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 20th, 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 ) (np) 13 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 14 Mary Jane Moynahan )(np) 15 Dave Jacklin ) (np) 16 Trevor Hinnegan ) 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 ) 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 Cross-Examination by Ms. Andrea Tuck-Jackson 9 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian McGilp 19 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Janet Clermont 30 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Vilko Zbogar 35 10 Cross-Examination by Ms. Jackie Esmonde 100 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Kevin Scullion 132 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Julian Roy 146 13 Cross-Examination by Mr. Walter Myrka 203 14 Re-direct Examination by Ms. Susan Vella 223 15 16 LESLIE KAZO KOBAYASHI, Sworn 17 Examination-in-Chief by Ms. Susan Vella 229 18 19 Certificate of Transcript 289 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-821 Document number 3000725. Department 4 of National Defence Log Sheet, 5 December 08/93. 68 6 P-822 Document Number 1009980. Fax from 7 Daryl Smith to D. Elliott, R. Baldwin, 8 P. Sturdy, L. Kobayashi, E. Vervoort, 9 B. Steele re. Historical notes Ipperwash 10 Provincial Park, September 14/95. 99 11 P-823 Document Number 1008860. E-mail from 12 Leith Hunter to Peter Sturdy attaching 13 draft Affidavit of Peter Sturdy, 14 September 21/95. 131 15 P-824 Document Number 1012524. Fax from Dave 16 Jackson to various attaching draft of 17 Review of 1995 Hostile Occupations at 18 Ipperwash and Serpent Mounds Provincial 19 Parks, Feb.09/96. 145 20 P-825 Resume of Mr. Leslie K. Kobayashi 230 21 P-826 Document number 1008878. Memo to 22 Ipperwash Planning Team members Re: 23 Summary of Public Review and the 24 upcoming agenda, August 24/'89. 242 25


1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-827 Document number 1008954. Draft 4 Letter from L. Kobayashi to 5 Michael George and " Extract from 6 Policy number PM1 - Prov. Parks 7 Policy - Implementation Details" 8 November 09/'89 253 9 P-828 Document 1009932. Memo from J.E. 10 Osborn to Mel Crystal, Coordinator 11 Re: Indian land claim - Ipperwash 12 Prov. Park, Nov. 14/'89 256 13 P-829 Document number 1008306. Letter from 14 L. Kobayashi to Michael George Re: 15 Ipperwash Prov. Park Management Plan, 16 Nov. 15/'89 257 17 P-830 Document number 1010784. Memo to 18 file by John Osborn Re: "Ipperwash 19 Park Management Plan- Native 20 Councils", March 09/'90 261 21 P-831 Tab 19, Inquiry Document 1010467, 22 a note to Leslie Kozo Kobayashi from 23 Wendy Nab, dated either February the 24 8th or August the 2nd, 1993. 271 25


1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (Cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 P-832 Document number 1010304. MNR 4 letter from L. Kobayashi to Elizabeth 5 Thunder Re: "Ipperwash Draft 6 Management Plan", June 06/'94 275 7 P-833 Document number 1010465. E-mail 8 from L. Kobayashi to Wendy McNab 9 Re: "KP/SP and Pinery /IPP Park", 10 Feb. 22/'93. 280 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:05 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, Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 8 MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: Good morning, 9 Mr. Commissioner. Good morning, Mr. Sturdy. 10 11 PETER HOWARD STURDY, Resumed 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDREA TUCK-JACKSON: 14 Q: My name is Andrea Tuck-Jackson. I'm 15 going to ask you some questions on behalf of the OPP. 16 And if I may I'd like to begin by taking 17 you to what has been marked as Exhibit P-798. It's at 18 Tab 77 of your binder. It's an e-mail dated September 19 19th, 1995 from yourself to Peter Allen. 20 And sir, there's been a suggestion at 21 this Inquiry that the OPP were involved in the decision 22 to abandon the application for an injunction. And 23 further, there's been a suggestion that perhaps a 24 motivation behind the OPP's input into the decision to 25 abandon it was somehow related to a desire on their part


1 to avoid judicial review of their activity on September 2 the 4th to the 6th. 3 So, I'm interested, sir, in your comments 4 as reflected in paragraph 2 of this e-mail. And I 5 gather, sir, from the e-mail that at some point you had 6 a conversation with Chief Superintendent Coles as to his 7 views of the logic or the soundness in continuing with 8 an injunction application. 9 A: That's my recollection. 10 Q: Yes. And I gather, sir, if I can 11 take you specifically to the paragraph, you were left 12 with the impression by Chief Coles that in his view an 13 injunction was not a preferred route because it would 14 some way hinder discussions aimed at de-escalating the 15 situation or it might prompt him to take action which 16 again would undermine his attempts at de-escalating 17 tension. 18 A: That was my understanding. That's 19 correct. 20 Q: Thank you, sir. You had, by the 21 sounds of your evidence, limited contact with Chief 22 Coles. You referred to some contact that you had, I 23 understand, with him in August referable to the 24 establishment by the MNR of their confidence and their 25 title to the Park.


1 And you also referred to a meeting that 2 you had with Chief Coles -- Chief Superintendent Coles, 3 excuse me, referable to his cautioning you about the 4 risk of allowing for the circulation of information that 5 came from the police that had not yet been verified. 6 Do you recall that testimony that you 7 gave us about that? 8 A: The first -- the first example you 9 gave was actually by form of communication, I believe, 10 through our district office which was then relayed to me 11 as a request from Chief Superintendent Cole himself. 12 Q: All right. 13 A: And that -- that was relayed to me, 14 that's correct. 15 Q: I can tell you, sir, that I've had 16 an opportunity to review Chief Superintendent Coles' 17 date book. And there's an indication therein that he 18 had contact with you on August the 22nd of 1995 which 19 right -- is right in around the time that there are 20 these discussions about people at your end providing 21 verification as to their confidence in the title as to 22 the Park. 23 So can only assume, sir, that that had 24 something to relate to that request that Chief Coles had 25 -- had made?


1 A: Right. 2 Q: You have no reason to dispute that? 3 A: No reason to dispute that. 4 Q: All right. I'm interested, sir, in 5 the meeting that you had with Chief Superintendent Coles 6 referable to his caution about the flow of some -- 7 sometimes very sensitive and sometimes inflammatory 8 information. 9 And what I gathered from your evidence, 10 sir, was that there was no doubt in your mind that the 11 meeting in that regard took place at the OPP detachment 12 in Grand Bend? 13 A: That was my recollection, yes. 14 Q: All right. And there was no doubt 15 in your mind, sir, as to the general gist and tone of 16 the conversation or the information that he was 17 imparting to you? 18 Do I have that correct? 19 A: About the sensitivities? 20 Q: Exactly. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: All right. And I can tell you, sir, 23 I don't take issue with that. The -- the only thing I 24 wanted to be certain about, sir, and to me from your 25 evidence you're unclear about it, is to the actual


1 timing as to when that meeting took place, do I have 2 that correct? 3 A: That is correct. 4 Q: All right. Sir, the evidence is -- 5 is quite clear and beyond dispute that the OPP hadn't 6 set up any command post related to the Ipperwash 7 incident in Grand Bend until after the unfortunate 8 events of the evening of September the 6th. 9 Does that assist you in any way, sir, as 10 to the likelihood that the meeting you've described took 11 place after the evening of September the 6th? 12 A: I believe that it was on the 7th or 13 8th; that I believe was the range of possible dates that 14 I talked about. 15 Q: All right. So in -- in all 16 likelihood and frankly more than in all likelihood going 17 more to, frankly, certainty, the meeting you described 18 took place after the events of the evening of September 19 the 6th? 20 A: That was my recollection. 21 Q: Thank you. You've also described, 22 sir, the contact that you had with then Inspector John 23 Carson. And again by the sounds of it your Ipperwash 24 related, if I can put it that way, contact occurred 25 prior to the actual occupation. Is that --


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: All right. And I'm going to suggest 3 to you, sir, that during your brief contact with then- 4 Inspector Carson, prior to the occupation, he left you 5 with two (2) key impression as to the approach that the 6 OPP would take in the event that the occupation took 7 place. 8 And I'm going to suggest to you first of 9 all that he made it clear to you that the OPP were going 10 to advocate an approach that involved negotiation in 11 order to diffuse the tension that arose from the event? 12 A: I believe that's -- that would be 13 correct, yes, in terms of proceeding through with an 14 injunction, yes. 15 Q: Yes. Exactly. And if it assists, 16 sir, if I could take you to what's been marked as 17 Exhibit P-777. It's at Tab 19 of your materials. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: You'll note, sir, this is an e-mail 22 that you were sending to Barry Jones on August the 1st, 23 1995 and in effect it captures the substance of the -- 24 the phone conversation you'd had with John Carson 25 earlier on in the day, correct?


1 A: The substance; I can't verify that 2 these were his actual words, but it was my 3 interpretation. 4 Q: That's fair, that's fair. All 5 right. And I note, sir, towards the bottom of that e- 6 mail you write: 7 "OPP response: Evacuate Park of staff 8 and public." 9 And then it's the next word I'm 10 interested in: "negotiate". And then physically remove 11 from the Park. 12 So quite clearly as early as August the 13 1st John Carson was sending a message to you that 14 negotiation was to play a key part in any way that the 15 OPP were going to be dealing or resolving an anticipated 16 occupation? 17 A: That's fair. 18 Q: Okay. And secondly, I suppose to 19 reinforce the point, you put it very eloquently in your 20 examination-in-chief, when you arrived for the meeting 21 down in the London office on September the 1st something 22 that struck you was the -- the phrase that was written 23 on the blackboard; 24 "To contain and negotiate and peaceful 25 resolution."


1 You spoke of that? 2 A: That's correct, I did. 3 Q: And I trust the symbolic importance 4 of that, just reinforced in your head, your 5 understanding that the OPP was going to be taking an 6 approach that involved negotiation? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Secondly, sir, I'm also going to 9 suggest to you, and again, you've already alluded to it 10 several times, that as early as August the 1st, John 11 Carson on behalf of the OPP was making it clear to you 12 that the OPP wanted an injunction in order to assist 13 them in resolving any anticipated occupation? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And in all your contact with the 16 OPP, right up until the time of the unfortunate events 17 of September 6th, they maintained that position? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: Thank you. Finally, sir, you 20 referred very briefly to Ron Fox in your testimony 21 yesterday. And one of the snippets of the 22 Interministerial Committee meeting of September 6th that 23 stood out in your mind or that you recall, was then- 24 Inspector Fox's comment that, well title's all well and 25 good, but sometimes things aren't quite as they seem.


1 You recall your evidence in that regard? 2 A: I do. 3 Q: And you've also told us, sir, that 4 it was in August of 1995 that you took some steps to 5 verify your understanding of the Ministry's title of the 6 Park, correct? 7 A: That's correct. And there had been 8 steps taken prior to that as well, as you recall, in '89 9 and '93. 10 Q: Of course. I had understood, sir, 11 your evidence, that you were prompted again to, in 12 effect -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- do a double check in August of 15 1995? 16 A: That's correct. For my own 17 satisfaction. 18 Q: And I'm going to suggest to you, 19 sir, that it was as a result of enquiries by the OPP and 20 John Carson in particular, that prompted you to make 21 that enquiry? 22 A: Yes, in part. 23 Q: Thank you. And I also understand, 24 sir, that towards the end of August, you or someone 25 designated by you actually provided the OPP with paper


1 documentation that appeared, on its face, to verify the 2 MNR's good title to the Park? 3 A: Yes, we did. 4 Q: All right. And interestingly 5 enough, though, notwithstanding the fact that you, on 6 behalf of the MNR, had provided what appeared to be good 7 evidence as to title of the Park by the end of August, 8 the police were still maintaining the position on 9 September the 5th and onwards that they, notwithstanding 10 evidence of the title, still wanted an injunction in 11 order to assist them? 12 A: That was my understanding, yes. 13 Q: Thank you very much. Those are my 14 questions, Mr. Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 16 Ms. Tuck-Jackson. 17 Mr. McGilp...? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. IAN MCGILP: Good morning, 22 Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 24 morning. 25


1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IAN MCGILP: 2 Q: Good morning, Mr. Sturdy. 3 A: Good morning. 4 Q: My name is Ian McGilp and I'm one of 5 the lawyers who represent the OPPA in this proceeding 6 and I will be a model of brevity. I have very few 7 questions for you. 8 And the first matter, sir, is I 9 understand you told us yesterday when Ms. Vella was 10 conducting your cross -- your examination in-chief, that 11 Mr. Kobayashi would brief you with respect to serious 12 incidents that may have happened in one of the Parks of 13 which you were superintendent; is that correct? 14 A: That is correct. 15 Q: And that it was his practice, I take 16 it, to copy you with incident or occurrence reports when 17 they were -- involved a serious incident; is that 18 correct? 19 A: When you say an "occurrence report" 20 that means to me something -- a document that we have 21 internally. 22 Q: Yes. I'm sorry -- 23 A: Are you referring to that or are you 24 referring to e-mails and -- and that kind of 25 communication?


1 Q: No, I was asking you, sir, if you 2 were, from time to time, received copies of what are 3 called Park Complaint and Occurrence Reports. 4 A: Oh yes. 5 Q: Which were filled out by MNR staff 6 with -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- respect to a particular incident? 9 A: That's correct. I'm sorry, that's 10 correct. 11 Q: Now, if I could ask the witness be 12 given four (4) documents? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Thank you. I've provided copies of 17 these four (4) occurrence reports to your Counsel, Mr. 18 Myrka, on Tuesday. I'm not sure if you had a chance to 19 look at them but they're very brief. And I would -- 20 A: I did briefly. 21 Q: You did brief them, thank you, sir. 22 The first one I would ask you to look at is Inquiry 23 Document 1008051. And it's an Occurrence Report dated 24 August the 7th of 1995. 25 Do you have that document, sir?


1 A: I have that in front of me. 2 Q: And you'll see it says: 3 "At approximately 8:00 p.m. campers 4 heard gunshots coming from the army 5 camp area. They also heard about 6 twelve (12) shots fired. OPP were 7 notified and extra police patrolled the 8 Park." 9 The question I have, sir, did you receive 10 a copy of that Occurrence Report as far as you recall? 11 A: To be honest, I don't recall 12 receiving this. 13 Q: Do you remember being briefed about 14 this incident? 15 A: I may have had a phone call from Les 16 but I can't recall actually receiving this document, no. 17 Q: I take it, sir, that an incident 18 where campers heard gunshots coming from the army camp 19 which is, as we know, adjacent to the Park, that that 20 would normally be a serious enough incident that you 21 would be apprised of it? 22 A: Normally I would be apprised of 23 incidents that occurred within the Park and -- and as I 24 tried to explain, this was a judgement call of all of my 25 staff as to whether they provide me with that kind of


1 verbal or e-mail kind of communication for issues that 2 might revolve around Park visitor safety and staff 3 safety and so on and so forth. 4 It would be a judgement call as to 5 whether gunshots being heard outside the Park would be 6 necessarily communicated in a formal way through copies 7 of this report. 8 The trouble I'm also having, to be 9 honest, and I didn't anticipate this, was that at some 10 point in our organization or life, the -- these reports 11 were not routinely sent in as they had been many years 12 ago where we would get a large bundle of these every 13 month. 14 So I'm -- I'm not sure if this was 15 included and that was part of the process in -- in 1995 16 or whether we had terminated that practice and we only 17 sent in the very serious kinds for Occurrence Reports. 18 Q: I notice that it says on the bottom 19 of these documents: 20 "Send yellow Occurrence Reports to 21 District and Region every Monday." 22 A: That's correct. That's what I'm 23 referring to. 24 Q: That's what you're referring to? 25 A: Yes, exactly.


1 Q: So you -- your evidence is that you 2 cant' recall whether or not you received information 3 about this incident? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: The second Occurrence Report in the 6 bundle is dated August the 27th of 1995 and it is 7 concerning gunshots coming from the Matheson Drive 8 around 00:10 hours which is ten (10) minutes after 9 midnight. And it says: 10 "While getting into my vehicle at 11 Ipperwash, a single gunshot could be 12 heard .22 calibre, coming from the Army 13 Camp near gates at Matheson Drive. 14 Approximately one (1) minute later 15 another shot could be heard coming from 16 the same area." 17 And then the author goes onto explain 18 that he attempted to contact certain Park Wardens and 19 the OPP. 20 And I have the same question, sir, do you 21 recall whether you were briefed about this incident or 22 received a copy of this Occurrence Report? 23 A: I'm afraid I don't. 24 Q: You don't recall? The next one in 25 the sequence, sir, is dated August the 31st of 1995 and


1 it says: 2 "OPP advising park employees to stay 3 away from the fence and beach area of 4 the east fence. OPP have heard 5 gunshots at approximately 01:00 and 6 03:00 hours. Numerous individuals seen 7 in the far east side of the beach at 8 Matheson Drive." 9 And then it goes onto describing other 10 incidents that occurred some distance from the Park. 11 But I'm interested in the first part. 12 Do you recall being informed that the OPP 13 had warned park staff to stay away from the east -- from 14 the beach area and -- and east fence of the Park? 15 A: No, I'm afraid I don't recall that. 16 It may have occurred but I don't recall. 17 Q: Thank you, sir. The last one in the 18 sequence is dated the 5th of May -- or pardon me, the 19 27th of May, 1995 and this is concerning threats 20 received from natives driving motorcycles while on 21 Military sand dunes. And the investigator says: 22 "While on foot patrol PW [Park Warden] 23 504 and SO [I'm not sure what that 24 stands for] number 1 --" 25 A: Security officer.


1 Q: "[Security officer] stopped at site 2 201. Site owner Tom Purcell stated 3 that earlier he was over on the 4 Military sand dunes with six (6) 5 children ages eleven (11) to fourteen 6 (14). While on the dunes one (1) 7 native on a quad runner and one (1) 8 native on a motorcycle confronted the 9 children and himself. During the brief 10 encounter Tom and the children were 11 told they were on Indian land and that 12 they, the natives, 'Should shoot their 13 heads off.'" 14 Also to get off their land. The male 15 doing all the talking had slurred speech. The incident 16 occurred between 21:00 and 21:30 hours Friday, May the 17 26th. Same question, sir, do you recall being informed 18 of that incident? 19 A: I'm afraid I don't. 20 Q: Sir, I -- I understand you may not 21 recall these reports, but would you agree with me that 22 it is surprising that you were not briefed -- 23 A: I'm not -- 24 Q: -- with respect to a series of 25 incidents during this time frame all of which involved


1 gunshots -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- in an area immediately adjacent 4 to the Park. In one (1) instance the gunshots were 5 heard by the police, in another instance by Park staff 6 and in another instance by campers. 7 And gunshots in an area immediately 8 adjacent to the Park in the Army Camp which had been 9 occupied, I would have thought would have been of 10 sufficient concern to the safety of Park users that Mr. 11 Kobayashi likely did inform you of these incidents? 12 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, I'm sorry. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- I think that -- at 15 this -- at this point the Witness has indicated he has 16 no recollection. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Now he's being asked 19 to speculate as to -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Why... 21 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- what Mr. Kobayashi 22 did or didn't do. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. He 24 said he hadn't received any briefing about these or 25 can't recall any; that's...


1 MR. IAN MCGILP: Yes, Commissioner, he 2 says he doesn't recall -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Recall. 4 MR. IAN MCGILP: -- but I -- the 5 question that I last put to him was: Is it not likely 6 that he would have received these reports and I mean he 7 can answer whatever way he chooses of course. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if 9 you stop you question there, that's a fair question. 10 MR. IAN MCGILP: That's the question, 11 sir. 12 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat it? I'm 13 sorry. Was it probable that I... 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. IAN MCGILP: 16 Q: Given the nature of the incidents 17 referred to in these occurrence reports is it not likely 18 that Mr. Kobayashi would either have sent you a copy of 19 the occurrence report or advised you otherwise of these 20 incidents? 21 A: I think it is likely that these 22 types of incidents would have arisen during 23 conversations that Mr. Kobayashi and I had over the 24 course of time. These weren't the only areas that 25 things like this were being reported in.


1 I mean, there were also editorials in 2 newspaper articles over the course of '95 which alluded 3 to various incidents and things that were occurring. So 4 I think it likely that -- very likely that Mr. Kobayashi 5 would have perhaps discussed maybe not these specific 6 individual -- on an individual basis, but -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We're 8 completely in an area of speculation. He has no 9 recollection of this, he's just -- just guessing what 10 may have happened. 11 MR. IAN MCGILP: Thank you, sir. We can 12 ask Mr. Kobayashi about these incident reports, if he 13 received them. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. IAN MCGILP: 17 Q: Sir, I only have one (1) more 18 question for you and it arises out of what you called 19 Ipperwash Status Report Number 2 which is -- can be 20 found at Tab 49 of your materials. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: And this is Inquiry Document 25 1009033. I believe it was made an exhibit, but I don't


1 have -- 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's Exhibit 787. 3 MR. IAN MCGILP: 787. Thank you, Ms. 4 Vella. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. IAN MCGILP: 7 Q: You recall this document, sir, it's 8 dated the 6th of September, 1995 and it's an e-mail to a 9 distribution list from yourself. 10 And you'll see that at the top of the e- 11 mail you say: 12 "In addition the following developments 13 occurred over night?" 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And then on the third bullet point 16 down you say: 17 "Heavy equipment was heard to be 18 working within the Park, but the type 19 of work is unknown at this point. An 20 assessment should be available later 21 today following a further surveillance 22 flight by the MNR helicopter being used 23 by the OPP." 24 Now I just have one (1) question about 25 that, sir, did you ever get an update as to what work


1 had been done by the heavy equipment during the night of 2 September the 5th and 6th? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 A: I don't believe so. That's a good 7 question and I don't believe so. 8 Q: You don't recall ever -- 9 A: I don't recall -- 10 Q: -- getting any information -- 11 A: No. 12 Q: -- about that? 13 A: Of what that was about. 14 Q: Mr. Sturdy, I appreciate your time. 15 A: Thank you, sir. 16 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 18 Mr. McGilp. 19 I think Ms. Clermont is next. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 24 Q: Good morning, Mr. Sturdy. 25 A: Good morning.


1 Q: My name is Janet Clermont and I'm 2 one of the Counsel for the Municipality of Lambton 3 Shores. 4 And I'm just interested in the 5 communications between the municipality and the MNR 6 field staff; those are what my questions are going to 7 be -- 8 A: Okay. 9 Q: -- prefaced on. Yesterday, you gave 10 evidence that as part of the critical incident team, 11 Daryl Smith was appointed communications officer? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: And Dan Elliott the native liaison 14 to the Band? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And can you tell me if anyone from 17 the MNR critical incident team was assigned to 18 communicate or liaison with any municipal officials? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 A: I don't recall that there was -- 23 that was a role that was assigned to Mr. Smith or 24 directly or to Mr. Elliott. 25 Q: Do you recall if it was assigned to


1 anyone else? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: No, I'm sorry, no. 6 Q: Okay. No, that's fine. I just want 7 to take you to Tab 94 which is document number 1012220 8 and that's Exhibit P-802. 9 And if I could turn you to page 12 of 10 the -- 11 A: Sorry, that was Tab 94? 12 Q: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Did you say 14 page 12? Page 12? 15 MS. JANET CLERMONT: Page 12. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. JANET CLERMONT: 20 Q: And I'm interested -- do you have 21 that there? 22 A: Yes, I have that. 23 Q: And I'm interested in the -- one of 24 the paragraphs under "communications", the third 25 paragraph, in the -- the sentence -- the first sentence,


1 "Observations were also made that at 2 times our communications -- 3 communication efforts with external 4 groups such as surrounding residents 5 and community leaders as well as with 6 local media was not as it could have 7 been." 8 And can you tell me what this was in 9 reference to? Do you have any recollection of that? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 A: This was a report that covered, as 14 you know, the two (2) incidents -- 15 Q: Right. 16 A: -- that occurred in that year and -- 17 Q: So, I would just be interested in as 18 it is reflected -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- this incident. 21 A: I can't recall whether this -- this 22 observation came about as a result of the occurrences 23 and the incidence and the communications that took part 24 in the -- in the local community here. 25 Q: Okay. And if you could just look at


1 number 10, the recommendations, we're still on the same 2 page. 3 "The Committee recommends a 4 communications network and a crisis 5 communications strategy be identified 6 in all contingency plans." 7 And would you agree that a communications 8 network or crisis communications strategy should include 9 dialogue or communication with the local municipality? 10 A: Absolutely. 11 Q: And would you agree that this 12 contact should be made as soon as possible? 13 A: Yes. And recognizing that different 14 -- I think, recognizing that different organizations or 15 agencies have different messages if you will, that 16 they're able to communicate. 17 Q: Okay. And the last -- the last Tab 18 that I wanted you to turn to was 44 of Commission 19 Counsel documents. And these are the IMC notes from 20 September 6th, document number 1011766, Exhibit P-509. 21 Those are the Interministerial Committee notes. 22 On page 2, again under the heading, 23 "communications", number 4, and I'm interested in the 24 second sentence that: 25 "MNR will also work on informal


1 communications with key people in the 2 region to diffuse tensions." 3 And I'm wondering if you recall that 4 suggestion being made during the September 6th meeting? 5 A: I'm sorry, I'm -- I'm having 6 difficulty recalling that. 7 Q: And are you able to help me out with 8 whether that task was assigned to the muni -- by the MNR 9 field staff or the MNR Toronto staff? 10 A: I believe it was the MNR Toronto 11 staff that would have been assigned that responsibility. 12 Q: Thank you for your help. 13 A: You're welcome. 14 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 16 Mr. Zbogar...? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Good morning, Mr. 21 Commissioner, Mr. Sturdy. 22 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 23 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 25 Q: My name is Vilko Zbogar. I'm


1 representing the Estate of Dudley George and members of 2 Dudley George's family. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: You were asked yesterday about -- 5 well some questions about the incident in May of 1993 6 when there was I guess a mini occupation, if you will, 7 in which a structure was placed inside the Provincial 8 Park. 9 Do you recall that? 10 A: I recall that question, yes. 11 Q: And Ms. McAleer asked you some 12 questions about the differences between that situation 13 in May or June of 1993 -- May and June of 1993 and the 14 situation of 1995. 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: I would like to maybe to that list, 17 if I can. 18 You already said that one of the 19 differences was that there were no meetings with the 20 members of the occupying group in 1995 whereas there 21 were meetings in May and June of 1993. 22 And another difference I'll ask you -- so 23 that -- that's evidence that's already on the record, 24 that's right? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: Another difference I want to ask you 2 about is this. In 1993 there was a passage of time of 3 several weeks during which the mini occupation 4 eventually ran its course and eventually came to an end, 5 right? 6 A: I'm having a little difficulty with 7 your term of occupation in '93. 8 Q: Well demonstration, let's use that 9 word. 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: There was a passage of time in which 12 there were -- there was an opportunity for meetings to 13 take place? 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 15 Myrka...? 16 OBJ MR. WALTER MYRKA: My objection, 17 Commissioner, is the use of demonstration as well. I 18 believe the evidence is that a bailiff's notice was 19 served and with the Ministry's concurrence an 20 informational booth was set up for a short period. 21 In my submission, the use of the term 22 'demonstration' for that are not helpful and are going 23 to confuse the Witness. It's not an appropriate term. 24 And that's -- that's my objection. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We haven't,


1 sort of, developed a term to describe that event. 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, we -- we all 3 know what we're talking about so I don't think Mr. 4 Sturdy going to be confused. 5 But it's the incident where a structure 6 was placed inside the Park. I don't know what term 7 you'd use to describe that if -- if there was a term to 8 describe that. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Perhaps the 10 1993 incident. 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 1993, yes. 12 THE WITNESS: My recollections are that 13 there was a letter of authority, if you will, that was 14 provided to Mr. George and Mr. Carl George I believe it 15 was, Mr. Maynard T. George which indicated that as a 16 result of that meeting, that a structure would be placed 17 in Ipperwash Park and that was being done so under the 18 authority of the Provincial Parks Act. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 21 Q: Okay. So, between the time that 22 there were those discussions, and the structure was 23 removed from the Park, there was a passage of time of a 24 couple of weeks in which the situation was eventually 25 allowed to resolve?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And in contrast to 1995 there wasn't 3 a passage of time similar to that and it was only a 4 couple of days between the time that the occupation 5 began and Mr. George was shot? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And similarly, there was only a 8 couple of days between the time that the occupation 9 began and the time that the Government was in court 10 seeking an injunction, right? 11 A: On the 7th? 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And therefore it was also -- is it 15 fair there was also -- that there was also less 16 opportunity to have negotiations or meetings or 17 discussions or dialogue in 1995 than there was in 1993, 18 given the shorter period of time? 19 A: I think my recollections are that 20 there was a great deal of difficulty finding someone to 21 have those discussions with. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: Right. 24 Q: So that was one (1) of the issues? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: You -- you talked about it 2 yesterday? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: So one (1) issue was a problem 5 finding somebody to talk to? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Another problem was there wasn't 8 time to find somebody to talk to? 9 A: I'm sorry, I don't know how to 10 answer that because a day went by, another day went by 11 and then there was a tragic incident. 12 Q: Yeah. 13 A: I don't know. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 15 sure you can answer any better than that. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Carry on. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 20 Q: Your expectation would have been 21 that, at some point after the occupation began, there -- 22 there would have been dialogue between the occupying 23 group and representatives of either the OPP or the 24 government, right? 25 A: About the occupation, yes?


1 Q: And that never happened, right? 2 A: Not that I'm aware of. 3 Q: And it's possible that if more time 4 was allowed to pass that might have happened. 5 Is that something you can comment on? 6 A: It's possible that that would have 7 happened. There seemed to be a course set in terms of 8 getting an injunction and then proceeding on that basis, 9 but I suppose that might very well have happened. 10 Q: Another difference I -- I suppose is 11 that in 1993 the situation was handled internally by MNR 12 staff; is that right? 13 A: It was handled internally by MNR 14 staff, but my recollections are that there had been 15 discussions with and contact made with the OPP and they 16 were aware of what was occurring and what course of 17 action was being taken. 18 At that time, of course, as you know, 19 there were -- there were meetings, there were exchanges 20 of correspondence, there were papers served which were 21 allowed to run their course in terms of being reviewed 22 at different levels and eventually it was -- it came to 23 a conclusion. 24 Q: All right. So in 1993 the MNR was 25 making decisions and -- and telling the OPP what was


1 going on; is that fair? 2 A: There was communication and dialogue 3 in 1993 between the OPP and the MNR. 4 Q: And in 1995 it wasn't MNR, 5 exclusively, that was making the decisions, but 6 decisions were being made elsewhere; is that right? 7 A: Well, I think that the situations 8 from my vantage point seemed to be quite different. 9 Q: Of course. 10 A: And -- and when a certain time 11 period came about, and an occupation took place, then it 12 was made very clear to us that this was a policing 13 matter at that point -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- and that we had a different role 16 to play as -- as MNR in the community. 17 Q: Of course. And -- and you're 18 correct, the situations were very different so. 19 Another difference between 1993 and 1995 20 was that there was a different government in place, 21 right? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Now you talked a little bit about 24 the injunction as well and I know you had limited 25 understanding of the legal terminology being used and


1 that sort of thing. 2 I understand MNR's position, your 3 position, was that getting an injunction was important, 4 but did you express any view either at the 5 Interministerial Committee meetings or otherwise, to 6 your superiors, about your desired timing for an 7 injunction? 8 A: I don't recall that I had those kind 9 of discussions, because I felt that there were other 10 people who were far more knowledgeable from the Ministry 11 of Natural Resources, who were lawyers by background, 12 who probably could add far more credibility to an 13 argument than I could. 14 Q: Right. So you never advocated or 15 took a position that the injunction should be sought 16 sooner rather than later; is that correct? 17 A: As I think I talked about yesterday, 18 the whole notion of an injunction had come up earlier in 19 -- in the summer, in August and -- and -- and my 20 understanding was that, rightly or wrongly, that this 21 was a matter of normal course for the OPP to -- to 22 pursue that avenue in terms of a resolution of an issue 23 if it came to that. 24 So I expected that that's what would 25 happen; that an injunction would move forward.


1 Q: So to answer my question, you never 2 advocated a position that the injunction should be 3 sought, once the occupation began, you never advocated a 4 position that the injunction should be sought sooner 5 rather than later; that's correct? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And I take it also that you never 8 gave an opinion or -- or expressed any views as to 9 whether the injunction should be sought on an ex parte 10 basis, if you even know what that term is? 11 A: I have a very simplistic 12 understanding of these two (2) terms that have been 13 used, but if -- if you're talking about an emergency 14 where only one (1) party goes to Court to get an Order, 15 that's -- if that's my correct interpretation of that -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- kind of injunction, no, I didn't. 18 Q: Thank you. Now, you received a 19 number of briefings from your staff over the course of 20 September 5th and 6th from your staff, periodically, 21 while you were working in your London office? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Do you -- how -- how late were you 24 working on that day, on the 6th; do you recall 25 approximately?


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: Probably 'til sometime after 5:00, 4 six o'clock, some time in there. 5 Q: I guess what I want to know is, 6 prior to being informed about the shooting of Dudley 7 George or the incident that happened in the evening, 8 what was the latest that you would have been aware of or 9 briefed about incidents going on at the Park, on 10 September 6th? 11 A: I don't recall any conversations 12 where I was contacted by Les or Ed Vervoort who were at 13 the Forest command post. 14 Mr. Kobayashi was scheduled to be, I 15 believe, in Sarnia the next morning on September the 16 7th, so I don't believe I heard very much from him at 17 all that evening, until later, until... 18 Q: Right. So but the latest you would 19 have heard from Mr. Kobayashi or Mr. Vervoort or anybody 20 else from -- who was on the site would have been before 21 you left for the day, from your office? 22 A: That's likely, yes. 23 Q: And I understand from your evidence 24 that, up until that point, where you left your office, 25 you had no expectation or reason to anticipate that


1 there would be any escalation of significant events with 2 respect to the occupation; that's correct? 3 A: None. I had no -- no reason to 4 believe that there would be any escalation, that's 5 correct. 6 Q: And I take it that, to your 7 knowledge, there was nothing urgent going on, on the 8 afternoon of September 6th which would, in your view, 9 have warranted an escalation of action by the MNR or -- 10 or the OPP that day? 11 A: I wasn't communicated any 12 information in which really to form a judgment about the 13 events. I didn't know what was actually happening -- 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: -- out there, of course, at that 16 particular time and I can't recall any conversations 17 that would have led me to believe that things weren't 18 going to proceed as they should in terms of the 19 injunction the next morning. 20 Q: If I can refer you to Tab 48 of your 21 documents, Exhibit P-727. We've looked at -- 22 A: Tab 48? 23 Q: Tab 48. We've looked at this 24 document before and basically what it deals with is 25 reassigning -- or one (1) of the things it deals with is


1 reassigning -- giving instructions to reassign staff to 2 other duties. 3 Now, is it fair to say that it was MNR's 4 expectation that it might take a little while before 5 everything was resolved with respect to the Park and -- 6 and that's why staff would be reassigned to other 7 places? 8 A: There was discussion, I believe, in 9 the afternoon between myself and Mr. Peter Allen, who 10 was the executive assistant to the Deputy, and as a 11 result of a number of things that had occurred in the 12 Ipperwash area on the 6th, as an example, with the use 13 of MNR staff to help remove picnic tables, with the fact 14 that one (1) of my staff -- it was -- it was suggested 15 to him that he go to a meeting at 12:00 with a bullet- 16 proof vest. 17 Probably the report of information that 18 we had from the command post that there was gunfire, I 19 think a combination of those things and my concern for 20 staff safety, I'm sure the Deputy's concern for staff 21 safety precipitated this letter. 22 Q: Sure. Wouldn't another factor be 23 that there was no anticipation that MNR staff would be 24 needed imminently to, for example if the Park was taken 25 back?


1 A: This letter was specifically around 2 issues of staff safety. 3 Q: Okay. Sure. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, I asked you about the -- the 8 injunction contents but I want to ask you more 9 generally. 10 At the Interministerial Committee 11 Meetings or in speaking with your superiors, you never 12 advocated or -- or expressed the view that the situation 13 was so urgent that it needed to be resolved within say a 14 day or two (2); that's correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: And while I understand you obviously 17 had serious concerns about the safety of your staff and 18 the public, I understand you did not feel that the 19 situation was so urgent that it needed to be resolved 20 within a day or two (2) and that's why you didn't 21 express those views? 22 A: Could you repeat that again? Sorry. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 24 you've already asked that question. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think you 2 have, I think you have. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It was different but 4 that's fine. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 7 Q: Now in -- in your view would it be 8 fair to say that this was not an emergency that required 9 the removal of the occupiers within a -- a day or two 10 (2) but might take a few days to -- or a few weeks even 11 to resolve? 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 A: That's a fair statement. I mean 16 these things bridge -- I think it would be fair to say 17 that these things sort of bridge my experience and -- 18 and potentially even a great many people's in MNR's 19 experience and when you get into this kind of a policing 20 matter I think you rely on expertise that's perhaps 21 outside, certainly, of my realm. 22 Q: I want to take you to a few of the 23 minutes of the notes taken by members of the 24 Interministerial Committee Meeting on September the 5th 25 and there's a binder before you which contains those


1 minutes. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And I want to take you to some of 6 the statements made by staff of MNR or people in the 7 Ministry. And perhaps the first one I can take you to 8 is at Tab -- well you'll see there's September 5th and 9 September 6th minutes in that -- in that binder, I'm 10 looking at the September 5th documents for now. 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: And if you can turn to Tab 12 which 13 are the notes of Julie Jai. And that is Exhibit P-536 14 and document number 1012579. And if I could turn you to 15 page 3 of that document, about a third of the way down 16 there's a reference to Peter Allen. Do you see that? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And about four (4) lines after his 19 name appears, it says: 20 "They're just occupying an empty park. 21 Shouldn't take overly precipitous 22 action." 23 Do you see that? 24 A: Yes, I do. 25 Q: And I take it you -- you didn't


1 disagree with Peter Allen's statements? 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 3 sure that he has ever commented on this statement. Has 4 he heard -- did he hear the statement? 5 I mean, these are in Julie Jai's notes. 6 I don't -- 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- how much 9 he knows about Julie Jai's notes. 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Fine. Well, we'll 11 start with that question -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I -- 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 15 Q: Do you recall Peter Allen making 16 that comment? 17 A: No, I don't. 18 Q: If -- well I take it that reading 19 that doc -- reading that statement now -- 20 A: I'm sorry. 21 Q: You have a statement before you now 22 which says: 23 "They're just occupying an empty park 24 and shouldn't take overly precipitous 25 action."


1 I take it you don't disagree with what 2 Peter Allen is saying in that statement now? 3 MR. WALTER MYRKA: The Witness has been 4 referred to a note that is not his own. And I'm -- I'm 5 -- it's my submission that this is not helpful if -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I agree, 7 it's not helpful. I mean, it's not helping at all. He 8 has doesn't no -- I mean, I'm not sure when the first he 9 saw or read Julie Jai's notes or what he knows about 10 them or not, but if he says he doesn't recall this 11 statement being made, I don't think he should asked 12 anymore questions about a statement he doesn't know. 13 MR. WALTER MYRKA: And that's -- that's 14 my submission. He said throughout that numerous notes 15 don't assist him in his recollection. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He -- 17 MR. WALTER MYRKA: He wishes they did 18 but they don't and in my submission that's the end of 19 the matter. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 21 should be too. But, carry on, Mr. Zbogar if you have -- 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Fair enough. I'll-- 23 I'll carry on I think. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: If there 25 are parts of these notes that he recalls, that he heard,


1 then I think -- or perhaps reading the notes helps him 2 recall, but he hasn't said that so far. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I think in the 4 interest of time, I'll just move on actually. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 8 Q: I understand you -- you met with 9 Chief Superintendent Chris Coles on September 7th or 8th 10 and also I think Ms. Tuck-Jackson referred you to a 11 previous occasion in August where you met with him. 12 Do you recall if you had any occasion to 13 meet with him on any -- of any -- any other time? 14 A: I think there were a few occasions 15 some time later in September/October that we touched 16 base and met with him in London. There were some other 17 issues surrounding Pinery and some things were of 18 concern in that area that also took some time up. 19 Q: Pretty much all the contact you 20 heard with Chief Superintendent Chris Coles was with 21 respect to Ipperwash or Pinery then? 22 A: Yes that's my recollection. 23 Q: Now, did you in your dealings with 24 him, did you form an opinion? 25 Was he someone that you would have


1 trusted as a reliable source of information or somebody 2 who's views you would have respected? 3 A: I have a great deal of respect for 4 the OPP and I had no reason to doubt that Chief 5 Superintendent Coles was someone that I could trust and 6 respect, yeah. 7 Q: Now, when Chief Superintendent Coles 8 was here giving evidence on August 17th, he gave his 9 views on the state of situation as he saw it on 10 September 6th, from an OPP perspective, and I want to 11 maybe put that to you and see what your comments are 12 from an MNR perspective if I can. 13 So, he gave evidence as to the urgency 14 or, I guess, the lack thereof, as he perceived it, in 15 regard to Ipperwash up to about four o'clock p.m. on the 16 afternoon of September 6th, 1995 when he was in the 17 area. 18 And I want to know whether MNR's 19 assessment of the situation is consistent with what his 20 assessment was. And if I could summarize to you some of 21 the things that he explained to this Inquiry. 22 First of all, he said there was nothing 23 particularly going on at the Park as of the afternoon of 24 September 6th. 25 Secondly, he said there was nothing going


1 on that he would consider to be an emergency situation 2 that required immediate action by his officers as of 3 that time. 4 And thirdly, he said that as of about 5 4:00 p.m. on September the 6th, there was no hint of 6 anything that suggested to him that things would be 7 escalating later that day. 8 So, that was his evidence that he did not 9 -- apparently did not believe an emergency situation 10 existed. Do you or MNR -- or did you or MNR have a 11 different view than what I've just -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I think 13 you can only ask him about his view. 14 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: As opposed 16 to MNR, his view. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 19 Q: Well, let me ask you this. Does 20 that accord with your view of the situation, from what 21 you knew of the situation? 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 23 Myrka...? 24 MR. WALTER MYRKA: The difficulty I'm 25 having, Commissioner, is that this question --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 2 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- was very long and 3 if it could be broken down -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He might 5 agree with some of it and not agree with other parts of 6 it. Is that what you're -- 7 MR. WALTER MYRKA: That's correct. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 9 MR. WALTER MYRKA: And if what My Friend 10 is trying to get is did Mr. Sturdy feel that the 11 situation in the afternoon of September 6th was running 12 its normal course as opposed to unravelling, he's 13 already answered that question. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 15 answered that question, but I'm not going to stop you 16 from asking your question if you want to confirm that 17 his view corresponded, obviously -- 18 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- you have 20 to do it in a way that you he answer. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 23 Q: Well, let me break it down. Chief 24 Coles said there was nothing particularly going on at 25 the Park as of the afternoon of September 6th.


1 Is that consistent with what you 2 understood the situation to be? 3 A: That's consistent. I had no -- no 4 recollections of conversations or other things that were 5 happening the afternoon of the 6th. 6 Q: Chief Coles said there was nothing - 7 - there was nothing going on that he would consider to 8 be an emergency situation that required immediate action 9 by his officers. 10 Is that consistent with your 11 understanding of the situation? 12 A: I can't speak for him and his 13 offices but I -- but I certainly didn't -- there was 14 nothing that I was aware of that would -- would in my 15 value system be sort of judged as an emergency, if you 16 like. 17 Q: All right. So, there was nothing 18 that -- so he spoke about his officers. There was 19 nothing going on that you would -- that you would 20 consider to be an emergency situation that required 21 immediate action by your staff; is that fair? 22 A: That's fair, other than as we've 23 talked about earlier on, that there was some withdrawal 24 and pull back and there was that concern about safety 25 that's...


1 Q: And the point about expectations of 2 things escalating, we've already covered that. I'd 3 like you -- to take you to Tab 53 of your documents now. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: I'm not sure if this has been made 8 an exhibit previously -- 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Exhibit P-442. 10 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Thank you. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 13 Q: Have you seen this document before? 14 A: Only -- only after the events. I 15 believe that this -- this is the Order. 16 Q: This is the Order in respect of the 17 injunction application that was brought on September 7th 18 1995. 19 A: Yes, it was some time afterwards 20 that I saw this and -- and then -- and then had more 21 recently looked at a copy of it, correct. 22 Q: So, you would seen this first of all 23 on September 7th or a few days after September 7th? 24 A: Oh, no, I think it was sometime 25 after September the 7th.


1 Q: Okay. Can you give me an idea as to 2 the time? Was it a couple of days or a couple of weeks 3 or a couple of months, if you can recall? 4 A: I believe I was -- and -- and excuse 5 me if I'm getting things mixed up here, but I believe I 6 was faxed a copy from Ms. Leith Hunter of some 7 handwritten notes that were on the front of a document. 8 And I -- and I -- I'm not sure if that was a part of 9 this order or not but I don't recall actually seeing 10 this document until some time -- quite some time after. 11 Q: Okay. Now, you've -- just before I 12 ask you a question you've been quite clear that you were 13 concerned about the safety of your staff of course and 14 that when your staff did interact with the occupiers 15 such as when they were trying to serve the Trespass 16 Notice that they were accompanied or assisted by the OPP 17 on those occasions? 18 A: That's my understanding, yes. 19 Q: So, back to this order. It's -- I 20 understand it was issued on September 7th, but it was 21 based on -- and -- and we've heard evidence to this that 22 it was based on a draft or taken straight from a draft 23 of the order that was prepared on September the 6th by 24 government lawyers. 25 And turning to paragraph 4 of that order,


1 maybe you can take a second to read that? 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Okay. It appears that that 7 paragraph is enabling any minister or deputy minister to 8 give a specific direction that would be sanctioned by 9 the Court. And -- well, is that fair first of all? 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 11 Myrka...? 12 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, in my 13 submission it's not appropriate to ask this Witness his 14 opinion of what's in this order and what its purpose is. 15 He's testified he's not a lawyer with almost no 16 experience with injunction proceedings whatsoever. This 17 just is not helpful with this Witness. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I just -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not 20 finding it that helpful. But I'm not sure you can't ask 21 him what he thought the order meant. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: It's just a preamble 23 to my question. And I can -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- I can tell you


1 that Ms. Twohig used this terminology on September 2 19th. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, yes. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I was describing what 5 that paragraph is about. So I don't need -- I don't 6 necessarily need Mr. Sturdy's answer to that because 7 it's already on the record. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 10 Q: But, I want -- I do want to ask 11 whether -- you said you didn't see this order until 12 some time after, but I'm wondering if you would have 13 been aware of the contents of what was proposed to be in 14 the order at the time of September 6th or 7th. 15 So, I'll ask you this: Do you recall 16 something along the lines of paragraph 4 being discussed 17 at the Interministerial Committee Meeting on September 18 6th or -- or the 5th? 19 A: No, I do not. 20 Q: Did you discuss this paragraph or 21 something along the lines of this paragraph or anything 22 that this paragraph contains with Tim McCabe or any 23 other government lawyer during the course of September 24 6th, 1995? 25 A: I don't re -- I didn't have any


1 discussions with Tim McCabe. 2 Q: Or any other government lawyer 3 except for Leith Hunter? 4 A: No, I didn't cover this with Leith 5 either. 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: Or -- or any other government 8 lawyer. 9 Q: Thank you. Now, it appears and -- 10 and I ask this question in the context of MNR staff 11 previously in -- in -- on a day -- on September 6th 12 having been asked to be involved in a situation for 13 moving picnic tables from an area near the Park. 14 Now, would you agree, having read this 15 paragraph, that as a field officer you and your staff 16 might be expected to follow through on what is 17 contemplated in paragraph 4 of the order if asked to do 18 so? 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 20 Myrka. 21 MR. WALTER MYRKA: My objection is the 22 same as before. The answer precip -- he's asking him 23 to interpret the provision. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He could 25 ask him and you might be asked to remove objects or --


1 you can just use ordinary language and then I think he 2 could answer your question. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: All right. That's -- 4 that's, I think, what I was doing. Maybe I'll use -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, but I 6 mean there's -- 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- I'll use fewer 8 words. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But it's 10 the language of the order that may be a little bit 11 difficult for him to interpret. 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I mean -- 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 16 Q: Having seen this document, this 17 order, you understand that MNR -- you and your staff 18 might be expected to undertake removal of all camping 19 equipment, vehicles, blockades and other things that 20 might have been placed in such a public highway or any 21 other area by the defendants -- the occupiers, I guess. 22 You understood that -- you understand 23 that MNR might have had a role in -- in removing objects 24 from the Park? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr.


1 Myrka...? I don't think that's an unfair question. 2 MR. WALTER MYRKA: No, I think the 3 latter part is. If the question is, his understanding 4 is that MNR might have had a role in removing items from 5 the Park. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MR. WALTER MYRKA: That's a fair 8 question. It's the preamble that I take exception to. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well it's 10 the question that I think is fair and see if he can 11 answer it. If he can answer the question, he will, if 12 he can't, he won't. 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Shall I repeat the 14 question? 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 16 think so. I think it would -- 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Without the preamble? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well if 19 perhaps you -- 20 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: If you can answer, 21 that's fair. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 23 See if you can repeat the question without the preamble. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR:


1 Q: Did you understand that MNR might 2 have a role in removing objects from the Park pursuant 3 to this order? 4 A: I hadn't seen the order but let me - 5 - let me try and put it this way, that if we had been 6 required, because of the resources that we had on site 7 and the staff that we had on site, and I think if we had 8 been assured, keeping in my mind what my deputy had 9 already told me, that -- that all of the safety concerns 10 had been addressed, then we would have tried to have 11 been helpful. 12 Q: Right. That leads to my next 13 question. Obviously you're concerned about your safety 14 if you were to undertake removal of objects from the 15 Park. 16 And in that situation one of the things 17 you would have considered is certainly enlisting, or 18 asking for the help of the OPP, right? 19 A: Yes. Or certainly to have their 20 assessment of things. And I think that was reflected 21 later on when the winterization of the facilities took 22 place. There was quite a bit of discussion around the 23 process that we would go through and -- and various 24 safety issues and concerns. 25 Q: Okay. Moving onto something else


1 here. I would like to hand up a document to you which 2 is Inquiry Document Number 3000725. I don't expect 3 you've seen it before and I'm not going to ask you to 4 read it except for one (1) particular entry. 5 This is, or at least appears to be, a log 6 sheet recording a meeting between the Stoney Point Group 7 and members of the Canadian military. And what I want 8 to ask you about is simply one (1) entry on page number 9 8. If you could turn to that please. 10 Are you there? 11 A: I believe so, yes. 12 Q: Okay. You'll see that where -- 13 there's a number 4 on the left hand margin -- 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: -- it says: 16 "Following are the Stoney Point Group 17 request for investigations." 18 And then first -- the first bullet point 19 says: 20 "Want an investigation into what has 21 happened to the headstones at their 22 cemetery, some are missing." 23 And the second bullet point is: 24 "Want an investigation as to who is 25 responsible for safeguarding their


1 cemetery in the Provincial Park." 2 Do you see that point? 3 A: Yes, I do. 4 Q: I want to ask you about that second 5 point and this document is dated December 8th, 1993 and 6 apparently this request for an investigation was made to 7 the military -- came to the military on December 8th, 8 1993 from the Stoney Point group. 9 What I want to ask you is, was this 10 information ever passed on to you, this fact that the 11 Stoney Point group was requesting an investigation into 12 the burial grounds in the Park in or around December of 13 1993? 14 A: By the military? 15 Q: By the military or from your 16 superiors who would have got the information from the 17 military or... 18 A: I don't recall any request. I have 19 no knowledge of any request that arrived from the 20 Department of National Defence for an investigation into 21 an alleged burial site in the Park. 22 Q: So if there -- if the military, the 23 Department of National Defence had made a follow-up 24 request to that point about an investigation into the 25 burial site in the Provincial Park, that wouldn't have


1 come to you directly? 2 A: In all likelihood, no. It would 3 have gone through our -- probably through our deputy's 4 office in Toronto. 5 Q: That was the next question, it 6 probably would have been higher up, okay. 7 A: Yes. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: That would have been, I think, Ron 12 Vrancourt's office then? I don't know if he was -- 13 A: In 1993, I believe it was Mr. Bob 14 Mitten (phonetic) who was the Deputy Minister at the 15 time. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: But if there was a formal request 18 coming from DND then to the Provincial Government, I 19 would imagine it would have gone through those channels. 20 Q: Okay. I wonder if it would be 21 useful to make this document an exhibit? 22 THE REGISTRAR: P-821, Your Honour. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-821: Document number 3000725. 25 Department of National


1 Defence Log Sheet, December 2 08/93. 3 4 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Perhaps you just want 5 to identify it as a log sheet from the Department of 6 National Defence. 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yeah, it could be 8 done that way. Just to repeat for the record, what this 9 is, is a log sheet. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: It's an 11 excerpt of a larger -- 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure, an excerpt from 13 a log sheet -- 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Log sheet 15 of just the one day, December 8th. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Dated December 8th -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- 1993 of a meeting 19 between the Stoney Point group and military 20 representatives. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I just 25 wonder how much more you've got to do Mr. Zbogar. We


1 could take a break. You've passed your time estimate, 2 so I just want to know how much longer you have. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I apologize. I'm 4 taking a little longer than I anticipated because of 5 some things that I'm responding to from other cross- 6 examinations, but I expect I'll be another fifteen (15) 7 to twenty (20) minutes. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, if 9 that's the case this may be a good point to take a 10 morning break. Thank you. 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 12 for fifteen (15) minutes. 13 14 --- Upon recessing at 10:17 a.m. 15 --- Upon resuming at 10:33 a.m. 16 17 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 18 resumed, please be seated. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 23 Q: If I can refer you again to the 24 binder of meeting notes of the Interministerial 25 Committee and specifically Tab 7 of the September 5th


1 meeting notes. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And you looked at these yesterday; 6 these are the notes of Eileen Hipfner and it's Exhibit 7 P-510, document number 1011739. 8 And Ms. Vella asked you about a passage 9 there, it appears about half way down the page on the 10 first page. 11 "MNR guy on telephone. New 12 archeological evidence that may -- that 13 there may be a burial site in the 14 Park." 15 Do you recall that being brought to your 16 attention yesterday? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: I want to ask you a little bit about 19 that to try to maybe prod your recollection of that 20 point. I think you say you didn't specifically recall 21 that comment being made? 22 A: No. 23 Q: And if you look at Tab 12 which are 24 Julie Jai's notes on the first page you'll also see: 25 "Dan Elliott [so it's attributed as a


1 similar comment] knew no previous 2 archeological evidence of burial 3 ground, but some new evidence recently 4 has -- some new evidence recently has 5 not been evaluated." 6 Now, I know you don't specifically recall 7 that, but you'll -- if it was -- if -- if Mr. Elliott 8 did make a comment along those lines and it was recorded 9 in at least two (2) people's notes you don't -- you 10 don't expect that was something he would have made up, 11 right? 12 A: I can't dispute the fact that 13 they're in here, but I -- I really can't answer 14 specifically for him as to -- 15 Q: Right. 16 A: Yeah. 17 Q: I'll assume it's something he would 18 have had -- 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: -- a foundation for. 21 A: Yeah. Sure. 22 Q: But -- so this comment was made on 23 the -- on the 5th of September and I want to see if -- 24 if it might help your recollection if I refer you to 25 another document which seems to have some connection.


1 A: Okay. 2 Q: And that is at Tab 31 of your 3 documents. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, that -- that's Exhibit P-784 8 Inquiry Document 1007834 and you were taken to this 9 document yesterday and it includes copies of a trespass 10 letter dated September 4th, 1995 as well as a couple of 11 e-mails, one (1) dated September 3rd and one (1) dated 12 September 1st, 1995. 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And what I want to take you to is 15 actually the third page into that tab which is undated 16 and it refers to Neal Ferris. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: It's a handwritten page. Do you 21 have that? 22 A: I have that. 23 Q: Can you just take a second to read 24 that? Actually I'll read it for the record. It says: 25 "Neal Ferris, regional archeologist out


1 of London called. I put him onto Terry 2 Crabe. Neal cautions those involved 3 with the occupation may have come 4 across some new information as a result 5 of occupation of the Army Base. The 6 Feds have done some recent 7 archeological/historical 8 investigations." 9 That's -- I take it that's not your 10 handwriting? 11 A: That's not my handwriting. no. 12 Q: Do you know if it might be Dan 13 Elliott's handwriting? 14 A: I'd be guessing, but I believe this 15 is the handwriting of Mr. Ian Seddon. 16 Q: Ian Seddon? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: Do you have any idea of -- I'm 19 assuming this would have been done, obviously, before 20 September 5th. 21 Do you have any knowledge of when this 22 might have been prepared or any belief as to that? 23 A: I can't assume that it's -- it was 24 done before September the 5th. 25 Q: Yeah.


1 A: There was a more active -- as I 2 think I mentioned -- there was a more active role taken 3 by a number of people from September the 5th onwards out 4 of my office and other offices to see what we could find 5 to make contact with the Ministry of Citizenship, 6 Culture, and Recreation in terms of what was in their 7 records, our own files, the Park files, main office 8 files. 9 Q: Right. 10 A: So I believe that -- that this would 11 have been something he wrote after the 5th. 12 Q: I don't expect you'll know this, but 13 this -- this handwritten note appears in a package of 14 documents which are all dated -- well, which are dated 15 September 1st, September 3rd, September 4th. 16 Do you have any idea of how -- you know, 17 what this handwritten note, what its connection is to 18 these other documents, chronologically or otherwise? 19 A: No, I have no idea how they were 20 grouped. 21 Q: Yeah. 22 A: Or why it was grouped with this 23 group of documents to be honest. 24 Q: Yes, and you've never seen that 25 before -- before preparing for this Inquiry, right?


1 A: No, I -- I briefly saw this 2 document. 3 Q: You would have seen the handwritten 4 note back at the time of 1995? 5 A: I'm sorry? 6 Q: Would you have seen this document 7 back in 1995? 8 A: Oh, I'm sorry. No, I thought you 9 meant in preparing for my appearance here. I did 10 briefly see this document. 11 Q: All right. 12 A: Having read that document, does that 13 refresh your memory at all as to the comment about new 14 evidence of burial sites may be present? 15 Q: No, it doesn't. And -- and in all 16 of the work that was completed from September the 5th 17 onwards at various levels and my various people, I don't 18 recall new archaeological evidence being put forward. 19 A: Okay. Is there any comments you can 20 help me with in terms of interpreting this document? 21 Or was this -- is there anything that was 22 going on at the time that does refreshes your memory 23 about? 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: At what 25 time. He doesn't know when it was done.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 3 Q: September -- September -- around the 4 period of the occupation or -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But he 6 doesn't know when this document was prepared. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 9 Q: Right. 10 A: Yeah. 11 Q: Assuming this was done at or around 12 or before the beginning of the occupation -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's not 14 prepared to make that assumption. He said that. 15 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure, it's -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 17 know why it's in this group of documents. 18 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I don't either but 19 I'm trying to figure out what its relevance is or what 20 it actually tells us. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I 22 don't. Yes. 23 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: As it may be 24 important. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm not


1 sure that this Witness can help us. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 4 Q: This information that's contained in 5 that document about things that happened -- the factual 6 things that happened. It says: 7 "Neil cautions those involved with the 8 occupation may have come across some 9 new information as a result of 10 occupation of the Army Base." 11 Were you aware of Neil Ferris' caution 12 along those lines at or around the time of September, 13 1995? 14 A: No I was not. 15 Q: Okay. I'd like to turn you now to 16 Tab 66 of your of your product -- of you documents, 17 Inquiry Document Number 1009980. And this appears to be 18 a memo or a fax from Daryl Smith to yourself among 19 others. 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Dated September 14th, 1998 and -- 22 A: 19...?, sorry. 23 Q: Sorry, 1995. I apologize. The 24 content says: 25 "The attached is a collection of


1 historical notes I found in my files 2 relating to the 'beginnings' of 3 Ipperwash Provincial Park. On January 4 16th, 1975 I found these in the third 5 basement of Whitney Block. This was 6 before the age of convenient photocopy 7 machines so I dictated what I found 8 into a small tape recorder and hence 9 the reason why these are in the format 10 they are." 11 And you'll see attached to that are 12 apparently transcripts of two (2) letters both dated 13 from 1937. And the first of which dated August 17th, 14 1937 in the first paragraph it says, about halfway 15 through: 16 "I have to inform you that the Indians 17 of the Kettle and Stony Point Band are 18 most concerned -- or much concerned 19 [sorry] in the preservation of the old 20 Indian cemetery which I understand is 21 located within the boundary now being 22 developed as a Park." 23 Do you recall receiving this document in 24 the attachments at around the time of September 14th, 25 1995?


1 A: Yes, I do. And to put this in 2 context, I think, this I believe was the day after the 3 Federal Government, the Minister, the Federal Minister 4 and his deputy I believe, had arrived at -- in the 5 Ipperwash area and had produced a number of documents 6 and also then went on to sign a memo of understanding. 7 Q: Okay. So -- 8 A: I think that was on the 13th. 9 Q: So, on or about September 13th the 10 Federal Government announced that it had found documents 11 which refer to 1937 discussion of the burial site the 12 day after Daryl Smith says, Hey, I found these documents 13 in my files. Thought you might be interested. Here's - 14 - here's what I've got and I found this stuff when I was 15 looking through the basement of Whitney Block some time 16 in 1975. 17 A: Daryl Smith was a historian by 18 background and he collected all kinds of notes and 19 information about Provincial Parks over the course of 20 his career. 21 Q: Okay. That's great. I just want to 22 get a context of -- in which this was -- this was 23 presented to you. 24 A: And Mr. Smith talks about having 25 found these documents in 1975. do you have any


1 indication or understanding of what are the issues 2 identified in the attachments about the burial site 3 wherever followed up in any way between 1975 and, say, 4 1993? 5 A: I recall, and I'm sure it -- it's 6 probably in your records somewhere, but I recall that 7 this information was -- I've seen a copy of the memo 8 that was sent from our district manager in Chatham on or 9 around that date in 1975 to the Superintendent at that 10 time of Ipperwash, because Ipperwash at that point stood 11 as a -- as a single entity, a single Park. 12 That's my only understanding of what 13 happened. I wasn't in the Chatham office at that time, 14 but that's my only understanding of what happened with 15 this information. 16 Q: So, I'm not clear. Was it your -- 17 A: Sorry. 18 Q: -- understanding that this 19 information or Daryl Smith's investigation or research 20 was prompted by a memo -- 21 A: No, I'm sorry, I -- 22 Q: -- or -- 23 A: I was unclear. I have seen a copy 24 of a memorandum from our district manager in Chatham in 25 1975 with these pages attached to it, being sent from


1 the district office in Chatham, where Mr. Smith worked 2 in 1975, to the Park at Ipperwash and to the 3 superintendent at Ipperwash at that time. 4 Q: Okay. And do you have any knowledge 5 or information as to whether that memorandum would have 6 been followed up -- 7 A: I'm afraid I don't have any -- I 8 wasn't here and I would have no recollection as to what 9 have might have been done with it. 10 Q: Thank you, that's -- that's helpful. 11 Now you also explained that you had taken some steps to 12 try to clear up by the land ownership issue after you 13 had -- after the Stoney Point group had asserted that 14 the land was their territory and I think you also said 15 that you limited your review into -- limited -- limited 16 your review to the title documents themselves. 17 A: The review of documents that 18 actually occurred in both 1998 and in 1993, there was a 19 subsequent request that I made to our staff in 20 Peterborough who looked after lands issues to make sure 21 that I had all of the information that I needed, and the 22 suggestion back from them was that we could acquire that 23 title documents through the local registry office. 24 Q: Okay. I understand. The point as I 25 understand it, is that you -- your investigation did not


1 go so far as to look into this -- the treaty and the 2 surrender. I think that was your evidence to Ms. Vella, 3 right? 4 A: That was correct. 5 Q: And you said that because that was a 6 Federal Government issue and not provincial issue. And 7 I'm wondering if -- would it be fair to interpret that 8 position, saying that it's a Federal Government issue, 9 the issue of the surrender and the treaty, would it be 10 fair to interpret your position as saying that if 11 there's a problem with the way that Ontario acquired the 12 -- the -- title to the lands, guaranteed to the Indians 13 by treaty, that is somebody else's problem; they can 14 figure it out or in any case Ontario gets to keep the 15 land? 16 A: My understanding was that the land 17 had been surrendered to the Federal Government; had been 18 sold by the Federal Government to private landowners. 19 And then some years later, as a result of a petition by 20 people in the community, had been acquired through 21 normal means and then developed as a prov -- and the 22 property was then developed as a Provincial Park. 23 I think the feeling was that, if there 24 was a grievance around the surrender process, that the 25 more appropriate avenue for people to pursue that


1 grievance would have been through the Federal 2 Government. 3 Q: Okay. So, you felt if there was a 4 problem with the way in -- with the way the land was 5 surrendered, that's not Ontario's problem, that's 6 somebody else's problem? 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 THE WITNESS: I believe it was something 9 that could have been addressed with the Federal 10 Government. And they may have been able to, as I 11 understand now, there is in fact a claim in, that they 12 may have been more helpful in resolving that question. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 15 Q: But in -- in any case, regardless of 16 the way the land was surrendered, Ontario -- your 17 position or -- or your conclusion was that Ontario is 18 entitled to keep those lands or to -- sorry, I'll 19 withdraw the question. 20 And let me ask this instead. In seeking 21 to clarify the land ownership issue did you consider the 22 following as a possible perspective: We thought we 23 owned these treaty lands, but if they came to us 24 dishonourable we'd be willing to give the land back. 25 Would you consider that as a perspective?


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 2 how this Witness can answer that. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yeah, I think -- I've 4 been sitting patiently following or trying to follow 5 this line of inquiry. This -- this individual is not -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- a person who has 8 the requisite expertise or frankly had the authority to 9 make those kinds of decisions. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 11 that's right. I don't see how this Witness can help you 12 with those questions. 13 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, there was 14 evidence about research being done -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 16 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- and I want to -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you - 18 - you've explored that. 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And he told 21 you what he did. 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And what he 24 thought. He said it very clearly. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: All right.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't see 2 what else you can get from this Witness on that point. 3 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Okay. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 6 Q: Do you have any knowledge about the 7 manner in which the surrenders were obtained in the -- 8 in the 1920's and whether those -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 10 George. 11 OBJ MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: Commissioner, I 12 object to that question and I just see the relevance. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 14 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: This has been -- 15 this issue has been visited on many times in the past. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I just 17 don't think this Witness can help us anymore than he has 18 with that issue, Mr. Zbogar. 19 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Commissioner, I'm 20 simply asking whether he has knowledge of this point. 21 If he doesn't, that's fine I'll move on. If he does, 22 I'd like to explore it. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Has 24 knowledge of what? 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: What I'm asking is if


1 you have -- if -- if Mr. Sturdy has any knowledge about 2 the manner in which the surrenders were obtained in the 3 1920's, is it "yes" or "no"? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 5 not sure that that makes any difference to us in this 6 Inquiry one (1) way or the other. 7 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Well, if he does I'd 8 like to explore that because that's important to our 9 clients. If he doesn't, then that's fine. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 11 think that whether this Witness has any knowledge of 12 that is going to help us or move our Inquiry forward. 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: As well, I believe I 14 asked what steps he took with respect to investigating 15 title. He's advised us that -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's told 17 us. 18 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- he did take. It 19 did not include a review of the treaty or surrender 20 process. So asking this Witness as to whether he did 21 review the surrender process I think is redundant. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 23 basically answered the question is what you're saying. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: That's what I'm 25 saying.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Is that 2 right? 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He's 5 basically answered the question is what we're saying, so 6 I don't think we're saying it's improper, he's already 7 answered it by telling us what he knew. 8 You're on your feet, Mr. Rosenthal, I'm 9 not sure why. 10 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. If he 11 answered the question there's no harm in his asking it - 12 - his answering it again to make it clear. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 14 think he's answered it so I don't want to waste time. 15 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But in any event, 16 I did want to support the contention that it is 17 certainly a relevant question. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: If he -- if he has 20 some knowledge we should like to know what the knowledge 21 is, I believe he has some interesting -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe 23 he's answered. I don't want to keep asking questions 24 that a witness has already answered to the best of his 25 ability. I mean that's the point. I don't --


1 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Yes, except that 2 it didn't seem to be clear that he answered that 3 question and it's -- it's a clear and simple question 4 and if he has any knowledge we would benefit from it 5 perhaps; if he doesn't the Mr. Zbogar would move on I'm 6 sure. 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: But it would only be 8 relevant if it formed part of his decision making 9 process. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He may -- 11 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: With respect, Mr. 12 Commissioner, any knowledge he has may or may not be 13 relevant depending upon what the knowledge is. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Where are 15 we? Everybody's on their feet, it's a non-issue as far 16 as I'm concerned. 17 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: I agree with that, 18 but given the comments of Mr. Rosenthal I feel compelled 19 to address you on that point. 20 Now, insofar as the existence of a 21 surrender and whether or not this Witness took any steps 22 to find out about the circumstances of the surrender, 23 that may be relevant, it may not be I'm not too sure on 24 that point, but exploring it further and eliciting an 25 opinion as to whether or not it was, in fact, a proper


1 surrender -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 3 want to go there. 4 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: -- that is 5 completely relevant. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't 7 think he's going there and I certainly don't want to go 8 there, so I'm not sure how we can limit this. 9 And Mr. Myrka you're still on your feet 10 so I presume you've said everything you want to say? 11 MR. WALTER MYRKA: The only point I 12 would add that Mr. Sturdy was born in 1947 -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 14 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- he has no 15 knowledge of those events -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I -- 17 MR. WALTER MYRKA: -- and it seems that 18 what's being elicited from him is some kind of an 19 opinion. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, he 21 could have informed -- 22 THE WITNESS: It was 1948. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He could -- 24 THE WITNESS: I'm not quite that old. 25 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Mr. Commissioner, now


1 I'm getting objections to questions that -- questions 2 that people think I'm going to ask -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 4 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- which I'm not 5 going to ask. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 7 to try to frame a question that is simple and direct and 8 not inappropriate. 9 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure, but -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Let's see 11 if we can move on. 12 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- before I do, 13 before I draw more objections I should address the other 14 point which is, it's correct that Ms. Vella did cover 15 the question of whether his research, at the time, in 16 1995, looked into the surrender and the treaty. 17 But my question's a bit broader than 18 that, whether he has any knowledge about the surrender 19 or treaty that might have come up through some other 20 means and it's -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And what 22 would be the relevance of that? 23 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: -- a simple question, 24 does he have knowledge? 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: What would


1 be the relevance of it, if he does? 2 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: If he does, I want to 3 explore what his knowledge is and -- and it may not be 4 relevant, it may be relevant. But we don't know that 5 until he knows -- if he knows anything. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, why 7 don't you ask him if he knows anything? 8 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Sure and that's what 9 I was trying to do. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 13 Q: Now, Mr. Sturdy, do you have any 14 knowledge about the manner in which the surrenders were 15 obtained in 1920's. 16 A: I'm afraid not. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, that 18 settles it. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I think that's just 23 added a few minutes to my time estimate. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, your 25 time is way past so I hope you're close to --


1 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: I'm very, very close. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- the end. 3 Thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 6 Q: At Tab 19 of your materials, Exhibit 7 P-777, Inquiry document 3000626. 8 Towards the bottom where it has, in 9 capital letters, "OPP RESPONSE," there is -- it says the 10 following: 11 "Evacuate Park of staff and public. 12 Negotiate, physically remove from 13 Park." 14 And I want to ask you about the last 15 point, physically remove from Park. 16 Did you understand, from what you were 17 told, that physical removal of the protesters from the 18 Park by the OPP was an option that was available to 19 them? 20 A: At that time that may have been my 21 own interpretation of the conversation that I had with 22 Inspector Carson. I can't claim to have this down 23 verbatim in terms of his conversation with me, so that 24 would be my -- those would be my words. 25 Q: Can you help us at all in terms of


1 specifying what that comment might have been based on? 2 A: Well, I think it was in terms of the 3 following point that was made about getting an 4 injunction. I think it has to be read in context with 5 that. 6 His view was that, in that particular 7 kind of a situation with a large group of people, that 8 an injunction would be required, and then removal would 9 take place. 10 Q: You were asked about the sandy 11 parking lot area. 12 Are you familiar with what part or piece 13 of land that was referring to, Ipperwash -- outside 14 Ipperwash Park? 15 A: Yes, basically, yes. 16 Q: I understand that that sandy parking 17 lot is a property of the municipality; do you know that? 18 A: That's -- that's correct. 19 Q: And nevertheless, I understand that 20 -- well, just let me ask this: Was this -- was the 21 sandy parking lot nevertheless the responsibility of MNR 22 to look after in any way, or was it up to the 23 municipality to look after that property; do you know? 24 A: I can't recall whether we had an 25 agreement with them to do any kind of maintenance work


1 or work of that nature, just because of its proximity to 2 the Park. I can't recall whether we had an agreement to 3 that effect. 4 Q: Okay. When your staff were removing 5 picnic tables from that piece of land on the morning of 6 the 6th, you weren't assisted by any municipal 7 officials, I take it? 8 A: I wasn't there on site, but my only 9 knowledge was that some MNR staff were asked to help in 10 the removal of picnic tables. 11 Q: All right. If I can refer to 12 document 94, that's Inquiry document 1012220, it'd be 13 Exhibit number... 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 802. 15 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 82? 16 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 802. 17 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 802. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: 22 Q: If I could turn you to page 16 of 23 that document, and that's a list of committee members. 24 I understand some of these people would 25 have been familiar with Serpent Mound and some would


1 have been familiar with Ipperwash and some with both? 2 A: There are people listed here who are 3 also involved in certain branches within the Ministry. 4 Q: Okay. There's a number of people 5 that are listed, I guess, geographically, as having a 6 connection with Serpent Mounds at all. 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: I'm not going to ask you about those 9 people but I want to know about -- and we've talked 10 about most of the ones that are connected with 11 Ipperwash. But I want to ask you about, I think there's 12 three (3) names that appear that don't have a geography 13 attached and we hadn't spoken about before. 14 I wonder if you can let me know who David 15 deLaunay is? 16 It says he's the Director of Aboriginal 17 Policy Operations Branch. 18 Is there anything further that you can 19 tell me about who he was and what his connection with 20 Ipperwash may have been? 21 A: No. Other than within MNR at that 22 particular time. That was his position. He's currently 23 the Administrative -- or the ADM Assistant Deputy 24 Minister of our Corporate Division. 25 Q: Okay. And do you know whether or --


1 or what involvement he may have had with the Ipperwash 2 incident, at or around September 1995? 3 A: I'm sure he would have been aware of 4 -- of some of the occurrences that were going on both at 5 Serpent Mounds and at Ipperwash, but I don't have 6 detailed knowledge as to what his involvement might have 7 been. 8 Q: And Guy Winterton and Steve Bowcott 9 are compliance -- compliance officers or connected with 10 that branch. 11 Do you know if they had any connection 12 with the Ipperwash incident? 13 A: Guy Winterton was the -- was the 14 director of that branch, I believe, at the time. 15 Steve Bowcott would have been one of the 16 staff that were assigned to that branch. 17 Again, I would imagine, just because of 18 the distribution of e-mails that were going out, that 19 both of those gentlemen would have been aware. I don't 20 recall them having any specific field input, if you 21 like, into -- into the goings on. 22 Q: All right. My last couple of 23 questions, I want to ask you about whether, on September 24 5th or 6th, Mr. Kobayashi informed you about, among 25 other things, what he was hearing from local


1 politicians. 2 A: I believe he -- he informed me about 3 concerns that were being raised in the community and 4 some concerns that were being expressed by the local 5 Member of Parliament for this area. 6 Q: That's Marcel Beaubien? 7 A: That was Mr. Marcel Beaubien. 8 Q: And was it your understanding, from 9 Mr. Kobayashi, that Mr. Beaubien was advocating some 10 kind of action or some kind of quick action or anything 11 like that? 12 A: My recollection is that I was just 13 getting an expression of concern about the activities 14 and -- that were being expressed through him or his 15 office and other members of the community and the public 16 that Les was hearing about. 17 Q: Do you have any specific -- sorry, 18 do you have any specific recollection of what might have 19 been communicated in that regard? 20 A: I think he may have mentioned to me 21 that Mr. Beaubien had gone to the command post in 22 Forest. But that would have been all. I think that was 23 one of the -- one of the things that he mentioned. 24 Q: Anything else? 25 A: I'm sorry, no, that's all I can


1 remember. 2 Q: Did Mr. Kobayashi characterize Mr. 3 Beaubien's attitude or approach at all; can you recall? 4 A: That he was concerned. 5 Q: Thank you very much. 6 A: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 8 Mr. Zbogar. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Did you want to enter 10 Tab 66 as an exhibit? 11 MR. VILKO ZBOGAR: Oh yes. By the way I 12 should make Tab 66, Inquiry Document 1009980 the next 13 exhibit. 14 THE REGISTRAR: P-822, Your Honour. 15 16 ---EXHIBIT NO. P-822: Document Number 1009980. Fax 17 from Daryl Smith to D. 18 Elliott, R. Baldwin, P. 19 Sturdy, L. Kobayashi, E. 20 Vervoort, B. Steele re. 21 Historical notes Ipperwash 22 Provincial Park, September 23 14/95. 24 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.


1 I think Ms. Esmonde is next. Ms. 2 Esmonde again because of prior examinations, is your 3 time estimate still within reason or should it be 4 adjusted up or down? 5 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: I think I will be 6 shorter than that. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 8 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: I had estimated an 9 hour to an hour and half, I'll be shorter than that. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 11 Ms. Esmonde. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 14 Q: Good morning, Mr. Sturdy. 15 A: Good morning. 16 Q: As you've heard, my name is Jackie 17 Esmonde. I'll be asking you some questions on behalf of 18 the Aazhoodena and George family group. 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now, in your testimony yesterday, 21 you made a reference to Inspector Fox. 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And you -- I recall that you 24 specifically made reference to his rank as Inspector? 25 A: I'm sorry?


1 Q: I recall that you specifically 2 referred to his rank when you referred to him; do you 3 recall that? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Now I understand you did not know 6 Inspector Fox prior to September 5th, 1995; is that the 7 case? 8 A: That's the case. 9 Q: Okay. Your first contact with him 10 was in the September 5th Interministerial Committee 11 meeting that you took part in by telephone? 12 A: That's correct. I'm sorry, the 13 Sept -- did you say September the 5th -- 14 Q: I did. 15 A: -- as the first? I believe he was a 16 participant in August at the Interministerial -- 17 Q: Oh, okay. So your first contact was 18 August 2nd. 19 A: Yes, I believe that he was a 20 participant in that meeting. 21 Q: And there would be -- would it be 22 fair to say that you came to recognize his voice 23 throughout the three (3) Interministerial Committee 24 meetings that you took part in? 25 A: I was having great difficulty


1 recognizing people's voices, to be honest -- 2 Q: Right. 3 A: -- during that time. It may have 4 been something that he said, or somebody else said in 5 terms of introducing him as a speaker that might have 6 twigged me to knowing that that's who was speaking at 7 the other end of the telephone on that conference call. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: I'm afraid it was difficult. 10 Q: No, I understand that. Can you 11 assist us any further with respect to whether you became 12 aware that he was an inspector at the August 2nd, 13 September 5th or September 6th meeting? 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: I may have gotten a better 18 understanding that on that -- on the 5th and the sic -- 19 on the 5th and the 6th, as opposed to the 2nd, to be 20 honest. 21 Just by virtue of the subject matter of 22 some of his updates. 23 Q: It appeared to you that he was 24 bringing updates from the OPP? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And, pardon me, do you recall that 2 he was putting forward the perspective of the OPP with 3 respect to the injunction? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: As I think I've tried to explain, I 8 -- I -- I had some difficulty following along with the 9 discussions around the injunction -- 10 Q: Hmm hmm. 11 A: -- process. So my recollections of 12 Inspector Carson -- or Inspector Fox at that time, I 13 think, was more around the question he had raised about 14 title. 15 Q: Okay. Now the Inquiry has heard 16 from Elizabeth Stevens, who you may have known as 17 Elizabeth Thunder -- 18 A: Oh yes. 19 Q: The band -- the band administrator. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Now when she was here, she testified 22 that she took part in extensive discussions with 23 officials from the Ministry of Natural Resources on a 24 plan to co-manage Ipperwash Provincial Park. 25 Were you involved in those discussions?


1 A: No I -- no, I was not. Okay, go 2 ahead, proceed. 3 Q: Were you aware that these 4 discussions were taking place? 5 A: I was aware that Les was having some 6 discussions, Les Kobayashi, that is -- was having some 7 discussions around what co-management might mean, what 8 it might involve with Ms. Thunder, yes. 9 Q: Okay. And he was reporting to you 10 on those discussions that he was having with Ms. 11 Thunder? 12 A: Yeah, they were very preliminary in 13 nature, as I understood it, yeah. 14 Q: Yes. And I think she described them 15 as in -- many of those discussions as informal? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: That's consistent with what you knew 18 from Mr. Kobayashi? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Okay. Now, Ms. Stevens also 21 testified that, from her perspective, it was understood 22 that the Band Council and the Ministry of Natural 23 Resources -- sorry, it was understood between the Band 24 Council and the Ministry of Natural Resources that the 25 co-management agreement was a first step towards the


1 eventual return of the parklands to the Band. 2 Did Mr. Kobayashi inform you of that? 3 A: I was not aware of that. 4 Q: You were not aware of that? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Ms. Thunder also testified that she 7 conveyed to MNR officials and in particular Mr. 8 Kobayashi that the band viewed the surrender of the 9 Ipperwash Provincial Park lands as suspect. 10 Did he pass that information on to you? 11 A: I don't have a specific recollection 12 if he passed that on as a comment from Ms. Thunder -- 13 Ms. Stevens, sorry. Stevens, yes. 14 Q: I believe it's Ms. Stevens who 15 handles it. 16 A: Yes. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: Now, at the end of Mr. Zbogar's 21 examination he took to you to Tab 19 which was an e-mail 22 in reference to the conversations you had with Inspector 23 Carson. Perhaps you could just turn that up. That's 24 been marked as P-777; it's Inquiry Document 3000626. 25 And in this e-mail you outline what you


1 say are a couple of examples on how Inspector Carson 2 would be proceeding? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And it's dated August 1, 1995. Now, 5 I'm interested in what you understood about the purpose 6 of seeking an injunction. 7 Did you understand that one (1) purpose 8 of seeking an injunction was to have a court give a 9 ruling with respect to the ownership of property where 10 there was a property dispute between two (2) groups? 11 A: To give a ruling on who owned -- 12 Q: That's right. 13 A: -- the property? No. 14 Q: You didn't have that understanding? 15 A: No. 16 Q: What did you understand the 17 injunction -- was the purpose of seeking an injunction? 18 A: My understanding was that -- that it 19 would be a higher court, if you like, that's now 20 requiring some action to -- or -- or for someone to give 21 up a property or -- or for some action to be taken and 22 they would have the power of -- that the order would 23 have the power of the Court behind it, basically. 24 Q: And I -- I take it from this e-mail 25 that you understood from Inspector Carson that he felt


1 the injunction would only be necessary if there was a 2 larger group of people occupying the Park? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And did you have an understanding of 5 what he considered a large group to be? 6 A: No, I'm sorry. 7 Q: Okay. You were asked, as well, by 8 Ms. Vella regarding any involvement, any involvement of 9 further efforts to seek an injunction that you may have 10 been involved in after September 7th, and I believe you 11 -- you testified that you could not recall being 12 involved in any other efforts towards obtaining an 13 injunction? 14 A: After September 7th? 15 Q: After September 7th. 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Okay. I'd like to turn your 18 attention to a document that may assist your 19 recollection. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: If you could turn to Tab 82? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: This is Inquiry Document 1008860.


1 It appears to be an e-mail from Leith Hunter to you, 2 dated September 21st, 1995. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And the message from Ms. Hunter was 5 she was attaching a draft of an affidavit for you to 6 review? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Now, does this assist you in your 9 recollection that you were -- that apparently Ms. Hunter 10 was in communication with you around September 21st with 11 respect to drafting a new affidavit for an injunction 12 proceeding? 13 A: Yes, she was. 14 Q: Okay. You recall that now? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And did you in fact review the 17 affidavit material that was attached to the e-mail? 18 A: I would have taken a look at it -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- sure, and reviewed it. 21 Q: The e-mail from Ms. Hunter also asks 22 you to send pictures that you think best make the point 23 about damage to the Park. 24 Did you do so? 25 A: I don't think -- I don't think we


1 did. Because I'm not sure that we had any at that 2 point. 3 Q: I see. Do you recall if you ever 4 actually -- 5 A: Swore? 6 Q: -- completed an affidavit and 7 swore -- 8 A: No, I did not. 9 Q: You did not. And we know that an 10 injunction was not pursued. 11 Do you know when you were -- when you 12 came to learn that an injunction was not going to be 13 pursued? 14 A: I'm sorry I can't. There was some 15 reference earlier on today about a discussion that 16 occurred between Chief Superintendent Cole and but 17 that -- 18 Q: Yes. Ms. Tuck-Jackson did -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- take you to a document that -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- I believe was few days before 23 this e-mail. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Okay. Can you assist us then in --


1 was it shortly after this e-mail would have been 2 received that you would have learned that the injunction 3 was not being pursued? 4 A: I can't recall the specifics of this 5 but it -- it appears to me that this affidavit was very 6 much around one aspect and that was to winterize the 7 facilities in the Park. 8 And that's what I'm not recalling now is 9 whether or not this had -- that's what this was 10 specifically for, was to look at the winterizing. There 11 was a concern afterwards that there would be a 12 considerable amount of damage as a result of not 13 winterizing the facilities, et cetera, et cetera. 14 Q: Okay. Can you assist us with who -- 15 who was it who told you that the injunction was not 16 being pursued or that your assistance was no longer 17 required? 18 A: I suspect that would have been Leith 19 Hunter. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: Who is a lawyer with our Legal 22 Services Branch. 23 Q: And was it explained to that one 24 reason that the injunction was no longer being pursued 25 was a desire to avoid having a court review the events


1 surrounding the shooting of Mr. George on September 6th? 2 A: No it was not. 3 Q: Were you given any reason, that you 4 can recall today? 5 A: The only, as I said, the only dots 6 that I could connect were around at that particular time 7 after these events that an injunction might then 8 precipitate something having to happen and that's why 9 the OPP didn't want to pursue that particular avenue. 10 And that's just my interpretation of connecting some 11 dots together. 12 Q: Right. So there may be a difference 13 between what the OPP wanted and what the government 14 wanted, so you can't assist us any further with the 15 government? 16 A: I can't, I'm sorry. 17 Q: Okay. Now, with respect to the 18 items that were found in the MNR facility, you were 19 asked about those yesterday, the cartoons, mugs, t- 20 shirts, the beer can, they were found in -- you told us 21 they were found in the meeting centre. 22 A: Yes. We have a meeting -- 23 Q: It's at the Pinery? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Okay. And I take it you're familiar


1 with the meeting centre because you've been there 2 before? 3 A: Yes I have. Yes. 4 Q: It has a kitchen? 5 A: It has a kitchen. 6 Q: Okay. Is there -- are there 7 dormitories there or -- 8 A: There's accommodation, I believe, 9 for twenty-four (24) people, two (2) to a room, so 10 there's twelve (12) rooms. A general lounge area, a 11 small dining area. 12 Q: Okay. And we understand that the -- 13 the ERT and TRU teams for the OPP were housed at the 14 Pinery during -- during this incident -- 15 A: That's correct, for a period of 16 time, yes. 17 Q: And were they staying at the meeting 18 centre? 19 A: Yes, they were. 20 Q: Both the ERT and the TRU teams? 21 A: I knew police officers who were 22 staying at the -- at the facility. 23 Q: And can you assist us as to where 24 the items were located within the facility? 25 A: I'm sorry I have no knowledge of


1 that. There was some reference, I believe, in Mr. 2 Kobayashi's e-mail to a bulletin board. At least one 3 item on a bulletin board, I believe, it was mentioned. 4 Q: Okay. And where would the bulletin 5 board have been? 6 A: The bulletin board would have been 7 facing the -- the dining area, lounge area. 8 Q: Okay. And -- and that whole 9 facility was being used by the OPP officers who were 10 housed there as far as you knew? 11 A: Yes, I believe there was a couple of 12 our staff who had left their homes with their wives, 13 were also using the facilities there as well. 14 Q: Now, you explained to Ms. Vella that 15 when issues of discriminatory conduct or a poisoned work 16 environment arise, the first step was normally to have 17 the manager interview the -- the parties. 18 A: Hmm hmm. 19 Q: And who would the manager have been 20 in the -- in this circumstance? 21 A: Les Kobayashi was the senior manager 22 at the Park. 23 Q: Okay. And as far as you're aware, 24 he -- he actually did not engage in an interview of the 25 involved staff?


1 A: I don't know. 2 Q: You don't -- 3 A: He -- he may be able to answer that 4 question. 5 Q: I had understood that -- that the 6 investigation was left to the OPP? 7 A: The investigation was left to the 8 OPP until it was determined, as I understood it, whether 9 there was an MNR staff person involved. 10 At the point that it was noted that one 11 of the meeting centre staff had put a cartoon up on the 12 bulletin board, I believe that was the point that Les 13 had a discussion. 14 Q: Oh okay. A discussion with the -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- the staff member who put the item 17 on the board? 18 A: Yeah, yeah. I believe so. 19 Q: You believe so, okay. 20 A: Yeah. 21 Q: We'll -- 22 A: But you'll be able to ask -- 23 Q: We'll ask him. 24 A: You'll be able to find out from him. 25 Q: Okay. And one of the documents you


1 were -- referred to was at Tab 93. You don't 2 necessarily have to turn that up but it was an e-mail 3 from Mr. Kobayashi regarding this issue in which he 4 advised you that a meeting centre staff member posted, 5 with no discriminatory intent, was meant to be a joke 6 for the OPP. 7 Do you recall that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. And do you -- can you assist 10 us any further with what the basis for his conclusion 11 was, specifically the conclusion that -- conclusion that 12 there was no discriminatory intent? 13 A: I'm afraid not. 14 Q: And is it your view that if 15 discriminatory conduct occurs but there was no 16 discriminatory intent, that no discipline is warranted? 17 A: I'm sorry, could you rephrase -- say 18 that again? 19 Q: Okay. I'll try and rephrase that in 20 a more simpler way. 21 Is it your view -- 22 A: Right. 23 Q: -- that if Park staff engage in 24 behaviour that is considered to be discriminatory -- 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: -- but a conclusion is reached that 2 they didn't intend to be discriminatory, that your view 3 in those circumstances is that discipline is not 4 warranted? 5 A: I think I mentioned that the process 6 that we follow in the initial complaint. If one of our 7 staff come forward with a -- an issue, with a complaint 8 about something's that's occurred, a remark or a picture 9 or poster or something like that, generally speaking we 10 would discuss with them, had they, for instance, 11 approached the people -- the other person maybe have -- 12 has that picture or that poster in their workplace, to 13 express their concerns about what they feel about it, if 14 it has some discriminatory connotation in their view. 15 The superintendent or the senior manager 16 would talk to that individual, express, perhaps, some of 17 the concerns that the complainant had about it and if it 18 was satisfactorily resolved at that point, that would be 19 the end of it. 20 That would be the -- the matter closed at 21 that point. 22 Q: I take it from your comments, then, 23 that you were satisfied with the resolution in this 24 case? 25 A: From Les' position as a senior


1 person, yes. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 Q: And in your view it was not an issue 6 that should have been raised in the February 1996 review 7 of the Ipperwash incident and the Serpent Mounds 8 incident? 9 A: It was not reviewed. 10 Q: Right. But, I know that it was not 11 reviewed -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: You did not think that was something 14 that should have been discussed in that review? 15 A: I don't know why I didn't or, you 16 know... 17 Q: Now, you've told us that Dan Elliott 18 was the Native Liaison Officer? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: Am I correct to assume, then, that 21 amongst the MNR staff on the ground in the Ipperwash 22 area he would have been the most knowledgeable regarding 23 First Nation issues that fell within the purview of MNR? 24 A: Yes, that was -- that would have 25 been his role?


1 Q: And you've explained to us that he 2 was responsible for liaising with the Band Council in 3 the area? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Not just with respect to this 6 incident but, generally, that was one (1) of his roles? 7 A: Across their administrative 8 district. 9 Q: Right. 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: Can you advise us what other types 12 of responsibilities he would have had as a native 13 liaison officer? 14 A: I think it was essentially to 15 increase communications between First Nations that were 16 in the Aylmer district to open avenues for discussion 17 around concerns that they may have in various aspects of 18 MNR's program area of responsibility such in -- such as 19 in Fish and Wildlife issues and so on and so forth. 20 He would have explored with them, 21 perhaps, opportunities for economic development in -- in 22 some aspects perhaps. I know that we had programs in 23 place earlier on called Distant Ed programs where young 24 First Nations people were encouraged to go to -- if they 25 so chose, to go to community colleges and work in our


1 facilities, in our parks, on a part-time sort of 2 cooperative basis. 3 That might be a -- a very broad sketch of 4 some of the things that might be involved. 5 Q: I take it from your description 6 though, I assume Mr. Elliott would not have been 7 involved in land claims negotiations, for example? 8 A: No. 9 Q: And you yourself, you were not 10 knowledgeable about the processes involved with native 11 land claims in Ontario? 12 A: Not in detail, no. 13 Q: That was something that was the 14 responsibility of other -- of other government 15 departments, right? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And I take it you -- you would also 18 not have been familiar with the provisions of the 19 Cemeteries Act? 20 A: Not in detail, no. 21 Q: Or the procedures in place that 22 would be followed when a -- a First -- if a First Nation 23 burial was located in -- in a park, for example? 24 A: Only in a very general way. 25 Q: And I take it you wouldn't have


1 expected that Mr. Elliott would have had that expertise 2 either? 3 A: He wouldn't, but I think that most 4 of us would know where to get it? 5 Q: Right. You -- 6 A: We -- we could -- 7 Q: -- there were other -- there were 8 people in government who had that expertise? 9 A: Exactly. 10 Q: And you would go to them? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now, we have heard that, in the 13 past, the way the Interministerial Committee approached 14 aboriginal emergencies was to appoint a 15 facilitator/negotiator with the ability to negotiate 16 with the First Nation people to determine a process for 17 addressing their grievance and I think -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- you've -- you've -- you knew 20 that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Though they were not authorized to 23 negotiate substantive issues? 24 A: That's correct, that was my 25 understanding.


1 Q: And you've told us you were aware, 2 in very general terms, that the Stoney Pointers were 3 claiming that the Park land was their land and that 4 there was a burial ground there? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And -- and in a general way you 7 understood that these were the reasons underlying the 8 occupation? 9 A: After the occupation I -- yes, on 10 the morning of the 5th it became more -- 11 Q: Right. 12 A: -- evident that -- yes. 13 Q: And your staff on the ground that -- 14 who were involved in the crisis were -- was Les 15 Kobayashi? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: He was the main person on the 18 ground? 19 A: He was the Park Superintendent for 20 both Pinery and Ipperwash. Don Matheson was the 21 assistant. 22 Q: All right. And he was providing 23 support to the OPP operation as requested? 24 A: Les Kobayashi? 25 Q: That's right.


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: You've made it clear, the OPP made 3 it clear to you it was a policing operation, not an MNR 4 operation? 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: And one of the -- one major role 7 that Mr. Kobayashi was playing at the time, as you -- as 8 you understood from him was attempting to serve a notice 9 on the people in the Park that they were trespassing. 10 A: It had been the plan that was 11 formulated on the 1st of September when we met with the 12 OPP that Les -- one of the roles that Les would have to 13 play would be to try and convey a notice, or a letter to 14 any occupiers at Ipperwash, that the Park was closed. 15 Q: And following your participation in 16 the September 5th and September 6th meetings, 17 Interministerial Committee meetings, you did not 18 instruct him to change in any way what he was doing on 19 the ground? 20 A: No. 21 Q: There were no decisions made at 22 those meetings that affected what he -- what he was 23 doing? 24 A: No. 25 Q: For example, you didn't call Mr.


1 Kobayashi after the September 5th or September 6th 2 meetings and tell him -- ask him to get in touch with 3 the people in the Park to talk about the Cemeteries Act? 4 A: No, I did not. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: Now, would it be fair to say that 9 following the commencement of the occupation on 10 September 4th and through to the 6th, there was -- it 11 was a very tense situation in the community? 12 A: I think that's very fair. 13 Q: People were upset and fearful and 14 angry? 15 A: I'd agree with that. 16 Q: And that included even some MNR 17 staff and their families, they were also feeling that? 18 A: Very much so. 19 Q: And you were aware as well, I 20 assume, that there were many rumours in the community at 21 the time? 22 A: Could you be more specific? 23 Q: For example, rumours that the 24 takeover was going to spread beyond the Park boundary? 25 A: There was a concern that this might


1 flow out over, if you like, into the cottage community; 2 that's correct. 3 Q: And would it be fair to say that 4 there was also tension within the Interministerial 5 Committee meetings? There were people with different 6 perspectives on what should be done leading some -- to 7 some tense discussion? 8 A: Well, as I've mentioned before, it's 9 very difficult when you're on the end of a telephone 10 to -- 11 Q: I understand that. 12 A: -- see body language, people's 13 expressions, how they move, that might leave an 14 impression of tension, so I -- I don't recall -- I don't 15 recall people yelling at each other and things like 16 that, that might have suggested some kind of tension in 17 the room. 18 So I'm -- there are probably others who 19 are better able to tell you what the visuals were. 20 Q: Now you understood that one of the 21 purposes of the Committee's -- the Committee meetings 22 was to be a clearing house for information? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: So that all of the affected 25 ministries would have the same information?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And could make recommendations to 3 their ministers based on that information? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And obviously, I'm sure you'd agree, 6 it would be important in that context to have 7 information that was accurate? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: That the Committee couldn't act on 10 the basis of rumours, obviously? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: No, unless there was some feeling 15 that those rumours should be followed up, I suppose, but 16 if it was speculation or rumour, no. 17 Q: Right, and I believe you made 18 reference to that occurring at one point in one of the 19 meetings when you made a report about hearing the 20 reports of automatic gunfire being heard? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: You recall that somebody said can we 23 confirm that? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Now I understand that you are


1 participating by telephone, you've been clear that made 2 it difficult to judge what was going on. 3 But was it not clear to you that some of 4 the information that you were bringing to the meeting in 5 your reports was causing alarm among some of the members 6 of the Interministerial Committee? 7 A: I didn't have reason to believe that 8 at the time. 9 Q: Could you turn to Tab 41 in your 10 materials? These are the written notes of Julie Jai 11 from the September 5th and 6th Interministerial 12 Committee Meetings. They've been marked as P-536 13 Inquiry Document Number 1012579. 14 And if you could turn to the second last 15 page. There's a -- there should be a big "9" at the 16 top. Sorry, it's the third last -- 17 A: Oh, I see. 18 Q: -- page in your book. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: And I don't believe Ms. Vella -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Would it be 24 September the 5th or 6th? 25 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Oh, pardon me, yes.


1 These are the notes from September 5th. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The 5th. 3 THE WITNESS: I have them. 4 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Okay. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 7 Q: Now, I don't believe Ms. Vella took 8 you to this particular portion of -- she took you to a 9 portion in Ms. Hipfner's notes that was quite similar. 10 Just below the bottom half, the beginning 11 of the -- the bottom half of the page there's a -- a 12 group of notations: 13 "OPP and Park superintendent have left 14 to try to establish contact. As of 15 10:00 a.m. only seven (10) to ten (10) 16 people still in Park. They've been 17 cutting trees in Park. Have an OPP 18 vehicle which they are using as part of 19 barricade." 20 Now, can you assist us? 21 Do you recall if you were the source of 22 this information? 23 A: I don't recall. 24 Q: You don't recall? Do you -- do you 25 have a memory of receiving a report from Mr. Kobayashi


1 or some other MNR staff on the ground that an OPP 2 vehicle was -- had been -- come into the possession of 3 the people in the Park and was being used as part of a 4 barricade? 5 A: No, I have no recollection of an OPP 6 vehicle being used. 7 Q: Okay. Now, you were also asked 8 regarding a report that you received from Mr. Smith I 9 believe with respect to a CKCO TV report that -- 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: -- it was anticipated would be -- 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: -- on the air around noon? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Okay. And Ms. Perschy yesterday 16 took you to a portion of Ms. Hipfner's notes which 17 attribute -- attributes some statements to you in making 18 that report to the meeting? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And that was on September 6th? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I understand this was 23 information you had received probably by e-mail during 24 the course of the meeting? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: It was information to -- Mr. Smith 2 was your communications officer? 3 A: Yes, he was. 4 Q: Though he was not someone who had 5 actually observed the incident? 6 A: I don't know whether he -- no, 7 probably not. I -- I don't know, sorry. 8 Q: Okay. I'm sorry, it sounded like a 9 very serious incident as it was described? 10 A: From the e-mail, yes. 11 Q: And I take it you didn't have an 12 opportunity to try to verify that information before you 13 reported it to the meeting? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: And when did you learn that that 16 incident had not actually occurred? 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, I don't know if 18 he's been asked the -- the first question would be does 19 he know one (1) way or another whether it did occur? 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 21 fair. 22 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: Okay. Well, I 23 think we would learn the answer to that question in the 24 answer to the question I put to him. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: 3 Q: Did you learn that that incident did 4 not actually occur? 5 A: The incident had not occurred? 6 Q: That had been described by Mr. 7 Smith? 8 A: No, I -- I don't know. 9 Q: As far as -- 10 A: I don't know whether -- I don't know 11 whether it occurred or not. What I was conveying at 12 that particular point was in information from an e-mail 13 that had arrived during the course of that meeting. 14 Q: Okay. And if I understand you then 15 to this day -- 16 A: I don't know whether -- 17 Q: -- you have no knowledge of whether 18 that incident actually occurred or not? 19 A: I have no idea whether it occurred 20 or not. 21 Q: And just one (1) housekeeping matter 22 before I leave you. I have lost my -- my note. Oh, 23 thank you. 24 I had referred to the document at Tab 82 25 and I neglected to make that an exhibit. If that could


1 be made an exhibit -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: -- that's the e- 4 mail from Leith Hunter. 5 THE REGISTRAR: P-823, Your Honour. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sorry, 7 what number? I didn't get the number. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-823. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: 823. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-823: Document Number 1008860. 12 E-mail from Leith Hunter to 13 Peter Sturdy attaching draft 14 Affidavit of Peter Sturdy, 15 September 21/95. 16 17 MS. JACKIE ESMONDE: That's Inquiry 18 Document 1008860. Thank you very much, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 20 Ms. Esmonde. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. 23 Scullion..? 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Again, I'll 2 just ask if the estimate you gave is still reasonably 3 accurate? 4 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It's probably a 5 little high. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 7 fine. Thank you, Mr. Scullion. 8 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: There's -- there's 9 always some overlap with those ahead of us so. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I 11 understand that. 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: In fact, I may be 13 fairly brief. We'll see. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 16 Q: Good morning, Mr. Sturdy. My name's 17 Kevin Scullion and I'm one of the counsel for the 18 Residents of Aazhoodena. 19 A: Good morning. 20 Q: Good morning. There's been some 21 questions for you throughout the two (2) days of 22 testimony about incidents that occurred in 1995. 23 And I just want to take you to the two 24 (2) that Commission counsel have included in our 25 documents. And it's Tab 17 which I think we've marked


1 as P-814. And just generally because I -- I appreciate 2 that it's been ten (10) years and it's very difficult to 3 remember specific details. 4 But my impression from your testimony is 5 that you had no personal knowledge of these incidents 6 there simply related back to you by Mr. Kobayashi or 7 other members of the MNR staff. Is that fair? 8 A: That's fair. I did not witness 9 these types of occurrences myself at the time. 10 Q: Okay. Taking a look at P-814, it 11 would appear that the response by MNR -- 12 A: I'm sorry. P-184, is that what I'm 13 looking at, Tab 17? 14 Q: The sheet that you're looking at, 15 yes. 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: We've marked it as Exhibit P-814. 18 It would appear that the response by MNR to this 19 particular incident was simply to speak with the campers 20 and to advise them of the concerns about going off in 21 Park property. 22 Is that fair? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. And the second one that 25 we've been provided with is at Tab 13 of your Book of


1 Documents. 2 Do you have that in front of you, it's 3 two (2) pages? 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-774? 5 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: P-774, yes, sir. 6 This may be the mystery document that everybody has at 7 Tab 13 except for Ms. Vella. I blame Derry. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 10 Q: At page 2 of that document, about 11 halfway down there appears to be a fairly simple 12 response by MNR which is simply to have more security 13 and to blitz alcohol related enforcement problems. 14 And I read that as -- as simply more 15 security in the Park and to watch what the campers are 16 doing and don't allow them to cross over between Park 17 property and other property; is that fair? 18 That was a concern for MNR in a response 19 to this particular problem? 20 A: I think this outlined what we were 21 anticipating for the long May 24 weekend coming up. 22 What steps were being put in place with additional 23 conservation officers supplementing any park wardens 24 that -- that we had there that weekend. 25 There would have been a concern that


1 traditionally May 24 weekends, the young people and 2 young people perhaps with alcohol and that could lead to 3 some difficulties then. 4 Q: Right. Earlier in that note there's 5 some indication that there's 90 percent of the Park was 6 anticipated to be occupied by young people that weekend. 7 A: From our reservation system, you get 8 a pretty good idea. 9 Q: Right. My only point being that the 10 steps taken by MNR by implementing the steps that we've 11 just talked about -- 12 A: Hmm hmm. Correct. 13 Q: -- would be helpful in reducing any 14 possible confrontations that may occur. 15 A: Oh absolutely, yes. That was the 16 intent. 17 Q: Keep the campers in the Park. 18 A: That's right. 19 Q: All right. And another housekeeping 20 matter that had arisen in the examination by Ms. 21 McAleer, was simply in respect of the winterization of 22 the Park, and I don't know why it was left open, but I 23 want to close the door. 24 You had been asked whether or not you had 25 been involved in any winterization after 1995, and it


1 sounded to me from your answer that you were aware that 2 in December 1995, your office had worked with the Stony 3 Pointers to show them how to winterize the Park 4 facilities? 5 A: I'm sorry if that was the impression 6 that I left. What I meant to -- what I meant to say was 7 that when the Park was winterized in, I believe, early 8 December of 1995, the taps were turned off, so to speak, 9 lines were blown, it's all of those mechanical things 10 that happened. 11 And then from my knowledge, if they had 12 been turned on, they would have been turned on by people 13 that are using the Park land now, and if they're being 14 turned off in the winter, they're being turned off by 15 people in the Park land now. 16 We had -- we -- we did not give any 17 training on opening up the system, closing the system. 18 Q: So as far as you're aware, your 19 staff didn't help to train anyone at Stony Point on how 20 to winterize those operations? 21 A: That's my understanding. 22 Q: Why you don't -- 23 A: We -- we just turn the taps off and 24 it's winterized; it may still be that way today ten (10) 25 years later.


1 Q: Okay. You don't know the process 2 that's occurred since 1995? Other than your 3 Department -- 4 A: Only my own -- only my own staff's 5 work. 6 Q: Okay. Other than your Department 7 wasn't involved after that day? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: All right. Now if I could turn you 10 to Tab 94, your Book of Documents, which you had 11 earlier, and I provided to your counsel, it was 12 yesterday morning or, I think it was yesterday morning, 13 a previous draft, which I'm not sure if you've had a 14 chance to review. You haven't seen it? 15 A: Sorry. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: Just by way of 21 explanation, Mr. Commissioner, it's an earlier draft, it 22 hasn't been revised to any great deal. However, I just 23 wanted to speak to this particular piece of paper and 24 see if Mr. Sturdy could help us. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The dates


1 look the same, February 16th and the incorrect '95 on 2 both of them. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: No. 4 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: There's February 5 9th on the one that I've passed out. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The one I 7 have says February 16th, '95. 8 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: If you go to the 9 first page. 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, I'm 11 sorry. Just the first page. Yes -- 12 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: It may be 13 insignificant, I just wanted to ask a few questions on 14 it. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 16 fine. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. KEVIN SCULLION: 19 Q: As you can appreciate, my clients 20 are somewhat concerned with a line in the conclusion, if 21 I turn you to page 13, and that's being page 13 at the 22 bottom of the page as opposed to part of the fax re: 23 line. Are you at that page? 24 And there's three paragraphs that's 25 called "Conclusions"?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Okay. At the bottom of the second 3 paragraph, there's a line that says: 4 "We do not need, however, to re-write 5 the book, rather we should reach in in 6 what we already have in place." 7 A: I'm sorry, which version are you 8 looking at? I'm confused now. 9 Q: Page 13 of the draft, of the 10 document I just provided to you, if you look at page 13 11 at the bottom-right corner. It's a page with 12 conclusions. 13 A: I have that but I don't see the 14 words that you are reading out. 15 Q: The second paragraph. Okay. The 16 last line. 17 A: Okay. I'm with you. 18 Q: All right. And I note from the 19 cover page that you received a copy of this draft, 20 presumably for your input; is that fair? 21 A: That's fair. 22 Q: All right. So you've seen this 23 before, back in 1996, -- 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: -- and you testified that it was a


1 review that was conducted by MNR to see what could be 2 changed, if anything needed to be changed? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And when I read through this line 5 that says: 6 "We do not need to rewrite the book, 7 rather we should retune what we already 8 have in place." 9 It seems to me that MNR was satisfied 10 with the role it played in what occurred September 4, 5, 11 and 6. 12 Is that a fair reading? 13 A: I think that's a fair reading with 14 some -- part of it, I believe, was also to look at some 15 areas where improvements could be made and -- and 16 recommendations were intended to reflect that. 17 Q: Right. Tweaking more than changing 18 outright? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: All right. And I've raised that 21 because my impression from your contingency plan that 22 was drafted and -- and modified before September 4, was 23 simply for the purpose of securing the Park facilities 24 and evacuating the Park. It wasn't to deal specifically 25 with the occupation, that was to be a police matter.


1 Is that fair? 2 A: That's fair. 3 Q: All right. And the steps in your 4 Contingency Plan were implemented in the latter part of 5 August and early September, in terms of moving assets 6 off of the site, securing computer files, other files, 7 and any funds that were on, or in the Park. 8 Is that fair? 9 A: And also the establishment of a -- 10 of a group that would look after, well, we return the 11 Critical Incident Team, yes. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: That was part of the Plan. 14 Q: Right. And that was the group that 15 would oversee what was occurring and -- and act along 16 with the OPP? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: All right. It seemed to me that 19 MNR's responsibility, under your Contingency Plan, 20 pretty much came to an end when those things were done, 21 when you had moved the assets off and then secured the 22 Park from your point of view. 23 Is that fair? 24 A: I think that's fair. 25 Q: Okay. I raise that because if you


1 look at page 4, of the draft that I provided to you, two 2 (2) paragraphs from the bottom, there's some handwritten 3 notes. 4 Do you see the words, "changed the OPP 5 lead?" 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Is that your handwriting? 8 A: That's my handwriting. 9 Q: All right. That's why I went to 10 this draft. I thought it looked familiar. In fact 11 that's your view, was that it changed to the OPP lead 12 when the occupation actually occurred, when the Stony 13 Pointers went on to the Park land? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And you had talked with Mr. Carson, 16 Inspector Carson at the time, about that possibility, 17 and you had a memo that we've looked at, from your 18 meeting at August 1 with -- as and when that actually 19 occurred, the OPP had a plan as far as you knew? 20 A: I didn't know the details. I knew 21 that they had a plan to put in a Command Post in Forest, 22 a Communications Centre in -- in the Legion here in 23 Forest, I believe it was, and yes. 24 Q: Right. As far as you were 25 concerned, the plan was simply, if there's a small


1 group, they would arrest them -- 2 A: Yes -- yes. 3 Q: -- when they went in? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: If there was a blockade, they'd 6 remove the blockade and arrest the small group at that 7 time. If it was a large group, they would still remove 8 the group but they required an injunction. 9 A: That was my understanding. 10 Q: Right. And that was your 11 understanding as of August the 1st when you met with Mr. 12 Carson, and it was still your impression when you met 13 with Inspector Carson later in August to review that 14 plan; is that fair? 15 A: On September the 1st when -- 16 Q: September the 1st, yes, that -- 17 A: That's -- that's correct. 18 Q: All right. It hadn't changed, you 19 just reinforcing that that was going to be the plan? 20 A: Those general points were still 21 there -- 22 Q: Right? 23 A: -- as I understood them. 24 Q: The expectation -- 25 A: The steps that we would work our way


1 through, eventually getting an injunction, yes. 2 Q: Okay. The expectation was that the 3 Stoney Pointers would move into the Park lands and at 4 that point in time the OPP would take over the lead? 5 A: That is correct. 6 Q: All right. And at that point in 7 time the MNR became secondary in terms of being of 8 assistance to the OPP? 9 A: I think it was categorized as we 10 would look at helping with an injunction, we would look 11 at helping with communications, and we would look at 12 helping with logistical support, accommodation, et 13 cetera, et cetera. 14 Q: Right. And Mr. Kobayashi can 15 testify about all of those aspects because he was the 16 one on the ground doing all those things? 17 A: Absolutely. 18 Q: He simply reported to you and you 19 reported up the chain of command in the MNR? 20 A: That's right. 21 Q: But from your standpoint, you 22 weren't making any more operational decisions on the 23 ground after the Stoney Pointers moved into the Park 24 without consulting the OPP; is that fair? 25 A: Operational decisions...?


1 Q: As -- as in what Mr. Kobayashi will 2 be doing on the ground. 3 A: I'm sorry, I've -- I've lost you on 4 this one. Maybe you could rephrase it or -- 5 Q: That's fine. It's a bit awkward 6 question. I'll move on. 7 From the MNR's standpoint, and I read it 8 through, both the draft that I gave to you and the 9 document at Tab 94, was that this was seen as civil 10 disobedience. 11 A: Yes. I believe that's correct. 12 Q: It was a civil protest by the Stony 13 Pointers, about issues that you already knew about from 14 back in 1993; is that fair? 15 A: That would be fair. 16 Q: Those are all my questions. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you want 18 to make the draft an exhibit? 19 MR. KEVIN SCULLION: I will. If I could 20 make that the next exhibit, Mr. Commissioner? 21 THE REGISTRAR: P-824, Your Honour. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-824: Document Number 1012524. Fax 25 from Dave Jackson to various


1 attaching draft of Review of 2 1995 Hostile Occupations at 3 Ipperwash and Serpent Mounds 4 Provincial Parks, Feb.09/96. 5 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 7 Thank you, Mr. Scullion. 8 I believe Mr. George is up? 9 MR. JONATHAN GEORGE: I have no 10 questions. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You have no 12 questions. 13 I believe that brings us to Mr. Roy. 14 Yes, Mr. Roy? 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: I still -- I still 16 think I'm going to be close to my hour that I'd 17 requested? 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You 19 estimate an hour? 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: So, I'm suggesting 21 respectfully that we -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Take a 23 break now for lunch and have your hour after we come 24 back? 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: Please.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 2 fine. 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's 5 fine. 6 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 7 adjourned until 1:15. 8 9 --- Upon recessing at 11:56 a.m. 10 --- Upon resuming at 1:15 p.m. 11 12 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 13 resumed. Please be seated. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 18 afternoon 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: Good afternoon, 20 Commissioner. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 23 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Sturdy. 24 A: Good afternoon. 25 Q: I'm wondering if you could turn to


1 Tab 94 of your binder. And I apologize, I've forgotten 2 to get the exhibit number. 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's 802. 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: It's -- it's 802, Mr. 5 Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 9 Q: Do you have that in front of you, 10 sir? 11 A: Yes, I do. 12 Q: I should introduce myself before we 13 start. My name is Julian Roy and I am one (1) of the 14 counsel for Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto. 15 A: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Did you say 17 Tab 90? 18 THE REGISTRAR: 94. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Oh, 94, 20 Okay. 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: It's exhibit 802, Mr. 22 Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 That's fine. Now I'm with you. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 2 Q: And if you could turn to page 13. 3 And this is the -- the review document that you were 4 discussing before with a number of counsel. 5 A: That's correct. 6 Q: That was prepared after the Ipperwash 7 and Serpent Mounds incidents to sort of determine what 8 MNR had done right or wrong in terms of how they 9 approached the incident, do you recall that? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Okay. And at -- at page 13 there's a 12 reference under "Staff Support", just stress counselling 13 that was made available for MNR employees? 14 A: That was -- which paragraph is that? 15 Sorry? 16 Q: Under, "Staff Support?" 17 A: Right. 18 Q: In the second sentence: 19 "It was noted that the Critical 20 Incident Stress Support Program that 21 MNR has in place was and still is an 22 important resource for staff involved 23 in traumatic events such as hostile 24 occupations." 25 Do you see that?


1 A: I do. 2 Q: All right. In -- in your experience 3 as a manager from observing the way your staff behaved in 4 the aftermath of the incident do you agree with that that 5 critical incident stress counselling is something that's 6 important for people involved in an incident like that? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 Q: Okay. And that wouldn't be limited 9 to just your impression about the usefulness of that type 10 of -- of counselling; that's not limited to just MNR 11 employees is it? 12 A: If you like I can give you a little 13 bit of context just for a second. 14 Q: Certainly. 15 A: The Critical Incident Stress Program 16 that we have within MNR is a program that's run which 17 utilizes trained staff within MNR to help others cope 18 with difficult and stressful events. And those could 19 range from where we have an incident of a drowning in a 20 park where young staff members have been involved in 21 perhaps the recovery of a body to a variety of different 22 situations including this. 23 So, they are available to come to 24 different facilities, different offices, different parks 25 of MNR to provide that service to fellow staff people.


1 Q: And in terms of your observations and 2 experience as a manager you would endorse the 3 availability of this type of counselling in the aftermath 4 of a traumatic event, correct? 5 A: Yes, I would. 6 Q: And you wouldn't limit that to just 7 MNR employees or government employees would you? 8 A: No, I wouldn't. 9 Q: Thank you. I want to -- to ask you 10 about -- a little bit more about the meeting that you had 11 with Deputy Commissioner -- now-Deputy Commissioner 12 Carson -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- on September 1st. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: It's the meeting that Deputy 17 Commissioner Carson convenes when -- at the point where 18 he feels or he advises you that the occupation is 19 imminent. 20 Do you recall that? 21 A: I recall that. 22 Q: Okay. And your evidence has been 23 that Deputy Commissioner Carson made it clear to you that 24 at that point, as of September 1st, the OPP is now the 25 lead agency in terms of the Government's approach to the


1 occupation. Is that correct? 2 A: If an occupation was to occur, that 3 it would become a policing matter. 4 Q: Okay. In -- in other words the MNR 5 was no longer going to be the lead organization within 6 the Government when an occupation happens; is that 7 correct? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Now, I want to ask -- I'm going to 10 ask you to elaborate a little bit on the respective roles 11 between MNR and OPP immediately prior to the occupation 12 and as the occupation unfolds, all right? That's -- 13 that's -- 14 A: All right. 15 Q: -- generally what my question is 16 going to be about just so you have context. 17 Now, as you understood it, when the OPP 18 was going to take the lead, MNR would have a supporting 19 role; is that correct? 20 A: Yes, that's correct. 21 Q: Yes. And as part of that supporting 22 role there would be MNR staff actually physically at the 23 command post; is that correct? 24 A: That would have been predetermined, 25 that was correct.


1 Q: Yes. And one of the things that -- 2 the -- the MNR staff was going to be doing at the command 3 post is they were going to be available to provide sort 4 of technical information or advice about the actual Park 5 infrastructure; is that correct? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: And they would also be involved in 8 providing accommodations and food, et cetera, for the OPP 9 officers? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: And they were also going to be 12 available to provide the media with facts about the 13 actual Park, correct? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And then at the point where an 16 injunction materials are to be prepared, MNR as the 17 custodian or the landowner so to speak, their -- their 18 role is to prepare an affidavit in connection with the 19 injunction, correct? 20 A: That was my understanding at the 21 time, yes. 22 Q: Now, in terms of -- if you could turn 23 to Tab 29 of your documents and that's -- Mr. 24 Commissioner, that's P-781, Inquiry Document 1008868. 25 And you'll see there's -- there's a two


1 (2) page e-mail at the front of that tab. 2 A: Yes, sir, I see it. 3 Q: Okay. And if you go to actually the 4 third page inside that tab. Now, the document is 5 Ipperwash -- or the top of the page is "Ipperwash 6 Provincial Park Draft Emergency Contingency Plan"; do you 7 see that? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And if you go to the -- the second 10 page of the draft plan under Part 2. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And if you look at Point 1, "Critical 13 Incident Team" the last bullet point there. One of the 14 things that the Critical Incident Team -- and the 15 Critical Incident Team is referring to the MNR staff that 16 are part of the command post, correct? 17 A: Actually it includes not only the -- 18 the two (2) staff members that were at the command post, 19 it included myself, Mr. Ron Baldwin who is located in 20 Aylmer, Mr. Daryl Smith who is a communications officer, 21 I believe he was posted in the legion for a short period 22 where the media centre was established. 23 Q: Okay. So -- so, you would be 24 involved in the CIT as well? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Okay. And the last bullet point: 2 "Inform senior MNR staff of ongoing 3 events surrounding the situation and 4 recommends action or request direction 5 from senior staff." 6 Do you see that? 7 A: Yes, I do. 8 Q: That is defined as one of the roles 9 in your contingency plan that CIT is going to be 10 performing, correct? 11 A: That's right. 12 Q: And that ends up being actually your 13 personal responsibility, is that correct, informing 14 senior staff? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Now, who is it that specifically 17 among ministry senior staff that -- that you understood 18 you were going to be reporting or advising about the 19 facts, or the events as the situation unfolded? 20 A: My primary contact was Mr. Peter 21 Allen, who was the executive assistant to our deputy 22 minister, Mr. Ron Vrancart. 23 Q: And was there anybody else who was 24 part of the senior staff that you were going to be 25 advising or -- or was he the sole person you were going


1 to be reporting the facts to? 2 A: Certainly the majority of my contacts 3 were with him. I've also would have relayed, perhaps, 4 similar information that I talked to him about to my 5 immediate superior in my part of the organization, Mr. 6 Norm Richards who was the director of our branch. 7 Q: All right. Now, in terms of your 8 understanding as to how the information would flow after 9 Mr. Allen, after you report events to Mr. Allen. 10 you would understand that Mr. Allen would 11 then report to Ron Vrancart, who's the Deputy Minister? 12 A: For those matters which, in his 13 judgment, the Deputy needed to know about. 14 Q: Yes. 15 A: And -- and he would have, perhaps, a 16 clear understanding of -- to be able to sort of sift 17 through information that was coming in as to what should 18 be reported, that's correct. 19 Q: And the deputy -- what was your 20 understanding as to what criteria he would use to sift 21 through information? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 A: I'm not if I'm in a position to


1 answer that -- 2 Q: All right. 3 A: -- perhaps, for you. 4 Q: And you would then understand that 5 the Deputy Minister would report to the -- the actual 6 Minister's political staff; is that correct? 7 A: That was my understanding, correct. 8 Q: Now, I take it as -- as you 9 understood your reporting function, you didn't see it as 10 your job to shield Mr. Allen or your immediate supervisor 11 from the information that you were gaining from Mr. 12 Kobayashi? 13 You didn't see that as your job, did you? 14 A: No, I did not. 15 Q: In fact, you saw it as your job to do 16 the exact opposite, you were to keep them informed about 17 the events that you were learning from Mr. Kobayashi, 18 correct? 19 A: I was receiving information from Mr. 20 Kobayashi and I -- and I relayed that information, 21 because really there was nothing said to me prior to that 22 about whether I should or shouldn't or -- yeah. 23 Q: You weren't given any instruction to 24 -- to apply any screening to that information? 25 A: That's correct, that's what I was


1 trying to say, correct. 2 Q: I see. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Now, I already asked you about the -- 7 the support of -- some specifics about the supportive 8 role that the MNR was going to be playing vis-a-vis the 9 OPP. 10 What I want to ask you about, or want to 11 confirm with you a number of things that MNR was not 12 going to be doing, as you understood the contingency 13 plan. All right? 14 A: All right. 15 Q: It was clear to you that the MNR was 16 not going to be, and your CIT was not going to be 17 providing any direction as to police operations; is that 18 correct? 19 A: Absolutely. 20 Q: You were absolutely not to get 21 involved in things like where the OPP is going to be 22 putting road blocks or what tactics they're going to use, 23 correct? 24 A: Absolutely not. 25 Q: Yes. And you absolutely not would be


1 -- you would not be involved in interpreting intelligence 2 that the police had gathered concerning the occupiers, 3 correct? 4 A: I'm not sure that I would understand 5 what intelligence was. 6 Q: Yes. So therefore you, as a member 7 of the critical incident team, would not be involved in 8 analysing intelligence, correct? 9 A: I was provided with information and 10 that's what I was trying to provide to my senior staff. 11 I -- there wasn't a distinction made to me when I was 12 provided with that information as to what label you 13 wanted to put on it and and -- if you like. 14 Q: But in terms of assessing the 15 reliability of information that the police had gathered, 16 that wasn't going to be your job was it? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: Now, the role that deputy 19 Commissioner Carson described to you in terms of what 20 your and MNR's role was going to be, you were in 21 agreement with him as to what your appropriate role is, 22 correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: It wasn't a situation where there was 25 some kind of turf war or anything like that between the


1 OPP and the MNR? 2 A: No. 3 Q: No. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Now, I take it from what you're 8 saying, it wouldn't have been your role to analyse or 9 interpret intelligence that the police had gathered 10 concerning weapons that the Park occupiers were alleged 11 to have had; that wasn't your job, correct? 12 A: It wasn't my job to analyse 13 information that I was provided with. I don't know if it 14 was considered intelligence or not -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- to be honest. 17 Q: But you -- you didn't have any 18 experience in analy -- 19 A: Analysing information. 20 Q: -- on analysis to intelligence 21 information did you? 22 A: I didn't have any experience in 23 applying analysis to information, that's correct. 24 Q: Yes. And you very fairly stated you 25 don't have an enforcement background, correct?


1 A: I don't have an enforcement 2 background. 3 Q: And this was the first incident of 4 its kind that you were ever involved in, correct? 5 A: Yes, it was. 6 Q: And with respect to Mr. Kobayashi, 7 you didn't know him to have any expertise in gathering 8 and analysing intelligence, did you? 9 A: No, although I -- in his -- at the 10 beginning of his career he was a conservation officer for 11 a period of time. 12 Q: Yes. And ultimately he ended up as a 13 -- as park warden, correct? 14 A: A park superintendent. 15 Q: Yes. On the other hand you would 16 have understood that the police had -- the OPP had 17 experience and expertise in terms of analysing 18 intelligence information, correct? 19 A: That would be my assumption, yes. 20 Q: So in terms of looking at something, 21 for example, like a report of automatic gunfire, it's 22 actually not your job to assess the reliability of a 23 report such as that, correct? 24 A: Again, it was information that we had 25 received or at least Mr. Kobayashi had received, had


1 relayed to me, and I was relaying it on. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Your point is -- is that you don't 5 look behind that information as to -- and make any kind 6 of assessment of its reliability, correct? 7 A: No, I wasn't. 8 Q: So this issue about whether or not 9 the gunfire was -- was automatic versus semi-automatic 10 you're just relaying what you're hearing, you're not 11 applying any analysis, correct? 12 A: It was immaterial to me. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Now, you've already given evidence 17 that you heard from Mr. Kobayashi about automatic 18 gunfire; is that correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And that was a verbal report you 21 received from Mr. Kobayashi? 22 A: That was a verbal report. 23 Q: All right. And -- and can you give 24 any further evidence about the circumstances surrounding 25 you receiving that report from Mr. Kobayashi?


1 A: I don't believe so, other than it 2 would have been something that I would have done going 3 into the office, would have been to try and make contact 4 with Mr. Kobayashi right away, who was located here in 5 Forest, and just ask him for any updates. 6 And as I testified, I believe, it was my 7 understanding that these updates came from briefings that 8 the OPP held on a regular basis here in Forest. 9 Q: All right. So the significance of 10 that is you understood that Mr. Kobayashi was getting 11 this information about automatic gunfire from the police, 12 correct? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: He wasn't out there gathering 15 information on his own, was he? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Now, when Mr. Kobayashi spoke to you 18 about the report of automatic gunfire did he put any 19 qualifications or limitations on -- did he express any -- 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 21 Vella...? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY:


1 Q: My question is: Did Mr. Kobayashi 2 express any qualifications or limitations on that report? 3 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I tried to give My 4 Friend considerable latitude but the -- the last several 5 questions, and this question as well, are almost 6 identical to questions that I -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: They just 8 seem to be repetitive. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- asked in the 10 examination-in-chief. I do want to give My Friend 11 latitude, but the last twelve (12) or so questions are -- 12 are identical to what I asked. 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The points 14 that you've just made have already been made. 15 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, I remember -- I 16 recall My Friend asking this Witness for the content of 17 what Mr. Kobayashi's report was -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 19 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- but I don't recall 20 her suggesting any type of conduct -- content that could 21 have been -- 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 23 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- involved in that 24 conversation such as -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well --


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- qualifications about 2 the -- 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'd rather 4 have you move on than explain what you're doing because I 5 think it would take longer to hear your explanation than 6 to just have you move forward. So why don't you just ask 7 the question now. What's the question now? What's your 8 question now? 9 MR. JULIAN ROY: The question is did Mr. 10 Kobayashi, when he was conveying this report to you, did 11 he place any qualifications as to its reliabilities. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. 13 THE WITNESS: No. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well so far 15 -- my understanding so far is we've had pretty well 16 everything that you brought out -- 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- so far, 19 so are you finished with this or are you going somewhere 20 else? 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: No, no. I'm continuing. 22 Did -- with your -- with your lead, Mr. Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: By all 24 means. 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you.


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 3 Q: Did you ask Mr. Kobayashi to perform 4 any sort of analysis about that report? 5 A: No, I did not. 6 Q: Did you direct him to -- to speak to 7 Incident Commander Carson concerning that report in order 8 to vet it through him? 9 A: No, I did not. 10 Q: Was it your assumption that that 11 information had already been vetted by the police before 12 it got to Mr. Kobayashi? 13 A: What I knew at that point was this 14 was information which was being provided to Mr. Kobayashi 15 which -- through what I believe to be briefings that were 16 being held in Forest here, and he was relaying that 17 information to me. 18 Q: And was it your understanding that -- 19 that Deputy Commissioner Carson was involved in those 20 briefings? 21 A: That was my understanding. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He was 23 conducting the briefings. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well there were other -- 25 there were --


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He was 2 conducting these briefings. You -- you established at 3 the beginning of this series of questions. All right, 4 let's go on. 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think I established 6 that it was from a police briefing. I don't think I'd 7 established that it was Inspector Carson. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No. I think 9 you established that it was Mr. -- it was Inspector 10 Carson that was organizing these meetings. And you 11 established that he went to a meeting with -- it was at a 12 meeting with Inspector Carson that these briefings 13 occurred. 14 Anyway carry on. I'd like you to bring 15 out something that hasn't already been brought out, if 16 you can. 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well I think the last -- 18 with respect, I think the last four (4) or five (5) 19 questions were new. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 21 Carry on. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 24 Q: Now, prior to you reporting about the 25 automatic gunfire in your e-mail that you've already been


1 through on the morning September 6th, prior to that, I 2 take it you weren't aware as to any sensitivities as to 3 information flow that might arise in conveying a report 4 such as that? 5 A: No, I wasn't. 6 Q: We can take from that -- that the 7 interchange that you had with Chief Superintendent Coles 8 happened after you had already conveyed the report of 9 gunfire in your e-mail on September 6th, correct? 10 A: That's my recollection. I don't know 11 if it would be helpful or if I could add maybe one small 12 piece of context to this for you. 13 Q: Certainly. 14 A: I think I've already indicated that 15 one of my primary concerns around those kind of reports 16 related to my staff's safety. 17 The second, which I think I also talked 18 about is, as you work within the civil service you become 19 sensitized to things that may be brought up. It may be 20 brought up in the media, it may be brought up through 21 phone calls or dispatches to officers and so on and so 22 forth. 23 So this was information that was out 24 there, I thought. 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: And whether it was media that might 2 be alerted to this, might hear this, whether it was other 3 homeowners, whether it was other cottagers, so on and so 4 forth, I guess there was other potentials as well. 5 So these matters were raised through these 6 status reports and also at the Interministerial meeting 7 in order to provide that bit of context from a local 8 scene so that somebody didn't get caught short, if you 9 like. 10 Q: Yes. In other words, what you're 11 saying, something like a report of automatic gunfire 12 you'd want to make sure that your superiors heard about 13 it before they were asked to question about it in the -- 14 by the media, correct? 15 A: Potentially. I mean I didn't know 16 that the -- I don't know whether the media or anyone else 17 knew about this but in the eventuality that they did, I 18 wanted to ensure that that kind of information was before 19 them -- they had a little knowledge about it. 20 Q: All right. So in terms of your mind 21 set in deciding what -- what should go up to your 22 superiors, that type of explosive information that might 23 get raised by the media, that's the type of things that 24 are definitely going to get sent up the chain; is that 25 not correct?


1 A: I was passing along information which 2 I thought others -- it might be helpful for others to put 3 some kind of context. 4 Q: Now, in your -- you never received 5 any training, I take it, from -- from the MNR concerning 6 how to interact with OPP officers in an incident such as 7 this in terms of how information ought to be conveyed? 8 A: No, I did not. 9 Q: And you -- you weren't aware of any 10 memo or directive that would cover this issue? 11 A: I'm not aware of any no, no. 12 Q: Now, your e-mail on the morning of 13 September 6th Tab 49, it's Exhibit 787, Mr. Commissioner, 14 and it's Inquiry Document 1009033. 15 I don't want to ask you any -- any lengthy 16 questions about this because I know you've already been 17 asked questions about it but I have a little bit of 18 follow-up on it. 19 A: Sure. 20 Q: You told us in addition to reporting 21 by way of e-mail to your superiors that from time to time 22 you would have verbal discussions; is that correct? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: And the report of automatic gunfire 25 that's reflected in that e-mail, I take it that you


1 didn't qualify that information or provide any further 2 information concerning the reliability of that report in 3 any of these verbal exchanges you had with your 4 superiors? 5 A: I don't believe so because I don't 6 think I had that. 7 Q: Now, the e-mail actually states that 8 -- if you look at -- regarding the automatic gunfire? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: It reports that it -- it occurred 11 within Ipperwash Park. 12 Do you see that? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: As distinct from the Army Camp, the 15 former Army Camp. 16 A: Right. 17 Q: Do you see that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Can you tell me what the source of 20 your information was as to -- as to the precise location 21 of the automatic gunfire? 22 A: Again that was Mr. Kobayashi. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I've made a 24 note of that by the way; that's already been answered. I 25 made a note of that that information came from Mr. Les


1 Kobayashi. So you've asked him a question that's already 2 been answered. Now, you may be a little more precise 3 about it, but I believe that question was already 4 answered. 5 I'm just asking you if you would, Mr. Roy, 6 to conduct your examination with matters that haven't 7 been covered. Even within your time --I mean you haven't 8 exceeded your time by any means, but even within the time 9 I would hope that you would deal with matters that 10 haven't yet been covered. 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: And I -- 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 13 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- from my perspective 14 this is a critical area, the issue of information -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 16 it's critical, it's been asked and answered. The source 17 of information was Mr. Les Kobayashi. 18 MR. JULIAN ROY: The -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Now, if you 20 ask it again and we get the same answer how does that 21 help us? 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: Well, in my respectful 23 submission, I'm asking for some elaboration and some more 24 precision on that issue which, from my client's 25 perspective, is very important.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 2 Let's carry on, but I'm just saying -- 3 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm doing my best. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I believe 5 that you are. I just want to try to keep us moving 6 forward rather than covering areas that have already been 7 covered; that's the extent of it. So let's carry on. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 10 Q: Now, in terms of the -- the 11 circulation of this e-mail are you able to identify the 12 positions of the people who are listed on this 13 distribution list for the e-mail? 14 A: I'm not -- 15 Q: You've already told me about Peter 16 Allen and Norm Richards. 17 A: That's correct. Shirley -- Shirley 18 Teasdale was an Issues Officer in our Deputy Minister's 19 office, Issues Officer. 20 Q: All right. 21 A: Cam Park (phonetic) was an Assistant 22 Deputy Minister of Operations. I'm sorry I -- I forget 23 the position that Mr. Isherwood held. 24 Q: Hmm hmm. 25 A: And Mr. Bill Baker.


1 Q: Can I stop you there for a second? 2 A: Sure. 3 Q: What is the "SSM" office? 4 A: Sault Ste. Marie. 5 Q: Okay. Carry on, please? 6 A: Mr. David Johnstone was a Regional 7 Director in MNR for the Southern Region; Mr. Guy 8 Winterton was the Director of our Compliance Branch -- 9 Enforcement Branch; Mr. Barry Jones was head of the 10 Director of Legal Services for MNR; Mr. Leith Hunter was 11 a lawyer within Legal Services MNR; and Garry Wice, I 12 believe, was also an information or -- I'm sorry, an 13 Issues or Information Officer with the Deputy Minister's 14 office. 15 Q: All right. Did any of these 16 individuals that you distributed this e-mail to, did any 17 of these individuals contact you by e-mail or by 18 telephone and tell you that, look, some of the 19 information you're giving us is information we shouldn't 20 have? 21 A: No, they did not. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Q: Now, in terms of your -- your


1 participation in the IMC meetings by way of 2 teleconference, were you specifically aware that a member 3 of the political staff of the Premier's office was going 4 to be present at those meetings? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 A: I can't recall when the agenda was 9 faxed out, whether that was identified or not, but 10 certainly it would have been at some point in the 11 beginning of those meetings that it would have been 12 apparent that there was somebody there from the -- on the 13 political staff side. 14 Q: Did you turn your mind to the -- to 15 the propriety of conveying the information about 16 automatic gunfire to political staff, as opposed to other 17 civil servants? 18 A: No, I did not. 19 Q: And nobody at the meeting, I take it, 20 said to you, Mr. Sturdy, stop what you're saying; we 21 shouldn't be hearing this type of information, did they? 22 A: No, they did not. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 Q: The first time, I take it, that you 2 had any knowledge that there was some concern about 3 information flow and sensitivities regarding police 4 information was when Chief Inspector Coles contacted Mr. 5 Kobayashi about the issue; is that correct? 6 A: I think I had had some discussions 7 with Les over the phone, prior to the meeting with Chief 8 Superintendent Cole (sic), so I understood that that was 9 one of the topics that he wanted to talk about when we 10 met. 11 Q: Okay. So in other words, it was Mr. 12 Kobayashi alerting you to what Mr. Coles wanted to talk 13 about; is that correct? 14 A: I believe he -- I believe he alerted 15 us to that prior to the meeting, that's correct. Or 16 alerted me to that prior to the meeting, yes. 17 Q: Now, your evidence is rather vague as 18 to what Superintendent Coles conveyed to you at that 19 interchange. 20 Am I right in saying that -- that whatever 21 he told you didn't give you much guidance as to what you 22 should or should not convey, in terms of police 23 information, up your chain of -- of reporting? 24 A: I recall no direction from him in 25 terms of what would qualify as information that could be


1 passed up or what could qualify as information that 2 shouldn't be passed up. 3 Q: All right. Did you ever go back to 4 anybody from the OPP and try and clarify that issue? 5 A: I would have expected that it would 6 have been quite easy to have asked us to leave a briefing 7 room, or to have qualified remarks that were made at a 8 briefing in terms of whether or not it was appropriate to 9 pass that information on to me, or whether there should 10 be some qualifiers if I was going to pass it up. 11 Q: Now, I'm not being critical of you. 12 A: No. 13 Q: Did any -- it -- did any -- 14 A: But none of that happened. 15 Q: Yes. And you're not aware of anybody 16 else from the MNR engaging in a discussion with Chief 17 Superintendent Coles, or anybody else, to figure out what 18 it was that was supposed to be conveyed and what wasn't 19 supposed to be conveyed? 20 A: No, I'm not. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now you flagged this issue for your 25 superiors by way of e-mail, and I'm not going to take you


1 to it. It's Exhibit 802, it's at Tab 95. 2 You flagged that issue for your superiors; 3 do you recall giving evidence about that? 4 A: It's at Tab? 5 Q: It's at Tab 95. I'm sorry, it's not 6 95. It's Exhibit 802. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. JULIAN ROY: I wasn't intending to 11 take the witness to this document, Mr. Commissioner, 12 but... 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: It's Tab 94. 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: It's not Tab 94. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: I'm sorry, it's Exhibit 22 789 and it's at Tab ... 23 MS. SUSAN VELLA: 52. 24 MR. JULIAN ROY: 52. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Exhibit 789


1 at Tab 52? 2 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yeah. I'm sorry about 3 that, Mr. Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 Tab 52. 6 MR. JULIAN ROY: I had intended to have 7 this document pulled up. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 10 Q: If you look at the bottom of that 11 document. I'm right in saying you intended to flag Chief 12 Superintendent Cole's concern with your superiors, is 13 that not correct? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Did you have any further discussion 16 with anybody on that distribution list about this issue? 17 A: I'm not quite sure who's on the 18 distribution list. But if it was this -- I don't recall 19 have a detailed discussion about that, sorry. 20 Q: And to this day I take it you haven't 21 received any direction from anybody at the MNR as to how 22 to handle a situation like this in the future in terms of 23 information flow? 24 A: No. 25 Q: And you're still a zone manager who's


1 responsible for preparing contingency plans, is that not 2 correct? 3 A: Yes, it is. 4 Q: And you would expect if there had 5 been a change in procedure or practice that you would 6 know about it given your position? 7 A: I would expect so. 8 Q: To your knowledge has there been any 9 change in the way contingency plans are prepared in order 10 to deal with this issue? 11 A: This issue being? 12 Q: Information flow vis-a-vis the OPP? 13 Information coming from the OPP? 14 A: I don't recall that that's come up in 15 any documents around the preparation of contingency 16 plans. 17 Q: And you're not aware of any training 18 in that regard either, I guess? 19 A: No, I'm not. 20 Q: Now am I right in saying that the 21 purpose of having MNR staff at the command post is -- is 22 primarily with a view to getting -- making sure that the 23 OPP has technical information support? Is that the 24 primary reason? 25 A: I think that was the primary reason


1 because obviously they know the -- the particular park 2 and the buildings and the layout and so on and so forth, 3 and that might be helpful in a number of different ways 4 to the officers. 5 Q: And the presence of a -- of an MNR 6 person at the command post, the point of it is not to 7 create some sort of parallel reporting chain regarding 8 police information, is it? 9 A: The contingency plan which had been 10 developed back in 1993 and evolved into the document that 11 you first took me to or one of the first documents that 12 you took me to, had always had that provision in it that 13 part of the Critical Incident Team, a person would be 14 assigned to the command post. 15 That document had been shared with the OPP 16 previously as I've testified and so I -- to be honest I 17 didn't think there was anything abnormal in that, no. 18 Q: Yes. But is there any purpose or -- 19 by having a parallel information in -- to your -- in your 20 experience and to your knowledge, is there any purpose, 21 sir, by having sort of parallel route for information 22 regarding police operations to flow up through the civil 23 service? 24 A: I don't think I was reporting on 25 police operations was I? I mean some of these were --


1 this was just information about what was occurring at the 2 Park and in the vicinity of the Park. That's what I was 3 conveying. I don't think I was conveying operations 4 information per se. 5 But maybe you use a different definition 6 for operations that I'm accustomed to. 7 Q: You didn't view the reports about 8 automatic gunfire to be police operation information? 9 A: No. 10 Q: All right. 11 A: I mean this was information, which as 12 I've mentioned, if you happened to be perhaps a property 13 owner close by or a cottage owner close by. If a police 14 officer heard it then maybe somebody else might have 15 heard it as well. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Wasn't the 17 purpose of the IMC to provide information and make sure 18 that everybody had the same information? And so they 19 could communicate that information to their respective 20 ministries? Wasn't that given as one of the purposes of 21 the IMC? 22 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes, but the information 23 from the command post, as I understood -- 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I'm 25 just saying --


1 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- the point -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 3 information, wherever it came from. Information came 4 into the IMC and the idea was everybody there would have 5 the same information and would report back to their 6 respective ministries. 7 MR. JULIAN ROY: That's -- that's right, 8 and Ron Fox would be the source of the information on the 9 ground and perhaps not others, like, that's -- 10 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's the 11 point you're making? 12 MR. JULIAN ROY: That's a point that 13 might be available on the evidence that -- and that's why 14 I'm -- 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 16 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- exploring the issue 17 about whether or not -- 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well when 19 you say -- 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- there's a need to 21 have an information flow from Mr. Kobayashi through Mr. 22 Sturdy -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, you've 24 been calling it a parallel and that's -- 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: Yes.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- why I'm 2 questioning that, because I understood that there was a - 3 - information coming from various sources, it wasn't just 4 parallel lines. Information -- 5 MR. JULIAN ROY: About police inform -- 6 about police -- 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 8 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- matters. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right, 10 if you're referring -- 11 MR. JULIAN ROY: That -- that -- that's 12 the parallel, not -- it's perfectly fair and I'm not 13 taking the position that information shouldn't flow 14 through the civil service in terms of people's various 15 bailiwicks but on police matters -- 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: All right. 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think it's an open 18 position -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: And I'm -- 20 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- but I'm virtually 21 finished with the area, so. 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 25 Q: Now, I'm going to suggest perhaps a


1 different way of structuring the contingency plan from 2 the MNR's perspective to get your -- your view on it, 3 because you have some experience in this regard. 4 What if we took an MNR person like Mr. 5 Kobayashi and sort of seconded him to the OPP so that he 6 was no longer reporting to anybody in MNR. 7 So he's available to be there as to 8 provide his technical expertise, but he's no longer 9 reporting through the ordinary MNR channels. 10 And then to the extent that the minister 11 responsible for Natural Resources wants to learn about 12 police operation, he can obtain that information through 13 the Solicitor General or the deputy Solicitor General. 14 In terms of your experience, is that a 15 reasonable suggestion as to how things might be 16 structured? 17 A: I think -- I think that it's still 18 important, as I've tried to express before, that it's 19 still important for, in our organization to have some 20 field level representation because I believe that as a -- 21 as the custodian, if you will, as a landlord of a 22 facility as -- of a Park and those buildings, that there 23 will be people that will want to know what the status is 24 of -- of those Parks and those buildings if -- and 25 therefore they would look for some means of information


1 flow. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: Because it certainly wasn't our 4 intent, I don't think, to get into, quote, police 5 operations. These were incidents that were happening. 6 I don't think it was, at least in my world 7 it wasn't, police operations and -- 8 Q: That's fine. 9 A: -- I had no intention of talking 10 about police operations. 11 Q: Yes, and I understand what your 12 intention was, but I'll move on to another area. 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: I just thought I would make that -- 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: -- suggestion, get your comment about 17 it. I want to ask you about the paraphernalia that was 18 located at the -- at the -- the meeting centre in the -- 19 it's in the Pinery, is it not? 20 A: It's a meeting centre that's in the 21 Pinery. 22 Q: Yes, I want to ask you some questions 23 about that, all right? 24 A: Sure. 25 Q: I take it part of your job as a


1 manager is to deal with issues of workplace harassment 2 and discrimination, correct? 3 A: Yes, it is. 4 Q: Now, if you to Tab 93 which is 5 Exhibit P-801, Inquiry document 1010135. 6 I think I have this reference right, Mr. 7 Commissioner. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, I think 9 you do. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JULIAN ROY: 12 Q: Do you have it, sir? 13 A: Yes, I do, sorry. 14 Q: If you look at sort of the third 15 paragraph, about half way down the page, there's -- 16 there's a reference to Stan Cloud feeling that he was 17 working in a poisoned work environment, do you see that? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 A: I'm sorry, I've just -- just bear 22 with me. 23 Q: Sure. If you look at the indentation 24 about -- 25 A: Oh, yes.


1 Q: -- half way down that page. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Also there was mention of aboriginal 4 tech Stan Cloud feeling that he was working in a poisoned 5 work environment. Do you see that? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: Now as a manager you would be 8 familiar with the concept of a poisoned work environment, 9 would you not? 10 A: Yes, I am. 11 Q: And your understanding of a -- part 12 of a poisoned work environment would be a person's co- 13 workers or fellow employees engaging in racist conduct or 14 behaviour, correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: That would be part of it, right? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And another part of it would be 19 perhaps management's failure to adequately respond to 20 that type of conduct, correct? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Both those things sort of go hand in 23 hand when we talk about a poisoned work environment in 24 your understanding, correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And the point is is that management 2 can't just sit back and say that's it's a few bad apples 3 doing a few things. Management has a proactive 4 responsibility to ensure that there isn't a poisoned work 5 environment, correct? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And this isn't something that's new 8 to you, you were aware of this back in 1995, correct? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Now, the fact that Mr. Kobayashi is 11 reporting to you in these two (2) -- two (2) e-mails, 12 there's also one (1) at Tab 91? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And there's one (1) at Tab 93. What 15 we can take from the fact that he's reporting to you is 16 that it's partly your responsibility to ensure that the 17 steps Mr. Kobayashi is taking to deal with the issue are 18 appropriate, correct? 19 A: Mr. Kobayashi was -- among 20 superintendents in the province, he was probably one (1) 21 of the more superintendents; one (1) of the more senior 22 managers -- 23 Q: Yes. 24 A: -- in our organization -- field 25 managers in our organization. He and I probably shared


1 the same kind of background and training and learning 2 over the years about the government's WDHP policy. So he 3 would have been familiar with some of the steps that 4 needed to be taken if something like this came to his 5 attention, that's correct. 6 Q: And your impression was that the two 7 (2) of you kind of shared the same approach based on the 8 training that you'd received on that issue, correct? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Fine. And -- but the fact that he's 11 actually reporting to you and you're his superior -- 12 A: Right. 13 Q: -- it becomes your responsibility to 14 ensure that Mr. Kobayashi is doing his job properly -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- in that regard -- 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Correct? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Now, the process that you've 21 described is one where the person who's offended, the -- 22 the complainant comes forward and -- and raises an issue? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: And your understanding in terms of 25 this situation was that it was Mr. Cloud that was the one


1 that was offended and was -- was bringing the issue 2 forward, is that not correct? 3 A: Yes, from the second e-mail. Sorry, 4 yes. 5 Q: Yes. Now, the reference to the -- to 6 the -- the e-mail show us and you've already testified to 7 this that the objects that are in question, and there are 8 a number of objects, there's a couple of cartoons, 9 correct? 10 A: I believe there was a cartoon, yes. 11 Q: Yes. An OPP -- a picture of an OPP 12 cruiser with a bull's eye and an arrow through it; that's 13 one (1) of the items? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: There's a beer can with a feather in 16 it, correct? 17 A: A pop can with a feather, yes. 18 Q: Sorry, a pop can with a feather in 19 it? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And there's also some mugs and T- 22 shirts that were prepared or manufactured by the OPP, is 23 that correct? 24 A: That's what I understood. 25 Q: Now, this meeting centre where these


1 objects were located, it was your understanding that 2 there was actually MNR staff that were residing at that 3 meeting centre in or around the time that the OPP were 4 there, correct? 5 A: It's my understanding that some staff 6 members who left their homes with their families -- 7 wives, spouses, also stayed at the meeting centre, that's 8 correct. 9 Q: All right. And that meeting centre 10 would also have been accessible to other MNR staff, 11 correct? 12 A: Yes, it would have. 13 Q: And that -- that other staff would 14 have included perhaps supervisors as well? 15 A: Yes, the other two (2) managers that 16 were there at the time. 17 Q: Now, I want to focus on the -- the -- 18 the picture of the OPP cruiser with the bull's eye and 19 the arrow for a moment. I want to focus on that item for 20 a moment in my questioning. 21 A: I don't know an awful lot about that. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: I -- I believe it was -- a meeting 24 centre staff member posted it with no discriminatory 25 intent. It was meant to be a joke for the OPP. I


1 thought that was the cartoon. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: There was an MNR person involved with 4 posting a cartoon. 5 Q: Okay. So your understanding was that 6 -- was that there was an -- there was an MNR staff member 7 who was involved in posting a cartoon that was offensive, 8 correct? 9 A: A meeting centre staff member post it 10 with no discriminatory intent. Yes, the cartoon. The 11 way I'm reading that -- 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: -- was that: 14 "OPP involved in all incidents with the 15 exception of the cartoons. A meeting 16 centre staff member posted it with no 17 discriminatory intent." 18 Q: And did you ever see the cartoons? 19 A: No, I did not. 20 Q: Your understanding was that they were 21 posted on a bulletin board; is that correct? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And your understanding in terms of 24 the layout, you've already told us, is that bulletin 25 board would be visible in the dining room and lounge area


1 of the meeting centre? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: In terms of your knowledge of the 4 circumstances, it would have been clear to you that the 5 purpose of posting that cartoon was for it to be seen by 6 others, correct? 7 A: I would have assumed, yeah. 8 Q: Did it occur to you, in terms of -- 9 of reviewing this incident, that other MNR staff other 10 than Mr. Cloud and the person that posted the cartoon or 11 cartoons, also would have seen these items? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And it was your information that it 14 was -- Mr. Cloud was the one that initiated the 15 complaint, correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And not the other staff who may have 18 seen it, correct? 19 A: That's my understanding. 20 Q: Did it not trouble you that there 21 could have been -- or likely other MNR staff saw these 22 items and didn't raise a concern? 23 A: I probably didn't think about it that 24 way at the time. 25 Q: So I take it then that you didn't ask


1 Mr. Kobayashi to conduct an investigation of other MNR 2 staff members who might have seen those cartoons and done 3 nothing about it? 4 A: I did not instruct Mr. Kobayashi to 5 do that. 6 Q: You told us about a good relationship 7 between MNR staff and First Nations people. 8 Do you remember that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Given that -- given the good 11 relationship that you described, wouldn't it have been 12 your expectation that other MNR staff, beyond just Mr. 13 Cloud who's the victim, that you would expect that other 14 MNR staff would actually come forward and raise concern 15 about those cartoons? 16 A: Yes, they may have. 17 Q: But to your knowledge they didn't, 18 correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Now you never supervised this 21 investigation directly yourself, did you? 22 A: No. 23 Q: No. And what did Mr. Kobayashi do in 24 terms of his investigation? 25 A: I understood from what he's described


1 here was that he'd discussed it with -- I believe 2 discussed it and it's been resolved. 3 Q: And who did he discuss it with and 4 who did he resolve it with? 5 A: I took it that he had discussed with 6 Mr. Cloud and it had been resolved; he was satisfied with 7 it. 8 Q: All right. So in terms of what you 9 knew, Mr. Kobayashi hadn't dealt with, perhaps, all these 10 other MNR staff who'd seen this cartoon and done nothing 11 about it, correct? 12 A: I believe he had some -- I believe he 13 had some discussions and this is only my belief, that he 14 had some discussion with the person that had put the 15 cartoon up on the bulletin board as well. 16 Q: Okay. So he spoke to the person that 17 actually posted the item, correct? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: And he spoke to Mr. Cloud, correct? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: But he didn't speak -- didn't speak 22 at large to the other MNR staff who would have seen this 23 and didn't do anything about it, right? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: In hindsight, don't you think it


1 would have been important to send a message to those 2 people concerning the MNR's tolerance for this type of 3 behaviour? 4 A: In hindsight, perhaps I could have 5 done more. 6 Q: And you've told us that you had 7 training -- you'd had training before you'd become 8 involved with this incident, correct? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And your understanding was Mr. 11 Kobayashi already had training, correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And whatever your training was, it 14 didn't assist you in dealing with that issue about how 15 other people who may have viewed items and done nothing 16 about it, correct? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: It may have been a lapse. 21 Q: Yes. And it would also be consistent 22 with a poison work environment, that other people who see 23 the item or not dealt with in terms of -- aren't dealt 24 with in terms of management, correct? 25 A: It may have been.


1 Q: Yeah. Now the items that are created 2 by the OPP officers, those are also located in the 3 meeting centre, are they not? 4 A: I don't have first hand knowledge of 5 that. 6 Q: Was it your understanding that these 7 items were kept private or concealed from others, was it? 8 A: I don't know. 9 Q: Well you -- 10 A: I don't know how they became visible 11 to Mr. Cloud. 12 Q: All right. And you make -- didn't 13 make any inquiries in that regard either, did you? 14 A: No. 15 Q: So you didn't learn for yourself or 16 have Mr. Kobayashi investigate how many MNR staff would 17 have seen that OPP paraphernalia and done nothing about 18 it? 19 A: No, I don't recall a request going 20 from me to him in that regard, no. 21 Q: All right. If you assume that MNR 22 staff did see all of these items, and it seems likely 23 that they did, that would be inconsistent with the good 24 relationship that you've described with First Nations 25 people, would it not?


1 A: It was certainly not helpful. 2 Q: Now, in Tab 93, which is Exhibit P- 3 801, what Mr. Kobayashi reports to you is that the 4 cartoon was posted with no discriminatory intent and was 5 meant to be a joke for the OPP; you see that? 6 A: That's what he reports. 7 Q: And you accepted that explanation 8 from him? 9 A: I did. 10 Q: And you accepted that explanation 11 having had -- already had the training on these issues 12 from MNR, correct? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Now I take it, in order to accept Mr. 15 Kobayashi's explanation, you must have had some 16 understanding about what the joke was, correct? 17 A: No, as I think I've mentioned to you, 18 I have no idea what the cartoon was. 19 Q: So how -- 20 A: It may have come from a newspaper, I 21 have no idea. 22 Q: How were you able then to perform 23 your function of ensuring that Mr. Kobayashi is doing his 24 job without knowing what the joke is that's -- that's 25 being referred to?


1 A: My understanding was that the issue 2 had been dealt with and resolved and I left it at that. 3 Q: Because Mr. Cloud didn't want to take 4 it any further, correct? 5 A: That was my understanding. 6 Q: Okay. Is it Mr. Cloud's job to 7 ensure that you don't have a poison work environment at 8 the MNR? 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: He can assist us, certainly, if there 13 are those -- I mean, all staff have a responsibility for 14 what happens in the workplace and creating a workplace 15 that is free of a poisoned -- 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: -- atmosphere. 18 Q: It is primarily management's 19 responsibility, is it not? 20 A: Yes, it is. 21 Q: So you'd agree with me that it should 22 -- the onus shouldn't be on Mr. Cloud to decide whether 23 or not the issue has been dealt with. It should be 24 management's responsibility, should it not? 25 A: If he was satisfied with it and Mr.


1 Kobayashi, as his manager, accepted that response from 2 him, then I believe the matter was closed and dealt with. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Now, the fact that Mr. Kobayashi 7 reports to you that it's intended as a joke, does that in 8 any way mitigate or excuse the conduct if it's racist 9 or... 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 A: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, and 14 -- if -- if Mr. Kobayashi -- 15 Q: The fact that -- that -- that cartoon 16 is intended as a joke and the cartoon is racist, does it 17 mitigate or excuse the conduct? 18 A: I don't know what the content of the 19 -- of the cartoon was. 20 Q: But just as a matter -- 21 A: But no, it -- 22 Q: -- of principle, the fact that it's - 23 - the defence is -- is that's it's a joke. 24 Does that in any way mitigate or excuse 25 the conduct?


1 A: No, it's a poor excuse. 2 Q: And it's a poor excuse that you 3 accept it, correct? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: Correct? 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 9 Myrka...? 10 MR. WALTER MYRKA: The Witness has 11 testified that he hasn't seen the cartoon. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, he's 13 also testified that he might have dealt with the matter 14 differently in hindsight. I'm not sure how much more we 15 can get. You've made a point here, Mr. Roy, an important 16 point, but I'm not sure how much more you can do. 17 MR. JULIAN ROY: I think you're right. I 18 think those are my questions. It is an important point-- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, it is 20 an important one (1). 21 MR. JULIAN ROY: -- in respect of my 22 client and I didn't want to leave it unaddressed. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I think 24 it's an important point. 25 MR. JULIAN ROY: I hope you understand


1 that, Mr. Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I do and I 3 think you've made an important point. 4 MR. JULIAN ROY: Thank you. Thank you 5 very much, sir. 6 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 8 very much, Mr. Roy. 9 Mr. Myrka...? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Good afternoon, Mr. 14 Sturdy. 15 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 16 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, I 17 anticipate being perhaps twenty (20) minutes or so, 18 approximately. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WALTER MYRKA: 22 Q: In dealing with the presence of the 23 police at the meeting centre, do I understand that the 24 OPP were billeted there during the period September 4th 25 through 6th and onwards?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Okay. And you mentioned in your 3 evidence that there were a couple of staff members and 4 their spouses there as well? 5 A: Yes, there were. 6 Q: And did they live there throughout or 7 do you know how they came to be at the -- the meeting 8 centre? 9 A: This was after the incident of the 10 6th and 7th that they left their homes and -- because of 11 their proximity of their homes to the Park -- Ipperwash - 12 - and they moved for a temporary period of time into the 13 meeting centre at Pinery. 14 Q: Could you assist us, Mr. Sturdy, in 15 understanding why it was that they left their homes? I 16 take it this was a safety precaution that was taken at 17 the time? 18 A: I believe they had a concern, as 19 members of the community, that there potentially would be 20 issues and consequences because of their relationship 21 with MNR and they wanted to move out of their homes? 22 Q: And do you know precisely when they 23 moved? 24 A: I believe it was after the -- the 25 incident on the 6th?


1 Q: And this would be the death of Dudley 2 George? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Okay. And they moved out of their 5 homes with their families and that's how they ended up 6 temporarily at the Pinery Park? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: And were they in the same meeting 9 centre as the OPP officers? Is that -- is that where the 10 accommodation is for everyone? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Okay. Now, Mr. Sturdy, I'm 13 interested in knowing, if we start with September 4th, 14 you indicated in your evidence that was Labour Day and 15 you didn't work that day and at some point you come into 16 the office and you're notified of the -- the occupation. 17 Could you assist us in understanding where 18 you were starting the evening of September 4th and right 19 until the morning of the 7th? 20 A: My recollection is that -- that we 21 went out for -- to a friend's or for dinner on -- on the 22 evening of the 4th. We were out of the house, I came 23 home late, there were some voice mails. 24 I contacted some people, as I've 25 testified, I believe because of the occupation that had


1 occurred and then later on -- I believe later on that 2 evening I went into the office primarily because we had 3 facilities there. At home I had a voice mail system that 4 ran on the old tape recorder so if you were on the phone 5 you couldn't take another voice mail. 6 We had an electronic system in the office, 7 we had the computers in the office and I had a fax 8 machine in the office. So it would have been more 9 helpful to work out of the office. And that's what I 10 did. 11 Q: Okay. And can you assist me about 12 what time you went into the office? Was it early 13 evening, late evening? 14 A: No. It would -- it would have 15 probably been maybe around three o'clock -- 2:30, three 16 o'clock in the morning. 17 Q: Okay. How much sleep did you get 18 that night? 19 A: Not a lot. Not a lot. 20 Q: Would it be fair to say you got two 21 (2) hours sleep? 22 A: Maybe a couple of hours. 23 Q: And where did you sleep? At home or 24 at the office? 25 A: I think maybe I had a few hours quick


1 sleep at home and then went in -- into the office. 2 Q: Okay. And on the 5th you described 3 being involved with the -- the Interministerial Committee 4 meeting and then afterwards working assisting Leith 5 Hunter with the information for the injunction. 6 How long were you in the office on the 7 5th? 8 A: I believe it was around 7:00 or so in 9 the evening, seven or eight o'clock in the evening. 10 Q: Okay. And did you go home for the 11 evening at that point? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. And that -- did you get a good 14 night's sleep that night? That is between the 5th and 15 the 6th. 16 A: Reasonable I think. 17 Q: All right. And when the events 18 occurred on the -- in the evening of September 6th, can 19 you assist me in understanding where you were when you 20 heard of what had happened, including the death of Dudley 21 George? 22 A: I was -- I believe I was in bed -- 23 Q: All right. 24 A: -- sleeping and I got the phone call 25 from Mr. Kobayashi who was en route.


1 Q: And did you go back into the office 2 when that happened? 3 A: Yes, I did. 4 Q: Okay. And so you went back into the 5 office and is it fair to say that was in the early hours? 6 A: Yes. We had made some -- I had made 7 some phone calls from home and then again for those same 8 reasons felt it was better to be in the office. 9 Q: Okay. And do you recall how much 10 sleep you got that night? That is between the 6th and 11 the 7th? 12 A: Not a great deal. 13 Q: Now you were asked in relation to 14 your meeting with Superintendent Coles which took place 15 in Grand Bend. Do you recall at all -- the question has 16 been asked about when that meeting occurred. 17 And I just wanted to see if I could 18 clarify that a little further. Your recollection was 19 that that would have happened on the 7th or the 8th? 20 A: That's my best recollection. 21 Q: Okay. Was it after or before the 22 death of Dudley George? 23 A: It was after. 24 Q: It was after. And you have no 25 recollection of driving to Grand Bend for example on the


1 same day that you went to the IMC meeting on the 6th? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Okay. You were asked in your 4 evidence about the contingency plan and what it was for. 5 Am I correct in understanding that a -- a major component 6 of the plan was to conduct an orderly evacuation of the 7 Provincial Park if that was necessary? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Okay. And do I also understand that 10 in terms of the plan and its procedures for conducting an 11 evacuation, there was no need to implement that portion 12 of the plan on September 4th because the -- the 13 occupation of the Park took place after virtually 14 everyone had left -- the campers and so on? 15 A: Yes. Traditionally what happens in 16 our parks on a Labour Day weekend, they are extremely 17 busy with the campers and their families, young people 18 that come in on Fridays, this is the last long weekend of 19 the summer obviously. 20 And then generally speaking because of 21 children's commitments to school the following day and 22 university and so on and so forth campers generally leave 23 fairly early in the afternoon. 24 So what typically you might find in a 25 provincial park Labour Day late afternoon is a few -- is


1 a few day users and others that might be from local areas 2 that are just using it as a local park if you like for 3 walk or picnic or something. 4 Q: Okay. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: I wanted to ask you about a couple of 9 matters that I don't think have been addressed in the 10 evidence so far. And if I could ask you to turn up the 11 document at Tab 62 which is Inquiry Document Number 12 1011882. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And, Commissioner, I believe that's 17 Exhibit P-17. 18 Do you recall seeing that document, Mr. 19 Sturdy, in the fall of 1995? 20 A: I don't recall it specifically, but I 21 don't dispute the fact that I received it, yes. 22 Q: Okay. Do you recall reading the 23 report of Peter Hamalainen at some point? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Okay. My question concerns the --


1 the notes that are at the second page of that tab. And 2 this is the one (1) page note entitled, "Notes Regarding 3 Peter Hamalainen's 1972 Report." 4 And I wanted to ask you simply, do you 5 know who prepared this? 6 A: I understand that Ian Seddon prepared 7 this -- this cover note. 8 Q: Do you know the circumstances under 9 which he prepared it? For instance did you ask him to 10 prepare it or did someone else? 11 A: My recollection is is that the 12 original copy of that 1972 report and the copies that we 13 had in the office were of very poor quality and that I'd 14 asked Ian if he could make someone available to try and 15 type out, if you will, a more clear version of that 16 report. 17 Q: Okay. And did you ask him to prepare 18 these notes in addition to preparing a better copy of the 19 report? 20 A: No, I think that's something that Ian 21 did under his own initiative. 22 Q: Okay. And in this document he makes 23 comments concerning the report, that's fair? 24 A: That's fair. 25 Q: Okay. What was his background, his


1 professional background? 2 A: He's a land use planner. 3 Q: Okay. Do you know if he's an 4 archeologist or has been trained as an archeologist? 5 A: No, I don't. I don't believe he's 6 had any training in that area. 7 Q: Okay. All right. If I could ask you 8 then to turn up Exhibit P-822 which is Exhibit 66. 9 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Tab 66. 10 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Tab 66. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. WALTER MYRKA: 15 Q: You talked about this earlier today 16 in your evidence, Mr. Sturdy, and if I recall your 17 evidence your recollection was that you saw a memo 18 forwarding this from the Aylmer office to the park 19 superintendent at Ipperwash Park? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Okay. And that was in 1975, that 22 memo? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. And was the park 25 superintendent then, was that Les Kobayashi or was that


1 someone else? 2 A: It was not -- it was not Les 3 Kobayashi. 4 Q: Do you recall who it was? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Commissioner, I 9 understand from Ms. Vella that the document I'm referring 10 to was intended to be a portion of Exhibit P-822 at this 11 tab, but somehow in the copying it did not get 12 reproduced. 13 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Well, actually, it's -- 14 there -- it was produced in two (2) different Inquiry 15 document numbers and one (1) of the Inquiry document 16 numbers only has three (3) of the documents as opposed to 17 the four (4). So we propose to add this memorandum once 18 it's identified as part of Exhibit P-822. 19 MR. WALTER MYRKA: Okay. And if I then 20 could place the copy of this document, it's a one (1) 21 page memo, it's Inquiry Document 1008093 before Mr. 22 Sturdy. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Do you have 24 extra copies there for us to look at? This is going to 25 become a part of Exhibit 822? Is that what's going to


1 happen? 2 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes. Yes, 3 Commissioner. It was part of the same -- 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: -- the enclosures to 6 that fax from Daryl Smith of September 14, 1995, and I 7 should acknowledge Mr. Zbogar for finding that for us. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 9 Mr. Zbogar. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I take it 14 this was the memo he was referring to earlier? 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. WALTER MYRKA: 17 Q: Mr. Sturdy, have you had a chance to 18 look at this memorandum? 19 A: Yes, I have. 20 Q: Is this the memorandum you were 21 referring to earlier? 22 A: Yes, it is. 23 Q: So is it your understanding that the 24 documents that were found by Mr. Smith were forwarded to 25 the superintendent at Ipperwash under cover of this


1 memorandum? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Okay. And do you know who that 4 superintendent then was in January of 1975? 5 A: I believe it was Mr. Don Matheson. 6 Q: Don Matheson? 7 A: I think. 8 Q: And you're not sure. Is it possible 9 that it was Don Matheson, Sr. 10 A: No, Don Matheson's father had also 11 been the superintendent at Ipperwash. Don Matheson grew 12 up at Ipperwash. His father was superintendent there in 13 1955. 14 Q: I see. So -- so this would have been 15 Don Matheson, Jr.? 16 A: His father's name actually was Cater. 17 Q: All right, Thank you. And -- and Mr. 18 -- and this is the same assistant superintendent Matheson 19 that you've referred to earlier in your evidence? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: Because at -- at some juncture, and 23 I'm not exactly sure which year, for administrative 24 purposes the two (2) parks were combined if you like and 25 it no longer had its independent -- or its own


1 superintendent. 2 Q: Okay. And, Mr. Commissioner, if -- 3 I'm not sure if it's happened yet, but if that document 4 could be incorporated as part of Exhibit P-822? 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Should we 6 give it a number 822B or just part of 822? 7 MS. SUSAN VELLA: I think it should be 8 part of 822. It should have been in the first place. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: It's part of the same 11 fax. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Can you make 13 it part of 822? 14 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Tab 66. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. WALTER MYRKA: 19 Q: Mr. Sturdy -- 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: -- do you know what the -- Mr. 22 Matheson or anyone may have done with these documents 23 after they were forwarded to him under cover of this 24 memorandum? 25 A: No, I wasn't in -- I had been in the


1 Chatham district, but I -- but I was no longer in the 2 Chatham district at that time and I don't know what he 3 did with them. 4 Q: Okay. And just so we're clear, do I 5 understand that between September 4th and 6th and indeed 6 right up until approximately a week later when the 7 Department of National Defence provided the documents 8 that we've discussed from 1937 about a possible burial 9 ground with the Park; were you aware of those documents 10 at any time before they were -- they surfaced from the -- 11 the Federal Government? 12 A: No I was not. 13 Q: Okay. If I can ask you to turn up at 14 Tab 67. This is Exhibit P-793, it's Inquiry Document 15 Number 1006400. 16 Now, Mr. Sturdy, you were taken to this 17 document earlier in your evidence and I wanted to ask you 18 about the second page. Do I understand, Mr. Sturdy, that 19 this is a -- a reproduction of the memorandum of 20 understanding that was reached between the Federal 21 Government and the Kettle Point First Nation on September 22 13th? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. And can you assist us in 25 understanding what you knew about that understanding?


1 A: Well, one of the points that I recall 2 from that MOU was that funding would have been provided 3 to the community to do work on the verification of the 4 burial ground allegation around Ipperwash Provincial 5 Park. 6 Q: Now do you know if that funding was 7 provided? 8 A: I believe it must have been because 9 we did have contact with a consultant that I understood 10 had been hired to work on that segment of the agreement 11 of the MOU. 12 Q: Now this was a consultant hired by 13 the Federal Government or the -- or the Stoney Point 14 Group or do you know? 15 A: I'm afraid I don't know that 16 precisely. 17 Q: Okay. Was it a person hired by the 18 Province? 19 A: No, it was not. 20 Q: And were they funded in any way by 21 the Province? 22 A: Not to my understanding, no. 23 Q: Okay. And do you know what that 24 consultant ultimately did? 25 A: Well my expectation would have been


1 that she would have completed a report. However, I -- I 2 have never seen a report so I'm not exactly sure whether 3 she completed it or not. 4 Q: So I take it you don't know. 5 A: I don't know. 6 Q: All right. Would you agree with me, 7 Mr. Sturdy, that even today you're not aware of a report 8 undertaken since 1995? Let me put it a different way. 9 An investigation undertaken to resolve the issue of 10 whether there exists a sacred burial ground within 11 Ipperwash Provincial Park? 12 A: I'm not aware of any investigation. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: If I can take you to one last 17 document and that's the last tab, number 94. And 18 Commissioner, that's Exhibit P-802. And Mr. Sturdy, I'd 19 like you to turn up page 6 of that document. 20 Now if you can look at the last two (2) 21 paragraphs on that page, I just want to take you through 22 some of the statements there and just ask you what you 23 know about the facts described there. 24 It begins by referring, and this is the 25 paragraph which begins on December 3.


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: You have that? 3 A: I have that. 4 Q: Okay. 5 "On December 3, OPP and the Park 6 Superintendent negotiated the 7 winterization of Ipperwash Provincial 8 Park with peacekeepers who were 9 representing the occupiers." 10 And indeed, if I understand your evidence, 11 it was in early December that, in fact, the -- the 12 winterization did take place. 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Okay. And just carrying on: 15 "Ongoing negotiations regarding the 16 Department of National Defence Camp 17 Ipperwash has resulted in a second 18 federal negotiator to mediate the 19 return of the camp to the Stoney Point 20 people." 21 Now, if I can stop there. Did you know 22 anything about that and can you assist us in whatever 23 happened with that -- the endeavour that's described in 24 that sentence? 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: I'm sorry, I don't think I can give 4 you a good description. 5 Q: Okay. That's not something you're -- 6 you were aware of or you can assist us with? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: No, I'm afraid not. 11 Q: Okay. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: There's been a reference to February 16 3: 17 "OPP and the Park Superintendent 18 entered into discussions with the 19 Kettle and Stony Point Chief, the 20 peacekeepers and the occupiers to 21 identify issues related to the 22 Ipperwash Park occupation." 23 Can you assist us with that meeting, and 24 do you know anything about it, and can you describe it 25 for us?


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 A: I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank on 4 that particular one. 5 Q: Okay. There's then a reference in 6 the following paragraph to what I take is a meeting on 7 February 10th and it's described that: 8 "MNR staff were offered and have 9 accepted the critical incident stress 10 counselling throughout the winter." 11 Do you know anything of what may have 12 happened on February 10th? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: No. 17 Q: Okay. And the last sentence 18 indicates that: 19 "The Park remains occupied to this 20 day." 21 Now, this document was written back in -- 22 apparently in early 1996, but it take it that remains 23 true to the present? 24 A: That's my understanding, yes. 25 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, those


1 are my questions. 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you, 3 Mr. Myrka. 4 Do you have any questions, Ms. Vella? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: How long do 9 you think you might be, just so we can decide what to do? 10 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Five (5) minutes or so. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 16 Q: You're back to me, we're starting all 17 over again now. 18 A: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We've come 20 full circle. 21 THE WITNESS: Full circle. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 24 Q: Mr. Sturdy, you indicated that prior 25 to the Ipperwash situation in 1995, you had never


1 attended at an IMC meeting; is that correct? 2 A: I'm sorry, I did -- until when? 3 Q: Prior to the 1995 Ipperwash situation 4 you -- 5 A: Oh. 6 Q: -- had not attended at an IMC 7 meeting? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And prior to the Ipperwash Park 10 occupation of 1995, had you ever been involved with a 11 comparable situation or was this your first Park 12 occupation experience? 13 A: This was my first experience. 14 Q: Okay. Now, to your knowledge, do the 15 ministry's current critical incident contingency plans 16 continue to provide for an MNR person to be at the -- 17 situated at the police command post? 18 A: That's my -- that's my recollection, 19 yes. 20 Q: Are you aware of any change in the 21 practice regarding the nature or type of information 22 which is communicated by the police to the MNR personnel 23 situated at the command post in these critical incident 24 situations? 25 A: I'm not aware of what changes the OPP


1 may have made in that regard or what the MNR may have 2 done also. 3 Q: I meant from the MNR perspective. 4 A: I'm sorry, from the MNR perspective, 5 no. 6 Q: All right. Now, Mr. Roy asked you 7 some questions about what you understood took place with 8 respect to the investigation, internal investigation -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- into the discriminatory 11 paraphernalia that was found at the Pinery Park meeting 12 centre. And, in particular, I believe you indicated that 13 you didn't know whether staff, beyond Mr. Cloud and the 14 person responsible for the posting of the cartoon, had 15 been questioned. 16 Is that your evidence? 17 A: That's correct, I don't know that. 18 Q: All right. Now, in your earlier 19 testimony you indicated that you understood that Mr. 20 Kobayashi initially postponed the internal investigation 21 pending the investigation by the Ontario Provincial 22 Police; is that right? 23 A: That's right. 24 Q: And that the Ontario Provincial 25 Police would then advise Mr. Kobayashi if any MNR staff


1 were involved in this matter; is that correct? 2 A: That's correct, yes. 3 Q: Now, in your experience if the police 4 are involved in investigating a harassment or 5 discrimination matter, does the employer typically 6 postpone its internal investigation pending the outcome 7 of the police investigation? 8 A: No, but I think in this case it was 9 to -- it was to try and determine whether any MNR person 10 was involved in this or staff person was involved in 11 this. 12 Q: Now, perhaps you would go to Tab 91 13 which is Exhibit P-800. This is the e-mail dated October 14 25, 1995 to yourself from Mr. Kobayashi, Inquiry Document 15 Number 1010139. 16 I want to read the third paragraph for 17 you: 18 "I met with the investigating Staff 19 Sergeant Adkin re: arranging for 20 interviews with our meeting centre 21 staff, Stan and a few others." 22 Does that refresh your memory as to 23 whether or not others, beyond Stan Cloud and the person 24 found to be responsible for the posting of the cartoon, 25 were interviewed?


1 A: I'm sorry, it doesn't. 2 Q: At the point in time in which this is 3 written has that person been identified? 4 A: Not to me. 5 Q: In other words, the investigation is 6 just -- is just starting? 7 A: No, no. 8 Q: Sorry? 9 A: No. 10 Q: All right. Okay. 11 A: I'm sorry. 12 Q: Maybe I'm not making myself clear. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Do you take it from this e-mail that 15 Mr. Kobayashi facilitated interviews of MNR personnel by 16 investigating Staff Sergeant Adkin of the OPP? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: All right. Those are my questions. 19 A: Okay. 20 Q: I want to thank you very much for 21 spending your time here and sharing your testimony with 22 the Inquiry. We appreciate it. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 25 very much, Mr. Sturdy on behalf of the Commission. Thank


1 you. 2 3 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We'll take a 6 short break now and continue with our next witness. 7 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 8 for fifteen (15) minutes. 9 10 --- Upon recessing at 2:47 p.m. 11 --- Upon resuming at 3:02 p.m. 12 13 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 14 resumed. Please be seated. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. Next 16 witness. 17 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Yes. The Commission 18 calls as its next witness, Leslie Kobayashi please. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 23 afternoon, Mr. Kobayashi. 24 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 25 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Mr.


1 Kobayashi. Sir, do you prefer to swear on the Bible, 2 affirm or use an alternate oath. 3 THE WITNESS: The Bible please. 4 THE REGISTRAR: And could you state your 5 name in full for the record, please. 6 THE WITNESS: Leslie Kazo Kobayashi. 7 THE REGISTRAR: Could you spell your 8 second name. 9 THE WITNESS: K-A-Z-O. 10 11 LESLIE KAZO KOBAYASHI, Sworn: 12 13 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 14 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Kobayashi. 15 A: Good afternoon. 16 Q: Did you produce a resume to the 17 Commission that sets out your education, training and 18 work experience? 19 A: It was one that I had previously 20 prepared that I provided for the Commission. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Is that your resume? 25 A: Yes, it is.


1 Q: And it is current to what date? 2 A: That was current to 19 -- that was 3 current to 1998. 4 Q: Thank you. I would like to tender 5 that as the first exhibit. Commissioner, this is not 6 part of the super-text database so there is no inquiry 7 document number. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-825, Your Honour. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-825. 10 11 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-825: Resume of Mr. Leslie K. 12 Kobayashi 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 15 Q: Now I understand that you had a long 16 career working at various provincial parks across the 17 province starting in 1968 when you were a ranger during 18 the summer time at Long Point Provincial Park; is that 19 right? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: You were then an acting park 22 superintendent at Iroquois Beach Provincial Park in 1970? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: A conversation officer at Algonquin 25 Park from December 1970 to 1975?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: Park superintendent for Corillon and 3 South Nation Provincial Parks from January 1975 to 1980? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: From 1980 to '88 you were a park 6 superintendent for Sand Banks North Beach and Lake on the 7 Mountain Provincial Parks? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And from 1988 until your retirement 10 in 1998, you were the park superintendent for the Pinery 11 Ipperwash and Point Farms Parks? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: Would you kindly describe your main 14 responsibilities as park superintendent at the Ipperwash 15 Provincial Park? 16 A: I was the park superintendent for the 17 Park. I provided -- I managed and planned and organized 18 the operations of the Park along with Pinery and -- and 19 the Point Farms Parks. 20 Q: Is it fair to say that you worked 21 more in the sphere of the day to day and overall 22 operations of the Park as opposed to the policy issues 23 around the Park? 24 A: Correct. It was more the planning 25 and organizing and co-ordinating roles.


1 Q: Now is it fair to say that one of 2 your significant responsibilities as a park 3 superintendent was to develop and maintain community 4 relationships and partnerships in and around -- with the 5 communities local to the Park? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: And why was that important to you as 8 park superintendent? 9 A: As a park superintendent a lot of our 10 responsibilities were to ensure that there was excellent 11 integration and support with the local communities in the 12 area to be perceived as a partner and providing tourism 13 opportunities and employment opportunities and so forth. 14 Q: In relationship to the Ipperwash 15 Provincial Park, which were the main community or local 16 organizations with which you established and developed 17 relationships? 18 A: It would be Kettle Point and Stony 19 Point Band. 20 Q: Were there other communities that you 21 also -- 22 A: Well, the municipalities, the 23 Township of Bosanquet, town of Thetford, village of Grand 24 Bend, I guess that would be -- and the County of Lambton. 25 Q: Now, to whom did you report as Park


1 superintendent from 1988 to 1995? 2 A: In 1998 -- 3 Q: Sorry, '88. 4 A: For 1988, I reported to the Wingham 5 district office for operational and day to day guidance. 6 It was a district office at the time and for policy and 7 planning, I reported to Peter Sturdy at the zone office 8 or the regional office at the time. 9 Q: All right. Did that change at all in 10 19 -- from 1993 to '95? 11 A: I believe it was 1992, there was an 12 organizational change, and at that time I reported to 13 Peter Sturdy as the regional parks co-ordinator, I 14 believe it was in 1992. And in 1995 we went through a 15 re-organization again. 16 I believe it was around '95 that they 17 formed what they called Parks Ontario, a -- a branch 18 within the Ministry of Natural Resources that provided 19 all of the Provincial Parks guidelines, policies and so 20 forth. 21 And I was under that wing, reporting to 22 Peter Sturdy. 23 Q: Now did you have full time staff that 24 reported to you in the form of assistant park 25 superintendents at the Ipperwash Provincial Park?


1 A: Yes, I had two (2) assistant 2 superintendents. One was Don Matheson who was the 3 contractor administrator and assistant superintendent in 4 charge of administration and operations. 5 And I had a second superintendent that was 6 primarily located during the operating season at 7 Ipperwash, Rob Burnett. 8 Q: Okay. And how -- how long had those 9 two (2) individuals been assistant park superintendents 10 at Ipperwash? 11 A: I arrived in 1998 and both -- I don't 12 believe Rob was there at the time. I'm just trying to 13 think who was there prior to him. 14 Right around that time Rob Burnett was 15 hired on as the assistant at Ipperwash, but prior to that 16 time I think Don had been the assistant right up until 17 about -- oh, probably three (3) or four (4) years prior 18 to that, then they had a re-organization. 19 Don was actually superintendent of 20 Ipperwash Park for the period of time as well, then he 21 went -- then they amalgamated both Parks and he became 22 one of the assistants of the Park and he actually became 23 the assistant at Pinery -- Pinery Park. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: However, he still had duties at


1 Ipperwash when Rob was off and so forth. We had what we 2 called a duty officer roster and when Rob was off he 3 would be in charge and -- at Ipperwash and when Don was 4 off, Rob would be in charge at Pinery to cover all the 5 seven (7) days a week. 6 Q: Now, did either of these two (2) 7 gentlemen live in the vicinity of Ipperwash? 8 A: Rob Burnett lived in Parkhill and Don 9 Matheson lived in Ipperwash itself. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: Now when you first became the Park 14 superintendent for Ipperwash, were you familiar with the 15 aboriginal history associated with the Park? 16 A: Not at first. I would say during the 17 management planning process which was initiated, I 18 believe, in 1989 or just -- just about -- just after I 19 arrived in '88 perhaps. 20 We -- I had a couple of employees that 21 were spearheading developing a management plan for 22 Ipperwash Park itself. 23 Q: All right. And -- 24 A: And that's when I became familiar 25 with some of the history of the Park and so forth.


1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 Q: Now you indicated that one of your -- 5 one of the things you did was to develop a relationship 6 with the Kettle and Stony Point Band. 7 How long did it take you to foster a 8 relationship with that Band? 9 A: I think it was -- I probably started 10 around the national planning process meeting with the 11 Band on a couple of occasions and speaking with the 12 administrators and from there it just -- I tried to 13 develop a strong relationship with them over a period of 14 time right up until 1995, I guess, and there -- thereon 15 after that, into to 1998 when I left. 16 Q: And in your view, were you successful 17 in developing a strong relationship? 18 A: I would say that I was very pleased 19 with the efforts on both sides, really, to -- to move 20 forward in developing a stronger relationship with them, 21 yes, I would say that. 22 Q: And within that context, did you come 23 to know individual members of the Band? 24 A: Yes. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And by 1995, how would you 4 characterise your relationship with the local aboriginal 5 community? 6 A: I would say that for the most part 7 that it was very positive. We had done a number of 8 initiatives, really, to encourage employment 9 opportunities and so forth in the Park for First Nations 10 people. And we did have employees at the Park who were 11 very good employees at the Park over a number of years 12 that had worked at Pinery on a long term basis. 13 And I would say that, yeah, it was -- we 14 had many opportunities to develop new and different 15 programs and take advantage of some of the government 16 funding programs over the course of a period of five (5) 17 or six (6) or seven (7) years. 18 Q: All right. And you indicated that, 19 in or around 1988 or 1989, a project was undertaken in -- 20 in -- in the nature of a management plan for the 21 Ipperwash Park? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And was one developed during the 24 course of your tenure? 25 A: Yes, we developed a preliminary


1 management plan. I think it was all -- it was already on 2 the go when I -- when I arrived, the -- the research and 3 so forth, but we built the preliminary and draft plan for 4 the Park which was -- which we circulated to all the 5 interested parties and had an open house and so forth. 6 Q: All right. Now what was intended to 7 be addressed by the Ipperwash Park management plan? 8 A: I think there were a couple of -- 9 couple of issues really over the course of time. One was 10 the -- the ceremonial site which we referred to as Stoney 11 Point or they referred to as Stoney -- well, all of us 12 referred to as Stoney Point. 13 It's a little point that juts out in 14 Ipperwash Park that was traditionally an area where 15 they'd collected shards to make arrow heads and so forth 16 and it's considered a -- a traditional meeting site, I 17 guess; a ceremonial site. 18 Q: And I guess I'm wondering, on a more 19 general level, what -- what was intended to be addressed 20 by a park -- describe what a park management plan is. 21 A: A park management plan is a twenty 22 (20) year plan and that gives you the direction for 23 development for -- it identifies all the resources of the 24 Park and then it establishes how the -- how the Park 25 would continue on in future in respect of developments


1 and so forth. 2 And protected areas and areas of natural 3 sig -- point out areas of natural significance, also how 4 you would interpret the area to the local visitors in the 5 community and so forth. 6 As a matter of fact, Stoney Point was one 7 was one of those areas that we felt really, on behalf of 8 Kettle and Stony Point we -- we really felt fairly 9 strongly that we should enter into different types of 10 programs and so forth to -- to make our visitors aware of 11 the importance of the site to the aboriginal community. 12 And that would be through visitor services 13 programs, evening programs, guided conducted hikes 14 through that particular area, and actually perhaps even 15 as far as bringing in the First Nations people to talk 16 about the history of that particular area. 17 But that was -- that really didn't take 18 place. It was identified in the management plan but on 19 the -- on the implementation of that really didn't take - 20 - because it was a draft plan. And I don't believe it 21 was ever approved -- final approval. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: But that was the intent as to provide 24 direction to do things like that. 25 Q: All right. Now you indicated that


1 the planning stage had started by the time you arrived at 2 the Park. 3 A: I believe it had. 4 Q: How long or how many years did it 5 take to complete the planning stage of the plan? 6 A: I believe it was a couple of years. 7 So it was probably '91 thereabouts that we finally got it 8 to the stage where we had had our open houses, public 9 consultation and so forth. 10 And probably around '92 the final draft 11 had been prepared I would think. Around in that time 12 sequence. 13 Q: Now you indicated that part of the 14 planning stage entailed consultation with interested 15 communities and parties? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And I'd like you to go to Tab 5 of 18 your document brief. It's Inquiry Document Number 19 1008878. 20 A: Hmm hmm. 21 Q: Just for the ease of counsel, we're 22 going to try to put the documents on the screen, 23 Commissioner. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I understand 25 that.


1 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 2 Q: And this is a memorandum dated August 3 24, 1989, to the Ipperwash planning team members. 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Summary of the public review and the 6 upcoming agenda. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: It's followed by a letter -- is that 9 your signature on the letter? 10 A: Yes, it is. 11 Q: And it's dated August 1, 1989, and 12 this was the notification was it of -- of the opportunity 13 to participate in consultations around the planning 14 process? 15 A: That's right. This was sent to I 16 believe all the interested parties and given to, I 17 believe, all the participants in the open house. 18 Q: All right. And if you proceed three 19 (3) more pages, you'll see there are -- there's a list. 20 It says: 21 "Ipperwash plans were sent to the 22 following parties." 23 And the second page of that there's a 24 heading 'Other Interested Parties'. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And I note that the third entry there 2 is the Kettle Point Band Council. 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: So they were specifically provided 5 with a copy of the preliminary plan? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: I would like to make this the next 8 exhibit please. 9 THE REGISTRAR: P-826, Your Honour. 10 11 ---EXHIBIT NO. P-826: Document number 1008878. 12 Memo to Ipperwash Planning Team members 13 Re: Summary of Public Review and the 14 upcoming agenda, August 24/'89. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 17 Q: Now I understand there was an 18 Ipperwash planning team established for this project? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And who were the members of that 21 team? 22 A: I'll have to refer back to -- there 23 was Terry -- Bob Metcalf was hired to actually lead the 24 time and do most of the research work and sort of 25 assemble all the information.


1 Terry Crabe was our visitor services 2 naturalist and worked at Pinery. Ian Seddon, I believe 3 he was a -- worked in the district as a planner. And Ron 4 Spurr was the land supervisor in Wingham at the time. 5 And Rob Burnett was my assistant superintendent at 6 Ipperwash. 7 And John Monck -- I'm not sure where John 8 was from but he was a ministry planner. 9 Q: Were you also a member of that team? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: What was your role within that team? 12 A: I guess my role was to -- to ensure 13 that the task was completed to -- to the best of our 14 ability and to ensure that all the data and information 15 in the document was correct and as complete as possible. 16 And then my role would have been to move 17 it up through the district at that time. And then to 18 Peter Sturdy in planning with the region. 19 Q: I'd like to focus on the First Nation 20 involvement in the planning process -- 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: -- of the management plan. Was the 23 Kettle and Stony Point Band the only Aboriginal 24 constituency who participated in this process? 25 A: I don't recollect if there was any


1 others at this time. 2 Q: Did you have direct contact with 3 representatives of the Band in relation to this project? 4 A: Yes, I believe the District Manager 5 John Osborn at the time and myself did meet with them on 6 I believe two (2) occasions to solicit their comments and 7 to address some of their concerns and I believe we met at 8 the Kettle Point and Stoney Point Band office to do that. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: In actual fact I think John as the 11 district manager had ultimate responsibility for the 12 management plan itself to have it complete and so forth 13 and he -- he was -- he really took the lead role in 14 dealing -- and I believe Wendy McNab was at one (1) of 15 the sessions as well who was a native liaison officer 16 from -- from the district. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: Or the region. 19 Q: Thank you. And from your perspective 20 what was their level of interest in this process? 21 A: They were very interested, actually, 22 and they provided quite a number of comments. I -- I 23 can't remember what the comments were at this particular 24 point in time but I -- I believe there was a couple of 25 concerns in respect to fishing and treaty rights in


1 respect to -- there was Ipperwash Beach proper itself, 2 not the Park section of the beach and the water. 3 Adjacent to the -- the beach properties was in contention 4 at the time I believe. 5 And that was one (1) of the issues that 6 was brought up. The second one was I think the Stoney 7 Point itself, the ceremonial site and I think that's, you 8 know, I'd have to refer to the -- whatever document that 9 John wrote there. 10 Q: Well, did the Band prepare written 11 submissions to you outlining their interests and concerns 12 with the proposed preliminary management plan? 13 A: I believe they did. 14 Q: Perhaps you would turn then to Tab 6. 15 It's Inquiry Document Number 100836 and it is already 16 entered as Exhibit P-768. 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: This is a letter dated October the 19 20th, 1989 and it's addressed to yourself by Michael 20 George who was then the Band Administrator for Kettle and 21 Stony Point First Nations. 22 Do you recall receiving this document? 23 A: I -- I recall seeing the document, 24 yes. 25 Q: And attached to it is a document


1 entitled, "Kettle and Stony Point Council Comments on 2 Preliminary Management Plan, Ipperwash Provincial Park." 3 A: Yes. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: All right. And I take it you 8 reviewed the written comments when you received them? 9 A: At that time yes. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: All right. And if I may there are -- 14 it appears to be three (3) major concerns at least which 15 are expressed in this document. Page 2 -- 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: -- second paragraph there is a 18 concern that the treaty rights of the First Nation with 19 respect to the resources in and around the Park have not 20 been mentioned much less acknowledged and you carry over 21 to the next page. The first is with respect to the 22 beaches -- 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: -- the beachfront property, 25 particularly extending to the west of Road 28. Second,


1 the water lots -- 2 A: Hmm hmm. 3 Q: -- of Lake Huron. 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Third is the Stoney Point -- 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: -- has it in quotes, "Indian 8 significant feature" and the fourth is the fishing 9 rights. 10 A: Hmm hmm. 11 Q: Now, the second concern appears to be 12 with respect to the lack of acknowledgement or at least 13 the attempt -- the -- the plan was seen was an attempt to 14 exert exclusive provincial control over lands and waters 15 without any express proposals to enhance them in any way. 16 A: Hmm hmm. 17 Q: And the third concern, it's described 18 as: 19 "The greatest failing that the plan 20 ignores the history of these lands and 21 waters and the mention of our rights 22 and claims. 23 And the -- the First Nation regarded 24 such shabby treatment of our history 25 and legitimate interests as a


1 gratuitous insult." 2 So, those -- does that meet with your 3 recollection of what the main concerns were, -- 4 A: Yes it does. 5 Q: -- as expressed? 6 A: Yes it does. 7 Q: And did you consider these concerns 8 to be significant? 9 A: Of course. We did -- we actually, I 10 think there was a -- a couple of sections in the 11 Management Plan that we -- we tried or attempted and did 12 address the -- the concerns in respect to the Stoney 13 Point. 14 I believe also the water lots and beach 15 area, because it was a -- I think there was a -- a Court 16 case ongoing in respect of the entitlements of the beach 17 area, so we didn't -- we didn't pursue that further. 18 I think the only areas that we were really 19 concerned about were the Crown Beach areas that -- that 20 we owned in the Ipperwash proper itself and the water in 21 front of it. 22 Q: Now, at this time, that is, 1989 to 23 '90, had Kettle and Stony Point Band made any assertions, 24 to your knowledge, as to the potential existence of 25 burial grounds within the boundaries of the Park?


1 A: No, never. 2 Q: All right. Did you provide a report 3 to your superiors with respect to, or outlining the 4 concerns expressed by the Band, with respect to the 5 Preliminary Planning Report? 6 A: I don't recollect, but I'm sure that 7 there was something written. I believe John Osborn 8 actually authored the concerns from -- from our meeting 9 at the Band. I think that should be in these notes 10 someplace, but I think it -- that those were all 11 identified at one point in time, -- 12 Q: And did you -- 13 A: -- to Mr. Osborn. 14 Q: Did you in fact make some 15 recommendations with respect to how you might work 16 through, or the Ministry might work through some 17 resolution to these concerns? 18 A: I don't recollect, I may have, but I 19 don't recollect it myself. 20 Q: If you'd go to Tab 7, please. 21 Inquiry Document Number 1008952, it's a Memorandum dated 22 November 9, 1989, to David Johnstone from Ian Seddon, 23 with respect to the Ipperwash Provincial Park Management 24 Plan. 25 And you'll see that one of the issues


1 that were being raised to the Regional Director, were 2 comments raised by the Kettle and Stony Point Council, 3 suggesting that their claims in the area are not being 4 recognized in the Preliminary Plan. It's at Item 2. 5 A: Hmm hmm. 6 Q: And then further down, it's suggested 7 that you had asked Mr. Seddon to convey that: 8 "It is best that these matters be 9 resolved within the context of the 10 Management Planning Exercise, rather 11 than from direct involvement by Chatham 12 District Office or Wingham District 13 Office staff, and that is that they 14 would be handled by the Ipperwash 15 Planning Team directly." 16 Do you recall making that recommendation? 17 A: I do not. 18 Q: Sorry...? 19 A: I do not. 20 Q: You don't recall that? 21 A: I don't recall that. 22 Q: Okay. 23 A: Myself personally. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: I -- I perhaps did but I -- I don't


1 recollect it. 2 Q: Well, in fact did you engage in 3 meetings or direct consultations with representatives of 4 the Band Council to try to resolve these concerns? 5 A: I believe that's when Mr. -- District 6 Manager Osborn and I attended the -- a meeting at the 7 Band, and I think Mr. -- District Manager Osborn did take 8 the lead with that, and I think there was some 9 correspondence associated with that. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: All right. Now, do you recall being 14 asked to write a letter to -- directly to Mr. George, the 15 Band Administrator, to address some of these concerns? 16 A: Once again, I don't actually recall, 17 myself personally, but I may have -- I'm sure I could 18 have. 19 Q: Perhaps you'd look at Tab 9, please. 20 This is Inquiry Document Number 1008954. This is a draft 21 letter dated November 9, 1989, to be authored by 22 yourself, to Michael George as Band Administrator of 23 Kettle and Stony Point First Nations. 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And do you recognize this letter,


1 take a moment to read it. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: It was suggested that, essentially, 4 that -- that you provide the Provincial Park policy with 5 respect to status Indians and that there be a meeting 6 with the planning team and the Band Council or their 7 representatives. 8 Is that consistent with what you recall? 9 A: Yes, it is. 10 Q: And attached to this draft letter is 11 extract from Policy number PM-1 Provincial Parks Policy 12 implementation details and the -- the two (2) sections 13 that were deemed to be directly relevant to these issues 14 are as follows: 15 "Status Indians enjoying treaty rights 16 to carry on traditional natural 17 resources, harvesting activities, shall 18 be permitted to carry on those 19 activities in accordance with terms of 20 their treaty within Provincial Park 21 situated within their treaty areas. 22 Accordingly, such status Indians shall 23 -- will be permitted to carry on those 24 activities in certain circumstances. 25 The details of those circumstances will


1 be the subject of further discussion 2 and review." 3 And second: 4 "Commercial fishing and commercial bait 5 fishing will not be permitted within 6 Provincial Parks except in water way 7 class Parks and in lakes that are not 8 wholly enclosed within a Park's 9 boundary. 10 Existing licenced operations and water 11 bodies wholly contained within Park 12 boundaries will be phased out within a 13 twenty-one (21) year period when an 14 individual retires or dies whichever is 15 sooner." 16 Now were those, in fact, operating 17 policies at the time? 18 A: Yes, they were. 19 Q: I'd like to make this the next 20 exhibit, please. 21 THE REGISTRAR: P-827, Your Honour. 22 23 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-827: Document number 1008954. 24 Draft Letter from L. Kobayashi to 25 Michael George and " Extract from


1 Policy number PM1 - Prov. Parks Policy 2 - Implementation Details" November 3 09/'89 4 5 MS. SUSAN VELLA: For purposes of the 6 exhibit number, we'll just make the draft letter of 7 November 9th, 1989 and the extract from Policy number PM- 8 1, so those two (2) pages will be the exhibit. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 13 Q: Now, as a result of the claims that 14 were made or at least expressed by Mr. George in the 15 prior letter we looked at over the Ipperwash Park, was 16 some research conducted into the title -- underlying 17 title of the Ipperwash Provincial Park? 18 A: I believe there was, yes, by -- by 19 the team itself, my team members. 20 Q: And do you recall what the result of 21 that investigation was? 22 A: Yes, I believe that Ipperwash Park 23 itself had clear title to Ipperwash Park and the water -- 24 there -- the adjacent water frontage, so -- and the water 25 itself, out to, I think the, under the -- it was eight


1 hundred (800) feet I believe, out into the lake. 2 Q: All right. If you look at Tab 10, 3 Inquiry document number 1009932. It's a memorandum dated 4 November 14, 1989 to Mel Crystal, co-ordinator of Native 5 Affairs from John Osborn and it shows that you were 6 provided with a copy of this -- 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: -- letter or this memorandum. 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: -- you receive -- and -- and that 11 appears to set out the results of the title 12 investigation? 13 A: Hmm hmm. 14 Q: Do you recall -- would you have 15 received that letter or memorandum? 16 A: Yes, I believe I did. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And if you go a little bit further, 21 there's a memo to file as part of the same -- under the 22 same tab, re. Ipperwash Park Management Plan, authored by 23 John Osborn on October 23rd, 1989. 24 And this appears to contain his 25 recommendations with respect to responding or how to


1 respond to the concerns raised by the Kettle and Stony 2 Point First Nations council? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: First of all he indicates that the 5 letter needs to be acknowledged as soon as possible, the 6 October 20th letter? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And that there be a meeting with the 9 council as soon as possible to try to clarify what the 10 concerns are and to see whether or not there are any 11 proposals that can be made to resolve them? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Is that consistent with your 14 understanding of the approach that was adopted? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: I'd like to make this package, this 17 tab the next inq -- next exhibit, please? 18 THE REGISTRAR: P-828, Your Honour. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-828: Document 1009932. 21 Memo from J.E. Osborn to Mel Crystal, 22 Coordinator Re: Indian land claim - 23 Ipperwash Prov. Park, Nov. 14/'89 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA:


1 Q: All right. Do you recall sending a 2 letter then to the Kettle and Stony Point Band in 3 response to their October 1989 letter? 4 A: I don't, but -- I don't recollect it 5 at this time but I -- I believe I did or I would have. 6 Q: Sorry? 7 A: I believe I would have. 8 Q: Okay. If you go to Tab 11, please, 9 Inquiry Document Number 1008306. There's a letter there, 10 third document in, dated November 15, 1989. It's 11 addressed to Mr. Michael George, Band Administrator, to 12 be -- authored by yourself with several copies? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Is this the letter that you sent to 15 the band council? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: I'd like to make that the next 18 exhibit, please? 19 THE REGISTRAR: P-829, Your Honour. 20 21 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-829: Document number 1008306. 22 Letter from L. Kobayashi to Michael 23 George Re: Ipperwash Prov. Park 24 Management Plan, Nov. 15/'89 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 2 Q: Now, in the last paragraph you extend 3 an invitation to the band council to meet with your 4 planning team? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: To your knowledge did they accept 7 your invitation? 8 A: I don't believe they did. 9 Q: Perhaps I can refresh your memory. 10 If you look at Tab 12, please, Inquiry Document Number 11 1010784. 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: This is a memo to file dated March 9, 14 1990 re Ipperwash Park Management Plan Native Councils. 15 A: I believe this is when we actually 16 met at the band office. 17 Q: Yes? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. And is it fair to say 20 that -- that you were there as part of the planning team? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: This indicates that on Thursday, 23 March the 8th, 1990, is it Wendy McNab -- 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: -- yourself and John Osborn met with


1 a committee from the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Perhaps you'd take a moment to 4 refresh your memory and read this document. I'm going to 5 ask you what was discussed and whether there were any 6 resolutions at the end of this meeting. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: Okay. 11 Q: Thank you. Does -- does this memo 12 accurately describe your meeting with the Bands committee 13 in terms of the expression of their concerns and the 14 ministry's response -- or at least the planning team's 15 response conveyed at the meeting? 16 A: Yes I believe it -- it does as far as 17 my recollection goes. 18 Q: Now is it fair to say that the 19 committee, on behalf of the council, made it clear that 20 they wanted the issue of Treaty Rights resolved before 21 they were willing to go along with the management plan? 22 A: That was stated, yes. 23 Q: And what was -- what was the planning 24 committee's response to that? 25 A: I don't recollect at this particular


1 point in time, to be honest with you. 2 Q: Is it fair to say that it was 3 explained that the Treaty issues was the responsibility 4 of another part of government? 5 A: I would say that would be fair. 6 Q: If you look at page 2 of the memo and 7 the item that is flagged as page 4, "Stoney Point." It 8 says: 9 "There was no clear understanding from 10 those present of the significance of 11 this feature. They will consult the 12 Stoney Point Elders. We requested a 13 story to tell to explain to the 14 visitors the cultural significance of 15 this feature. 16 The committee wanted "no development" 17 in this area and we agreed that that 18 was not to happen, e.g., leave it as it 19 is." 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And is that, in fact, the position 22 that you took at that meeting? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: I note that there was no mention in 25 this memorandum of -- of burial grounds?


1 A: No. That never was brought up at 2 that particular point in time. 3 Q: All right. Were there any further 4 discussions with the Band or its committee after this 5 meeting that you can recall? 6 A: I believe we might have had one more 7 meeting or if -- if it wasn't a formal meeting, an 8 informal meeting with, I believe, the Band administrator. 9 Q: And what was the Band -- which Band 10 administrator? 11 A: I believe it was Liz Thunder. 12 Q: All right. I'd like to make this the 13 next exhibit please. 14 THE REGISTRAR: P-830, Your Honour. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-830: Document number 1010784. 17 Memo to file by John Osborn 18 Re: "Ipperwash Park 19 Management Plan- Native 20 Councils", March 09/'90 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 23 Q: Now were any concessions made by the 24 ministry in response to the various issues raised by the 25 -- the First Nation?


1 A: I believe we addressed the water lot 2 that was adjacent to -- to the Park between I guess the 3 8th and the 14th concession. 4 Q: How -- how was that addressed? 5 A: I -- I think we just removed it from 6 the plan. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: Or disregarded it because I think the 9 Gibbs (phonetic) case was ongoing at that particular 10 point in time and it hadn't been appealed so there was no 11 final decisions in respect to that. 12 As far as Stoney Point itself, I believe 13 we addressed that and we were, at that time, waiting back 14 to hear in respect to the history and the significance 15 and so forth from the Band. 16 And that's why there wasn't any detail 17 expressed in the management plan about how to represent 18 that piece of -- that piece of significant history on the 19 point. But -- 20 Q: Was it -- sorry. 21 A: Sorry, go ahead. 22 Q: Was it the planning committee's 23 intention to -- to make that information known to Park 24 visitors once you received it? 25 A: Oh, most definitely we would have


1 proudly had our visitor services program developed, slide 2 shows and develop programming around the significance of 3 that piece of -- of the Park. 4 Q: And did that ever happen? 5 A: Not to my knowledge. 6 Q: Were revisions then made to the 7 preliminary provincial park management plan to reflect 8 the changes you've just indicated. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And if you would go to Tab 13, this 11 is Inquiry Document Number 1009919 previously entered as 12 Exhibit P-771. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Do you recognize this to be the final 15 version of the Ipperwash Provincial Park management plan? 16 A: I believe so. 17 Q: And if you would kindly turn to page 18 5 item 5.2 Heritage Appreciation can you point out what 19 change if any you made to that section to reflect the 20 concerns expressed by the First Nation? 21 A: Well, I guess it would be -- 5.2 22 Heritage Appreciation would probably be the last 23 paragraph in that section that we added. 24 Q: Stony Point is a rock outcrop within 25 Ipperwash Provincial Park?


1 A: Correct. There it identifies that we 2 would in consultation with the Kettle Point and Stoney 3 Point develop a program that would highlight the features 4 and the significance of that particular point. 5 Q: All right. And were there any 6 changes made under 5.4, the heading of "Tourism?" 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: I believe section -- paragraph 4 11 under 5.4 would have been what we would have inserted 12 into the plan to address their concerns. 13 Q: Is this the paragraph that starts, 14 "The Kettle and Stony Point First Nations Reserve lies a 15 short distance to the west of the Park?" 16 A: Correct? 17 Q: All right. And what about the last 18 paragraph with, "beach ownership being contested?" 19 Was that an amendment to the plan? 20 A: I don't recall if that one was, but 21 it's highly likely it was because of the -- the -- what 22 it says in the -- in the paragraph. And it would have 23 certainly have addressed one (1) of their concerns. 24 Q: And the other change you've already 25 indicated was that there was a removal of a reference to


1 the water lots? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: All right. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 8 Q: And would you also look at page 8, 9 please, under "Nature Reserve 3-Stoney Point?" 10 Do you recall whether or not that was a 11 new provision? 12 A: I don't recall if it was, but it's -- 13 I would think the last part of that section perhaps was, 14 but I -- I can't remember about the -- the first 15 paragraph. 16 Q: Right. 17 A: But I -- I would assume that the last 18 part would have been. 19 Q: "Stoney Point with its extensive 20 fossil beds and -- 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: " -- and chert formations is 23 considered to be culturally significant 24 as part of the history of the First 25 Nations people?"


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: Thank you. And was that plan then 3 sent for approval to -- to the -- the Operations Manager? 4 A: It was sent -- from my perspective it 5 was sent to the District Manager who would then have 6 forwarded it to the planning section and to Norm 7 Richards, the -- who was the -- the Director of Parks at 8 that time for approval. 9 Q: All right. And to your knowledge 10 were any substantive changes made once you submitted that 11 plan? 12 A: I don't believe there was. 13 Q: All right. To your knowledge did the 14 -- did the band council accept the revised version of the 15 management plan? 16 A: It -- my recollection was that Liz 17 Thunder actually I believe sent some correspondence in 18 respect to the final draft saying that it was -- it had 19 met their concerns and gave -- gave their blessing in 20 respect of moving it forward; that's my recollection. 21 Q: All right. Now you indicated that 22 you don't -- you don't believe that the plan was formally 23 approved by the ministry? 24 A: I don't -- I don't think it was, up 25 until 1995 and 1998 while I was there, at any rate. I --


1 I don't believe it was. I think it was still the final 2 plan draft, but I don't think it had got complete 3 approval. 4 Q: And notwithstanding, did you -- did 5 you manage the Park, if you will, or run the Park in 6 accordance with the principles articulated by that plan? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And as a result of the management 9 plan discussions, was the Kettle and Stony Point First 10 Nation given a larger visibility or presence at the Park? 11 A: I would have to say not to my 12 recollection. I think we were working on different 13 initiatives at both Pinery and Ipperwash Parks but not, 14 per se, at Ipperwash solely. 15 Q: As a result of the planning -- 16 management plan directives were -- were aboriginal 17 peoples given greater opportunities at the Park? 18 A: At both parks they were, because we 19 operated and administered both Parks from Pinery so it 20 was sort of an umbrella operation and, yes, we worked on 21 many projects together, I -- I would say, over the course 22 of three (3) or four (4) years there. 23 Q: Okay. Can you give some examples of 24 those projects? 25 A: I believe back in, probably about '92


1 or '93 in there, we started -- Liz Thunder and I had 2 several meetings off and on. 3 We spoke about opportunities for First 4 Nations peoples and I think one of those programs was the 5 distant education program with Sioux College, where the 6 students could work at the Park on sort of a co-operative 7 basis and then do their studies via satellite from Kettle 8 Point. I believe we had two (2) or perhaps three (3) 9 students in that program. It was partially funded by 10 Kettle Point and when they worked at the Park we -- we 11 funded their salaries. 12 And we also had what was called the 13 futures initiative and that was an Ontario Government 14 initiative and I believe that was actually jointly 15 sponsored by Kettle Point, Stoney Point and ourselves and 16 I believe we had two (2) or three (3) students on that 17 particular program as well. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: We also participated with Kettle and 20 Stony Point. They have a small park on the reserve, 21 Kettle Point itself, called Kettle Point Park and in 22 order -- they were having problems with -- how operating 23 it, the facilities and the aesthetics of the Park, so Liz 24 Thunder had asked me if I could provide some consultation 25 with -- with her and her -- the people that were


1 operating the Park. 2 So at that time we had an engineering 3 section in our Parks program and I had them do up some 4 drawings, come down and assess the facilities, recommend, 5 do drawings up for signage. And we explained how we 6 operated in respect of enforcement and rowdyism problems 7 because they had a lot of problems very similar to ours. 8 It was a small confined area now in the 9 May 24th weekend and they're long weekends. You'd have 10 the usual rowdyism and a lot of the kids and so forth 11 carrying on and we spoke about how to address those 12 concerns as well. 13 And there was a lot of effort put into 14 trying to improve the image of Kettle Point park. 15 Trying to think of some of the other 16 initiatives. We had -- I -- I would, quite regularly, in 17 the spring, take down a list of positions that we were 18 looking for and I'd have them posted at the Band office 19 and there'd be experience like the general student 20 programs that we had at the park, for instance, we would 21 post them there. 22 And they would have to participate and go 23 through interviews like -- like everybody else and we'd 24 select the best candidates for the jobs. But at least 25 the opportunities were made available, whereas they


1 hadn't been in the past. 2 And Stan Cloud, for instance, I believe 3 started out and put -- as a student with us on the gates, 4 and worked security and worked his way up into as a -- a 5 Park Warden over for -- a course of four (4) or five (5) 6 years. 7 And we try to -- we try to break down all 8 the barriers and try to be good corporate citizens and 9 try to develop partnerships with them, and that was sort 10 of the thrust that I -- I tried to take with developing 11 those relationships. 12 I'm trying to think of any other 13 initiatives, but there were several that we had spoke 14 about over the course of -- of time. I know Liz and I 15 would -- would sit down on several occasions and talk 16 about how we can improve relationships between the -- 17 ourselves as a Government Agency and themselves as a 18 Kettle Point and Stony Point Band. 19 Q: Okay. And perhaps if you look at 20 Tab 19, for example, Inquiry Document 1010467. It's a 21 note to you from Wendy McNab -- 22 A: Hmm hmm. 23 Q: -- dated either February the 8th or 24 August the 2nd -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- 1993. And she's -- do you recall 2 receiving this note? 3 A: I don't, but I -- but it appears that 4 I did. 5 Q: Were you aware that -- that she had a 6 discussion with Elizabeth Thunder concerning the 7 possibility of -- of Kettle Point participating in the 8 Pinery Park Deer Call? 9 A: Yes, yes I was. Wendy McNab was the 10 Native Liaison Officer for the -- the region at the time, 11 I believe, or district, and she had developed a very 12 strong relationship as well with Kettle Point and Stony 13 Point Band and at that time we were talking about the -- 14 how to deal with the over-population of deer at Pinery. 15 And I believe that was where this -- some 16 of this was generated. There was discussions on how the 17 Kettle Point and Stony Point Band could participate and 18 work with Ministry of Natural Resources to -- to help us 19 reduce the -- the deer herd in the Park. 20 Q: If we can make that the next exhibit, 21 please? 22 THE REGISTRAR: P-831, Your Honour. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-831: Tab 19, Inquiry Document 25 1010467, a note to Leslie


1 Kozo Kobayashi from Wendy 2 Nab, dated either February 3 the 8th or August the 2nd, 4 1993. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 7 Q: Now, was any acknowledgement or 8 concession made with respect to access to the Stoney 9 Point -- to members of the Kettle and Stony Point First 10 Nation? 11 A: Yes. Whenever -- whenever there was 12 a request to -- to have a ceremony on the Park, the 13 direction from -- from myself and the Ministry of Natural 14 Resources was -- and the Parks Program, was that they 15 wouldn't be charged, they would allow access into the 16 Park, to -- to have their ceremonies. 17 Q: Do you know when that practice 18 started? 19 A: It must have been right around '91, 20 '92 in there, right around the time the Management 21 Planning process was in place. We tried to accommodate 22 some of the concerns in respect to the Stoney Point, 23 because we had a better understanding at that time, as 24 well, of the significance of Stoney Point, and the 25 importance of it to the Kettle Point and Stony Point


1 people. 2 Q: And to your knowledge, was that 3 opportunity accessed by members of the First Nation? 4 A: I believe it was once that I recall-- 5 Q: Once? 6 A: -- for certain. Yes. 7 Q: Now were any concessions made with 8 respect to, for example, hunting within the Park during a 9 designated time? 10 A: No. Not to my knowledge. 11 Q: Anything done to facilitate the 12 fishing opportunities off-shore from the Park? 13 A: Not to my knowledge. 14 Q: Was there any concession made with 15 respect to the use of the beach without charging of 16 admission? 17 A: Not to my knowledge. 18 Q: And can you tell me why not? With 19 respect to those three matters? 20 A: Well the fishing and hunting, I -- I 21 don't believe we ever had any requests in respect to the 22 hunting and fishing. As far as the use of the beach, we 23 would have -- quite often we would have Kettle Point and 24 Stony Point people walking between there and the military 25 base, and we certainly didn't charge them for that, they


1 were still using the facility, but they weren't -- they 2 were walking through. 3 So we did make -- make concessions for 4 that. Other than that, I don't believe we've ever had 5 any requests to use the Park, per se, as far as camping 6 goes, or day-use facilities, or anything of that nature. 7 Q: Well, would -- would you have been in 8 a position to entertain that type of request? 9 A: I would have certainly taken the 10 request and moved it to my superiors for approval. It 11 was beyond the scope of my responsibilities to -- to 12 approve free -- free entrance, free -- free access or 13 free use at that particular point. 14 I would have to have gotten approval for 15 that type of a precedent. 16 Q: All right. And did you convey to the 17 -- the First Nation what concessions you were able to 18 make to the draft management plan? 19 A: Yes, I'm sure I did. 20 Q: And perhaps you would look at Tab 21 105, Inquiry Document Number 1010304. Letter dated June 22 6th, 1994 to Elizabeth Thunder -- 23 A: Hmm hmm. 24 Q: -- and administrator. And on the 25 second page that appears to be your signature, is that


1 right? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: And is this the letter that you sent 4 indicating how the plan had been revised to -- in an 5 attempt to respond? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Make that the next exhibit please. 8 THE REGISTRAR: P-832, Your Honour. 9 10 ---EXHIBIT NO. P-832: Document number 1010304. 11 MNR letter from L. Kobayashi 12 to Elizabeth Thunder Re: 13 "Ipperwash Draft Management 14 Plan", June 06/'94 15 16 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 17 Q: And in relation to your recollection 18 that the council endorsed the draft management plan, that 19 would have happened then after June the 6th, 1994? 20 A: I believe -- I believe that we did 21 receive a letter from -- from them approving the plan or 22 accepting the -- the changes in the plan. 23 Q: All right. I haven't come across 24 that letter. Maybe I'll -- I'll find it before Monday. 25 A: I believe there was one.


1 Q: Thank you. Now did the subject of 2 entering into a co-management agreement with respect to 3 the Ipperwash Provincial Park and with Kettle and Stoney 4 Point First Nation ever arise? 5 A: I believe when you and I spoke, I -- 6 I didn't recall that it had but at that time. I do 7 recall now that, yes, Liz and I spoke about many 8 initiatives actually along with the -- providing 9 employment opportunities. 10 We did speak about several types of 11 initiatives that were occurring in the province currently 12 and that we looked at the opportunities and that was one 13 of the options that I'm sure were -- was exploring at the 14 time. 15 I -- I do have a clear recollection that 16 we did speak about co-management. I believe at that time 17 the government in power at that time was very strong in 18 developing strong relationships with the First Nations 19 people. And obviously that did come out as -- as an 20 option. 21 Q: And what -- what government was that? 22 A: I believe it was a NDP government. 23 Q: Now just before we go further with 24 that, would you describe for us what a co-management 25 agreement entails or -- or was meant to --


1 A: Well having not really implemented 2 one myself, my feeling would be that from a manager's 3 perspective would be that you would have your guiding 4 principles in your management plan that would give you 5 the direction and -- for a twenty (20) year period and 6 you would follow that plan and ensure that everything was 7 adhered to in respect to the plan. 8 As far as the operations you're -- you're 9 talking when you talk co-management, you're really 10 talking more of the operations of the park itself. The 11 collection of fees, the maintenance, the testing of 12 drinking water, perhaps even enforcement and -- and just 13 general maintenance and operation I would think. 14 And there would be many options that you 15 really could explore. Like there's many variables to 16 that. It could be -- I would -- I would suggest that 17 perhaps there would be an agreement in respect to 18 revenues and things like that. 19 Q: All right. And was this a concept 20 that was typically applied with respect to First Nation 21 partnerships and provincial parks? 22 A: I don't think not typically. I -- I 23 can only recall of I believe one co-management type of 24 arrangement at that particular point in time. But at 25 that time as well, we were looking at contracting out


1 parks, contracting out services, we were looking at all 2 the options to ensure that we could maintain a healthy 3 park system under times of constraint. 4 So we explored all the options and 5 contracting out certainly would have been one of them as 6 well. 7 Q: And what was the one example that 8 existed at this time? 9 A: I believe it was Serpent Mounds. 10 Q: And did you take the proposal or the 11 proposal of the co-management agreement concept to your 12 superiors? 13 A: I -- I think you really have to look 14 at the time that we -- we were in and that there was no 15 proposals, it was just simply discussion. 16 Q: Okay, yes. 17 A: And looking at opportunities for the 18 future. So it wasn't a formal sit down where we were 19 talking about co-management. We were really 20 brainstorming and thinking out loud on how we can -- how 21 we could basically develop a stronger relationship and it 22 was more discussion than anything because it was -- and 23 I'm sure that Liz actually was the one that brought it 24 forward and -- to my attention; that -- that could be one 25 (1) of the options.


1 Q: All right. Perhaps you'd look at Tab 2 20 then Inquiry Document Number -- 3 A: Hmm hmm. 4 Q: -- 1010465, an e-mail dated February 5 22, 1993 from yourself -- 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: -- to Wendy McNab? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And in it you indicate that -- that 10 you had discussions with I take it Elizabeth Thunder 11 concerning -- 12 A: Hmm hmm. 13 Q: -- the possibility of co-management? 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: Do you recall sending this e-mail or 16 at least this? 17 A: I -- I did author this and it 18 certainly speaks about what we just spoke about that 19 there was informal discussions, but I, you know, I took 20 everything, you know, moved it on forward to look options 21 and I'm -- I'm sure that's what it was. 22 Q: And did -- did this initiative or 23 suggestion go any further? 24 A: Not to my knowledge. 25 Q: Do you know why it -- it wasn't


1 developed or pursued? 2 A: I have no idea. No, I don't. 3 Q: Was it that you conveyed it to your 4 superiors but that it didn't -- and then it left your 5 bailiwick? 6 A: I -- would say that would be fair to 7 -- fair to say. You know I -- I did my job in taking it 8 forward and obviously it -- it was just something to 9 consider. 10 Q: All right. I'd like to make this the 11 next exhibit, please? 12 THE REGISTRAR: P-833, Your Honour. 13 14 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-833: Document number 1010465. 15 E-mail from L. Kobayashi to 16 Wendy McNab Re: "KP/SP and 17 Pinery /IPP Park" , Feb. 18 22/'93. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. SUSAN VELLA: 21 Q: Did Ms. Thunder or anyone else from 22 the band pursue this further with you or ask you what -- 23 what was going on with the initiative? 24 A: I don't believe so, only in 1990 -- I 25 think it was 1993 when we received the -- the bailiff


1 order and it was mentioned at that particular time in 2 that order from Maynard T. 3 Q: All right. Thank you. Now, you've 4 indicated that Wendy McNab was the Native Liaison Officer 5 for the MNR in 1993. 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And what were her -- let me put it 8 this way. 9 What were the main responsibilities of 10 the MNR Native Liaison Officer in and around that time 11 period? 12 A: I believe it was to -- they were the 13 -- the first contact with developing stronger 14 relationships and dealing with any of the conflicts 15 associated with the First Nations peoples. 16 They provided guidance for people like 17 myself that were in remote -- in -- in parks or had 18 association with -- they -- they really took the lead 19 with the Native Liaison. They were the -- the lead 20 agency as far as First Nations people. 21 Q: All right. And in 1995 who was the 22 primary Native Liaison Officer responsible for Ipperwash 23 Park? 24 A: I believe it -- there was actually -- 25 the responsibility changed right around 1995 I believe.


1 I think Dan Elliott was -- was the Native Liaison officer 2 and in Parks I believe about 1995, Peter became -- the 3 responsibility was shifting over to Peter Sturdy, the 4 Zone Manager, to be the first contact in respect to First 5 Nations issues in -- in and around provincial parks. 6 Q: And did that -- was that the 7 situation at the time of the initial occupation of the 8 Park on September the 4th, 1995? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Had it transitioned to Peter Sturdy? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: And so you didn't have the -- the 13 availability of the Native Liaison Officer at that time? 14 A: That's not correct. Actually the 15 Native Liaison Officer also participated with us on -- on 16 I guess providing guidance for us as well. It was more 17 of a team effort in respect to dealing with -- with the 18 Ipperwash issue. 19 Q: All right. I'm not understanding 20 this shift in responsibilities. Can you explain that for 21 me? 22 A: -- but it wasn't. Because Peter 23 really didn't have the experience at that particular time 24 because it was in transition. 25 Q: Okay. Has that -- does that position


1 still exist today, for -- for Ipperwash Park, do you 2 know? 3 A: That I don't know. 4 Q: How about in 1998 when you retired? 5 A: That I -- I don't recall. 6 Q: All right. Thank you. 7 Now to your knowledge as the Park 8 Superintendent for Ipperwash, were any claims, formal or 9 otherwise, made by any First Nations persons to the 10 effect that Ipperwash Provincial Park was a site of 11 Aboriginal burial grounds, prior to 1993? 12 A: Not -- no. 13 Q: Just some general information. Can 14 you give us a sense as to how many visitors the Park 15 would typically have on -- on a typical summer weekend, 16 in your -- during your tenure? 17 A: We have two hundred and sixty-six 18 (266) campsites, if you look at the fact that the average 19 size of the camps are -- average number of occupants per 20 campsite would be around four (4), so you're looking at 21 perhaps a thousand plus people on the campsites and 22 perhaps another thousand day-users in the Park. 23 And that's a very small confined area when 24 you consider that perhaps only a third of the Park is -- 25 is used for -- for uses for activities.


1 So, it's like a -- a small village. 2 Q: Okay. And -- 3 A: And Pinery -- Pinery's like a city. 4 Q: All right. And what -- what 5 facilities did Ipperwash Provincial Park have during your 6 tenure as Park Superintendent? 7 A: We had comfort stations, we had bulk 8 toilets, had a maintenance building and small office, we 9 also had a beach area, we also -- we had the -- the 10 cultural site, of course, we had parking lots, campsites, 11 two hundred and sixty-six (266) campsites, I believe it 12 was at the time. 13 We had a small what we called the Outdoor 14 Ampa Theatre; we had a big screen where we showed movies 15 at night, that type of thing. We also had a concession, 16 a restaurant, a supply concession, roads. 17 Q: And -- and what was the -- can you 18 describe the -- the -- was there drinkable water there? 19 A: Yes. Water -- we had adjacent, well 20 actually, I guess, it was in the Park, a Department of 21 National Defence, Federal Department of National Defence 22 pump house that supplied water to Camp Ipperwash, and 23 then in turn they supplied our potable water. 24 Q: What was the official camping season 25 for the Park?


1 A: It would have been from the -- I 2 believe it was the first Friday in May to Labour Day. 3 Q: And once the Park then was closed on 4 -- on Labour Day, was its use forbidden to the public, 5 for the off-season? 6 A: The Park gates were closed; we've 7 never -- we've never had a problem moving people off the 8 Park or that people would come and use the Park and -- 9 and use the beach and walk in the Park. 10 But camping itself was not officially 11 open, they wouldn't be allowed to camp. But they would 12 be able to walk through and hike and picnic and that type 13 of thing. We've never really -- we wouldn't charge 14 anybody for trespassing or any of that -- that thing at 15 that particular point in time. 16 Q: All right. Now did you have any, in 17 a general way, did you have personnel employed or 18 available to the Park with respect to security matters? 19 A: Yes. We had enforcement staff, as we 20 called them, and security staff. You could well imagine 21 what the people -- that many people being confined in 22 that small an area. It was like a town or a small 23 village or a hamlet, and being confined in such a small 24 space that, yes, we did have enforcement staff that 25 patrolled regularly, twenty-four (24) hours we had


1 coverage there. 2 At that time, I would think, pretty much 3 twenty-four (24) hours of the day. 4 Q: And I understand that you had 5 personnel entitled, "Security Officers," and other 6 personnel entitled, "Conservation Officers." 7 Can you advise as to the difference? 8 A: Okay. We had actually three (3) 9 levels of enforcement, we had four (4) counting Ontario 10 Provincial Police. We had our own staff, we had park 11 wardens which have the powers of the Ontario Provincial 12 Police officer within the boundaries of the Park. 13 And we had security officers that would be 14 the eyes and ears for the park wardens and deal with 15 minor -- minor problems and minor -- minor situations. 16 And then conservation officers which 17 worked for the districts would be called in for special 18 occasions like long weekends when we needed to bolster up 19 staff and we need a stronger presence. 20 And of course we had the Ontario 21 Provincial Police that regularly patrolled the parks and 22 providing assistance and dealing with major issues, 23 Criminal Code infractions, major incidents such as 24 drowning, heart attacks, that type of thing. They would 25 be -- they would participate and also provide us the


1 leadership and guidance. 2 Q: All right. Now were your park 3 wardens armed with anything? 4 A: They had batons. Other than that 5 they weren't armed with firearms. 6 Q: What about -- 7 A: They weren't -- they weren't to deal 8 with the major Criminal Code issues. They would back 9 off, call the OPP and have them deal with the major 10 issues. 11 Q: What about -- 12 A: We would arrest people though for 13 liquor infractions and things like that but other than 14 that, only when they felt that they could do it safely. 15 Q: All right. And were conservation 16 officers armed in any way? 17 A: Yes, they had firearms. Their usual 18 armament. 19 Q: How would you describe your staff's 20 relations with the local Aboriginal community up to 1993? 21 We talked about your relations with your staff? 22 A: My staff relations were excellent. 23 We had -- we had long term First Nations people, Stony 24 Pointers, that have worked at the Park for quite a number 25 of years. Excellent employees, were just great people to


1 be -- to be with and have on as employees. They 2 assimilated with -- and had no problems there. 3 There was never any indication of problems 4 with First Nations people that worked for us. Some of 5 our staff grew up, worked, grew up with First Nations 6 people, lived in the area and lived in -- adjacent to the 7 Park, played hockey and so forth with the First Nations 8 people. 9 Don Matheson was -- grew up in Ipperwash 10 Park, he lived in the area, there were several that all 11 lived in the area and I -- I think their relationships 12 were very solid and strong and I have never heard 13 anything detrimental to -- to suggest otherwise. 14 Q: Thank you. 15 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Commissioner, I -- I 16 would be entering into a new area that would take longer 17 than ten (10) minutes to pursue. I -- I know we have ten 18 (10) minutes left but perhaps we could adjourn for the 19 week. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 21 We'll adjourn now and thank you very much, Mr. Kobayashi. 22 We will adjourn now and we convene on Monday morning at 23 half past 10:00. Our usual time. 24 MS. SUSAN VELLA: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you


1 very much. 2 3 (THE WITNESS RETIRES) 4 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 6 adjourned until Monday, October 24th at 10:30 a.m. 7 8 --- Upon adjourning at 4:21 p.m. 9 10 11 12 Certified Correct 13 14 15 16 _________________________ 17 Carol Geehan 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25