1 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 November 30th, 2005 25


1 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) (np) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) 5 Katherine Hensel ) 6 Megan Ferrier ) (np) 7 Murray Klippenstein ) The Estate of Dudley 8 Vilko Zbogar ) (np) George and George 9 Andrew Orkin ) (np) Family Group 10 Basil Alexander ) 11 12 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 13 Jackie Esmonde ) Family Group 14 15 Anthony Ross ) (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 Kim Twohig ) Government of Ontario 22 Walter Myrka ) (np) 23 Susan Freeborn ) (np) 24 Michelle Pong ) (np) 25 Lynette D'Souza ) (np)


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) (np) Lambton Shores 4 Nora Simpson ) (np) Student-at-law 5 6 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 7 Bill Hourigan ) (np) Harris 8 Jennifer McAleer ) 9 10 Ian Smith ) Robert Runciman 11 Alice Mrozek ) 12 13 Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.) (np) Charles Harnick 14 Jacqueline Horvat ) 15 16 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 17 Mary Jane Moynahan ) (np) 18 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 19 Trevor Hinnegan ) 20 21 Mark Sandler ) Ontario Provincial 22 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) (np) Ontario Provincial Police 23 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 24 25


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Ian Roland ) Ontario Provincial 3 Karen Jones ) (np) Police Association & 4 Debra Newell ) (np) K. Deane 5 Ian McGilp ) (np) 6 Annie Leeks ) (np) 7 Jennifer Gleitman ) (np) 8 Robyn Trask ) 9 10 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 11 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 12 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 13 Julian Roy ) (np) 14 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 15 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 16 17 Al J.C. O'Marra ) (np) Office of the Chief 18 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 19 20 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 21 Matthew Horner ) 22 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 23 24 25


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


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 7 4 5 ELAINE MELLER TODRES, Resumed 6 Continued Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Donald Worme 8 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 121 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jacqueline Horvat 125 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian Smith 127 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Lauwers 135 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Douglas Sulman 200 12 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy 220 13 Cross-Examination by Mr. Mark Sandler 251 14 Cross-Examination by Ms. Janet Clermont 298 15 16 17 18 Certificate of Transcript 304 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-985 Diagram of floor plan of Premier's 4 Boardroom, Council Chamber, EA's office, 5 reception, hallway and washroom: marked 6 by witness, Dr. Elaine Todres, Nov. 7 30/'05 251 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:01 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 MR. DONALD WORME: Good morning, 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 9 morning. Good morning, everybody. 10 MR. DONALD WORME: Good morning, Dr. 11 Todres. 12 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 13 MR. DONALD WORME: May I, Commissioner? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 15 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 16 17 ELAINE MELLER TODRES, Resumed 18 19 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DONALD WORME: 20 Q: Dr. Todres, we left off yesterday, 21 you were -- you confirmed for us that there had been 22 certain communications between members of your staff, Mr. 23 Fox in particular, and the InterMinisterial Committee; 24 you recall that? 25 A: Yes, I do.


1 Q: Thank you. If we can just move from 2 there, I just wanted to ask you a little bit, you were 3 aware that the local MPP, Mr. Beaubien; you were familiar 4 with him? 5 A: Yes I was familiar with his name. 6 Q: Right. And were you aware of 7 communications to Members of Cabinet by Marcel Beaubien, 8 the MPP, concerning the situation at Ipperwash during 9 that summer of 1995? 10 A: I don't recall specifically being 11 aware of letters that he wrote, but I was aware that he 12 was -- that he as a definition of being a constituency 13 representative required him to be intimately involved on 14 the groung. 15 Q: And perhaps I can ask you to turn to 16 Tab 14 in the book -- in the book of documents before 17 you. And at that tab you will see a document that has 18 been marked as P-534. It's a letter, on the letterhead, 19 of Marcel Beaubien, MPP; do you see that, dated July 20 31st, 1995? 21 A: Yes, I do. Hmm hmm. 22 Q: And it's addressed to the Honourable 23 Charles Harnick. 24 A: Yes, I've seen it. I see it now. 25 Q: All right. And you'll see that it's


1 -- it's copied to the Honourable Bob Runciman and that of 2 course would be your Minister of the day. 3 A: Yes, I -- I noticed that. 4 Q: And you'll see that it describes a 5 meeting between Mr. Beaubien and local non-Aboriginal, I 6 take it, Ipperwash residents, concerning litigation 7 initiated by the local First Nation and it talks about 8 tensions in the area. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And at page 2 it states: 11 "Law enforcement is basically non- 12 existent and the OPP does not seem too 13 keen in getting involved." 14 Do you read that? 15 A: Yes, I see it. 16 Q: And when you mentioned earlier that 17 you weren't aware of particular letters, I gather from 18 that that you didn't see this letter. 19 A: That's correct. Perhaps I might just 20 shed -- shed some light if I might -- 21 Q: Would you please? 22 A: -- contextually on what happens with 23 Ministerial correspondence, because I think it would be 24 useful. 25 Ministerial correspondence, especially in


1 large Ministries is a very large function indeed. 2 There's an entire unit that would be assigned to working 3 on Ministerial correspondence. 4 When a letter comes in, the letter is 5 stamped, a Minister would not see the letter upon 6 receipt. You can appreciate that in some cases there 7 might be thousands of letters a day that might come in. 8 Those letters are immediately referred to 9 the Ministerial correspondent unit -- unit. The unit 10 then decides on the basis of its judgment, and there are 11 a whole series of protocols and rules and timing and so 12 on, in terms of customer service about when one expects 13 to responds, to whom it goes. 14 The appropriate staff people would be 15 contacted to prepare the drafts of the response and they 16 would waft through, back through the Ministerial 17 correspondents, through the Minister's Executive 18 Assistant for his signature. 19 So, in the normal course of an event, 20 there would be no way that I or any Deputy Minister would 21 see a letter of this kind. Now, if the Prime Minister 22 had written and there was a -- a matter of national 23 importance or provincial importance, there might have 24 been occasions where I'd personally, directly would have 25 seen a letter.


1 But, that would have been extremely 2 unusual. And in this particular case, it wasn't a letter 3 to Minister Runciman. It was a CC, so by courtesy a 4 letter of this kind would have been referred to the 5 Ministerial unit and likely its response would have been, 6 Take no further action, it's a CC item. 7 If the Minister's staff would have felt 8 that it was significant enough they might have taken some 9 actions. I would have been unaware of those. 10 Q: And perhaps I can ask you then to 11 turn to Tab 16. There's a -- what appears to be a 12 routing memo. Am I correct in calling it that first of 13 all? 14 A: Correct, yes. 15 Q: It's Inquiry Document 2000425. It's 16 marked as P-588. And perhaps you can just describe this 17 to us. 18 A: Well, this is the physical 19 manifestation of the template as we like to call all 20 things like this; the template or the rules by which the 21 routing -- the -- the routing of a Ministerial letter 22 would come forward. 23 So, the first section there was a log and 24 date because that's terribly important. And might I say 25 that over time as governments became more preoccupied


1 with customer service we would have had benchmarks 2 imposed on us in terms of what would have been a 3 reasonable response time. 4 And that reasonable response time would be 5 tempered by an analysis of the complexity of the issue. 6 So, not only was there a date, but there would have been 7 an expectation from me as the Deputy and from others 8 about how soon a letter like this or any letter would be 9 responded to. Hence the necessity for the date and the 10 log reference and so on, the subject matter 11 What I find confusing about this 12 particular one is that there's a tick of a charge out of 13 an assignment to the Commissioner, but when you actually 14 follow through the action taken the instructions are that 15 upon reflection there is no response necessary at this 16 time as it wasn't addressed to the Minister. 17 So, that would be the instructions. And 18 you'll note from those who've seen it that it would have 19 been an FYI to the Deputy Minister's office and an FYI to 20 the Issues Unit. So, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Zunder in the 21 course of their work as they were preparing material and 22 issue notes would have been informed by -- by receipt of 23 this letter that Mr. Beaubien had an interest. But I 24 would not have seen this. 25 Q: All right. Thank you for that. And


1 for the purposes of the record, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. 2 Zunder -- 3 A: Mr. Zimmerman was the senior person 4 in charge of the Issues -- Issues Unit, and Mr. Zunder 5 reported to him. He was a seconded -- I think he -- I 6 don't recall whether he was -- he was from the OPP, 7 whether he was still seconded from the OPP I don't 8 recall, but he was seen to be one of our police experts - 9 - policing experts. 10 Q: Thank you. Dr. Todres, at Tab 23 11 there's another letter from Marcel Beaubien to the 12 Honourable Charles Harnick dated August the 14th of 1995 13 re. the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point. Are you 14 with me on that? 15 A: Yes, thank you. 16 Q: And you'll see that it's also copied 17 to your Minister Mr. Runciman? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. And you see where it 20 describes in the content of that letter the -- an August 21 11th, 1995, meeting between Mr. Beaubien, Tony Parkin, 22 Dale Linton, John Carson, and Wade Lacroix? And you'll 23 know those people to be officers, police officers that 24 is? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: All right. And we see the purpose of 2 that was to discuss Ipperwash Provincial Park and West 3 Ipperwash Property Owners' Association as well as the 4 First Nation that I referred to earlier. 5 And -- and he goes on to describe an 6 agreement reached by him and the OPP members to the 7 following effect. And you see at the bottom of the page: 8 "1. As the Ipperwash campground is 9 provincially owned we should be in 10 position to legally uphold this 11 property." 12 It continues on the next page: 13 "Enforcement is only a short-term 14 solution. Thirdly, the Ministries involved 15 have to the OPP clear guidelines for law 16 enforcement." 17 And: 18 "4. The long-term solution is a 19 negotiated settlement." 20 And it continues on: 21 "However we need to see a clear stand 22 on what provincial ownership of land 23 means and that the laws of the Province 24 will be upheld. This needs to be made 25 very clear without delay."


1 And you see where it continues, Dr. 2 Todres? It says: 3 "As detailed to Ministers Hodgson, 4 Harnick, and Runciman we will take the 5 following position until further 6 instruction is received from the 7 Ministries. We will be legally 8 prepared to uphold Ipperwash Provincial 9 Park. Enforcement is a short-term 10 solution and we need the Ministries to 11 give clear guidelines to OPP 12 enforcement. We would like a 13 negotiated settlement, failing that, a 14 clear stand on what are provincial 15 matters and what -- and [pardon me] 16 that the laws should be upheld." 17 And I guess, firstly, I just want to ask 18 you whether or not you had seen this letter? 19 A: No, I had not. 20 Q: And were you aware of the meeting 21 that is described in there? 22 A: No, not that I recall. 23 Q: And understanding now that such 24 meeting took place and this purported agreement, I should 25 say, that the -- the OPP have not indicated that they


1 were -- that there was any such agreement made, right. 2 But, having said that, did that give rise 3 or does it give rise now to any concerns that such 4 meeting, first of all, would have occurred? 5 A: Yes, well let me, as I seem to always 6 be saying give some context to this. I'm contemplating 7 about where to begin on this one. 8 I think we have to recognize that it's 9 always a struggle within any government to sort out the 10 demarcation lines between constituency responsibility and 11 political responsibility. 12 So, that is a very significant issue that 13 all governments struggle with. And we see it and it 14 becomes more apparent when it's a Ministerial 15 responsibility, when the Minister in the course of her 16 exercising her Ministerial responsibility still has to do 17 something at the constituency level and, Oh, my goodness, 18 why was this letter written and why was that letter 19 written. 20 So, that is a difficult in and of itself. 21 Secondly, I think we have to recognize that this letter 22 was written in the early days of a government where 23 caucus and the relationships between back benchers and 24 what Ministers needed to do was probably unclear. 25 This reads to me as, if I can say this, as


1 -- I'm trying to be fair and I wouldn't know what the 2 intentions of Mr. Beaubien were, but I had been aware 3 over the course of the briefings, I can't say 4 specifically which date and what meeting and what 5 briefing, that Mr. Beaubien was -- was of the mind that 6 his direct involvement was helpful. And I can only say 7 that that was not the view of the OPP, that did not seem 8 to be the view of the IMC, that was not the view of the 9 deputy Minister's office. 10 And I doubt very much, not withstanding 11 this letter, that anyone would have agreed that a 12 backbencher sitting in a room somewhere -- somewhere, 13 would have had the authority or the ability to construct 14 an agreement with the OPP; that would not have been the 15 case. 16 But, the policy question that arises from 17 a letter like this, I think, is obviously who has contact 18 with whom, what needs to be put in writing from a caucus, 19 and a political view, and remember I'm a -- I'm a former 20 Deputy Minister, so I didn't delve a great deal into -- 21 in fact, to say that I didn't delve isn't accurate. 22 I didn't delve at all into the 23 relationships between backbenchers and Ministers and 24 caucus and so on. I would simply say that in the early 25 days of a -- of a new government when there is a


1 transition team that is involving itself with roles and 2 responsibilities, policing and the subjects around 3 policing are so highly particularistic and so complex, 4 that it might mean not only separate forms of briefing 5 but perhaps ongoing. 6 And clearly what happened in a case like - 7 - well, I don't know if it's clear or not, but my 8 reaction to this letter is that there didn't seem to be, 9 given that this was the second letter, discipline with 10 discipline from the Party Whip with respect to what was 11 going on with -- with the backbench. And that would be 12 something for others who are more expert in the overt 13 political processes to comment on. 14 Q: And if I can ask you just to look at 15 item number 3 on the second page, 16 "Ministries involved have to give the 17 OPP clear guidelines for law 18 enforcement." 19 A: Exactly. Factually incorrect, 20 statutorily incorrect, clumsy, and not within his purview 21 to comment on. 22 Q: All right. And who would review a 23 letter like this, and I know you've just taken a moment 24 earlier to explain the routing process, but what would 25 happen with a letter like this, what would be the


1 process, who would deal with it? 2 A: I don't recall who Dan Newman was. 3 Dan Newman, I don't recall that name being a civil 4 servant. He may have been a parliamentary assistant, I 5 don't recall. 6 Q: You're referring to the first name 7 on -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- on the cc? 10 A: Yes. I guess in -- in view of the 11 fact that he was named as part as group of politicians, 12 he probably had a parliamentary assistantship. We'd have 13 to check that out factually. 14 Well, what would have happened in the -- 15 in the Attorney General's office would have been exactly 16 the same as happened in ours. We had -- he had a -- the 17 Attorney always had a very large correspondence unit, 18 that letter would have been referred. I would suspect it 19 would have gone through the chain. They would have 20 understood that the cc's were just FYI's. 21 And I would have imagined, although I 22 can't speculate, that the political staff would have been 23 involved in this, in checking off whether or not the -- 24 prior to the Minister signing any response, the 25 legislative assistant, and the issues person, and the


1 executive assistant, would have actually reviewed the 2 Minister's letter and indicated that they were in support 3 of it. 4 And it's possible, although I can't 5 speculate, that given the tone and the inaccuracies in 6 this letter it's possible that they might have said some 7 further conversations need to occur either with Mr. 8 Beaubien, or there is a formal process, which I wouldn't 9 have been aware of, between the Premier's office and 10 backbenchers with respect to what next steps had to be 11 taken. 12 Q: All right. And would it surprise you 13 if I told you that Inspector Fox had testified that this 14 letter was passed along to him for response? 15 A: Very surprised. 16 Q: Would the person -- whoever -- 17 whoever was in possession of this for -- for response, 18 would they be in a position to assess whether or not the 19 policy that we discussed yesterday of non-interference 20 with police operations by government, would they be in a 21 position to determine whether that was adhered to or not? 22 A: I'm sorry, I didn't catch the -- the 23 tone. Try it again. 24 Q: And I -- and I've asked it poorly. 25 Whoever is dealing with a letter such as


1 this would -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- they be able to make an assessment 4 as to whether the policy of police independence or non 5 government interference, to put it another way, with 6 police operations, as a general policy was that being 7 adhered to? Can they make that assessment when looking 8 at... 9 A: Well, I -- I'm thinking that when -- 10 I'm very surprised that it would have -- I -- I can't 11 speak to -- to what Mr. Fox said, but this was not a 12 letter to our Minister, this was a letter to Harnick. 13 So, in -- forgive me, that sounded disrespectful. It was 14 a letter to the Attorney General. 15 Insofar as it was a letter to the General, 16 and we were an FYI, there would have been no reason for 17 us to have seen it. Perhaps they would have sent it to 18 us as an FYI, but if it was an FYI it was meant not to be 19 responded to. 20 And that office and our office were very 21 keenly aware of the distinction between policy and 22 operations; that after all is the sum and substance of 23 some of the most critical issues facing both an attorney 24 and a solicitor general. 25 Q: And perhaps I can tell you this --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 2 it's not an objection to a question but it is a concern 3 about the extent the speculation can go. 4 Now, with great respect Dr. Todres is 5 speaking to the -- her entire office and their keen 6 awareness as to the division, and with great respect, 7 while she can speak to some specific circumstances or 8 specific employees it just seems to me that it -- it gets 9 more and more speculative and more and more vague. And - 10 - and with respect it just seems to me that there has to 11 be a limit on her knowledge and her observations. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You were 13 speaking to your belief or your understanding. I mean 14 yes, I think some of what Mr. Falconer is saying we have 15 to be careful that you don't speculate beyond the area 16 that you're being asked about. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 21 Worme...? 22 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you, 23 Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps -- 25 MR. DONALD WORME: I'll keep that in mind


1 as I ask my questions -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. DONALD WORME: -- and -- and ask Dr. 4 Todres if she can be more particular. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 7 Q: Just going back to the letter for a 8 moment, Dr. Todres, Dan Newman, did you know him at all 9 as a -- as a -- the parliamentary assistant for ONAS? 10 A: I don't recall him in particular. 11 Q: All right. Thank you. Let me move 12 on then. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Did you have any briefings, Dr. 17 Todres, during August of 1995 that you can recall, 18 specifically with respect to -- to the Ipperwash matter? 19 A: Well, as I indicated yesterday I saw 20 a memo here where -- in the binders where Mr. Fox sent a 21 memo to both me and Neil McKerrell on -- early in August 22 apprising me of some briefing notes. There would have 23 been no reason for him to send a CC to the ADM of 24 Corrections, Adult Correction, unless Mr. McKerrell was 25 acting as my -- in my stead while I was on vacation as


1 Acting Deputy Minister. 2 And I would often refer to him, I would 3 often delegate responsibility to him. So I can only 4 infer from that that I wasn't around for much of August; 5 that must have been my holiday time. I can't be certain 6 of that but that was likely the case and I -- I wouldn't 7 have taken a month off. It was early days of a new 8 government. 9 So, I probably would have come back at 10 some point in August and at that point would have been 11 briefed on whatever was going on. 12 Q: All right. Thank you. And do you 13 recall receiving a briefing from Ron Fox and Barbara 14 Taylor together, with respect to the incident at 15 Ipperwash on or about September 5th of 1995? 16 A: On September 5th I recall a very, 17 very detailed briefing with -- with Barb Taylor present 18 and Ron Fox present, Scott Patrick may have been present, 19 he probably was, in my boardroom where not only did they 20 brief me in detail but they took a piece of chalk and 21 stood in front of my chalkboard and actually drew a 22 physical map of the area explaining to me the details of 23 the Camp and the Park. 24 And we spent a considerable amount of time 25 having been briefed -- me being briefed.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 2 when was that, Ms. Todres? I just -- 3 THE WITNESS: The morning of -- of 4 September the 5th. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 THE WITNESS: First thing in the morning. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 9 Q: And do you recall having a meeting 10 with Larry Taman, or Taman, pardon me, in and around this 11 period of time? 12 A: I believe that in the afternoon; I 13 can't be absolutely certain whether it was the 5th, the 14 6th although I believe that it was the 5th. Larry and I 15 had a meeting with both Ministers, Runciman and Harnick, 16 and their Executive Assistants on general matters. 17 And if I can just provide background to 18 that. We were given large cuts and the Deputy Attorney 19 General and I had determined that it was extremely 20 necessary for the Government to consider us as a sector 21 and not individual ministries. 22 That whilst we weren't advocating a 23 Minister of Justice, as occurs in some provinces, we were 24 asking that, for purposes of financial allocation, 25 capital allocation, operational day to day -- not day to


1 day, but the construct within which we would go and -- 2 and get decisions, that we needed to think about the 3 justices system and as a whole. 4 And if I can just spend a moment or two 5 (2) because I think this is rather important. 6 I found it very frustrating as the Deputy 7 Solicitor General and the Deputy Minister of Corrections 8 that independent decisions were being made about where a 9 court house would be located, where a jail would be 10 located, where a police detachment would be located. 11 Independent decisions were being made with 12 -- because Ministers have their own individual 13 responsibilities, that those -- they would each send up 14 their estimates package or their financial package with 15 no systemic review about what all of this meant. And I 16 can give countless examples, whether it's technology or 17 whatever. 18 So, the Deputy Attorney General and I felt 19 short of moving toward a united Ministry which we felt 20 would be preposterous given the size of the -- of the 21 Province, the geographic expanse and the potential 22 inherent conflicts of interest that might arise from one 23 Minister being responsible for all of them, we believed 24 that we actually needed to change the way in which the 25 central agencies were viewing us, and the way in which


1 our -- the decision making process was, with respect to 2 what we were doing, would be reinvented, if I can put it 3 that way. 4 So, simply put, what we were saying was 5 one or two things. One, when proposals were to go 6 forward, whether it was capital or -- let me give you 7 another example. 8 Let's say a government says we're 9 interested in zero tolerance for violence in schools. 10 It's very interesting and very important when a Minister 11 of Education makes such announcement. It has a huge 12 ripple impact on both policing charges and at the end of 13 the day from my concern, the number of beds we had for 14 young offenders. 15 And given that there didn't appear to be 16 that kind of systemic thinking, we wanted to encourage 17 that and not only encourage that, but change the way in 18 which the two (2) Ministers would actually put proposals 19 together. 20 Given that we were dealing in the summer 21 with 40 percent cuts, that would have meant two (2) 22 things. One, we were actually recommending joint 23 submissions on what it is the two (2) Ministries wanted 24 to propose including cuts and including capital and so 25 on.


1 And two, we were proposing and actually 2 putting into place joint management meetings between the 3 Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the 4 Solicitor General. And I think -- I think it would be 5 fair to say that from the view of cautious lawyers, 6 cautious jailers and cautious police officers, this might 7 have been seeming to be virtually revolutionary in 8 concept. 9 So, we began doing -- began to do a lot of 10 thinking about that and we'd actually sought direction 11 from the Secretary of Cabinet. And we were working 12 toward a meeting with the Minister to discuss -- the two 13 (2) Ministers to discuss things like that. 14 I believe that in the afternoon of the 15 5th, we finally -- because you can appreciate how 16 difficult it is to actually get two (2) Ministers 17 together, and we were not proximate in terms of our 18 location of offices. 19 I believe that we had a general meeting on 20 a number of matters like that and because Ipperwash was 21 beginning to bubble up, it was still not a crisis by any 22 means, it was an issue, but we'd received notes and so 23 on, that Ipperwash was one of the subjects of that 24 particular meeting on the 5th. 25 Q: If I can ask you to turn to Tab 24.


1 It's a document entitled, Project Maple, dated September 2 1995, it's Exhibit P-424. 3 A: Yes, I see it. 4 Q: First of all, I should ask you, were 5 you aware of -- of anything called Project Maple? 6 A: No. I would not have known the name, 7 I would never have seen this material. 8 Q: And you will know that this is, in 9 fact, the operational plan with respect to the OPP's -- 10 with respect to -- to the reaction to the Ipperwash 11 matter? 12 A: Yeah, well I now understand that to 13 be the case, having read it briefly. 14 Q: Would you, as a matter of policy or 15 as a matter of course, ever see these kinds of documents? 16 A: As a matter of policy, I would never 17 see a document of this kind. 18 Q: And you'll see that within the -- 19 within the document, that it obviously contemplates as -- 20 as one option, perhaps a last option, the possible use of 21 force. 22 A: Yes, I believe I -- I can't find the 23 reference, but I take your word for that. 24 Q: Do you know whether or not, Dr. 25 Todres, within your Ministry there was any debate about


1 the use of force and particularly the use of the -- of 2 the tactical response unit? 3 A: I'm not aware of any such debate. 4 Q: And I take it from what you had 5 testified to yesterday, that you weren't aware that there 6 was, first of all, a police build up in the area or...? 7 A: Well, it's difficult to reconstruct 8 precisely what I knew at the time. I would have been 9 given some operational details about what was going on, 10 but I certainly wouldn't have been aware of a TRU force. 11 Q: All right. And if you were aware of 12 a relatively large scale police operation being -- being 13 set up, being planned, being implemented during that 14 particular period of time, would you have had any policy 15 concerns? 16 A: Well, I guess it's a hypothetical. 17 All of the briefings I'd had up to that point indicated 18 slow as she goes, steady negotiations and I -- I simply 19 didn't think beyond that. 20 I was very comfortable that that was the 21 direction that was being taken. 22 Q: All right. And if you would have had 23 concerns, what would be the appropriate mechanisms for 24 dealing with those and for ensuring an information flow 25 so that -- so those concerns could be properly aired?


1 A: Well, if I would have had significant 2 concerns at that point in time I would have probably 3 spoken to my director of Legal, as I did on -- on all 4 occasions, to say what precisely are the limits or the 5 de-limits around what it is that I can say. 6 I would have -- I may have called the 7 Commissioner and made sure that I was talking about 8 matters that were not beyond what it is that I was 9 permitted to say. And again, hypothetically, I -- I 10 don't know what more to say other than that I would have 11 exercised judgment at that point in time as to whether or 12 not I needed to inform the Minister, and I would have 13 been aided by advice from -- from my lawyers. 14 And what I often did when something was a 15 large, legal issue, I would have sought personal advice 16 from the Deputy Attorney General. 17 Q: All right. We were talking about 18 September the 5th and -- and yesterday we had spoke 19 briefly about the InterMinisterial Committee on 20 Aboriginal emergencies, the blockade committee -- 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: -- known variously by other names as 23 well. 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: And were you aware that they were


1 meeting on September the 5th and indeed on September the 2 6th? 3 A: In retrospect I -- I must have been 4 aware that they were meeting. I don't recall 5 specifically being told, we're meeting now. But, in 6 order for the briefing notes and for the option to have 7 been considered, I would have known that the IMC was 8 meeting. 9 Q: You confirmed for us yesterday that 10 Ron Fox was your designate -- 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: -- at such meeting. 13 A: Correct. Correct. 14 Q: And it would have been typical that 15 he would have briefed you on -- 16 A: That's right. 17 Q: -- on the meeting? 18 A: He would have returned from the 19 office and he would've knocked on my door and informed me 20 of what happened. 21 Q: And at Tab 26, Dr. Todres, there are 22 meeting notes from the IMC meeting of September the 5 -- 23 September 5th, pardon me. It's marked as Exhibit P-509. 24 Do you -- 25 A: Yes, I see it.


1 Q: -- see that? 2 And having read those and having had the 3 opportunity to review those, do you -- do you recall that 4 you were in fact briefed on these? 5 A: Yes. I believe I was briefed on 6 those. I wouldn't have seen the minutes, but Ron would 7 have briefed me. 8 Q: And what was your understanding, Dr. 9 Todres, of Ron as you call him, Ron Fox, Inspector Fox, 10 of his obligations to be at the meeting around providing 11 information that he would have received from his 12 colleagues on the ground? 13 A: Well, being a seasoned -- being a 14 seasoned officer, and I might indicate that I never 15 referred to him as Inspector Fox, he was Mr. Fox to me, 16 he would have exercised judgment. I mean, he appreciated 17 that in order for the InterMinisterial Committee to have 18 a factual base upon which to make reasoned 19 recommendations, not decisions, but recommendations, that 20 they ought to have had a certain degree of information. 21 He would not have shared with them, I 22 don't believe, tactical -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 24 with respect, I understand Dr. Todres is doing her best 25 in helping, it's not the question, it's just that if Dr.


1 Todres is speculating based on what she knew at the time 2 or in fact knows now, that is, Fox reported to her X and 3 Y. 4 But, if it's purely he would haves, I have 5 no memory, but he would have, and with great respect to 6 Dr. Todres, it's probably not of assistance and we get 7 confused about whether it's a knowledge base or not. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 9 minute. Yes, I hear you, Mr. Falconer. I hear you Mr. 10 Falconer. Mr. Sandler has something to say. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: I was just going to 12 suggest that we may be getting a little too overly 13 technical in objecting here -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- because I think 16 it's important that -- that we get a sense because there 17 are interesting and important systemic issues here about 18 what Dr. Todres would expect -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- to be communicated 21 and why certain things would be appropriate to be 22 communicated -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and if it's framed 25 that way, what her expectations would be, I can't imagine


1 any objection to it. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. There 3 is a fine line and some of the testimony of Dr. Todres 4 has been very helpful, even thought it hasn't been -- it 5 might not be classic evidence or admissible in a trial or 6 whatever, but it's been very helpful. And so exactly 7 where to draw the line between pure speculation which is 8 of no assistance to anybody, and useful -- useful 9 assistance is a difficult one. 10 Let's just try to keep our eye on it as we 11 go through it. 12 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you, 13 Commissioner. It just seems to me that Dr. Todres does 14 have a wealth of information -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. DONALD WORME: -- to provide and 17 obviously this Inquiry's mandate goes beyond simply the 18 testimony here. There's a second aspect to it that I -- 19 I believe that this ought to be helpful. And I -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 21 have to be careful that's all. 22 MR. DONALD WORME: -- appreciate Mr. 23 Sandler's remarks. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have to 25 be careful, we have to keep Mr. Falconer's concerns in


1 mind. So, let's move forward. 2 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you for that, 3 Commissioner. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 6 Q: Dr. Todres, perhaps I can tell you 7 that Inspector Fox has testified here and he had made a 8 distinction between field information which I think he 9 described, and I'll be corrected by the record if I'm 10 wrong, is information that was publicly known as opposed 11 to operational or strategic type of information. 12 First of all, were you aware of such 13 distinction? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And that he testified that it was his 16 obligation to provide this kind of field obligation -- 17 pardon me, field information, to the IMC. And I think 18 you've already confirmed that -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- that was your expectation -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- of what he would do? All right. 23 Did you have any meetings, Dr. Todres, 24 that you can recall for us on September the 5th with 25 respect to the Ipperwash matter?


1 A: Well, all I can recall is the 2 specific briefing, the detailed briefing that I -- that I 3 received on the 5th, and to the best of my recollection, 4 a generic meeting with our two (2) Ministers in which 5 Ipperwash was discussed briefly. 6 And it was discussed in the context of 7 what our prevailing, if I can put it, policy constructs 8 were, which is slow, steady negotiation, no options -- no 9 other options at the time being considered. 10 And on the afternoon of the 5th none of us 11 in that room had unusual concerns about Ipperwash. So, 12 I left the office on the 5th as I would any other day 13 with the Solicitor General. 14 Q: And specifically did you have -- I'm 15 sorry. 16 A: I had no concerns about Ipperwash. 17 Q: And specifically did you have any 18 concerns about the -- the policing of the situation? 19 A: No. 20 Q: All right. If you had any concerns 21 what would be the appropriate manner of -- of raising 22 those concerns or of intervening -- 23 A: Well, again it would have depended on 24 what the nature of the concern would be -- 25 Q: All right.


1 A: -- so given the earlier cautions I'm 2 not going to speculate too much. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 That's fine. 5 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: She didn't 7 have any concerns. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 10 Q: Did you speak to the OPP Commissioner 11 O'Grady on that day -- 12 A: No. 13 Q: -- at any time prior to September the 14 7th, to your knowledge? 15 A: No. 16 Q: And would it have been appropriate 17 for you to contact the Commissioner about an ongoing or a 18 contemplated police operation? 19 A: No, I didn't believe it was. 20 Q: All right. Were you aware that 21 Inspector Fox, or Mr. Fox was having conversations with 22 John Carson who was the incident commander? 23 A: No. 24 Q: All right. And if you were aware 25 that such conversations were occurring would that raise


1 any issue for you? 2 A: No, I -- I don't know how a person 3 can discharge their -- how a person can discharge his or 4 her responsibilities to keep the IMC and the Deputy 5 informed without speaking directly and finding out as 6 much information, otherwise we would have relied on the 7 briefing notes from Phil Duffield from the OPP. 8 I would have expected the protocols to be 9 observes, as we've discussed earlier, in the transmission 10 and eliciting of information back and forth. 11 Q: Okay. And if you were aware that 12 there was also meetings with Inspector Fox and certain 13 political staff who -- who may or may not have been 14 expressing opinions does that raise any issue for you? 15 A: Well, -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 17 minute, Mr. Worme. 18 Yes, Ms. Twohig...? 19 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes, Mr. Commissioner, 20 I just think it's important for Dr. Todres to have the 21 context. If we're talking about interacting with 22 political staff for example at an IMC meeting that may be 23 very different from other types of interaction. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've got 25 too general a question.


1 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes. 2 MR. DONALD WORME: I appreciate My 3 Friend's comments. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Be a little 5 more -- 6 MR. DONALD WORME: She's absolutely 7 right. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 11 Q: During the course of an IMC meeting 12 where political staff may be present and they may be 13 expressing opinions on behalf of their respective 14 Ministers does that raise any issue for you? 15 A: Let me -- let me again provide just a 16 little bit of an historical context on that particular 17 question. 18 I'd attended as a junior staffer many, 19 many InterMinisterial Committees. I was never a member 20 of IMC. But it had been the case for many years that 21 political staff would attend IMC meetings. The behaviour 22 of those staff at those meetings was to listen and to 23 provide a conduit to the Minister because after all that 24 Committee only had recommendatory powers. 25


1 So, those staff would have been aided by 2 attending those meetings so that when political choices 3 were actually put forward with respect to options they 4 would have had some information. 5 I think in the case that you're referring 6 to what -- what I understood to be different in this 7 particular case was that we had political staff who were 8 taking active -- who were active involvement -- they 9 were actively involved, not just attentive listeners. 10 And that was a flag for me and that was a 11 flag for the Deputy Attorney General. And that is why we 12 were concerned a little later on about what we needed to 13 do in terms of placing limits around political staff 14 being present. 15 Because what happens, as I indicated, in 16 my -- as I was speaking yesterday, first of all do we 17 take the view that if a political staffer is there that 18 it is -- it is actually the same as having the voice of 19 the Minister? 20 And for junior staff it can be very 21 confusing to have political staff present, because it's 22 difficult for them to differentiate personal opinion 23 expressed by that particular person versus policy 24 direction from a Minister. And -- and often political 25 staff will present with the use of collective nouns in a


1 way in which their personal views can be misinterpreted. 2 So, that was a caution for me when I 3 became aware of the active involvement of political staff 4 at such meetings. 5 Q: I think you've testified that you 6 left the office then on that day, September the 5th. 7 There was no urgency to this situation -- 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: -- as you understood it? 10 On September the 6th, Dr. Todres, you 11 would have arrived, I take it, at your office at the 12 usual -- usual time. 13 Is there anything extraordinary on the 14 morning of the 6th that you can tell us about? 15 A: On the morning of the 6th then, my 16 days began very early in that Ministry, I received a 17 briefing again, a daily briefing. I believe Ron Fox and 18 Barbara Taylor and again, Scott Taylor -- Scott Patrick 19 may have been there on the latest update. 20 And as of the morning -- of early morning, 21 that might have been seven or eight o'clock in the 22 morning -- 23 Q: Perhaps I can just interrupt you 24 briefly. If I can have you turn to Tab number 29. It's 25 Inquiry Document 1000911. It's marked as Exhibit P-513.


1 It would appear to be an e-mail from Ron 2 Fox and it's addressed to yourself as well as Kathryn 3 Hunt. Do you see that, it's -- 4 A: Yes, I do. 5 Q: -- dated September the 6th. 6 A: I do. 7 Q: And time stamped at 7:55 -- 07:55 8 with high priority. 9 A: Yes, I see that. I don't recall 10 seeing that in particular, but that would have been the 11 substance of the verbal briefing. So, it may have been 12 then at eight o'clock in the morning. 13 Q: And did you meet with the Attorney 14 General on that morning -- 15 A: Not that I recall. 16 Q: Were you aware that there was a 17 Cabinet meeting that morning? 18 A: Well, I believe it was Wednesday, so 19 there were Cabinet meetings on Wednesday. 20 Q: All right. Did you meet with the -- 21 with the Deputy Attorney General? 22 A: Not that I recall. 23 Q: Other than -- well, did you meet with 24 Ron Fox, I should ask you. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: All right. 2 A: I recall that I had a briefing with 3 him in the morning. 4 Q: And can you recall anything of that 5 briefing that you can tell us about? 6 A: No. Other than again, after the 7 meeting, I had no sense of alarm. 8 Q: And we have had some testimony, Dr. 9 Todres, that there was a meeting on that morning between 10 the former Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Taman, 11 Superintendent Fox, as well as former Attorney General 12 Harnick. And that meeting took place between yourself, 13 Minister Runciman, Minister Harnick, Mr. Taman and Mr. 14 Fox. 15 Do you recall that at all? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Were you aware that there was also an 18 InterMinisterial Committee that was going to be -- 19 A: I believe so. 20 Q: -- occurring later that morning? All 21 right. 22 Can I ask you to turn to Tab 30, Dr. 23 Todres. It's the meeting notes for September the 6th, and 24 it's marked as Exhibit P-509. 25 A: I see it, thank you.


1 Q: Did you ever had -- did you review 2 these notes, first of all? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just one (1) 4 second before you answer the question. 5 Yes, Mr. Sandler? 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: This doesn't have to 7 with an upcoming question, but -- but My Friend just 8 summarized that there's been some evidence of a meeting 9 that morning that Superintendent Fox attended. 10 I don't recall any evidence to that effect 11 of the meeting that he described. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I was 13 wondering about that, but I -- perhaps you'd be a little 14 more specific, Mr. Worme, about what you -- 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm quite confident 16 that that -- that there -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- that the evidence 19 has not been that the meeting that My Friend described 20 was attended by -- by Inspector Fox. 21 MR. DONALD WORME: I think Mr. Sandler's 22 right and I -- I apologize. I may have misspoke on that, 23 and perhaps I can ask the Witness whether -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 25 MR. DONALD WORME: -- you were aware of a


1 meeting, absent Mr. Fox, with the individuals that I'd 2 referred to. 3 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that 4 meeting. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 8 Q: Let me just take you back, then, to 9 the -- to the exhibit that I referred you to earlier. 10 You recall receiving a briefing with 11 respect to the content of those minutes? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Did you have any conversations that 14 morning with Mr. Taman that you can recall or anyone 15 prior to the -- prior to the Minister's meeting, about 16 the Premier and his views on the situation? 17 A: No. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Do you recall what the position of 22 the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were with 23 respect to the Ipperwash matter? 24 Do you have any recollection as to what 25 their views were?


1 A: My recollection of where we were as 2 of September 5th in the evening and September 6th in the 3 morning, was that we would proceed apace, in other words 4 doing exactly what we were doing; that the police would 5 be monitoring, that there would be an attempt at 6 negotiations and that we would be staying the course. 7 Q: All right. Can I ask you to turn to 8 Tab 34, Dr. Todres? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: It's Inquiry Document 2001053. It's 13 marked as Exhibit P-594. And you'll see that it's a -- 14 A: Yes, I see it. 15 Q: -- Ministry of -- it's an MSGC issue 16 note. And you'll also note that it is marked as not 17 circulated? 18 A: Yes, I see that. 19 Q: Dated September the 6th at 10:30 20 a.m.? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And you'll see that it outlines the 25 OPP's and the Commissioner's authority and discretion to


1 determine what action if any should be taken about the 2 Park occupation? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And it emphasizes that quote: 5 "The Ministers should not intervene in 6 operational decisions made by the OPP 7 members when exercising their powers as 8 police officers -- as peace officers 9 [pardon me]." 10 Q: All right. Did you see this issue 11 note at all? 12 A: I don't recall seeing it, but I -- I 13 recall the substance of it. 14 Q: Do you recall attending then, Dr. 15 Todres, at some point on that day, and -- and I'll ask 16 you to tell us when if you recall, attending a meeting at 17 the Premier's office? 18 A: Yes, I do. 19 Q: Okay. Can you tell us about that, 20 the timing first of all? 21 A: I believe that the meeting was 22 somewhere around eleven o'clock in the morning. And I 23 don't believe that the meeting took longer than thirty 24 (30) or forty (40) minutes. 25 Q: All right.


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: Can you tell us who was present at 3 this meeting? 4 A: I recall walking to the meeting with 5 Ron Fox. I don't recall Scott Patrick in particular, but 6 Scott Patrick may have been called. 7 Perhaps I might begin by saying I was 8 summoned to the meeting. I can't recall who called my 9 office, and normally people wouldn't call me directly. I 10 would have been called to the meeting. 11 It was an unusual meeting. In my tenure 12 as a deputy for ten (10) -- ten (10) years I've only been 13 in that meeting room twice, once with Premier Harris and 14 once with Premier Peterson. So, it was an unusual 15 occurrence and it was an unusual occurrence on a 16 Wednesday which is a Cabinet day. 17 So, someone called my office. I wouldn't 18 know who called my office. I was simply told that I had 19 to be there. 20 And as a Deputy Minister having been 21 invited to a Premier's office I wouldn't have decided who 22 I wished to take with me to the meeting. Someone, and I 23 don't know who that someone is, would have suggested who 24 had to attend. I wouldn't have had the temerity to bring 25 along a party list to a meeting like that.


1 I wasn't clear what the content of the 2 meeting was, but I could imagine that it might have 3 something to do with Ipperwash, but I wouldn't have known 4 what the meeting was about. I don't believe I was 5 informed about what the meeting was, in particular. 6 So, I recall walking along with Ron, and 7 perhaps Barbara Taylor, and Scott. We reached what we 8 called the dining room and I walked into the room alone 9 without Mr. Fox, Mr. Patrick, or Ms. Taylor and I'm not 10 sure about the order in which people arrived. I don't 11 have a recall of that. 12 But I can tell you that I recall that of 13 course there were the three (3) Ministers of Natural 14 Resources, Solicitor General, and Attorney General; their 15 three (3) respected Deputies, Deputy Vrancart, Deputy 16 Taman, and myself; there were the respective executive 17 assistants of the three (3) Ministers and the executive. 18 Although there were -- Peter Allen was there I -- I 19 recall so there might have been some EA's to the -- to 20 the Deputies. I didn't bring my -- my executive 21 assistant was not brought in or not asked to be there. 22 And I recall that Debra Hutton was there. 23 I believe David Lindsay was there. I can't recall, in 24 particular, whether the Secretary of Cabinet Rita Burak 25 was there. It would have -- I -- I don't know. I don't


1 recall her. It's unusual for a Secretary of Cabinet not 2 to be present when a principle secretary is present, but 3 I can't recall seeing her. 4 So those were the people present. Would 5 you like me to describe what I recall of that meeting? 6 Q: Just before you do that can you tell 7 us how called the meeting? Perhaps you've already told 8 me and -- 9 A: I -- I don't know. I -- I have to 10 assume -- I mean, again I'm reluctant to speculate. 11 Q: Perhaps you -- perhaps you shouldn't. 12 A: Someone called us, it must have been 13 from the Premier's office. 14 Q: Would you go ahead then and tell us 15 what it is that you -- you observed and heard? 16 A: So, we sat in the room, it's a rather 17 small room and it's circumscribed by space, it's not a 18 large room. And at the top of the meeting as I -- as I - 19 - I understood that the -- the discussion was going to be 20 Ipperwash. 21 And I believe that the Premier would have 22 so indicated. He was chairing the meeting. I felt an 23 obligation to repeat what for many would have been 24 obvious, but to repeat the point about what precisely is 25 the role of the police, what is the role of the Solicitor


1 General and the demarcation line between politician and 2 operational instructions to police. 3 To simply make it clear and put it on the 4 table that we all knew that this was the policy but to 5 remind us this was indeed, was the policy and we intended 6 to observer it at this meeting. 7 Q: And the reason you felt obliged to do 8 so? 9 A: Well, it's a new Government and I 10 felt that that was my role at the meeting to -- to make 11 that perfectly plain. 12 The meeting, in fact, was dominated in my 13 memory by the Deputy Attorney General speaking about 14 context and then a very, very long discussion, what 15 seemed to be a very long discussion, about the use of 16 injunction and the type of injunctions. 17 And I think it would be fair to say that I 18 am neither an expert on injunctions, nor an expert on ex 19 parte injunctions, but that particular subject was 20 discussed at great length. 21 It was a heated discussion. There was a 22 lot of frustration on the part of politicians. There was 23 a great deal of sense of urgency about dealing with this 24 issue as promptly as possible. 25 And at the end of the meeting -- and I


1 have no recall of Ron Fox being in attendance at the 2 meeting. I do recall however, a significant amount of 3 time being allocated to a briefing of what actually was 4 happening on the ground and the discussion of what 5 tactics and strategies had worked to-date. 6 That is to say that our general view from 7 a bureaucratic point of view what that steady as she 8 goes, no interventions, the police are to make their own 9 independent decisions with respect to operations and that 10 we would be relying on approaches to negotiation. 11 My overwhelming sense at the end of the 12 meeting was that it was the political direction to 13 proceed with injunction, to proceed with haste, to try to 14 deal with this issue as quickly as possible, and at the 15 end of the day I believed that the Deputy Attorney 16 General was likely given instruc -- was given instruction 17 to proceed not only with injunction but to certainly 18 explore, with a great deal of vim and vigour, ex parte 19 injunction. And then the meeting was over. 20 Q: Just -- just let me ask you a few 21 questions about what you've just described. First of 22 all, the Deputy Attorney General and that -- that would 23 be Mr. Taman? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: In his discussion of the various


1 types of injunctions, I -- I gather that's what you were 2 describing, first of all what did ex parte mean to you at 3 that point? 4 A: Very little. And I -- I would 5 describe my behaviour at the time as desperately trying 6 to understand what he was talking about. 7 Q: All right. 8 A: It was not an area that I felt I 9 needed to be expert on. It was something clearly within 10 the mandate of the Attorney General and in this the 11 Deputy Attorney's department. 12 Q: And did you have a sense -- I'm 13 sorry, did I cut you off? 14 Did you have a sense that -- that he was 15 advocating a particular position? 16 A: I -- I -- my sense of the meeting was 17 that he would have preferred not to go the injunction 18 route and would have preferred to have let the matters 19 lay as they were. That was my recollection. 20 When asked to describe injunctions, he 21 did, and my sense was although I couldn't follow all of 22 the legal discussions, I -- I was led to believe that an 23 ex parte injunction might be a type of injunction that 24 would be able to be implemented more quickly than the 25 other.


1 But, I -- I would -- I'm speaking as a lay 2 person trying to recall a conversation. 3 Q: All right. And you mentioned that 4 there was some sense of urgency within this meeting. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And how did that accord with the way 7 that you understood events from the day previous and even 8 earlier that morning? 9 A: We felt no -- no sense of urgency. I 10 think it would be fair to say that from the -- from a 11 political point of view, this was a new government that 12 was keen on presenting itself to the public as being on 13 top of issues. 14 And as time went on, their notion of -- of 15 immediacy was not in synch with the time that would have 16 been associated within -- with negotiations. 17 And they wanted it done with. They wanted 18 to move on. They had a legislative agenda and they 19 wanted this dealt with as quickly as possible and they 20 didn't want to be -- they didn't want it to linger, if I 21 can put it that way. 22 Q: All right. Can you describe any 23 words or phrases that would have taken you to this 24 understanding? 25 A: Well, there were -- there were -- I


1 did get the sense that they wanted things done. I mean, 2 I recall -- the first thing that I recall is that the 3 Minister of -- of Natural Resources was extremely 4 agitated and very concerned. 5 And in a moment of apparent exasperation, 6 uttered a phrase that I would prefer not to repeat. 7 Q: I'm going to ask you to repeat it. 8 A: He said, in my recollection, "Get the 9 [expletive deleted] Indians out of my Park." 10 That is the phrase that I recall. 11 Q: He didn't say, "expletive deleted"? 12 A: No, he didn't. You're asking me to 13 say that word. 14 Q: I am asking you. 15 A: He said, "Get the fucking Indians out 16 of my Park" 17 Q: All right. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: Did you attribute any such words or 22 anything like that to any other people within the -- 23 within that meeting? 24 A: No. 25 Q: Just let me take you back, Dr.


1 Todres. I think you had testified earlier that you had 2 walked over to this meeting with Ron Fox? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: You have no recollection of him being 5 in the meeting? 6 A: None. 7 Q: Of him providing a briefing to -- to 8 the Premier -- 9 A: No. 10 Q: -- and others assembled? 11 A: I actually don't remember him being 12 there. Now, well, I'm not going to speculate. I don't 13 recall him being there. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: I do remember, however, a 16 conversation about an update and I do recall a 17 conversation about what we've -- what -- what was the 18 recommended path, how ONAS operated, how the 19 InterMinisterial Committee had always in the past worked 20 through with negotiation to success. 21 And today I might offer -- again, I don't 22 want to speculate, but I actually don't recall him being 23 in the room. 24 Q: Do you recall when you arrived at the 25 meeting? Was the meeting already underway, had it


1 started? 2 A: No, the meeting was not underway. 3 People were just -- I don't know exactly who was there, 4 but we hadn't started speaking -- 5 Q: And that's the question I was going 6 to ask you -- 7 A: -- officially. 8 Q: Do you remember who was present when 9 you arrived? 10 A: No. 11 Q: And specifically, I would have asked 12 you whether or not then-Minister Harnick was present, and 13 I take it you don't recall? 14 A: I don't recall. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: Did you hear any comments that would 19 have indicated to you that there was displeasure with the 20 way that the OPP had handled the situation? 21 A: No, that's not how I took the 22 meeting. I took the meeting as -- as an informational 23 meeting, again, a great deal of frustration, but I didn't 24 hear any direct criticism of the OPP. 25 Q: You've indicated a number of people


1 present and you've also indicated now, for a second time, 2 that there was a great deal of frustration in the room. 3 Who do you attribute that frustration to? 4 A: Well, I think the -- 5 Q: Or expressing frustration, pardon me? 6 A: I think the Premier was concerned and 7 I think he would have liked to have had this issue 8 resolved quickly. I think that Mr. Hodgson was clearly 9 very, very upset. And the political staff, I think, 10 around there wanted the issue resolved as quickly as 11 possible. 12 Q: And when you say, "as quickly as 13 possible", was there anything that you recall that would 14 give an indication as to what kind of time line that was 15 referring to? 16 A: I don't remember who said this, but I 17 remember say -- I mean, I remember walking out of the 18 room with the impression that we would be -- that Larry, 19 that the deputy Attorney General would be proceeding with 20 an ex parte injunction within twenty-four (24) hours. 21 Now, my reaction to that was not a literal 22 one of twenty-four (24) hours because lawyers when 23 working on injunctions have to work through a variety of 24 issues. I took that as an indication of moving speedily. 25 Q: Did you hear the Premier say anything


1 about any timeline? 2 A: I think he may have indicated that he 3 wanted this matter dealt with quickly as well. 4 Q: And when you say, "quickly," did he 5 indicate a timeline? 6 A: He may have said or someone said -- I 7 can't attribute it to him, but someone said within 8 twenty-four (24) hours. 9 Q: If I can just get a moment, 10 Commissioner? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: I'm sorry, Dr. Todres. I just want 15 to get back to this -- this comment again made by 16 Minister Hodgson that you've just told us about. Can you 17 recall when, within the context of the meeting, when that 18 would have occurred? 19 A: Well, it wasn't at the beginning of 20 the meeting and it wasn't at the end of the meeting. It 21 was somewhere -- I -- I think it may have been after the 22 -- the legal explanations and I can recall my -- my 23 reaction. I know -- I know -- 24 Q: What was your reaction? 25 A: My -- my reaction was that I was -- I


1 found the comments to be shocking and revealing. 2 Shocking in the sense that I just would never have 3 expected a Minister of the Crown to be using that 4 language, to using the phraseology; it was of deep 5 concern and that it was offensive. 6 But, what I found particularly revealing 7 was the phrase 'in my park' because that -- what that 8 triggered for me was the reaction of a green Minister, a 9 novice, who was placed in a position of an issue for the 10 first time in his mandate, and indeed a government in the 11 first time of its mandate. 12 And the sudden realization that, first of 13 all, for every issue there is not necessarily a quick 14 response or even a response. Not all problems can be 15 fixed. 16 And secondly that when a serious issue is 17 put before a government, when you look at Cabinet 18 structure, it's not surprising that there are a whole 19 variety of contextual things that have to be considered. 20 Lawyers have to speak about legalities and ONAS has its 21 own perspective and it isn't a simple snap decision. 22 And my sense was that at he -- as he'd 23 been listening to the briefings and the complexities of 24 injunctions and what could be done and what couldn't be 25 done that when he said, "my park", it was revelatory of -


1 - of as I say an unseasoned person who would have liked 2 to have seen quick reaction and was presented with a very 3 complex set of factors. 4 So, I believe that, I can't be absolutely 5 certain, but I believe that remark would have been made 6 sometime after some of the detailed briefing had 7 occurred. 8 Q: Was there any -- did -- did anybody 9 speak in -- in reaction to that comment? 10 A: No, we just -- it was as though there 11 was a break and we -- we moved along. I'm not certain -- 12 I wouldn't have known if everyone heard it. It was a 13 very difficult room to hear. There was an air 14 conditioner in the back and I recall straining at the 15 edge of my seat to hear what was actually going on, so I 16 don't know what others heard. 17 Q: All right. Did you hear any -- any 18 exchanges -- well, and perhaps this is -- this is not 19 entirely fair, but since you've told us you don't recall 20 Inspector Fox being present, or Mr. Fox, so you wouldn't 21 recall whether there was any exchanges between him and -- 22 A: No. 23 Q: -- Minister Hodgson? 24 A: No. 25 Q: All right. Aside from what you --


1 you think you might have heard from the Premier, did you 2 hear him make any remarks with respect to the holocaust? 3 A: No, I did not, and I should indicate 4 to you that I'm a daughter of holocaust survivors. 5 Q: And that would stick out in your 6 mind? 7 A: It would definitely have been 8 retained. 9 Q: All right. Do you recall the -- the 10 Premier or anybody being critical of OPP operations 11 within that meeting? 12 A: No. 13 Q: Do you recall how the meeting ended? 14 A: It sort of fizzled out, in the sense 15 that there was Cabinet and people started moving. I 16 don't think we were there for more than an hour. I don't 17 know if we were there by -- by Cabinet time, that's a 18 great deal of time for a meeting with the Premier, and 19 people started leaving. And then what I recall is -- is 20 walking out of the room and then walking back with Ron 21 Fox to the office. 22 Q: Okay. Let me just ask you about -- 23 about arriving at the meeting. You -- you've told us 24 that you remember walking to the meeting with Ron Fox? 25 A: I do.


1 Q: Were you at the Ministry of the 2 Attorney General's office prior to this Premier dining 3 room -- Premier's dining room meeting? 4 A: Not that I recall. I think we were 5 at our office. And our office was at Church and Bloor so 6 I don't know whether we took a car and then walked, but 7 we were together. 8 Q: All right. Sorry, excuse me. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Might it have been, Dr. Todres, that 13 you were at ONAS offices that morning perhaps? Is that - 14 - does that assist you at all? 15 A: Unless -- I don't even recall where 16 the ONAS offices are. 17 Q: All right. Going back to the meeting 18 and at termination of this meeting, you heard a number of 19 comments and phrases and -- and frustrations as you've 20 told us, how did you regard those? 21 A: Well, as I indicated earlier, there 22 were some remarks which were abhorrent and -- and hurtful 23 and offensive, but I considered the meeting to be a 24 confidential meeting, not a Cabinet meeting, but a 25 confidential meeting.


1 A lot of discussion about this, that and 2 the other, which I -- I took to be while florid, not 3 direction. The direction I heard from that meeting was 4 strictly with respect to injunctions. Lots of people 5 have opinions about lots of things, that's not government 6 policy. 7 Q: Is there anything else of 8 significance that you can tell us about that meeting? 9 A: No. I don't believe so. 10 Q: Okay. Did you feel that you had 11 received instructions as a result of what had gone on 12 within that meeting? 13 A: No. No. I believed that the Deputy 14 Attorney General had received instructions. 15 Q: Did you see what, if anything he did, 16 as a result of receipt of those instructions? 17 A: I wouldn't have known particularly 18 what he would have done immediately following that 19 meeting. 20 Q: All right. From that meeting, where 21 did you go? 22 A: I went back to the office and I 23 believe that we actually had a meeting. I -- I'm not 24 absolutely certain. I -- I know it's difficult for the 25 Commission, but we had in retrospect fifty (50) meetings


1 on Ipperwash, so it's very difficult to precisely say 2 what happened and at what sequence. 3 But I seem to have a memory of meeting 4 with Deputy Vrancart and Deputy Taman in the afternoon of 5 the 6th to just sort out around the injunctions. I can't 6 be absolutely certain but I do have a memory of 7 discussing the injunctions with them in a room that, in 8 my memory, seems to have resembled my boardroom, but I'm 9 not ab -- not 100 percent certain. 10 And as the issue of ex parte injunction 11 was being discussed among the three (3) of us, there were 12 a team of lawyers and I don't recall their names, who 13 were instructed to begin to work, and they may have 14 started, I -- I wouldn't know, but from my perspective 15 that was not our Ministry responsibility. 16 But I seem to recall that we might have 17 had a little confab, the three (3) of us, without 18 Ministers on the afternoon of the 6th. 19 Q: I think you'd indicated earlier that 20 you left the Premier's dining room meeting with Ron Fox? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Okay. Do you have any recollection 23 that he was invited to leave the meeting early? 24 A: All I know -- all I do recall is that 25 he didn't walk in to the meeting with me. So, he didn't


1 walk into the meeting with me. At some point during the 2 meeting, someone, I don't -- since I don't recall him 3 being there it wouldn't have been me that asked, but 4 somebody must have asked him to come in. 5 Q: Okay. Would it assist you at all to 6 know that Ron Fox testified on July the 12th at pages 66 7 and 69 of the transcript that either you or Minister 8 Runciman introduced him by name? No? 9 A: Doesn't help my recall. 10 Q: Going back to your office with Ron 11 Fox, do you recall any discussion with him at all? 12 A: No. 13 Q: And specifically, any concerns that 14 he might have expressed about the meeting? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Any language that he might have used, 17 redneck, anything like that? 18 A: I don't recall that. 19 Q: Did you have any concerns, Dr. 20 Todres, about -- about that meeting, aside from which 21 you've already told us of the -- of the language that was 22 used? 23 A: Well, it's hard to isolate particular 24 meetings, but -- but the deputy Attorney General and I 25 spent some time, whether it was that day or on the 7th,


1 asking ourselves the question; Who needs to be at 2 meetings, when and where, Are there opportunities where 3 we need to clarify when political staff need to be 4 present, et cetera. 5 In retrospect today, I might have said 6 that I would have handled -- as I say, I don't recall Ron 7 being in the room, but normal practice in Ministerial 8 briefings and in Cabinet meetings are that when sensitive 9 subjects are being discussed, for example, in Cabinet I 10 might be in the anteroom as a deputy Minister waiting to 11 be called. 12 I would only be permitted to walk into 13 that room for my item. I might also be prevented from 14 staying during actual political discussion, so that I 15 would have only have been there to provide my content and 16 asked to leave. 17 And in hindsight, had I known, or had I 18 remembered, or whatever the circumstances were around Mr. 19 Fox being invited, that protocol, should he have even 20 been invited, should have been -- should have been put 21 into place. 22 So, we had concerns, in general, and we'll 23 come to that on the 7th, but we had -- we had concerns 24 about what we needed to do prospectively about all the 25 players, because there were so many.


1 Q: Okay. And thank you for that. 2 Following the meeting, which I think you've indicated 3 there was nothing of significance that you can recall or 4 to add at this moment, what was your understanding of 5 your ongoing role then, with respect to the Ipperwash 6 file? 7 A: Well, it was again a watching brief. 8 The legal beagles would be working on the injunction, and 9 that would or would not take place. 10 As I understood it there were always 11 questions of how the judiciary would respond and so on, 12 and my -- my watching brief -- would brief on the 6th 13 would have been exactly the same as the 5th, which is 14 we're maintaining the course of action and then until 15 otherwise -- until there were other significant changes. 16 I left the office on the 6th feeling 17 exactly as I did on the 5th. 18 Q: And who was the lead Ministry in your 19 mind, at that moment? 20 A: In this sense, the lead Ministry, if 21 I can put it this way from the expectation of what major 22 next step had to occur, was the Attorney General. 23 Q: All right. And aside -- aside from 24 that, you understood that there would be some 25 involvement, perhaps, by the OPP in terms of the


1 injunction? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And did you have any role -- 4 A: No. 5 Q: -- insofar as that goes? 6 A: No. 7 Q: And your recollection is, is that you 8 left home or left, rather, the office for the day and... 9 A: Just -- exactly, as I would have any 10 other day, there was no alarm bells at all. 11 Q: Perhaps this is a good moment to take 12 a break, Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 14 a good time to take a morning break. 15 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you. 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 17 for fifteen (15) minutes. 18 19 --- Upon recessing at 10:15 a.m. 20 --- Upon resuming at 10:32 a.m. 21 22 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 23 resumed. Please be seated. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 CONTINUED BY MR. DONALD WORME: 2 Q: Dr. Todres, perhaps before I move on 3 I -- I'd asked you earlier whether you were aware of any 4 conversations between Mr. Fox and John Carson. I think 5 your answer was no. 6 I think I'd asked you whether or not that 7 raised any concerns with you, and again you simply 8 indicated that your expectation was that the proper 9 protocols would be followed. Do you recall that? 10 A: Yes, I do. 11 Q: And let me just ask you the followup 12 question; that simply is: What are those proper 13 protocols? 14 A: That the field information that would 15 be in the public domain would be transmitted to me and to 16 others and that those issues that involved the 17 aggregation of facts that would lead to tactical or 18 strategic decisions would not be passed forward, and from 19 -- from Mr. Fox's perspective, that political decisions 20 after the fact would be conveyed through our proper 21 channels; that is through the Minister or through me. 22 Q: And thank you for that. At Tab 34 of 23 the -- that book of documents in from you, Dr. Todres, I 24 had taken you to that earlier, that is Exhibit P-594 25 which was the MSGS issue note which I've pointed out to


1 you was not circulated, you see at the bottom, staff 2 contact, the name and phone number, Diane Dougall from 3 Legal Services Branch? 4 A: Yes, I do. 5 Q: Does that mean anything to you? 6 A: Well, she was the Director of our 7 Legal Services branch. 8 Q: Okay. And does that assist you in 9 terms of who might have prepared this document and 10 perhaps even at whose insistence such a document might be 11 prepared? 12 A: I don't recall this in particular, 13 but given that the -- that we were receiving briefings on 14 -- on the 5th and 6th, either I or others may have felt 15 that it was necessary in our briefing books to remind 16 ourselves of what the -- the policy backdrop was. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: And this is what this is. This is 19 sort of boilerplate removed -- distilled from a variety 20 of briefing notes that we've seen; that we would have 21 seen in the past. 22 Q: And just before the break you had 23 left off saying that on the end of the 6th you went home, 24 there were no alarm bells? 25 A: No alarm bells.


1 Q: Tell us what happened next. 2 A: At two o'clock in the morning I 3 received a call from the Secretary of Cabinet, Rita 4 Burak, indicating that there had been a shooting at -- at 5 the Park and that I would be expected to deal with the 6 issue in the morning. 7 I was shocked -- shocked, dismayed, 8 disappointed, worried. It was my responsibility to phone 9 the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, and I 10 of course as -- as any other Deputy Minister, would have 11 had a phone list of all those that I would have needed to 12 call on a -- on an emergency basis. 13 I called Commissioner O'Grady somewhere 14 between -- whether it was 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, 15 and indicated to him what happened. He was completely 16 unaware of it. He had -- had not been informed at that 17 moment, of it. 18 And I probab -- I don't recall precisely 19 what the conversation was, but I indicated to him that in 20 the morning we would need to sort out -- I would need to 21 sort out with the Minister and so on what our -- what our 22 next steps would be. 23 I don't believe that I called the Minister 24 or the -- or the Chief of Staff to the Minister. I -- I 25 seem to recall that in the conversation that the


1 Secretary of Cabinet would have had with me that we were 2 observing the usual rules; that is to say that the chief 3 bureaucrat was speaking to the Deputy, and on the 4 political side steps would be taken to inform the 5 political side of -- of this tragedy. 6 Q: In terms of being informed of this 7 tragedy, what details can you recall you -- you being 8 provided? 9 A: Somebody was shot outside the Park. 10 I wouldn't have gotten anymore detail than that. 11 Q: Whether who it was, or who did the 12 shooting? 13 A: I don't re -- I don't even know if I 14 would have that degree of detail. I don't know if we 15 would have known that at the time. But, I knew that 16 somebody had died. I'm not sure I knew at that point the 17 name of the person who had died. 18 I -- I may have called -- I can't remember 19 this in detail. I may have called Barb Taylor who was my 20 police liaison because I would have known that we were 21 now into major issue management. And given that the 22 Secretary of Cabinet called me, I would have expected to 23 have been the lead in sorting out what our next steps 24 would be. 25 So, that was the evening, or the morning -


1 - the early morning of the 6th. And on the -- I went to 2 the office probably at 4:00 or 5:00 or 6:00 in the 3 morning. I was there very, very early -- 4 Q: Early morning of the 7th? 5 A: From the 7th. 6 Q: Yes, thank you. 7 A: And we began to have briefings. I 8 believe that we met with -- and now I can't recall 9 precisely how all of this would have been orchestrated 10 but clearly the others were informed including the Deputy 11 Attorney General. 12 I recall having a meeting with the Deputy 13 Attorney General and the Deputy of Natural Resources, and 14 that led to -- and trying to get the facts, trying to 15 sort -- sort out who was responsible for what. 16 And at that particular time, the three (3) 17 Deputies, we would have been having discussions about, 18 now we really have to be clear about who's being involved 19 in what. We have to try to remove the political staff 20 from the IMC. 21 We created a headquarters post office -- 22 post that some people would refer to as a nerve centre. 23 It was located in my boardroom, in the boardroom of the 24 Ministry. 25 And it was at that point that we swung


1 into what happened, what do we need to do, what are the 2 legal actions, what are the communication strategies, how 3 are we going to deal with this, what protocol has to be 4 observed with respect to communicating with Native 5 leaders and so on. 6 Q: If I can just take you back, Dr. 7 Todres, to the -- to -- to your conversation, or your 8 telephone call to the -- to the Commissioner, to 9 Commissioner O'Grady. Had you discussed with him before 10 the Ipperwash file at all to your recollection? 11 A: No. 12 Q: And that would have been the first 13 time then? 14 A: I believe so. 15 Q: And I take it that you probably would 16 have provided him with the same information that -- 17 A: I conveyed what actually I -- 18 Q: -- that you had? 19 A: -- exactly what I was told. And we 20 both understood that there was something he had to do, 21 there were a series of actions I had to take. 22 Q: You talked about one of the decisions 23 that the -- I take it it's you and the other Deputy 24 Ministers? That's yes? 25 A: Yes, sorry.


1 Q: Was to remove the political staff 2 from IMC? 3 A: Well, I -- what I recall is, you 4 know, we were -- there was a generic concern and I 5 suppose this can be elevated to a policy issue. But, 6 what -- what is that fine line between getting 7 information and trying to sort out recommendations and 8 actions from when -- when in the development of a policy 9 process you actually inject political staff who have the 10 right along with the Minsters to shape a decision; that 11 is the -- that is the system in which we work. 12 And so we felt that -- that it was -- it 13 was a tragedy, it was complicated, there were a lot of 14 players, that we couldn't just go back to our respective 15 Ministries and have three (3) communication departments 16 and three (3) managers and three (3) executive 17 assistants, the three (3) political executive assistants, 18 somehow deal with all of this, which in our term -- term 19 -- and I want to call it issue management, but I just 20 want to be sensitive to the fact that this is a tragedy 21 and by my referring to something as issue management, I 22 am not trivializing what actually happened. 23 But, this moved from an operational matter 24 that was being handled to a very large issue and we felt 25 that the only way in which we could introduce, not only


1 calm, but clarity with respect to roles and 2 responsibilities was to reconfigure how it is that we 3 were going to be working on this. 4 And I believe that what we did was we 5 constructed a group that would have had Deputy Ministers 6 and EA's to the Deputies and Executive Assistants to the 7 Ministers, in other words the political arm, with the 8 Deputies because that was our job. 9 Our job was to filter political responses. 10 We always felt comfortable and always did and always will 11 feel comfortable in terms of the liaison role between the 12 senior elected -- the elected officials and the senior 13 Deputy Ministers. 14 And then to have a working group that was 15 separated, if I can put it that way, from political staff 16 that would actually do the work that needed to be done, 17 whatever that work would be; communications, 18 negotiations, clarification, briefing notes, et cetera. 19 Q: All right. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Did you have any other meetings that 24 day that you can recall for us? 25 A: Well, the day is a blur. I think it


1 was a day of meetings. I mean, I think the -- the room 2 was established as a place where people could meet. 3 I recall seeing Paul Rhodes and -- who's 4 the communications fellow from the Premier's office, and 5 Deborah Hutton being there. And there would have just 6 been -- that was the meeting place, if I can put it that 7 way, and I probably would have had a number of meetings. 8 But, it was a day of -- a very emotional and difficult 9 day. 10 Q: Can I ask you to turn to Tab 37, the 11 document there, it's marked as Exhibit P-516. It's 12 Inquiry Document 1012542. 13 A: Yes, I see it. 14 Q: And we're told that these are the 15 handwritten notes of Julie Jai, and I think you've 16 testified earlier that you knew who she was? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: As the Chair of the IMC? 19 A: Yes. Highly respected Chair of IMC. 20 Q: Right. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: You see her note at the top of the -- 25 at the -- on the right side of the page under, "Ron Fox,


1 6:20 a.m. Thursday, September '95"? 2 A: Yes. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: See, "Officers were on country road". 7 And I'm going to try to read this for you: 8 "Encountered some First Nations people. 9 Shots were fired at the officers by 10 individuals. Shots returned. One (1) 11 First Nation person dead, two (2) 12 injured." 13 Now, I'll just stop there. Does that 14 assist you at all in terms of the information that you 15 might have been provided as to who it was that was shot? 16 A: Well, I can't speak with certainty 17 about precisely when I know -- know -- knew that Mr. 18 George was shot, but certainly in the morning the details 19 became apparent to me; the morning of the 7th. 20 Q: Okay. And if we can go down a little 21 bit further, just past the phrase, "Deb Hutton"? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: See, "Deputy SG, Elaine and OPP 24 Commissioner coming in. Will be 25 involved in a meeting at 7:00 a.m. with


1 PO staff." 2 Does that assist you at all in terms of 3 recalling that -- 4 A: I don't recall the Commissioner being 5 there, but it may have been that in the early stages, 6 that I would have indicated to him at that -- in the 7 middle of the morning meeting, the two o'clock phone call 8 I had with him, that he would be coming in. 9 I don't recall him being present in the 10 nerve centre, but he may have been there on the first 11 day. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: I certainly don't recall him being 14 there after that. 15 Q: And, "7:00 a.m. meeting with PO 16 staff". 17 That would be the staff from the Premier's 18 office? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: All right. Do you recall having a 21 meeting with the Premier's office staff? 22 A: I recall having a meeting with the 23 three (3) Deputies and the Premier's office staff, in the 24 form of Paul Rhodes and Deb Hutton, and just a whole host 25 of people; my staff, our communications people. It was


1 the beginning of what became the Nerve Centre. 2 Q: Thank you. Do you recall attending a 3 meeting at 7:30, 8:00 a.m. approximately with Mr. Fox, 4 Pat -- Mr. Patrick as well as Mr. Taman? 5 A: Well, I don't remember that in 6 particular, but this was the day of a consistent set of 7 meetings, so Mr. Taman, the Deputy Attorney General would 8 -- would have wanted to know what was going on on the 9 ground. So it's likely that that was the beginning of a 10 series of meetings. 11 Q: And can you recall for us any of the 12 details of any of these meetings that you would have 13 attended? 14 A: Well, I can't recall the detail, but 15 -- but the point of the meetings was for us to understand 16 precisely what we knew of what happened and for the 17 Government to begin to understand what it needed to do 18 and for us to be informed about what it is that the OPP 19 were going to be doing because we were not in a position 20 and never would have been in a position to instruct the 21 OPP about next steps, still an operational matter. 22 Q: All right. And at 5:30 that -- that 23 same day having a further meeting with Mr. Patrick, Mr. 24 Fox, and Mr. Vander Voet? 25 A: Voet?


1 Q: Am I saying that correctly? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Do you recall that meeting? 4 A: No, not in particular, but it would 5 have just been, as I say, a day of meetings, one (1) 6 after -- one (1) after the other. 7 Q: I'll ask you to turn to Tab 39. It's 8 Inquiry Document 1011845. It's marked as Exhibit P-659. 9 And see -- I'm going to suggest to you 10 that that is briefing materials and you'll see your name 11 at the top as being one (1) of the recipients together 12 with Mr. Taman and Mr. Vrancart? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. Do you recognize that package 15 of materials firstly? 16 A: I don't have a specific recall of 17 this but this would have been the -- the type of material 18 that would have been transmitted to us so that all of us 19 were very clear about the issues before us. 20 Q: And beyond that is there anything 21 that you can tell us in terms of its -- in terms of its - 22 - the -- the content and such? 23 A: No. 24 Q: At Tab 40, Dr. Todres, is a further 25 document, it's marked as Exhibit P-596, it's 1011812.


1 Do you see it's entitled -- it states: 2 "Draft September 7th/95?" 3 A: Yes, I see it. 4 Q: "Minister's Positioning Statements 5 re. Ipperwash Incident." 6 Did you have any role, first of all, in 7 the preparation of this document? 8 A: Well, not in the preparation. This 9 would have been the type of thing now that we were into 10 the -- the issue management phase of a matter before -- 11 before the Government. This would have been the kind of 12 material that would have been developed by the 13 Communications Directors of the respective ministries or 14 departments. 15 And that is to say that, again, to give 16 backdrop, what's important from a government's 17 perspective when an issue arises where -- whether it's of 18 a tragic nature of this kind or indeed any other issue 19 that -- that befalls it. The government wishes to be 20 very clear about who the lead Minister will be to speak 21 to the issue and what the key messages will be. So it's 22 not uncommon for the Premier's office to remind a 23 Minister, whichever Minister it is, to stay on message. 24 Now, in order to stay on message one needs 25 to know what the message is. So the respective


1 communications departments would clarify what the three 2 (3) or four (4) points would be for a Minister to say, 3 whether that would be in a scrum or whether that would be 4 in Question Period, whether that would be in a -- in a 5 detailed interview on, say, TVO. 6 That communication message would have to 7 be cleared by the Premier's office, their communications 8 squad, sometimes the Cabinet Office as well and that is 9 to ensure that a Minister indeed would stay on message. 10 So this was a draft and not -- and not an approved 11 statement. 12 This may have been the preliminary 13 materials that would have been developed, that would have 14 been having to be taken to the other central agencies for 15 concurrence prior to a Minister being asked a question or 16 speaking to a point, or in this case the Commissioner. 17 Q: And -- and it's that point that I was 18 going to ask you about next. 19 First of all, it's entirely appropriate 20 that the Minister of the Solicitor General and 21 Corrections staff would be preparing a document for the 22 Minister? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: What about with respect to the 25 Commissioner? You see at the bottom of that statement


1 from OPP Commissioner, Tom O'Grady? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: Is that something that would 4 typically happen? Do you have any comment on the 5 propriety of that? 6 A: Well, I don't want us to lead to -- I 7 don't want us to speculate on what the conditions were. 8 Normal practice would have been -- and I can't speculate 9 as to whether normal practice was observed in this case. 10 Normal practice would be that the 11 statement from the Commissioner would be developed by the 12 communication staff and the Commissioner's office. 13 So the fact that this is on paper that is 14 entitled, MAG/MGS, et cetera, et cetera, we cannot infer 15 from that who actually wrote that positioning statement. 16 Q: All right. Thank you. You were 17 involved -- can you recall any discussions, Dr. Todres, 18 about communications and ensuring an accurate flow of 19 information? 20 A: Well that -- again, normal practice I 21 can't recall specifically but -- but I and everyone 22 attached to my office and the Minister's office and so on 23 would have wanted to ensure that we were pristine about 24 the facts. I mean we are talking about the Chief Legal 25 Officer and the Chief Enforcement Officer on Cabinet, so


1 they would have wanted to be crystal clear about facts. 2 And that in and of itself is difficult in 3 an evolving situation because facts become apparent over 4 time. So it would be normal practice for a Minister to 5 rely on his Ministerial resources. And those Ministerial 6 resources resided in both the bureaucracy and his office 7 or her office. 8 And that Minister in the new way of 9 thinking with respect to the centralization of 10 communications within the centre that's been occurring in 11 -- in the Ontario Government for the last ten (10) or 12 fifteen (15) years, the Minister would come to 13 understand, too, the key messages would have to be 14 approved by both the Premier's office and the Cabinet 15 office. 16 And that is standard practice. 17 Q: The reason I ask you about the 18 communications aspect of it, if you'll turn to Tab 41 -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- it's Inquiry Document 300002, it's 21 P-661. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Ipperwash incident crisis 24 communications procedure and contact list on the cover 25 sheet.


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And it's dated September the 7th of 3 1995, timed at 7:33 in the p.m. If I can ask you to turn 4 simply to the next page, the goals of the process. It 5 talks about the overall goals and -- and the second one 6 is eliminate errors via mis-communications through rapid 7 dissemination of information. Assist and maintaining and 8 restoring public order and return to normal operations. 9 And I'm interested in what comments you 10 might have with respect to that particular paragraph, 11 eliminating errors via mis-communication. 12 A: I mentioned this -- this yesterday. 13 I and -- well all of my Deputy colleagues and the 14 Directors of Communication and the Directors of the Issue 15 units were concerned about the normal kind of tension 16 that occurs. 17 So, the normal kind of a tension -- 18 tension that occurs is: Communication branches are very 19 mindful of newspaper deadlines and television deadlines 20 and -- and when it scrums and -- and -- so there's always 21 the clock where a proactive government wishing to get 22 information across wants to work speedily and to appear 23 in control of a situation and so on. 24 On the other hand the tension is: We 25 don't -- we live in a highly decentralized operation. In


1 this case even more decentralized than most ministries 2 because we have an OPP and a Commissioner; these were not 3 my direct staff. 4 So those of us who live through difficult 5 an tragic situations like this, are well aware of the 6 fact that it actually takes time in the field to be clear 7 about what happened. 8 And what can happen as I indicated 9 yesterday, is if one moves too quickly and that at nine 10 o'clock one has a certain picture and that is revised at 11 10:00 and then it's revised at 11:00 and then it's 12 revised at 12:00, that should there be any particular 13 communications with the media, with stakeholders, with 14 affected groups, it can, after the fact, look as though 15 one were reconstructing the events. 16 Or even worse being -- mis-speaking if one 17 moves too quickly. So that was the tension point or the 18 series of stresses that all of us were aware of that we 19 had to manage. 20 And hence, the words that we wanted to -- 21 as written by -- this would have been written by Mr. 22 Kirk, my Director of Communications, who reported to me 23 that we want to ensure to the best of it all -- of all 24 possible. 25 And remember that in this case it wasn't


1 just our Ministry, but we had field staff, we had MNR 2 people, we had a lot of gratuitous supporters who wanted 3 to help in clarifying the information, that it was 4 extremely important that we not -- that we seek to 5 eliminate errors. 6 And although we wanted to move quickly, 7 not to take this notion of rapid dissemination of 8 information in a sense that would, at the end of the day, 9 jeopardize either the investigation or just make plain 10 things that were not actually happening on the ground. 11 Q: Okay. And -- and I -- I know you 12 indicated that that was prepared by one (1) of your 13 staff. Did you have any role in that? 14 A: I don't recall. I mean I recall -- I 15 -- I think the -- the way in which the day occurred is 16 that when -- when Larry and Ron and I if -- if I can 17 speak in familiar terms, the three (3) Deputies of 18 Natural Resources and the AG and myself met in the 19 morning of the 7th. We realized that we needed to put a 20 new structure in place. 21 So page 2 refers -- so we would have 22 instructed something like this to be written. We wanted 23 to make plain who the players were. And on page 2, 24 although I don't want to lead this, you'll probably take 25 me to page 2, that we would have instructed Mr. Kirk, on


1 behalf of the team, to write this draft and you'll note 2 that it took him some time because we're in receipt of it 3 on -- at 7:30 p.m. 4 So there must have been a series of 5 meetings throughout the day. I wouldn't have had direct 6 involvement, I would have reviewed the document with the 7 three (3) deputies when it was prepared. 8 Q: You'll see among the contacts at the 9 very last page of that document, Dr. Todres, the 10 reference to the Federal Solicitor General, then the 11 Honourable Minister Herb Gray? 12 A: Yes? Yes, I see it. Thank you. 13 Q: So they would have been put into the 14 -- into the loop on this, if I can -- if I can describe 15 it as such? 16 A: They would have put -- been put on 17 the loop -- in the loop on this on an as needed basis, 18 yes. 19 Q: Okay. And that's not to say that, I 20 -- perhaps I should simply ask you: Was there any direct 21 communication, to your recollection, perhaps even through 22 your office, with either your Federal counterpart or the 23 Ministry? 24 A: Not at this -- I don't believe on the 25 7th, but there -- there was a point in time when -- and


1 now I can't recall. I'm -- I'm completely mystified by 2 the dates, but there was a point in time where the 3 Commissioner of the OPP asked me -- indicated that there 4 may be a necessity for Federal backup in terms of 5 machinery, in terms of -- and now I'm missing the right 6 noun -- in terms of military-type machinery. 7 And I said thank you for that request. He 8 wanted that to be taken forward. That would have been 9 the kind of thing that would have gone through the chain 10 of command. And I understood that that would have meant 11 a formal request from our Minister to Mr. Gray. 12 I took the initiative, I believe, to speak 13 to the then Federal Deputy Solicitor General to inquire 14 about protocol. You can be assured that this was the 15 first time in my life that I would have been asked to 16 make such a phone call. 17 And I require -- inquired -- I believe his 18 name was Jean Fournier, I inquired of Deputy Solicitor 19 General Jean Fournier what the process would be, should 20 we ever require that. And I'm -- I'm sorry I can't tell 21 you the dates now, but it perhaps will become clear later 22 on. 23 And the -- the response to me was that 24 this has been asked by other provinces in the past. 25 There is a protocol. There are letters that need to be


1 written from the Provincial Solicitor General to the 2 Federal Solicitor General. 3 And point number 2, I would have had 4 contact with Deputy Solicitor General Fournier on a 5 number of other fronts. I can't speak specifically to 6 whether this was before or after Ipperwash, but I might 7 have mentioned this yesterday. We were concerned about 8 Aboriginal policing agreements. 9 This was also the season -- it was a very 10 difficult year, nationally, with respect to Aboriginal 11 issues. I don't recall the precise timing Gustafson 12 Lake, whether it preceded the tragedy at Ipperwash, but 13 we might have had reason to speak to one another, the 14 Federal Deputy Solicitor General and I. 15 I'm only surprised that the Deputy's name 16 is on -- is not on this list, but that name would have 17 been -- it was understandable why Minister Gray's name 18 would have been on the -- on the sheet. 19 Q: Would you turn to Tab 43, Dr. Todres? 20 It's Inquiry Document 10 -- 21 A: Oh. 22 Q: -- 1558. It's -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- P-599. 25 A: Right.


1 Q: It's a letter to the Honourable Herb 2 Grey dated September the 7th, and it comes under the hand 3 of your Minister. 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And it's copied, as you can see, to 6 the Ontario Provincial Police/TRU? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you'll note that there's a date 9 at the bottom of that in term -- under that it's dated 10 September the 1st of 1995. 11 Do you know why that might be, first of 12 all? 13 A: No idea. 14 Q: All right. If we can go back to the 15 content of the letter on the first page, you'll see that 16 it talks about tactical contingencies and a review that 17 was going on at that point. 18 The comment is made that the Police 19 Services lacked the necessary equipment. I'm just going 20 to quote here: 21 "To perform tactical rescues while 22 under direct gunfire." 23 A: Yes, I see that. 24 Q: And then there's a request, I think 25 as you'd suggested earlier, for certain machinery and in


1 this instance, they're talking about the Department of 2 National Defence armoured personnel carriers. 3 It refers specifically to the Grizzly and 4 the Bison, do you see that? 5 A: Yes, I do. 6 Q: All right. And then references 7 Commissioner O'Grady's request. 8 A: Yes, so that's the date then, that is 9 the conversation that I recall. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: And I think the important phrase on 12 the bottom of the first page is: 13 "On an as needed basis." 14 So this was an anticipatory request, not - 15 - not, we need it today, and let's have it immediately. 16 Q: Your role in the preparation of this 17 document, did...? 18 A: Well, once having -- once having been 19 apprised -- I don't recall being directly involved in the 20 -- I wouldn't have been involved in the -- in the actual 21 construction of a letter from a Minister to a Minister 22 But, once it was clear that that was the 23 direction and the Minister would have -- would have been 24 briefed by me or by my staff about this, I would have 25 been prepared to go forward somewhere as between the


1 Minister's office and the Deputy Minister's office, 2 someone would have been given instruction to write this. 3 Q: Right. 4 A: And for the Minister to sign. 5 Q: And at Tab -- 6 A: I can't tell you -- 7 Q: I'm sorry. 8 A: -- who that was. 9 Q: And at Tab 45, there's a letter under 10 the hand of the Solicitor General of Canada directed to 11 your Minister, the Honourable Robert W. Runciman. 12 And it's a response letter. It's Inquiry 13 document 1001 -- 14 A: Yes, I see it, thank you. 15 Q: -- 558. It's Exhibit -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- P-599. 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: I'm sorry. Exhibit P-931, I'm sorry. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: I think it simply indicates that he's 24 passing that letter along to the appropriate Minister, 25 namely the Honourable David Collenette who was then the


1 Minister of National Defence. 2 A: Yes, I see that. 3 Q: And at Tab 58, Dr. Todres, is a 4 further letter from Mr. Runciman to Mr. Grey dated 5 September the 19th of 1995. 6 It's Inquiry Document 1001204, Exhibit P- 7 932. 8 A: Yes, I see it. 9 Q: Okay. And they continue to discuss 10 the anticipated, I think as you -- as you've called it, 11 loan for that type of machinery? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. And just lastly on that -- on 14 that same line, Dr. Todres, at Tab 61 is a letter from 15 the Solicitor General of Canada, then the Honourable Herb 16 Grey to your Minister and that's dated October the 3rd. 17 It's Inquiry Document 1001563 and it's 18 Exhibit P-933. 19 A: Yes, I see it, thank you. 20 Q: Okay. And at that point in time, 21 you'll see that the Department of National Defence has 22 been made aware of the potential requirements? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Yeah. Do you know whether or not 25 that request had ever been acted upon? That is to say,


1 whether or not there was an actual request made for that 2 machinery? 3 A: I don't recall it being made. 4 Q: All right. I want to talk just 5 briefly, Dr. Todres, about the period following September 6 the 7th, 1995, okay? 7 And at Tab 46, you'll see a memo from -- 8 from yourself. I'm sorry, to yourself. 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: From a Mr. Burnside? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: That's Inquiry document 1012573, 13 Exhibit 699. You'll see it outlines the OPP's authority 14 with respect to the Military Base under the Criminal 15 Code, National Defence Act, civil injunctive remedies. 16 Do you recall seeing this memo, Dr. 17 Todres? Did you request it? 18 A: I don't recall, in particular, seeing 19 this, but I'm reluctant to speak in case I appear to be 20 speculating. So I will take advice from you. 21 But I would have imagined that what would 22 have happened is that on the 7th there were a series of 23 things that a number of us had to do and I wanted to be 24 clear, in writing, the authority of the OPP. And I might 25 have asked David Burnside who was one of our senior


1 lawyers in the legal branch to prepare this for me. 2 And this might have been the subject of -- 3 of a future meeting with all of the Deputies. I don't 4 recall this one in particular. 5 Q: And you told us earlier that after -- 6 after this tragedy, that there were a number of meetings 7 between the -- the other Deputy Ministers, Mr. Vrancart 8 and Mr. Taman. 9 And that those occured at -- 10 A: Many -- 11 Q: Those occurred at your office, as I 12 understand? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. And do you recall when, in 15 relation to -- to that date, the decision was made, then, 16 to reduce or eliminate political staff within such 17 meetings? 18 A: Well, I would have thought that 19 somewhere around the 8th or the 9th, once we began to 20 sling into the nerve centre meeting, that there was a 21 separate support group that would have had a lower level 22 staff who were working on injunctions or working on legal 23 issues and whatever other issues emanated. 24 So I think it was put into place fairly 25 quickly. Or put another way, we didn't have junior staff


1 attending the nerve centre meetings. 2 Q: All right. At Tab 57, Dr. Todres, 3 it's Exhibit P-605. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: All right. And it would appear that 9 you're -- you're the author of this, were you? 10 A: No. This would have been a meeting 11 that I held and someone would have written minutes for 12 me. 13 Q: All right. 14 A: I wasn't in the habit of writing 15 minutes for meetings. 16 Q: If you'll turn to the last -- pardon 17 me, the second page of that document, item number 9. It 18 seems the matter of the -- of Ipperwash was a discussion 19 point. 20 A: Yes, I see it. 21 Q: And it reads: 22 "E. Todres commended the steering 23 committee, MNR, ONAS, MAG, MSGSC for 24 their work in managing the ship from 25 tactical approach to a more political


1 one. 2 Thank Ron Fox, Barbara Taylor, Kurt 3 Smith and the communications branch for 4 their continuing work in managing the 5 situation on the Ministry of Solicitor 6 General and community -- pardon me, 7 Correctional Services side. 8 The Minister has met with local 9 stakeholders. More support is being 10 provided to the community." 11 Can you tell us what -- what that refers 12 to? 13 A: Yes, I -- I think the wording's a bit 14 clumsy by the writer of the minutes, but what -- what 15 this is meant to convey is that we were successful in 16 trying to contain the slash political policy implications 17 in a different arena from the more junior staff who were 18 working on issues. 19 That's what the -- what the first sentence 20 is meant to convey. 21 In other words, that where you had senior 22 Deputies working with Ministers and their EA's it would 23 be perfectly appropriate to have representation from the 24 Premier's office for them to discuss ideas with us and 25 that had been put into place.


1 Q: All right. 2 A: And the rest has to do with the kind 3 of significant work that had to do with communications. 4 The Minister -- there was a decision, collectively, I 5 believe, that the Minister would be meeting not only with 6 local stakeholders, but as I recall, Native leadership. 7 And I can't recall the precise nature of 8 the support provided to the community. It may have been 9 on the telephone lines or direct support to deal with 10 issues, but I recall that we actually did something in 11 the way of recognizing the community was being inundated 12 with media requests and so on. 13 Q: And would you explain what is meant 14 by the shift from tactical approach to a more political 15 one? 16 A: Well, I thought I made it clear 17 before but -- but it was meant to convey was that in -- 18 in the IMAC -- in the Inter -- the InterMinisterial 19 Committee there was a tremendous discussion on detail 20 that the Deputies felt was very close to bordering on 21 operational details that needn't be discussed amongst 22 all. 23 So, it was that move, as I say perhaps 24 clumsily written, but to convey that move from -- get the 25 politicians and the political staff in a room to talk


1 about what they need to talk about. 2 Get those who were involved in the detail 3 dealing with what they need to do. Let's start 4 demarcating those lines a little more clearly. 5 Q: Thank you for that. We know, Dr. 6 Todres, that there was the revelation made on, or about, 7 the 12th of September 1995 by Federal officials with 8 respect to a burial site, potentially, within the -- the 9 Ipperwash Provincial Park boundaries. 10 You were made aware of that? 11 A: Yes, I think so. 12 Q: And did you have any role in -- 13 A: No. 14 Q: -- receiving that information or 15 disseminating? 16 A: No. First of all what I don't recall 17 is whether that was still at the stage of a rumour or 18 something that actually had to be tested out empirically 19 and for which a great deal of research would have to be 20 undertaken. 21 And for the research to have to been 22 undertaken there would have been a series of other 23 players other than ourselves who would have been involved 24 in that. 25 Q: All right. At Tab 55, Dr. Todres,


1 there's a document which has been marked here as P-47, 2 it's Inquiry Document 1010496. It's a Memorandum of 3 Understanding that is dated September the 7th of 1995. 4 A: Yes, I see it, thank you. 5 Q: Did you have any role in, first of 6 all, in negotiating this document? 7 A: No. 8 Q: You were aware of it though? 9 A: I don't recall it at the moment. I - 10 - I don't recall being aware of it. But it was 11 significant and in the normal course of events, something 12 of this after the fact would have been communicated not 13 only to me but to the two (2) other Deputies. 14 Q: And just to be clear I think I may 15 have said the 7th, but it's dated actually the 17th of 16 September. 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: All right. And do you know whether 19 or not the Commissioner would have given, or would he be 20 required to have given any clearance to -- to have such a 21 document executed? 22 A: I can't speak to the -- to the chain 23 of command for the OPP. 24 Q: All right. Is there anything else of 25 significance, Dr. Todres, that you can tell us about with


1 respect to that period that you would have had a role in? 2 A: No. Only to say that -- that our 3 role waned over time. So, we were considered to be the 4 lead Ministry in the -- in the -- from the 7th for a 5 large period of time, where we convened the meetings in 6 the nerve centre, occurred with us. 7 But, then when it began to become a legal 8 and as we're beginning to look at other issues, it became 9 apparent to both -- to both the Minister and myself that 10 we were no longer at the epicenter of the issue and the 11 nerve centre meetings ceased to occur in our boardroom 12 And over time as usually occurs in the 13 curve of an issue, it became clear with the roles and 14 responsibilities were and it began to move into another 15 arena. 16 Q: All right. Thank you. If I can just 17 have a moment, Commissioner. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: I don't have any other questions in - 22 - in examination-in-chief, Mr. Commissioner. 23 One of the things that I -- that we have 24 asked virtually every witness, Dr. Todres, is whether, 25 given your background, your experience, whether you might


1 have anything by way of comments, observations or 2 recommendations that might assist the Commissioner and 3 his mandate? 4 A: It's dangerous to ask a policy wonk 5 whether she has any ideas about policy. But -- 6 Q: I suspected it might be. 7 A: Well, first of all, let me preface my 8 remarks by saying that I made my living and continue to 9 make my living as the head of Todres Leadership Council, 10 actually doing policy work. 11 So, I don't want to trivialize the 12 questions I'm -- or the -- the thoughts I have because 13 all of us I think realize that any subjects that I raise 14 is extremely complex, requires a great deal of thought, 15 and may be in an area where the academy doesn't offer 16 much light. It might offer heat but actually it doesn't 17 offer a lot of light on a subject. 18 If I had to stand back and ask myself what 19 some of the policy issues that I might be preoccupied 20 with if I can put it that way, if I were looking at stage 21 2 I would -- I would ask myself a number of questions. 22 And -- and the first would be: What 23 precisely am I wanting to focus on? And I know that 24 sounds perhaps even simple or trivial, but there are many 25 issues here and no policy submission of any kind can be


1 written unless one is precisely clear about what question 2 it is that one's trying to address. 3 So I'm not sure, not having been part of 4 all of this, precisely what all of the questions are. 5 But, when I look at the matter, if I can put it this way, 6 of policing oversight, the justice sector, systemic 7 barriers, Native policing, the state of Aboriginal 8 issues, I -- I would say that what, from my perspective, 9 is very important is first of all to have a very broad 10 view about the justice system before one places the 11 policing system within the justice system. 12 And I -- I say this in reference to my 13 remarks I made earlier about a Minister -- Ministry of 14 Justice. In the course of work that I'm doing right now 15 on a particular project I found myself, if I'm permitted 16 a few moments, I found myself in Sioux Lookout. And I 17 had meetings with some staff in Sioux Lookout. 18 Sioux Lookout is a place where, when I was 19 the Deputy of Tourism, was a beautiful but small place 20 where there was a great deal of fly fishing going on, 21 absolutely gorgeous. It's now become a regional hub. 22 Now INAC has decided that they're going to 23 be building a lot of roads in that region. And so we can 24 anticipate a lot of the population moving from north of 25 the Sioux to the Sioux for a variety of very good


1 reasons. I can't speculate on what they might be; 2 regional economic development, Aboriginal issues, trying 3 to sustain an economic base. 4 That's an interesting point. I spent some 5 time looking at courts and court houses. Now as it turns 6 out the court in Sioux Lookout is on a municipal lease. 7 I know some of you are saying, Where is she going with 8 this? 9 There is a court in Sioux Lookout who -- 10 which has a municipal lease which will end in five (5) 11 years. And the municipality has made it absolutely plain 12 that the court will not stay there at the end, in other 13 words, the lease will not be negotiated. 14 Unlike the city of Toronto or London or 15 Sarnia or Western or Kitchener, there are no other leased 16 buildings that one can immediately turn to. 17 The OPP, as I understand it, has been 18 given a significant number of capital dollars to build a 19 detachment in Sioux Lookout. 20 So I stand here, at this Commission, and I 21 say to myself, Well, just a moment here, I can predict -- 22 I'm -- I'm never one to look at crime statistics but I 23 can imagine that if I were an economatrician and a 24 statistician I could imagine that if there was an influx 25 of -- of people moving to Sioux Lookout I could


1 anticipate that -- even in the absence of new law, I 2 could anticipate that there would be family law concerns, 3 sexual assault concerns, civil concerns, and criminal 4 concerns, so greater demand. 5 An OPP detachment is being built, there 6 doesn't seem to be a plan and I am not the Attorney 7 General and I am not announcing a new courthouse. So I 8 look at this and I say, Well, it would probably be fair 9 to speculate the number of people coming to Sioux 10 Lookout. A high proportion of those people are likely to 11 be Aboriginal people. 12 And if I'm concerned deeply about the -- 13 about the dispensing of judges -- of -- of justice, why 14 is it that there doesn't seem to be a place where we can 15 have a forum that actually looks at who's doing what to 16 whom, how we're building and how we're meeting demand? 17 Now, why am I saying this? Because those 18 are the issues that disturb me from a policy point of 19 view. So when I look at the justice system and all of 20 the players, I would like to see some policy work setting 21 out a vision of how it is that the -- that the justice 22 system in -- in a perfect world would operate. 23 It is within that context that I would 24 then look at the second order question, which is: How do 25 we wish to look at policing in Ontario?


1 Now, that is a very wide question and 2 obviously well outside, perhaps, the -- the work of this 3 particular Commission. 4 But it is not a simple question to answer 5 whether or not we need to change the oversight of the OPP 6 or we need to put in a new structure of hither and yon. 7 One of the questions that I would ask 8 myself on a policy vein is, what was the net outcome of 9 the most recent amendments to the Police Services Act? 10 Or, put another way, what is the role of 11 the OPP in this province? 12 Prior to the amendments to the Police 13 Services Act, I had a pretty clear understanding of what 14 the OPP is and given that the OPP is subject to a lot of 15 discussion in this particular Inquiry, I don't think it's 16 self-evident today, in 2005, what that Force is actually 17 responsible for. 18 It was to be the hub for complex CIB 19 investigations. It was to be an area of expertise not -- 20 notwithstanding the fact that we have some large police 21 forces in Toronto. 22 And so unless I'm clear about what the OPP 23 is, and what it's relationship is with other municipal 24 forces where it has agreements, it's not clear to me that 25 I would want to ask the question and what should we do


1 with respect to oversight, because it's a very 2 complicated system now and it's a patchwork quilt. 3 So, I'd want to look at that and if I 4 weren't exhausted after looking at those two (2) 5 particular questions, I would want to spend a great deal 6 of time then thinking about Aboriginal justice. 7 And that in and of itself, is also a very 8 complicated question. I -- I as a lay person and not a 9 lawyer, am deeply concerned and have been for a decade or 10 more about the state of Aboriginal policing in Ontario. 11 The -- the governance structures have to 12 be re-examined. I believe that the governance structures 13 are problematic ipso facto. 14 The quality and the state of -- of repair 15 and the facilities and so on are wholly inadequate and, 16 again, this is up for societal debate but I would have 17 thought that in speaking with Aboriginal leadership, they 18 might take the view that self-government is inextricably 19 linked to the ability to govern oneself in terms of 20 enforcement. 21 So that subject in of itself, I don't 22 believe has received a lot of attention. 23 We understand that it's 24 Federal/Provincial. We need to look at this in terms of 25 post-Kelowna and very significant indeed.


1 And again, and if that weren't enough, I 2 would be deeply concerned about the amendments that were 3 made in a prior government to the dilution of employment 4 equity requirements and the Police Services Act, which I 5 believe were extremely problematic. 6 And if I can just opine on that, in each 7 of these subjects that in another place and another time, 8 I would love to talk to anyone who would wish to speak to 9 me about it. 10 On the matter of policing, when we speak 11 of employment equity, we are not speaking about how it 12 would be a nice, social good to have a female principal 13 in the school for matters of role modelling and equity 14 and fairness and equality. 15 In the matter of policing, it is 16 impossible for a police force to be effective in a 17 diverse community, unless its workforce is representative 18 of the population. 19 So one cannot undertake undercover work in 20 certain communities, et cetera. 21 So the absence, remember in a world where 22 it's very rule bound, in the absence of full commitment 23 to employment equity, one doesn't necessarily see 24 employment equity flourish. 25 Now, again as I say, I'm exhausted myself


1 by this list. But the other thing that I would be very 2 worried about, and this is just as a -- an old Deputy 3 who's often seen responses when very complex issues 4 arise, I have only two (2) thoughts on that. 5 And the first is, the normal knee jerk 6 reaction is to seek structural response. Oh, there must 7 be a structure that is fault and if we could only create 8 a new structure that new structure would somehow meet our 9 new requirements. 10 I have rarely seen that work. What I have 11 seen by -- and I suppose it's my philosophical view that 12 as corny as it may sound, change occurs by touching the 13 soul of an organization and not the structure of the 14 organization. 15 And what happens in practice, and I've 16 been involved in countless changes, et cetera, of a 17 structural nature, years and years and years are spent on 18 job specifications and pay equity issues that arise from 19 groups being put together and complicated new 20 government's arrangements. 21 So, I would be very loathed to look at 22 structure only. I would say too on the matter of 23 governments that the Inquiry would be well served by 24 looking at the experience that the Government of Ontario 25 has had with statutory arrangements with different arm's


1 length agencies. 2 They're very complicated and they don't 3 work out the way one expects to see them on paper. So we 4 have a series of Schedule 1, 2, 3 and 4 agencies. And 5 independence is independence usually and I won't get into 6 the complications of police until there's a problem. And 7 when there's a problem one finds that the elbow length is 8 not quite as long as it was on paper. 9 And my last and final concern in terms of 10 a policy area. And I'm speaking as someone who ran the 11 Ontario Women's Directorate and who had four (4) years in 12 the trenches of dealing with matters respecting systemic 13 discrimination and have been a, you know, a committed 14 feminist and a -- and a person committed to human rights 15 for my whole career. 16 And now find myself in the private sector 17 working on a women's hospital board and -- and watching 18 how things work and what works and what doesn't work. My 19 reaction to matters of a systemic nature are that one has 20 to move away from rhetoric and generalize propositions 21 about we will all do this and we need to do this and 22 here's the laundry list to focus. 23 And if I can give a hospital example that 24 might be relevant to -- to this exercise and again, these 25 are subjects all of which would require a great deal of


1 thinking. 2 When a hospital administrator is invoked 3 to do something for women's health and that message is 4 translated to a variety of departments, most people don't 5 know what that means and they can't understand what it is 6 that they actually have to do. 7 And I'm speaking of the cardiologist re 8 the OPP or the -- the phys ed department re corrections. 9 The only thing that seems to work is when there's very 10 clear focus on two (2) or three (3) things that need to 11 be done with as much clarity as possible. 12 And what worked for us in the Secretariat 13 were three (3) conditions and it really didn't matter 14 what our structure was. We had a powerful Minister who 15 happened to have other responsibilities. We had money 16 and we had a clear set of set foci. 17 And in this particular case it was pay 18 equity legislation. So we were seen to be and perceived 19 to be powerful and those were the three (3) conditions 20 that made us work. And I'd ask you to think about those 21 in the application to this. 22 And I said this was my final point but I 23 have -- that was apparently my penultimate point. My 24 final point is that what worries me about large 25 prescriptions when we're looking at systemic


1 discrimination is that we actually worked in the negative 2 some world and not in a positive some world. 3 So what happens usually in a government is 4 that if there's a sizable expenditure given to problem 5 'A' or a legislative initiative that requires a great 6 deal of energy, the creation of a new structure, it's 7 very difficult then to turn back to that government and 8 say well, that was just the first thing, we have ten (10) 9 more things and they're all hugely expensive. 10 So because we live in a very constrained 11 environment with a great deal of attention to government 12 -- to governments and accountabilities for Deputies and 13 Ministers and so on, I think we need to be very careful 14 about what the chronology of issues are, what the costs 15 are and what the foci need to be and what the sequencing 16 needs to be. 17 MR. DONALD WORME: Thank you for that, 18 Dr. Todres. 19 Perhaps I can ask my colleagues to rise 20 and -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 22 very much, Dr. Todres. 23 MR. DONALD WORME: -- and give us some 24 indication about who wants to cross-examine and an 25 estimation of their time.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Let's 2 just wait until everybody gets a chance to stand up and 3 we'll see where we are and not to try to hear you from 4 standing in your place rather than everybody walking up. 5 Yes -- just get my order and my sequence. 6 Mr. Downard...? 7 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Fifteen (15) minutes 8 or less, sir. 9 MR. DONALD WORME: Fifteen (15) minutes 10 or less. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fifteen (15) 12 minutes or less. 13 And Ms. Horvat...? 14 MR. JACQUELINE HORVAT: Ten (10) minutes. 15 MR. DONALD WORME: Ten (10) minutes as 16 indicated. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 18 Smith...? 19 MR. IAN SMITH: Ten (10) minutes. 20 MR. DONALD WORME: Ten (10) minutes for 21 Mr. Smith. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Lauwers? 23 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Two (2) hours. 24 MR. DONALD WORME: Two (2) hours for Mr. 25 Lauwers.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 2 Sulman...? 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Fifteen (15) to 4 twenty (20) minutes, sir. 5 MR. DONALD WORME: Fifteen (15) to twenty 6 (20). 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 8 Perschy...? 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Fifteen (15) to twenty 10 (20) minutes. 11 MR. DONALD WORME: Similarly, for Ms. 12 Perschy. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 14 Sandler...? 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Forty-five (45) 16 minutes. 17 MR. DONALD WORME: Forty-five (45). 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 19 Clermont...? 20 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Ten (10) minutes. 21 MR. DONALD WORME: Ms. Clermont indicates 22 ten (10) minutes. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 24 Klippenstein...? 25 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Thirty (30)


1 minutes. 2 MR. DONALD WORME: Thirty (30) minutes 3 for Mr. Klippenstein. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 5 Scullion? I'm sorry, Mr. Rosenthal first. 6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Forty-five (45) 7 minutes. 8 MR. DONALD WORME: Forty-five (45) 9 minutes. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 11 Scullion...? 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thirty (30) minutes 13 or less. 14 MR. DONALD WORME: Thirty (30) minutes or 15 less for Mr. Scullion. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 17 Henderson...? 18 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Twenty (20) to 19 thirty (30) minutes, Commissioner. 20 MR. DONALD WORME: Twenty (20) to thirty 21 (30). 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 23 Horton...? 24 MR. WILLIAM HORTON: Twenty (20) to 25 thirty (30) as well, sir.


1 MR. DONALD WORME: Twenty (20) to thirty 2 (30) for the Chiefs of Ontario. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Two (2) to two and 4 a half (2 1/2) hours, Your Honour. 5 MR. DONALD WORME: Two (2) to two and a 6 half (2 1/2) hours. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 8 Twohig...? Ms. Twohig, will you be having any -- you 9 won't know until after all the questions have gone, is 10 that fair to say? 11 MS. KIM TWOHIG: That's right, yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 13 should just get started. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: Good morning, 18 Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 20 morning. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 23 Q: Ms. Todres, my name is Peter Downard, 24 and I appear for Mike Harris. 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: And I just have a few questions for 2 you -- 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: -- today. And first of all, pardon 5 the language, but it gets a little bad around here 6 sometimes. 7 While you were in the dining room meeting 8 on September 6th, did you hear the Premier say, "I want 9 the fucking Indians out of the Park" ? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Now, I want to ask you a couple of 12 questions having to do with Ron Fox and his 13 communications with the incident commander on the scene 14 at Ipperwash, John Carson, on September 6th. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Now, as I understand your evidence, 17 Mr. Fox as a person who was seconded to the Solicitor 18 General's office reported to you and you alone, right? 19 You have to verbalize -- 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: -- your answer. 22 A: I'm sorry. 23 Q: It's just for the record that you 24 have to verbalise your answer. 25 And so he was outside the OPP chain of


1 command, right? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Right. And as I understand your 4 evidence, you said that you expected that in 5 conversations between Ron Fox and incident commander 6 Carson during this period of the 5th and 6th, proper 7 protocols would be followed, right? 8 A: Yes, I did. 9 Q: Okay. Now, those would be the 10 protocols applicable to communications between your 11 Ministry on the one hand and the operational OPP officers 12 on the other, right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. Now, we've heard evidence in 15 this Inquiry that after the dining room meeting, Mr. Fox 16 called incident commander Carson and he said a number of 17 things, but one thing he said was that the -- the Premier 18 believes he has the authority to direct the OPP. 19 Fox said that to Carson in the call after 20 the dining room meeting. 21 Now, Mr. Harris disputes the accuracy of 22 that and for the purpose of my question I just want to 23 set aside the accuracy of that. 24 But setting aside whether the statement is 25 accurate or not, would that communication from Fox to


1 Carson be consistent with the protocol applicable to 2 communications as between your Ministry on the one hand 3 and operational OPP on the other? 4 A: Well, let me just step back and 5 remind myself that I wasn't -- I didn't recall him being 6 in the room. 7 Q: Oh and indeed -- 8 A: Right. 9 Q: And -- 10 A: Right. And I wouldn't -- I wouldn't 11 have known that he made the call. That would -- there 12 was nothing in that meeting, in my opinion, that would 13 have required any conversation at all from Mr. Fox to the 14 incident commander. 15 Q: Okay. But to take it one step 16 further, what I'm wondering about is this -- take it from 17 me that Fox said to Carson after the meeting the Premier 18 believes he has the authority to direct the OPP. 19 Now, I take it you didn't conclude from 20 the meeting that the Premier believed he had the 21 authority to direct the OPP, right? 22 A: Correct, I did not. 23 Q: But accepting that Fox said that to 24 Carson, was that a statement that would be consistent 25 with the applicable protocols?


1 A: I believe it was a -- a lapse of 2 judgment on Mr. Fox's part. 3 Q: And you said in your evidence that 4 you did not take from the dining room meeting any 5 understanding that there were comments there indicating 6 displeasure with the way the OPP had handled the 7 situation, right? 8 A: That was my take of the meeting, sir. 9 Q: Right. All right. Excepting for me 10 and setting aside the question of its accuracy or -- or 11 not, that Fox after the dining room meeting said to 12 Carson that the Premier had been critical of the way the 13 OPP had handled the Ipperwash occupation to date would 14 that have been consistent with the applicable protocol? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 18 very much, Mr. Downard. 19 Ms. Horvat...? 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: 24 Q: Good morning, Dr. Todres, my name is 25 Jacqueline Horvat and I represent Charles Harnick at this


1 Inquiry? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: Now, do you recall a meeting taking 4 place between Mr. Harnick, Mr. Taman, and yourself on the 5 morning of September 5th? 6 A: No, I do not. 7 Q: Now, Mr. -- Mr. Harnick testified 8 that he had a firm recollection of a meeting between 9 yourself and Mr. Taman and he -- that took place on the 10 morning of September 5th at the Solicitor General's 11 offices in a large boardroom. 12 A: Did you say the 5th or the 6th? 13 Q: 5th. 14 A: I recall the meeting in the latter 15 part of the afternoon with Mr. Harnick, Mr. Taman, 16 myself, and possibly the executive assistants. 17 Q: Mr. Harnick also testified that he 18 did not meet with or speak to Minister Runciman alone or 19 in a group setting until Cabinet on September 6th. 20 Does that assist your recollection at 21 all? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Turning to the dining room meeting -- 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: -- do you recall Minister Harnick


1 making any statements or submissions? 2 A: My recollection is that the Minister 3 of the Attorney General, the attorneys spoke briefly and 4 my recollection was that he supported the go slow 5 approach as -- as we had ascertained on the -- the 6 afternoon of the 5th; in other words stay the course. 7 Q: Hmm hmm. Do you recall Mr. Harnick 8 expressing any preferences or opinion on police 9 operational matters? 10 A: No. 11 Q: And if he had is that something that 12 you would remember? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Thank you. Those are all of my 15 questions. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 17 very much. 18 Mr. Smith...? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MR. IAN SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner. 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IAN SMITH: 25 Q: Dr. Todres, my name is Ian Smith and


1 I act for Mr. Runciman. 2 I just want to clarify, I understood -- 3 I'm just a little bit confused, but that's not unusual. 4 I understood that you testified that you 5 had a meeting at some point on September 5th that Mr. 6 Runciman attended. I understood from your evidence that 7 also at that meeting might have been Mr. Taman and Mr. 8 Harnick and the executive assistants. 9 Do I have that correct? 10 A: That is -- I -- I can't be absolutely 11 certain but I seem to recall that and Mr. Moran and Ms. 12 Hunt would have been at that meeting as well. 13 Q: Okay. And I think that you also 14 testified in-chief that the general view at that meeting 15 although Ipperwash was discussed only briefly; is that 16 right? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: Nevertheless the general view arising 19 from that meeting was that a slow and steady approach 20 ought to be taken? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And I take it from what you've said 23 that Mr. Runciman share in that view? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And did he at that meeting indicate


1 any criticism of the way the OPP -- the way in which the 2 OPP had handled the matter to that point? 3 A: No. 4 Q: Did he say that he wanted to in any 5 way to direct the police on how they ought to deal with 6 the situation? 7 A: Absolutely not. 8 Q: Did he express any views for example 9 about the use of force? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Did he take in fact any kind of 12 strong view about how the matter ought to be dealt with? 13 A: No, he was a very careful Minister, 14 very mindful of his responsibilities. 15 Q: And just to close that off I take it 16 then he didn't do anything at that meeting or say 17 anything at that meeting that would have gone over the -- 18 the line of I think you called it 'demarcation' between 19 policy matters and direction on -- on operational 20 matters? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: Did he show at that meeting any 23 frustration or anxiety or any sense of urgency? 24 A: No. Not to my recollection. 25 Q: And I take it from your evidence on


1 this matter, that the next time you met -- that you were 2 at a meeting, which Mr. Runciman was also in attendance, 3 was the meeting in the Premier's dining room the 4 following day? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And you said in your testimony in- 7 chief that you started off that meeting by emphasizing 8 for the group that -- this demarcation that we've been 9 talking about; is that correct? 10 A: Yes, it is. 11 Q: And isn't it fair to say, though, 12 that for Mr. Runciman and his Executive Assistant, Ms. 13 Hunt, that that little reminder or briefing on that point 14 wasn't really necessary? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: They were well aware of the 17 demarcation? 18 A: Well aware. 19 Q: And careful about it. 20 A: Very careful. 21 Q: And I take it, on the basis of that, 22 that Mr. Runciman didn't disagree with anything you said 23 at that meeting in respect of that demarcation? 24 A: I actually don't recall him speaking 25 at all.


1 Q: Well that's great because I wanted to 2 get to that point too. You said in your evidence in- 3 chief, a couple of times, things like: The politicians 4 wanted it dealt with prompt -- as promptly as possible, 5 or the politicians were exhibiting frustration, or they 6 wanted this or they wanted that. 7 And I'm going to suggest to you that Mr. 8 Runciman never said anything that contributed to any of 9 those impressions that you took from that meeting. 10 A: That's a fair statement. 11 Q: In fact, the evidence we have so far 12 suggests that Mr. Runciman said either nothing or very 13 little at this meeting. 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And that accords with your 16 recollection? 17 A: Yes, it does. 18 Q: So to the extent that there was a 19 sense of urgency or frustration in the room, that didn't 20 come from Mr. Runciman? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And you also said, at one point in 23 your evidence in-chief, that you thought also that the 24 Executive Assistants to the politicians wanted things 25 dealt with promptly.


1 And I'm going to suggest to you that 2 neither did that impression that you formed, come from 3 Ms. Hunt. 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Because neither did she say anything 6 at that meeting. 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And I'm going to suggest to you that, 9 in fact, Mr. Runciman wasn't frustrated or anxious nor 10 did he have a sense of urgency about the matter. 11 A: I agree with that statement. 12 Q: And certainly he did nothing at that 13 meeting that could be taken as an attempt to direct the 14 police and operational matters. 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: Did Mr. Runciman -- I -- I take it 17 since you've testified that he didn't -- you don't 18 remember him saying anything, I'm going to suggest he 19 didn't take any strong view on the issue of an 20 injunction? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Or what kind of injunction ought to 23 be sought? 24 A: No. I -- I don't recall him speaking 25 on that matter at all.


1 Q: Or, just to close it off, or how it 2 ought to be enforced? 3 A: No, I don't recall any -- I don't 4 recall him giving any input on that at all. 5 Q: And certainly he didn't say anything 6 at that meeting that was critical of the way in which the 7 OPP had handled the matter? 8 A: No. 9 Q: And you said in your evidence in- 10 chief, at one point, that at this stage, by the -- by the 11 end of this meeting, you took -- you took it that this 12 file was not much more than a watching brief for you. Is 13 that -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And that's true also for Mr. 16 Runciman? 17 A: Yes. It would have been the same for 18 Mr. Runciman. 19 Q: And that's again because the Attorney 20 General was the Ministry in charge of getting the 21 injunction; fair enough? 22 A: Fair enough. 23 Q: And because the -- the Ministry of 24 the Natural Resources -- of Natural Resources had 25 responsibility for the Park.


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And with respect to the OPP there was 3 a demarcation that didn't allow you to participate in 4 what they were doing. 5 A: Yes, that's fair. 6 Q: And just to finish it off, did -- 7 before September 7, did you have any other meetings with 8 Mr. Runciman on this topic? 9 A: Other than the meeting that I believe 10 we had on the 5th, no. If there was a -- not -- not with 11 me, not that I recall. 12 Q: And so in -- was there any other 13 context, any other communication of any kind in which Mr. 14 Runciman made any direction as to how -- how this matter 15 ought to be handled? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Thank you. Those are all my 18 questions. 19 A: Thank you. 20 Q: Thank you, Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 22 Mr. Smith. 23 Mr. Lauwers, on behalf of Mr. Hodgson? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just take a 2 minute to set yourself up. You estimated about two (2) 3 hours. We're going to break for lunch around 12:00; 4 would that be all right and then you continue after 5 lunch? 6 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Yes, that's fine. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. PETER LAUWERS: I'm discovering a 11 logistical problem here that I'm at that point in my -- 12 my life when my eyes don't quite do what they're supposed 13 to do at this range. So these air bifocals aren't 14 working any more. 15 Let me just see if I can make my way 16 through this. 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 19 Q: Now, Dr. Todres, I represent Chris 20 Hodgson today. My role is to test your evidence through 21 cross-examination, as I think you're aware, particularly 22 where it may differ from the evidence of other witnesses 23 and the anticipated evidence of Mr. Hodgson. 24 Now, before I get into the substance of 25 your evidence, I want to talk to you a bit about the


1 vagaries of memory. 2 I've reviewed your CV and you and I appear 3 to be contemporaries. One of the lessons of life that 4 I've learned is that memory is fragile, both my own and 5 the memories of others. 6 Is that a lesson you've learned yourself? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you've had experience, haven't 9 you, in which a memory of yours about an event turned out 10 to be quite wrong, am I right? 11 A: I suppose. 12 Q: Okay. Or at least that things that 13 you think you're remembering aren't quite what you 14 remember; isn't that correct? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And certainly memory is incomplete, 17 isn't it? 18 A: It appears to be. 19 Q: And you said, "I don't recall" a few 20 times today? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: So you'll agree that not only can 23 memory be fragile, it can also be somewhat unreliable on 24 occasion? 25 A: Hmm hmm.


1 Q: You agree with that? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Thank you. Now, you've described 4 yourself as -- as a policy wonk. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: I kind of think of myself as one as 7 well, so I appreciate the comments that you made on the 8 policy side. 9 Would it be fair to say that -- that 10 policy really grabs your attention, not so much -- 11 A: Strategy grabs my attention. 12 Q: Strategy grabs your attention. Not 13 so much factual detail? 14 A: No, I wouldn't say that, actually. I 15 would say that it would be very difficult to get a grasp 16 of strategy without the ability to discern what is a 17 relevant fact and what isn't a relevant fact. 18 Q: I -- I think that's probably right, 19 but the question is, what grabs your attention? Policy, 20 strategy or facts? 21 You were long on policy here, I thought in 22 many respects short on detail. That's my -- my -- the 23 reason for the question. 24 A: I find it difficult to answer because 25 it implies -- it implies a trivialization of fact when --


1 when dealing with strategy. 2 So that's why I'm -- I'm perplexed. I 3 understand the direction of your question, but I'm still 4 perplexed with respect to how it is I might answer. 5 Q: I understand -- I understand the 6 concern. But facts are -- 7 A: I can only tell you that my staff who 8 -- who would -- would review the documents that I vetted 9 would probably say that I have an obsession with fact 10 that mightn't have been obvious to someone who calls 11 herself a policy wonk. 12 Q: But the facts that you're concerned 13 about are the ones that are the building blocks of the 14 strategy that you wanted? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: Thank you. Now, Dr. Todres, I just 17 wanted to ask you a few questions about what you -- what 18 you did in preparation for giving your evidence here in 19 the last couple of days. 20 Can you tell me what documents you 21 reviewed, just generally? 22 A: I reviewed the binders that were in-- 23 Q: Binders? 24 A: I was given some binders by the 25 Commission staff with tabulations with variety of


1 materials. 2 Q: I assume one of them is the one that 3 you have in front of you? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Well, any other binders? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Just that one binder? 8 A: No, I think there were actually 9 Volume I and Volume II. I can't speak to whether this is 10 Volume I and Volume II combined, but I was given a set of 11 materials. 12 Q: Anything else by way of materials? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Did you speak to others about your 15 evidence before coming here to testify? 16 A: I was -- I met with my counsel from 17 the Ministry, the Attorney General and I had meetings 18 with Commission Counsel. 19 Q: And can you tell me when your first 20 meeting with Commission Counsel would have been? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: It was around May or June. 25 Q: May or June of this year?


1 A: Hmm hmm. 2 Q: And when was your last meeting in 3 preparation for your giving of evidence with Commission 4 Counsel? 5 A: The night before last. 6 Q: And did you also meet with Commission 7 Counsel last week? 8 A: I met with Commission Counsel on -- 9 on Friday, two (2) weeks ago I think. 10 Q: Thank you. I was a bit puzzled by 11 Exhibit P-984. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: Yes? 16 Q: Which is a document that you prepared 17 and -- and this is probably my problem because I haven't 18 been here as often as others have been. 19 And I'm -- I'm looking at your diagram and 20 I don't see ONAS anywhere on here and I'm -- there's a 21 point of intersection, I expect, but could you describe 22 where ONAS fits into this picture? 23 A: Well, this was a description of my 24 Ministry and our relationship. It wasn't a description 25 of my relationship or interaction with any -- MNR is not


1 on this diagram. ONAS is not on this diagram. No -- no 2 other Ministry is on this diagram -- 3 Q: So how -- 4 A: -- but ours. 5 Q: All right. So how did Ron Fox and -- 6 and Scott Patrick fit in with the ONAS exercise? 7 A: They were delegated -- well, Mr. Fox 8 was -- was the representative of the Ministry to the 9 InterMinisterial Committee. 10 Q: Okay. And the InterMinisterial 11 Committee was chaired by -- by an ONAS representative? 12 A: By the Director of Legal -- 13 Q: Right. 14 A: -- of ONAS. 15 Q: Okay. Thank you. Now, during the 16 events of -- during the events of -- of September 1995 17 you were Mr. Fox's immediate superior? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And can you tell us when your last 20 contact with Mr. Fox was? 21 A: Probably the last day that I worked 22 for the Ministry of the Solicitor General in 1997. 23 Q: In 1997? And have you had any 24 contact with him directly or indirectly since then? 25 A: I saw him -- I saw him once at a


1 hotel where I was doing a facilitation. There was a 2 meeting of the OPP and it was the first time that I'd 3 ever seen him. It was probably two (2) years ago or 4 three (3) years ago in one (1) of our hotels and I said, 5 Hello, and he said, Hello, to me. 6 Q: And did you discuss with him any of 7 the issues involved in this Inquiry? 8 A: No, I did not. 9 Q: You expressed yesterday a great deal 10 of respect and admiration of Mr. Fox? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And that came from your experience 13 with him? 14 A: Yes, it did. 15 Q: Now during the events of September 16 '95 you were also Scott Patrick's superior, were you not? 17 A: Scott reported to Ron. 18 Q: Okay. And can you tell me when your 19 last contact with Mr. -- Mr. Patrick was? 20 A: The last day of my work at the 21 Solicitor General. 22 Q: And not since then? 23 A: Not since then. 24 Q: And Ms. Jai, did you have any contact 25 with her after you departed from --


1 A: I actually saw her at Commission 2 Counsel office in the meeting that we had in July -- or 3 in May or June; she was being interviewed after me. And 4 we had a personal call with respect to her health a month 5 or two (2) -- she was involved in a serious operation and 6 we had a discussion about her health a few months before 7 that in which we restricted our conversations to her 8 health. 9 Q: Okay. So did you -- you -- that was 10 my next question: Did you have any kind of conversation 11 with her about the evidence that you were going to give-- 12 A: No. 13 Q: -- before this Inquiry. 14 A: No. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And have you had occasion to speak to 19 any of the other people who are witnesses in this Inquiry 20 in the last couple of years? 21 A: Well, I would have -- there are 22 deputy Minister Christmas parties which we call festive 23 parties. I may have seen some colleagues. I -- I've 24 seen Larry perhaps once or twice in the last ten (10) 25 years. It's been a long time. Have I had conversations


1 about Ipperwash? No. 2 Q: And the same question about lawyers 3 or lawyers' assistants for any of the other parties or 4 witnesses? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Apart from Commission Counsel and 7 your own counsel? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Okay. And, Dr. Todres, have you 10 watched the Inquiry proceedings from time to time? 11 A: I watched -- I was in the hotel, in 12 my hotel the other day and discovered that there was a 13 local channel and I caught a few minutes of Mr. Harnick. 14 And I once saw Larry on -- Larry Taman 15 that is, on -- on -- for perhaps ten (10) or fifteen (15) 16 minutes at my home on the webcast. I made a point of not 17 wishing to see it, nor did I wish to review the -- the 18 testimony. I felt that that would be confusing. 19 Q: Thank you. So you began your career 20 with the public service in about 1980; is that -- is that 21 correct? 22 A: 1976. 23 Q: 1976. And you completed your PhD the 24 -- I think the following year? 25 A: Just before that, hmm hmm.


1 Q: Oh, okay. And you rose to the rank 2 of Assistant Deputy Minister in 1986 with the Ontario 3 Women's Directorate? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And that would have been during the 6 tenure of the minority Liberal Government that was 7 elected -- 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: -- in '85? Right. 10 You became Deputy Minister of Human 11 Resources in 1987, and that would have been after the 12 Liberals returned, under Mr. Peterson, with majority? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Okay. And you worked under the Rae 15 Government from 1990 to 1995 as Deputy Minister for the 16 Ministry of Culture in its couple of incarnations? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: All right. Is it -- and you worked 19 of course as a Deputy Solicitor General from 1995 to 20 1997. Is it fair to say that over that time you had 21 frequent interaction with executive assistants for 22 Ministers and with other political staff? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And would you agree with me that -- 25 that when an EA shows up at a meeting representing a


1 Minister, he or she is there for two (2) basic reasons, 2 the first is to get briefed with information that might 3 be relevant to the Minister, so that the Minister can be 4 briefed by the EA; is that correct? 5 A: Well I'd like to distinguish between 6 the types of meetings that EA's attend, which I attempted 7 to do yesterday. EA's, in my experience, would attend 8 meetings with senior staff with ADM's, maybe, and with 9 deputies. It would be -- would be rare for EA's to have 10 meetings with significantly lower staff. 11 But where they were meeting with me or 12 with my immediate reports, it would be to provide 13 information and to be a conduit in -- in the main. 14 Q: So for you to provide information 15 through them and for you to get information through them; 16 is that fair? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. And, in fact, it was useful to 19 meet with them from time to time because you might get a 20 sense of how a Minister might view a particular issue on 21 the way through the policy development process? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And would you agree with me that, in 24 general terms, executive assistants and Ministers, as a 25 team, take a consistent approach to issues?


1 A: I think that it depends on the 2 circumstances. 3 Q: But if an EA is offside the Minister 4 doesn't -- an EA who is offside the Minister doesn't last 5 very long, does he? 6 A: And conversely a Minister who is 7 offside doesn't last very long. 8 Q: Offside his EA? 9 A: Yes. Sometimes the EA is given 10 instruction and the Minister has difficulty, and then we 11 have to work through the Premier's office. So it's a 12 very reciprocal relationship. 13 Q: Okay. Now you were around during the 14 few changes of government? 15 A: Yes, I was. 16 Q: And I imagine as well a few changes 17 in Ministers? 18 A: Quite a few changes in Ministers. 19 Q: Okay. And is it fair to say, that in 20 the early days of a change of that sort, political staff 21 are learning the ropes? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Especially around relations between 24 your office and political staff? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And people are looking for the lines, 2 the protocols? 3 A: Yes. And it very much depends on the 4 strength of the principal secretary and the -- the 5 caliber of people in their respective offices, and 6 Cabinet, and the Premier's office. 7 Q: And you described your Ministry as 8 complex? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And in your Ministry, with the police 11 portfolio, that perhaps more lines than in an ordinary 12 line Ministry? 13 A: Well, at least as many lines as in 14 Health but it's -- it's a very special place. 15 Q: All right. Now, in terms of the 16 police side, I believe you said yesterday that 17 representatives were seconded from the OPP to advise you 18 because of the breadth and scopes of the -- of the duties 19 of your Ministry, and that Ron Fox and Scott Patrick were 20 seconded OPP officers, right? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And that they were paid by the OPP 23 and -- but that they took instructions from you alone and 24 were not considered to be OPP officers in that -- 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: That was your evidence? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: All right. And you said in your 4 evidence as well, as I recall, that you were not aware 5 that Mr. Fox and Mr. Patrick continued to be police 6 officers while they were seconded to -- 7 A: Peace officers. 8 Q: -- peace officers while they were 9 seconded to the Ministry of the Solicitor General until 10 very recently? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Do you recall that? And you 13 described the circumstances under which you learned -- 14 became aware that they -- they, in fact, continued to be 15 peace officers? 16 A: It was in conversation with my 17 counsel a number of days ago. 18 Q: And did that change in your awareness 19 cause any concern to you in the way that you approached 20 the issues that are in this inquiry? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Did Mr. Fox and Mr. Patrick wear 23 uniforms in the office? 24 A: No. 25 Q: And I understand that they used


1 ordinary names, like Ron and Mr. Fox, in ordinary work in 2 the -- in the Ministry, not their OPP ranks? 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: And Mr. Hodgson will say, in fact, 5 that he did not know that Mr. Fox was a police officer 6 when he met him. And that wouldn't be any surprise to 7 you, would it? 8 A: Well I think I would have said Mr. -- 9 Mr. Hodgson would not have been aware that Mr. Fox was a 10 seconded OPP staffer to my office. 11 Q: Mr. Hodgson's evidence would -- will 12 be that he did not know that Mr. Fox was an OPP officer 13 at all. Would that be a surprise to you? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Because the -- that's fine, thank 16 you. This might be a good time to break, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 18 very much. This will be a good time to break for lunch. 19 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 20 adjourned until 1:15. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 12:01 p.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 1:15 p.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now


1 resumed. Please be seated. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, before 3 we start this afternoon I just wanted to make an 4 announcement. 5 Given the length of anticipated cross- 6 examination with respect to Ms. Todres the -- one of the 7 things we were going to try to do tomorrow was recall Tim 8 McCabe. I don't want to ask Mr. McCabe to come back if 9 we're going to finish him. And so what we've decided to 10 do is not call Mr. McCabe tomorrow. 11 What we'll do when we're done with Ms. 12 Todres is we'll deal with the Gerry (phonetic) King 13 affidavit -- Ms. Vella will. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No reaction 18 so we're okay. Nobody's jumping up and down. 19 I spoke too soon. No? You're going to 20 speak -- 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I'm going to speak 22 with Counsel. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: See if you 24 can sort it out. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Let's 4 get on with it. You guys can talk during the recess and 5 if you still have something you want to say here we'll do 6 it after the recess. 7 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Lauwers, 9 can you please, let's get started with our examination. 10 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Thank you, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 14 Q: Now, Dr. Todres you left the public 15 service in 1997? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: What was the date of that departure? 18 A: I don't recall. 19 Q: Can you describe briefly the 20 circumstances of your departure from the public service? 21 A: I had decided that I wanted to 22 explore a career in the private sector and that given 23 that the private sector generally has a difficulty in 24 understanding what it is the Deputy Minister does, I 25 thought that if I wanted to do this, I should do this


1 when, what I seemed to think of myself then, was 2 relatively young. 3 I indicated that I was going to be seeking 4 a job elsewhere. I indicated that to both my Minister 5 and the Secretary of Cabinet and had a very pleasant 6 departure, and a lovely party, and some lovely words from 7 the colleagues that I held dear including the Minister 8 and moved on. 9 Q: So, the departure was voluntary? 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: Pardon me? 12 A: Yes, it was. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: The next couple of questions, or a 17 few questions are being asked in the interest of -- of 18 ensuring a complete record, Dr. Todres, and for stalling 19 any future criticism. In asking these questions I'm not 20 suggesting any impropriety on anyone's part. 21 If I go to the website for Todres 22 Leadership Council, that is your -- your business? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And on that website there appears an 25 endorsement from the -- Commissioner Linden of this


1 Inquiry? 2 A: There's an endorsement from His 3 Honour, Justice Linden, when he was the Chair of the 4 Legal Aid -- 5 Q: As he then was -- 6 A: -- Ontario. 7 Q: Okay. Can you just tell us briefly 8 what the circumstances of that engagement were? 9 A: Legal Aid Ontario wanted to do some 10 government work -- governance work under the behest of 11 both the Chair and the CEO in 2001 and 2002. And through 12 the Office of the Chair and the CEO, asked to hire me -- 13 my services, in order to deal with a retreat for Legal 14 Aid Ontario to sort out roles and relationships in 15 particular areas that might be thorny and subject to 16 future strategic discussion for the Board. And we did 17 that in the year 2001 and 2002. 18 Q: Okay. And could you tell us how much 19 direct contact you had with -- with Justice Linden on 20 that -- during that time? 21 A: Justice Linden would have indicated 22 to me what it is that he wished to accomplish as Chair. 23 We had a number of meetings and then I would have spent a 24 fair amount of time with his Chief Executive Officer, Ms. 25 Angela Longo (phonetic).


1 And of course I would have naturally been 2 in contact with him throughout the conduct of the -- a 3 retreat which probably was two (2) days or two and a half 4 (2 1/2) in length. 5 Q: Thank you. I notice as well that on 6 your website under the tab that's marked 'Clients' you 7 have listed the Ontario Native Friendship Centres -- 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: -- as a client. Can you tell us 10 something about the nature of your work -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- with the organization and the 13 organization itself? 14 A: I met Sylvia Amaricle (phonetic) who 15 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Indian Friendship 16 Centre in my time, when I was both the Director of Policy 17 and then subsequently the Assistant Deputy Minister for 18 Women's Issues. At that time in 1983, '84, '85, she was 19 actually the head of the Toronto Indian Friendship 20 Centre, as I recall, and then became the CEO of the 21 Provincial Organization. 22 She was a women that -- that I have 23 enormous respect for. She's very, very smart and very, 24 very savvy. In any event, she was on the Board of Legal 25 Aid Ontario and was part of the deliberations when I was


1 doing government --governance work. 2 Some time after that she asked me to 3 conduct a series of policy workshops for her staff. I 4 indicated to her that I didn't normally do individual 5 workshops, but I do value her relationship very much and 6 I agreed to do so. And we did a three (3) day policy 7 seminar which was meant to help her staff. 8 And all of the staff were invited. There 9 was something like seventy-five (75) people present where 10 we spent two and a half (2 1/2), three (3) days, and a 11 very enjoyable experience for me. 12 Q: Is that organization represented here 13 at this Inquiry, to your knowledge? 14 A: Not that I'm aware of. 15 Q: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Lauwers, 17 perhaps you -- maybe you should ask Dr. Todres if she and 18 I ever discussed Ipperwash, just for the record. 19 MR. PETER LAUWERS: I would pleased if 20 you would answer that question. 21 THE WITNESS: No. 22 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Thank you. It 23 wouldn't -- wouldn't frankly have even occurred to me, 24 sir. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I just


1 want to make it clear for the record that we never talked 2 about Ipperwash. 3 MR. PETER LAUWERS: But that's fair. 4 Thank you. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 7 Q: Now, it's common knowledge that the 8 occupiers entered the Park site on Labour Day, September 9 the 4th. Can you just -- and -- and I will not be 10 hopefully repeating much here but I just -- to set the 11 context, okay, when did you first learn about the 12 occupation? 13 A: The morning of the 5th. 14 Q: And what did you do upon learning of 15 it? 16 A: We had a detailed briefing. And we 17 would have -- I don't recall whether Kathryn Hunt was in 18 the room with me. Had she been in the room with me we 19 would have gone directly to the Minister, but the 20 information was conveyed to the Minister. 21 Q: And did that -- that briefing that 22 you're just referring to now, did it follow or precede 23 the IMC meeting of that day? 24 A: Well, it was a very early meeting, so 25 I'm assuming that it preceded it.


1 Q: Probably in the morning then. The 2 IMC meeting apparently went from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 3 that day. Could I ask you to turn up Tab 26 in your -- 4 in the binder that's in front of you? 5 And Tab 26 is P -- Exhibit P-509 and it's 6 the meeting notes of the meeting of September the 5th, 7 1995. 8 And it has the IMC meeting at the ONAS 9 green boardroom at 595 Bay Street; do you see that? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: I think if you -- are you looking at 12 the fax sheet? If you just look -- 13 A: I'm looking at the cover sheet, the 14 fax sheet. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: Shall I turn it over? 17 Q: Yes, please, yeah. 18 A: Okay. 19 Q: And now am I correct that ONAS' 20 offices are at about Bay and Dundas? 21 A: I didn't know where their offices 22 were. I'm assuming if that's the address, that's where 23 they were. 24 Q: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They're in


1 the atrium at Bay and Dundas, we've heard that from other 2 witnesses. 3 MR. PETER LAUWERS: That's my 4 understanding, yes, thank you. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 7 Q: So you're not mentioned as being 8 present? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And I take it you weren't there. 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And you were briefed on this meeting? 13 A: I was briefed the following day, so 14 I'm assuming that Ron, in his diligence, would have kept 15 me apprised of what was going on. 16 Q: Now the meeting notes, and 17 particularly the handwritten notes, have you had a chance 18 to read these notes -- 19 A: I've reviewed them. 20 Q: You went through the binder in 21 preparation for your evidence? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: I think you said that already. 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: So you read each page as it came?


1 A: I reviewed them; I didn't study them. 2 Q: It's a lot of pages, I know. 3 A: It's a lot of pages. And the 4 meetings at which I didn't attend, I didn't spend as much 5 time on. 6 A: Okay. So the meeting notes, and I'll 7 take you to this, if you care, in a few moments, the 8 meeting notes have MNR representatives including Mr. 9 Bangs expressing a caution about moving quickly, even to 10 get an injunction. 11 If I could ask you to turn up Tab 28. Now 12 at Tab 28, which is Exhibit P-536, these are handwritten 13 notes and unfortunately they kind of come in two (2) 14 bundles. 15 If you go about half way through the 16 handwritten notes you'll see the page numbers resume and 17 the second group, September 5, 1995; do you see that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. So what I'm going to ask 20 you to do if you would is -- is to go -- these are, we 21 understand, the handwritten notes of Julie Jai. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Who was chairing that meeting. So 24 let me just take you then to page 3 of -- of the -- that 25 part of the notes.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 2 September 5th meeting -- 3 MR. PETER LAUWERS: The September 5th 4 meeting, yes, sir. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 7 Q: And you'll see just down about one- 8 third (1/3) of the page or a quarter (1/4) of the page, 9 Peter Allen's name; do you see that there? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And can you tell us who Peter Allen 12 was? 13 A: I don't recall who Peter Allen is. 14 Q: I see. If I suggested to you that he 15 was Ron Vrancart's executive assistant -- 16 A: Yes, thank you. 17 Q: -- does that ring a bell? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Thank you. So what -- what we have 20 here is -- is Mr. Allen noted as having said: 21 "They spoke with their DM. No attempt 22 made so far to speak to them and find 23 out what they want." 24 I'm assuming that would mean the 25 occupiers.


1 "They're just occupying an empty Park. 2 Shouldn't take overly precipitous 3 action." 4 Do you see that? 5 A: Yes, I do. 6 Q: And then down a little bit further, 7 and we see "DM" and then there's a note: 8 "Ron Vrancart would like to have -- 9 would like us to have an injunction 10 ready to go but not proceed 11 precipitously [underneath that] no 12 great inconvenience." 13 Did you see that? 14 A: Yes, I did. 15 Q: And going a little further on: 16 "Jeff Bangs discussed with [Minister] 17 Min, this morning. If we get an 18 injunction, we'll be expected to 19 enforce it and will escalate things. 20 Could lead to a confrontation." 21 Do you see that? 22 A: Yes, I do. 23 Q: Now, when you were -- just to make 24 sure I've got this straight. Were you told about these - 25 - this sort of sense of approach by MNR to -- to movement


1 on Ipperwash -- 2 A: I don't -- 3 Q: -- in your briefing? 4 A: -- recall -- I don't recall these 5 kinds of details. What I recall is, as I indicated a 6 number of times, is that the prevailing view of the 7 bureaucracy, without specifying which particular Ministry 8 was saying what to whom, was that we would proceed with 9 caution and negotiation. 10 Q: And this -- these notes here from Mr. 11 Bangs, among others, simply reinforce that? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And were you told, as well, in your - 14 - in your briefing by -- was it Mr. Fox who briefed you 15 on this? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: That Mr. Hodgson wasn't terribly 18 interested in being the spokesperson for the Government 19 on this issue with the media? 20 A: That I don't recall. 21 Q: You don't recall that? 22 A: No. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Let me now turn to events on 2 September the 6th, the Wednesday. I understand that 3 Cabinet usually met on Wednesday? What time -- 4 A: Yes, they did. 5 Q: -- was that meeting? 6 A: I believe it began, usually at 10:00, 7 sometimes it began at 9:00. 8 Q: Okay. And did it meet on -- on this 9 particular day, September the 6th, 1995? 10 A: I understand that it met. 11 Q: I take it you didn't attend? 12 A: Deputies do not attend at Cabinet 13 meetings. 14 Q: Sometimes they do? 15 A: They rarely -- they never attend 16 Cabinet meetings except for the Secretary of Cabinet and 17 a few of the central agency deputies that are asked to 18 attend subcommittee meetings of Cabinet. 19 Q: All right. I thought you gave 20 evidence earlier on that Mr. Taman attended the Cabinet 21 meeting that day; is that correct? 22 A: I don't believe so. 23 Q: Okay. I may have misheard that. 24 Thank you. So you -- did your Minister attend? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Now, was your Minister's office at -- 2 at your offices, is in the same building? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: At Church and Bloor? 5 A: Yes. Different sections of the 6 floor. 7 Q: Thank you. Now, at Tab 30 of -- of 8 the document book there's -- there's another set of 9 minutes. It's Exhibit P-509 which are the meeting notes; 10 just go towards the back. Yes, P-509 September the 6th, 11 1995? 12 A: Yes, I see it. 13 Q: And these are the meeting notes of 14 the ONAS meeting of -- sorry the IMC meeting of -- of 15 September the 6th. 16 And you'll see that the -- the meeting is 17 going from 9:30 a.m. to 11:45 p.m.? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And as I understand it Mr. -- Mr. Fox 20 was there? 21 A: Yes, it appears so. 22 Q: Okay. And did you -- and Mr. Fox 23 reported to you on this -- on this particular meeting? 24 A: As I recall, I was called into the 25 Premier's meeting at 11:00 so that meeting would have


1 occurred -- dining room meeting would have occurred at 2 some point while this meeting was still in play. So I 3 would not have been briefed on the outcome of this 4 meeting. 5 Q: Now you say you were called to the 6 meeting at 11:00? 7 A: I believe the meeting started, 8 approximately, around 11:00. 9 Q: And you were -- it started at eleven 10 o'clock? 11 A: Something like that, yes. 12 Q: And how do you know that? 13 A: That's my recollection. 14 Q: Anything particularly stand out about 15 that -- 16 A: It was before lunch. 17 Q: Before lunch? 18 A: It was before lunch. 19 Q: To get to the meeting you had to come 20 from your office? 21 A: I had to come from my office. 22 Q: And how did you -- how did you get 23 to -- 24 A: As I indicated earlier I don't recall 25 whether we drove, but I remember walking, with Mr. Fox


1 and probably with Ms. Taylor, a certain portion of the 2 underground passageway into the legislature. So we 3 likely walked. 4 Q: You walked from Bloor and Dundas? 5 A: Well, I suspect -- my offices were at 6 Bloor and Church. 7 Q: Bloor and Church, sorry. Yeah. 8 A: I suspected what -- 9 Q: Dundas and -- they're parallel. I 10 understand. 11 A: I suspect that what may have happened 12 in the interest of time is that I may have parked my car 13 in the Government parking lot and then walked underneath. 14 There's an underground access point. I don't recall that 15 vividly. 16 Q: All right. And you then walked to 17 the -- the dining room? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: With Mr. Fox and -- 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And did Mr. Fox brief you on the -- 22 on the discussion at the IMC meeting? 23 A: I don't remember any briefing so I 24 walked into that room of the view that our position was 25 staying the same, which is steady as she goes.


1 Q: Okay. Let me then go to that dining 2 room meeting. You were at the meeting. You say it 3 started at eleven o'clock. Is it possible that your time 4 frame is off and it actually started later? 5 A: It's possible. I remember 11:00. I 6 -- I -- that's all I can say. 7 Q: Could it have been 12:00? 8 A: I don't think it was 12:00 because 9 there were people that were going to lunch later and the 10 Ministers were being pulled out of Cabinet and they would 11 have wanted to be able to return to the other 12 deliberations that were still going on next door. 13 Q: Your evidence is that Cabinet was 14 still underway at that time? 15 A: I believe so. I -- I wouldn't know. 16 I can't speculate. 17 Q: Thank you. 18 A: It is common practice, if I can say, 19 that given the exigencies of the day and given the 20 location of the dining room office, that there are times 21 when a number of people in Cabinet have to leave to have 22 what they call off -- what's the expression, sidebar 23 meetings. 24 Q: But you're not able to tell us today 25 whether the Cabinet meeting proceeded in the absence of


1 the Premier and the other ministers that -- 2 A: No, I'm not. 3 Q: -- were with you in the dining room? 4 A: No, I'm not. 5 Q: Okay. Now just tell me, when -- when 6 did -- where did you go after the meeting was over? 7 A: I returned to my office. 8 Q: And how did you get there? 9 A: The same way I came. So if I -- I 10 must have walked a certain point. I was -- likely would 11 have driven to my office, I don't recall that. 12 Q: Okay. And do you have any sense of - 13 - of how long the whole exercise would have been from the 14 time you left the office to the time you returned? 15 A: Well, I remember that the -- the 16 meeting was not unduly long and I was estimating that it 17 was something like forty-five (45) to fifty (50) minutes 18 and it might have taken ten (10) minutes to get there and 19 ten (10) minutes to get back. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Okay. And you have the meeting at 24 forty-five (45) to fifty (50) minutes or so? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Would you quarrel with an estimate 2 that has it more like fifteen (15) to twenty (20) 3 minutes? 4 A: Quarrel is a strong word. Perhaps, 5 perhaps it was that. 6 Q: Okay. I wonder if you could put up 7 the diagram? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: This is -- what we have on the 12 screen, Dr. Todres, is Exhibit P-968 which is a drawing 13 of the Premier's office, as you can see in the right hand 14 corner of it, the dining room next to it and then the -- 15 I take it the council chamber at the top of the page to 16 the right would be normally where the Cabinet meets? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Is that correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: So just to understand exactly what 21 happened here, you -- you came to the meeting and where 22 did you go when you got to the -- this particular area, 23 looking at that -- 24 A: I sat beside Larry on -- on this 25 side, as I believe is indicated on that chart.


1 Q: Yeah, let me just back you up for a 2 second, because you're in the room already and I haven't 3 got you past the reception -- 4 A: Oh, I'm sorry. 5 Q: -- yet. 6 A: Okay, oh, I'm in reception. 7 Q: Yeah. 8 A: Okay. So I'm move -- I -- I indicate 9 why -- that I've been called to the meeting. And I 10 walked in and I left my staff outside the meeting; I took 11 this to be a meeting of the Deputies and Ministers, so I 12 walked in alone. 13 Q: So, you walked through the reception 14 doors, through the hallway and into the room? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: All right. And you left your staff 17 out in the reception area? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: So I'm just clear, you did not go 20 through the Cabinet room to get to this particular room, 21 right? 22 A: No. 23 Q: Okay. So Mr. Runciman, I take it, 24 was -- was he in the room at the time you arrived? 25 A: I can't recall who was in the room.


1 It was only within a matter of minutes that everyone 2 assembled, so I can't recall the precise chronology of 3 who took what seat, when. 4 Q: Was there anybody in the room when 5 you -- when you -- 6 A: I don't recall. 7 Q: -- walked in? 8 A: I don't believe it was empty, but I 9 can't speak to who was there. 10 Q: Now, I believe your evidence earlier 11 on was that you had no recollection of Mr. Fox and Mr. 12 Patrick being in the room? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Okay. So in terms of -- of the 15 seating arrangement in the room -- 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: -- and I'm conscious that I haven't 18 got everybody placed here. This is Ms. Hutton's diagram 19 which Mr. Hodgson says is not accurate from his 20 recollection. 21 Let me tell you what I -- what he says he 22 thinks happened, and just to check it out with how it 23 accords with your recollection. 24 Mr. Hodgson will say that in terms of 25 seating, you and Mr. Fox sat on the same side of the


1 table -- yes? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: My Friend makes a -- makes a good 6 point and I should just simply ask you, at least at the 7 outset, what -- where you think people were in the room 8 that you can recall to the best of your -- 9 A: Excellent. 10 Q: And -- 11 A: Well -- 12 Q: -- you can ignore the -- the -- 13 A: Okay, so -- 14 Q: -- line there, if you would. 15 A: Let's begin with, as I say, what 16 normal protocol is. Normal protocol would be that 17 Ministers and Deputies and perhaps, if there was 18 sufficient room, political staff would be sitting at the 19 table, and others, if I can put it this way, without 20 seeming unduly elitist, lower level staff would be 21 sitting on chairs around the table. 22 My recollection is that Larry and I sat 23 roughly where it is indicated and that we were sitting 24 opposite Ministers Hodgson and Minister Harnick. 25 I recall the Premier actually sitting at


1 the other table, at the other end of the table, not -- 2 not -- 3 Q: I'm sorry, can -- can you back up for 4 a second, I -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- I didn't catch that again. I wish 7 we had a diagram we could actually draw this on. 8 A: Would it be helpful if I pointed -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, there 10 is -- 11 THE WITNESS: Would you mind if I 12 pointed? 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 15 Q: Yeah, that would be a great idea. 16 A: Okay, so my recollection is the two 17 (2) of us sat here because I remember turning to my right 18 to listen to Larry -- to the Deputy Attorney General as 19 he was speaking. 20 I recall Minister Harnick and Minister 21 Hodgson sitting here. My recollection is that the 22 Premier sat at this end and I believe that Deb Hutton was 23 here -- I can't remember exactly who sat in what seat at 24 this end. 25 There may have been staff behind us.


1 There were -- I can't recall where Ron Vrancart sat and 2 so on. But there were chairs around the table and there 3 was a very noisy air conditioner in some corner. I think 4 it might have been around here. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: There's an 6 AC marked where I think Ms. Hutton placed it. 7 THE WITNESS: Oh, there it was. Such as 8 I indicated, it was quite difficult to hear in that room. 9 And I don't recall the seating arrangements of anyone 10 else. 11 So as we were poised to listen to people, 12 I was not paying attention to people who were sitting 13 behind me or around me, I was paying attention to the 14 people who were at the table. 15 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Commissioner, I have 16 a blank drawing here, it might be helpful if the Witness 17 could fill it in. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 19 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Thank you. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 22 Q: You're going to have to draw the 23 table on as well. 24 A: Okay. So just a moment. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Just in terms of the location of 4 Premier Harris, are you saying that he was by the air 5 conditioner? 6 A: That was my -- that's my 7 recollection, yes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think Mr. 9 Millar's had the same thought. He went out to get you a 10 blank one. 11 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Pardon me, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think Mr. 13 Millar went out to get a blank one, right? 14 THE WITNESS: Shall I pass this forward 15 to you? 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 18 Q: Yes, please. I'd like to -- I guess 19 we can't project it quite that quickly, can we? You 20 don't have Mr. Runciman on this diagram? 21 A: No. I don't recall where he sat. 22 Q: And you also -- but you believe he 23 was in the room? 24 A: Oh yes. 25 Q: And you don't have Mr. Vrancart.


1 A: No, I don't recall where he sat 2 either. 3 Q: But you -- you know he was in the 4 room? 5 A: But he was at the table. 6 Q: He was at the table? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: You don't recall where he was? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: All right. And just to be clear on 11 this, now that we've got your evidence. What Mr. Hodgson 12 will say is that in terms of the seating that -- that you 13 and Mr. Fox sat on the same side of the table as Mr. 14 Taman and Mr. Harnick. 15 And that would be to the right of the -- 16 the Premier where -- wherever the Premier was at the head 17 of the table. And he will say that -- that he sat on the 18 other side of the table with Mr. Runciman to his left and 19 Mr. Vrancart to his right. 20 That's a bit difficult, perhaps, to 21 visualize, but. 22 A: So are you -- just for me to -- 23 Q: Sure. 24 A: -- to get a sense. Are you saying 25 that he would not have said that he was on this side of


1 the table? 2 Q: He would -- he would -- yeah, he 3 would -- he would say that he was across the table from 4 you. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: But that Mr. Harnick wasn't -- wasn't 7 on the same side. 8 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, I 9 have an objection. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Lauwers. 11 Yes, Mr. Falconer...? 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 13 it's not really a criticism it's just that putting 14 anticipated evidence to a witness. If it's not put 15 precisely, occasions in unfairness, both not only for the 16 Witness but for all of the parties because we assume a 17 piece of evidence once it's put in this fashion to the 18 Witness. 19 But, because -- it's true and -- and 20 counsel's undertaking that his client's going to say it. 21 But the problem here is it's murky so then we don't 22 actually know where we -- we sit and it's not counsel's 23 fault other than if he can specify where his client said 24 Harris sat and then when he says when he sat to Harris' 25 right we know what he's talking about.


1 And if he can't give that level of 2 specificity, so we know what he's undertaking to call, 3 then with respect, it ought not to be referred to. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 5 think that would be helpful if you can be -- if you can 6 be precise what you expect Mr. Hodgson will say, that 7 would be helpful. If you can't then it -- 8 MR. PETER LAUWERS: I actually -- I 9 actually did exactly that, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Did you? 11 Okay. 12 MR. PETER LAUWERS: I went through which 13 side of the table in relation to Mr. -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What you're 15 saying then is -- 16 MR. PETER LAUWERS: I'll do it again. 17 I'll do it again. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 19 Mr. Hodgson is expected to say when he's testifying. 20 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Mr. Hodgson, as I 21 said, will say that, in terms of seating, that the 22 Witness and Mr. Fox sat on the same side of the table as 23 Mr. Taman and Mr. Harnick, to the right of the Premier's 24 position at the head of the table. And that, in fact, 25 the Premier sat with his back to the door.


1 He will say that he sat on the other -- he 2 will say -- Mr. Hodgson will say that he sat on the other 3 side of the table with Mr. Runciman to his left, Mr. 4 Vrancart to his right, and Mr. Bangs behind him; that's 5 essentially it. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 9 Q: Does that help you at all in terms of 10 your recollection? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Okay. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: I'm trying to figure out whether I 17 need to see you more than I need to see the paper or this 18 thing or not. 19 No, I -- I just remember when I was a 20 young lawyer people were always doing this all the time 21 and it was very irritating which is why have -- I have 22 outgrown my -- my... 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: Oh boy, I'm afraid -- all right, so 2 now, Dr. Todres, in your evidence you attribute a remark 3 to Mr. Hodgson which is very similar to a remark that Mr. 4 Harnick attributed to the Premier. You're -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- aware of that? Now, and your 7 evidence up til now is that Mr. Fox -- you don't remember 8 Mr. Fox being at the room -- in the room at the time that 9 Mr. Hodgson was alleged to have made this remark? 10 A: I don't recall Mr. Fox being in the 11 room at all. 12 Q: All right. So -- and I believe your 13 evidence this morning was that this remark was not made 14 at the beginning of the meeting and it wasn't made at the 15 end of the meeting. 16 A: It was at -- 17 Q: It was somewhere in the middle? 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: So, in his evidence Mr. Harnick says 22 that the Premier made the remark as Mr. Harnick was 23 entering the room at the beginning of the meeting. Are 24 you aware of that evidence? 25 A: I'm aware of that evidence.


1 Q: And how are you aware of it? 2 A: It was reported in the newspaper. 3 Q: And you read the newspaper? 4 A: And I read the newspaper. 5 Q: Did you read the -- the evidence 6 itself? 7 A: No, I haven't read the evidence 8 itself. And I may have seen him briefly on television in 9 my hotel room at the Forest -- I was surprised, that 10 there was a television station. I don't recall whether 11 he was speaking to that point in particular, but I saw 12 him briefly. 13 Q: You don't recall whether the evidence 14 you saw was him speaking to that point, specifically? 15 A: I saw him on the -- on Monday 16 afternoon briefly, so I -- I don't know precisely when he 17 gave that evidence, but I heard him briefly on Monday 18 afternoon. You will know when he gave that evidence. 19 Q: All right. So, let me just -- let me 20 just give you what my client will say about -- about 21 this. 22 He will say that first of all he never 23 made the remark that you attribute to him at that meeting 24 or at any other meeting. He will also say that he did 25 not hear Mr. Harris make that remark. And finally he


1 will say that when he arrived in the room Mr. Harnick was 2 already there. 3 Now, Dr. Todres, when did you first 4 disclose your memory of this remark to Counsel for the 5 Inquiry? 6 A: At my first meeting with Counsel in 7 May or when I met with -- with Commission Counsel. 8 Q: You were -- you were interviewed in 9 depth by Counsel for the Inquiry in May of 2005? 10 A: Well, I -- I can't recall when we 11 met, but there was -- I'm -- I'm trying to think if it 12 was before I went on a trip. It was the first meeting; 13 it was a two (2) hour meeting. I don't remember the 14 precise date. I believe that was when I disclosed it. 15 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 16 I'm -- I'm registering an objection only from this point 17 of view. 18 I understand why My Learned Friend is 19 asking the questions he's asking and I would ordinarily 20 be supportive that that's properly a matter of 21 credibility questioning, and that we're entitled to do 22 it. 23 But, I fully expect if I ask other 24 witnesses about exchanges or what they told Commission 25 Counsel that I'm going to be told that this is not an


1 area that we're going to traditionally allow counsel to 2 go into. And I'm worried that we're going to create two 3 (2) sets of rules. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have to 5 be consistent, Mr. Falconer. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 8 absolutely right. I think we need to establish how we're 9 going to deal with these meetings with Counsel. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Because I'm not 11 objecting to My Friend doing it as long as I'm free to do 12 it with police officers or with anybody else that -- that 13 comes before you. So, it -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 15 absolutely right. We have to be consistent. Let's just 16 stop for a minute and make sure that we're going to be. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Mr. Commissioner, 21 can we have a short adjournment? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think we 23 should have because I want to make sure that we're 24 consistent on this. 25 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess.


1 2 --- Upon recessing at 1:49 p.m. 3 --- Upon resuming at 2:02 p.m. 4 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 6 resumed, please be seated. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes...? 11 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Mr. Commissioner, I'd 12 just like to clarify for the record that when my client 13 met with Commission Counsel in May, it was a very brief 14 meeting at which the discussion centred around Dr. 15 Todres' background and role in the Ministry, and we did 16 not have a discussion about anything that occurred in the 17 dining room. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 19 MS. KIM TWOHIG: The first time she had 20 an opportunity to inform Commission Counsel was on 21 November 18th of this year, in preparation for giving 22 testimony this week. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 24 very much, Ms. Twohig. 25 MR. DONALD WORME: Perhaps I might simply


1 add -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. DONALD WORME: -- Mr. Commissioner, 4 that we do have a practice here that -- that -- and we 5 will not be permitting cross-examination on preparatory 6 work or the outlines of anticipated statements that are 7 prepared for that and shared with the parties. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're not 9 going to depart from our practice or procedures, so -- 10 MR. DONALD WORME: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you can 12 rest assured. 13 Okay, Mr. Lauwers, let's continue. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 16 Q: Dr. Todres, then when did you -- by 17 the way, do you adopt the answer that your counsel just 18 gave? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Thank you. So you mis-remembered 21 earlier? 22 A: I had to reconsider what I said 23 during the pause. 24 Q: Thank you. When did you actually 25 first remember this remark?


1 A: I never forgot it. 2 Q: You never forgot it? 3 A: I never forgot it. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: And so your first disclosure of this 8 was in November of this -- this year to Commission 9 Counsel? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Thank you. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Are you surprised by the fact that 16 Mr. Harnick's disclosure of that comment which he 17 attributed to Premier Harris was all over the Toronto 18 Star? 19 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Objection, Mr. 20 Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not sure 22 what the relevance of that question was -- 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I don't -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- or the 25 significance but --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I don't think I'm 2 going to be allowed to cross-examine witnesses on the 3 coverage of the Toronto Star decides to give this -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I'm 5 not sure how it's relevant or how it's helpful. Perhaps 6 you would explain that, Mr. Lauwers? 7 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Well, I -- 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Not that I 9 necessarily would want to, Mr. Commissioner. 10 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Let's get these guys 11 over here and put them in the box. 12 The question really, Mr. Commissioner, is 13 -- is about her recognition of the -- of the political 14 weight of the comment, so that was the lead into that 15 question. 16 So I think it's not so much about what the 17 Toronto Star says or doesn't say, I don't really care 18 about that, but about the fact that a comment of that 19 sort would get significant coverage -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Coverage. 21 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps if 23 you asked the question in that way it might not be 24 objectionable, you're not asking about the coverage. 25 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Right.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 3 Q: You knew, Dr. Todres, that the 4 comment would be publicly controversial, didn't you? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And you knew that at the time that it 7 was made? 8 A: I assumed that I was in a room, are 9 you referring to when the remark was actually made in the 10 dining room? 11 Q: Right. 12 A: I assumed that we were in a 13 confidential room and that it would not be reported on. 14 Q: I'm sure I don't understand what -- 15 how that response -- 16 A: Well, perhaps I didn't understand 17 your question. Perhaps you could repeat it? 18 Q: Yes, but I don't think I can remember 19 it. An occupational hazard. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Vagaries -- 21 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Vagaries of memory 22 indeed, thank you, quote myself. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 2 Q: I have some trouble with your 3 evidence on this particular point, Ms. Todres, not just 4 because it came to our attention so late. Your evidence 5 was that the room went silent at the time that the 6 comment was made, that there was a pause; do you recall 7 that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And that would indicate would it not, 10 that others must have heard the remark? 11 A: I can't speak to what others did or 12 didn't do or how they perceived it or how they 13 understood. I perceived a silence and then we moved 14 right along into the substantive conversation. 15 Q: So, are you're saying that there was 16 -- there's no causal link between the sounds and the 17 remark, in your mind? 18 A: I don't know. 19 Q: All right. Thank you. So, do you 20 know Ron Vrancart? 21 A: Yes, I do. 22 Q: He was Deputy Minister of Natural 23 Resources? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And he was a Deputy Minister like


1 yourself? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And you knew him to be an honest and 4 faithful civil servant? 5 A: Yes, I do. Yes, I did and I do. 6 Q: You respect him? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 Q: And Mr. Vrancart's evidence was that 9 he did not recall Mr. Hodgson speaking in the dining room 10 meeting at all. Mr. Vrancart's evidence was that he did 11 not hear anything untoward said at the meeting. 12 You would agree with me that there's no 13 reason for Mr. Vrancart not to tell the truth at this 14 Inquiry? 15 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Objection, Mr. 16 Coroner. -- I'm sorry, Mr. Commissioner. A lot of 17 proceedings. Another occupational hazard. 18 If I can just -- none of us are going to 19 be allowed either in a coroner's inquest or this Inquiry, 20 none of us are going to be allowed to ask one witness 21 whether another witness is lying. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And whether another 24 witness has motive for lying. And -- and all of us are 25 kept firmly within that rule. There's other ways to ask


1 questions related to that. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 3 that's fair, Mr. Falconer. 4 And Ms. Twohig, do you want to add to 5 that? 6 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes, I did. I thought 7 that -- thank you. My Friend, Mr. Falconer's objection 8 suggested that perhaps Mr. Vrancart was lying, and I 9 respectfully submit that there may be other reasons why 10 he gave the evidence he gave. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 12 So, that's why I'm saying there's other ways to ask the 13 question. Perhaps, you can ask in one of those ways. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 16 Q: You'll agree with -- with me that 17 there is a difference between you and Mr. Vrancart on the 18 evidence on this issue? 19 A: Yes, I do. 20 Q: Thank you. Mr. Taman was the 21 Attorney General -- Deputy Attorney General at the time? 22 A: Yes, he was. 23 Q: And I believe you said earlier that 24 he did most of the talking during the meeting? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And do you have the same high regard 2 for Mr. Taman as you've expressed for Mr. Vrancart? 3 A: Yes, I do. 4 Q: Now, Mr. -- this -- this suggestion 5 of yours, this allegation of yours could not be put to 6 Mr. Taman when he was in the box, but he made no 7 reference in his evidence to -- at the meeting about any 8 such remark. 9 Would you agree with me that it would be 10 odd that Mr. Taman would not, in the context of this 11 Inquiry, quote that remark if he heard it? 12 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Objection again, 13 Mr. Commissioner. The same objection. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The fact is 15 he didn't comment on it. 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's about 18 all we can get. I think that's fine. The rest is for 19 you to make in argument. 20 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Thank you, sir. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 23 Q: Mr. Fox -- you don't recall Mr. Fox 24 being at the meeting? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Mr. Fox says he was. 2 A: Yes, I understand he did. 3 Q: And shortly after the meeting I 4 understand he went off to call Inspector Carson at the 5 command post? 6 A: I was not aware of that at the time. 7 Q: Have you become aware of it since? 8 A: I become aware of it through the 9 media coverage of the Inquiry. 10 Q: Have you read the -- the evidence 11 that's been covered by the media? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: On that particular conversation? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, in that exchange, you recognized 16 that Mr. Fox is clearly critical of Mr. -- of the Premier 17 and Mr. Hodgson? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And as I understand it there's -- 20 it's common ground, Dr. Todres, that Mr. Fox and Mr. 21 Hodgson had an exchange on September the 6th. And there 22 is some common ground about the content of that exchange 23 including some direct quotes. I'd ask you to accept 24 that. 25 A: I -- I'll take your word for it.


1 Q: Okay. I note however that in his 2 discussion with this Inspector Carson, Mr. Fox did not 3 mention the remark that you say that Mr. Hodsgon made. 4 You didn't see it quoted did you? 5 A: I didn't see it quoted, no. 6 Q: All right. And Mr. Patrick also 7 testified -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- and he says was in the room. 10 A: Well, all I can say is that you'll 11 recall that when I walked into the room they were not -- 12 they were not in the room. So, there was some portion of 13 the meeting I -- as I say, I don't recall them being 14 there but there was some -- there seemed to be evidence 15 from others. And I don't wish to comment on other 16 people's evidence. 17 They did -- were not there at the 18 beginning of the meeting and for some portion of the 19 meeting to my recollection. 20 Q: So Mr. Bangs was in the meeting? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And he will say that he did not 23 recall Mr. Hodgson speaking at all. 24 A: I accept that fact. 25 Q: He did -- he did say that. Ms.


1 Hutton was present; she says that she did not recall Mr. 2 Hodgson saying anything at all. Mr. Hodgson -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 4 minute. 5 Yes, Ms. Twohig...? 6 OBJ MS. KIM TWOHIG: My objection is simply 7 that questions are not being put to the Witness and she's 8 being given other evidence and if there's a question 9 coming that's fine, but -- 10 MR. PETER LAUWERS: It's next. 11 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is she 13 confirming your statements? I haven't been looking at 14 her. Is there something going on the record after each 15 one of your statements? 16 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Well, I -- no, I'm 17 simply reciting the evidence to her -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And -- 19 MR. PETER LAUWERS: -- of all of the 20 Witnesses that were in the room who did not testify to 21 hearing Mr. Hodgson -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MR. PETER LAUWERS: -- make this remark. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And then 25 what are you going to do?


1 MR. PETER LAUWERS: And then I'm going 2 to ask her the following questions. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 4 That's fine. That's fine. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 7 Q: Despite all of this evidence -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER LAUWERS: 11 Q: -- is it your evidence today that you 12 heard Mr. Hodgson make -- make this remark? 13 A: Yes, it is. 14 Q: Don't you find it odd, Dr. Todres, 15 that Mr. Hodgson would make virtually the same remark 16 that the Premier made according to Mr. Harnick? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 18 guess if there's some objections we should hear them. 19 OBJ MS. KIM TWOHIG: Well, I object to this 20 question on the basis is, she's being asked to comment on 21 her own evidence. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 23 think that you have her evidence and that's sufficient. 24 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Do you -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I think


1 the rest is for you to make in argument. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. LAUWERS: 4 Q: Do you think that it's possible, Dr. 5 Todres, that your memory is playing tricks on you? 6 A: Not on this point. 7 Q: Not on this point? 8 A: Not about this quotation. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Now, during the meeting do you have 13 any recollection of Mr. Hodgson advocating the use of 14 violence? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Did Mr. Hodgson say anything that you 17 saw as directing the OPP? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Did Mr. Hodgson take a position on 20 how the OPP should carry out its responsibilities? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Was there anyone in the room who was 23 there as a formal representative of the OPP in any event? 24 A: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? 25 Q: Was there anyone in the room who was


1 there as a formal representative of the OPP? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Now, it's common ground as I said 4 earlier that there was an exchange between Mr. Hodgson 5 and Mr. Fox at a meeting on September the 6th. Earlier 6 you said in your evidence that you were not aware of a 7 conversation between Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Fox. Do you 8 stand by that evidence? 9 A: Yes. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. PETER LAUWERS: Those are all my 14 questions. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Mr. Lauwers. I don't think you have any questions, Mr. 17 Sulman, did you? Or, you did? I don't recall. 18 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: About fifteen (15) 19 to twenty (20) minutes, Commissioner. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 21 That's fine. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: I'm going to be an


1 assistant here for a moment. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, just 3 take your time. I know it's not the most ideal situation 4 in the world for counsel. 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 7 Q: Good afternoon, Dr. Todres. My 8 name's Doug Sulman and I represent Marcel Beaubien who 9 was the MPP for this area at the relevant times to 1995. 10 And the first area I'd like to discuss 11 with you is the two (2) letters that Mr. Worme discussed 12 with you this morning? You recall that? 13 A: Yes, I do? 14 Q: And as I understand what occurred was 15 to -- to put it in brief, Mr. Beaubien sent a letter 16 dated July 13th/95, yes? You're nodding, I just -- 17 A: I -- I would have to check the tab -- 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: -- for the specific date, but I 20 recall that there were two (2) letters. 21 Q: Okay. And I -- as I recall your 22 evidence this morning is that you didn't see the July 23 31st letter in 1995, correct? 24 A: It would have been normal practice 25 for a deputy not to see a specific letter, particularly


1 one that wasn't addressed to her Minister. 2 Q: And so your answer is you didn't see 3 it in 1995, correct? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And you -- you personally took no 6 action with regard to the letter that was courtesy copied 7 to your Minister, correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And as I understood the evidence, 10 that letter was simply filed with no action taken by 11 anyone else in the Ministry -- 12 A: As I understand it -- 13 Q: -- at that time. 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. And then there was the August 16 14th letter that Mr. Beaubien sent to Minister Harnick, 17 and again courtesy copied to the Solicitor General, 18 correct? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And again you personally didn't see 21 the letter in 1995? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And likewise, it was filed with no 24 further action taken, correct? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Yes? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: I'm sorry. Now having indicated 4 that, to Mr. Worme, that you and your Ministry had no 5 further role in these letters whatsoever, other than 6 simply filing them as I understand it, correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: You went on to opine with regard to 9 the role of a backbench MPP; you recall that this 10 morning? 11 A: Yes, I do. 12 Q: And particularly the role of a 13 backbench MPP in what was a perceived, at least, to be a 14 crisis situation in his constituency, right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: As I recall, and I listened intently 17 to your extensive educational background and your 18 experience -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- you have no expertise -- you don't 21 purport to have any expertise in the role of a backbench 22 MPP, correct? 23 A: Not other than what I've read in the 24 political science literature. 25 Q: I'm sorry, I didn't -- other than


1 what you've read in political science literature? 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: Have I got -- okay. Fair enough. 4 And as I understand your experience in the Provincial 5 Government, it has been at Queen's Park in Toronto? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And it has not been in a constituency 8 office in rural Ontario? 9 A: It would never have been in a 10 constituency office. 11 Q: Exactly. 12 A: That would have been a political job. 13 Q: Exactly. And so your base of 14 knowledge comes from your experience and your education 15 at Queen's Park? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Correct. Okay. I'd like to switch 18 to another topic. I was interested, if we can go back to 19 -- and you can recall Tuesday by now, but on Tuesday you 20 were providing some clarification, as I would describe 21 it, regarding a better defining operational versus policy 22 matters? 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: You recall that? 25 A: Yes, I do.


1 Q: Okay. And in that you were speaking 2 of the role of the Minister in that regard, correct? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And that is an area that you have 5 expertise -- 6 A: I hope so. 7 Q: Okay. And as I understood the 8 evidence yesterday, you had said that operational matters 9 related more to tactics as opposed to policy, which was, 10 as I understood your evidence, more at a -- at a higher 11 level? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Have I understood it correctly? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: More providing a framework within 17 which operational decisions might be made. 18 Q: Okay. I'd like to put to you a 19 couple of examples and you can -- you can maybe help me 20 with them, because we've been talking about these terms, 21 but we've never got to the point where we've got to some 22 definition, okay? 23 If a politician were to report to a senior 24 police official that he was receiving concerns and 25 complaints from citizens that the citizens were concerned


1 about lawlessness and whether the law would be enforced, 2 I want you to contrast that with that same politician 3 say, I'm receiving concerns -- complaints from citizens, 4 they're concerned about lawlessness and I want you to 5 take the following actions. 6 Clearly, the last would be operational? 7 A: Hmm hmm. And the first would be 8 informative. 9 Q: Right. And there wouldn't be 10 anything wrong in being informative? 11 A: I don't believe so. 12 Q: Thank you. The last would fall sort 13 of in that tactical area -- area too wouldn't it not? 14 A: Yes, and it's appears to be 15 instruction. 16 Q: Sure. And that's wrong? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And another shorter example is a 19 politician saying, It's our view or our policy the law -- 20 the law must be upheld to be respected. 21 And I contrast that with, In upholding the 22 law you should show force, you should search cars, you 23 should call out the TRU team? 24 The last, clearly you agree with me, is 25 operational?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And the former is not. 3 A: Exhortative. 4 Q: Your vocabulary impresses me. 5 Exhortative. 6 A: I studied Latin. 7 Q: So, did I. 8 A: Maybe my memory's good on Latin. 9 Q: Maybe we can just converse in Latin 10 for a while. 11 MS. KIM TWOHIG: It's in Greek. 12 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: It's been Greek to 13 me for a while. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 16 Q: But, let's go back to exhortative. 17 That is informational or setting out with policies; is it 18 not? 19 A: I agree. 20 Q: Thank you. You indicated that, and I 21 hope I'm using the right terms, but you indicated that 22 there were guidelines which were -- I think you also 23 maybe said it was a line of demarcation, I think. 24 But there were guidelines which were to 25 the effect that it was a line between operational and


1 tactical matters. And your Minister, Minister Runciman, 2 was very good in understanding that and he didn't cross 3 the operational versus policy line during your tenure 4 with him? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: Okay. And if I recall the evidence, 7 Mr. Runciman was, in part, aware of this line because of 8 his expertise as the opposition critic; is that right? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And did you also brief him with 11 regard to that line of demarcation? 12 A: On the first days, in the early days, 13 he would have had extensive briefings, well I attended 14 them, and that would have been one of the first topics 15 that we would have covered, and his lawyers would have 16 been there. 17 And he was also a seasoned politician. 18 Q: Right. And for that reason, your 19 briefing, seasoned politician and opposition critic, he 20 was well aware of that line of demarcation? 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: Not everyone in government -- elected 23 government would be? 24 A: I agree with that. 25 Q: Okay. But part of the reason that


1 the Minister is to behave in this manner is because the 2 Ontario Provincial Police ultimately report to him? 3 A: I'm not sure I'm following your 4 reasoning. Try that one again on me, please. 5 Q: Well, it's important -- let me put it 6 this way. The Minister is a person in authority. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: With regard to the Ontario Provincial 9 Police -- 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: Correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And it's particularly important that 14 that person in authority, the Minister, the Solicitor 15 General, that he not cross that line of demarcation? 16 A: Yes, given the nature of his job. 17 Q: Exactly. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And it's particularly important that 20 he have that briefing and that information so he 21 understands that line of demarcation, correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And would that same line -- 24 guideline or line of demarcation apply to the Minister's 25 parliamentary assistant, for instance?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And who was that at the time? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 A: I don't recall. 7 Q: Do you recall briefing the 8 parliamentary assistant; on this same issue, of course? 9 A: Well it would have been part of this 10 -- of the briefing of the -- of the parliamentary -- 11 Q: You -- 12 A: -- assistant. I should just say as 13 an aside, that whilst Premiers, when faced with a 14 difficult decision of making Ministerial appointments, 15 relish the thought of including as many people as 16 possible as parliamentary assistants, once assigned to 17 the Minister it depends very much on the Minister as to 18 what role they will take and they would be rarely 19 involved in anything operational. 20 Some of them are not even included. And 21 now I'm trying -- I can actually see the face of the 22 parliamentary assistant. 23 But often they are given teaching -- not 24 teaching, speaking assignments -- 25 Q: Hmm hmm.


1 A: -- and would be rarely given anything 2 of substantive -- 3 Q: Sure. 4 A: -- assignment to do. 5 Q: I understand that. But one of the 6 reasons that it's important that the parliamentary 7 assistant to the Solicitor General understand that line 8 of demarcation, that line of demarcation or guideline, is 9 because he would also be perceived as a person in 10 authority in the Ministry? 11 A: I agree with that. 12 Q: Whether it's actual authority or not, 13 he's perceived as -- 14 A: Yes, I agree with that. 15 Q: Correct? Okay, so in 1995 were there 16 any statutory encodifications of this line of demarcation 17 or operational guideline? 18 A: No. Not beyond what we've seen in 19 the briefing notes. 20 Q: And -- but we haven't seen any 21 statutory encodification of any -- 22 A: Exactly. 23 Q: Okay. Let's turn away from a person 24 in authority like the Minister and turn to a lowly back 25 bench MPP.


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Who is neither a Minister nor a 3 parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, okay? 4 Are you aware of any statute or regulation that would 5 prohibit a back bench MPP from speaking to a police 6 official on a matter of general community interest? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Okay. Are you any -- let's go to the 9 other level. Are you aware of any statutory 10 encodification or line or demarcation that would prohibit 11 a -- an MPP from speaking to a police official, even if 12 it was on a matter of general community interest? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: I think it would always depend on 16 what the nature of the -- it would expanding on the 17 content that that politician would be conveying. 18 Q: Right. Well -- 19 A: And the manner in which he would be 20 conveying it. 21 Q: But, even if he was convey -- even if 22 we took the worst case scenario, where he was -- it 23 crossed the line -- 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: -- is there any statutory prohibition


1 or regulation that would indicate him -- to him in 2 advance that that's prohibited? 3 A: No, but I -- no, there isn't a 4 statutory -- to answer that question directly, I don't 5 believe there is. 6 Q: No. But, let's go to the other level 7 back where he's -- he's giving information. We know that 8 there's no statutory prohibition to that, correct? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Okay. And what I'm also interested 11 in is your Mini -- or you personally, I guess, briefed 12 the Minister. 13 Did your Ministry brief or set up a -- an 14 orientation session, an orientation time for new MPP's 15 that would explain to them what was expected, although 16 not statutory codification or regulation or even any 17 written rules, was there any orientation period that 18 would explain to new MPP's the relationship between 19 politician and police by your Ministry? 20 A: No, the expectation would have been 21 and normal would have been, when a new government came in 22 power, that it would have a detailed orientation program 23 for all of its caucus. And over the years, I wouldn't 24 have seen those binders, but that would have been the 25 responsibility of the political arm of government.


1 Q: Rather than the Ministry? 2 A: Absolutely. 3 Q: Okay. But, even if they did that 4 they wouldn't be able to point out a statute or a 5 regulation or a rule that says you're not supposed to do 6 this? 7 A: They wouldn't be able to point -- 8 they would only be able to point to practice a normative 9 -- a normative piece. 10 Q: Well, let me turn to Ron Fox just for 11 a moment. You were asked questions by Mr. Worme about 12 your professional relationship with Mr. Fox. You recall 13 all that. And you've been asked other questions and I'm 14 not going to repeat all that. 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: But you described to My Friend Mr. 17 Downard that Mr. Fox -- Mr. Fox, in speaking to Super -- 18 I guess, Inspector Carson at the time, with regard to 19 what had occurred in the dining room meeting, had a lapse 20 in judgment? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Did I quote you fairly. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And do you -- to be frank, and I know 25 you're not comfortable with some of the language that's


1 been used by -- by some people, some intemperate language 2 if I might put it that way, right, but I'm -- I'm going 3 to have to put it to you. 4 And that is, to be very frank, what -- 5 what Inspector Fox said was, he came out of, what you 6 described as a confidential meeting. I think those were 7 your words, right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And he called Inspector Carson. And 10 what Inspector Fox did was call the Premier of the 11 Province of Ontario, elected by the people of Ontario and 12 at least one (1) of his ministers, I -- I don't think he 13 was referring to Minister Runciman, but he called the 14 Premier and one (1) of his Ministers and advisors in, 15 quotation marks, "fucking barrel suckers". 16 And I suggest to you that that's what you 17 meant by a lapse of judgment, using those intemperate 18 words? 19 A: Actually, I thought the lapse of 20 judgment was the phone call itself. 21 Q: I thought so. But, the words, I take 22 it, would also be -- 23 A: Would be -- 24 Q: -- in your view a lapse of judgment? 25 A: Unquestionably.


1 Q: Okay. And it didn't seem to me that 2 that's good professional judgment. Did you have the same 3 opinion? 4 A: It was a lapse of judgment. 5 Q: Okay. Thank you. And when Mr. 6 Hodgson used those same types of what I describe as foul 7 language or intemperate words wouldn't it be fair -- 8 equally fair to say that his use of that language was a 9 lapse in judgment? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Thank you. Lastly, I just -- just 12 want to go back a bit to the September 6th meeting? 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: Now, as I understand, you -- you 15 describe this one as the meeting; it was a confidential 16 meeting, not a Cabinet meeting, but nonetheless 17 confidential. And it's expected although I suppose 18 there's no rule of Cabinet confidentiality or oath taken 19 once you're out of the Cabinet meetings, but it's 20 expected of the participants that they will keep that 21 confidential? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And the language that was used 24 in there by Mr. Hodgson, that you heard, that you've 25 testified that you've heard, it's -- it was given with an


1 air of frustration? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And it was language, that I'd 4 suggest, is probably more appropriate to a bar room than 5 a board room, right? 6 A: Yes. 7 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I object. Unless I 8 misunderstood, did My Friend just elicit evidence or 9 suggest that the language used by Mr. Hodgson was more 10 appropriate to a bar room? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well I object. 13 That's offensive. The thought that the usage of the 14 words 'fucking Indians' is appropriate for a bar room as 15 opposed to a boardroom is offensive. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it 17 is -- 18 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I -- I on 19 behalf of my clients have to put on the record that I 20 find that proposition or that suggestion that that term 21 anywhere is appropriate, is -- is simply inappropriate 22 and improper with respect to My Friend. 23 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Let's go -- let's -- 24 let's go back a bit. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What Mr. --


1 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: The word -- the use 2 of the adjective in front of the word 'Indians' was more 3 appropriate to a bar room than a boardroom. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 5 that's what Mr. Falconer -- just before you answer it. 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That was exactly -- 7 that's exactly the very same -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's what 9 Mr. Falconer's objecting to. The use of the words is not 10 appropriate anywhere in Mr. Falconer's view. I think 11 that's what you're saying. 12 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That is exactly 13 what I'm saying. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And so I 15 don't think that that's a -- 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 18 Q: Let's say it's not approp -- fine, 19 Your Honour. It's intemperate language, correct? 20 A: And offensive, yes. 21 Q: It's foul language, correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And there was a sense of 24 frustration out of the person who used that language, 25 correct?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And at the same -- in the same 3 meeting there were opinions being expressed around the 4 table. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And people were uttering things that 7 may not have been smart, correct? 8 You may not have viewed them as smart? 9 A: Let -- let me respond by saying that 10 I have been, over the years -- I have listened to many 11 conversations, some of them have been appropriate, some 12 of them have been inappropriate, but they're not policy 13 direction. They're discussion. 14 Q: Exactly. 15 A: Some of them -- some are more 16 temperate than others. I won't comment on whether the 17 comments were smart or not. 18 Q: Exact -- well fair enough. The point 19 is that they were -- they're -- in a democracy, people 20 aren't obligated to be bright, they're not obligated to 21 be polite, they're not obligated to be smart. These were 22 just discussions, correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And -- 25 A: Some of it was discussion with the --


1 with the exception that I made that, that I believe that 2 there was a direction in particular with respect to 3 injunction. 4 Q: Exactly. And no mater how disgusting 5 or offensive we may find anything that was said in there, 6 at the end of the meeting there were no directions to the 7 Minister -- the Solicitor General's Ministry, correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: There were no directions on any 10 action to be taken by the Ontario Provincial Police, 11 correct? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: And at the end of the day whether we 14 liked the pejorative words that were used, whether we 15 liked the thoughts that were expressed, at the end of the 16 day the only direction that came out of that meeting 17 despite the intemperate, colourful, inappropriate, 18 headline grabbing kind of language the only direction to 19 the bureaucracy was to seek an injunction, right? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 23 Mr. Sulman. 24 Ms. Perschy...? Ms. Perschy, on behalf of 25 Deb Hutton.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Good afternoon, 5 Commissioner. 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 8 Q: Good afternoon, Dr. Todres. 9 A: Good afternoon. 10 Q: I'm just going to take you back to 11 some of the testimony that you gave previously. I'm not 12 sure it's going to be quite as exciting as some of what 13 was referred to previously. 14 If the Witness -- I -- I provided you with 15 Document Number 1011557; it's also Exhibit P-303. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Commissioner, I don't have an extra 18 copy for you and perhaps we could provide you with a 19 copy. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 THE WITNESS: The briefing note from the 24 Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat? 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes.


1 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you. 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Dated -- dated July 3 10th. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 7 Q: In your examination-in-chief you were 8 taken to the appendix guidelines for the Interministerial 9 Committee, which I believe is at Tab 20 of your 10 materials. 11 You don't -- you don't need to pull it up. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: And I believe that you testified that 14 you were generally aware of the guidelines, if not the 15 document itself, and I'm referring to the appendix. 16 And what I wanted to do is just take you 17 to this document which I believe is actually -- the 18 appendix is actually an appendix to this particular 19 document. 20 And this is the document entitled, 21 "Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat: Briefing Note for 22 the Honourable Charles Harnick, Minister responsible for 23 Native Affairs." 24 And it's dated July 10th, 1995. 25 Have you seen this document before?


1 A: I've seen it in preparation for this 2 -- for this -- 3 Q: For the Inquiry, but not -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- before that? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Whether or not you had actually seen 8 the document, I note that this briefing note states that 9 the issue is: 10 "How to ensure that adequate processes 11 are in place so that Aboriginal 12 emergencies, including blockades and 13 other forms of direct action can be 14 prevented or if not prevented, resolved 15 as quickly and safely as possible." 16 And my question to you is simply, even if 17 you hadn't seen the briefing note, did you understand -- 18 did you know that in the event of a blockade or some 19 other direct action occurred, that the Government's goal 20 was to resolve it or end it as quickly and safely as 21 possible? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And if I could just turn you to the 24 second page of this document, it refers to some of the 25 general principals guiding the response to emergencies.


1 And they're listed as: 2 "The prevention of violence, property 3 damage or personal injury, a timely 4 lifting of the blockade through 5 negotiations, and third, a review of 6 Aboriginal grievances and issues and 7 the establishment of processes to 8 address them. 9 However, no substantive negotiation is 10 to occur until after the blockade is 11 lifted." 12 So was it your understanding that there 13 would be no substantive negotiations until the blockade 14 or other direct action had ended? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And you testified about your 17 understanding of the OPP approach to -- to blockades and 18 you'd made some reference to negotiation. And we've 19 heard evidence that, in the OPP's approach, negotiation 20 means discussions aimed at, sort of, trying to maintain 21 the peace and not substantive negotiation. 22 Did you understand this distinction -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- and the use of the word? 25 A: Yes. Now, we've heard evidence that


1 prior to the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park, the 2 OPP had advised the local MNR representatives that the 3 OPP regarded any such occupation as a policing matter. 4 Were you aware of that? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: I can't -- I can't say specifically, 9 but I would have been aware from July on of -- of 10 Ipperwash. And if that would have been contained, I 11 would have been -- I would have been aware of that. 12 Q: And we've heard evidence that prior 13 to the occupation, and prior to the IMC meeting of 14 September 5th, 1995, certainly, the -- the local MNR 15 representatives understood, from the OPP, that in the 16 event of an occupation the OPP wanted MNR to seek an 17 injunction. 18 Were you aware of that? 19 A: No. 20 Q: I take it that you would have 21 understood that an injunction would be something that 22 Government would need to decide upon and to apply for. 23 A: Yes. And I remember being briefed on 24 in a -- in general, not -- not as the ADAG, not as the 25 assistant -- not as the Deputy Minister of the Attorney


1 General, but that there were a series of complicated 2 steps required to actually affect an injunction. 3 Q: And we've heard evidence that, prior 4 to the Interministerial Committee meeting of September 5 5th 1995, the local MNR representatives understood from 6 the OPP that from the OPP's perspective an injunction was 7 a priority item and that the OPP expected MNR to obtain 8 it rapidly. 9 And is that something you were aware of? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Okay. Now, you testified about your 12 experiences with Interministerial Committee Meetings in 13 general and with political staff. 14 And I take it that you would expect 15 political staff, like anyone else, to ask questions at 16 such meetings, if there's something that they didn't 17 understand or if they needed more information? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And if political staff were asked to 20 share the views of their Minister at a meeting, you would 21 expect that they would do so, right? 22 A: Well, you know, it depends on -- in 23 the abstract that the answer is yes. In the particular, 24 it depends on what the issue is and whether the Minister 25 actually has the authority to have an opinion on a


1 particular subject and may be something that actually had 2 to be cleared by the Government, by -- by a committee. 3 So my answer is conditional. 4 Q: To the points that you just raised? 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: Fair enough. And I believe while 7 you've had some experiences with Interministerial 8 Committee Meetings in general, you'd never personally 9 attended meetings of the IMC on Aboriginal Emergencies? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: And I take it from that previous 12 answer that you didn't attend the Interministerial 13 Committee on Aboriginal Emergencies on either September 14 5th or 6th? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: So any knowledge that you may have in 17 regard to those meetings is based on what others would 18 have told you? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And specifically with respect to such 21 meetings, I take it that your knowledge would have been 22 based on information that you received from Ron Fox? 23 A: From Ron Fox, I may have had -- I may 24 have had conversations with the Deputy Attorney General 25 insofar as he was responsible for ONAS.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: And his general view of matters. 3 Q: Fair enough. We've heard evidence 4 that the consensus of the Interministerial Committee on 5 September the 5th, was that the goal was to end the 6 occupation, and that that meeting ended on the basis that 7 there would be a further review by the lawyers of the 8 possible legal options to reach that goal. 9 And was -- was that your understanding? 10 Did you know that? 11 A: Yes, so I interpreted that to mean 12 that we were still steady as she goes and we were 13 awaiting some legal analysis. So in my mind we were 14 still not at the stage of doing anything on the subject 15 of injunction. 16 Q: And with respect to the meeting 17 September 6, I take it that -- I'm not sure that you 18 recall if you'd been briefed with respect to the meeting 19 on September 6th, but from your attendance at the dining 20 room meeting I take it you knew that the recommendation 21 of the Interministerial Committee was to seek an 22 injunction? 23 A: Actually, the way the timing worked 24 for me, I think as I indicated earlier, perhaps I wasn't 25 clear enough, I believe that the dining room occurred at


1 precisely the same time as the Interministerial 2 Committee. So I wouldn't have been aware, at that point 3 in time, that the conclusion of the -- the 4 Interministerial Committee was, in fact, to look at and 5 explore the -- the injunction options. 6 Q: Did you find out, subsequently, that 7 the recommendation of the Committee was, in fact, to seek 8 an injunction? 9 A: I don't recall that. What I -- it 10 was moot. 11 Q: Fair enough. Because it was a 12 recommending body and you didn't -- 13 A: Yes, exactly. 14 Q: -- meeting? 15 A: Exactly. 16 Q: You testified about the protocols 17 regarding communications between the Ministry of the 18 Solicitor General on the one (1) hand, and the OPP on the 19 other. 20 And I wanted to focus on communications 21 flowing from the Government, the Ministry of the 22 Solicitor General, to the OPP. 23 And if I understood your evidence, you 24 indicated, certainly, that political decisions, after the 25 fact, would be conveyed through the proper channels; that


1 was your understanding of the protocol? 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: If you could just say yes for the 4 record. 5 A: Yes, I'm sorry. Yes. 6 Q: That's all right. So I take it that 7 it would not be consistent with your understanding of the 8 protocol for there to be communications from the Ministry 9 of the Solicitor General to the OPP regarding political 10 views or discussions, prior to any government decision 11 having been made? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: And would you, in fact, expect that 14 when there are discussions regarding possible government 15 policy and specifically references to governments' legal 16 rights and/or political considerations, that those sorts 17 of discussions would be confidential? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And as a civil servant, I take it 20 that you would have sworn an oath of confidentiality of 21 some kind? 22 A: At the appointment, every time I was 23 appointed as a Deputy I would have had a separate 24 swearing in ceremony. 25 Q: And could you explain, what was your


1 understanding of that oath? 2 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, I 3 have an objection. On past witnesses, when a line of 4 questioning was directed at making an allegation against 5 a witness, or against an individual involved in the 6 proceedings, Counsel studiously rose and said, Well was 7 that put to the Witness. 8 In this case, was the allegation put to 9 the person who you're talking about? 10 In this case, the direction that My Friend 11 is headed, with respect, relates to the question of the 12 oath of confidentiality and potentially allegations 13 against Officer Fox, unless I misunderstand where she's 14 headed. 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm not going -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: If she says she's 17 not going there, then I -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- my objection's 20 withdrawn. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My question was solely 23 related to the issue of this Witness' expectations. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: So there was a


1 misunderstanding. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 4 Q: So if you could just explain what was 5 your understanding of the oath? 6 A: The oath of confidentiality. The 7 oath of fidelity to the -- to the office, commitment -- 8 Q: Okay. And I believe you testified 9 that with respect to the dining room meeting, for 10 example, you regarded the discussions that took place 11 there as confidential? 12 A: Yes, I did. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And I believe you testified that you 17 didn't know that Ron Fox was communicating with Inspector 18 Carson -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I thought 20 you said you were -- 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I 23 understood you said you were not going there and it seems 24 to be -- 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- that's 2 exactly where you're going. 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, I'm not. It has 4 to do with the issue of expectations, Commissioner. 5 I'm not going beyond -- 6 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, with great 7 respect, saying the words, "I'm not going there," but 8 going there anyway is -- 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm not going there. 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- is somewhat 11 problematic. My Friend just asked the last two (2) 12 questions and targeted Officer Fox. And My Friend ought 13 to be fair about it. 14 I understand it may be arguable whether 15 she can ask this question or not but she ought to, with 16 great respect to her, she ought to be quite straight 17 about it. 18 She's headed straight for Officer Fox. 19 And if she had put this to officer Fox or suggested to 20 him that he breached his oath of confidentiality, then of 21 course she'd be entitled to do this. 22 My problem is, this line of questioning, 23 and I don't think I have to sit and wait for her to ask 24 the magic question -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You don't


1 have to sit at all, Mr. Falconer. 2 Mr. Sandler, I think you are Counsel who 3 represents Mr. Fox's interests -- 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: This is what's quite 5 interesting about the -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- the exercise. How 8 often -- how often do you see Mr. Falconer and I agreeing 9 on a point? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: On the same 11 wavelength in this one. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: When -- when My Friend 13 asked questions of this Witness about -- about the oath 14 of office and so on, I could see that it has a systemic 15 interest, ultimately, in what recommendations you might 16 make and the like. 17 But -- but I was waiting until the time 18 when Mr. Fox's name was mentioned, and it having been 19 mentioned I point up to the Commissioner that he was 20 never challenged or asked for an explanation -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- on why -- A) what 23 oath he took, B) whether or not the oath applied to this 24 meeting and if not, why not. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes.


1 MR. MARK SANDLER: And why he did or did 2 not feel that he was breaching any duty of 3 confidentiality in doing so. He certainly acknowledged 4 that he was venting and in hindsight he ought not to have 5 said some of the things that he said in the telephone 6 conversation. 7 So, that being the case, for My Friend to 8 say I'm framing it as expectations but in the context of 9 Ron Fox, is, in effect, to do that which Mr. Falconer has 10 pointed up. So I -- I have to agree -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- with Mr. Falconer. 13 It hurts me, but I have to agree -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm -- 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- with Mr. Falconer. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 17 think that the objection is well taken -- 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Ms. 20 Perschy. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, I appreciate that, 22 Commissioner, and it was my intention to deal with this 23 on the base of -- expectations, and if I can just explain 24 why. 25 I had asked Ron Fox when -- when he was


1 under oath and he did -- he did indicate that he was 2 venting and it was inappropriate. And I took to heart 3 your -- your request that we not repeat when we cross- 4 examine. 5 I had asked him about whether or not he 6 had indicated to Ms. Hutton that he intended to 7 communicate to Inspector Carson, and he indicated that he 8 hadn't. 9 And then I had asked him some further 10 questions in that light. And I'm just following that 11 issue of expectations from the perspective of this 12 individual who was, in fact, his report what her 13 expectations would have been in terms of communications-- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- it's not designed 16 to get at the issue of -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I think 18 you've gone as -- 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- oath and 20 confidentiality. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 22 you've gone as far as you should go on this point, Ms. 23 Perschy. I'd like you to move ahead. 24 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And I'm not 25 responding, because you've already indicated --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: -- your ruling. 3 But this constant reference to, He indicated he was 4 venting, and not quoting any of the other evidence of 5 Officer Fox to the point that, Everything I said in the 6 telephone conversation was accurate, though I shouldn't 7 have used the profanity, and he indicated there were 8 legitimate reasons he was speaking to Officer Carson. 9 So, to be fair to the evidence it's now 10 been cast of as well, the whole mistake was a telephone 11 call -- the whole telephone call was a mistake according 12 to Fox and he was venting; that is simply an inaccurate 13 statement of the evidence. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It hasn't 15 been put in that way and I'm not taking it that way. 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: All right. Well, let 17 me try to deal with it on the basis simply of the 18 protocol. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 21 Q: I asked you to take a look at Exhibit 22 P-444(a) and in particular Tab 16. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tab 16? 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Tab 16, yes. It's -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: My Tab 16 is


1 Exhibit 588. 2 MR. DONALD WORME: It's in the yellow 3 folder, Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 5 sorry. 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sir, Exhibit P- 7 444(a). It's a transcript of a telephone call between 8 John Carson and Ron Fox on September 5th. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 11 Q: And I provided it to you at the lunch 12 break. I'm not sure if you had an opportunity to review 13 it? 14 A: I -- I spent a few moments reading 15 it. I didn't go line by line. 16 Q: Sure. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: You weren't present at the meeting on 21 September 5th that Ron Fox is referring to, so I'm not 22 asking you to comment on the -- the accuracy or 23 inaccuracy of any of the impressions that it conveyed. 24 But, in light of your testimony, with 25 respect to the issue of protocol, I'm wondering if you


1 could advise what portions of this -- of this transcript, 2 some of the comments that are made, that you would have 3 expected Ron Fox to communicate to Inspector Carson if 4 any. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Before you 6 answer that question, I'm not sure if this is an 7 improvement over the way you were going at it before. 8 Yes, Mr. Sandler...? 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: I have what I would 10 like to think is a helpful suggestion. I -- I find that 11 in -- in the last few days, and without isolating 12 specific questions, we spend a lot of time debating 13 questions that may in the technical sense be said to be 14 questions to be put to the Witnesses, but they really 15 have to do with argument. 16 There's -- there's such a wealth of 17 evidence that, Your Honour, has available to you at the 18 end of the piece in order to make some kinds of 19 determinations in this regard and -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I -- 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- I just find that -- 23 that this is really argument in -- in the guise of -- of 24 questioning of the Witnesses. And especially so, when 25 we're dealing with the Interministerial Meeting, because


1 how is this Witness supposed to articulate which portions 2 of that telephone conversation she would expect Ron Fox 3 to communicate, not having been at the meeting, not 4 having discussed that aspect with Ron Fox, and not 5 knowing what has come out of the Interministerial Meeting 6 that he's mandated to -- to pass on? 7 She acknowledged in a general sense that - 8 - that he is entitled to be speaking to the incident 9 commander about things that fall within his mandate and 10 inform the Interministerial Committee Meeting. How is 11 she to know, with great respect, and it's not a 12 reflection on -- on the Witness, how is she to know with 13 great respect what comes out of the Interministerial 14 Committee Meeting that entitles him to speak or not speak 15 about this issue? 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm having a 17 very difficult time understanding the significance of 18 this evidence in the context of this Witness, but -- 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- Ms. 21 Perschy, perhaps you'd explain it. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: The difficulty is -- 23 is this. There's been some evidence as to what Ron Fox's 24 expectations were and what his assumptions were, and 25 there's been reference to the evidence from the OPP's


1 perspective as to what can or should be communicated. 2 And this Witness has testified that Ron 3 Fox reported to her. She's indicated -- she's provided 4 us with some evidence with respect to the protocol 5 regarding communications from the Government to the OPP, 6 and I'm simply trying through this Witness to flush out a 7 little bit, from the perspective of the protocol, what 8 that actually means in substance. 9 Because, regardless of what may have 10 occurred at these meetings, she may well -- be able to 11 assist us in understanding whether or not certain 12 communications would have fallen within that protocol or 13 not. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm having a 15 difficult time seeing the connection, seeing the 16 relevance, seeing how it might be helpful. I am having a 17 difficult time with this. So I am not sure that I want 18 you to pursue this any further. I don't see where it's 19 going. 20 Does somebody else have something you want 21 to say? 22 MR. PETER DOWNWARD: Sir, I -- I'm not 23 taking a position on the specific question, but on the 24 position of principle. The Witness was the superior of 25 Mr. Fox.


1 She had a thorough knowledge of what the 2 appropriate protocol was for communications as between 3 the Ministry and the Operational OPP and I think it is 4 therefore appropriate for -- given that she's led -- led 5 evidence as to her view as -- as to -- in the abstract, 6 what is appropriate, she's entitled to give review as to 7 whether, given this example, or -- or the other example, 8 that was consistent with the protocol or not. 9 Now, so -- I -- I -- and I'm simply saying 10 that I would not want to -- anyway, in my view, in 11 principle, that's an appropriate position, but I don't 12 take any position on these particular questions one way 13 or the other. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 15 Henderson? 16 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Commissioner, 17 it's -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. It 19 looks like we are having -- I'm not too sure -- 20 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: It's clear we're 21 not going to be finished with Dr. Todres this month, but 22 we hope to be this year. 23 My -- my submission on this goes to the -- 24 to the overall relevance of it. Dr. Todres, of course, 25 has a good deal of information to provide you in terms of


1 the protocols and how protocols may assist, particularly 2 in the Part II Section of your Mandate. 3 I don't know how it helps Part I at all, 4 or even Part II, to use this as a -- as a case history 5 and go through word by word and say well, I might expect 6 someone to say this, and I might not expect someone to 7 say that, or I think the other thing is improper. 8 I -- I just don't see how that assists you 9 at all, and it just takes up an -- with respect, an awful 10 lot of time apart from the objections. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 12 think what Mr. Sandler's saying, I think, is that it's 13 proper to do that in Argument. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: This really is a 15 matter of argument, and, you know, it -- it might have 16 been more acceptable arguably, if -- if the exercise had 17 been done in a very similar way with Ron Fox. If Ron Fox 18 -- if one went through the conversation and said, well 19 this part, how do you justify speaking to Inspector 20 Carson, but -- and so on and so forth. 21 But, you know, to do it through the back 22 door, and -- and I don't say that in a pejorative way, 23 but to do it at this point through this Witness when this 24 Witness really had no involvement in the Interministerial 25 Committee Meeting and didn't know what his mandate was


1 flowing from the Interministerial Committee Meeting, 2 isn't that helpful. That's all I'm saying. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And as I 4 take it, has never seen this transcript to this 5 conversation before. You've read something about it in 6 the media, but this is the first time you're seeing the 7 actual transcript of what was said and so on. 8 Yes...? 9 MR. PETER DOWNWARD: My only comment, 10 sir, is that I specifically put it to Mr. Fox that the 11 Incident Commander didn't need to know a good deal of the 12 things he said to him, and I -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And he 14 agreed. 15 MR. PETER DOWNWARD: You're right. And I 16 -- and I put to him that certain statements are 17 appropriate. So, that's my only comment. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I want 19 to move on. I am not anxious to have this develop. 20 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sir, if I may just be 21 given an opportunity to respond. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: This issue was raised 24 with Inspector Fox. And my only concern is, here we have 25 the Witness who, as I understand it, is in fact the


1 buffer, so to speak, between -- between Government and 2 the OPP, and -- and the question of what her expectations 3 would be, what her understanding of the protocol is -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- you know, could 6 stand to be flushed out by looking at the actual facts 7 and getting an understanding from her as to how she would 8 view the protocol in these circumstances, would in fact 9 be very helpful to you. 10 And I think the issue has been raised with 11 -- with Ron Fox, both in terms of the -- the -- his 12 feelings with respect to what he was communicating and 13 why, and the appropriateness of that. That issue was 14 raised, not by me but by other Counsel. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. I am 16 not sure that it -- would you like to say something on 17 this, Mr. Worme? 18 MR. DONALD WORME: Only that I heard My 19 Friend, Ms. Perschy's explanation as to why she ventures 20 into this particular area of questioning, and I'm sorry, 21 I simply don't understand it and I don't see the 22 relevance. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if she 24 were asking a specific question, it might be relevant, 25 but the way it was asked, it doesn't strike me as being


1 relevant or helpful. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 4 Q: Well, why don't I phrase it this way, 5 Dr. Todres. 6 You indicated that you regarded the 7 discussions that took place at the Dining Room as 8 confidential? 9 A: That's correct. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 14 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: That goes back to 15 my objection. I've actually stayed sitting down. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. But, 17 that question has been asked in a -- 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm sorry -- I'm just 19 -- I'm going back -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 That question has been -- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- I haven't asked a 23 new question yet. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But, you are 25 going to an area that is just full, full of problems, and


1 I do not want you to create more problems, with very 2 little help that's going to be given to us in that is 3 Inquiry; very little assistance. 4 So, that's why I'm not anxious to have 5 this gone over. But, if you ask a particular question 6 and -- and it's relevant then maybe we can go forward. 7 What question do you want to ask about 8 this? 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was just about to go 10 there. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 13 Q: And you also testified a moment ago 14 about the protocol regarding communications flowing from 15 government to the OPP and my question to you is: 16 Would you expect, in light of that 17 protocol, for there to be, prior to there being a final 18 decision by the Government, would you expect there to be 19 any communications flowing from the Government through 20 the Ministry of the Solicitor General. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: For what 22 it's worth, Ms. -- I'm sorry, were you finished? I 23 thought you were finished. I didn't mean to interrupt 24 you. 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No. No.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You'd better 2 finish then. 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry, I lost my -- I 4 lost my -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry. 6 I didn't mean to interrupt you. I thought you were 7 finished. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, that's quite all 9 right. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 12 Q: In light of a protocol that you 13 previously described, I take it that from your 14 perspective it would be inconsistent with that protocol 15 for there to be communications from the Government to the 16 OPP prior to there being any decision by the Government-- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I'm 18 sorry. Are you finished yet? 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Almost. Was just 22 about to finish a thought. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 25 Q: Prior to there being a final decision


1 of the Government with respect to any discussions 2 regarding that decision -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- or leading up to 5 that decision. It's just with respect to communications 6 prior. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are you 8 finished now? 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I am finished now. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 11 Now, I'm going to approach this from a different 12 perspective. 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe 15 that question has already been asked, and I believe that 16 question has already been answered; that's my view of 17 that particular matter. 18 I've heard Dr. Todres respond, in 19 principle, to that particular sentiment. Now, whether it 20 was exactly in those words or it wasn't -- 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- but I 23 believe that that question has been asked and answered. 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I wasn't sure if it 25 had been asked this generally.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I thought it had been 3 restricted to the dining room. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, it -- 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: But if it has I can 6 move on. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It wasn't 8 asked in the same way as you did, but the sentiment has 9 been asked and answered, so I'd like you to move on. 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Okay. I will -- I 11 will heed your -- your request. And you'll be relieved 12 to know I'm almost done. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 14 may I ask you how much longer you're going to be because 15 we -- 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: About two (2) minutes. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, well, 18 that's fine. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 21 Q: You testified that you had no 22 concerns regarding the Ipperwash situation on September 23 5th and 6th. I think you mentioned, you referred to it 24 as a watching brief. 25 And I take it that you didn't speak with


1 Ms. Hutton regarding the Interministerial Committee 2 Meetings on September 5th or 6th? You didn't -- you 3 didn't speak to her in regards to those meetings? 4 A: No. 5 Q: I'm done, Commissioner. Thank you 6 very much, Dr. Todres. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 8 very much, Ms. Perschy. 9 We're going to take a break now. 10 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 11 for fifteen (15) minutes. 12 13 --- Upon recessing at 3:05 p.m. 14 --- Upon resuming at 3:37 p.m. 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 17 resumed. Please be seated. 18 MR. DONALD WORME: Commissioner, just 19 before Mr. Sandler commences with his cross-examination-- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. DONALD WORME: -- Mr. Lauwers had a 22 document marked by -- by the Witness and I'd asked him 23 whether or not he intended to make this an exhibit. I 24 see that his chair is empty, and so I will go ahead and 25 ask that this be made the next exhibit then.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 2 THE REGISTRAR: P-985, Your Honour. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-985. 4 5 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-985: Diagram of floor plan of 6 Premier's Boardroom, Council 7 Chamber, EA's office, 8 reception, hallway and 9 washroom: marked by witness, 10 Dr. Elaine Todres, Nov. 11 30/'05. 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 14 Sandler? 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Good afternoon, again. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 17 afternoon again. 18 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 21 Q: As you know, I am counsel to the OPP 22 and some of it's senior commissioned officers including 23 Ron Fox. And as you also know I'm not Julian Falconer, 24 just to make that clear. 25 I'm going to ask you a little bit --


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Wishful thinking, 2 Mr. Commissioner. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 5 Q: In your dealings with Ron Fox you 6 found that he exhibited a high degree of sensitivity to 7 First Nation's issues. 8 A: Yes, I did. 9 Q: He had considerable knowledge and 10 expertise in the area as well, did he not? 11 A: Yes, he did. 12 Q: I'm going to suggest that in your 13 dealings with him, you found that he had impeccable 14 judgment, didn't he? 15 A: Yes, he did. 16 Q: And he was calm under pressure? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And there were considerable pressures 19 associated with his position within the Ministry, were 20 there not? 21 A: On a daily basis. 22 Q: All right. And not easily prone to 23 losing his cool, right? 24 A: No. 25 Q: As a matter of fact you saw no


1 evidence of that, did you? 2 A: No. 3 Q: And I'm also going to suggest that 4 when he reported to you on factual matters, whether 5 verbally or in writing, all indications to you were that 6 his reports were factual and not prone to exaggeration or 7 hyperbole; am I right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Thank you. Now I too am going to ask 10 you about the dining room meeting, I'm afraid to say. 11 Not to challenge what you've said about -- about Minister 12 Hodgson's comments, but to see whether I can assist in 13 refreshing your memory about some of the events. 14 And -- and I don't intend to discuss with 15 you the vagaries of memory but we must acknowledge, at 16 the outset, three (3) factors that I take it you'd agree 17 with me are operative here. 18 The first is that you are being asked, 19 unfortunately, to recollect the events of a meeting that 20 took place ten (10) years ago; am I right? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And you recognize the limitations 23 that that imposes upon you? 24 A: Yes, I do. 25 Q: And similarly you do that without the


1 benefit of any notes which you took or anyone under your 2 direction took during that meeting; am I right? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Secondly, and you've acknowledged 5 this, that due to the circumstances of the room itself it 6 was sometimes difficult to hear some of the players; am I 7 right? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: So you wouldn't say to the 10 Commissioner that you can validate that everything that 11 was said in that room was indeed overheard by you; am I 12 right? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And the third is that we've had some 15 evidence, in the course of this Inquiry, that 16 participants came in and out of the room at different 17 times, and indeed there was some evidence that the 18 Premier left the room before all of the discussion had 19 ended. 20 Do you know whether or not that was the 21 case? Do you recall one way or the other? 22 A: Well what I do recall, and I 23 mentioned when -- when asked by someone during cross, 24 that the meeting fizzled, and for me that meant that the 25 Premier left, others stayed. And whether they considered


1 that still being the meeting, I wouldn't know. 2 Q: So whether we characterize it as 'the 3 meeting' or simply the opportunity for others to pursue 4 conversation, what I'm going to suggest to you is that 5 another feature that might explain an inability to 6 describe conversations that others have described, is 7 that these were one on one conversations to which you 8 weren't a party. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Okay. Now against that background, I 11 would like to ask you about some comments that some of 12 the Witnesses here have attributed to the Premier. And 13 I'm going to ask whether or not what they have to say 14 refreshes your memory. 15 And it's all geared to that purpose. So 16 if at the end of the piece you tell me that it doesn't 17 assist in refreshing your memory, that's fine and I'll 18 move on. 19 We heard from Ron Fox in two (2) different 20 ways. He testified here at the Inquiry and we also heard 21 what he described had transpired at the meeting through a 22 conversation shortly thereafter with Inspector Carson. 23 All right? So I'm going to ask you about that. 24 Secondly, we've heard from Larry Taman, 25 third we heard from David Moran. And those are the three


1 (3) people who I'm going to discuss with you. 2 Ron Fox testified that the Premier was 3 displeased that the matter had gone on as long as it had. 4 That the Premier wanted the Park vacated and expressed 5 frustration at the continued presence of occupiers in the 6 Park. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 8 you go on, you do not want her comment on each one of 9 these statements, you want it at the end to see if it 10 refreshes her memory in general? 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: That's right. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: And this -- as you 14 will recall what I did with the former Attorney General 15 is 16 I put all of these, and then I said, I don't want to 17 parse words or sentences -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- I want to ask about 20 concepts. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 22 Let's see where you're going. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 25 Q: And Ron Fox also said that the


1 Premier expressed his opinion that the OPP made mistakes 2 and they should have done something right at the time, 3 implying right at the time that the occupiers first came 4 into the Park. 5 Then Larry Taman testified, and he said 6 that, in a dialogue with the Premier, that the Premier 7 expressed the sentiment that he would have thought that 8 the police would have the First Nation citizens out of 9 the Park by this time. That Mr. Taman told him he didn't 10 think this was necessarily so, it could be better 11 policing practice to wait. 12 That the Premier expressed the sentiment 13 that other police forces could have done a better job, in 14 effect. That Mr. Taman agreed that the sense of what the 15 Premier said was that the OPP had made mistakes and that 16 they should have done something right at the time. 17 That the Premier expressed the sentiment 18 that if this were any other country or any other setting, 19 the police would have acted more quickly. 20 David Moran, who was, as you know, the 21 Executive Assistant to the Attorney General -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 23 minute, Mr. Sandler, you are getting an objection before 24 you finish the question, because it is kind of a long 25 question.


1 Yes, Mr. Downard...? 2 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It's -- it's a very 3 long question and it's interesting that My Friend's 4 picking only what certain witnesses say, but if he's 5 going to describe what the Witness said of what the 6 Premier said, I would have thought that, for example, in 7 the case of Mr. Taman, he should include what Mr. Taman 8 said a number of times as -- as to what the -- the 9 Premier said about -- at -- but before the Premier left 10 the meeting. 11 It seems to me that just to be fair to the 12 Witness he's -- I don't understand why he would -- he 13 would not be fairly describing Mr. Taman's evidence as a 14 whole at this point. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he has 16 not finished yet, but let us just -- 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: I am only focussing on 18 a couple of things that the Premier is alleged to have 19 said, and -- and that's why. I'm not going to ask about 20 everything that the Premier said at the meeting. 21 My Friend and I are at idem that, for 22 example, that at the end of the meeting the decision was 23 made to seek the injunction, so why would I be putting 24 that evidence to -- to the Witness? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 3 Q: Mr. Moran said that the substance of 4 the Premier's comments was that he was disappointed that 5 the OPP had allowed the situation to get this far, that 6 the tone of the meeting was tense, the Premier felt 7 strongly about the issue. 8 Now what I'm going to suggest to you and 9 I'm not terribly interested in the precise words that are 10 being used by the parties as opposed to the sentiments, 11 all right? 12 And what I am going to suggest to you is 13 that a couple of sentiments were being articulated by the 14 Premier at that meeting. The first sentiment was that he 15 was frustrated at the fact that the occupiers were still 16 in the Park. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, yes 18 Mr. Downward...? 19 MR. PETER DOWNARD: I -- I thought these 20 -- these quotes were being put to the Witness to ask 21 whether they refresh her memory or not. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. That 23 is the way you put it, Mr. Sandler. 24 MR. PETER DOWNARD: And -- well and -- 25 well, I haven't heard that question.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I haven't 2 either. 3 Do you want to ask the question, Mr. 4 Sandler? You said you were going to put those matters, 5 and then you were going to ask the Witness whether it 6 assisted in refreshing her memory. Now you put the 7 matters but you have not asked the question. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 11 Q: What I put those matters to you for, 12 was to see whether they will assist in refreshing your 13 memory in responding to two (2) very specific points that 14 I want to raise with you. 15 MR. PETER DOWNARD: No, no. No, no. No, 16 no, no. I don't understand why we just can't have an 17 answer to the -- the question that My Friend said he was 18 going to ask, which is whether hearing these selections 19 from the evidence refreshes her memory of the events. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Of the 21 meeting or -- 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: My Friend can't 23 dictate the exact wording of my questions; there's 24 nothing -- these are the exact same questions that I put, 25 without objection, to the former Attorney General, and --


1 and there's nothing objectionable about them. 2 My Friend may not like where the 3 questioning is going, but it's perfectly proper 4 questioning, with great respect. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I am 6 waiting to hear the question, so maybe it is time for the 7 question. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 10 Q: The question is this: The sentiment, 11 one of the sentiments that was being communicated by the 12 Premier, at the meeting, was a level of frustration at 13 the fact that the occupiers were still in the Park. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Stop. It is 15 a full stop. Now that is the first part of it. That is 16 a fair question, isn't it, Mr. Downard? 17 MR. PETER DOWNARD: It -- it's -- well, 18 it's -- I'm not sure the way it's framed whether the 19 Witness is going to understand that as saying, Would you 20 agree with me that that's what the other witnesses are 21 saying or is that your recollection -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 MR. PETER DOWNARD: -- of what was going 24 on? That's -- that's the distinction. I'm just 25 concerned that the way the question is framed with the


1 long preamble can be misleading. It can be a suggestion 2 to the Witness that all the -- these other people are 3 saying it, so that must be so, right, and isn't this what 4 they're saying, when the legitimate basis for questioning 5 is what does she recall about the time? 6 And if it's on that basis, I have no 7 objection. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: I -- I want to point 9 out that this is also the form of questions, I say, 10 respectfully, that Mr. Downard used in -- in cross- 11 examining the former Attorney General by putting portions 12 of what witnesses had to say about what was said and not 13 said at the dining room meeting. 14 There's nothing improper in that question, 15 I submit. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I didn't 17 think there was, but it's a difficult question to answer, 18 but the Witness is able to decide whether or not she can 19 answer it. If she can she will, if she can't she won't. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, if you'd like me 21 to make it even crystal clearer, then I will. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 24 Q: I'm not going to ask you to confirm 25 or deny whether I've accurately captured what the other


1 people had to say. I've given it to you so that you 2 would have the context of what some others have said 3 about the very points that I'm asking you about, all 4 right? 5 And if it assists you in answering the 6 question fine; if it doesn't assist you then ignore 7 what -- 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- the others have 10 said, all right? 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And the 12 question again is...? 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 15 Q: So the question is -- sounds like a - 16 - a talk show -- and the question is: The sentiment of 17 what the Premier was communicating was a level of 18 frustration at the fact that the occupiers were still in 19 the Park? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Yes. I thought you'd find it an easy 22 question to answer. And -- and secondly, whether one 23 characterizes it as -- as explicit criticism of the OPP 24 or -- or not, and I -- I don't want to get into a kind of 25 a linguistic battle, the sentiment that was being


1 expressed by the Premier was a level of dissatisfaction 2 over the performance by the OPP that it allowed that to 3 happen, namely the occupiers occupying the Park; fair 4 enough? 5 A: As I indicated when I spoke earlier 6 on this subject, that's not how I took it. I took it as 7 frustration with the current situation without 8 attribution with respect to who might or might not be 9 responsible for the length. It was a tricky issue. It 10 was frustrating for all of those that it was persisting. 11 Q: So going back to the comments that I 12 read out to you, are you in a position to dispute Ron 13 Fox's testimony that the Premier articulated his opinion 14 that the OPP made mistakes and should have done something 15 right at the time of the occupation? 16 Do you dispute it or you just don't 17 recollect it? 18 A: I don't recollect that kind of 19 detail, no. 20 Q: All right. And when Mr. Taman says 21 that -- that in his dialogue with the Premier the Premier 22 expressed the view that he would have thought that the 23 police would have the First Nations citizens out of the 24 Park by this time, do you dispute that that took place or 25 simply you don't recollect --


1 A: What I -- 2 Q: -- whether or not that took place? 3 A: What I do recall, and I believe I 4 mentioned this earlier, was that I -- I thought it was 5 Larry; I thought it was the Deputy Attorney General who 6 spent a considerable amount of time, not only with the 7 Premier, with the other ministers, indicating not so much 8 what was happening necessarily at the Park, but what 9 processes have worked to-date insofar as his role as the 10 Deputy of ONAS is concerned: patience, discussion, these 11 things take time. 12 Q: So the answer to my question I -- I'm 13 going to suggest is that you don't recollect this feature 14 of what Mr. Taman describes, but you're not prepared to 15 deny that it may have taken place? 16 A: That's right. 17 Q: And similarly, when Mr. Moran 18 testified that the substance of the Premier's comment 19 were that he was disappointed that the OPP had allowed 20 the situation to get this far, I take it that the answer 21 is the same; that you're not prepared to dispute that 22 that comment or sentiment was expressed by the Premier, 23 you don't recollect it yourself? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Fair enough. Now, had the Premier


1 expressed dissatisfaction over the OPP's performance to- 2 date, or had he criticized the OPP for its performance 3 to-date from a systemic perspective, would that have 4 concerned you? 5 A: Well it's a hypothetical -- it's a 6 hypothetical. I didn't take that to have occurred. 7 Q: I understand that. I'm -- 8 A: And had there been a sit -- you're 9 asking me to comment on what would my opinion be if a 10 Minister of -- if the Premier would have expressed 11 dissatisfaction with the work of a force? 12 Q: Right. 13 A: Well let me answer it this way: That 14 if my Minister and I were in a room where a conversation 15 like that would have occurred, I would have expected to 16 have a conversation with my Minister with respect to what 17 the consequences were of that kind of an utterance in a - 18 - in an informal setting. 19 Q: What I'm going to suggest to you is 20 this, and again, it will ultimately be up to the 21 Commissioner to make findings of fact about what was said 22 or what wasn't said at the dining room meeting. 23 But assuming for the purposes of my 24 questions -- and here I'm drawing upon your experience. 25 Assuming for the purposes of the questions that a Premier


1 expressed criticism or dissatisfaction about the 2 performance of the OPP in a meeting that wasn't confined 3 to his political staff or indeed to his Ministers or 4 indeed to his Deputy Ministers, if you were advising the 5 Government in those circumstances you might suggest that 6 it's ill advised to express that kind of criticism in 7 such a forum. 8 Am I right? 9 A: I might say that. 10 Q: All right. And the reason that you 11 might say it is the reason why many of us, even though we 12 disagree on the facts here, seem to have come together on 13 one aspect, and that is because there's a concern, in the 14 very least, about perceptions that can be created when 15 criticism of the OPP has been followed by controversial 16 action on the part of the OPP; am I right? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Fair enough. Now I want to turn to - 19 - to Minister Hodgson for a moment and we've heard your 20 recollection as to what Minister Hodgson had to say in 21 the meeting. 22 And -- and I have several questions 23 arising out of that. The first is this: That Scott 24 Patrick, and I know it's abundantly clear to you at this 25 point, that if there's anything that's probably


1 uncontroversial here, it's that Ron Fox and Scott Patrick 2 were present for some or all of the meeting -- 3 A: Some of the meeting. 4 Q: -- in the dining room. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: And I -- and I should tell you just, 7 again, to see whether it refreshes your memory, that Ron 8 Fox's testimony was that -- that he was not present at 9 the outset of the meeting, that he was -- he was paged 10 indeed by you and joined the meeting thereafter. 11 Could that be the case? 12 A: It's not my recollection. 13 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Commissioner, 14 I -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 16 Klippenstein...? 17 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: Just a 18 correction. I know My Friend didn't mean to -- to not 19 get this point exactly right, but I've checked the 20 transcript on the conversation about paging and the words 21 Mr. Fox used was: 22 "Paged to meet with the Deputy." 23 And -- and I have it here. And I don't -- 24 it's similar to saying being paged by the Deputy but I 25 don't think that was the word that was used.


1 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough. I'm 2 grateful to My Friend. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 6 Q: So Ron Fox's recollection is that he 7 received a page emanating either from or on your behalf, 8 and that resulted in his attendance at the Legislature. 9 And Mr. Klippenstein's going to tell me that's still not 10 accurate. 11 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: I just -- I 12 just want to be clear that it appear that that -- it 13 doesn't necessarily follow that it was on the Deputy's 14 behalf. It could have been someone else. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough. 16 MR. MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN: And -- and to 17 be honest, the Premier's office or somebody, but it -- I 18 just suggest we be careful about implying things into 19 those words that might not be there. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: I think I've got it 22 accurate but I -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: Commissioner, if you 25 take Mr. Klippenstein's caution, I'm -- I'll incorporate


1 it into the -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- into the question. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You should. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 7 Q Ron Fox said he was paged, it had 8 something to do with you. And we've also heard a 9 telephone conversation between Ron Fox and Mark Wright 10 where you actually hear the page going off at 12:06 while 11 Ron Fox is on the phone to Mark Wright. Okay? 12 Does that assist you, in any way, in your 13 memory as -- 14 A: No. 15 Q: -- to how it was that Ron Fox was 16 brought to that dinner meeting? 17 A: No, it doesn't. 18 Q: It was all for naught. So, I was 19 going to ask you, then about Minister Hodgson's comments 20 because Scott Patrick testified that during the meeting, 21 Minister Hodgson indicated that he, being Minister 22 Hodgson, was the property owner; it was his Park and he 23 wanted it back. 24 And that he was angry when he spoke about 25 the issue.


1 Now, I'm going to suggest to you that that 2 indeed conforms to the substance of what you recollect 3 was being expressed by Minister Hodgson in the comment 4 that you described, am I right? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Okay. So Minister Hodgson, and 7 you've said that one of the things that struck you at the 8 time was that he -- he personalized the issue by 9 referring to it as "my Park", right? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And what I'm going to suggest to you 12 is that apart from your concerns about how the language 13 could be seen to demonstrate insensitivity and 14 inappropriateness about first Nations issues, the way in 15 which the comments were articulated by Minister Hodgson 16 would have concerned you for another reason. 17 And that is that to the listener it could 18 have communicated the message that Minister Hodgson at 19 least, if not the Government, didn't care about First 20 Nations issues; right? 21 A: Well, there were two (2) concerns 22 arising from having heard that phrase, I think I may have 23 tried to communicate earlier today. 24 The first was, as you indicated, a 25 possible interpretation about lack of sensitivity to


1 First Nations issues. 2 The second, when I mentioned that I found 3 that the remark was both difficult to listen to and 4 revealing, it was revealing in the sense that the Park 5 was not his Park, and it showed to me a Minister who was 6 new at his portfolio and frustrated by the analysis that 7 was being provided about just how difficult it was with 8 all of the extenuating circumstances, to move forward. 9 Q: And I don't want you to get into 10 Minister Hodgson's head, and I'm not asking that 11 question, and I'm -- I'm just interested in it and I'll 12 put the cards right on the table, because one of the 13 issues that has come up here is that Ron Fox came away 14 from that meeting and engaged in a telephone call with 15 Inspector Carson as you've heard, and he described 16 various comments that he attributed to Minister Hodgson 17 in a dialogue that he had. 18 And you've heard counsel for Mr. Hodgson 19 say that there was indeed a dialogue between the two (2) 20 and some commonality and some differences in 21 recollection. 22 But what I'm suggesting to you is that 23 from your perspective, you could see how the comments 24 could be taken to evidence a redneck government or a 25 government that didn't seem to care about First Nations


1 issues. 2 Is that fair? 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 4 you answer, Dr. Todres, we have some objections. 5 MS. ERIN TULLY: Well, I just have an 6 objection because I was under the impression that -- that 7 the evidence was that she didn't recollect a conversation 8 between Fox and Hodgson. 9 So I'm not sure if we can then ask for her 10 opinion on whether or not a conversation that she didn't 11 hear occurred, would leave a certain impression. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: No, I'm not asking 13 about -- I'm not asking her anything about the 14 conversation she didn't hear, just the comments that she 15 did hear. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: If that assists, My 18 Friend. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And Ms. 20 Twohig, what is your observation? 21 MS. KIM TWOHIG: My observation is that 22 I'm not sure it's fair to her to ask her to comment on 23 another person's characterization of what he heard. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: And I don't want that. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay, so


1 with that understood -- 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: That -- that's -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What is your 4 question? 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: That's not what I'm 6 asking. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 8 asking what? 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 11 Q: I'm not asking you to characterize 12 the Government as a redneck government and I know that's 13 not the characterization that -- that you would make, and 14 it's not the characterization that I'm urging upon you. 15 I'm just suggesting that from -- from your 16 mental state, you could see how that kind of a comment 17 could be taken to evidence what would be called a redneck 18 government or an attitude that shows a lack of concern 19 about First Nations. 20 Isn't that fair? 21 A: My -- my response to that is: I was 22 deeply concerned about the comment because I appreciated 23 that if quoted elsewhere without the context within which 24 it was discussed and the general frustration around 25 timing that it could be misinterpreted.


1 Q: And when you take the comment, and 2 you take the over-simplistic approach to the issue, and 3 you take the language that was used to make the comment, 4 and you take the anger associated with the making of the 5 comment, and you take the personalizing associated with 6 the making of the comment, all of those would contribute 7 to a real concern as to what the listener would perceive 8 the Government's attitude to First Nations was; fair 9 enough? 10 A: Well, I say that but, you know, on 11 the other hand I might agree with you, but on the other 12 hand I've been in rooms where many things have been 13 discussed and where I might reach interpretations. There 14 were no decisions that were reached. And so in the 15 context of being in a confidential environment whether I 16 thought they were "A" or "B", it would have been a 17 thought that would have remained with me. 18 Q: No, I understand that aspect of what 19 you've said. 20 A: Yeah. 21 Q: And I think I've got -- I've got your 22 answer. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and I 25 understand what you have to say.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 3 Q: Now, you've indicated that at the 4 outset of the meeting or early on in the meeting you 5 articulated for the assembly the fact that there's this 6 demarcation between the police function and the 7 Government function and -- and one should remain mindful 8 and vigilant of the distinction. 9 And whether you use those terms or not, I 10 guarantee your vocabulary was much better than mine based 11 upon the evidence here today, that was the sentiment. Am 12 I right? 13 A: Yes, correct. 14 Q: And we've heard from Larry Taman that 15 he said, he articulated the very same thing -- 16 A: He -- 17 Q: -- in the meeting? 18 A: He may very well have. 19 Q: All right. And we've also seen an 20 issue note -- you remember the one that -- that was 21 uncirculated, that was generated by Ms. Dougall within 22 Legal Services Branch that also said, in essence, the 23 very same thing? All right? 24 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 25 Q: And so here you've got you expressing


1 it, an issue note purport -- prepared that articulates 2 that, you've got Mr. Taman possibly having said the same 3 thing in the meeting. 4 And against that backdrop I want to ask 5 you about something else that -- that Larry Taman said 6 because -- he said that -- that he was being told by his 7 staff that some parts of the political side of government 8 were adamant that there should be strong action taken 9 quickly to get the First Nations people out of the Park. 10 On the political side people were anxious 11 that there be aggressive action to get the First Nations 12 out of the Park; that he was approached by people within 13 the Civil Service who felt that the political staffers 14 were crossing the line and imposing their views or 15 creating some pressures to act. 16 And, were you getting the same sense? In 17 other words, were people reporting to you from within the 18 -- I was going to use the terms, "bowels," but I don't 19 like that -- from -- from within government that -- that 20 there was this kind of percolating strong view that 21 aggressive action should be taken from the political 22 side? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Yes. And Mr. Taman indicated that he 25 told the Premier in the dining room meeting that the


1 occupiers would not be gotten out of the Park within 2 twenty-four (24) hours because the police aren't going to 3 do it -- aren't going to do it in that way. It's not 4 going to be accomplished in that way. 5 And -- and is that a sentiment that is 6 consistent with your recollection of what Mr. Taman would 7 have communicated to the Premier and to the meeting? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. So when we put all of 10 this together and we see your cautionary note at the 11 beginning, possibly Mr. Taman's cautionary note during 12 the meeting, the issue note that was prepared, the 13 percolating up of some aggressiveness, I -- I don't want 14 to overstate it -- some -- some strong views that 15 aggressive action should be taken to get the First 16 Nations out of the Park, all of this might explain why 17 you felt it important to make that point during the 18 meeting to a new Government in the circumstances. 19 Am I right? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Okay. Now, moving to the other side 22 of the equation, you dealt with the OPP through 23 Commissioner O'Grady and through some of its Senior 24 Officers who you would have met with in the course of 25 your responsibilities. Am I right?


1 A: I would have made contact with the 2 Deputy Commissioners; it would have been unlikely that I 3 would have met anyone below that rank. 4 Q: Fair enough. And what I'm going to 5 suggest to you is that, and I'm just interested in -- in 6 the opinions that you formed as a result of your 7 relationship with the people you actually dealt with. 8 A: Hmm hmm. 9 Q: I am not going to ask you to comment 10 on anyone who you didn't dealt with. 11 A: Hmm hmm. Hmm hmm. 12 Q: But I am going to suggest to you that 13 several things came to you as a Deputy Solicitor General 14 and Deputy Minister of Corrections, and that was, first 15 of all, that in the higher echelons of the OPP there was 16 a tremendous commitment to Aboriginal policing; was there 17 not? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And -- and it was something that -- 20 that you remember to this day because it -- it was -- 21 it's something to be said in favour of the OPP that it 22 was in the forefront, as you saw it, an Aboriginal 23 policing issue? 24 A: Yes. And I -- I have vivid recall, I 25 don't -- I'm not sure I discussed it when I was in -- in


1 examination-in-chief, but I remember very, very detailed 2 discussions with Commissioner O'Grady, for example, about 3 his intent to establish Aboriginal circles with 4 Aboriginal Chiefs, to look at methods of working 5 together, exploring opportunities, learning from one 6 another, understanding what one had to do on a number of 7 circumstances. 8 And I can no longer recall whether that 9 was before or after my discussions with him, you know, 10 after -- after September. 11 I don't know if it was before September 12 5th or after September 7th, but, he was deeply committed 13 and I was very impressed with the knowledge base in terms 14 of ritual history, anthropology, practise, sweat lodges, 15 the degree of detail that the senior staff had and the 16 commitment that they had, that is true. 17 Q: So, and thank you for that. So you 18 saw not only a commitment to Aboriginal policing, but -- 19 but you saw a commitment from the Commissioner to put in 20 the forefront of the issues that were near and dear to 21 the OPP, Aboriginal policing and self policing -- 22 A: Yes I did. 23 Q: -- by the Aboriginal community; am I 24 right? 25 A: Yes I did.


1 Q: And -- and indeed, somewhat 2 innovative and in the forefront in North America? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Now, and you also saw it in another 5 way, of course, and you did articulate this in 6 examination-in-chief, and that is, the kinds of people 7 who were being sent to you to act as your seconded 8 advisors on Aboriginal issues. Am I right? 9 A: Yes. I was very impressed with their 10 values, their philosophical commitment and their dogged 11 determination to try to make a difference. 12 Q: Thank you. Now I am going to switch 13 topics, if I may, and I want to ask you a little bit 14 about -- about some of the -- some of the systemic issues 15 that have come out of the distinction between operational 16 and non-operational matters. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just before 18 you do that, Mr. Sandler, can you give me an estimate of 19 how much longer you may be? 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fifteen (15) minutes. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 22 That's fine. Let's carry on. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I want 25 to finish your Examination and if possible, Ms.


1 Clermont's as well. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: Oh, you will. I 3 promise you I will be finished. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: Even if we go to 8:00 6 p.m. No, I'm just -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, no, no, 8 no, no, no. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: At 4:30, I promise. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have a 11 party to go to tonight, all of us. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fine. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 14 THE WITNESS: Not me. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 18 Q: Let's talk about operational versus 19 operational. It has figured prominently at this Inquiry. 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: All right. And you have been asked 22 some questions about it already, and some people have -- 23 have attempted to try to acquire some precision as to 24 where the line is to be drawn. 25 Let's see if we can agree upon a few


1 things. The -- the first is that Mr. Taman told us, and 2 I'm going to ask you whether you agree, that there may 3 not be a bright line between operational and non 4 operational matters in all cases. Am I right? 5 A: Well, I think that -- that the 6 codification, when one actually moves to detailed 7 codification, one would find that it would be very 8 difficult to make as plain as possible what the 9 distinction was that would satisfy someone in practice on 10 a day to day basis. 11 But having said that, in other areas of 12 Government, Deputy Ministers and their ADM's and so on 13 are constantly dealing with a division that might be 14 responsible for operational policy versus the central 15 direction that one has, you know, in my -- in my central 16 division with respect to policy. 17 So I'd like to -- I agree with that 18 sentiment but I would say that if brainy people were put 19 together there would be able to a set of constructs that 20 would -- would help us to find, perhaps with anecdote and 21 description, some way of trying to differentiate between 22 operation and policy. 23 Q: I'm with you, and -- and where I was 24 going to go was, I was going to see whether we could 25 start the construct this afternoon. Because what I'm


1 going to suggest is that -- that we can't pretend to 2 identify every factual situation that falls on one side 3 of the line or the other. 4 But we can establish some parameters. And 5 I'm going to suggest to you that several factors that 6 would figure into a determination as to whether something 7 is operational or not, okay? 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: The first, I'm going to suggest, is 10 whether or not the information, that's the subject of 11 this characterization, is historical information versus 12 information of events yet to come. And I think you 13 understand what I mean by -- 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: -- by that distinction. So that -- 16 so that if information is being shared on historical 17 events that have taken place, it's more likely, not 18 determinative, but it's more likely not to be 19 operational, than information that's being shared about 20 what the OPP plans to do in the very near future. 21 Am I right? 22 A: Yeah. I think in abstract that's a 23 good proposition. I think there might be some cases on a 24 contentious issue where the very issue at dispute is a 25 historical matter.


1 Q: Fair enough. And I'm just looking at 2 the kinds of factors that we can -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- that would figure prominently -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- in the construct, all right? 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: Second of all, the extent to which 9 the facts are -- are known, are either publicly or in 10 circles outside of police operations. Am I right? 11 A: To the extent to which in the public 12 domain. 13 Q: Yes. And I didn't use the term, 14 "public domain," because I noted that you said that in 15 examination-in-chief. And I'm going to suggest that the 16 distinction isn't simply between matters that are in the 17 public domain as opposed to matters that have gone -- may 18 not be in the full public domain but have gone beyond 19 police operational circles. 20 A: Yeah. 21 Q: All right? 22 A: Yeah I take your point. 23 Q: -- so you'd agree with me? 24 A: Yeah. I would. 25 Q: Third and if one is developing a


1 construct of the factors that one would look to in 2 determining whether or not something is operational or 3 not, one would look at the level of detail, of course, 4 that's being provided. And you've said that in your 5 examination-in-chief. 6 So, you'll have to say yes or no -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- because -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: You don't have to say yes to my 13 questions but you have to say something. So these are 14 the -- 15 A: It's not normally a problem for me. 16 Q: So when one is looking systemically 17 of how to deal with this very difficult issue of opera -- 18 of operational information and when and what kind of 19 information should be shared, then in the very least we 20 can develop a series of factors that should figure 21 prominently in that -- in that evaluation. 22 Am I right so far? 23 A: Yeah. 24 Q: Okay. Now when one applies that to 25 Ipperwash, Ipperwash is a -- is a little different


1 construct than a conventional criminal investigation 2 where the -- where I suggest to you that the lines are -- 3 are easier to draw. Am I right? 4 A: Hmm hmm. Yes. 5 Q: So -- so for example, here, in -- in 6 managing or dealing with the Ipperwash situation, there 7 was a role for the police to play, operationally of 8 course, in the interest of public safety, for all 9 concerned, including the occupiers, right? 10 And on occupa -- and on those kinds of 11 operational decisions, no instruction or direction is to 12 be obtained from government, right? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: So -- so what we see here for example 15 is that we've heard evidence or the Commissioner has 16 heard evidence that -- that Inspector Carson was brought 17 to Incident Command on the evening of September the 6th 18 and a decision was made at that time. 19 And again rightly or wrongly I'm 20 indifferent for the purposes of these questions, a 21 decision was made to mobilize the Crowd Management Unit, 22 the Tactical Response Unit, and a decision was made to 23 send the OPP down the road towards the Park to push the 24 occupiers back into the Park. All right? 25 Now, those are the kinds of decisions that


1 clearly fall on the operational side and government 2 should have nothing to do with, am I right? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And those are also the kinds of 5 matters that shouldn't even be communicated in the ideal 6 world to government in advance of them taking place? 7 A: Yes, and I believe I made that clear. 8 Q: Right, for fear of the perception if 9 not the reality the Government has had something to do 10 with those decisions. Am I right? 11 A: I agree. 12 Q: So not only did it not -- would it 13 not surprise you, you would have expected that those 14 decisions were not communicated by anyone operational at 15 the OPP to anyone at government prior to them occurring, 16 right? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Now, so we know you've given evidence 19 that as far as you're concerned no instructions or 20 directions were given to the OPP on operational matters. 21 And now let's talk a little bit about the 22 sharing of information. So this is apart from the issue 23 of instructions or directions. 24 You've articulated in your examination- 25 in-chief those circumstances under which the OPP is


1 expected to share information with the Deputy Solicitor 2 General and through a filter to the Solicitor General 3 even on operational matters, right? 4 And again when one is evaluating the kind 5 of information that should be shared, even operational 6 information, one would look to the same kinds of factors, 7 the level of detail that's necessary to put you in the 8 know. 9 One would also look at whether or not one 10 is describing events that have already taken place as 11 opposed to events that are yet to take place. Am I 12 right? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. Now, here's the difficult one. 15 The difficult one here is that -- is that because 16 government played -- had to play some role in the 17 Ipperwash situation in the sense that there were 18 political decisions, not partisan but political decisions 19 to be made, or policy decisions to be made about whether 20 to seek an injunction, the kind of injunction to seek, 21 whether a third party negotiator should be sent in, all 22 of the kinds of things that the IMC was mandated to 23 consider and make recommendations on. 24 You with me so far? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: All right. So because there's that 2 dual role then one recognizes as you did at examination- 3 in-chief or in some cross-examination that there has to 4 be some sharing of operational information to ensure that 5 informed policy decisions are being made within 6 government. 7 Am I right? 8 A: Yes, subject to not in any way 9 endangering the life or the safety of anyone and not 10 endangering the strategic -- the implementation of any 11 operational decisions that are within the purview of the 12 OPP. 13 Q: Good. So that if we were 14 constructing the factors that when one looks to in 15 discussing the sharing of operational information, one 16 (1) of the factors that one would look to is the extent 17 to which the sharing of information might imperil either 18 public safety or the safety of officers. 19 Am I right? 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Good. If we had more time we could 24 create the whole policy right here. 25 A: But I'm a consultant.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm just 2 sitting here paying attention. This is great stuff. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 5 Q: All right. So when we deal with the 6 Interministerial Committee Meeting you recognized that 7 enough historical information as to what's happening on 8 the ground has to be communicated to the Interministerial 9 Meeting for example to determine whether or not an 10 injunction should be sought and if so what form of 11 injunction? 12 A: Clearly. 13 Q: Clearly. And similarly and as you've 14 heard I don't want to get into the conversations between 15 Inspector Carson and -- and Ron Fox and ask you to parse 16 the conversations in any way. 17 But when you suggested that -- that it was 18 a lapse in judgment on Ron Fox's part to communicate to 19 John Carson what had happened in the dining room 20 discussion, I take it you weren't intending to suggest, 21 in any way, that it was inappropriate for Inspector Fox 22 to be communicating to the incident commander what the 23 status of the injunction was from the Government's 24 perspective; what the timing was; whether the OPP was 25 going to be required to lead evidence at the Motion; who


1 might be available to give that evidence. 2 The kinds of information that would have 3 to be communicated to and with the Incident Commander in 4 order that that policy could be implemented? 5 Am I right? 6 A: So here's where I take slight issue 7 with what you said and it may -- 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: -- be a quibble and it will be 10 something that the Commissioner will have to think 11 through. 12 Q: Quibble away. 13 A: So, being an expert quibbler, just as 14 I would expect there not to be the kind of information 15 that would be transmitted from the OPP, through whatever 16 methodology, that would in any way circumvent safety or 17 endanger, and so on. 18 As we've just discussed earlier, there was 19 no need, in my mind, to convey to an incident commander, 20 that a group of people were instructed to look at legal 21 options, even though there was a -- a direction toward ex 22 parte, we weren't there yet; that wasn't the moment in 23 time, in my opinion, to have made that, that would have 24 been prior to the work that was done by -- 25 Q: And I --


1 A: -- the lawyers. 2 Q: -- I understand that. 3 A: And I'm not quibbling with whether or 4 not Mr. Fox would want to, in -- in whatever 5 circumstance, have conversations with Mr. Carson. I 6 think I made that clear. 7 Q: Right. 8 A: With incident commander Carson. 9 Q: Right. So again, so I didn't hear 10 that as quibbling with the proposition that it was 11 entirely appropriate for someone from the Ministry of the 12 Solicitor General to be communicating to the Incident 13 Commander where we're at with the injunction, and to the 14 extent necessary to enable the incident commander to do 15 his or her job. Am I right? 16 A: Well, I guess my quibble was, and I 17 guess I'll still stand on my quibble and then we can 18 quibble about whether it's a quibble, but I didn't think 19 that the issue was mature enough that it would have 20 required a conversation with -- with the Incident 21 Commander at that point in time. 22 The lawyers, from my understanding, were 23 still sorting out what it is that they had to do and 24 whether or not they could actually affect an injunction. 25 So it was still in my mind, hypothetical.


1 But, again, that's my quibble. 2 Q: Again, I mean, we've had some 3 evidence that Ron Fox made the call because it was 4 necessary in part to -- 5 A: Right. 6 Q: -- to align Inspector Carson with Tim 7 McCabe who -- who'd be calling and so on -- 8 A: Yeah, and I can -- 9 Q: -- and so forth. 10 A: -- I can understand that. 11 Q: All right. So -- I mean in the ideal 12 world, where one has the benefit of reflection and time 13 and so on to engage in these parsing exercises. But one 14 recognizes that's not how the real world operates, right? 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And -- and in that connection, what 17 I'm going to suggest to you is that, based upon your 18 interactions with -- and again I'll confine it to the 19 Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioners with whom you 20 dealt, you had confidence, from what you saw, that they 21 possessed real independence and judgment, that even if 22 the opinions of politicians would come to their attention 23 they would continue to act in the best interests of the 24 public? 25 A: That is absolutely true.


1 Q: So you didn't have any concern about 2 that at all? 3 A: No, I did not. 4 Q: And again, I mean, one of the issues 5 that we've debated here is that what should an incident 6 commander do when -- when this kind of information comes 7 into his possession? 8 Should he tell the people in his command 9 about it, with or without a disclaimer that that's -- 10 that's what he thinks, but we're going to stay the 11 course? 12 Should he simply filter it out so that the 13 people within his command don't know? 14 And -- and that may be dependant, I'm 15 going to suggest to you, on -- on the incident 16 commander's confidence that the information will or won't 17 make its way to these people in any event, right? 18 Again, you have to actually say something. 19 A: Well, I -- I think that, if I can 20 follow the line of operational, that would be an 21 operational set of protocols that the OPP would have to 22 establish. 23 Q: Fair enough. 24 A: And I would have expected to have in 25 place.


1 Q: Okay. Excuse me for a moment. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: The last thing I wanted to ask you 6 about is this, that in the context of perceptions about 7 government influence over OPP operations, we've heard a 8 variety of suggestions put to a variety of witnesses 9 about the involvement of seconded OPP officers within the 10 Ministry of the Solicitor General. 11 And -- and one (1) of the suggestions 12 that's been put and as I say we've had a variety 13 including a liaison officer that interposed between the 14 incident commander and somebody within the Ministry. 15 But one (1) of the suggestions has been 16 no seconded OPP officer should ever serve within the 17 Ministry of the Solicitor General whether within or 18 within the Interministerial Committee. 19 And I'd be interested in your comments as 20 to whether that's throwing the baby out with the 21 bathwater? 22 A: Well, as I've been sitting here this 23 afternoon I was thinking what features of that job would 24 be attractive to retain someone to become the Deputy 25 Solicitor General and the Deputy Minister of Corrections?


1 And I -- as I indicated to you -- or as I 2 indicated to the Commission I -- I really don't know how 3 a Deputy Minister with the breadth of responsibilities 4 and the difficulty of the job, it is a very tough place 5 to be on a day-to-day basis, I don't know how that deputy 6 could -- could function without that seconded -- without 7 those seconded officers. And so I find that suggestion 8 untenable and I would support it. 9 Q: I mean ultimately one can educate, 10 one can create guidelines, one can train, but at the end 11 of the day one has to rely upon the independence and 12 personal judgment and integrity of the players involved, 13 am I right? 14 A: That's correct, no matter what 15 structures are put into place. 16 Q: Thank you. Those are all the 17 questions I have. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 19 Mr. Sandler. 20 Do we want to hear from Ms. Clermont to 21 finish the day? Ms. Clermont, do you want to finish? 22 MS. JANET CLERMONT: I'm in your hands. 23 MR. DONALD WORME: I'm sorry, 24 Commissioner? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think


1 we'll hear from Ms. Clermont. She's next and that will 2 be the end of our day. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Good afternoon, 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 9 afternoon. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 12 Q: Good afternoon, Dr. Todres. My name 13 is Janet Clermont and I represent the Municipality of 14 Lambton Shores -- 15 A: Oh. 16 Q: -- where the incident occurred. And 17 I just have a very few questions for you. 18 And my -- my interest -- my interest is 19 focussed on -- on how communications changed as of 20 September 7th, 1995, and in particular with external 21 stakeholders such as the Municipality. 22 And it might be helpful if -- if you turn 23 to Tab 41 which is the Crisis Communications Procedure 24 Contact List. 25 And I'm -- I'm wondering if you can tell


1 me how information was communicated to the Municipality 2 under -- under this new structure that was set out and 3 there is reference to the Municipality on the sixth page 4 in. 5 Number 7 mentions municipal authorities, 6 how the appropriate division will maintain contact with 7 all of the agencies or individuals required to obtain up- 8 to-date information. 9 And I'm wondering if that assists you in 10 determining how that structure was set up? 11 A: No, it doesn't, but I -- I recall 12 that -- and I -- I can't remember now which particular -- 13 where this was referenced in some of the materials, but 14 we were very concerned and this was a government you'll 15 recall that was very concerned about maintaining strong, 16 effective relationships with its municipalities. 17 It was a sector and a -- and a set of 18 stakeholders that was very near and dear to the 19 Government. 20 But I remember that there were some 21 dollars that were actually attached or there -- there 22 were some new initiatives that we were actually putting 23 on the ground in that very municipality, but the details 24 escape me right now. 25 I don't know whether it was help lines or


1 the provision of -- of communication support, but I -- I 2 can recall that there was a sincere effort to try to 3 support the municipality because we appreciated the 4 pressures that were -- the sentiment that existed there, 5 but I can't give you anymore detail than that. I'm 6 sorry. 7 Q: All right. Can you give me a 8 timeframe? Was that after September 7th? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And that was part of this -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- communications -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- strategy? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Okay. All right. 17 And -- and do you recall what the 18 structure for information flow was to and from the 19 municipality? Do you have a -- 20 A: No, I don't. I wish I did but -- but 21 again in -- in if I can re -- if I can go to normal usage 22 or how -- 23 Q: Sure. 24 A: -- how we would normally operate. We 25 would normally operate and you'll note that on the list


1 of liaison, we have the -- the Minister's office from 2 Municipal Affairs and Housing. 3 So in normal circumstances and I don't 4 want to suggest one way or another whether Ipperwash is 5 normal, but we would have relied on our counterparts, our 6 experts in -- in Municipal Affairs who had contacts and 7 regional offices. 8 But I'm not sure if that was the case 9 here. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: We had a lot of political staff who 12 were very knowledgeable about municipalities. I'm sorry. 13 Q: Okay. Maybe -- maybe I can assist -- 14 assist your recollection. If you turn to Tab 70 -- oh 15 I'm sorry, Tab 60 and that is -- that would be Document 16 2000477. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry -- 18 Tab 60 did you say? 19 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Yes. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 24 Q: And just a few pages in. This is 25 dated September 20th, 1995, a letter from Yan Lazar and


1 you see that it's a memorandum to yourself as -- as well 2 Ron Vrancart and Larry Taman. 3 A: Right. 4 Q: And if you go a few pages in -- the 5 sixth page -- seventh page in actually. The page number 6 at the top is 4. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And towards the bottom it mentions 9 stakeholder management and it states that: 10 " The Solicitor General will continue 11 to be responsible for the local 12 community who would receive information 13 through a fax sheet and through an OPP 14 community liaison person." 15 And -- and does that help with assisting 16 on how that structure worked? Or can you recall? 17 A: I can't recall but -- but what I do 18 recall -- it -- it -- and it just doesn't seem to be born 19 out in this note. I -- I thought there was something 20 larger than this that -- that we did. I can't remember 21 whether it was actually providing direct support or 22 working directly with some people in the municipality. 23 But that doesn't seem to be referenced 24 here. So I'm -- I'm afraid that that's all I can recall 25 Q: And I take it then that you didn't


1 have any direct contact with the municipality -- 2 A: No. 3 Q: -- that you could remember? 4 And do you recall if there was any 5 discussions surrounding the content of information that 6 would be provided to the municipality? 7 Was -- were there any restrictions? 8 A: Well I think it would have been 9 subject to the nor -- we wouldn't have talked about 10 policing issues. And I -- I would have -- no I can't -- 11 I can't help you with anymore detail on that. 12 Q: Okay. All right. Thank you. Those 13 are my questions. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much. Thank you very much. 16 17 (WITNESS RETIRES) 18 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We will 20 adjourn now and reconvene tomorrow morning at nine 21 o'clock and hope everybody is able to make it tonight. 22 Thank you very much. 23 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 24 adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December the 1st at 25 9:00 a.m.


1 2 --- Upon adjourning at 4:37 p.m. 3 4 5 Certified Correct, 6 7 8 9 10 _________________ 11 Carol Geehan, Ms. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25