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 October 19th, 2005 25


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


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


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Julian Falconer ) (np) Aboriginal Legal 3 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 4 Kimberly Murray ) (np) 5 Julian Roy ) 6 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 7 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 8 9 Al J.C. O'Marra ) (np) Office of the Chief 10 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 11 12 William Horton ) (np) Chiefs of Ontario 13 Matthew Horner ) (np) 14 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 15 16 Mark Fredrick ) (np) Christopher Hodgson 17 Craig Mills ) (np) 18 Megan Mackey ) 19 Erin Tully ) (np) 20 21 David Roebuck ) (np) Debbie Hutton 22 Anna Perschy ) 23 Melissa Panjer ) 24 Danya Cohen-Nehemia ) (np) 25


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE NO. 3 List of Exhibits 6 4 5 PETER HOWARD STURDY, Resumed 6 Continued Examination-in-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 12 7 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jennifer McAleer 147 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Anna Perschy 200 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Certificate of Transcript 294 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-785 Document number 1007832. E-mail 4 from Don Matheson to Distribution 5 list re. Ipperwash Native issue 6 information, September 05/95. 14 7 P-786 Document Number 1003036. E-mail 8 from Terry Crabe to Daryl Smith re. 9 Ipperwash Tasks, Sept. 05/95. 32 10 P-787 Document Number 1009033. E-mail from 11 Peter Sturdy to Distribution List re. 12 Ipperwash Status Report 2 (pages 1&2) 13 and ERT Ipperwash Information Update 14 (page 3). September 06/95. 59 15 P-788 Document Number 1008121. E-mail from 16 Dan Elliott to Peter Sturdy re. Note 1 17 to senior managers. September 05/95. 81 18 P-789 Document Number 1006394. E-mail from 19 Peter Sturdy to Distribution List re. 20 Status Report 3, September 07/95. 94 21 P-790 Document Number 1006668. E-mail from 22 Peter Sturdy to Distribution List re. 23 Ipperwash Status Report 4, September 24 08/95. 111 25


1 EXHIBITS (con't) 2 No. Description Page 3 P-791 Document Number 1009137. E-mail 4 from Ian Seddon to Distribution List 5 re. Ipperwash burial grounds, 6 September 18/95. 113 7 P-792 Document Number 1009228. E-mail from 8 Peter Sturdy to Peter Allen re. Ipperwash 9 burial site, September 18/95. 114 10 P-793 Document number 1006400. E-mail from 11 Peter Sturdy to Distribution List re. 12 Ipperwash Status Report number 6, 13 September 14/95. 115 14 P-794 Document No. 1010559. E-mail from P. 15 Sturdy to distribution list re: 16 Ipperwash Status Report No. 5. 17 September 11/'95 117 18 P-795 Document Number 1010149. Note to Peter 19 Sturdy: OPP briefing, September 14/95. 120 20 P-796 Document Number 1009006. E-mail from 21 Rob Burnett to Peter Sturdy re. 22 Requested Ipperwash information, 23 September 18/95. 122 24 25


1 EXHIBITS (con't) 2 No. Description Page 3 P-797 Document number 1000958. Fax message 4 from Peter Sturdy to various re. Report 5 on Ipperwash Provincial Park water 6 system, September 19/95. 123 7 P-798 Document Number 1009221. E-mail from 8 Peter Sturdy to Peter Allen re. 9 Ipperwash items, September 19/95. 128 10 P-799 Document Number 1008806. E-mail from 11 Les Kobayashi to Peter Sturdy re. 12 Ipperwash Options, October 23/95. 130 13 P-800 Document Number 1010139. E-mail from 14 Les Kobayashi to Peter Sturdy re. OPP 15 Internal Investigation, October 25/95. 134 16 P-801 Document Number 1010135. E-mail from 17 Les Kobayashi to Peter Sturdy re. OPP 18 Internal Investigation re. 19 Discrimination, January 04/96. 135 20 P-802 Document Number 1012220. Accountability 21 and Contingency Planning: A Review of 22 the 1995 Occupations at Ipperwash and 23 Serpent Mounds Provincial Parks, 24 Feb. 16/96. 148 25


1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-803 Document number 3001524. May 18/93 4 Fax to R. Baldwin from L. Kobayashi 5 attaching emails, letters, court 6 documents 159 7 P-804 Document Number 3000599. E-mail to R. 8 Baldwin from T. Humberstone re. 9 Conversation with Tom Bressette, May 10 18/93. 163 11 P-805 Document number 1008108. E-mail from 12 R. Baldwin to Distribution List Re: 13 Ipperwash Park native issue 165 14 P-806 Document Number 1008110. E-mail from 15 R. Baldwin to Distribution List re. 16 Ipperwash Park/Native issue update, 17 May 19/'93 171 18 P-807 Document Number 1010411. E-mail from 19 P. Sturdy to Distribution List re. 20 Contact over long weekend, May 21/'93 173 21 P-808 Document number 3000521. E-mail to T. 22 Humberstone from L. Kobayashi re. 23 Meeting Maynard George and L. Kobayashi, 24 June 14/93. 178 25


1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-809 809 Document Number 1006550. E-mail 4 from R. Baldwin to Distribution 5 List re. Ipperwash Update as of 6 14th of June '93. 203 7 P-810 Document Number 2000678. E-mail from 8 Daryl Smith to Distribution List re. 9 Ipperwash, Update on questions and 10 answer package, July 21/93. 205 11 P-811 Document number 1012243. Faxes to P. 12 Sturdy attaching e-mails and letters, 13 August 24/'95 211 14 P-812 Document number 1009261. E-mail to P. 15 Sturdy from L. Kobayashi Re: Ipperwash, 16 June 02/95 215 17 P-813 Document number 1009259. E-mail to P. 18 Sturdy from L. Kobayashi Re: Ipperwash 19 native issue, July 02/'95 217 20 P-814 Document number 1009257. Kobayashi Re: 21 Ipperwash incident , July 12/95; July 22 13/'95 220 23 24 25


1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-814 Document number 1009257. E-mail to 4 P. Sturdy from L. Kobayashi Re: 5 Ipperwash incident , July 12/95; 6 July 13/'95 227 7 P-815 Document number 1009255. E-mail to P. 8 Sturdy from D. Matheson, August 29/'95.227 9 P-816 Document number 1010564. E-mail from P. 10 Sturdy to B. Jones , September 05/95. 254 11 P-817 Document number 1012250. E-mail from 12 Daryl Smith to Distribution List. 13 September 04/'95 260 14 P-818 Document number 1012269. E-mail from 15 Daryl Smith to Distribution List, 16 September 05/'95. 261 17 P-819 Document number 1009251. E-mail from 18 D. Elliott to Distribution List, 19 September 05/'95 277 20 P-819 Document number 1009251. E-mail from 21 D. Elliott to Distribution List, 22 September 05/'95 290 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session, the Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 7 morning. Good morning everybody. 8 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning, 9 Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 11 morning. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Good morning, Mr. 13 Sturdy. 14 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 15 16 PETER HOWARD STURDY, Resumed 17 18 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 19 Q: I'd like to move to September the 20 4th, 1995. When and how did you first learn that 21 Ipperwash Provincial Park had been occupied? 22 A: I received a telephone call left on 23 an answering machine at my home in the evening of the 24 Monday, September the 4th. 25 Q: And do you recall who left you that


1 message? 2 A: I'm afraid I don't. 3 Q: Perhaps you would go to Tab 33 of 4 your binder. It's Inquiry Document Number 1007832, e- 5 mail dated September 5, 1995 at 2:20 a.m. from Don 6 Matheson. 7 This appears to be a chronology of -- of 8 the initial events; is that correct? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And you received a copy of this 11 document? 12 A: Later on, yes. 13 Q: When you say "later on" later on on 14 the 5th? 15 A: Yes. Early in the morning of the 16 5th. 17 Q: Fair enough. You'll see that the 18 fourth entry is as follows: 19 "6:40 p.m. [that would have been on the 20 4th] Don Matheson called Peter Sturdy 21 to advise of the situation to date." 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Does that refresh your memory at all 24 as to who called you and when? 25 A: It's very likely that that was the


1 message that was left on the answering machine at my 2 home. 3 Q: All right. Because you said the 4 evening of the 4th. 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: Thank you. I'd like to make this the 7 next exhibit please. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-785, Your Honour. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 785. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-785: Document number 1007832. E- 12 mail from Don Matheson to 13 Distribution list re. 14 Ipperwash Native issue 15 information, September 05/95. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 18 Q: And when you received the message 19 about the Park occupation what did you do? 20 A: It's my recollection that we came 21 home rather late that -- that night and there may have 22 been actually two (2) messages on the telephone. I would 23 have then attempted to call both Les Kobayashi, who I 24 understood then was to be at the command post in Forest, 25 and I probably would have also had some conversations


1 with Ron Baldwin in the Aylmer District. 2 Q: All right. And I do note that on 3 Exhibit P-785 there appears to be a second telephone call 4 at 7:26 p.m. by Don Matheson to yourself. 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: That was likely the second message 7 you received. 8 A: I believe so. 9 Q: Now what was the basis of your 10 understanding that Les Kobayashi would be at the command 11 post in Forest? 12 A: That would have been an assumption 13 based on the meeting that we had had, that he and Ed 14 Vervoort would be working out of the command post in 15 Forest. 16 Q: Which meeting was that? 17 A: I'm sorry. That was the meeting on 18 the Friday, September the 1st at the OPP headquarters. 19 Q: All right. It's also consistent with 20 the MNR's contingency plan; is that right? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Now, was there a written reporting -- 23 or a reporting protocol that was implemented at this time 24 to keep people up to speed within MNR on these events? 25 A: There had been an agreement on our


1 meeting, the MNR meeting that was held on the Friday 2 morning, September the 1st that we would ensure that 3 communications, e-mails, et cetera, were to the best of 4 our ability circulate to all of the people that were 5 identified as being part of that emergency or critical 6 incident team. 7 Q: Thank you. Now, that meeting on 8 September the 1st I don't know that we reviewed that 9 yesterday, that was a meeting that was in advance of the 10 OPP meeting? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And who called that meeting? 13 A: I believe Ron Baldwin and myself 14 agreed that we should meet just basically to review the 15 roles that each of would take in advance of meeting with 16 the Ontario Provincial Police on the afternoon. 17 Q: Can you tell me then who -- who was 18 taking what roles? 19 A: I'm sorry, yes. I was designated as 20 the lead person. 21 Q: Hmm hmm. 22 A: Ron Baldwin would act in a backup 23 capacity in the event that I was unavailable. Les 24 Kobayashi and Ed Vervoort who was the enforcement 25 supervisor or Compliance Specialist I believe his title


1 was at the time, both of those gentlemen would be 2 assigned to the Forest command post. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: Daryl Smith was to be the 5 communications officer and Dan Elliott was to assist in - 6 - in a variety of roles but also to try and maintain 7 contact with the Council of -- and the chief at Kettle 8 and Stony Point. 9 Q: And he was the native liaison officer 10 at that time? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: Was there a role designated for Don 13 Matheson? 14 A: He was -- I don't -- my recollection 15 is that Don was sort of a backup to -- to Les, but Don's 16 primary role was looking after some of the logistics, the 17 accommodations, meals, and things like that. 18 Q: All right. Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 All right. In any event let's move back 23 to... 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 A: Thank you. 2 Q: Moving back to the -- the written 3 reporting mechanism that you had in place then. Tab 33 4 Exhibit P-785 which you should have in front of you, this 5 is representative of -- of that type of written reporting 6 mechanism that you had in place? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And did you also author status 9 reports over the course of the 5th and 6th? 10 A: Yes, I did. 11 Q: Did you also receive verbal briefings 12 about what was going on at the Park? 13 A: Yes, I did. 14 Q: And who were the primary sources of 15 your verbal briefing? 16 A: The primary source of the verbal 17 briefings were Les Kobayashi. There may have been one 18 (1) or two (2) occasions that I actually spoke to Ed 19 Vervoort as well. 20 Q: All right. Mr. Kobayashi was 21 operating out of the command post at the time of these 22 briefings? 23 A: Yes, he was. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: All right. And did you form any 2 understanding as to what Mr. Kobayashi's source of 3 information was when he relayed these briefings to you? 4 A: My understanding was that he was 5 invited to participate in some of the -- I'll say the 6 briefing sessions that were held at the command post 7 periodically throughout the day. And I believe, my 8 understanding was, it was that most of those briefings 9 were chaired by Inspector Carson. 10 Q: Now, when you received information 11 from Mr. Kobayashi or Mr. Vervoort with -- from within 12 the command post did you attempt to verify that 13 information through some alternative means as a general 14 practice? 15 A: No, I did not. 16 Q: Why not? 17 A: I believe that the information that I 18 was getting from Mr. Kobayashi was accurate. He was a 19 well respected manager within my group of managers within 20 our zone. 21 I felt that his participation at the 22 command post at those briefings would have provided him 23 with a good basis and a good understanding of the facts 24 as they were being given to him. 25 Q: All right. Now, did you personally


1 go down to the command post at all between the 5th and 2 the 6th? 3 A: No, I did not. 4 Q: Now, when you received verbal reports 5 from your field staff out of the command post, where you 6 ever told that there were restrictions as to the use you 7 could make of that information? 8 A: No, I was not. 9 Q: Were you told as to whether or not 10 the information was considered to be accurate or 11 reliable? 12 A: I was passed on the information that 13 had been given, as I understood, to Les Kobayashi at 14 these briefings. 15 Q: All right. Were you advised that 16 your field operatives were not supposed to be imparting 17 this inform -- any such information to you? 18 A: I had no knowledge. 19 Q: Over the course of the 5th and the 20 6th, were there any situations in which you considered or 21 were concerned whether or not you receive -- you were 22 receiving information that you ought to be receiving? 23 A: Ought to be or ought not to be, I'm 24 sorry? 25 Q: Ought or ought not to be receiving.


1 A: No. As I said, my role was to gather 2 and collect this information from Mr. Kobayashi and 3 occasionally Mr. Vervoort and to pass up that information 4 to senior management within the Ministry of Natural 5 Resources. 6 Q: All right. So based on -- on the 7 meeting that you had on the 1st of September with the MNR 8 and then with the OPP -- 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: -- is your assumption that Mr. 11 Kobayashi was aware that you'd be passing along that 12 information to others within the government? 13 A: Oh yes. 14 Q: Now I may have asked you this 15 yesterday, but do you recall whether the -- the Ministry 16 of Natural Resources emergency response team plan, which 17 is Exhibit P-781, was passed along to the incident 18 commander? 19 A: Can I refer to -- 20 Q: Sure. 21 A: Just... 22 Q: It's Tab 29 and it's the -- it's the 23 attachment to the e-mail. Ipperwash Provincial Park 24 draft emergency contingency plan. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: Yes, it was my understanding and 4 actually there was a previous copy of this document that 5 was sent to Les by Mr. Vervoort and -- earlier in August 6 and -- and that copy, Mr. Vervoort indicated that he 7 would be personally providing a copy of this contingency 8 plan to Inspector Carson. 9 Les Kobayashi was asked to provide a copy 10 to a Sergeant Bouwman and to Don Matheson and I believe 11 Ed Vervoort was also going to provide copies to Ron 12 Baldwin and Dan Elliott and he asked that that be the 13 limit of the circulation at that time. 14 Q: Thank you. Now, from your 15 perspective as the zone manager and project leader for 16 this critical incident, how important was it to you that 17 you received the information you did from the command 18 post and then relayed on to others within the government, 19 in terms of coordinating the governmental response to the 20 occupation? 21 A: I felt it was very important that my 22 own -- my own senior staff within the ministry be aware 23 of what was happening as best as we could describe it at 24 the field level, at both the Park and within the 25 community.


1 Q: All right. Now, returning to Tab 33, 2 the e-mail dated September 5th, 1995 which sets out a -- 3 purports to set out a chronology of events leading to the 4 occupation and shortly thereafter, does this appear to 5 you to be an accurate chronology of the events insofar as 6 you were aware? 7 A: As far as I was aware this was an 8 accurate chronology, yes. 9 Q: And I see that, according to this 10 chronology, between 5:30 p.m. on September the 4th to 11 1:40 a.m. September the 5th you were contacted or in 12 communication with the command post on five (5) 13 occasions: 14 First 6:40 p.m. a voice mail message, then 15 7:26 p.m. a voice mail message. 10:30 p.m. you appear -- 16 Mr. Kobayashi called you; is that right? 17 A: Yes. I'm not sure if I spoke to Les 18 at that point or afterwards to be perfectly honest. 19 Q: Okay. But you did -- 20 A: But I did -- 21 Q: -- speak to him that evening? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Then at midnight it indicates that 24 you called the Forest OPP and you were updated by Don 25 Matheson?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And at 1:40 a.m. there's an 3 indication that Mr. Kobayashi faxed a copy of an OPP 4 press release for your review. 5 Do you recall that? 6 A: Yes, I do. 7 Q: All right. And when you first 8 received word of the occupation what was your reaction? 9 A: Surprise, worry, concern. 10 Q: Why were you surprised given the 11 briefing that you had with Inspector Carson? 12 A: Perhaps you just hope for a better -- 13 a better outcome. 14 Q: All right. And when did you first 15 advise your superiors of the fact of the occupation? 16 A: That process would have started that 17 evening or that night of the 4th and then continued on 18 into the early part of the morning on the 5th. 19 Q: All right. Did you -- do you recall 20 who you spoke with? 21 A: I believe I spoke, as I mentioned 22 earlier on, to Mr. Baldwin. I can't remember, to be 23 honest, whether he or I spoke to Peter Allen, the 24 executive assistant to the Deputy Minister. And I would 25 have also attempted to contact the Director of Ontario


1 Parks, Mr. Norm Richards. 2 Q: Norm Richards. Thank you. Did you 3 receive any direction or instructions from any of those 4 superiors with respect to your advice of the occupation? 5 A: Not that I recall, not specific 6 instructions, no. 7 Q: All right. I wonder if you -- did 8 you then make a written report to -- to your superiors 9 and others within the MNR? 10 A: Yes, I did. 11 Q: And I wonder if you'd go to Tab -- 12 excuse me, yes, Tab 34? It's an e-mail dated September 13 the 5 at 6:56 a.m. and it's Inquiry Document Number 14 1009247 and it is Exhibit P-782. 15 Can you identify this report, please? 16 A: This is a status report that I wrote 17 myself based in large part on the chronology of events 18 that Dan -- Don Matheson, sorry -- that Don Matheson had 19 sent me earlier that morning. I'd gone into the office, 20 looked at his e-mail and it likely would have also 21 included some reflection of the verbal conversations that 22 we had -- that Les and I may have had over the course of 23 that evening. 24 Q: All right. And noting that it was 25 distributed to a number of individuals, are all of these


1 individuals personnel within the MNR? 2 A: Yes, they are. 3 Q: And that includes your two (2) 4 superiors Peter Allen and Norm Richards? 5 A: They were both superior, yes. Norm 6 was my boss and Peter Allen was the executive assistant 7 to the Deputy Minister. 8 Q: All right. Thank you. And to the 9 best of your recollection, this sets out an accurate 10 summary of the information you had received from both the 11 chronology and Mr. Kobayashi of the nights and early even 12 -- or early morning. 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: I don't know if it would be helpful, 16 but I also -- or maybe you're going to refer to this, but 17 I also sent an e-mail to Mr. Jones, Mr. Barry Jones, 18 earlier in the morning. 19 Q: All right. And what was -- what was 20 the purpose of that? 21 A: And the purpose of that was basically 22 to indicate to him that indeed this occupation had 23 occurred. And that I had had this request for an 24 injunction repeated again by the OPP and that I was 25 asking if he could set those wheels in motion if you


1 will -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: -- and that I assumed that he would 4 be contacting the Interministerial Committee. 5 Q: All right. Thank you. That's -- 6 that is important information. And what -- what role if 7 any, did you play with respect to the injunction that was 8 being be discussed? 9 A: My role, really, was limited to 10 providing some information initially to one of our legal 11 -- one of our lawyers in our Legal Services Branch so 12 that she could start to prepare an affidavit for me. 13 So at -- at that point that was my -- that 14 was my role. 15 Q: And do you recall the name of that 16 lawyer? 17 A: Yes. That was Ms. Leith Hunter. 18 Q: Now I take it you continued to 19 receive reports from your field operatives in the course 20 of the morning? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I'd like you to turn to Tab 39. 23 This is Inquiry Document Number 1008121, e-mail dated 24 September 5 at 9:15 a.m. from Dan Elliott who was the MNR 25 Native Liaison Officer.


1 Now what was this e-mail in -- first of 2 all, did you receive this e-mail? 3 A: Yes, I did. 4 Q: What was the purpose of it? It 5 appears that he's responding to something. 6 A: I think the purpose was just to try 7 and provide us with some additional information that he 8 had acquired through his contact with Chief Tom Bressette 9 in the first part. 10 Q: It says a reference -- the reference 11 is number -- note number 1 to senior managers. Is that - 12 - did you circulate a copy of your Status Report Number 1 13 to him for comment? 14 A: Not for comments. I would have just 15 circulated it. 16 Q: Okay. All right. And did you -- I 17 see that the information he is giving to you is that the 18 Kettle and Stony Point Band, Chief Tom Bressette, has 19 indicated that he is in full support of the MNR and OPP 20 with respect to the occupation? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And furthermore, he's advising you 23 that Native occupants of Ipperwash Park state that the 24 Park contains an ancestral burial ground. However our 25 archaeological studies done by the Ministry of Culture


1 and Recreation in the early 1970's did not identify any 2 ancestral burial grounds. Neal Ferris (phonetic) from 3 the Ministry Culture and Recreation was the 4 archaeologist. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Now did you take that information and 7 -- and did you add it to your Status Report or did you do 8 an addendum to your Status Report to communicate that 9 information? 10 A: I don't believe I did on that 11 occasion, no. 12 Q: All right. And why was that? 13 A: I believe I felt that this 14 information I could pass on some of this verbally to 15 Peter Allen. That would have been the practice or I 16 could combine it with a -- a later Status Report that 17 would be sent out to a wider distribution list later on, 18 either in the day or the following day. 19 Q: And do you recall whether you did, in 20 fact, impart that information to your senior managers? 21 A: I think I would have certainly passed 22 on the information about the support from Chief 23 Bressette. 24 Q: And what about the burial ground? 25 A: Well this was the first -- between


1 this and some of the reports that were being carried in 2 the media on the morning of the 5th, this was really the 3 first sort of indication that we were getting that the 4 burial grounds seemed to be -- the allegations of the 5 burial grounds seemed to be playing a more prominent role 6 in terms of an explanation, perhaps, for the occupation. 7 Q: All right. But this was consistent 8 with the information you had received in 1993 from the 9 same group; isn't that right? 10 A: From two (2) involved -- yes, from 11 two (2) individuals who, I'm not sure are they -- were 12 they -- were they still part of that group. 13 Q: All right. They were part of the 14 Stoney Point First Nations? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Who did you understand to be the 17 occupants of the Park? 18 A: I believed it to be the Stoney Point 19 First Nation although there was some, and I can't 20 remember, to be honest, where this came from but there 21 was some discussion that other members from other areas 22 in the province had also been involved and were involved 23 in the occupation of -- of the camp. 24 Q: All right. Now, as a result of that 25 information, did you direct that any research or any


1 efforts to determine the merits of the allegations 2 surrounding the burial grounds be conducted? 3 A: Yes, I did. 4 Q: And what steps did you take at this 5 time? 6 A: We had a -- one of our staff, 7 actually, who worked at Pinery but was working in the 8 London office on a project, just prior to this date, a 9 gentleman by the name of Terry Crabe. 10 I asked him to start the process of 11 reviewing files and documents that we might have 12 available, either in our office in London or that he 13 could go back to Pinery because virtually all of the 14 documentation related to Ipperwash would have been -- 15 would have been moved to Pinery when the two (2) Parks 16 were -- their operations were amalgamated -- 17 Q: All right. 18 A: -- some years previously. 19 Q: And did you receive a report from Mr. 20 Crabe in the morning of September the 5th? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: I believe he -- I believe he did make 25 a report.


1 Q: And perhaps you would go to Tab 36, 2 Inquiry document number 1009036, e-mail from Terry Crabe 3 to yourself dated September 5, 1995. 4 I can't be precise on the time, but it is 5 in the morning at some point. 6 A: That was Tab 36? 7 Q: 36. 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Do you recognize that e-mail? 10 A: Yes, I do. 11 Q: And I'd like to make that the next 12 exhibit, please. 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-786, Your Honour. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-786: Document Number 1003036. E- 17 mail from Terry Crabe to 18 Daryl Smith re. Ipperwash 19 Tasks, Sept. 05/95. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 22 Q: And I note that he's providing you 23 with some various information, but the last paragraph he 24 indicates that he has contacted Neal Ferris who is 25 pulling together some information for us.


1 Can you tell me who Neal Ferris was? 2 A: He was a -- I believe his position 3 was as a regional archeologist with the ministry of 4 citizenship, culture and recreation and he worked out of 5 London at that time. 6 Q: All right. And was this with respect 7 to your enquiry concerning any evidence concerning the 8 burial grounds at Ipperwash? 9 A: That would have been in connection 10 with that, that's correct. 11 Q: All right. And also a Michael 12 Johnson? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: He was also involved in this project? 15 A: Yes, although he was located in their 16 Toronto offices in their section that dealt with 17 archeology and the storage of data. 18 Q: All right. Now, did you recall in 19 any -- or did you participate in any other briefings 20 which you can recall prior to the IMC meeting on 21 September the 5th? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: There may very well have been,


1 because there were quite a number of phone calls made 2 between different people at that particular time. I 3 wouldn't characterize it, necessarily, as a briefing but 4 I may have had a phone call into Peter Allen in the 5 Deputy's office. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: He was my primary contact at that 8 point. 9 Q: And were you continuing to have 10 regular telephone contact with either -- well, with Les 11 Kobayashi or Ed Vervoort at the command post? 12 A: Yes, that's a fair statement. They 13 would call on occasion sometimes in tight sequence if you 14 like. If there was question raised to them about 15 something they might call back within a short period of 16 time, but it was quite frequent. 17 Q: Okay. Now, are -- are you aware that 18 an Interministerial Committee Meeting was convened on 19 September the 5th at about 11:00 a.m.? 20 A: Yes, I am. 21 Q: Do you know who convened it? 22 A: I believe it was Julie Jai. 23 Q: All right. And what was your 24 understanding of the purpose? 25 A: It was to have discussions about the


1 events that had occurred on September the 4th. 2 Q: Did you attend? 3 A: I was invited to attend by 4 teleconference. 5 Q: And were you present by 6 teleconference for the whole meeting? 7 A: I don't know that but I assume so. 8 Q: Why do you assume so? 9 A: Because they phoned me when the 10 meeting started and at the conclusion we hung up. 11 Q: Fair enough. In other words you 12 didn't absent yourself during the course of the meeting? 13 A: I'm sorry. No, I did not. 14 Q: All right. Now, is this only the 15 second time you had ever attended an IMC meeting? 16 A: This was the second occasion. 17 Q: All right. Were you able to 18 recognize everyone's voice during the course of this 19 conference call? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Do you recollect which voices you 22 were familiar with at this telephone call? 23 A: Can we go through a list or -- 24 Q: Certainly. We can go to Tab 40. 25 These are the IMC meetings for September the 5th.


1 They're Exhibit P-509 Inquiry Document Number 1012288 and 2 you'll see that the fax sheet has a list of participants. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 A: Yes, I... 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's 8 actually the second page that has a list of people who 9 were in attendance. 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Okay. Thank you very 11 much. Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: Perhaps the second page would be a 16 more accurate. List of attendees? 17 A: Oh, right. I believe I would have 18 recognized Peter Allen's voice, perhaps Leith Hunter, Ron 19 Baldwin, Dan Elliott, who were also participating by 20 conference call from Aylmer. I'm sorry, I was in London 21 at the time so we were in different offices. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: And maybe -- maybe Barry Jones. 24 Q: What about Julie Jai? 25 A: Probably more so from the fact that


1 she was chairing the meeting and -- and perhaps some of 2 the instructions or being the group back to together or 3 focussing or re-focussing would have helped me understand 4 who was speaking at that time. 5 Q: All right. And what was your primary 6 role at this meeting? 7 A: There were a number of Ministry of 8 Natural Resources staff as you're aware at this 9 particular meeting and my primary role was to give as 10 best I could a sense of the events that were occurring at 11 the field level. 12 Q: Okay. And again would that -- your 13 primary source of information have been the command post, 14 your MNR personnel at the command post? 15 A: That would have been the primary 16 source of my information, that's correct. 17 Q: Okay. Did you receive any directions 18 or instructions as to what your role or mandate would be 19 at the meeting in advance of it? 20 In other words did you have any specific 21 briefing in advance of this meeting? 22 A: Not that I recall, no. 23 Q: All right. Now, going to the meeting 24 notes at Exhibit P-509; did you receive a copy of these 25 notes?


1 A: I'm sorry, which -- which tab is 2 that? 3 Q: We're still at Tab -- we're still at 4 Tab 40, the minutes? 5 A: Okay. I'm sorry, I got confused by 6 the number that you quoted is different than I -- the one 7 I have. 8 Q: Tab 40. 9 A: Yeah. Okay. 10 Q: Okay. And I also give the exhibit 11 number for the record, that's -- 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: Did you receive these? 14 A: Yes, later on in the day. 15 Q: And in looking at the -- the minutes, 16 can you tell me which pieces of information as reported 17 would have come from you? 18 A: I'm have some difficulty seeing what 19 came from me and what might have come from other MNR 20 people that participated in the meeting. 21 Q: All right. All right. I see that 22 there were options discussed at this meeting? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And is that an accurate summary of 25 the options from your perspective at page 2?


1 A: That was my understanding. 2 Q: And what was the MNR's position as 3 expressed at that meeting with respect to the preferred 4 priority, or the preferred option, if you will, of the 5 three (3) listed? 6 A: I wasn't the primary spokesperson, if 7 you will, for expressing what the primary or the favoured 8 option might be. But I believe others mentioned that an 9 injunction was the preferred route. 10 Q: All right. Do you recall who on 11 behalf of the MNR mentioned that? 12 A: Not off hand. 13 Q: All right. Do you recall whether or 14 not in your -- in your opinion there was any consensus -- 15 consensus reached at the conclusion of this meeting as to 16 what the preferred option would be recommended? 17 A: I don't recall. 18 Q: All right. Going to page 3, item 4 19 Next Steps. This is accurate summary of the next steps 20 that were agreed upon at the meeting. 21 A: Yes, it is. 22 Q: And do you recall whether or not the 23 MNR representatives were in agreement with this -- with 24 these -- this -- these next steps? 25 A: I think it would be probably


1 difficult for me to make that kind of a comment that 2 would encompass all of the MNR -- other MNR 3 representatives at that meeting. 4 Q: Yes. Well, was there a diff -- an 5 expression of different views as amongst the MNR reps at 6 that meeting? 7 A: Not that stand out in my mind. I 8 just -- I was just -- I'm a little concerned about, sort 9 of, speaking for MNR as a group. 10 Q: No, I -- well that's -- that's fair 11 enough. I'm -- I'm asking for what you heard. 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: You -- you indicated that you were 14 familiar with the voices of your colleagues. 15 A: Right. 16 Q: So, I'm -- did you hear a difference 17 of opinion expressed with respect to the next steps 18 amongst your colleagues at that meeting? 19 A: I have no recollection of that, no. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: Okay. 22 Q: Now, were you aware that the 23 Premier's office was represented at this meeting? 24 A: Yes, I was. 25 Q: And were you able to identify the


1 voice associated with that person at the meeting? 2 A: No. 3 Q: All right. Were you aware that -- 4 that the Special Advisor of First Nations for the 5 Solicitor General representative was at this meeting? 6 A: I understood that, yes. 7 Q: And were you able to identify his 8 voice? 9 A: No. Not while -- no. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: It's very difficult in a conference 12 call in that kind of an environment to recognize voices 13 when there's a lot of conversation going on at the other 14 end. 15 Q: That's fine. I just wanted to be 16 clear as to -- 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: -- what you're able to testify about. 19 Now, as a participant in the meeting, did 20 you hear differing views expressed as to which of the 21 three (3) options should be pursued as an -- as a 22 priority. 23 And the three (3) options as I read them 24 were the injunction, arrest under the Trespass to 25 Property Act or arrest under the Criminal Code.


1 A: I don't recall a lot of discussion 2 about that, to be honest. I don't know if this would 3 help in terms of, sort of, my context and my role in 4 this, but from where I sat in the field, I tried to do my 5 best to provide an update as to what was occurring at the 6 field level. 7 And I was, if you like, my ears were 8 perked for items that might have some implications for 9 us; things that we would have to do, things that would 10 involve my staff or myself. And those are the kind of 11 things that I was sort of keeping an ear open for. 12 I felt that there were a great many 13 experienced people and other representatives from the 14 Ministry of Natural Resources that were there that could 15 spend more time and had far more expertise and knowledge 16 about some of these other options and -- and things of 17 that nature. 18 Q: Did you express any views or facts -- 19 factors which you considered the IMC should know in 20 selecting, if you will, or doing a preliminary selection 21 of -- of what option would be the preferred option in 22 these circumstances? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 A: I don't recall expressing an opinion. 2 Q: Or facts or factors -- 3 A: Oh -- 4 Q: -- that you considered important for 5 them to know in this discussion? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: Well, I'm -- I'm certainly aware that 10 I provided facts through my update. Whether or not -- 11 how those were interpreted, how those may have been 12 measured -- 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: -- if that's what you mean in terms 15 of -- 16 Q: No, no, that's not what I mean at 17 all. 18 A: I'm sorry. 19 Q: What I mean is whether you provided 20 information which you -- which you thought was important 21 to the discussion of which option was the preferred 22 option? 23 A: No. 24 Q: All right. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: All right. I'd like to take you to 4 the notes which have been identified as the handwritten 5 notes of Eileen Hipfner for the September 5th 1995 6 meeting. They've been filed as Exhibit P-510. And 7 perhaps the Registrar could provide that to the Witness 8 please. 9 I don't know if you have -- you may have a 10 copy up there. It's not in your binder. Not in your 11 binder. 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Oh, Hipfner? 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: No. 17 Q: Okay. Thank you. 18 A: Thank you. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: And I'd like to refer you to some 23 passages for the purposes of understanding or at least 24 attempting to refresh your memory about the course of 25 this meeting.


1 On the first page, under -- there's item 3 2 crossed out in the middle. It says: 3 "MNR guy on telephone. New 4 archeological evidence that there may 5 be a burial site in the Park." 6 Do you recall whether or not one of -- you 7 or one of your colleagues mentioned this at the IMC 8 meeting? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: I don't believe this would have been 13 myself because at that time of the morning we had no, as 14 far as I know, new -- no new evidence of a burial site on 15 the morning of the 5th. So, I don't think I would have 16 communicated that. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: There was a Mr. Ron Baldwin -- 19 Q: Perhaps -- 20 A: -- and Dan Elliott also on the phone. 21 It may have been one of them. 22 Q: Well, let me take you to Tab 41. 23 These are the handwritten notes of Julie Jai, Exhibit P- 24 536. And I believe that the September 5th notes are in 25 fact the second set of minutes within this document,


1 about the tenth page in? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And are you there? 4 A: I am there. 5 Q: It says September the 5th on the top? 6 A: Yes, I'm here. 7 Q: Great. And partway down you'll see 8 the notation: 9 "Dan Elliott MNR. No previous 10 archeological evidence of burial 11 ground, but some new evidence recently 12 has not been evaluated." 13 Does that refresh your memory at all? 14 A: No. Not in terms of any new 15 evidence, no. 16 Q: All right. But you were aware of 17 there being a search done at this time with respect to 18 archeological evidence? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: All right. I'm going to take you 21 back to Eileen Hipfner's notes and perhaps you'll leave 22 the Julie Jai notes open. 23 Second page item 4 at the top. The 24 notation by her reads: 25 "Peter [and then] Sturdy MNR. Another


1 guy on the phone attempts to serve 2 written Notice of Trespass. Stoney 3 Pointers refuse to accept it and 4 OPP/MNR were told to leave. Won't 5 identify a spokesperson." 6 Now, she appears to have attributed that 7 comment to you. Is that information which you likely 8 imparted? 9 A: It seems consistent with the 10 information that I've included in my -- in my status 11 notes. 12 Q: All right. And would this have come 13 from either -- well, from Les Kobayashi at the command 14 post? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: Next point. I can't read the first 17 word, but I think it says: 18 "Some native people entered building. 19 Wrote Stoney Point Number 43 on the 20 blackboard." 21 Again is that something that you would 22 have imparted? 23 A: I think that's consistent, yes. 24 Q: "Main entrance to Park was blocked by 25 an older vehicle."


1 Would that likely have come from you? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: "9:30 p.m. OPP/MNR staff were told to 4 leave the Park. They were standing 5 near but outside main entrance." 6 Again, would that likely have come from 7 you? 8 A: Yes, it seems to be again consistent 9 with my status report. 10 Q: Yes? And: 11 "The command centre set up at Forest; 12 media being directed there." 13 A: Correct, yes. 14 Q: "OPP check [I think it says} stops 15 set up on Highway 21 and other roads 16 in the area?" 17 Did that information likely come from you? 18 A: Yes, it seems consistent. 19 Q: "Park has been closed to everybody 20 including day trippers under..." 21 Sorry, what would that be, PLA? 22 A: Public -- Public Lands Act. 23 Q: Public Lands Act? 24 A: But actually that's an error. 25 Q: That's --


1 A: It would have been the Public -- the 2 Provincial Parks Act. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: Section 32. 5 Q: Thank you. 6 "Exceptional -- creates trespass 7 situation. Prevents others from 8 entering the Park." 9 Is that information you likely would have 10 imparted? 11 A: Yes, it would seem to be consistent. 12 Q: "No indication that Stoney Pointers 13 are armed?" 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Is that something you likely said? 16 A: Yes, I may have. 17 Q: "Assumption is that they are -- these 18 are some of the same people who have 19 occupied Camp Ipperwash." 20 A: That's consistent, yes. 21 Q: "And occupiers haven't issued any 22 statement or communications." [A quote 23 from London Free Press.] 24 A: That's consistent, yes. 25 Q: All right. And again is it likely


1 that the source of all this information was your 2 personnel at the command post? 3 A: All with maybe the exception of the 4 quote from the Free Press. Maybe I picked that up 5 locally but... 6 Q: Okay, fair enough. And then at page 7 3 of these notes there under 5, "Options." It reads: 8 "Peter, MNR Township of Bosanquet is 9 getting an injunction re Matheson Road 10 between Camp and Park. A municipal 11 road being blocked. Gate felled at 12 trees, et cetera." 13 Do you recall whether or not you imparted 14 this information or was it Mr. Allen? 15 A: I'm sorry I can't -- I don't have a 16 recollection. 17 Q: Were you familiar with the position 18 of the Township? 19 A: I'm not sure if I was familiar at 20 that point or whether that -- that knowledge came 21 afterwards, to be perfectly honest. 22 Q: All right. And then later on down 23 the page, let me just read the following points. 24 "MNR, need to have a talk with them 25 about what they're trying to accomplish


1 occupying empty Provincial Park. 2 Shouldn't be too precipitous about what 3 we do even with respect to obtaining 4 injunctions. 5 MNR has denied access to Provincial 6 Park. That's a concern. Plant 7 physical infrastructure, potential 8 damage [sorry potential for damage]. 9 First Nation problem probably wants 10 government to take action. 11 Deputy Minister MNR would like to have 12 injunction ready to go if necessary but 13 keep it in the back pocket. 14 Is there really an argument we can make 15 re urgency." 16 Do you recall -- were you part -- did you 17 impart any of this information? 18 A: I don't believe so, no. 19 Q: All right. Thank you. And if we 20 move to the last page of these notes under, "Update." It 21 says the following: 22 "At 10:00 a.m. only seven (7) to nine 23 (9) natives occupying the Park, 24 including women and children. Have cut 25 some trees to form barricade. Has to


1 be certain latitude for OPP to act. 2 That is relatively few people within 3 Park. Others have left to go to work." 4 Did you provide this information at the 5 end of the meeting? 6 A: I have no recollection of providing 7 that. 8 Q: All right. Is this information 9 consistent with the information you received from Mr. 10 Kobayashi and Mr. Vervoort at the command post? Or any 11 of it? 12 A: The first two (2) would have been 13 sort of more consistent with information that I might 14 have gotten from Les Kobayashi. It's the third bullet 15 point that I don't think I would have or Les would have 16 been talking about that. 17 Q: All right. All right. The first two 18 (2) bullet points with respect to the number of 19 individuals occupying the Park and the -- the trees being 20 fallen -- felled. Okay. 21 A: It's possible, yeah. 22 Q: Do you recall whether you broke from 23 the meeting at all to get this update from Mr. Kobayashi? 24 A: I don't know whether it was passed on 25 as a message and, as I said, I'm not even sure that I --


1 I was the author of this or -- or made that quote, but I 2 could have been. 3 Q: I'm just wondering who else would 4 have had this information if not you. And this was your 5 -- it was your role to report the current -- on the 6 current events. 7 A: Yeah. But both Ron -- Ron Baldwin 8 and Dan Elliott were also participating. Perhaps they 9 had had contact with Ed Vervoort in Forest and had this 10 information passed on as well, I -- I don't know. 11 Q: Okay. Now during the course of this 12 meeting, was there any discussion about the possibility 13 of the Interministerial Committee appointing a negotiator 14 or facilitator to assist with resolving the physical 15 occupation of the Park? 16 A: Not to my recollection. 17 Q: You were, however, aware that that 18 was one of the discretionary powers of the IMC? 19 A: Yes, I am. 20 Q: Why didn't you mention it? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: I can't recall, really. I suspect it 25 may have had something to do with the fact that I thought


1 I had a role to play in terms of providing information 2 and update from the field. 3 There were more senior staff at this 4 meeting from the deputy's office, from legal services 5 that perhaps they were in a better position and more 6 familiar with the course that should be taken. 7 Q: All right. So you didn't see it as 8 part of your role to make recommendations to the 9 Committee, informed by what you knew? 10 A: I would have but, in this particular 11 instance obviously I didn't and, no. 12 Q: All right. Now would you kindly go - 13 - return to Julie Jai's notes. I believe you have those 14 in front of you, at Tab 41? 15 And you -- I believe you've got the 16 September 5th minutes before you? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And if you would go to page 3, 19 please, of those minutes. The last line of those minutes 20 appear to read as follows -- or not minutes, excuse me, 21 notes: 22 "Peter: Always possibility Mohawk 23 warriors will move in." 24 Do you recall whether you made that point 25 at the meeting?


1 A: I don't believe so. 2 Q: All right. Do you recall who did? 3 A: Other than it might have been another 4 Peter, no. 5 Q: All right. 6 A: Peter Allen, perhaps. I don't know. 7 Q: Do you recall there being any 8 discussion or concerns on the part of the MNR that you 9 were aware of, with the -- with the possibility that 10 Mohawk warriors might join the occupation? 11 A: I believe that had been discussed and 12 talked about earlier on in terms of who the occupiers of 13 the former military base were. 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: And where they were coming from and 16 were they all just Stoney Point peoples from Kettle and 17 Stony Point, yes. 18 Q: Do you recall what the basis of the 19 concern was? 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 A: Not specifically, other than I 24 suppose sometimes the mention of 'warrior' might cause 25 some people concern.


1 Q: Did it cause you concern? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Why? 4 A: It would cause -- it would have 5 caused me concern because of some of the events that had 6 happened in earlier occupations, most notably in Quebec. 7 In earlier -- 8 Q: Can you just give me a sense of -- of 9 that, please? 10 A: That seemed to be a very 11 confrontational type of incident that had occurred and I 12 would have had a concern about that because of safety of 13 my staff and the community, because my staff's family 14 were part of the community. 15 Q: All right. So in other words, you 16 were concerned that if Mohawk warriors were to arrive, 17 that could increase risk -- 18 A: The tension and the risks. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: Potentially. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And it was based, basically, on what 25 you'd read in newspapers or newspaper -- news accounts on


1 the Quebec situations, or did you have additional -- 2 A: No, I had -- 3 Q: -- information? 4 A: -- no experience or additional 5 knowledge. It was based on television documentaries and 6 newspaper accounts. 7 Q: Okay. Now were you assigned any 8 tasks as a result of the September 5th IMC meeting? 9 A: Could I go back to the -- 10 Q: The minutes? 11 A: -- to the minutes? 12 Q: Certainly. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Tab 40. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: I would have likely updated Mr. Daryl 21 Smith who was the communications officer in the field and 22 part of our team with respect to the three (3) messages 23 that were outlined in the second bullet point that the 24 Province had valid title to the Park, the occupiers have 25 been told they are trespassing and have been asked to


1 leave and the Province will take steps to remove the 2 occupiers. 3 So, I would have communicated that to him 4 I think. 5 Q: All right. And were you asked by 6 anyone at the IMC to either confirm or verify the 7 reliability and accuracy of the information that you had 8 conveyed to them? 9 A: No, I was not. 10 Q: All right. Did you provide a written 11 report of the IMC meeting to any -- to -- to any of your 12 superiors? 13 A: I don't believe it was -- it was 14 communicated in my updates. I believe that Mr. Elliott, 15 Dan Elliott, made some notations about the 16 Interministerial Committee and I attached those the 17 following morning on September the 6th as an attachment. 18 These were notes that were written on the 5th by Mr. 19 Elliott. 20 Q: All right. If you'd go to Tab 49, 21 please, Inquiry Document 1009033, the third document in 22 is entitled, ERT Ipperwash Information Update September 23 5, 1995 14:40 Hours? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Is that the document authored by --


1 was it Mr. Elliott did you say? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Okay. And -- 4 A: And I think that is referenced in the 5 first line of the first page. 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: "Attached is an update prepared late 8 yesterday afternoon of events 9 surrounding the Ipperwash Park 10 occupation, prepared by Dan Elliott." 11 Q: And in your view did he accurately 12 report, at least, the -- the limited information he did 13 with respect to the IMC meeting? 14 A: Yes, the two (2) bullet points seem 15 to reflect accurately. 16 Q: All right. Thank you. We've -- I'm 17 -- I'll come back to this document, but perhaps we should 18 make it an exhibit now, e-mail from Peter Sturdy dated 19 September 6th, 1995 Ipperwash Status Report Number 2 with 20 the attachment. 21 THE REGISTRAR: P-787, Your Honour. 22 23 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-787: Document Number 1009033. E- 24 mail from Peter Sturdy to 25 Distribution List re.


1 Ipperwash Status Report 2 2 (pages 1&2) and ERT Ipperwash 3 Information Update (page 3). 4 September 06/95. 5 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 9 Q: Now do you recall -- what -- what did 10 you do for the balance of the day? 11 A: On the 5th of September? 12 Q: The 5th of September after the IMC 13 meeting? 14 A: It seems to me that, apart from some 15 of the communications that may have still been going on 16 between Les Kobayashi and myself and perhaps some inter - 17 - some infrequent conversations with Peter Allen in the 18 afternoon, I think a big part of my time was spent with 19 Leith Hunter, the lawyer in our legal services in MNR, to 20 start to prepare an affidavit for myself. 21 Q: For the proposed injunction? 22 A: I'm sorry. Yes, that's correct. 23 Q: And -- all right. Did you ever swear 24 that affidavit? 25 A: No, I did not.


1 Q: Did you continue to receive regular 2 status reports from your personnel at the command post? 3 A: Yes, as -- as they felt it was 4 necessary to phone me because of some new development or 5 new information, correct. 6 Q: And did you have any direct 7 communication with Inspector Carson or Chief 8 Superintendent Coles or anyone else from the OPP on 9 September the 5th? 10 A: I don't believe so, no. 11 Q: Did you have any direct contact with 12 your minister or any of the other Crown ministers or the 13 Premier on the 5th? 14 A: Absolutely not. 15 Q: And -- all right. So your two (2) 16 main functions that day was to provide information and to 17 assist in the preparation of this affidavit? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: Do you recall anything else that you 20 were involved in, of significance, which occurred on 21 September the 5th? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: Nothing comes to mind.


1 Q: All right. 2 A: At this point. 3 Q: Based on the information you had 4 received over the course of the past twenty-four (24) 5 hours from your field operatives at the command post and 6 the information that you received at the IMC, what was 7 your assessment of the degree of risk with respect to the 8 potential for property damage at the Park? 9 A: On the 5th of September? 10 Q: The 5th. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: I believe that the -- that the 15 probability was there, that there may be some damage to 16 buildings and facilities, yes. 17 Q: And what was your assessment of the 18 risk with respect to the potential danger to your staff? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: I felt that as -- as long as they 23 worked and they had a very good relationship with the 24 Ontario Provincial Police, they knew many of the local 25 officers that they were working with, I felt that Mr.


1 Kobayashi's judgment was sound, good. He was a well 2 experienced manager and with that kind of relationship, I 3 believed that the level of risk to them at that point was 4 acceptable. 5 Q: And did you form an assessment of the 6 risk of the potential danger to the public? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: We were certainly -- our field 11 officers, our main office, I understood, even there were 12 calls that were coming in to our minister's office. But 13 there was certainly an increased level of concern and 14 anxiety and worry being expressed to staff at various 15 levels in the ministry. 16 Q: All right. And is this something 17 that came to your attention? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: All right. Now did you provide -- 20 A: And I -- and I just -- 21 Q: Sorry. 22 A: -- to reiterate again, sorry, if I 23 may. My staff were part of the community as well and 24 their families and their children, so they were starting 25 to express concerns through their superintendent to me,


1 so I was -- I was cognizant of that as well. 2 Q: And as a result, were you also 3 feeling or experiencing a degree of anxiety in relation 4 to what was going on at the Park? 5 A: Probably. 6 Q: All right. 7 A: Probably. I was trying not to show 8 it, but probably. 9 Q: Moving then to September the 6th, 10 1995 did you provide a second status report? 11 A: Yes, I did. 12 Q: And if you go to Tab 49, Exhibit P- 13 787, an e-mail from yourself to persons listed, including 14 Peter Allen and Norm Richards, and it's entitled, 15 "Ipperwash Status Report, Number 2." 16 Is that it? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: All right. Now you are reporting to 19 your superiors and others within the ministry, 20 information that you received? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And let's go through it. You say the 23 following: 24 "In addition, the following 25 developments occurred overnight.


1 First, four (4) OPP vehicles were 2 damaged by rocks during night patrols." 3 Where did you get that information? 4 A: That would have been passed onto me 5 by Les Kobayashi. 6 Q: "Second, one hundred (100) to a 7 hundred and fifty (150) rounds of 8 automatic gunfire were reported from 9 within Ipperwash Park." 10 Again, what was the source of your 11 information? 12 A: That would have been Les Kobayashi. 13 Q: "Third, heavy equipment was heard to 14 be working within the Park. But the 15 type of work is unknown at this point. 16 An assessment should be available later 17 today following a further surveillance 18 flight by the MNR helicopter being used 19 by the OPP." 20 Where would that information have come 21 from? 22 A: I believe that would have also come 23 from Les. 24 Q: All right. The next point is: 25 "A draft affidavit was prepared by


1 Leith Hunter and was going to be 2 reviewed with you prior to the IMC 3 meeting scheduled for 9:30." 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: That's your -- your information 6 obviously? 7 A: Yes, yes. 8 Q: Next point: 9 "Helicopter surveillance yesterday 10 confirmed that buildings within the 11 Park have been broken into and are 12 being used." 13 Where would that have come from? 14 A: That would have also come from Les. 15 Q: Next point is: 16 "Concerns complaints from the Township 17 residents continue." 18 What was the source of your information 19 for that? 20 A: I'm just looking at the -- the note 21 that was provided on the third page from Dan Elliott and 22 it shows on the last bullet point that the Minister's 23 office is receiving calls from many of the residents. 24 Q: All right. So it likely came from 25 this memo or from Mr. Allen?


1 A: I -- I think I would have taken it 2 from the update that Mr. Elliott had provided me and 3 tried to incorporate it into this as a more timely 4 update. 5 Q: All right. Next: 6 "OPP news release issued yesterday 7 afternoon identified three (3) 8 individuals who the OPP have issued 9 arrest warrants, mischief, assault and 10 possession of weapon." 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: Is that a release you would have 13 seen? Or -- or you were told -- 14 A: That would have been faxed to me. 15 Q: All right. 16 "And the Mayor of Bosanquet issued a 17 'Reign of terror continues,' titled 18 news release." 19 Is that something that you saw? 20 A: I believe I saw that, yes. And it 21 was faxed to me at my office. 22 Q: All right. And can I take it from 23 your earlier answers that you assumed that this 24 information that was imparted to you Mr. Kobayashi was 25 accurate and reliable?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And did you attend at the IMC meeting 3 which was held at about 9:30 a.m. on September the 6th? 4 A: Yes, I did. 5 Q: And what was your mode of 6 participation? 7 A: By teleconference again. 8 Q: And at this time are you any more 9 familiar with the voices on the other end of the line 10 than -- than you were the previous day? 11 A: I don't believe so, no. 12 Q: Okay. And did you come to this 13 meeting with any specific directions or instructions 14 passed onto you by your superiors? 15 A: No, I did not. 16 Q: What was your primary role at this 17 meeting? 18 A: As in the meeting on the 5th, I 19 understood my primary role was to communicate a field 20 level perspective on the events and to pass on items that 21 might be helpful to this Committee in terms of what was 22 happening at the field level. 23 Q: All right. And perhaps you would now 24 return to Tab 44, it's the meeting notes of September 25 6th, 1995, Exhibit P-509, Document 100 -- sorry, 1011766.


1 Are you able to assist us and advise us as 2 to which parts of the report would have been generated by 3 information that you relayed? 4 A: I'm afraid I'd need some help again 5 either by looking at the status reports or through some 6 other means. 7 Q: All right. Generally, were you 8 charged with providing the update from the MNR -- on 9 behalf of the MNR? 10 A: Generally, although Ron Baldwin I 11 recall would add some additional information. 12 Q: All right. Before I get to other 13 people's notes, do you recall whether there was any 14 discussion at that meeting concerning the advisability of 15 pursuing an injunction? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 A: I only have the vaguest of memories 20 that there seemed to be a lot of time spent on that 21 particular topic. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: But it's the vaguest of memory. 24 Q: What was your position at this time 25 with respect to the feasibility and appropriateness of an


1 injunction as opposed to the other two (2) options that 2 had been tabled the day before, given the information 3 that you had? 4 A: I understood that -- I mean going 5 back -- even back into August that, when the OPP -- 6 Inspector Carson first talked about MNR seeking an 7 injunction, I guess I had assumed that that would be the 8 normal course of action taken and, in fact, I believe we 9 went through some notes where I had indicated to my 10 director of legal services back in August about was there 11 something I should be doing in the way of getting ready 12 for an injunction? 13 I hadn't had a great deal of experience, 14 in fact this was my first experience with the process of 15 an injunction. It was also -- the thought of an 16 injunction came up again at our very -- at our meeting on 17 September the 1st with the OPP in their detachment 18 office. 19 So, clearly it seemed to me that that was 20 the preferred route that the OPP wished to follow and I 21 assumed that, from their vast amount of experience in 22 other areas, that this would be -- this was the normal 23 course of action to take, that this would be the most 24 appropriate way of dealing with a situation like this. 25 Q: All right. Did you -- did you


1 express any views to that effect at the meeting, that you 2 can recall? 3 A: Not that I recall. 4 Q: All right. Do you recall whether any 5 of your colleagues from the MNR who were at this meeting, 6 whether any of them expressed any reluctance, initially, 7 concerning choosing an injunction as the appropriate 8 course of action? 9 A: I'm sorry, I have no recollection of 10 that. 11 Q: All right. Perhaps -- perhaps we'll 12 go to again Eileen Hipfner's notes. I have an extra copy 13 actually if you wish to give them -- Commissioner, do you 14 have a copy? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't have 16 a copy in front of me. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: This is Exhibit P-636, Inquiry 22 Document Number 1011799. 23 A: Thank you. 24 Q: And these have been identified as the 25 handwritten notes of Eileen Hipfner with respect to the


1 September 6th IMC meeting. And perhaps, if we review 2 this, this will refresh your memory with respect to what 3 information you may have imparted. 4 We go first to page two (2). At the 5 bottom of the page you'll see your name reflected. 6 A: Yes, I see that. 7 Q: All right. And the following 8 comments appear to be attributed to you: 9 "Heavy equipment work being done in the 10 Park. If [I think it may be] if more 11 information with aerial surveillance -- 12 or get [sorry] get more information 13 with aerial surveillance. Park 14 buildings have been broken into, are 15 being used [thank you]. MNR staff 16 being peppered with calls from locals; 17 concerns, fear, anger. Groundswell of 18 anxiety concern. Somebody heard 19 automatic gunfire." 20 Do you recall imparting this information 21 to the IMC? 22 A: I think it's consistent with the -- 23 the status report and the -- that we talked about 24 earlier. 25 Q: All right. So, likely this came from


1 you and your source would have been -- was Les Kobayashi? 2 A: Was Mr. Kobayashi. 3 Q: All right. Over on page 3, half way 4 down, your name appears with a line stroke through it and 5 the following comment is reflected. 6 "Also a question of what minister can 7 say if OPP are handling this and 8 especially now that charges have been 9 laid." 10 Would that be something that -- that you 11 would have imparted? 12 A: No, it would not. 13 Q: Okay. Do you recall who did? Would 14 the -- Mr. -- is this something Mr. Allen would likely 15 have communicated? Speaking -- speaking about the 16 minister? 17 A: It's likely. 18 Q: Page 6. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: You -- you'll see about a quarter 23 down your name again and the following comments appear to 24 be attributed to you. 25 "Rumours of gunfire confirmed. I've


1 got staff there right now accompanying 2 OPP to serve notice. Being asked to 3 wear bulletproof vests. Park picnic 4 tables piled on road as barricades." 5 Is this information that you imparted to 6 the IMC? 7 A: I believe so, yes. 8 Q: All right. And can you recall -- 9 well, first of is the source of your information, for 10 those points, Mr. Kobayashi? 11 A: I believe there was a question raised 12 earlier on when my report was first given, and there was 13 a question raised around can we confirm this, or 14 something to that effect and -- 15 Q: That -- that's -- 16 A: -- I think it's reflected in the 17 bottom of that -- of the notes. 18 Q: There is a comment attributed to Ms. 19 Hutton in that respect, yes. 20 A: Was it -- was it Ms. Hutton? Likely 21 this is the result of that -- that when we were -- when 22 the question came up, can we confirm this, I would have 23 had someone in my office or even myself, maybe, through a 24 cell phone, contacted Les and said are you sure about 25 this?


1 Q: All right. And the result of that 2 enquiry was, essentially, yes, he was sure about that? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And that's in relation to the rumours 5 of gunfire? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: All right. And did you have any 8 concern with -- with respect to -- well, let me ask you 9 this: What notice was attempting to be served, as far as 10 you knew, referencing the third bullet point? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: This may have been the notice of 15 trespass that had not been successfully served on the 16 night of the 4th, early morning of the 5th -- 17 Q: Hmm hmm. 18 A: I understood -- my recollection is, 19 is there was going to be some kind of a meeting or an 20 attempted meeting on the 6th. 21 Q: All right. And did you have any 22 concern about the fact that your staff were being asked 23 to wear bulletproof vests in this task? 24 A: My concern was now beginning to 25 escalate.


1 Q: All right. You were becoming more 2 anxious as a result? 3 A: I was concerned about it on a -- 4 because of a number of different things that had occurred 5 over the last numbers of hours, I guess. It's not -- 6 it's certainly not customary for my staff to go to a 7 meeting and being asked to wear a bulletproof vest. 8 These reports of gunfire were a cause of 9 concern. Again, because of staff and our proximity, the 10 community, their families and so, yes, my anxiety and my 11 concern was escalating. 12 Q: And was your assessment of the 13 potential risk of danger to your staff in the community 14 also changing? 15 A: It was. And in fact I believe later 16 on that afternoon Mr. Allen and I had some discussions 17 around the appropriateness of having staff in that close 18 a proximity. 19 Q: All right. And if you look at Ms. 20 Jai's notes of the IMC meeting for September the 6th. 21 I'll just check that -- Tab 41. 22 And you'll see the first -- the first 23 notes are -- have been identified as her handwritten 24 notes of the September 6th IMC meeting. And page 4, this 25 is Exhibit P-536, you'll see partway down your name and


1 the following comments are attributed to you: 2 "Has confirmed reports of gunfire. 3 He's concerned about safety of his 4 staff who are accompanying the OPP. 5 Picnic tables placed on Country Road 10 6 blocking access to beach. OPP and MNR 7 staff assisted in trying to arrest the 8 people. The two (2) fled and barrier 9 removed." 10 Now, does that refresh your -- your memory 11 with respect to the roles that your staff were being 12 asked to play? 13 A: Yes, I recall that they -- they did 14 assist in moving some picnic tables, I believe, in the 15 morning of September the 6th. And this seems to be 16 consistent with some of the notes contained from Ms. 17 Hipfner. 18 Q: All right. Did you express your 19 concern at the IMC in light of these developments? 20 A: I believe if that's an accurate 21 assessment or an accurate reflection of my concern then 22 it was expressed. 23 Q: And did you become concerned as to 24 the propriety of the method of obtaining an injunction as 25 the preferred method to removing the occupiers from the


1 Park? 2 A: No, but then again this wasn't an 3 area that I had dealt with many times before or was 4 particularly familiar with in terms of how these matters 5 -- how these matters are worked out in similar situations 6 or in similar cases. So, if that seemed to be the 7 prevailing view of those at the meeting then that was -- 8 I understood that that's the way you proceed. 9 Q: Do you recall whether in fact there 10 was further discussion about the propriety of seeking an 11 injunction at the September 6th meeting? 12 A: I just recall there was quite a bit 13 of discussion at that meeting about an injunction. And - 14 - and some of it frankly I'm not sure I fully understood 15 myself in terms of the different styles or types of 16 injunctions. 17 Q: Were -- did you hear any differing 18 views expressed with respect to either the advisability 19 of going for an injunction or the -- the type of 20 injunction to be sought? 21 A: I'm sorry I -- I have no specific 22 recollection that I can put my finger on. 23 Q: All right. Do you recall there being 24 any discussion at this meeting with respect to the 25 validity of the Ministry's assertion that it had valid


1 title to the Park? 2 A: I seem to have a very vague 3 recollection that that topic was brought up and it may 4 have been by Inspector Fox. I -- I don't have a good 5 grasp on that, but I seem to have a vague recollection 6 that that was raised. 7 Q: Were you able to identify him at this 8 call? 9 A: There must have been something that 10 he said or somebody said back to him that -- that 11 identified him but -- or something in his -- in the 12 conversation that seemed to indicate that it was him, but 13 it's a very vague recollection. 14 Q: Do you recall what it was he was 15 saying about the assertion of title? 16 A: Not really. No, no. 17 Q: Was he accepting the Ministry's 18 position in that respect? 19 A: My impression was that he -- that it 20 was -- it isn't always what it seems to be in terms of 21 you have title but it may be something else other than 22 that. And it's -- 23 Q: All right. And as a result of that 24 assertion, did you do any further research or undertake 25 any further inquiries to pursue that suggestion?


1 A: Personally, no. 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. 3 Commissioner, I wonder if we might take the morning break 4 at this time. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I 6 think this would be a good time. 7 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will 8 recess for fifteen (15) minutes. 9 10 --- Upon recessing at 10:31 a.m. 11 --- Upon resuming at 10:50 a.m. 12 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 14 resumed. Please be seated. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Fine. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 17 Commissioner, I neglected to make a document an exhibit. 18 I'd like to do that at this time. It was e-mail from Dan 19 Elliott to Peter Sturdy dated September 5, 1995, Inquiry 20 Document Number 1008121. 21 Can we have that as the next exhibit, 22 please. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What tab was 24 that at? 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That was at Tab 39.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 39. 2 THE REGISTRAR: P-788, Your Honour. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-788. 4 5 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-788: Document Number 1008121. E- 6 mail from Dan Elliott to 7 Peter Sturdy re. Note 1 to 8 senior managers. September 9 05/95. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 12 Q: Mr. Sturdy, with respect to the 13 September 6th meeting just before we leave it, you 14 indicated that your staff was being asked to wear bullet 15 proof vests, do you recall who it was who was asking them 16 to do that? 17 A: My understanding was that it was the 18 -- a suggestion by the OPP. 19 Q: All right. 20 A: But I can't be 100 percent accurate 21 on that. 22 Q: Now, at the conclusion of this -- I 23 should say this -- did you report to any of your 24 superiors with respect to the -- what transpired at the 25 IMC meeting?


1 A: I don't believe I reported to any of 2 my superiors because Peter Allen who was my primary 3 contact in the Deputy Minister's office was an attendant 4 or a participant in that meeting. 5 Q: All right. And did you -- following 6 the meeting did you express any concerns to your 7 superiors about the safety of Park staff? 8 A: I believe we had that discussion -- 9 that I had some discussion with Peter Allen the afternoon 10 of the 6th of September in regards to that because of a 11 number of events that had occurred; events, if you like, 12 in terms of assisting with the removal of the tables, the 13 report of gunfire, bullet proof vests. Those kinds of 14 things. 15 Q: All right. Did you make a 16 recommendation to him with respect to the future 17 activities of your Park staff? 18 A: We may have discussed some different 19 options and -- but that was it at that point. 20 Q: Was any decision made with respect to 21 the ongoing involvement of Park staff in the Park 22 operations? 23 A: Yes. Later that day. 24 Q: And what was the decision? 25 A: I had a -- I received a letter


1 directly from the Deputy Minister indicating that he 2 would like to see less on-field, if you will, on-field 3 presence of MNR staff. 4 Q: All right. And if you would go then 5 to Tab 48 Inquiry Document Number 1008865 and it has 6 already been marked as Exhibit P-727, it's a letter dated 7 September -- or a memorandum, I guess, dated September 8 6th, 1995 from Deputy Minister Ron Vrancart to yourself. 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And is this the direction that you 11 received from the Deputy Minister? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Now, does that mean that your field 14 personnel at the command post were removed? 15 A: No, the -- there was an agreement 16 that the staff at the command post would -- would stay. 17 Our information officer, Daryl Smith, was relocated I 18 believe, and staff that might have been helping -- some 19 of the Park staff that may have been helping with, say, 20 the removal of picnic tables and things like that earlier 21 in the day of the 6th, those types of staff would no 22 longer be helping out if they were called on. 23 Q: So the -- the Critical Response Team 24 or Incident Team still remained in place and -- and 25 fulfilled their roles?


1 A: That's correct. I was still in 2 London; Les and Ed Vervoort were in Forest. Our 3 information officer was reassigned and Ron Baldwin was in 4 Aylmer. 5 Q: Thank you. And did you continue to 6 receive written reports from Dan Elliott over the course 7 of the 6th? 8 A: Yes, I believe so. 9 Q: And if you go to Tab 50 there is an 10 e-mail from Dan Elliott to various people. It's Inquiry 11 Document 1010240 Exhibit P-261. Is this a report that 12 you received from Mr. Elliott entitled, "Ipperwash Status 13 Report Number 3?" 14 A: Yes, I received this report. 15 Q: Now here, amongst other things, Mr. 16 Elliott's reporting that the band administration has no 17 land claims on Ipperwash Provincial Park and furthermore 18 that the band administration is not aware of any burial 19 grounds within Ipperwash Provincial Park. 20 Did that influence your position with 21 respect to the merits of those assertions that were made 22 by the Stoney Point Group members? 23 A: I'm sorry, did it...? 24 Q: Influence your assessment of the 25 merits of the claims by the Stoney Point Group members


1 that there were burial grounds in the Park and that they 2 had an interest in the Park? 3 A: I think it may have in as much as 4 there had been, on two (2) fronts, but the district 5 office and the staff at the district office, and by that 6 I mean Mr. Baldwin and -- and Dan Elliott and Les 7 Kobayashi on the other hand. 8 Both of those groups, if you like, had 9 formed what I understood to be very good working 10 relationships with the Kettle and Stony Point council. 11 And I believe that there was a certain willingness and 12 reliance on trying to communicate with the chief and with 13 the administrator and with council to get some 14 perspective from their part on these issues around -- 15 which seemed to be crystallizing into a land claim of 16 some kind and a burial -- an alleged burial ground issue. 17 Q: All right. And I see that at the 18 bottom of Mr. Elliot's e-mail, indicates that inquiries 19 to the minister's office and Premier's officer have been 20 redirected to him in Aylmer. 21 Were you aware of that? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: Yes, I recall Peter Allen indicating


1 that the volumes of phone calls coming into Toronto, into 2 Queen's Park, were such that they wanted to have a place 3 to redirect those so that follow up announces could be 4 given. 5 Q: Meaning that there was a greater 6 volume than those offices could deal with? 7 A: That and the other thing about our 8 ministry that might be helpful is that our ministry has a 9 culture, a legacy if you like, that is very much a part 10 of the community. 11 We're a -- historically we were -- have 12 been involved in floods and fires and other kinds of 13 emergencies and it's frequently the people at the local 14 level of the -- at the local office level that get 15 involved in these quite heavily, because they know people 16 in the community and they're -- they have contacts and so 17 on and so forth. 18 So it's not uncommon when issues arise 19 that these are, for contact purposes and for preliminary 20 discussions, that these are pushed down, if you like, 21 within the organization down to the field level. 22 Q: All right. And that goes back to 23 your earlier, I think, testimony yesterday with respect 24 to the fact that some of the Park officials had good 25 relationships with the surrounding First Nations people


1 in the same community. 2 A: I thought they were very good 3 relationships. 4 Q: Now, he has summarized in this e-mail 5 concerns raised by the public. He says the following: 6 "Want Premier Mike Harris to make a 7 public statement. Residents' safety at 8 risk. School children in area are 9 emotionally upset and parents are 10 requesting police escorts to ensure 11 safety. 12 Residents want this issue dealt with in 13 a safe and timely manner. Government 14 needs to take a hard stand now or 15 residents will act themselves. 16 Concern that homes to the west will be 17 next. 18 Concern that police cannot guarantee 19 public safety and protection of 20 property. Wants reassurance that 21 action will be taken against natives 22 occupying the Park and that residents 23 will not be subject to retaliation by 24 native occupants." 25 Now, are you aware as to the source of Mr.


1 Elliott's information as recorded there? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: It was my understanding that these 6 were just phone calls and guess I would assume just phone 7 calls that were coming in to him now that they were being 8 redirected and this is how he happened to categorize them 9 under these types of groupings, if you like. 10 Q: And to your knowledge, was there any 11 follow up with either Mr. Elliott or in relation to these 12 concerns within your ministry? 13 A: I'm sorry, I don't understand the 14 question. Follow up from? 15 Q: Well, was there any discussions which 16 ensued as a result of this report that you're aware of 17 and the concerns that were reflected in this report? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 A: I'm sorry, I'm -- I'm -- I don't have 22 knowledge of whether there were specific letters drafted 23 and sent back to individuals and -- 24 Q: No, I guess I was interested if there 25 was any discussion --


1 A: Oh. 2 Q: -- in the ministry, for example, with 3 respect to the approach that was being pursued for 4 removal of the occupants -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- and strategies employed? 7 A: No, I don't believe so. 8 Q: All right. And did -- did these -- 9 well, it's -- do you recall who -- who would have 10 received this particular e-mail? We've got a 11 distribution list, but we don't have the actual names. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: I'm sorry, I can't help you. I -- I 16 would have suspected that it would have been at a 17 minimum, everyone that was involved in our critical 18 incident team. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: The members of that. 21 Q: Right. That was the -- the practice 22 at the time? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And what about the -- the Assistant 25 Deputy Minister or the Deputy Minister, would you expect


1 that they would receive that? 2 A: It may well have been also forwarded 3 but I just don't have a recollection -- 4 Q: You don't know. 5 A: -- no. 6 Q: Thank you. You didn't receive any 7 inquiries from your Assistant Deputy Minister or the 8 Deputy Minister as a result of -- of this -- of the 9 concerns raised in this e-mail? 10 A: No, I have no recollection of 11 inquiries. 12 Q: And did you convey any of these -- 13 this report of public concerns to anyone on the IMC such 14 as Julie Jai? 15 A: I think this -- this e-mail obviously 16 came in after, I believe, that meeting was completed, was 17 it? 18 Q: Correct. Yes. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: 4:52 p.m. 21 A: Yeah. But I was -- I had certainly 22 been aware of the numbers of calls and other types of 23 concerns and I -- and I believe I reflected that in one 24 of my comments to the IMC that were getting flooded with 25 calls or something to that affect.


1 Q: All right. And were any steps, to 2 your knowledge, taken to verify Mr. Elliott's perception 3 of the -- the public mood if you will? 4 A: No. And just by way of perhaps 5 helpful context I hoped that Mr. Elliott was a former 6 conservation officer and enforcement officer and I would 7 have trusted his ability to -- to try and distill what 8 those concerns and comments were from the public that 9 were phoning in. 10 Q: All right. Did you have any direct 11 contact with the Incident Commander, Inspector Carson, on 12 September the 6th, 1995? 13 A: Not to my knowledge, no. 14 Q: Do you recall receiving advice that a 15 meeting was being requested by Chief Superintendent 16 Coles? 17 A: Yes. And I believe that -- I believe 18 that was within a discussion that I had with Les 19 Kobayashi. 20 Q: Mr. Kobayashi? 21 A: I believe it was Mr. Kobayashi that 22 indicated that Mr. Coles would -- would like to meet with 23 us. 24 Q: Not -- not the Incident Commander? 25 A: It may have been from Mr. -- or


1 Inspector Carson to Les to me. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: I -- I thought it was Les Kobayashi 4 but my recollection may be wrong. 5 Q: All right. And were you provided 6 that advice on September the 6th prior -- prior to the 7 incident of the evening? 8 A: I'm sorry, I just can't recall my 9 recollections about the dates of that meeting. 10 Q: No. The -- the advice. 11 A: No. Yes I -- I can't recall. 12 Q: Fair enough. Do you recall what Mr. 13 Kobayashi informed you about in terms of the request to 14 meet with the Chief Superintendent? 15 A: I think it was to -- in part to have 16 a discussion around some of the sensitivities around 17 information. 18 Q: Information flow from the command 19 post? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And did you in fact meet with Chief 22 Superintendent Coles? 23 A: I recall having a meeting with Chief 24 Superintendent Coles and Les Kobayashi and we had that 25 meeting -- I'm a little uncertain of the date, whether it


1 was later on the 7th or on the 8th and I believe it was 2 in Grand Bend, the Detachment, the OPP Detachment office. 3 Q: Is it possible that that meeting 4 occurred on the 6th? 5 A: It may. As I -- as I mentioned my 6 recollections of -- of the dates are not that good. 7 Q: Perhaps I can refer you to Tab 52, 8 Inquiry Document Number 1006394, an e-mail from yourself 9 dated September the 7th, 1995 at 3:19 a.m., Status Report 10 Number 3. And for the moment I want to draw your 11 attention to the last paragraph which reads as follows: 12 "Note: I have attempted to provide 13 only factual information. Our 14 assessment is that the OPP are very 15 sensitive about information flow and 16 content. Their efforts are being 17 directed at de-escalating the situation 18 to the extent possible. We are 19 attempting not to take any actions 20 which would run counter. Cooperation 21 at the field level has and continues to 22 be excellent." 23 Now, does that refresh your memory at all 24 as to the timing of your meeting with Chief 25 Superintendent Coles?


1 A: I'm afraid not. And -- but -- 2 however this could very well -- easily have been based on 3 the conversation that I'd had with Mr. Kobayashi around 4 their sensitivities to some of the information. 5 And certainly on this particular date and 6 the events that had taken place I think everyone was 7 extremely cautions and sensitive to what was being said 8 and what was being done and I wanted to make sure that 9 that was conveyed in any notes that I sent to -- to 10 senior staff. 11 Q: All right. Can we make this the next 12 exhibit, please? 13 THE REGISTRAR: P-789, Your Honour. 14 15 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-789: Document Number 1006394. E- 16 mail from Peter Sturdy to 17 Distribution List re. Status 18 Report 3, September 07/95. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: Accepting then for the moment that 22 this meeting occurred on either the 6th, 7th, or 8th, can 23 you tell me what was conveyed to you at the meeting with 24 Chief Superintendent Coles? 25 A: I believe the discussion in general


1 terms was around the sensitivity of information. I don't 2 recall Chief Superintendent Coles giving us any 3 additional, how shall I put it, instructions or 4 directions on what we should do or what we shouldn't do. 5 I don't think he put those kinds of bounds 6 on it per se. I think he just tried to explain that 7 sometimes information may be in different forms and that 8 we should be sensitive to that. 9 Q: Did he give you any examples of what 10 he was concerned about? 11 A: I don't believe so. I -- I can't 12 recall any specific examples that he gave. 13 Q: Did he -- did you form an -- an 14 impression as to what information flow he has -- he was 15 concerned about? 16 A: Not at the time because frankly our - 17 - if I can go back a little ways. Our contingency plans 18 had been shared with the OPP. It was our understanding 19 that we were to be invited as members of the command 20 post. We were invited into the briefings. We were 21 passed on information. I have no recollections of any 22 boundaries being put on that information. It was 23 conveyed to me and I conveyed that to my superiors. 24 Q: All right. Did you take this meeting 25 to be however a -- a cautionary meeting to you with


1 respect to being alert to the sensitivity of some of the 2 information that you might be receiving on this 3 operation? 4 A: I think he was trying to get a 5 perspective across that there would be some sensitivities 6 to some information. To me, perhaps it would have been 7 far easier had our staff at the command post been told 8 either to leave the briefing or to have qualifiers put 9 around information that might have been of concern. 10 I wasn't, by background, someone with any 11 experience in enforcement, so information that maybe 12 viewed in one (1) by -- by one (1) organization is, to 13 me, was information. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: And can you be any more specific with 17 respect to any -- whether or not Chief Superintendent 18 Coles expressed the basis of his concern to you? 19 A: I don't believe he gave an example of 20 what the basis of his concerns were. 21 Q: All right. Did you change your 22 practices, at all, in terms of the information flow as a 23 result of this meeting? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 A: Perhaps we were a little bit more 2 cautious, particularly after the events of the 6th and 3 7th. And I think I recall on maybe one (1) occasion that 4 Les may have said something to the effect of, and I can't 5 even remember what the subject was to be honest, but he 6 may have said on one (1) occasion that this is 7 information that I'm just passing along but we just need 8 to wait. 9 Q: And was that information after the 10 6th? 11 A: Yes, I believe so, yes. 12 Q: And do you recall what that 13 information -- 14 A: No, I'm afraid I don't. It's just... 15 Q: Returning to September the 6th, then, 16 I should ask you, is there anything else of significance 17 that occurred over the course of that meeting with the 18 Chief Superintendent and Mr. Kobayashi? 19 A: Again, I can't confirm that it was on 20 the 6th, but what I've -- my recollections are all that I 21 can recall at this time. 22 Q: And you didn't make any notes of 23 this? 24 A: No, I did not. 25 Q: You didn't report in any written form


1 to your superiors about this meeting? 2 A: No, I did not. 3 Q: Now, we have heard evidence that a 4 meeting occurred in the Premier's dining room after the 5 September 6th IMC meeting. 6 Were -- were you aware of that meeting? 7 A: I don't believe so, no. 8 Q: And you didn't attend it? 9 A: No. 10 Q: Fine. When did you first learn about 11 the fact that a meeting had been held? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: You know, to be honest, I'm not even 16 sure if I recall that specifically. 17 Q: Was it sub -- subsequent to the 6th? 18 A: At some point, I believe it was in 19 the latter part of the day on the 6th, I think I received 20 a phone call from Peter Allen indicating that the 21 Interministerial Committee was to be disbanded, and that 22 a different structure was going to be put in place. 23 And he may have said that this was an 24 outcome of a meeting of senior deputies or something to 25 that effect.


1 Q: Okay. Did he give you an explanation 2 as to why the IMC was going to be disbanded and replaced, 3 aside from the fact that it was an outcome of a meeting? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: I don't recall specifically, no, a 8 reason for why it was being disbanded. 9 Q: All right. And you believe that was 10 at the end of the day, on September the 6th? 11 A: It's either on the end of the day on 12 September the 6th, or sometime in the following day, but, 13 yes. It -- it became my knowledge that this Committee 14 had been disbanded. 15 Q: All right. Now, did you continue to 16 receive reports from your MNR personnel at the command 17 post over the balance of the day of September the 6th? 18 A: Yes, I did. 19 Q: All right. And when you left the 20 office from -- for home that night, what was your 21 understanding of the situation at the Park? 22 A: I don't think I had any specific 23 information as to, you know, any major change in the 24 status of the Park at that point. I understood that Les 25 was -- I'd neglected to mention, perhaps, that some time


1 late on the 5th -- no it would have been probably early 2 on the 6th a decision was made that Mr. Kobayashi, in 3 fact, would be taking an affidavit for the injunction. 4 And so I was no longer going to be sworn or have a sworn 5 affidavit for that injunction. 6 And my understanding was that on the 7th 7 of September that he would be taking that affidavit and 8 going to court, in Sarnia I believe it was. 9 Q: All right. Were you aware that the 10 occupiers were also occupying the sandy parking lot 11 adjacent to the Park? 12 A: I don't believe I had that knowledge, 13 no. 14 Q: You indicated earlier you knew that 15 they had -- that your staff had assisted with removal of 16 picnic tables? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And you hadn't received any 19 information subsequent to that about the status of the 20 sandy parking lot from Mr. Kobayashi or others? 21 A: That perhaps the tables had been put 22 back you mean, or something like that? 23 Q: Whether or not there -- there was any 24 activity there? 25 A: I don't recall that, no.


1 Q: All right. 2 A: As I said I think we were assuming 3 that the plan of moving ahead with an injunction, of Les 4 attending court the next morning with some lawyers from 5 the Attorney General's office and seeking that injunction 6 would move forward and I went home with that expectation. 7 Q: All right. Do you recall whether 8 there were any discussions at the IMC that day that you 9 can recall regarding whether the government had any 10 concerns about the use of the sandy parking lot? 11 A: I have no recollection that the 12 government was concerned about that. 13 Q: All right. At any time over the 14 course of that day and early evening had Mr. Kobayashi or 15 anyone -- any of your personnel at the command post given 16 you a sense that the Ontario Provincial Police might be 17 taking -- might be sending in a Crowd Management Unit to 18 the Park area that night? 19 A: Absolutely not. 20 Q: When you left the office for the day 21 did you have any reason to believe that tensions were 22 rising at the Park and the surrounding areas to the 23 extent that an altered form of action might be warranted? 24 A: No, I did not. 25 Q: When did you first hear that the OPP


1 had in fact deployed its Crowd Management Union -- sorry 2 Unit -- and TRU team to the sandy parking area? 3 A: I received a phone call at home late 4 that night that a -- that Les Kobayashi -- this was a -- 5 a phone from his cell -- sorry, a call from his cell 6 phone that he was proceeding to -- from his home towards 7 Forest, the command post, that there had been some 8 incident at the Park and that he would get back in touch 9 with me when he arrived there. 10 Q: All right. And as a result of that 11 call did you do anything? 12 A: We -- or I -- I believe I made 13 contact with Mr. Baldwin. I believe we agreed that he 14 would contact Mr. Peter Allen in the Deputy's office and 15 that I would try and track down my director Norm 16 Richards. 17 Q: All right. And did you do so? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Did you receive a further report from 20 Mr. Kobayashi? 21 A: Yes, I did. I'm -- to be honest I'm 22 -- I'm not sure on that first report whether -- when he 23 said there'd been a serious incident whether he mentioned 24 there had been a shooting. But yes we -- he must have 25 because I think that was the information that I conveyed


1 to my director Norm Richards. 2 So, the information about the Crowd 3 Management Unit, I believe, which was really your 4 question, I didn't receive an awful lot of information 5 about that until some time later as to what the events 6 were that may have precipitated that. 7 Q: All right. Did you receive further 8 clarification about the nature of the incident from Mr. 9 Kobayashi that -- either that evening or early morning of 10 the 7th? 11 A: Probably would have been in -- during 12 the early morning. There was some other additional 13 information that he was passing onto me, correct. 14 Q: And what was your reaction when you 15 heard about what had transpired? 16 A: Shock, disbelief. It wasn't suppose 17 to have happened that way. 18 Q: Okay. If you would go to Tab 52 19 please. Inquiry Document Number 1006394 and it's Exhibit 20 P-789. We looked at part of this earlier. It's an e- 21 mail report, Status Report Number 3 sent by you at 3:19 22 a.m. on September the 7th. 23 And you were indicating that: 24 "In response to threats being made to 25 the OPP and our assessment these are


1 also directed to the MNR staff in the 2 area of Pinery Ipperwash, we are: 3 1. Sending night staff home, 4 2. Advising all non essential staff 5 at Pinery to remain home on Thursday, 6 September 7th, 7 3. Placing four (4) Conservation 8 Officers from Aylmer District at the 9 Park and making contingency plans for 10 additional shift coverage, 11 4. Preparing for closure of Pinery and 12 having the campers in the Park leave. 13 Peter Allen and Al have draft news 14 release, 15 5. Briefing Park staff on situation 16 and to exercise caution." 17 It appears that you're expressing a 18 concern with respect to the Pinery Park. 19 Can you tell me what that was about? 20 A: Well Pinery Park, as you probably 21 know, is just a short distance north of Ipperwash. And 22 my assessment at this point, at the stage in the early 23 hours of the morning, was really one of trying to 24 anticipate how this may potentially unfold in the hours 25 ahead.


1 And as I mentioned before, my -- my 2 concern in my capacity in my Ministry is for public 3 safety and -- and staff safety. And whether this wasn't 4 a prudent move on our part to start to think about and 5 consider in the event that the situation escalated so 6 that it became a potential problem for the public and 7 staff at Pinery. 8 Q: All right. And in addition you 9 indicate that an additional helicopter has been 10 dispatched to assist the OPP, i.e. two (2) on site. 11 Did the OPP request this assistance to 12 your knowledge? 13 A: Verbally, and then I made some 14 arrangements by calling some of my contacts in Sault St. 15 Marie where our aviation branch is. And we were able to 16 secure a second helicopter. 17 Q: All right. Also you are reporting 18 that: 19 "Group occupying the Park have set fire 20 to concession building, gate house and 21 trees at Ipperwash. OPP have concern 22 over spread to neighbouring cottages. 23 Note, evacuation of residents outside 24 Park is ongoing at this time. Expect 25 all buildings, facilities to be


1 destroyed." 2 Now what was the basis of your information 3 and belief with respect to -- to that? 4 A: That being, sorry -- 5 Q: Well the -- what I just read. The -- 6 A: Well the concession buildings and the 7 gate house I understood would have been set on fire. 8 Q: From whom? 9 A: Les Kobayashi. 10 Q: All right. And what about the 11 apparent expression of concern by the OPP? Who was your 12 source of information? 13 A: That would have been Les as well. 14 And he also, I believe, talked to me about a number of 15 our staff and their families who live in the community -- 16 Q: Hmm hmm. 17 A: -- who were receiving phone calls 18 around that time that they should pack up and move. 19 Q: All right. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: Okay. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: Now, all right, excuse me. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: When did you first learn that an 6 individual had been -- had been killed at the Park? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: It would have been some time in the 11 early morning of September the 7th, I believe. 12 Q: Do you recall who relayed that to 13 you? 14 A: I believe it was Les. 15 Q: All right. And did you go back to 16 your -- did you go to your office? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And approximately what time did you 19 arrive at your office? 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 A: I believe it would have been 24 somewhere around two o'clock in the morning. 25 Q: All right. Did you continue to have


1 involvement with respect to the Park occupation in the 2 aftermath of the shooting? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: All right. Can you describe what 5 your main roles were, following that event? 6 A: There was still activities ongoing 7 with respect to the question of the -- the question of 8 the burial ground, the alleged burial ground. 9 So there was still some research work that 10 was ongoing, both internally at the archives, in other 11 ministries. So that was one aspect. 12 There were also some concerns around 13 Pinery itself, although that wasn't directly related to 14 Ipperwash. But there were some issues around Pinery and 15 its status that continued to be there, following the 7th 16 of September, for a number of weeks. 17 So there was some time spent on that as 18 well. 19 Q: All right. And I -- did you continue 20 to provide status reports following the 7th? 21 A: Yes, I did. 22 Q: And would you go to Tab 56, please? 23 Inquiry document 100668. 24 Is that your status report number 4? 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: Yes, it is. 4 Q: Now, you're reporting that the OPP 5 assessment of risk to public staff or facilities at 6 Pinery Provincial Park is minimal. Is that -- was that - 7 - was that your understanding? 8 A: That was my understanding. 9 Q: And as a result, the Park remained 10 open for use? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: I think it's -- perhaps if I can 14 provide a little context, I think there was a great 15 effort on the part of the OPP, as I understood it, which 16 was conveyed by Les to me to try and reduce tension, if 17 that's the correct word, to de-escalate, to normalize 18 things as rapidly as possible. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: And their sense was that, I think, 21 that the risk was minimal at Pinery at that stage and 22 that, again, to look at perhaps closing or adjusting the 23 operation at Pinery may run counter to those efforts of 24 de-escalation, normalization, lessening tension. 25 Q: All right. And your second point


1 reads: 2 "Field staff indicate there is a 3 noticeable change in the level of 4 tension." 5 And what was that change? 6 A: I think that was a lowering of 7 tension. 8 Q: All right. 9 A: Although there were, as I've 10 mentioned earlier, strong concerns about families that 11 had moved out of their homes with their children, that 12 OPP vehicles had to be parked in driveways of people's 13 homes because they were concerned about their family 14 members and things like that at that time. So those 15 concerns existed. 16 Q: And you report that an interim 17 injunction was secured on September the 7th, that a 18 variance to the injunction was being sought with respect 19 to the method of service? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Did -- did you have -- what was your 22 source of information for that? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 A: I believe I would have learned that 2 the injunction was secured on -- on the 7th in all 3 likelihood from Leith Hunter, I believe. 4 Q: Did -- 5 A: Sorry. 6 Q: Yeah. Did you have any further or 7 ongoing involvement in the injunction process? 8 A: No. 9 Q: And you also report that the MNR has 10 a continued presence in the OPP command letter -- centre 11 -- to provide an effective link for Park information; is 12 that accurate? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: All right. I'd like to make this the 15 next exhibit, please? 16 THE REGISTRAR: P-790, Your Honour. 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 18 19 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-790: Document Number 1006668. E- 20 mail from Peter Sturdy to 21 Distribution List re. 22 Ipperwash Status Report 4, 23 September 08/95. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA:


1 Q: Now, is it fair to say that the -- 2 the bulk of the research that was conducted within the 3 MNR on the issue of burial grounds and the possible 4 presence in Ipperwash Park occurred after September the 5 6th? 6 A: I think -- I think as much as we 7 could do -- of course this was without the knowledge of 8 additional correspondence which came a little bit later 9 from the Federal Government, so we certainly I believe 10 tried to exhaust all of the avenues that appeared to be 11 obvious through files in different locations with 12 different ministries and different individuals. 13 Q: All right. I'd like you to turn to 14 Tab 72 and it's Inquiry Document Number 1009137. I 15 believe that this is dated September 18, 1995 from Ian 16 Seddon. Did you receive a copy of this e-mail? 17 A: Yes, I did. 18 Q: All right. And was this reporting on 19 his efforts or the efforts to-date with respect to the 20 burial ground issue? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: I'd like to make this the next 23 exhibit, please? 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-791, Your Honour. 25


1 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-791: Document Number 1009137. E- 2 mail from Ian Seddon to 3 Distribution List re. 4 Ipperwash burial grounds, 5 September 18/95. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 8 Q: And if you'd also go, please, to Tab 9 74 Inquiry Document Number 1009228 an e-mail from 10 yourself to Peter Allen dated September 18, 1995. And 11 were you providing to Mr. Allen your recommendations with 12 respect to -- to a means of carrying out an assessment of 13 possible burial sites at the Park? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Was your -- and you -- you 16 recommended that an archeological survey be carried out 17 by a licenced archeologist? 18 A: Consultant, that's correct. 19 Q: And to your knowledge was your 20 recommendation accepted? 21 A: At that stage, yes. 22 Q: And has the MNR commissioned a 23 consultant or archeologist to conduct a survey of the 24 Park? 25 A: No, we have not. I think there was


1 an optimism there that perhaps some arrangement could be 2 made with the Stoney Point Group to enter into an 3 arrangement whereby a consultant might be hired that 4 would be mutually agreeable to both parties and that we 5 could resolve this issue and -- and look into it. 6 And of course, this is after Federal 7 Government had made its announcements about also 8 assisting in a partnership arrangement to see if they 9 could bring some resolution to the question of the 10 alleged burial grounds in Ipperwash. 11 Q: And to your knowledge, were efforts 12 made by your Ministry to extend this option to the Stoney 13 Point Group? 14 A: I believe they were at some later 15 date. Not -- not at this particular time but at some 16 later date, yes, I believe they were. 17 Q: Were you involved in those efforts? 18 A: No, I was not, personally. 19 Q: I would like to make this the next 20 exhibit please. 21 THE REGISTRAR: P-792, Your Honour. 22 23 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-792: Document Number 1009228. E- 24 mail from Peter Sturdy to 25 Peter Allen re. Ipperwash


1 burial site, September 2 18/95. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 5 Q: I would like you to turn next to Tab 6 56 please. No, sorry, we've gone through that. Tab 67, 7 excuse me. This is Inquiry Document Number 1006400 and 8 it's an e-mail from you to the distribution list dated 9 September 14, 1995 entitled, "Ipperwash Status Report 10 Number 6." 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And you -- you prepared this, did 13 you? 14 A: Yes, I did. 15 Q: Let's make the next exhibit please. 16 THE REGISTRAR: P-793, Your Honour. 17 18 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-793: Document number 1006400. E- 19 mail from Peter Sturdy to 20 Distribution List re. 21 Ipperwash Status Report 22 number 6, September 14/95. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 25 Q: Now I just noticed that the last


1 Report we look at was Status Report Number 4 and this one 2 is Status Report Number 6. 3 Do you know whether there was an 4 intervening Status Report? 5 We haven't -- we haven't detected one in 6 our database so I'm asking you. The fourth Report was at 7 Tab 56. And that was issued on September the 8th. This 8 one is issued September 14th. 9 A: I will endeavour to check. But I'm 10 pretty sure there was, but I'll try and find it. It's 11 the first time I've ever noticed that, to be honest, so. 12 Q: That's fine. Excuse me for a moment. 13 My Friends have helped -- have helped me here and there - 14 - there is a Staff Report Number 5. For some reason it's 15 not in my brief. 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: What tab was that at, 60? All right. 18 I wonder if I might just hand this up to you if you don't 19 mind. 20 A: Absolutely. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What Tab 22 number did you say, 60? 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's not 60 in our 24 brief, Commissioner, I -- I -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's not in


1 our brief, no. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 4 Q: Perhaps you'd take a moment to look 5 at that and can you identify that for us please? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 A: Yes, this is the... 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: I'm sorry, go ahead. 14 A: This is my Status Report Number 5. 15 Q: All right. It's Inquiry Document 16 Number 1010559. I wonder if we might enter that as the 17 next exhibit please. 18 THE REGISTRAR: P-794, Your Honour. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-794: Document No. 1010559. E-mail 21 from P. Sturdy to 22 distribution list re: 23 Ipperwash Status Report No. 24 5. September 11/'95 25


1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Perhaps you could 2 retrieve that document for me? Thank you. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MS. SUSAN VELLA: All right. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 11 Q: Now, were you part of an OPP briefing 12 on September the 14th, 1995? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: I don't recall whether I was involved 17 in that briefing. 18 Q: Perhaps you would look at Tab 68, 19 please? Inquiry Document Number 1010149. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: It appears to be -- 24 A: This is a note from -- oh, sorry. 25 Q: That's okay, go ahead.


1 A: I was just going to say that this is 2 a note from Les Kobayashi to myself. 3 Q: Yes, and is he reporting to you on 4 his participation at a briefing? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And what was your understanding of 7 the purpose of this meeting? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: From what I understood the -- after 12 the Federal Minister and others had signed the -- a memo 13 of understanding, which covered a number of points 14 dealing with Camp Ipperwash and the Park, burial ground 15 and so on and so forth, that the purpose of this 16 particular briefing was then to start to de-escalate, if 17 you like, the -- the numbers of police staff in the area. 18 Q: So, in other words, it was your 19 impression that the OPP were going to decrease their 20 visibility in the area? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And did that cause you any concerns? 23 A: No, not directly. We had always been 24 assured that -- that we had their support and that their 25 staff were available, you know, to meet different


1 circumstances should they arise. 2 So, understanding the situation that they 3 were in and the difficulties that they faced, this seemed 4 to be an understandable action on their part, de-escalate 5 it, if you like. 6 Q: All right. And may we mark this 7 document the next exhibit, please? 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-795, Your Honour. 9 10 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-795: Document Number 1010149. 11 Note to Peter Sturdy: OPP 12 briefing, September 14/95. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: Now, were you involved at all in 16 relation to the negotiations which ensued with respect to 17 the winterization of the Park? 18 A: Only in a peripheral way. Les 19 Kobayashi was more directly involved with those, as the 20 onsite manager. 21 Q: All right, and he did provide you 22 with reports on the status of that process? 23 A: Yes, he did. 24 Q: And also did he provide you with an 25 assessment of the possible damage to Park property?


1 A: One of his staff did, actually. I 2 believe it was a Mr. Burnett. 3 Q: And if you look at Tab 75, Inquiry 4 document number 1009006, e-mail dated September 18, 1995. 5 Is that a report that you received from 6 Rob Burnett in relation to his -- 7 A: I'm sorry, what Tab? 8 Q: It's Tab 76. 9 A: 76, sorry. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 A: Yes, it is. 14 Q: Thank you. And it outlines his 15 assessment of property damage? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And also indicates the need to have 18 the water system winterized before too long. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Make that the next exhibit, please. 21 THE REGISTRAR: Can I have that document 22 number again, please? 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Certainly, it's 24 1009006. 25 THE REGISTRAR: And that was at Tab...?


1 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Tab 76. 2 THE REGISTRAR: 76. Thank you. P-796. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 4 5 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-796: Document Number 1009006. E- 6 mail from Rob Burnett to 7 Peter Sturdy re. Requested 8 Ipperwash information, 9 September 18/95. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 12 Q: And I'd like you next to go to Tab 13 81, please, Inquiry Document 1000958. It appears to be a 14 report from yourself to Julie Jai, Peter Allen and Barry 15 Jones. 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Faxed on or about September 19th, 18 1995. And what was the purpose of this report? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: I'm not sure that I recall whether 23 this was a request from Ms. Jai or whether this was a 24 request from Peter Allen. But, it was to try and give a 25 -- some details which I was able to get from some of the


1 Park staff about the implications if we were not able to 2 winterize the facilities in Ipperwash and what the costs 3 might -- of damages might be. 4 Q: All right. Make this the next 5 exhibit, please? 6 THE REGISTRAR: P-797, Your Honour. 7 8 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-797: Document number 1000958. Fax 9 message from Peter Sturdy to 10 various re. Report on 11 Ipperwash Provincial Park 12 water system, September 13 19/95. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 16 Q: Now, we have heard testimony from an 17 individual named Layton Elijah, and Mr. Elijah was in 18 charge of security in -- of the Park on behalf of the -- 19 the First Nations people there. And I'm going to ask you 20 some questions arising from the following passage. I 21 believe you have an extract -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- of his testimony. And for the 24 record I am reading from the evidence-in-chief of Layton 25 Elijah on April the 5th, 2005 commencing at page 186 line


1 8. And I will read through to page 187 line 21. 2 "Q: Now, Mr. Elijah? 3 A: Yes? 4 Q: You are about to advise us with 5 respect to a particular conversation 6 you say that you had on December the 7 3rd, 1995 involving Mr. Les Kobayashi. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: I wonder if you would now tell the 10 Commission what transpired during the 11 course of that conversation. 12 A: The day started out about 9:30 in 13 the morning; that was the day of the 14 walkthrough in the Park and all the 15 workers from the Ministry of Natural 16 Resources all were doing their thing. 17 The OPP were taping, watching the MNR, 18 and one (1) of the guys from the Camp 19 were watching overall. 20 And me and Les Kobayashi were at the 21 back and he said, We're not needed 22 here, let's go for -- let's go for a 23 ride. I said, Sure. He said, I'll 24 show you our other park meaning the 25 Pinery Park.


1 So, I jumped in and we went for a ride 2 over there and he showed me what all 3 was Indian land and what was bought off 4 the natives and where the river went 5 through it and separated the two (2) 6 lands. That one (1) side of the river 7 was still Indian land and the other 8 side was sold. 9 And then we were just talking and all 10 of a sudden I said, excuse the 11 language, but I said, Do you think it 12 was -- think it was that fucking Potts 13 that gave the order to kill Dudley? 14 And he goes, No, I know for a fact -- I 15 know for a fact it wasn't Jim Potts. 16 He said it was Mike Harris. I know my 17 boss was there at the meeting and I 18 says, Are you sure? 19 And he goes, Yes, I'm positive. 20 And I go, Wow. 21 Q: And did anything -- was anything 22 else said during the course of this 23 conversation? 24 A: Yeah. He just said that you won't 25 hear him say that never again, meaning


1 Mike Harris. 2 Q: Now, you said this occurred on a - 3 - on a -- was a -- was it a car ride? 4 A: Yes." 5 Now, December the 3rd was the day that he 6 winterization process occurred? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And is it fair to say that you were 9 Mr. Kobayashi's boss in relation -- in relation to this 10 matter? 11 A: I was his direct boss, yes. 12 Q: Did you tell him that the Premier 13 played any role in the death of Dudley George? 14 A: Absolutely not. 15 Q: Are you certain? 16 A: I'm certain. 17 Q: And how is it that you can be so 18 certain? 19 A: Because I didn't know the Premier. I 20 wasn't involved directly with his staff. I didn't attend 21 any meetings of the Premier or his staff. I had no 22 knowledge of that. 23 Q: Thank you. Now, did you raise some 24 flags to Peter Allen with respect to matters that you 25 thought should be taken to what was referred to as the


1 nerve centre? 2 A: Yes, I did. 3 Q: And would you go now to Tab 77? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: This is Inquiry document Number 8 1009221. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: This is an e-mail from yourself to 13 Peter Allen dated September 19, 1995. In the first 14 paragraph you indicate that your team met the night 15 before to review a number of items and to discuss where 16 you felt you were headed as a response team, given the 17 status as we know it. 18 You then flagged some items which you 19 think should be taken to the nerve centre and I just want 20 to -- to pause there. 21 What did you understand the nerve centre 22 to represent? 23 A: It was my understanding that it 24 represented a -- a group of -- of deputy ministers that 25 since, late on the 6th or early on the 7th, I'm not


1 exactly sure, were now taking over the circumstances. 2 Q: And to your knowledge, were the items 3 that were reflected in this e-mail raised with the deputy 4 ministers? 5 A: I really don't know whether Peter 6 would have taken these up with our deputy at the time. 7 Q: All right. We'll make this the next 8 exhibit, please. 9 THE REGISTRAR: P-798, Your Honour. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-798: Document Number 1009221. E- 12 mail from Peter Sturdy to 13 Peter Allen re. Ipperwash 14 items, September 19/95. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 17 Q: Now, did you ask Mr. Kobayashi to set 18 out some options with respect to the possible future of 19 the Ipperwash Provincial Park in light of the -- the 20 circumstances? 21 A: I may well have, but Les was also 22 quite capable of -- and it would have been quite 23 appropriate for him to have put some of his thoughts down 24 and directed them to me. 25 As I mentioned, he was an experienced


1 superintendent and -- 2 Q: All right. 3 A: -- that was fine. 4 Q: And perhaps you would go then to Tab 5 90, Inquiry Document Number 1008806. It's an e-mail to 6 yourself from Les Kobayashi dated October 23rd, 1995. 7 Is this the report you received from Mr. 8 Kobayashi setting out options with respect to the future 9 of the Park? 10 A: Yes, it is. 11 Q: And the options he sets out are as 12 follows, first step, once MNR has possession, then the 13 security sweep by OPP and the -- or Military of the Park 14 and facilities. 15 And so essentially he's setting out what - 16 - what should happen if -- if you regain possession; is 17 that fair? 18 A: There was still some optimism then, 19 at that particular point, that -- that perhaps Ipperwash 20 would be -- be opened. 21 Q: One (1) of the options which he also 22 outlines is the possibility of a co-management with 23 Kettle Point, Stony Point or Stoney Point Number 43. 24 And so were you entertaining, at this 25 time, the possibility of a co-management agreement either


1 with the Kettle and Stony Point Band or the Stoney Point 2 First Nation? 3 A: Well, these were some of the options 4 that were being considered or had been outlined by Les, 5 yes. 6 Q: All right. Was there any dialogue 7 with respect to the last option to your knowledge? 8 A: Not to my knowledge, no. 9 Q: I'd like to make this the next 10 exhibit, please. 11 THE REGISTRAR: P-799, Your Honour. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-799: Document Number 1008806. E- 14 mail from Les Kobayashi to 15 Peter Sturdy re. Ipperwash 16 Options, October 23/95. 17 18 THE WITNESS: I should just add, perhaps, 19 if I can, if there was someone at the field level, 20 someone at the local level that I -- that I felt 21 confident in, in having an ability to work with First 22 Nations people in terms of the Park and its operation and 23 any kind of an arrangement or co-management or a 24 partnership, my confidence was in Mr. Kobayashi. 25 Up until this point he had had, what I


1 believed, a very very good relationship working with the 2 Council at Kettle and Stony Point. There was no reason 3 for me to believe that if there was a willingness that 4 that kind of a relationship could have been built and 5 passed on amongst others. 6 And I had a great deal of confidence in 7 him. I believe he was well respected and accepted by the 8 First Nation community. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 11 Q: Well did you give him any direction 12 with respect to the possibility of pursuing some type of 13 co-management relationship? 14 A: Not at that time because really we 15 were not getting any firm direction from senior levels 16 that we should be pursuing this at -- at this point. 17 Q: Did you ever receive such direction 18 from the senior levels? 19 A: No, we didn't. I believe there was, 20 for a short period of time, I'll say a negotiator for 21 lack of perhaps a better description. But there was a 22 gentleman that was involved in some preliminary 23 discussions, I believe, through the Deputy's office and 24 Mr. Peter Allen. 25 I never met him. Les may have met him


1 once or twice. I believe he was a gentleman from 2 Manitoba, a Mr. Gurman (phonetic), I think his name was. 3 But that was the extent of -- of any negotiations or 4 discussions at that point. 5 Q: All right. Now we have heard 6 testimony to the affect that certain mugs and t-shirts 7 and cartoons which were derogatory or discriminatory 8 against Aboriginal peoples were located at the Pinery 9 Park. 10 Did you become aware of that? 11 A: Yes, I became aware of that? 12 Q: Do you know who it is that found 13 these items and when? 14 A: I believe it was one of the Park 15 employees, Mr. Stan Cloud, who identified his concerns. 16 Q: And Mr. Stan Cloud is an Aboriginal 17 person? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: He worked for the MNR? 20 A: He did. 21 Q: Was there any suggestion that MNR 22 staff may have played a role in the procurement of any of 23 these items that were found at the Pinery Park? 24 A: It's my understanding from the 25 reports that I got from Les was that the OPP were very


1 concerned about this. They -- they initiated their own 2 investigation to determine the extent of involvement of 3 any of our staff in this. 4 And when I received a final notification, 5 an e-mail from Les, he had indicated that one staff 6 member, I believe a kitchen staff member in the meeting 7 centre which was where meals were prepared, there was -- 8 there's a dormitory there and so on and so forth. 9 But one staff member had, in fact, placed 10 a cartoon up on the bulletin board in the meeting centre. 11 Q: And do you know what this cartoon 12 depicted? 13 A: I don't. I didn't -- I didn't get a 14 copy of it and it had been removed as far as I 15 understood. And that, I believe, was our only 16 involvement. 17 Q: Now let me take you to Tab 91 which 18 is Inquiry Document 1010139 e-mailed to yourself from Les 19 Kobayashi dated October 25, 1995, reference OPP Internal 20 Investigation. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry I 22 missed the tab number. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm sorry, it's at Tab 24 Number 91. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 91.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 3 Q: Do you recall receiving this Report 4 from Mr. Kobayashi? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Make that the next exhibit, please? 7 THE REGISTRAR: P-800, Your Honour. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-800: Document Number 1010139. E- 10 mail from Les Kobayashi to 11 Peter Sturdy re. OPP Internal 12 Investigation, October 25/95. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: Mr. Kobayashi is reporting that the 16 OPP staff -- sorry, the items that were found to be 17 racial or derogatory in the meeting centre by the park 18 warden Stan Cloud, the items are: Mugs, T-shirts, a can 19 with feather and hole through the side, a picture of 20 bulletin board with two (2) cartoons and picture of an 21 OPP cruiser depicting a bull's eye and arrow. 22 Is that consistent with your understanding 23 of what those items were? 24 A: That's consistent. 25 Q: And there's advice that the OPP are


1 investigating and will keep him up to speed if there is 2 an indication of staff being involved? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And was it satisfactory to you that 5 the investigation with respect to potential involvement 6 of MNR staff, was deferred to the OPP? 7 A: I understood that they were 8 conducting an investigation of their own and at that 9 particular point I'm not so sure that it was -- we knew 10 whether any of our staff were involved, but if they were 11 involved then I took -- I took it that that information 12 would be passed onto Les. 13 Q: All right. And if you go then to Tab 14 93 Inquiry Document Number 1010135, it's an e-mail dated 15 January 4, 1996 to yourself from Les Kobayashi re OPP 16 internal investigation re discrimination. 17 And did you receive this e-mail? 18 A: Yes, I did. 19 Q: Make this the next exhibit, please? 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-801, Your Honour. 21 22 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-801: Document Number 1010135. E- 23 mail from Les Kobayashi to 24 Peter Sturdy re. OPP Internal 25 Investigation re.


1 Discrimination, January 2 04/96. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 5 Q: And did you understand from this 6 report that the involvement by MNR staff was with respect 7 to the cartoons? 8 A: That was my understanding, yes. 9 Q: And what was the MNR's -- sorry, did 10 the MNR take -- undertake its own independent 11 investigation with the respect to the involvement of 12 kitchen staff? 13 A: My understanding was that Les looked 14 into this matter and then had some discussions with Mr. 15 Cloud and I gather that it was resolved -- 16 Q: All right. 17 A: -- basically. 18 Q: Do you know of any -- what the 19 conclusion was with respect to the staff member? 20 A: No, I don't. 21 Q: Do you know whether ultimately any 22 action was taken with respect to the staff member? 23 A: Normally in -- in -- in occurrences 24 like this some of the first steps that you would take as 25 a manager would be to interview the parties involved and


1 -- and certainly point out to them, if the other party 2 hasn't already done so, that those kind of cartoons, 3 photographs, things like that that may create a poison 4 work environment would not be appropriate. 5 And often that -- once the parties 6 understand that and it's been pointed out to them for 7 something of this nature then often that's the end of the 8 -- the incident. 9 Q: And in his report to you, in the 10 second paragraph, Mr. Kobayashi says: 11 "A meeting centre staff member posted 12 with no discriminatory intent. Was 13 meant to be a joke for the OPP." 14 Did you accept Mr. Kobayashi's conclusion? 15 A: I did. 16 Q: Now, did the Ministry of Natural 17 Resources prepare a report which reviewed the occupations 18 of the Ipperwash Provincial Park and Serpent Mounds 19 Provincial Park? 20 A: Yes, it did. 21 Q: Did you participate in this review? 22 A: I was a -- one (1) of a number of 23 participants in that review, yes. 24 Q: And if you would go to Tab 94, 25 please, Inquiry Document Number 1012220. It's a document


1 entitled, Accountability and Contingency Planning, A 2 Review of the 1995 Occupations at Ipperwash and Serpent 3 Mounds Provincial Parks. 4 Is that the report which followed the 5 review? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Now, I note that it indicates that it 8 was prepared February 16, 1996. 9 A: Hmm hmm. '95 at the bottom of the 10 document. 11 Q: I'm sorry, '95, excuse me, February-- 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: Is it safe to conclude that that's a 14 typo and that this was, in fact, prepared in '96? 15 A: I hope so. 16 Q: After the events in question, okay. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Thank you. Now what was the purpose 19 of this review? 20 A: I think it was basically to look at 21 what had occurred, were we prepared, were there things 22 that we did well, were there things that we did that 23 weren't so well carried out, and were there some 24 recommendations for the future. 25 Q: All right. And what were, in your


1 view, what were -- were there any things that you think 2 could have been done better with respect to the MNR's 3 role in managing the occupation at Ipperwash? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: In terms of this report you mean, and 8 some the recommendations that were in there, or... 9 Q: I don't mean to restrict you to that. 10 A: Oh. One of the great sadnesses, I -- 11 I guess, looking back, is that what often causes disputes 12 and whether it's on a personal level or between groups, 13 has been a lack of communication, a lack of an ability 14 for people to sit down and talk to each other and 15 communicate about what their wishes and desires are and 16 I'm not sure that that was well reflected in this report. 17 But it was certainly one of the things 18 that I would look back on. 19 Q: All right, And in reflection, are 20 you saying that it would have been perhaps better if the 21 MNR had been able to develop lines of communication? 22 A: Whether -- whether it was MNR or 23 whether it was other branches within the government that 24 may have been able to, perhaps, suggest things earlier on 25 that would have helped us communicate better; whether it


1 was our staff at the field that had prompted us or had 2 undertaken that themselves. 3 I think that would have been of great 4 benefit. 5 Q: And I note that at page 10 to 11 of 6 this report there are recommendations that were made by 7 the Committee. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: "Number 1. In contingency 12 situations, a short decision making 13 chain be adopted, one that recognizes 14 the roles of the basic units of the 15 organizations in the field and the 16 corporation presupposes a division of 17 labour and decision making 18 responsibility and ensures the 19 contingency site manager, i.e., park 20 superintendent et cetera, participation 21 in the overall decision making process 22 is maintained." 23 Is that a recommendation that -- that you 24 agree with? 25 A: It is and it goes back to my history


1 with the Ministry of Natural Resources and I've worked in 2 Northern Ontario and -- and other places where we've 3 always had these strong roots in the community and I -- I 4 strongly believe that local involvement is preferable. 5 Q: And number 2 indicates that the first 6 recommendation should be implemented by establishing an 7 emergency response team that, at the corporate level, by 8 which I take you mean the ministry level which -- 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: -- which parallels and inter-relates 11 directly with the field ERT. 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: Now, was there a corporate emergency 14 response team in place for Ipperwash or just the field 15 level? 16 A: My reporting relationship was 17 directly to Mr. Allen in the deputy's office. I think 18 what this talked about was the suggestion that a larger 19 team be put together, that it not just be one (1) 20 individual in the deputy's office. 21 And, in fact, a representative from Legal 22 Services and Communications et cetera might also be 23 involved, a program manager or director. 24 Q: And do you think that might have been 25 helpful in your situation?


1 A: Just speculation on -- on my part at 2 this point. We did the best we could with the structure 3 that we had and -- yeah. 4 Q: The third recommendation that: 5 "The Interministerial and corporate 6 levels, the roles and responsibilities 7 of the various agencies in times of 8 civil disobedience and/or hostile 9 occupations be clarified and then 10 communicated to the field." 11 Now, is that something that -- that you 12 think was lacking in -- in your involvement in the 13 Ipperwash situation? 14 A: I don't believe so. I mean this 15 report was really based on -- on two (2) separate 16 incidents and I'm not clear on really all the details 17 behind Serpent Mounds and what occurred there and how it 18 occurred. 19 I think it was, as I've said before, I 20 think the working relationship at the Park level, 21 specifically with Pinery and Ipperwash and the OPP, was 22 excellent, had been good. I think it was made very clear 23 to us that this was seen, on September the 1, as a 24 policing matter. 25 And I think our roles and responsibilities


1 were well defined. 2 Q: All right. Let's go -- go to 3 Appendix 4, "Communications in Times of Crisis," page 22. 4 A: I'm sorry, what page is that? 5 Q: The last page of the report. It 6 reads: 7 "During a crisis, the line of 8 communication is important internally 9 within the government and externally 10 with the public and the media. 11 Often the most critical time to ensure 12 your messages are clearly communicated, 13 is the first few hours following the 14 occurrence of the incident. 15 Fundamental is the need for one (1) 16 spokesperson who can keep information 17 flowing both internally with government 18 and externally to the local community 19 and the media." 20 Do you agree that that is an important 21 principle in managing these occupations? 22 A: Ideally, although the demands that 23 are placed on one during these particular kinds of 24 situations sometimes make it virtually impossible that 25 one (1) person can take on all of these different roles


1 and be spokesperson when the media demand them to be and 2 so on and so forth. 3 Q: All right. And further it reads: 4 "Crisis communications, key steps to 5 follow. The first key step is confirm 6 the facts, identify the issues." 7 Do you agree that that's critical? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And the last point: 10 "Keep everyone informed, provide 11 current, clear and accurate 12 information. Don't speculate." 13 Is that critical in your view? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Do you have any independent 16 recommendations that you would like to suggest to the 17 Commission aimed at preventing similar incidents of 18 violence, as occurred at the Ipperwash Park? 19 A: Not at this time. But if I could 20 come back perhaps. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: Thank you. 23 Q: Can you -- can you advise as to what 24 the current official status from the perspective of the 25 Ministry of Natural Resources of the Park is?


1 A: Yes. Ipperwash to this day is still 2 considered as a Provincial Park that's temporarily 3 closed. That's the way that it is shown in our 4 publications, our website. 5 Q: All right. In light of practical 6 considerations, in your view would it be feasible for the 7 Ministry to re-open this Park as a functioning Provincial 8 Park? 9 A: That's a difficult question for me to 10 answer. 11 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. Those are 12 my questions, Commissioner. Perhaps before we break for 13 lunch, we could have a determination of the cross- 14 examinations. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps give 16 me some indication of who wishes to cross-examine. 17 Ms. McAleer...? 18 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Approximately an 19 hour to an hour and a half. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 21 Perschy...? 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: About an hour to an 23 hour and a half. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Tuck- 25 Jackson...?


1 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Ten (10) to 2 fifteen (15) minutes. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 4 McGilp...? 5 MR. IAN MCGILP: About fifteen (15) 6 minutes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 8 Clermont...? 9 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Five (5) to ten (10) 10 minutes. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 12 Zbogar...? 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Thirty (30) to forty 14 (40) minutes. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 16 Esmonde...? 17 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: An hour to an hour 18 and a half. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 20 Scullion...? 21 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Thirty (30) minutes. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 23 George...? 24 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: I reserve ten (10) 25 minutes for the First Nation, no questions on behalf of


1 the Chiefs of Ontario. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Roy...? 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: About an hour but it 4 depends on... 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 6 Mr. Myrka...? 7 MR. WALTER MYRKA: It'll depend upon the 8 various cross-examinations. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 10 very much. We'll adjourn for lunch now and start the 11 cross-examination right after. Thank you. 12 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 13 adjourned until 1:35. 14 15 --- Upon recessing at 12:20 p.m. 16 --- Upon resuming at 1:35 17 18 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 19 resumed. Please be seated. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 21 Commissioner, just before we start the cross-examination, 22 I neglected to request that the document at Tab 94, 23 Document Number 1012220 be marked as the next exhibit. 24 That's the Accountability Contingency Review. 25 THE REGISTRAR: P-802.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-802 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-802: Document Number 1012220. 4 Accountability and 5 Contingency Planning: A 6 Review of the 1995 7 Occupations at Ipperwash and 8 Serpent Mounds Provincial 9 Parks, Feb. 16/96. 10 11 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Good morning, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 14 afternoon, Ms. McAleer. 15 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 17 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Sturdy. 18 A: Good afternoon. 19 Q: My name is Jennifer McAleer and one 20 of the lawyers who's acting for the former Premier Mike 21 Harris. 22 I want to start by asking you a couple of 23 very brief questions about the 1989 discussions that you 24 had regarding the management plan. You testified that 25 the general practice within the MNR was that Aboriginal


1 people would have free access to Provincial Parks to 2 carry out ceremonial practices. 3 Commission Counsel then asked you whether 4 or not that policy was implemented with respect to 5 Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1989 or at any time 6 subsequent to that and you indicated that you did not 7 recall. 8 I just wanted to ask you, do you -- do you 9 recall whether at any point in time any Aboriginal people 10 were ever denied access to Ipperwash Provincial Park to 11 carry out any ceremonial practices? 12 A: I have no recollection of any time 13 that they were denied access. 14 Q: Do you have any recollection of any 15 of the Aboriginal people in the area ever requesting 16 access, let's say prior to 1993, to Ipperwash Provincial 17 Park to carry out ceremonial practices? 18 A: Prior to 1993, no, I do not. 19 Q: Okay. Now, if you could turn to Tab 20 9 of Commission Counsel's brief please. And if you flip 21 past the -- the fax transmission pages to the May 19th, 22 1993 document that Commission counsel had previously 23 taken you to. It's Exhibit P-171. 24 You don't have the fax cover sheets, 25 that's fine, okay.


1 Ms. Vella had asked you if at any time 2 prior to receiving this document, you had been aware of 3 the March 9th, 1993 letter from Maynard T. George that is 4 referred to in the second paragraph of that document. 5 And you had indicated that you had no recollection as to 6 when or how you may have seen that letter. 7 And I just wanted to put a document to you 8 that I think traces how that letter came into your 9 possession. That may assist in -- 10 A: Okay. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: And the document that I'm going to 15 put before you for My Friends, it's Inquiry Document 16 Number 3001524 and it's a package of documents that 17 starts with a -- a fax from Les Kobayashi to Ron Baldwin 18 dated May 18th, 1993. 19 But, when you actually flip past the fax 20 cover sheet it contains a number of documents. If you go 21 to the seventh page in which is called, A Minister's 22 Request document and has a big "Rush/Urgent" stamp on the 23 top of it. 24 Do you see that, Mr. Sturdy? 25 A: Yes, I do.


1 Q: Okay. And are you familiar with this 2 type of document; a Minister's Request forwarding 3 correspondence? 4 A: Yes, I am. 5 Q: Okay. And if we look at the bottom 6 it appears that this -- this document was dated March 7 22nd, 1993 and it was routed to you, Peter Sturdy. 8 Do you see that? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: Okay. And if we turn the page, 11 attached is the March 9th, 1993 letter from Maynard T. 12 George to Howard Hampton. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: At -- with the attachments to that 15 letter follow. Does that assist you in filling in the 16 blanks as to how you may have become aware of Mr. Maynard 17 T. George's letter in March of 1993? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 A: It would seem to support that, yes, 22 sorry. 23 Q: Okay. Now if we turn back two (2) 24 pages in that same pile of documents there is an e-mail 25 dated March 23rd, 1993 to Laurie Burman (phonetic) from


1 Jim Young. And if you turn to the second page, on the 2 distribution list, it says -- it actually doesn't show 3 who it's been distributed to because, apparently, there's 4 an 'off' option that allows one to print without showing 5 to whom it's been copied. 6 I have found another copy of this document 7 at Inquiry Document 3001544 that lists you as an 8 individual to whom this document was cc'd. 9 Unfortunately, the document at that 10 particular Inquiry number doesn't have the date on it, so 11 I prefer to use this document. 12 If you could briefly take a look at this 13 e-mail. I don't know if your Counsel showed it to you at 14 the break or this morning, and let me know whether or not 15 you recall receiving this e-mail. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 A: I'm sorry, I don't recall actually 20 receiving it, but if you say it -- my name's on it, then 21 I'll take it that I received it. 22 Q: All right. Well let me just ask you 23 a couple of questions -- 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: -- that -- what's contained in it.


1 First of all, who's Laurie Burman? 2 A: To be honest, I don't know. At that 3 time Jim Young was my supervisor in 1993. He worked for 4 the regional director of MNR for the southern region, but 5 Laurie Burman may have been someone in the deputy's 6 office. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: I'm not sure. 9 Q: And in the very first paragraph -- 10 paragraph is description of issue. 11 "Mr. Maynard Travis George has written 12 to the Minister of Natural Resources 13 claiming ownership of Ipperwash 14 Provincial Park, near Forest, Ontario 15 and giving notice to the Province to 16 vacate this land. Ipperwash Provincial 17 Park is located in lot B, concession A 18 of the Bosanquet Township, Lambton 19 County, and is approximately a hundred 20 and nine (109) acres in size." 21 There's then a paragraph that speaks about 22 some background which I won't read into the record. 23 Then, the third paragraph reads: 24 "There is a land [I think perhaps that 25 should be longstanding] There is a


1 [land or longstanding] claim by the 2 Kettle Point Stoney Point Band for the 3 Department of National Defence property 4 located adjacent to Ipperwash 5 Provincial Park. 6 Apparently this property was taken from 7 the Band to fulfil a strategic military 8 requirement during the last war. There 9 is an agreement that this land would be 10 returned to them when it was no longer 11 needed to fulfil the strategic 12 requirement. 13 The Ipperwash claim notice appears to 14 be from an individual, Mr. Maynard 15 George, verus the DND claim which is 16 from the Kettle and Stony Point Band." 17 Now, I'll just stop there. Do you -- do 18 you recall there being some discussions when -- when Mr. 19 Maynard T. George's letter was first circulated about 20 distinguishing this claim from the claim with respect to 21 the Army Camp? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. The next paragraph then says: 24 "The Ipperwash site is apparently a 25 site of religious significance to the


1 Kettle Point and Stony Point Band" 2 And again is that something that you had 3 been aware of prior to receiving Mr. Maynard T. George's 4 letter or is that something you only became aware of 5 after receiving Mr. Maynard T. George's letter? 6 A: It was an issue that was raised 7 during the preparation of the management plan for 8 Ipperwash back in '89. And at that point we had -- my 9 recollection is there was a meeting between a number of 10 MNR staff, including Mr. Kobayashi, Mr. Osborn and one 11 other, and the issue of the significance of Stoney Point 12 was raised at that point. 13 Q: That's right. And you've already 14 told us about -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- that in your -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: -- testimony in-chief. If we 19 continue: 20 "The land base of the Park was 21 purchased by His Majesty the King, 22 represented by the Ontario department 23 of Lands and Forest from William J. 24 Scott." 25 I'll just skip ahead a little bit.


1 "We have on file a copy of a surrender 2 signed October 12th, 1928. Signatories 3 were Mavis George, Sam Bressette, John 4 Elijah, Robert George, John Miller and 5 others." 6 Now, does that assist you in recalling 7 whether or not anybody had actually taken a look at the 8 surrender documents back in 1993? 9 A: My understanding is -- is that when 10 the bailiff's order was served that those documents were 11 forwarded to our Legal Services branch for review and a 12 determination made at that point that they felt that the 13 bailiff's order had no effect. 14 Q: Right. But apart of the bailiff's 15 order Ms. Berman seems to be indicating at this point 16 that there is actually, within the possession of the MNR, 17 a copy of the surrender documents from the early -- or I 18 should say the late 1920's and that somebody has -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- undertaken to review those. Now, 21 you may not have any present recollection -- 22 A: Yeah. 23 Q: -- of that, but. 24 A: No, I don't. 25 Q: Okay. And then if we turn the page


1 the second full paragraph: 2 "It appears that the Province is 3 legally in possession of the land base 4 at Ipperwash Provincial Park. The 5 Province obtained this land in a fair 6 and equitable manner." 7 And then it says: 8 "Minister's response: The Province of 9 Ontario purchased the land covered by 10 Ipperwash Provincial Park from a third 11 party in 1936. Mr. George's complaint 12 should be directed to the Federal 13 Government who apparently sold the land 14 to Mr. Scott." 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: Do you recall that being the position 17 of the government at the time in 1993 with respect to the 18 claim that was being advanced by Mr. Maynard T. George? 19 A: I have a vague recollection of this, 20 yes, and it was certainly consistent with the position 21 that was carried on in later years as well. 22 Q: All right. And then if we, again 23 working our way backwards, if we look at what is an e- 24 mail dated March 24th, 1993 from you to the distribution 25 list.


1 Do you see that document? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: Okay. And in that e-mail you state: 4 "Just to keep you up-to-date, Ron..." 5 So I take it you're writing to Ron 6 Baldwin? 7 A: Baldwin. 8 Q: "...not sure if you got this via 9 another route. Sorry, I didn't mean to add your e-mail 10 if that's the case." 11 I'm going to suggest, Mr. Sturdy, that 12 what you're doing is you're forwarding on Ms. Berman's e- 13 mail to Mr. Baldwin on March 24th, 1993. Again this is 14 just a matter of filling in the record, but does that 15 seem probable to you? 16 A: I think that's correct, yes. 17 Q: You don't have any recollection of 18 doing that back in 1993? 19 A: That I forwarded it to him? I 20 believe that I did, yes. 21 Q: Okay. Mr. Commissioner, if I could 22 have that entire package of documents marked as the next 23 exhibit? 24 THE REGISTRAR: P-803, Your Honour. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-803.


1 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Thank you. 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-803: Document number 3001524. May 4 18/93 Fax to R. Baldwin from 5 L. Kobayashi attaching 6 emails, letters, court 7 documents 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 10 Q: Okay. What I'd like to do is also 11 just put before you a couple of other documents from that 12 timeframe that may or -- 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: -- may not assist to -- 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: -- refresh your memory. 17 What I'm going to hand to the Witness, Mr. 18 Commissioner, is a document that is Inquiry Document 19 3000599. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 A: Thank you. 24 Q: And that is an e-mail dated May 18th, 25 1993 from Ron Baldwin to Terry Humberstone and you'll see


1 that you are copied at the bottom? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Okay. Would you like to take a 4 minute to review that document? 5 A: If I could, please. 6 Q: Go ahead. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: Okay. And -- and in that -- first of 12 all, do you recall receiving this e-mail back in 1993? 13 A: I don't have that specific 14 recollection, but evidently I did, yes. 15 Q: And it appears to be an e-mail in 16 which Mr. Humberstone is relating to Mr. Baldwin and to 17 everyone else he cc'd details of the conversation that he 18 has recently had with Chief Tom Bressette and Elizabeth 19 Thunder. 20 And I'm going to look at the second 21 sentence. It starts, "Chief Bressette stated;" do you 22 see that? 23 A: Yes, I do. 24 Q: "Chief Bressette stated that the 25 First Nation does not recognize Stoney


1 Point as an official First Nation. 2 Further, they do not condone the 3 actions of Maynard George and his 4 group. 5 And that we, MNR, should be taking this 6 up with the Government of Canada re the 7 legality of Maynard George's actions 8 re. his 'claim' to Ipperwash Provincial 9 Park. 10 'Chief Bressette further appeared to be 11 surprised that we were just going to 12 let them walk in and take over the 13 Park.' [that's in quotes] He felt that 14 we should have them removed or else we 15 would be inviting anyone else in who 16 had a claim to make. 17 I have explained to the Chief our 18 position and that we would reluctantly 19 allow George in, explain that we do not 20 condone their actions but will attempt 21 to resolve this issue in a peaceful 22 manner. 23 The Chief was interested in being kept 24 informed of developments by myself. 25 And then finally band administrator


1 Thunder stated that this activity by 2 Maynard George was simply a ploy to get 3 media attention." 4 Do you recall having any discussions with 5 Mr. Baldwin or Mr. Humberstone or with anybody else about 6 communications with the Chief and Council at this point 7 in time? 8 A: I don't recall having any discussions 9 because Ron Baldwin, as a district manager, and Terry 10 Humberstone at that time were taking the lead on these 11 issues as I -- as I attempted to explain, back in '93 12 First Nation issues would -- were looked after by -- by 13 our district office. 14 Q: Okay. Does this accord with your 15 recollection as to the position that Chief and Council 16 were taking with respect to Maynard T. George's claim? 17 A: Yes, it does. 18 Q: Okay. Mr. Commissioner, if I could 19 have that marked as the next exhibit. 20 THE REGISTRAR: P-804, Your Honour. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 804. 22 THE REGISTRAR: The Document Number again 23 please, Ms. McAleer. 24 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: It is 3000599. 25 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you.


1 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-804: Document Number 3000599. E- 2 mail to R. Baldwin from T. 3 Humberstone re. Conversation 4 with Tom Bressette, May 5 18/93. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 8 Q: The next document that I'd like to 9 give you is an e-mail dated May 18th, 1993. It's 10 Document 1008108. 11 A: Thank you. 12 Q: And it appears to be an e-mail from 13 Ron Baldwin to the distribution list and again, at the 14 bottom on the next page, you are listed as the last 15 person cc'd. 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Do you recall receiving this e-mail? 18 A: No, I don't. 19 Q: Any reason to believe you didn't 20 receive it? 21 A: I'm sure I did. 22 Q: Now I want to draw your attention to 23 the middle of this e-mail. I -- I can give you a minute 24 to read the whole e-mail if you'd like. 25 A: Very quickly perhaps if I could.


1 Q: Sure. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: Okay. And in the middle of that e- 7 mail there is a paragraph that says: 8 "It appears as though the structure --" 9 I should actually start a sentence above. 10 "Also being faxed to Peter is a Bailiff 11 Notice under the Criminal Code of 12 Canada to allow the unfettered 13 placement of a structure and agents to 14 occupy the Park. 15 It appears as though the structure will 16 be placed in the Park and manned by two 17 (2) Native people from 8:00 to 5:30 18 each day." 19 Do you recall being informed or having 20 information about a structure being placed in the Park? 21 A: I was aware at some point, yes, there 22 was a structure being placed into the Park. 23 Q: Okay. Did you have any discussions 24 with Mr. Baldwin or anybody else after you received this 25 e-mail about that structure or what was intended?


1 A: I think I may have had a discussion 2 with Les Kobayashi about it, but I don't recall a 3 discussion with -- with Ron Baldwin, no. 4 Q: Do you recall any particulars with 5 respect to your discussion with Mr. Kobayashi? 6 A: As a matter of course, he would have, 7 I think, notified me about something like this and -- and 8 I don't recall any specifics about it, other than it was 9 a portable structure, if you like. It wasn't a permanent 10 structure. 11 Q: All right. And then the next 12 sentence says: 13 "So far the occupation appears to be of 14 a peaceable nature." 15 And does that accord with your 16 recollection as to how events were unrolling back in 17 March through to May of 1993? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: Mr. Commissioner, if I could have 20 that marked as the next exhibit? 21 THE REGISTRAR: P-805, Your Honour. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-805. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-805: Document number 1008108. 25 E-mail from R. Baldwin to


1 Distribution List Re: 2 Ipperwash Park native issue 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 5 Q: The next document is Inquiry document 6 1008110 and I'll hand up a copy to the witness. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 16 Q: It's an e-mail from Ron Baldwin to 17 the distribution list and again, on the second page, it's 18 indicated that you were copied with this document. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And the -- the e-mail starts: 21 "Hi folks, I have included Rosemary 22 (phonetic) in the update for two (2) 23 reasons: 24 1. Organizationally we're obviously 25 busy with significant change."


1 I take it that refers to some 2 restructuring that was going on at the time. I think you 3 alluded to that yesterday? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: "1. [I have] Some top priority 6 communication clearance required by 7 noon tomorrow." 8 Do you have any idea what that refers to? 9 A: No, I'm sorry, I don't. 10 Q: Okay. And then it says: 11 "As an addition to this update, we are 12 closely linked with the OPP in Forest 13 and I am in close contact with 14 Inspector John Carson, London district 15 planning for this weekend." 16 And you'll see that this e-mail is dated 17 May 19th, 1993. I take it the weekend that's coming up 18 is the May 24 weekend that you spoke about yesterday; the 19 long weekend in May? 20 A: Yes, it would have been, yes. 21 Q: Okay. Then the next line says: 22 "Our relationship with Kettle Point, 23 Stony Point First Nation remains 24 positive." 25 And again, that accords with your


1 understanding as to the relationship between the MNR and 2 the recognized Indian Act Band at the time? 3 A: Yes, it does. 4 Q: Then it says: 5 "Our communication approach for the 6 weekend is to keep it simple and avoid 7 concluding corp. or government 8 positions that may negate positive spin 9 and increase risk to the Park users, 10 staff, on the long weekend." 11 Do you have any idea what that means? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: Frankly, no. 16 Q: All right. 17 A: Okay. 18 A: "Approach will be the issue of a 19 letter 20 from the Park superintendent to users 21 explaining situation and development of 22 some questions and answers for media 23 use. We must, must have info for users 24 tomorrow. Need time to produce and a 25 sense of media response approach.


1 Our own staff working the weekend will 2 be briefed to ensure public and staff 3 safety." 4 Again, is this assisting to refresh your 5 memory at all about any of the events that may have been 6 taking place, leading up to the long weekend in May of 7 1993? 8 A: I do recall that there was a letter 9 produced by and signed by Les Kobayashi that was 10 distributed to Park users that weekend, to explain what 11 was happening in the Park and that a structure was being 12 placed and so on and so forth. 13 Q: And that's what I was going to ask 14 you. What -- what exactly was happening in the Park 15 apart from this structure being placed? 16 Do you remember why this -- this planning 17 was going on and why there was an awareness of potential 18 media interest? 19 A: My understanding was that the 20 structure was being emplaced in order to allow Mr. George 21 and others to distribute information. 22 Q: And as far as you were aware, that 23 was the only thing that was taking place that weekend? 24 A: That was my understanding, yes. 25 Q: And then it says,


1 "OPP and MNR will handle with no show 2 of force and will maintain close links 3 to ensure public safety including 4 natives in a manner designed not to 5 escalate tension that might exist." 6 And then again it talks about developing 7 corporate government responses over the next few weeks. 8 Do you recall taking part in any discussions with any of 9 your supervisors about developing any government or 10 corporate responses? 11 A: Not at that time. I wouldn't -- 12 wouldn't have been involved. 13 Q: Okay. And then it says: 14 "I remain confident that the critical 15 incident team in place with the folks 16 coordinating them have the situation 17 under control." 18 And again does that -- is that consistent 19 with your evidence earlier today about the -- the strong 20 working relationship between the MNR and the OPP in the 21 area and as well the strong relationship with the MNR and 22 Aboriginal peoples in the area at that time? 23 A: That's correct. Yes, it does. 24 Q: Okay. Mr. Commissioner, if that 25 could be the next document -- next exhibit?


1 THE REGISTRAR: P-806, Your Honour. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-806. 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-806: Document Number 1008110. 5 E-mail from R. Baldwin to 6 Distribution List re. 7 Ipperwash Park/Native issue 8 update, May 19/93. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 11 Q: And then the next document is Inquiry 12 Document 1010411. Thank you. 13 A: Thank you very much. 14 Q: And this is a short e-mail from you 15 to the distribution list dated May 21, 1993 simply 16 providing contact information in case anybody needs to 17 get a hold of you over the weekend. And then you also 18 say: 19 "I may drop by to see you over the long 20 weekend, but have no real timetable. 21 If I don't see you, staff, have a good 22 one and take care." 23 Do you recall sending this e-mail? 24 A: No, but it's something that I 25 frequently do before long weekends, especially a May 24


1 weekend. 2 Q: Okay. And do you have any present 3 recollection of stopping by Ipperwash Provincial Park on 4 the long May weekend of 1993? 5 A: I have no specific recollections 6 although it was frequently my practice on a May 24 7 weekend to try and visit as many parks just to see how 8 the staff were doing and how events were unfolding 9 because it is one (1) of our busiest times. 10 Q: Okay. Do you -- do you have any 11 recollection of attending at Ipperwash Provincial Park 12 when an information booth was set out? 13 A: No, I don't. 14 Q: Okay. And, Mr. Commissioner, if this 15 could be the next exhibit? 16 A: And you will take my phone number 17 off? 18 Q: I was going to say I -- I don't if 19 that's your current phone information or not, but if we 20 could have that deleted for the exhibit. 21 THE REGISTRAR: Could we have that number 22 again, please? 23 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 1010411. 24 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 807?


1 THE REGISTRAR: 807. I'm sorry, Your 2 Honour. 3 4 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-807: Document Number 1010411. 5 E-mail from P. Sturdy to 6 Distribution List re. Contact 7 over long weekend, May 21/'93 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 10 Q: Okay. Then finally I want to pass up 11 to you Document 3000521. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: Thank you very much. 16 Q: And this is an e-mail to Mr. 17 Humberstone from Mr. Kobayashi dated June 14th, 1993. 18 The subject line is, Meeting Maynard George and Les 19 Kobayashi June 14th, 1993. 20 And again you are cc'd on page 2. 21 A: Yes, I am. 22 Q: Okay. And again I take it you don't 23 have any present recollection of receiving this e-mail, 24 but have no reason to believe that you didn't receive it? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: Okay. And now, I -- I want to go 2 through this one in a little bit of detail with you 3 because it -- it purports to relate to a meeting between 4 Mr. George and Mr. Kobayashi and I just want to see if 5 you -- you have any recollection of discussing these 6 matters with Mr. Kobayashi. 7 First paragraph: 8 "I met with Chief Maynard George on 9 June 14th, 1993 at Ipperwash Provincial 10 Park. Chief George was elected on June 11 12th by his people and would be 12 appointing his elders to his cabinet on 13 Thursday, June 17th at the Oakwood Inn 14 at Grand Bend." 15 Now, first of all, Mr. Sturdy, does that 16 accord with your recollection back in 1993 that among the 17 Stoney Pointers people were taking a clear leadership 18 role; that there were people who were identifying 19 themselves to the MNR as individuals that were speaking 20 on behalf of this group and were interested in entering 21 into a dialogue with the MNR? 22 A: It's my recollection that Mr. George 23 at -- at some point and then another gentleman referred 24 to themselves as the Chief of their group. That's 25 correct.


1 Q: Okay. And would that second 2 gentleman be a Mr. Carl George? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Okay. And -- then it says: 5 "Chief George requested I meet with him 6 in Ipperwash. Provide me with copies 7 of maps which would identify the lands 8 which is known as Ipperwash Provincial 9 Park." 10 And I -- I won't read all that into the 11 record, but he lists them. The next full paragraph: 12 "He advised me that the Minister would 13 be served with subpoena to appear in 14 court in respect to an appeal? I 15 believe he meant to trespassing on 16 Ipperwash Park." Stop there. 17 Do you recall whether or not the MNR had 18 any -- had issued any trespass notices to any of the 19 Stoney Point group in May of 1993? 20 A: I'm not aware of any, no. 21 Q: Okay. Oh perhaps -- perhaps, what he 22 means is that the position was that the MNR were 23 trespassing on Ipperwash Provincial Park. Does that ring 24 a bell as to the position that Mr. Maynard T. George's 25 group were taking?


1 That they were of the view that the MNR 2 was trespassing on their land? 3 A: Oh, I see, it says the Minister may 4 be served, yes. 5 Q: Hmm hmm. 6 A: That may well be it. 7 Q: Okay. 8 "This would take place next week. The 9 Minister would be served at Queen's 10 Park. He also said he would be 11 requesting the revenue from half of the 12 campsites at Ipperwash. He would be 13 going to Queen's Park to demand his 14 money. 15 I asked him about their intentions 16 regarding Ipperwash Park and their 17 activities there this summer. 18 His response was that they wanted to 19 see things proceed in a non- 20 confrontational manner." 21 And again, does that -- is that consistent 22 with the message that you were getting from the Stoney 23 Pointers in 1993 that they did have some interests that 24 they wanted to pursue but they intended to do it a non- 25 confrontational manner?


1 A: That was my understanding, yes. 2 Q: Okay. 3 "They would be searching the area for 4 burial sites and other artifacts but 5 this should not interfere with the use 6 of the Park by park users. 7 They would also be having a Remembrance 8 Day ceremony to honour those that 9 served in the conflicts and didn't 10 return." 11 Do you recall whether or not any such 12 Remembrance Day ceremony took place? 13 A: I have no recollection of it, no. 14 Q: "He mentioned the following and did 15 not elaborate. Last week negotiations 16 with DND compensation was $300 million. 17 There's been a payoff over the legality 18 of the transfer of property and 19 compensation. Not sure to who. He did 20 not elaborate. 21 [Next] Stressed he wanted to continue 22 with a working relationship co- 23 management. Money wasn't the issue but 24 their sacred area must be returned and 25 Ipperwash Park is on sacred ground."


1 Now do you recall having any discussions 2 from Mr. Kobayashi about any of these issues after 3 receiving this e-mail in June of 1993? 4 A: No, I don't, no. 5 Q: Okay. Mr. Commissioner, if that 6 could be marked as the next exhibit. 7 THE REGISTRAR: P-808, Your Honour. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 808. 9 10 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-808: Document number 3000521. 11 E-mail to T. Humberstone from 12 L. Kobayashi re. Meeting 13 Maynard George and L. 14 Kobayashi, June 14/93. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 17 Q: Okay. If we could now turn back to 18 the May 19th, 1993 document that's at Tab 9 of the 19 Commission's productions. 20 And Ms. Vella took you through the four 21 (4) principles that are listed at the bottom of page 1 22 and the top of page 2. And I just want to ask you a 23 couple of followup questions about the -- the matters 24 that Mr. Maynard T. George and his group were pursuing. 25 The first one. A structure, the


1 information booth. Do you have any knowledge as to 2 whether that booth was ever set up? 3 A: My understanding was that it was 4 setup for a short period of time and then removed in 5 early June. 6 Q: Okay. And if we look at Tab 10 of 7 these productions; a letter from Mr. Baldwin to Mr. -- 8 sorry, to Chief Tom Bressette of June 14th, 1993, we look 9 at the last full paragraph on the page. 10 Do you see the sentence that says, "I'm 11 advised that the structure..."? 12 A: Yes, I see that. 13 Q: Yeah, "I'm advised that the structure 14 that had been placed in the Park by 15 Maynard George on May 19th. Was 16 voluntarily removed during the night of 17 June 3rd." 18 Is that what you were just referring to 19 about the structure being removed in early June? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Okay. But do -- do you know if 22 anybody actually ever handed out any information from 23 that structure? 24 A: I'm sorry, I don't know. 25 Q: Okay.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Next, the equitable division of the 4 camp grounds, and we saw that that's something that Mr. 5 Maynard T. George had raised again in his meeting with 6 Mr. Kobayashi in June. 7 Did you ever get any direction from any of 8 your superiors or anyone in government to explore this 9 issue with the Stoney Point group? 10 A: No, I did not. 11 Q: With respect to the historical 12 plaque, same question. Did you ever get any direction 13 from any of your superiors or anybody within government 14 that the MNR should be exploring this issue with the 15 Stoney Pointers in 1993? 16 A: No, I did not. 17 Q: Okay. As far as you're aware, did 18 anybody ever raise the equitable division of camp sites 19 or placing historical plaques in Ipperwash Provincial 20 Park after June of 1993 but before the takeover of the 21 Park in September of 1995? 22 A: Not that I'm aware of, no. 23 Q: Okay. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: And when we looked at the e-mail of 2 June 14th, 1993 from Mr. Kobayashi about his meeting with 3 Mr. Maynard George, he indicated that they would be 4 searching the area for burial sites and other artefacts 5 but this would not interfere with the use of the Park by 6 park users. 7 Do you have any knowledge as to whether or 8 not any search of the Park was ever carried out by any of 9 the Stoney Pointers looking for burial grounds, prior to 10 September of 1995? 11 A: I've no recollection of receiving a 12 report to that effect from Mr. Kobayashi. 13 Q: Okay. And do you know if anybody, on 14 behalf of the Stoney Point group, ever renewed any 15 request or interest in conducting any kind of search in 16 Ipperwash Provincial Park for those burial grounds prior 17 to September of 1995? 18 A: Not that I'm aware of. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Okay. I'm going to jump ahead and 23 then back. In -- in Ms. Julie Jai's handwritten notes of 24 the Interministerial Committee meeting that took place in 25 September 5th, 1993, I'm not going to take them to you,


1 but I'm just going to let you know that in her notes she 2 indicates that someone at the meeting stated that: 3 "Two (2) years ago the Stoney Pointers 4 were informed of province's position 5 re. title of the title, and we invited 6 them to make a claim if they had a 7 valid claim. They never produced 8 anything." 9 First of all, do you recall anybody making 10 a statement like that at the September 5th 11 Interministerial Committee meeting? 12 A: No. I'd be speculating if I -- 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: -- or guessing at the source. 15 Q: And do you recall whether anyone from 16 the MNR or within government back in 1993, invited the 17 Stoney Pointers to make a formal land claim with respect 18 to their interest in Ipperwash Provincial Park? 19 A: No, I have no recollection of that. 20 Q: Okay. And do you recall whether 21 anyone from the MNR or government back in 1993, ever 22 invited the Stoney Pointers to make a claim under the 23 Cemeteries Act with respect to the burial grounds that 24 are referred to in Mr. Maynard's letter of May 1993? 25 A: No, I have no recollection that that


1 was done. 2 Q: Okay. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Okay, turning to September of 1995, 7 if we look at Tab 33, please. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Ms. Vella had taken you to this 12 document and it's been marked as Exhibit P-785. I just 13 have two (2) quick followup questions. 14 With respect to the entry at 6:25 p.m. Ron 15 Williamson and Don Matheson removed the concrete blocks 16 from the east and west emergency gates. 17 Do you know whether removing the concrete 18 blocks was part of your emergency plan to facilitate 19 evacuating the Park? Is that consistent with why those 20 cement blocks would have been removed? 21 I -- I can put it to you another way, Mr. 22 Sturdy. 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: A number of the Stoney Pointers came 25 here and testified that they were surprised on September


1 4th to see that cement blocks had been removed from the 2 gates. 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: And that at least one (1) or perhaps 5 more took that as an invitation to occupy the Provincial 6 Park. I take it, as far as you know, that's not the 7 reason why those cement blocks were removed? 8 A: That's not my understanding of why 9 they would be removed, no. 10 Q: Do -- do you know why they were 11 removed? 12 A: I'd have to refer to the contingency 13 plan to see if that -- it's just not fresh in my mind 14 whether that was one (1) of the items covered in terms of 15 covering or removing them. 16 Q: Okay. That's fine. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: We can all read the contingency plan. 19 Thanks. 20 My second question relates to the entry at 21 7:30 p.m.: 22 "The OPP officers asked a number of day 23 users to leave Ipperwash Provincial 24 Park as the natives were moving in and 25 escorted two (2) local cottagers out of


1 the Park [I think that should be at 2 this time]." 3 Do you have any information as to what 4 that's about. Do you have any further information about 5 two (2) cottagers being in the Park and how they happened 6 to be there and why they were escorted out? 7 A: My suspicion would be that these are 8 just cottagers that live in the local area that walked 9 into the Park and were going for a walk and they were 10 asked to leave. 11 Q: Okay. So you don't recall having 12 any -- 13 A: No. 14 Q: -- specific discussions with anybody 15 about that issue? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Okay. Okay. I'm going to hand up 18 another document to you, it's Inquiry Document Number 19 1009037. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm 21 obviously having some difficulty following the 22 significance or relevance of some of your questions, but 23 I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that they -- that 24 you know what you're doing. 25 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Well -- well,


1 thank you, Mr. Commissioner, I take it it's not the most 2 gripping testimony -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well... 4 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: -- but a lot of it 5 is just filling in some of the blanks -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: -- and completing 8 the record. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm just 10 trying to figure out where it's all going. 11 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: I -- I appreciate 12 your indulgence. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: 15 Q: This document unfortunately is cut 16 off, but it appears to be an Ipperwash Situation Report 17 from Dan Elliott on September 4th of 1995. 18 The only thing I want to ask you about is 19 on the second page, do you see at the top it says: 20 "Appear arranging for court injunction 21 first thing Tuesday morning." 22 Now, you told us that you had been aware 23 prior to the occupation that there was a plan to get an 24 injunction and that after the meeting of September 5th 25 you spent the afternoon preparing an affidavit that you


1 anticipated somebody was going to use. 2 Do you actually recall turning your mind 3 to this Monday evening and actually working on an 4 injunction for Tuesday morning or anybody suggesting that 5 an injunction was going to proceed Tuesday morning? 6 A: No, I think this may have just been a 7 choice of terminology on -- on Mr. Elliott's part. 8 Q: Okay. That's fine. We don't need to 9 mark that an exhibit then. 10 Now, with respect to the meeting, the 11 Interministerial Committee Meeting on September 5th that 12 you participated by way of telephone -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- did you have any difficulty 15 hearing any of the participants at the meeting over the 16 telephone? 17 A: I think I mentioned that 18 participating in meetings on conference calls is 19 difficult at the best of times and especially when 20 there's a lot of interaction going on. I don't know 21 whether I would have missed pieces of conversation or 22 not. I -- I just don't have a recollection of whether 23 that happened. 24 Q: Okay. You -- you don't recall having 25 any concern that perhaps people weren't hearing you well


1 or hearing you properly. 2 A: Oh, I see. No, I don't think I was 3 asked to repeat anything, no. 4 Q: Okay. Now I just want to ask you a 5 couple of questions about your understanding regarding 6 the circumstances of the takeover of the Provincial Park 7 on September 4th. 8 You understood that all attempts at 9 communication by the OPP and the MNR had been 10 unsuccessful as of the morning of September 5th, 1993? 11 A: Yes, that was correct. 12 Q: Okay. And did you also understand 13 that one of the individuals who had taken over the 14 Provincial Park had smashed a police cruiser window in 15 the process of occupying the Park? 16 A: That's what I had been informed, yes. 17 Q: Okay. And it was also your 18 understanding, I take it, that the MNR had been ordered 19 by the Stoney Pointers to leave the Provincial Park and 20 that the Stoney Pointers had put up barricades to prevent 21 other people from entering the Provincial Park? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And what I'd like to do is 24 just ask you a couple of questions and see if you agree 25 with me as to how this situation of September 4th was


1 different than what had happened with Maynard T. George 2 and his group back in May of 1993. 3 I'm going to suggest to you that back in 4 May of 1993, people among Stoney Pointers had clearly 5 assumed a leadership role and you knew who you were 6 dealing with as opposed to September of 1995 where no 7 leaders were identified to the MNR? 8 Would you agree with that? 9 A: Yes, I would agree with that. 10 Q: Okay. And that unlike May and June 11 of 1993 where there were meetings between the MNR and the 12 Stoney Pointers, in particular the meetings with Mr. 13 Maynard T. George that we've seen reference to of May 14 19th and June 14th, that no meetings were set up or that 15 it was -- that no meetings took place in early September 16 of 1995 with the occupiers? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And I take it that you would be of 19 the view that one of the reasons those meetings didn't 20 take place is because of the communication problem with 21 the occupiers. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And that back in 1993, the 24 occupiers, if I can call them that, Mr. Maynard T. George 25 and his group that had come on to the Provincial Park had


1 clearly articulated some demands and principles and we've 2 seen that in Mr. Maynard T.'s letter of May 19th and that 3 is in contrast to September of 1995 where you were 4 somewhat in the dark as to what the demands were of the 5 occupiers. 6 Would you agree with that? 7 A: Initially, yes. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: And unlike 1993, in 1995 right from 12 the start there were initial acts of violence, in 13 particular the breaking of the car window, and were you 14 aware that a police flare -- sorry, that a flare had been 15 thrown at a police officer? 16 A: I was being informed of some of those 17 facts, yes. 18 Q: Okay. And again, that was in 19 contrast the way events had unfolded back in May and June 20 of 1993? 21 A: That's correct. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25


1 Q: Now, Ms. Vella had asked you some 2 questions about why it was that nobody, or in particular 3 that you had not suggested appointing a negotiator to try 4 and facilitate discussions and end the occupation in 5 September of 1995. 6 And I'm going to suggest to you that the 7 reason that didn't occur is because that there was a 8 consensus among the Interministerial group that 9 communication efforts should be left to the OPP and to 10 the MNR who were already on the ground and as you said, 11 had a history in the -- in the community. 12 Does that accord with your recollection as 13 to how things were unfolding and why certain 14 recommendations were or were not being made, back in 15 September of 1995? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 A: Could you break that down a -- 20 Q: Sure, yeah -- 21 A: -- bit for me, I'm sorry -- 22 Q: It's a long question. 23 A: -- I -- it's -- 24 Q: Well, first of all, do you recall 25 whether or not the group reached a consensus that


1 communication should be left to the OPP and the MNR since 2 they were on the ground, in September of 1995? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Okay. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: And we see from the notes of the 9 Interministerial Committee meeting on September 5th that 10 the issue of burial grounds was raised at that meeting. 11 Do you recall the issue of burial grounds 12 being raised at the September 5th meeting? 13 A: Not on the September the 5th meeting. 14 I have from the minutes -- in my review of the minutes I 15 see that it was raised on the 6th, the meeting of the 16 6th. But I don't recall it being raised on the 5th. 17 Q: Okay. And do you recall if -- when 18 that was raised anybody suggested that some of the 19 Aboriginal people in the community should be interviewed 20 to determine whether or not there was an oral history of 21 burial grounds in Provincial Park -- in the Provincial 22 Park? 23 A: On the 5th? 24 Q: Right, or the 6th. 25 A: No, I'm sorry I don't recall that.


1 Q: Do you remember anybody raising, in 2 either the September 5th meeting or the September 6th 3 meeting, a concern that the longer the occupation lasted 4 the more difficult it would be to bring an end to the 5 occupation? 6 A: No, I don't remember that -- 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: -- specifically. 9 Q: Sorry? 10 A: I'm sorry, I don't remember that 11 specifically, no. 12 Q: You do recall however that there was 13 some mention that other people from across the province 14 had already come into the Provincial Park? 15 A: That was a general belief, yes. 16 Q: Okay. And was it your view that the 17 longer the occupation lasted, the more difficult it might 18 be to bring an end to that occupation? 19 A: I really didn't have the experience. 20 I don't think that I could make that kind of judgement 21 call. 22 Q: And you told us a little bit already 23 about concerns that people from the community had raised 24 with the MNR. Was -- was the frequency of concerns, were 25 they becoming more frequent from September 4th to


1 September 5th to September 6th? 2 Was the MNR getting more calls from people 3 in the area who were concerned about what has happening? 4 A: I can't speak to the frequency 5 because these -- these were not coming to me directly. 6 Dan Elliott was handling most of those calls. 7 Q: Okay. Do you recall anybody raising 8 at the September 5th meeting that -- that public safety 9 was still an issue due to the close proximity of some of 10 the cottagers to Ipperwash Provincial Park? 11 A: I recall that being a concern amongst 12 some, yes. And now whether it came up -- whether I -- my 13 recollections are from that meeting but certainly that 14 was an issue around that time. 15 Q: Okay. And did you think that was a 16 valid concern at the time? 17 A: Yes, I did. 18 Q: And had you been aware of previous 19 statements made by some of the Aboriginal people in the 20 area that they laid claim to land outside the Ipperwash 21 Provincial Park and outside the army camp, that they had 22 an interest in land that was currently occupied by 23 cottagers in the area? 24 A: No, I think those types of claims 25 came about some time after -- after the events of


1 September '95. 2 Q: Now turning to in particular the 3 meeting of September 6th. Do you recall the -- at that 4 meeting somebody informing the group that there was going 5 to be a meeting scheduled later that day between the OPP 6 and the occupiers? 7 A: Only from the -- the -- my 8 recollections from reading the minutes of that. 9 Q: Okay. So you have no present 10 recollection of that happening? 11 A: No. 12 Q: I then want to turn in particular to 13 Ms. Jai's notes which are at Tab 41 that Ms. Vella 14 previously took you to. And in particular, page 2 of her 15 notes from September 6th which are at the beginning. 16 You see where it says, "Peter Sturdy - 17 MNR?" 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. And you told Ms. Vella already 20 that you believe you did, in fact, report this 21 information to the Committee at the time. It says his 22 staff say they heard automatic gunfire during the night. 23 You indicated earlier that the report of gunfire had 24 caused you some concern and -- and even anxiety. 25 I -- I take it, Mr. Sturdy, that you would


1 have been concerned even if it was a report of semi- 2 automatic gunfire or gunfire of any kind and that it was 3 not simply the fact that it was automatic gunfire that 4 caused you concern; is that correct? 5 A: I had concern regardless of what type 6 of firearm it may have been. If the reports of a hundred 7 (100) or a hundred and fifty (150) or one (1) round -- 8 piece of lead, if you like, in the air, it was a concern 9 to me. 10 Q: Okay. And if, in fact, the report 11 had been that the gunfire was coming from within the Army 12 Camp as opposed to within the Provincial Park did that 13 make any difference to you and -- or to your level of 14 concern? 15 A: I still would have been concerned 16 about that. 17 Q: Okay. The next bullet below that 18 says: 19 "Buildings and parks have been broken 20 into and are being used." 21 In your view were -- were you concerned 22 that the longer the occupation might last the potential 23 for more damage to the Park? 24 A: Certainly that was a possibility, but 25 most things are fixable.


1 Q: I'm sorry? 2 A: Most things can be fixed. Yes, it 3 was a -- but it was a concern, obviously. 4 Q: And -- and did that weigh in favour 5 to bringing or seeking an end to the occupation sooner 6 rather than later? 7 A: That would have been helpful, yes. 8 Q: And you -- you mentioned that you 9 were aware that Julie Jai was the chair of the meetings 10 on September 5th and September 6th. In your view was it 11 clear that she was acting as a chair and was summarizing 12 points and trying to bring the group to consensus; was 13 that clear to you during those meetings? 14 A: I don't have any recollections of 15 thoughts to the contrary so. It was a difficult 16 situation and I'm sure she did her best. 17 Q: Okay. It was clear to you, despite 18 the fact of not being in the meeting -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- physically that she was the chair. 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: She was the one that would be 23 summarizing things and -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- moving down the agenda?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. And do you recall at the 3 conclusion of the meeting on September 6th whether or not 4 there was a consensus that the committee would recommend 5 seeking an injunction as soon as possible? 6 Do you recall that? 7 A: Just from -- again I'm afraid no 8 independent recollection, just from the minutes. 9 Q: Okay. Then I just have a couple of 10 quick questions about the document that Ms. Vella took 11 you to at Tab 79 of the productions. I'm sorry, it's -- 12 it's Tab 76. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And this is the e-mail from Mr. 17 Burnett to you of September 18th, 1995; it's P-796? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And without going through the entire 20 document is it your understanding today that these 21 numbers and the estimates that were prepared or provided 22 in this document were essentially accurate? 23 A: At the time in 1995? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: Yes, I think they were a reasonable


1 estimate of their worth. 2 Q: Okay. A reasonable estimate? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: Okay. And is that true also for the 5 document that Ms. Vella took you to at Tab 81 which was 6 some cost estimates as to what would happen if the 7 Provincial Park wasn't properly winterized? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 A: Yes, I -- I obtained these kind of 12 figures from people that had a great deal of experience 13 in capital projects and in maintenance and, yes, I 14 believe that they -- to be correct. 15 Q: And we -- we've heard evidence that 16 the Park was winterized in 1995, right 1995, was it -- 17 was it winterized in 1996 or has it been winterized every 18 year subsequent or -- 19 A: No. 20 Q: -- did that stop at some point? 21 A: In '95 it would have stopped. 22 Q: Okay. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 MS. JENNIFER MCALEER: Thank you, Mr. 2 Commissioner. Those are all of my questions. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 4 Ms. McAleer. 5 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think Ms. 7 Perschy's next. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Good afternoon, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 14 afternoon. 15 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 17 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Sturdy. 18 A: Good afternoon. 19 Q: My name's Anna Perschy. I'm one of 20 the Counsel for Deb Hutton who was the executive 21 assistant to Premier Harris at the time. 22 And I also wanted to go back to -- and ask 23 you a few questions about 1993 before turning to the 24 events in 1995. But I'll try not to cover the same 25 ground that was covered by Ms. McAleer.


1 If you could start by turning to Tab 11 of 2 Commission Counsel's documents, please. 3 This is an e-mail from Ron Baldwin dated 4 June 14th, 1993, document number 1006550. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: In this e-mail that has, as a subject 9 heading, "Ipperwash update as of 14th," and that's June 10 14th, 1993 and it lists you as being on the distribution 11 list. 12 I take it that you received this e-mail? 13 A: Yes, I must have. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Now, I take it that in June of 1993 18 you knew that the Provincial Government had communicated 19 with both Chief Bressette and Maynard George its position 20 that the province had clear title to the Park. 21 You were aware of that at the time? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And I think Ms. Vella had taken you 24 to the letters that were provided to them and I think Ms. 25 McAleer did as well.


1 The province also made clear at the time 2 that in regard to matters of information sharing and 3 economic activity pertinent to aboriginal peoples' 4 interests respecting Ipperwash Park, the province would 5 deal with the Chief and Council. 6 You were aware of that as well, I take it? 7 A: I was aware of that and I believe the 8 letters which talked about that went out on that day. 9 Q: In this e-mail from Mr. Baldwin 10 there's the point, I believe it's the third sentence: 11 "No sense of imminent risk/the longer 12 we defer our position the more Maynard 13 claims." 14 Do you recall being advised of that? 15 A: No, I have no recollection of that. 16 Q: But I take it that you understood 17 that the reference to "we" was a reference to the 18 province? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: That would have been my assumption. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: And this e-mail indicates that Chief 2 Tom Bressette continues to support the Ministry position 3 in our dealings with Maynard, and I take it that you were 4 also aware of that at the time? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: If we could have this document marked 7 as the next exhibit. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-809, Your Honour. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-809. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-809: 809 Document Number 1006550. 12 E-mail from R. Baldwin to 13 Distribution List re. 14 Ipperwash Update as of 14th 15 of June '93. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 18 Q: Now I have one (1) additional 19 document that I didn't provide you with previously. It's 20 Inquiry Document Number 2000678. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And this is a document dated July 25 1993 and it's from Daryl Smith and if I understood your


1 testimony in-chief, he was a communications officer 2 within MNR? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And again, you're listed on the 5 distribution list. I take it that you received this e- 6 mail and the attachment, and by all means, take a few 7 moments to just take a quick look at it. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: The attachment is a verbal response 12 manual in draft form dated July 21st, 1993. 13 A: Yes, I've seen this document or ones 14 that are close like it before, that's correct. 15 Q: And I take it that the -- the verbal 16 response manual, the series of questions and answers, 17 they were for use in dealing with -- with the media or 18 the public to convey the Province's position with regard 19 to the situation at Ipperwash Park at the time? 20 What was -- was that the purpose of the 21 document? 22 A: Yes. Really to answer any enquiries, 23 whether they were from the media or from the public or 24 local governments and others, yes. 25 Q: And at the time you would have had an


1 opportunity to -- to review this draft verbal response 2 manual; that's why it was sent to you? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: If I could have this document marked 5 as the next exhibit. 6 THE REGISTRAR: P-810, Your Honour. 7 8 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-810: Document Number 2000678. 9 E-mail from Daryl Smith to 10 Distribution List re. 11 Ipperwash, Update on 12 questions and answer package, 13 July 21/93. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 16 Q: If you could turn to the vanilla 17 folder that I provided to you last evening. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: If you could turn to Document Number 22 1012243. 23 A: Sorry, are these in order or do I -- 24 Q: Yeah. It's actually the third 25 document in.


1 A: Third? 2 Q: Ms. -- 3 A: Pardon? 4 Q: It's the third document in or it 5 should be the third document in. 6 A: 1012243? 7 Q: Yes. It's a fax from someone called 8 Jean to yourself dated August 24th, 1995. 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And then the second page is a 11 transmission report and then the third page is another 12 fax cover sheet from Dan Elliott to yourself dated August 13 24th, 1995. And it says that fourteen (14) pages are 14 included. And fourteen (14) pages consist of the June 15 14th, 1993 Minister's note. The June 14th, 1993 letter 16 to Maynard Travis George. The June 14th, 1993 letter to 17 Chief Tom Bressette. 18 Some procedures -- it's a document 19 entitled, Procedure First Nation Claims of 20 Access/Ownership of Pinery/Ipperwash Provincial Parks. 21 And then some questions and answers. 22 And just with respect to these questions 23 and answers, I'm going to suggest to you that these 24 questions and answers are very similar to the questions 25 and answers that we just looked at a moment ago in the


1 draft from May of 1993. 2 A: They are. I note that -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 4 Myrka...? 5 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Just so we're clear on 6 the record, I -- I think Ms. Perschy is referring to the 7 -- the Q's and A's in the verbal response manual, if that 8 assists you. 9 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, I thank you for 10 that clarification. 11 And I'm sorry, I think you were giving an 12 answer. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I just happened to 14 notice, as I was putting this away that the previous 15 document that you gave me actually -- Daryl indicated 16 that there were two (2) new additional items added, 17 question 10 and 11, which are not reflected in this 18 particular version. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 21 Q: And that's right and I was just going 22 to draw your attention to that. 23 A: Oh. 24 Q: In this -- in this document, which is 25 document number 1012243, the package, the Q's and A's,


1 there's only two (2) pages whereas the document we looked 2 at previously had -- had -- had three (3) pages of 3 questions and answers. 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: And in the last document in the 6 package is an e-mail from Jim Young to Laurie Berman 7 dated March 23, 1993 and I believe Ms. McAleer had some 8 questions in regard to that, so -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- I'm not going to address that. 11 But do you recall receiving this fourteen (14) page fax, 12 in 1995? 13 A: I'm sorry, I don't. Undoubtedly it 14 came in, yes, but. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And it appears that all of these 19 documents in this package date back to 1993; is that 20 consistent with your recollection? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And if we could just turn to the 23 procedures document. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: And it indicates, by way of 2 background, 3 "In conjunction with the ongoing 4 situation at Camp Ipperwash, certain 5 claims have been made by First Nations 6 representatives regarding ownership of 7 lands occupied by Pinery and Ipperwash 8 Provincial Parks. 9 The Ontario Government believes that 10 the province's ownership of these lands 11 is lawful. 12 However, gate staff and/or other Park 13 staff may be confronted by First 14 nations claims of access or occupation 15 of the Park." 16 And then it lists some procedures that 17 should be followed: 18 "1. Staff should attempt to ascertain 19 the identity of the people and the 20 First Nation being represented. 21 2. Staff should request the persons 22 wait at the gate until the designated 23 duty officer can be contacted for 24 instructions. 25 3. [I'm skipping down] Park staff


1 given the opportunity should advise 2 that representatives of First Nations 3 have been officially advised of 4 Ontario's position regarding ownership 5 of the Park and that further actions of 6 occupation are not condoned or 7 encouraged by the Ministry of Natural 8 Resources." 9 And then dropping down again to Number 4: 10 "4. Park staff should immediately 11 contact the officer in charge on the 12 attached roster as well as the district 13 office personnel on call, and the 14 Ontario Provincial Police." 15 And is that consistent with your 16 recollection of what MNR staff were told in 1993? 17 A: I haven't seen this document before 18 other than I believe it may have bene included in one of 19 the binders that I reviewed. 20 It's not unusual for a park superintendent 21 to develop their own sort of procedures on how they will 22 handle certain matters. 23 So this is not necessarily something which 24 would be sort of province-wide in terms of how we would 25 deal with situations.


1 Q: So -- so you don't have any 2 particular information with respect to -- 3 A: No. 4 Q: -- respect to these procedures. 5 A: I don't. 6 Q: Fair enough. But I think you said 7 that you didn't recall receiving the package in 1995, but 8 you don't dispute that you -- you had received this 9 package of materials? 10 A: Oh, I don't dispute that I received 11 it, no. 12 Q: And I take it you can't recall today 13 how it came about that Mr. Elliott sent you this package 14 of materials, in 1995? 15 A: I can only assume in terms of some 16 background that he was providing me in August of '95. 17 Q: Fair enough. If I could have this 18 document marked as the next exhibit, Commissioner? 19 THE REGISTRAR: P-811, Your Honour. 20 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm sorry, what was 21 that? 22 THE REGISTRAR: 811. 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you. 24 25 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-811: Document number 1012243.


1 Faxes to P. Sturdy attaching 2 e-mails and letters , August 3 24/95 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 6 the documents in this vanilla folder, were these 7 documents provided to the Witness before? 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They were. 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: They were provided to 11 him yesterday. I believe it's the copy that -- the 12 copies that Mr. Myrka now has. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 15 Q: Now, you gave some testimony, sir, 16 regarding the working relationship between MNR and the 17 OPP and some of the communications that took place in -- 18 in 1995 and -- and prior and I just had some further 19 questions in that regard in regard to 1995. 20 Commission Counsel took you to an e-mail 21 from Les Kobayashi which is at Tab 13 of Commission 22 Counsel's documents and that's Document Number 1009262 23 and I believe it's been marked as Exhibit P-774. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Tab -- Tab 13.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Tab 13, P- 2 774. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 5 Q: And I believe you testified that you 6 knew that the OPP was in contact with Les Kobayashi at 7 this time and that they were providing him with 8 information regarding developments at the Camp? 9 Do -- do I have that right? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Now, from this e-mail it appears that 12 it was Staff Sergeant Bouwman who contacted Mr. Kobayashi 13 and I was wondering if -- if that was your understanding? 14 A: That's my understanding. 15 Q: And if I could just take you to Tab 16 14 of Commission Counsel's documents which is Inquiry 17 Document Number 1009261. I don't believe Commission 18 Counsel took you to this document. This is an e-mail 19 dated June 2nd, 1995 at 9:19 p.m. from Mr. Kobayashi to 20 you and the subject is, "Ipperwash." 21 And I don't know if you've had an 22 opportunity to -- to review this e-mail, but do -- do you 23 recall receiving this information on June 2nd, 1995? 24 A: I don't have a specific recollection 25 I'm afraid. These events happened as you know some time


1 ago -- 2 Q: You -- you -- receive -- you receive 3 a lot of e-mails. 4 A: --but I've certainly seen -- I've 5 seen -- I've seen this e-mail recently, yes. 6 Q: Now, we haven't -- I haven't been 7 able to find another copy of this e-mail and 8 unfortunately there's -- part of it appears to be blocked 9 out by what was presumably some sort of sticky or some 10 other document, but who is -- who is Bob Crawford? 11 A: Bob Crawford was a senior park warden 12 who worked at -- permanent staff member who worked at 13 Pinery Provincial Park. 14 Q: And it appears that he had -- he had 15 been in communication -- he had contacted Mr. Kobayashi 16 in this time frame? 17 A: Yes, he had -- there's some kind of a 18 sticky or something over part of this unfortunately, but 19 the original indicates that he was contacted by a member 20 of the OPP; that Mr. Crawford was contacted by a member 21 of the OPP. 22 Q: And I was just going to ask you that. 23 So -- so the report regarding Mr. Doxtator that's 24 referred in the latter part of the e-mail being in the 25 Ipperwash area, reportedly there to create problems and


1 reported to be in possession of several assault weapons; 2 that's a report that came from the OPP? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And at the bottom of the e-mail Mr. 5 Kobayashi indicates, "Let's discuss on Monday re: further 6 actions which may be required." 7 Do you recall having any discussions with 8 Mr. Kobayashi regarding any further actions? 9 A: Les' concerns over those times were 10 around the staffing and our ability to have adequate 11 staffing and coverage. So typically he would be looking 12 for me for extra money to pay for it. 13 Q: I was wondering if we could have this 14 document marked as the next exhibit. 15 THE REGISTRAR: P-812, Your Honour. 16 17 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-812: Document number 1009261. 18 E-mail to P. Sturdy from L. 19 Kobayashi Re: Ipperwash, June 20 02/95 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 23 Q: If you could turn, I believe it's the 24 next document in the vanilla folder. It's Inquiry 25 Document Number 1009259. And this is an e-mail again


1 from Mr. Kobayashi to a distribution list and again 2 you're listed on that distribution list. And it's dated 3 July 2, 1995, 12:52 and the subject is Ipperwash Native 4 Issue. 5 I take it that you received this e-mail? 6 A: Yes. I would have. 7 Q: And Mr. Kobayashi indicates that 8 Staff Sergeant Bowman requested that he meet with him. 9 And again, I take it it's OPP then that's initiating this 10 contact, correct? 11 A: That's my understanding, yes. 12 Q: And the purpose was to update Mr. 13 Kobayashi on new developments at the -- at Camp Ipperwash 14 and it indicates in the adjacent area and to discuss "How 15 this may or may not impact on use of Ipperwash Provincial 16 Park." 17 And do you recall receiving that 18 information? 19 A: I don't recall this specific e-mail 20 coming in but I have seen it before. 21 Q: You have a general recollection? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And I won't through all the details 24 regarding the following events that are listed in the e- 25 mail but I -- I take it that -- that's consistent with


1 your understanding at the time as to what you were 2 advised in terms of developments? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: If I could have this document marked 5 as the next exhibit. 6 THE REGISTRAR: P-813 and could I have 7 the Document Number again, please? 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, absolutely. It's 9 Inquiry Document Number 1009259. 10 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. 11 12 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-813: Document number 1009259. 13 E-mail to P. Sturdy from L. 14 Kobayashi Re: Ipperwash 15 native issue, July 02/95 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 18 Q: And if I could take you back to 19 Commission counsel's documents at Tab 16, it's an e-mail 20 from Mr. Kobayashi to you and it's Document Number 21 1009258. And Commission counsel did take you to that and 22 it's marked as Exhibit P-775. 23 A: Yes, I'm there. 24 Q: And in this e-mail Mr. Kobayashi 25 indicates that he was contacted by Don Matheson with


1 respect to an incident. But Mr. Kobayashi goes on to say 2 in the third paragraph from the bottom that: 3 "The Ontario Provincial Police are 4 investigating the incident." 5 And this is this incident that you 6 referred to in your testimony regarding the visitor from 7 Michigan. 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: "And occurrence reports will be 10 forwarded to myself." 11 And were these occurrence reports which 12 were to be forwarded to Mr. Kobayashi, or did you 13 understand that they were occurrence reports which were 14 being generated by the OPP or MNR? Or did you have an 15 understanding? 16 A: It's not an usual practice that if a 17 serious incident occurs withing a Provincial Park, that 18 although the investigation is carried out by the OPP, 19 with some qualifications, the occurrence -- their report 20 of that incident may be combined with any materials that 21 we would have as well. 22 Q: I see. Now, we've heard evidence at 23 this Inquiry that at the Interministerial Committee 24 Meeting on August 2nd, 1995 you referred to an incident 25 involving a camper from Michigan being -- being run over


1 or dragged and -- and I take it this is the same 2 incident? This is -- this is the incident that's 3 referred to in this e-mail? 4 A: That's the same incident, yes. 5 Q: If you could turn now to Commission 6 Counsel's documents Tab 17? This is Document Number 7 1009257. It's an e-mail from Mr. Kobayashi to you dated 8 July 13th, 1995, and I don't believe that this was 9 covered in-chief, but I take it you did receive this e- 10 mail? 11 A: Yes, I did. 12 Q: And I take it -- it appears that this 13 information comes from the MNR rather than the OPP -- 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: -- regarding this incident? 16 A: Yes, that's correct. 17 Q: And in this situation you were 18 advised of a verbal confrontation between some occupiers 19 and some visitors in which the Native people advised the 20 campers to stay in the Park and that Matheson Drive was 21 out of bounds. Was that your understanding? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And Matheson Drive is a public road? 24 A: That's right. 25 Q: It -- it's not within the Park?


1 A: No, it is not. 2 Q: If I could have this e-mail marked as 3 the next exhibit? 4 THE REGISTRAR: P-814, Your Honour. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-814: Document number 1009257. 7 E-mail to P. Sturdy from L. 8 Kobayashi Re: Ipperwash 9 incident , July 12/95; July 10 13/'95 11 12 THE WITNESS: I think the -- in part 13 maybe the reason -- sorry. 14 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry, go ahead. 15 THE WITNESS: In part the reason why I 16 might have been copied on something like this would have 17 been to let me know that by having staff located in those 18 positions adjacent to -- between the Park and the DND 19 property, that this was a great help in trying to avoid 20 potential confrontations because I mentioned to you about 21 the history of the Park and that many visitors sort of 22 took it upon themselves to move backwards and forwards 23 between the Base or the former Base and the Park itself 24 and by having staff there we were able to avoid, 25 potentially, a confrontation with a number of people.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 3 Q: And -- and I take it that you were 4 provided this sort of information both by other 5 representatives of MNR, but also the information provided 6 by OPP, that was shared with people within MNR such as 7 yourself so that you could perform your duties, your 8 responsibilities? 9 A: It was to -- yes, I -- I think that's 10 a fair statement; that's correct. 11 Q: And you testified that you learned of 12 the takeover of the barracks on July 30th, 1995, from Don 13 Matheson? 14 A: Yes, at about 8:30 in the morning I 15 believe it was. 16 Q: And Commission Counsel took you to 17 Tab 18 and I just have one (1) question in regard to that 18 document. 19 This is Document Number 1007835 dated July 20 30th 1995, 2:46 p.m. subject, "UC Camp Ipperwash." Do -- 21 do you know what the "UC" refers to? 22 A: Urgent and confidential. 23 Q: Oh, I see. Thank you. And in this 24 e-mail you indicate as -- as you just did that at 8:30 25 you were informed of the incident by Don Matheson and


1 then the e-mail goes on to say: 2 "Who was then asked to attend a meeting 3 with the OPP in Forest." 4 And -- and I take it that it was the OPP 5 who invited Don Matheson to the meeting? Was that your 6 understanding? 7 A: That's my understanding from this 8 note, yes. 9 Q: And I lied, I've got one (1) more 10 question. 11 Towards the bottom there's a reference to 12 -- to the OPP and the Military handling communications 13 with the media and I take it that that was consistent 14 with your understanding that it was the OPP and the -- 15 and the military that were handling the communications at 16 this time in regards to this incident? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And the reference, I take it, to: 19 "Our message being that we're actively 20 monitoring developments with DND and 21 the OPP and that our primary concern is 22 staff and public safety." 23 Our message, that would be message of MNR 24 or the Province? 25 A: That's right.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Could we 2 take a break now, Ms. Perschy? Would this be as good a 3 time as any? 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes. Thank you very 5 much, Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's take 7 an afternoon break then. 8 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 9 for fifteen (15) minutes. 10 11 --- Upon recessing at 3:06 p.m. 12 --- Upon resuming at 3:21 p.m. 13 14 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 15 resumed. Please be seated. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 18 Q: If you could turn to the next 19 document which is in the vanilla folder. This is 20 Document Number 1009255 and this is an e-mail from Don 21 Matheson to you and Mr. Kobayashi dated August 29th, 22 1995, 2:27 p.m. And the subject is Ipperwash Provincial 23 Park Native Issues. 24 And I take it this document along with the 25 attached e-mail -- well, this e-mail indicates that it's


1 attaching an e-mail to Gary Wice in regard to the 2 Ipperwash Native issues as per his tele-con request of 3 August 28th, 1995. And it's for your information. 4 And I take it that you received both e- 5 mail and the attached e-mail. 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: Can you tell me who was Gary Wice? 8 A: I believe he was attached to our 9 Deputy's office. I'm not sure if he was an issues 10 officer or -- I believe he was attached to that office. 11 Q: And it appear -- it appears from the 12 e-mail from Mr. Matheson that he was sending this e-mail 13 and -- and the attached e-mail as per his -- oh sorry. 14 He was sending the attached e-mail to Mr. Wice as per Mr. 15 Wice' tele-con request on or about August 28th. 16 Did you -- did you participate in what I - 17 - what I gather was some sort of teleconference call? 18 A: No, I did not. 19 Q: And if you could turn to the attached 20 e-mail to Mr. Wice it -- it's dated August 29th, 1995, 21 1:18 p.m., and it lists a series of occurrences or 22 activities in the past couple of weeks in relation to the 23 Native issue at CFB Ipperwash and the past and present 24 status of conditions at Ipperwash Provincial Park. 25 And take it that even though it doesn't


1 explicitly say so, some of this information would have 2 come from MNR staff. For example under the heading 'Past 3 two (2) weeks', Number 1, there's -- there's a reference 4 to witnesses seeing some items stolen in the Park and 5 reporting that to Park Wardens who then contacted the 6 OPP. 7 So I take it that information would have 8 come from MNR staff? 9 A: That -- that's correct. 10 Q: And there's also references to the 11 identities of these witnesses then being confirmed. And 12 I'm wondering is -- is that information that would have 13 come from the OPP or would have that -- that come from 14 MNR staff? Or did you have an understanding? 15 A: Whereabouts is that, sorry? 16 Q: Sorry. It's just -- it's right after 17 the information about -- under number -- the heading 18 Number 1, this -- this report of a theft and witnesses 19 observing the activity and passing along to Park Wardens 20 who then contacted the Ontario Provincial Police and the 21 identities of these individuals was confirmed and then 22 the stolen articles returned. 23 Did you have a sense of whether or not 24 this was something -- this is information coming from -- 25 from MNR or the OPP or did -- did you know?


1 A: I didn't know. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And then below that there's some 6 references to some issues in the Park and it's not clear 7 where that information comes from, but I take it you 8 don't have an understanding as to the -- the ref -- the - 9 - the information regarding what was happening at the 10 Park under number 2, the nuisance and antagonistic 11 behaviour. 12 Is that something that came from -- 13 A: It's very probable that that would 14 have been, perhaps, incidents that were being reported by 15 Park wardens or other staff at the Park. 16 Q: And then below that, there's a 17 reference to the OPP still maintaining twenty-four (24) 18 coverage with two (2) officers and a marked police car. 19 And then a reference to the fact that on 20 weekends the numbers of police officers were increased. 21 And then below that under, "Present Status," 22 "At the present time there are 23 undercover police officers camping in 24 Ipperwash Park near the east boundary 25 of Ipperwash Provincial Park monitoring


1 the movement and activities of First 2 Nations people [and that] the OPP is 3 still maintaining twenty-four (24) 4 coverage with two (2) officers and a 5 marked police vehicle and on Labour Day 6 weekend the number of officers will be 7 increased substantially." 8 And just with respect to that sort of 9 information, I take it that that originated from -- from 10 the OPP? 11 A: It would have been -- 12 Q: It may have come in directly 13 through -- 14 A: Yes, yes, correct. 15 Q: I was wondering if we could have this 16 document marked as the next exhibit? 17 THE REGISTRAR: P-815, Your Honour. 18 19 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-815: Document number 1009255. 20 E-mail to P. Sturdy from D. 21 Matheson , August 29/'95. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 24 Q: So from some of the documents that 25 we've looked at both today and yesterday, it appears that


1 on a number of occasions, prior to September 1995, you 2 received, either directly or indirectly, information from 3 the OPP with respect to sort of various incidences or -- 4 or various activities at the camp or at the Park. 5 Information regarding the numbers of police officers, 6 whether or not some of them were under cover, some of 7 their plans, that sort of information. 8 So I take that, given that history, you 9 weren't sur -- you weren't surprised to be provided with 10 that type of information on the days of September 4th 11 through the 6th of 1995? 12 You -- you were used to getting that kind 13 of information? 14 A: Oh, I see. Yes, there had always 15 been this fairly close working relationship at Pinery and 16 Ipperwash with the OPP and -- and that was certainly 17 exhibited by that. 18 Q: And as we've seen, you received that 19 information and you've testified and we've seen one 20 example or a few examples of your communicating 21 information, and in the last e-mail that we looked at, 22 Mr. Matheson communicating information with others within 23 government. 24 And I take it that it wasn't necessarily 25 the case that in conveying this information within the


1 government that it was necessarily specified what the 2 original source of the information was, i.e., whether -- 3 whether or not it had originated with -- from -- from 4 Park staff or whether it came from the OPP? 5 A: It wasn't necessarily included, no. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: And when you provided information to 10 Peter Allen, did you have an understanding as to -- with 11 whom he would share that information? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think it's important, 16 in order for the answers to be helpful, that there be 17 some context given. I mean, I'm sure different types of 18 information would be given to Peter Allen for different 19 reasons, and that may inform, in turn, who Peter Allen 20 might tell. 21 I don't -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I -- 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I just think these 24 questions are so broad, I don't know how they're helpful. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, yes,


1 when you say when you gave -- 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- information 4 to Peter Allen, what information. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 7 Q: Yeah, I'm speaking now -- we've seen 8 some references to -- to some of the updates regarding 9 various things that were happening at the camp or at the 10 Park and some of that you've indicated that -- that you 11 communicated to -- to Mr. Allen. 12 And I'm just wondering if you have any 13 information or you had any understanding as to whether or 14 not he would have shared that information with anybody 15 else. 16 A: I really don't know. I mean he was 17 the EA to the deputy minister so I assume that, in that 18 capacity, he would have shared what he thought was 19 relevant or important or what the Deputy needed to know. 20 Q: And as you've testified you shared 21 some of your information with -- with the -- the members 22 of the Interministerial Committee at the other meetings 23 that you attended? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: If you could turn to the next


1 document in the vanilla folder and this one actually has 2 the number on the back, it's Inquiry Document Number 3 1012224 and this is an e-mail from you to Mr. Jones dated 4 August 1st, 1995. And it -- I believe actually it's also 5 at Tab 19 of Commission Counsel's documents, Document 6 Number 3000626. 7 And you testified in regards to -- you 8 were taken to this e-mail and you testified that you 9 spoke with Inspector Carson regarding several possible 10 scenarios and that Inspector Carson had indicated that in 11 the third scenario the OPP would -- would require, I 12 think the language is, the issuance of the a court 13 injunction. 14 Do you recall being asked some questions 15 in regards to that -- in regards to this e-mail -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- and in regards to this 18 conversation? 19 A: I do, yes. 20 Q: And I noticed that in -- in this e- 21 mail you used the language: 22 "Do we need to do anything to have the 23 paperwork in our back pocket in the 24 event that this is necessary?" 25 And did you -- did you have an


1 understanding at the time that in the event of this third 2 scenario occurring, the OPP expected the government to 3 seek and obtain an injunction fairly quickly? 4 A: That was my understanding. I really 5 -- as I think I mentioned earlier on, I really hadn't had 6 any prior experience in a particular situation like this, 7 so at that particular time, getting a request in 8 discussions with Inspector Carson, that an injunction 9 would be required from MNR, I assumed, because of his 10 previous experience and policing experience, that this 11 was a -- sort of a routine matter, in fact, of how a 12 situation like this might be handled. 13 So rather naively on my part maybe I 14 directed my inquiry to my director of legal service to 15 basically say what do I have to do? 16 A: And -- and I think I recall that you 17 were asked whether or not you got a response to this and 18 I think you indicated that you didn't recall. 19 Do I have that right? 20 A: I don't believe I got a response to 21 this. 22 Q: Fair enough. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Just for the record this 24 is Exhibit P-777. 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you, Ms. Vella.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 3 Q: Could you turn to the e-mail which is 4 at Tab 20 of Commission Counsel's documents? 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit P-778. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 8 Q: This is Inquiry Document 1012223 and 9 it's an e-mail from you to Ms. Patricia Malcolmson. 10 And you were asked some questions in 11 regards to this e-mail and I don't want to cover the same 12 ground, but I note that you indicated, under the 13 recommended response, that MNR was monitoring the 14 situation in consultation with the OPP as our primary 15 concern is for the safety of the public and staff at that 16 Park; that the ownership status of the Park wasn't in 17 question, and that there's been no claim made to the land 18 and the property was acquired following normal processes 19 and therefore the MNR would view the occupation of the 20 Park as an illegal act and would take the appropriate 21 actions. 22 And I'm wondering, what actions were you 23 referring to? 24 A: I think what I was trying to convey 25 that the appropriate actions would have been what we had


1 -- what we had talked about or what I understood would 2 happen in terms of the injunction, that from previous 3 conversation with Mr. Carson, that there may have been 4 other types of things that someone would advise me on at 5 that point. 6 Q: As to what was appropriate? 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: Because as you said you didn't -- you 9 didn't really have that much experience. 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: Fair enough. Now, you testified that 12 the purpose of the Interministerial Committee was 13 discussed at the meeting on August 2nd, 1995. this was 14 the first meeting that you attended and I was wondering 15 if you could just turn to Tab 15 of Commission Counsel's 16 documents? 17 A: I'm sorry, which Tab? 18 Q: Tab 15. 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit P-303. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 24 Q: And this is a briefing note for the 25 Honourable Charles Harnick, dated July 10th, 1995. And


1 for the assistance of other counsel, it's Inquiry 2 document number 1011557. 3 And I'm wondering, did you see this 4 document or a version of this document in August or early 5 September of 1995? 6 Or do you recall? 7 A: I recall that Ms. Jai faxed out a 8 number of documents after our meeting on August the 2nd. 9 If this is one of those documents that was included in 10 that package, because I believe it included some other 11 briefing notes detailing the history, then I've -- then 12 I'm familiar with it. 13 Q: Okay. Fair enough. We've heard 14 evidence that the objective of the Interministerial 15 Committee was first to seek to try and prevent blockades 16 and occupations from occurring, but in the event that a 17 blockade or occupation did occur, the government's goal 18 and it's referenced under the heading, "Issue," the 19 government's goal was to resolve the -- the occupation or 20 blockade as quickly and as safely as possible. 21 And -- and I take it that you were aware, 22 generally, of that objective? 23 A: Could you refer me to -- 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: -- what you're pointing out on --


1 Q: It's under -- 2 A: Sorry. 3 Q: -- the heading, "The Issue." 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: "How to ensure that adequate 6 processes are in place so that 7 aboriginal emergencies including 8 blockades and other forms of direct 9 action can be prevented or if not 10 prevented -- " 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: "-- resolved as quickly and safely as 13 possible." 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And you've indicated you're not sure 16 if you received this document, but I'm just wondering if, 17 whether or not you saw the document, whether you had that 18 understanding that that was an objective? 19 A: I had that understanding. 20 Q: And we've also heard evidence that 21 the Interministerial Committee was responsible, excuse 22 me, for developing recommendations regarding the 23 government's response and -- and I take it that you were 24 aware of that, that that was a -- a role of the 25 Interministerial Committee?


1 A: One of the roles, that's correct. 2 Q: And you mention that it was one of 3 the roles, and we've heard evidence that, in addition to 4 developing recommendations, one of the things that the 5 Interministerial Committee was supposed to do was to 6 ensure that there was adequate information with all 7 affected groups both internally within the government and 8 also with the general public. 9 And my question to you is: Did you know 10 that one of the committee's responsibilities was to 11 consider the government's communications or messages to 12 the public? 13 Did you have that understanding? 14 A: I had the understanding that they 15 were to assist in developing a corporate message or a 16 government message, that's correct. 17 Q: And -- and that's a message to the 18 public? 19 A: Yes, sorry, yes. 20 Q: That's quite all right. If you could 21 turn to the document at Tab 29 of Commission Counsel's 22 documents, that's document number 1008868. 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit number P- 24 781. 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 4 Q: And Commission Counsel took you to 5 this -- to this e-mail. It's an e-mail from Mr. Vervoort 6 to you dated August 31st, 1995. 7 And the first page of the -- of the e-mail 8 advises of the historical background and differentiates 9 between the situation at the camp and -- and the history 10 with respect to the Park. 11 And I think you've testified already that 12 you had that understanding. And attached to those, the 13 emergency contingency plan. 14 And I wanted to draw your attention to 15 Part 4, the Security Plan. And you testified that under 16 Part 4 the plan was that once the Park had been 17 evacuated, the Park would be closed under Section 32 of 18 the Provincial Park's Regulation. 19 And you indicated that a perimeter was to 20 be set up to keep people out. But I take it from this e- 21 mail that if any -- if anyone was found inside the Park 22 the plan was that they would be dealt with under the 23 Trespass to Property Act. That was your understanding of 24 MNR's plan? 25 A: That was -- that's correct.


1 Q: And as indicated under 'E', once the 2 Park was secure it would be manned and monitored on a 3 twenty-four (24) hour basis for trespassing and for 4 vandalism. And again, I take it that was your 5 understanding of the plan? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Could you turn to the next document 8 in the vanilla folder. And that's Document Number 9 3000405. It's a letter from James Kendick (phonetic) 10 dated April 3rd, 2002. And he's enclosing an index of 11 translations of some handwritten notes. And it's a very 12 long letter. I haven't included the whole letter but the 13 index indicates that Tab 16 which is Crown Production 14 Number 7879 in the Civil Action, were some notes offered 15 by Ed Vervoort. And I've included that excerpt to the -- 16 the typed up version of those notes. 17 And you testified that you had attended an 18 MNR meeting on September 1st, 1995 and I just -- I take 19 it -- these aren't your notes but I just wanted to refer 20 to these notes to probe your recollection of -- of that 21 meeting. And on the first page of the notes it 22 indicates: 23 "September 1, 1995, Ron B. --" 24 I take it that's a reference to Ron 25 Baldwin.


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Dan E. would be Dan Elliott? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And Daryl S. I take it would be Daryl 5 Smith? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And Les K. would be Les Kobayashi? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And Peter S. would be you, Peter 10 Sturdy? 11 A: That's me. 12 Q: And Ed V. I take it would Ed 13 Vervoort? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And -- and who is Sherry P.? 16 A: She the administrative assistant to 17 Ron Baldwin. 18 Q: And I just wanted to run through 19 these notes and -- and see if they're consistent with 20 your recollection. The notes indicate: 21 "Ipperwash issue. Minor issue August 22 31 '95 involving drunk Aboriginal, 23 local, Bruce George. Wandered off DND 24 into Park. Escorted out by P.W. [I 25 take it that's a reference to Park


1 Warden] --" 2 A: P.W. is a park warden, correct. 3 Q: "And Les checking why OPP not 4 involved." 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And then: 7 "Inspector Carson feels either Monday, 8 Tuesday may have occurrence." 9 And -- and I take it that's a reference to 10 the anticipation of a possibility of the occupation of 11 the Park that -- that was discussed on the September 1st 12 meeting of MNR that you attended? 13 A: I guess what has confused me here is 14 the -- we had -- we had two (2) meetings. One in the 15 morning which was just an internal meeting of -- of 16 staff. And then we attended a meeting in the afternoon 17 with the OPP, and it was my recollection there only four 18 (4) people involved in that meeting in the afternoon. So 19 I'm -- 20 Q: Fair enough. Maybe if I just run 21 through notes it -- it -- 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: -- it may help in terms of your 24 recollection. 25 A: Yeah.


1 Q: The notes indicate: 2 "OPP ready. Command centre in place. 3 Park to be closed by Superintendent on 4 Monday, September 4th, 1995. What is 5 MNR role if takeover occurs while Park 6 is closed? 7 Peter Sturdy, Emergency Response Team 8 Leader, assisted by Ron Baldwin; Dan 9 Elliott, Native Liaison; Les Kobayashi, 10 Park Superintendent; Daryl Smith, 11 Communications Media; Ed Vervoort, 12 Compliance Operations. 13 [And then] What does OPP expect of MNR 14 in an occupation? Check with Inspector 15 Carson (London). Where can we assist? 16 How much manpower do we need? And 17 where are they?" 18 And I'm going to suggest that -- do you 19 recall having a meeting among MNR prior to your meeting 20 with Inspector Carson? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And in terms of that prior meeting do 23 these notes assist you at all in terms of your 24 recollection of that meeting that these were the sorts of 25 issues that you were discussing?


1 A: Those were the kinds of things that 2 we were discussing. 3 Q: And you testified I believe that you 4 and Mr. Kobayashi and Ron Baldwin and Ed Vervoort, and I 5 hope I've got his name right, met with Inspector Carson 6 on September 1st, 1995? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Those were the individuals? 9 And you testified that at the meeting with 10 Inspector Carson who gave some testimony with respect to 11 what he advised you at that meeting and there was some 12 reference to negotiations at that meeting. 13 And I believe that you also testified that 14 you knew that one (1) of the guidelines for the 15 Interministerial Committee was that there not be 16 substantive negotiations, in other words negotiations 17 regarding the underlying issues while a blockade or 18 occupation was ongoing. 19 And we've heard evidence from Inspector 20 Carson that in regards to the OPP's plans with respect to 21 negotiations that that wasn't intended to mean 22 substantive negotiations regarding the underlying issues 23 and I simply -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I presume 25 this is leading to a question because --


1 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It is. I was just 2 coming to the question. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 5 Q: And -- and my question to you is that 6 I take it from the communications that you had with -- 7 with Inspector Carson, both directly at this meeting and 8 otherwise indirectly, you understood that the OPP wasn't 9 planning on getting into negotiations of, sort of, the 10 substantive issues, the issues underlying the occupation? 11 A: That was my understanding. 12 Q: And if you can turn back to the notes 13 of Mr. Vervoort it indicates under the heading September 14 1, 1995 and I'll just read the notes and then -- and then 15 ask you some questions about your recollection. 16 "MNR held strategy meeting. ERT [which 17 I take it is Emergency Response Team] 18 District Park [I'm not sure if it's 19 community or communications]. Zone 20 Manager assumed lead with support from 21 district manager and specialists. 22 Identify MNR role if takeover occurs 23 while Park closed. What did OPP expect 24 of MNR? Rapid injunction. Commitment 25 to re-examine 1993 contingency plan


1 quickly. ERT met with OPP for briefing 2 and then lead by OPP re-affirmed." 3 And do you recall if there was any 4 subsequent discussions or meeting after your meeting with 5 -- with Inspector Carson on September 1st, 1995? 6 A: Between MNR staff? 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: I'm sorry I can't recall. 9 Q: Well, you did mention in your 10 testimony I believe that you were the lead on -- 11 A: Hmm hmm. 12 Q: -- on this issue and there's the 13 reference to the Zone Manager assuming the lead and I 14 take it that's a reference to yourself? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And I take it that the reference to 17 the support from district manager and specialist, that 18 was a reference to Mr. Baldwin? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And you indicated that in your 21 briefing with Inspector Carson there was some discussion 22 with respect to both OPP's role on the one (1) hand and 23 also MNR's role. 24 And my question with respect to these 25 notes is there's the reference: What did OPP expect of


1 MNR? And then the reference, "Rapid injunction." 2 And was it your understanding -- again 3 from 4 your communications with Inspector Carson, either 5 directly at this meeting or indirectly, that at this 6 time, OPP expected, again in the event of an occupation, 7 that MNR would -- would rapidly seek an injunction? 8 A: I don't know about the word "rapid" 9 to be honest, but certainly as I indicated earlier on, 10 since August this notion of, if this was to occur, that 11 the OPP would be expecting MNR to get an injunction; that 12 was consistent with what was being heard at this meeting. 13 Q: Okay. Well, let me see if I can just 14 probe your memory just a little bit more in terms of the 15 timing issue. 16 If you could turn to document number 17 3000574 which is in the vanilla folder, and this is with 18 respect to a meeting held in London on September 1st, 19 1995. 20 A: I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding 21 it. 22 Q: I'm sorry, it's -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Have you 24 finished with this document now, the one that you -- 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, I have.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 THE WITNESS: Oh 574? 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And just for the 6 record, Ms. Perschy was reading from page 63 of Inquiry 7 document number 3000405. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you, Ms. Vella. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're now 13 looking at 3000574? 14 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 17 Q: And Inspector Carson indicated that 18 he had a meeting with -- with -- among OPP staff and 19 certainly you -- you're not listed as -- as attending at 20 this meeting, but I just wanted to review a couple of 21 passages regarding references as to what MNR was supposed 22 to do, and see if they reflect your understanding from -- 23 from your communications, both directly and indirectly, 24 with Inspector Carson at the time. 25 And at page 5, and I believe this document


1 was actually previously made an exhibit during the 2 testimony of Inspector Carson but unfortunately, 3 Commissioner, I don't -- I don't recall the -- the 4 exhibit number. 5 6 But at page 5, the first... 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Did you want to take 11 some -- some more time to look at -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- the document. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 15 think you need the document to ask the question. 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I just want to assist 17 him in terms of his recollection. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 19 can do that without referring to the doc -- it isn't his 20 document. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Oh, no, no. I 22 appreciate that, but I -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well how's 24 it going to assist his recollection, it's not -- 25 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, I just -- I


1 don't want to be making the suggestions that -- that 2 aren't accurate and -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, that's 4 fair. 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- have the advantage 6 of these -- of these meeting notes so I thought -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fair. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- I would -- since I 9 wasn't at those meetings, I thought I'd make reference to 10 -- to -- to these -- to these -- 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 12 where we are we now? We're on -- 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- documents -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- page 5 -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm sorry, I'm on page 16 5 -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The pages 18 aren't numbered. 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And the first of all 20 paragraph. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The pages 22 aren't numbered, so I'm having a difficult time -- 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, it -- it's -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 25 following.


1 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- five (5) pages in-- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, okay. 3 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What's at 5 the top, completely closes? 6 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Completely closes. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: And the first full 9 paragraph just underneath that indicates, 10 "The reason we're getting the 11 injunction as it gives us all the 12 Criminal Code charges, MNR is literally 13 prepared to go into Court at a minute's 14 notice. MNR has clear title." 15 And you -- you've -- you've testified with 16 respect to the issue of title and your understanding in 17 that regard and I'm wondering, was that consistent with 18 your understanding that MNR was literally prepared to go 19 into Court at a moment's notice? 20 Is that consistent with some of the 21 communications that you had with the OPP, and what -- and 22 what you understood -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- they expected from you? 25 A: To be perfectly honest, the whole


1 injunction process was somewhat foreign to me. It's the 2 first time that, really, that I had been involved in 3 something like this. 4 I don't think that I would have said we 5 can move on this in a minute's notice, not being familiar 6 with all of the workings of a Court and the process 7 that's involved in getting an injunction, so. 8 Q: And I appreciate that you didn't have 9 any familiarity with the process and perhaps I didn't 10 articulate it quite -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- as well as -- as I could have. My 13 question was more towards, from your communications with 14 Inspector Carson, whether or not that was consistent with 15 what it is that -- that the OPP was seeking from you as 16 to whether or not MNR could -- could move quickly, 17 rapidly, I think you've seen some references in -- in 18 some of the other documents or here; that -- that you 19 would be -- you would be going into court at -- at a 20 moment's notice. 21 Did you have any sense of the timing 22 expectations on behalf of the OPP that you recall today? 23 And I appreciate it's ten (10) years. 24 A: I don't -- I'm sorry, I don't recall 25 today.


1 Q: And did you have an understanding 2 that there was a connection again in terms of -- in terms 3 of the -- OPP's view of this between some of the Criminal 4 Code charges and the injunction? 5 Do you recall any discussions with them 6 about that? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Just for the record that was Exhibit 9 P-421. Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Are we 11 finished with that document now? 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, I was just going 13 to make one (1) more reference to it. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 16 Q: On the previous page in the middle of 17 the page, there's a reference; 18 "Even this is peaceful, the best we 19 could hope for is to see a court order 20 twenty-four (24) hours later." 21 And do you recall having any 22 communications with Inspector Carson along those lines? 23 And again it's with respect to this whole timing issue. 24 A: No, I don't. 25 Q: And if you could turn to the next


1 document in the vanilla folder, Ms. McAleer took you to 2 so I'm not going to take you to that one, but if you 3 could turn to the one after that, it's Inquiry Document 4 Number 1010564 and this is an e-mail from you to Mr. 5 Jones. And it's dated 5:52 a.m. and the subject is 6 Urgent Ipperwash Injunction. 7 Do you recall sending this e-mail? 8 A: Yes, I do. 9 Q: And in the e-mail you -- you indicate 10 to Mr. Jones that, as you say: 11 "As you may of seen/heard Ipperwash 12 Provincial Park was occupied by Stoney 13 Point First Nations at 7:30 last night 14 (Monday, September the 4th)." 15 And there's the reference to the fact that 16 the Park Superintendent had closed the Park and the 17 notation that the Parks were opened for day users. And 18 you've given some testimony in that regard. 19 And then you go on to refer to Mr. 20 Kobayashi's attempt to serve written notice last night 21 indicating that the occupiers were trespassing under the 22 Trespass to Property Act and that they refused to take 23 the notice. 24 And I take it that you recall conveying 25 that information to Mr. Jones --


1 A: Yes, I do. 2 Q: -- on the morning -- very early 3 morning of September 5th. And you then indicate that the 4 OPP had requested that you obtain an injunction and you 5 say: 6 "Please can you advise me when this 7 will be available, approximate time 8 required by court as this information 9 is required by the OPP." 10 And do you -- do you recall the OPP asking 11 as to the timing of the injunction on the morning of -- 12 early morning of September 5th, 1995? 13 A: I don't have a clear recollection of 14 that. It may have been as part of a conversation that I 15 had with Les Kobayashi and some discussions that he was 16 having locally. 17 Q: And I take it you recall yourself 18 making the request of Barry Jones? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And if we could have this document 21 marked as the next exhibit. 22 THE REGISTRAR: P-816, Your Honour. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-816: Document number 1010564. 25 E-mail from P. Sturdy to B.


1 Jones, September 05/'95. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 4 Q: And you conclude in this e-mail by 5 indicating that you're going to forward a more detailed 6 note shortly. And attached as part of the same document 7 is a second e-mail from you dated September 5th, 1995, 8 this time it's 6:56 a.m. And the subject again is 9 'Urgent. Ipperwash Provincial Park Occupation'. 10 And this document I believe is also at Tab 11 34 of Commission Counsel's documents and was previously 12 made an exhibit. And I -- I take it that the more 13 detailed e-mail that you referred to in this previous e- 14 mail that we just looked at, the one (1) at 5:52 a.m., 15 this is the second e-mail at 6:56 a.m.? 16 A: Yes, that's correct. 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit P-782. 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 21 Q: And in the second e-mail you provide 22 a summary of events on September 4th and -- and I take it 23 that the summary is consistent with your understanding of 24 what had occurred? 25 A: Yes, it is.


1 Q: And on the second page, and I believe 2 Ms. -- Ms. Vella took you to this, there are some 3 references by way of background to the briefing on 4 September 1st from Inspector Carson and you testified 5 about the sequence of events which Inspector Carson had 6 predicted. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. Perschy, 8 it's not helpful to have you repeat evidence that we 9 already know. 10 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'm just leading up 11 the next question. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It just -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I wish you 15 would do it because -- 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It -- it -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- it's not 18 helpful to just sit and listen to you repeat evidence. 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was just about -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I was just about -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 23 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- to come to my -- 24 to my question. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay.


1 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 2 Q: And the -- the question is this that 3 there's a notation that: 4 "As of last night we have proceeded 5 through the first four steps and a 6 request is now with Legal Services to 7 obtain a court injunction." 8 And I take it that that request -- that's 9 that e-mail that we looked at previously, the request 10 that you made of Mr. Jones? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And Ms. Vella took you to MNR's basic 13 position and -- and I won't take you to that, but the 14 final line, at the end of this e-mail in capital letters, 15 you indicate that: 16 "Priority item for MNR is to proceed 17 with obtaining of injunction." 18 And I take it that that was consistent 19 with your understanding at the time, that seeking an 20 injunction was a priority item. 21 A: That was correct. 22 Q: And you -- you've testified that you 23 didn't have any experience with -- with injunctions or 24 indeed with -- with these sorts of situations so when -- 25 when you say that it was your understanding as of


1 September 5th at 6:56 a.m. that seeking an injunction was 2 a priority item, I take it that understanding was based 3 on some of the communications that you'd had indirectly 4 and directly with the OPP and that MNR was responding to 5 the OPP's request in regards to this issue. 6 A: I think that's a fair assessment, 7 yes. 8 Q: Because I think you said you hadn't-- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- received any direction from your 11 superiors within MNR -- 12 A: No. 13 Q: -- at this point. 14 A: No, that's correct. 15 Q: And it -- and it wasn't your own 16 sense? The -- the issue of timing and the issue of 17 priority wouldn't come from your own sense? 18 A: No, I -- no. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Could you turn to the next document 23 in the vanilla folder which I believe is Document Number 24 1012250? And this is an e-mail from Mr. Daryl Smith 25 distributed to a number of people, including you, and


1 it's dated September 4, 1995 at 1:07 p.m. and the subject 2 is, "Ipperwash Questions and Answers, Q&A's Addition 3 Alexis (phonetic)." 4 And I take it that you received this e- 5 mail? 6 A: Apparently, yes. 7 Q: And the e-mail indicates that 8 included is a first run through on communications 9 material in support of the Ipperwash situation and asks 10 that the recipients of the e-mail review it and it 11 indicates: 12 "Peter, pay particular note to those 13 places where I'm a little shallow on 14 information and need assistance." 15 Do you recall reviewing this communication 16 material some time on September 4th, 1995? 17 A: I don't think so, not on that -- that 18 was Labour Day. I don't think I was in the office that 19 day. 20 Q: Okay. But at some point you received 21 this material? 22 A: Oh, yes, yes. 23 Q: And I take it that this 24 communications material would have been prepared in 25 anticipation of media or public interest in -- in


1 whatever situation might evolve at Ipperwash? This is 2 prior to the -- the actual -- the actual occupation, 3 because it's dated (sic) 1:07 p.m. 4 A: That's correct. Daryl was quite a 5 talented individual amongst that group of communications 6 people in trying to anticipate and foresee what media's 7 and other people's questions, and he a bit of a knack of 8 trying to -- to sort of boil down where they might be 9 headed with their inquiries and with their questions. So 10 I think is what he was trying to do was to -- 11 Q: And to prepare some responses? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: If we could have this document marked 14 as the next exhibit. 15 THE REGISTRAR: P-817, Your Honour. 16 17 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-817: Document number 1012250. 18 E-mail from Daryl Smith to 19 Distribution List. September 20 04/'95. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 23 Q: And if you could turn to, and I 24 believe hopefully it's the last document in the vanilla 25 folder, it's Document Number 1012269 and this is another


1 e-mail from Mr. Daryl Smith dated September 5, 1995 now 2 at 2:59 p.m. And it -- the title is, "Subject: 3 Ipperwash Q's and A's Addition, Bertha." And again 4 you're on the distribution list. 5 Do you recall receiving this second 6 edition of the communication materials? 7 A: I don't specifically but I'm sure I 8 did. 9 Q: And I call it the -- the second 10 edition of the materials and I just note that on the 11 second page it indicates: 12 "For internal MNR staff use only. 13 Addition Bertha, discard Alexis." 14 And I take it that that's consistent with 15 your understanding, this is a revised version of the 16 document that we just looked at. 17 A: Yeah, I think if there would have 18 been ten (10) versions he would have worked his way up e, 19 f, g and h eventually. 20 Q: And if we could have this document 21 marked as the next exhibit. 22 THE REGISTRAR: P-818, Your Honour. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-818: Document number 1012269. 25 E-mail from Daryl Smith to


1 Distribution List, September 2 05/'95. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 5 Q: And do you recall having an 6 opportunity to review this addition of the communication 7 materials? 8 A: I recall there was an awful lot 9 happening on the 5th. I recall a lot of these kind of 10 requests for information coming in from various sources. 11 Undoubtedly, I looked at this at some 12 point. I may have asked some other staff to see if they 13 could help with filling in the blanks that Daryl was 14 looking for. Because I realized that this would -- would 15 be important for him and for communication purposes. 16 Q: And we saw that back in 1993, the 17 military and the OPP were working sort of side by side 18 with respect to communications issues. With respect to 19 the Ipperwash Park occupation between September 4th and 20 6th, did you understand that -- that now MNR and the OPP 21 communication people were working side by side in dealing 22 with -- with media and public responses? 23 A: That was my understanding. However, 24 I think MNR's role was to really respond to questions 25 around the Park itself and questions people might have


1 about its use, it's importance, it's size, and so on and 2 so forth, it's history. 3 Q: Now we've heard evidence at this 4 Inquiry that Inspector Carson told Doug Babbitt who I 5 understand was the OPP communication person at 6 approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 5th by way of a 7 telephone call that MNR was going to pursue a court 8 injunction and that it was okay to communicate that to 9 the public. 10 Were you aware that the OPP had 11 effectively, sort of, approved the release of that 12 information in regards to pursuing an injunction on the 13 morning of September 5th? 14 A: I wasn't aware of that, no. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And did you hear or see any media 19 reports on September 5th, 1995 about the province 20 pursuing an injunction? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: I may have, later in the evening, if 25 there was television or radio communications, but I don't


1 have a specific recollection. I recall that it was 2 appearing in a briefing -- some briefing material for our 3 deputy on the morning or, yes I believe it was the 4 morning of the 6th. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: And did you know that the OPP did 9 provide such information to the media on September 5th? 10 I mean you didn't see it yourself -- 11 A: No. 12 Q: -- but I'm just wondering if you 13 heard that from -- 14 A: No. 15 Q: -- anybody? 16 A: No. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And do you know anything about MNR 21 and Toronto being upset about the media being advised 22 prematurely about the province seeking an injunction? 23 A: I didn't hear anything. 24 Q: Okay. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: There's a reference in the scribe 4 notes, I'm not sure what the exhibit number is for the 5 scribe notes from September 4th to September 7th, but I'm 6 wondering if -- 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Exhibit 426. 8 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Thank you. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: If that could be 13 provided to the witness. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 THE REGISTRAR: What was the exhibit 18 number again? 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: P-426. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Could you 25 give me some indication, Ms. Perschy, of how long much


1 longer you may be? 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, I'm a good -- 3 good portion of the way through. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you 5 estimated an hour to an hour and half. You've already 6 been close to that. 7 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, I will try to be 8 brief, Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we're 10 -- it's now 4:15. I want to adjourn and I just want to 11 get an idea, will you be finished by 4:30? 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Let's see... 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't want 17 you to take time to tell me -- 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, I appreciate 19 that -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- how long 21 you're going to be, because then we won't be finished. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I think it'll take me 23 a little bit longer than -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, we'll 25 stay until --


1 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- 4:30. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you 3 finish. 4 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Okay. And I -- I will 5 endeavour to -- to be brief. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 9 Q: If you could just turn to the 10 exhibit. It's -- the date is September 6th. It's page 11 57 and there's an entry in the scribe notes, 12 "09:37 hours [and it states] Les 13 Kobayashi enters command post. Peter 14 said it is all patched up with deputy's 15 office and there was some concerns." 16 Do you know, is -- is that a reference to 17 you or could that be a reference to Peter Allen, or do 18 you know? 19 A: I can't recall what that was about, 20 to be honest. 21 Q: Fair enough. I just wanted to now 22 take you to the Interministerial Committee meetings. If 23 you could just turn to the minutes which are at Tab 40. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Q: And these are the minutes of the 2 meeting on September 5th. And on page 2, under the 3 heading, "Updates from the Solicitor General and MNR," 4 the minutes indicate that: 5 "The province holds valid title to the 6 Park." 7 And I take it, from your previous 8 testimony, that that's consistent with your recollection 9 of what was communicated at the meeting? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You've 11 already asked that question in another context. I don't 12 know how many times -- 13 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: No, in the other 14 context it was with respect to his own understanding and 15 I'm now asking about what was communicated at the meeting 16 on September the 5th. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't have a very good 18 recollection of -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 20 understand. 21 THE WITNESS: -- what was communicated. 22 And my -- my recollections are based primarily on the 23 minutes and unfortunately I don't have records of my own 24 in terms of what I may have communicated or not. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 2 Q: But I take it your -- your 3 recollection has been consistent with that? You're 4 saying it's based on the minutes and -- and the minutes 5 make that reference? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Fair enough. Now, you -- you 8 testified -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think he 10 said he didn't have any recollection, so -- 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: So then it wouldn't 12 be -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so the 14 minutes are -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- fair enough. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you know, 17 in front of us. Having him say he has no recollection 18 isn't helpful. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 21 Q: You -- you testified about your 22 awareness of the official band's position with respect to 23 the status of the Stoney Point Group and we've heard some 24 evidence at this Inquiry that that issue was also raised 25 at the August 2nd, 1995 Interministerial Committee


1 Meeting and -- and I'm wondering if -- if -- if you 2 recall that at all? 3 A: I'm afraid you'd have to take me back 4 to that -- those minutes. 5 Q: Okay. So you don't have an 6 independent recollection then? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Now, coming back to the meeting on 9 September the 5th, 1995 we've heard evidence that Ron 10 Baldwin raised the issue of a relationship with the 11 official band and their concern or frustration if the 12 Province didn't take some sort of action with respect to 13 the situation at the Park and there's some references in 14 -- in Ms. Hipfner's notes in that regard and I can take 15 you to that if that would assist, but without looking at 16 those notes do you have -- do you have a recollection in 17 that regard? 18 A: I'm sorry I don't. 19 Q: Well, why don't we just -- 20 A: Sure. 21 Q: -- take you to the notes and see if 22 that assists. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: And I believe you've been provided 2 with a copy of her notes. 3 A: Is that P -- 4 Q: They're Document Number 1011739. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: Is it P-510 that I'm looking at? Is 9 that... 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm -- I'm not sure 11 what the exhibit number is. 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's a separate 13 document. 14 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It -- it's a separate 15 document I'm advised. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: What date do you want? 17 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: The -- the notes from 18 September 5. It's P-510. 19 THE WITNESS: P-510, that's right. No I 20 have it. Sorry, I have it. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Oh, you do have it? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 25 Q: And about four (4) pages in at the


1 bottom of page -- there's a reference to some comments 2 attributed to Ron Baldwin and I think you testified that 3 obviously you knew him and you would have recognized his 4 voice and you -- you also testified that -- that you were 5 sort of focussing or perking up your ears for any issues 6 that -- that had particular relevance for you and for 7 your staff and that your role at this meeting was to 8 address the situation at the scene. 9 And according to -- to these notes the 10 comments attributed to Mr. Baldwin are that: 11 "There are permanent homes and cottages 12 in area. We think about relationship 13 in Kettle and Stony Point First Nation 14 likely to get frustrated if we don't 15 take some sort of action." 16 And you -- you've testified that you were 17 conscious of the relationship with -- with the Kettle and 18 Stony Point First Nation and I'm wondering if you have a 19 recollection as to -- as to comments in that regard being 20 made at -- at this meeting? 21 A: I don't -- I'm sorry I don't have a 22 recollection. 23 Q: And a couple of pages in there are 24 some notations with respect to some comments attributed 25 to Christian B. and I understand that that's a reference


1 to Christian Buhagiar and I don't believe that -- you -- 2 you didn't know Mr. Buhagiar at the time, but the 3 references indicate: 4 "Need a communications plan. Issue of 5 doing anything but confirm 6 status/recognition/legitimacy of the 7 Stoney Pointers. If send someone from 8 ONAS, confirms the legitimacy, OPP, MNR 9 on the ground and running that would be 10 more appropriate." 11 And do you recall someone making comments 12 along those lines at the meeting on September 5th? 13 A: No, I'm sorry. 14 Q: And we've heard evidence that at the 15 meeting on September 5th, Ron Baldwin raised some 16 concerns about the occupiers cutting down trees, Park 17 trees and asking if they couldn't be charged with 18 mischief with respect to that. 19 And I'm wondering, do you have any 20 recollection or comments in that regard being made at 21 that meeting? 22 A: No, I don't. 23 Q: If you could turn, I believe you also 24 have -- there's one more document in the vanilla folder. 25 And that's Document Number 1009251.


1 A: Correct. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And this is an e-mail from Mr. 6 Elliott to, again, the distribution list and you're on 7 that list. 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And it's an e-mail dated September 5, 10 1995, at 2:33 p.m. and do you recall receiving this docu 11 -- this e-mail? 12 A: Evidently I did. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The question 14 is do you recall receiving it. 15 THE WITNESS: No but -- I'm sorry, no I 16 don't but evidently I -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If you 18 didn't receive it, say you didn't receive it, if you 19 don't remember. 20 THE WITNESS: I guess because my name is 21 on the bottom of it. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I -- I take it that 23 what you're saying is you don't independently recall 24 receiving it but you're not disputing that you would have 25 received it because your name is on list.


1 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I don't -- yes, 2 I don't dispute that I did receive it, I'm sorry. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 6 Q: And this is an update from Mr. 7 Elliott and the subject is 'Ipperwash Update Number 2' 8 and does the reference to: 9 "Continuing to make phone contact with 10 Chief Tom Bressette." 11 And then below that: 12 "With respect to obtaining a written 13 position statement." 14 And -- and I believe you testified that 15 you were aware of the fact that Chief Bressette was 16 supportive of the government's -- the government's 17 position with respect to dealing with the occupation at 18 the Park? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: That's fine. And then the third 21 bullet point does the reference to: 22 "After considerable discussion the 23 Interministerial Committee is pursuing 24 an injunction order to remove the 25 Native occupants from Ipperwash


1 Provincial Park, and another meeting is 2 schedule for tomorrow morning to 3 discuss progress." 4 And -- and I take it that that's 5 consistent with your recollection of the meeting. 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And in this e-mail Mr. Elliott 8 indicates that there's a need to identify a spokesperson 9 and to -- and a reference to OPP negotiators and Les 10 Kobayashi going to the Park today at 13:00 hours to 11 discuss the issue of the Native occupants but the Native 12 occupants wouldn't talk to them. 13 Do you recall being advised of that? 14 A: I believe that Mr. Kobayashi and I 15 during one of his telephone updates, would have mentioned 16 that to me, yes. 17 Q: And then it indicates, just below 18 that, that: 19 "The OPP negotiators and Les, [and I'm 20 assuming that's a reference to Mr. 21 Kobayashi] then met up with Bert 22 Manning at -- at the Camp Ipperwash 23 gate and Bert Manning stated that he 24 wasn't the spokesperson, but understood 25 that trespass charges were pending for


1 the occupation of the Park and that 2 there will likely be criminal charges 3 as well." 4 And I take it that you recall being 5 advised of that information? 6 A: I may have been, but certainly I was 7 communicated it through this note. 8 Q: I was wondering if we could make this 9 document the next exhibit? 10 THE REGISTRAR: P-819, Your Honour. 11 12 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-819: Document number 1009251. 13 E-mail from D. Elliott to 14 Distribution List, September 15 05/'95 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 18 Q: I take it that no one at either the 19 Interministerial Committee meetings on August 2nd, 20 September 5 or September 6th explained what was a 21 negotiator/facilitator or what sorts of things such a 22 person would do without getting into negotiations, sort 23 of substantive negotiations, dealing with underlying 24 issues? 25 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, I think


1 it's more fair if the witness is asked if he recalls 2 anyone discussing those issues and providing that kind of 3 explanation. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps you 5 could put the question that way, Ms. Perschy? 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 8 Q: Well, I mean, obviously it's going to 9 be -- it -- it's to do with your own recollection and do 10 -- do you have a recollection of somebody providing that 11 sort of -- that sort of explanation at these meetings? 12 A: I don't believe that that was 13 discussed at all. 14 Q: Could you turn to the e-mail which is 15 at Tab 49 of Commission Counsel's documents. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit 787. 20 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 23 Q: Yes, for the assistance of other 24 Counsel, this is document number 1006 -- 25 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 09.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 1009033. 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My apologies. 1009033. 3 I believe the same e-mail is also Inquiry document 4 1006393. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 9 Q: And this is an e-mail from you dated 10 September 6th at, I believe it's 7:19 a.m., according to 11 the alternative copy of this e-mail that we have. 12 And it -- is that consistent with your 13 recollection that that's approximately when you sent out 14 this e-mail? 15 A: Yes, approximately. 16 Q: And... 17 A: I'm sorry. On what time? 18 Q: 7:19 a.m. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: And it -- it's not clear from -- from 21 the copy that you have -- 22 A: No. 23 Q: There's just -- there's another copy 24 of the e-mail which indicates the date (sic) of 7:19 and 25 I'm just wondering if that's consistent with your


1 recollection. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And attached -- the e-mail indicates 4 that attached is an update prepared late yesterday 5 afternoon of events surrounding the occupation which was 6 prepared by Dan Elliott. 7 And then you refer to some additional 8 developments which had occurred overnight, including four 9 (4) OPP vehicles being damaged by rocks during night 10 patrols, and a hundred (100) to a hundred and fifty (150) 11 rounds of automatic gunfire being reported within the 12 Park. 13 And I take that you recall receiving that 14 information and sending this e-mail? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Excuse me, 16 Ms. Perschy. I believe that Ms. Vella went over this in 17 some detail. 18 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Then I'll move on -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Asking about 20 each item. 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I'll move on to the 22 next one, because I did have a slightly different 23 question. I do appreciate that this -- that this subject 24 was -- was covered. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 2 Q: We've heard evidence at this Inquiry 3 that aboriginal people do keep guns for hunting and I'm 4 wondering, did you believe that with respect to these 5 reports of hundred (100) to a hundred and fifty (150) 6 round of gunfire, whether or not it was automatic, but at 7 night time do -- was -- was that consistent in your mind 8 with -- with any hunting activities? 9 Was that your understanding? 10 A: I really wouldn't have that knowledge, 11 in London, receiving that information from Mr. Kobayashi. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: Who was, in turn, being provided with 14 that information from the OPP. 15 Q: Fair enough. But in any event, even 16 assuming that -- that it was somehow connected with any 17 hunting activities, with respect to your own concerns and 18 -- and you spoke to that, would you still have been 19 concerned about such reports of a hundred (100) -- a 20 hundred (100) to a hundred and fifty (150) -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He -- 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: -- rounds of gunfire in 23 the vicinity of the Park at nighttime when you knew that 24 there were people in the Park and the Camp? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He already


1 said that he was concerned. 2 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: In -- in -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm 4 absolutely certain that he said that. 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I -- I appreciate that, 6 but my question was with respect to assuming that there 7 was -- there was -- it was somehow in -- in connection 8 with some sort of hunting activities, whether or not that 9 -- that would have in any way affected your concerns? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 11 finding this helpful at all, Ms. Perschy. I understand 12 that you've got to do what you think you have to do, but 13 I'm not finding it helpful. I don't know if that's 14 important to you or not, but I'm certainly not finding it 15 helpful. 16 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: It -- it -- it's always 17 -- it's always important to me. It was -- it was one (1) 18 small question and then I'll be moving on, but I -- I just 19 wanted to find out whether or not that would have affected 20 in any way your concerns, the suggestion that this -- this 21 was somehow hunting activities? 22 THE WITNESS: Hunting activities at night? 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 25 Q: Yes, hunting activities at night with


1 reports of a hundred (100) to a hundred and fifty (150) 2 rounds of gunfire? 3 A: Yes, that would have concerned me. 4 Q: Now, I take it that on September 6 5 your sense was that the situation was escalating based on 6 some of these developments that had occurred overnight as 7 compared with the situation on September 5th? 8 A: I think I mentioned that my -- my 9 concerns were escalating because of the number of things 10 that are related to staff safety and those kinds of 11 issues, yes. 12 Q: And you -- you testified with respect 13 to hearing of some of the concerns of the local residents. 14 And we've -- we've heard evidence of a police report that 15 late in the afternoon or the early evening of September 6 16 a number of local residents had assembled not far from the 17 Park and were discussing marching on the Park to confront 18 the occupiers and that the police had -- had 19 communications with them in -- in that regard to convince 20 them not to do that. 21 And I'm just wondering if you were advised 22 of that during the course of the latter part of the day on 23 -- on the 6th? 24 A: I don't believe so. 25 Q: Were you made aware of that later?


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: I don't think so. 4 Q: Could you turn to Tab 47 of Commission 5 Counsel's documents? This is Document Number 1008138 and 6 it's an e-mail from Mr. Daryl Smith and it's distributed 7 to you among others and it's at 11:14 a.m. and the subject 8 is Hot CKCO TV Footage. 9 And this e-mail indicates: 10 "Scheduled for noon today reporter and 11 cameramen were on scene when natives 12 came towards their vans with baseball 13 bats. OPP on site drew guns eyeballing. 14 All of this is on footage. Media centre 15 here only knows this through CKCO TV. 16 Saw leader tape." 17 And my first question is: Do you recall 18 receiving this -- this -- this e-mail? 19 A: No, I don't, but... 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, that's 21 fine. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: My question was -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:


1 Q: My next question was simply going to 2 be: I take it you -- you don't dispute that you would 3 have received this since you're on the distribution list? 4 A: I don't dispute it. 5 Q: And we've heard evidence that you made 6 some references at the Interministerial Committee Meeting 7 to some footage at noon on September 6th, 1995 and perhaps 8 I'll just take you to the reference. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 10 where are you now, Ms. Perschy? I want to be with you. 11 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry. Yeah. I was 12 just -- I was going to take Mr. -- Mr. Sturdy to the notes 13 of Eileen Hipfner of September 6 which I believe are 14 Document Number 1011799. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: And it's Exhibit P-636. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY. 19 Q: 1011799. And at page 7 there's some 20 notes attributed to you. It says: 21 "Sturdy -- what will be televised at 22 noon is scene of Natives coming toward 23 media van with baseball bats. OPP draw 24 guns." 25 And do you recall making some references


1 along those lines at the Interministerial Committee 2 meeting? 3 A: I don't recall it specifically. But I 4 don't dispute it if it's -- if it's included in these 5 notes, in these recollections. 6 What I think this particular e-mail arrived 7 in my office during the Interministerial Committee. 8 Q: And when you -- when you were on the 9 phone participating in this Interministerial Committee, 10 was that from your office? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: So you could have been receiving e- 13 mails while you were on -- on the conference call? 14 A: Oh, yes I was. 15 Q: You were? Okay. And did -- did you 16 understand that Mr. Smith had seen this tape? It 17 indicates saw leader tape. 18 A: That was my understanding. 19 Q: And that -- 20 A: If I can perhaps just give a wee bit 21 of context to -- 22 Q: Absolutely. 23 A: -- to this kind of thing. As civil 24 servants, as you grow up in the civil service, one of the 25 things that we get taught is to be on the lookout for


1 items that are going to get our Ministry or our Minister 2 onto the front page. Particularly the top half of the 3 front page. 4 So when things like some of these events 5 that are reported occur, I felt with this particular group 6 because of their mandate around communications, because of 7 the purpose of this to make recommendations, that they 8 should be aware and I felt it was important to transmit 9 some of this information. And that was sort of the 10 context behind forwarding on bits and pieces like this. 11 Q: I understand. We've heard evidence 12 that the -- the meeting concluded on the basis that the 13 Interministerial Committee would recommend seeking an 14 injunction ASAP and I think that's reflected in the 15 minutes which are at Tab 44. 16 I take it that -- that is consistent with 17 your recollection? 18 A: I'm sorry the -- what is consistent 19 with my recollection? 20 Q: Sorry. The recommendation that the 21 Interministerial Committee would be -- would be 22 recommending that an injunction be sought ASAP? It's -- 23 it's at page 3 of the minutes in terms of Next Steps, it's 24 the first bullet point. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And I take it that at the conclusion 2 of this meeting there had been some references during the 3 meeting to a tentative meeting at noon hour between the -- 4 the occupiers and -- and the OPP and I take it that your 5 understanding was that you still had an expectation that 6 more information might be forthcoming from -- from this 7 noon hour meeting with -- with the occupiers? 8 A: I was hopeful but I was -- in 9 reviewing some of the material I was reminded that Mr. Dan 10 Elliott had indicated the day before that Mr. Manning had 11 said that he wasn't going to be the spokesperson for the 12 group. I believe that was on the 5th. 13 So something I was certainly hopeful that 14 that would occur on the 6th at noon that there would be 15 some advancement. 16 Q: And -- and I think in that e-mail 17 there was always a reference to the suggestion that they 18 come back the next day. 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: And I'm wondering -- I won't take you 21 to it, but -- but that's consistent with your 22 recollection? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: But that was something that was 25 communicated?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: When did you find out that the noon 3 hour meeting didn't go ahead? 4 A: I would like to -- likely have been 5 advised by Les later on that afternoon because I believe 6 he was involved or may have been involved in that. 7 Q: And I take it that you were told that 8 the meeting didn't proceed because the occupiers didn't 9 want to speak the OPP? 10 Or did you have an understanding as to why 11 it didn't go ahead? 12 A: I just had an understanding that they 13 didn't want to speak. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: You want to make that e- 18 mail an exhibit? 19 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, thank you. 20 Commission Counsel has reminded me that I failed to make 21 Inquiry document number 1008138, the e-mail from Mr. 22 Smith, the next exhibit. 23 THE REGISTRAR: P-820, Your Honour. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 25


1 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-820: Document number 1008138. 2 E-mail from Daryl Smith to 3 Distribution List Re: Hot CKCO 4 TV footage , September 06/'95 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 7 Q: And finally, in reviewing many of 8 these documents, both from 1993 through to 1995, Camp 9 Ipperwash and Ipperwash Park are frequently mentioned at 10 the same time, and did you understand that -- that what 11 occurred at the camp could have an impact on what occurred 12 at the Park; that the two (2) were somewhat interrelated? 13 Or did you have an understanding? 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I'm sorry. I -- 15 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Sorry. 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- I recall distinctly 17 asking a series of questions with respect to whether there 18 was a risk assessment done as a result of the occupation 19 of the camp in '93 and then in '95 the barracks. 20 We've -- well, we've had the answer on 21 that. 22 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, this is a 23 slightly broader question -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, this is 25 a broader -- this is...


1 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: I mean, it's simply a 2 question of what his understanding was. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY: 5 Q: Did you have an understanding? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have an 7 objection as well, Mr. Myrka? I'm -- you said it was your 8 last question -- 9 MR. WALTER MYRKA: The question -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 11 right? 12 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Yes, it is. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You said it 14 was your last question. I'm not going to get into an 15 argument. 16 MR. WALTER MYRKA: No. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 18 MR. WALTER MYRKA: The question is very 19 broad and perhaps if she could clarify -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 21 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- what she meant. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think she 23 wants it to be broad. 24 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Absolutely. I mean, 25 the witness is free to answer it as he wishes.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Your question 2 was the Park and the camp are often mentioned in the same 3 sentence or in connection with each other and so what is 4 the question? 5 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: The question was -- was 6 -- was simply whether you had an understanding that -- 7 that what occurred in regards to the camp situation might 8 have an impact in regards to the Park. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's -- 10 MR. WALTER MYRKA: I'm having trouble 11 with -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Hmm hmm. 13 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- the phrase "what 14 occurred in the camp situation" -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 16 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- and what -- does she 17 mean the occupation or the -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't think 19 -- the answer to the question isn't going to be 20 particularly helpful, but I -- 21 MS. ANNA PERSCHY: Well, let me rephrase 22 it and hopefully we'll -- we'll end it at that, since it 23 was my last question. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. ANNA PERSCHY:


1 Q: There was an occupation at the camp 2 and I take it that you understood -- it'll be a two (2) 3 part question, you understood that the occupation of the 4 Camp was in regards to some claims in regards to the 5 return of those lands? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And with respect to the return of 8 those lands and the delay with respect to the return of 9 those lands, and the occupation that ensued as a result, 10 did you have any sense that those issues, the frustration 11 with respect to that issue had any connection with respect 12 to what occurred in regards to the Park and the occupation 13 of the Park? 14 A: I think it's fair to say that within 15 the Ministry of Natural Resources there was a belief that 16 the extraordinarily long time in being able to resolve the 17 issues of Camp Ipperwash created frustrations which then 18 boiled over into the Park itself. 19 Q: Thank you very much, no further 20 questions. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 22 that's all. Thank you very much. 23 We will now adjourn for today and we'll 24 reconvene -- you have to come back, you're not finished 25 yet. There's still some more --


1 THE WITNESS: Oh. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- lawyers 3 who have to ask you some questions, but we will have -- 4 we'll adjourn now until nine o'clock tomorrow morning, 5 thank you. 6 7 (WITNESS RETIRES) 8 9 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 10 adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday October 20th, at 9:00 11 a.m. 12 13 14 --- Upon adjourning at 4:40 p.m. 15 16 Certified Correct 17 18 19 20 21 22 _____________________ 23 Carol Geehan 24 25