitled to put this to her. 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: That is -- that 6 is obviously an issue, Commissioner, but -- and I don't 7 prejudge that, that's a matter for argument, but I submit 8 it's a fair question for me to see these notes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And the 11 witness, having apparently stated something about what 12 her position was on -- on an injunction on the 5th, 13 simply asking whether these notes, which appear to say 14 something perhaps different -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- change her 17 recollection or assist her recollection. And if not -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 19 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- or whatever 20 her answer is -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's see 22 what her answer is. 23 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- I'll 24 proceed. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Let's
2441 carry on. 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And if -- so 3 perhaps I could -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've asked 5 the question. 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 8 think -- 9 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Should I repeat 10 the question or -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 12 Go ahead. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 15 Q: Ms. Hutton, having seen these notes 16 now, which appear to be quite specific on the 5th, saying 17 that, or recording that you said that you want an 18 emergency injunction, that you don't want to wait two (2) 19 weeks, does that refresh your recollection as to whether 20 you may or may not have actually specifically said to the 21 meeting that you want an emergency injunction? 22 A: I do not believe at the time that, as 23 I said, I was prepared to support an injunction yet. I 24 do not believe the first part of this sentence, 25 therefore, is at all accurate with what I was thinking
2451 and therefore what I would have said. 2 The second part I've already said I think 3 is consistent with my thinking, and so I would be less 4 likely to say that I didn't say that. I think it is 5 consistent; the second half of the sentence. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: For what 7 it's worth, I think she had already given that answer 8 before we just did it now -- 9 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- for what 11 it's worth. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 14 Q: All right. Thank you. Well, would 15 you agree with me that when you earlier said that you had 16 the preliminary view walking into the meeting that it was 17 important that the occupation end as soon as possible; 18 have I got that right? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: That the statement that you want an 21 emergency injunction would be consistent with that view 22 that you held; is that fair? 23 A: It is not the view, though, that I 24 held. I can say that I did not believe, on September 25 5th, that that was the course that I was prepared to
2461 support yet. 2 Q: I see. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We are going 7 to have to take a break at some time, Mr. Klippenstein. 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I was about to 9 suggest, sir, a question and -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'll leave 11 it up to you, is this a good time? 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- 13 Commissioner, this is a good point. 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 15 for fifteen (15) minutes. 16 17 --- Upon recessing at 3:08 p.m. 18 --- Upon resuming at 3:25 p.m. 19 20 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 21 resumed. Please be seated. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 24 Q: Ms. Hutton, if I could then ask you 25 turn, in the black binder of meeting minute notes, to the
2471 section for September 6th -- 2 A: Certainly. 3 Q: -- at Tab 14 which are the 4 handwritten notes of Ms. Jai for the Wednesday meeting. 5 And I'd like to take you back to something that we 6 discussed briefly with Ms. Vella in examination-in-chief 7 and that occurs on handwritten page 3. 8 A: Is this the third page, or the one 9 marked 3? 10 Q: The handwritten page 3, at the top, 11 centre. 12 A: It says 3? 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: It's -- it's just my fourth page in. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: And do you see just into the page on 18 the left hand side the title "Tim?" 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And let me just go through a few 21 lines of that to see whether you recall that discussion. 22 These notes say: 23 "Ministers can say instructions had 24 been given to AG to seek an injunction 25 ASAP. Not a case for ex parte
2481 injunction. Should give notice but we 2 could go into court to seek an 3 abridgement of the three (3) day 4 notice. We are checking with Sarnia 5 court to find out when a judge is 6 available. 7 The other variable, getting our 8 material ready. Need to establish this 9 is Provincial Crown land, title 10 history, incidents in Park, et cetera. 11 Best case Friday in court." 12 I believe when Ms. Vella was questioning 13 you, you recalled Mr. McCabe saying that his best case 14 scenario was in court Friday, as these notes would 15 suggest; is that fair? 16 A: Yes. Again I would not have been 17 able to attribute that comment to Mr. McCabe directly. 18 But I do recall the comment being made. 19 Q: All right. And do you recall what 20 I've just referred to preceding that which is it -- 21 appears to be a discussion of the details, if you will, 22 of the procedure for getting to court quickly? 23 A: In a general sense, yes, not 24 specifically. 25 Q: All right. And then I believe you
2491 and Ms. Vella discussed the next comment which appears 2 according to these notes to be you saying: 3 "Premier feels the longer they occupy 4 it the more support they'll get. He 5 wants them out in a day or two (2)." 6 Do you see that? 7 A: I do. 8 Q: And I believe, in response to Ms. 9 Vella's questions you said you had no reason to disagree 10 with this record of your comment; is that fair? 11 A: Right. I think I noted that it 12 appeared to be a response to the best case Friday; in 13 other words, a concern that we might be talking the 14 following week and that it certainly -- well, I don't 15 recall the specifics, it would be consistent with my 16 point of view that sooner rather than later was the 17 preferred option. 18 Q: Right. And it's, if I may say, an 19 example of what you meant, specifically, by sooner rather 20 than later because you, according to this evidence, said 21 the Premier wants them out in a day or two (2), right? 22 That's consistent with your principle of 23 ending the occupation as soon as possible; is that right? 24 A: I -- I think I understand the 25 question. Yes, I think so. Again it was in response to
2501 a very specific comment according to this. 2 Q: Right. And when I questioned -- let 3 me focus on the word 'out'. When I questioned Ms. Jai 4 about her notes she was very clear that she believed she 5 had accurately recorded you as saying "out", meaning out 6 of the Park. 7 And is it fair to say from seeing this, is 8 it your recollection that either your recollection, or 9 something you don't disagree with, that you said, Out of 10 the Park in a day or two (2)? 11 A: I think I've given as much 12 information as I can about that. I don't recall the 13 specific -- the sentiment of sooner rather than later is 14 consistent with what I was thinking and I expect, 15 expressing. 16 Q: And it would have been your position 17 at that time is it fair to say that indeed you, and 18 perhaps more accurately speaking for the Premier, did in 19 fact want the occupiers out of the Park in a day or two 20 (2) at that point? 21 A: I think the most fair representation 22 of our position was that we wanted to see as our goal the 23 end of the occupation as soon as possible. 24 Q: And it appears that there was some 25 misunderstanding here about what actually was meant by as
2511 soon as possible because according to Mr. McCabe the best 2 case was Friday and you appeared to take issue with that 3 and say the Premier actually wants them out in a day or 4 two (2); is that right? 5 A: I've told you all I can about this I 6 think. 7 Q: All right. Would you disagree if I 8 suggested that at that point, "as soon as possible" meant 9 a day or two (2) for them out of the Park as far as you 10 wanted? 11 A: I don't recall being that specific as 12 I've said. I do read this as -- as -- if in fact I said 13 this -- as a response to the Friday comment. I think it 14 was more a response to that, again if -- if this is 15 accurate. 16 Q: And going back to that time if Mr. 17 McCabe was suggesting that Friday in court was good 18 enough, you didn't think it was good enough; is that 19 fair? 20 A: I don't believe Mr. McCabe said that. 21 Q: Do you -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 23 you to go over it all over again. 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think
2521 you've gone over it and she's answered it and I think -- 2 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- unless 4 there's something else that you want from this exchange. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 9 Q: The record of Ms. Jai, after your 10 comment, suggests that Tim McCabe said: 11 "That suggests we should proceed under 12 the Criminal Code." 13 Do you see that? 14 A: I do. 15 Q: Do you have any recollection of that 16 comment by Mr. McCabe? 17 A: I don't. 18 Q: All right. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Do these notes in that sentence I 23 just read to you refresh your memory as to whether Mr. 24 McCabe appeared to believe that, in fact, he could either 25 be in Court or have them out of the Park before Friday?
2531 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 2 I understand the question. Do you understand the 3 question? 4 THE WITNESS: I don't. 5 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, let me 6 repeat it. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 8 to try that again? 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 11 Q: Does this note, this comment by Mr. 12 McCabe apparently in response to your comment, refresh 13 your recollections at all about whether Mr. McCabe 14 appeared to believe that your strategy for getting them 15 out of the Park in a day or two (2) was feasible? 16 Do you recall whether Mr. McCabe accepted 17 your comment? 18 A: I don't recall him saying this. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: So I don't think I could comment on 21 what it means. 22 Q: All right. Do you recall Mr. McCabe 23 accepting your comment or suggestion or instruction, at 24 that point? 25 A: No. As I said, I don't recall Mr.
2541 McCabe specifically saying anything. I'm not disputing 2 he did or didn't; I just don't recall that. 3 Q: All right. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: My Friend Mr. Downard took you to 8 some transcripts of a phone conversation; I'd like to do 9 the same. 10 If you could turn to the book of 11 transcripts which is Exhibit P-444a, it's at Tab 37. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: And I'd like to read to you a few 16 lines from the bottom of handwritten page 260. 17 A: 260? 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: The last comment by Fox, the second 21 sentence says: 22 "Now what the course?" 23 Do you see that? 24 A: The last comment by Fox on 260? 25 Q: Yes.
2551 A: Now, what the course, yes, I'm sorry. 2 Q: And I think that's a typo and should 3 say "now, of course" but I'll leave it as it is. 4 "Now what the course the political 5 people are really pushing, and that's 6 another story, and I'll just fill you 7 in so you know about that. 8 Carson: Okay. 9 Fox: But I mean they're pushing to 10 get this done quick. 11 Carson: Yes, yeah, okay, I hear you." 12 Now, my question to you is -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 14 minute. Before you put the question it may be that Mr. 15 Downard has a comment on the quote. 16 OBJ MR. PETER DOWNARD: Well, it's the second 17 time I've had to make this objection about this passage 18 and the -- My Friend should read on. 19 It goes on to talk specifically about 20 their lining up a Judge from Lambton County. And when 21 Inspector Fox was here he said that what he was referring 22 to here, by, They're pushing to get this done quick, was 23 the injunction. 24 So the context should be put fairly to the 25 witness.
2561 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I do 2 recall you making that objection before. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I don't have 4 any problem with that. I -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 8 Q: Okay, continuing then, Ms. Hutton. 9 Mr. Fox said: 10 "They're lining up a Judge. He is from 11 Lambton County. 12 Carson: Okay. 13 Fox: A fellow by the name of 14 Gardiner; does that mean anything to 15 you? 16 Carson: No, he must be a different 17 guy down here than when I -- 18 Fox: Yeah. 19 Carson: -- was posted here. But 20 anyway, that doesn't -- 21 Fox: It didn't mean anything to me 22 either. 23 Carson: All right. 24 Fox: And what they're thinking of is 25 they'll either do their -- their
2571 presentation to the Judge tomorrow or 2 tonight." 3 And the evidence is that that is a 4 conversation between Inspector Fox in Toronto and 5 Inspector Carson at Ipperwash shortly after -- well, it's 6 approximately two o'clock on September 6th. 7 Now, my question to you is, when -- and 8 this was after Fox was in the meeting with yourself, and 9 my question to you is, when Mr. Fox apparently said: 10 "The political people are really 11 pushing -- they're pushing to get this 12 done quick." 13 Did you see any political people in the 14 meeting of September 6th pushing to get this done quick? 15 And is it possible in your mind that Mr. Fox was 16 referring to you or including you? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 18 minute. Mr. Klippenstein 19 Yes Ms. Perschy? 20 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I have a concern with 21 respect to the second part of the question. I'm not sure 22 how this witness can speak to what may or may not have 23 been in Mr. Fox's mind when he was communicating with Mr. 24 Carson. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The first
2581 part of your question seemed like a reasonable question. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 4 Q: All right. Let me just repeat the 5 first part is that, can you tell us Ms. Hutton whether 6 you saw anything that in the September 6th IMC meeting 7 could explain or be the referent of the comment by Mr. 8 Fox the political people are really pushing? They're 9 pushing to get this done quick. 10 A: I have no idea what he means, so I -- 11 I don't think I can be helpful. Our position, which I 12 think I've talked about several times, was that as of 13 September 6th we were supportive of getting an 14 injunction, and that we wanted to proceed with seeking an 15 injunction as soon as possible. 16 If that is what this is in reference to I 17 guess it's somewhat accurate. But I just -- I don't know 18 what he's talking about. 19 Q: And when the discussion between 20 Inspectors Carson and Fox talks about a presentation to a 21 judge tomorrow, being the being the 7th or even tonight, 22 the evening of the 6th, that would be consistent with the 23 views you expressed that we've just examined, apparently, 24 about wanting them -- that Friday not being good enough 25 and you want them out in a day or two (2), is that fair?
2591 A: I have no idea what he meant. I just 2 don't feel like I can speak to it. 3 Q: Well, appearing in front of a judge 4 on the night of the 6th to obtain an injunction would be 5 more along the lines of what you wanted on the 6th then 6 the best case Friday that Tim McCabe mentioned. 7 Is that fair? 8 A: I guess technically, yes. I think 9 you're implying a level of -- of detail about that 10 timeframe that I don't recall thinking through at the 11 time. 12 As I said earlier, we wanted to be in 13 court to seek an injunction as soon as possible was 14 appreciative of the fact that work needed to be done 15 before you could get into court. And it would be up to 16 those that were preparing the injunction to be able to 17 determine exactly when we could be in. 18 Q: And the -- if I continue with the 19 transcript for a few other lines, Carson says, Okay. And 20 Fox says: 21 "And what they're thinking of lieu in 22 having [excuse me] and what they're 23 thinking in lieu of having an affidavit 24 from you -- 25 Carson: Yes.
2601 Fox: If you'd be willing to give the 2 viva voce evidence. 3 Carson: Oh, appear with them. 4 Fox: Yes. 5 Carson: Oh yeah. 6 Fox: And I said well, I said I, you 7 know, I'm sure that's okay for John. 8 Carson: Yes." 9 And I believe earlier in your testimony 10 you had some recollection of the OPP being prepared to 11 assist with evidence for the injunction. Do you recall 12 anything like that? 13 A: No. I -- I believe my understanding 14 was that the OPP would have to give some information to 15 support the injunction. 16 Q: All right. 17 A: I think the way you phrased it is not 18 -- I didn't have that level of understanding. 19 Q: All right. But it was your 20 understanding that the OPP would have to then participate 21 by giving information in support of the injunction? 22 A: I believe so, yes. 23 Q: And was it your understanding that 24 what was intended or -- or involved in that was that the 25 OPP would give evidence, either by affidavit or in
2611 person? Do you recall if that was your understanding? 2 A: I -- it's not something I necessarily 3 thought in that specific term. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: I believe there was information that 6 the OPP would have that would form part of the basis for 7 the injunction. I don't know that I understood that they 8 would have to give evidence. 9 Q: And would you agree with me that the 10 discussion we have here about Inspector Carson giving 11 evidence would appear to be consistent with your 12 understanding of what would take place in a court 13 application for an injunction? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How come -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My only concern here 16 is she's not a party to this conversation so I'm not sure 17 she's in a position to say whether or not something's 18 consistent with respect to a conversation that she wasn't 19 a party to. 20 She can speak as to her understanding 21 based on the meetings that she attended and then 22 presumably we can make what links or not be able to make 23 whatever links we make, but beyond that I'm not sure that 24 she can assist. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think --
2621 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Let me -- let 2 me put it this way, Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 6 Q: Let me rephrase that if I can. 7 The evidence is that, in the notes of Ms. 8 Jai anyway, that you said the Premier wants them out in a 9 day or two (2). And would you agree with me that having 10 Inspector Fox talk to Inspector Carson about getting the 11 evidence for that would be consistent with what you said 12 you wanted, according to the notes? 13 A: I can honestly say I have -- I don't 14 know what you're asking me. 15 Q: Okay. When the notes suggest you 16 said, Premier wants them out in a day or two (2) -- 17 A: Which I don't recall saying and I've 18 tried to explain to the best of my ability. 19 Q: And you said you understood that the 20 OPP would assist the injunction? 21 A: I understood that the OPP had 22 information that would support the injunction. I -- I 23 didn't have a level of detail about how that would occur. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 25 where you go from there is part of your argument. I
2631 don't think she can help you anymore than that; that's my 2 view. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: You wouldn't 4 want me to stop in mid-sentence and be ungrammatical 5 would you? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 7 think you've pushed it -- 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- to the 10 point where it's open to you to draw that inference or 11 that conclusion. 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you, 13 Commissioner. I'll -- I'll leave it at that. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 18 Q: Ms. Hutton, I'll -- I'd like to turn 19 to a different topic which relates to something that 20 you've mentioned a number of times which is that... 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Before you arrived at the September 25 5th IMC meeting in the morning your sense was, however,
2641 provisional, that the Province had ownership of the Park 2 that was being occupy -- occupied. I believe that was 3 your testimony; is that fair? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And then I believe you said that the 6 information you received from the briefing in the 7 September 5th IMC meeting suggested to you or you 8 understood that the Province had clear title to the Park; 9 is that right? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And when there was references in the 12 briefing to a potential burial -- Native burial ground in 13 the Park your understanding was that the advice from the 14 members -- some members of the Committee, was that even 15 if there was a Native burial ground in the Park it did 16 not affect the legal title to the Park owned by the 17 Province. Is that right? 18 A: That's correct. I -- I believe I 19 also said, because I'm -- I can't recall if that was part 20 of Tuesday or Wednesday, it may well have been Tuesday. 21 Q: And you've often -- 22 A: The -- the -- 23 Q: -- several times used the phrase, 24 "the Province has clear title." Is that right? 25 A: Yes.
2651 Q: And a number of times in a discussion 2 about the information of a potential burial ground you've 3 said that the Province has clear title and whether or not 4 a burial ground exists there, it doesn't affect the 5 title? 6 A: That was what we were briefed. 7 Q: All right. And do you recall who 8 said that at the... 9 A: I don't. 10 Q: No. All right. And is it fair to 11 say that that was a key part of your and the Government's 12 strategy for moving forward from that point; in other 13 words you had clear title regardless of a burial ground? 14 A: It was a key fact that was important 15 in shaping our response. 16 Q: All right. And I think you've used 17 the word 'trespass' or 'trespassing' a number of times. 18 And I take it your understanding or 19 position at that time was, since the Province had clear 20 title, if the protestors were saying inside the Park that 21 there was a burial ground that didn't change clear title 22 and that didn't change the fact that they were 23 trespassers. 24 That was your position at the time; is 25 that right?
2661 A: My position at the time, based on the 2 information I was given, was that this was an illegal 3 occupation. As I think I said to Ms. Vella, I tended to 4 use the term 'illegal occupation' more frequently than 5 the term 'trespass'. I believe that was a term others 6 used. 7 And -- and yes, to go further, and the 8 existence or potential existence of a burial ground did 9 not affect title. 10 In fact, that there was a process that 11 would have allowed for protection and respect of that 12 burial if it existed. 13 Q: So, I think what I heard you say in 14 your testimony earlier was something to the effect of the 15 burial ground was irrelevant to the occupiers' possible 16 right to be there. 17 Was that your position at the time? 18 A: I think I've just explained my 19 understanding at the time. 20 Q: Yes. Well, your position at the time 21 was the occupiers had no right to be in there regardless 22 of a potential burial ground? 23 A: That was my understanding based on 24 the information I was given, yes. 25 Q: All right. And as a result, you
2671 believed that the occupiers should leave the Park and 2 that was -- that was the essence of the solution? 3 A: Our goal was to see the occupation 4 end. I think that's somewhat consistent with what you've 5 just said. 6 Q: Okay. And -- 7 A: The solution we chose was an 8 injunction. 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: I guess that's why I quibble with 11 what you say. 12 Q: Well, my question is whether there 13 was any discussion, to your recollection, about whether 14 it actually follows from clear title that the protesters 15 couldn't occupy the Park in protest. 16 In other words, do you recall a little 17 more specifically how you get from clear title to no 18 right to protest in the Park? 19 A: My understanding of what the 20 individuals were doing was actually taking over the Park. 21 They were not, for example, at the gate of the Park 22 protesting. 23 They were preventing the staff of MNR from 24 doing their job. And while I did not understand that on 25 Monday evening, I came to understand on Tuesday morning,
2681 in fact, MNR as a result of this activity had been forced 2 to -- I'll say further close the park, but a step that 3 meant no one could have use of the Park who would 4 normally have had use of the Park even after Labour Day. 5 Q: Was there any discussion of the 6 possibility, to your recollection, that the Province had 7 clear title to the Park but at the same time the 8 protesters had a right to occupy the empty Park to 9 protect burial grounds? 10 Was there any discussion of that 11 possibility? 12 A: I don't believe so. 13 Q: Okay. Was there any discussion at 14 all that the protesters had a right to occupy the Park to 15 the exclusion of others because of a burial ground, 16 despite clear title? 17 A: I don't believe so. 18 Q: Okay. Was there any discussion to 19 your recollection of the possibility that a belief in the 20 protesters that they were, in fact, protecting a burial 21 ground would give them a legal defence to charges of 22 trespassing in the Park? 23 A: Not in those terms, no. 24 Q: Was there a discussion to your 25 recollection in any other similar terms?
2691 A: I -- I indicated earlier that the 2 issue of colour of right was raised in passing, but I 3 understood, as I said earlier, that it was not applicable 4 here because of the ownership and title of the Park. 5 Q: So, your understanding was that the 6 concept of colour of right was not -- not applicable 7 because the Province had clear title to the Park? 8 A: Yes, but I don't want to overstate 9 that as a discussion. As I said, colour of right was 10 raised as a comment, but we continued on to discuss the 11 clearness of the ownership, so. 12 Q: And let me ask yo a little more 13 broadly, and this time not in strict legal terms: Did 14 you, yourself consider the possibility that even if the 15 Province had clear title to the Park, that the 16 possibility of a Native burial ground that might be being 17 desecrated, was sufficient reason to go slow? 18 Did you yourself consider that 19 possibility? 20 A: I don't under -- I don't think I 21 understand the premise of your question. 22 Q: Let me repeat the question. 23 Did you yourself consider the possibility 24 that the protesters, possibly believing that a burial 25 ground was in the Park needing protection, was a
2701 sufficient reason for the Government to go slow, even if 2 you had legal title? 3 A: No. And -- and the reason that I 4 didn't think that at the time is that the possibility 5 that a burial ground was in existence was a possibility. 6 And in fact, further, it was strictly a piece of 7 speculation that in fact the burial ground, if there was 8 one, might in fact be the motivation for the occupation. 9 Q: If you could turn in the meeting 10 minutes binder to Tab 7 for September 5th. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 12 which binder are we looking at? 13 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: This is a 14 compilation of meeting minutes, a binder prepared -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where is it? 16 September 5th? 17 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes, September 18 5th. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which is the 20 first part in Tab 12? 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 7. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 7. 23 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Tab 7. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is Tab 25 14 in my binder.
2711 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And this is the 2 meeting minutes -- meeting handwritten notes by Eileen 3 Hipfner, Inquiry Document 1011739, Exhibit P-510. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 7 Q: Do you have those? 8 A: I do, yes. 9 Q: And Ms. Hipfner records, half way 10 down that page, and this is the first page of the minutes 11 so it appears to be during the original briefing, that 12 the MNR guy on the telephone says: 13 "New archaeological evidence that there 14 may be a burial site in the Park." 15 And similarly, if you could turn to Tab 12 16 which is the handwritten notes of Ms. Jai for September 17 5th, and about two-thirds of the way down is a reference 18 to Dan Elliott, MNR, do you see that? 19 A: I do. 20 Q: And the notes appear to say: 21 "No previous archaeological evidence of 22 burial ground, but some new evidence 23 recently has not been evaluated." 24 And I could refer you to several other 25 meeting notes with -- to the same affect. Can you tell
2721 me whether your recollection as you just discussed, is -- 2 is similar to these notes that I've showed you? 3 A: There's a level of detail that -- 4 that I don't recall having or I just don't recall. As I 5 said earlier I -- I know that the burial ground was 6 raised about as a potential for there being one. 7 And secondly, as therefore a potential for 8 the reasons behind the occupation. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: It was quite speculative though. 11 Q: And you -- but do you dispute the 12 evidence of these notes that an MNR representative said 13 there was some new recent evidence with respect to 14 archaeological -- with respect to the burial ground? 15 A: I have no recollection, so I can't 16 dispute it. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: Beyond what I said. 19 Q: And if you could turn to Tab 4 of the 20 binder. 21 A: September 5th or 6th? 22 Q: September 5th. 23 A: Certainly. 24 Q: These are the handwritten notes of 25 Anna Prodanou, Inquiry Document 1006191, Exhibit P-730.
2731 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And approximately two-thirds of the 4 way down there's a bullet point that begins: 5 "The Park's ours now." 6 Do you see that? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 Q: "The Park's ours now. They'll be 9 paying us now, the rationale being the 10 burial site." 11 Do you recall that general connection 12 being made between the alleged burial site and the reason 13 for the occupation? 14 A: I believe I've already indicated 15 that -- 16 Q: There -- so there was a connection 17 made, in your recollection? 18 A: My recollection was that the 19 potential existence of a burial ground was raised as a 20 potential rationale for the occupation. 21 Q: All right. And did you, at any time 22 after the beginning or halfway through the September 5th 23 IMC meeting, take the position that it was worth going 24 slow to investigate this? 25 A: To investigate?
2741 Q: The possible burial ground in the 2 Park? 3 A: As important as the existence of a 4 burial ground would be, as I understood it did not affect 5 title and therefore it did not impact on the fact that I 6 understood this was an illegal occupation. And therefore 7 the two (2) preliminary views that, as I said, firmed up 8 over the course of September 5th, I believed were still 9 what we should pursue. 10 Q: So, you understood and agreed that a 11 burial ground in the Park would be an important thing? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: All right. And it would be important 14 because a burial ground is a universal feature or almost 15 universal feature of human society that is deserving of 16 respect; is that fair? 17 A: I'm not sure that those would be my 18 words, but I certainly believed that an existence of a 19 burial ground is something that should be, as I said 20 earlier, protected and respected. 21 Q: It should be protected and respected? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: But nevertheless, even if there was a 24 burial ground in your view at the time, since your 25 understanding was that didn't affect legal title, the
2751 protestors should be removed from the Park as soon as 2 possible? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 4 already established that; that that's her view. You've 5 said that and she's answered it. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 10 Q: And the evidence has -- has been put 11 before the Inquiry that in 1975 the MNR staff became 12 aware of, and circulated a transcript of a letter from 13 1937 or thereabouts, suggesting that there was, in fact, 14 a burial ground in the Park. And the evidence is, as I 15 say, that that was in the files of the Government and 16 circulated as of 1975. 17 Would you agree with me that if you had 18 become aware of that information at the IMC meeting you 19 would have been more inclined to a go slow approach with 20 respect to the burial ground? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 22 minute. Before you answer the question Ms. Hutton. 23 Yes, Ms. Perschy? 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm not sure that's a 25 fair question. This Witness doesn't have any information
2761 with respect to the details of what may or may not have 2 been contained in the files, so she doesn't really have a 3 full context in order to be able to answer that question, 4 even today. 5 So. I'm not sure what assistance that can 6 be without -- without further context. 7 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'll -- I'll 8 move on. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 14 Q: And well perhaps I -- well, let me 15 ask you another question in that regard. 16 Are you aware -- have you become aware 17 since the events of September 6th, 1995 of documents from 18 1937 or thereabouts referring to a burial ground, a 19 Native burial ground in the Park? 20 Did you become -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Yes. And do you have some 23 recollection, roughly, of what those documents assert or 24 record? 25 A: Not in specifics, no.
2771 Q: What about in general? Would you 2 agree with me that those documents suggest that there was 3 a burial ground in the Park in the '30's and that the 4 Provincial Government suggested it would take steps to 5 protect it? 6 A: I don't recall knowing the second 7 part of your sentence, but the first part I would agree 8 with. 9 Q: All right. And if you had had that 10 letter or that document in the meeting of the IMC on 11 September 5th, 1995, would you agree that a go-slow 12 approach to investigate that would have been appropriate? 13 A: I did not have the document. I don't 14 want to speculate. 15 Q: All right. You don't wish to comment 16 on that? 17 A: I think it's hypothetical and it's 18 not reflective of what I had available to me on September 19 5th or 6th. 20 Q: All right. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: If you could turn to the meeting 25 minutes of September 5th at Tab 7, which again are in the
2781 meeting minutes or notes of Eileen Hipfner, Exhibit P- 2 510. 3 And at handwritten page 4, three-quarters 4 of the way down there's a comment attributed to you at 5 the left margin, "Deb", do you see that? 6 A: I do. 7 Q: It says: 8 "Clear cut issue of Ontario's 9 ownership of property [square 10 bracket][something about how this may 11 be the time/place to move decisively]" 12 Do you see that? 13 A: I do, sorry. 14 Q: And if I could refer you to another 15 set of minutes, again Ms. Anna Prodanou -- Prodanou at 16 Tab 4, which is Exhibit page -- Exhibit P-730, Inquiry 17 document 1006191, handwritten page 2. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Handwritten page 2 of that Tab 4, do 22 you have that? 23 A: Yes, I do. 24 Q: Near the bottom, three (3) or four 25 (4) lines from the bottom there's a comment attributed to
2791 you, "Deb", do you see that? 2 A: I do. 3 Q: "Deb: We have clear ownership of 4 property. Maybe we should act." 5 A: I see that. 6 Q: Do you recall making comments to that 7 effect, namely because of the clear ownership of 8 property, we should act? 9 A: I don't recall making this specific 10 comment. Certainly, as I've indicated to the fact that 11 the title and ownership of the Park was clear, reinforced 12 for me a couple of things. 13 First, obviously, that this was an illegal 14 occupation and secondly that therefore we should have as 15 our goal, ending that occupation. 16 Q: All right. Then if you could -- on 17 another topic, I'd like to ask a few questions about -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 19 if you're finished with that topic? 20 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Yes. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 23 Q: Reference on the meeting notes at Tab 24 4 for September 5th, which are Anna Prodanou's notes 25 again. If you turn to the top of page 4.
2801 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: You see at the very top a comment 5 attributed to you? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: That appears to say: 8 "Deb: Premier wants to deal with group 9 as if they were non-Aboriginals." 10 Correct? 11 A: That's what I believe it says, yes. 12 Q: And then drop down to about two- 13 thirds of the way down on that page, there's a comment in 14 quotes that says, quote: 15 "This government treats Aboriginal and 16 non-Aboriginal people the same." 17 Do you see that? 18 A: I do. 19 Q: Well, I have two (2) questions, and 20 the first one is, do you recall making a statement 21 similar to the one at the top of the page which refers to 22 the Premier wanting to deal with this particular group as 23 if they were non-aboriginals? 24 A: I don't, but given the illegal nature 25 of the occupation, it was our view, as I think I've
2811 expressed, that this was not a land claim or not about 2 who the occupiers were in particular. It was about the 3 occupation itself. 4 Q: All right. And then dropping down to 5 the second general statement: 6 "This government treats aboriginal and 7 non-aboriginal people the same." 8 I can advise you that there's a number of 9 other handwritten notes that record almost exactly the 10 same sentence. 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: And to me, that sentence looks quite 13 a bit different than the one I just referred to you, 14 because this is a very general statement. 15 Do you recall making a general statement 16 such as this? 17 A: I don't, but I -- I would say further 18 as I did just a minute ago if -- if this statement were 19 in specific regard to this situation, then it would be 20 consistent with how we were viewing this specific 21 situation. 22 In it's general form, if this is accurate, 23 I don't believe it was a sentiment that I held at the 24 time. 25 Q: All right, I could take you as well
2821 to the handwritten, and I won't, the handwritten notes 2 of -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you're 4 not going to take us there, you don't have to refer to 5 them. 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, I think I 7 will then, because my -- Ms. -- Ms. Hutton has said she - 8 - that this would not be a sentiment that she would have 9 expressed -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, well, 11 if you're going to take us there, then by all means. 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: That's what I-- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But if 14 you're not, then you don't have to refer to them. 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'm trying to 16 save time, I apologize. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, then 18 save it, but if -- you can't have it both ways. If 19 you're going to save time, that's fine. 20 If you're going to refer to them, then 21 refer to them. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:
2831 Q: All right. If you could turn to Tab 2 3, page 3. 3 A: Of the 5th? 4 Q: That's correct. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: These are the handwritten notes of 7 Janina Korol for September 5th IMC meeting. If you turn 8 to the -- page 3, the last page, the last comment. The 9 notes say: 10 "This government treats aboriginal and 11 non-aboriginal people the same." 12 You see that? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And do you recall making that 15 statement as reported? 16 A: No, as I've already said, I -- I 17 don't recall if -- if what is meant by this is a specific 18 reference to the situation that's described directly 19 above it, then it would be consistent with my view at the 20 time. 21 Q: But if it's more general, the way it 22 appears to be, you would not accept that you said it, is 23 that right? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And if I could turn your attention to
2841 Tab 8, which -- and before I leave that, I believe the 2 handwritten notes of Ms. Korol that we have just looked 3 at have not been made an exhibit and I wonder, Mr. 4 Commissioner, if I could have an exhibit number for that? 5 THE REGISTRAR: P-970, Your Honour. 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thank you. 7 8 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-970: Document Number 1006188. 9 Handwritten notes of Janina 10 Korol, Sept. 05/'95. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 13 Q: And then, Ms. Hutton, if you could 14 turn to Tab 8 for September 5th which are the handwritten 15 notes of Elizabeth Christie, Exhibit P-742 Inquiry 16 Document 1011749. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And turn to -- since those pages 21 aren't numbered it's a little difficult but the third 22 last page at the Tab. It's the page with some doodles at 23 the top of the page including a face. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Do you see that?
2851 A: I do. 2 Q: Can you tell me which of the 3 Committee members that is... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 8 Q: I'll drop that question. 9 A: I thought that's what she was 10 objecting to. 11 Q: At the bottom of that page there is 12 an asterisk point that says: 13 "Strategic imperative. This government 14 treats non-aboriginal people and 15 aboriginal people the same." 16 A: Right. 17 Q: Do you see that. 18 A: I do. 19 Q: And I take it from what you said 20 before that you would dispute that you made that comment 21 at the meeting? 22 OBJ MS. SUSAN VELLA: I have an objection. 23 First of all these are not the Witness' notes. I accept 24 that it's perfectly appropriate to take the Witness to 25 some notes to see if the statement recorded in the notes
2861 may refresh her memory, but the fact that the same 2 statement has been put to her in different people's notes 3 now three (3) times does not advance this Inquiry at all. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And furthermore, none 6 of these -- these -- these points have been specifically 7 attributed in the notes at least to this Witness. But 8 this is not useful -- I mean either the statement 9 refreshes the memory or not. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Saying it five (5) 12 times doesn't seem to be advancing this Inquiry. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it's 14 been said five (5) times now and it isn't attributed to 15 her so -- 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I'll -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- I mean 18 I'm sure that's an important fact. In one (1) of two (2) 19 of the notes they seem to be, but in some of these 20 they're not attributed to anybody. 21 In any event she has no recollection of 22 having made it in the way of a general statement. 23 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, with -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So I'm not 25 sure how many times --
2871 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: With respect if 2 -- if -- if the documents record precisely the same words 3 or almost precisely the words it -- it -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 5 possible somebody said them. 6 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- it is in my 7 respectful submission a factor that may affect whether 8 the Witness is assisted in the recollection -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I have to 10 stop you. 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- by the 12 fact -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I don't -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've gone 16 through it. 17 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I don't intend 18 to pursue that. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, but are 20 you through it now? 21 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Ms. -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are there 23 more notes that you're going to take -- 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN:
2881 Q: Ms. -- Ms. Hutton, do you -- 2 OBJ MS. SUSAN VELLA: I have objected to this 3 question. I mean this -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, but I 5 mean he's finished with it. 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- this goes to 7 argument now. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He is. Are 9 you finished with that? I mean -- 10 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, no, I -- 11 I wish to ask this -- this Witness that question for the 12 third note for the reason that I said which is -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Which -- 14 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: -- in my 15 respectful submission the basis which is whether or not 16 it assists the Witness with her memory is in fact -- it 17 is assisted by the fact that the same words appear three 18 (3) times; the fact that the words appear three (3) times 19 rather than once. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But not 21 attributed to her. But not attributed to her each time. 22 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Well, I -- I 23 will -- I will ask that and then I will -- I will ask 24 whether she can attribute it to somebody else; whether 25 she has any knowledge about that.
2891 But the -- the point is, Commissioner, 2 these appear to be important according to the notes and 3 if Ms. Hutton doesn't remember it even though it appears 4 three (3) times in exactly the same words I will accept 5 her evidence on it. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She has said 7 that. 8 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. I 9 thought My Friend was objecting to the last time I -- I 10 raised it. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 12 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: If that's been 13 answered then I'll move on. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She said it 15 three (3) times. 16 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Ms. -- 18 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: I just wanted to put 19 on the record, in terms of attribution of -- I believe 20 we're on the strategic imperative statement, I believe 21 Ms. Christie actually testified that she attributed those 22 comments to Ms. Hutton. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In some 24 cases they were attributed. 25 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Yes, it's not
2901 attributed in -- in the handwritten notes, -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 3 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: -- but in her 4 testimony she did. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: In these 6 notes that we're looking at now? 7 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 9 That's helpful. 10 Then you've asked a question that might-- 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 13 Q: Well, my -- my next question: On the 14 question of attribution, Ms. Hutton, do you recall if 15 anybody said that comment? 16 A: No, I do not. 17 Q: Can you assist us as to whether 18 anybody else in the meeting was in a position to say that 19 comment. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 22 how she can answer that question. I think you've 23 exhausted this point -- 24 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: All right. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- with all
2911 due respect, Mr. Klippenstein. I think you should move 2 on. You made a -- well, leave it at that. I think you 3 should move on. 4 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Just a moment's 5 indulgence, Mr. Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I think I may 8 be to the end. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 13 Q: Ms. Hutton, you talked -- you've 14 spoken a number of times about what you call the do 15 nothing option; is that right? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I believe in response to 18 questioning from Ms. Twohig, you suggested that nobody 19 had really put on -- on the table at the IMC meetings, 20 the idea of talking to the occupiers to find out more 21 detail about why they were there. 22 Have I -- have I understood your evidence 23 correctly? 24 A: I believe what I said was that no one 25 suggested that we appoint a third person or use a third
2921 person to have discussions with the occupiers. 2 Q: I see. And is it your evidence that 3 -- and this is a slightly different question, that in 4 fact there was discussion at the meeting about talking to 5 the occupiers about what their claims might be? 6 Do you recall such an idea being put on 7 the table? 8 A: I don't believe so. 9 Q: I see. And in -- in that respect if 10 I could have you turn to the meeting notes binder Tab 7-- 11 A: Of the 5th or the 6th? 12 Q: The 5th. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 14 The 5th or the 6th, I didn't hear you. 15 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: The 5th. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 5th? 17 Tab 7? 18 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: That's correct. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: 21 Q: And page 3 -- handwritten page 3 22 about two- thirds of the way down there's a heading 'MNR' 23 at the left, do you see that? 24 A: I do. 25 Q: I believe that's Peter Allen speaking
2931 based on the context and the notes record him as saying: 2 "Need to..." 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: These are the notes of Eileen 7 Hipfner, Exhibit P-510. Thank you, Ms. Perschy. Inquiry 8 Document 1011739. And that line says: 9 "Need to have a talk with them about 10 what they're trying to accomplish." 11 Do you see that? 12 A: I do see that, yes. 13 Q: Does that refresh your memory on 14 whether or not the idea of talking to the protesters was 15 put on the table? 16 A: It does not. 17 Q: It does not. All right. I have no 18 further questions, Commissioner, thank you. 19 Thank you, Ms. Hutton. 20 A: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 22 Mr. Klippenstein. 23 Mr. Rosenthal...? You might as well -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Should I begin and 25 get in five (5) or ten (10) minutes?
2941 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 2 should start. We should use all the time we have. So I 3 think you should -- 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I'm happy to. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That's 6 fine. 7 THE WITNESS: Am I finished with this 8 binder. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, you 10 are. 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I believe 12 you're finished that binder. Others may refer to it but 13 wait and see. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: For now, 15 you're finished with it, we'll see. 16 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 18 Rosenthal, you go to a point that you feel is -- is 19 comfortable to end the day -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Ten (10) minutes 21 from now, fifteen (15) minutes from now, sir? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Whatever you 23 think is appropriate. You come to a point -- 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: You shouldn't give 25 me that much freedom. It's dangerous. Thank you.
2951 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well I'd 2 like to keep going. 3 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: If I may, Mr. 4 Commissioner, I spoke to Commission counsel about 5 possibly being excused a little early myself and for 6 another appointment that we have to rush to. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. By all 8 means I understand. You have important business to 9 attend to. Thank you very much for alerting us. Thank 10 you. 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 14 Q: Good afternoon. My name is Peter 15 Rosenthal. I'm counsel for some of the Stoney Point 16 people under the name Aazhoodena and George Family Group. 17 A: Good afternoon. 18 Q: Now first I want to dissipate this 19 issue on this hawkish business. 20 You told us that you didn't recall if you 21 told the Interministerial Committee if you used the 22 expression, the Premier was hawkish on this issue, right? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: Now, I want to ask you the following 25 question, though.
2961 As you understood and would have used the 2 term "hawkish" in 1995, would you agree that the 3 Premier's position on September 5th 1995 was such that it 4 would have been accurate to state the Premier was hawkish 5 on this issue? 6 A: I believe I've already attempted to 7 go back and confirm what I believed -- 8 Q: Well -- 9 A: -- was my position on -- 10 Q: Ms. Hutton, I've asked you -- 11 A: -- at that time. 12 Q: -- a very specific question. Would 13 you agree, knowing -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 15 Rosenthal...? 16 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- the way you used 17 the word "hawk" -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 19 to interrupt you, Mr. Rosenthal. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I know how 22 important it is for you to have your cross-examination 23 uninterrupted, but I believe she has been asked a similar 24 question and I believe she has already answered it. 25 So whether you change it slightly, I
2971 believe she's answered -- 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But with great 3 respect, Mr. Commissioner, your Counsel indicated as Mr. 4 Klippenstein was trying to get at what this witness might 5 have said, that there are several different ways to 6 approach this. 7 And I would respectfully request and 8 indicate that this question has not been asked in this 9 form -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: And this is a 12 question that cannot be evaded -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right -- 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- by saying I've 15 asked it already, because the question is simply this, 16 Mr. Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 18 can handle this Mr. Falconer. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I accept 20 that, but I don't plan to ask this question and since Mr. 21 Rosenthal has precisely put the question in a fashion 22 that hasn't been asked and I didn't want to go in this 23 area, I would simply reiterate ALST's interest in the 24 question being answered. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not
2981 parsing the question, but I said the essence of the 2 question has been asked -- 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: No -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 5 putting it a different way? 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, I am, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You want to 8 ask it again, because I -- 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry sir, -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- there's a 11 difference -- 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- perhaps I 13 didn't -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If there's a 15 difference, there's subtlety or the nuance escaped me, so 16 ask it again and -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Thank you. And I 18 would suggest to you and people can -- one could listen 19 to see if this is true. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: That the difference 22 is that this question is a question that this witness 23 cannot refuse to answer -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if 25 she --
2991 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- in any honest 2 way. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If she can 4 answer it, I'm sure she will. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If she 7 can't, that's all. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 10 Q: The question then is the following. 11 As you understood and used the term "hawkish" in 1995, 12 the Premier's position on September 5th 1995 was such 13 that it would have been accurate to state the Premier was 14 hawkish on the issue. 15 Is that true or false? 16 A: You began your question by saying "as 17 I understood" when I used it, I did not -- 18 Q: No. 19 A: -- recall using that. 20 Q: I'm sorry, please speak a little 21 louder, please. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 23 exactly the question. The question was, as you 24 understood and used it. 25 In other words, if she used it.
3001 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Oh, I'm sorry. As 2 you -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's no 4 suggestion -- 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, and I -- I 6 will modify it and take that out of it. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: As you understood the term -- I 10 didn't mean you used it in this -- in this particular 11 sentence. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: I meant as you would have used it as 14 you went about life in September of 1995, but in -- 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: -- any event, as you understood the 17 term -- 18 A: Right. 19 Q: -- in 1995, would you not agree that 20 it was accurate to say the Premier was hawkish on this 21 issue? 22 A: I can only tell you what I've said in 23 the past which is my very clear understanding of the 24 Premier's position was that given this was an illegal 25 occupation, we should find a remedy to see it come to an
3011 end as soon as possible and that we needed to communicate 2 that and that we needed to ensure that in the course of 3 that, so as not to lead anyone to believe that we were 4 condoning this behaviour, we would not be negotiating as 5 long as the occupation was under way. 6 That's the best that I can do for you. 7 Q: And I put it to you that that came 8 within the way you would have used the word hawkish in 9 September 1995, was that not true? 10 A: I just can't recall to be able to 11 answer your question. 12 Q: You can't recall the way you 13 understood that word? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: To find out if it would fit that 16 description? 17 A: Correct. As I said earlier, I recall 18 being familiar with the word, I just -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: You're asking me a very specific 21 question that I don't have recollection to be able to 22 assist you with. 23 Q: Would you not agree that the 24 description of the Premier's position as you've just 25 recalled it would, as you used the word "hawkish" be
3021 described as being hawkish on the issue? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think, Mr. 3 Rosenthal, I'm going to have to stop you and take the 4 consequences. 5 I think that it's up to us now to draw the 6 conclusions -- 7 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 9 you've got the best answer she can give us and other 10 people have said what they believed and it's up to us now 11 to draw -- for you to make the argument. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The witness 14 has given us her best answer. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, with great 16 respect, Mr. Commissioner, I think it's a matter of 17 credibility of this witness. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: If she's not 20 willing to tell us when we have firm evidence from many 21 sources that she used this phrase, it's -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's -- 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: She's not willing 24 to tell us if the phrase would have applied -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well --
3031 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- in these 2 circumstances, that's a serious matter for credibility 3 and I'll move on. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: There is a document and Mr. Millar is 10 always very good at these things. I don't know if -- if 11 Mr. Millar, if you'd be able to put this on the screen. 12 It's Document Number 1006196. I'm sorry I should have 13 warned you ahead of time. And I want to ponder it. It's 14 a -- 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Sorry, what is it 16 again? 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: It's also P-952 and 18 I do have a copy for your Counsel and for you and for the 19 Witness. 20 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Sorry, give me the 21 Inquiry Document Number, please? 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: The Inquiry 23 Document Number I believe is 1006196. 24 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 25
3041 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 2 Q: Now, this is a -- oh, I'm sorry, I 3 meant to give one (1) to you too. 4 I just have two (2) of the four (4) pages 5 of the document that I've handed you and the Witness. 6 And this is a -- a letter from a 7 constituent of Mr. Beaubien's that Mr. Beaubien faxed to 8 Mr. Bill King, and that also, according to the carbon 9 copies, was sent to Mike Harris, as you'll notice. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Now, I'd like you to take a moment 12 and read this over because I want to ask you if this is a 13 fairly accurate description in the context of the law and 14 order kind of approach that the Harris government had to 15 such issues? 16 A: Sorry, to what issues? You seem to 17 have said -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've only 19 given her a part of the letter, right? 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm sorry? 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've only 22 given her a part of the letter? 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no. I've given 24 her the entire letter. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All four (4)
3051 pages? 2 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How many 4 pages are there? 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry, Mr. 6 Commissioner, I didn't explain it very well. There's a 7 fax cover page. I didn't give her that. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: There is a cover 10 letter from Mr. Beaubien; I didn't give her that. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You gave her 12 the whole letter. 13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I gave her the two 14 (2) page document that you have in front of you -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 16 not -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- which is an 18 entire letter from a constituent of Mr. Beaubien. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You want her 20 to read the letter. I'm not sure yet about the question 21 you're going to ask her, but let's let her read the 22 letter. 23 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Indeed. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)
3061 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's ask 3 her if she's ever seen the letter. Let's ask her if 4 she's ever seen the letter before this moment. 5 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I -- I presume she 6 hasn't or would have forgotten if she had. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: But have you seen the letter before, 10 do you recall? 11 A: I don't believe I've seen the letter 12 before. 13 Q: Thank you. Now, would you agree that 14 in a rough way and different people might express it in 15 different -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: This is -- 17 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- to some extent. 18 This expresses the kind of law and order platform of the 19 Harris government in his campaign -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 21 think that's a fair question, Mr. Rosenthal. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sorry? 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 24 think that's a fair question. So this is a letter from a 25 constituent that's expressing a view --
3071 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- of the 3 constituent who wrote it. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. Let me ask 5 you a different question. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And his name 7 has been removed and I don't think that's a fair question 8 of this Witness. 9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Okay. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 12 Q: Would you characterize the views 13 expressed in this letter as "redneck"? 14 A: It's not a term I use, so that's not 15 what I would conclude about this, no. 16 Q: No, but you answered Mr. Harris' 17 lawyer that nothing that you saw happening at the dining 18 room meeting could be characterized as redneck? 19 A: Right. It was someone else's word, 20 not mine. 21 Q: Yes. But you said it couldn't be 22 characterized by anyone as redneck, anything that you 23 saw; isn't that fair? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: That's what you've told us.
3081 A: You -- you've just asked me to use 2 the term redneck. 3 Q: Well I'm asking you: Would you agree 4 that this could be properly be characterized by redneck 5 by those who -- as redneck by those who use the word. 6 A: That's -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 8 that helps us whether it does or it doesn't. This again 9 is a letter from a constituent that she's never seen 10 before and I don't see how anything that she says about 11 it is going to be helpful to me. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With great respect, 13 Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Harris' off -- lawyer asked her: 14 Did anything that happened at the dining room meeting 15 suggest that any behaviour there could be characterized 16 as redneck. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At the 18 dining room meeting. 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: The dining room 20 meeting. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: So are you 22 going to ask her whether this letter could be 23 characterized as redneck? 24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. Because we 25 want -- I want to know what -- what she means, what she's
3091 thinking of when she answered Mr. Harris' question. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not a 3 word that she saw. Well let's see. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: So that's -- that's 5 the reason for this question and I think it's entirely 6 appropriate. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 9 Q: And so my question is: Would you 10 give a similar answer if someone said, do you see 11 anything in this letter that could be characterized as 12 redneck? 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 14 that that's helpful. 15 Yes, Ms. Perschy...? 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: If the issue is what 17 is this witness' understanding of redneck, that question 18 can just be asked without the need to refer to some 19 letter that this witness has never even seen before. 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes it could. But 21 I can also ask it the way I want to ask -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. You've 23 got a specific letter, if you want to ask her what she 24 thinks of this letter. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, thank you.
3101 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 3 Q: Now would you -- would you agree that 4 it might be reasonable for someone who used the word, you 5 -- you're not such a person, but for someone to use the 6 word to characterize this as redneck -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 8 you've moved beyond the point where it's a question that 9 makes any sense or -- 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think it's unfair to 11 ask this witness as to what others might characterize 12 this. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Might think 14 and so on. It's very difficult -- 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: If she wants to answer 16 whether she characterizes it, that may be a different 17 question. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What does 19 she think, her view on it -- 20 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect I -- I 21 must do something in between because she told us she 22 doesn't use the word redneck. I want to ask exactly the 23 same question that was asked by Mr. Harris' lawyer about 24 the dining room meeting with respect to this. 25 And I don't recall exactly the words that
3111 he used. But he asked you: Did anything that happened 2 there, in your view, justify someone using the word 3 redneck and you answered, no. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Because the 5 word redneck was used. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The word 8 redneck was used and that's why he asked the question. 9 No one has attributed this with the term redneck and 10 you're asking her whether she would do it. And that's -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: No, no, no. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- and 13 that's the disconnect. 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr. 15 Commissioner -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm missing 17 something? 18 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: I'm trying to 19 understand -- yes, yes, with great respect, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 I'm always willing to hear you, Mr. Rosenthal. 22 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: She -- thank you 23 very much, sir. And I -- and I do think I'm right if you 24 would give me the opportunity. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm trying
3121 to follow you. Now, sir, she was asked by Mr. Harris' 2 counsel: Was there anything that would have allowed Ron 3 Fox to properly use the word redneck in describing that 4 meeting in fact, correct? 5 And she answered, no. Now what that means 6 well it depends upon how she would answer similar 7 questions with respect to other documents. Now if 8 someone, me, for example, were to characterize this 9 document as redneck, would you give a similar answer that 10 looking at this document you cannot see how anything in 11 it might properly be characterized as redneck. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I want to 13 move on. So, is that the question you're asking? 14 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, that's the 15 question. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 17 characterizing this as redneck and you want to know if 18 she agrees with you? 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: 21 Q: I say it's redneck. Am I out to 22 lunch? 23 A: Those are two (2) different 24 questions. 25 Q: Am I out to lunch simply by virtue of
3131 the fact that I characterized this as redneck? 2 A: I see this as a letter, which I've 3 not seen before, as someone who's very, very concerned 4 about perhaps his or her safety and that of his family. 5 As I said, redneck is not a term I would 6 use. I personally do not see anything in this, 7 generally, that would, I think, lead you to conclude that 8 this is -- individual is a redneck. But I don't know 9 exactly what you mean. 10 Q: Well similarly, for example then, we 11 can extrapolate from your answers to questions about 12 redneck today, that if Mr. Harris had said exactly the 13 words in this document, you would not have characterized 14 them as redneck? 15 A: That's pretty hypothetical so I -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- don't have an opinion about that. 18 Q: And that's a fair conclusion from 19 your two (2) statements, is it not? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm -- I'm 21 not sure that it is. But you can -- you can draw that 22 argument, she's answered the question. I think we've 23 gotten as much out of this letter from this witness as we 24 can. 25 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. Thank you. I
3141 -- I -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 3 we're reaching the end of day so. 4 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes. I can and I 5 shall at the appropriate time. I'll move on. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 7 should all move on though. We're getting a little -- 8 it's getting to the end of the day so I think we've had 9 enough. 10 If this isn't a good point, I'll let you 11 ask another question. 12 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: This is a wonderful 13 point. Thank you very much. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Then I think 15 we should call it a day. I think we've had enough for 16 today. Thank you very much, Mr. Rosenthal. 17 Thank you Ms. Hutton. Of course you have 18 to come back tomorrow. We reconvene at nine o'clock 19 tomorrow. 20 21 (WITNESS RETIRES) 22 23 THE REGISTRAR: This public Inquiry is 24 adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday November 23rd at 9:00 25 a.m.
3151 --- Upon adjourning at 4:39 p.m. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Certified Correct, 8 9 10 11 12 _________________ 13 Carol Geehan, Ms. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25